The Sun.
London, England, 1846-03-03 00:00:00

.('HE SUN LON D ON, TUESDAY EVENING, MARCH 3, 1846.

line and to military habits by European officers
of great skill and ability. The wish of my lion. and Gallen
Friend was, that a Seikh Government should be established in
the Punjaub, by the establishment of a Mussulrnan or any
other form of Government. At the same time, although my
Gallant Friend was deteetuined to resist every attempt at
aggression, end although he refused to entertain every pro-
pose! that was made to him to interfere in the domestic affairs
of the Punjaub—and it mast be remembered that a word from
him would have incited rising of the Mussulman inhabitants of
the Punjaub against the Seikh Government—my Hon. and
Gallant friend up to the last moment continued steadily and
determinedly to adhere to his resolution of abstaining from
all interference in the domestic affairs of the Punjaub. But
my Gallant Friend had to defend, against a licentious and
abandoned army, a ter, itery extending over a distance of one
hundred miles. It was not the intention of my friend to form
anything like a connexion of forces, which would justify a
remonstrance on the part of the Lettere Government. My
Gallant Friend took that step which he thought most necessary
fur the into gists of this country. At Ferozepore is stationed a
force of about 8,000 men ; at Loodianah is stationeJ els
European regiment, seven regiments of native infantry, ate,
t'vo regiments of native cavalry. There are twenty-four fiela
guns, and mounted in po-ition at. Ferozepore are thirty-five
guns. My Friend intended that this should be the
advanced post of the British army, and it was so occupied
as to be capable of resisting any attack. At a distance,
easterly, of seventy-six miles higher up the Sutlej, at Loodianah,
was collected a force of 5,000 men. My Gallant Friend's
object was that these two divisions of the army, stationed
seventy-six miles from each other, should act on the flank of
any army from the Punjaub, which might be intended to in-
vade the British territory. At a distance, more in the interior
at Umballah, was stationed another force of 8,000 men, or at
least 7,500. The impression of my Gallant Friend was, that
it was improbable that any attack should be made by an army
from the Punjaub on the British forces. He knew that no
conduct on his part would justify such an attack, and he felt
every assurance which could be felt that neither justice nor
reason would sanction the inference, that an army from the
Punjaub would be mad enough to seek a conflict with the
British troops at Loodianah, or at Forozepore. There were
good reasons why my Gallant Friend did not for the lastdwo
or three years raise an immense British and native army on
the.Sutlej. Seeing within a few miles of him an army so free
from all restraint, nay Gallant Friend did not consider it safe
that his troops should have constantly before their
eyes the, bad examples of discipline which they offered.
But there were military reasons for not keeping
the main body of the army on the left—( Hear)—
bank of the Sutlej, as well as political. It was impossible te•
say to what point an attack, if aggression were intended,
would be directed. On the left bank of the Sutlej are many
States which belong to the Punjaub protected by the British
Government—in these dominions, are many forts of consider-
able strength, and between the probable points of attack there
were no less than twenty fords which were constantly changing
their position, from the nature of the river. My Hon. and
Gallant Friend therefore chose to place two strong bviies to
guard the Sutlej. The one at Ferozeore, and the sther at
Loodianah, and to keep the main body of the army in re-
serve. His whole force for the purpose of resisting a sudden
attack amounted to thirty regiments of native infantry; nine
regiments of European infantry ; twelve regiments of native
cavalry, and three regiments of European cavalry. I there-
fore think that the House will consider that the Government
took every measure that possibly could be taken to secure success.
At an early period of the year, the Governor-General sub-
mitted to the Council his opinion, that our relations with the
Court of Lahore became exceedingly precarious. He sub-
mitted his opinion that it would be advisable, with reference to
Indian interests, that the Governor-General should proceed to
the left bank of the Sutlej, to give the necessary directions,
which, at the distance of a thousand miles, might not be appro-
priate. The unanimous opinion of the members of the Coun-
cil was, that it was necessary for the public interests that he
should proceed to the army, and, in conformity with that opi-
nion, he proceeded in October to join the army. Up to an
early period in December, the opinion of Sir Henry Hardiuge
was, that there would not be an irruption from the right hank
of the Sutlej; and so certain did he feel, that he cherished the
expectation that no such thing could take place ; and so far as
he could be guided by experience, my lion. and Gallant Friend
was perfectly right. In 1843 the Lahore army left Lahore,
and went toe ards the Sutlej, and in 1844 returned, but again
departed. In 1844, the army, eager for prey or booty, and
instigated by the chiefs, contemplated an irruption. The ac-
counts reached my Hon. and Galland Friend towards the end
of November, which led him to look on the rumour as serious.
You will find in the papers recently presented to the House,
that a letter was written by Major Broadfoot, and addressed to
the Commander-in-Chief and the Governor-General, which
contained the following passage :—" Sir,—Since I had the
honour of waiting on you, I have received Lahore letters of the
18th inst., which state that on the night of the 17th, the chiefs
of that army agreed on the following plan of operations :—The
army has been divided into seven divisions, four of which
are to be employed in an attack on the British territory.
It was then determined that four divisions of the Seikh army
should make four separate attacks in various portions of the
territory. The Durbar considered that they ought not to
make an united and concentrated attack, hut they ought to
cross the Sutlej at four different places, and each division,
consisting of 8,000 or 12,000 men, to make four different and
simultaneous attacks on the British possessions. It was on the 7th
October (although if the House refer to the dispatches which
had been printed, they will see how difficult it was to have
foreseen the ultimate decision of the powers at Lahore) they
will observe in the account which was written after the con-
sultation at Lahore, in a letter written by Major Broadfoot,
that of the 21st November, to the Ranee, or female regent,
one of the chiefs, declared, while the troops were retiring to
their villages, that if something was not done he might find
his way to Ferozepore. Many of the Seikh army thought
that these proceedings would come to nothing.—( The Right
Hon. Baronet then referred to other documents showing the
proceedings before the battles of Moodkee and Ferozepore.)
On the 11th December the British and native troops were in
march from Umballah to the banks of the Sutlej. I think the
whole proceedings of the Governor-General and the
Commander-in-Chief on that day were characterised
by the greatest prudence. They marched on the
11th front Umballah, with 7,500 men, to Ferozepore,
where they found, through the provident forethought of the
Governor-General, abundant supplies, and effected a junction
with the troops at Loodianah. They thought it better thus to
concentrate their forces and expose Loodianah to some risk
rather than to divide the army. They heard then that the
whole of the army of the Seikhs, amounting to 50,000 or
60,C30, men had crossed the Sutlej. The expectations of my
Hon. and Gallant Friend were justified by the result. There
was a force of 7,500 men in Ferozepore. They had but
thirty-five heavy guns in their possession at Ferozepore, with
the addition of twenty-four smaller pieces ; that was the
amount of the Ferozepore army, and it was by means of this
small army that Ferozepore was saved. The Seikh army at
Loodianah hearing that the Governor-General was advancing
with a force from Umballah, determined to direct its attention
to Ferozepore, and made a sudden attack upon the British
and native forces at Moodkee on the 18th of December, when
the men had been marching 150 miles by forced
marches, suffering extremely from want of water.
Such, however, was the discipline and gallantry of that force,
though inferior in number, they repelled the whole of the at-
tacking force of at least treble the number, and succeeded in
capturing seventy odd guns. The Seikh army at Loodianah,
thus repulsed by a division of our army which was advancing
from Umballah, retired into very formidable intrenchraents,
the glacis of which extended in the form of a parallelogram of
a mile in length and half a mile in breadth. In the face of
that great army, supported by 150 guns of excellent work-
manship, his Hon. and Gallant Friend and the Commander-
in-Chief, Sir Hugh Gough, determined to make an attack.
They advanced to within three miles of the position of the
enemy, and after manoeuvring to the right and the left, in
consequence of a previous notice which had been sent
to Sir John Littler in the course of the 21st, they
obtained an addition of 7,500 men to their army.
The Commander-in-Chief and my Gallant Friend, who had
previously offered his services as second in command, which
services had been cheerfully accepted by the. Commander in-
Chief, after effecting this junction with the force of the Pun-
jaub, held a conference, and the result of that conference
was a resolution at once to attack the enemy. The result of
that attack proved the valour of the British Indian force its a
paramount degree, and the warmest acknowledgements are
due to them for their great exertions on that occasion. Sir,
I believe the night of the 21st of December was one of the
most memorable in the records of this country. The artil-
lery of the enemy was maintained with great fortitude and
energy. The right wing of the British army was
led on by the Commander-in-Chief, and the left by my Gal-
lant Friend, who was second in command. They made the
attack during the three remaining hours of daylight, but they
had not time to complete the victory, which was afterwards
so successfully obtained when the remainder of the army of the
Lahore came up to their assistance. The details are given
by both Commanders-in-Chief with admirable clearness, but
there have been private letters received from the spot, which
speak of the action with less formality, and, perhaps, with more
force than the dipatches. Perhaps, then, the House will for-
give me for reading a letter written by my Gallant Friend the
Governor-General of India to a member of his own family.
The letter commenced by stating that the 21st of December
was the most extraordinary day in the life of the writer. He
found himself in company with a regiment which has earned
for itself immortal fame in the annals of the British army. 1
mean the 80th regiment. His answer to every man was, that
we must fight it out; we must attack the enemy vigorously at
daybreak, or the honourably in the field. It is hardly neces-
sary for me to read the letter, as it shows his desire to do jus-
tice. ( llear, hear.) The Gallant old General who
commanded with him says: " During the night I
occasionally called to the British soldiers to get
up and punish the Seikhs when they came too close or were
impudent.—(Laughter.) In the morning we went at it in
true English style, and we drove them without a halt from one
extremity of the camp to the other. In our passage we took
about 40 guns, which were fired on us at 20 paces, and were
admirably served. The mournful part of the tale is the loss
we have sustained in officers, of whom there are a great many
killed. The fire was very heavy from 100 pieces of cannon.
The Seikhs were trained by the first French officers, and are
most warlike men.—( Hear, hear.) My friend went from re-
giment to regiment as they were lying on the ground, keeping
sip their spirits and animating them. He placed his son, a
boy 18 years of age, in front of the British regiments, in order
that they might not fire, but might drive the enemy from his
guns by the force of the bayonet. My friend had two sons, one
of them was a civilian. He said that the presence of that son
disturbed him, and he ordered him to be conveyed to the rear,
while the presence of the other, who was an officer, and had a
military duty to perform, served only to give him more desperate
resolution. When the danger was over, some days after, he
took the son, who had been in the battle, and showed him to
the Sepoys, that they might see a Governor-General who had
lost a hand, and his son, who had lost a leg, and feel that these
casualties occurred to the highest as well as to the lowest in the
ranks. Sir, as I have stated before, the account of these mili-
tary operations are given with so much clearness by Sir Hugh
Gough and Sir Henry Hardinge, and lam sure they must have
been read with much private satisfaction by every Member of
the House, that I will not weaken the effect which they have
produced by further statements of mine. The pride and satis-
faction derived from these gallant exploits is no doubt greatly
counterbalanced by the regret which we all must experience its
reading of the loss of so many men of the highest distinction.
We have had the misfortune to lose that Gallant Officer upon
whom on many former occasions we have bestowed the highest
praise. Sir Robert Sale has closed a long career of military
glory by that death which I believe he himself foresaw--a death
in the field of battle--
" Felix edam in opportunitate morti,;;"

s. .
and I do hope that the House will encourage me to hope, by
a unanimous expression of its reffaril and admiration for the
services and memory of Sir Robertr' Sale, that we may on a
future occasion humbly represent to her Majesty, if she shall
think fit, to record our admiration of his exploits, and regret for
his loss, by a public monument—(Cheers)—that this House will
make good the expense of that tribute to his memory. —(Cheers. )
We have also to deplore the loss of General M'Caskill and
Major Broadfoot, two of the most eminent men in the service
of the country. I will net refer to individuals of lower rank, as
it might appear invidious. I can assure their friends that this
House and the country will do justice to their memories and
their valour, and will testify their feeling at the lose of such
eminent men.—( Hear, hear.) I hope the thanks of this House
will be conveyed to every regiment and man without exception.
—( Hear, hear.) if there were occasions en which the valour
of some particular regiments might be specially referred to, I
feel the present is not one ; for, considering tho known repu-
tation, and the severe losses sustained by many -of the
regiments on this as on former occasions, I venture

to say that a deficiency of a single moment is alto-
gether put out of recollection by the brilliancy of their
former achievements, and the glory of their former services.—
( Hear, hear.) Sir, I am certain that the several regiments
engaged in this affair will receive their due reward at the hands
of their country—( Hear, hear, and cheers)—and that the
House will give to every man its willing thanks.—(Renewed
cheering.) Sir, Ido hope there will be an unanimous acquies-
cence.—( Hear, hear.) I trust I have said nothing that can
by any possibility be considered opposed to the political views
of any Honourable Gentleman.—(Cheers from both sides of the
House.) lam sure there is nothing in the resolution to which
any Honourable Gentleman can by possibility object.—( Re-
newed cheering.) Let us then, whatever may be the political
feelings we entertain—let us, I say, keep them in the back
ground on the present occasion, and unanimously concur in
bearing testimony to the brilliant services of those gallant men
who have proved themselves in an eminent degree
worthy of their native country.—(lmmense cheering. )
The lives which have been lost would not have been sacrificed
in vain. The army engaged in this enterprise constituted one
of the greatest defenders of this nation.—( Hear, hear.) When
we see what was effected by discipline and by valour, on the
18th, 21st, and 22d of December, we fell increased confidence
in those to whom the protection of this country is intrusted.
The memory of those men who fell in those engagements,
through devotion to their country, will long serve to animate
the British army by their example, and to make us proud of
that name, which in common we bear with them—to animate
us to protect the interests of this great country. ( The Right
Hon Baronet sat down amidst loud cheers from both sides of
the House. )
Lard JOHN RUSSELL then rose, and said, Sir, agreeing
entirely as I do in the resolution which the Right Honourable
Baronet proposes to move, I trust the House will allow me the
gratification of adding my testimony to the valour of our
Indian army. I participate in those feelings which he
has expressed in the name of the House, an

I trust that the resolution will meet
with the unanimous sense of the House—(Cheers)—that we
may offer this tribute to the valour of those who have defended
our possessions in India, in order that it may be a source of
pride to the survivors of those who took part in the en-
gageinent, and some consolation to their afflicted relations.
Sir, with respect to the first part of the Right Hon. Baronet's
speech, I certainly cannot pretend to follow it, but I felt
assured, when Sir Henry Hardinge accepted the office of Go-
vernor-General of India—when ho abandoned the honourable
position he held in the councils of his Sovereign—when he
left the enjoyment and happiness of his home, and from the
highest motives—(Cheers)--I felt that the country could
place the utmost confidence in him. With respect to the
policy of Sir Henry Hardinge, as the Governor-General,
with regard to the subject of the Funjeub, it was highly
interesting to hear the Right Hon. Gentleman's statements
in reference to it ; but as the papers have only been recently
published, I think it will be more becoming my position not
to refer to it. This I know, if the utmost forbearance is
shown, as the utmost forbearance has been shown on
this occasion, I may say that the imputation of wanton out-
rage cannot be applied to—(Cheers)--Sir Henry Hardinge.
His fame in war was already established, and his policy, to
give no cause of animosity to the neighbouring states was
highly honourable to his character ; that policy, however, has
exposed the British army in very disproportionate numbers to
contests with the army of Lah ire. I can but admire the spirit
of the Governor- General and the troops employed under him.
They, so far from quailing at the sight of the force, were only
fired with a spirit of martial ardour and patriotic enthusiasm.
I believe there was not a man of that gallant army who wished
for more men from England. Sir, in the subsequent battle
of which the Right Hon. Baronet has given so affecting an
account from the letter of Sir H. Hardinge, I must say I fol-
low with delight the troops of our army on that occasion—that
occasion where the victory was not obtained through any ad-
vantage which we have made in civilization, from no superiority
of numbers which we heave brought into the field, but it
was.by the reliance upon the bearing and the gallantry of the
British army, directed by heart and determination so peculiar
to the British troops, and to the valour of the native Indian
army, which has been so faithful and courageous upon all occa-
sions. It was by such an army that this victory was achieved.
They had the proud satisfaction of knowing that these gallant
men could have no hesitation or distrust either in themselves
or their commanders, fur the Commander-in-Chief ( Sir
Hugh Gough) could not but recollect the brilliant conduct of
Sir Henry Hardinge at Albuera, and he ( Sir H. Hardinge)
could riot but reflect that at Busaco none was more distin-
guished for heroism and valour—that no name stands more con-
spicuous in connexion with that exploit than that of the name of
Gough. They must therefore have had the utmost confidence
in each other, as well as themselves, when they led their gal-
lant men to victory. I was glad to hear the allusion
which had been made by the Right Hon. Baronet to the con-
duct of the 62d Regiment. I refuse to believe that any regiment
of British soldiers would retire from the conflict upon any
other ground save that of the great slaughter which had taken
place, and I believe that when there is any task assigned to
them which shall not be unequal to their power, they will then
maintain the high character which they have before obtained.
—( Hear, hear.) I rejoice to hear that mention has been
made by the Right Hon. Baronet of his intention to propose
an address to this House, enabling her Majesty to cause to be
erected a monument to the memory of the Gallant General Sir
Robert Sale.—( Loud cheers.) That officer, after the proud
distinction he had previously acquired, could not have had a
more glorious or more honourable death than the field of battle.
—(Loud cheers.) But it were unworthy of us if we did not
show that we appreciate such gallant and heroic conduct.—
(Continued cheering.) And therefore, with these feelings, I
ask for the honour of seconding the resolutions which the Right
Hon. Baronet has just proposed, and I trust, as I have already
said, that this will be an unanimous vote, and that we shall all
know that the qualities of these gallant men, the dangers they
have confronted, and the victories they have achieved, have met
with a response in the gratitude of an English House of
Commons.—( Cheers.)
Mr. HUME wished to say a few words, although he could
add nothing to what had been so ably stated by the Right
Hon. Baronet, except to say that he concurred entirely in the
statement the Right Hon. Baronet had made.—( Hear, hear. )
Sir Henry Hardinge was unit illing to throw the troops too far
forward lest he should give grounds of attack. If Hun.
Members would look at the position in which he was, they
would see why he was unable to get all his force together.
The Sutlej at the point where the junction of the troops
should have taken place was so deep that it could not be
forded. The torts on the river were only passable in Decein-
ber and January. It did not appear to him possible that the
tiooes could have been placed in a better position than at Um-
ballah, where they were placed for the protection of the stores.
He said this because be would be very sorry that it should go
abroad that any unnecessary sacrifice of life had taken place.
He felt as much as any man a disgust for war, but the circum-
stances in which the country was placed rendered it impos-
sible to avoid the horrors of war. Wherever war was there
misery and trouble must be. If they looked at the circum-
stances which took place in 1843 and 1044, they would
see that great preparations were not made in case of an
invasion, and it was wrong for any man in the situation of
Governor-General to give occasion for war by great prepara-
tions, and it was impossible to avoid it when it did come. He
would say one word more before he sat down. He hoped and
believed that the Members of the House would be unanimous,
and he hoped that the House would show due consideration to
the families of those who had fallen. He hoped that the
Government would use its influence and patronage for those
families whose protection had been taken from them. He
believed if it could be known, many of those who fell in the
battle, deserved equal honour with Sir R. Sale. He would
conclude by expressing his cordial concurrence in everything
that had fallen trem the Right Hon. Baronet.
Sir ROBERT H. INGLIS wished that the Hon. Member
for Montrose and the House would recollect that the victory
was owing to Providence; that while they thanked the
instrument, they should not forget to thank the Supreme
Dispenser of all good.—( Hear, hear.) He believed that in
the annals of the Roman empire there could be nothing found
to equal the immorality and licentiousness of the camp at La-
hore. The plain, soldierlike style in which the dispatches of
Sir Henry Hardinge were written also struck him ( Sir R.
Inglis) as falling in the wake of that great man the Duke of
Wellington.—( Hear, hear.) For himself he felt the value of
such testimonials, and he was certain the House would unani-
mously concur in awarding it.—( Hear, hear. )
Mr. HOGG said he would not trouble the House with
more than one or two remarks, after the very eloquent
speeches they had just heard from the Right Hon. Baronet at
the head of the Government, also from the Noble Lord oppo-
site (Lord John Russell) who had seconded the motion.—
(Hear, hear.) He believed that the conflicts of the 19th,
20th, and 21st of December, were among the severest that had
ever engaged the valour of British troops; and the dreadful
carnage proved the desperation with which the troops
on both sides had fought. The British troops did not
amount to a third, little more than a fourth, of their adver-
saries ; deficient in artillery, their guns being little more
than half the number of the enemy's, and none of
which could be said to be of battery calibre; they
advanced under a storm of shells and shot which
literally swept away the advance—still they advanced, captured
the munitions of the enemy, and finally accomplished their
great object. The difficulties that Sir Henry Hardinge had
to encounter, as regarded his civil policy, he would abstain
from adverting to. But he might be permitted to say, that
his course would be easy indeed, if, instead of the treachery
and unprovoked attack, the Lahore, Government had openly
announced their determination.— (Hear, hear.) No man
could read the dispatches of Sir Henry Hardinge without
feeling satisfied of his anxious desire to maintain a civil policy.
—( Hear, hear.) He ( Mr. Hogg) well recollected the words
of his Gallant Friend at the entertainment given him immedi-
ately previous to his departure. He said—" He was a soldier,
and had seen and known the risk and danger of war ; but
as he was a lover of peace, they might be sure
he would endeavour to maintain it.—( Hear, hear.)
They talked of the bank of the Sutlej, but they had no bank.
( Hear, hear.) For nearly '2OO miles on the left bank of the
river, comprising nearly 20,000 square miles, and comprising
all kinds of people, who were principally under the protection
of the Lahore Government, we had only two or three states.
It was absurd to talk of " the bank of the Sutlej," because
they had not a speck of land as large as the table of the House.
Then how did they get possession of Umballah. So long as
thete
protection throne t he states
of
the
whichhe
Lahore
eweere possessed,
Govern-
ment, were safe, but then we never sought any tribute for
end Runjeet
which Singh i nwgehr
were under
on
h
them. Since 1826, when a great number of those possessions
were conceded to Runjeet Singh, on account of his services
to this country, we had had no control over either bank of the
Sutlej, or over the adj•ining territory, for nearly a space of
120 miles. We had no ports but Ferozepore and Leo-
dianah ; and how did they obtain possession of Meerut
and Umballah ? But supposing they could have advanced
their station, what would have been the result? Even
suppose that they had built stations nearer the Sutlej, at
a distance of eighty miles, the Seikhs would be at Delhi
before it was known at Ferozepore or Loodianah. In the year
1842, the year of the Affghanistan campaign, what was done ?
Fortifications were thrown round Ferozepore, the same round
Loodianah ; at Umballah barracks were built, and every pre-
cautionary measure was taken. Did the Governor-General do
nothing in the present instance ? It has not, it is title, been
blazoned forth in the newspapers. All his measures hare been
taken silently and noiselessly, in order that it should not attract
public attention• His object was to strengthen the forts, and
he did that at a time when the general relief of the army takes
place. He did it without giving umbrage to the Seikhs. It
was impossible for any person connected with the country to
look upon a mutinous army, close to their frontier, without
feeling considerable excitement. The Seikhs was an army in
a state of mutiny, dictating to their commanders,
and exacting from this Treasury whatever amount
they choose. It was an alarming example to set
before the face of the native army, and the House should know
that most prodigal offers had been made to them. Every
argument which could address itself to their religious prejudices
had been made use of, but in vain—( Hear, hear)—and it was
also remarkable that the Seikhs recruited their army to a con-
siderable extent from the same province as the British did. In
that army (the Seikhs) there were friends and relations of many
of the Sepoys, and yet despite these temptations, such as no
soldiers had ever before been exposed to, they still remained
faithful. He did hope that the people of this country would
acknowledge with gratitude the services of the British army in
India, and he further hoped that the native princes and the
natives at large of India, would become sensible
of the blessing of English rule, which must bring
with it the blessing of English protection.
Captain LAYARD said heroic actions were often lost to the
pages of history from the want of a post or the negligence of the
historian. But the friends of those gallant spirits who had laid
down their lives at the shrine of their country, and these gal-
plat men vvho remain to maintain he honour, need not fear

that such would be the case with respect to themselves, when
they know and hear of the beautiful and soul-stirring speech in
which the Minister of England had brought under the consi-
deration of the British House of Commons their gallant deeds.
They might feel assured that their gallant deeds
would ba handed down to posterity. What was
the stake we had upon the cast? He believed that
had any reverse taken place on that occasion, it would have de-
stroyed our empire in India. There was not on our side of the
Sutlej any force that could in a short time be brought to check
as large an army. It must be admitted that both the Native
and the British army did their duty on that hard-fought field,
and the names of many would go down to posterity on the bright
tablet of fame, but while the eye brightened for success, it was
dimmed by the recollection of those who had fallen ; and he must
mention in terms of regret the death of Sale, and the
gallant young Somerset, who had behaved with the hereditary
spirit of his race. He would conclude by expressing his firm
belief that all the forces, both officers and men, well deserved
the most cordial thanks of the House.
Sir HOWARD DOUGLAS considered that the victory
was a happy cif cumstance, and one extremely gratifying to the
country. It was also consolatory to consider that the
tremendous sacrifices which had been made of so many eminent
men did not result from any aggressive attacks on the part of the
Government. He should prove before he sat down that the
conduct of Sir Henry Hardinge was perfectly consistent with
the strictest rules of tactical and stratagetical science. There
was no doubt that his Gallant Friend ( Sir H. Hardinge) had
been placed in a very difficult 'position in these engagements,
because he had to contend with superior numbers, but he suc-
ceeded in vanquishing them, for his mind was well stored with
all those acquirements which such a position required. He
had served in the Peninsula under the Duke of 'Wellington,
and was, therefore, well fitted for the position to which he was
appointed. A man, placed in a similar position, could .not
have acted otherwise. The Honourable Baronet then
proceeded to describe the order of the engagements.
fhe ordinary establishment of a regiment in India was 1,000
men. Now the 62d Regiment went into action with only
700 men; and when they came within range of the guns of the
enemy, in less than ten minutes half the regiment, with seven-
teen out of twenty-one officers, were shot down, and the regi-
ment therefere literally broken. Now, he should say, that the
reserve troops in the rear should not have been so distant, and
that greater care, and more caution should have been observed
in the details of these arrangements. The glorious acts and
successes of that thy, ought to obliterate for ever the remem-
brance of any temporary misfortune that might have befallen
their arms. He would most cordially give his entire concur-
rence to the proposed vote of thanks, which he hoped would
be carried with the highest acclamation, as a small acknow-
ledgement of these brilliant successes which had been obtained
at the sacrifice of so many gallant lives.
Lord EBRINGTON regretted that, on the present occa-
sion, the Right Hon. mover, and the Hon seconder of the
motion, bad altogether omitted all mention of the policy which
the Governor-General had pursued previously to his recent
distinguished successes. He should, however, most cordially
concur in the proposed vote of thanks. The chief purpose for
which he had risen was to ask a question of the Right. Hon.
the Secretary-at-War, or in his absence, of any other member
of the Government, whether any measures had been taken to
acquaint the relations of those privates and non-commissioned
officers who had been killed in India, with the extent of their
loss ? He had had painful experience of the anxiety with
which the news from India was looked forward to by the re-
lations of the officers engaged in the recent conflicts, and being
aware that similar anxious feelings must exist in the breasts
of the relations of the private soldiers, he had been induced to
inquire whether means could not be adopted at once to allay
all anxiety on the subject.
Lori JOCELYN stated that the usual custom after a battle
was to have the names of the privates and non-commissioned
officers who had been killed carefully recorded, and the lists
prepared and kept at the Horse Guards ; by referring to which
place every information would be afforded.
Lord EBRINGTON wished to know whether a list of the
killed would not be published in the Gazette, or in some other
public paper ?
Sir ROBERT PEEL observed that it had never been the
custom to publish a printed list of the privates and non-com-
missioned officers who had fallen in battle.
Sir JOHN HOBHOUSE believed that such a course was not
customary. He did not see, however, any objection to such a
course being adopted. It would, in his opinion, be a great
consolation to the survivors of the private soldiers to have their
names publicly recorded. The names of the officers were
published, and why not those of the privates ? The same feel-
ing among the relations must naturally prevail. It would be
unnecessary for him to say a word after• the admirable address
of the Right Hon. Baronet. This was one of the great deeds
which they had to acknowledge, and in doing honour to the
brave men who were participators in the gallant act, they were
doing honour to themselves. He was afraid that these deeds
were but the commencing struggles of a destructive war,
and therefore it would be a great encouragement to the men
who were engaged in these actions, and also to those who had
the conducting of those difficult affairs, when they found that
the Parliament of England took every available means of
encouraging them in the arduous career which they had to
pursue.
Mr MANGLES would most cordially concur in the pro-
posed vote of thanks. He would do so with the greater cheer-
fulness, from the successes not having been terminated with a
war of aggression or extermination.
Mr. WYNN was most anxious that the names of the
whole of the British troops should be published. He had al-
ways thought that they had been deficient in that respect. He
had the honour, after the battle of Waterloo, when it was
proposed to erect a monument to commemorate
that event, to suggest that the name of every
man who had fallen in that glorious victory should be re-
corded. The suggestion was received with universal appro-
bation. Irrespective of modern times, they had the precedent
of antiquity for such a course. In ancient days, after the battle
of Maranthon, the conflict of Thermopylm, the names of the
conquerors, the dead as well as the living, were recorded in
marble, and engraved on enduring brass. The victories which
the trrops had obtained in India were an honourable testimo-
nial to the general conduct of the British troops, and of the
attachment of the native troops to their coadjutors ; and he
should support the vote of thanks with the greatest cordiality.
Dr. 130 WRING did not exactly approve of the manner in
which the Right Hon. Baronet had spoken of • the exclusive
military policy of the Governor-General. Our political, civil,
and commercial interests in India were intimately connected,
and he earnestly wished that the principle of encouraging one
more than another should not be carried to so great an extent.
Sir ROBERT PEEL was understood to say that he had no
intention that that principle should be carried to so great an
extent.

After a few words from Sir C. COLEBROOKE and Sir
HOWARD DOUGLAS,

Sir DE LACY EVANS thought the names of the officers
who had fallen should be recorded in some manner, as should
seem most desirable to the House. On reading the resolution
proposed by the Right Hon. Baronet, he found that the names
of the distinguished officers who had fallen would not appear in
the proceedings of the House. He had prepared a resolution
to be attached to the original motion, which provided for that
omission, and he would n,)vr submit it. It was to the following
effect :—" That this House does also highly approve and ac-
knowledge the distinguished and energetic exertions displayed
by the late lamented and gallant officers, General Sir Robert
Sale, Major-General Sir John AV Caskill, and the other officers,
non-commissioned officers, and privates, who received their
deaths, gloriously failing in these honourable actions." He
conceived it would be a mark of respect to the memory of the
gallant men who had fallen in these actions, that their names
should be transmitted throughout the army in the only public
record of the transactions which would appear. if his motion
should be seconded, he would then appeal to the House, but if
it should not be seconded, he trusted that some means should be
devised in which the gallant deaths of these brave men might be
publicly recorded.
Sir ROBERT PEEL said that he had himself prepared a
resolution similar in effect to that which had been proposed by
the Hon. and Gallant Officer, but on referring to former occa-
sions he had found that no example of a precedent for such a
resolution could be found. In the cases of Trafalgar and
Waterloo there existed no such precedent. He thought that it
was highly desirable that the usual course should be followed.

It would be a matter of deep regret for the survivors of those
who had fallen on former occasions, that their names had not
been recorded in a similar manner. He hoped, therefore,
the Gallant Officer for these reasons would not press his reso••

Lord EBRINGTON merely wished to observe that it was
desirable for a list containing the names of the noncommis-
sioned officers and privates to be prepared as soon as possible.
Sir DE LACY EVANS having withdrawn his resolution,
The resolutions, which will be found in another column, after
a few words from Mr. HUME and Mr. WYNN, were put from
the chair and carried with acclamation.
CUSTOMS AND CORN IMPORTATION ACT.

Upon the order of the day for the House going into Com-
mittee on the Customs and Corn Importation Act being read,
Mr. VILLIERS rose, and stated that it was not his wish
to oppose the progress of the present Bill. It was his intention
to have proposed his amendment at a later period of the session,
and had it not been for various statements which he had heard
in the course of the last debate, he would have done so. The
House was perfectly aware of the mode in which her Majesty's
Government intended to give effect to the measure which it
had introduced. The motion of which he had given notice had
reference to the mode only. Her Majesty's Ministers have
acknowledged the policy of allowing a perfect free trade in all
articles of provision, but they have postponed the full
application of that principle until the Ist of
February, 1849. He believed that those advantages
might be extended to the community immediately without
danger or inconvenience.—( Hear, hear.) He had moved the
present amendment in consistency with the practice of his
having done so for a number of years past. It was an amend-
ment on the preposition of the Government for a total and im-
mediate repeal of the duties on the importation of foreign corn.
There had been ever since the corn-laws had been enacted a

large party who had complained of their injustice, and who
have been anxious to have those laws repealed. But the ques-
tion has always been, could these laws be removed immediately
without some danger to the country ? It had been urged that
there would be much alarm caused to those who had invested
their capital on the soil, and who might be alarmed by the con-
sequences of free trade ; it was feareclthat they might withdraw
their capital, and the community would be injured by a
deficient supply. These considerations had great weight
with him at first, and had. he not had the views of may
practical people on the subject, he would not have been the
instrument of proposing an immediate abolition of the corn-
laws.sahou publication, in which it was stated,
abolish these protective laws, it
In the year 1843, when he first brought forward his
motion,that if
thehe q ue og
Ia tdf
ur from
re
would be to the interest of the farmer that that abolition should
be immediate. lie was fortified in making the present propo-
sition of an immediate repeal by a person of high rauk. He
alluded to Lord Spencer, who stated that if the law was at
once abolished the effect would be that wheat would rise in
price both in this country and abroad, and he did not think
an immediate abolition would cause any injury to the farmers.
The Earls of Ducie and Radnor had also expressed their
opinion that it was the interest of the farmer that the repeal should
be immediate, for if the laws were net immediately repealed
the landed proprietors would still maintain the hope that those
laws might not be finally carried into effect ; and while this
state of uncertainty existed with regard to the home
producer, the foreign grower would see a time when
the trade in corn would be free ; he would make his prepara-
tions according, invest his capital and prepare large supplies
for exportation into this country, while the grower would not
be prepared for them.—( Hear, hear.) The present Govern-
ment had most wisely considered it expedient that the trade in
corn should be free, and if there has been any subject upon
which there has been unity of opinion, it has been, that if the
corn-laws should be repealed, that that repeal should
be total and immediate: 11!eMbers on the Opposition
side have volunteered their opinion on the subject. Very
particular friends of the existing corn-laws had lost no
time, immediately after the meeting of Parliament to proclaim
that an immediate abolition would be to the interest of the
farmer. A Noble Duke in the Upper House, who was inti-
mately acquainted with the interest of the farmer, had lost no
time in volunteering his opinion, in favor of a total and imme-
diate repeal. The lion. Member for Somersetshire ( Mr.
Miles) whose pride and whose boast it was that lie was the
farmer's friend although there was no notice on t lie hook—no-
thing had been said upon the (pestle!' by Members on that side
of the House, yet all would remember the manner in which he
declared his desire of the farmers that the repeal should be im-
mediate. Now he (Mr. Miles) had lived among them, and
when he made that statement, he asked lion. Members
who sat behind him, if it was not true ; they gave him
an unanimous cheer. There was no county which had
watched with more jealousy the progress of free trade than

that of Lincoln ; but three months since its Honourable
Member declared in favour of an immediate repeal, and
he (Mr. Villiers) had been expecting him to bring
forward some measure in accordance with his opinions.
From every quarter, then, they had heard expres-
sions in favour of its immediate repeal. He did not see why
any person sh mld object to the motion which he proposed.
What was the opinion of her Majesty's Government? He
(Mr. Villiers) did not wish to provoke any unnecessary hos-
tility to the measure proposed, but he must call the attention
of the House to a statement which the Right Hon. Baronet
had made. He could gather from that statement that he (Sir
Robert Peel) did not entertain much fear from the abolition
of the corn-laws. On the let of November he stated that
there was a considerable deficiency of food, and he con-
sidered it necessary in order to remedy it, to abolish the
existing corn-laws. He did not rt collect, however, hearing
from him that his fears were less at the present time than they
were on the Ist of November. Ho considered then that the
suspension of the laws were a remedy for those evils; his fears
were now, however, as great as at that period. He has satis-
fied himself that the time has come when the trade in corn
should be entirely free; and if the Right Hon. Baronet would
look around him, he would see friends on all sides. If he
looked to Hon. Members on his side of the House, he wou'd
obtain from them their sanction and support. They would
tell him there was no ground for alarm ; they have said, as far
as im Lesliate abolition was concerned that they are ready
for it, and that it might be done safely ; so that
they had it on the best authority that the removal
of these laws would be attended with no evil. If
the Right Hon. Baronet looks to the party on the Opposition
side of the House, at tl e head of which is the Noble Lord the
Member for the city of Lon Jon, upon whom he may rely for
support, upon the question for an immediate repeal—he has
expressed his opinion upon the subject. What, then, has the
Right Hon. Baronet to fear? Upon which side soeter he
looks, he may count his supporters. He stated that he was
fearful that if some time were not given to the farmer, a
sudden removal would be productive of injury. The Hon.
Member for Somersetshire (Mr. Miles) had, however, allayed
his fears upon that point. He had told them that there was
no ground for fear—that the farmers were ready—that they had
no need of his caution. There could be no doubt, that the Right
Hon. Baronet himself was in favour of a total and immediate
repeal. But having shown that there were no difficulties in
the way of his resolution, he would ask if there were no ad-
vantages to be derived in the immediate repeal. The present
year was a peculiar year in its supply of food throughout
Europe and this country; this was a point it was impssible to
consider. We could not dispense with any supply of food which
should be imported into this country. We have notoriously a
scarcity in con.equence, of a deficiency in the harvest, and at
the same time a considerable increase in the consumption of
food in this country ; and there is also a failure of an important
article of consumption of food in the country. Under these
circumstances it was his opinion that the proposed
duty of 4s. might almost amount to a prohibition.
Since the present measure had been under discussion,
there have been several cargoes of wheat destined for this
country which have gone to a neighbouring country ; several
cargoes from Odessa, not disposed to wait for the 4s. duty, had
gone to Antwerp, for the corn-laws are repealed there, fin
Belgium and in Holland ; and this country was always
liable to lose its supply of food during the continuance of these
laws in times of scarcity. Since Parliament has met, corn had
been exported from this country for the Rhenish provinee.,
where they send their corn down the Rhine to Holland where
it is stored at Rotterdam. Now, however, corn was sent from
Rotterdam to those places beyond the Rhine which had for-
merly supplied both Belgium and Holland with corn.
They had, therefore, reason to fear that there would
be a general scarcity felt in the month of April.
that being the month in which the largest importation into this
country invariably takes place. He did not know who would
be most benefited, or who ought to be most interested, after
ail, its the abolition of the corn-laws; but he did think it was
not worth while that the people should be exposed to the
danger of deficiencies in the supply of corn. —( Hear, hear. )
He thought it would not be just to overlook that part of the
question, for he presumed he stated enough to show that the
measure would have such a tendency. The Government have
secured a certain amount of support for the measure which
they had propostd, but it seemed to him that for a similar
measure withdrawing all immediate protection, they would
win merit and support also. He believed that some of the
supporters of the Right Hon. Baronet were giving their sup-
port to that measure, because they believed that they would
relieve themselves from the danger which would be
incurred to the measure by their non-adhesion to
him ; but he (Mr. Villiers) thought it just to the
country to bring forward his amendment, in the hope that an
Immediate repeal might take place, for he thought that his amend-
ment would have most important advantages. Before he sat
down, he begged the attention of the House to the considera-
tion of one effect likely to be produced—he referred to a state-
ment made by the Hon. Member for Stockport. He stated—
and no man, he (Mr. Villiers) believed, doubted that state-
ment—that they had funds sufficient to procure a repeal of those
laws, and that the day they saw those laws abolished—the very
day afterit the League would be dissolved. Now he (Mr. Villiers)
thought he was not substracting in the least from the great
importance—that society had been to the country if he said its
disssolution would be of great. advantage.—(Loud cheers. )
He believed that society would be long indebted to the grati-
tude and admiration of the country for the great benefits it
had produced. He considered they had done infinite service
to the country, and: that they had gathered round them great
moral talent from coviction alone, without ever giving offence
to any of the classes which they felt it their duty to oppose.—
(Cheers.) But, notwithstanding, he believed there was some
danger in such an irregular power existing :in any country—
(Loud cheers from the protectionists)—and he thought that
that power should cease ; considering their talent, their great
energy, their unceasing perseverance, it was well worth the
attention of the House whether they should not cease to
give cause for the continuation of their agitation,
for it may be turned to objects that at present were net con-
templated. His Hon. Friends the Members for Stockport
and Durham were pledged in honour not to cease their ex-
ertions, and not to give up a single portion of that energy and
talent which they possessed, until this object was fully achieved.
He did net say that such a resolution ought to be conclusive
evidence to induce the Legislature to adopt their opinions, but
he thought there were sufficient grounds to do so in the promised
prosperity which it would afford. He (Mr. Villiers) therefore,
proposed to leave out all the words in the first resolution, after
the word " of," for the purpose of adding those words as an
amendment, that " all duties on imported corn do now cease
and determine."

The SPEAKER then put the question, when,
Colonel SIBTHORP rose, and said that it was his in-
tention at an earlier period to have occupied the House if he
had an opportunity of doing so, but after what had occurred he
should feel it unnecessary to occupy their attention for any
length of time on the present occasion. It was very
well known what opinion he etertained—(Hear, hear)—
with regard to the measure, and he also thought it was very
well known what opinion he entertained of those gentlemen at
the head of her Majesty's Government, who have dared in
the manner they did—the deceitful manner he would add—te
venture to bring forward such a measure.—(Loud cheers from
the protectionists.) The Hon. Gentleman the Member for
Wolverhampton, be (Colonel Sibthorp) hod no hesitation in
sayinw, had, during the whole course of his conduct, acted a
straightforward, honest, and consistent part in comparison
with that of her Majesty's Ministers.—( Cheers.) He never
deceived his party—(Cheers)—he had been straightforward in
his declaration—he has persevered in his course, and he was
bound to say that he gave him credit for the manly course he
had pursued, and he wished he could say the same for those who
were once his (Col. Sibthorp's) supporters.—(Loud cheers.)
If it was his good fortune to have spoken on this question at
an earlier period, he would have produced to the notice of the
House some of the speeches made by certain Gentlemen on
protection principles, who now seemed to have altered their
opinions. In the year 1838, at a dinner which was called the
" Peel Banquet," the Right Hon. Baronet thought it right to
treat with ridicule the conduct of the Noble Lord the Member
for the city of London. At that meeting, among other gen-
tlemen, the Marquis of Chandos, a leading man and a farmers'
friend (then an honourable appellation let him tell them), was
in the chair, and there were present Sir R. Peel, Lord Francis
Egerton, Lord Lowther, Sir Robert Inglis (and, mark this
Gentlemen), Sir James Graham—( Laughter)— Mr. Harris,
and Lord G. Somerset. The Right Hon. Baronet then enter-
tained very different opinions to those which he entertains now,
with his 313 supporters.—(Cheers.) Here the Gallant
Officers read several portions of the speech delivered br the
Right Hon. Baronet at the head of her Majesty's Govern-
ment, wherein he stated that it was pleasant that the rugged
pafh which led to political fame did not prevent him in his
journeys of making many friends, and that for some years past
he had chiefly laboured for the purpose of forming a great Con-
servative party for the purpose of arresting revolutionary
measures.—( Loud cheers from the protectionists.) Such was
the language,continued the Gallant Officer, which was used by
the Right Hon. Baronet in the year 1838, when he was enter-
tained, but perhaps it may be said most truly on this occasion,
in vino veritas.—(Laughter.) He (Col. Silsthorp) had en-
tained ; an opinion of the Right Hon. Baronet of a very different
nature to what he entertained at preseht. Perhaps he wanted
(with great emphasis) moral courage, and thought it was not
expedient to retain those principle:—Tempora mutantur.
He himself had at one time the most implicit confidence in the
Right Hon. Baronet.—(Cries of " Question, question.")
"Oh," continued the Hon. Member, pointing towards the
door, "if you are tired you may just walk out."—(Great
laughter.) The Secretary for the Home Department had-also
been once a protectionist. He (G 1. Sibthorp) did not know
how many departments he had been in ; he was in fact a Pro-
teus, a chameleon, ever varying its colour, and he would serve
any Government that would receive him.—(Laughter.)
His expression would be. Any port in a storm.—(Laughter.)
He (Colonel Sibthorp) would wish to know on what grounds
the Right Hon. Baronet at the head of the Ministry had
changed his opinions. If he did so on the belief that there
was a deficiency of food, he might not be altogether culpable ;
but he considered he had no such reason for changing his
opinions.—(Cries of " Question.") He understood there
would be a division on the present question, and with regard
to which he should say, that though he might be compelled to
go into the same lobby with the Right Hon. Baronet, the First
Lord of the Treasury, to oppose the amendment of the Hon.

Member for Wolverciampteil, yet it was through no regard,
affection, or respect for him, or any Gentleman on the Trea-
sury bench, that he did so.—(Hear, hear, and laughter. )
But of two evils he should choose the lesser.—(Renewed
laughter.) He could not conclude without cautioning the
Right Hon. Gentleman as to his associates; and again ex-
pressing his regret that he should break up the party which
was prepared to go with him through fire and water in up-
holding the institutions of the country, the supremacy of the
Throne, and the integrity of their own Protestant Church.—
(Great laughter.)
Lord WORSLEY trusted that the House would allow him
a few minutes space while he stated the grounds on which he
intended to vote on the present occasion. It had been proposed
by the Hon. Member for Wolverhampton that all duty on
corn should immediately cease ; whilst the Government were
in favour of a sliding scale until the year 1849. Now his im-
pression was, that if it rested solely between the motion pro-
posed by the Government and that of the Hon. Member for
Wolverhampton, it would be much better that the House
should decide in favour of the total and immediate repeal of
the corn-laws than that' the country should be kept in a
state of suspense. If the simple question were that, he should
be inclined to vote for the amendment of the Hon. Member
for Wolverhampton; but then, if he were to vote at that side
on the present occasion, and if the amendment were
carried, he felt he would be precluding himself from
the consideration of other amendments which were to
be proposed by Honourable Gentlemen —( Hear, hear. )
Ile thought that the proposition of the Right Hon. Baronet of
a sliding scale from 103. to 4s. would not answer the expecta-
tions of the people, but he was satisfied that if they were to
have a low fixed duty of ss. on wheat, and 2s. on barley, and
2s. on oats, as proposed by an Hon. Member—this, he thought,
wouid meet the wishes of all. He conld not support the
amendment of the Hon. Member for Wolverhampton, though
if it were a question between him and the Right Hon. Baronet,
he would rather support an immediate repeal of those laws.
He did not think there was the least chance of carrying the
proposition of the Honourable Member for Wolverhampton,
but he could not vote for that question, as it would
preclude him voting for the following amendment :
That in lieu of the duties now payable on the importation of
corn, grain, meal, or flour, the product of foreign countries,
there shall be paid a fixed duty of five shillings per quarter
upon wheat, two shillings and sixpence on barley, and two shil-
lings on oats; meal and flour in proportion. This amendment
he thought far preferable to either the Right Hon. Baronet's
measure or the proposition of his Hon, Friend the Member for
Wolverhampton.

Mr. MILNER GIBSON could not but congratulate his
Hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, on the opinion
of his Noble Friend who had jest sat down. He could not see,
in accordance with that opinion, how it was that the
Noble Lord could not support the amendment? It would be
said that' the amendment of his Hon. Friend would endanger
the measure of his, the Right Hon. Baronet's. He was of
opinion that the question of endangering the Government
measure was not to be considered, when the great principles
of the Right Hon. Baronet's were only proposed to
be carried out by the amendment of his Hon. Frier.d.—
( Hear, hear.) He thought the present amendmont
was the only one which could meet the views of the First
Minister of the Crown. The Right Hon. Baronet had said
that his first and most anxious feeling was how he could meet
the emergency of preventing a great national calamity. He
said in his speech that nothing less than a total repeal of those
laws would meet the emergency ; and now that it was pro-
posed to have an immediate repeal, which could alone meet the
emergency, how on the ground of consistency could the sup-
porters of the Right Hon. Baronet oppose such a measure ?
He (Mr. M. Gibson) was satisfied that nothing less than a
total and immediate repeal would meet that emergency. If
they were to grant a three years' protection, he questioned
much that the Right Hon. Baronet would be able to meet the
distress which existed, and which by the end of that time
would increase. When, as was stated by the Right Hon.
Baronet, famine was at hand in Ireland, how could he for one
moment think of keeping up a duty on corn ?—(Hear, hear. )
Suppos-ng that it were desirable to give encouragement to the
agricultural interest, how could they hope to maintain the duty
to the present extent under the present pressing emergency?
The duty on oats and barley was 2s. 6d., or 10s. per cent. on
the value of the commodity. That was no small duty ; and the
prices were such that none could be imported into this country
so as to give a profit. Their present duties would cause large
quantities of grain to be sent to the foreign markets when
every grain of corn was necessary to avert the ca-
lamity with which the country was threat-
ened. With regard to the agricultural interest, he
thought that it would be benefited by immediate repeal. He
did not think that the farmers would eq uire any adjustment.
He did not believe that the farmers
caredr pin for the
corn-
law question.—( Laughter. ) It struck him
as remarkable
the tenant-farmer did not seem to care a
are one straw about the
matter with respect to its influenceelie.. on them, but he believed
they were interested in it as a
the Ministerial side.) Well, Pthety 1 alntatter.—(No, no, from
differed on that point.—
( Hear, hear.) He believed that the farmers would be entitled
to a reduction of rent by the withdrawal of protection, and
when he came to ask for that !reduction the protectional
land-
lord would answer and say—" Wait until the Ist of February,
1849."—( Hear, hear, from the Opposition.) The Member'
for Stockport (Mr. Cobden) had said that he did not believe
that prices would be materially affected—and by the let of
February, 1849, we will sec if their is any necessity for an
alteration. The change that would be banging over the agri-
tural body until 1849 would cause many improvements to be
postponed which would be carried into effect if repeal were
granted at once. If a man were condemned to he executed
that day three years, did they think that he would em-
ploy his time in constant preparation for eternity?
He believed that he would not.—( Laughter.) The man would
be calculating how he might best avert the sentence.—(Hear.
hear.) The system of protection had been put on its trial
befo:e that House, and had been found guilty of high crimes
and misdemeanours, and yet all that they asked was rapid and
immediate execution.—( Hear, hear.) Every delay was an in-
justice, for the measure seemed equal to the most pressing
emergency of Ireland, and, therefore, he supported, and called
on the House to support the motion of his Hon. Friend.
Mr. ESCOTT (who rose amidst groans and cries of " Oh,
oh") said that he should give his vote according to the prin-
ciples laid bown by the Noble Member for the city of London
on the fir,t night of the debate. If the present measure would
be endangered by the motion of his Hon. Friend the Member
for Wolverhampton, he would not vote for it, for no one could
honour the principle more than he did.—(" Oh, eh," from the
Ministerial benches.) If anything occurred that evening to
snake him believe that the carrying of the motion of his Hon.
Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, would endanger the
success of that measure, he would certair ly adopt the prin-
ciple laid down by the Member for London, and in
order to save the measure, he wonld vote against it. The
question was whether it was right, under the existing
circumstances of this country to raise the price of food to the
people by any restriction by protection. In November last
he came to the conclusion.—(" Oh, oh," from the Ministerial
side.) He begged that Hon. Members would allow him for
one moment. In November last he came to the conclusion
that any measure that would raise the price of food would be
be impolitic. It was at that time his duty to attend a meeting
of a large body of his constituents, and he:told them that his opi-
nion was that the only cause of the ports remaining closed was the
fact which he supposed to exist. That there was no Govern •
merit responsible for the affairs of the country. The statement
of his Right Hon. Friend, made in that House, the other night,
fully justified what he had said on that occasion—there was
actually no Government responsible for the welfare of the na-
tion, and the ports could not be opened.—(" Oh, oh.") He
asked, had anything occurred since November which would
make the opeuing of the ports of more benefit to the country.
The necessity of opening them had increased since that time,
and it was in consequence of those circumstances that he would
vote in favour of the motion of the Hon. Member for Wolver-
hampton. He would only say one word more, with respect to
what the farmers said. Hon. Gentlemen below him might
hoot as much as they pleased ; but he would continue his state-
ment, The farmers said that they wished to have done with
agitation ; there was only one way to get rid of agitation, and
that was repeal—immediate and for ever of the corn-laws—and
it was a mere delusion to tell the farmers anything else. That
course would be for the interest of the people—wanting more
food—for the interest and the peace of the country, and for the
credit of the House of Commons.—(Laughter.)
Mr. R. COLBORNE said, that as he had not occupied the
attention of the House on the debate which had previously taken
place on the subject of the corn-laws, he would venture to
trouble them for a short time. He would give his support to
the amendment of the Hon. Member for Wolverhampton. He
did not intend to discuss the policy of the change in the corn-
laws, for he thought it fair to awn that enough had been said
already. He would address the House on the amendment.
He had given his support to the Right Honourable Baronet, not
because he had read speeches of the Right Hon. Baronet,
and had heard the able and reasonable principles on which he
had clearly proved the efficacy of free trade. He had, however,
reserved to himself the perfect right of voting against the
Right Honourable Baronet on any measure. He had heard
many arguments brought forward in favour of free trade, and
in favour of an immediate and total repeal of the corn-laws.
He had heard a dissolution of I'arliameut spoken of, but he
believed that if such a circumstance took place, it would
strengthen their ranks to the injury of the business of the
country, If the business was now settled it would be a great
advantage, as it would put an end to the agitation that would
continue to exist if they retained the duty for three years longer.
He could not forget that unless a total and immediate repeal
was to take place, the question would be agitated with ten
times greater force than before.—( Hear, hear.) Besides, be-
fore the three years they would have to elect anew Parliament,
and the question would create great excitement—(Hear,
from the Conservative benches)—therefore he wished it settled
at once ; not that he feared the supporters of protection would
seand in a better position than they now did, but that the
country must be saved the uncertainty, delay, and excitement.
It was impossible not to remember the elections that had lately
taken place.—(Hear, hear.) They could not forget that the
electors of Dorsetsbire had turned out a Noble Lord of great
character, and whose benevolence and integrity were well
known. It was impossible to forget that the electors of South
Notts—(Loud cries of " Hear, hear," from the Conservative
benches)—had turned out a Lord of unblemished character
and the greatest talent. These were indications of the
proceedings that might be expected if this question was kept
alive ; and the only probable chance of putting an end to such
a state of things was to make the repeal immediate and total.
The battle, if fought in a general election, he was satisfied,
would terminate in favour of the free traders.—( Hear, hear.)
But he was desious of avoiding that battle, and for that reason
he considered this House should totally and immediately re-
peal the corn-laws,—( Hear, hear.) With every cl-sire of
acting with the Noble Lord (the Member for the city
London (Lord John Russell) he must give his vote in favour of
the motion of the Hon. Member for Wolverhampton. There
was another point to which he would refer. It had been men-
tioned in a newspaper that he was an apostate to the principles
which he formerly professed. The editor had since made a
handsome apology ; still he (Mr. Ridley Colborne) would state
that he had never advocated protection. He considered that
protection affected landlords alone, and that if there was any
loss from the present measure, they would have to hear it.
This he believed they were ready to do.—( Hear.) He for-
merly voted in favour of a fixed duty, and it was still
his opinion that a fixed duty could be carried out,
but under the circumstances, rather than keep the question in
abeyance, and keep the agitation on it alive, he would support
total and immediate repeal.—( Hear, hear.) He had heard it
stated that it would be inconsistent to repeal the corn-laws un-
less they applied the same principle to other things. He did
not sec this, and he was of opinion that if free trade measures
did away with duties on all other kinds of articles as well as
corn, so as to meet all our public burdens by direct taxation
alone, it ough. to be opposed. He for one in that case
whichsetwl
he totally opposed to it. But there was another way 1
the benefits of free trade were to be obtained—it was by relax-
ing the duties on the comforts of the poora.e— (it
hHear,ad led hear.
This had been done already to some extent, d
to
an increase of revenue, and his only regret was that the relaxa-
tion did not go far enough, and include other articles, such as tea,
coffee and sugar. Theyought to legislate for the labouring man,
for the toiling artisans, for the poor men who were working
at the loom; and on this account ne was desirous of supporting
the repeal of the corn-laws and the relaxation of protective
duties generally.--(Cheers.)
Mr. GORING, who commenced his address in a tone of
voice that was almort inaudible in the gallery, was understood
to oppose the motion under consideration. He consideredr
that the Noble Lord, the Member for the city of London (Lord
John John Russell) must attribute his failure in carrying out
business of the Government to the bold manner in which
he stated the measures which h
forward. But the Right Hon. Baronetn intended to bring
had taken a different
course. He had adopted more cunning tactics, and by a kind
of mesmeric influence, he had brought many of the once inde
pendent members of that side of the House to be little better
than his body-guard. The Right Hon. Baronet the Paymaster
of the Forces, and the Right Hon. Baronet the Vice-President
of the Board of Trade, had stated that this was a mere land-
lord's question. They now put it to the landlords to make this
sacrifice.—( Cries of " Hear, hear.) If this were
the reason why they supported the corn-law so long, he him-
self, if he had supported it for the same reason, would have been
thoroughly ashamed of himself. It was not the large landed
proprietors who would be injured by the measure; they, by
the extended use of machinery, by not employing so many
labourers, and by not keeping up so many buildings (for that,
after all, was the real source of expense), would be enabled to
meet the difficulties created by this measure ; but it was the
small landlords whose estates were mortgaged—(lronical
cheers from the free-trade benches)—and the small farmers
who would be swept from the face of the earth. The Right
Hon. Baronet the Secretary of War, stated that if the land were
properly cultivated, they might still produce plenty to make up
the deficiency; but how would an increased produce at decreased
prices affect the tithe-owner? His interests would be alto-
gether overlooked in the arrangement. He would oppose this
measure to the best of his ability, and they who, with himself,
did so, would have at least this consolation, that they would
know, that nothing had deterred them from doing what they
conceived to be their duty. They would not blame themselves
with supporting a course which would ultimately ruin a farmer;
and this consolation was also given them, that by no folly or
cowardice of theirs would the British labourer or the agricul-
turist be compelled to the misery and degradation of earning a
wretched subsistence in the manufacturing towns.—( Cries of
" Oh, oh !" from the Liberal benches. )
Mr. BRIGHT would wish to make one or two observations on the
speech o the Noble Lord, tile Member lbr South Lincolnshire, with
respect to the imposition of a ss. fixed duty. The Noble Lord i,
the other evening amused the House by reading long extracts flout
flip.-
the former speeches cf Members of the Government on thistquees
Perhaps the Noble Lord would have no objection that
Bright) should treat the House with an extract from
,11,
Bspet you state
of his,
delivered to his constituents of South Lincolnshire.
that something they can compromise can he effected, Lessauiliottyti!ih,a,ct
day has gone by, the only final settlement of
when agitation is stopped. Some have su
of 55., gradually
Con of Sir Robert Peel to impose a dutyao.,ion
o_
t (111 duty will
pposedtitlesat it is the intcn
getting less, but I say, that nothing but the
(Mr. Bright) fully
lead s o the settlement
e6Lfotrhr wt-hgeunesh"..e:so.aiii<,l
until
there would
duty all
be no
cessation of the agitation of this question,
had been abolished,' and the man
nerthentt oould tfhitnhke dfoiffrecreenotflyiuni,lisiet
have formed but a very myris;lho:rehrr
1,14 a t :took) el 2,
opinion. The Hon.
.I..ein_b_ein,_.rd‘..fot)r,
thought,
referred, IVO; AS 145 (r. PPik"

(Cries of " Oh, oh," from the protectionists)—to the incumberanee
and the mortgages on landed property. He hoped that the time was
not yet come when landed proprietors could come to this House, urg-
ing as a plea for assistance, their own extravagance and imprudence,
and justifying by that means their demand of a law to raise the
price of food in order to give them rents for the properties which
they were not really worth. He recollected in one of Dickens'
works—he believed in the election of a beadle—that placards were
issued over the the town, with " Vote for Scroggins and seven small
children." So it was with the landlords, they wanted high
rents to provide doweries for their daughters.—(Hear, hear.) The
question before the House was now exceedingly narrowed—it was
not whether they were to have protection or noi, but whether that
protection was to be at once abolished, or to linger oil for three years
more. He did not like to say anything to her Majesty'S Afinistenit,
because in the speeches they had delivered in the course of the last
debate he had witnessed so much of honesty and sincerity in the
course they now pursued, that he felt unwilling to say anything that
might appear as charging them with a falling-off in the duty they
owed their country; but he must say this, that the Government had
admitted their case, and he believed that there was no man even en
the other side of the House who conscientiously retained the opinion
that the abolition of the corn-laws at the termination of three year
would be superior to the present removal of them. The impendin
famine in Ireland was either a reality, or it was not. The Govern
ment told them that they were establishing stores for the aeon-
mulation of corn to be sold at reduced prices. The Righ t
Honourable Baronet said that he could not come to that

House and ask for a vote of public money, while
a duty of 16s. or 17s. was levied on foreign corn. How, he (Mr. Bright)
asked, could_ they come to that House, and ask it to vote 500,0001.
or 600,0001. to relieve the people of Ireland, while imposing a duty
which narrowed the circle from whence they drew theirsupplies, than
snaking the price of food dearer? How, he asked, could the house
vote that money, and at the same time keep up those restrictions
upon the food of the people? The Right Hon. Baronet had well said
that he could not allow the inferier grains to be admitted free of duty
for the feeding of cattle, while the heavier duty existed on the nobler
grain of wheat, which was properly the food of man. He (Mr.
Bright) could not understand how the Right Honourable Baronet
reconciled this statement of his with his present intention
of imposing a duty of from 4s. to 10s., especially In
this season of scarcity, when it should (if it ever ought) be admitted
free. lie presumed that one of the reasons why delay was given was
that the Right lion. Baronet expected in consequence less opposition
to his measure. The Right Hon. Baronet would however find that
this idea of his was altogether erroneous. Even if it had emanated
from the Council of the League it could not have encountered greater
opposition than it had already done ; and he believed that no Mem-
ber in that House was more convinced of the utility of immediate
abolition than were some of the Members on the Treasury benches.
If it were a farmers' question, as it had been stated to be, why not
immediately sett:e it, as the farmers wished it to be done? Few of
them would say that three years was better than immediate abolition.
Did the Bight Hon. Baronet expect that he would meet with Ices
opposition from the Anti-Corn-law League. lie, as a man of the
League, would tell the Right Hon. Baronet that that agitation would
not be slackened until the (Ines:ion were finally settled by the aboli-
tion of all duty. They were pledged to go on with the agitation, and
still more were they bound to do it from firmly conscientious mo-
tives. The free-traders in the country were indebted to the Hots.
Member for Wolverhampton for the opportunity he had given the
House of recording their voted upon the question ; and he could as-
sure the House that as they had began the agitation so would they
continue the good work, until the question were finally and satis-
factorily settled.

Sir It. PEEL said—l presume it is not the wish of the great body of
the House that we should continue that debate, which has lasted for
twelve days already.—(Hear, hear.) There are many points that
arose in that debate, in respect to which I am anxious to offer some
explanation ; but I thought it probable that other opportunities
would be found for renewing that subject—the second reading for
instance, and I thought it would be much better to postpone any
statement that I had to make, or any explanation that I might wish
to give, until that opportunity, rather than enter upon it now. I will
therefore simply confine myself to the question immediately before
the House, namely, whether or not it is desirable that the repeal of
the duty should be immediate, or whether it should continue, as pro-
posed by her Majesty's Government, for a period of three years.
Now, Sir, I am bound to say, that if we look singly
and abstractedly to the emergency which exists in Ireland,
I cannot deny that I think that the profitable measure would
be the immediate suspension of all duties, if we had no other question
to deal with than that. Suppose we take that course which we took
in former years—that is to suspend the duty by Act of Parliament
for a perion of eight months, until August or September next. There
would be the absolute repeal of all duties, or maintenance only of a
nominal duty ; but what would Parliament do in the interim? What
provision would be made with respect to the period when the suspen-
sion would expire? Those who contend that the corn-law ought to
be immediately repealed would of course be perfectly satisfied with
immediate repeal. It would provide for their permanent object, and
It would elsa provide for the removal of all duties during the appre-
hended scarcity in Ireland. But this is not the universal opinion.
There are many who think that the corn-law ought not to be repealed.
Her Majesty's Government having to deeide on the 20th Dec.,when they
were again recalled to power, thought!there would be an opportunity
at the same time of making a provision for the emergency in Ireland,
and laying the foundation for a settlement of the question. I have
frankly amitted that provision should be made for the present
emergency; but what her Majesty's Government had to consider
on the 20th December, when they were recalled to power, was to
provide for the emergency in Ireland, and to lay the foundation for
the ultimate settlement of the question, and in the hope of reconciling
those two objects, not perhaps completely, but in the best way possi-
ble, they made the proposal new under the consideration of the
House. With respect to the apprehension of a coming scarcity in

Ireland, we certainly did not altogether remove the duty on tern,
but what we propose is to remove the duty altogether upon
Indian corn—to remove altogether the duty on rice ; but that,
perhaps, will not immediately effect Ireland. The duty on cattle—
and then with respect to the corn duty, which at the present moment
is 175., see what that duty is doing—absolutely preventing you from
taking out of bond that superior description and quality of wheat
which is most important for the purpose of mixing with the inferior
descriptions of wheat in this country. I have before me a me-
morial signed by the whole of the millers in the towns
of Newcastle upon-Tyne. They state that generally
a bushel of corn in ordinary years is about 62 or 63 lbs. weight, but
that in the present year the average wefght is not more than 58 lbs.—
that it was of importance that the better quality of wheat should be
admitted for the purpose of mixing with the inferior wheat, and they
pray for an immediate remission of the duty. But the daty at pre-
sent is 175., there being a great quantity of inferior wheat poured
into the market at a price which allows the duty to be as high as 175.,
which operates almost as a prohibition to the taking out of bond that
quality of wheat which it is of the utmost importance wo
should have in order to produce good food. But the
present proposal of her Majesty's Government will not
remove the duty on wheat altogether, but it will reduce the present
duty. It will do more. It will give a guarantee that in no case
whatever can the duty rise above 103., and that there must be a
rapid fall in price—which we cannot contemplate—in order to bring
the duty up to 10s. The maximum duty at present is 20s. The
duty under the present proposal of tier Majesty's Government would
be 10s. for the maximum, and it is not probable, even if the price
should fall to ao extent which is not likely to occur, that the duty
will rise higher than ss. or 6s. That is what the proposal
of her Majesty's Government does with respect to wheat.
Now, with regard to barley, the duty on barley was 7s. The proposal
of the Government was merely for a nominal duty, it would not
exceed 2s. Bd, The duty upon peas is Gs., under the proposal of Go-
vernment it would not exceed 2s. ; but in the case of barley and oats,
however, there is a different guarantee, that the price should not
rise, in the case of barley, above ss. and in the case of oats, above 4s.
The duty on rye, at present 85. 6d., under this proposal would be
4s. 6d. The duty on beans is Os. 6d., and it would be nearly the
same under the Government proposal. lam speaking now with re-
gard to the apprehended scarcity in Ireland, but the House will ob-
serve that the proposal of the Government is no less perfect than it
would be if that apprehension was removed. In the present
state of public feeling, a feeling that you cannot apply or attribute to
this abstracted case of security, I think it would be an inconvenient
course at the present moment to propose a suspension of our corn-
laws for nearly six months, for by a mere suspension we could look

to no advancement towards the settlement of the question of the
corn-laws. But I think that a mere suspension for six months
would, in point of fact, tend to render uncertain and unsatisfactory'
the great question, which is, after all, the great question to he con-
sidered, namely, the footing upon which the corn-laws shall
hereafter exist. For my own • part, it is my own
opinion, and most decidedly it is for the public interest
that the corn-laws should be immediately settled, or that a
certain assurance should be g'ven on the part of the Government that
at no remote period the duties or imports affecting trade should be
re-arranged; and I think that the proposal of her Majesty's Govern-
ment satisfactorily gives that assurance. I certainly, however, in-
ferred, from what fell the other night from Hon. Gentlemen on this
side of the House, that they were inclined to prefer Immediate repeal
to the proposal new before the House. I admit, however, there were
some who were not of this opinion; but I think I am right in stating
that the Hon. Member for Shropshire preferred immediate repeal.
Certainly I was anxious to arrive at the opir ion of those Hon.
Members, and from their declarations I gathered it would be more
satisfactory had an immediate repeal of the corn-laws been proposed
by her Majesty's Government, Her Majesty's Government, how-
ever, proposed a partial suspension for a period of three years,
partly from an impression that it was preferable in itself to imme-
diate repeal, and partly from the hope that the proposal would be
more satisfactory than immediate repeal to those who were connected
with the agricultural interests. It was under this impression that
immediate repeal was considered by us to be inexpedient. But as it
is most decidedly the opinion of the friends of the agricultural
interests and the warm supporters of its prosperity,

that immediate repeal was preferable to our proposal, we
must have been • labouring under a mistake.—(Loud cries of
" No, no, we are not in favour of immediate repeal.") Why I cer-
tainly inferred, from the general assent that was given to the declara-
tion of the Honourable Member for Somerset, by those who repre-
sent the agricultural interest arid those who are best acquainted with
its feelings, and the best judges of its interests, that they think that
immediate repeal is preferable to the suspension of repeal for three

years ; and I have no doubt that, by uniting, with Hon. Gentlemen
on the opposite side of the House, they would be enabled to carry
that proposition.—(Hear, hear.) I must, nevertheless, confess that
my opinion is not in favour of immediate repeal, and that our para-
mount object ought rather to be to lay a foundation for the adjustment
of that question. Should, however, the House accept the amend-
ment in preference to the measure proposed by her Majesty's Go-
vernment, I shall have little hesitation in adopting it. The amend-
ment is now in your hand, and it remains for you to choose
between it and the Government measure At the same time I must

own that my opinion in favour cf the original motion remains un-
touched. Now, the Hon Gentleman the Member for the city et
Durham, threatens us with renewed and continued agitation. lam

sorry for it, for I think that agitation on this hiestion'might be most
wisely done away with. I will go farther, Ide not think it will be in
their power to continue the agitation, and if this war measure was
whichpassed,
itwould le
t noaatd to.tem Still
attempt would
allibLrrymadtehattothdelsltrnb.
ottentsieemttlaenmheasnt
held out threats, for if there was a general acquiescence in the question,
I must say that continued agitation by the Anti-Corn-law League.
assurance
years,
antdh at
ht
at
th ed
adruhtiyg upon
corn shouldconsidering thereee waatsaa
periodam o fe nt
ht ar
re
3e'
period there would be no duty at all, in comparison with the existing
duties, I must say I think further agitation would
be unnecessary. I must, however, admit that if agita-
tion is renewed, I should not be able to meet it. The
non. Gentleman the Member for the city of Durham tells us that
year after year the motion would be made for the absolute and im-
mediate repeal of the corn-laws. Well, it might be made, and year
after year the time would be approaching when absolute and imme-
diate repeal would take place. I cannot see therefore that mueh in-
terest would attach to that motion. Besides, if the measure of the

Government were carried, a great number of persons would withdraw

from the Anti-Corn-law League, and there would be a great number
that would say, is not this motion unreasonable considering the
difference of opinion which exists upon it, considering that every year
and every day is advancing us towards absolute repeal of the duty
—or at least a reduction of it to merely a nominal amount? I cannot
help thinking, therefore, and considering also that at certain periods
the duty during the three years would be much lower than it had
hitherto been, that this threatened agitation would be useless, but at
all events the agitation would not be of that dangerous character

which it has been. Our measure has met with great opposition
from members of the protectionist side ; but I can assure the Honse
that we brought forward the proposal, partly preferring it to lime-

diate repeal, and partly from a sincere desire to consult the wishes
and meet the views of those who represent the agricultural interests.
If, however, with their assistance this measure be carried—that is to
say, if immediate repeal be preferred to the proposal of the Govern-
ment, it is my intention to accept of the amendment. I intend to do
what I can to promote the success of that measure, but I cannot be
answerable for the success of the measure— it is quite impossible that
I can be.—(Hear, hear.) It is totally impossible that I should
answer for the passing of that measure if the motion for immediate
repeal is persisted in. Now I prefer that measure to immediate re-
peal on this ground, that her Majesty's Government has pro-
posed thither measures connected with the carrying of this
measure. Now Hon. Gentlemen object to deferred repeal on
the ground that there will be two tariffs—one now and
one at the end of three years.—(Hear, hear.) But I do not see
how there will be two tariffs. I have a very strong impression that
the price of wheat in consequence of this procrastination will be
somewhat cheaper—every quarter of wheat that is now sold would
be some I s. ed. •r 2s. less than it would be as admitted under the
present tariff. There can be no great amount of supply from any
part of the world during the present year. I cannot help thinking
that there will be a foreign competition from which the English
farmer need not fear much. We propose to give encouragement to
the drainage and improvement of the land, should this measure be
accepted. If it be accepted there will be an opportunity, without
much difficulty, of getting money for the improvement ; there will
be at least an opportunity on more favourable terms of procuring
money for the improvement of indifferent land. I cannot help tl
k-
itrhi ge also
end that
a f withiiat
periodthree y
earsthhaetforethtelraeamlis thteo
tion the hands of landed proprietors
will
of those three
for the improvement of land, knberewbelVgice,reotip;a:jeid.a,!
should be in the event
petition upon mare favourable terms than
years, we shall, I think, be in a positionandat tothem
twweite respect to Canada
of a very good harvest. Sir, I believe
thad
more acceptable to that
it would be more for their advantage,
tea
repeal of corn-laws
country, and also to America,
thatvears than if filthat repeal
should be deferred fur threie end
tidthat foreign corn-
hear.) These were the rea-
took place Inenedlately.—
(Ilclkait:jesty's Government to make
sons which' induced
ltietrhink that there will that tariff at the
this proposition.. cannot some apprehend. If the foreign grower
end of three yea,4l
which
c immense advantage after the lapse of three
part of the foreign growers that that will
• 1 impression on the
generalyears, he will
impression
the measure, the result will be the raising of the
v'eersycilkenucli mistaken. But I think if there be that
years, he will be
be the effect o
price of land, and the production of corn by the foreign
producer will be increased. New these were the general reasons
which appeared sufficient to induce her Majesty's Government to
ofp roose this as conducive towards the ultimate and final settlement
their
another
measure—(Hear
are b
_e(pllreeaferr,rehtart)h —but
vitnll will noti
do
ir
this question. They will retain their opinion ; they will continue
to make their proposals ; they will do all they can for the purpose of
gaatildlloln say,tlte
what they can to give effect to that measure ; but, of course, this
the
meantime supporting
abandon
House is the best judge of the character of the proposition—(Cheers)
Mr. PALMER rose amidst much confusion and salts of "Divide.
divide." The lion. Member was very indistinct throughout his
speech. We understood him to say that the Anti-Corn-law League
were the robbers of the agricultural interest ; that the agricultural
interest were deserving of their commiseration and good feeling, aril
that they should not therefore cry them down as they had done,

He ergs opposed to the abolition of the existing duties under
any circumstances whatever, and he would not therefore
consent to become his own executioner by supporting the
amendment of the Honourable Member for Wolverhampton.
The Right Hon. Baronet gave protection to woollen and other
articles, and he (Mr. Palmer) was at a loss to know why corn should
not be protected also.—(Uproar.) The agricultural interest was no
trifle.—(Cries of " Oh; oh.") The country required the agriculturist,
and he did not see why one-fourth part of the population of the
country should be called monopolists.—(Confusion.) —(Here the Hon.
Member proceeded to read some statistical returns, showing the
taxes paid on an acre of lead, and making an average from that of
the gross taxation on land, but the uproar was so great that it was
Impossible to distinctly hear the Hon. Members remarks.) He con-
tinued to say that the measure would throw land o.it of cultivation,
and that the country would have to depend on foreigners for food,
but nevertheless be feared, front the unnatural coalition which had
taken place, that they had nothing else to expect. It appeared that
the proposition for a total repeal of the corn-laws would be sup-
ported by the Noble Lord the Member for the City of London
(Russell), and if such were the case he did not see why a second
coalition should not take place. The Hon. Gentleman concluded his
observations amidst loud cries for " Division" and " Adjournment."
Lord JOHN. RUSSELL said, if the House will allow me, I will
state what are my views respecting the various questions which are
now under its consideration. I should not be inclined to vote for any
proposition that would not have for its object the settlement of the
corn -laws. I would not commit myself to vote for a proposition
which would continue agitation, and keep tile farmers in a state of
suspense.—(Hear, hear.) Having been told in 1842 that the measure
then passed was a settlement of the question. and having found that,
in 1846, from the authors of that measure, that it was a complete
failure, and that the sliding-scale would not slide ; therefore, while I
regret that the Member for Lincolnshire did not concur with me on
a former occasion, yet, on the present occasion, I cannot agree with
that lion. Gentleman. With respect to the proposition of the Go-
vernment for continuing protection for three years, I think iris
liable to some objections.— (Hear, hear.) I come next to the propo-
sition at present before the House—the amendment of the 117.
Member for Wolverhampton. Now, I must say, that, colearrsi
ofa
both propositions, it made by two Hon. and Independent 5
the House, I should consider the proposition of the Hon. Membersiem or
Wolverhampton the more wise, as an abstract proposition.— (He.)
I think so because I consider that there has been very ardent har-
alter the
vests, and many others may happen which will materially
view of the question taken by the Right lion. Baronet —indeed such
may be the influence of abundant harvests, that the prices of corn
might be very materially enhanced ; such for instance as there has
been in Belgium and other countries. I think that that being tile
case, if there is to be a repeal of the corn- laws, in an immediate repeal
there will be more safety to the agriculture of this country than
keeping the question open for three years. The Right Hon. Baronet
says that if we were to have an immediate repeal, we would create a
panic, but that a 4s. duty will prevent. that. I cannot see that the
taking off all protective duty will cause apa ;
.I think the farmers
will app'y their minds to the improvements . agnctil tare, such as the
science of chemistry pointed out- to them, and such appliances will
guard them against anything like a panic. I think the Hon. Mem-
ber's proposition far better than three years of doubt.—(Hear, hear.)
For this reason and others -for there are other reasons which I shall
not trouble this Committee by stating—l think the measure
of the Hon. Member for Wolverhampton better adapted to
settle this question than that of the Right lion. Gentleman. I am not
aware what view the other House may take of this subject—l must
listen to what is said by the Prime Minister who undertakes the
settlement of this question. He has undertaken it in a way which
is not entirely reprehensible, but of which, though I voted for it, I
did not entirely approve. He has undertaken it in a way which
in three years will produce the final settlement of the
question. The Right Honourable Baronet has given
the reasons which induced him to make this proposition.
Ido not think his reason a very good one. It could be more favour-
able to the landed interest, and I do not know what view the land-
owner will take, but the farmers do not appear to feel the value of
the proposition of the Right Hon. Gentleman. When the Canada
Corn Bill was brought forward, the Right Hon. Baronet said that
be was desirous to introduce a Bill which would give advantages to a
colony which it never had before; and those advantages he was
Ob !ged afterwards to take away. lam afraid that the tact of'
giving three years will hardly reconcile the landowners to the re-
moval of that benefit which had been unwisely bestowed from the
first. The Right Hon. Baronet makes a strange statement, he says,
that although the House were to decide in Committee by a majority
in favour of immediate repeal, they should have his best efforts to
promote the success of that measure, and yet he says at the
same time that ho will not answer for the result of that mea-
sure which he himself brought forward. I never think
it right to vote for this or any other measure or resolution of which I
should not think the success desirable.— (Hear, hear.) At the same
time, many gentlemen are in the habit of saying that they wished to
declare their opinion in the abstract, and that they do not wish the
motion to be successful. The proper way to consider these things is
to ascertain if they wish the motion for which they are voting to sue-
seed. In this case lam to suppose that a majority is in favour of
my friend's motion, and my own name is amongst the votes. I give
in terms before tile settlement of the question, and yet that would be
on a measure introduced by the Right Hon. Baronet as an organ of
Government, and for which he declined to make himself responsible.
I cannot consent to endanger the measure proposed by the Right
lion. Baronet, as I sincerely wish it to be carried. Upon weighing
the two questions, that proposed by the Right Hon. Baronet and the
one now before the House, I must say, with all due respect, I cannot
under the circumstances support the motion of the Hon. Member for
Wolverhampton in preference to that measure which the Right Hon.
Gentleman (Sir Robert Peel) has proposed. I believe myself, if the
House will carry that measure, as I trust it wil, oa the third
reading, with as large a majority as It did the other day, on
the motion for going into Committee, I believe in that case the
House of Lords, respecting the decision of this House, will see the
policy of acceding to the Bill, so that it may be at once carried into
effect. I feel on no other measure so much confidence of its being
carried as the identical measure proposed Ly the Right Hon. Baronet,
as any other might be considered as the measure of the Anti-Corn-
law League. Ido consider that if the measure could be carried by
the present Parliament without any dissolution, or any conflict of
interest, it would be of the very greatest advantage.—(Hear, hear.)
I believe that though, after the carrying of the measure of the
Right Hon. Baronet, there may be somt excitement, but that excite-
ment will gradually subside, and whatever difierences that exist
among various sections of society be little remembered in a few
years. That, speaking beside the corn question, is a most important
consideration with me in coming to the conclusion which I have.
It is impossible not to see that a great popular agitation carried on
from year to year may extend itself to other subjects, so as to affect
most valuable parts of the institutions of the country.—(ilear, hear.)
With every avidity to see it settled, and weighing how the present
motion will act upon other questions that may require settlement,
I think, upon the whole, that the way in which I propose to act to
be that most conducive to the end in view—that is, sup-
porting, against the amendment, the proposition of the Right lion.
Baronet. I do not think that, on any question that may be
placed before the House, it can be shown on any grounds why it
should take the preference of the preposition of the Right Hon.
Baronet, considering time and circumstances—(Hear, hear)—the
general views of Parliament, and the ulterior consequeaces that may
easue to the country.—(Hear, hear.) Having said this much, I will
beg leave to refer to a statement that fell from the Right Hon. Baronet
the other evening, when he said that if he had proposed a total and im-
mediate repeal of the corn-laws, this proposition would have failed.
Now I understood him, on a former night, to state that he regretted
that I did not undertake it. I was surprised at that statement.
because, although I fully believe that the Right Hon. Baronet would
have given me every support—would have fairly supported me
throughout any measure that he might consider a good settlement
of this question, yet I think he must have heard objections enough
since he accepted office, statements enough to convince him that those
who would have followed him in that course, and those who would
have susported me if I bad been in office and he had been out of
office, would have been a small number as compared with the 112
Members who usually supported him.—(Cheers.) My belief, I must
fairly state, is, that not more than forty, or somewhere about that
number, perhaps NV, would have followed me on that question.—
(Ironical cheers, and cries of " Oh, oh," from the Tory benches.)
Some Hon. Members may think that this number is exaggerated—
(Hear)—but, at all events, I do not believe that even if all the
members of the Cabinet were going with me, en that occasion I
would have had a sufficient number to have enabled me to obtain
a majority on the first proposition to go into committee.—(Hear hear,
and cheers from the protection party.) An Hon Friend of mine has
stated to-night that he understood me to say that I should be sorry to
see a dissolution of the Parliament becanse I did not expect that a
dissolution of Parliament would give a majority in favour of the abo-
lition of the corn-laws. My Hon. Friend has not rightly understood me.
Mr. RIDLEY COLBORNE made a remark inaudable in the
gallery.
Lord JOHN RUSSELL--The Hon Member for Richmond says he
so understood me. Sir, I stated that I did think it desirable that
no dissolution of Parliament should take place on this question. I
think that a statement was also made that this House
of Parliament, this House of Commons is not competent to decide
the question of the corn-laws. This statement is founded in igno-
rance and misapprehension of the Constitution.—(Cheers.) I con-
sider that Parliament, as enacted, is to provide for the most im
portant affairs of the country, whether foreign or domestic,
according to the best of its judgment and discretion.—(Loud
cheers) I cannot conceive any assertion of an opposite doctrine—
any assertion that the House of Commons is aot competent to decide
such questions as the present, which would not lead to the doctrine
that it would not be conpetent to decide any question of great im-
portance, unless immediately elected by the people, for the
express purpose of so settling the question.—(Loud cries
or " Hear.") This would lead to the most democratic doctrines
that could possibly be started, doctrines that would lead to an end-
less round of annual Parliaments—which would lead almost to the
conviction that unless elected for the particular purpose, Members are
not justified in giving a vote upon any subject. Sir, I speak of the
general power of the House of Commons—upon a question on which
no doubt has been expressed, namely, the great question that arose
after the settlement of the house of Hanover, that the Parliament
which was elected for three years were perfectly justified in prolonging
their existence to seven years, thereby saving the country from
anarchy and contusion. But if that were the case—if lam right in
that, then will any man say that the House of Commons, which was
competent to prolong its own existence from three years to seven
years, is not aide to effect the settlement of the question with regard
to the duty on foreign corn ? There arc other questions relating to
the union with Scotland and the union with Ireland. With
regard to particular Members—as to the engagements Mem-
bers may have entered into, and what their feelings may
be as to their own private honour, or as to their public
character with respect to their constituents, I am not meddling
with that question. I am only speaking of Parliament generally
Well, then, it is my view that this House, as at present constituted,
Is perfectly competent to settle the question of the corn-laws, and
unless there was a very great public feeling, some great national
feeling the other way, I conceive that there Is no person entitled to
contradict that assertion. I think it likewise desirable that there
should not be a dissolution, and the reason I think it would not be
desirable is, not that there would not be a Parliament which would

give a majority in favour of a repeal of the corn-laws,
as my belief Is, that there would be a majority, but
my belief is that the majority would be attained
after a great collision of opinion, after every angry feeling had been
excited in the course of the election, and that majority would hardly
after that election, have that weight with the other House of Parlia-
ment which I think the majority of the present House, with the
numbers which I have stated, is likely to have upon the decision of
that other House. I think that the whole question would be made
one much more than it now is of discordance between classes, and
we should be some years in a state of agitation on thataubject, which
would be most injurious to the country at large. For this reason,
therefore—for this additional reason—l am going to take the only
course which seems to me, after pondering on this matter as seriously
as I could, to be my duty to the country, and I am going to take the
course of voting with Government against the amendment, and against
any other amendments that are likely to be proposed in Committee,
and I shall be prepared to vote with them in every stage of the Bill,
for I think the interests of the country are deeply involved in the
speedy, the safe, and the tranquil settlement of this great question.
Mr. G. PALMER said he rose to say a very few words with regard
tosthe vote he was about to give, but he had no wish whatever to
extend the debate upon the corn •laws. He had always stedfaetly
and consistently voted against the motion of the Hon. Member for
Wolverhampton, and it was still his intention to give his decided
opposition -to the motion of that Hon. and Learned Gentleman.
Not, however, that he gave a preference to the measure of the
Government, for he sti I cherished a hope that as long
as a party could be found in that House, and so long as a firm party could be found in another place, and out of that House,
that this meavire might be defeated, and it was with that hope
that he stood up to oppose the amendment. He objected in
every point of view to the measure of the Government. Nothing
he could conceive could be more objectionable ; not even the incon-
sistency which the Right lion. Baronet had evinced with respect to
this question. If they were to have a change in the corn-
laws, the present was the time to make it, and not three
years hence, they were at present in a prosperous state,
Ile
and
did feel the accounts
greatest w tenants had been satisfactorily settled.
the ith
possible inclination to do all he could to
oppose this measure.- (Protectionist cheers.) Now he would ask
any gentleman, supposing he was about to submit to a great change
as had
pose, in factb he were an described by
bout the Hto change all at once from two meals
a-day to only half a meal a-day ;or supposehe were to undergo some
great bodily exertion or labour from morning till night, would he not
rather undertake the task when he was healthy sod
cto when his body was rotten, and about to fall decay ferenc
pre-
(Laughter and cheers.) It was so with the body politic-if y •
(Laug
we were to
t this change, for Heaven's sake, let us undertake the task when
we ea
we wore in a prosperous condition, and when bread and eve
rytbing
else was comparatively cheap. He would prefer such ft course for the
sake of the Poor, and for the sake of every interest, he wowed beg of
the House to let u 3 undergo the great change at once.—(llear, hear )
It was evident
placed in a much worse position by the present measure than we were
hoarded a large stock of corn ( Hear,
now; foreigners
will have up
hear)—and everything would tend to depreciate hereafter the pros-
pects of the farmers of this country. He would have voted for this
measure of the Hon. Member for Wolverhampton on the present oc-
casion, but as he had always voted against it on former occasions, he
was determined to be consistent, and should therefore vote against it
now.—(Hear, hear.) It seemed to him that the measure of the
Right Hon. Baronet had neither justice nor sense in it.—(Cheers.)
He had stated these, his opinions, in order to set himsslf right in the
eyes of his constituents.—(Cheers.)
Mr. HUME said he hoped that on this occasion the speech of the
Noble Lord world teach those who were now about to divide, the
stinks of those who sat upon his (Mr. Hume's) side of the House, what
course they should adopt. After that speech he thought that every
individual who was anxious to carry this measure ought to give
his utmost support to the Right Hon. Baronet in carrying this
measure through the Committee.—(Cheers.) He was for his own
part perfectly satisfied with the measure of the Right Hon.
Baronet, and it was one, which, in his opinion, must be equally
satisfactory to the country. At the same time he must confess
that if the question could have been finally settled without any
further delay, it would have given him much satisfaction But
after what had fallen from the Right Hon. Baronet he thought
it was clear that the voting for the proposed amendment would be risking the great question, and it was on that ground that he
(Mr. Hume) appealed to his Hon. Friend not on this account to
persist in the amendment.—(Cries of " Hear, hear," and " Oh,
oh.") At any rate after the speech of the Noble Lord, and also
that of the Right Hon. Baronet, he for one would not vote for it.
lifr. P. BORTHWICK rose amidst cries of "Oh, oh," and laugh-
ter, to say that he would move an adjournment.
The Marquis of GRANBY did not think that, according to the
Noble Lord's acknowledgment, he could have carried suds a
measure as the present by a greater majority than about 40, If the

present Parliament was such an one as could give satisfaction to the
country upon so Important a measure as the present.
The Earl of MARCH rose to order. He stated that it would be
well that the House knew the question that was now before it. The
Hon. Member for Evesham (Mr. Borthwick) had m,,ved that Mr.
Speaker do report progress and obtain leave to sit again.

On a division there appeared
For the adjournment • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
Against it ..... .. • • .. • • • •
Ma
On our re-admission into the gallery we found
Lord J. MANNERS addressing the House—He said that he never
knew so disgraceful an occurrence as that of a reformed House of
Commons fearing to appeal to its constituency. lie could not under-
stand how that House, which was but an aggregation of private in•
dividuals, could maintain its honour, while the honour of the in-
dividual Members was disregarded. Was it possible that, having de-
stroyed the honour of 128 Members of that House, they could maintain
by a constitutional fallacy, the honour of that House? After such an
argument, he thought the House could not refuse to postpone for any
number of nights that which Hon. Members might suggest, and so
long as the lion. Member for Eversham, or any Hon. Member should
think fit to divide the House he would support them.
Lord JOHN RUSSELL would be very sorry to incur the displeasure
of the Noble Lord, and that he should inflict upon the House frequent
divisions in consequence of the remarks which had fallen from
him.
Sir C. BROOKE complained that a division upon the amendment
should be desired so soon. lie considered after the House had
been occupied by the Members for Manchester, Durham, Wolver-
hampton, the city of London, and the Right Honourable Baronet,
that it was unfair to call for a division until his side of the House
were heard, and he now moved that the House do adjourn, and the
question b. resumed to-morrow night.
Sir R. PEEL said that the best course to pursue, would be to dis-
pose first of the motion of the Hon. Gentleman, as that was the re-
gular mode of dealing with the question.—(Cries of " No, no.")
Mr. FELIRAND said he wished to justify the conduct the protec-
tionistsreadinglneLi
in opposition
rpoodprp;pointisooi
opposite
speech
Rprisopseolsl delivered
a vote by
f
tnoigfheconfidence
wereni pursuingodei.nce in
theb
Baronety
Noble
ohbe
t
Here the
Hon.
soo eehGeanttidleman read
a
concluded
portionby
yniov of the
iogthat tregh debate
liobatoon. Gentleman's tiean's
adjourned,
when

...... 227
. . -157

gr. MORGAN J. O'CONNELL Said that he must oppose the
proceeding adopted by the Hon. Member; it was too bad to quote
from former speeches—what had a quotation from a speech ex-
pressing a want of confidence in the Government to do with the
question, that Mr. Greene do leave the chair? When gentlemen
came there and did nothing but quote what Hon. Members had said
and done in other places, the country would draw its
awn couclusion.s with reference to such conduct. What
reference had one word of the quotation to the
motion of the Hon. Member for Wolverhampton. He had come to
that House to vote on the, question. Hon. Gentlemen who wished
to express their opinions, and who could not do so during the debate
(the longest on the records of that House), could speak on other
amendments. They could speak on the report that they must make,
or on the second or third reading of the Bill. The course taken by
the Hon. Member for Knaresborough has shown that their object
was not discussion, for had any of the expressions lie had used borne
upon the question ? Were the statements of the Noble Lord made
some twenty or thirty years back to be a reason why the debate
should be adjourned? The people could see that they were a com-
pact minority, awl if they persevered in their present course, they
would lower themselves and the House in the eyes of the country.
Mr. G. BANKES complained that Members on that side of the House
had not been fairly treated. Especially he would refer to the Hon.
Member for Essex (Mr. Palmer), a gentleman occupying the meet
respectable station and character in that House, who had been treated
in such a manner that he (Mr. Bankes) could hardly hear an obser-
vation he made. lie had intended to reply to some remarks that
had fallen from the Right Hon. Baronet, but he had given way to the
Hon. Member for Essex ; but he would say that thctreatment which
that Hon. Member hail received would not prevent Members on that
side of the House from taking the course which they thought neces-
sary in regard to the measures proposed by the Government.
Lord CLAUDE HAMILTON remarked that as the Hon. Mem-
ber (Mr. Ferrand) had read from the speech of the Right Hon.
Baronet, there would be no use in his adjouring the debate.
Mr. FERRAND said that was not all that he had to give. He had
fifty more extracts that would show up the Right Hon. Baronet to
the derision and scorn of the country.
Lord JOHN RUSSELL did not see any advantage in disputing
about the fact whether the question should be settled three years
hence or now. Ile would suggest that the Right Hon. Baronet
should take the simple negative ou the amendment now, when the
Chairman could report progress, and ask leave to sit again, when the
discussion could be resumed.
Captain POLHILL said that every Hon. Member in that House
had a right to speak his opinions on the question, and however in-
convenient an adjournment might be deemed they were quite
justified in asking for it.
The debate was then adjourned.
The House adjourned at Half-past One o'clock.

PARLIAMEN TARY DIVISIONS.

(From the Votes and Proceedings of the House of Commons.)

MONDAY, MARCH 2.
CUSTOMS AND CORN IMPORTATION.
(IN THE COMMITTEE.)
Motion made, and Question proposed, " That, in lieu of the Duty
now payable on the importation of Corn, Grain, Meal, or Flour,
there shall be paid, until -the Ist day of February, 1849, the following
Duties :"—Amendment proposed, to leave out the words " In lieu
of," In order to insert the words " all Duties on imported Corn do
now cease and determine," instead thereof:—Question proposed,
" That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question :"
—Whereupon, Motion made and Question put, " That the Chairman
do report progress, and ask leave to sit again." The Committee
divirjed

MINORITY-AYES, 70.
Adderley, C. B. Finch, G. Pigot, Sir R.
Alford, Viscount Fuller, A. E. Polhill, Frederick
Allis, J. P. Gardner, J. D. Rashleigh, W.
Arkwright, George Granby, Marquis of Rendlesham, Lord
Bailey, Joseph,jun. Grogan, E. Rolleston, Colonel
BankesiGeorge Halford, Sir H. Bart. Round, John
Benett, John Halsey. T. P. Scott, F.
Benet, Philip Henley, J. W. Sibthorp, Colonel
Bentinek, Lord G. Hildyard, T. B. Spooner. B.
Berestord, Major Hope, Sir .7. Spry, Sir S.
Bramston, T. W. Hussey, T. Stanley, E.
Brisco, M. ingestre, Viscount Stuart, J.
Broadley, H. Jolliffe, Sir W. 11. Thompson, Ald.
Broadwood, H. Lawson, A. Trotter, John
Brooke, Sir A. B. Lowther, Sir J. H. Tyrrell, Sir J. T.
Bretherton. J. Manners, Lord C. Vyse, R.
Buck, Lewis W. Manners, Lord J. Waddington, H. S.
Buller, Sir J. Y. March, Earl of. Wodehouse, E.
Chu! chill, Lord A. S. Martin, T. B. Wyndham, Colonel
Clifton, J. T. Milmes, R. 11.1 Yorke, E. T.
Cole, H. A. Newdegate, N.
Deedes, W. O'Brien, A. S. TELLERS.
I)u Pre, C G. Packe, C. W. Borthwick, Peter
Fielder), John Palmer, R. Ferrand, W. B.
Filmer, Sir E. Palmer, G.