The Sun. — London, England, 1852-11-24 00:00:00

30A" 45 ih p 76 d • 1 d p d r d 5 P 2 1P if i pa lf {, O A 1- 4 2 102 1 4 P 128 Pal i P R A ti MAPO .) ....•••• rOO 6ll. EN n 6, 41, en d 'A ; to e ach, a id fill7C• v gl o 1 T. • let te. ). . ae ( 3u A.o w 4 ,acr o t t) ..... . 3t 41b.•.• )d• 0, le Pg engt - Oil " 3 ' t I; 4 9 0 B•ea I util l° 41i ) 110' ) ; clare .. As oo ( aclitwio ilb (W 6 (le' l b•••••' at 3 ), 1 am t , t „.s t . ,10 cY. • t oo t 1 ) 111 (IP 3 g S P Of ,Ce _L eg f" 9 " - a s We l 0 109 ;0 9 bolf• t oll) iilb • ' (A- 9 1 1119 ' A Ist dev a a L' 0 4, 10 5 0 03 A- e 1 9 • cei C ' 011 t a 5° s. 0 , e who 01 1; 311) t 9 11 ) - gtb' bap )s , lea __--% A O aisP mark d 9 , r evor, ) , Yr'° l lfin a° lo 3ll All wer e ve rlf n os Go so, orwP 4— r 9 ll v(11° tO ° 0 ' O' SSC * t iioii°4 0013 for i n tea' N e ne glec t e t , t e KeePt ti tle t• If' t" ' r es • ro jet i 1 0 1 )5t tray „rt i3el sIONC 11; e I o° 6l ,c• 00 4 6 I l ' t. I 4 .70 1 0) 1 1 8 1 1 : 4 4/ 0 I oflv 1301 oe • 00 15 loondaP fit Pl vo ' e ' e t f I ) " ote• 1,0 tay tea °,. 1 2s 'osaiso' RENTALS T Prices _ i-m.l - 30 - 111 - 151 - 33, - 115 - 28 14, _ 1.9}l - 3h I 31 10~ _ 66 ...... 152 - 151 - - 10 $ -106 i Bus in . , riccs 12 P PI 3 7A r 36 351 j 1 51 15k 2 74 ss 35 40 ,1 „i 6 P 22 „i 114 1." 11 p 4 P g P 3 P 1 1a ipar par 1 *d 8 tiNIPERIAL I ) _A LIA. ,A ENT. W OO none. HOUSE OF LORDS.—(YESTERDAY.) The house met pro forma, but having no business be fore it, immediately adjourned. HOUSE OF COMMONS-(YESTERDAY) Ile SPEAK ER t oo k th e c h a i r s h or tly before four o'clock, when there was already, for the time, a tolerably 1111 attendance. The oaths were administered to several of the new members, Mr. E. B. ROCHE and Mr. MARSHALL being amongst the number of those who took their seats. . PETITIONS. Mr . EWART presented a petition from a place in Dumfriesshire, praying the interference of the house in t he case of Edward Murray. eStti Betting -houses. 3)E LACY EVANS presented a petition fr om Westminsterhous,espraying for the regulation of the system of Sir J. SHELLEY p resen t e d a petition likewise, from `Westminster praying for the interposition of the house In beh a l f of Edward Murray. of Mr. I t. CURRIE moved for copies of all pap ere, and 6. a ny Corresponde nce b e tween the Admiralty and Mr. (3 rf,i,e Hinton Bo v ill, r elative to the fitting up and tri als o f his patent machinery for grinding corn, at Dept ford ; together with the copies of the minutes and report of any inquiry that has taken place by direction of the Admiralty relating thereto. CONTROVERTED ELECTIONS. Th e SPEAKER acquainted the house that he receivedz a communication from the examiner of recogui e,es, Stating that the sureties in the case of Taxistocl,, rl ePort, and Lancaster, were unobjectionable. „ CANADA AND THE COLONIES. "u the motion of Sir W. MOLESWORTH, se veral r e t urns were or d ere d, connected with the ( ler gY Reserve Fund of Canada, together with T 1 abstract of the colonial expenditure of Great Britain from 1849 to 1852, both inclusive. - N , T . CONSTABLE OF THE TOWER. LZ, r • - V. SMITH, askedthe Secretary at Wa r, whether Cornbermere had been appointed Constable of the 4 b on the understanding that his emoluments w ere e subject to any revision which might hereafter take place ? J J r . BERESFORD said the appointment was made toed to any provision which Parliament might choose w ma ke- The amount paid to the officers of the Tower t: _aS incl u d e d in the 18,0 001 . w hi c h was a warded for clis tilrished serv i ces, and he was sure the country w ould grudge the 9001. which was given to Lord Comber mepe for his distinguished military services in ever y p art tt'l clime of the world, under his distinguished Chief who "u. just been buried. PUBLIC LIBRARIES. 0n the motion of Mr. EWART,a return was ordered of the t number of boroughs in England and Wales that have ..0 11 - v i ? : led museums and libraries, under the Bth and 9th v., chap. 43. NOTICES OF MOTION. Mr • PLIINN .gave notice that to - morrow he should move fora return of the different fees paid by the various s ' lnl idates at the last general election to the return in g officers. THE NAVY. Admiral BERKELEY put the following questions to t he Ma jesty to the Admiralty ;-1. Whether her t's Gov ernmen t i n t en d to introduce a bill for t he :ter reg u l a ti on o f por t s an d harbours ? 2. Whether a c e ,. present Board of Admiralty, soon a fter their 4 8 , 81 - 011 to office, gave directions that the names °f the workmen and artificers, recommended for promotion, were to be sent direct to the Secreta r y to the urci ralty instead of being first submitted to t he Sur 3eyor o f the Navy, as had been previously the rule ? Whether any correspondence took place with the Surveyor in consequence of such order, and whethe r . " 1 ; 0 1 ord er i s still in force ? 4. Whether a comm ittee ° ston e r s was appointed to inquire in to and re p ort on a - ' - saips steam-engines, and the subject generally as PPlleable to naval purposes ; and the reason for such "Oraittee separating without coming to any conclusion 131. 1 „ In aking any report ? Cir. STAFFORD, in reply to the first, said it was not c in tention of the Government to bring in a bill for the rt he o f ports an d h ar b ou rs ; to the second—that 'ne present Board of Admiralty had not disturbed the til e which previously existed of submitting the nam es °f l. Workmen recommended for promotion to the Surveyor of the Navy in the first instance ; to the third — th at no s uch c orrespondence had taken place ; and to the last — t hat the gallant gentleman was wrong in assu min g that t _ u e committe e a pp o i n t e d to report upon steam - ships tttcl s team engines by the Admiralty had separ ated. T hey went to Glasgow and Liverpool, but finding that a great sum of money would be required to prosecute the inquiry they ret urne d t o L on don ; but it was proposed that they should again resume their investigation. Ih reply to Sir G. PECHELL, veyMorr.ofthe STAFFORD said it was not true that the S ur- Navy had tendered his resignation. NAVY DEFENCES. In reply to Mr. RICH,_ Mr. STAFFORD said the committee appointed to inquire into the naval defences of the country, had B:a gested that certain things should be done, with the view of renderin g th ose defences more eff i c i ent, b u t h e did no t think it desirable to state now what they were. APPEARANCE OF THE HOUSE. Immediately before the important motion of the even- Pg was brought forward by the honourable gentleman t he member for Wolverhampton, the house presented a °e rY animated and crowded appearance. All the galleries, 4 ."l'e St gera nrstrs', the Lords', and the Speakers', -were crowded the fi few moments after the doors were opened. T he attendance of members both on the ministerial side a nd on the side of the opposition was unusually nume rous. The Cabinet Ministers mustere d in full force, and "lancing along their bench, the eyes of the observers marked side by side the Secretary of State for the Coloni es , the Secretary of State for the -151-nine Department, and the right hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer. After the arrival of some unimportant Z ess ages from the Lords, it was felt that t he event of night was coming on. Directly Mr. Villiers r ose, the hum of voices throughout the house ceased , a nd everything evidenced a sense of breathless expectation. FREE TRADE. Mr . C. VILLIERS then rose to move the follow resolutions : " That it i s th e op i n i on o f this house, that the im r rn ved condition of the country, and par ti c ularly of the In dustriou s c l asses, is mainly the result of recent Zuraercial legislation, and especially of the act of c 46 , which established the free admission of foreign Leasure ' and that that act was a wise, just, and beneficial ...Leasure : That it is the opinion of this house, that the maintenance and further extension of the p olic y of free i i .ac le, as opp ose d t o th a t o f protection, will best n t o e ,„, l l l. 9Perty and industry of the nation to bear the bu e r'chens "'Loch they are exposed, and will m ost contribute to the general prosperity, welfare, and contentment ofthe people: 11 at this h ouse i s rea dy t o t a ke into its consideration any measures c on s istent with the principles of these re solutio ns .,,, which may be la i d b e f ore it by her Majesty's M inisters." h i ... ° said - -Sir, Sir, in rising to submit the resol utions to the "use of which I have given notice, I think it right to state why it is that I have deemed it my duty to I) , eree vere with the motion, and why I did not ac q uiesce ~t a4 . t , the request of the Right Hon. the Chancellor of the ehequer to postpone it until he had explained his own proposals to the house. Sir, with that view I beg to call the attention of the house to the position in which the house .. its e 1 c stands with respect to the great matter which we are especially summoned at this unusual, and perhaps incon l'enient season to settle. (Hear, hear.) There seemed t° be a general understanding on the first night of the session that there should be no amendment moved to the Address, as it was thought the great question which we were called upon to discuss ° b li ght to b e l e ft t o so me future occasion, when it could e node a distinct matter for our leg islation. (Hear.) It seemed to be the opinion, that under t hese circumstances it x - w ould be more proper to leave the m atter for another , - , 3 ' . ' and it was under these circum stances that I rose - Pen that occasion to give a distinct notice that I should 1113 " a future occasion, bring the matt er under the dis tinct notice of the house ; but, sir, in consequence of the unanimity that prevailed on the first night n oti e nt o .ew te h n i t e s h a the address—(hear' ' 5, the session the house became bound, by the hear)—there was no amendment moved with respect to the particular matter in ° lea I, we were supposed to have been summoned — (hear' that,otlre'f-ear)—and we were bound by that paragraph s ' ee eh which related to this question, and which I will undertake to say was objected to generally by the (Ilear, hear.) It is impossible to exaggerate .er sal di s m. t he Paragraph in the Speech has given umv - sum, -eath d'aetion. (Cheers.) We thought we were likeha(i upon h t li l e e n official intimation or opinion of the Government moped here upon this occasion to hear something designated g r eat i lt u d at d l re togethermatter upon which the last Parliament een dissolved, and the new Parliament called the ' passage in the Speech and the t° which I refer contained no such information, atThed e t r h e r w ou as gh n o o u thin t th g e in w it h b ol u e t unworthy I took IIY c w o h un at try has as be a e n n evasion of the whole matter. (Cheers.) Sir, that, leave to observe, on the occasion of the Address, anal ,eewhere everybody expected to find something distinct wasa 2 ar, they found that nothing was desided, that nothing asserted, but that something was implied of a question able character, while the whole paragarph concluded in Wardyi which were used purposely not to be respectful to „aos the house. (Oh.) Hon. gentlemen opposite say thatil," but I say this most advisedly, I do not believe , in the history of Parliament, Such a hear.) paragraph composed by any Minister. (Hear, We all know what is meant when referenc 1 is Can made to the wisdom of Parliament. (A laugh.) It is a tphra.se which people make use of out of doors (Awheneverlaugh,) they wish to speak sarcastically of the house. Niisdo g .) People, then, refer in a sneering tone to the Was mof the house, and as thispassage . in the Address • couched in a si • - • facto • radar strain, it is not srAis rY either to him or the country. (Loud cheers.) parliament was dissolved for bring ing a particular matter purpose of the Parliament was assembled for the purpose of receiving the answer of the country to that issue. I am, therefore, at a loss to understand how hon. gentlemen opposite could have, for an instant, supposed that this passage in the Speech would be at all satisfactory to the great majority of this house ; and, certainly, I am somee what surprised to hear, from what has transpired in another place, that it was expected to be satisfactory, and that any body who disputed the matter would be considered factious. (Hear, hear.) Yes, anybody who is dissatisfied with the allusion in the Speech to the question we are called upon to decide, is to be considered as a party opposed to those measures which Government contemplate introducing for the benefit of the country. (Hear, hear.) Sir, it is on this account that I consider it most important that this house should at once come to some distinct and positive declaration upon the great question at issue. (Cheers.) It is, sir, because I con sider that this house has been put in a position anything but satisfactory to the country, that I now call upon it to pronounce an opinion upon this matter. (Cheers.) I have been called upon by the right hon. gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer to postpone my resolutions until he has had an opportunity of propounding his own measures ; but, sir, I am at a loss to understand the logic of such a proposal, for the house has been summoned to pronounce its opinion upon a par ticular matter, upon which it is supposed the coun try has decided, and the house can therefore have nothing whatever to do, in the first instance, with the plans of the Government. (Cheers.) Parliament was dissolved to enable the country to decide what our commercial policy shall be ; the country has answered that question, and it is now for the house to ascertain to which side of the question that answer is favourable. We are now assembled to consider an important subject, having been dissolved because the first Minister of the Crown could not make up his mind upon it, and wished to take the opinion of the country as to whether he was right or wrong. (Hear, hear.) He had consented, to use his own expression, to be tried by the country. Well, he had been tried, and he was found to be wanting. Is it an answer to the verdict returned by such a jury, to say--" if this policy won't do, you shall get something else—certainly you differ from us on this matter, but I have got a colleague of astonishing re sources and standard ability, who will give you something which will delight you beyond any thing else, if you will only allow him to propose his measures." (Laughter.) Now, I don't deny there may be a genius of that kind, who, like certain individuals that vend medicines for the cure of all maladies, may be able to propound a measure which will be universally palatable ; but in the meantime, we must confine our selves to the business which we have come here to determine. (Hear, hear.) I am perfectly astonished that a motion so obvious, so reasonable, and so strictly in accordance with the purpose for which we are assembled, should be considered factious, and to be framed with the object of upsetting the Government. I don't exactly know why lam to trust this Government more than another. Are their de clarations so explicit, and their consistency so satisfac factory, that I am to have blind faith in their policy. (Laughter.) Though I have read the papers, and tried to collect as much information as possible, I have yet a difficulty in ascertaining what their measures are really to be. A noble marquis goes into an agricultural dis trict, and being in the confidence of the Government, says that he is convinced that they will endeavour to advance the interests of the agricultural interest, though he de clines to specify the particular measures ; and another member, holding an important post in the Government, goes to Lincolnshire, and declares that Lord Derby is still a Protestant at heart. Let the hon. gentlemen op posite frankly state they are honest converts, and are inclined to adopt our views, and they shall receive every forbearance they can expect from this side. (Cheers.) If any man were to look at the two propositions together, lie would declare that mine was the amendment, and the right hon. gentleman's the original. I cannot, there fore, withdraw it, seeing what it has done already, and because I will not despair before the close of this evening or of this week, of seeing the right hon. gentleman adopt it, and perhaps vote for it ; and we shall only have one division upon it, or perhaps none at all. It is a most valuable admission to make, that one act of recent legislation has cheapened the price of food, and thereby greatly improved the condition of the working classes. I entirely agree with the right hon. gentleman ; and, in alluding to that act, I have called it by name the act of 1846. There is one point in the amendment that brings us near to an agreement, so near that I am in hopes we shall have but one division, per haps none. It is a most valuable admission, " that one of the acts of our recent legislation had cheapened provi sions, and thereby greatly improved the condition of the working classes." I entirely agree with the right hon. gentleman on that point, and so much do I agree with him that I have specifically referred to that act, and so entirely do I agree with him in his reference to that act, that I have characterised and ventured to allude to that act of recent legislation which cheapened provisions, and thereby improved the condition of the working classes as the right hon. gentleman admits in his amendment, I have characterised it as a wise and just measure. (Loud cheers.) If the right hon. gentleman will give me some reason for withdrawing my resolution, he will feel obliged to tell me why an act which according to his own amendment has conferred such blessings should not be characterised as I have characterised it. I should be sur prised if there should be any hesitation on the part of his friends, for, having long considered the subject, having many times heard it discussed in this house, I have a dis tinct recollection that the repeal of the corn-laws was op- posed solely on account of the welfare of the people. It was always a labourers' question. So it is with me, show me that the labourers suffer, and I am in the lobby with you at once. (Cheers.) It is a poor man's question essen tially; it was always discussed by hon. gentlemen opposite in that point of view, and I am perfectly sure that if any foreigner was present when our discussions were going on, he would have thought that all the benevolence was on that side of the house and all the hard-heartedness on this side ; he would have thought that those benevolent men cared nothing for their own kindred or their own pro perty., but were all ready to be sacrificed for the benefit of the humbler classes, whereas their opponents were harsh and flinty-hearted men, always grinding the faces of the poor, and seeking to throw on them misery. (Cheers.) If such an observer were to appear to-night, and to see that we have admitted that recent changes in the law have benefitted the working classes, and greatly improved their condition, but yet that a great party, the majority that used to be, object to designate that act as wise and just, 1 believe he would be led into some doubt as to the sincerity of their sympathy with the poor. Now, if I must offer a word of advice to the right h on. gentleman and to that party, it would be at once to accede to my resolution. For if ever there existed a law which had the effect of raising the price of provisions, and, consequently, deteriorating the condition of the people, it must have been the most odious and exe crable law that ever existed, and I cannot under stand why an act which tended to repeal such a law, and to produce such consequences as the right honourable gentleman has described, can be other than I have described it in my resolution. (Hear, hear, and cheers.) I cannot conceive a more guilty exercise of authority than that of tampering with the subsistence of the people, and if an act having that effect existed for the benefit of a few members of the community, I cannot conceive anything more odious than such an enactment. (Hear, hear.) What is it that you mean by an act that has raised the price of bread and pro visions, and lowered the condition of the people ? Such an act involves everything that affects the condition of the people. (Hear, hear.) The amount more or less of food which the people have determines the condition of that people, of three millions of people who earn their daily bread by their daily toil. (Cheers.) Whether a man shall be a degraded animal or a, social civilised being, depends entirely on the means he has of obtaining, not only that which is necessary to supply the requirements of nature, but on the excess beyond that which enables bim to attend to his other wants, moral and social. (Hear, hear.) A man so ele vated or degraded is literally either a civilised man or the contrary, just in proportion as food is abundant or scarce ; p which tcircumstance affects and that is, in the present state of the world, the most im portant ects the connec tedplenty or with scarcityt he of moral food n . a ture Whatof man, o isthebusiness of life? Look at the millions upon millions e e n r gt manhtheir occupant u a a p b l a o nb u et r for od fett he f r i o e o ou d rna ? to l en t d i o s o r t r h te a hl t ee vwgahat gaol, c ld h , w d o e rh t pe e t r e h m r he i ra n hp e e s s of the world's people ; wh a t i s th e i r b us i ness but that of ex wesohhfhaaaelnitpgjhbremature grave. (H ear , hear ) It is tha , t which has produced the universal conviction now prevailing in the country, that it depends entirely on the amount of food what is to be the condition of th e ') fore, if any minister or man in authority eople. shall , try yherteo persuade any portion of his fellow -countrymen that the act in this country which had the purpose of increasing abundance of food, has had the effect of increasing crime —I presume to say that if 'any man pronounces such an opinion, he will excite the wonder , if not the indignation of the people t hrou g hout the land. (Hear.) There are men in every parish throughout the country whose expe rience has satisfied them that the crime and destitution of the people solely depends on the amount of food available for their support ; and in making the reference I do to this point, I am perfectly satisfied that the right hon. the Secretary of State for the Home Department will feel it necessary to make some explanation to this house of certain statements he made in the country when recently he addressed his constituents. I am perfectly satisfied that the right hon. gentleman has been misre presented or misreported, for I believe him to be the last man in the house who would misrepresent a fact or mis lead his countrymen. But with his high authority he is supposed to have suggested to the people he addressed that in consequence of recent in consequence of recent legislation crime had increased, and with it destitution. (" No," from Mr. Walpole.) I readily believe the right hon. gentleman's denial, and I am obliged to him for its promptness, for it shows that the opp osite is his conviction. It is from the general conviction of the importance of this matter, and the belief that the amount of food influences crime, that makes the people, so steadfast in supporting recent changes. (Hear.) I do not think that there could be any greater proof of the heartlessness, I had almost said the criminality of men, that they should for the sake of bene fitting themselves attempt to limit the subsistence of the people. (Hear.) But, sir, notwithstanding my convic tion of this, I am obliged to ask what we are assembled here for on the present occasion ? lam obliged to ask whether such a case as I have described did not exist for upwards of thirty years, and whether we are not to re cognise the enormous advantages to the community which have attended the repeal of that law ? Why, there is nothing in the institutions of the country, nothing in our wealth or power, which could reconcile the working classes to the enormous injury which such a law must inflict on them. And what I understand to be the dif ference between this side of the house and the other to night is, that we designate the repeal of such a law wise and just, and that on the other side such a designation is deemed to be factious, and utterly incompatible with the right hon. gentleman's (the Chancellor of the Exchequer's) honour and credit to admit it. (Cheers.) lam told, and I have received information a few minutes before I entered the house, that if it should be declared by the majority of this house that the repeal of the corn-law has had the effect which the Chancellor of the Exchequer admits, and has in fact stated in so many words, and that having had such an effect, it is wise and just that such declaration must resu't in the resignation of Government. (Laughter and cheers.) I should be extremely sorry for that, for I can assure the right hon. gentleman and the noble earl at the head of the Government that whatever they may think of the motives of those who are opposed to the right hon. gentleman's resolution, I have not the slightest desire to see the right hon. gentlemen opposite displaced. (" Oh, oh," from the Ministerialists, and cheers and laughter from the Opposition.) Ido not deny that the noble earl at the head of the Government is a great authority as to what is faction. (Loud cheers, and laughter from the Opposi tion.) The noble earl tells us that he has been thirty years before the public, and during that time the public have had ample opportunity of witnessing his conduct, and I as one of the public, am not in the least disposed to dispute his high authority on such a subject. (More laughter and Opposition cheers.) No doubt the noble earl was single-minded, but it was just possible for a person to be single-minded on some subjects, and have a singular mind on what was just when his own interest was involved; and as they had seen too that it was not altogether impossible for a person to abandon, for the sake of power, every opinion and every principle he had professed. (Hear.) I have said I should be extremely sorry if the result of the division should be the displace ment of the present Government. (Oh, oh.) I care little whether any credit is given to my statement in this respect or not—(hear)—but even should that be the re sult, I believe this great country would survive even though the noble earl, the present Prime Minister, were not at the head of affairs. (Cheers.) But this argument about the difficulty of forming a Government is by no means a new one. Whenever a Ministry has been hard pressed and felt its existence in jeopardy, we have been told that the then occupiers of office were the only party able to form a Government, and carry on the affairs of the country ; and when they have been displaced we have heard within a month, perhaps, the very same thing of their successors. (Loud cheers and laughter.) I am, therefore, not disposed to at tribute so much importance to this argument of the necessity of continuing the existence of the present Go vernment as some people seem to be—l have seen four or five different Governments in power since I have been in Parliament, and so far as I hare been able to observe, there has been a very strong family resemblance in all of them. (Hear, hear, and laughter.) Nor have I found that the country has suffered much by the change, for we usually find that those who succed to power generally do that as a Government which they opposed while in oppo sition—(much laughter and cheering)—and as far as their measures are concerned, are scarcely to be distin guished from those who preceded them. (Hear, hear.) My own impression is, that no very great genius is re quired to administer the government of the country. (Hear, hear.) I believe all that is essential in the various public offices is done by the subordinate public servants, of whom we hear little or nothing, and that it must be in consequence of great want of judgment, or a great de fect of capacity, that any Government can become suffi ciently unpopular to be displaced. (Much cheering and laughter from the lower Opposition benches.) Therefore, I beg to re-state that, in making this motion I have no object of displacing the Government. lam not acting in any way as a partisan on this occasion. ("Hear, hear," from the Opposition, and " Oh" from the Mini sterial members.) And if I might be allowed to offer my advice to the right hon. gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, it would be that he should do no such thing as resign, but that, if this motion should be carried against him, that he should rather be thankful for it, and pro ceed quietly onward in the course which, apparently, he is only wishing for the opportunity to follow. (Cheers.) The right hon. gentleman seems to me, as far as I can discover his intentions, to be inclined to enter upon a career of usefulness ; and I would not have him deterred from persevering in it. (Cheers and laughter.) The right hon. gentleman takes, I think, very much the same views of the financial policy of the country that those whom he used to assail take—(hear, hear)—and with his great talent, which seems to be available for any purpose—(roars of laughter)—l should be very sorry to see him removed from the office he now fills. Certainly, I am still more hopeful of the course he is likely to pur sue from what he has already shadowed out of his future policy. (Hear.) I think we have reason to expect good from his statement in bringing forward his budget last year. He then stated facts very candidly, and though his friends were very anxious afterwards to exculpate him from the charge of drawing any conclusions or opinions from those facts, still there does appear to me in what he has now avowed in the amendment, something like a conclusion which he honestly means to carry out. (Loud Opposition cheers.) He showed very fairly in his budget speech how the policy which had prevailed in this country for the ten years previous had greatly relieved the country without interfering with the revenue. These were the facts, and he was obliged to state them. (Hear, hear.) He showed that duties on various articles had been repealed, and others reduced by a large amount ; and that the revenue had not suffered, but had benefitted. This he was obliged to state, notwithstand ing that it was offensive to his friends ; and now by his amendment to-night he appears to have gone so much further in the right direction as to account for the facts he so stated last year, and to pledge himself to continue the policy out of which they had arisen. (Hear, hear.) That policy I believe to be, that you reduced the duties on articles of general consumption—or rather, that you in the first place removed altogether the duties on articles of necessary consumption, and then proceeded to reduce the duties on other articles of general consump tion, depending for your revenue on the principle that when the means of the people are increased by the re duced prices they pay for articles of necessary consump tion, they are enabled to consume more of the articles of general consumption. That was the effect of the state ments of the right hon. gentleman last year, and, as was to be expected, these were statements which, coming from such an authority, were exceedingly distasteful to hon. gentlemen on the other side. (Hear, hear.) But nine months of gestation have done a great deal—(hear, hear, and laughter)—and now the right hon. gentleman comes forward and proposes this amendment, which ad mits the whole case, that when you remove the duty on articles of food, you may safely reduce the duties on other articles, because, as the people will be able to con sume more of such articles, you will be sure speedily to recover the revenue. (Hear, hear.) That is an intelli gible principle, and what we want is to have it fully acknowledged. (Cheers.) We want the right hon. gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer fully to acknowledge it, and pledge himself to proceed in the same course. (Cheers.) But we have as yet no positive statement that that is his intention. I have no doubt there are measures prepared with that intent—(hear, and a laugh)—but the statements of some of the right hon. gentleman's colleagues in office, which have gone forth to the country, have tended to convey a different impression, and no one really knows whether he is going backwards or forwards ; but if the house decide in favour of my resolution, there will then be no doubt for our future policy, for we shall have a general acknowledgment by the house of the advan tages of the system of free trade, (Loud Opposition cheers.) I remember two years ago I ventured to make a statement to the house showing how expansive the powers of the revenue were. The amount I then stated was so large that many people, I believe, scarcely be lieved it, though hon. gentlemen who were agitating the counties with a view to the coming elections made use of that statement for their own purposes. They told the constituencies that I had said in the House of Commons that 91 millions had been abstracted from the farmers by free trakle, and they required an indemnity for that loss. (Hear, hear.) But what I spoke of was the diffe rence between a year of general scarcity and a year of great glut. I took 1847 as against 1849, and showed what an enormons difference there was between the prices paid by the community for its food in those two years, and I argued that that difference might go far to account for the improved state of the revenue. (Hear, hear.) I did not stoop to contradict the use which was made of my statement, for it struck me that when gentlemen so applied it they exposed them selves to this reply, "if these 91,000,000 have been so taken from the farmers, who gave it to them in the first place ?" (Loud Opposition cheers.) To illustrate the policy which I hope and expect the Chancellor of the Exchequer is prepared to pursue, and the advantage to the revenue resulting from the removal of the duties on articles of necessary con sumption, and reducing the duties on articles of secondary consumption, by increasing the consuming powers of the people, I will refer to some facts in reference to this me tropolis. Now, I find the system of protection, which hon. gentlemen opposite were so anxious to maintain, existed from the year 1828 to 1841—( An hon. member —" 1842 " )—to 1842, that is while the sliding scale existed, The population of London, according to the most moderate calculation, is 2,500,000. From July, 1828, when the sliding scale was enacted, up to the end of 1841, when it was abolished, 14,787,990 quarters of wheat were admitted, 12,452,562 of whichl or 84 per cent., were not admitted until the price exceeded 70s. per quarter. 70s. per quarter for wheat gives 60s. per sack for flour. The quartern loaf would than be lid. ; it is now 7d. (Hear, hear.) The consumption of the population of London is not less than two quartern loaves per head per week, so that the saving is Bd. per head per week, or 11. 13s. per annum, being, for the whole population, 4,750,0001. (Hear.) Again, as to sugar—ln London, where the consumption is greater than in the country, the allowance to servants is half a pound each per week for breakfast and tea alone ; the middle and upper classes consume not less than 501 b. ; so that the average may fairly be taken at 301 b. The soft sugar that, up to 1845, was 7d., is now 4d. to sd. ; the loaf sugar that was 10d. and 11d., is now sd. to 6d.; and probably half th e c o n sumption of London is loaf sugar. Take the reduction, as a low average, at 31d., the saving is Bs. 9d. a head per year ; or, for the whole population, 1,093,750/., the entire consumed giving above 26Pb. per head. In coffee, on a similar circula tion, the gain to London is 166,666(. ; and on tea, 125,0001., representing a total of 5,739,5831. in London alone, there being a proportionate gain also to the country and to the provincial towns. (Cheers.) This shows the advantage of reducing first the prices of the necessary articles of food, and then of reducing the prices of articles of secondary consumption. That is the ad vantage of free trade as compared with protection. Now the reason why I wish to press this resolution on the Government is, because the noble earl the First Minister of the Crown does not appear to me to be sufficiently informed on the matter. And I say if any one thing more than another justifies my motion, it is the speech of the First Minister on the first night of the session. The noble earl has told us that he could not understand the difference between food and any other article. He told us that last year ; and his notion is that, if . the price of food falls, wages must fall in the same propor tion. This he has told us this year. (Cheers.) Now I want to show the noble lord that the difference between food and other articles is, that food is an article of first and necessary consumption, and it depends on the price of that first necessary how far we can con sume other things. The noble lord is occupied wholly considerations of revenue, and can see no difference the one and the other. But that is the differ conomically and financially, there is the greate,,t difference between the price of food being low and high, inasmuch as it is that difference upon which the power of the people to consume other articles must always depend. (Hear, hear.) The noble earl seems to think the price of food as only an influence on the rate of wages, and that if the price of food falls the rate of wages must fall. Now, I can hardly suppose that a man of the noble lord's extraordinary intellect really believes that. (Hear, hear, and a laugh.) I cannot suppose that he really believes that if there is more food in the country the condition of the labouring class is worse in proportion. (Cheers from the opposition.) I should not like to offer him such an insult as to suppose so ; for, although such a fallacy might attract the ignorant, I think no intelligent man will be found to say, that the more food the people can command, that is, the lower the price, the worse are they off. (Hear, hear.) But the noble earl said the other night, that he was afraid, notwithstanding there had been an improve ment in the condition of some interests, that with regard to the working classes, the consequence of reducing the price of food was, that wages were lower. (Hear, hear.) I consider it, therefore, important to show, that, while food is lower, the people are able to consume more of other articles, and that the general condition of the country has improved. I hardly like to go into details, because I hope now we are generally agreed on this matter, and that whereas those statistics which used to be detailed showing that the people were better off in proportion as food was cheap, are no longer necessary. All parties now in the country are in a prosperous state, and, judging by the amendment, it .appears to be ad mitted by the other side, that that Y6sult has been in fluenced by the price of food. (Hear, hear.) I have had more papers and statements sent to me on this sub j ect than I am able to carry, which I would read to the house if I thought there was any dispute—any difference of opinion—on that point. (Hear, hear.) These state ments, which come from persons in all the towns and all parts of the country, say that there never was known so much prosperity as now exists ; and that such is the result test by whatever means you please—whether, by the amount of labour employed, the amount of paupers, or the amount of crime and the state of the gaols. (Hear, hear.) Take either or all of these tests, and it will be found by these statements that the condition of the people is better now than it was at any former pe riod. Ido not proceed to read these to the house be cause I hope we are all agreed on that subject ; and, in the words of the right hon. gentleman's amendment, that that which has reduced the price of provisions has effectu ally improved the condition and increased the comforts of the people. (Cheers.) But I want the right hon. gen tleman to go further. He appears to have convinced himself that the condition of the working classes has im proved, but (I do not know why) he confines the admis sion of the improvement to that class. I cannot con sent so to confine it. (Hear, hear.) For there is no possibility of benefiting the working classes without that benefit being extended to al l others. (Loud cheers. ) Fo r the same reason, and in the same wa y , the laws whic h formerly existed could not injure the working class es w ithout all other classes —every business, every section of the community, participating, sooner or later, in the injury. (Hear, hear.) Therefore Ido not understand why the right hon. gentleman confined his resolution to the working classes, when it i s q uite clear that if they consume more, more must be produced, and the manu facturers and producers of all th e articles that enter into their consumption must necessarily be benefited in pro portion. (Hear, hear.) Our foreign trade must be greater, for foreigners are allowed to come to our shores without obstruction, and inasmuch as the means of their customers are exhausted in the purchase of food, they have more to expend in other secondary articles, and the merchant, the trader, and the manufacturer are all alike benefited by the same cause. It is for this reason that in my resolution I propose the right hon. gentle man shall accept the principle and admit the doctrine that the property and industry of the country will be better able to bear their respective burdens under the principle of free trade than under that of protection. (Hear, hear.) And it is upon this point that lam anxious to have it understood what is the opinion of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, which from anything that has been said I have not yet been able to discover. (Hear, hear.) I want to have his views on these respective principles, free trade and protection—(hear)—and as that is one of the purposes for which we have met, it is certainly one of the pur poses for which I have brought forward my resolution. (Hear.) I want to know if he thinks protection a great good—that it will enable persons to support their bur dens ; and that free trade is an injury which prevents them from bearing those burdens ? This proposition has not yet been disposed of by the right hon. gentleman, and it is left untouched by the amendment he has put upon the votes. Now, my opinion is that protection is an unqualified mischief—(loud opposition cheers)—that it is unjust in principle, vicious in practice, and is pecu liarly injurious to the interests intended to be protected. (Loud cheers.) Under these circumstances, if we can come to an agreement—if the right hon. gentleman would come to the same conclusion, it would be impor tant, because I expect some future legislation will have reference to it. My opinion is, that no compensation is needed for the interest that was protected—(hear)—for as regards that interest—l speak not of individuals—it has been served by free trade ; while, under protection, every interest (I don't believe there is an exception) has wit r h in e g red the. (Hear, ) The experience we have had du advan tage of setting all intere s ts free. (Hear, hear, lastr. has shown the great hear.) If I wanted i an illustration of the truth Hear five heea years of this statement, f there is one interest which illustrates more than another how much injury was done by protection, how much benefit has resulted from its a b o li t i on , without injury to the interest concerned, I would refer to the landed interest. (Hear.) I have made inquiries on the subject at various times from all persons competent to give an opinion—and I have gone very largely into the matter on former occasions when I brought the subject before the house, especially in 1844, when I referred to all the evidence I could collect, and naming the persons whos e op i n i ons I h a d ex t rac ted and all those opinions showed that the total and uncon ditional removal of the corn-laws would best serve the landed interest. (Cheers.) I thought that conclusion just then, and I think s o st il l more now , f or a ll m y sub sequent experience confirms it. (Hear, hear.) But if I asked persons qualified to give an opinion of the present state of the agricultural interest as to what their view is of the position of that interest as compared with what it would be under protection, and if I have observed this coincidence amongst them that all agree that that in terest was never rn a more healthy state—(oh)—if hon. ge ntlemen opposite doubt wh a t I sa y I must produce my a u thorities—(hear, hear)— an d w h en I shall have read the evidence to which I refe r , an d w hi c h are known to hon. gentlemen opposite, they will be obliged to admit the truth of what I say. I asked one man who has been in the occupation of land for many years past— a person who is employed by several noblemen and gentlemen as a land agent, and who i s we ll k nown as a p erson exten sively engaged in the management and sale of land—l asked him, and that within a week, what he considered the present state of the landed interest ? And the reply he made me was that he had not known it for many year s so prosperous. (Cheers.) I asked him did he mean that land sold for more now than formerly ? and he replied " Certainly." (Cheers.) " For more years' purchase," I asked, "do you mean ?'! He said, " I speak from an experience of 25 years, and I never before knew land sell so high as it now does. I have known land sell for 37 years' purchase within the last three months, and pasture land for 35 years' purchase." (Cheers.) The fa r m ers may be depressed, but if they are it is because their landlords do not do what is just by them. (Hear, hear.) The Legislature cannot give them redress —the relief must come from the landowners. (Hear, hear.) If we go to farmers and ask them what they want, they do not tell you they want the res toration of protection—they re f er t o a ma tt er of a more domestic kind—somethi ng that can be settled between them and their landl or d s . (H ear , h e ar.) But that is never alluded to in this house. If we ask whe ther the labourers are well off, the answer is, that they are notoriouslybetter off, and although it may be said that it is owing to the removal of many of that class by emi gration, yet it is clear that their improved condition is derived chiefly from improvement in agrbs iculture, which has caused a d e mand for and has absorbed labour. (Hear, hear.) I will not weary the house by going into details, but I happened to see a statement in a public journal on this subject, and I took the trouble to verify it, and it affords a remarkable case, and precisely in point. It is a case of a landowner who supposed that he was ruined by the measures of 1846, and who was extremely indignant at the withd rawa l o f p ro t ec ti o n, who supposed that his rents would all be at an end, and he charged the Ministry who repealed the corn-laws with the whole of his loss. In his distress he sent for an agent, who was to ascertain in what way he could remedy it. The statement was as follows :—" At the time the Government made known the intention to re peal the corn-laws, which is now nearly five years since, the owner of an estate of about 4,000 acres, situate in the centre of England, alarmed at the prospect which free trade presented of reduced rent and diminished in come, had his attention drawn to the necessity of pre paring his tenants for the lower prices they would have to take for the produce of their fa rm s, and sought, in the improvement of his estate, for means to enable them to continue its successful cultivation. The success which has attended his proceedings offers so valuable an example to others, that I trust I shall be excused for giving some account of it. At the period mentioned the estate was divided into farms of 180 to 300 acres, which, tithe free and arable, with valu able pasture, were let at rents of from 15s. to 30s. an acre. The tenantry, although ancient, had held only by tha year ; the land, which is naturally fertile, had had scarcely anything done to improve it, and the farmers had little idea of any capability in the soil beyond what they would each receive notice to quit, but that leases for 21 years would at the same time be offered them, at an advance of rent of 20 per cent. ; that permission would be given them to break up certain portions of the pasture of their farms, after they had been drained, upon plans that would- be given them ; that draining-tiles would be allowed them to drain all their lands, but the draining was to be done at depths and upon the plans so to be laid down • that their homesteads would be improved, and sheds built to give them accommodation for wintering their stock in yards, and fattening of cattle in stalls ; and that they would be allowed to remove all unnecessary hedges and trees injurious to the corn ; but at the same time their leases would forbid their existing practice of taking two white corn crops in suc cession ; and they would be obliged to dress a fourth of their arable land every year, and other restrictions would be introduced on what they had been in the habit of doing. It was expected in this way they might be made to adopt a more advantageous course of hus bandry, and that their farms might be put into better condition, and made more productive, so as to become cheaper to them at the increased rents than they had been under the old. I must pass over the difficulties of the next three years, the stand made against these mea sures, the obstacles thrown in the way, the withdrawal of some of the tenants, the objections raised to the deep draining, and the attempting the cultivation of roots where roots had never grown, &c. Fortunately, some of the tenants left, and the readiness with which the vacated farms were re-occupied, and at still higher rents, and the example which the new tenants afforded, who, directed by their leases, at once proceeded to grub hedge rows, to deepen drains, and raise turnips, and green crops, and better clean the land, were answers to many of their objections. And now, it is to the result I would call attention, which is as follows :—This estate now affords a clear rental of 23 per cent, advance on the natal of 1845. The rents are now better paid than they ever have been : the two last audits were held quicker than ever after the quarter days, and at each the whole of the rents were collected without an arrear, and the tenants, with scarcely an exception, admit they are doing well, and their farms are cheaper than they were to them at the old rents ; and well they may so, for such crops as they have had the last two years were never before seen in their parishes. I am aware that such an instance of meeting the requirements of free trade is little likely to have the approval of tenant farmers, and yet how far more truly bene ficial has been the course here adopted, than u would have been that of the proprietors seeking to afford relief by reducing his rents. No reduction could have given the same relief but what would have been mis chievous." This seeems to be a case which cannot be a singula r one, e n r e e , t and a probabl ygreatextent; fsoarmle find p plan ni it stated b e in acted on elsewhere all the agricultural journals and by agriculturists—properly latf ee rtoto stated ali pt ir the protection the c ti reports e op counties.o o r t legislative N None called—that the land is often in a most deplorable state, the buildi ngs no t fit f or th e i r pu r p o ses ; and that if the imp rovemen t s w hi c h are requ i re d were made by e l ef; reports u ßoyal or e essays the farmers, it w ou ld d o we ll. I allude to facts which re areandoeessoafysr those of ithe t t s r that Agri cultural Soci e ty w ith regard to farming, and which re the best thing the landlords can do for the tenants is by improving their estates. I will read a few extracts from those essays in order to show—(" Oh, oh," from the Ministerial benches, and cheers from the Opposition.) Hon. gentlemen may dislike to have the real facts known, but I only want to show that if the agricultural interests is to be improved it must be done by the land owners. (Hear, hear.) I will quote from a prize essay of the Royal Agricultural Society on farming in the county of Kent. (The hon. gentleman then read the extract in question, but in so low a voice that we could only guess at the purport, which was, as we understood, a recom mendation for a co-operation between landlords and tenants in drainage and other agricultural improvements.) I will not read others on the same subject relating to dis tricts such as Leicestershire and other places, for they are all to be found in a journal which gentlemen opposite must see, and which prove that the only thing to make agriculture successful is that owners and occupiers should combine- to improve the cultivation of' the land. If there is any force in what is said by the farmers as regards what they require, it is certain that they never express that they are in want of protection. If we look at the reports of what they say at their meetings, we shall see they say that they have many grievances, but they are not such as legislation can remedy. I feel as much as any man can for the farmers. (Hear, hear, and cheers.) And why, in God's name, should I not ? (Hear, hear.) They are a most valuable class, a most valuable portion of the middle class—of the producing class of this coun try, who have invested their capital in the land ; and among that class there are none who ought more to be respected. (Hear, hear.) Any one who debates on the wants and requirements of the community at large, and omits the farmers, makes an omission of those who are as much entitled to consideration as any class. I am sure my interests would not lead me so to regard them, and I say so distinctly. I think them a most interest ing class—(hear and a laugh)—and I think the time has come when their interests should be more considered in this house than they have hitherto been. (Cheers.) I I think them a very ill-used class. (Cheers and coun ter cheers.) I can show that their distress has been made capital of—(loud cheers)—and that no class has been more deluded. (Cheers.) It is no fault of any class that they are not so bright as others. (Hear, and a laugh.) A man's circumstances generally determine his intelligence ; and their circumstances have not been such as to make their intelligence brighter than it is ; but is that a reason why any one should impose on them — (hear and cheers)—and that they should be led to believe that they have friends in Parliament who will secure to them certain advantages at the expense of the rest of the community among which they live and by whom they profit ? These have been the promises that have been held out to them for the last thirty years by some per sons who have not lost anything by them. It has been held out to them that if they will return those persons to Parliament, and if they will give them their politi cal support, they will pass acts of Parliament which will keep up rents. Those are the people who have made promises which have never been fulfilled. The law of distraint operates as a serious injury to the farmer'; for by its operation his credit is impaired, be cause the landlord has always a preference before every other creditor. Who would advance the farmer money when the landlord can always secure himself at least six months' rent ? Besides this, it makes the landlord more careless as to what sort of person he gets as a tenant— (hear) —and consequently there is created a mischievous competition among the farmers. (Hear, hear, hear.) There never was a time when there was such a desire to buy land as now, and there never was a time when landowners could obtain money so easily. The labourers are better off now, every one admits, than they ever were before. As some proof that they never were better off I will read an extract from Wiltshire, which stated to the effect that there was nothing the people so much wishedfor as portraits of Sir R. Peel, so grateful were they for the blessings he had conferred on them. The country is in a state of unexampled prosperity ; the demand for our productions is so great that our manu facturers cannot execute their orders ; the people were never so well off, so comfortable, and so well supplied with the necessaries of life ;and I will state further, that this condition of things is owing to the a pplication of the principle of free trade to all the interests of the country, and not to the other causes to which the noble earl at the head of the Government, or his colleagues, have ascribed them—(loud cheers) —and I say it is unworthy of any one, when they see thei r great results, and when their connexion with the change of policy which has taken place is so obvious, to attempt either to underrate its effects or to ascribe them to any other cause. (Hear.) And I call on the right hon. gentlema , n - to explain dis tinctly to us what he means when hetalks of t errflu ence caused by the discovery of gold in Australia, the share which emigration h as had in producing these re sults. Let us ascertain whether or not that has been the case, and let not the right honourable gentleman ride off on something else, but state directly the in fluence which the recent influx of gold has had. I admit that that influx has given activity to trade, just as any other article of trade would have done, but not more. Gold is an a rticle of exchange always available, and its increase has caused a demand for other produc tions. But it has done nothing more, and I even doubt if it has done so much ; but my Lord Derby has ascribed the present condition of the labouring classes chiefly to the recent discoveries of gold. I want this explained, for if I read his statement right it was, that inasmuch as the influx of gold had raised the value of other articles, it had therefore tended to raise wages, and to better the condition of the labouring classes. But I understood the right hon. gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer to say that the cheapness of food had been the cause of the improved condition of the labouring classes. Which is it then, is it the influx of gold or the cheapness of pro visions? (Hear, hear, and cheers.) Then with regard to emigration. The statement of the noble lord at the head of the Government is not very clear on that point, for he has mixed up the questions of Irish and English emigration. I want to know what has been the effect of emigration on the condition of the peo ple. As far as I can understand, the greatest amount of e migration has taken place in the l as t six months. It cannot, therefore, be that which has so raised and bettered the condition of the working classes. The noble lord talks of emigration from this country to Australia as if it was included in that from Ireland to other countries. If we examine the emigration, we find that whereas some hundred. thousand persons- have emigrated to Australia, who were Englishmen or Scotchmen, a far greater number of emigrants have been Irishmen, who have gone to the United States and British America. A great many per sons have certainly gone to Australia, but they are not of the class which the noble lord has described; they have been of the middle-class principally, and not of the la bouring class. I hope the right hon. gentleman will in form us of that which it is necessary for us to know in solving this matter; for we are now in process of solving the great question whether or not the abolition of pro tection has caused the present prosperity of the country. (Hear, hear.) They have in fact consistently and per severingly underrated the prosperity of the country; for when at last they have been compelled to acknowledge that prosperity, they have as consistently ascribed it to every cause but the direct one—viz., the adoption of the policy of 1846. (Cheers.) But I believe the facts do show beyond all fair dispute that that prosperity is not only mainly but entirely due, directly and indirectly, to the operation of that commercial policy which was com menced by the late Sir R. Peel, and has been continued by the noble lord the member for the city of London. Sir, in bringing these remarks to a close, I beg to say that in bringing forward the motion with which I shall conclude, I have no other object in view than that which has guided me, ever since I have been in the house, on this question. (Sheers.) I say once for all, that my ob ject in introducing :this motion is not at all to displace hon. gentlemen opposite. I don't want to take any of their places. I have no party purposes in view, in the com mon sense of "party purposes," and I don't want the house to take this motion as necessarily a motion of want of confidence in her Majesty's present Ministers. (Cheers.) Certainly they have themselves said, they have volunteered that declaration, that they do not possess the confidence of this house. (Cheers and cries of " No, no.") They said at the opening of the session, and they repeat it now in their amendment, that they have not changed their own opinions, while the opinion of the country remains against them ; and therefore I say, they admit that they have not the confidence of the new House of Commons. (Loud cheers.) If they had changed their opinions on the subject of free trade, they, being in office, and this being a free-trade House of Commons, might be said to have the confidence of the house ; but if Lord Derby does truly represent the rest of them then, inasmuch as he adheres to his former views, they are in an undoubted minority on meeting Parliament. (Loud cheers.) But I do want, for what I believe to be great national reasons, to have this re solution carried, and to have the views of the House of Commons on this question most distinctly, most expli citly, and most emphatically expressed ; and more espe cially do I want this resolution to be placed on record, at least during this Parliament, in order that we may thus have a final settlement of a matter which, while unsettled, leaves men of business in this country in doubt, and which leaves the rest of the world unde cided as to what our permanent commercial policy really is. (Loud cheers.) I therefore do hope that the right hon. gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer will not attempt to evade this real question by talking of factiousness or by impugning my personal motives — (cheers)—but I hope that he will talk straightly to the question before the house, and that he will not sit down without letting us at last know what he does generally mean. (Loud cheers.) Enormous is the mischief which has been done by;the course taken by the hon. gentlemen opposite ever since, 1846. I know, from what I have read, and also from what I have seen on the continent of Europe, that abroad people exaggerate the importance of the party to which hon. gentlemen opposite belong ; they imagine that Lord Derby does represent a strong section of the English political community, and that on this question he has power eventually to reverse the policy of Sir Robert Peel ; and it is indeed notorious that in those instances where foreign nations are disposed to change their own commercial policy, the movement is retarded because foreign governments are compelled to take notice of the continued existence of this so-called protectionist party in this country. Constant mischief is still being done, as it has been done, by the agitation and assertion of these protectionist and anti-free-trade views ; and I, therefore, do say that the importance of some distinctly worded resolution such as this, and which shall be taken as a final decision of the Parliament and of the country, cannot be overrated ; and as for myself, I will only say that I have no motive but that which has influenced me during the fifteen years of struggle in pro posing the resolution which I have already read to the house. (Loud and long continued cheering.) The resolution having been seconded (we did not notice the seconder), and read by the Speaker, The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER—Sir, if the speech which we have just listened to with so much interest—as we do to every speech of the honourable and learned gentleman's—had:been in favour of a repeal of the corn laws, or in favour of a repeal of the sugar laws as they existed some time ago, I think it would have been much more appropriate than on the occasion upon which we have now listened to it—(hear, hear)—because what we have now to decide is—not whether the corn laws shall be repealed ; not whether the sugar laws shall be repealed ; not whether protection or free trade—to use the somewhat inaccurate language of the honourable and learned gentle man—should be repealed or supported—but whether her Majesty's Ministers, in their conduct since their accession to office, have fulfilled the pledges they gave to Parliament and the country—(cries of " no, no," and cheers)—and whether, having announced that they would defer to the opinion of the country on a question of great importance, they have frankly or not communicated to the house the resolution at which they have arrived. Now the honour able and learned gentleman has just told us that enormous mischief has been clone to the country by the course which has been taken by the Protectionist party since 1846, far from wishing to escape the issue be fore us, I say it is the:duty of the House of Commons, if that be their opinion, to express it, and to announce in a manner which cannot be mistaken, that they have no confidence in the men who have perpetuated this enor mous mischief. (Loud cheers.) I hope, therefore, Sir, that this house will allow me on this occasion, in the most dispassionate manner, to trace our conduct since the period to which the honourable and learned gentleman has referred—that they will allow me, especially as there are gentlemen who have now their seats in the house for the first time—that they will allow me to place before them an impartial, and I am sure an accurate statement of the principal incidents that have occurred during the last five or six years, with reference to this great question. I feel it my duty to do so, not only for the sake of the Govern ment, but for the sake of Parliament and the country ; and I pledge myself to show that the inevitable and the irresistable inference which the house will draw from this statement—the conclusion at which every impartial mind must arrive—will be very different from that which the honourable and learned gentleman attempted to establish by the convenient generalities in which he indulged. (Cheers.) And now, in the first place, let me state, in a manner which I am sure is accurate and cannot be misap prehended, the piincipal reasons why we opposed the re peal of the corn-la'ws, which was proposed by Sir Robert Peel in the year 1846. We opposed that change on two grounds. The main ground was that we believed that change would prove injurious to the interests of labour. That was the main, the principal ground on which I myself based my opposition. It was ,f (or it was nothing) the cause of labour. We opposed that change for a second and subordinate reason, be cause, irrespective of our great and principal objection, we believed that it would occasion injury to a considerable in terest in the country. On a subsequent occasion, in the year 1850, the question was incidentally referred to in this house. I then used this expression in reference to the re peal of the corn-laws—it is a question of labour or it is no thing. After the repeal of the corn-laws, two other great measures connected with that policy, which is popularly but somewhat indefinitely described as free trade, were carried. The Minister who proposed the repeal of the corn-laws, and carried it, was dismissed from office, and was succeeded by another Minister, who proposed the repeal of the sugar laws ; but that proposition was not approved of by the Mi nister who proposed and carried the repeal of the corn-laws. I mention the circumstances because the question has al waYs been argued (as it has been to-night) as if there had been from the beginning two great parties in this house— the one banded together to carry what is called free trade in all the articles of popular consumption, the other mar shalled to oppose that proposition. Shortly after the re peal of the sugar duties, Parliament was dissolved, a new Parliament was assembled under the management of the noble lord opposite, and after considerable delay another great measure, the repeal of the navigation laws was passed. Then commenced the complaints in due time from three great interests—the agricultural, the colonial, and .the shipping interests—(cheers); and I may fairly say that during all the years which have elapsed since the erection of 1847 down to the recent dis solution of Parliament, we have been mainly engaged in discussing or in legislating upon agricultural, or colonial, or shipping distress. (Hear, hear.) Now let me put this f a ct before the house—convenient for some no doubt to forget, but the accuracy of which will no t be questioned by the experienced members of this house, and will be well for those who are not experienced in ath w is lii h c e li ns i e t r mem eal ee of, t to remember. From the time whichsincreestehnet ep the corn laws has passed down to this p there has not been a single attempt de in the House of Commons to abrogate the m easure I 1 846. (Oh, oh, and of discussion in this th house, I must tell to cheers.) Well, but on e e a h t noz a t b t l i e in g e, en is tl t e h m a a t n ev w ery ho bo h d a y s taken his seat to -night for tiro who has anythi n g to say i s entitled to offer his remarks. (Laughter and cheers.) I have made that statement, and the honourable gentleman who forms his opinions from th e tumultuous vociferation of the platform, will find whe n he comes into the House of Commons b e i ng the necessity o f a little more accurate in his st ate ments. (Oh, oh, and cheers.) I repeat the statement. I repeat it on behalf of the party who have perpetrated enormous mischief. I repeat the statement, that from that moment to the present there has not been a single motion in this house—at least with the sanction of that party—there has not been a single motion , made to return to that protection which has been attacked to night with such unnecessary vehemence. (Cheers.) What was the reason that we did not bring forward a motion to question the policy of the act of 1846, which from conscientious and honourable motives we opposed ? Because we laid down from the first this great principle, that the fate of the proposition must depend not upon the injury it might do to the agricultural interest, but upon the way in which it would affect the condition of the working classes—(hear, hear)—and we had no facts be fore us_eufficientlx large, in our opinion, to convince us that gentleman in favour of protection to sugar, a rest ected baronet, late the member for South Essex, whose abs Ince from this house but that ho has been replaced by an b on. friend of my own, I should say I viewed with deep rem et. (Great laughter.) There were tWo followers of Sir Robe rt on that committee—the right hon. gentleman the mem& 'r for the University of Cambridge (Mr. Goulburn) and Mr., Cardwell. There was a Whig Cabinet Minister —and of course, being a Whig, no doubt a most sincere free-trader —(hear)—and then there were six gentlemen of remark ably pronounced opinions on all subjects connected with free trade. Let me read these names ;on a subject of this kind they are quite classical. There was one of the mem bers for Liverpool (Sir Thomas Birch)—the honourable and. learned gentleman who has made the present motion—one of the honourable members for Manchester (Mr. M. Gib son)—the honourable member for Westbury (Mr. Wilson) —a member for a Scotch burgh—and another honourable gentleman—l am not sure at the present moment whether he is a member of the house. Out of fifteen members three were Protectionists, three belonging to that party who, by their interference on this subject, have perpetrated enormous mischief. What was the result of this commit tee ? The result of the investigation made by this free trade committee was, that they came to a resolution that there ought to be a differential duty of 10 per cent. be tween foreign and colonial sugar. Well then, for the enormous mischief that was perpetrated on this second branch of the subject, let honourable gentlemen opposite take their fair share of the blam e . What happened in consequence of that effort of the Protectionist party? The noble lord the member for the city of London, who is a most intense free-trader—wh6, after the gracious Speech from the Throne—after the speech of the First Minister of the Crown—after the notice which I had given in this house, which everybody, even the hon. and learned mem ber for Wolverhampton, deems to be fair and satisfactory —the noble lord had the courage to rise and say that this house had now to decide whether it was to maintain free trade or to return to protection. (Hear, hear.) Sir, I thought I was listening to the tones of the appropriation clause—(loud cheers)—when the noble lord in his place in the house had the audacity to make that declaration. (Renewed cheering.) I say that on the sullject of the sugar duties the noble lord did come down to the • house and confess that his legislation had been rash, precipitate, and Jnjurious ; that its action had been more rapid than he contemplated ; and he in troduced a law immediately to suspend the change in the duty, and to prolong that protection which he had taken away. (Cheers.) Well, now, with regard to the first question, that of the land. I have shown the house that the party which perpetrated enormous mischief has, from the moment of the repeal of the corn laws down to the present time, never attempted to disturb that law in this house. I have shown that, with respect to the repeal of the sugar duties, they confined their exertions to a calm and elaborate investigation into the facts ; and that in con sequence of the inquiry being pursued so energetically, and sustained with so much knowledge, we, the party in oppo sition, influenced the conduct of the Minister of the day ; and therefore, on these two heads, I, think I have shown_ the house that the accusation of the hon. and learned gen tleman has no'foundation. (Cheers.) Now I come to the third branch. We opposed, and not the protectionist party alone,—we opposed the repeal of the navigation-laws. Have we ever since attempted to abrogate the decision of the house? On the contrary, the present First Minister of the Crown took an early opportunity to say that he thought that change in our legislation should not be attempted to be reversed—that it would be impossible to retrace our steps in respect to those laws, after the country had come to the resolution which it had done. Now, let me retrace the conduct—in respect to these great questions—of the party which has perpetrated enormous mischief to the State —let me remind the house of their conduct since the re peal of these three great laws has taken place. Not in any single instance attempting to disturb the decision of Par liament with respect to them, still circumstances arose which called the attention of the Protectionist party to the condition of the cultivators of the soil in this country. When the general election in 1847 took place, the organisa tion of political parties were entirely broken up—high prices for all kinds of farm produce were then in existence, and the opinions of the constituent body were really not tested on the principles or the merits of the possible con sequences of recent legislation. That there was a large Protectionist party returned to' this house arose from a. feeling which will always animate large bodies of men in this country—sympathy and gratitude to those who have fought their battle, or who have been true to their colours. (Laughter.) Honourable gentlemen opposite may deride that feeling, but, rely upon it, if that feeling don't exist, Parliamentary Government will soon be a mere name. But every one knows that the economical 'controversy, so far as agriculture was concerned, was never entertained on that occasion. Farmers were re ceiving high prices, political parties were in a state of dis organization ; and though there was a large party returned. in favour of the agricultural interest, the fact is that there was no pressure from that interest in any way to make their advocates in this house then bring forward their complaints. But in 1850, the pinch, which had been forseen, not only commenced, but was in acute operation. What was, then, the conduct of the party which perpetrated enormous mis chief ? We were then pressed by our constituents, and by those whose interests were naturally dear to us. We heard. them complain of great suffering, and their sufferings and. losses we know to be great. I need not attempt to prove them, because I have a ready witness of the losses sus tained by the farmers in the honourable andlearned member for Wolverhampton himself. But when these complaints came before us, what was our course ? Did we demand the restoration of protection? On the contrary, we said that we had opposed the repeal of the corn-laws, first and mainly on. the ground of the interest of labour; in a second and subor dinate sense on the ground of the possible injury that the repeal of the corn-laws might inflict upon the corn grower. We were not satisfied that the working classes were injured, and therefore we would not lend ourselves to the cry of the farmer, and come forward to demand the restoration of protection. (Laughter.) I can easily understand that these statements may be disagreeable to honourable gentlemen-- (no, no)—but they should remember that if my arguments are unsound, or if my facts are untrue, before this debate is over both will be exposed. I say our statement to the farmers was this—Because your interests are suffering we cannot recommend a return to the Protectionist policy. Nothing would justify a return to that policy but the proof that injury has been done to the interest of labour; _ for we from the beginning believed that the interests of labour would suffer. I was the organ of the party on that occasion, and I said to them—if you find distress acute—if cute- ofif you find your sufferings intolerable — if y ou find the cost positon production iwi t n h ot re r f e e m re u n n e e e ra to ti t v h e— e lettath;atnionof country, and. us thisconsider your position relieve youve you fro r from elthoserelief, ibfurandyetnhis anything gr can n hi b ch e d in on a e ny whichoty will other way will g we will hoourdutytotoohytaiounifnorthyeouHtohaustereorh• C ef. omm ln on p s ursu , and . we will endeavour once of that advice, and at the request of several of my friends, I brought forward a motion in this house of a re medial nature, and it received, if not the sanction of this house, yet there can be no doubt that it received very con siderable support. Well now, in the year 1851 a change of government appeared very unexpectedly about to take place. In 1851, and I beg honourable gentlemen to condescend to remember those dates, for they are of great importance in forming an impartial estimate of the position of the presen t Government—in 1851, the moment the house met, I gave notice of a motion the object of whi c h was t o relieve the cultivators of the soil from the pressure of certain local incidents of taxation. It was not to restore protection not to question the policy of the repeal of the corn-laws. of I brought forward the moti on w ith a distinct disclaimer) and I intending to enter upon that question—(heat', said I thought it would be unwise to make t uaommons. I one of public discussion in the ofHouse_ edial character with brought forward my motion of a i t i co ca n r troversy regard to agriculture, which I think was .) I say that the hear') in a hill house by a majority of ten votes. , o fi n ud th ing at the Government in af sign terw offi ar e d e division on that question displacedi reality, because, though they point, yet the Governmen o t rtant a subject, and in a thin. themselves, on not so iro it their duty to resign. The noble lord, in a statement f which he subsequently made in di fe d iv n d o s t ys re that division as the one which mainly house, in a minority, this house, reform Under these decided the duct L Derby recom m ended to th e no ti ce o f cu mstenc, rd , by the Prime M inister of the country, and, his Soverei gn , to form a Government. Now, l oo k a t the coon of th e G. Hciewaosf at t h t e h se e iof a party in o ' e a m s s i teioaneotf Lord Der F liy ar a u t am th e a u t moment. troueprm.ple „ o li o , was, that it would be unwise and injudicious to dis turb the repeal of the corn-laws that had. taken place in 1846. (Laughter.) He recommend e d th a t course, b u t there was a powerful party in the country who were dis contented with the advice which he gave them • and, sir, are hon. gentlemen surprised th a t th ere should be a strong party favourable to what they call Protection, notwith standing the course which we may feel it our duty to take in either house of Parliament ? We remembered that the farmers of England had at that time, according to the statement of the honourable and learned member for Wolverhampton himself, lost upwards of ninety millions in one year. (He ar , h ear. ) I t may b e per f ec tly wise, just, and beneficent that a body of English producers should. lose more than ninety millions sterling in a single Year ; but this I s a y, w ith th e grea t es t deference to all the lights of political econ om y opposite. You may rely u pon it, as long as human nature remains what it is. large bod c ies of men will not lose millions without being discontented with that legislation—without challenging the justice But you had legislation of which they are the victims. more than this. You had a great colonial and interest in this then you had, in country subjected to absolute ruin by a minister who, at the and unrestricted competitionhe t restrictions and the bur addition, a great shipping interest; subjected to unlimited same time, did not remove h a o, ho told the greatest com dens which, only Are you surprised, then, that prosperity. (Lmercial communityoudcheers.)ix imnothoswogrld absolutely impeded. its )'arty which, from its numbers and its g reat and ramified interests, a great party — a p a might be called a national p ar ty—that they s h ou ld be discontented with the recent legislation to which. I have adverted? But Lord Derby had made up hi s mind that nothing could justify a return to the a brogated system , unless the labouring classes an d permanently suffering. What, then, was l l ct of !Lord Derby in 1851 ? He was called , i.nill'eerecl'aieiy riexpectedly ' to form a Government. He announced a po li c y which, while it showed sympathy for great classes of his countrymen and for those suffering which were always proved by honourable gentlemen oppo! site, was consistent with the policy he laid down—that the repeal of the corn laws should not be disturb ed un less thd working classes were in a state of suffering. The prOf ~~.... ~_ THE SUN, LONDON, WEDNESDAY EITENING, NOVIIAII3ER, 24, 1852. their inferior practice had developed. The quantity of pasture upon each farm allowed of a considerable quan tity of stock being kept, but as the cattle were grazing all the winter in the meadows, and no provision of winter food, except hay, was given them, the arable land had no benefit from the stock ; and its cultivation being upon a course without root crops, and but little assisted by manure, gave only very moderate returns. To tenants so farming, Sir Robert Peel's announcement of free trade created considerable alarm, for they, as well as their landlord, saw little chance of their continuing to do as they had done ; but in the improvement of their inferior practice, and in the amendment of the general state and ill-condition of their farms, the proprietor was told there would be found ample scope to cover their reduc tions from free trade, and on this he was told to rely. The assistance of a new land agent, and from a dis tant district, was obtained, and he at once saw how much of the imperfect success of the tenants was owing to the ill-condition of their farms, and their ignorance of the improved practice which the cultivation of inferior soils had elsewhere called forth. He knew the difficulty there would be in intro ducing the different practices, which he considered es sential to the future successful cultivation of their farms, and he could only hope to effect this by at once de stroying their confidence in their past practice, and making them place a higher appreciation of the capa bility of their soils. He determined on a course which should at once drive them to adopt a different system, and at the same time should encourage them to enter into improvements of their farms. It was with these views that at the first audit the tenants were informed letwe, ence - 11- the condition of the working classes Q- been injureil by that act. We never thought it our d. n*e , arhotioA\ when in opposition which amnia qu law of 1846. Let me now remind t Fq,srho4;:iiiitef.At4? conduct in respect to the other branc '.• tion. Did we—did the party which laSitklA22 ' mous mischief—did they, in respec sugar duties, act in that factious manner which as tit scribed by the hon. and learned gentleman who is so sus ceptible himself to the imputation of factious conduct? (Great cheering.) What did we do with respect to the sugar laws ? When accounts arzived in this country de scribing the state of distress—l 'slight almost say the de vastation which had befallen these colonies, so that it was impossible for any man doing his duty in this house to be silent upon the subject—what was the conduct of the party who have perpetated enormous mischf.ef to the country ? A noble friend of mine—alas ! now no snore—in his place iu Parliament made a forcible statement of tEe distress that ex isted, he asked for nothing but inquiry, and the house granted a committee;to investigate the c ondi tie n of the colonies whie h produced sugar and coffee. It is unnecessary for me to re mind the house that an elaborate and complete investig tion took place. Who formed that committee? Out fifteen members, only three protectionists were upon it— the hon. member for Somersetshire, my hon. .friend (Mr. Miles), one of the Secretaries of State (Sir John Pakington), anti the noble lord the member for Leicestershire (the Marquis of Granby). There was, indeed, another hon. _ . -*~~ -,,;~ ipoilENl., d 91 p 2g P 4 P 1 P 1 -