The Sun. — London, England, 1841-05-19 00:00:00

EVENING EDITION stow, and again I say that I do not contemplate office upon a sets, departure from those principles respectingllfe Corn-laws— ( Vehement cheers from the Opposition.) Do you ask me then, ! stne upon ommerce • how is it' possible for me to - consent to the relaxation of the ; 'how and yet to retain the Corn-laws.— zrid . , . ' sod ~ (Hear, h ear .) 1)o you, who appeal to the opi n i ons o f Mr. tsts : - Hitakisson. and who think his authority is all-conclusive upon these subjects, allow me to remind you that the relaxation of restrictions upon trade was made by Mr. Huskisson at a time St s; when those Corn-laws existed—(Cheers)—and when those . • Corn-laws were maintained by Mr. Huskisson?—(Renewed , ' Cheering.) An Hon. Gentleman has quoted, in the course of the night, opinions which he supposes to have been expressed by Mr. Huskisson some time after he left office and shortly before his lamented death. All that I know is that whilst I was in official communication with Mr. Huskisson I knew no man who was memo opposed to a fixed duty or more in favour of maintaining the sliding scale—( Hew . , hear)— and no . man would more have scouted the idea of introducing absolute principles of free trade.—( Heir, hear. ) I beg to read his opinion at the very time I refer to. Ile said, in 1 827, "it has been quoted aoainst me that I held the opi nion that England ought not to r depend too largely and too frequently on other countries for the supply of corn." I maintained those doctrines in 1815 and I maintain them now. I think nothing could be so dangerous to this coun try as to be obli ge d t o re l y on f ore i gn. etions. Mr. Hus kisson says not only that he was an advocate for a gra duated scale but he claims the merit of being the author of , it. He said in the year 1827, " Being myself the party who as a private Member of Parliament had proposed in 1814 a graduated scale of prohibitory duties, which was ;., afterwards perfected by the wisdom and experience of L or d Liverpool, it is not likely that I should recommend a prin- Mple utterly inconsistent with that smile." In the year 1828 Mr. Huskisson used these words :—" The Hoe. Gentleman has spoken in favour of a fixed duty ; assuredly that might look well enough, but when they regarded the circumstances of the country and the wants of the people, they would see the impossibility of adopting such a principle. If a high per manent duty were imposed, then in a period of searci•y, the poor would be exposed to extreme suffering and misery which the heme grower could not relieve, while the agriculturist received a compensation of a high rate of duty when corn was at a low price. While they were legislating on this sub . islet they were hound to look t o e different and va ryingcircumstances of the country, and the wants and necessities of its inhabitants. A fixed duty was therefore out of the question."—(Cheers from the Opposition benches.) That was the opinion of Mr. Huskisson in the year 1828, only two years before the termination of his useful career ; and after e had perfected those improvements in our commercial code, to which the Noble Lord had referred in terms of such well merited praise. The Noble Lord, however, is now about to advocate a different course, and I will offer him my opposition because I do not think that a fixed duty can be permanently Maintained. The Hon. Member for Marylebone says he sup ports the proposal, not on account of its own merits, • but of the perfect conviction that it is but a steppirig-sn towards a l W this fixed duty to s e established, and tota when the e Noble Lord shall shave realized the plan which he entertains—when he admits that his principle is to give a protection to agriculture, to which he thinks it fairly entitled, and when he will ' • t herefore lay a tax upon foreign corn—when he does this. su Th ppose the Noble Lord's fixed duty should be assailed by e arguments by which the graduated scale is now as . 7 - Se, s' iled. Suppose the Hon. Member for Finbury should come dawn with details of individual suffering, and suppose the Hon. Member for Wolverhampton should detail similar cases of 'severe privation and distress—suppose the cry against the " bread -tax," be again raised—suppose the Noble Lord be met by those illegitimate instruments of warfare by which he has been met, but for the use of which he has set the example.— (Loud Oppositien cheers.) Suppose this were the case let me ask the Noble Lord what are the grounds of his confidence that he will be able to maintain a fixed duty? Sup s Pose corn were to attain the price of 80s. will the fixed duty be enforced ? Suppose on the other hand that there was an abundant supply of corn in this country, and—suppose the same season was favourable to the different nations of Eu rope, and suppose that in additi o n t o our own supp l y — more than suffieient of our consumption—there was in consequence Of the low price on the Continent, and in come- Inence of the necessity of disposing of it at any rate, 'great influx of cern from foreign parts—then did not the ~ Noble Lord think that that influx would have a discouraging effect on British agriculture ?—( Hear, hear.) Has the Noble Lord well considered what would be the consequence of a fixed duty is regarded the interests of the agriculture of this country? For my part, I cannot help thinking that the fixed duty pro- Posed by the Government would be found totally insufficient to Maintain the present state of the agricultural prosperity of England. Ido not wish to enter at any length into this sub- Jeet. I should have been perfectly content to discuss the sugar duties on its own merits, and I will not enter further upon the c onsideration of the subject of the Corn-laws. When that question comes before the House I will enter into the details of it. But I think the House will feel that after the Challenge addressed to me I could not avoid saying What were my opinions respecting the Corn-laws. But it will be said there is another subject that is mentioned in the Country • and we are risked what we propose with respect to 'the timber duty. Why, I say frankly to the Noble Lord that I reserve to myself the unfettered right of deciding upon that question ; and I will ask the Noble Lord before I con eider the timber duties to give me the benefit of that informa tion which be possesses, and which he has derived from the Governor-General of Canada.—( Opposition cheers.) You ask us, the Opposition, to' make a peremptory, positive decla ration on the subject. Now I will, for the purpose of prevent ing you from charging mgwith a wilful concealment of my opinions, and in order that I may gain a subsequent advantage by acting on them. I will, so far as I can, declare my sentiments on the question tin which you challenge me to express them. I have told you my opinion with respect to the sugar duty and with respect to the corn duty. You now ask me for a positive opinion with respect to the timber duty; but how is it possible that any rational man can pronounce an opinion on the subject wi hout having an opportunity of considering it, not merely in its financial and commercial, but also in its political bearings? Does the Noble Lord himself apply the principle of free trade to the timber duties; and on reading the report of 1836 did he came down to the House to pro pose an alteration in those duties ? No, the Noble Lord took the advantage which his office gave him—he (itoissidered that there was a great political crisis in Canada— ,: l ooked to the state of that country, and the great experis - " exi t You are making there for the union of the two provinces, i a l nd the introduction of a representative Government,,before t e took any step whatever in the matter.—( Hear, hear.) 46 doubtless considered the excitement and party spirit in cident to the elections in Canada, he no doubt considered • . t he it 'relation s b e t ween t hi s country and the United States, ..• e no doubt recollected that the United States was the near neighbour of Canada, he recollected the arrest of M'Leod, and • ' , the unsettled state of the question relating to the Boundaries of the United States. The Noble Lord said before I can . debate the question of these timber duties 1 must consid er the propriety of keeping the public mind in Canada at ea s e on i • e su bject; I must not unnecessarily add to the excitement In that country : and what did the goble Lord do ? Why, in , . s e !” 4l of coming down to debate the question on the prin p es af free trade, he writes to the Governor of Canada, a . !optics colle ague o f hi s own, a N o bl eman i n t h e full confidence of the Government, to ask his opinion as to the propriety of propos ' ' i n g a ny alteration in the timber duties. And what is all the inform. at tati' ich the N o bl e L or d h as g i ven us on th e su bj ect ? Wh at llrs es the • r .4,ectarem.orroation on which he thinks it right to call upon me to my opinions on the subject ? His Neble Friend the Go_ verno r the of the Canadas had said, as might naturally be expected, " if they touched the question of the timber duties, it would • • • Z e alat erially to the difficulties of his situation."—(Che e rs.) I . , e I quote the Noble Lord correctly.—(Cheers.) And this is • :le information on which lam called on to declare my opinion at Zoe when th e papers state, I trust untruly, for I have shared in s ot ' u nsorted the measure for the union of the Canadas, and I will ,Thrink from my share of the responsibility : and therefore I ti, that the papers untruly state that the result of the elections U ni t has been to give only a narrow majority in favour of th e Ite e t n • In such a case as this I should say in the words of Lord .• Th t must be a madman who would tx d h, a man (Ch ee sie political considerations from such a quest ion." — y" 4 .) And if the Governor of Canada, a Nobleman high in Co nfidence, tells you that to touch the timber duties would add • 'th_ materially to the difficulties of his situation, reserving to myself or e full, free, and unfettered right to discuss hereafter the question , timber'. duties, I tell you, when you require to kn ow m y % l b " , on the subject, th a t I require to know a ll th e i n f ormation 'fie subject which you possess, before I can give a decided opi .ll:eh On the subject.—(Cheers.) But the Governor of Canada says w e• he says there is another measure which if proposed simulta with the alteration in the timber duties, may have the •,‘,77t of obviating many of those difficulties, and of reconciling l Ai dSri P u blic mind in Canada to the proposed a lt era ti ons. N ow, what Q se, , tt, at measure—(Loud cheers)—what is chat measu re w hi c h itrs necessary to adopt to quiet the public mind in Canada ?--L(ln. ~!estd cheering.) Not the slightest intimation has, the Noble ,); i'Lrd given of what that measure is, but with merely a statement the touching the timber duties will a dd ma t er i a ll y to the Mi. !Ulties of the Governor of Canada, and with an intimation that there some other measure which, if proposed simultaneously with, it . 11 ' 1 7 set the public of Canada at ease on the subject. lam called ,;t4i.l 11,On teistate my opinion on the question of the Timber Duties. answeris, that reserving to myself the full and perfect right of hN: unfe ttered action with re gar d t o th e Ti m b er Duties, I will not it{ ,/.. 8111 ' one step until I am in full possession of all the information' ra you and have fully considered all the political considetions l'tsoi,-7onnected with the subject.—(Cheers.) So much for commercial di stress, and for the remedies which are proposed for its relief. But c ivic . Fht addition t o a grea t commercial crisis, it is said there is a great fi n aticial crisis also. There is a great' financial crisis, and for that grczat financial crisis,-in my opinion, you are mainly responsi. hie. —(Loud Opposition cheers.) You hare had possession of power since 1832, you have since that time had the admi. nistration of the country. You refer to your successes 1,;., 'With triumph as proofs of your wi s d om an d sagac i ty. I do not ' 9 43 - that failure is a proof of the want of those qualities, but I do tl t f e first the whole course ofe Government has , ia roi th ir lte,,,,,beels mark e d u by a deficiency in the revenue, with an increase in the 11, 1 s'iPenditure. That uniform course of failure greatly diminishes nIY confidence in the success of your financial propositions.— (ilo tllOpposition cheers.) • 45) For the last five years you have been -on with an annually increasing deficiency, which has 44.411.`" n inel lnted at last to 7,500,000/ . Th at h as been the result of your !,4' , /j "7'1,041 administration ; and instead of finding, as I expected, you 1 ! °ol d come down to thi s H ouse w i th a confession of your own "eaPacity—(Cheers)—and maladministration —( lmmense cheer ( , t ' st, ; 'ln g from the Opp o sition)—you represent yourselves as mei, ' to free tr a d e , an d call upon me to furnish you with ft:itY vlt adget.---(LOllCr.Opposition cheers.) lam not surprised at your ficience in me—(Continued cheering)—when you recollect that re I left office in 1830, the Administration with which I was ' t_enenested had, during the period of their management of the fin ;Toes r educed the public debt by th e amount of twenty millions of capital of the debt — (Cheers)—reduced the charges on the debt .‘ 1: Int erest annually by one m illi on — ( Continued cheers)—and left con sitn-plee of 2,400 , 000 1. of revenue over expenditure.—(Long ein,ucel cheerin g ) How much w ill th e Ri g h t Hon. Gentleman eh .----(Cheers.) [The Chancellor of th e E xc h equer, when the ; e rkag had, subsided, said, in a qu i e t conversational tone, across !an table," the Right lion. G en tl emen h as not left yet. " This which seemed quite to take Sir Robert Peel by surprise, pro. !". a loud b urst of laughter. The Right Hot ourab!e Baron e t, wtinowet,hee laughte r h a d somewhat subsided continued as fotows r alter the reduction of twenty millions of capital, of annual charge of interest after the remission of taxes, we had • c 1 7600 1 -rived to leave a surplus. state it at the lowest, as refOrm,OedoOr/.,araniaidniernetetle(etcheewritt; all the di ffi culties of an un s. You have bad your own way f ur five years —you have ' had the benefit of cheap Government . . 'll.—attlear, hear.) You have had that superior advantage —you got cheap gov ernru ent—you:havelhad the Administration 00W fur ten years. While you had these illiberal colleagues Yeti. had a surplus of revenue ed o r i f d t o h f ein t h that you 18h3; had ‘, 6 moment you were disemlb-oarurassig " 4 t h e * own free will and free way, from that moment, notwith. sour - " w iling cheap government, and . the aid a l i t i efo lo rm e e n d co P , :r p l a ia s; k from that moment your difficulties began ; overy year presented a deficit, and now ( oscate e , w . 1 111 your deficit of 7,500,000/, and th yo u en clamour, man after ri , ,,4"L u n s,el , an Us to favour you with a budget.—(uud cheers.) , y no doubt, the aid you t gave you tyhoeucoonn,elJuaemaicsa of f ( r tienesv o er u l , wi rell)---when. I rescued r dt ~,maztay a..,4hutnense cheering)—when I enabled you to YOU from n po rroucolowneyrewchoimeh j t o a u i t+t.l‘asi,btorePril, the fo ta ti t . iv d e at e i szv s er o n f me s n oc t— iet w y h i e n ti e l , r e r r e ; prevented , txze'"4"44l4 ._o4opular and representative rights--when es ~ k,.., 1 " -Take my advice —and when you afletwards had the ne iieladmit that you heartily rejoiced that you had met with such ov.—(Cheers.) If the circumstances were the same ..141"terithterntd ttf give you similar advice. '1 Ceram; I view with Al I , 72l P 4 thYribe position of the Chancellor of the Exri,e_ "IQ , „ ~ ,1 :, ~ " r . - queT. It is said that to see a good man struggling with adversity is a sight worthy of the Gods.—(Laughter.) 1 am sure that the Right Hon. Gentleman, both in respect to the goodness of the man, and undoubtedly in respect to the adversity of his position, presents that spectacle to the Gods.--(Continued laughter.) Sir, I cannot conceive a more lamentable proceeding than to see the Hon. Gen. tlernan, to see the Chancellor of the Exchequer, seated on an empty chest by the side of bottomless deficiencies, fishing for a budget.—(Roars of laughter.) I won't bite.—(Renewed laughter.) I'll leave the Right Hon. Gentleman to return home wills his panier as empty as his chest. And I rouse my aid upon this ground, that I cannot conceive anything more utterly unfitting which would really incapacitate me for the possession of public con. fidence, as if I, out of office, without the means of collecting in. formation in this financial crisis, were to offer my budget in com petition with yours.—(Cheers from the Opposition benches.) What is the nature of the budget which lam to propose ? What should I avow ? The Right Hon. Gentleman paid me the compli. ment of believing, that when I spoke, I should not relieve public expectation upon that point. The Right Honourable Gentleman knew that no man, not being a Chancellor of the Exchequer, not having access to official information, would commit his character by a precipitate declaration as to the best mode of re lieving the finances of this country.—(Hear, hear.) There may have been some young Member silly enough to suppose that I would whisper something about a property tax or the revival of the additional postage. I intend completely to disapprove it.— (Cheers.) I freely avow that I bring forward no rival project. I consider the vote tonight as a question of confi deuce—(Tre. mendous cheers from the Opposition benches)—and I will not seek confidence by raising the expectation that I will bring for ward plans for the alleviation of the distresses of this country• or encourage the expectation of relief. Sir, an Honourable Gentle. man opposite has quoted from a speech of Mr. Huskisson. I find that in 1830 Mr. Huskisson was upon this point of the same opinion as myself. He said, " Being in opposition when my Right Hots. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer opened, as it was his duty to do, and I trust no other person will ever presume to do, the budget for the year." Those were the opinions of Mr. Hos kisson, and in the correctness of those opinions I entirely concur.—(Cheers.) I therefore, Sir, do not want to attach public confidence by any professions upon the subject of finan. cull difficulties; and I say this, that were 1 in office I would not. I am obliged to discuss this. The Right Hots. Gentleman the Member for Lambeth has said, " Don't cover yourself under the solemn plausibility that you are not in office when the House has a fair right to demand from those who are competitors for power what they intend and what they will do." Be it so—no man has a right to presume that he is to be entrusted with the power of his Sovereign; it seems In me presumptuous to anticipate such an event; but you challenge me to state hypothetically what are my intentions, and I say that if I were in office to. morrow, my first step would be to demand the confidence of the House of Commons, and to ask that I might not be required to take any sudden or precipitate step.—(Cheers from the Opposition benches.) I would say I have been excluded during ten years from office. You have created a large deficiency, to the amount of 7,000,0001. I cannot now say what my measures will be. This I will promise you, but that must be all, I will give a most careful conside ration to the circumstances of the country, but that my decided opinion is that a deficit during peace is to be deprecated as an intolerable evil. I will make sonic effint to equalise the income and the expenditure, but while I avow that I would ask for a de roonstration of confidence from the House of Commons, I would ask them to consider the position of the country, and try to find out the best mode of applying relief—(Loud cheers.) And I say it would be encouraging false hopes and expectations, if I were to give any opinion as to whether a property tax would be a more pr eferable mode of raising the revenue than a reduction of, duty, a revision of the Import tariff, Indeed, the Right Hon. Gentleman opposite might well say to me were Ito do so—l expected that you had too much good sense to have been guilty of that presumption. Sir, my belief is, that I cannot assign any particular case in which the present difficulties ought to be met. I know that you have had great demands made upon you. There was China, last year -1 do not want to mix up the enlarged question of foreign policy with to-night's debate ; but I know you have been called upon in Canada, and other instances, to incur large expenses; but after making all these allownances, still, notwithstanding all these things, you are the responsible parties. It has been through your general mismanagement that these evils have arisen, and you must be responsible. I ,do not want—l hope I have not, spoken with the slightest disrespect of any one of the Ministers of the Crown. I admit their ability, I respect their character. It is not from want of ability in your departments; in my opinion these evils have arisen, because, as a Government, you have been acting in violation of the spirit of the Constitution— (Tremendous cheering)—in retaining power whep you were not possessed of that degree of public confidence which enabled you to execute the measures you proposed. Sir, I think it is dangerous to the public interests, and so do you yourselves. You have written your own condemnation on this subject. You retired when you had a bare majority on the Jamaica question, distinctly on the ground that you thought the confidence of the colonists would be shaken in you by the narrow majority you then main. tained. When I retired in 1835, upon the proof that I had not the confidence of the House of Commons,--having persevered as long as I could,—you told me that I had acted in the spirit of the Constitution.—(Loud cheers.) In 1839 the head of the Govern ment, after quoting the explanation of King William to Bishop Burnett, in which he said that he had heard of many debates about the best form of Government, whether democracy, aristocracy, or monarchy, he did not know; but this he did know, that the worst form of Goverdme nt was a monarchy that was unable to give effect to the laws necessary to the public welfare. Apply. ing that principle, Lord Melbourne said he did nut know what was the best Government, but undoubtedly the worst for the country was that which did not possess sufficient of the pub lic confidence to enable it to carry its own measures into laws. Sir, it is my opinion that these evils have mainly arisen, not from the want of individual ability in her Majesty's Ministers—they have arisen from the course that you have been trying, with great dexterity I admit, to carry on the Government in violation of the spirit of a Representative Government.—(Loud cheers.) We say it is not for the interests of a Representative Government, or of Constitutional principle, that these things should continue—we think it is not right that the House of Commons should be ex hibited to Europe as withholding its confidence from a Govern. ment, and yet take no steps for removing them. We think that it is not for the best interests of the Monarchy—(Loud cheers)— that you cannot carry those measures which you, as faithful servants of the Crown, recommended to the House. It is not fair to the measures themselves, because they lose the grace and favour in the public eye if they are believed to spring not from the well-formed pure con victions of your own minds, but that they are pro. positions made to prop up your falling fortunes—(Hear, hear, and cheers)—and to conciliate the good-will of a party. It is not, believe me, an honour to your characters as public men. You have made these great proposals, but the public—l do not mean the men to whose passions you have appealed, or those whose dis. tresses you have painted—but it has been described by the well judging majority of the public, as their belief, that you have pro. posed these measures without the slightest hope of carrying them. I lament the course the Noble Lord has taken. 1 lament his con trast between the condition of the negro and the working classes in this country. I lament the appeal he made to the state of the population. The same appeal was made against himself when he proposed grants of public money on the Poor.laws ;the Noble Lord was obstructed in the same manner, and if he now succeeds in carrying a hied duty, be must expect to be interfered with in the same way. —(Cheers.) Ido not deny the power of the people.—(Cheers.) I do not deny that you will by such appeals, considering the situation in which you stand, give them an overwhelming power.—(Cheers.) You may easily provoke the conflict. You can easily raise excited passions against what you call class.interests.—(Continued cheers.) It is possible amid the conflict of passion, it is possible that you may be able to gather up the fragments and combine the elements of increased party strength—(Cheers)—but, depend upon it, such elements of strength are unruly and uncontrollable instruments of Government.—(Cheers.) Depend upon it you will read this lesson to the country, that when authority condescends to support itself by alliance with agitation—(Great cheering)—it calls into aid—to its assistance—a powerful ally, which will be its master, but not its slave. (The Right Hon. Gentleman sat down amid the most en. thusiastic cheering from the Conservative side of the House.) Lord PALMERSTON—Mr. Speaker, the Right Hon. Baronet the Member for Kent, in the short speech which he addressed to the House this evening, expressed his regret at the duration of the debate. Sir, that regret did Hot surprise rne, because, min. doubtedly, a debate favourable to one side of time House—(Loud and general cheenng)—and attended, in point of argument, at least, whatever may be the result, with the greatest triumph to the other side, I have never had the honour to witness,—(Hear, hear.) I can well understand, therefore, that the Right Hon. Ba ronet the Member for Kent may have regretted the protracted du ration of the debate ; and, notwithstanding the speech of the Right Hon. Baronet who has just sat down, end although I am ready to admit the great dexterity with which he handled the various Mines of which he treated, I do not think that even that speech wile induce his Right Honour. able Friend to retract the regret he has expressed.—(Loud laughter.) Sir, the the Right Honourable Baronet who has just sat down was pleased to make himself exceedingly merry with what be conceived to be the forlorn condition of my Right Hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer fishing for a budget. Sir, my Right Hon- Friend is fishing for no budget.—(Cheers and laughter.) My Right Hon. Friend has caught his budget and has laid it on the table—(Loud cheers)—my Right Hon. Friend does not go a begging to the other aide of the House for a budget. He has been reproached on former occasions, and ridiculed to night for playing:a part which would be utterly unworthy any Chancellor of the Ex chequer. My Right Hon. Friend has to deal with a deficiency in the revenue—he has to bring forward a budget to supply that deficiency, and it is with a full consciousness of his responsibility, and of all those duties incumbent upon a Chancellor of the Ex. chequer, that instead of coming down to the House and proposing to increase the burthens of the people, he proposes to fill up the deficiency by relieving them of a portion of the burthens.—(Cheers.) The Right Hon. Baronet is mistaken in supposing we ask him to get us a budget instead of our own. What we stated was this, and to that he has not in my opinion given us any answer ; tell us, aye or no; we pro pose to supply the deficiency by relieving the- people of a part of their burdens—by striking a blow at some of these great monopo. lies—(Loud checring)—which have hitherto retarded the pros. perity of the country. He would object, upon narrow and insulli. cient grounds, to the proposal. Tell us plainly, aye or no, do you approve of supplying the deficiency in the way :we propose, or are you prepared to vote new taxes for that purpose ?—(Cheers.) Sir, that is the question whirls has been put to time other side of-the House, and to that we have had as yet no answer. The Right Hon. Baronet stated that he would with the greatest frankness give his opinion upon the three questions of corn, timber, and sugar; but what were these answers ?—(Great cheering and laughter.) What were these explanations, which were to be given with such unreserved frankness ? Why, he throws overboard at the coin mcncement of his speech the principles ansi doctrines contained in the resolution. He said that he should not, at least for the next year, take any steps for the alteration of those duties—that lie should wait amid see whether the increased production from In•.dia should supply the deficiency, and that he should hold him. self free for the future. Beyond the next year he would not conunit himself. What are unreserved opinions on the question of Corn ? —(1-fear, hear.) A preference of a sliding-scale over a fixed duty ; a sliding-scale may be a very slippery thing.—(Loud cheers.) The Eight Hen. Baronet took good care to avoid committing himself, and, if I misunderstood him, I should be glad to be cor rected, but he guarded himself against declaring whether that sliding-scale which he wished to slip into would be a scale mate. really diminishing or not the amount of protection which at present exists.—(Hear, hear.) That was the qpestion which the House was called upon to answer. Is he willing or Hot to supply the deficiency in the revenue by admitting a large sod more free inter course and trade by a change in the amount of the duty ? Then, Sir, upon timber, he has made an equally unreserved and frank declaration, for, if my ears did not deceive me, his frank declara tion was, that on the timber duties he should keep himself totally unfettered—( Great cheering)—until he knew that which was known to my Noble Friend—until he was put into the confidence of the Governor-General of Canada it was impossible for him to give an opinion upon the subject. I say then, Sir, that I never remember a great question like the present broeght . forward on one side of the House and debated on such narrow and inadequate grounds. The question is whether the great streams of industry shall be relieved from some of these obstructions which have hitherto retarded their development, or whether those streams shall continue to be choked up for the sake of private interest or privileged classes.—(Much cheering.) The ques tion is between free trade—and by free trade I mean a trade open to free competition—on the one hand, arid monopoly on the other. The question is between reason and prejudice—between time interests of the many and the profits of the few.—(Loud cheers.) Hon. Gen. tlemen opposite have shrunk front the question, and do not dare to grapple with it. They are afraid to join issue with us on the real merits of the case, because they know the verdict of the country would be against them.—(Much cheering.) They have endeavoured to narrow down the question to one collateral point, and upon pre tences entirely unfounded and de'usive, to endeavour to entrap the country into an erroneous decision.—(Cheers.) Some evidence which has been used on this side of the House, and applied to the resolution, has - given offence. They do not like to be called hype critical,-but I say that ii the homage which monopoly is obliged to pay to free trade ; buts) reluctant and constrained is it, that they are not able fairly to assume a virtue they do not feel.—(Cheers.) They bare left themselves a loophole to escape in that notable pa renthesis which my Noble Friedd so ably exposed in the course of his speech—they have left themselves a door to retreat from their high position, and take po, t upon the low level of expediency.— (Loud cheers.) The course they have pursued on this occasion reminds me of that which their friends the Carlists pursued in the civil wars of Spain. On more than one occasion did the Carlist bands put forward a number of their helpless prisoners in the front of the column to cover their attack, in the same manner that the Hon. Gentlemen opposite now put forward the sufferings of the Africans. Sir, I shall forbear to inquire how many of those who have beets loudest in the cry have had their share in these suf. terings--(Great cheering)—although undoubtedly things have passed in the course of this debate that might tend to throw some light on the subject.—(Hear.) I shall forbear to press the inquiry; but they trust tinder that pretence to rush forward and scale the fortress. Sir, I honour and respect principle—(Much laughter from the Opposition benches)—l admire the man even though in follow ing up this principle he should thwart and obstruct my path, but let principle be the rule and not the exception—(Cheers)—let it be the guide of conduct and the inspirer of actions, and not put forward as a mere pretext. They are the principles of humanity— but humanity, like charity, begins at home.—(Hear, hear.) It is true th ere are millions a suffering Africans abroad, hut are there not also millions of our suffering countrymen at home, and is it:not right, inadjudicating on this matter, that some regard should be paid to the interests of our countrymen, as well as of those so remotely connected with us? But the principle is not to consume the produce of slave labour. Well, Sir, admit that principle—that is the principle of the Noble Lord who moved this resolution—it is not so clearly the principle of the Right Hon. Baronet who spoke last, because it was remarkable that one benefit has arisen to the other side from the protraction of the debate, that they have the evidence of what is passing in other places, and of the manner in which the public viewed the subject ; and I am not surprised, therefore, that the principle with which they commenced has been in some degree allowed to pass from notice.—(hear, hear.) That principle is, not to consume that which is the labour of slaves. Then if that is the principle, apply it honestly, carry it out, pro hibit cotton, prohibit tobacco, prohibit rice, the produce of slave Lbour.—(" Oh, oh," and cheers.) Gentlemen laughs at me when 1 talk of such things. They shrink from such an application of their principles.—(Hear, hear, hear.) they say that it would ruin and distress millions of our fellcw. countrymen, that it is not expedient to carry their principles so far. Then the principle is a principle the application of which is to depend upon comparative expediency.—(Hear, hear.) They may think they have an answer to the argument—they say it is one thing to submit to an evil which exists, but it is another thing to create a new one. They say we now encourage the labour of slaves in North America, but that is no reason why we should encourage the labour of slaves in South America. But do we not encourage the labour of slaves in South Ame rica? Would that be a new evil? Do we not send out our commodities to the market of Mitzi!, and do we not receive payment for those commodities in sugar and coffee ? Is it not a fact, therefore, that we encourage the labour of slaves first of all in North America to produce cotton, which we then export to South America to set the slaves then at work to produce sugar in exchange for it ? It is worth while to attend to the different stages of their transactions. We say to the Brazilians, `• Here is a quantity of good cotton, cheaper and better than you can get else. where, will you buy it ?" The answer is "Certainly, and pay for it in sugar and coffee." We reply "No ; sugar and coffee arc the produce of slave lat:our, we are men of principle, our consciences will not allow us to consume slave produce."—(Hear, hear.) Does the transaction end there—do wego to other markets ? Not so, we try to help them out of their difficulties. We say, "We can't consume the sugar and coffee ourselves, but the Germans are not so conscientious as we are; take your commodities to Germany, and sell it for money, which we shall have no scruple to accept."— (Cheers and laughter.) But the Brazilians say, " There is a (MIL culty;these Germans reside across the Atlantic; we have few ships that could cope with the waves on such a voyage." What do we do? Why, we say, " We have ships in plenty, and will carry it for you."—(Laughter.) Slave labour must not contaminate our plates or tables, but ships are different things. Then the Brazilians have another difficulty, for there is no mid to these difficulties, They say, " The Germans like sugar, but we believe they use re. fined sugar, and we cannot well refine our own sugar." Then we step 'in again and say, " We will refine your sugar for you— (Laughter)—it may be sinful to use slave-labour sugar, but it can not be sinful to refine it." We refine it, and it goes to Germany, and we think it is done with, but not so. We have a great deal of sugar, more than the Germans want, what shall we do with the rest ? We have assisted you so far, but we cannot eat it ourselves, that is against our consci. ences, but we will send it to our colonies, the people there arc only colonists, and have no right to consciences—(Cheers and laughter) —it can do them no harm whatever to eat slave.labour sugar, and in order to prevent any other difficulty if by any accident sugar gets dear in our markets we will eat your sugar ourselves."—(Cheers and laughter.) Then I say is it not the grossest hypocrisy— (Cheers)—to refuse an arrangement intended for the relief of our commerce and the assistance of our finances on a pretence so weak and inconsistent ?—(Cheers.) Well, but then it is said, "We will not encourage the slave trade." Now I cats only encou rage the siave trade as far as I give additional encou ragement to slave labour. The matter: which I have la boured with the greatest anxiety, and with not the least success, during the period that I have had the honour to conduct the foreign affairs of this country, has been the suppression 'of the slave trade —(Cheers.) Sir, that suppression is to be effected in two ways—first, by treaties, which would enable us to put in action measures for the purpose; and, secondly, by those mea. sures which foreign Governments may adopt, either at their own suggestion, or on account of treaties concluded wills us. Now, I contend that this measure will materially assist its in both these respects. I will show the House how, when we came into office, in 1830, we found the slave trade car. tied on to a great extent under many flags, notwithstanding that treaties had been concluded with many Powers, especially by Spain and Portugal, notwithstanding thedeclaratien of the Congress of Vienna, which cannot be mentioned with too much honour. But these Treaties with Spain and Portugal were insufficient for the purpose, since they only involved the suppression of the slave trade to the North of the Line.—(Hear, hear.) The fast thing we did was to obtain from France, a Power with which there was no treaty on the subject —a treaty giving a mutual right of search to both countries—and when you remember how the national mind had been effected by the proceedings of the war, and how calculated such a measure was to excite distrustful feelings in both countries, they will see that there must have been sincerity on both sides to enter into such a treaty.—(Hear, hear.) That put an end to the slave trade with France.—(Cheers.) We thus obtained from France more:complete engagements to abolish the trade ; and I say that if the Governors of the Spanish colonies had fulfilled the engagements of the Spanish Crown, the slave trade with Cuba would have been put au end to.—(Cheers.) But while we have these, treaties will never be of any use for the suppression of the slave trade, until we have a treaty with every State in the world.—(Cheers.) We have now treaties concluded and ratified with France, Spain, Portugal, the Netherlands, Sweden, Denmark, the Hans Towns, Sardinia, and Tuscany, in Europe, and with Br fit, Venezuela. Buenos Ayres, and Hayti, in America. We have an additional treaty concluded, but not yet ratified with the Brazils, Chili, Monte Video, Mexico, and Texas. We are negotiating a treaty, the signature to which is only delayed by circumstances uncon nected with it, and arising out of late events which is to be concluded between England. France, Austria, Russia, and Prussia, founded on the treaty which was concluded with France. I have the best reason for be lieving, that when thattreaty kill be concluded, the adhesion of Belgium and Hanover will not be delayed. We have recently prevailed on Government to pass a law prohibiting the slave-trade, carried on by Greek st ips in the Mediterranean. When that shall be done, we shall have engaged every State in Europe, or rattier in Christendom, in the Christian league of Anti-Slavery,— (Ministerial cheers.) We are negociating, moreover, with an other State in America, and if we succeed in these negociations, which I have every reason to hope we shall, there will then re main of all the States in Christendom only the United States of America, which will not engage in the sacred league, for the sup. prcssion of slavery and the slave-trade, and I cannot believe that the American people descended as they are from the same ances tors as ourselves, and receiving from them the same principles of liberty and common religion, I cannot, I say, bring myself to be. Rove that the United States will permit themselves to be the only State in Christendom to remain out of that sacredileague. They have hitherto been deterred from joining this league by the right of search. I trust, however, they will:not allow themselves to be carried away, and that they will investigate the nature of the question. I think then we may assert that our conduct proves that we feel no indifference towards the slave.trade, We are not the men who, in order to save themselves from temporary difficul ties, would sacs itice the principle and object fur which we have toiled ourselves like slaves since we have had the charge of Go. vernment.—(Cheers front the Ministerial benches.) But,. Sir, then I say by these measures, we shall attain additional facili. tics for inducing other Powers to enforce those regu lations which are enacted against the slave trade. What is the case with Cuba and Brazil? In both these countries, if the authority of the law were enforced, slavery would have been put an end to. But why do they not enforce those laws? It is because they distrust us. They cannot believe in our sincerity. They say on the one hand, that we shut our markets against foreign produce. They cannot believe that for the sake of humanity we mean to put down slavery. They think that we were actuated py a jealous rivalry in commerce, and I am afraid that the debates of of the last fortnight (for they have now lasted nearly that time), will not tend to undecei k C them in that respect. For whereas we told our colonists, when proceeding to emancipate the slaves in our colonies, that free labour was more advantageous than ' slave labour—we told them the truth—in spite of that experiment which is now being tried, I say nothing has oc-mrred which can shake the truth and justice of that assertion, but what has been said in this debate by the Hon. Member for Cambridge. That Hon. Gentleman said he opposed the measure now proposed by her Majesty's Government, because his very existence, as far as. his West India interest was concerned, would be destroyed by' tho motion being carried.—(Cries of " Hear, hear.) The Own went was, that it was impossible to compete ssith the Brazil slave-grown sugar. What was the Hon. Member in *ey ing this but teaching them that we had told them an un. truth—that we have been endeavouring to palm Olson them 'the abolition of the slave trade under false pretences, knowing that slave labour was cheaper ? Convince them by your actions that your doctrines are sincere. Convince them that you believe and know that free labour is cheaper than slave labour, by admitting the produce of the colonies to a fair competition—if I can call that a fair competition which gives an advantage of fifty per cent. to colonial over foreign produce. Prove to them, I say, that you are sincere in your principles by admitting them td at least some competition.—(clear, hear, and loud cheers.) I believe that if the measures proposed by the Government were carried, if I could prove that there was no commercial hostility or rivalry between this and other nations, and that we really enter tained a belief, and proved it by our conduct, that the produce of free labour was at least as advantageous as the labour of slaves, then I am satisfies' that I should enter into negotiations With foreign powers with a better chance of persuading them, to give effect to the laws for the suppression of slavery.—(Hear, hear.) ; It is only from England that the hope of extinguishing slavery or the slave trade can be desired, because we are the only people who take any sincere inters st in the matter. England at present ho'ds a proud" position among the nations of the earth. ,We claim, and we exercise a mighty influence over the destinies of mankind, that influence is owing, in the first place, to our wealth and unbounded resources, to our military and naval strength ; but it is owing, if possible, still more to the moral dignity which marks the character and conduct of the British people.—(Cheers.) I fear that the resolu. tion of the Noble Lord the Member for Liverpool tends to destroy, or impair at least, the sources of our strength, because I cannot but believe that the respect which foreign nations have hitherto entertained for the sincerity, the plain-dialing, and straightfor wardness of the English character must be diminished if they see the House of Commons adopting a resolution in which the prii.ci ples of morality, humanity, and plain dealing, are, I am sort' to say, so prostituted to serve the purposes ofparty.—(Cheers.) I regret to think that we will sap the foundations of our greatness if we en. deavour, by continuation of our restrictive :led prohibitory regula tions, those great commercial and manufacturing interests which arc the mainsprings of our power. I say, then, that those who wish the principles of liberty to thrive and prosper, ought to cherish with an ahnest religious veneration the domi nion of Great Britain; for so long as England rides pre-eminent, as she now does, over the ocean of human greatness, there is for tunately no Power which can be shipwrecked so desperate and for lorn, that it may not turn with hope to the light which beams from hence. (Loud cheers.) They might be beyond the immediate reach of our assistance, but our moral influence and our sym pathies would support them in the hour of distress, enabling them to bear up with their difficulties, and to look Mrward to a better fate. But if ever, by the faults or errors of misguided men England should fall, and her star lose its lustre, the hope of th e s h ave, whether in 'the African continent, or in the wide regions of America, would be reduced to comparative despair.—(Cheers.) I know very well that in that case Providence would raise up some other nation to inherit our principles and imitate our ex ample; but when I look at the other States of the earth, as they arc constituted at preeent-Land I say it with regret, but with the con- viction of its truth-=I know of no other nation now ready in this respect to supply our place.—(Hear, hear.) Now I say that those who are the friends of that cause of which we are advocates—and useful supporters—instead of giving their support to the resolution which was founded on hollow pretences, should have given us their support.--(hear, hear.) The question as stated by my Noble Friend is, between monopoly and free trade. The Noble Lord the Member for North Lancashire, and the Right Hon. Baronet who spoke tonight, have given us their views of the insaning of the word free trade, and have contended that as we maintain that doctrine here we have a desire to abolish all duties. But, Sir, that is not my notion of free trade. We must have establishments, we must have revenue, and in my opinion there is no more convenient means of raising revenue than on duty on tbreign commodities.— (Hear, hear.) lint I say let this duty be 'for revenue —not to enable men to carry on a losing trade at the expense of every other class in the nation.—(Cheers ) I know it Is impossible in an artificial state of society to carry out the principles of free trade in the extreme letter of the word.—(Hear, hear.) I know that in the attempt thousands would be ruined. But it should be our aim to do so as closely, and to carry out the principle as strictly as possible. Protection in the sense in which it is used by the supporters of the Noble Lord's resolutions, attacks the skilful, and intel ligent, industrious, and enterprising, for the support of the tin. skilful and the indolent—(Loud and continued cheer. ing)—is not only injurious to other classes, but to the classes for whose benefit it is imposed. Show me a free trade and I will show you men with skill, with activity, and with success.—(Cheers.) Show me a protected trailer, and I will show you an indolent, unskilful, unsuccessful, and generally embar rassed class.—(Cheers.) Protection is also injurious to our inter. course with foreign nations.—(Hear, hear.) It is a tune which two can play at.—(Cheers, and laughter.) When we tell foreign 1 nations that they ought to diminish their tariffs, because competi tion is the life of trade, they listen to us with civil incredulity, but tell us to look to our own tariffs.—(Hear, hear.) This has happened to us with most of the nations with which we have co mmercial relations. They invariably say, from first to last, " You ask us to take your commodities, you take ours.--(Hear, hear.) Commerce is a system of exchange. If you exclude our coffee, our sugar, our timber, said our corn—(Cheers) —how are we to take your cotton, your hardware,and your dell"-_ (Cheers.) Since the time of the peace other nations have seen into our trade, and they have been disposed to imitate our system— some from honest prejudice, others from a feeling of coercion, from a notion that they might drive us to a different system.—(Hear.) The league which spread over the middle States of Europe has just been renewed.—(Hear, hear.) Next year a meeting is to be held to revise the tariff, and we should be aware that if we were to adopt different principles, they would not only lower the duties which exclude our commerce, but most probably those duties would be erased frOm their tariff—(Hear, hear, hear.) Russia and Sweden prohibit a great many of our articles, and when we ask them to alter their tariff they sly, take our corn and our timber and we will willingly do so.—(Cheers.) It was only last year that a Norwegian nobleman was sent over in order to attempt to obtain a change, but we had then had some experience of the manner in which such a proposition would have been met, and knew that it was of no use to make it. France, which ought to be a large market for our commodities —a country so near us, and producing so many articles which we stood in want of, and she wanting so many of our manufactures.—. France has a tariff which excludes many of cur articles. She refuses, and we caniast expect her to do otherwise, to do anything in the way of putting our trade upon abetter footing, unless we set the example. The mania for the protecting system was so strong that they nosy exclude by pro. hibition our cottons and our manufactured iron. Nay, so minute has she descended in the scale, that she is now prohibiting, by heavy duties, our needles and fishing.hooks. In Belgium they arc running wial with the notion of protection, and it is of no use for us to attempt to show the absurdity of the doctrine— they say England has risen to prosperity and greatness under the system, and when they are as wealthy as we arc, they will talk of the matter. It is in vain to tell them that we have grown great and prosperous in spite of that system.—(Hear.) Until we prove by our conduct our sincerity, we cart make no impression either on France, or Russia, or Sweden, or any ether country. Again, in the United States they have followed our practices; it has hap pened that the Southern States prpduce out cotton, which it is thought necessary for us to take, even although it is the produce of the slave, because it conduces so much to our prosperity. Then, in Mexico, that State is fast following our example; and who are the parties who are making these demands for additional protection against the manufactures of this country? Why, they are rene gade sons of England, who having voted themselves Mexi cans, set up manufactures in Mexico in rivalry to our own, and now make loud demands for protection. Sir, that is the 'course which is everywhere pursued. and such are the effects which these prohibiting duties uniformly produce.— (Loud cheers.) Now, what Is the state of our trade with foreign countries. It is perfectly true as stated by the Right Hon Baronet, that there is nothing in the complexion of our foreign trade which should inspire despondenco, for, I trust that the resources of this country are too deeply rooted to be destroyed even by this vicious system which has so long cramped and crippled its development. (Loud cheers.) But if we look to the state of our foreign trade. we shall see the disastrous and ruinous effects of these prohibiting duties. We shall see flow the Act cripples and destroys our manufacturing industry. Yearafter year a smaller proportion of our manufactured articles are exported on which a large amount of labour has been expended, and year after year a great proportion of our exports consists of articles in the production of which a less amount of industry has been employed, and which are, in fact, merely a means of furnishing employment to the foreign manufac turer, by furnishing him with the materials on which industry is to be employed, such as yarns and other goods only in first stage of manufacture.—(Cheers.) While such is the case, with regard to our exports, our native artizans are leaving our country to seek employment in foreign nations. Our capitalists go and establish themselves elsewhere, where labour is cheaper, and where com merce is unshacked. In the meanwhile, in consequence of our prohibiting regulations, we are excluded from market after market, and we shall go on excluding ourselves(Cheers)—if this system is to go on—(Cheers)---until at length we shall be obliged to have re course to that thriftless industry which has recently been recom. mended the export of the machinery itself.—(Loud cheers.) Yes, Sir, the time will come if this system is not altered when the export of the ready.made machinery itself would be had recourse to as the most profitable article of exportation.-- (Loud cheers.) Now, on these measures there can be no question as to which side of the House was advocating the true interests of the country—(Loud cheers)—and the true interests more espe. cially of that class whose claims are now put ostente. tiously forward as a sort of defence for monopoly, The Right Hon. Baronet has said that we have brpught ourselves into these difficulties by the improvidence of our Administration, and that we have been the cause of all these excesses of expendi ture. The Right Hon. Baronet does not surely charge us with the rebellion in Canada?—that was no act of ours.—(Cheers.) The Right Hon. Baronet has very fairly abstained from contending the question of China; but that question is not yet ripe for the decision of the llouse.—(Hear, hear.) Has the expenditure arisen from an undue increase of our military establishments ? —has it arisen from our augmenting improperly our naval forces ? Why, we have been reproached with too much economy.— (Cheers.) The Gentlemen opposite have no right to attribute to our misconduct results which have arisen from a combination of circumstances, over which no person could have any control.-- (Cheers.) I say the question is, whether the Budget of the Go. yernment, which consists in the 'reduction of certain great taxes, and yet proposing to increase the revenue—the question is, whether it shall be ad opted, or whether the House shall be led by the Gen tlemen on the other side to affirm a principle which will lead to no other alternative but the imposition of fresh taxes.—(Hear.) Sir, my conviction is, that whether those monopolies are brought ' down on this occasion or not, their days are numbered.—(Hear, hear.) The only question is, whether they shall fall by our hand, or whether they arc destined to fall at the hands of those who op pose us., The general feeling of all who are engaged in the com merce of the country is too strong to be resisted. What has been the whole course of Parliament for seine years past P Why, we have done nothing but destroy monopolies--(Loud cheers from the Liberal benches.) First of all, there was the monopoly which under the Test and Corporation Act the members of the Church of England had against Dissenters ; and my Noble Friend oppo site and the Right Hon. Baronet concurred in putting an end to this monopoly. Then there was that monopoly by which the Roman Catholics were placed under civil disabilities. It was at. tacked ; great was the struggle; fierce was the resistance; it mea sured its length upon the ground.—(Cries of " Hear, hear," and a laugh.) Then came another monopoly, which consisted of the privilege which a small portion of the community had of returning a majority of Representatives to this House. That was attacked again. There was a much fiercer struggle because greater interests were then concerned The contest almost shook the country to its foundation, but the result was certain, and the success was great and signal.—(Cheers.) Well, then, Sir, came the monopoly which certain self-elected 'corporations had in every part of the United Kingdom over their fellow. townsmen in regard to their local affairs. That monopoly was attacked also. The resistance was less strong, it fell. Then came the monopoly which the East India Company had, by which they excluded the rest of their countrymen from those vast re. gions in which their own operations were conducted. Why, Sir, monopolies were so much out of fashion at that time that they fell with scarcely any resistance--(Hear, hear, and loud cheers) I trust my Right Honourable Friend has also to announce that he means to apply the principle to other parts of our tariff; and to redeem the commerce of the country from many of the trammels which beset it ; upon that principle we stand. — (Loud cheers from the Ministerial benches.) The principle is in my opinion, sufficiently intelligible and plain. We might, I thifit, have an intelligible statement with both sides as to what they in. tend to do and what they do not. We might have known whether they would have founded their principle of finance upon the abolition of monopoly, or upon the maintenance of monopoly. They have not hitherto chosen to do this, but I will venture to say that before these subjects have been fully discussed in the House they will be compelled to speak out. It is due to themselves—it is due to us— it is due to Parliament—it is due to the country, that their opi. nions on this matter should not be shrouded in mysterious silence or in evasive declarations.—(Hear, and cheers.) We have a right to call upon them net to give us a new budget —we do not want it, and we should reject it if it were offered —(Cheers)—but we have a right to ask them aye or no will they adopt the principles upon which our Budget has been based—a prin ciple of which the country epproves—(" No, no," from the Opposi tion Benches)—and which I venture to predict that though they may resist it to.day for the purpose of getting a vote of a majority of this House—that if the result should be to place them in a situa tion to determine what should be done in regard to the finances and commerce of the country they themselves would be obliged to pro pose and to carry it.—(Loud and long-continued cheers followed the conclusion of the Noble Lord's speech.) Lord J. RUSSELL then rose and said, it will be for the conveni. enee of the House that I should state the course I intend to pursue with respect to the resolution I have proposed. I proposed that reso lution in the first place, that I might record the principle upon which my Right Hon. Friend has proceeded with the Budget which he has laid before the House; and, in the next place, because I thought that it was desirable that the debates should be as general as possible. I shall content myself, after the division, with mov ing the resolution. With respect to some statements which have fallen from the Right Hon. Baronet the Member for Tam. worth, I beg to conceive that he had misconceived any meaning. I do not think that I could state that the merit of supporting Mr. Huskisson was to be assumed by us, and that it did not properly belong to the party by whom he was surrounded. What I stated in the discussion before Easter was this, that the whole credit of these principles of free trade was not due to Mr. Huskisson only, but to those who acted with him, that I was was quite willing that the whole merit of having proposed the measures to Parliament was due to them, and that we were content to follow in their steps.—(Hear, hear, tear.) Sir, the Right Hon. Gentleman has alluded in terms of which I do n ot comp'ain.—.of the use of th e to apply tern to n hypocrisy 3 t as c a i pplied' ay Right l to a certain party, I never intended ralile Friend. I with regard and with regard to some other questions, the conduct of the Right Hon Gentleman has high terms of the characters of inch (Hear, hear, hear.) Theledge with regard the hie as possible Right Hon. Gentleman concluded been i c e i k e t.:7 ° at ' s l from m o t o t a°lntt,,hif privilege; t n question._ with het some remarks, in which after acknowledging the t s e p r e s ak o i f 6g tlie b :Gov ernme nt, he asserted that we had not aklieunatis members b acted in accordance with the spirit and principles of the Con stitution. I think in that respect he has hardly made a fair comparison between the conduct which he pursued and the conduct which we have pursued. The Right Hon. Gentleman was placed by the late King in that situation of entire confidence by his Sovereign, in which we have Livrta placed lay the present Queen. The Right llon. Gentlemen in the 'first instance, Without any great question being before Parliament, without any 'dine measures of import: ante before the House, ha d recourse-, 'for th e sake of maintaining the Administration, to an i mmed i a te' 'dissolution. '• I 'certainly thought that step ought no t to have be et; taken ex c ept up o n some large ground either of necessity..nr of exten s i ve Public polity, but it was resorted to sole ly because the 'Right lion. Gentleman had, taken the Lord ydelbourne, and to o b tain 'a majority in that (Hesr.) After thi s he was deficient in the first place in they ' choice ,if • a • no, tt u . fts . dcrehlea o n the itddresal, qbestions arose; ley ~ : e9111') D.:71.t. . 4 . . . - , rri 'I:4 ft 4 40, was a question with respect to London Universities, upon which the Right Hon. Gentleman was defeated, by a majority of more than 100. There were several other questions, and, with the ex. ception of one, upon which I stated that I would not give any op. position, the Right Hon. Gentleman was defeated. In that case he obtained a majority of 16. Being in possession of the highest place in the Councils of his late Majesty, he did obtain a proof of the confidence of this House. But, without admission, upon some re. marks being made by the Noble Lord the Member for North Lanca shire, who sits opposite, and some other remarks made in this House. Theßig,ht Hon. Gentleman consented to what I considered a very de rogation to the honour and dignity of the Crown, by that an am. bassador, who had been formerly appointed as the representative of the" Crown at foreign Court, should be recalled, and was induced in consequence of that debate to give in his resignation. The appoint.. ment of the Crown was overruled by a conversation in the House, After that there took place three discussions on the Irish Church ; but with rcgard to these debates, which lasted for several nights, and on which there were no less than four divisions, the Right Hon. Gentleman was In each instance left in a minority. I never blamed the Right Hon. Gentleman for his perseverance in that case. The Right Hon. Baronet then came down to the House, and announced his resignation, stating that it was from no love of power or clinging to office that he had retained it so long, but that he considered it his duty to his Sovereign and to his country, Sir, I give him credit for sincerity in making that declaration, and I do not blame him now, and the only thing Isaid of Isis resig nation was that he acted perfectly in the spirit of the Constitution, and whatever other circumstances might arise, I stated that the Right Hon. Gentleman was not likely to obtain the confidence of the country after a dissolution.—(Hear, hear.) Bnt when I say that I don't blame the Right Hon. Gentleman's conduct on that oc. casion, I must add that I think it affords a far stronget instance of a Government retaining office than anything that has since occurred. (Laughter from the Opposition benches.) In the last Session of Parliament they thought it necessary to bring it to the test whether the party sitting on this or the other side of the House. possessed the confidence of the House of Commons, and upon that question, which was fully debated, and which every question of the merit or demerit of the Government was discussed, the House decided against the Right Hon. Baronet by a majority of 21 (Cheers.) Now Sir, is not that a totally different case from that which occurred during the administration of the Right Hon, Barouet.—(Hear, hear.) If the Right Hon. Baronet had obtained a vote in a full House, with a majority of 21 upon a proportion, of a want of con fidence, would he not have felt himself justified in continuing in office ? lam persuaded he would. Looking back to what has oc curred I cannot think that we have been wrong on the various oc casions on which we have been accused of unduly retaining ;salver when we should have offered our resignations.—(Hear, hear.) It is evident that our successors would be those who sit upon the opposite side of the House, and it never seemed to me that they had the confidence of the country in such a de gree as would entitle them to take our places.(Cheers.) I will not say what may be the case now, but with regard to those single elections that have happened since this Parliament was first elected, I must be excused for saying that they don't afford any decisive opinion of public sentiment.—(Loud cheering.) The Right Hon. Gentleman in his speech of to.night, in going over the various questions of the sugar duties, timber duties, and the Corn laws, has, I am sorry to say, held out, as I think, very little hope that he will be favourable to these measures. I should certainly rather have heard that he had held more encouraging opinions on these subjects, even although he defended his vote of tonight by the peculiar circumstances in which the West Indies were placed; but with regard to corn in particular, I think the Right Hon. Gen. tleman held out very little hope of any alteration. Sir, I have en deavoured myself, contrary to my original opinion, to see whe ther some proposition might not be devised by whieh many- of the evils of the present Corn-laws might be avoided, but I have not been able to succeed. I believe that fluctuations and gambling will take place, and that there will be a con. stant interruption of our trade with foreign countries, and that a want of markets will still be found to exist. It is possible, undoubtedly, that a great alteration with respect to the amount of protection may be made; but if any great alteration is pro. posed, that would be opposed with as much vehemence by those who oppose any change In the Corn•laws as any change from a graduated to a fixed duty. In alluding to the question of corn, which I shall have another opportunity of considering—(Loud cheers)—l wish to make one observa tion with reference to what fell from the Noble Lord the Member for North Lancashire. The Noble Lord said that the producer of corn depended not on his own skill or ingenuity, but on sunshine, and rain, and storm. That obser vation is quite true with regard to the producer in particular coun. tries, or in particular positions. It is quite true, as the Noble Lord says, with respect to the production of his crops he must de pend upon a higher Power ; but it seems that that higher Power, which sends the storm and the thunder, also sends a remedy for it. Such is the bounty of Providence, that if in one country you have a bad season and a deficient harvest, that same bounty in another country produces a plentiful crop. It is in the power of man, by his skill, and by the means he has of traversing the ocean, to take advantage of that bounty which thus remedies partial evils. But if you do not allow that intercourse to take place, it is not to a higher power —to the inflictions of Providence, that you owe the de. ficiency of food—lay it at the door where it is justly due—(Ministe. rial cheers)—lay the blame on your own laws, which prevent the operation ofthis great and magnificent schetne, wherebyplenty would be distributed among the various nations of the globe, and by which they would be made to depend one upon the other by joining in an intercourse with each other. If that intercourse shall not take place, the curse of sterility, and barrenness, and scarcity must prevail, instead of that plenty which would exist if the gracious designs of Providence were not marred by your unjust egisia tion.—(Cheers). Sir R. PEEL—Sir, I beg to be allowed to say one word in ex planation. The Noble Lord referred to the appointment of a Noble Friend of mine to the Embassy to Russia. Now there was no vote on that occasion. A motion was made for the pro duction of the appointment, but none had then been made, The retirement of my Noble Friend was no act of mine—it was the unsuggested act of my Noble Friend. There was no vote—had the House of Commons addressed the Crown respecting that ap pointment, it was my full intention to have retired. The House then divided, when the numbers were— For the resolution of Lord Sandon 317 Against the resolution. 2Bl Majority --36 The announceement was received with some cheering on the Opposition benches. On our return to the Gallery we found Lord JOHN RUSSELL moving the following amendment, " To leave out from the word considering' to the end of the amendment, in order to add the following words, 'that it is practicable to supply the present in. adequacy of the Revenue to meet the expenditure o! the country, by a judicious alteration of protective and differential duties, with. out any material increase of the public burthens, such a course will, in the opinion of this House, promote the interests of trade, afford relief to the industrious classes, and is best calculated to pro. v:de for the maintenance of public faith and the general welfare of the people." Upon which strangers were ordered to withdraw, but no division took place, and Lord Sandon's resolution was agreed to. The other Orders of the Day were then disposed of, and the House adjourned at Twenty Minutes to Four o'Clock until Thursday. COURT OF COMMON COUNCIL. DEFEAT OF THE MONOPOLISTS. A Special Court of Common Council was held yesterday in the Council Chamber, Guildhall, in consequence of a requisi tion to the Lord Mayor, for the purpose of taking into con sideration the propriety of petitioning both Houses of Parlia mvnt for the repeal or revision of the Corn-laws. 'The Lord Mayor entered the Court, and took the chair pre cisely at two o'clock. The minutes of the last Court having been read, and the routine business of the Court having been disposed of, The LORD MAYOR said that the Court had been specially called by him, in consequence of a requisition. Whatever his private opinions were upon the subject of the Corn-laws, he considered it to be his duty to give every member of that Court an opportunity of considering and expressing his opinions upon that important subject.—( Hear, hear.) As he felt no doubt of being supported in that chair, he would refrain from g i v i ng any opinion, leavin g it t o th e Co urt to enter into the discassion, and come to that decision on the subject which they thought correct. Mr. STEVENS then rose for the purp6se of moving the first two resolutions. Year after year discussions had taken pace in that Court, and resolutions had been passed, to the effect that the Corn-laws were most injurious to the poor man, and greatly detrimental to the commercial interests of the country ; and now that her Majesty's Ministers haft been converted to the opinion of the necessity of the revision of the Corn-laws, it became that Court to meet and discuss the subject. He saw some members of the Court now pre sent from which he was induced to hope that the Corpo ration of London were determined to feel for the poor man. It was said that this was a political question; he admitted that it was so, as far as good measures were better than bad. He should hare been happy if the task of urging this sub ject forward had devolved on abler hands, but he trusted the Court, in the course he should adopt, would give him credit for the best of motives.—(Hear, hear.) He thought the establishment 'of a fixed duty was necessary, for the prosperity of the country. If Gentlemen looked back to the period that had gone by they would see that the poor man and the labouring man had been sinking lower and lower since the introduction of the Corn-laws:—(Hear, hear.) Since that period he had been obliged to buy food at a high price while his 'labour had been paid for at a low rate, and the result of this was disaffection and despair,—( Hear, hear.) The Corn laws were a tax upon the poor for the purpose of putting money into the pockets of the riCh-:-it was a tax upon the whole population of the country for the benefit cf one class in society.—( Hear, hear.) It was bad in every point of view, and he looked to the Government, which had now taken the right step, to bring forward measures that would protect the community against the acts of the selfish. He trusted the time had now arrived when the question of the repeal of the Corn laws would ring from one end of the country to the other, and if that was the casehe felt that eventually they must berepealed. If the present Administration were to go out to-morrow he would venture to 'say that no other Administration could stand for a single day without bringing forward some measure with respect to the modification of those laws.--( Hear, hear:) He was not one who was inclined to convulse the different orders of society • he wished to do things by d egrees , b u t hi s fi rm opi nion was that all trade should be free. He thought that the enacting of a fixed duty upon corn would do great good to the commerce of the country, and to the people at , large. He looked at this question as a great commercial one, and his firm belief was, that if the Corn-laws were repealed the commerce of the country would be considerably benclited.—( Hear, hear.) The countries on the Continent were chiefly agricul tural, and the result was that the existing Corn-laws prevented them from trading with this country as we could not take their corn - in exchange for our manufactures. The Hon. Gentleman concluded by moving the following resolutions :—, "'that all la ws w hi c h, un d e r the pretext of affording re, quisite protection to the agricultural interests of this king dom, impose exorbitant or fluctuating duties on the importation of corn and other provis;ons, are injurious to commerce, ruin,. ous to the manufacturer, and tend to the misery and degiada-.. tion of the working classes, and are delusive as to the benefits which they affect to confer even on the agricultural . class es themselves. " That tlis Court, continuing to be impressed with the magnitude of the evils flowing from the present state of 0- 4 , Corn-laws, and fully convinced of the large remedy that woUld be afforded by reducing the duty' to a fixed amount, do agai n petition both Houses of Parliament to substitute a moderate fixed duty for the existing graduated scale." Sir MATTHEW Woon seconded the resolutions. Hi bad always been, and ever should be, the adv ocate o f free .t ade. Every vote that he had given in the House of Commons was based upon that principle. Her 'Majesty's present Ministers, in consequence of the relief they had given to the people is taking off several millions of taxes, had run short in the reve nue, and they had brought forward a proposition in the House of Commons, by which' they hoped to make up this deficiency without imposing. further t axes upon the people, "What, he would ask, would those gentlemen think who opposed the, pre sent proposition, if the Government, instead of adopting the course it, had done, had resorted to a' property tax .?—(kfear, hear.) No one could doubt that the:Corn•laws bore Most heavily upon the working classes, and it was surprising te him (si r M. Wood) how many of the poor people lived as they did. The other day he had attended a meeting on the subject of thel7orn-laws, which had been held in the ward of which he was Alderman. The parties that attended there were of a most respectable character, and happy was he to say that not a single hand had been held up against th e resolutions which were proposed, the object of which Was to deprecate the Corn, laws as they at present existed. At that meeting a vote of thanks was carried to her Majesty's 'Ministers for the course they hail . pursued. The cry y eas , " Down with monopoly, and ) v bet Maj,.sly7s Ministers."—((ateat cheering.) If ; meetings like those he had adverted to were held in all part. of the country, he would venture to say that it would not be many months, let who might be in power, even Sir Robert Peel, before a measure wou ld b e b rought forward and carried for the repeal of the Corn-laws.--( Hear, hear. ) The RECORDER having put the resolutions to the Court, Mr. It. L. JoNxs rose. He thought it most extraordinary that his worthy Fricnd, who had introduced the resolu tions to the Court had not thought of the repeal of the Corn laws at an earlier period of his. life. As to her Majesty', Ministers bringing forward this measure, they never thought of the repeal or alteration of the Corn-laws until they lost Not t.ngharn., and found thp country going against them. Then, and not till then, had they brought forward these measures. They were like a drowning man, and were catching at every straw by which they thought they would be enabled to retain office. The last straws they had caught at were sugar, timber, and corn.—( Laughter.) What, he would ask, was the condnct of Lord Melbourne last year ? Why, he actually stated to the House of Lords, that that man must be mad who would attempt to in terfere with the Corn-laws as they at present existed. ( The Hon. Gentleman here read a long extract from a speech of Lord John Russell to the electors of Devon, in which the Noble Lord expressed his dissent from many of the doctrines of the political economists.) Those had been the opinions of Lord John Russell. A great deal had been said of the dis tress of the manufacturers ; those distresses had for years past , occurred periodically, in consequence of over-produc.ion ; and, as on former occasions, they had passed away without ' legislative interference, so they would on the present. It was only a scheme to bolster up the Ministers, and he had great . satisfaction in proposing, as an amendment, the previous I question. Sir PETER La time seconded the amendment, and com plained of the who. t notice which had been given of the meet ing. There had been no opportunity to organise any opposi tion, and those who supported the m o ti on were wise in no t giving lon ger notice. They recollected what had happe ne d two years ag o , an d h e did not doubt but that they would be de feated on the present occasion, as they had been then.— (Cheers.) Ministers were aware of the perilous sit"ation in which they stood, and this was a mere attempt to prolong their tenure of office. The pretence was, a care for the hungry poor ; the reality was, a care for the hungry placemen.--(Hear, hear, hear.) Th e mem b ers who had proposed the reso lution had stated that they were not prepared with their figures in support of it ; therefore, he thought they could not do better than vote for the amendment, in order to give these gentlemen time to be prepared with their ease.—( A laugh.) The fact was, the Ministry was in jeopardy, and they had called this meeting to lend them a helping band. Mr. STeviesrs--No one said that. Sir PETER LAURIE—What, however, was the intention of the resolution.—( Cheers. ) Their defeats at Nottingham and Sandwich had male them alive to the advanta,ges of a cheap loaf, but he hoped the Court would not be led away by any such flimsy pretext. The sense of the country was against them, and if they appealed to the country, which he hoped they would do, he felt convinced, that in a new Parliament, there would be a majority of 70 or 80 against them. ( Cheers.) Mr. Sea cer supported the original motion. The plea of moreenne to consider the question was groundless—he had had plenty of time to make up his mind on the subject, and the first intimation he had' had of the meeting was at the hospitable board of the worthy Alderman who had last spoken, so that the worthy . Knight had had at all events more time than he (Mr. Stacey) had had. Those who opposed this resolution complained that the farmers would be ruined by an abolition of the Corn-laws, but let them look at the condition of the labourers, who were now s h oe l ess , houseless, and a l mos t coverless. They could not be in a worse condition under any system, and were they not justified in thinking that their condition would be better if a fair market for their manufactures were .opened to them ?—(Cheers.) They had been told that Lord John Russell was a recent con vert to the doctrines of free trade, but what would they say to Lord Ashburton ?—:(Cheers.) If Lord John Russell had been converted to good ways, Lord Ashburton had been per verted to evil ones.—(Cheers.) The subject of the Cor n -l aws had bee n so f requent l y d e b ated there that he did not think much time could be required for preparation for discussion. Surely the expenses of weight, and the duty of eight shillings per quaver, which the foreign importer would have to pay was a sufficient protection to the British agriculturist. It had been complained that the resolution only went to the Corn-laws, and left the questions of the sugar duty and the timber duty untouched.—(Hear, hear.) Why the Corn-law was the key to the whole corruption of the House of Com mons.—(Loud cheers.) Repeal that, and the Members of that House would be ready enough Ito abolish all mo no p o li es which pre sse d u p on themselves.—(Cheers.) Allusion had been made to Nottingham and to Walsall. How had those places been carried? Why, by Tory gold.—(Loud cheers.) The Tories at Nottingham had formed an unholy alliance with the Chartists, in order to endeavour to suppress the spirit and the intelligence of the country, which they feared.—(Cheers. ) He was glad to hear of the act of justice which Ministers had pro posed in bringing forward this measure for abolishing the Corn-laws. All other trades had lowered their rates of profits at the return of the peace. Not so the agriculturists, they'had by the Cor n sl aws en d eavoure d to k eep the war rents, and they ought in justice to come down to the level of the other trades. He cordially supported the original resolution._( Cheers. ) Mr. OLD would vote for the previous question. If Ministers had been convinced of the necessity of making these changes, they ought to have announced them in the speech from the throne—(Cheers)—and the fact of their not having done so, convinced him that they had only resolved on those measures which they had brought forward with such indecent haste, after their defeat upon the Irish franchise question. He did not believe they had any serious intention of carrying them, for if they had they would have proPOsed them at the time they could have commanded a large majority of the House of Commons. The haste exhibited in concocting that meeting was almost as indecent as that exhibited by Ministers. A MEMBER—It has been on the paper these three weeks.—. (A laugh.) Mrs R. TAYLOR would support the resolution, not because it emanated from this or from that party, but because he be lieved the principle contained in it would, if carried out, be for the benefit of the people.,-(Cheers.) That principle had been debated and af f irmed over and over again by that Court. There had been nothing hitherto in the speeches of the sup porters of the resolution which had any reference to politics, while those of its opponents had been altogether of a political character. The speakers on the other side had carefully abstained from saying anything as to the merits of the ques tion. They did not like directly to negative a principle which they knew not how 'soon their friends might find it convenient to adopt—(Cheers, and laughter)—and therefore he gave them credit for the moving the previous question, and they might, rely on it that whenever they should find it convenient to adopt those views they would have his hearty support, as he was totally un;nlluenced by anything like party motives.—(Cheers.) They had been told that the Administration had only been driven into the adoption of these opinions by the election of Mr. Walter for Nottingham. It happened, however, some what singularly that they had had time to write to Canada to their former colleague, Lord Sydeuham, upon the subject, and to receive his reply and that reply showed that their minds had some time since been fully made tip on the question. A letter without date had been read from the John Bull of Sunday last, for the purpose of showing that Lord John Russell had changed his opinions. That letter contained the opinions he had held as a very young man, when he represented an agricultural constituency; but had not Sir Robert Peel and the Duke cf Wellington changed their opinions on Catholic Emancipation ?—( Cheers.) Had not Lord Stanley changed every one of the opinions which he had held as a young man?—(Cheers.) But he had nothing to do with the changes of opinion of any man, he supported the resolution on principle, because he thought it would be for the general in terest of the country, and for the benefit more particularly of the labouring population. The agricultural labourer received only 9s. a week wages, and the manufacturing labourer was quite as ill paid, and because both were in distress that was considered a sufficient reason for leaving matters alone. They were taxed to the amount of double the value of the bread they consumed, and that not for the support of the rev enue , but to go into the p oc k e t s o f the monopolists.—( Cheers.) He did not approve of many of the details of the New Poor-law, but he thought the principle of it ajust one, that the labourer should be taught to rely upon his own resources and frugality ; but the labourer had, at the same time, a right to demand that he should be afforded a sufficient supply at a fair market price, and the principle of the New Poor-law was not applicable un less the Corn-laws and all other monopolies were abolished. —(Cheers.) Allusion had been made to the recent elec tions. He, for one, considered it no disgrace to the Ministry to be in a minority in the present House of Commons, be cause that House was composed of a majority of monopolists. —(Cheers.) They had heard of the immense sums which had been spent by the aristocracy in the recent elections, in de bauching the morals of the people, and in bribery and cor ruption. Now was it to be supposed that this expenditure had been incurred for the sake of mischief alone? No such thing. It was because they got by it, and they could well afford to corrupt electors, when by weans of the protecting system they were enabled to squeeze sixty millions annually from the pockets of the unfortunate people.—(Cheers, and cries of "-St. Alban's.") Well, admitting that bribery had been practised at St. Al'ban's, what did that make against his argu ment? They could not out of two evils make a good.— (Cheers.) He was actuated by no party motives, but he would do the Ministers the justice to.say that their conduct, in his opinion, showed they had taken up the question honestly —(Cheers)—because, without regard to the chance of being beaten, they had boldly attacked the three monopolies at once. —(Cheers.) That showed that they were actuated rather. by principle than by party tactics—(Cheers)—and they certaiply, had adopted the most honourable course by so doing. • . Mr. GADSDEN defended himself for sending out a circular' in opposition to the proposed address. He had been requested to act as secretary to- a, number of gentlemen who were op posed to it, and he had not made it general merely in accord ance with their feelings. He was astonished to 'hear such respectable men as the mover and seconder of the address deal in such sweeping charges against the landowners of the coun try. 'they were, probably, not so well acquainted with land enters as he was, and he broadly asserted that if the land owner were to give up every farthing of rent, it would not make the loaf a halfpenny cheaper.—(A laugh,) He con tended that the whole rental of the country did not reach le. an acre. If the C oredatesewerirepealed, the agrieultural in terest would be destroyed, and would become dependent upon foreign countries. Mr. Bowen, had always, and would again that day, vote against the motion, The reduction in the price of corn was only sought by our manufacturers for the purpose of getting their labour cheaper, and so enable them to compete with the foreigner. What benefit, then, would the workman receive? How could that Court, which had so often Petitioned for the abolition of slavery—(" Oh, oh")—give their support to a set. of men who would repeal the Emancipation Act ?. Could' the Court come to a vote which in effect would be to say that the bust of Clarkson was unfairly placed id that Hall ? Mr. PEwricess was astonished at the arguments of the last speakerefor was it not one of the strongest and most often re 'pealed arguments in favour of emancipation, that slave labour could not sand against free labour—(Cheers)—and what did Ministers propose ? Not to put slave sugar upon an equality with the,produce of our free colonies. No ; they proposed to give the latter a p r ot ec ti on of 59 per cent. He thought the present proposition of the Government a fair one for the benefit of the country ; and, therefore, he gave it his warmest sup `lpOrt. It was absolutely necessary that they should remove the restrictions upon, the importation of food, for the landlords refased to take steps by which they would be enabled to sup port the population. He had always thought it would beim possibledo carry out all the stringent ena c t me nts of the new Poor-law vi ichout some such measures as 't hese no proposed. Let-them become the law of the land-and the large union workhouses would be useles s , for th e 'timid l want no populationpa of the country would have plenly of work andeir i ou ... „ ) 'She plan rochial relief.—(Loud cries of r. Heat, was too comprehensive to have been brought 'c out upon the beenong under spur of ' the moment—ft must have consideration, and he trusted that a large major it y of the their constituent Members of that Court would do justice to _ with s, • and rote in favour of a measure that was f rau g ht un mixed good to the country. of humanity that had Ili ail sugar; the great hee ll n lr r . a L ise A d W ag ßE ai N n e s the great growers of sugar in the West humanity-mongers, slave-grown sugar when the F. y could had no horror at using _ th ri e .d i ie n u tro le( c i lin t. . h ti P en c o 'r t y The price of labour bad nothing to do with the could obtain it for less than they compelled us to pay for their produce.. at least so far from lowering the 'price of labou r price v it had always, since the peace, been then much o e f cr e n or n n a — s ion , higher. 11Iore labourers th an were wanted reduced the and its price of labour in the market. Mike labour Oen!' • • " price would be high, whatever the price of corn b might e AI ~, 1 `ail .., ' f ~- - 1 , ,, a , THE SUN, LONDON, WEDNESDAY, MAY 19, 1841 4 4 IWENING EDITION. The question was not one as to who should be in or who should be out ; it was one of life and death to the people of the eotntry, and would within a very short time force itself upon the attention of all, and the people would not confine them selves to a demand for the abolition of the protective system as applied to corn only, they would extend their demand to the abolition of the system altogether. Mr. Alderman lIEYGATE contended that the question wa as political one--(" No, no")—it was brought forward for the pur pekOnsolstering up an Administration which the people of Engle/id had repudiated at every election which had occurred of 'ate. The present was not the proper or fit time for 'consider ing the question, it ought to have been brought forward not in the mentli of May, but in a speech from the throne. (Laugh ter.) He trusted the Court would not lend any assistance to men who, because they could not live in a house, set lire to it. • Mr. HALL felt bound to say that the sentiments expressed by the worthy Alderman were not the prevailing onus in the ward he presided over. The Court, to be consistent, ought to agree with the address, for the same proposition was carried in 1839, and also in 1840. Surely it would be uebecomin g in that Court to refuse to tome to some determination on the im - portant question, as they were asked to do by the amendment. Mr. Alderman BROWN rose amidst loud cries of " Divide." He said it was a strange feature in that debate that all the supporters of the proposed address had carefully denied that they had brought forward the motion with any intention of aiding a Government who were incapable, and velebrated for nothing but a tenacity of office, which reminded him of the eel. He contended that the price of bread vinaldlall h a repeal of the Corn-law, and consequently the price of labour. —(Laughter, and cries of " Oh.") The Corn-laws were not intended as a protection for the rich man against the poor ; they were for the general protection of all.—( A laugh.) Mr. J. LART instanced the case of America, where food was very cheap and labour high ; while in this country the price of corn was twice as high as in 1835, vet wages were never so low as at the present moment. The 1-lon. Gentleman con filmed to speak at considerable length, but the Court was so impatient that his voice was drowned. Mr. ASUURST remembered when King William refused the Reform Bill, the worthy Alderman quoted Scripture to him (Mr. Ashtustl, and told bier to " Fear God, and, irmour the King." Now he was disposed upon that occasion to return the compliment, and the passage be would quote was, " He that withholdeth corn, the people shall curse."—(Cheers.) So well hail the people of former times understood the question, that even in the tune of Solomon that had become a maxim,God, for the purpose of protecting his creatures, caused corn to grow in every country on earth. There were two instances which he was anxious to state to the meeting. The first was Holland, that country could not grow corn enough for her sub sistence: she had not land enough for the p urpose — s h e was not cursed with a C orn- l aw, yet she hail at all times a suffi cient. supply of food.—(Cheers.) The people of that country trusted to God's providence, and they were liberally supplied. Again, take the case of Ireland she hada Corn-law, under the operation of which her labourers were starving on 6d. a day, and every fourth one was a pauper, that was the state of things under a Corn-law. But then he was told that he must not go to a country where corn is cheap, or his 6d. a-day will dwindle in proportion. Now, suppose he was to leave Ireland and land at New York, there he would find the wheat selling at 255. a quarter, having left it in Ireland between 70s. and 80s. Well, remembering what he was told by the pretended friends of the labourer at home, he would naturally fancy that his 6d. would not be more than 2d. or 3d. a day, how astonished then would he be to find plenty offering him work at a dollar a day.--(Loud cheering.) Let them contrast those two cases, and then say whether the poor had anything . to do with the Corn-laws. If laour had been represented in the Legislature would those things ever have been allowed. The real root of the evil was this. In this country we had a labouring power equal to 600 millions of men—the population was 28 millions—and if they manufactured to such an extent, it was clear that they could net consume the productions ; they must therefore starve if they could not have the advantages of foreign trade. With such a population as.outs in a starving condition, would life and pro perty be safe ? It. could not. Then he called upon the Court to take their choice of the least of two evils, for it was a moral impossibility to put a stop to the powers of steam.—(Cheers.) Me. DAvisost did not desire to see the previous question carried, nor could he agree in the resolution proposed. When - an opportunity offered he intended to propose an amendment to the effect that the present Corn-law had not given satisfaction. —(Cheers.) That, he believed, was universally admitted, bat he would only consent to call upon the Legislature to reri!e the system ' without pointing ou t any course for their guidance. Mr. WELLS would cheerfully support the previous question, and that because he was a friend of the poor.—( Laughter. ) Every one who had spoken on the question had carefully shrunk from even alluding to the 800 millions of debt. —( Cheers.) '1 he Prussian League was a mere carrying out of the Berlin and Milan decrees, and would yet be carried further. Did Hon. Gentlemen want to bring the Bank of England again to such a degraded position as that its Governors should have to :go again on their knees, to beg assistance from the Bank of France. Mr. STEVENS replied. There was no question that the corn imported of late years had made a large drain upon the gold of this country ; but that gold was only demanded from us, be cause we were not regular, but only occasional customers. The Court then divided upon the previous question, which was negatived by a majority of 16. The Lore Mayor, 6 Al dermen, and 58 Comm oners vo ti ng f or i t ; wh i le 2 Aldermen, and 79 Commoners voted against it. Mr. DAvisore then proposed the following amendment : " That this Court, being impressed with a conviction that the existing Corn-laws have not worked beneficially for the va rious interests of this country, and fully convinced, therefore, of the necessity of the subject being revised, do petition both Houses of Parliament for a revisal of the laws which regulate the importation of corn, with a view to the introduction of such measure or measures as in the wisdom of Parliament shall be calculated to increase the trade, both domestic and foreign, of the country at large, and ameliorate to the utmost the condi tion of the labouring population." A desultory and angry discussion arose on points of order, in the midst of which Mr. King made several motions for ad journment. The amendment was' negatived. Many of the members made their escape by the Alderman's entrance door. Mr. KING then put it to the Lord Mayor • whether, some Members having left the Court after the question had been put, the. Court was not dissolved.—(Much laughter. ) ' Mr. Alderman COPELAND moved that the Town-clerk read the oath taken by Common Councilmen. After considerable confusion the resolutions and the petitions founded upon them, were allowed to be carried without a divi sion. The petition to the Commons was ordered to be presented by the Sheriffs, and Earl Fitzwilliam be requested t 4) present that to the House of Lords. The Court adjourned at half-past six o'clock. SPIRIT of the PUBLIU JOURNALS. FROM THE MORNING PAPERS OF THIS OAT. ADVERTISER.—At last Sir Robert Peel has declared himself. Followsing the Duke of Wellin&ton's example in the memorable declaration of I b3O, that Reform in Parliament was not needed, he has taken another false step, and declared for the Corn-laws as at present constituted. We need not say that the issue will be the same. We shall not vraste any words upon his cunning speech addressed to his suppOlters, and calculated only for the meridian of Parliament. The coun try will decide. The merchants and the artisans, whose cause he has so madly . repudiated, must pronounce on the matter. In regard to the sugar duties, he 'threw over en tirely the philanthropists, and stated the question to be one of mere prudence, which another year might not call for. The timber duties he would say nothing about. In short, he has declared himself for monopoly against free trade. The cowardice that compelled him but lately to obey the call of his pai-ty to lead- on the Stanley tactics has enslaved him. He has forfeited' any claim which he ever had of holding • even the seals between the friends and foes of progress —and has thrown himself entirely into the hands of the party of his Grace the Duke of Buckingham and the Sir Edward Knatch bull ; and discarded the commercial interests; and the in dustrious working classes. It is now for the Government to dissolve the Parliament ; and then comes the task of the Peo pk to meet the appeal ; but, in the mean time, to prevent accidents, the country should omit no manner of way of expressing its sentiments on the matter. Shall .we have the Corn-laws or not ? Shall trade be stopped ? Shall Ireland be trusted to the tender mercies of the Tories? Shall .monopoly rule the land? Shall the poor starve for the .benefit of the few? Shall the labouring man be deprived of a fair remune ration of his labour to put money into the hands of the wealthy? This is the question at issue, and the Tories have dci ided the matter is their favour by a majority of thirty-six ! With Ire land upon their back, they will now travel at a rail-road pace. CHRONICLE.—The discussion on the. sugar. branch of the Budget has terminated. On a division the numbers Were 317 to 281 in favour of Lord Sandon's resolution. Now that the debate is over, we may conscientiously say, that a more degrading exhibition than that of the monopolists, from first to last, never was made to an injured and insulted people. The argument has been all on one eide. The pre text of humanity was soon torn from the monopolists ; and, indeed, after the signal failure experienced by them at Exeter Hall, on Friday last, it was • obvious that they. had abandoned all hope of deceiving. the peo ple. When the division was announced, Lord' John Russell announced, to the no small mortification of the monopolists, that he would give the House another opportunity of expressing its opinion on the question of the Corn-laws, and that if the House did not respond to what the interests of the country de manded, he should be justified in appealing to the country. The Nobl e L or d state d t h at h e considered what had lately taken place at tingle elections no test whatever-of: the sense of the nation. The monopolists were conscious that the Noble Lord here uttered only the language of truth,• and the an nouncementith of an appeal to the .country struck themw dismay. Sir Robert Peel was evidently borne down h by the consciousness of his hail cause. was far from being one of his happiest efforts. 1 . His speech was characterised by the reserve and evasion observed by every speaker on the same side of Russell spoke only a short while in reply. Lord Palmerston's It pursued admirable speech told amazingly on the Ilense .„ - and lashed the monopolists through their various doublmg. relieved, from them most unmercifully. The arguments wer e We shall reenet o the questioie Lord .lobo time to time, by a happy vein of pleasantry. _ . , . _ . . F or tne i e.wit, of this most powerful and admirable sprecii d, and Ministers were' of Pr e lf,L bold language of Lord the division the country were course equally prepared for it; and '. John Russell tells the people the people will do their dut y . it is one which no sophist r y that the question it now in their hands. We have no doubt that They understand the question; has come t c h o e meat HouselasotriChoemmons hue can perplex 'long-pro t r a T c t l e A d i E struggle S.: T h e i a f , the country by • • a majority of 36 ratified the expectations o • ious of animals has only nine lives, and votes. The most v iv acious of Administrations could not adjourn the most leech-like of Admiri . lownfill for more than nine nights together. moment of its c . . 7 Resignation or dissolution This dievni,dimotri has What is to follow . ? is now the all -absorbing question; and th e only clue which any man o f the interest which Ministers may have in can have to the answer is to be found.,. in a conside rationrather than the other. 'No scruples the one • t i, o ,--ito thoughts of the public I goo( —no appre hensionsof patrio to the • of mischief country from the tumult of a fire brand agitation, would hinder them from following any course which might seem the most likely to secure to Lord Mel course, bourne his " working majority" of Palace , clineers, and to Mr. O'Connell his measuring -cast majority in the House of Commons. Nevertheless, we think their resignation is a far from impossible event. A dissolution would serve only to expose in a stronger light than ever their miserable weaknrsv and hopeless unpopularity. It is very well to talk of " classes," in opposition t o cc the great b u lk o f the people ;'' but the people consi s t of classes; and we s hould be glad to know where is th e c l ass (unless it be the master manufacturer) to which the Whi g Mi nisters can think of looking for support ? The landed i n t erest, which commands all the- counties, and which has hitherto returned them some few Members, is now 11ni'vertally exasperated against them ; and the only possible ef ittt, in that direction, of a dissolution upon the Corn-law ques tion,, would be to Co nv e r t reluctant opponents , like Lord VC ors ley, M r . H an dl ey, Ai r. ll cat h e ote, Mr. Hodges, Mr. Cayley, &c., into hitter and irreeoncileable enemies. . Nor will the in fluence of the clergy of the Church of England be 'smaller, or less decid e dl y thrown into the Cosservative scale upon this than pretty sure that the Whigs will not venture to di sso l ve. on form e r octasious. All these things considered, we feel de A liTte ks tst;Tig i l A tt L iTig i l j i n ts " , adjourned. without any further division ; r a il l aE ul fate of the Adminis- . :' ,.. Es e i d 4 e ß r e k t l r [c m'. charact er rll°rnNn '0 al'.ftTe ' may. excite some surprise),, withept any deila n t l b l e 'e p l a i r: sc .of Minister*. that, ,after a.voto of the House I c a l n a t ( s P :a .Q.S a — t i. l ,o l e l n :h ( e g e , f , ..h i l i ' i li cle c .°l h r t r a at tion n o . of Commons lu:equivocal!), pronouncing them unworthy of the ,P' .. , N.• StYi rt o i ) oi i be P e r itiv" 3" 3 ir? rot