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

THE SUN, LONDON, WEDNESDAY EVENING, NOVEMBER, 24, 1852.

-
gramme of Lord Derby was one of compromise and con-
ciliation. How moderate it was I shall show in recalling
it to the consideration of the house. In 1851, did Lord
Derby come forward and say, We shall return to the
sliding scale of 1846? On the contrary, he says, I propose
that we shall have a countervailing duty, such as has met
the approbation of men of the highest character and au-
thority in this country. You say that the agricultural
interest is subject to burdens arising from taxation and to
restrictions upon its industry. Well, I open books of
authority upon this subject, and they tell me that a coun-
tervailing duty is the legitimate remedy. I know that
there are many sincere and disinterested Free-traders,
among others the noble lord the member for Tiverton,
who, while he gave his consent to the abrogation of the
corn-laws, yet, speaking as a statesman, expressed his
regret that the opportunity had been lost of raising a large
sum to the taxation of this country by the imposition of a
countervailing duty. A very moderate duty was proposed
by Lord Derby—he did not attempt to disturb the question
that had once been settled. (Ironical cheering and laughter.)
I come, then—(Renewed laughter.) Sir, the policy of
Lord Derby has been explained by himself, in his place in
Parliament. That speech remains on record, which an
uninformed sneer will certainly not disturb. (Hear.) What
was the conduct of Lord Derby with regard to sugar ? And
now I beg the house, as the Government is upon its trial,
as an honest jury to listen to my statement. Did
Lord Derby propose a resumption of those laws which were
repealed in 1846, under the protest of Sir Robert Peel ?
Nob in the least. All that Lord Derby proposed was
that the descending scale of duties, which made a differ-
ono) between colonial and foreign sugars, should be ar-
rested, and that only for a time, till the sufferings of the
colonies should have passed away. Did Lord Derby
propose to reinstitute the abrogated navigation laws ?
On the contrary, Lord Derby only proposed, declaring
that the recurrence to those laws was impossible, the
removal of those restrictions which the noble lord opposite
had sanctioned. Lord Derby. did not succeed in forming
a Government in 1851. It became, therefore, necessary
to consider his position with respect to these questions,
and after due consideration it was his opinion that it
would be inexpedient, unwise, and injurious to bring
forward in Parliament, either in that or in any subse-
quent session, any motion which would, either directly or
indirectly, continue the great industrial controversy which
had been so long maintained. He was at the same time
aware that there was a party in the country who would
not allow their course to be dictated. or their feelings to be
regulated by any mere Parliamentary party. It was not for
him to tell men who were suffering that they were never to
obtain relief ; but he said, If the nation is aggrieved, an
early opportunity will occur when the nation may relieve
itself. He considered that after his failure to form a Govern-
ment in 1851, as far as moral certainty was concerned, a
dissolution of Parliament must necessarily take place under
the advice of the noble lord opposite. A dissolution of
Parliament taking place under the auspices of his political
opponents would be the proper occasion to conclude for
ever this great controversy; and after those circumstances,
which I dare say were sufficiently mortifying to many par-
ties In this house—l mean his failure to form a Govern-
ment—after having done my best to rally the spirits of my
friends in this house—in perfect concurrence with his ad-
vice, and in complete sympathy with all his counsels, I
resolved, as I communicated to my friends at the time,
that I would not, during that session, bring forward the
question of taxation incident to agriculture, because the
Government might thereby be pressed, and in order that
that which has actually occurred might be prevented. The
consequence was, that in 1852, though there were political
causes, independent altogether of the general feeling of
this house, which made it possible that if I had brought
forivard a motion on the question of taxation, as incident
to agriculture, I would have carried it, or at least I would
have been defeated by a majority so slight that any Go-
vernment would have been shaken to its base, I scrupu-
lously refrained from making such a motion. I did not
wish to have the controversy prolonged, I looked for-
ward to the inevitable and impending dissolution of Par-
liament, which was about to take place, as I thought,
under the auspices of the noble lord opppsite, as that
which would undoubtedly settle the question. But what
actually occurred ? That which no one could foresee.
The Government, which was so favoured by its opponents
that they could hardly be persuaded to do their duty lest
it should prove inconvenient to the party in power
—(aughter)that Government fell to pieces from inter-
sal dissensions—(loud cheers)—and Lord Derby, by the
advice of the noble lord, was sent for by her Ma-
jesty, and not in consequence of a vote for re-
moving the establishment charges of the poor-law. What
was the conduct of Lord Derby under those circumstances?
It was an incident which we did not anticipate—which we
much regretted. (Hear, and oh.) But I will ask the
house, not as men of honour, but as men of common spirit,
could we possibly have refused the duty, which was;almost
thrust upon us? (Cheers and counter cheers.) Our poli-
tical opponents ceased to be opponents. They wished ns
to occupy their places. (Laughter.) The house-wished it,
and I believe I may safely say there was no section or body
of men who did not wish to see some Government. (Laugh-
ter.) And I suppose no body of men ever acceded to office
with such a complete absence of party passion and party
feeling. (Loud Ministerial cheers.) Well, that being the
state of the case, I was very much surprised, after a
little time, when our position, I should have thought,
with regard to our antecedents, was pretty accurately
known, that the honourable gentleman, the stormy
petrel of protection—(cheers)—who always appears at a
particular crisis, the honourable member for 'Wolverhamp-
ton came forward, when I took my seat after my re-elec-
tion, and wished to know whether the Government was
about to propose a recurrence to a protective policy. Our
answer was in complete harmony with all we had said be-
fore—that we had acceded to power by no motion of our
own in this house, under circumstances which we could not
possibly have anticipated—that it seemed to be the unani-
mous feeling both in the house and in the country, that we
should administer affairs—and that it was not our inten-
tion to propose any recurrence to abrogated laws ; but, in
consistence with all we had said, and still more in defer-
ence to the feeling of that great party out of doors which
had a right to look to us for security for the constitu-
tional opportunity of advancing their opinions, that we
should, at an early opportunity, recommend her Majesty to
recur to the sense of her people, and that the decision of
the country on that subject should be final. (Hear, and
cheers.) Now, sir, I may be permitted to state, before I
arrive at the resolution, I may be permitted to state what
has been the conduct of the party which has perpetrated for
six years such enormous mischief, when they had,
almost without their consent, and certainly with no great
confidence in their own ability, been obliged to become
the Ministers of the Crown. We found when we acceded to
office that there were reasons which rendered an immediate
appeal to the sense of the people most inconvenient to the
public service—(hear, hear)—and although we wished"that
the appeal should take place at the earliest opportunity
possible, still we found that it was necessary to administer
the affairs of the country for a certain time. There were
formal and there were technical reasons which rendered at
least the lapse of two months inevitable. The lapse of
double that time would allow us to carry measures of the
greatest importance to the State. (Hear, hear.) The two
measures which were considered all-important were—one
for the defence of the country; the other for the reform of
the Court of Chancery. (Cheers.) Our measure for the
defence of the country was received with derision by the
noble lord the member for London. He exhausted all his
powers of amiable cynicism—(laughter and cheers)—he
reviewed and reorganised the Opposition ; and even as
now, as if the trumpet of political warfare could not sound
in that ear without wishing to take the trenches of the
enemy, I thought the Government were to be upset about
the militia, within a month after they had acceded to office.
There was no term of ridicule, no prophecy of disaster
which the noble lord did not make of the absurd scheme
Of a militia raised by voluntary enlistment. (Loud minis-
terial cheers.) Yet the party which has perpetrated
enormous mischief persisted in their course, and carried their
measure, which has met with eminent and unprecedented
success, and given to this country a powerful and popular
force. (Renewed cheers.) But no sooner had we provided
for the defence of the country, than we thought it our duty
to carry out the recommendations of the commission with
respect
to Chancery reform. We had the honour and ad-
vantage of a colleague whose great abilities were not ap-
preciated by his country, though his learning—his un-
rivalled learning—was universally acknowledged. (Hear,
hear.) But we saw in Lord St. Leonards, when he ac-
cepted the responsibility of a Minister of the Crown, not
merely a learned lawyer, but the mind and grasp of a
vigorous statesman. (Hear.) Acting by his advice, and
animated by the determination which inspired him to carry
this great reform, the first step of which depended on Par-
liament immediately carrying out the recommendations of
the commission, we resolved to face our ridiculing and de-
risive Parliament, propose measures, and try to pass
them. How were they received ? Even one whose gene-
;one conduct to the Government I never can forget, whose
amiable and popular character in this house men of all
sides acknowledge with pleasure—even the accomplished
and noble lord the member for Tiverton could not help
warning us, though in a pleasant sunny way, not to em-
bark in a Chancery snit. But her Majesty's Ministers
embarked in that Chancery suit, and I am proud
to say it is the greatest, the most successful, and the
most popular Chancery suit with the people of England
which has ever been entered upon. (Loud cheers). Well,
sir, the party which had perpetrated enormous mischief had
pledged themselves to advise her Majesty to dissolve Parlia-
ment. I have come to the dissolution of Parliament ; but
there is a chapter in the history of the late Parliament upon
which I mast touch, before I refer to the consequence of
that appeal to the country. Sir, I have shown to the house
what has been the course of the Protectionist party in the
Paaliament with respect to those three great measures,
which are properly described as the three great measures of
free trade—the repeal of the cornl-awe, the repeal of the
in; gar laws, and the repeal of the navigation laws. I have
mown to the house that from the moment those three mea-
Zrei4were carried, we never in any way whatever attempted
were that settlement--and, in sympathy with those who
enze're,,
connected with
of the house, we brought forward men-
ter, kit Iv, Jett with them which were of a remedial charac-
pies ve,eli in Pb way disturbed or challenged the princi-
now wi-',7l4rnich those laws were passed. (Hear.) Well, sir,
theg,ren7p-tartas the conduct with respect to these subjects of
sections, thet3i:_fore me, or ratherl would say of the united
present IWim,try",, eembined to terminate the career of the
sections have ,perpot I shall show to the house that those
selves. I will takorted as enormous mischiefs as we our-
Peel. They may ;3 followers of the late Sir Robert
ability, their great Zpbeg numerous, but looking to their
expression to their om rience, and their power of giving mons
to with great respect in ahl
..4--eseYmmbuisyte alrHaeaysr,be listened
cheers.) Far be it from meg hear, and
present their conduct, willl'iliinterpret, or to misre-
examine the lists of
it Hansard" to see how many follow°cmrs of that eminent per-
m )12 voted with my propositions for oas_iaii.es of a rdrnedial
character. I will treat them with
conscious if I misrepresent anyho,l; iornr ess, and I am
night, it is from inadvertce, which or anything
aygs to-
cannot will take as their representative
avoided.
they cannot help acknowledging as their win,. Whom
meat. I will take that distinguished statesman and
hfourmtbhleoUrnepivr.ezint
ive o
complished debater the
Ox-
ford (Mr. Gladstone).
in the
the party who has perpetrated enormous mischief .
last five years, the house will see whether I have not re-
ceived the sanction of that distinguished man. I brought
forward a motion when the sufferings of the cultivators of
the soil were most severe, which, without pledging the
house to anything, asked for inquiry by a committee of
the whole house into the incidence of taxation on that body.
That there might be no mistake as to the nature of the
ineasaires that I proposed, I mentioned, in the observa-
tions with which I prefaced that motion, to what extent I
would proceed on that
house with details ; it occasion.
ie for me to say
• I will not
tthraotubilte
was
temperate in tone and moderate in conception,
that it
evinced a sympathy with those suffering, and proposed
change in the incidence of taxation
which though not
considerable was most offensive the establishment charges
of the poor-law and other items of that kind. (Hear'
hear.) Still it was a matter of
great
great interest out of doors
g
that those who were suffering should have a test of the
feelings and sympathy of this house. (Hear, hear.) Sir,
on that occasion I received the distinguished and memor-

able support of the right hon. gentleman the member for
the University of Oxford—(loud cheers)—in one of the
ablest speeches with which that able speaker has ever fa-
voured us. (Ministerial cheers.) Now, as a vindication
of my course in the line which I took for nearly three
years in this house. On February the 19th, 18i, , a year
before the first break up of the noble lord's adminis-
tration, what was the view taken of my conduct by,
one of the most eminent members of this house, be-
tween whom and myself there is no political sym-
pathy, but who looks naturally to this party with
no friendly feelings ? In answer to those who
charged us with trying to obtain protection for the farmers
under a disguise, Mr. Gladsome said " he thought in this
proposal there was an actual obstacle to the revival of pro-
tection ;" " that the present motion, if not perfect justice,
was an approximation to justice." (Loud cheers.) "It was
said the poor rate was a tax inherited by the landed interest,
and that their property having come to them on this con-
dition they had no claim to be relieved from the payment.
How did the matter rest with respect to their inheritance ?
They did inherit poor-rates with their land, but they also
inherited with it a protective system." (Loud cheers from
the government side of the house.) lam not giving this as
my opinion. lam not asking the house to agree with this
opinion. I am not quoting to substantiate my opinion.
I am quoting it only as showing the opinion of one of the
most distinguished members of this house, not acting in
political connexion, but rather inclined to look at my con-
duct with a jealous and critical eye. (Renewed cheers.) He
saw nothing of that enormous mischief, but rather thought
it a most praiseworthy, judicious, and politic course, and
with a winning eloquence almost gained the assent of the
house, because to his speech I attribute the glories of that
division. (Hear, hear) "But while," continued the right
honourable gentleman, "while he rejoiced in the full evi-
dence that a large portion of the community were in the en-
joyment of at least an equal or more than an average share
of comfort, yet the condition of the farming class, and of
the agricultural labourers in a large portion of England, to
say nothing of Ireland, was such as to demand the careful
attention and consideration of the honse." We are told we
must not make any allusion, even any hypothetical allu-
sion, to any class being injured ; and here we have the
highest, the most free trading authority in the house, tell-
ing the house that the condition of the agricultural interest
was such as to demand—demand, mind you—the attention
of the house. (Cheers.) The right hon. gentleman went
further, and said—" And if he spoke of them as justice,
compassion, and prudence prompted, he need not wait for
the financial statement of the year in order to do so." "It
was impossible to avoid the conclusion that a severe struggle
was going on, and that the farmers as a class were manfully-
exerting themselves to meet the crisis." Now he was desir-
ous that the house should show a disposition to give aid and
encouragement to the tenantry and yeomanly of the country
in their struggle on their own behalf, and on account of the
vast national interests connected with maintaining our do-
mestic agriculture." "He trusted something to that spirit of
liberality and conciliation which induced men to concede
something to those over whom theyobtained a great triumph."
(Ministerial cheers.) Now, sir,'that is the language, that I
think is the beautiful and unexceptionable language, of the
right hon. gentleman : and surely the right hon. gentleman
is not the man who will rise to-night and say, that in my
motion I was perpetrating enormous mischief, since he has
left on record his opinion that the course I was pursuing in
showing sympathy to a suffering class, and commencing re-
medial legislation, would absolutely prevent a recurrence
to that protection of which he is so much afraid. (Pro-
longed cheering.) So far, therefore, as the opinions of the
followers of Sir Robert Peel with reference to the course
taken by the Protectionist party on the first great subject,
the repeal of the corn-laws, I need go no further ; but I
will pursue the investigation, still doing the justice to Sir
Robert Peel's party of selecting their most accomplished
champion. Let us see with regard to the second great ques-
tion—sugar. On the 31st of May, 1850, only two sessions
ago, the question of the sugar producing colonies, the great
distress they were then experiencing, was brought before
the house. The subject was introduced, I believe, by the
late member for Essex, Sir E. Buxton, and the whole
Protectionist party supported the policy recommended
by Sir E. Buxton. In what way did the followers of
Sir Robert Peel meet that question ? " Sir," said the
right honourable gentleman the member for the Uni-
versity of Oxford, we recollect the crisis through which.
the West Indies have passed, presenting a great in-
dustry and a great interest, not suffering and complaining
merely, but absolutely ground down and reduced to total
ruin by the legislation of this house." We must not refer
to recent legislation but in terms of studied panegyic.
(Hear, hear.) We are going to re-establish the sliding-
scale, if, for a moment, we suppose that recent legislation,
with the great blessings it accomplished, has been attended
with injury to certain classes. But the right hon. gentle-
man—the greatest light on this question—holds up the
total ruin which the sugar-producing interest has incurred.
And by what ? By the legislation of this house. (Hear,
hear, and loud cheers.) "We are forced to the con-
clusion," said the followers of Sir Robert Peel, because
every one of the friends of the right honourable gentleman
wisely followed so distinguished a leader—" we are forced
to the conclusion of my hon. friend the member for Droit-
wich, to which my hon friend opposite is, I believe, pre-
pared to adhere, as well as I am myself, to extend to the
British West Indies that protection which is now vanishing
before their eyes for such time as may be necessary for
the production of those useful public works that may
lead to ultimate cheapness of production • while at the
same time I ask you still more to adopt this course on
behalf of that class for whom you have before made such
sacrifices, and who are now fast sinking back to the de-
graded condition from which they were originally raised
by your philanthropy and benevolence." (Hear, hear.) It
seems that the followers of Sir R. Peel—who are banded,
we are told, against the existence of that Government upon
whom they are always calling to produce these measures,
on two great questions—first, on agricultural distress, and
secondly, on the distress of the colonial sugar-producing
interest—entirely approved the policy pursued by the Pro-
tectionist party. What was their policy as regards the
third test ? The moment the navigation-laws were repealed
we gave up the battle. Never was any motion made by
honourable gentlemen on this side of the house—l do not
recollect any party, motion—to attempt a recurrence to the
old laws. But there was a motion questioning the propriety
of their repeal. The right honourable gentleman the mem-
ber for the University of Oxford, when the bill was read a
third time, raised his eloquent voice in favour of recipro-
city, and laid on the table of the house a clause to that
effect. (Cheers.) Well, sir, I have now submitted the con-
duct of the party which has perpetrated enormous mischief
on the three great questions which make up the code of free
trade. I have submitted the followers of Sir R. Peel to the
same tests, and I find sanction and approval of our course
by those distinguished men. But that section, even if I
can satisfy them, may not be numerous enough to save us
from the peril in which we find ourselves. I must endea-
vour to see whether I cannot act on the consciences of a party
more numerous and therefore more influential. Let us see
what the noble lord and his friends the Whigs have done.
Let us apply the three tests to the late Government and
their followers. Has their conduct been such that they
can now, by their vote and speeches, declare that no great
interest in this country has ever been injured by recent
legislation, and that in sympathising with those interests
we have during the last five years been perpetrating enor-
mous mischiefs ? I brought forward a motion which ex-
pressed some sympathy with the landowners of England,
and made some slight attempt to alleviate the burdens on
the farmers in that time of severe pressure which the right
hon. gentleman the member for the University of Oxford
so beautifully and eloquently described. I have been
called the farmer's friend, but what I did was nothing to
what the noble lord the member for London did. (A laugh.)
The noble lord went to his Sovereign, and took upon him-
self the responsibility of recommending her Majesty to
sympathise with them. (Cheers.) The noble lord recom-
mended the Sovereign in her gracious speech from the Throne,
to acknowledge, not only that depression, but that con-
tinued depression. What did he mean by that ? Was the
Ministry justified in such a course, except for the purpose
of signifying that legislation was necessary? (Cheers.)
Certainly a Ministry which did that is not a Ministry which
can come forward and pretend that, because I brought
forward motions for relieving the cultivators of the soil,
of "Hear, hear," and immense applause.) Certainly a
Ministry which did that has no right to say the question
now is, whether we shall maintain free trade or return to
protection. (Renewed cheers.) What has been the con-
duct of the noble lord with regard to the second test ? I
have already referred to it, but I allude to it again only to
complete the picture. The noble lord has done more for
the sugar interest than any person in this house. (Hear.)
He brought in a bill to prolong protection, to assist them
in that unfair struggle to which they were subjected not
only by recent legislation, but by his own legislation.
(Loud cheers.) I come to the third test—the sufferings of
the shipping interest. The noble lord refreshed himself,
not only by acknowledging the burdens and restrictions,
but he positively said they impeded its prosperity. Now,
an interest whose prosperity is impeded must be a suffering
interest, and cannot be called flourishing and enjoying all
the advantages of the system of which the noble lord is
the champion. (Hear, hear, and cheers.) I have shown
you that on three great subjects of recent legislation, on
which we have solicited the attention of the house with
regard to the injury inflicted on particular interests, we
have the authority of all the followers of Sir Robert Peel,
of the late Government, and all their followers, too.
(Cheers and laughter.) I admit there is a party in this
house, though it may not be a numerous one, which has
been consistent—(hear)—and I admit there is one individual
in this house who has been consistent from the be-
ginning, and has a right to make the speech he has made
to-night, and that is the member for Wolverhampton.
(Prolonged cheers.) I have sat in this house for a great
many years with the hon. and learned gentleman, and I
had the honour and gratification of his acquaintance many
years before we either of us thought of being in this house,
sad I always have remarked in him two qualities for which
he is distinguished—precision of thought and facility of
expression. (Derisive cheers from the Ministerialists.) I
find no fault with his speech. His speech is the same
which he has always made. (Land laughter.) Ido not
make that observation with any feeling approaching a
sneer. I mean to say he can look back to the period with
self-complacency, to the time when I remember him sitting
almost to the last on the benches on this side of the house,
and when, with a command of language only to be obtained
by the master of his subject, never omitting a single point,
and against the prejudices of all, he denounced the system
of the corn-laws. (Loud cheers from the Opposition.)
There were no cheers then from the followers of Sir R.
Peel. (Cheers.) There were no enthusiastic adherents
in defunct Whig Ministers. (Renewed cheers.) On the
contrary, the right honourable gentleman the member
for Carlisle (Sir J. Graham) threw his broad shield over
the territorial interest of England (hear, hear), and any
body, I believe, but the hon. gentleman, the member for
Wolverhampton, would have sunk under the unequal
affray. (Cheers.) I honour, respect, and admire his career,
but I cannot agree to his resolution, and I will give him,
in due time, the reason why I object to it. I have to-
night to put before the house the case of the Government ;
and if I am diffuse, and if I trespass too long on the house,
they will be generous enough to remember that they are in
fact a jury to-night, and that I am speaking to them and
appealing to them before they decide more important
things than the fate of a Government. (Loud cheers.) All
I care for is—whatever may be the decision of the house—
that at least I should have the opportunity of putting the
,V_oevnernment in their right position, and especially with re-
turb the r-61nning
"r ce to parties which, lam told, are banded together to
from theOvetu it
(Cheers.) I have shown to the house that
unless thewe resolved never to attempt to dis-
underno
ceipremal of any of these three bodies of laws—that
niinces could this country retrace its steps,
strong and most
nently worsened Conditiont of the working classes were perma-
s.nit?'.t., during all the time there was a
syrarathiwiot only acknowledged by states-
whose sufferings .;ereennag party out of the house—a party
men, but
)nd by the Crown. (Hear,
aders, thayt
hear, and c)ieers.
were not to encourage these are
we to be told that we
appeal, that they
were suffering,
as
they believed,
all the distresses
Colieved, from the deser-
tion of their natural le
were
ehlicolt secure for
them at least the Constitutional to
not under a misapprehension, would
h.
the ,mfeathnseyorrree
dressing their grievances ? I wish to bring in no external
causes as to the course which we took. I will only
say, as

one returned to this house by my constituents, I could not
have approved a policy which should have induced me to
desert them in their hour of trial. But, difficult as was
the position under which we were placed with these suffer-
inginterests, that position was greatly aggravated when the
most powerful Minister of the Crown was perpetually
advising the Sovereign to acknowledge their distress, or
bringing in measures of partial or temporary relief. How
could you expect these parties to believe in the permanence
of a legislation with which you yourselves were constantly
meddling. I have shown to the house that, acting on two
principles, we determined—first, that we would not disturb
that legislation unless the working classes were permanently
suffering ; and secondly, by remedial legislation we would
endeavour to alleviate and mitigate as much as possible
any just claims to relief set before us—claims which all
sections of the Opposition but one had acknowledged and
attempted to alleviate. (Cheers.) We now come to the
dissolution of Parliament. The dissolution of Parliament
took place I think in the month of July. The moment
that the elections were terminated, it was the duty of her
Majesty's Government to form a definite and conclusive
opinion as to the feeling of the people on this question of
attempting to advocate the repeal of the laws of 1846,
1847, and 1849, which affected the importation of corn, the
importation of sugar, and the navigation of the country.
There was no question in the minds of her Majesty's Minis-
ters as to the result of that election. There was no doubt
that there was not only not a preponderating majority in
favour of changing the laws passed in those years, or even
of modifying them in any degree, but that the decisive
opinion on the part of the country was that that settlement
should not be disturbed. (Cheers.) When we acceded to
office in the spring there were then two courses open to us.
If we had formed an opinion from what we had heard,
that there was no prospect of the country sanctioning
the abrogation of those laws, we might have brought
forward measures of a remedial or modifying charac-
ter, such as we thought likely the house would
sanction, and which some might believe would satisfy
those out of doors. That was one course. The other was
the one which we adopted, and we adopted that course
irrespective of any other obligations. Our conviction was,
that after such great changes had taken place—after there
had been excited in the country so much alarm, and so
much distress had been experienced by various classes—
after that distress had been acknowledged from the Throne
—after that distress had been attempted to be mitigated
by statesmen of all parties and of the highest character—
those who were discontented with the legislation would
never be satisfied until there had been an appeal to the
constituencies. We were convinced that if measures had
been brought forward which the sense of the house might
have passed, which might have been conciliatory in charac-
ter and most just and beneficent in conception, still there
would always have been a large party in the country, and
no inconsiderable party in the house, who would have always
said they had been betrayed by their friends, that their
principles had been abandoned, that the Government had
miscalculated the spirit and feelings of the country, that a
Protectionist policy was the policy the country was really in
favour of, and as in 1846 and 1847, the opinion of the
country had either been evaded or not appealed to. (Hear
and cheers.) Irrespective, then, of the pressure of Par-
liament, we felt convinced that it would be for the advan-
tage of the country, and for the permanent welfare and
happiness of all classes, that the question should be settled,
and that those who did believe in the propriety of main-
taining a protective policy for the future should have a
constitutional opportunity of vindicating their opinions.
And what has been the consequence ? Sir, the conse-
quence has been that that has happened which always
happens among the people of England, namely, that having
had a fair trial, and having been beaten, they are not
ashamed to acknowledge their discomfiture. (Hear, hear.)
If they had not had that trial, and been beaten, for years
and years you would have had a Parliamentary party in
this house who would have believed in the possibility of
carrying out a Protectionist system of policy, and who,
when suffering under the vicissitudes which come round in
a series of years, would have attributed that suffering to the
policy which you are so anxious to support. Sir, I admire
and respect the feeling shown under such circumstances by
so large a body of persons ; and yet what is the way in
which you have met them ? You have met them—l
will not say with the insult of a bully, because that is not
Parliamentary language—(a laugh)—but I will say that it
is not a wise nor a politic spirit that could possibly have
framed the resolution which has been presented to-night.
(Cheers.) I have already acquitted the honourable and
learned gentleman of being a party to his own resolution,
so that he for one cannot be offended by that observation.
(A laugh.) No, it is probably those who have a sympathy
for something more than free trade who have concocted
this resolution. Well, sir, after the general election had
taken place, and the verdict of the country had been given,
her Majesty's Government felt that it had but one course
to pursue, namely, frankly to acknowledge the decision of
the country, and unreservedly to act upon that decision.
But lam told that we have not done that. lam told that
the language of the Queen's speech was not satisfactory.
We certainly did not recommend the Sovereign to speak
like a partisan. (Cheers from the Ministerial benches.)
There is a certain reserve in the language of the Throne,
the propriety of which, under such circumstances, is always
acknowledged. The speech from the Throne to the people
is always recommended by the advisers of the Crown,
but still it is the language of the Sovereign. (Hear,
hear, hear.) The Sovereign may be called upon to-morrow
to use different language, and for a different purpose, but
it has always been acknowledged that it ought to be distin-
guished by a proper reserve. In 1850 the noble lord the
member for London, who was then at the head of the
Government, told us what sort of language the Minister of
the Crown should recommend to the Throne. The Man-
chester school was then displeased that the noble lord did
not speak out in the Queen's speech with the freedom that
becomes the atmosphere of Free-trade Hall. But what
said the noble lord on that occasion ? "It appeared to us,
much as we should have rejoiced in an opportunity of ad-
vising her Majesty to declare the opinions we entertain with
respect to the recent commercial policy, that the time was
not a fit one to propose that that expression of opinion
should fall from her Majesty. It has always appeared to
us that, in conformity to recent custom with regard to
matters of legislation, upon which Parliament may have to
give an opinion in the course of the session—it is better to
reserve those questions upon the first night of the session,
and rather to give an opinion as to the actual state of the
country than to attribute that legislation to any acts of the
Government." (Loud cries of hear, hear,' from the
Ministerial side of the house.) Now, observe what the
hon. and learned member for Wolverhampton said about
the Queen's speech, of which he made a most unintentional,
but at the same time a most erroneous, misrepresen-
tation. He said that the Queen's speech was "in the
conditional mood." Now, I deny that there was any con-
dition attached to it. All we said was, that if a great deal
of good had injured any class—which we did not assert—
(a laugh)—and we should have acted most indecently to-
wards the house if we had said so—we should be ready to
consider their claims. The house was not even asked to
echo that passage in the Speech, and we drew up the Ad-
dress so that the answer of the house might be, ‘, We
thank her Majesty for her Majesty's recommendation.
(Ironical cheers from the Opposition side of the house.) In
doing so, we followed the precedents that have always been
set by the noble lord, but which he now finds it convenient
to disclaim. The Queen's Speech, however, did absolutely
contain a distinct affirmation that the principle of our
commercial code was the principle of unrestricted com-
petition. That principle had been acquiesced in after
due deliberation on the part of the Government. The
First Minister of the Crown spoke in the most explicit
manner in that sense on the first night of the session.
I also made some observations which the right hon.
ourable gentleman the member for the ;University of
Oxford considered so strong that he doubted whether those
who supported my views could stomach them. There
could, therefore, have been no confusion with respect to
the opinions of her Majesty's Government. But you com-
plain that her Majesty did not assert in the speech from
the Throne that the principle of unrestricted competition
ought to be paramount, although the First Minister of the
Crown had stated that he knew the decision of the country
was against protection, and that he accepted the conse-
quences of that decision ; and you say that it is not enough
that I have placed on the table an amendment which the
honourable and learned member for Wolverhampton
seems hardly to touch. You have first, then, the re-
solution of the honourable and learned member, and
next the amendment which, on the part of my friends,
I have proposed for the reasons which I have ex-
pressed. Now, first of all, let us consider the resolution of
the honourable and learned member for Wolverhampton.
I say, in the first place, that it is unprecedented, and that,
in the second place, it is impolitic and unwise. Let us
consider the equity and policy of the two motions before
the house by a comparison of parallel instances in simi-
lar cases. I will take, first, the House of Commons
after the Reform Bill, and the position of the Govern-
ment in 1835. Sir Robert Peel and his friends had offered
to the Reform Bill a powerful and a prolonged opposition.
Sir Robert Peel suddenly became Minister in 1835, and
while he was the First Minister of the Crown he elaborately
expressed his determination not to disturb the Reform Bill,
though he did not approve of it. What would you have
thought then of an Opposition which, in a new Parliament
and with a Ministry in such a position, had brought for-
ward a resolution declaring that the Reform Bill was a
wise, just, and beneficial measure ? (Hear, hear.) Pursue
the course which you are now pursuing, for the question
is much greater than the question of our personal interests,
and you render Parliamentary Government impossible in
this country. A Government of parties, with opinions
which must be periodically vanquished, must cease to be
practicable, because if yon pursue the course which you
are now following, from the moment that the successful
party accedes to power, a resolution must be brought for-
ward eulogising in vague terms the policy which those who
previously formed the Government have conscientiously op-
posed. Take another instance. Let us suppose that a new
Government is formed ; let us suppose further that the
Government is formed of the followers of Sir Robert Peel.
Some honourable gentleman may not approve of the noble
lord's returning to power, but I shall make no objection to him
if he wishes it. Nevertheless we will imagine a
different
Now the followers of Sir R. Peel were opposed, a little less
called upon by her Majesty to form an Administration.
case, and suppose that the followers of Sir Robert Peel are
that ever passed into law in this give no
than two years ago, to one of the most
upnotrypular measures
be-
cause I do not wish to wound t
that it was one of the most popu-
lar
opinion now on the wisdom or pohleicyfeeoflitnhgast
of.m etahsaursee,Whawere opposed to it ; but
followers
acceptance
nf s
Sir
rf
Robertt the Legisla-
turePeel
there measuresis
ne ever er
doubt. offered tT
The
teh
opposed that bill—l allude to the Ecclesiastical Titles
Bill—because they said it was making war upon Ireland.
I do not suppose, however, that if they take office to-
;or. w
(Hear,th e y meanhear.)
a r. )
t oresci n Ecclesiastical
Neither,
on
possible to carry a resolution, in
the event of their taking office, that the Ecclesiastical
Titles Bill was a wise, just, and beneficial measure.
ot her
I
suppose that it would be
(Cheers from the Ministerial benches.) But the case
is more aggravated than it seems to be by these instances.
Take the case of Sir Robert Peel in 1835. Let us
remember under what circumstances he acceded to
office, for although he was probably as guiltless as any
man in her Majesty's dominions of what occurred, he came
into office under circumstances which produced great
acrimony and irritation. The former Administration was
displaced by what looked like a Court intrigue, and the
Parliament, while still young, was sent back to its con-
stituents. Sir Robert Peel was guiltless of any participa-
tion in any intrigue, for he was absent from England at
the time, but still he was made the Minister of the Crown
under odious and objectionable circumstances, and he was
obliged to meet, with balanced parties, a hostile Parlia-
ment and enraged rivals. The noble lord was engaged to
operate in that case—(a laugh)—and the noble lord has
never been backward in what we call a well-regulated
party feeling. (Cheers and laughter.) The noble lord may
be said to have had almost a personal outrage inflicted on
him. He was supported by a party in this house, who
were thirsting for vengeance, and if anything could have
justified such a course, the noble lord would have been jus-
tified in moving such a resolution as that which has been
proposed by the hon. and learned member for Wolverhamp-
ton. He might have said that the former Ministry had
been unduly dismissed, and he might have called upon the

house to declare that it was a wise, just, and beneficial Go-
vernment. The noble lord, however, did nothing of
the kind. Now what are the circumstances of this
case ? Has a free-trade Ministry been supplanted by
a protectionist intrigue ? Quite the contrary. The
Government of the noble lord fell to pieces
from internal dissensions —he was not turned out of
office—and instead of being the victim of a court intrigue,
the noble lord, in the most constitutional manner, is really
responsible for our existence. (Great laughter). Since we
have been in power we have been forced to make several
pledges to Parliament and the country, and we have ful-
filled them all but one. We fulfilled our pledge, notwith-
standing the impediments offered by what we thought a
factious opposition, to bring forward such measures as we
deemed to be absolutely necessary for the country. We did
bring those measures forward, and they were successful.
We pledged ourselves also to dissolve Parliament as soon as the
public convenience would permit, and to make an appeal to
the country on free trade, which appeal should be final. We
further pledged ourselves that there should be an autumnal
session of the earliest possible opportunity. We were sneered
at, and taunted for not calling Parliament together at an
earlier period. Those who are acquainted with affairs know
that it was impossible that we should meet earlier, and that
we have met early enough to give any opinion on any sub-
ject no man can dispute. I myself had given a pledge
that I would bring forward those measures which
I thought the altered circumstances of the country
required. Not having any factious spirit, I com-
municated to my constituents my frank views on the
position of affairs, and I told them that in assimilating our
financial with our commercial system the exigency of the
occasion would be met. That engagement I might have
postponed, but that engagement I am ready to fulfil.
The measures which I might have brought forward, and
which I should have brought forward but for what I must
call this vexatious movement, are founded on the principle
of unrestricted competition—in other words, on the prin-
ciple of free trade. These measures have been offered to
my colleagues, and but for this resolution there is no
reason why I should not have offered them to the con-
sideration of the house. They were met by a resolution
which may destroy the Government, a circumstance
which may not appear dangerous to the honourable and
learned member for Wolverhampton, but that resolution
establishes a precedent which may destroy more Govern-
ments than one. (Hear.) How easy it would have been,
if our purposes were not fixed, and our policy not open, for
me to have moved the previous question, but I would not
do so. I believe the country is convinced that since we
have acceded to office we have behaved in an honourable
manner. I feel sure that in giving an opportunity to our
friends in the country constitutionally to vindicate their
opinions, we have taken that course which will contribute
to the permanent welfare and content of the country, and
I for one have received my reward, as all my. colleagues
have also, in the assurances which have been given by all
my friends in this house, and many of my friends in the
country, that they feel we have done all that men of honour
could do, and that, the country having decided against
their opinion; they are prepared to accept that altered
policy which the circumstances of the times require. Sir,
the honourable and learned member for Wolverhampton
asserts that the duties of a minister are merely nominal. I
can only say that I hope,,when he becomes a minister, that
he will not be disappointed in that view of the case. (A
laugh.) I trust, also, that he will not be disappointed in
the assistance which he expects to receive from the civil
servantslof this coudtry. Their devotion to the public ser-
vice is one of the most beautiful features in the adminis-
tration of public affairs. (Hear, hear.) They have not
public fame, but I hope that they will always have the
support of the Government whom they serve. I will say,
however, that the toils and responsibilities of office are
as much as can be borne by any one man, and I do
not think that they can be sustained by any one who
has not the support of self-respect. This I can say
for myself and my colleagues, that we neither seek
to be, nor will be, Ministers on sufferance. (Cheers.) We
took our counsel, without inquiring whether the late Par-
liament was or was not hostile, at the general desire of the
country. We meant to administer diligently, fairly, and
sedulously, the affairs brought under consideration till
such time as there had been an appeal to the country.
But, whatever were the exigencies of the cases then, in
the old Parliament, we neither desire, nor will submit, to
an indulgence in the view which is foreign to the spirit
of the British constitution. Sir, I am content here to
leave the case of the Government. That I have placed it
before the house very imperfectly. I can easily conceive;
but the subject was somewhat large, and I have endea-
voured to be as succinct as the circumstances required and
would allow. If I had only personal feeling to consider
I would sit down, but I think that, speaking for the
Government, and under the circumstances in which they
find themselves, something of public duty may mix
with personal sentiment. Sir, we believe that we have
a policy that will conduce to the welfare, the pro-
sperity, and the content of the country. I hope it
is not an unworthy ambition to desire to have an
opportunity of submitting it to Parliament. (Cheers.)
I am told that is not to be the case • but I will say some-
thing in behalf of that policy. We will not without a
struggle yield to an attack so unfair as that to which we
are subjected. I will not believe, remembering that this
is a new Parliament, that those who enter it for the first
time, have already in their consciences recorded their votes
upon this question. I believe that they have listened in a
spirit of justice and candour to the plea I have put forward
to-night. It is to those new members—a third of the house
—on whichever side they sit, that I appeal with confidence.
They have entered—many of them after . much longing
they have just entered that scene to which they have looked
forward with so much earnestness, suspense, and interest.
I have no doubt they are animated by a noble ambition,
and wish to realise—may of them—lordly aspirations. I
can say from the bottom of my heart, wherever they sit,
I trust they may not be disappointed. Whatever adds to
the worth, intelligence, and eloquence of the house, adds
also to the consideration of the aggregate, and we are all
of us interested in maintaining the moral and intellectual
predominance of the House of Commons. I appeal to the
generous and young, and ask them, when they are at last
upon the threshold of the senate, not to become the tools
or the victims of exhausted factions, or obsolete politics.
(Loud cheers.)

Mr. BRIGHT said he had listened with that attention,
which the whole house evinced, to the speech of the right
hon. gentleman, and he expected when he rose that he would,
at least, make a fair attempt to answer the speech of his
hon. and learned friend the member for Wolverhampton.
He could not conceive that the right hon. gentleman lost
sight unintentionally of the points of his hon. friend's
speech, and of the real question now in dispute between
the Government and his hon. friend. If the right hon.
gentleman avoided entering into the question which had
been introduced to the notice of the house, he (Mr. Bright)
was at least justified in avoiding a very large portion of it,
and paying attention in the first place to one or two points
which he urged very strongly. He wished to make it ap-
pear that he was now a member of a Free-trade Govern-
ment, and acting with a Free-trade party, and yet he re-
peatedly, especially during the six sentences at the conclu-
sion of his speech, urged that the body of men with whom
he was associated was the Protectionist party. He said
that he had taken no step since 1846, in that direction, but
he forgot that in 1850, he voted in favour of a resolu-
tion that the house should resolve itself into a com-
mittee of the whole house to take into consideration the
acts relating to the importation of foreign corn—(cheers)—
which was made by an hon. gentleman seduced to his side
by his promises to the farmers, namely, one of the mem-
bers for the eastern division of Gloucestershire. (Cheers.)
He also said, that as regarded sugar and ships, he took the
same course, but he omitted to state that the present Se-
cretary for the Colonies was almost incessantly occupied
with this subject, supported by the right hon. gentleman,
and that another of them was now the governor of their
possessions in India.

CoMnL It.r.olILE. RRIES—No, no ; President of the Board of

Mr. BRIGHT was induced to say so from the fact that
the predecessor of the right hon. gentleman stated, before
the Committee on Salaries, that he was really the ruler of
India. The right hon. gentleman brought forward a motion
on the navigation laws which, after repeated taunts of his
hon. friend the member for Stoke-upon-Trent, he at length
brought forward, but did not venture to go to a division.
The right hon. gentleman, in his usually adroit manner,
adopting the course pursued by the late Sir Robert Peel,
attempted to fix on the noble lord and his colleagues, cer-
tain delinquincies,—and thought in this way to ride off
from the question at issue. (Hear, hear.) He was pre-
cisely the man to bring this question before the house.
Re it was who asked the right honourable gentleman
what he meant last February or March, when he said he
would appeal to the country, and to the country he had
now appealed. The right hon. gentleman would have the
house to understand that they had not cultivated protection
much at the elections. But if they had not done so much
in the boroughs, they had in the counties. (Hear.) There
was not one of the counties that had not been fought ex-
clusively upon protectionist principles. But the resolutions
aro the matters for us to consider. He was willing to admit
that the resolution now proposed bythe right hon. gentleman
on the part of the Government, was far in advance of the
former portion of his political career. That resolution in-
volved something which it was essential for the house and
the country to come to a decision upon. Although it might
be inconvenient for the Government to come to any decision
upon it, yet it was that which the country expected them to
come to a decision upon. The resolution declared that it
was the opinion of that house that the improved condition 1
of the country, and especially the working classes, was
mainly the result of recent legislation, and especially of the
act of 1846, establishinc, the free admission of foreign corn,
and that that act was a just and beneficial measure. He
asked if the whole country, man, woman, and child, were
polled with regard to that particular passage in the resolu-
tion, would there not be an overwhelming majority in its
favour? (Cheers.) He asked if the whole electoral body
were polled also for their opinion upon the same subject,
whether there would not be in favour of that particular
Passage a majority in its favour of at least nine to one ?
(Cheers.) Was there any man in that house who voted for
the measure of 1846 who could possibly have any doubt on
that subject ? (Hear.) If he had any doubt then, could
he possibly have any doubt after six years' experience?
(Cheers.) But the Parliament of 1817 came to the same
conclusion, and during the whole course of its existence re-
sisted any approach to unsettle that question, by declaring
that free-trade policy was not just and beneficial. (Cheers.)
And now the new Parliament of 1852, called under the
auspices of a Protection Government—for, whatever they
were now, they went to the hustings upon protection prin-
ciples—it was now about to decide, and the present Minis-
try did it themselves, that a large portion of the recent free
trade legislation had been beneficial to the working classes
of this kingdom. The Protection Ministry had come so
far into their ranks as to admit that. (Hear, hear.) But
he had not yet gone the whole way, and seeing that the
right hon. gentleman (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) had
been the advocate of protection, and that his hon. friend
(Mr. Villiers) had been for fifteen years the consistent
champion and advocate of free trade, when Parliament was
called upon to give its final verdict upon that policy, was it
fit that the terms of that verdict should be drawn up by the
enemy of that system, or by him who had been altogether

its supporter ? (Loud cheers) Some gentleman said—(he
spoke rather of what he had heard in private)—that it was
a mere private dispute about words. Then, if so, he (Mr.
Bright) thought that if any one was to have his feelings
consulted or his recommendations obeyed, it was cer-
tainly his honourable friend (Mr. Villiers), the old
and long-tried advocate of free trade. (Cheers.) The
terms selected by the long and devoted advocate
of the cause should be preferred to those of its op-
ponent. (Cheers.) But he did not concede that the
words were unimportant. The resolution and the amend-
ment differed. The words were not the same—the princi-
ple was not the same—the cause was not the same. He
would show where it differed. His hon. friend's motion
established a principle—that of the right hon. gentleman
announced a fact. His hon. friend's motion declared that
their experience made it more and more their duty to pro-
mote and cherish free trade throughout the country and
the whole world—(cheers)—while the amendment of the
Government had concealed behind anything or everything,
device, hazards, injuries, and certain injustice to certain
interests ; and perhaps, if Parliament chose to give it, com-
pensation to certain interests. (Cheers.) Did the right
hon. gentleman believe the house to be so simple, or that
he was such a penitent as he appeared to be, and to be
taken as a man wholly to be trusted on this question ?
When he looked back to the former career and for-
mer speeches of the right hon. gentleman, he would
trust him only under certain conditions. Six years
was not so long a period that they had forgotten what he
said on those benches. (Hear, hear, hear.) Now, could
they forget all he had said and done, not in that house,
but out of that house. (Cheers.) The right honourable
gentleman had said that he had stated that the question of
labour was the great question before the country. But if
ever one statement was more incorrect than another, his
was that. (Hear, hear.) Did he not recollect, not only
the speech of the right honourable gentleman himself, but
the speeches all over the country, by honourable members
he saw in dozens before him ? He recollected a deputation
going to wait upon the Earl of Derby in St. James's-street.
Did he did not discover the excited and hopeful feelings
with which these simple gentlemen left town ? (Hear,
and laughter.) He knew they went to the right honourable
gentleman, on one occasion, and he never was more amused
in his life than in reading hisTanswer, for it was impossible
for the deputation to make head or tail of it. The right
honourable gentleman charged them with sometlAng like
indecency in forcing them to this resolution, and he quoted
the precedent of Sir Robert Peel, in 1835. But when they
went to precedents there should be some analogy be-
tween thq cases. When the Reform Bill became the law
of the land, did he and his supporters go about declaring
that it was destructive to the country, and that it must be
undone? (Hear, hear.) No. If Sir Robert Peel had done
so, the very first thing he would have done on his return
from Italy would have been against the Reform Bill. But
Sir Robert Peel at once accepted the legislation of that day.
(Hear.) Had the right hon. gentleman and his supporters
followed that course in reference to free-trade policy ?
It was amusing to find that the other precedents which the
right hon. gentleman had attempted to set up were of the
same description. There was another matter the right
hon. gentleman had said he had constantly endeavoured to
make it appear that the corn laws were granted either to
compensate the agriculturists for special and heavy burdens,
or that Parliament had imposed upon them special burdens
during its existence ; but he never offered anything in proof
of that statement which he made. (Hear.) He (Mr. Bright)
had turned to the debates in 1815, and he was unable to
find a single word to the effect that the corn laws were
granted to compensate for any special burdens, or that any
Chancellor of the Exchequer had said, in bringing forward
new taxes, that the agriculturists were able to bear them
as they had the protection of the corn laws. To go a little
into statistics, it appeared from Mr. Porter's work, that
from 1801 to 1815, taxes amounting to thirty-one and a
half millions sterling were imposed, but it was not to be
seen at all that any of these taxes were specially laid upon
land. He run over the items of taxation, making a total
of 31,538,0001. coming up to 1815. There was no special
burden upon land among them. (Hear, hear.) He
would then see how far taxes were repealed. The re
was a total of 17,546,0001. repealed ; but no man
could say that any single tax was laid in excess upon
landowners. (Hear, hear.) But in laying on taxation, he
found that all lost, and in repealing taxation all were
gainers. He excluded the legacy and probate duties. In
1833 and 1834 the average poor-rate was less, by 1,810,000/.
than in 1812 and 1813. And then if they thought of the
enormous increase in the value of the property of the
country, they would find the poor rates a mere insignificant
burden as compared with the year 1812 and 1813. (Hear.)
The legacy and probate duty, since 1737, had amounted to
an enormous sum upon personal property, whereas freehold
land had been entirely free. Up to 1845, in 49 years,
71,000,0001. had been paid by personal property to probate
duty. When that measure was first brought in by Mr.
Pitt, it was an equal imposition upon all, but the selfish
landowners rejected that equable distribution, and made
this distinction between personal and real property. In
1815 there was no pretence for the imposition of the corn
laws. That law was the law of the strong, the wicked, and
the cruel, and that character attached to it from the day it
received the royal assent to the day the royal assent repealed
it. The sum represented to have been lost by agriculture
was not a fair representation. Increased production—
improved cultivation—improved markets for animal food—
cheaper living, made up for the loss, and there had been
an enormous gain at the same time to all classes of the po-
pulation who were consumers of agricultural production.
(Hear.) The right hon. gentleman admitted fairly that the
country had decided against him, and the country had de-
cided the question with so much unanimity, that the free-
trade majority in that house was a very inadequate index
to the majority throughout the country. He deprecated
the adoption of the amendment, because he believed that
something was kept back. Could any constituency doubt
as to which resolution it was proper to adopt. Now what
were the conclusions of the Government last year ? In
reference to the course they had pursued, he had often
wondered lately what would have been the :course
taken by Lord George Bentinck if alive. When the
facts were against him, and himself fairly beaten on
the question, he would, he thought, have admitted it,
but, at the same time, he thought he would have said
that they were not the persons to be entrusted with
the guardianship of free-trade, and rather than
sticking pertinaciously to place—(oh, oh, and cries of
" Hear, hear,")—he would recall the word, but that the
right hon. gentlemen said that he did not mean to give up,
he (Lord George Bentinck) would have said, We have to
shuffle off our political creed—we had better go into oppo-
sition, and then there can be no imputation on our motives.
(Cheers.) The hon. member here proceeded to read ex-
tracts from the reported speeches of members of the Go-
vernment and their supporters, delivered at the hustings
during the late elections, and previously, with a view of
showing, from their various declarations and professions,
that they were not sincere converts to free trade, and that
if they could not return to protection, if opportunity offered,
they would attempt it in a new form. Amongst them Mr.
Newdegate expressly declared that whether Lord Derby
thought it not right to attempt protection in a new form
or not, he would not be again the man to break up the
Conservative party. Mr. Bag pledged himself to support
Lord Derby, because no other Government would support
that interest. The member for Cambridgeshire, Mr. Yorke,
was particularly explicit. He expressed his determined ad-
hesion to the principles of protection, and was surprised at
being called upon to abandon them because they were un-
tenable. (Laughter.) As well might they ask a man in a
cage to abandon all ideas of liberty because he was con-
fined. He would not abandon his opinions, but would
take the first opportunity of asserting them. (Hear.) Lord
John Manners had said that Lord Derby would remedy
the hasty legislation of 1846, either by a revision of local
or general taxation, all of which they now thoroughly un-
derstand. Mr. Banks had proposed a duty on barley, oats,
and beans, if they disagreed about the duty on wheat.
(Laughter.) They denounced Sir James Graham as a
deadly enemy—(renewed laughter)—and Mr. Ball, the
member for Cambridgeshire, declared that the more he
thought over free trade, the more he was convinced it was
one of the greatest curses that ever befell the country. As
to the condition of the country, let them look at the regu-
larity of employment, the excellent rate of wages that pre-
vailed, the improved social and moral state of the people.
Let them observe, too, what a beautiful tranquillity
reigned throughout the country. (Hear, hear.) Now,
landholders, is it not a compensation to you that that
tranquillity should exist ? With your 5,000, 10,000,
15,000, 20,000 acres many of you, is that no advantage
to you ? If it were true that they had suffered—
which he believed they had not, as a body—was it
no compensation to them that they could enjoy their riches
without incurring the envy of any class—that they could
partake of them all, and enjoy them all, without the con-
sciousness of the heavy guilt that some poor starving wretch
was toiling that they might be rich and powerful. He
was satisfied, if they looked at the question in that light,
that they would consider themselves amply compensated
for whatever injury they might suppose the repeal of the
corn laws had inflicted upon them, (Ironical cheers from
the Protectionists.) The right honourable gentleman the
Chancellor of the Exchequer, on a recent occasion, in
Buckinghamshire, he thought, stooped so low as to charge
the Anti-Corn Law League—the revived League—with
being a Jacobin club. He (Mr. Bright) was not sure that
every hon. member knew exactly what was meant by a
Jacobin club, so he would explain that the words meant
something unpleasant—(a laugh)—a disposition to turbu-
lence and disorders. 'Now every one must know—and no
one better than the right hon. gentleman himself—that he
had not contributed a feather's weight to the tranquillity
of the country or the efforts( of those whom he had not
scrupled to vilify. (Hear.) The 12 years of their politi-
cal life (the Free-traders') had been directed expressly to
this one object ; and though they might have made some
mistakes, they had acted up to the dictates of their con-
sciences, and had done all they could for the good of their
common country. (Cheers.) He now asked the house
to stamp with the mark of its sanction its own policy—
to set its seal for ever and irrevocably on the bill of
1846, and by its vote that night express its opinion—
he would say its reprobation—of the conduct of the Govern-
ment, and at the same time establish its charter of free
industry to the people of this kingdom. (Great cheering.)
Mr. K. SEYMER, st.id the question really before the
house was, had her Majesty's Ministers been sufficiently
explicit as to what would be their future commercial
policy ? He contended that their language was sufficiently
clear not to mislead the country. The resolutions asked the
house to say that the act of 1846 was wise, just, and bene-
ficial ; but a measure might be successful which was not
wise at the time it passed ; and he thought that act, un-
accompanied by subsidiary measures, was not just. He
(Mr. Seymer) vindicated the Protectionist party from the
charge of assailing the late Sir R. Peel, and he denied that
the present Ministers entered office on the question of pro-
tection. The late Government were not turned out ; they
fell out. He should support the amendment.
Mr. F. PEEL observed, that all must agree that her
Majesty's Ministers had made very great advances, and
continued to advance from one set of principles to another
—from protection to free trade. The reason why he-pre-
ferred the original motion was that, although he gave the
Government credit for a desire heartily to abide by the
principle of free trade in any measures of financial and ad-
ministrative reforms they might submit to the house, he
was not content with this ; he thought there was nothing
unreasonable in exacting from them some test of the sin-
cerity of their convictions and intentions ; that, as they
had abandoned their policy only at the last moment,
they should recant once for all their false doctrines. Some
reparation was also due for the past ; those who had heaped
obloquy upon the authors of the act of 1846 should have
the candour now to acknowledge that it was a wise, just,
and beneficial measure. He by no means undervalued the
admission made, which was most significant. It was admitted
that the country was prosperous, and that the prosperity
was due, not to the Government, but to unrestricted com-
petition. But when he looked closely to the amendment,
he felt distrust; he found it studiously ambiguous as to the

future, with a cold and unimpassioned reference to the
past; and the prospective part ominously omitted all re-
ference to the question of compensation, which ought to be
set at rest.
Lord PALMERSTON then rose, and said—l shall not
detain the house at any great length in stating the view
which I take of the propositions submitted to us, and of the
position in which the house seems likely to be placed. I
have stated on a former occasion, and I repeat it now, that
I think it was not only proper, but, under the circum-
stances, absolutely necessary, that some member should
propose to the house a resolution answering the question
which the Government had put to the country by the dis-
solution of the last Parliament. If, indeed, the speech
from the Throne, had been, in regard to that part of it
which treated of the question of free trade and protection,
couched in language more plain and unambiguous, it is
possible that the address in reply might have been accepted
as the answer of the house on the part of the country to
that question, as to the preference between the two oppo-
site principles of commercial policy. But in that respect the
speech from the Throne was undoubtedly as ambiguous as
words could make it ; and that fact increased the necessity
in my opinion for some such measure as has been taken on
this occasion. It was not necessary, indeed, with a view to
settle what should be the policy of the Government and of
Parliament that any opinion at all should be expressed on
the subject; because those who have watched the progress
of public opinion, and have observed events in this country
must, I think, have long since made up their minds to the
full conviction that a reversal of the system of 1846, and
of succeeding years, was as impossible as any physical
miracle that you could mention. But it was very fitting
nevertheless, in some respects, that Parliament should ex-
press an opinion. But to give to that expression of opinion
that weight which it is desirable it should carry, it is in my
opinion most important that that opinion should be ex-
pressed, if not with unanimity, at least with as large a ma-
jority as possible. (Loud cheers from both sides of the
house.) In regard to the resolution my hon. and learned
friend has proposed, there is not a word in it to which I
shall not be ready to subscribe. I think the measures
and policy to which it refers were wise, were just,
and have been beneficial. (Hear, hear.) I think with
my hon. and learned friend, and with the Government,
as they have expressed the conviction that the improved
condition of the country, and especially of the industrious
classes, has been mainly the result of that recent legis-
lation which has removed protective duties, and which
has established the principle of unrestricted competition.
I think I need not say that I concur with my hon. and
learned friend and with her Majesty's Government in being
ready to affirm that that system ought and must hencefor-
ward be the guiding rule of the legislation of the country.
If, therefore, the motion of my hon. friend were put to
this house of aye or no, I should be compelled by my own
convictions to say aye. But I cannot but consider, also,
not merely my own convictions and opinions, but the con-
victions of those who are required to concur in the proceed.
ings of this house. (Loud cheers from the Protectionists,
from which side of the house only was the noble lord
cheered during the rest of his speech.) There is a large
party in this house who have long held different opinions
from those of my hon. and learned friend, and who have
honourably, I think, now yielded their personal and ori-
ginal conviction to their sense of what is the opinion of the
country and the inevitable force of events. (Cheers.) I for
one am very far from joining in the taunts and reproaches
addressed to that party. In a country like this there can-
not be amore dangerous doctrine to establish than that it
is disgraceful to men to yield their convictions to the force
of counteracting events and circumstances. (Hear, hear.)
With such a doctrine established there would be an end to
all progress or improvement. We meet here from day to
day for no other purpose than to convince each other ; and
every man who endeavours to persuade other people to
come round to his opinions, debars himself in justice from
the right of reproaching them when he has succeeded.
I say, therefore, that the course taken by that party in
surrendering their original impressions is as honourable to
them as it is beneficial to the country. Taking that view,
my opinion is that the resolution proposed by her Ma-
jesty's Government contains the fullest acknowledgment
of the benefits which recent commercial legislation has
produced—(cheers)—and does pledge every man who votes
for it to contribute to render that system henceforward
permanent. (Hear, hear.) In regard to the present and
in regard to the future, I really see little difference in sub-
stance and fact between the resolution of my honourable
friend and the resolution of the Government. (Cheers.)
In some respects the resolution of the Government is
stronger than even that of my honourable friend,
because it concludes with an opinion of the house as to
what it is the duty of her Majesty's Government to do.
(Cheers.) That course is obviously unusual, and I should
prefer the terms adopted by my honourable friend, who
only states the readiness of that house to consider any
measures that may be proposed, in conformity with the
resolution the house may establish. But I regret to see a
passage in the resolution of my honourable friend, which
must be fairly considered by gentlemen opposite as a bar
to their acceptance of the whole. (Loud cheers.) All
that this country asks of Parliament—all that the
country cares about is, what is Parliament going
to do—what are to be the permanent principles
of our legislation ? I don't think the country cares,
or that it has a right to care, what may be the pri-
vate opinions of the party constituting the majority.
To be making conditions in that respect is rather
following the example of a tribunal which we aro not in
the habit of imitating—it is like the practice of the In-
quisition, to compel people to come before you, and not
content with their declarations that their conduct will be
in conformity with your views, to force them to go down
on their knees, and to accept any special form of recanta-
tion you choose to impose upon them. (Cheers.) We are
here an assembly of gentlemen. (Loud cheers.) We who
are gentlemen on this side of the house ought to remember
we are dealing with gentlemen on the other side of the
house ; and I, for one, cannot reconcile it to my feelings
to call unnecessarily upon any set of English gentlemen
for the forwarding of any purpose I may have in view,
either to express opinions they don't entertain, or to re-
cant opinions that may still be lingering in their minds.
(Cheers.) I will grant them, if they like, that they still
think that these measures in question were not just.
Wise, I think, they can hardly refrain to acknowledge
them ; for the measures which have produced the results
they admit cannot but, as I think they will concede, have
been wise. I myself am of opinion that when that party
who still call themselves by the antiquated name of Pro-
tectionists, come to consider calmly, and free from the
irritation of former disputes, these measures and these re-
sults, they will come round to our opinion upon the point
of justice as well as upon the point of expediency. But it
is not to the purpose, as far as the countryis concerned, what
they think of the original justice or *justice. And under these
circumstances I should very much wish that some middle
course should be suggested—that some resolution should be
proposed, which on the one hand asserting in the broadest
manner the determination of this hOuie to pursue and con-
tinue the policy which we on this side approve of, should on
the other hand be free from those objections which, as
matters stand, forbid the unanimity I regard as so desir-
able. (Hear, hear.) Much of what has paesed in this de-
bate seems to me to have been full of practical inconsistency.
The hon. member for Manchester called upon the Govern-
ment to assent to the motion of my hon. and learned friend
while the details of his speech were of a character to render
that utterly impossible. (Cheers.) The hon. gentleman
(Mr. Bright) admits that his principle object is that a free-
trade resolution of this house should be put on record for
the guidance of foreign nations, more particularly for the
guidance of the United States ; but at the same time the
hon. gentleman, by that very amusing catalogue of quoted
speeches, and by the general tenor of his taunts about
change of opinion, seemed to me to be doing all he could to
reduce the majority, if a majority is to be, in favour
of my hon. and learned friend's resolution, to the smallest
possible amount. (Cheers.) I ask my hon. friend (if
he will allow me to call him so), to consider well the
consequences of treating as an ordinary party straggle
that which I think ought to have been a motion
tending to produce at let from this house a solemn ter-
mination to a great principle of domestic policy. (Cheers.)
When I say " consequences," I do not speak of the results
of this debate as regards the stability of this particular Go-
vernment. I put the matter this way. My hon. and
learned friend's resolution will be carried or will berejected -
but I think it is plainly enough to be seen, from the tone
and temper of the house, that it will either be carried or
rejected by a very small and narrow majority. I will first
suppose that it will be rejected—not at all an. impossible
supposition—(loud laughter from the Protectionists)—be-
cause I think there are many members of this house, not
only among the younger greenhorns, who have been ap-
pealed to with ranch confidence by both sides, but also
among the experienced old stagers—(laughter)—who are
very strongly disinclined to convert this motion into a mere
opportunity for overthrowing the Government. (Hear,
hear. I for one am disinclined to take that view. (Hear,'
hear.) This is a soperate question altogether, and ought to
be kept separate from any consideration of " confidence"
or "no confidence." (Hear, hear, and cheers.) I say,
however, supposing my hon. and learned friend's resolu-
tion were to be rejected, the impression which would
thego over
Atlantic, the lengthwaid and
naturally bre Ecl t breadth
ao f
thatthe land,
t free-trade
acrossirae
party was in a minority in the House of Commons, and
could any doubt be entertained, the speech of the hon.
member for Manchester might be referred to, in which he
denounces as Protectionists all those who refuse to vote for
the resolution of my hon. and learned friend. (Hear.) I
think that would be very lamentable, and ought to be
avoided. But on the other hand, supposing the resolution
carried by a majority of 10, or 20, or 30—all that could be
expected—l will ask any sincere Free-trader whether that
would be a satisfactory result ? Would it be satisfactory
as compared with a resolution in favour of free trade una-
nimously arrived at ? It is, perhaps, natural that gentle.
men who struggle as the champions of free trade against
what they have regarded as an unfair and dishonest prin-
ciple, should, on obtaining a victory, desire to push their
triumph to an extremity, and to trample on their defeated
foe. But in the present circumstances, when they have to
consider that the decision of Parliament may have a very
advantageous result upon their cause all overthe world, and
that on the other hand the consequences of the course they
are taking may be most mischievous to the interests they
desire to uphold, I think that they might see the policy of
accepting the hand which is tendered to them, and of not
compelling their opponents to state too exactly the precise
degree of their convictions, if only those opponents are con-
tent to act with us. I think it is ungenerous on the part
of a majority—if majority it be—to endeavour to compel
unwilling persons to subscribe to opinions which they
do not entirely share. It is in vain to make the attempt,
for we see that they will not do it; and therefore not only

is the attempt ungenerous, but it fails in the accomp
ment of its rpose ; and the only result is, that we dept'
ourselves oft hat; full authority which the unanimous•
of this house would give. Perhaps it might still be de.;l_
able to have dissentients—to have some evidence oflil
existence of Protectionists, if only by way of contrast. Isr
I think it is ungenerous, and impolitic, and unwise, to ""
what is now being attempted to be done. I would propo,°
.
a middle course. Certainly, as there are already two react
lutions before the house, I do not presume to lay a third. °;
the table. But at the same time, if the house will perm 'a
me, I will just read that form of words which, if I werf
encouraged by any manifestation of opinion on the Part;
any great body of gentlemen in the house, I shoUld be ref',
to tender for their acceptance. This form of words recori-,1-,
I think, on the one hand, fully the doctrine of free tractin.
and the permanent establishment of that system, while,. :go
the other, it is not liable to the objection of requiring
who might agree to much to recant opinions whicALiti
may honestly in former periods have entertained. Ir".7rii
should propose is this—it would almost be like a plagisre IZ,g
of my hon. and learned friend if it were to be too lilo
—(laaghter)—" That it is the opinion of this house that
the
improved condition of the country, and especially of
industrious classes, is mainly the result of recent legistleaa
tion, which has established, the principle of unTestri3O
competition, has abolished taxes, imposed for the pniT.:9;„
of protection, and has thereby diminished the cost ano..oi_a
creased the abundance of the principal articles of th!L",),
of the people ; that it is of opinion that this policy,
maintained and prudently extended, will best enable
will
industry of the country to bear its burdens, and eat
thereby most surely promote the welfare and contentinakento
of the people ; that this house will be ready to t
consideration any measures consistent with this Priti3O
which in pursuance of her Majesty's gracious sPeect,rial
recommendation may be laid before them.'' -0,11(1
cheers.) Now, continued the noble lord, I really. viy•
submit that these words contain everything
regard the
hon. and learned friend has proposed in regal'
present, and in regard to the future, while they contra his
ld
nothing which any hon. member who has yrf
opinions to the irresistible force of events can, with Peect
But
satisfaction to himself, subscribe to. (Hear, hear.)
now I shall be told that this form of words, by onn' en•
a word, just leaves a door open for the question of cogia.)
sation, and that I take to be the real pomt. not
But I say that the insertion of the word "just" "°- t fer
shut the door at all. It would bo equally compete
_n, who
the Chancellor of the Exchequer or any other mow' („t„4
chose to make the proposal in the financial arrankera-ur
of the year, to propose a change of taxation for WI to
pose of giving what they may call relief, which ..on, ,ecompensation, to the agricultural classes, and I he' t 10
should not stand in any degree worse—we who reir'll
disposed to resist the resolution because the word ‘,,J11
us-
was not in the resolution. I think there is nothing,„e" t
desirable as mixing up together questions which ai'ith's,t
connected, and which are essentially different. I he.`„` stios'
these two questions are quite distinct—the one VA", the
whether our commercial policy should be maintaine"i;,'c,
other a question whether, in consequence of that P,e.",.-lief
claim for what they may call compensation and 'm of
should be allowed. You may affirm the mainteese,,',- of
the principle of free trade, and yet may entertain e: per
the two opinions with regard to compensation. It isle of
fectly competent for any man to think that the prineAlrot
unrestricted competition ought to be maintained, as tion;
its maintenance does not entitle any one to comPens3. oa
or that he may entertain the opinion that it is a hardshTmo
a certain class, and that this class have an e
for compensation. My own opinion is, that the °°"l,,,r-ter
tion to the agricultural class is to be found in those e'"fior
stances which were so well adverted to by the bon' u° the
her for Manchester—in the improved condition ° 1,00
country, in the cheapness of everything which theyto be
to buy out of what I must admit, in many cases, ale,
their diminished rents, in the contentment of the Peshad
in the cordiality of eeling which has been estar gee'
equitable ass'
between the upper and lower classes, in the love 931".gdioas
tion of all around them, in the absence of all that invlall9
jealousy, which before the lower classes were 'linos
led to feel towards their superiors ; feeling that theiocl•
were calculated to put money into the pockets of the
thing the
lords at the expense of the great mass of the people
country. I say that this is the compensation which I to
the landed interest are entitled to; and that is the °_evl„,ir
f
sation they have already obtained. That is my oPiluee-re et
do not quarrel with any man who may entertain a theo
opinion ; but when these questions come before us, .1e" ear
come distinctly, and we shall not be the less able to nb:ce
tire any proposal we may disapprove of because w° those
united on this resolution. What is the calculation °..Lt io
who insist on these words. I presume they .047„ight
be in a majority. Well, if they are in a majority t° ":„Tot
in inserting the word " just," with a view to cr'r on
compensation, cannot they make the same innts"cwar3,.
any future occasion, when any motion is brought lo"
to grant compensation? They would be just as able, a door
would say they would be better able, to shut thi„etby
when the proposal came, than they would be to-mg Maim
an indirect expression, by a side wind, to shut out 3.. sot
which they do not distinctly negative, and whi°,lll„;eat•
distinctly brought before the consideration of Par'i,;.`„",:bille
I have only to say that I deplore the condition in vvf-qothe
house is about to find itself. I do not think it le "f air
credit of Parliament, that when a great question °
the
mestic policy has been put to' the country, and 'Olio,
house is called upon to make an answer to that clLe'ggle,
that we should turn it at once into a mere partY E 47 5!
—that those who get up on one side say they niean,:a it
censure upon the Government, when they ought t° .„ --this
only as the affirmation of a principle. It is evide"" tot
debate cannot end to-night, and I should only he° as
hon. gentlemen will well consider between this thin of
that when the debate will be resumed ; that a spin the
conciliation may be found to animate both sides °toot
house ; that on the one hand those who are disposed tend"
up compensation would be disposed to take such an ',111(15
ment as I have read, and, on the other hand, my hon. ":, lige
who sit on this side may be content with somethinshich
what I have proposed, freo from those expressions
hurt the feelings of hon. gentlemen ; and that the ":er
may be that we shall all unite in what would be 511
ytio
whelming affirmation of a great principle of dos' to
tp
policy, affirming which would be not only satisfextf Per
nine hundred and ninety-nine out of every thociseS-4.,'W
sons in the country, but which would be of the utni°2„,,"
portance in our relations with foreign countries. (C"'hotli
Mr. M. GIBSON and Sir E. BIJLWER LYTTON that'd not
rose, and both or one of the hon. members (we orbite,
ascertain which) moved the adjournment of the ue'
which was at once put and carried, and tivelvs
The house then adjourned at ten minutes past-
o'clock.