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

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 there 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 the shave,
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 not comp'ain.—.of the use of the
to apply tern to n
hypocrisy
3t
ascaipplied' 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
iceiket.:7 °at'sl
from
mot ot
a°lntt,,hif privilege;
t n
question._
withhet
some remarks, in which after acknowledging the
t
sepresakoif6gtlieb:Government, 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, had recourse-, 'for the sake of maintaining
the Administration, to an immediate' 'dissolution. '• I 'certainly
thought that step ought not to have beet; taken except upon some
large ground either of necessity..nr of extensive Public polity, but
it was resorted to solely because the 'Right lion. Gentleman had,
taken the Lord ydelbourne, and to obtain 'a majority
in that (Hesr.)
After this he was deficient
in the first place in they' choice ,if • a •
no,
tt
u.fts.dcrehlea on 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 giving
any opinion, leaving it to the Court 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 degrees, but his firm 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 laws which, under 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 . classes
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 again
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 advocate of 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 taxes 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
(sir 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 the 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 yeas, " 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 would be brought 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 motion were wise in not
giving longer notice. They recollected what had happened
two years ago, and he 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.) The members 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 shoeless,
houseless, and almost 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 Corn-laws
had been so frequently debated 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 monopolies
which pressed upon 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 Cornslaws endeavoured to keep 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 affirmed 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 revenue,
but to go into the pockets of 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 Coredatesewerirepealed, 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 protection 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 enactments 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 useless, for
the
'timid
l want no populationpa-
of the
country would have plenly of work andeiriou...„)
'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 majority of the
their constituent
Members of that Court would do justice to _
with
s,•
and rote in favour of a measure that was fraught un-
mixed good to the country.
of humanity that had
Ili ail sugar; the great
heellnlrr.aLiseAdWagßEaiNnes
the great growers of sugar in the West
humanity-mongers,
slave-grown sugar when the
F.
y
could had no horror at using _
thrie.diienutrole(cilint..htiPenco'rty
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 labour
price
v it had always, since the peace, been then
much oefcrenornna—s ion ,
higher. 11Iore labourers than 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