The Sun. — London, England, 1846-03-28 00:00:00

his opinion, and every day's experience convinced him, that the state of famine iti Irelar.d was a gross deiusien ; and the Noble Lord added, that a greater delusten was never, in hi, opinion, Palmed upon the country by any Gevernment. The Noble Lord prunes vied to argue that because the laet was that the laic,- of petatses teas 4... a stone, there wss no pressure on the eestple ~1 chef ea:ultra. Now, Sir, 1 beg . to exiaain in what ,he real d EisuLs lies. Ti. price of pota toes cantles be taken as a criterion 01 tiie stir 3 or t h ing' in Ireland. I may observe, in pessing, t hat the price o. .4d. I•er 'atone is exactly d iuble what it is or. ordinary oeca‘ions ; and _however trifling this may app ear t o the H u e end the Noble Lord, the difference bet wsen 24. and 4d. is a qtiesiion of sense 1 0/ per cent. •o four roilliens a f per sons in Ir lsn.l. Then the Noble Lord reterred to the small exports from Ireland, and drew the inference from thence that no destitu•ien existed in that country. I think it rather argurs that apprehensions of famine were entertained. But, Sir, it may be said that this view of this question might b • taken by the Noble Lord the Member for Lynn, independent of the condittoo of Ireland. But the actual sta e of that country has been confirmed by the statements of of her Hon. Membsrs, alt h.,u.sh an Hon. :Mem ber of high authority-1 mean the Iteeorder of the Coy of Dublin—has stated that there was gross exaggeration in those statements. Mr. SHAW—I said 'great exaggeration," not " gross." Sir JA %IES GRA HANI—Wos "great" exaggeration. — (Laughter. ) Now, I hope the House will bear with me while • I read some extracts in reference to this sehjeet, which is in the shape of evidence, and which is eeserving of attention, for it really has now became a matter of great importance-a •F he informstion which reached me in the month of Octeber last, in reference to the state of Ireland, was of such a character as confirmed me of the necessity that ex.sted 'for the introduction Of this measure, althoogh that was not the only reason I had for doing so. In the mantis of November last I received a lett a letter from t the Secretary of the Agricultural S'ossieist A' Ire land,my private residence. which I shall now read. I should premise by staring that the Aericultural Society of Ire land is an institution biaring, the same character as the Agri cultural Society of England, and numbers amongst its mem bers the Duke of Leinster, Lord Down-hire, Lot d Shannon, I and many others of the most respectable nobility and gentry in that country. That letter is to this effect. (Here the Right Hon. Baronet read the letter, the substance of which was that the writer enclosed extracts from the Dublin morning Papers, containing accounts of the measures which the Irish Agricultural Society had taken in refer ence to the state of the potato crop.) I received several letters in answer, stating that the disease was not spreading, but I subsequently received letters from Most of the 120 associations, a•suring me that the disease was increasing. I may state there is not a county its Ireland, that is not more or less affected by the disease ; and my office is filled with specimens of the diseased potato. The council of the society have directed their labours to obtain information on the subject, and to transmit the same to the entire society ; and they are of opinion that enough has transpired to gratify them in calling on the Government to take immediate steps in the matter.—( Hear, hear.) Now, Sir, with that letter came another from the colleague of the Hon. Gentleman, bearing date 18th October, in which the Hon, Gentleman stated that he was sorry it would not be in his power to attend the council of the society, as he app-ehended the accounts that Would be received from the different parts of the kingdom Would confirm the failure; and that, therefore, the matter should be brought at once under the notice of Government. 1 Will now refer to a representation made in the month of Oc tober last from the secretary of this society, anti such was the urgency of the case that the secretary vr ote to me in the letter I have just read to the House. I will now shortly state to the House what is the more recent it - Jon - cation that the Government has received. The Member for Lynn declared that these statements were the grossest—mest palpaple deceits ever palmed upon the country brassy Government. I will now read a letter which I received fiorn a gentleman in the county of Waterford, and dated the 19th of March. It is from the commissary resident there to the commissary in the city of Dublin. It stated that the price of potatoes Was so high that they were no longer naed in the poor-houses. They have been discontinued and bread substituted. The price of potatoes is 6cl. per stone, and therefore quite bevend the reach of the poor. A subsequent letter, dated the 21st ot . March, stated that the p , oportion of Potatoes destroyed in Waterford, was one-third or one-halt of the whole crop. In every ca e where the potatoes had been pitted, they had been found in such a state as to be fit only for manure. Except in Wexford, where the crop is said to be in a tolerable state of preservation, there is some reason for think ing that the same state of things exists throughout all the dis trict which this Gentleman is comet scary. I said to the House, on a former occasion, that we were only in the begin ning of this most formidable calamity, and it is now proved that the seed of the diseased potato is not to be relied on. A crop of potatoes, landed in January, were exported, and is every case the seed was found to be rotten. Even in the pits of those persons who had sunk them deep , the potat o es were smoking from decomposition. In a letter from a coast-guard, ' residing in the Isle of Man, to his officer, he repair •s that there is a universal rot in the potato crop ; in fact they wove so bad that they were shoveling them away, ins-ead of picking by • the hand, according as the crop was dug out- Otte Person, with a family of six children, stated to hint that his crop had been reduced to one-third. Ireland was di vided into 2,00/ electoral divisions, and from the reports which they had received, they found that, taking the average, more than one-half of the potato crop was totally destroyed. In a ' letter which had been addressed from Colonel M'Arthur to the . Commander of the forces, the following passage occurred : " The difference in the price of the potatoes was one-third More than it was at a corresponding period." The communi . tation is from Mr. Redmond, of Carrick-on-Suir ; it is dated on the Ist of March, and states that the disease in potatoes pre vails in the largest extent ; that one person, had purchased • . as many as 1,500 barrets of potatoes, and that, with the excep tion of a few barrels, they were all found to be in a putrid state. At a meeting which was to be held on the Bth March at Fermoy, at which Lord Mountcashel presided, this matter of the loss of the potatoes was felt to beef the utmost import :it" ; and resolutions were unanimously passed expressing that la e,t- One of those resolutions stated the potatoes were then "'ling at 4id. per stone. Mr. SHAW—That is a weight and a half. Sir J. GRAHA :l—Yes; but what is the reason of this Price? The slid. was not for sound potatoes—not for those Which were free from taint, but. for those which were in a putrid state, The consequence was that these were found to be as dear as oatmeal or floor. Then comes a res ol ut ion that the actual state of the potatoes was known to he such that the r i ople were selling those potatoes for the purelase of oatmeal. nn Lord Mountcashel's personal examination, both of the Pits and barrels, it was found that in some places one-third and one-half in others, were entirely destroyed. ' Those poor people were possessed of small cabins, and if they Were obliged to go into the workhouse, they would have to • Part with all their furniture, and the parties who had projected th e meeting, therefore, felt it their bounden duty to bring the matter under the con-ideration of the Executive Government, and the Poor-law Commissioners, in order that some mode might bedefined for bringing so me relief, by giving them a supply of cheap food, or giving them food gratuitously. It appeared, from accurate statements, that the people in that district were actually obliged to sub,ist on potatoes not fit to make starch of, and which, of course, were not tit for the food of man.—( Hear, bear.),.., And yet, after all this , the Right Honourable G entleman •, , had said that the reports of the p a nic in Ire land were gross exaggerations.—(Cries of " Hear, hear.") And now, for the purpose of ascertaining whether those reports were a gross exaggeration, let us take other P r oofs. The Lord-Lieutenant on .Monday last received a de- Putation from the city of Limerick—no small district, com- Prising as it does an immense number of inhabitants. What Was the r e p r esentation made by that deputation to the Lord - Li eutenant? I understand that that deputation consisted of . t tte Mayor of Limerick, Sir David Roche, and other men of *goal respectability and wealth. The Ileght Hon. Gentleman Will, I think, admit that a more respectab e deputation could a . toot have been composed out of the inhalittante af Limerick. t They s t a t e th a t the destitution of Limerick and the neigh ' IsU urhood arises from a supply of bad potatoes. The state • meat s were confirmed by L•ird Clare, who lived in the neigh • ° ourhood, and that Neble Lord had excellent means of ascer taining the true state of the people in that district. Now this . is the state of things in the south, and it w• 11 certainly be sot . .' month s before the new c: op is got In —( Hear, hear.) And 'et the Right Hon. the Recorder of the City of Dublin stated That it was all a gi oss delusion.—( Hear, hear.) . Wel l nut' ti le Right Hon. Gentleman has made , in m y ° P l '''" n o, a most .. , fearful admission. lie said this -that about th.,, time the 'ear destitution and dystntery, and in some cases famine. took Pl V ace in Ireland. Believing that the le:isli people are suffering 4. °M disease and want, and that the people of this country are • ' s uffering too, but in a smallest - degree, he could not reconcile his mind to provide for the, wants of the former by grants of ' ' • money from the eublie, puree, while it might he done by adopt , ' ' t lg the principle, c.if Adam Smith, and at' once reconcile the I trade in corn to rules of nature and common sense. I say that is the noble principle—and one which I did not lose sight ' ,: f 'their, the state of Ireland was presented to me ist ail its Otitil magnitude—that was the moving power, the earnest and t .. '°lding principle of the measure which we are now di=cussinia. : 7 - "( Heir;) But then the Hon. Member for the University of ''oblin - (Mr. Shaw) stated that we have betrayed rte . piny by the conduct which we have - pursued. i r have already stated ... that I cannot re i iroach ' Lift. Gentlemen with entertaining the opinions which I once `qtattained. I have also expressed an opinion that those who • bo. - oppose our measures. Will soon find that we have not be lraYed them, and that,' in the whole course of our proceedings. are have had due regard to their interests ; but the lion. Mem ber, for th e U n iver s ity of Dublin has cast our horoscope—he qas said that we area falling. Government. and, sitting bei.ind l ls, he kicks us, becau'e he thinks we are falling.—( Loud Op lasaition cheers.) lam free to confess that I hope the Hon. °e tl a ernan may, under a protective Government, obtain a sa tisfactory settlement of the recto:delis pension.—( Laughter, a nd cries of " Oh, oh.") Then he does not look to any place O r Power, but perhaps he may look forward to hold, under a trective Government, the Irish Secretaryship. I hope Ire _ d will improve under his benign sway.—(Cheers, and " t - h, 'h" from the protectionists.) At all events, we are now aware what actuates his conduct towards us i but,. speaking for ' myself, I ma y sa y that his censure sits lightly on tee, and that referred his open hostility to his smouldering resentment. He t , eerreEl to the question of the operation of this measure as it L a ffe cted tithes, upon which the .iohle Lord the Member for Pin (Lord G. Bentinek) had more than once spoken. I am ly 'rrY to trespass on the House, hut I wish to refer to this t i nt. The Hon. Member for Oxford stated, as his opinion, 4 this measure was inconsistent with the interests of tithe , ; l iners. Nothing could be more accurate than his statement that tithes varied in quantity, but that they varied in price • no 1 1 respect to the Tithe Commutation Act, there could I t 130 doubt that that was a measure greyly in favour of the a ffect of Ireland. The present corn-laws either materially , f ,:t the price of the first article of necessity. or they do not st . '" a it. If they do not affect it, 1 wish to know why there is i ti ni objection to the proposed alteration in the duty which is te th 'ended in the price of corn ? I do riot know on what ground a corn-laws should be maintained, fir, in my opinion, they c.. l to paralyse the market—they set class in opposilion to IL :Jo—they destroy the social bonds of the whole community, 1 4_ endanger even its very existence. But if they do affect 11,_ ° ", and cause an artificial value in the cost of provisions, R as interfering with the grea question of the interests of I;jet,consumer and receiver of wage-, I call upon sou to t to away 4 these imposts,and diminish the price of fuer! to the con l'tiaer. I th , atit , It cannot be denied that througimet the whole of the N.rt storing districts the importation of goods from distant e m V) . l the country has progressively incremeal. Manchester a r ,,,__Llverp oo l now draw their supp.y of agricultwal produce ,n(tio Ireland, Scotland, and the northern provinces of England, th e s imultaneously with the increase of import has I.),en . 16 , i tact-eased demand. It may, pet haps, be thought , (11 :: the va l ue o f l an d i n th e neighbourhood of h et ! towns would have ditninisi.ed, but the reverse is the of ;1 1 and to substantiate my posi•iitii. I can refer to the opinion lat e r ' Wilson. In writing on tie corn laws he says—" Of p ass 3 3 'eans the faeile ies of steam navigat on hive enabled the la a ii : n ° of Ireland to dispose of the produce of their industry Pla ces Profitable markets of Liverpool, Manchester, and other vi a i an ! and while we findhat this hss tended fo r furiesh pro- Pr eci .! at Z. cheaper rate sa te consumer, it. ha= ot at a',l Xi tawns7l the value of land in the nt.‘ighbourh oil of these la ge ar e ~_ It . Now, Sir, there is only o , :e oft. er rdiit to whaill 1 t rap :; l l ions to ~ r aw the attention of -the House, and that is the alt,,,,. es. an t..flueston of the bearing of the price of corn upon thri i ki n I have stated on a former occasion my reasons for not tice s g th at high prices are conducive to 11 waoes, and low li result in low waatas. No, the reverse is the case. I 6 Pri ces t hat low wag s produce high pricer., and that high rat Produce low wages.—( Hea , , heer, sell (beers.) Thy 11311 Scot- Weavers, I will ref er to w i ll I e the e vidence of the Scot s, Who say that the only measure they desire is the I repeal of the corn-laws, and that in increasing the price of food you diminish the amount of employment, and that it becomes bucden-onie to all. In an examination c,nducted before Mr. Fle•ch-r, in the West of Yorkshire, Andrew 1 - Zeman iw aske4, " Have you given any reason fix the C3.11: , e of your rip-tress?" lie says, " 1 have, and I as, ibe it to the operation of the corn-iaws." "In what wlv do you consider that they affect the c tu-e of yo-.lr d , stre,s?' " preventing the ex • ier.sion of c:nntn , rce with other countries,-and the consequent dintini,bect empi.yrnent at home." Ant th , r weaver. James Crowley, gave simil,r evidence as to the depreciati-.g effect of the con—laws in the wages and emp;oyment of weavers. The Hen. Member fo" Itutiaudsinre proposed, in jitstice to the working 6,s ,r, that there oug',r to be a slidnig-scale for wages, to assimilate them with the slichog-Ecaie of the corn- laws ; aed not only a sieline-scale fur wages, but that they ' should aico be fixed at a minimum price. lan bound to s ate, that this a t ipears a most impra ticable and cumbersome mode, and impassible to be entertained wiih any hope of living car ried into effect. I cannot overlook the fact, that the Gi'verne meta of the country is practically vested in this House, and that the 1 ndesl interest proponderete in the other House. I cannot take it upon me to recominsnd the pursuit of any course which is m nifestly in opposition to the public feeling. A government to be sustained, must be impartial in its enact ments. When you consider the concentration, the union, the intelligence, tie great number, and the enormous proportion of the manufacturing population, and that this opinion is deeply routed in their nitride—that the corn-laws have the effect of causing low wages, and compel them to pay the more while they -receive the less depend upon it you cannot Convince that poeulatien, of the necessity of the corn-laws; neither can any government be justified in enforcing such an impost in opposition to their mest emphatic disavowal of the nece-sity of its continuance. You may reason as you will, but on this point they will not be otherwise cony i nced---( Cries of " Hear, hear.") They cannot be cajolled by fallacies.—(Loud cheers.) I am satisfied that they are right in their opinion, that high prices do produce low w-iges, and that the effect of the corn-law is to place them in a most unfair position as compared with the agricultural interests. I could produce evioenee to show you that the increase and diminution of crime, was influenced in proportion to the high or low price of foo I. I could also show you distinctly that the amount of mortality was influenced in a similar proportion to the price of f sod. I have now endeavoured to substantiate all the positions which I have advanced, and I am bound to state, that looking at the matter with the most favourable die. ' position to elicit the truth, and with the wish to avert conse quences which threaten the peace of the country, I have no he citation in giving my mist unqualified support to the Bill now before the House.—( Hear, hear.) lam also of opinion that our for inn relations will be greatly improved and satisfied by this measure.. N snonal dependance is a preservative of public peace. The commercial community at large are loud in their demands for public peace, and, after all, the best means for preserving the tranquillity o; the world, still be found in the benefits which the extension of commerce will confer Lookir ' e forward, as I do, to the happy day when London shall, indeed be the emporium of the world, in consequence of the widespread influence of her commerce with foreign nations, when peace in all enuntrioa shall prevail and be preserved ; in the words of the poet, who has so emphatically and beautifully described such a condition, I feel satisfied that, " The time shall come, when, free as seas or wind, Unbounded Thames shall flow for all mank nd, Whole nations enter with each flawing tide, And seas but join the region they divide ; Earth's distant ends our glory shall behold, And the new world launch forth to seek the old." That is the real description of the effects of the measure which we are now discussing; and again, I say, that in rejecting it, you are inflicting an injury on the country at large. I, there fore, ear , estly entreat that you will not oppose the second reading of this Bill Mr. STEWART claimed the indulgence of the House while he offered a few observations on the great measure before it. He gave every credit to the Right lion. Gentle man for the honesty of his convictions.—( Hear, hear.) fie heard with the deepest regret the motives which were im puted by the Right Hon. Baronet to an Honourable Gentle man who spoke on the question ; but nothing would induce him to iedulge in that kind of imputation. He, however, should exercise his own judgment, and not be led away by the in fluence of any authority, no matter how great. He re • timbered what the Honourable Meitsber for Stockport, whom he saw in his place, had said in that House and elsewhere. That Honourable Genileman stated that the Government of the country w re overridden by the landed interest.—( Hear, hear. ) He did not quarrel with that Honourable Gentleman's opinions, but when lie heard the R ght Honourable Beronet stating that the time had come when the landed proprietors bad an undue interest in that House. —[Sir James Graham—" I did rot say undue "] Well, nut undue, but a preponderating influence. He con sidered that the two gentlemen very nearly coincided in their views, and he would ask, then, what had become of the Re form Bill? When he heard the 11.ght Hon. Baronet state that they were to look to public opinion, he (Mr. S.) con sidered that they could not appeal to a more revolutionary tri bunal. filet I-1 'use was the fair representative of all inte rests—commercial as well as aericultural ; but if they were to he told that they were to look to the public opinion of the manufacturing districts alone, he asserted that there never was a more dangerous doctrine propounded. He would not enter into the question of free trade, but he contended that the very existence of the manufacturing and mercantile interest was entirely dependent on agriculture. The cotters mills and the large manutactories owed their origin and their stability to the fertile fields and broad acres of England.—(Hear, hear.) And he believed, that when the cotton mills and factories would moulder into decay, the fertile fields would remain and per petuate the glory and the prosperity of the country. The system under which they were now acting was protection to all—protection to manufactures and protection to agri culture. By this measure, however, all protec tion to agriculture was at an end, while it was continued to manufactures. The arguments, as regarded free trade, were strong, he confessed, in theory ; but, from the best con struction he could pus upon the Right Hon. Baronet's speeches, that Right Hon. Gentleman rated that it was overpowering necessity, not principle, that induced him to take the course he new pursued If the Right Hon. Gentleman was sup ported on that ground by his followers, he contended that this overpowering nece city should be proved. He denied, how ever, that suck was the case ; and even if it did exist, the re medy was not surely to be found in the ruin of the landed interest.—( Hear, hear.) He would ask if the disease and fever of Ireland would be removed by the abolition of protec tion ?—( Hear, hear.) He did not attach much credit to the reports of the gentlemen who were sent to Ireland, for he believed they drew them up with a view to the purpose for which they were employed to make them, He did not mean to throw any discredit on the gentlemen, but i - was difficult to com mand clear and undoubted evidence under such circumstances. The Hon. Member then read an extract from a speech made by the Hon. Member for Stockport at a public meeting, when he stated the agricultural gentlemen and the landed proprietors were 'nobles, who did not knew the river St. Lawrence from the Ohio. Now such statements were always met with the exultw len of the idle and dissolute.—( Hear, hear.) It had been so from the time of Jack Cade downwards. When the Hon. Member for Stockport, and his colleague, the Hon. Member for Durham, were at public meetings, they invariably used language which, if esed in that Honse, would be sufficient to deprive them of a hearing.—( Hear, hear.) Yet these were the men whore principles were adopted by the Right Hon. Baronet. Why a Government should allow themselves to be so miserably deceived he eon'd not for the life of him imagine. —( Hear, hear.) What, were the arguments in favour of the present measure? Why, till that night they had had but one argument in favour of the Government measure. The former was by the lion. Member for Wolverhampton.—(Hear.) On that evening they had an able speech from the Right Hon. Baronet the secretary for the Home Department, bit it was not such a one as would convince him of the necessity of the repeal of the corn-laws. The El oneurable Members of :free trade principles, had signalised themselves by ,r oetr arguments out of doors, and even in that House, now that her Majesty's Ministers bad taken up 'h e n. question, all argu ment seemed to have forsaken th , Hear, hear.) It might be that they con idered their . .nterests in safer han.:s, and there fore they thouAt it . netter to keep quiet, and not spoil their posit ion.—l► d righter.) With respect to the letter put forth by the d the Member for the City of Londe's, he (Mr. Stewart ) had nit d iubt That the Noble Lord felt the result to have been a successful poi tical stratagem.—(ll ar, hear. ) lie had no doubt the Mile Lord intentied it as a political feeler. 1 he Right Hon. liar net said he could net venture to predict what the nature of the wea` her would be in a year hence. He agreed with him; but the real question was, what would lb effect he upon the price of co n to 160, if the crop to 1'46 should be a failure ?—.( Laughter.) It had been said by a Noble Duke, whn thought this measure unwise, that it would be wed for the public to wait wail they had heard what the opinion of the Right Hon. Baronet. would he; but what vt e•e they to think, now that the Right Hon. Baronet had charged his opinion ?—( Hear, hear.) This had been called a great and comerehensive measure, but he denied tnat it was such ; on the contrary, he looked upon it as a partial measure, affecting a class. If it was a fair and just measure, he would like to hear proof that it was such; but he had heard no such proof as yet. All that he had heard went only to prove that all pron ction was to be taken away !roes agriculture, and preserved to manufactures.—( Hear, hear.) If it was come to this, that her Majesty's. Government threatened the country with a change 'of 'opinion in reference to the protection now afforded to mmulaci ures, we would call that a fallieg Govern ment, and it should be got rid of, for nothing could be more deplorable than such a Government, or such a state of things, as would compel men to vote against their own feelings and conviction. This he would look upon as the very worst state of degradation; and was, on the part of the Gevernmen , brought ab .ut by their yielding to mob terror. If those mobs should meet again in Lincoln's Inn. fields,and threaten that House, the tlovernment should prevent such meetings and threats, and if it did not, it did not deserve to be continued as a Government The doctrine of the mobs appeared to be that the volumes of Hansard should be thrown aside, and that the law hence forth should be taken from their mouths, for that was what had been said by Jack Cade.— ( Laughter.) He thanked the House for the patience with which he had been' heard, and begged to apologise if he had spoken at greater length than he had intended. • BOUVERIE said the Hots. Member opposite was in dignant with him because he smiled at an observation he made ; but he smiled at hearing the argument used in defence of protection. The Hon. Member appeared to be displeased at the idea that other Hon. Members were of opinion that the preponderance of the landed in terest should not be allowed to continue; but the Honourable Member might rely on it that that preponderance could less be supported by such laws as protective laws, than by the system of coercion resorted to in other times for upl,olding that preponderance. The landed interest assumed that those laws had been produc tive of great goad to the country ; 3et the Let was, that this country had been more and more deeennent every year since the passing of those laws, upon foreign countries fer a supply of corn. For instance, for nine years after the year 1815, the quantity of foreign corn imported was 390,0.10 quarters ; for the next nine years it increased to 800,000 quarters; and during the next nine years it had increased to 1,400,0.)0 quarters. But Honourable Members opposite who opposed this mea sure did not appear to take into consideration the like libootl of a war with some uf those countries, which would have the effect of preverving the continuance of this supply. In fact, he had only to refer to statements of the Right lion. Baronet the Secretary of State for the Home Depar: ment, to show that those corn-laws had only the effect of encouraging the continuance of crime and pauperism, and that no system of policy could he ievented which would be more productive of a general pernicious result than that system which would advocate the permanency of those laws. He maintained, that the farms had been ruined by the operation of the law in the first measure, and could not be more injured in the pre sent iustance.—( Hear, hear.) He would next come to 'he case of the labourer. At present, instead of being well fed, and clothed, and housed, the labourer, in many districts of the country, was in a condition quite the contrary. The ne cessaries of life he had not in sufficient abundance, and as to the luxuries of .li , e, they were strangers to him.—( Hear. ) Mr. Arthur Young, an eminent authority en aericultural fact, bad reeote , ed various instances of the co. - Oitiori of the lahoerer in 1776 as comaared with his present ,state. At that time the wages of an ordinary labourer did_ not exceed • ss. 6d. or 6s. a wee. and though the wages at present amounted to Bs., yet, in consequence the increase in the prices of bread, meat, butter, &c., the wages were not in reality more than in 1776.—( Hear, hear.) He believed that the Right • on. Baronet at the head of the Government was actua eci by the finest and nsost philanthropic feelings in introducing the measure; and though his party had in a great measure thrown him overboard, because, in his opinion, they were incapable of appreciating the wis.lom that dictated such a change, yet the Right Hon. Gentleman might rest assur:scl that h would receive his reward from a grateful country and an admiring posterity.--(Hear, Naar. ) The Marquis of WORCESTER wished to know what the consequence would be if the present measure should, as it undemntecily would, reduce the lower order of farmers to labourers ?—( Hear, hear.) In his opinion they w:.uld be driven to rmigra ion Or to the workhouse, when the taxation f-r their maintenance would increase to so extrordinary a degree that the landholders could not pay it.—( Hear, hear.) He could make every allowance for au alteration in political opinion, but he certainly fclt deep sorrow that the Right Hon. lia.rofo-t had given way at the very first attack on the conititu tion of this country. Mr. GA 11.DNIfit said that he considered the report of the f lilure in the potato crop as a panic and nothin g but a panic. He had taken tae trouble to look at the special returns made the last six years, and comparing those returns with the prices of this year. On counting the number of parishes mention ing the returns, he found that the whole number to which reference was made, was 401. He found that in 107 towns the ordinary prices were not increased; and that lelt 295 out of the 404 in which the prices had arisen. There were eleven towns in which the prices had increased ens farthing per stone. In fifteen towns the prices had increased one halfpenny ; in 10 towns, three farthings ; and in 53 towi.s, one penny. He believed it was the duty of the Government to have given some compensation to the landed interest by the removal of the burdens on land, before lowering the prices of agricultural produce. Besides, if free trade were to be given to this coun try, it should also be accorded to the colonists, who had as good a right to benefit by the alteration as we have. He had no doubt that if the present measure was passed, plenty of corn would be imported from America, the continent of Europe, and all other countries. (The Hon. Member here had quoted from Mr. AP Gregor'a report, showing the great amount of corn which was raised in the United States in 1d42.) It was stated that the country in the United States west of the Ohio, raised in that year 26,000,000 of bushels of wheat, one-half of which was grown for exportation. The amount of Indian corn raised in that country was also enormous. He (Sir. D. Gardner) was satisfied that the home market would be seriously affected by . the large amount of corn that would be imported from the United States, if the measure before the House was carried. The Hon. Member concluded by intimating his in tention of voting against the motion. Mr. MILDM AY and Lord PALMERSTON rose together, but the former, having caught the Speaker's eye, proceeded to address the House, amidst considerable manifestation of im patience, and tries of " Palmerston." The Hon Member said he only wished to offer a few words, and he would not disap point the Noble Lord in addresiing the House for any length of time. It was not his intention to go into a long discussion on the corn-law. He merely rose at that stage of ihe debate, for the purpose of expressing his reasons for taking a different course now to what he had formerly taken, or that he ever thought to take, namely, that of opposing the Right Hon. Baronet at the head of the Government, whom he had previously supported. He had not opposed the going into Committee on the question, on account of the expressions employed by her Ma jesty in the opening speech from the throne, but they had now arrived at a stage on the discussion in which he must declare whether he should support or oppose it.—( Hear, hear.) He would take a straightforward course and that would be in op position to the measure.—(Cheers.) He must express him self against the laudatory view of the Hon. and Learned Mem ber for Liskeard (Mr. C. Buller) respecting the changing of opinion. It would seem to that Hon. and Learned Gentleman, that the oftener a man changed his opinion the better it was.— ( Leud cheers from the Conservative benches.) If Hon. Members were so fond of turning round, he at least could not se easily change his opinions. There ought to be some principle in the matter, and changes should not be made upon such siieht grounds as in the question before the House. It seemed Hon. Gentlemen wanted a pretext to turn round, and they jumped at the potato failure in Ireland felt that purpose. And what were they doing ? Importing Indian corn into the country duty free. Why did not they do that at first, to relieve the people of Ireland, without altering the whole laws relating to agricultural protection? But the Right Hon. Baronet had a foregone conclusion, arid required only such a pretext for making a change. For this purpose they had joined together two things that were not necessarily connected; and it must be admitted that Ireland could not be benefited by the measure which was now before the House. Nor did the state of the country require the measure. In 1845, the country was in a general state of prosperity; and all experience went to show that the repeal of the corn-laws was unnecessary. The Right Hon. Baronet assured them, that the agricultural interests of the country would not be injuriously effected, but his (Mr. Mildmay's) experience convinced him, that the measure must operate most injuriously. He was satisfied, the greatest injury would be inflicted on the agricultural interests of the country, if the present Bill passed.—(Hear, hear.) What, he apprehended, regulated the production of any article was its being remunerative, and, supposing that there was not capital in that country to go on increasing their products, they must get their supplies from other parts. Let them look at cotton. ,t the end of the last century they had not a bile of cotton from the United States. Now, such was the peculiar capability ot the Southern States that cotton from America regu'ated the price of cotton from the East Indies, and indeed from all parts of the world. —( Hear, hear.) So with indigo; and, in the same way, they would be ex posed to a competition in corn, which would completely ruin the home grower. With these views, he would give his vote against the second reading of this Bill, because he felt that a sufficient caution had not been exercised to prevent injurious consequences to the revenue. Before he sat down, he should like to refer to the petition presented on that night by the Right Hon. Baronet at the head of the Government, from the merchants ot Liverpool and Manchester, who stated that the stagnation in their business was attributable to the prolongation of this debate. But was there not stagnation in every interest over the country? and why, therefore, should those Gentlemen attribute this depression to the delay which had been thrown in the way of passing this measure? He thanked the House for the attention with which they had listened to him, and he would conclude by expressing his determination to vote against the measure of the Government. Sir It. PEEL and the Marquis of Gaa.NBY rose together to address the House, but their being loud cries for Sir R. Peel, the Ma:quis of Granby gave way to the Right Hon. Baronet. Sir R. PEEL said, Sir, I did not intend to have again in-. truded myself upon the attention of the House, in the course of the present debate, but since I last had an oppor tunity of addressing the House, I have been accused with wil fully betraying the agricultural interests of the country—(The Hon. Baronet was here interrupted by a remark from a pro tectionist Member, which was inaudible in the gallery). Well then, take it that it is your impression that 1 have done so; but, at least, after the accusation you have preferred against me, you cannot refuse to concede to me the privilege of a defence, and to listen to what I have to say in answer to the charges you have made. In the observations I have made throughout this debate, I have not quarrelled with any man for offering his decided opposition to the opinion I have lately enunciated. No, I have respected the opinions of others, and endeavoured to secure the mainte nance of their co-operation. I knew not by whom the mea sure which I have proposed would be supported on this side of the House, and I tried to influence no man. I have listened to the charges which have been made ausinat me with sorrow, but not with anger. I think it natural that you should have made a resistance to this measure, and that some Hon. Gen tlemen should retain their former opinions. I entreat them, however, to extend to me the privilege which I conceded to them, and fur the sake of courtesy, to hear with patience my answer to what they have said against me, If I were a private individual, strong in the conviction that I have acted from nothing but a sense of ',lnty—(Loud cheers)—strong in the cons iction that I and acted from pure and honour able motives woul d I ::.,ve let these accusations pass by ; but I am not In t 5 e situation of a private individual, and it is right asa Minis ter of the Crown that I should vindicate the course I have taken as an executive Minister of the Sovereign.—(Loud cries of ,‘ Hear, hear.") Sir, it is irregular under ordi nary circumstances to refer to what has passed in a former debate, hut I am sure the House will permit me to refer in general to the questions that were put to me, and the charges that were made a,iainst me, after I had the opportunity of last addressing the House. It was said in the course of the last discussion that I had expressed an opinion that the charge of this rasa:tire for the adjustment of the corn-laws would have been ciimineted with much greater propriety to other hand , ' thin mine; and yet at the same time J observed that I pro posed to the Cabinet to undertake the conducting of this mea sure, and that the Cabinet had been unanimi us in deciding hat the conducting of such a measure ought to be committed to my hands; and therefore it is said that there is an apparent inconsistency between the opinion that it would have been better to • have committed the measure to other hands, and my undertaking to make a permanent adjustment of this question after the suspension of the corn laws. Now the tacts are most correctly stated. 1 did give an opioion that it. would have been better had it been intro due. d under all ordinary circumstances by others more entitled to the credit of such a measure, rather than that I should have the conduct of it. Yet it is perfectly true that in the Cabinet I proposed, and the Cabinet confrmed, that I should undertake ihe proposition of this measure. I did so under these circumstances. On the Ist of November 1 proposed, with the concurrence of my Right Hon. Friend who has spoken before, on • account of the reports from Ireland, to take precaution against • the impending danger—what I thought .. was the natural precaution, namely, the suspension, either by order in Council, or by Act of Parliament, of those laws which prohibited the importation of foreign corn. I renewed that proposition towards the close of the same month, and if the measure I proposed to Government had been simply a suspension of the law, with a guarantee that the existing corn-law should be revived, I do not believe that there would have been any very serious oppo se ion to it. There must have been a difference of opinion as to the extent of the danger in Ireland; but I think that if the measure proposed had been merely the suspension, with a gua rantee on my part that I would, at the termination of the sus pen-ion, propose a continuance of the existing law, I am not aware that there would have been any difference of opinion about the measure. But I distinctly refused to undertake or te e guarantee the revival of the existing law at the termination o' the suspension, and I did so upon these grounds. As I have said before, I thought suspension was become a necessary act.—( Hear, hear.) But the Right Honourable Gentleman the Recorder for the city of Dublin says, we were deluded by the accounts which we received from Ireland. He says he was alarmed himself by these accounts ; but after in quiring into the matter, he found, from the representation of parties connected with the agricultural interest of Ireland, that the alarm was but ill-founded. Why, it is easy for an indi vidual to collect these reports, but what is a Government to do, responsible as they are for the well-being of the country — deeply responsible for famine and disease, should they come and no precautions taken? What was Government to do in circumstances like these—receiving reports from all quarters— from the highest auihorities, from private individuals, from parties Most interested? It was no easy or enviable position for a Government to be placed in. Their alarm may be un founded, their precautions may be superfluous. What, do you think, where there are good grounds fir expecting a general and wide-spread famine, that Government ought to neglect to take precautions, even should those precautions ultimately turn out to be superfluous ?—( Cheers.) I, for one, would not undertake the responsibiltty of the Government, if I thought I should be compelled to neglect taking precautions until the famine and disease had become evident. But the Right H in. Gentleman the Recorder of the City of Dublin says we were deluded. I deny it altogether. I formed my impressions in November last —my convictions are still the same. Why, how are we to ascertain with accuracy the utmost extent of the disease—bow are we to decide upon the very moment when the Hon. Gentleman would have us take precautions? Are we to sit calculating in the Cabinet how much diarihcea., d3sentery, and reflux the whole people of Ireland can bear before it was necessary to find food for them?— (Cheers.) The precautions may be superfluous, but look at the danger that might arise if these precautions were not taken. Is it not better to err on the side of precaution • than to err on the side of neglect?—(Cheers.) I say, then, that with the reports we had received, Government would have been deeply culpable had they not provided fir the emergency, and therefore it was that 1 aovised a suspension of the core-law ; but then arose the que4t i9n, what will you do when the pt riod for terminating the suspension shalt come? That was an important question indeed, and I was asked, will you undertake to guarantee the revival of the corn-law? I said, I cannot for many reasons.—(llear.) In the first place, in the last session of Parliament, I expressed a decided opinion that you could not long continue a different pti<xiple, in respect of p:otection to agriculture, from tha• which you have applied to other articles of trade. I am told, however, that I have made a sudden change in my opinions. Now hear my defence to that charge. I made a speech on the corn-laws in the course of last year, when the resolution of the Hon. Member for Wolverhampton was under consideration. Well, I opposed that resolution, but I stated that I could not defend the existing law upon many of the grounds of former days. I could not say that I thought wages varied with the price of corn ; nor could I defer d the law upon the ground that we ought' to be indeeendent of foreign supplies. I stated then, that in my opinion, the same principle that governed your ordinary commercial policy must be ap pliee, at no remote period, to corn. I was followed on that occasion by the Noble Lord, the then Member for Sunderland, who seated expressly that I had made no objection to the first resolution. les iii quote the Noble Lord's very words:— " There was not one word in the speech of Sir R. Peel taking any objection to the first resolution. To the last resolution, if worded to the effect that it was expedient that all restrictions on importatien should be gradually abolished, the Right Hon. Baronet's speech would have heen an unanswerable speech in sup port of the lion. Gentleman, the Member for Wolverliameton s motion." Now, that was a speech made by Earl Grey, then Lord Howick. But what was the resolution of the Protection Society, passed in December, when the declaration I have made was never expected? I find the Protection Society, in the month of December, came to this resolution, " That, in consequence of the declarations made by several leading mem bers of the Government in the last session of Parliament, in timating that future reductions would be made, at no dis tent period, in the already greatly diminished protection now afforded to agriculture ; and in consequence of the interpretation put upon these declarations, whether well or ill-founded, being calculated to destroy all confidence ice the stability of the present corn-laws, and to resist the progress now making in the permanent improvement of the inferior soil of the country, it was resolved to the utmost to oppose any change in the laws " That was the resolution of the Protec tion Society in December, before they were in the slightest degree aware of the measures about to be proposed by the Government. I say, then, there is no foundation fe. the charge that I have changed my opinions suddenly ; and I say, therefore, that when the question, whether I would un dertake to guarantee a revival of the existing law at the termi nation of the suspension, I said distinctly, that such a guarantee on my part would be inconsistent with the previous declara tions I had made in this House. Besides, the revival of the ex isting law at the termination of the suspension must have in volved the permanent maintenance of the law, and you must have roused all your energies in its defence, both in Lords and Commons, and amongst the constituencies. It was impossible that I could be prepared for such a course, and I declined to give the guarantee, thinking at the same time that it would be impossible for Parliament, under existing cir cumstances, to revive a law which had worked tolerably well during three favourable seasons, but which was in the first period of pressure compelled to be suspended. Had the pro posal for the revival of the law been made, I am sure it would have been impeached on the ground of its inefficacy. It was suggested by a Noble Lord, when proposir ' e a , fixed duty, seeing the difficulty of maintai n i ng a p er manent duty in the event of scarcity arising, that power should be given to the Cabinet to suspend the duty in a time of scarcity. I stated then that in the present state of opinion upon the subject of the corn-laws it would be difficult to attempt to impose the law again upon the country after its sus pension. Suppose now the law had been suspended —say till September—what would be their position in the month of July? What would be the opinion of the House as to whether or no the suspension should be continued or whether there should be a revival of the old law ? Suppose there should be good grounds, not certain, ,but probable grounds for believing that next year the potato crop would be defec tive—suppose there should be, as there may and will be, disease in Ireland in July, in consequence of scarcity. Suppose you were to have such a July in this year as you had last, with continued and invariable rains, that made the boldest hold his breath for the time—do you think that, under such circumstances, I should have been able to fulfil the guarantee of reviving the old law ?—( Loud cheers.) Well, then again, I was not insensible of the progress of public opi nion. Ido not say that you should yield to public opinion against your own conviction, but I say that that man is un worthy of holding office if he totally disregards the current of public opinion. Placed in these circumstances, end knowing the advanced opinion of the public upon the corn-laws, I re fused to give the guarantee. Hut it is said that the corn-laws were suspended in 1765 and re-enacted in 1793, and it was urged that this was a precedent in favour of a re enactment now. Why, can any man be so blind to the progress of public opinion as to suppose that, because there was a precedent of the law being re-enacted in 1793, we ought to adopt that course now ? I say, if you pay such regard to these technical Parliamentary precedents in the pre sent state of public opinion, you will involve this country, in the course of time, in inextricable difficulties. Now, lam unwilling to make statements with regard to the past pro ceedings of the Government, having already, with the permis sion of my Sovereign, detailed to the House the circumstances in which we were placed, and the measures which we thought it advisable to adopt ; but, after the charges which have been made against me, it is important that I should put the House in possession of a letter which I read to the Cabinet in No vember last, when it was determined to issue instructions to a Commission with respect to taking precautions against the anticipated scat city. In that letter I stated my opinion, and the same opinion I hold now. The letter detailed the circumstances attending the failure of the potato crop in Ireland, and recommended that the ports should be thrown open, either by an order in council or by calling Parliament together at an early period to pass an Act for the purpose. (The Right Hon. Baronet, in this letter, de clared distinctly that the suspension would involve the per manent settlement of the corn-law; and while he could not take upon himself to guarantee its revival he was prepared to propose a measure for its adjustment, although, under ordinary circumstances, he would have preferred leaving this to be effected by another hand.) Therefore, continued the Right Hon. Baronet, I thought that the adjustment of the corn-laws would be one of the natural consequences of its suspension, and I felt it would be inconsistent with my duty, seeing that I was prepared to incur the legitimate consequences of such a suspension, not to offer to attempt immediately the settle ment of the question, notwthstanding my declaration that under ordinary circumstances it would be better for other hands to undertake it.--(Cries of " Hear, hear.") I think that the course I took on this question was one which a Minister of the Crown ought to take in such cicumstances.— ( Hear, hear.) But other Right Hon. Members of the Cabinet differed from rile, and the Cabinet was therefore dissolved. And now, an Hon. Friend of mine, the Member for Dorsetshire, blamed me for the course which I have taken. He said that that course was a most unconstitutional, and a most unusual one.—( Hear, hear.) Unusual, I admit it to be, but the cir cumstances were altogether constitutional. Un constitutional ! I cannot admit that a privy councillor, stating, under very peculiar circumstances, the course which he be lieves it is proper to pursue—l cannot admit that there is any thing unconstitutional in a privy councillor, in cases of emergency claiming his right to seek an audience of her Majesty, for the purpose of giving his advice. A privy coun cillor has a right to do that. I was no longer her Majesty's Minister, but as a privy councillor I had a perfect right to intimate to her Majesty the course which I thought should have been adopted. I did it with that view, for the purpose of preventing embarrassment, and I conceive that I had a perfect right to intimate to her Majesty the opinions which I enter tained upon the emergency.—(Hear, hear.) I had, I con ceive, a perfect right to state to her Majesty, that I was pre pared to support, as a private Member of Parliament, those measures which I had proposed whilst I was a Minister ol the Crown. Had I not a right to say that I was prepared to give those measures a cordial support ?—(Hear, hear.) My Hon. Friend says I prevented the formation of a Conservative Government. I did no such thing. Mr. BANKES —Of a protection Government. Sir R. PEEL—I did no such thing. Mr. BANKES—I beg pardon, Sir. What I said was, that you prevented a dissolution of Parliament. Sir It. PEEL—The,Hon. Member also states that the course which I took was unconstitutional. Mr. BAN KES—I beg pardon, I did not say unconstitutional. I said it was unprecedented, and would afford a dangerous ex ample. Air R. PEEL—WeII, but that is very like unconstitutional, —( Hear, hear, and laughter.) My Hon. Friend could not say that it was mean-spirited, but that it was unprecedented. and would be a dangerous example.—(Laughter.) Unprece dented ! and were not the circumstances unprecedented ? ( Hear, hear ) I have felt it to be my duty to take precisely that course which has been taken on previous occasions, and in similar circumstances. I felt it to be my duty to give up the service of her Maj aty, and I distinctly intimated that those of my colleagues, who differed in opinion from me, were not pre pared to form a Government themselves that would advise the continuance of the principles of protection.—( Hear, hear. ) Why, the Noble Lord (Lansdowne) declined to undertake the formation of a Government until the majority of the Cabinet were prepared to support the principles of protection. Her Majesty sent for the Noble Lord. The Noble Lord was in a minority, and he therefore declined to undertake the formation of a Government. Well, now the circumstances were rather unusual ; but I ask any man whether, under the circumstances, the course which I took should not have been taken by a Mini ster of the Crown? I resigned my trust into the hands of bet Majesty, when I found that the measures which I proposee were rejected by the Cabinet ; and I afterwards proposed that, if those measures were brought before Parliament, I, as a pri vate Member of Parliament, was prepared to give theist my cordial support.—( Hear, hear.) I ask any man to judge whether that was unconstitutional or unprecedented—( Hear, hear )—and whether I was justly deserving of blame? Why, when the Noble Lord proposed to accept the reins of Govern ment, I induced him to accept office, for the purpose of bring ing the question of the corn-laws to a speedy settlement. enabled her Majesty to inform the Noble Lord of the course which I myself had taken, and that I intended to give my cor dial support to the measures which I suggested. I see no thing unprecedented in that ; but the circumstance were nnprecedented, but I see nothing in that course which was, in the slightest degree, dangerous to the Government. Wel but my Hon. .Friend says that that course has prevented dissolution of the present Parliament; and my Hon. Friend and others have blamed me for not advising a dissolution of Parliament. Sir, in my opinion it would have been utterly inconsistent with the duty of a Minister to advise a dissolution of Parliament under the particular circumstances under which this question has come before us. Well, why should it be utterly impossible for this Parliament to deal with the pre. sent proposition of the Government ? After its election in 1841, this Parliament passed a law for the reduction of pro tection of agriculture.—( Hear, hear.) This Parliament passed a tariff—( Hear, hear)—to destroy altogether the sys tem of prohibition with respect to the question of corn.— ( Hear, hear.) This Parliament passed a general Corn Bill, (Hear, hear,) Why, then, should it be utterly inconsistent witk the functions of this Parliament to entertain the present proposition of her MajestY's Government ?—(Cheers. ) But I would not consent to the dissolution upon much higher grounds than those I have mentioned. That I think would be a "dangerous hear)—for a Minister to admit i sinompetent to the entertain ment of any such proposal as that which is now before us.— ( Hear, hear.) Sir, that , indeed, is a precedent which I will the present "—(Hear, not establish.—( Hear, hear.) I never will admit, whatever may have been the circumstances that may have taken place, I never will sar ction the doctrine that any House of Com mons is incompetent to entertain a measure which is neeesary for the public good.—(Cheers.) If you were to admit that doc• trine, you would shake the foundation on which a Legislature should be based. Why that doctrine was not maintained at the time of the union between England and Ireland. It was not maintained in this country by Mr. Fox. It was slightly alluded to by Mr. Sheridan, at the time when the message about the union was delivered. Parliament was elected without having the slightest respect to the principles maintained by the constituencies. Mr. She ridan slightly hinted Isis objection to the competence of Par liament to deal with the question that came before it, in his time, respecting Ireland. But Mr. Pitt met that objection at the onset—he met it in the following manner :—Mr. Pitt said, " the first objection that I have heard made by the Hon, Gen tleman odposite was that the Parliament of Ireland was in competent to entertain the discussion of the question, or rather to act upcsa the measure proposed, without having previously obtained the consent of the peodle of Ireland, anti the whole constituents of the Irish l'arliamentary representatives. Thi is a point, Sir, of cc, much importance, that I think, if we did not possess the power of dealing with these questions without first appealing to the country —I submit that if you recognise this principle it would be a most dangerous one; indeed a more dangerous one could not be adopted in a civilised state. What a state of things we should have if this principle were adopted I It that principle be a true one, look to the extent to which it may be carried. If such an argument be held to be good, then the dealing of the question of the Principality of Wales was not justly carried on, because the then Parlia ment did not asspesl to the sense of their constituents. Indeed the very law of succession to the English throne was not rightly made if this principle was a true one." Then, if that were said of Ireland, what shall we say cf the present proposal, which is to affect the whole of the United Kingdom ? Whet shall we say of that law which was made for the admission of Roman Ca , holics to seats in this House? We made no ap peal to the country. Whatever may have been thought of the propriety of the present measure, I never heard it said that it would be unfair to discuss such a question without appealing to the constituencies of the country. I am sure that no one will soberly contend that that principle is constitutional. If it were allowed to be a good one, then as Mr. Pitt bad very pro perly said, the right of succession to the English throne was very questionable. Sir, I contend that there could not have been " a more dangerous example"—( Hear, hear,)—a more purely democratic precedent (if I may use the expression) than that this Parliament should have been dissolved upon the ground of its incompetency to decide upon any question of this nature.—( Hear, hear.) And therefore, Sir, I am ready to take the responsibility of not having advised her Majesty to dissolve Parliament for the purpose of appealing to the country on this measure. Now, Sir, I am not aware of any other matter relating to this question, in which I am personally c oncerne d, and of which I dare not have given a full explanation. If there is any point in my conduct which 1 have omitted to ex plain, I shall be quite ready to afford any explanation which may be desired, and answer any question that may be put to me. Well now, Sir, I come to the question itself. Is it for the public interests that under the present circumstances of the country, and in the present state of public feeling and opinion —is it advisable, I say, that we should at the present time either refuse to modify the existing law s in order to meet the distresses of the people of Ireland, or that, having modified it, we should still have a continuance of the present corn-law, or whether it would not be better to adjust permanently and satisfactorily the whole question ?—( Hear, hear.) The Hon. Member who spoke last says you might have dealt with maize ; that was an article of food tit for the Irish people; you need only to admit that and do nothing else. Now, Sir, I con sider that if Honourable Members wished to undermine the existing corn-laws, no better plan could be adopted than that proposed by the Honourable Member. What ! to hold out to the people of Ireland, suffering under severe pri vation, that maize is food good enough for them—to tell them that the law should be altered so as to admit maize, but wheat and barley shall not be admitted. Sir, by such conduct, you would rouse a storm of indignation against the laws you atempt to maintain. But do we, however, mean to do nothing with reference to maize? There is at present a duty of eight shillings upon that article. You say that Government ought to buy maize and remit the duty on it, so that by supplying it to the people of Ireland, the Government would lose nothing. Now, Sir, our doctrine is that the Government cannot support, the people of Ireland. We are powerless—we can do nothing without earnest, instant, local exertion, on the part of the wealthy classes of that country. We say, that the duties of charity, though not legally enforced, are imperative upon those classes. The duty of the landlords of Ireland, and of all classes possessing property in that country, is to miti gate by all means in their power the evil, and the calamity, which has befallen their country.—(Cheers.) It is not suffi cient for us, that we should pay the duty upon maize, and then reimburse the Treasury the amount of duty so paid. But what are we to say to those whom we are inciting to acts of charity ? Are we to say to them—the potato crop is failing— a general distress is felt throughout this country in consequence, and the food must be supplied, but you shall pay a duty of es upon all maize which you shall distribute among the suffering poor. You shall pay also a duty of 18s. upon wheat, and there shall be no relaxation whatever of the law ?—( Hear, hear.) Do you not think it would be impossible in a state of distress, even to the extent which you cannot deny to exist—would it be possible to vote half a million of money from the English treasury towards the support of the people of Ireland, and to incite the Irish pro prietors to acts of charity, or to the purchase of food to relieve the necessities of the people? Do you think in the face of Belgium, Prussia, and Holland— who admit the necessity of adopting every natural precaution to remove impediments on the importation of food—to propose a vote of half a million, and to buy corn for the people of Ireland at es. ,duty, and make no relaxa tion whatever? It would have been impossible The Hon. Member, the Recorder of Dublin (Mr. Shaw) said he could not deny there was great scarcity in Ireland. I should doubt his word if he said otherwise. He could not deny there was great scarcity, and great, danger of the disease, but these were com mon things in Ireland—this is the general state of Ireland. These are the Hon. Member's own words upon the subject.:— ' A large portion of the Irish people are always nearly on the verge of . destitution—there has been no year in my recollection when the said statements, with reference to disease, might not have been made with equal truth." Well, be it so. The admission of the Hon. Member goes some distance to mitigate the present emergency; but it has been said the present is a labourer's question. Well, then, is the maintenance of protection a benefit to the Irish agriculturist? And does protection come to this ? In that part of the United Kingdom it has always been contended that protection was absolutely necessary to the interests of those persons who depend upon agriculture. Has protection, then, brought you to this—that the agricultural labourers, who form so large a portion of the Irish people, are always living on the _verge of destitution?—(Cries of " Oh, oh," and cheers.) Is it true, also, that there has been no year in the recollection of the Honourable Member when some statements with reference to disease might not have been made ?" Be it se then. This is the permanent annual state of Ireland under the operation of your restrictive laws. is not that then a strong argument in favour of the abolition of the existing corn laws? • _ _ _ _ _ AN from. MEMBER—Why did you not repeal them before? Sir ROBERT PEEL—The Hon. Member asks why I did not do it before ; I answer that, although we have not done it before, that is no reason for not doing it now. You are so pressed by the force of these arguments that you are reduced to the necessity of asking us why I did not do it before ? ( Cheers. ) Sir, we have been neglecting our duty in not doing it before ; but that neglect of duty, Sir, is no reason why we should continue to neglect our duty now.=(Cheers. ) If we have a great failure of the potatoes in Ireland, which con stitute the food of a large portion of the population there, and the danger threatening of having a population of many millions who are dependent for their supply of food upon such an article as potatoes, subject to such a dimunition of quantity and dete rioration of quality as in the course of Providence we have been visited with in the present year; and hearing, as we have, from the Hon. Member, the general and permanent state of the country, is it not, I say, a cogent and unanswerable reason for making some permanent change in the system ? To do nothing in such a case would be impossible. To modify the existing law, and to propose such a change in the system of the country, as professed by the Hon. Mem ber for Southamption, would be merely to excite and en courage agitation, lead to no beneficial result, and would be rejected by the agricultural population—would, in fact, would be laughed at and scouted by them. It would effect no good. There is, therefore, no alternative, except trying to lay the foundation of an ultimate and satisfactory adjustment of the question. My firm conviction is—charge me if you please with treachery—that the safest and the best mode of settling the question is that proposed by her Ma jesty's Government.—(Loud cheers.) The Noble Lord the Member for Newark asked me repeatedly if I proposed to ruin the: agricultural interest? Sir, I attach the utmost importance to the prosperity of that class.—( Cheers and counter cheers). Why, Sir, do I not know why I have not as much right to feel as great an interest in the prosperity of that class as those Hon. Members have who have sneered at and received with scorn my opinions upon the subject.—( Loud cheers.) I attach the utmost importance to it. I think, Sir, for great political reasons, that it is of the utmost importance that the agriculturists should possess a great weight in the government of the country. I think, with Burke, that land is the safest basis of political power in any country. He says that all writers— Aristotle speaking of Coe Grecian states, and Cicero speaking of the Romans—that all writers upon politics have attached the utmost importance to the landed interest. They always considered that it was the safest basis of a sound protective Government. I remain, Sir, in that opinion, and deeply should I deplore the day when the landed interest was excluded from its full share in the coun sels of my Sovereign. —(Loud cheers.) Burke said that it was fortunate for this country that the landed interest was so pre dominant as to direct the Government of the country, and the reason of that was, he said, that the landed aristocracy and proprietors have never been a class disassociated from the ge neral interest.—(Protectionist cheers.) They had never been opposed to public opinion—they have tdways preserved and shown an unity of interest. Now,Sir, this is just the question. By what means shall we secure a continuance of ahis just and beneficial power to the landed interest ? Will it be by maintaining your privileges upon grounds of restrictiveness and exclusion of food to the people of this country ?—(" No, no," . from the protectionists.) Well, then, if that offends the Hotl. Members, I will not use the term ex clusion of food. I will say by the imposition of taxes upon the importation of food. Will it. I ask, more conduce to the per manent quiet and legitimate interests of the country that the present corn-laws should be repealed, or that they should re main in tact. My opinion is, and I repeat it—accuse me of treachery if you please—that you will satisfy and maintain the influence of the landed interest, by now making these arrange ments rather than, in the present state of feeling and opinion, pertinaciously contending for the continuance of the existing laws—that is my opinion. Take, for instance, the taxes on I butter and bacon— which have not existed for more than twenty years, is it safe, I say, to rest the privileges of the aristocracy and landed proprietors upon such a foundation? Let us consider the bearing of the corn-law on the land, which maintained, as it ought to maintain, a just and legitimate influ ence in the country. We have to deal with a population which, according to the census of 1841, consists of about 19 millions of people—l am excluding Ireland. But you have in this country a population of 19 millions, and how are they divided? You have of the agricultural interest 1,590,000—0 f landed pro prietors, of farmers and occupiers, above 20 years, 1,500,000; and you have of labourers employed in other occupations, 1,761,000, including miners and quarriers. You have engaged in commerce above 3,110,000, and you have 200,000 belonging to professions, and you have 511,000 persons of independent property, not including 200,000 paupers and lunatics ; the rest' of the population are women and children. What an immense proportion of that population consists of persons who earn their subsistence by manual labour— what an immense proportion of persons of all those must subsist on wages below 30 shillings ! Just consider how taxation, apart from food, bears upon that class of the people. You raise about 32,000,000/. by taxes, by customs and excise. Now take the articles which cuter into the consump tion of a family having leas than 30 shillings a week. I have a return here of the artieles, which are used by families in that class of life—independent of bread, butter, cheese, a little' meat, potatoes, lard, candles, soap, and a small portion of tobacco. Now there is not one of them, which is not taxed. It is from no want of sympathy that you tax them. In my opinion it is necessary that you should raise a great part of your revenue by indirect taxation, but all indirect taxation is unequal. You have established a great claim on the confidence and gratitude of the country, that you did take upon property an annual burden of 5,000,0001., not alone that it might supply a de ficiency, but that you might relieve the labouring classes of those - burdens which press upon them. I have before me a return of the expenditure of a labouring man in the receipt of ten shillings a week in summer, and eight in winter, with a wife and one child. I leave out bread— the following articles entered into his weekly con sumption :—four gallons of beer, bacon, beef, butter, some sugar, some tea, some soap, some candles. All of these articles, with the exception of candles, are taxed in directly. We have reduced the duty on salt beef, and the duty on butter and cheese. Now can you repent for having made that reduction?—( Hear, hear.) The man died and left a widow and one child ; she earned 4s. 6d. a week, the guardians allowing Is. 6d. a week to her for a pension. What was hcr outlay ? Rent, Is. 6d. ; candles and soap, 40. ; butter, lid. ; tea, lid. In that case the soap was taxed, the butter was taxed, was Bs. the tea was taxed, and the sugar was taxed.—( Hear, hear.) I will now take the wages of a Yorkshireman, living more com e food of the poor com fortably. These were not fictitious cases. This man earned fifteen or sixteen shillings a week, and . he spant fourteen. His expenditure was as follows:—There is beef, 2s. ; sugar, soaP, 3d. ; tea you pas+ the law the o 7 andudt, ;o of coffee,rl e ct a . Ns 3 . o d t . candles, great proportion oatmeal,.2p d r7o l do b r. u t toHtne His expenditure , of Btdh. consisted in fl mr, something in sugar, something in meat; but a reduction on the more Governmenttha than half propose,in flour.wi 1 l it Well, no.t suppose produce most important articles —and will you not most materially add to the comfort and enjoyment of the poor ? Let me assure you that this is by far the most important part of the measare.... ( Hear, hear.) It is impossible—it is impossible to over-rate it. I am quite aware of the sympathy which actuates you for the poor ; I donut agree with the , : who charge you with a want of sympathy ; Ido believe that there is as much sincere end honest desire on your part to sympathise wi:h the poor, as there exist/ in this House. But you cannot increase direct taxation. I believe you would if you could—but yod already raise seven millions in stamps—five millions in property-tax--four millions by the assessed-taxes, and these are limits beyond which ydi cannot possibly go. If yen add to the income-tax, you will not be benefiting the poor. Though the taxation may appear to be falling on the rich, it will have no less injurious effect. The Noble Lord, the Member for Lynn, would have me to state what the price of wheat would be after the abolition of protection. Well, .I have repeatedly replied, and I once more state, that it is impossible for me fo know what the price may be hereafter. The Noble Lord in reply to that said, that its 1835, a cargo of wheat had come to this country from Dant • zic, -the price of which, after all expenses were paid, amounted to 395. ; and insisted that, supposing there was no duty on the importation of foreign wheat, the price would fall to the came level as it did then. I am not prepared to admit that the price would be lower, for the comparison he made was not a true criterion by which the matter could be tested. That was my statement. The Noble Lord had got a return of certain cargoes of corn that came to this country from Dant zic, and he contended that because in 1839 the price of corn amounted to only 26s , that if you establish free-trade the price must ne cessarily not exceed that amount. I firmly believe, however, that if a free-trade in corn existed at this moment, the price would not be less than 39s.—the price which it was in 1835. It is impossible, however, to argue what the price of corn may be when the ports are freely opened; for until the system is in operation, no argument can be raised on the matter which can be relied on with any degree of accuracy. You sent Mr. Jacob to the Continent, to report what the price of corn was in the different states of Europe. He said in his report, that although there would be a large surplus of corn to be imported into this country, he could not think the price would fall below 38s. That was the true state of the case. If you encourage production abroad, there must necessarily be a fictitious price given to corn, and the Noble Lord argued from the instance he brought forward, that that price would be the rule in all cases. It was for that reason that I said, that even were there free- trade in corn in 1835, the price would not fall below 355. The British consuls in different places were also required to re port what was the quantity of wheat which could be annually sent to this country from the places where they respectively re sided, and at what price. Now what was the answer? The general answer was, that it could not be im ported free on board under 465. 6d. per quarter, and that general freight would amount to 4s. 6d. In one place the price was 395. ld., and the freight from 4s. 6d. to ss. At Dantzic the price was 40s. and the freight 3s. 6d. At Hamburgh the price was from 35s to 465., and the freight from 2s. 6d. to ss. Relying, then, upon the opinion of Mr. Jacobs, and relying upon the returns of your own consuls, as to what the price of wheat would be free on board, at those ports from which it may be expected—relying upon these two Parliamentary returns, I repeat to you, that with free trade in corn, the price will not be reduced below 395., as it was in 1835, la 1822, although agricultural distress prevailed to a very great extent, the price of wheat did not fall below 385., and in 1835 it did not fall below 395. No foreign competition existed in either case, and although in 1835 the prise fell to 395. Id., that depression was entirely to be attributed to the abundance of your own ha vest. In 1836, following the example of 1822, no foreign corn was admitted, yet a Parliamentary Committee was appointed to see what remedies could be applied for the purpose of relieving the great distress which then prevailed. I was attempting, therefore, to show looking at the immense population—looking at the enormous masses of people who made wheat the principal source of subsistence, of what great importance it was that the price should be as moderate as possible. I have shown, then, that half of their expenditure went to the purchase of wheat, and I wish to know what we can do better than to make this article as moderate in price as we can ?—( Hear, hear, and cheers.) If we can give a guarantee that the price would not rise above 70s. or 80s., surely that would be an advantage of immense importance to the labburing classes. We are about to try maize, and other articles, to meet anything like a rise in corn. Suppose corn ahould fail, we shall have maize to make up for the failure ? and I am sure if that article should fail that we shall not be exposed to such extreme want from the fact of our having Indian maize to rely on Taking the whole circumstances into consideration, I do consider that the labourer's interest is deeply at stake in this question. Ido think the condition of the agricultural labourer ought to be a question of consideration. If then you can rely upon the system of protection, why is it that you cannot exhibit a happier condition of the labourer than we have at pre sent ?—( Hear, hear. ) Colonel SIBTHORP—Give protection to corn. Sir R. PEEL—Yes, you have had protection to the agri cultural interest, and what is the condition of the labourer ? You have had protection to corn, and what is the result ? ( Hear, hear.) If the price of corn had such an effect upon the wages of the agricultural labourer, why is it, that the wages of the manufacturing labourer has been much higher than the former class of labourer, at a period before the rise in corn took place. But there is no comparison between the wages of the agricultural labourer and the price of wheat. If the wages of the agricultural labourer varied with the price of wheat, why were wages 13s. in Kent, when they were only Bs. in Wiltshire? Now, as we find the labourer employed in the manufacturing districts, we invariably find that wages are much higher, and indeed the wages of the agricultural labourers adjacent to a manufacturing district are always higher than in the purely agricultural districts. If this is not the case, how is it we find the agricultural labourer paid 13s. in Lincolnshire, and Bs. and 9s. in Wiltshire, and other places? Why, because, not only was the land adjacent to a manufacturing district, but because it was brought into better cultivation than in other places. I wish to show that where skill is employed to cultivate the land, remunerating prices can be had for the farmer and the labourer. Colonel SIBTHORP— The wages were higher because there was a remunerating price for corn? Sir R. PEEL—There was just as much a remunerating price in the parts where low wages were paid, as in the others ; and I think the Hon. and Gallant Member might easily reason that to be the fact, without any material stretch of his logical faculty.—( Loud laughter.) This, then, being the case, can we say that the state of the agricultural labourer is as it ought to be? Was the state of the men who had to work for their bread so laboriously in that state which it ought to be? Are you, not, then, I ask, deeply interested in rendering less irksome the social condition of the great mass of the popula tion of this empire ?—( Hear, hear.) Believe me, the great point which you have to attain is to appease the apprehensions of the people, and that the only way to attain that is to let them have, in the first instance, abundance of food.—(Cheers. ) You may in vain attempt to induce habits of cleanliness and purity in their dwellings, and all the other elements of social comfort, but they will fail, if you do not give them, in the first instance, abundance of food.—( Hear, hear.) If there be any apprehension on the minds of the population that there is likely to be a scarcity of food, depend upon it it will be in vain for you to try and induce any improvement in their social condition. Hon. Members may laugh at this if they will ; but allow sue to tell them that the last three years' experience must have proved that lam correct. I will quote a few figures, in order to show that I am correct, and I will quote none that lam not prepared to verify. Now take the variations in the prices of wheat from the year 1837 to the present time. I took care to have accounts furnished me from farmers in the purely agricultural districts, of the amount of wages paid to their labourers from the year 1837 to 1844 inclusive, and it amounted to this in the Sudbury Union in Dorsetshire. The sums I am now about to qu ,te are those which the labourer received in money and in beer, and the comparative amount of wages in summer and in winter. Let me also remind the House that since the year 1837, prices of corn and of labour varied very much. In the year 1837, the price of wheat was 555. 10d. ; in 1838, it was 645. 71: ; in 1839, it was 765. Bd.; in 1840, it was 655. 4.d. ; in 1841, it was 665. 4d. ; in 1842, it war 575. 3d. ; in 1843, it was 505.; in 1844, it was 51s ; and in 1845 it was 555. 10d. Therefore you see that since 1837 to 1845, the price of wheat varied In the proportions which I have stated. But now let me observe that I have also seen a disposition iu this! country, I regret to say, to substitute the potato for wheat. We have heard much of the allotment system, and we have been told that it has been adopted most benevolently; but I shall only say that I think this feeling only tends to reduce the peasantry of this country to the OW of the Irish peasantry—(Hear, hear)—and I should consider it a great calamity indeed that the potato should be substituted Is this country for the use of wheat.—(Hear, hear.) I will now give you the variation in the rate of wages in Dorset from the year 1837 upwards. In 1837, the wages amounted to 10s. ; in 1833 to 1 is. ; in 1839 to lls.; in 1840 to 1 Is.; in 1841 tolls.; in 1842 to 11s. ; in 1843 to lie. ; and in 1844 to 108.—(11ear, hear.) In East Suffolk, the variation of wages has been from Bs. to 10s. per week, and the supply of labour iu that quarter is greater than the demand ; and consequently the farmers pay what they like.' In West Surf Alf. the wages paid fluctuate between 9s. and 10a. per week, that is when task labour is not employed. lam not Saying that 10s. per week is the maximum of wages, because I know there is extra pay in the harvest. • Now is this not demonstrable of the fact with which I set out?—(Hear, hear.) If I show you that in eight years, there being no rise in the rate of wages, but a considerable advance in the price of corn, do I not demonstrate the position with which I set out ?—(Cheers.) Have I not proved the fallacy o f the doctrines .of-Hon. Gentlemen who contend for thebpPosite?--(Rencwed cheers.) Therefore" we cannot continue the existing law on the ground that it is for the benefit of the agricultural labourer. ' I believe that Adam Smith's doctrine is true, although he says in some part of his works that there is a tendency in - the rate of wages to increase according to the price of corn. He says that the rate of wages depends on the country being in a fiouri-hing state, and the amount of capital ap plicable to the labouring interest. And it is the flourishing state of agriculture, manufacture and commerce, and not the price of pro vision, that regulates the rate of wages. So I say, that by removing " the restrictions on industry, we can increase the demand for labour, and that is the mode by which we are to raise the wages of the agri cultural labourer, and not by raising the price of food. Let us observe what advantages we shall gain by it. it eannot be denied that we s hall guard against the rapid, increase of prices, and relieve ourselves from the responsibility of regulating the supply of food. My Right Hon. Friend has told me what has passed since this mea sure has been brought forward. I could prove to you, if I thought it necessary, from various parts of this country ; that there is no tariff. with respect to the prices of land. I could adduce en instance re specting Scotland. There have been 11 farms in Roxburgh let since the proposal of this measure by Government. I could prove the enormous price given for land in this country, and where capital and skill are most employed there is no apprehension of this measure. I could prove that in Lincolnshire several farms have been let since this measure was introduced. I could show that the agricultural 1 portion of the community exists on this subject. If a law could be maintained, that would protect bad farming and insufficient capital protection is the law best calculated fur such a purpose. I do not deny that there may be individual cases of injury. There may be suffering—there will be property encumbered, and tenants in jured, but on the whole, compare that injury with the advantage you gain—compare it with the security you gain against ruinous prices— with the comfort you secure to yourselves, in not being responsible in times of scarcity for the supply of food. Compare all that with the advantage that may he done, and see from which side the most benefit is likely to accrue to the agricultural interest. Look at the probable advantage to the labouring classes ; look at the security of your own positions, which I believe will be elevated, and not depressed, and the legiti mate influence you will exercise in this state of things. In making this concession, my firm belief is that I do not act as an onemy to that interest with which my own is so intimately identified. In making this proposal on the part of the Government, I intended it to be for the benefit of all classes ; for you could not expect to con tinue enforcing the endurance of protection. Was not the case one for the agricultural interest to consider impartially ?: You say that the present time is one of prosperity, and is not that an additional argument in favour of this measure ? You can alter it with honour to yourselves, and without fearing the:infliction of i injary. The llon. Gentleman who spoke before me said that there was no fear of any scarcity this year. He said that we would get over two years with out any cause for apprehension. Is not that an additional proof that this is the best time for the introduction of this measure'? Con sider all these things —consider how long this law coul d have been maintained. It might be maintained for a time, but it cannot be permanently secured with that degree of good feeling which is so es sential to a good Government; and if it could not, is not the time most favourable for the alteration. The calamities of Ireland were the causes of this measure, but they would not in themselves justify the alteration of the law. It forces on you the necessity of consider ing what you will do when the period of suspension arrives. The calamities I have spoken. of would force that consideration upon you. Now these are the reasons I had for the alteration of the law, and for which, with a clear conscience, I have encountered obloquy, and submitted to the loss of your confidence, which I deeply lament; but which I must incur.—(Hear, hear, from the Protectionists.)—The . Hou. Gentleman has said that the proposal of this measure was some political manoeuvre. What object could I have?—(Hear, hear, from the Opposition.) What end could I answer by making such a proposition as this? I wished to relieve a terrible calamity. Honaurable Gentlemen have told me, with assurance, that my stay in office, as a Minister, will not be long.—(sear, hear, from the Protectionists.) Well then, the more confident they should feel that this is no political measure. (Immense cheering from the Opposition.) Honourable Gentlemen ask me how long T can count on the support of the Hon. Gentlemen opposite ? lam frank with you, as I have been on all other occasions. Oh, oh," from the protectionists, and loud cheers from the oppo sition.) I have no right to place any confidence in their support, but it is by their agency this measure will most probably pass into a . It is not on p ersonal, but ou p ublic grounds, that I feel, as a 1p71,11c man, the obligation I am under to those Hon. Gentlemen for their support of the present measure. However much I may be indebted to uvein for not doing anything to embarrass the progress of the present bill, I feel I have no right to claim their futnre support. That question settled, the difference between us will remain the NUM AS before. I freely Adhalt Viet I r cannOk . exßect .the support of those who note`adveCataa protection, tatt4 taking the course on the present question which my public duty has indict me to take. That connexien which hrw for - - naerly existed is no doubt of Mtf end, and I feel t have no right to look for support Simi that quai ters-elliear, hear.) Still less have A nett to enect to carry on the Govattintent, and maintain my preient ykisitfeii, With the support of those Hoff, Gentlemen who have suppolfeff the cis flits side of the House.—;Heat, hear.) This being the case, on any great measure of policy, I admit that with the assistance of IL' Itteinbell, or One-sixth of the Members of the House of Commons, I SIM net be able to Carry on the bu siness of ilia Gteeemtneut, and that ft le right to suppose that my vestill tenure of poii - ff it neatly at an end.—(Cheers from the pro tectionists.) Let this measure pass into a law—suspend your in you further to folicnt me.— dignation al then, and I will ask (liear, huir.) I shall then pursue my 01111 course, and it will be for Bloat Gentlemen on the Opposition side of the House to decide on theirs —(Hear, hear.) I hope they will permit this measure to be passed at once, let the future be what it may.—(Hear, hear.) I deeply deplore the loss of confidence of those who have hitherto been my sityperters.—(Hear, hear.) That affects me infinitely more than the loss of Ptilitical p .wer.—(Hear, hear.) Your accusations affect me the less, because I feel that I am honest, and that my motives are pure. Every man !les within his own bosom the scales that determine the real weight of rep; each that ought to attach to his conduct. If I had acted from corrupt or unworthy motives, then one-tenth of the accusations against me Iceuld have proved fatal to my existence as a public Man. You may tiOnk that I took to) great precaution respecting the potato failure in Ireland, and that ev(nts will prove that I was mistaken In supposing such pi - fteaution to be necessary. But if so the motive—the saving of a whole p nule from a dire calamity of a natural famine, will plead my excuse. I will not say that the measures I have prepoced will save that country from this calamity. I only speak of the motive.— ( Loud cheers.) I say, with this unfortunate prospect before rue, even Eta:Mins that t• e precaution I took was superfluous, I can only say, with Burke, under similar circumstances. He said, •• In every pressure of affliction, in sickness, In penury, in difficulty, and in distress, I will call to mind that accusation, and be comforted." It is no reproach to he attached to me, even if the precaution was superfluous. But, in June or July next it will be established whe ther my precautions were founded In truth, and my motives wor thy. But. I speak of this measure not as a temporary, but as a per manent measure ; and if I fall, I shall have the satisfaction that I fall because I prefer the general interests of the people to that of party. I shall have the satisfaction that, during my official career, my object has been to mitigate monopoly —to increase the demand for industry . —to remove restriction from commerce—to equalise the burden of taxation—and to ameliorate the condition of the labouring' classes. — (The Hon. Gentleman resumed his seat amid long and loud cheering.) Mr. S. O'BRIEN rose amidst loud cries of „ Divide, divide." lie said, if they had any objection to hear him, then he had no objection to move the adjournment of the debate. lie rose in consequence of some remarks which had fallen from the Right Hon. Baronet, and to yin licate the position of that portion of Hon. Members who advo cated protection, and with whom he acted. The Right Hon. Baronet said that if he fell he would fall striving in his official career, to mitigate monopoly, and improve the condition of the people. He thought that the Right Hon. Baronet, skilful as he was in addressing the House on any personal matter, had not in this instance been peculiarly happy in making out his case. Hale Right Hon. Baronet did fall, it would not be as he himself expresses It, in striving to mitigate monopoly, but in consequence of his desertion of those princi; les which had guided him previous to the last three years. The principles whicli the Right lion. Baronet now espoused might be right or wrong, but for the ten years preceding these last three years, it was the chief object of the Right Hon. Baronet's life to construct and build up a party, and he (Mr. S. O'Brien) thought the principles he then advocated were just, sound, and true.—(Hear, hear.) Nobly and well had the Right lion. Baronet then laboured, and well had his party supported him.—(Cheers.) The result was that the Noble Lord the Member for London was removed from these benches to the Opposition. He (Mr. S. O'Brien) did not know what influences had been at work to occasion the change in the opinions of the Right Hon. Baronet —he did not know what influences had led to his fall.— (Cheers and cries of " Oh, eh.") He did not know what machinery had been at work, but he would never admit that the Right Honourable Baronet had yet stated his case fully, and, therefore, not fairly, when he stated that he fell because he had laboured to remove restrictions on imports. He thought that the Right Hon: Baronet, before entering upon the agricultural de tails with which he had- favoured the House that evening, should have furnished them to Hon. Members on that side of tke House who were locally interested. The Right Hon. Baronet, indeed, said that he was willing to give those tables of wages and estimates of the prices of wheat to Hon. Members who might be locally con nected with the districts referred to. But what good would that do ? Long before they could have corrected his errors—long before they could have observed his fallacies, millions would have read what the Right Honourable Baronet had slid, and this measure would be in too advanced a stago to combat it with any degree of success. Many of the county Members connected with the several localities t ) which the state ments of the Right Hon. Member had reference, knowing that he in tended to express his opinion on that question, had pointed out many contradictions, many errors in those statements, but he did not feel himselflustified at that late hour to enter into details, with a view of exhibiting these inaccuracies. When the Right Hon. Baronet entered into an analysis of the domestic expenses of a Yorkshire la bourer, he but introduced a statement the Noble Lord, the Mem ber for the West Riding of Yorkshire. He (Mr. S. O'Brien) was most anxious that the motives by which Hon. Members on that side of the House were actuated in their opposition to this Bill, should be fairly stated, and he thought it would be advisable, by lion. Gentlemen opposite, as they might, if so inclined, have embarrassed the Government to a greater degree than they had done,—they might, for instance, have moved an address to the crown, for a dissolution of Parliament. They might have asked for a vote of want of con fidence in the Government.—(Cheers, and "Oh, oh ;")—and they possibly might have caught some stray votes by the adoption of such a course.—(lronical cheers, and " Oh, oh.") But they had acted in a fairer manner, and lie was sure that the Hon. Member for Stock port would conclude, at least, that they had adopted the fair, the open, and the manly eourse. They were determined to bring the question of protection into the open field, and if they were beaten upon it, they had the consolation at least of knowing that they had not incurred disgrace—although left to fight the battle by themselves; the country would have the satisfaction of knowing the energy, the support, and the zeal, which had been exhibited by those around them, and especially by the younger members.—(Cheers and laugh ter.) This was no question of modification ; they had supported the Right Hon. Bart. in his different changes, but this was a question of total remis ion of duty; and when they considered the tremendous interest involved, the mighty nature of the consequences that might follow, they could not give their support to the ill-timed measure proposed by the Government. The Right Hon. Baronet, the Secretary of State for the Home Department, had said that the averages spoke untruly in the present year. He said that the price had varied from 48s. to 745., and he, therefore, argued against the sliding scale. Now, when the Noble Lord, the Member for Lynn, in quired of the Right lion. Baronet at the head of the Government what he was going to do with tithes, the Right Hon. Gentleman im mediately rn wk red that the averages would answer for that. They said the averages were delusive with respect to the foreigner, but they kept them on with respect to tithes. That was manifestly an injustice. He was ready to admit that the Right Hon. Baronet had not exaggerated the state of Ireland ; and to give him the best proof that he felt so, he might state, that as soon as he (Mr. O'Brien) could get away from these discussions, he intended to go over, and see what he could do personally to mitigate the distress of that country. He did not, however, think that the temporary distress of Ireland had anything to do with the measure they were discussing, and as a perpetual measure it must ultimately increase the difficulties of the poor of Ireland. The Right lion. Barnet had given them no cal culations upon which to found this measure. lie had told them nothing about the price of corn.—(lronical cheers.) Ile understood that cheer. lion. Gentlemen opposite, whenever the least allusion was made to money OA that (the Ministerial) side of the House, assumed that the interests of the protectionists were mercenary. He could not but remember that the Hon. and smiling, Member for Durham, when the question of a penny a pound upon cotton wool was proposed, was most anxious upon that subject. Hon. Gentle men could not deny that the landed interest had legislated upon their convictions, and now, when the Legislature was about to be come commercial or manufacturing in its character, he trusted that at least the supporters of the new system would acknowledge that the protectionists had battled to the last for what they believed to be true. Lord PALMERSTON then rose amidst loud cries of " Divide, di vide." He wished briefly to state and explain the views which he had been induced to take of the two important questions which formed the subject of their discussion—the one question commercial and the other constitutional—(Hear, hear.) He thought that the Government were completely justified in de parting from the party engagements into which they had entered on the formation of the present Parliament. He believed that public men were public property —(Cheers)—and that that which con cerned the public interest should be discussed without consulting the particular interests of a private class, 'which must be in opposition to the general good of the country. ' The Govermnent had:introduced measures this year, not so much at variance with their former opi nions as with their former practical course.—(Hear, hear.) A large section of those who were their former supporters were content with merely opposing the measure on the ground of its being dangerous to a certain class in the country; and, because they held that opinion they were determined to withhold from the Right Hon. Gentleman that support which they had hitherto accorded to him. That section of politicians had asserted that the Members of the Government had betrayed their followers.—(Hear, hear.) Bat he could not acquiesce in the doctrine which was implied in that charge, for, while they made it, they also fairly acknowledged that the Govern ment had been actuated, in the coarse which they had pursued upon this occasion, by a sincere conviction that they were doing that which the public interests required.—(Hear, hear.) And the charge implied that public men should obey the engagements which they had contracted with their party rather than de that which was consistent with the public interests.—(Hear, hear.) He, on the con trary, held that, however important political associations were for the useful working of the British Constitution, and however the man belonging to a party was bound in his political relations to act in accordance with his political associates, yet he would say, that any man who held the relation of Minister of the Crown, should consider the interests of the country in preference to those of any political party with which he might be as sociated.—(Hear, hear.) He thought that the Government had placed upon a somewhat too narrow ground the justification which they had advanced for the change which had taken place in their con duct. They had ascribed that change to their experience of the last three years ; but he thought they might have said that it was rather to the experience of the last four:years—the debates of the last four sessions, the Speeches of his Hon. Friend the Member for Stockport —(Hear, hear)---and of other Gentlemen on his side of the House, who, session after session, had advocated the measure in eloquent unanswerable speeches—(Hear, hear)—that their change had been effected. It was very well for Gentlemen who sat listening to the debates, and others who came down at the eleventh hour to divide in the lobby, to record the triumph of their party—it was very well for such to maintain, session after session, and year after year, their old opinions ; but the case of the Minister of the Crown was very different.—(Hear, hear.) The Minister of the Crown had to sit throughout the whole of the debates—(Hear, hear, and laughter), and listen to the speeches, and moreover find arguments to answer the objections brought against the propositions of the Government, and those arguments must be such as must not disgrace a Minister of the Crown.—(Hear, hear, and cries of "Question.") The Members of the Government were obliged to watch the progress of the public opinion, and concede to the requirements of the intelligent and just men of the country.—(Hear, hear.) There were certain climates which possessed a specific cure for certain diseases.!--(Loud cheers.) . And he would venture to say, that ho would take any Member, labouring under any chronic disease, or protection fever, and after they had breathed for a few mouths the free-trade air of Downing-street, they would be perfectly cured.-- (Loud cheers.) It might be said that the present abortion of this country with its immense national debt, could not sanction the removal of protection. He considered that protection was a plausi ble word, which meant injury to the many, and benefit to few,— (No, no, and cheers.) With this difference, however, that the injury to the many was real, while the benefit to the few was imaginary. Protection was a baneful influence, which paralized the industry of the country and prevented the growth of its institutions, and so far from benefiting the parties that it was intended to benefit, would leave them in a worse condition'nhan before. He considered that be cause the country had to bear the burden of a national debt that was; no reason why they should have to bear additional burdens: imposed them by these restrictive laws.--(Cheers.) He believed that the high tariffs of France and England were mutual and reciprocal injuries to each country. He thought that the example of this country Would be more beneficial than any negotiation into which they had entered. He held that there was no reason to consider that free-trade in corn would not be as advantageous to the country as free-trade in any other commodity ; but by free-trade he did not mean trade free from all duty—(Cheers from the benches below the gangway) which they were obliged to have for the purposes of revenues but such taxation as was levied for the prevention of export or import—(Hear, hear,) —and not free trade in the abstract. His own opinion was that corn should not be an exception from this rule. He had been always for a fixed daty, and might it be permitted him to say he had not taken up his opinion, when the late Government were in articulo mortis, for he held them in the years 1830 and 1840, when there was no prospect of a dissolution. His wish would have been a low fixed duty of about four or five shillings, which could have been effected without any great transition or prejudice to the feelings of any class in the community. But Members in that House must see what they can have, and not what they would have.--(Cheering.) His Noble: and Honourable Friends have abandoned fixed duty in despair. The Anti-Corn law League profess that nothing will satisfy them but total repeal ; and finding a fixed duty out of the question, he had no hesitation in giving his cordial support to the measure of the Government. The commissioners who had been appointed under the Enclosure Act received 46 applications for land, and they had a Bill before the House for the purpose of rescuing 400,000 acres of land from the Ger man ocean. Now he would ask when this was the case, what ground was there for apprehending that this measure would throw land out of cultivation. He stated that the landowners would be sufferers from the immense influx of foreign corn, but he would ask, where was the immense quantity of corn to come from.—(Cries of " Divide, divide, and adjourn.") Prices would rise abroad when they went into the foreign market, and there would, therefore, be no great alteration in the prices in this country. lie denied, therefore, that there would bo any alteration in the prices. —(bear, hear.) But if it was admitted that the change would have the effect of making the price of corn lower, that was a confession that their rents at present were too high.—(Cries of " Adjourn, and divide.") The English ar i s tocracy were a proud aristocracy. They ought to he proud. If they failed in their appeal to the i r sens e of justice, they appeal to their pride.—(Cries of " Divide, divide.") This question would increase the wealth arid prosperity of the country, and it would do more—it would preserve peace,—(Hear, hear.) If the democracy was increasing, and making inroads upon the privileged classes, how should they be kept down but by showing them , justice? It was upon these grounds, without trespassing further upon the indulgence of the House, and because it was calculated to promote the happiness, the prosperity, of the country, and to preserve the international peace and inde pendence of the country. Strangers were then ordered to withdraw. The House then divided, when there appeared : For the Second Reading...... Majority for the Second Reading.. •• • • —BB Lord G. BENTINCK wished to know when her Majesty's Ministers would go into Committee en the Bill just passed the second reading. He wished to know as the Coercion (Ireland) Bill would be likely to occupy several days? =QUER stated, in reply, that it The CILINCELLOR 91" thy FAQ FPI TDE SUN, LONDON, SATURDAY MORNING, MARCH 28, 1846,