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

THE SUN, LONDON, WEDNESDAY EVENING, NOVEMBER, 24, 1852. - gramme of Lord Derby was one of compromise and con ciliation. How moderate it was I shall show in recalling it to the consideration of the house. In 1851, did Lord D er by come forward and say, We shall return to the sliding scale of 1846? On the contrary, he says, I propose that we shall have a countervailing duty, such as has met the approbation of men of the highest character and au thority in this country. You say that the agricultural interest is subject to burdens arising from taxation and to restrictions upon its industry. Well, I open books of authority upon this subject, and they tell me that a coun tervailing duty is the legitimate remedy. I know that there are many sincere and disinterested Free-traders, among others the noble lord the member for Tiverton, who, while he gave his consent to the abrogation of the corn-laws, yet, speaking as a statesm an , ex p resse d hi s regret that the opportunity had been lost of raising a large sum to the taxation of this country by the imposition of a countervailing duty. A very moderate duty was proposed by Lord Derby—he did not attempt to disturb the question that had once been settled. (Ironical cheering and laughter.) I come, then—(Renewed laughter.) Sir, the policy of Lord Derby has been explained by himself, in his place in Parliament. That speech remains on record, which an uninformed sneer will certainly not disturb. (Hear.) What was the conduct of Lord Derby with regard to sugar ? And now I beg the house, as the Government is upon its trial, as an honest jury to listen to my statement. Did Lord Derby propose a resumption of those laws which were repealed in 1846, under the protest of Sir Robert Peel ? Nob in the least. All that Lord Derby proposed was that the descending scale of duties, which made a differ ono) between colonial and foreign sugars, should be ar rested, and that only for a time, till the sufferings of the colonies should have passed away. Did Lord Derby propose to reinstitute the abrogated navigation laws ? On the contrary, Lord Derby only proposed, declaring that the recurrence to those laws was impossible, the removal of those restrictions which the noble lord opposite had sanctioned. Lord Derby. did not succeed in forming a Government in 1851. It became, therefore, necessary to consider his position with respect to these questions, and after due consideration it was his opinion that it would be inexpedient, unwise, and injurious to bring forward in Parliament, either in that or in any subse quent session, any motion which would, either directly or indirectly, continue the great industrial controversy which had been so long maintained. He was at the same time aware that there was a party in the country who would not allow their course to be dictated. or their feelings to be regulated by any mere Parliamentary party. It was not for him to tell men who were suffering that they were never to obtain relief ; but he said, If the nation is aggrieved, an early opportunity will occur when the nation may relieve itself. He considered that after his failure to form a Govern ment in 1851, as far as moral certainty was concerned, a dissolution of Parliament must necessarily take place under the advice of the noble lord opposite. A dissolution of Parliament taking place under the auspices of his political opponents would be the proper occasion to conclude for ever this great controversy; and after those circumstances, which I dare say were sufficiently mortifying to many par ties In this house—l mean his failure to form a Govern ment—after having done my best to rally the spirits of my friends in this house—in perfect concurrence with his ad vice, and in complete sympathy with all his counsels, I resolved, as I communicated to my friends at the time, that I would not, during that session, bring forward the question of taxation i nc id en t t o agriculture, because the Government might thereby be pressed, and in order that that which has actually occurred might be prevented. The consequence was, that in 1852, though there were political causes, independent altogether of the general feeling of this house, which made it possible that if I had brought forivard a motion on the question of taxation, as incident to agriculture, I would have carried it, or at least I would have been defeated by a majority so slight that any Go vernment would have been shaken to its base, I scrupu lously refrained from making such a motion. I did not wish to have the controversy prolonged, I looked for ward to the inevitable and impending dissolution of Par liament, which was about to take place, as I thought, under the auspices of the noble lord opppsite, as that which would undoubtedly settle the question. But what actually occurred ? That which no one could foresee. The Government, which was so favoured by its opponents that they could hardly be persuaded to do their duty lest it should prove inconvenient to the party in power —(aughter)that Government fell to pieces from inter sal dissensions—(loud cheers)—and Lord Derby, by the advice of the noble lord, was sent for by her Ma jesty, and not in consequence of a vote for re moving the establishment charges of the poor-law. What was the conduct of Lord Derby under those circumstances? It was an incident which we did not anticipate—which we much regretted. (Hear, and oh.) But I will ask the house, not as men of honour, but as men of common spirit, could we possibly have refused the duty, which was;almost thrust upon us? (Cheers and counter cheers.) Our poli tical opponents ceased to be opponents. They wished ns to occupy their places. (Laughter.) The house-wished it, and I believe I may safely say there was no section or body of men who did not wish to see some Government. (Laugh ter.) And I suppose no body of men ever acceded to office with such a complete absence of party passion and party feeling. (Loud Ministerial cheers.) Well, that being the state of the case, I was very much surprised, after a little time, when our position, I should have thought, with regard to our antecedents, was pretty accurately known, that the honourable gentleman, the stormy petrel of protection—(cheers) —who always appears at a particular crisis, the honourable member for 'Wolverhamp ton came forward, when I took my seat after my re-elec tion, and wished to know whether the Government was about to propose a recurrence to a protective policy. Our answer was in complete harmony with all we had said be fore—that we had acceded to power by no motion of our own in this house, under circumstances which we could not possibly have anticipated—that it seemed to be the unani mous feeling both in the house and in the country, that we should administer affairs—and that it was not our inten tion to propose any recurrence to abrogated laws ; but, in consistence with all we had said, and still more in defer ence to the feeling of that great party out of doors which had a right to look to us for security for the constitu tional opportunity of advancing their opinions, that we should, at an early opportunity, re commen d h er Majesty to recur to the sense of her people, and that the decision of the country on that subject should be final. (Hear, and cheers.) Now, sir, I may be permitted to state, before I arrive at the resolution, I may be permitted to state what has been the conduct of the party which has perpetrated for six years such enormous mischief, when they had, almost without their consent, and certainly with no great confidence in their own ability, been obliged to become the Ministers of the Crown. We found when we acceded to office that there were reasons which rendered an immediate appeal to the sense of the people most inconvenient to the public service —(hear, hear)—and although we wished"that the appeal should take place at the earliest opportunity possible, still we found that it was necessary to administer the affairs of the country for a certain time. There were formal and there were technical reasons which rendered at least the lapse of two months inevitable. The lapse of double that time would allow us to carry measures of the greatest importance to the State. (Hear, hear.) The two measures which were considered all-important were—one for the defence of the country; the other for the reform of the Court of Chancery. (Cheers.) Our measure for the defence of the country was received with derision by the noble lord the member for London. He exhausted all his powers of amiable cynicism —(laughter and cheers)—he reviewed and reorganised the Opposition ; and even as now, as if the trumpet of political warfare could not sound in that ear without wishing to take the trenches of the enemy, I thought the Government were to be upset about the militia, within a month after they had acceded to office. There was no term of ridicule, no prophecy of disaster which the noble lord did not make of the absurd scheme Of a militia raised by voluntary enlistment. (Loud minis terial cheers.) Yet the party which has perpetrated enormous mischief persisted in their course, and carried their measure, which has met with eminent and unprecedented success, and given to this country a powerful and popular force. (Renewed cheers.) But no sooner had we provided for the defence of the country, than we thought it our duty to carry out the recommendations of the commission with respect to Chancery reform. We had the honour and ad vantage of a colleague whose great abilities were not ap preciated by his country, though his learning—his un rivalled learning—was universally acknowledged. (Hear, hear.) But we saw in Lord St. Leonards, when he ac cepted the responsibility of a Minister of the Crown, not merely a learned lawyer, but the mind and grasp of a vigorous statesman. (Hear.) Acting by his advice, and animated by the determination which inspired him to carry this great reform, the first step of which depended on Par liament immediately carrying out the recommendations of the commission, we resolved to face our ridiculing and de risive Parliament, propose measures, and try to pass them. How were they received ? Even one whose gene ;one conduct to the Government I never can forget, whose amiable and popular character in this house men of all sides acknowledge with pleasure —even the accomplished and noble lord the member for Tiverton could not help warning us, though in a pleasant sunny way, not to em bark in a Chancery snit. But her Majesty's Ministers embarked in that Chancery suit, and I am proud to say it is the greatest, the most successful, and the most popular Chancery suit with the people of England which has ever been entered upon. (Loud cheers). Well, sir, the party which had perpetrated enormous mischief had pledged themselves to advise her Majesty to dissolve Parlia ment. I have come to the dissolution of Parliament ; but there is a chapter in the history of the late Parliament upon which I mast touch, before I refer to the consequence of that appeal to the country. Sir, I have shown to the house what has been the course of the Protectionist party in the Paaliament with respect to those three great measures, which are properly described as the three great measures of free trade—the repeal of the cornl-awe, the repeal of the in; gar laws, and th e re p ea l o f th e nav igation laws. I have mown to the house that from the moment those three mea- Z r e i 4 were carried, we never in any way whatever attempted were that settlement--and, in sympathy with those who enze're,, connected with of the house, we brought forward men ter, k it Iv , Jett with them which were of a remedial charac pies ve,eli in Pb way disturbed or challenged the princi now wi-',7l4rnich those laws were passed. (Hear.) Well, sir, t h eg , ren 7 p - t art as the conduct with respect to these subjects of sections, th et 3 i:_fore me, or ratherl would say of the united present IWim, try ",, eembined to terminate the career of the sections have , perpot I shall show to the house that those selves. I will takorted as enormous mischiefs as we our- Peel. They may ;3 followers of the late Sir Robert ability, their gre a t Z p b e g numerous, but looking to their expression to their o m rie nce, and their power of giving mons to w ith great respect in ahl ..4 --e se Y m m b u i s y t e alr H a ea ys r, be listened cheers.) Far be it from me g hear, and present their conduct, w ill l ' i l i i nterpret, or to misre examine the lists of it H a nsard" to see how many follow°cmrs of that eminent per m )12 voted with my propositions for oas_i a ii.es of a rdrnedial character. I will treat them with conscious if I misrepresent any h o ,l; i o rn r ess, and I am night, it is from inadvertce, which or anything ay g s to cannot will take as their representative avoided. they cannot help acknowledging as their wi n ,. Whom meat. I will take that distinguished statesman and hfourmtbhleoUrnepivr.ezint ive o complished debater the Ox ford (Mr. Gladstone). in the the party who has perpetrated enormous mischief . last five years, the house will see whether I have not re ceived the sanction of that distinguished man. I b rought forward a motion when the sufferings of the cultivat ors of the soil were most severe, which, without pledging the house t o any thi ng, asked for inquiry by a committee of the wh o l e house into the incidence of taxation on that body. That there might be no mistake as to the nature of the ineasaires that I proposed, I mentioned, in the observa tions with which I prefaced that motion, to what extent I would proceed on that house with d etails ; it occasio n. ie for me to say • I will not tthraotubilte was temperate in ton e and moderate in conception, that it evinced a sympathy with th ose suffering, and proposed change in th e i ncidence of taxation which though not considerable was most offensive the establishment charg es of the poor-la w an d other items of that kind. (He ar ' hear.) Still it was a matter of great great interest out of doors g that those who were suffering should have a test of the feelings and symp a th y o f this house. (Hear, hear.) Sir, on that occasion I rece i ved the distinguished and memor- able support of the right hon. gentleman the member for the University of Oxford—(loud cheers)—in one of the ablest speeches with which that able speaker has ever fa voured us. (Ministerial cheers.) Now, as a vindication of my course in the line which I took for nearly three years in this house. On February the 19th, 18i, , a year before the first break up of the noble lord's adminis tration, what was the view taken of my conduct by , one of the most eminent members of this house, be tween whom and myself there is no political sym pathy, but who looks naturally to this party with no friendly feelings ? In answer to those who charged us with trying to obtain protection for the farmers under a disguise, Mr. Gladsome said " he thought in this proposal there was an actual obstacle to the revival of pro tection ;" " that the present motion, if not perfect justice, was an approximation to justice." (Loud cheers.) "It was said the poor rate was a tax inherited by the landed interest, and that their property having come to them on this con dition they had no claim to be relieved from the payment. How did the matter rest with respect to their inheritance ? They did inherit poor-rates with their land, but they also inherited with it a protective system." (Loud cheers from the government side of the house.) lam not giving this as my opinion. lam not asking the house to agree with this opinion. I am not quoting to substantiate my opinion. I am quoting it only as showing the opinion of one of the most distinguished members of this house, not acting in political connexion, but rather inclined to look at my con duct with a jealous and critical eye. (Renewed cheers.) He saw nothing of that enormous mischief, but rather thought it a most praiseworthy, judicious, and politic course, and with a winning eloquence almost gained the assent of the house, because to his speech I attribute the glories of that division. (Hear, hear) "But while," continued the right honourable gentleman, "while he rejoiced in the full evi dence that a large portion of the community were in the en joyment of at least an equal or more than an average share of comfort, yet the condition of the farming class, and of the agricultural labourers in a large portion of England, to say nothing of Ireland, was such as to demand the careful attention and consideration of the honse." We are told we must not make any allusion, even any hypothetical allu sion, to any class being injured ; and here we have the highest, the most free trading authority in the house, tell ing the house that the condition of the agricultural interest was such as to demand—demand, mind you—the attention of the house. (Cheers.) The right hon. gentleman went further, and said—" And if he spoke of them as justice, compassion, and prudence prompted, he need not wait for the financial statement of the year in order to do so." "It was impossible to avoid the conclusion that a severe struggle was going on, and that the farmers as a class were manfully exerting themselves to meet the crisis." Now he was desir ous that the house should show a disposition to give aid and encouragement to the tenantry and yeomanly of the country in their struggle on their own behalf, and on account of the vast national interests connected with maintaining our do mestic agriculture." "He trusted something to that spirit of liberality and conciliation which induced men to concede something to those over whom theyobtained a great triumph." (Ministerial cheers.) Now, sir,'that is the language, that I think is the beautiful and unexceptionable language, of the right hon. gentleman : and surely the right hon. gentleman is not the man who will rise to-night and say, that in my motion I was perpetrating enormous mischief, since he has left on record his opinion that the course I was pursuing in showing sympathy to a suffering class, and commencing re medial legislation, would absolutely prevent a recurrence to that protection of which he is so much afraid. (Pro longed cheering.) So far, therefore, as the opinions of the followers of Sir Robert Peel with reference to the course taken by the Protectionist party on the first great subject, the repeal of the corn-laws, I need go no further ; but I will pursue the investigation, still doing the justice to Sir Robert Peel's party of selecting their most accomplished champion. Let us see with regard to the second great ques tion—sugar. On the 31st of May, 1850, only two sessions ago, the question of the sugar producing colonies, the great distress they were then experi enc i ng , was brought before the house. The subject was introduced, I believe, by the late member for Essex, Sir E. Buxton, and the whole Protectionist party supported the policy recommended by Sir E. Buxton. In what way did the followers of Sir Robert Peel meet that question ? " Sir," said the right honourable gentleman the member for the Uni versity of Oxford, we recollect the crisis through which. the West Indies have passed, presenting a great in dustry and a great interest, not suffering and complaining merely, but absolutely ground down and reduced to total ruin by the legislation of this house." We must not refer to recent legislation but in terms of studied panegyic. (Hear, hear.) We are going to re-establish the sliding scale, if, for a moment, we suppose that recent legislation, with the great blessings it accomplished, has been attended with injury to certain classes. But the right hon. gentle man—the greatest light on this question—holds up the total ruin which the sugar-producing interest has incurred. And by what ? By the legislation of this house. (Hear, hear, and loud cheers.) "We are forced to the con clusion," said the followers of Sir Robert Peel, because every one of the friends of the right honourable gentleman wisely followed so distinguished a leader—" we are forced to the conclusion of my hon. friend the member for Droit wich, to which my hon friend opposite is, I believe, pre pared to adhere, as well as I am myself, to extend to the British West Indies that protection which is now vanishing before their eyes for such time as may be necessary for the production of those useful public works that may lead to ultimate cheapness of production • while at the same time I ask you still more to adopt this course on behalf of that class for whom you have before made such sacrifices, and who are now fast sinking back to the de graded condition from which they were originally raised by your philanthropy and benevolence." (Hear, hear.) It seems that the followers of Sir R. Peel—who are banded, we are told, against the existence of that Government upon whom they are always calling to produce these measures, on two great questions—first, on agricultural distress, and secondly, on the distress of the colonial sugar-producing interest—entirely approved the policy pursued by the Pro tectionist party. What was their policy as regards the third test ? The moment the navigation-laws were repealed we gave up the battle. Never was any motion made by honourable gentlemen on this side of the house—l do not recollect any party, motion—to attempt a recurrence to the old laws. But there was a motion questioning the propriety of their repeal. The right honourable gentleman the mem ber for the University of Oxford, when the bill was read a third time, raised his eloquent voice in favour of recipro city, and laid on the table of the house a clause to that effect. (Cheers.) Well, sir, I have now submitted the con duct of the party which has perpetrated enormous mischief on the three great questions which make up the code of free trade. I have submitted the followers of Sir R. Peel to the same tests, and I find sanction and approval of our course by those distinguished men. But that section, even if I can satisfy them, may not be numerous enough to save us from the peril in which we find ourselves. I must endea vour to see whether I cannot act on the consciences of a party more numerous and therefore more influential. Let us see what the noble lord and his friends the Whigs have done. Let us apply the three tests to the late Government and their followers. Has their conduct been such that they can now, by their vote and speeches, declare that no great interest in this country has ever been injured by recent legislation, and that in sympathising with those interests we have during the last five years been perpetrating enor mous mischiefs ? I brought forward a motion which ex pressed some sympathy with the landowners of England, and made some slight attempt to alleviate the burdens on the farmers in that time of severe pressure which the right hon. gentleman the member for the University of Oxford so beautifully and eloquently described. I have been called the farmer's friend, but what I did was nothing to what the noble lord the member for London did. (A laugh.) The noble lord went to his Sovereign, and took upon him self the responsibility of recommending her Majesty to sympathise with them. (Cheers.) The noble lord recom mended the Sovereign in her gracious speech from the Throne, to acknowledge, not only that depression, but that con tinued depression. What did he mean by that ? Was the Ministry justified in such a course, except for the purpose of signifying that legislation was necessary? (Cheers.) Certainly a Ministry which did that is not a Ministry which can come forward and pretend that, because I brought forward motions for relieving the cultivators of the soil, of "Hear, hear," and immense applau se .) C er t a i n l y a Ministry which did that has no right to say the question now is, whether we shall maintain free trade or return to protection. (Renewed cheers.) What has been the con duct of the noble lord with regard to the second test ? I have already referred to it, but I allude to it again only to complete the picture. The noble lord has done more for the sugar interest than any person in this house. (Hear.) He brought in a bill to prolong protection, to assi s t th em in that unfair struggle to which they were subjected not only by recent legislation, but by his own legislation. (Loud cheers.) I come to the third test—the sufferings of the shipping interest. The noble lord refreshed himself, not only by acknowledging the burdens and restrictions, but he positively said they impeded its prosperity. Now, an interest whose prosperity is impeded must be a suffering interest, and cannot be called flourishing and enjoying all the advantages of the system of which the noble lord is the champion. (Hear, hear, and cheers.) I have shown you that on three great subjects of recent legislation, on which we have solicited the attention of the house with regard to the injury inflicted on particular interests, we have the authority of all the followers of Sir Robert Peel, of the late Government, and all their followers, too. (Cheers and laughter.) I admit there is a party in this house, though it may not be a numerous one, which has been consistent—(hear)—and I admit there is one individual in this house who has been consistent from the be ginning, and has a right to make the speech he has made to-night, and that is the member for Wolverhampton. (Prolonged cheers.) I have sat in this house for a great many years with the hon. and learned gentleman, and I had the honour and gratification of his acquaintance many years before we either of us thought of being in this house, sad I always have remarked in him two qualities for which he is distinguished —precision of thought and facility of expression. (Derisive cheers from the Ministerialists.) I find no fault with his speech. His speech is the same which he has always made. (Land laughter.) Ido not make that observation with any feeling approaching a sneer. I mean to say he can look back to the period with self-complacency, to the time when I remember him sitting almost to the last on the benches on this side of the house, and when, with a command of language only to be obtained by the master of his subject, never omitting a single point, and against the prejudices of all, he denounced the system of the corn-laws. (Loud cheers from the Opposition.) There were no cheers then from the followers of Sir R. Peel. (Cheers.) There were no enthusiastic adherents in defunct Whig Ministers. (Renewed cheers.) On the contrary, the right honourable gentleman the member for Carlisle (Sir J. Graham) threw his broad shield over the territorial interest of England (hear, hear), and any body, I believe, but the hon. gentleman, the member for Wolverhampton, would have sunk under the unequal affray. (Cheers.) I honour, respect, and admire his career, but I cannot agree to his resolution, and I will give him, in due time, the reason why I object to it. I have to night to put before the house the case of the Government ; and if I am diffuse, and if I trespass too long on the house, they will be generous enough to remember that they are in fact a jury to-night, and that I am speaking to them and appealing to them before they decide more important things than the fate of a Government. (Loud cheers.) All I care for is—whatever may be the decision of the house — that at least I should have the opportunity of putting the ,V_o e v n ernment in their right position, and especially with re turb the r-61nning "r ce to parties which, lam told, are banded together to from the Ovetu it (Cheers.) I have shown to the house that unless thewe resolved never to attempt to dis underno c e i p r e m al of any of these three bodies of laws—that niinces could this country retrace its steps, strong and most nently wors ene d Conditio n t of the working classes were perma s.nit?'.t., during all the time there was a syrarathiwiot only acknowledged by states whose suffering s .; er e e nn a g party out of the house—a party men, but )nd by the Crown. (Hear, aders, tha y t hear, and c)ieers. were not to encourage these are we to be told that we appeal, that they were suffering, as they believed, all the distresses C o lieved, from the deser tion of their natural le were ehlicolt secure for them at least the Constitutional to not under a misapprehension, would h. the , m f ea th ns ey o r r r e e d ress ing their grievances ? I wish to bring in no external causes as to the course which we took. I will only say, as one returned to this house by my constituents, I could not have approved a policy which should have induced me to desert them in their hour of trial. But, difficult as was the position under which we were placed with these suffer inginterests, that position was greatly aggravated when the most powerful Minister of the Crown was perpetually advising the Sovereign to acknowledge their distress, or bringing in measures of partial or temporary relief. How could you expect these parties to believe in the permanence of a legislation with which you yourselves were constantly meddling. I have shown to the house that, acting on two principles, we determined—first, th a t we wou ld no t di s t ur b that legislation unless the working classes were permanently suffering ; and secondly, by remedial legislation we would endeavour to alleviate and mitigate as much as possible any just claims to relief set before us—claims which all sections of the Opposition but one had acknowledged and attempted to alleviate. (Cheers.) We now come to the dissolution of Parliament. The dissolution of Parliament took place I think in the month of July. The moment that the elections were terminated, it was the duty of her Majesty's Government to form a definite and conclusive opinion as to the feeling of the people on this question of attempting to advocate the repeal of the laws of 1846, 1847, and 1849, which affected the importation of corn, the importation of sugar, and the navigation of the country. There was no question in the minds of her Majesty's Minis ters as to the result of that election. There was no doubt that there was not only not a preponderating majority in favour of changing the laws passed in those years, or even of modifying them in any degree, but that the decisive opinion on the part of the country was that that settlement should not be disturbed. (Cheers.) When we acceded to office in the spring there were then two courses open to us. If we had formed an opinion from what we had heard, that there was no prospect of the country sanctioning the abrogation of those laws, we might have brought forward measures of a remedial or modifying charac ter, such as we thought likely the house would sanction, and which some might believe would satisfy those out of doors. That was one course. The other was the one which we adopted, and we adopted that course irrespective of any other obligations. Our conviction was, that after such great changes had taken place—after there had been excited in the country so much alarm, and so much distress had been experienced by various classes— after that distress had been acknowledged from the Throne —after that distress had been attempted to be mitigated by statesmen of all parties and of the highest character— those who were discontented with the legislation would never be satisfied until there had been an appeal to the constituencies. We were convinced that if measures had been brought forward which the sense of the house might have passed, which might have been conciliatory in charac ter and most just and beneficent in conception, still there would always have been a large party in the country, and no inconsiderable party in the house, who would have always said they had been betrayed by their friends, that their principles had been abandoned, that the Government had miscalculated the spirit and feelings of the country, that a Protectionist policy was the policy the country was really in favour of, and as in 1846 and 1847, the opinion of the country had either been evaded or not appealed to. (Hear and cheers.) Irrespective, then, of the pressure of Par liament, we felt convinced that it would be for the advan tage of the country, and for the permanent welfare and happiness of all classes, that the question should be settled, and that those who did believe in the propriety of main taining a protective policy for the future should have a constitutional opportunity of vindicating their opinions. And what has been the consequence ? Sir, the conse quence has been that that has happened which always happens among the people of England, namely, that having had a fair trial, and having been beaten, they are not ashamed to acknowledge their discomfiture. (Hear, hear.) If they had not had that trial, and been beaten, for years and years you would have had a Parliamentary party in this house who would have believed in the possibility of carrying out a Protectionist system of policy, and who, when suffering under the vicissitudes which come round in a series of years, would have attributed that suffering to the policy which you are so anxious to support. Sir, I admire and respect the feeling shown under such circumstances by so large a body of persons ; and yet what is the way in which you have met them ? You have met them—l will not say with the insult of a bully, because that is not Parliamentary language—(a laugh)—but I will say that it is not a wise nor a politic spirit that could possibly have framed the resolution which has been presented to-night. (Cheers.) I have already acquitted the honourable and learned gentleman of being a party to his own resolution, so that he for one cannot be offended by that observation. (A laugh.) No, it is probably those who have a sympathy for something more than free trade who have concocted this resolution. Well, sir, after the general election had taken place, and the verdict of the country had been given, her Majesty's Government felt that it had but one course to pursue, namely, frankly to acknowledge the decision of the country, and unreservedly to act upon that decision. But lam told that we have not done that. lam told that the language of the Queen's speech was not satisfactory. We certainly did not recommend the Sovereign to speak like a partisan. (Cheers from the Ministerial benches.) There is a certain reserve in the language of the Throne, the propriety of which, under such circumstances, is always acknowledged. The speech from the Throne to the people is always recommended by the advisers of the Crown, but still it is the language of the Sovereign. (Hear, hear, hear.) The Sovereign may be called upon to-morrow to use different language, and for a different purpose, but it has always been acknowledged that it ought to be distin guished by a proper reserve. In 1850 the noble lord the member for London, who was then at the head of the Government, told us what sort of language the Minister of the Crown should recommend to the Throne. The Man chester school was then displeased that the noble lord did not speak out in the Queen's speech with the freedom that becomes the atmosphere of Free-trade Hall. But what said the noble lord on that occasion ? "It appeared to us, much as we should have rejoiced in an opportunity of ad vising her Majesty to declare the opinions we entertain with respect to the recent commercial policy, that the time was not a fit one to propose that that expression of opinion should fall from her Majesty. It has always appeared to us that, in conformity to recent custom with regard to matters of legislation, upon which Parliament may have to give an opinion in the course of the session—it is better to reserve those questions upon the first night of the session, and rather to give an opinion as to the actual state of the country than to attribute that legislation to any acts of the Government." (Loud cries of hear, hear,' from the Ministerial side of the house.) Now, observe what the hon. and learned member for Wolverhampton said about the Queen's speech, of which he made a most unintentional, but at the same time a most erroneous, misrepresen tation. He said that the Queen's speech was "in the conditional mood." Now, I deny that there was any con dition attached to it. All we said was, that if a great deal of good had injured any class—which we did not assert— (a laugh)—and we should have acted most indecently to wards the house if we had said so—we should be ready to consider their claims. The house was not even asked to echo that passage in the Speech, and we drew up the Ad dress so that the answer of the house might be, ‘, We thank her Majesty for her Majesty's recommendation. (Ironical cheers from the Opposition side of the house.) In doing so, we followed the precedents that have always been set by the noble lord, but which he now finds it convenient to disclaim. The Queen's Speech, however, did absolutely contain a distinct affirmation that the principle of our commercial code was the principle of unrestricted com petition. That principle had been acquiesced in after due deliberation on the part of the Government. Th e First Minister of the Crown spoke in the most explicit manner in that sense on the first night of the session. I also made some observations which the right hon. ourable gentleman the member for the ;University of Oxford considered so strong that he doubted whether those who supported my views could stomach them. There could, therefore, have been no confusion with respect to the opinions of her Majesty's Government. But you com plain that her Majesty did not assert in the speech from the Throne that the principle of unrestricted competition ought to be paramount, although the First Minister of the Crown had stated that he knew the decision of the country was against protection, and that he accepted the conse quences of that decision ; and you say that it is not enough that I have placed on the table an amendment which the honourable and learned member for Wolverhampton seems hardly to touch. You have first, then, the re solution of the honourable and learned member, and next the amendment which, on the part of my friend s , I have proposed f or th e reasons which I ha ve ex pressed. Now, first of all, let us consider the resolution of the honourable and learned member for Wolverhampton. I say, in the first place, that it is unprecedented, and that, in the second place, it is impolitic and unwise. Let us consider the equity and policy of the two motions before the house by a comparison of parallel instances in simi lar cases. I will take, first, the Hou se o f C ommons after the Reform Bill, and the positi on o f th e Govern ment in 1835. Sir Robert Peel and his friends had offered to the Reform Bill a powerful and a prolonged opposition. Sir Robert Peel suddenly became Minister in 1835, and while he was the First Minister of the Crown he elaborately expressed his determination not to disturb the Reform Bill, though he did not approve of it. What would you have thought then of an Opposition which, in a new Parliament and with a Ministry in such a position, had brought for ward a resolution declaring that the Reform Bill was a wise, just, and beneficial measure ? (Hear, hear.) Pursue the course which you are now pursuing, for the question is much greater than the question of our personal interests, and you render Parliamentary Government impossible in this country. A Government of parties, with opinions which must be periodically vanquished, must cease to be practicable, because if yon pursue the course which you are now following, from the moment that the successful party accedes to power, a resolution must be brought for ward eulogising in vague terms the policy which those who previously formed the Government have conscientiously op posed. Take another instance. Let us suppose that a new Government is formed ; let us suppose further that the Government is formed of the followers of Sir Robert Peel. Some honourable gentleman may not approve of the noble lord's returning to power , but I shall make no obj ec ti on to him if he wishes it. Neverthe less we will ima g ine a different Now the followers of Sir R. P eel were opposed, a littl e l ess called upon by her Majesty to form an Admi nistration. case, and suppose that the fo llowers of Sir Rob ert Peel are that ever passed into law in this give no than two years ago, to one of the most upnotrypular measures be cause I do not wish to wound t that it was one of the most popu lar opinion now on the wisdom or pohleicyfeeoflitnhgast of.m e t a h s a ursee, Wha were opposed to it ; but followers acceptance nf s Sir rf Robertt the Legisla turePeel there measures is n e ever er doubt. offered tT The t e h opposed that bill—l allude to the Ecclesiastical Titles Bill—because they said it was maki n g war u p on Irela nd. I do not suppose, however, that if th e y take office to ;or. w (Hear,th e y meanhear.) a r. ) t oresci n Ecclesiastical Neither, on possible to carry a resolution, in the event of their taking office, that the E cclesiasti cal Titles Bill was a wise, just, and benefi cial measure . ot her I suppose that it would be (Cheers from the Ministerial benches.) But the case is more aggravated than it seems to be by these instances. Take the case of Sir Robert Peel in 1835. Let us remember under what circumstances he acceded to office, for although he was probably as guiltless as any man in her Majesty's dominions of what occurred, he came into office under circumstances which produced great acrimony and irritation. The former Administration was displaced by what looked like a Court intrigue, and the Parliament, while still young, was sent back to its con stituents. Sir Robert Peel was guiltless of any participa tion in any intrigue, for he was absent from England at the time, but still he was made the Minister of the Crown under odious and objectionable circumstances, and he was obliged to meet, with balanced parties, a hostile Parlia ment and enraged rivals. The noble lord was engaged to operate in that case—(a laugh)—and the noble lord has never been backward in what we call a well-regulated party feeling. (Cheers and laughter.) The noble lord may be said to have had almost a personal outrage inflicted on him. He was supported by a party in this house, who were thirsting for vengeance, and if anything could have justified such a course, the noble lord would have been jus tified in moving such a resolution as that which has been proposed by the hon. and learned member for Wolverhamp ton. He might have said that the former Ministry had been unduly dismissed, and he might have called upon the house to declare that it was a wise, just, and beneficial Go vernment. The noble lord, however, did nothing of the kind. Now what are the circumstances of this case ? Has a free-trade Ministry been supplanted by a protectionist intrigue ? Quite the contrary. The Government of the noble lord fell to pieces from internal dissensions —he was not turned out of office—and instead of being the victim of a court intrigue, the noble lord, in the most constitutional manner, is really responsible for our existence. (Great laughter). Since we have been in power we have been forced to make several pledges to Parliament and the country, and we have ful filled them all but one. We fulfilled our pledge, notwith standing the impediments offered by what we thought a factious opposition, to bring forward such measures as we deemed to be absolutely necessary for the country. We did bring those measures forward, and they were successful. We pledged ourselves also to dissolve Parliament as soon as the public convenience would permit, and to make an appeal to the country on free trade, which appeal should be final. We further pledged ourselves that there should be an autumnal session of the earliest possible opportunity. We were sneered at, and taunted for not calling Parliament together at an earlier period. Those who are acquainted with affairs know that it was impossible that we should meet earlier, and that we have met early enough to give any opinion on any sub ject no man can dispute. I myself had given a pledge that I would bring forward those measures which I thought the altered circumstances of the country required. Not having any factious spirit, I com municated to my constituents my frank views on the position of affairs, and I told them that in assimilating our financial with our commercial system the exigency of the occasion would be met. That engagement I might have postponed, but that engagement I am ready to fulfil. The measures which I might have brought forward, and which I should have brought forward but for what I must call this vexatious movement, are founded on the principle of unrestricted competition —in other words, on the prin ciple of free trade. These measures have been offered to my colleagues, and but for this resolution there is no reason why I should not have offered them to the con sideration of the house. They were met by a resolution which may destroy the Government, a circumstance which may not appear dangerous to the honourable and learned member for Wolverhampton, but that resolution establishes a precedent which may destroy more Govern ments than one. (Hear.) How easy it would have been, if our purposes were not fixed, and our policy not open, for me to have moved the previous question, but I would not do so. I believe the country is convinced that since we have acceded to office we have behaved in an honourable manner. I feel sure that in giving an opportunity to our friends in the country constitutionally to vindicate their opinions, we have taken that course which will contribute to the permanent welfare and content of the country, and I for one have received my reward, as all my . colleagues have also, i n th e assurances which have been given by all my friends in this house, and many of my friends in the country, that they feel we have done all that men of honour could do, and that, the country having decided against their opinion; they are prepared to accept that altered policy which the circumstances of the times require. Sir, the honourable and learned member for Wolverhampton asserts that the duties of a minister are merely nominal. I can only say that I hope,,when he becomes a minister, that he will not be disappointed in that view of the case. (A laugh.) I trust, also, that he will not be disappointed in the assistance which he expects to receive from the civil servantslof this coudtry. Their devotion to the public ser vice is one of the most beautiful features in the adminis tration of public affairs. (Hear, hear.) They have not public fame, but I hope that they will always have the support of the Government whom they serve. I will say, however, that the toils and responsibilities of office are as much as can be borne by any one man, and I do not think that they can be sustained by any one who has not the support of self-respect. This I can say for myself and my colleagues, that we neither seek to be, nor will be, Ministers on sufferance. (Cheers.) We took our counsel, without inquiring whether the late Par liament was or was not hostile, at the general desire of the country. We meant to administer diligently, fairly, and sedulously, the affairs brought under consideration till such time as there had been an appeal to the country. But, whatever were the exigencies of the cases then, in the old Parliament, we neither desire, nor will submit, to an indulgence in the view which is foreign to the spirit of the British constitution. Sir, I am content here to leave the case of the Government. That I have placed it before the house very imperfectly. I can easily conceive; but the subject was somewhat large, and I have endea voured to be as succinct as the circumstances required and would allow. If I had only personal feeling to consider I would sit down, but I think that, speaking for the Government, and under the circumstances in which they find themselves, something of public duty may mix with personal sentiment. Sir, we believe that we have a policy that will conduce to the welfare, the pro sperity, and the content of the country. I hope it is not an unworthy ambition to desire to have an opportunity of submitting it to Parliament. (Cheers.) I am told that is not to be the case • but I will say some thing in behalf of that policy. We will not without a struggle yield to an attack so unfair as that to which we are subjected. I will not believe, remembering that this is a new Parliament, that those who enter it for the first time, have already in their consciences recorded their votes upon this question. I believe that they have listened in a spirit of justice and candour to the plea I have put forward to-night. It is to those new members—a third of the house —on whichever side they sit, that I appeal with confidence. They have entered—many of them after . much longing they have just entered that scene to which they have looked forward with so much earnestness, suspense, and interest. I have no doubt they are animated by a noble ambition, and wish to realise—may of them—lordly aspirations. I can say from the bottom of my heart, wherever they sit, I trust they may not be disappointed. Whatever adds to the worth, intelligence, and eloquence of the house, adds also to the consideration of the aggregate, and we are all of us interested in maintaining the moral and intellectual predominance of the House of Commons. I appeal to the generous and young, and ask them, when they are at last upon the threshold of the senate, not to become the tools or the victims of exhausted factions, or obsolete politics. (Loud cheers.) Mr. BRIGHT said he had listened with that attention, which the whole house evinced, to the speech of the right hon. gentleman, and he expected when he rose that he would, at least, make a fair attempt to answer the speech of his hon. and learned friend the member for Wolverhampton. He could not conceive that the right hon. gentleman lost sight unintentionally of the points of his hon. friend's speech, and of the real question now in dispute between the Government and his hon. friend. If the right hon. gentleman avoided entering into the question which had been introduced to the notice of the house, he (Mr. Bright) was at least justified in avoiding a very large portion of it, and paying attention in the first place to one or two points which he urged very strongly. He wished to make it ap pear that he was now a member of a Free-trade Govern ment, and acting with a Free-trade party, and yet he re peatedly, especially during the six sentences at the conclu sion of his speech, urged that the body of men with whom he was associated was the Protectionist party. He said that he had taken no step since 1846, in that direction, but he forgot that in 1850, he voted in favour of a resolu tion that the house should resolve itself into a com mittee of the whole house to take into consideration the acts relating to the importation of foreign corn—(cheers) — which was made by an hon. gentleman seduced to his side by his promises to the farmers, namely, one of the mem bers for the eastern division of Gloucestershire. (Cheers.) He also said, that as regarded sugar and ships, he took the same course, but he omitted to state that the present Se cretary for the Colonies was almost incessantly occupied with this subject, supported by the right hon. gentleman, and that another of them was now the governor of their possessions in India. Co M nL It.r.olILE. RRIES—No, no ; President of the Board of Mr. BRIGHT was induced to say so from the fact that the predecessor of the right hon. gentleman stated, before the Committee on Salaries, that he was really the ruler of India. The right hon. gentleman brought forward a motion on the navigation laws which, after repeated taunts of his hon. friend the member for Stoke-upon-Trent, he at length brought forward, but did not venture to go to a division. The right hon. gentleman, in his usually adroit manner, adopting the course pursued by the late Sir Robert Peel, attempted to fix on the noble lord and his colleagues, cer tain delinquincies,—a n d thought in this way to ride off from the question at issue. (Hear, hear.) He was pre cisely the man to bring this question before the house. Re it was who asked the right honourable gentleman what he meant last February or March, when he said he would appeal to the country, and to the country he had now appealed. The right hon. gentleman would have the house to understand that they had not cultivated protection much at the elections. But if they had not done so much in the boroughs, they had in the counties. (Hear.) There was not one of the counties that had not been fought ex clusively upon protectionist principles. But the resolutions aro the matters for us to consider. He was willing to admit that the resolution now proposed bythe right hon. gentleman on the part of the Government, was far in advance of the former portion of his political career. That resolution in volved something which it was essential for the house and the country to come to a decision upon. Although it might be inconvenient for the Government to come to any decision upon it, yet it was that which the country expected them to come to a decision upon. The resolution declared that it was the opinion of that house that the improved condition 1 of the country, a n d espec i a lly the working classes, was mainly the result of recent legislation, and especially of the act of 1846, establishinc , the free admission of foreign corn, and that that act was a just and beneficial measure. He asked if the whole country, m an, woman, and child, were polled with regard to that particular passage in the resolu tion, would there not be an overwhelming majority in its favour? (Cheers.) He asked if the whole electoral body were polled also for their opinion upon the same subject, whether there would not be in favour of that particular Passage a majority in its favour of at least nine to one ? (C heers.) Was there any man in that house who voted for the measure of 1846 who could possibly have any doubt on that subject ? (Hear.) If he had any doubt then, could he possibly have any doubt after six years' experience? (C heers.) But the Parliament of 1817 came to the same conclusion, and during the whole course of its existence re sisted any approach to unsettle that question, by declaring that free-trade policy was not just and beneficial. (Cheers.) And now the new Parliament of 1852, called under the auspices of a Protection Government — for, whatever they were now, they went to the hustings upon protection prin ciples—it was now about to decide, and the present Minis try did it themselves, that a large portion of the recent free trade legislation had been beneficial to the working classes of this kingdom. The Protection Ministry had come so far into their ranks as to admit that. (Hear, hear.) But he had not yet gone the whole way, and seeing that the right hon. gentleman (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) had been the advocate of protection, and that his hon. friend (Mr. Villiers) had been for fifteen years the consistent champion and advocate of free trade, when Parliament was called upon to give its final verdict upon that policy, was it fit that the terms of that verdict should be drawn up by the enemy of that system, or by him who had been altogether its supporter ? (Loud cheers) Some gentleman said—(he spoke rather of what he had heard in private)—that it was a mere private dispute about words. Then, if so, he (Mr. Bright) thought that if any one was to have his feelings consulted or his recommendations obeyed, it was cer tainly his honourable friend (Mr. Villiers), the old and long-tried advocate of free trade. (Cheers.) The terms selected by the long and devoted advocate of the cause should be preferred to those of its op ponent. (Cheers.) But he did not concede that the words were unimportant. The resolution and the amend ment differed. The words were not the same—the princi ple was not the same—the cause was not the same. He would show where it differed. His hon. friend's motion established a principle—that of the right hon. gentleman announced a fact. His hon. friend's motion declared that their experience made it more and more their duty to pro mote and cherish free trade throughout the country and the whole world—(cheers)—while the amendment of the Government had concealed behind anything or everything, device, hazards, injuries, and certain injustice to certain interests ; and perhaps, if Parliament chose to give it, com pensation to certain interests. (Cheers.) Did the right hon. gentleman believe the house to be so simple, or that he was such a penitent as he appeared to be, and to be taken as a man wholly to be trusted on this question ? When he looked back to the former career and for mer speeches of the right hon. gentleman, he would trust him only under certain conditions. Six years was not so long a period that they had forgotten what he said on those benches. (Hear, hear, hear.) Now, could they forget all he had said and done, not in that house, but out of that house. (Cheers.) The right honourable gentleman had said that he had stated that the question of labour was the great question before the country. But if ever one statement was more incorrect than another, his was that. (Hear, hear.) Did he not recollect, not only the speech of the right honourable gentleman himself, but the speeches all over the country, by honourable members he saw in dozens before him ? He recollected a deputation going to wait upon the Earl of Derby in St. James's-street. Did he did not discover the excited and hopeful feelings with which these simple gentlemen left town ? (Hear, and laughter.) He knew they went to the right honourable gentleman, on one occasion, and he never was more amused in his life than in reading hisTanswer, for it was impossible for the deputation to make head or tail of it. The right honourable gentleman charged them with sometlAng like indecency in forcing them to this resolution, and he quoted the precedent of Sir Robert Peel, in 1835. But when they went to precedents there should be some analogy be tween thq cases. When the Reform Bill became the law of the land, did he and his supporters go about declaring that it was destructive to the country, and that it must be undone? (Hear, hear.) No. If Sir Robert Peel had done so, the very first thing he would have done on his return from Italy would have been against the Reform Bill. But Sir Robert Peel at once accepted the legislation of that day. (Hear.) Had the right hon. gentleman and his supporters followed that course in reference to free-trade policy ? It was amusing to find that the other precedents which the right hon. gentleman had attempted to set up were of the same description. There was another matter the right hon. gentleman had said he had constantly endeavoured to make it appear that the corn laws were granted either to compensate the agriculturists for special and heavy burdens, or that Parliament had imposed upon them special burdens during its existence ; but he never offered anything in proof of that statement which he made. (Hear.) He (Mr. Bright) had turned to the debates in 1815, and he was unable to find a single word to the effect that the corn laws were granted to compensate for any special burdens, or that any Chancellor of the Exchequer had said, in bringing forward new taxes, that the agriculturists were able to bear them as they had the protection of the corn laws. To go a little into statistics, it appeared from Mr. Porter's work, th a t from 1801 to 1815, taxes amounting to thirty-one and a half millions sterling were imposed, but it was not to be seen at all that any of these taxes were specially laid upon land. He run over the items of taxation, making a total of 31,538,0001. coming up to 1815. There was no special burden upon land among them. (Hear, hear.) He would then see how far taxes were repealed. The re was a total of 17,546,0001. repealed ; but no man could say that any single tax was laid in excess upon landowners. (Hear, hear.) But in laying on taxation, he found that all lost, and in repealing taxation all were gainers. He excluded the legacy and probate duties. In 1833 and 1834 the average poor-rate was less, by 1,810,000/. than in 1812 and 1813. And then if they thought of the enormous increase in the value of the property of the country, they would find the poor rates a mere insignificant burden as compared with the year 1812 and 1813. (Hear.) The legacy and probate duty, since 1737, had amounted to an enormous sum upon personal property, whereas freehold land had been entirely free. Up to 1845, in 49 years, 71,000,0001. had been paid by personal property to probate duty. When that measure was first brought in by Mr. Pitt, it was an equal imposition upon all, but the selfish landowners rejected that equable distribution, and made this distinction between personal and real property. In 1815 there was no pretence for the imposition of the corn laws. That law was the law of the strong, the wicked, and the cruel, and that character attached to it from the day it received the royal assent to the day the royal assent repealed it. The sum represented to have been lost by agriculture was not a fair representation. Increased production— improved cultivation—improved markets for animal food— cheaper living, made up for the loss, and there had been an enormous gain at the same time to all classes of the po pulation who were consumers of agricultural production. (Hear.) The right hon. gentleman admitted fairly that the country had decided against him, and the country had de cided the question with so much unanimity, that the free trade majority in that house was a very inadequate index to the majority throughout the country. He deprecated the adoption of the amendment, because he believed that something was kept back. Could any constituency doubt as to which resolution it was proper to adopt. Now what were the conclusions of the Government last year ? In reference to the course they had pursued, he had often wondered lately what would have been the :course taken by Lord George Bentinck if alive. When the facts were against him, and himself fairly beaten on the question, he would, he thought, have admitted it, but, at the same time, he thought he would have said that they were not the persons to be entrusted with the guardianship of free-trade, and rather than sticking pertinaciously to place—(oh, oh, and cries of " Hear, hear,")—he would recall the word, but that the right hon. gentlemen said that he did not mean to give up, he (Lord George Bentinck) would have said, We have to shuffle off our political creed—we had better go into oppo sition, and then there can be no imputation on our motives. (Cheers.) The hon. member here proceeded to read ex tracts from the reported speeches of members of the Go vernment and their supporters, delivered at the hustings during the late elections, and previously, with a view of showing, from their various declarations and professions, that they were not sincere converts to free trade, and that if they could not return to protection, if opportunity offered, they would attempt it in a new form. Amongst them Mr. Newdegate expressly declared that whether Lord Derby thought it not right to attempt protection in a new form or not, he would not be again the man to break up the Conservative party. Mr. Bag pledged himself to support Lord Derby, because no other Government would support that interest. The member for Cambridgeshire, Mr. Yorke, was particularly explicit. He expressed his determined ad hesion to the principles of protection, and was surprised at being called upon to abandon them because they were un tenable. (Laughter.) As well might they ask a man in a cage to abandon all ideas of liberty because he was con fined. He would not abandon his opinions, but would take the first opportunity of asserting them. (Hear.) Lord John Manners had said that Lord Derby would remedy the hasty legislation of 1846, either by a revision of local or general taxation, all of which they now thoroughly un derstand. Mr. Banks had proposed a duty on barley, oats, and beans, if they disagreed about the duty on wheat. (Laughter.) They denounced Sir James Graham as a deadly enemy—(renewed laughter) —and Mr. Ball, the member for Cambridgeshire, declared that the more he thought over free trade, the more he was convinced it was one of the greatest curses that ever befell the country. As to the condition of the country, let them look at the regu larity of employment, the excellent rate of wages that pre vailed, the improved social and moral state of the people. Let them observe, too, what a beautiful tranquillity reigned throughout the country. (Hear, hear.) Now, landholders, is it not a compensation to you that that tranquillity should exist ? With your 5,000, 10,000, 15,000, 20,000 acres many of you, is that no advantage to you ? If it were true that they had suffered— which he believed they had not, as a body—was it no compensation to them that they could enjoy their riches without incurring the envy of any class—that they could partake of them all, and enjoy them all, without the con sciousness of the heavy guilt that some poor starving wretch was toiling that they might be rich and powerful. He was satisfied, if they looked at the question in that light, that they would consider themselves amply compensated for whatever injury they might suppose the repeal of the corn laws had inflicted upon them, (Ironical cheers from the Protectionists.) The right honourable gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, on a recent occasion, in Buckinghamshire, he thought, stooped so low as to charge the Anti-Corn Law League—the revived League—with being a Jacobin club. He (Mr. Bright) was not sure that every hon. member knew exactly what was meant by a Jacobin club, so he would explain that the words meant something unpleasant—(a laugh)—a dispositi on t o turbu lence and disorders. 'Now every one must know — an d no one better than the right hon. gentleman himself—that he had not contributed a feather's weight to the tranquillity of the country or the efforts( of those whom he had not scrupled to vilify. (Hear.) The 12 years of their politi cal life (the Free-traders') had been directed expressly to this one object ; and though they might have made some mistakes, they had acted up to the dictates of their con sciences, and had done all they could for the good of their common country. (Cheers.) He now asked the house to stamp with the mark of its sanction its own policy— to set its seal for ever and irrevocably on the bill of 1846, and by its vote that night express its opinion— he would say its reprobation—of the conduct of the Govern ment, and at the same time establish its charter of free industry to the people of this kingdom. (Great cheering.) Mr. K. SEYMER, st.id the question really before the house was, had her Majesty's Ministers been sufficiently explicit as to what would be their future commercial policy ? He contended that their language was sufficiently clear not to mislead the country. The resolutions asked the house to say that the act of 1846 was wise, just, and bene ficial ; but a measure might be successful which was not wise at the time it passed ; and he thought that act, un accompanied by subsidiary measures, was not just. He (Mr. Seymer) vindicated the Protectionist party from the charge of assailing the late Sir R. Peel, and he denied that the present Ministers entered office on the question of pro tection. The late Government were not turned out ; they fell out. He should support the amendment. Mr. F. PEEL observed, that all must agree that her Majesty's Ministers had made very great advances, and continued to advance from one set of principles to another —from protection to free trade. The reason why he-pre ferred the original motion was that, although he gave the Government credit for a desire heartily to abide by the principle of free trade in any measures of financial and ad ministrative reforms they might submit to the house, he was not content with this ; he thought there was nothing unreasonable in exacting from them some test of the sin cerity of their convictions and intentions ; that, as they had abandoned their policy only at the last moment, they should recant once for all their false doctrines. Some reparation was also due for the past ; those who had heaped obloquy upon the authors of the act of 1846 should have the candour now to acknowledge that it was a wise, just, and beneficial measure. He by no means undervalued the admission made, which was most significant. It was admitted that the country was prosperous, and that the prosperity was due, not to the Government, but to unrestricted com petition. But when he looked closely to the amendment, he felt distrust; he found it studiously ambiguous as to the future, with a cold and unimpassioned reference to the past; and the prospective part ominously omitted all re ference to the question of compensation, which ought to be set at rest. Lord PALMERSTON then rose, and said—l shall not detain the house at any great length in stating the view which I take of the propositions submitted to us, and of the position in which the house seems likely to be placed. I have stated on a former occasion, and I repeat it now, that I think it was not only proper, but, under the circum stances, absolutely necessary, that some member should propose to the house a resolution answering the question which the Government had put to the country by the dis solution of the last Parliament. If, indeed, the speech from the Throne, had been, in regard to that part of it which treated of the question of free trade and protection, couched in language more plain and unambiguous, it is possible that the address in reply might have been accepted as the answer of the house on the part of the country to that question, as to the preference between the two oppo site principles of commercial policy. But in that respect the speech from the Throne was undoubtedly as ambiguous as words could make it ; and that fact increased the necessity in my opinion for some such measure as has been taken on this occasion. It was not necessary, indeed, with a view to settle what should be the policy of the Government and of Parliament that any opinion at all should be expressed on the subject; because those who have watched the progress of public opinion, and have observed events in this country must, I think, have long since made up their minds to the full conviction that a reversal of the system of 1846, and of succeeding years, was as impossible as any physical miracle that you could mention. But it was very fitting nevertheless, in some respects, that Parliament should ex press an opinion. But to give to that expression of opinion that weight which it is desirable it should carry, it is in my opinion most important that that opinion should be ex pressed, if not with unanimity, at least with as large a ma jority as possible. (Loud cheers from both sides of the house.) In regard to the resolution my hon. and learned friend has proposed, there is not a word in it to which I shall not be ready to subscribe. I think the measures and policy to which it refers were wise, were just, and have been beneficial. (Hear, hear.) I think with my hon. and learned friend, and with the Government, as they have expressed the conviction that the improved condition of the country, and especially of the industrious classes, has been mainly the result of that recent legis lation which has removed protective duties, and which has established the principle of unrestricted competition. I think I need not say that I concur with my hon. and learned friend and with her Majesty's Government in being ready to affirm that that system ought and must hencefor ward be the guiding rule of the legislation of the country. If, therefore, the motion of my hon. friend were put to this house of aye or no, I should be compelled by my own convictions to say aye. But I cannot but consider, also, not merely my own convictions and opinions, but the con victions of those who are required to concur in the proceed. ings of this house. (Loud cheers from the Protectionists, from which side of the house only was the noble lord cheered during the rest of his speech.) There is a large party in this house who have long held different opinions from those of my hon. and learned friend, and who have honourably, I think, now yielded their personal and ori ginal conviction to their sense of what is the opinion of the country and the inevitable force of events. (Cheers.) I for one am very far from joining in the taunts and reproaches addressed to that party. In a country like this there can not be amore dangerous doctrine to establish than that it is disgraceful to men to yield their convictions to the force of counteracting events and circumstances. (Hear, hear.) With such a doctrine established there would be an end to all progress or improvement. We meet here from day to day for no other purpose than to convince each other ; and every man who endeavours to persuade other people to come round to his opinions, debars himself in justice from the right of reproaching them when he has succeeded. I say, therefore, that the course taken by that party in surrendering their original impressions is as honourable to them as it is beneficial to the country. Taking that view, my opinion is that the resolution proposed by her Ma jesty's Government contains the fullest acknowledgment of the benefits which recent commercial legislation has produced—(cheers)—and does pledge every man who votes for it to contribute to render that system henceforward permanent. (Hear, hear.) In regard to the present and in regard to the future, I really see little difference in sub stance and fact between the resolution of my honourable friend and the resolution of the Government. (Cheers.) In some respects the resolution of the Government is stronger than even that of my honourable friend, because it concludes with an opinion of the house as to what it is the duty of her Majesty's Government to do. (Cheers.) That course is obviously unusual, and I should prefer the terms adopted by my honourable friend, who only states the readiness of that house to consider any measures that may be proposed, in conformity with the resolution the house may establish. But I regret to see a passage in the resolution of my honourable friend, which must be fairly considered by gentlemen opposite as a bar to their acceptance of the whole. (Loud cheers.) All that this country asks of Parliament—all that the country cares about is, what is Parliament going to do—what are to be the permanent principles of our legislation ? I don't think the country cares, or that it has a right to care, what may be the pri vate opinions of the party constituting the majority. To be making conditions in that respect is rather following the example of a tribunal which we aro not in the habit of imitating—it is like the practice of the In quisition, to compel people to come before you, and not content with their declarations that their conduct will be in conformity with your views, to force them to go down on their knees, and to accept any special form of recanta tion you choose to impose upon them. (Cheers.) We are here an assembly of gentlemen. (Loud cheers.) We who are gentlemen on this side of the house ought to remember we are dealing with gentlemen on the other side of the house ; and I, for one, cannot reconcile it to my feelings to call unnecessarily upon any set of English gentlemen for the forwarding of any purpose I may have in view, either to express opinions they don't entertain, or to re cant opinions that may still be lingering in their minds. (Cheers.) I will grant them, if they like, that they still think that these measures in question were not just. Wise, I think, they can hardly refrain to acknowledge them ; for the measures which have produced the results they admit cannot but, as I think they will concede, have been wise. I myself am of opinion that when that party who still call themselves by the antiquated name of Pro tectionists, come to consider calmly, and free from the irritation of former disputes, these measures and these re sults, they will come round to our opinion upon the point of justice as well as upon the point of expediency. But it is not to the purpose, as far as the countryis concerned, what they think of the original justice or *justice. And under these circumstances I should very much wish that some middle course should be suggested—that some resolution should be proposed, which on the one hand asserting in the broadest manner the determination of this hOuie to pursue and con tinue the policy which we on this side approve of, should on the other hand be free from those objections which, as matters stand, forbid the unanimity I regard as so desir able. (Hear, hear.) Much of what has paesed in this de bate seems to me to have been full of practical inconsistency. The hon. member for Manchester called upon the Govern ment to assent to the motion of my hon. and learned friend while the details of his speech were of a character to render that utterly impossible. (Cheers.) The hon. gentleman (Mr. Bright) admits that his principle object is that a free trade resolution of this house should be put on record for the guidance of foreign nations, more particularly for the guidance of the United States ; but at the same time the hon. gentleman, by that very amusing catalogue of quoted speeches, and by the general tenor of his taunts about change of opinion, seemed to me to be doing all he could to reduce the majority, if a majority is to be, in favour of my hon. and learned friend's resolution, to the smallest possible amount. (Cheers.) I ask my hon. friend (if he will allow me to call him so), to consider well the consequences of treating as an ordinary party straggle that which I think ought to have been a motion tending to produce at let from this h ouse a so l emn ter mination to a great principle of domestic policy. (Cheers.) When I say " consequences," I do not speak of the results of this debate as regards the stability of this particular Go vernment. I put the matter this way. My hon. and learned friend's resolution will be carried or will berejected - but I think it is plainly enough to be seen, from the tone and temper of the house, that it will either be carried or rejected by a very small and narrow majority. I will first suppose that it will b e re j ec t e d —not at all an. impossible supposition—(loud laughter from the Protectionists)—be cause I think there are many members of this house, not only among the younger greenhorns, who have been ap pealed to with ranch confidence by both sides, but also among the experienced old stagers—(laughter)—who are very strongly disinclined to convert this motion into a mere opportunity for overthrowing the Government. (Hear, hear. I for one am di s i nc li ned to take that view. (Hear, ' hear.) This is a soperate question altogether, and ought to be kept separa t e from any consideration of " confidence" or "no confidence." (Hear, hear, and cheers.) I say, however, supposing my hon. and learned friend's resolu tion were to be rejected, the impression which would thego over Atlantic, the length waid and naturally bre Ecl t breadth a o f thatthe land, t free-trade across irae party was in a minority in the House of Commons, and could any doubt be entertained, the speech of the hon. member for Manchester might be referred to, in which he denounces as Protectionists all those who refuse to vote for the resolution of my hon. and learned friend. (Hear.) I think that would be very lamentable, and ought to be avoided. But on the other hand, supposing the resolution carried by a majority of 10, or 20, or 30—all that could be expected—l will ask any sincere Free-trader whether th a t would be a satisfactory result ? Would it be satisfactory as compared with a resolution in favour of free trade una nimously arrived at ? It is, perhaps, natural that gentle. men who struggle as the champions of free trade again s t what they have regarded as an unfair and dishonest prin ciple, should, on obtaining a victory, desire to push their triumph to an e xtremity, and to trample on the ir d e f ea t ed foe. But in the present circumstances, when they have to consider that the decision of Parliament may have a very advantageous result upon their cause all overthe world, and that on the other hand the consequences of th e course they are taking may be most mischievous to the i n t eres t s they desire to uphold, I think that they might see the policy of accepting the hand which is tendered to them, and of not compelling their opponents to state too exactly the precise degree of their convictions, if only those opponents are con tent to act with us. I think it is ungenerous on the part of a majority—if majority it be—to endeavour to compel unwilling persons to subscribe to opinions which they do not entirely share. It is in vain to make the attempt, for we see that they will not do it; and therefore not only is the attempt ungenerous, but it fails in the accomp ment of its rpose ; and the only result is, that we d e p t ' ourselves oft hat; full authority which the unan imous • of this house would give. Perhaps it might still be de.; l _ able to have dissentients—to have some evidence of l il existence of Protectionists, if only by way of contrast. Isr I think it is ungenerous, and impolitic, an d u nwise, to "" what is now being attempted to be done. I would propo,° . a middle cour se . C er t a i n ly, as there are already t wo reac t lutions before th e h ouse , I do not presu me to lay a third. °; the table. But at th e same time, if the house will perm 'a me, I will just re a d th a t f or m of words which, if I wer f encouraged by any manifestation of opinion on the Par t ; any great body of gentlemen in the house, I shoUld be ref', to tender for their acceptance. This form of words recori - , 1- , I think, on the one hand, fully the doctrine of free tractin. and the permanent establishment of that system, wh il e,. :g o the other, it is not liable to the objection of requiring who might agree to much to recant opinions whicALiti may honestly in former periods have entertained. Ir".7rii should propose is this—it would almost be like a plagisre IZ,g of my hon. and learned friend if it were to be too lilo —(laaghter)—" That it is the opinion of this house that the improved condition of the country, and especially o f industrious classes, is mainly the result of recent legistleaa tion, which has established , the principle of unTes tri 3 O competition, has abolished taxes , imposed for the pniT.: 9 ;„ of protection, and has thereby diminished the cost ano . . o i_ a creased the abundance of the principal articles of th!L", ) , of the people ; that it is of opinion that this policy, maintained and prudently extended, will best enable will industry of the country to bear its burdens, and e at thereby most surely promote the welfare and contentinakento of the people ; that this house will be ready to t consideration any measures consistent with this Prit i 3O which in pursuance of her Majesty's gracious sPe ec t , r ial recommendation may be laid before them.'' - 0 , 1 1(1 cheers.) Now, continued the noble lord, I really. vi y• submit that these words contain everything regard the hon. and learned friend has proposed in regal' present, and in regard to the future, while they contra his ld nothing which any hon. member w ho has y r f opinions to the irresistible force of eve nts can, with P eect But satisfaction to himself, subscribe to. (Hear, hear.) now I shall be told that this form of words, by onn' en • a word, just leaves a door open for the question of cog ia .) sation, and that I take to be the real pomt. n ot But I say that the insertion of the word "just" "°- t fer shut the door at all. It would bo equally co mpete _ n , w ho the Chancellor of the E xc h equer or an y o ther mow' ( „t„4 chose to make th e p ro p osa l i n th e fi nanc i a l arranke ra- u r of the year, to prop o s e a c h ange o f t axa ti o n for WI to pose of giving wh a t th e y ma y call relief, which ..on, ,e compensation, t o th e agr i cu lt ura l c l asses, and I h e ' t 1 0 should not stand in any degree worse—we who r ei r' l l disposed to resist the resolution because the word ‘,,J 11 us was not in the resolution. I think there is nothing,„ e " t desirable as mixing up together questions which a i 'ith ' s,t connected, and which are essentially different. I h e. `„` s tios' these two questions are quite distinct—the one V A ", the whether our commercial policy should be maintain e "i;,'c, other a question whether, in consequence of that P, e. ",. - lief claim for what they may call compensation and ' m of should be allowed. You may affirm the ma inteese,,', - of the principle of free trade, and yet may entertain e : per the two opinions with regard to compensation. It isle of fectly competent for any man to think that the prin e A lrot unrestricted competition ought to be maintained, as tion; its maintenance does not entitle any one to comPen s3 . oa or that he may entertain the opinion that it is a hardshTmo a certain class, and that this class have an e for compensation. My own opinion is, that the °°" l ,,,r - t er tion to the agricultural class is to be found in those e'" fio r stances which were so well adverted to by the bo n ' u° the her for Manchester—in the improved condition ° 1 , 0 0 country, in the cheapness of everything which th e yt o be to buy out of what I must admit, in many cases , ale, their diminished rents, in the contentment of the Pe s had in the cordiality of eeling which has been estar gee' equitable as s' between the upper and lower classes, in the love 9 31 ". g d i o as tion of all around them, in the absence of all that i nvl all9 jealousy, which before the lower classes were 'linos led to feel toward s th e i r su p er i ors ; f ee li ng that th e io cl• were calculated to put mone y i n t o th e poc k e ts of the thing the lords at the expen se o f th e grea t mass o f th e people country. I say that this is the compensation which I to the landed inte res t are en titl e d t o ; an d th a t i s the °_ evl „,i r f sation they hav e already obtained. That is my o Pil u e e - re e t do not quarrel with an y man w h o may en t er t a i n a theo opinion ; but when these questions come before us, . 1e " ear come distinctly, and we shall not be the less able to n b :ce tire any proposal we may disapprove of because w° tho se united on this resolution. What is the calculation ° .. Lt io who insist on these words. I presume they . 0 47„ight be in a majority. Well, if they are in a majority t° ":„ T ot in inserting the word " just," with a view to c r ' r on compensation, cannot they make the same inn t s "c w ar 3 ,. any future occasion, when any motion is brought l o " to grant compensation? They would be just as able, a do or would say they would be better able, to shut th i „ e tby when the proposal came , than they would be to - mg Maim an indirect expression, by a side wind, to shut out 3 .. s ot which they do not di s ti nc tly nega ti ve , an d whi°, lll „;eat• distinctly brought befo re th e cons id era ti on o f Par' i , ; . ` „ ",:bille I have only to say that I d e pl ore th e con diti o n in vvf - q o the house is about to fi n d it se lf. I d o no t think it le "f air credit of Parliament, that w h en a grea t q uestion ° the mestic policy has been put to' the c oun t r y, and 'Olio, house is called upon to make an answer to that clL e ' g gle, that we should turn it at o n ce i n t o a mere partY E 47 5! —that those who get up on one s id e sa y they niean,:a it censure upon the Government, w h en th e y o ught t° .„ -- t his only as the affirmation of a principle. It is evide"" tot debate cannot end to-night, and I should only he ° as hon. gentlemen will well consider between this thin of that when the debate will be resumed ; that a spin the conciliation may be found to animate both sides ° t oot house ; that on the one hand those who are disposed t e n d" up compensation would be disposed to take such an ',111( 15 ment as I have read, an d, on th e o th er h an d, m y hon. ":, l ige who sit on this side may be content with somethinshich what I have proposed, freo from those expressions hurt the feelings of h on . gen tl emen ; an d t h a t the ":er may be that we shall all unite in what would be 5 11 y tio whelming affirmation of a great principle o f do s ' to tp policy, affirming which would be not only satisfex t f Per nine hundred and ninety-nine out of every thociseS - 4.,'W sons in the country, but which would be of the utni°2„,," portance in our relations with foreign countries. (C"'hotli Mr. M. GIBSON and Sir E. BIJLWER LYTTON that' d no t rose, and both or one of the hon. members (we orbite , ascertain which) moved the adjournment of the u e ' which was at once put and carried, and ti velv s The house then adjourn e d a t t en m i nu t e s past o'clock. COUNTRY MARKETS. IPSWICH—Nov. 23. 0 55. PER QUARTER. PER Q tr ' 4 ;.,, ,‘3 9° P o p ~.. Ad Wheat, red (old) 36s to 42s Barley, grinding ••• ' to •''' Ditto (new) Ditto, white (new) 43s to 62sPeas 31 0 00 4 Ditto (old) oso 0 t° Barley, malting ••• -° AVERAGES POR TUE WEER ENDING NOV. 20, 1850 ' Wheat Barley Beans HIJL: The following are the preseni -Nov. 23. it prices of grain 13 Wheat, English, red 41 to 44 Ditto white 46 to 48 Dantzie and Konigs berg Pomeranian and Ham- 5 30 49 Ditto gray and black 47 to i s Linseed, Black Sea••• 0 to Ditto Petersburgh .• • Ditto Riga and Arc - Qs 44 angel ... •• .......... Ditto Konigsberg and 3 s tp Memel ............. • • i er 1 .0. 0 3 j. t o 9/ 15 60 Lins. c., Hull 9/10s 9. „ Ditto fine for. 81 15s 90 9. 0 / 03 Ditto inf. for. 81 58 0/ 0 ,1 Rapeseed 24/ Os „:".„ OS ° O , Rape cakes... 100 s Ocl l'", 0 0 Tares, English ...... ~3 ‘ , 6 80 ° ° o 4 4 Ditto foreign ... u" 0 9/ - Guano 7/ t 00 Bones 97s 6a °. Rye Meal ............. .• ••• 46 to 521 burgh Danish, Holstein., and Friesland 3B to 43 Russian and Odessa 36 to 40 Oats, English Ditto Danish Ditto Friesland Ditto Russian l6 to 18 Barley, malting Ditto grinding 27 to 28 Beans Ditto foreign Peas, white and yel 34 to 36 CORK—Nov. 22. Corn 20 lliolle. 0 White wheat 00s Od to 00s Od 01 Ocl --- ~' 122 Redwheat 21s 6d to 23s 3d A 20 ‘ l°. Ditto OOs Od to OOs Od 22 s C , '" — Ditto O s Od t o O s Od 259 Barley l3s 8d to 14s 2d 16 c lo• 26 Ditto 14s 2d to 14s 4d 14s Ocl" Ditto OOs Od to OOs Od 49 Quantity sold at th e hi g h est prices :---',, ors , 0 barrels white w h ea t ; 31 red ; 14 barley; v oats ; 5 pigs. elg Quantity of grain an d num b er of pigs sold las t w e 6, 1 Wheat, 1,375. B ar l e y, 2 , 068 . Bere, 0. C/a.'" Pigs, 1,280. 7f ° •••••• 67° •••••• 6 1° • 67. •••• 41 •••". 37° CANT. PRICES OF BUTTER. cunavlr l " First quality . Second quality Third quality 7os Third quality... Fourth quality Fifth quality s6s Fifth quality ...... •.... Sixth quality 46 s Si x th qua lity ...... .. :,--- Return of cattle sold for week ending No v ' ' 04. ~ oil ; Pigs, 1,000. Sheep, 248. Cows, ~,, 1e5,.„. ( 14, CORK.---Flour—First, 13s 6d to 14s Od ; "'ld . tii2g; seconds, 12s Od to 138 Od ; households, 10s to 1 1 s 6 d to ` . .., t , 7s Od to lOs Od per cwt. Meal—lndian meal, i s s p er e" a oatmeal, 10s 6d to lls ; wheat meal, Iosod to 11 6d t ,., ° 4e, Indian corn, 7/ lOs to 71 Iss per ton. Bran, "o id; av e '.:. e . , Os Od per ton. Hay—Farmers, 23s Od to 3 20 ,'„„ Str 3 ,e . to 27s ; dealers, 3ls Od to 40s Od ; average, Os Per, 2Ss:- to utter , ,, el , Farmers, 17s Od to 24s Od; average, 20s • dea-i er " f e d a to loa , s Os Od; average, Os. per ton: Brend—Wileat eu Od ; household ditto, 5d to Od per 41b. Fresh i ii ' leti t,-.404 . to 10d per lb. Eggs, 6s Iod to 7s Od per hundred. ~,o r k, 4 , 0 43d to 7d ; mutton, 5d to 62d ; veal, 4d to 6di, 'ilewfl os ; Od ; bacon, 6d to 7d ; sausages , 5d per lb.—Y is ''2Bo 0 „"„us, land, IN. Os to 11/ Os per ton ; Scotch herring s, 9 d ; •" - J.40 Red, do., 24s per br l .—Potatoes, white, 8 d i t° R4 Cul, - T,;, a ,--; lld to 12d.—Coals, Newp or t , 17 s ; LydneY, i " - , q ,' , 11 P m ar Od per ton.--Whiskey, 25 0.p., 6s od per iraP — i . art. ..--- Hides, market, 22s to 28s ; Salted, 24s to 30s P,,. to ten' a skins, 34d per lb.-- Bangor slates 2/. 17s. 6d to 5 , r 271. to 401. F, Fleece wool, 16s to 00s per stone.—HernP , -• 110 , / mod` K f ve ton—Timber, Memel, 3/. lOs ; red pine, 3 /. 18ar1c,,, , ~ per,deals, I . to 18/. per hund reu ", — . -- cr t.-P ° : o 7 , 71. to 8/. 10s. per ton.—Tallow, 455 to 46g Per ' att brl. 7/. lOs to OZ. per cwt.—Tar, Archangel ,19s. P er Archange , Peruvian, 101. 10s to 11/. per ton. ____......_-------- IRTHS. OF On the 23d inst. at 46 8 ThurlOoe-square, BrottiPt°ll' th wife of S. E. Mareyn, Esq. the OF A DAUGHTER. Salisbury' On the 22d inst. at Hale-house, near Lady Adela Goff. HARRIED. Sh ssy ' o alY" On the 23d inst., at St. Sepulcluv'e, 'betb, City street , daughter, Kidderminster, to Ci of James Humphries, Esq., Skinn of Shrewsbury. ' Del DE i I THS. On the gth inst. at Naples,the Right son• j°llll Dadi On the 18th inst., at Barnard Castle, Durham, Hullock, widow of the late Baron Hullok. ...,, orot llo , l ' On the 16th inst , at his residence, Pow Regimen ''''' Guernsey, Major James . Johnston, late 44th Regal,',e„tsio the 62nd year a his age, eldest son of the late , ir we Alexander Johnston, " The Kings Own Borderers, of Dublin. fo ntri` l6 ' London : Printed and Published by MUSD() --.„- r . 11% No. 112, Strand, Printer, at The Sun Office , -',°ty of Strand, in th® Precinct Novemberoy, in the cuw Middlesex, Wednesday, 4, 1852. Brls. GREAT 18 in Th e r 'oMmittc for Form of sof appli ' - 9oes of the of 3lr G. Fr ei cie tY of Arts , I, _az° 014ei ,11n tt.ns_ie xigsetigctt, Lraaf,,eunesni ~ecoh, ,reut laen 1,5t:4,8:3,1511. ,„ PRIZE C Fil ly ' 11 41 ern e street, Evening, A d and It I NV EST) troyabitlip A. on s4i s , to 20 pe 3tiSITAR sa c t w hich wit Ap. AI 'at MO` crane :r h t a h vee trely ee n a n "09eit e ll ' r eqoalj e r d el and the 4„ra,,atlY Text to th e ",;^', the d• the pi "pper mo; 115 1 t err ' l'te sad the sum th e '' e ntral Alp, th e iarderts of gait ete Noire 1 ' , r7 37 si l L el ynT thlri n f al vie: e fori : d the i nnul at th e ' , a way the by Mr 'ore ele the of • Ch a , actual si ze anh, d th- "raison T p l' ari a ° l 'el Ras a te, e s • Th e Doo r itheg o r°lll l:neee, in 4d ia• vn:-- Stall ri a i nee fron the ste4reaDeci 4 ea, 18 are a t aDlic at i m A Prit t Z YPtian I A. RGY LI , Le s , th, e ' Charle s —l4'd pa l 1)421 ' 11 111e re 4r Yer, re. Niaon 1R urettt's - BOUI ~lt Nor, s - ri a ti Pp a & A C s. ' o enti,;,lcr Piet°o`;ii A v oe Ativ! l t n i l uastra ( t vvi tt i' a all i ps on °cal 4,4nehesetner r Di reli. ) 7 t p o ?or l A Re odieg „—F b o n ratio n, ry• Ith R „ I gt uook„' peral I° 6 COur of 4444 ", IS.; TIOCA a ( 'Over (seete Of Il "lent. , D eAop~tl bea i B'gtoß`snOr T av n ; Do signor y e % znaF, li g g44 o e'r r iuse eP l' Avv.pPa.l. R fi, i gt't TO &"tor as glsmo E~ Wa Str a h a ( leq M r e ,Master g, k -r% t lor„ a ," e d . Co. ; • lies, .4 1 CoN• rimr ~, t ratoils at; I ° rf,: ts a i Fi ••••Musi:- Itt r, Itata VISIT T Tat 1 T,, t t l 4l . ou u n 7: 1 4ti0 LI r, ol of dev u s -8 of th e r ot ii r tti ve, 41:(1,01 lito t " l' hYsiC 1 0 Met, Z c l . ' 113. 0 824). • , ;41 that*. Irk 10 -~-:::, - i~ ~t~ FRA .c