said, he regretted the absence of the right hon. Member for Dorchester, but he could not omit the opportunity of expressing his sentiments seeing the misapprehensions on the part of military men upon the subject, which had been brought before the House by his hon. and gallant Friend, the Member for Marylebone. That hon. Member stated the unfitness of certain stores for the use, either of the army or navy, and that a naval officer should be placed over the Board of Ordnance, to which the Member for Tamworth replied, that there was no occasion for a naval officer being so placed over that Board. In that proposition he entirely concurred. He thought it competent for any officer in the army to be attached to the Board of Ordnance, but what he contended for was, that the Board of Ordnance was so connected with the Admiralty, that it was absolutely necessary that a naval officer should be a member of the Ordnance Board. It was surprising that his hon. and gallant Friend and Sir R. Stopford, were able to obtain the thanks of the House, when the inefficient state of the Naval Department as to stores and muskets, was such as his hon. Friend had so justly described. He should always find it imperative on him, when the Ordnance Estimates were brought forward, to give free expression to his sentiments on this subject.

concurred in the hon. Member's remark, but would reserve what he had lo say for a future occasion.

requested the indulgence of the House for a few moments. He believed it was not strictly regular to allude to a former debate, but he felt called on to take notice of some remarks made the other night by the hon. Member for Manchester (Mr. Gibson), upon the late dinner of the Agricultural Association of Saxmundham. He did not hear the name at the time, or he should have risen, but he had since received a letter from the noble Lord who was President of the Association, complaining of the remarks of the hon. Member. The House would recollect that the hon. Member had spoken of the Saxmundham Agricultural Association as having shown the symptons of becoming a Conservative Association; because, while they had received the health of her Majesty with cold indifference, they drank that of the Queen Dowager with nine times nine. The hon. Member also remarked upon the course which the Association had taken in having labourers brought in, and spoke in such a manner as to cast a reflection on the motives of the Association. The Earl of Stradbroke was in the chair on that occasion, and in introducing the Queen's health he said, he had the honour to propose a toast which would always be received ' with the warmest affection—" The health of her Majesty the Queen, and may she long live in the hearts of herpeople, and the respect of all the nations of the earth." He was at the meeting, and he heard the Queen's health received with every mark of respect and affection. There were the usual cheers, three times three, and "God save the Queen" was sung, the members standing. The hon. Member for Manchester, he believed, was a member of the Association, though he was not present at the last meeting. He had received a letter from the Earl of Stradbroke, which he should now read to the House: —

"Dear Sir Charles—I understand that Mr. Gibson has been deceived into the belief that the East Suffolk Agricultural Society is formed for political purposes, and that he has publicly stated that the health of her Majesty was not responded to; on the contrary, that the toast was hissed, and that all the cheers were reserved at the last annual meeting for the Queen Dowager. I need not tell you that if such a statement has been made by any person, every part of it is devoid of truth. If I can claim credit for anything, it is, that during the ten years this society has been formed, I have never allowed a sentence of party feeling to escape my lips; and it is remarkable, that on the last occasion I gave the health of the Queen Dowager and the Royal Family purposely without any remark, because I was aware that the popularity of the Queen Dowager, on account of her exemplary moral character, her Christian virtues exhibited in the public and private charities, and the consequent esteem which her Majesty enjoys in the hearts of the British nation, is so great, that if I had given an opportunity for a loud and honourable expression of public feeling, it would have been considered by bigots as a proof that the toast was political. You will oblige me by making an open use of this letter whenever an opportunity offers.

"I remain, dear Sir Charles, faithfully yours,

"Henham, Sept. 26." "STRADBROKE.

He could add that politics were excluded by the constitution of the society, and they did not even petition on the subject of the Corn-laws. It had now existed ten years, during which it had conferred considerable benefit on agriculture, and on the labouring classes, and before the present year it had never been whispered that it was affected by any political bias. The society had been originally formed by Gentlemen of Whig opinions, and its members now included men of all parties.

said that if the House would allow him to make a few remarks in reply to what had fallen from the hon. and gallant Member, he should first observe that there was a wide difference between proposing a toast and drinking it. He could well conceive that the noble Lord in the chair had proposed the health of her Majesty in very becoming terms, but it did not therefore follow that the meeting responded to those terms with that feeling which might have been expected on the occasion. The hon. and gallant Member had stated that he had been at the meeting, and that the health of the Queen was drunk in the usual manner. But he could say that a friend of his, who had also been present, had assured him that, not only was there a marked preference shown to the toast of the Queen Dowager over that of the Queen, but that he had actually heard some hisses. The hon. and gallant Gentleman did not hear the hisses, but they might had been given. The hon. and gallant Gentleman had not heard him mention the Association the other evening, though he was sitting opposite. But look to the public prints, and see what they said. The Ipswich Express said that the chairman proposed successively the health of her Majesty the Queen, Prince Albert, the Queen Dowager, and the rest of the Royal Family, which were drunk in the usual way, but the name of the Queen Dowager created the loudest applause. The Express, however was a Whig paper; but what said the Conservative paper, the Ipswich Journal? It said the Queen's health was drunk with three times three, and afterwards the Queen Dowager's, which was received with loud applause and succeeded by three times three. He (Mr. Gibson) said that that mode of drawing a marked distinction in favour of the Queen Dowager was the safest way to provoke an insult to the Queen. He said said so, because they drew this marked distinction, and left themselves a bridge to escape. If the Tories hissed openly, there could be no doubt of their motives. There was no more direct way of showing that an agricultural association was political than by such manifestations as only took place at political associations. Look at the late Conservative dinner at Chelmsford, where the noble Lord who presided actually cautioned the meeting to be on their guard to drink the Queen's health with the usual acclamations, because, if they did not, they would be accused of disloyalty. What was the effect? Notwithstanding the noble Lord's remonstrance the Queen's health was drank with three times three and cheers, while the Queen Dowager's was drunk with "tremendous cheers which lasted for several minutes." He quoted from the Essex Conservative paper. He did not wish to detain the House, but in reply to the hon. and gallant Member's statement that the agricultural society was not a political society, he must refer him to his own speech at the dinner, in which he himself stated that he could not help expressing the satisfaction he felt at the late change in the Administration, and at finding that their properties and interests were now in safe keeping. Those were not the exact words, but they were the sentiments; and they conveyed clearly the meaning of what the hon. and gallant Gentleman said. He had not made an extract from' the speech, but he was sure he was correct as to its meaning. He was far from imputing to any individual, or to to the hon. and gallant Knight any desire, on his part, to mark the toast of her Majesty's health by disapprobation, nor did he wish to impute any such feeling- to the divines, military officers, and agriculturists, who sat around on the occasion; but it was his belief that there was such marked difference between the mode of drinking her Majesty's health, and that of the Queen Dowager on the occasion referred to, as practically to amount to an insult to the Queen.

said, that the letter received by the hon. and gallant Member for Suffolk, stated, that there was such a feeling towards the Queen Dowager, in consequence of her Christian virtues, that the noble Lord who wrote it was afraid of making a speech on the occasion, in proposing the Queen Dowager's health, was a confirmation of the observations made by his hon. friend. Were not he, would ask, the Christian virtues of her Majesty equal to those of the Queen Dowager, [cries from the Ministerial benches, "They are, they are."] If so, then why give superiority of applause to one over the other, or he should s-ay rather why exhibit that political feeling.

said, that the applause was given at the mention of the Queen Dowager's name from long ac- quaintance with her virtues. As to loyalty, he begged leave to say, that that Association was a truly loyal one, and the county which it represented equally so. He (Sir C. B. Vere) held, that loyalty was not to be measured by cheers.

was confident that a grosser insult was never offered to the Queen of this country than that report. He believed that at public meetings persons were at liberty lo express their goodwill towards any one without any imputaton of disloyally. The charge in the present case was as unjust as it was indifferent to the party against whom it was made. In his opinion, the evidence was not sufficient to justify the charge.

was present when the charge was made by the hon. Member, and then he knew it to be unfounded. He had the honour to know Lord Stadbroke well, and felt quite certain that no man exceeded him in loyalty, and that the charge was false. How did the hon. Member justify that other charge he made, that all agricultural associations were turned into political ones? He denied that charge emphatically. He was president of an agricultural association in the county of Suffolk; and, in order to render it wholly free from having any political bearing, he asked for and obtained the assistance of a Whig friend to act as secretary. Me went further, and introduced into the rules and regulations one which was to the effect, that any member who thought proper to talk politics in the association should be excluded the society.

The hon. and gallant Member was not present at the meeting. I was informed by a gentleman who was present, and he said he heard the proceedings with great pain, and that many other gentlemen had expressed the same feeling—he himself heard some few hisses.

denied that agricultural associations were in any way made political engines. He was to have presided over a meeting only last Friday; and, as he could not attend, he had begged a Whig friend to take the chair.

said, as the House has made all the grants of supply that arc necessary for the public service, I rise, conformably to the usual practice, to state to the House the mode in which I consider it advisable that the ways and means should be furnished to meet that supply which the House has already granted; and in doing so, it will not be necessary to trouble the House with any of those lengthened details that on other occasions form so large a portion of the address of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. So short a time has elapsed since all the details were brought before this House and the country, by the right hon. Gentleman opposite, and so few changes have occurred, either in the state of the revenue, or the expenditure, since that period, that I should only fatigue the House if I were to follow the right hon. Gentleman through the details on which he then expatiated; so, my statement must consist but of a repetition of the details that he then laid before you. I content myself, then, with briefly adverting to the general results which the right hon. Gentleman communicated to the House, and by stating to the House the means by which I propose to equalize the revenue and the expenditure, or, to express myself in a more parliamentary way, to furnish the ways and means to meet the supply. The supply which the House has voted during the present Session, amounts to the sum of 1,727,000l. It consists, first, of those portions of the miscellaneous estimates that were not voted in the last Parliament, of the vote for the commissariat, for Canada, a part of which was voted last Session; and, in addition to those votes that were left unsatisfied last Session, I have merely to add the supplementary estimates for the ordnance, amounting to 67,000l., and the difference between the ways and means and supply of last Session, amounting to 24,896l., making a total of 1,727,432l. This has been voted in a committee of supply during the present Session. In addition to that which has been voted in a committee of supply, the House is aware that there is a charge for the interest on Exchequer Bills, for which it is necessary that the ways and means should provide. It is no longer voted as supply by Parliament, but it is directed to be paid by the acts of the Legislature, out of the aids of the year. It is necessary, then, in the calculation of the ways and means, to provide for that sum. The amount of the interest on Exchequer Bills is 740,000l., which is to be added to the sum previously stated to have been voted in the present Session, that being 1,727,432l, and leaving a total amount for which the House is called upon to provide, namely 2,467,432l. To revert, then, to the statement made by the right hon. Gentleman, in the course of last Session, the House will recollect that, taking a review of the receipts and expenditure for the year, the right hon. Gentleman, assumed the receipts to be 48,310,000l., and he stated the expenditure to be provided for as 50,731,000l., leaving a deficiency of revenue for the year, as compared with the expenditure, very nearly in amount to the sum I have already stated, as necessary to equalize the ways and means this Session, with the supply that has been voted this Session. The sums naturally very nearly coincide, because, in the preceding Session, the House having voted the whole of the ways and means of the year to meet what was then voted in supply, which was only a portion of the year's expenditure for the public service. The ways and means now to be provided for are very nearly the amount which the right hon. Gentleman calculated as the deficiency for the year. On accurately examining the statement of the right hon. Gentleman with the advantage of an additional experience of five months, I do not think that any circumstances have occurred since that period, to affect the calculations of the right hon. Gentleman as to the probable revenue of the country, and as we have made no addition to the sums to be voted beyond that small sum in the ordnance estimates to which I have already adverted, there will be little, if any, alteration in the estimates that the right hon. Gentleman formed of the total revenue and expenditure of the year. We are, therefore, on the present occasion to devise the means by which we are to provide for the sum of 2,467,432l., which appears to be the amount of the deficiency in the revenue for the year. Without further' preface, then, or entering into the details of a statement that has been so recently made, I proceed shortly to mention the mode in which I propose to supply the deficiency that we are called upon to meet. The House is undoubtedly aware of the proposition that I have made, and which was made through the ordinary channels, of funding a portion of the unfunded debt of the country. The object that I have in view is apparent from the terms of the notice that I gave. It is to effect a reduction of the unfunded debt to the amount of two millions and a half. I did this because I, sensible that of all the measures which could be adopted for placing the finances on an improved footing, this was an indispensable preliminary. He might be told that the amount of the unfunded debt was not such as to justify alarm as to its extent, and some might think that it did not require reduction. But he must still adhere to the principle which he had uniformly maintained in that House, that it was not safe for the country to continue a larger amount of unfunded debt than under the circumstances of the country could lightly and easily be borne, and he would beg the House to recollect, that the pressure of the unfunded debt upon the country did not depend upon the amount of millions of which it. consisted, that the same amount might at different times press with very different degree of weight upon the means of the country; and, that, therefore, though now at twenty-one millions, and formerly thirty-one millions, there might be circumstances which called more loudly for a reduction now than when, nominally, the amount was much larger than at present. As long as Exchequer bills were almost the only safe security, that gave a daily interest; as long as there was a general demand for them; as long as there was a large premium upon them; as long as they kept pretty steady, without any material variation, so long there was reason for thinking that the burden of the unfunded debt was not greater than the country was able to bear. But when a period had arrived in which, so far from being the only safe security giving daily interest, they saw other securities, esteemed much by the public, coming into competition with them—when they knew that there were certain banks of acknowledged credit which gave a larger daily interest than that given on Exchequer bills—when they knew that a spirit of embarking in what might be considered comparatively safe speculations existed, in which larger profits might be made—and when, above all, they considered that by the change which had been effected in the Usury-laws, the money which before lay in the hands of individuals, or was employed at certain periods only in the purchase of Exchequer bills, was now employed in the more profitable business of discount—it must be evident to every one who considered the subject, that the reduced amount of Exchequer bills at the present moment was the necessary consequence of the altered position of monetary affairs to which he had alluded. For these reasons, considering it (impossible—he would not say—but) very difficult, without material loss, to add to the number of Exchequer bills already in the market, he determined to effect a reduction of the unfunded debt, by two millions and a half. He was happy to say, that as far as his proposition had gone, it had been completely successful. He should be enabled, by the subscription that had been made, to afford that degree of relief to the market which it had been his primary object to accomplish. He had another object in view, coupled with the reduction of the unfunded debt—it was to raise a sum of 2,500,000l. to meet the existing deficiency, and to show to the public at once the amount required for the public service. It was for this purpose that he combined the two operations, being unwilling that any man should subscribe his capital to the public without knowing the whole extent of the demand which the public would afterwards have to make upon the money market. The measure had not gone to the full extent of the proposition he had made to the public. The total amount of the subscription was 3,645,000l., or say 3,640,000l. The resolution which he meant to put in the chairman's hand would clearly point out the mode in which the deficiency was to be made up. He might be told, although he did not suppose he should, that he had offered to the public terms unfavourable to the Government or unfair to the public. He did not however suppose that this was an objection that would be dwelt upon by those who had attended the transactions. Into the details of those terms he should not at the present moment enter, unless hon. Gentlemen opposite should wish for the details on which his calculation was founded. He only said this, that comparing the terms offered now, and at antecedent periods, they would be found not higher, regarding the rate of interest and value of money, than offered in 1838, by the late Chancellor of the Exchequer (Lord Monteagle). They were not higher in amount, and, by the small addition of a premium, there was no greater difference than the price of the funds justified. Dismissing, therefore, for the present, the basis of the calculation, which he was quite willing to explain, if any hon. Gentleman required or desired him to do so. [Mr. F. T. Baring, what is the amount of the bonus?] He calculated the bonus at 18s. 10d. per cent. The bonus given by Lord Monteagle was 16s. 4d., but the funds were then above 91, while the funds when he had to make his bargain were 89½. Having by this subscription cleared the market of 2,500,000l., he had to show the House the manner in which he deemed it to be expedient to raise the sum required to supply the deficiency of the year. Part of the sum of money was to be paid by those who contributed to this funding. What that amount might be it was impossible for him at the present moment to say. As the parties had the option of paying half in money and half in Exchequer bills, lie could not, until the last instalment had been paid, state distinctly the amount of money that would be available for the public service. Supposing all the parties to subscribe half in Exchequer bills, then in no case could it exceed 1,800,000l., or one half of the whole amount subscribed. The probability was, that it would fall short of that, and that the Exchequer bills would be subscribed in preference to money, which the parties were at liberty to subscribe.

remarked, that the sum stated by the right hon. Gentleman was only half the amount.

meant half the amount. Of course, under the present circumstances of the country, he need not say, especially after all that had lately passed in that House, that it would be impracticable upon the present occasion to provide for the deficiency that existed by additional taxation. Under the present circumstances he should recommend the House to make a temporary provision to meet the deficiency. It was the one that seemed to be expected by every man who had spoken upon this subject, and, however, in his opinion, it was to be deprecated as a permanent mode of meeting a deficiency in the revenue, yet it was one that, under the present circumstances, he believed no reasonable man would object to. He was sure that the House would see that so soon after the accession of the present Government to office, with the general indisposition manifested not to embark in lengthened discussions of this nature, it must be impossible, with any effect to propose additional taxation to the country because it would be impossible, too, to make such an accurate examination of the expenditure, as to enable him to say whether or not it was susceptible of such a reduction as might lessen the amount required for the pub- lic service. He should feel himself to be still more unworthy than he knew himself to be, for the situation in which he was placed, if he were so presumptuous, as in one moment to lay before them a system of taxation to meet the deficiency of the year. He had simply to request in the resolution which was to be proposed, that the House would give the Government the power, either by the sale of Exchequer bills, or by the sale of a certain portion of stock, to raise that sum which might be necessary—to make the amount to be received in money equal to 2,500,000l. the sum to be provided for. He had introduced into the resolution the power either of issuing Exchequer bills, or selling stock, because, anxious as he was to relieve the unfunded debt he could not with certainty rely on the effect of replacing in the market two millions and a half in Exchequer bills. H e had in view the possible difficulty of disposing of Exchequer bills with advantage to the government and the public. He spoke more of the interest of the public than of the Government; because the introducing of Exchequer bills suddenly might produce a very injurious effect upon the holders of those securities and wishing that the object of the country might be attained with the least derangement to the interest of individuals, he desired to give the Government the discretion of making up the deficiency, either by the sale of Exchequer bills, or the sale of stock in the market. He did not, in propounding this last proposition, adopt a course that had been struck out for the first time. He knew that the feeling of the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Bating) was favourable to it. And as the candour that had marked that right hon. Gentleman when he was connected with the Government, would now, he was sure, be continued in opposition, he had no hesitation in referring to the right hon. Gentleman as having stated distinctly his favourable view of such a project. He trusted, then, that the House would see the necessity of acceding to and complying with the proposition which he should have to submit to them, of giving this power to the Government, leaving it to them, either by the sale of Exchequer bills, or the sale of stock, to raise the sum he proposed; but not go beyond that amount which was required for the service of the year. He was not aware of any necessity on the present occasion of entering into any fur- ther detail; but he should be happy to give any explanation which might be required by any hon. Gentleman in the course of the evening, and to satisfy any doubts that might suggest themselves to Others, though they had not occurred to himself, as to the propriety of the course which he now recommended to the House. It was not, he could assure the House, without regret that he felt himself called on to propose an addition to the debt of the country, and in order to repair a deficiency to have recourse to borrowing. He lamented deeply, and sincerely that he was not able to make a special provision for the debt so created, but the reasons which debarred him were those which prevented him from dealing in a more efficient manner with the deficiency generally. A proposition which would have reference to taxation required deep and deliberate consideration, and it was quite evident that it was an advantage to the public to defer such a proposition till the whole subject might be considered, as to how the expenditure might be diminished or the revenue increased. He had only further to say that, as the present proposition was merely intended to deal with the case before them he was anxious that it should not be supposed that he wished to afford the precedent of making up deficiencies by additions to the debt of the country. So desirous was he to avoid it, that he refrained from alluding to any precedent to authorise the course he had pursued. He did not think that, as a general measure, the principle was defensible; and he looked forward to that period when, after looking to the receipts of the country, and to the sources of the national wealth, they should be enabled to take a view of the whole case in detail, and when they would not be called on to consider the mode of dealing with the deficiencies of one year, but to consider how the whole expenditure and revenue of the country could be put on such a footing as would render them equal to each other. The right hon. Gentleman then concluded by moving the following resolutions:—

"That the several persons who have engaged to subscribe towards funding the sum 5,000,000 of Exchequer Bills charged on aids or supplies dated in March and June 1841, (or in any antecedent month, provided the same have not been advertised to be paid off,) and who have made deposits of 20l. per centum on the amount of their respective subscriptions accepted at the Bank of England, shall be entitled, upon the completion of their subscriptions, for every 100l. so subscribed in Exchequer bills (or 100l. 12s. in money, not exceeding one half of such subscription), to 112l. 2s. capital stock in consolidated annuities, bearing interest at the rate of 3l. per centum per annum; the said interest to commence from the 5th day of July 1841, and to be payable by half-yearly dividends on the 5th day of January and the 5th day of July of every year.

That the several subscribers shall complete their respective subscriptions at the Bank of England, by instalments, in the proportions and at the times under mentioned; that is to say,

20l. per centum on or before the 8th day of November.

20l. per centum on or before the 20th day of December.

20l. per centum on or before the 31st day of January 1842.

20l. per centum on or before the 14th day of March 1842.

That interest shall be allowed upon all Exchequer bills deposited in payment of each instalment, up to the date of such instalment; and upon each instalment paid in money, interest on the same from the 27th day of September 1841 to the date of such instalment.

That subscribers shall be at liberty to pay the said instalments in advance, and shall in such case be entitled, if the payment be made in Exchequer Bills, to interest thereupon, to the period when the instalment will be due; and if payment be made in money, to interest at the rate of two pence farthing per diem upon every 100l. of such money, from the day of such payment in advance to the day when it would otherwise be due.

That all the Exchequer bills so to be deposited with the governor and company of the Bank of England shall be delivered over to the Paymasters of Exchequer Bills to be cancelled; and that all monies so to be received shall be paid into the receipt of the Exchequer, to be applied from time to time to such services, for Great Britain and Ireland, as shall have been voted by this House in this Session of Parliament, that the Commissioners of her Majesty's Treasury shall be authorised to complete the sum requisite to discharge the services granted by this House in this Session of Parliament, and the interest on Exchequer bills charged on the aids or supplies of the present year, amounting in the whole to 2,467,432l., either by the issue of Exchequer bills, or by the creation of consolidated 3l. per centum annuities, provided that no greater sum in the whole shall be raised, either by the monies so subscribed, by the issue of Exchequer bills, or by the creation of consolidated 3l. per centum annuities, than may be necessary to discharge the said services and interest."

said, that he ahould have scercely thought it necessary to trouble the House on the present occasion, so far as regarded the statement of the right hon. Gentleman who had just addressed the House. He felt it necesary to offer a few observations, not so much on account of anything which the right hon. Gentleman had said to the House, as I on account of that which the right hon. Gentleman had thought fit not to say. It was always difficult on the instant to follow a right hon. Gentleman, through a statement of this kind, however clear, and to suddenly give an opinion upon a statement which one had not the opportunity of considering. At the same time he (Mr. Baring) would venture to trouble the committee with a few observations. He should on the present occasion, omit, as the right hon. Gentleman had done, all reference to the statement which had been made on a former occasion with reference to the former expenditure and deficiency. It was, however, satisfactory to him that though six months had elapsed, and though circumstances might have occurred which would vary his calculations, it was satisfactory to him to find that the right hon. Gentleman had found nothing to question in the calculations which he had upon a former occasion ventured to submit to the House. As he understood the right hon. Gentleman, the proposition made to the House was the same operation which the right hon. Gentleman had already made public. He thought that he understood the operation which was intended by the right hon. Gentleman, hut having heard the explanation of the right hon. Gentleman, he was not quite sure that he understood the way in which the right hon. Gentleman intended that his plan should operate. He understood the transaction of the right hon. Gentleman to be this—that he proposed to combine the funding of two millions and a half of Exchequer bills and to bring in at the same time two millions and a half of money, so that while nominally he funded five millions of Exchequer bills, he would in reality fund only two millions and a half of Exchequer bills, and would raise two millions and a half in money to meet the wants of the country. He thought that the great object was the funding of two millions and a half of Exchequer bills. But the right hon. Gentleman stated that he found it necessary to fund five millions, and that he had suc- ceeded in his main object. On the present occasion he was exceedingly anxious that nothing should fall from him calculated to embarrass and encumber the public service in any way. He did not think, however, that the right hon. Gentleman had succeeded. It appeared to him that the right hon. Gentleman was in this position, that he did not know whether he had funded the required amount of Exchequer bills or not, and that he would not know the amount of Exchequer bills funded or the amount of money raised, till the end of the transaction. If the object of the right hon. Gentleman was to fund two millions and a half of Exchequer bills, he had not yet attained that object, and if his object was to raise two millions and a half of money by going into the market with that amount of Exchequer bills or Stock, it did not appear that the right hon. Gentleman had completely succeeded. The right hon. Gentleman, it appeared to him, had neither secured the amount of Exchequer bills nor the amount of money that he was anxious to obtain. Nobody, as the right hon. Gentleman had said, would quarrel with the amount of the bonus which the right hon. Gentleman had offered. On the contrary, so far from that, if he had ventured to state anything to the right hon. Gentleman previous to his undertaking that operation, he would have told him not to venture on an operation of that kind unless that he was sure to succeed. He was sure that a small saving (which, however, he did not underrate) ought not to be considered in comparison with securing the success of an operation of this nature. Considering what was passing here and in other countries, he thought it would have been advisable for the right hon. Gentleman, leaving out of consideration what had been offered by Lord Monteagle or any one I else, to have offered such a bonus as would secure the object he had in view. With respect to the amount, it appeared to him that it was a satisfactory amount and a satisfactory offer. Notwithstanding all that had been said of Whig misgovernment and the extravagance of Whig Administration, it appeared that, after tea years of Whig Administration, the right hon. Gentleman was able to raise the amount he wanted at a bonus of one-third less than in 1828, when the right hon. Gentleman was Chancellor of the Exchequer. This fact he was el ad to learn, after all he had heard of the ruin of their finances, and of the dangerous state in which the country had been left by ten years of Whig Administration. Notwithstanding all this, the right hon. Gentleman, when he wanted money, offered one-third less for it than he found it necessary to offer fourteen or fifteen years ago when the right hon. Gentleman was Chancellor of the Exchequer. With respect to the operation of the right hon. Gentleman, there was one point, and one only, on which he should be sorry (as we understood) to see it drawn into a precedent. He thought that the right hon. Gentleman was right to avoid a loan. Although borrowing in one way might sound the same as borrowing in another way, still recollecting what had been done in this way in the good old times, he should be sorry that the country in time of peace should have recourse to a regular loan: but if it were necessary to raise money by a loan, he thought it ought to be done by open competition. The right hon. Gentleman proposed to raise two and a half millions in a mode which was not open to competition. Now this, he thought, was open to objection, for, though he admitted that the public would be exposed to, a combination of great monied capitalists, still he thought upon the whole that they would best satisfy the public feeling by going to the open market. The right hon. Gentleman proposed to make his operation such as to enable him to obtain money either by the sale of Exchequer bills, or of stock corresponding in some manner. Now he knew enough to know the difficulty of being confined entirely to Exchequer bills, and therefore he ventured to suggest to the right hon. Gentleman, if he found himself under the necessity of doing anything of the kind, the propriety of reserving the option. As far as this part of the proposition went, he need hardly say, that he cordially supported it. He entirely agreed with the right hon. Gentleman in the propriety of keeping under the amount of Exchequer bills. The right hon. Gentleman would find in some return which he did not happen to have with him, that the amount of Exchequer bills in 1835 had been very largely reduced by the Government with which he was connected, and compared with the administration of the right hon. Gentleman, they had reduced Exchequer bills by three millions as compared with the quantity of Exche- quer bills in the market at the time. He entirely concurred in the expediency of raising the money, if it were possible to make the option, rather by the sale of stock than the sale of Exchequer bills. He confessed, that after the manner in which the right hon. Gentleman had left hat (the Opposition) side of the House, he was surprised that the right hon. Gentleman had not alluded to the future prospects of the country—that he had not given them some glimpse, some small opening, some possibility of understanding the course which the right hon. Gentleman proposed hereafter to pursue. He confessed, when the right hon. Gentleman told him—and here he could not help reminding the committee, that during the debate in the last Session, when a right hon. Friend of his accused the right hon. Gentleman of stating, that the course he meant to take would be to leave things alone, the right hon. Gentleman rose indignantly, and complained bitterly that he had been grossly misrepresented, and he stated, that no such thing had fallen from him. The right hon. Gentleman rose twice and complained that such a notion should be attributed to him, a notion which he never ventured to entertain. He entirely agreed with the right hon. Gentleman, that he had no such notion of letting things alone, but now, when the time for explanation came, the scheme of the right hon. Gentleman after all was that of borrowing money, and, as far as he understood the right hon. Gentleman's plan, it was the very plan which, when on that (the Opposition) side of the House, the right hon. Gentleman had attacked him for proposing; but now, when on the Treasury benches, he considered the wisest and most proper, and the most expedient plan, to leave things entirely alone till next year. He did not know what might be the right hon. Gentleman's notion of letting things alone, but he knew, that if he had come down with a proposal for a loan, without stating how he meant to deal with the finances of the country hereafter, he should, as a matter of course, have been fiercely attacked. The right hon. Gentleman had said, that he had lately come into office, and that it would be rather hard upon him to give a plan of finance, and to consider fully the revenue and the expenditure of the country. He really thought, that the delay was absolutely necessary for giving the right hon. Gentleman fair time for the consideration of financial subjects; he would be one of the first to admit that plea, and at once to give him what he conceived to be a fair time for the consideration of the plans and measures which, filling the station he did, he would be called upon to propose, but he could not in his conscience, and with every respect for the right hon. Gentleman, understand that plea of the right hon. Gentleman which tells us, "I have considered the subject of finance for several long years—I have made repeated observations and motions upon the question— I have thrown you out of office upon a financial question—I have taken issue with you upon the great measures you proposed—we know quite enough to make out, that your propositions are bad, but we have not sufficient knowledge to tell you what is good and ought to be done." That course, he confessed, he could not understand. If the right hon. Gentleman asked for a fortnight or three weeks, that might be well enough, but as he understood the present course, it was this, to propose to wind up the financial arrangements of the year without announcing to the House any one of those measures, or giving the details of any of those principles upon which he hereafter considered that he would have to conduct the financial administration of the country. Against this course he took the liberty of protesting, as his noble Friend (Lord J. Russell) had already done, however ineffectually. He entertained towards that course a most sincere objection. He thought it was not a course that was advisable for the country; he thought it was not a course which, under any circumstances, the right hon. Gentleman opposite ought to have proposed. From something that fell from the right hon. Gentleman, he believed that the right hon. Gentleman, when he referred to the expenditure, seemed to think, that the sum that was necessary for this year would not be necessary for future years; and he could not help thinking, that the right hon. Gentleman had some expectations, having this prospect before him, that it would not be necessary to take any measure for an augmentation of the revenue. He confessed it would give him the greatest, the most sincere pleasure, to find the right hon. Gentleman enabled to carry on the Government of the country without calling upon the people for increase of taxa- tion; but, on the other hand, it did appear to him a most unadvisable expectation to raise if the right hon. Gentleman did lot feel sure of success. Had he misunderstood the right hon. Gentleman? [No, no.] He admitted they had heard of the wanton and profligate expenditure of the Whig Government. Did the right hon. Gentleman think, that that was the case?[Cheers.] The right hon. Gentleman was one of those parties who concurred with hose who cheered the accusation. [Lord Stanley said something across the Table.] The words he had used were the very words used by the noble Lord who seconded the address upon which the late Government was displaced. He knew that language was used by one party of the friends of the right hon. Gentleman opposite which they themselves would not employ, that accusations like this were made, and when it was wanted to know upon what grounds such accusations were made, some right hon. Gentlemen jumped up, and cried, "I never said such a thing —what can you mean?" When, however, a great party was banded together, and when he saw members of that party bringing forward charges day after day, and night after night, he would ask, wa3 it not natural to suppose, that without there was some general consent and union, the charges which they heard would not be employed by persons holding stations in that House, and persons whom the great Conservative party entrusted with the agreeable duty of turning out the late Government. In entering his protest against the course of the right hon. Gentleman, it was his earnest wish not to use any language that could in any shape be hurtful to the feelings of the right hon. Gentleman. For his own part he was as anxious to see the right hon. Gentleman successful in his measures as if he were himself in office. He was satisfied, that the real foundation of the good faith and credit of the country was unshaken, and although the right hon. Gentleman might not succeed in getting the actual amount of the sum proposed, still he would not draw from that any evil omen as to the real position of the finances of the country.

said, that the right hon. Gentleman had concluded with a sentiment which he had often uttered when on the other side of the House—namely, that he saw no reason at any time to despair of the resources of the country or of its power to meet all difficulties. The right hon. Gentleman had criticised the observations which he had taken the liberty to make, and had stated certain objections to the measures which he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) now proposed to make up the deficiency in the revenue. If the committee would allow him, he would offer, on these points, a few observations. The right hon. Gentleman objected to the measures taken for funding of Exchequer bills and raising money. He confessed, after listening to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman, he could not distinctly understand the objections he made. The right hon. Gentleman told them that he thought it absolutely necessary to reduce the unfunded debt, and he told them it was absolutely necessary not to have recourse to a loan. Now if there was any merit in the proposition submitted to the committee, it was this, that it did reduce the unfunded debt to an amount to which it appeared to him advisable to reduce it, and did avoid the necessity of contracting a loan. As far, then, as these two points went, he must confess, that the right hon. Gentleman, in objecting to the measures, confirmed, the principles upon which they were founded. The right hon. Gentleman said, that they could not get the amount of Exchequer bills required, and they would fail to raise the necessary supply of money. He knew, that every proposition of this kind depended upon the subscription of the public; and no man, under certain circumstances, could infer the certain accomplishment of such an object; but taking the whole of these measures together, lie had so far succeeded, that by means of the alternative, which he trusted the House would allow, and which the right hon. Gentleman approved of, cither by the issue of Exchequer bills or by the sale of stock, he should have in his hands the power of reducing the amount of Exchequer bills as he thought necessary, and of raising, by an addition to the funds rather than to the unfunded debt, that amount of money which he knew was required for the public service. So far, therefore, his measures had succeeded, and had fulfilled the condition which the right hon. Gentleman deemed indispensable. The right hon. Gentleman said, there was danger in the mode of raising money, and he thought, that loans should be raised by open competition. He was aware, that the right hon. Gentleman was correct as to the general principle; but there were rea- sons which convinced him, that he had acted rightly on the present occasion. Lord Monteagle, when Chancellor of the Exchequer, made an attempt to fund Exchequer bills through the medium of public competition. Three large capitalists offered, and offered three sets of terms materially different. The Chancellor of the Exchequer was obliged to have a sealed paper stating the amount beyond which the Government would not go. What was the result? The Hank of England brought in Exchequer bills to the amount of half a million, upon terms lower than those offered by the Government, and the other parties bid so considerably above the Government price, that they could not be accepted; and thus, after trying public competition, Lord Monteagle was obliged to go into the market, and to obtain in the same manner as he had done, subscriptions to the amount required; and with this inconvenience, that the parties who first came forward, upon open competition, had advantages less than those who, by holding back, drove the right hon. Gentleman into the market. He was opposed to open competition, because, upon principles of justice, if they offered a competition, the advantages ought to be the same to all; and he therefore thought it fairer in the first instance, instead of having a scaled paper, to state at once to the public those terms which he was willing to accept. This was his reason for not resorting to open competition. In open competition, the dealing was confined to the capitalists in the market. Those only could come forward who had a large amount of Exchequer Bills to offer. It was impossible for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to take 1,000l. from one party, and 1,000l. from another, and so on; but when he offered terms, and they were accepted, the smallest holder would be placed upon the same footing as the largest. Men with 1,000l. would be able to subscribe on the same terms with the man who had 1,000,000l., and, on the present occasion, he knew many individuals had subscribed to very limited amounts, which, under a different system, they could not have done. These were the reasons why he thought it inexpedient to repeat the practice pursued in the case of Lord Monteagle, a practice which did not produce the effect expected, and which operated to the injury of those who came forward in the first instance. It was said, that by public competition, he might have obtained greater advantage to the public. Did the right hon. Gentleman believe, if he offered a loan at a bonus of 18s. 9d. per cent., many would be desirous of obtaining it? Let him look at the loan raised by Mr. Spring Rice for the payment of the West-India compensation. The bonus then given was 3l. 18s., just 3l. more than he now proposed, and for this simple reason, that the present plan combined two advantages, namely, that individuals would derive the same advantage from the payment of money as the presentation of Exchequer Bills. The right hon. Gentleman further stated, that he doubted whether the public would accept the loan now proposed. He entertained a very different opinion. He had that confidence which the right hon. Gentleman professed to have in the power and resources of the country; he had taken the best means in his power of ascertaining what terms the public had a right to expect, and having made up his mind, he saw nothing to shake his determination with regard to what he felt it his duty to offer to the public, little regarding whether the whole subscription should be filled or not, so long as he obtained sufficient to enable him to accomplish the object he had in view. Comparing the present bonus with that offered ten years ago, was no argument whatever. At particular periods there might be great variations in the rate at which money could be funded or borrowed; and it was no ground of blame to any party, that he gave a higher rate at one time, and a lower at a subsequent period. Circumstances had since occurred with respect to the power which the Government now possessed of withdrawing Exchequer Bills from circulation, which must materially affect the terms which Government would be justified in offering to the public. He felt, upon the whole, that the terms he had offered were not lower than circumstances justified, and he was better satisfied to stand there to defend himself for having made an advantageous bargain to the public which had partially interfered with his success, rather than to defend himself from the accusation of having uselessly squandered the public money, with a view to secure his own objects. The right hon. Gentleman complained, that he had not been sufficiently explicit with regard to his future intentions. What he had said was this, that before he undertook to lay down any plan of finance or taxation, he must carefully examine, not only the revenue, but the expenditure of the country also; and that, in im- posing taxes upon the people, he should take care not to adopt such a proceeding without being enabled to say, that he had examined the expenditure, that he had looked into details, that he was convinced the expenditure they were called upon to pay was essential to the welfare of the country, and he would then put it to the good sense of the people, whether they would not bear some additional burdens in order to meet the exigencies of the country. He understood perfectly well the advantage which the right hon. Gentleman would have, although, he was sure, he would not avail himself of it, if he had brought forward some crude and undigested scheme of taxation. He should be told, why not look into the expenditure, and the Member for Coventry (Mr. Williams), if nobody else did, would tell him it was incumbent upon him to do so. In the varied expenditure of this country, in the charges and expenses thrown upon it from every quarter, both in the colonies and at home, and knowing the pressure that was about to be thrown upon the country, how could he venture to propose on the instant a permanent plan of finance? He did not refrain from doing so, because he anticipated the possibility of avoiding having recourse to taxation, for that he believed to be inevitable, but he merely wished to have time to consider the mode in which that taxation which might be necessary, could be raised in a manner least injurious to the general interests of the country. As to his having advised the House to let everything alone, and then coming forward to fulfil the object of that misrepresentation, the right hon. Gentleman said, that if he (Mr. Baring) had made such a proposition, he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) would have been the first to object to it. Undoubtedly, he had been misrepresented on that occasion, for he never said what was imputed to him; but it was rather hard upon him, when the right hon. Gentleman recollected the misrepresentation, that he did not recollect what he really did say, and that what he said then had been accomplished. He said, then, that if the sugar duties were left as they were, not only would the consumption increase, but the revenue would improve, and the result proved he was right. He did not say, that things ought to be left alone, and he did not admit, that he stood in the situation the right hon. Gentleman would have stood in, if he had made such a proposition. The right hon. Gentleman had been in office for four years; the Government with which he was connected had been in office ten years; and, therefore, he had had full opportunity to look into the different branches of the expenditure, to see whether it were possible to make alterations—he had had an opportunity to take a minute view of the whole financial system of the country, and, therefore, the application of such a charge to him would not have been unjust. At the end, however, of the first two or three weeks of office, involved as he was in a mass of business of the Treasury, and having had no opportunity to frame his measures, in the state in which they should be submitted to Parliament, he would not be driven into any premature announcement of them. He did not know, that it would be necessary for him to offer any further observations on what had fallen from the right hon. Gentleman. He thought it evident, that the right hon. Gentleman approved of the plan as a whole, whatever he might think of parts of it. He thought the statements of the right hon. Gentleman, stronger modes of approval, than any arguments against his proposition; and he was, therefore, inclined to thank him for the support which he had given.

, said that the right hon. Gentleman was very much mistaken, if he supposed that he should recommend any imposition of fresh taxes to meet the wants of the Exchequer. He thought the effects of the bad economy which had been practised might be met by a plan which would not work any detriment to the public service. The proposition of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, for relieving himself from his financial difficulty was, no doubt, the easiest and least troublsome to himself; it was the course always pursued by the profligate spendthrift, so long as he has credit to borrow, of getting out of present difficulties, by plunging deeper into debt; but every thinking man, who reflected upon what the end must be of adding year after year to a debt exceeding eight hundred millions would hear the proposition with painful regret. During the last seven yea is, from 1834 to 1840, there was added to the debt permanently 33,977,250l.; interest on which 1,167,308l. The proposed addition would make the increase nearly 40,000,000l. within the seven years; this had been done by loans, funding Exchequer bills, and all sorts of contrivances; 4,600,000l. of which was added to the debt, without the consent or know- ledge of Parliament. It might be said, 20,000,000l. was for the emancipation of the black slaves, and he should be asked if that money was not applied for a righteous purpose. Yes; but if the present generation thought so, they ought to have paid for it themselves, and not throw it upon posterity. What could be more unjust and dishonest, than to throw upon posterity the payment of the debts contracted by the present generation for every species of profligacy and corrupt purposes? Was it right to make posterity pay the penalty of our misgovernment? Was it just in the generation now in existence to mortgage the fruits of the industry and toil of generations not yet in existence to pay its debts? The system was a violation of great moral principles, and would come to a violent end, attended with awful consequences. No excuse for the course proposed had or could be offered. The just and honest means of getting out of the difficulty was by retrenchment, or the imposition of a property-tax. He would point out what could be effected by retrenchment with safety, to an extent that would not only make good the deficiency, but pay off the excess of expenditure of the last four years. The amount of the estimates for the present year of the army, navy, and miscellaneous was 18,949,740l. Now, as he did not mean to reduce the present expenditure by any extraordinary outlays which had taken place during the last year, he should deduct from the sum he had stated:

For the expedition to China	£400,000
Expenses in Canada	155,000
Excess of the navy in two years	191,194
	—746,194

Which, when taken from the above, left 18,203,546l. Now, he thought he could not do better than return back to the expenditure in the year 1830, when the Gentlemen opposite were in office. In that year the estimates on the four heads he had stated were 15,864,785l., being less than those of this year by 2,338,761l. Now, that was a sum fully equal to that which the right hon. Gentleman wanted to borrow, or rather to add to the funded debt. But he could refer the right hon. Gentleman to a better period still—four years of the Government of the Whigs. The average expenditure for these four years was 14,148,456l., which was less than this year by 4,055,090l. Now, he should like to know what were the peculiar circumstances of the country which rendered so vast an increase necessary? He could not find out any difference which was at all material, either at home or in our foreign relations. In 1830, a great revolution took place in France, the consequences of which it was impossible for any man to foresee. In this country a large portion of the inhabitants were disturbed and discontented. In those districts where that feeling of disaffection prevailed, life and property were insecure. What was the state of things at present? He believed that more distress prevailed, and greater privations were undergone, than in any period of our history. Yet tranquillity prevailed every where, and no strong feelings of disaffection were expressed. Well, in what situation were our foreign affairs? The Eastern question was admitted on all hands to be settled. Her Majesty's Speech announced that the temporary separation of France from the other powers had ceased. And, as to Canada, he would venture to predict, from his own observation of the public feeling in that country, that if the same measures were acted on henceforward as those which had been adopted by Lord Sydenham, the people of that colony would become firmly and honestly attached to this country. Again, he thought that those questions which separated the United States in feeling, from this country would be amicably settled; for he had recently an opportunity of seeing that the great body of the people (which in fact governed that country), were decidedly in favour of amicable relations. He would point out another source in which great savings might be effected, namely, in the collection of the revenue. The amount of last year's revenue was 51,850,000l. The cost of collecting it was 4,282,500l., being more than eight per cent. This vast expenditure was intercepted before it went into the Treasury, without either Parliament or the Treasury exercising the least control over it. Each department put its fingers into the public purse, and took out what it thought proper for its salary. A great increase had taken place in this department. In 1806, according to a statement made by the Treasury to the finance committee, the amount of the revenue was 58,255,175l. The charge for collection was 2,797,722l, being only 4¾ per cent. This payment was in a time of depreciated paper money, when Bank of England notes, as compared with gold, were worth about 14s. 6d. Before Mr. Pitt became Minister, the most rigid control was exercised by the Treasury over this department, and he was informed the cost of collection did not exceed 2½ to 3 per cent. The Marquess of Lansdowne in 1797, said, in reference to this subject,

"Every office seems to be lord of its own will, and every officer seems to have unlimited power over the purse of the nation, instead of their being, as the spirit of the constitution directed, under the constant check of the Treasury."

The Commissioners of inquiry into the Excise establishment stated the charges of the collection of the revenue, and of payment out of such revenue in its progress to the Exchequer, other than charges of collection for the year ending 5th January, 1834, was 4,500,000l., which was obtained by stopping this amount out of the gross revenue, in its progress to the Exchequer; so that this amount of the produce of the taxes is not paid into the Exchequer, contrary to the great principle of the constitution, which requires that the Exchequer should possess the means of securing the legal appropriation of the money levied on the public. If the gross amount of the taxes were paid into the Treasury, and the salaries and other expenditure of the different departments were to be voted in the estimates annually, a very great reduction might be effected. He was aware that this was the Government's great source of patronage, and how they were pressed on every side by their supporters to be quartered on the taxes; but if this country was to maintain her present high position among nations, profuse expenditure must be abandoned, and economy unsparingly applied, so as to relieve the distress of the people, produced by taxation. The right hon. Gentleman complained, that many of the acts of the late Government were stigmatised by her Majesty's present advisers as a wasteful expenditure of the public money. Now he did not hesitate to reiterate that opinion. But in every one of those acts the Gentlemen on the other side supported that Government, and were, therefore, debarred from making any complaint that the Treasury was in its present inadequate condition. If ever there was an Administration pledged by their previous acts, particularly by their rejection of measures which would add to the revenue without increasing taxes, to make good the present deficiencies by retrenchment and economy, and not to add to the debt, it was the present. It was a reflection on the present generation, if, after twenty-five years of peace, we were to add to the permanent debt. He, therefore, felt called on to submit the following amendment:—

"That, after twenty-five years of peace it is inexpedient to add to the funded debt the amount of the deficiency of the revenue to meet the expenditure of the present and four preceding years; that such deficiency might, and ought to be made good by the observance of rigid economy and retrenchment in the public expenditure,"

intimated that it would be informal to move such an amendment as that proposed on the resolution of the right hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

was glad the hon. Member for Coventry had called the attention of the House to the subject of the great expense incurred in the collection of the revenue. The hon. Gentleman referred to a Parliamentary Return, from which it appeared that a sum of more than 6,000,000l. were annually spent in the public offices, without the sanction of Parliament. Until that sum was placed under the control of Parliament, they could have no security for its being properly expended. He hoped the Government would take care to economise to the utmost, and not indulge in any useless or wasteful expenditure.

observed, that for the last ten years, the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down, never lighted upon this new mode of saving the public money. The reason was obvious—the blow would come home to himself, for the hon. Gentleman had extracted a considerable sum from the pockets of the people of this country before, unfortunately, he could stop him. No doubt the hon. Gentleman, or his Friend near him, looked forward to be Chancellor of the Exchequer one of these days; but God forbid he should see that day. Whatever the personal ambition of the hon. Gentleman opposite was, one thing was quite clear, that during the very short time the present Government held office, every attempt had been made to bully them. But they were too strong in the estimation of the majority of that House and the country, to let these attempts have the least effect on them. Called on, as his friends were, to remedy the misgovernment of ten years, he hail implicit confidence in their ability and inclination to do so. He should, therefore, cordially support them against any amendment such as that proposed on the other side.

said, that the debate took, as he expected it would, a somewhat more enlarged range than the financial statement of the right hon. Gentleman would seem to warrant. He should not attempt to alter the course of the discussion, and should say, for his own part, that he did not believe that the expectations which had been raised on the accession of the right hon. Gentleman to office would be at all realised. He was confirmed in this conviction by a reference to the speeches of the right hon. Gentleman and noble Lords who composed the Administration. He should urge, as a strong ground for imputing weakness to the Government, that the different members of it entertained various and conflicting political opinions. Take the question of the Corn-laws—that question which agitated the kingdom from one end to the other, and which involved its prosperity. From a Government holding such opposite opinions as the Members of this did, how could any satisfactory measure be expected on the subject of the Corn-laws? Just examine their speeches. The right hon. Member for Dorchester said, a fixed duty was an impossibility. To the commercial world, looking to that change as the means of curing the present evils of the system, and to a still wider circle, whose comforts and even existence the present state of things affected, the right hon. Gentleman announced, that that which was supported by practical and theoretical writers, was an impossibility. Well, the Master-general of the Ordnance, who held a conspicuous station, said just the the reverse. He announced a small fixed duty as the panacea for our present evils. The noble Lord at the head of the woods and forests—no unimportant Member of the Government—thought the present scale should be altered. But if we looked to the speech of the Duke of Buckingham, he announced his intention of abiding by the law as it was, and that he would sanction no backsliding, no change of opinion. He referred, even since he was raised to his present office in the Cabinet, to the opinions which he had heretofore held as a clue to his conduct for the future. Now, on looking to "Hansard's Debates" for 1839, he found that The noble Duke declared the present law was the best, and that he meant to adhere to it. Turn again to the speech of the noble Member for North Lancashire. That noble Lord admitted the effect of the law was to raise the price of food, but he defended it on high grounds of national policy. The noble Lord the Secretary for Ireland, however, made the question a landlords' question, and wished to know why the landowners should not look to their interests as well as any other class. He could not think, after this, that that was just praise bestowed upon the Cabinet by a noble Lord (the Lords belonging to it were numberless), who gave as his reason for joining the Administration, that it was an united Cabinet. It was the boast of the right hon. Member for Tamworth, that he was tied to no opinion on this subject, but was free as the wind in choosing amid all these clashing views. He could adopt all or any of these opinions, and so settle the differences of his Government. He was not aware whether the same unanimity prevailed on other questions. He had reason to think that a change had taken place as to the sentiments of the Cabinet regarding that noxious measure of the noble Lord, which consumed so much of the time of that House last Session, and which created such animosity and heart-burning in the sister kingdom. Now, as to the statement of the right hon. Chancellor of the Exchequer, nobody asked him to propose his measures on that night, but there were precedents for their meeting in autumn on occasions less important than that which the present state of the country furnished. They met in autumn to settle her Majesty's mil list. When Lord Grey took office, he immediately announced that he intended to bring foward a large and comprehensive measure of reform. He did not wait for five months before he made the country acquainted with what he was about to do. And what forbearance was shown to Earl Grey? Within three hours after he had taken office, he was pressed to disclose the details of his plan of reform. What happened when Mr. Fox was turned out of office upon the question of the India Bill, in November, 1783? Mr. Pitt came into office on the 19th of December; the House was adjourned to only the 9th of January, 1784, and on the 14th of that month Mr. Pitt placed his India Bill upon upon the Table of the House. Why had not the right hon. Member for Tamworth followed that example? He could tell; the right hon. Gentleman that the course he was pursuing was calculated to engender distrust in the public mind. The right hon. Gentleman stated the other night, that he was pressed by the financial difficulties which surrounded the Government. The right hon. Gentleman did not enter into any details upon that point, except with respect to some items of colonial expenditure. The explanation offered by the right; hon. Baronet on that occasion was by no I means satisfactory; but as he understood,; from something which had passed that night, that the right hon. Baronet did not I intend to cast any imputation upon the expenditure of the Government which he had succeeded, it was not necessary to dwell at any great length upon the subject. But he must say, if it was intended to be maintained that any great financial embarrassments had been created by the late Government, he should like to I know where the proofs of it existed. He was not aware that the funds had manifested any peculiar sensibility, or that enterprise has been checked; and, indeed, the case with which the right hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer boasted that he, had been able to raise money, proved conclusively that there had been no financial embarrassments sufficient to create distrust in the public mind. That there was some little embarrassment he was not disposed to deny, but that very circumstance had engendered a hope that a plan of fiscal reform was about to be adopted— a hope which had been blighted by the right hon. Gentleman's accession to office. The right hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer had that night prudently abstained from referring to former debates. On a former occasion, the right hon. Gentleman said that he could easily answer some observations which he made, but he had never yet condescended to do so. He still retained the opinions to which he, upon that occasion, gave expression, and he was ready to meet the right hon. Gentleman upon the point at any time. He must be permitted to say that the budget brought forward by his right hon. Friend, the late Chancellor of the Exchequer had been much misrepresented. When his right hon. Friend introduced his budget, he distinctly stated that it was one of two alternatives. He said the House must either adopt the commercial reforms which he proposed by means of which he hoped to be able to raise the necessary amount of revenue, or else have recourse to a mode of taxation which he clearly pointed out. He never stated, however, that he expected to realise at once all the advantages which would eventually result from the commercial reforms; but he distinctly stated that if his plan was not adopted, it would be necessary to have recourse to additional taxation. That was exactly what the right hon. Gentlemen opposite had done on succeeding to the office of Chancellor of the Exchequer. He had been obliged to have recourse to the vulgarest of all contrivances which a finance Minister could resort to—that of raising money by loan. For whatever trouble might be taken to disguise the transaction —let them call it by what name they pleased—it was, after all, neither more nor less than a loan. It was not unnatural for those who took the same view of public affairs as he (Mr. Hawes) did, to press upon the right hon, Baronet the necessity of immediately bringing forward some measures which would indicate a sympathy with the distresses of the people. To show bow pressing was the necessity to which he referred, he begged to read the following passages from the evidence given by Mr. Deacon Hume before the import duties committee;—

"Does not every limitation in the importation of food, and every rise in the price of food, tend to undermine the manufactures of the country upon which we depend? I conceive that it must be so, because we place ourselves at the risk of being surpassed by the manufactures in other countries; and as soon as it happens, if ever the day should arrive, that we should be put to a severe trial as to our manufacturing power, I can hardly doubt that the prosperity of this country will recede much faster than it has gone forward.

"Then are we not, by this system, undermining the very means by which public taxation and public revenue are supported? —I think that we not only check the collection of the revenue immediately, but that we are also undermining our resources. I cannot help often looking at the consequences with considerable alarm. I think the country cannot stand such a system as this for a long period."

Again, let the House consider the evi- dence given by Mr. Gardiner before the hand-loom weavers committee in 1835. He said—

"We find by experience, that if we lose a market one year, we lose it altogether. It is not wise to trifle with trade by trying experiments for only one year; we might shut ourselves out. Once in possession of a market, they would keep it."

An aged weaver, named Canticull, who gave evidence before the hand -loom weavers commission, said—

"Distress renders a man hopeless; he becomes desperate, and preys upon society, and careless even of what little honest advantages are in his way, and then comes the last wretchedness. Such a man is not likely to be a good husband, a good father, or a good neighbour, or even a good subject. Can we wonder if, while brooding in forced inactivity over his misfortunes, he listens to the agitators, who tell him they are all owing to bad legislation? When we consider how much evil he really suffers from the Corn-laws, can we wonder that he exaggerates their influence, or that, finding all alteration in them steadily refused, he cherishes wild visions of organic changes?"

The circumstances indicated in these passages now actually existed, and they ought to satisfy the House that this was a state of things which required the application of an immediate remedy. It was upon these grounds he called upon the right hon. Baronet to state what measures he intended to propose. He did not ask for details; he merely wished to know the character of the right hon. Baronet's measures. The House had a right to know whether the Corn-law was to be continued, and whether there was to be any commercial reform at all. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said, that the consumption of sugar had increased, but he was inclined to believe, that when the whole year should be brought under review, it would be found, that comparing it with last year, and taking into consideration the increase of population, it would be found that no increase of consumption had taken place. The House was now called upon to vote five millions of money without any explanation as to the source whence provision was to be made for repayment. It was the most offensive step towards the people ever taken by any Government. The right hon. Gentlemen opposite must be held responsible for whatever results might ensue. By the course they were pursuing, by the indifference which they manifested towards the distresses of the people, they were doing more to encourage the Chartists, and bring about organic changes, than could be effected by any other means. He could assure the right hon. Baronet, that the opinion of the majority in that House was not in conformity with the opinion of the majority out of doors. There was scarcely a man of any party out of doors who did not express disapprobotion of the course which the right hon. Baronet was pursuing. It really appeared as if the Tories had had no other object in view but to obtain possession of office. He certainly understood from what had fallen from the right hon. Baronet, that his mind was familiar with the question of the Corn-laws, and the other important questions at issue. Why, then, was the country to wait for six months before his decision was announced? The right hon. Baronet had recently made a declaration, from which it might be inferred, that he was prepared to take a large and comprehensive view of the Corn-law question, and to propose a change of the existing system. The right hon. Baronet said—

"Was there any alternative, if the Corn-laws were to be considered at all—was there any other alternative than that of fully stating the measure of the Government? And was it not infinitely better that nothing should be said till the plan was maturely prepared, ready for the consideration of Parliament? What advantage would there be in merely hinting at details, and then postponing consideration of them? It is impossible to deny that we are familiar with the subjects of finance, Corn-laws, and the Poor-laws."

He wished to know whether the right hon. Baronet really intended to propose an extensive change of the Corn-laws. If he did, he would have some ground for calling upon the House to give him time to perfect his plan. He ought to declare what his intention was, one way or the other; the information, in either case, would be useful to the public. In conclusion, he protested against the course which the right hon. Baronet was pursuing. He would, on the present occasion content himself with saying "No" to the motion before the committee, because every one knew what the result of a division would be.

said, that whatever might be inferred from the elections to be the voice of the constituency, the voice of the country, or of that part of the country which complained, should be heard; and it was his duty, as it had been that of his hon. Friend the Member for Lambeth, to claim this right on behalf of trade and manufactures. ["Hear," from Sir R. Peel] The two points of the question really were these; first, whether a remedy for the alleged distress ought to be adopted soon; and, next, what should be the nature of that remedy. That the remedy ought not to be long delayed, might, he thought, be inferred from the admission made by both sides, that great distress existed in the country. At this moment, that argument acquired additional force. He held in his hand a statement showing, up to the 24th instant, the number of mills which were closed, or only partially worked, in several of the principal of our great manufacturing districts, at that time. From this document, it appeared that there were seventeen mills entirely closed in Manchester, seventeen in Stockport, seven in Bolton, four in Bury, six in Oldham, eight in Staley-bridge and its neighbourhood, three in. Rochdale, and eleven others in different parts of that manufacturing district. [Sir Robert Peel. How many altogether?] Mr. Ewart said about seventy, and offered to give the document to the right hon. Baronet. Of mills partially worked, there were ten at Manchester, four at Bury, twenty-four at Stockport, six at Bolton, and five at Wigan. The distress would soon be augmented. At present the manufacturers were engaged in finishing their orders for certain parts of the Continent, principally Russia; but by the 10th or 15th of next month, according to the usual course of commerce, the demand from these quarters would cease, and the periodical flow of trade might, under ordinary circumstances, be expected to come in from the markets of India and China. In the present disturbed state of our relations with China, however, it was hopeless to expect any considerable vent for manufactures there, and, therefore, it might be anticipated that the already great distress prevailing in the manufacturing districts would not be diminished, and might be considerably augmented. An early remedy, he thought, therefore, was required. And now, in the next place, what should be the nature of that remedy? He was not one of those who attributed the existing distress to any single cause. It was in his opinion, charlatanerie to do so. Facility of discount, and the state of our trade with America, had some share in producing it, but the great evil which, to adopt a phrase of the geologists, underlay them all, was the want of returns for our manufactures, in other words, the want of free trade. As regarded the sugar question, could there he a more favourable time for settling it than now, when the termination of our treaty with Brazil must come under consideration? He admitted that the price of sugar had considerably fallen. But he maintained, in the first place, that it ought to still further say to 6d. per lb. And, granting, that it should do so, the question ought to be settled as a mere matter of trade; independent of the price of sugar; and for the sake of promoting a steady in-interchange of commodities between this country and Brazil. The article of coffee, also, ought to be relieved from the enormous duty which was placed upon it. The habits of the people of this country had, owing to the establishment of temperance societies and the spread of education, undergone a great change, and in consequence, the consumption of coffee had a great tendency to increase. It would be the policy of the Government to develope this tendency by reducing the duty on coffee, the more particularly as more sugar was used with coffee than with tea. ["No," from the Chancellor of the Exchequer.] Mr. Ewart replied, that he had great authority in the coffee trade in favor of his position. He (Mr. Ewart) based his principal argument in favour of a repeal of the Corn-law also on the general policy of encouraging returns for your manufactures. But he could not possibly omit this opportunity of expressing his gratitude to the noble Lord, the Member for North Lancashire, for the essential service he had rendered the Anti-Corn-law league in the memorable debate which had taken place between him and Mr. Brooks on the husting at Lancaster the other day. On that remarkable occasion, the noble Lord had made three admissions, which would never be forgotten; —First, that bread was dearer here than in other countries; secondly, that the effect of its dearness was to raise rents; lastly, that the high price of corn did not raise wages, but that employment did. This was the very burthen of the song of the Anti-Corn-law It-ague; he (Mr. Ewart) rejoiced to hear it echoed by the noble Lord from the hustings at Lancaster. After that it might be expected that the noble Lord would go further, and become an unconditional convert to the doctrines of free trade. He (Mr. Ewart) further maintained that all the Committees of the House of Commons bearing upon trade, had shown that the real remedy for our sufferings was the one he had described. In 1833, the Committee on trade and manufactures (though the country was then in a state of the highest prosperity) stated, that the only way to secure permanent prosperity was the extension of the exchanges and the emancipation of trade. The timbe duties committee, the Import duties committee had come to the same conclusion. He must say with the greatest courtesy to the right hon. Baronet opposite, that he seemed to want that force of character which boldly announced its principles of action; the right hon. Baronet always seemed to wait his time and not to announce his principles beforehand; he waited for circumstances instead of guiding them; nor could it be said of him,

"Mihi res, non me rebus, subjungere conor."

It seldom happened that great force of character was combined with great talents; or that the intellect of the right hon. Baronet was combined with the strength of will of the Duke of Wellington. But such vacillation might be fatal. The discordant elements of the right hon. Baronet's Government had a tendency to fall asunder, it would require more than ordinary power to induce its disjointed atoms to unite and coalesce. It might have been the fate of other Governments to totter at their fall; of this disunited Cabinet it may be said hereafter, that it tottered at its formation.

had been entrusted with two petitions from Walsall, the borough which he represented stating, in the strongest terms, the distress which prevailed in that town, and praying that Parliament would not seperate without devising some remedial measures. Under these circumstances he protested against the question of the Corn-laws being excluded from the budget of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. It was a question of vital importance as affecting the interests of the country. Whether or not the Chancellor of the Exchequer succeeded in raising a revenue sufficient for the expenditure, still would the Corn-laws remain to be considered for the interest of trade and commerce. The state of the country as admitted on all hands, was deplorable, trade was every day becoming worse and worse, hundreds were thrown out of employment, and if this state of things should continue through the winter it would be impossible to foresee the result or calculate on the consequences to the country. He hoped he was not trespassing too long upon the House, but he could not but request the right hen. Baronet to give his most speedy and earnest consideration to the distresses of the country.

—Sir, I hope the hon. Gentleman the Member for Lambeth, and the hon. Member who followed him, as well as the hon. Gentlemen who spoke last will not think that it is from any disrespect to them that I repeat my expressed determination to adhere to the course I have already laid down on the subject under debate, that is to say in my determination of not making any statement of my intentions on the subject of permanent legislation during the present Session of Parliament. For, Sir, I think it is more consistent with the duty which her Majesty's Government owes to Parliament and to the country, to consider calmly the state of affairs in all their bearings, and to make use of all the information which their position enables them to command, before they submit their measures to the opinion of Parliament, than that I should bring them forward, in a crude hasty form now, or to use the expression of the right hon. Gentleman, the late Chancellor of the Exchequer, that if I did not give the country a full view of my plans, I should at least give it a glimpse of them. On that point, Sir, I must again repeat my intention to adhere to my determination, as I expressed it the other night; and I must add that I think the country would be less benefited than injured by such partial glimpses, as the right hon. Gentleman wishes for. This course I consider more calculated to mislead the country than to set it right; and I should disappoint the right hon. Gentleman's view of my character, in the panegyric he was pleased to bestow on me if I departed from the course that I have laid down for myself on this occasion. The right hon. Gentleman has been pleased to say that force of character and reserve, such as he has described me to possess, are seldom found combined in an individual. I am much mistaken in my estimate of myself if I deserve the right hon. Gentleman's panegyric, but he has one consolation at least, if it be true, and that is that if they be found not combined in an individual, they will be found combined in my Government. Sir, in the course of this debate the late Chancellor of the Exchequer seemed to state that I was chargeable with a want of consistency in my conduct now and when I was in opposition to the Government. To that I will only reply that it would imply very great inconsistency indeed on my part if I brought forward now a charge of wanton and profligate expenditure against her Majesty's late Government, while I offered no opposition to their measures on those points when on the other side of the House. But I think that the character of a Government depends in a great measure on the nature and amount of its expenditure—on the foreign policy which they follow—and on the general measures they adopt, and I think it was quite impossible for the Opposition to exercise any complete control over the expenditure of the country after such measures were adopted by the Government. I shall exemplify this by putting a case in point. I shall take the case of China, for instance, as one of the most pregnant and apposite to my purpose. The late Government had adopted a certain course of policy with respect to that country—and the expenditure that may be necessary for the carrying out of that policy cannot be now foreseen. The present Government, formed after the adoption of that system of policy, and bound by the circumstances of the case to carry it out, cannot, therefore, be charged with the expenditure that may be required. But it is quite consistent in an Opposition to question the policy of the Government, as well as the question of expenditure in its details. On that, or any other measure, Sir, I always find assistance in the quarter where I have least reason to expect it; and I have found it now on the other side of the House. The hon. Member for Coventry has contrasted the estimates laid before this House in 1830, when my noble Friend the Duke of Wellington was at the head of affairs, with the estimates of this year as prepared by the late Government; and the hon. Gentleman has showed, I think very clearly, that the estimates of the Duke of Wellington's Government, making every deduction for the unsettled state of Canada, and the expedition to China, exhibit a difference of 2,300,000l. in favour of the country, as compared with those of her Majesty's late Government for the present year. Now, Sir, it is very possible that the estimates lately presented by hon. Gentlemen opposite, might be justified, on due explanation; but I certainly think that, on his own showing, the hon. Gentleman has no grounds for withholding his confidence on this point from her Majesty's present Government, or expressing a doubt as to their economical intentions. [Mr. Williams—I expressed no opinion on the subject.] I do not care so much, Sir, for the hon. Gentleman's expression of opinion as I do for the decided proof he gave in this instance of his conviction what that opinion ought to be. Sir, I did not expect so much candour on the part of the hon. Gentleman, as to find him state his confidence in the Government, and I am not, therefore, disappointed; but I thank him, nevertheless, for offering such very strong and decided proofs as he offered in the course of his speech, that such confidence should be placed in her Majesty's Government. The hon. Gentleman then went on to say that a reduction of five millions could be made in the expenditure of the country. If so, the hon. Gentleman cannot deny that men entrusted with the functions of the Government should have a sufficient opportunity of considering how close, or whether at all, the hon. Gentleman's statement approximates to the truth. The hon. Gentleman says that five millions might be saved to the country; he cannot, therefore, object to our having time and opportunity to ascertain whether he is right in whole or in part—whether he is right even within fifty per cent, of that sum, for that amount would make up the deficiency at present existing. Sir, I agree, however, with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that it is quite delusive to hold out to the country the hope of any such reduction. And all I can promise is that what they deem right in respect of it her Majesty's Ministers will attempt to do —that they will give the most careful consideration to all the estimates of late years —and that whatever reductions can be made compatable with the efficiency of the public service and consistent with the honour and interests of the country they will make. But it is altogether delusive to make promises off-hand of any positive reduction, and it is not to be thought of that such reduction should be attempted without the fullest previous consideration. To hold out the expectation to the public that any reduction to the amount of the present deficiency is practicable, would be to excite hopes that can never be realised. The hon. Gentleman rests very much upon the reduction he suggests in the expense of collecting the revenue of the country; and he institutes a comparison between the present cost of collection and that for a former period—a comparison apparently very much to the disadvantage of the latter. But, Sir, when this subject is looked at a little more closely there will be found no such discrepancy as the hon. Gentleman asserts, and it will be seen that their is little or no analogy between the cases quoted. Formerly the officers employed in the collection of the revenue were paid principally by fees. That mode, however, pressing onerously on trade, the present, system of salaries was substituted, and fees were in all cases abolished. The officers are now paid by salaries alone; and though the expense to the country at large has been somewhat increased in consequence of the alteration, I will venture to say that trade and commerce have been more than commensurately benefited. With respect to the course I mean to pursue, I cannot expect that it will meet with the approbation of the hon. Gentlemen opposite; but I cannot believe that it meets with such universal condemnation as they have stated. Nor can I think so ill of the Reformed House of Commons, as that it does not represent public opinion, and if the hon. Gentlemen were correct, they would be more ready to take a division upon the subject. I cannot help coming, therefore, to the conclusion, that if the country at large were opposed to my view of affairs, there would be many more indications of that opposition than there have been. I only ask one favour of the hon. Gentleman, the Member for Walsall. I entreat him now to recollect at some future period, his description of the state of the country when we came into office. He says,

"That from week to week and from day to day there has been a gradual and decided depression in trade—that the workpeople cannot exist because the masters cannot afford to employ them—that debts cannot be recovered or payments made for want of means to meet them—and he draws a piteous picture of the stagnation of all kinds of trade, and the universal and complete prostration of business."

I beg the House to recollect this description against some future period. Sir, in those districts of the country connected with that most important branch of our national industry, the cotton manufacture, I have often had to admit the existence of occasional distress—and in doing so, I deeply lamented the fact, while I expressed a firm conviction that it was but temporary. But, Sir, I must take leave to caution hon. Gentlemen against the too frequent custom of giving exaggerated descriptions of that distress, because, while it is a departure from the fact, it is a circumstance also calculated to inflame the minds of the people and excite them against all Government. And Sir, I think it is important, in all cases of statements made to the House that the truth should be told as that the case should be stated. In respect, therefore, to such statements this, Sir, is the course I mean to pursue. When I hear of any case of individual distress—when the facts are given, and not a general statement—I am resolved to institute thereupon an immediate inquiry into all the circumstances. And I shall avail myself for that purpose of the power placed officially at the disposal of the Government, to probe the case to the bottom. If vague, general descriptions of distress be only offered it will, of course, be imposible to make any inquiry of the kind; but wherever there is a case stated with accompanying facts, into that shall inquiry be at once instituted. And I am sure you cannot better show your good will for the Poor-law commission, or their subordinate agents, than to make them the instruments of such inquiry. But the necessity of caution in making these statements of distress is strongly enforced by every circumstance that comes to my knowledge. One for instance, I shall relate to the House in exemplification of that necessity. In the course of a debate the other night (Friday, 17th instant), the hon. Member for Ashton not only made a broad statement of the general distress of the manufacturing community, in the district in which he resides, but he also made a particular mention of the distress of an individual. These are his words. He stated that —

"He (Mr. Hindley) had lately met with an individual, a working man, who had been obliged to go from master to master in consequence of the introduction of improvements in machinery. He had been last with a master who failed, and he was at present in consequence, thrown out of all employment. He (Mr. Hindley) said, he was afraid that under these circumstances he must go upon the parish. The man answered to the parish he had gone. He went to the parish of Royton, near Oldham where he received from the overseer 1s. 6d. a- week, to support a family of five persons. Was this right? Tell him not of party politics, he cared not what party was in power provided they consulted the food of the people. But what were the people to expect? The right hon. Baronet told them that he should bring in a bill, yet that he would prevent these poor men from appealing from the merciless parsimony (he must call it so) of the overseer to the magistrates, or in any other quarter; that he must put up with this pittance, or go to a bastile. Before he sat down he must tell the right hon. Gentleman that the great body of the people whom he represented were full of apprehension for the future and of suffering at present, and he implored the right hon. Baronet to take these matters into his deepest consideration."

Now, Sir, in the course of this day I received the following letter in reply to the statement of the hon. Member, and as I have read the one, I will, if you please, read the other—

"Oldham, Sept. 21, 1841."

"Right hon. Sir—At the petty Sessions, in Oldham, yesterday, I called the attention of the overseer of Royton to the enclosed statement in the Times newspaper, which after reading in the presence of myself and two other magistrates, he pronounced to be absolutely untrue. He also added that the Standard had been handed to him a day or two before, which contained a similar account, and that he had written to Mr. Hindley on the subject on Wednesday. I may say that I am in constant communication with overseers, having the charge of something like a population of 30,000 in the two counties of Lancaster and York, and can state that no similar circumstance has come under my knowledge."

Now, Sir, here is a case of distress particularly stated—a case of a man with five in family, supporting himself and them on only 1s. 6d. a week, not only wholly denied, but, in addition, it is asserted that no such occurrence has taken place, not alone in the neighbourhood, but in the district in question. The House will, therefore, come to the conclusion, I am sure, that when such statements are not borne out by irrefragable facts it would be far better to forbear from making them, and much wiser to avoid exciting by such means the feelings of an irritated people, unless, indeed, hon. Members be fully satisfied of their entire truth. I can sympathise with the patience of our people under no ordinary distress, and I can admire their fortitude and forbearance under severe suffering; they confer honour on them and upon our national character, but this should only make us the more cautious that we do not aggravate that suffering by superadding to it dissatisfaction, which must be the inevitable result of making statements of this description not founded on fact.

did not rise for the purpose of making any particular objection to the measures that had been proposed that evening to the House by the Chancellor of the Exchequer; as the Government have determined not to increase the revenue by removing the fetters which now cramp the industry of the country, he was ready to admit that the course which the Chancellor of the Exchequer intended to pursue was much better than adding to the amount of taxation. The electors of the United Kingdom had returned to that House a majority, who placing their confidence in the Gentlemen opposite had resolved to transfer the Government to their hands. But if the opinion of the majority of that House was really the opinion of the country, and if the country had therefore now obtained a Ministry to its mind, he hoped that the people would at least recollect that they were now about to pay two millions and a half for that gratification. The price which was to be paid for the gratification of having the hon. Gentlemen opposite in power and for having no relaxation of our commercial system, was an addition of two millions and a-half to the permanent debt of the country. He wished that the people might not find the hon. Gentlemen somewhat too dear at the money. However, he was perfectly prepared, along with his right hon. Friends, to concur in the course now proposed to be taken by her Majesty's Ministers, as being, under the circumstances the least of the evils from which they had chosen to make a selection. But having stated that, he must repeat that he could not but express his entire disapprobation of the general course which her Majesty's Ministers seemed determined to take. It was perfectly true that it would be unreasonable to expect that they should come down at that time and state in detail the system of increased taxation which they might intend to propose for the ensuing year in order to make the expenditure and revenue equal. He did not indeed suppose that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, though it had slipped from his lips in the course of what he said, could hope to be able in the course of the next year to devise any plan by which the revenue and expenditure of the country could be per- manently equalized. If, indeed, the country had at last got a Ministry which was able to equalize the public revenue and expenditure permanently for all time to come, and who were men of such foresight and sagacity as to be able to prophesy events and to anticipate all the circumstances which might have an influence, either remote or direct, upon that revenue and expenditure; and the country would have reason to congratulate itself upon the change. But, in the absence of such qualifications, he admitted that it would be unreasonable to call upon them now to make a minute statement of their plan, even assuming that they had made up their minds as to the precise course they intended to pursue. Undoubtedly, if her Majesty's Ministers had come to a determination upon that subject, one question which had been asked by every Member of the House might be answered. The House had a right to ask this question—not what were the details of the measures they intended to propose, but whether they intended to make up the deficiency in the public finances by proposing any fresh taxes, or by the measures which were proposed by the late Administration for relaxing the commercial system of the country, for increasing the consumption of articles which would add to the comforts of the people, and for giving fresh scope to the manufacturers and trade of the country? Upon that principle it was, that he complained of the delay of her Majesty's Ministers. They had turned out the late Government upon those very questions, and without any necessity. Yes, Certainly, without any necessity, because the same majority which rejected the propositions of the late Government in order to turn that Government out, might just as well have accomplished their purpose by a vote of no confidence. Why they did so at last; and therefore, unless they had made up their minds not only against the commercial principles of the late Government, but as to the principles on a system which they themselves preferred, he thought they ought not to have joined issue on the commercial propositions of the late Government, but ought to have adopted the other course of proceeding. The conclusion lie came to upon this point was, then, that the party which opposed the late Administration could not have gone to a division without having made up their minds, not only as to their disapprobation of the principles of his party, but as to the system which they. themselves intended to propose; and considering the time which had now elapsed since the change of Ministry, and the knowledge which the Government possessed as to the elements at least upon which their plans must be founded, they had no excuse for not stating fairly to the country whether they still adhered to the doctrines which they laid down in the debate on the sugar duties, and intended to make up the deficiency, whatever it might be, by fresh taxation, or whether they meant to propose relaxation in our commercial code. They ought to state now, which of those courses they meant to pursue at the next meeting of Parliament. He thought the country had a right to know what. Ministers intended to do to make up the deficiency in the public revenue. That there would be a deficiency was indeed admitted by them as a certainty, because the right hon. Baronet had freely acknowledged, that whatever reductions they might be able to make, those reductions would not go to the extent of equalizing the expenditure and revenue of the country; and when the House was told that the present state of the deficiency arose from the misconduct of the late Administration, he begged to remind the House that in two of the great departments of public expense, the army and nary, the late Government were, year after year, urged by the other party to increase, instead of diminishing, the expenditure. If, therefore, any charge was to be made by the present Ministers against the late Government, it was that they were too slow in placing those two great and expensive establishments of the country on the footing on which the other party thought they should be placed. But in those two great branches of expenditure he did not believe that the present Government could make any considerable reduction. With regard to the army, no augmentation had been made, except the small one rendered necessary by the state of affairs in Canada, and that augmentation was still required; and with regard to the navy the augmentation was made on general grounds, and was not large in amount. There was one thing however which he would venture to impress on the Government, though he trusted it was unnecessary for him to do so; but after certain reports which he had seen, he could not refrain from doing so, and that was that if her Majesty's Government should think it consistent with the public interest to make any reduction in he navy, he trusted they would not make t as the condition of any previous concert with any foreign power whatever, but would determine upon it on considerations connected with the public service and interests of this country alone; because, nothing could be so injurious to the welfare of this country as the making the amount of our naval force depend upon an agreement with the government of any other nation whatever, Upon the question as to what line of commercial policy the Government should adopt, he thought they should openly state their intentions. With respect to the Corn-laws, that necessity was the greater, because it was a question —which all men whatever they might think of it, and whether they were for the present system or for the most unlimited trade in corn—must admit not only deeply affects the interests of the country, but acts in a very extraordinary degree upon the feelings of the whole community. The public were quite in the dark, however, as to tie intentions of her Majesty's Ministers, on this subject except in so far as they might be guessed at by what had been mentioned by his hon. Friend, the Member for Renfrew, in the course of the evening, as having been uttered by different Members of the Government upon various occasions when the subject was alluded to. It was clear, then, that the Cabinet was divided upon this question. Why, it was not attempted to be concealed; it could not be concealed. That being the case, he admitted that it would be but fair to give the Cabinet time to come to an agreement. He was prepared to say, that the public ought to wait a decent time, to enable her Majesty's Ministers to come to some proper understanding among themselves on these matters. But there ought to be a limit to such a period. The question should not be put off so that the decision of the Cabinet upon it, should become a subject for Christmas riddles. A reasonable pause might he allowed—a space of time sufficient for the convenience of the Government, without being detrimental to the public service; and if the present Session should he put an end to without some definitive announcement being made, Parliament ought to be re-assembled in October or November, and be made acquainted with the intentions of Government. At all events the winter ought not to pass away leaving the country in a state of uncertainty on this great question, with all the risk of those mischiefs and miseries which might happen in the interval. One of the chief duties of Government was to attend to the interests of the people, but it was no less their duty to regard their feelings. The Gentlemen opposite said, that the distress of the country was greatly exaggerated, and affirm that the petitions which were sent up from public meetings of her Majesty's subjects, praying for an immediate alteration in the system of the Corn-laws, or that Parliament would not separate without the adoption of measures to alleviate the distresses of the people, were not of that vast importance which was ascribed to them but still, it could not be denied by anybody that great distress did exist, and that that distress was ascribed to the Corn-laws by those who felt it. Yet, whether or not the distress had been exaggerated, the Government ought not to postpone until the beginning or the middle of February next, their announcement to the public of their intention upon that great question. He knew that the right hon. Baronet had always made it his duty to consult the feelings of the people, whenever he had been in the exercise of power; and, therefore, until he saw Parliament actually prorogued without any declaration of an opinion now, or any announcement of an intention speedily to call Parliament together again, he should not believe that the Government, of which the right hon. Baronet was the head, could prorogue Parliament from the 1st of October, to the middle of the following February, leaving the country in a feverish state of anxiety about their intentions, upon so all-absorbing a question as that of the Corn-laws, and taking upon themselves all the responsibility which necessarily must devolve upon them if anything unpleasant should happen during the interval of suspense. Therefore, without offering the slightest opposition to the present proposition of her Majesty's Government, or presuming to urge any unreasonable demand, he must say, that he trusted the right hon. Baronet would use all that power which he possessed, and all those means of persuasion, which his talents and attainments would enable him to employ, in order to bring the Cabinet to some decision one way or the other in the course of the present autumn. Should the Government decide that they would stand by the Corn-laws as they were, let the country know it. At all events, let the agriculturists have the consolation of being informed, that they had made up their minds to that effect. If, on the other hand, her Majesty's Ministers found that they could reconcile their minds to some considerable alteration in the present system, then let those who were interested as consumers have the satisfaction of knowing that such a course was to be pursued. If such a change would seriously affect landlords— though he thought that never before had such a delusion entered the minds of men as the notion, that the present Corn-laws were of any real benefit to the landlords—let them know that such a change was contemplated. But the present uncertainty was inconvenient and injurious to all parties connected with transactions whether in corn, in land, or in commerce. In conclusion, he expressed his confidence —and it was the only thing in respect to which he had any confidence in the hon. Gentlemen opposite, that when the time for the prorogation of Parliament came, they would not be able to make up their minds to send the Members of that House to the right about until February next, without previously pledging themselves— for in a matter of this pressing nature, private and personal convenience should not be considered —to call Parliament together in the beginning of November, to unfold their plans and propose those measures which the exigencies of the country peremptorily demanded.

was understood to say, that the distress of the manufacturing population in his neighbourhood, and Other manufacturing districts was so great, that they could not get bread to eat; they were begging about the streets in crowds, and unable to get relief from the Unions sufficient to alleviate their wants. As a general justification of what had been stated by the hon. Member for Ashton-under-line, he would remind the right hon. Baronet, that the hon. Member had presented a petition from the inhabitants, complaining of the increase of local taxation, and showing that the county rates, which in the year 1836 amounted only to 70l., exceeded in the year 1841 the sum of 500l. So severe was the distress in Lancashire, that it was found impossible to raise sufficient means in the locality to support the poor, much less to pay the increased expense of a rural police, which, in some instances, as the right hon. Baronet knew, had been rejected by large majorities of the magistracy. Were it not for the mill-owners and manufacturers, the distress of the people would be even greater than it was; but out of sympathy for their workmen, they gave them partial employment to keep them from starving. That was the case with regard to his own firm; they employed their men four hours a day, only to enable them to obtain food, and, as it might be easily inferred from the duration of the time of labour, not for any profit to themselves. He hoped, therefore, that the right hon. Baronet, while he said he would make inquiries into the nature and extent of the distress amongst the people, would give an assurance that in all cases where distress was found to exist, relief should also be given. If the right hon. Baronet would do so, he would not complain of the right hon. Baronet's taking time to prepare and bring forward his measures. But if that were neglected, if the people were suffered to starve in thousands, as they were starving in Lancashire, he was afraid that they would not get through the winter without disturbances. It was the duty of those in power to make inquiry into the cause of the distress, but if the right hon. Baronet would see that at the same time relief should be afforded wherever it was necessary, whether from the public purse, or from special contributions, or in any way he could devise, so that the poor people should have bread sufficient to maintain them during the time they could get no work, then he, for one, would very willingly give the right hon. Baronet all the time that he required.

corroborated the statements of the hon. Member for Oldham, that throughout the manufacturing districts generally, many of the mills were working short time, and that many of the mill-owners were working even that time almost as much, if not more, on account of the consideration they felt for the people in their employ, than for any profit they made. These persons, one and all, looked upon some measure, such as that proposed by the late Government, as the only means of amending the state of their trade; and, indeed, of enabling them to carry it on at all. He, however, had arisen more particularly for the purpose of obtaining some information from the right hon. Gentleman opposite. He concurred with the late Chancellor of the Exchequer, that the right hon. Gentleman had made the whole matter less clear than it was before. The right hon. Gentleman could not say up to March next, whether he would or not raise money by subscription according to the terms offered to the public, because it was impossible to say whether he could get money on Exchequer Bills. The right hon. Gentleman had moved the Ways and Means in the most bald and unsatisfactory manner he had ever heard. True the right hon. Gentleman had adopted the statement of his right hon. Friend, but it would have been satisfactory to the House to know what interpretation the right hon. Gentleman had put upon that proposal. The late Chancellor of the Exchequer had anticipated 22,000,000l. from the customs' duties, exclusive of the revenue arising from the sugar duties, and exclusive of all revenue from corn. [No, no.] The statement of his right hon. Friend was, that he anticipated 22,000,000l., exclusive of the additional revenue from sugar, and exclusive of any revenue whatever from corn. He was aware that right hon. Gentlemen on the other side had not made op their minds whether 1,600,000l., or 400,000l. or 900,000l. were the sums anticipated by his right hon. Friend, but that was not the fault of his right hon. Friend. Now he wished to know what revenue the right hon. Gentleman anticipated would be produced by corn out of that amount, and also what additional revenue the right hon. Gentleman expected from sugar. Last year, when 700,000l. was anticipated as the sum to be gained from the increased quantity imported, the right hon. Gentleman admitted that was correct—that that revenue would be derived, not from the admission of foreign, but of colonial and East Indian sugar, the arrival of which had been already announced. The argument of the right hon. Gentleman opposite was, "let well alone; without a modification of the duties you will get your money;" and his statement was based upon this position, that if the consumption of sugar was to increase, the additional quantity of the article entered for home consumption would, at a 24s. duty, amount to about 950,000l., and that the calculation of 700,000l. was hollow. But the right hon. First Lord of the Treasury had stated, that the late Chancellor of the Exchequer would never have got that amount from sugar. Now he (Mr. Wood) wished to know whether the House was to take the calculation of the First Lord, or of the right hon. Gentleman. An hon. Friend on that (the Opposition) side of the House had shown reason fur supposing that the Cabinet were not very united, and their opposite statements seemed to warrant such an opinion. It would be satisfactory if the right hon. Chancellor of the Exchequer would state to the House what amount of revenue he reckoned upon from sugar beyond last year, and also what amount from corn. Beyond this, he would only say, he had never taken part in the pressure upon the right hon. Gentleman to come forward with his system of taxation at the present moment, still less to make an immediate declaration what future course he would adopt. He could easily conceive reasons that rendered the present course adopted by the right hon. Gentleman the more expedient, but, at the same time, he should not be doing his duty to the right hon. Gentleman, or be representing the opinions of his constituents, if he did not say, that the course adopted by the right hon. Gentleman was not one that would give general satisfaction, and he did not think, that the arguments urged in favour of that course, were such as to have that degree of weight with the country which the right hon. Gentlemen opposite were inclined to suppose. He was willing to admit, that if, upon accidental circumstances, or if in a sudden and unforeseen manner, power had been placed in the hands of Gentlemen opposite, they might have reasonably asked for time to see what measures they could propose. But when they look the ground they had done as the means of turning out one Ministry and substituting another—when the deficiency in the revenue had been well known — when the budget had been brought forward before the expiration of the first month of the financial year, he did not think, they could plead want of information or want of time. He perfectly agreed with what had been said, as to attributing all the distress that existed to any one cause—to the Corn-law, to the over-trading in 1836, or to any other single cause—but let that distress proceed from what cause it might, whether the Corn-laws, or over-trading, every one said, that it could only be remedied by the extension of our trade, and in the present state of our relations, that extension could not be expected, except by relaxation of commercial restriction. No one had proposed any other remedy than that, and no in formation collected from Poor-law commissioners, or any other source, could bring a Government to any other conclusion, than that to the extension of trade we must look for the means of ameliorating the condition of the people. But the right hon. Gentleman had said, that he believed the country were satisfied with his conduct; that he had before staled he meant to propose a vote of credit, and that course was acceptable to the country. He doubted the accuracy of that impression upon the mind of the right hon. Baronet. The right hon. Baronet had certainly made that statement to tin; House, but he doubted whether the impression made by that statement had extended throughout the country. He spoke from experience in the manufacturing districts, and he thought, the right hon. Baronet's course would cause some surprise there. Nor was it unnatural it should; for if there was any one course which the right hon. Gentleman had opposed more strongly than another, it was the very course proposed for the present year—raising a loan to meet the deficiency. It now appeared that the right hon. Baronet had last year resisted the budget proposed by the late Government, in order to do that himself which he deprecated at the time. If there was any one course which the country had a right to expect would not be taken by the present Government, it was that of raising a loan to provide the ways and means for the year. The Government, it must be admitted, had received great support from the country; they stood at the head of a majority larger, perhaps, than any one had anticipated. But they had received that support upon widely different grounds; and without attributing undue concealment of opinions to any hon. Gentlemen composing the Government, it was impossible but they must admit that the support they had received from one class was based upon widely different principles to the support they had received from another class. The agriculturists had supported them under the impression that they thereby secured the maintenance of the existing corn-laws, or something like it. No one could doubt that; but no one could pretend to say that the support the right hon. Gentleman had received in the manufacturing districts was given to him under the impression that he was unalterably attached to the present system of corn-laws. It had been said in another place, that the verdict of the country had been not against the measures, but the men; that the country doubted the power of those men to curry the measures they proposed, and supposed that by placing the right hon. Gentleman in power more would be gained than from those whose good will was not distrusted but whose power was questioned. So far, therefore, from supporting the right hon. Baronet because it was believed he would do nothing, and would allow another year to elapse without taking measures to relieve the distress of the country, he believed that more would be done by the right hon. Gentleman than by the late Government, and therefore the country had supported him. He would briefly allude to an argument that had been advanced in favour of the present system, grounded upon the importation of foreign corn during the present week at a low duty. That that should prove the advantage of the corn-law, he confessed, appeared to him the greatest fallacy he had ever heard. It was true that throughout the last week one shilling was the duty paid upon foreign corn, but he should like to know-how long that was likely to last? No one could attach the least weight to an argument grounded upon a fact that must vary from week to week. In his opinion, if anything could demonstrate more clearly than another the fallacy upon which the Corn-laws were grounded, it was those very occurrences of last week. For months foreign corn had been excluded, and, meantime, we had had a population half employed, with inadequate means of providing the necessaries of life, debarred from the purchase of corn, because the foreign commodity was not admitted, and England had not sufficient corn to furnish them with. Then comes the harvest, and the operation of that favoured sliding scale was, that the moment the English fanner was able to supply the wants of the population, an importation of foreign corn took place to the amount of a million and a half of quarters. To the consumer, the evil of the sliding scale could not be more completely demonstrated; instead of producing steadiness of price, the effect was the reverse. It raised the price when the price was already too high, and it lowered the profit of the producer when the harvest enabled him to supply the demand. Hon. Gentlemen opposite had, themselves, overthrown one of the last fallacies by which the Corn-laws had been upheld. From 1836 up to this time the price of corn had been gradually rising, whilst wages had gra- dually lowered, and the Corn-laws just produced this effect, that without increasing the means of the labourer, they augmented his difficulties in maintaining his family. The real difficulty in the way of any financial measure was the Corn-law. It was on account of the Corn-law, after all, that the budget of last year had been resisted. The question of the sugar duties was secondary, and the timber duties were not even discussed. Gentlemen, indeed, had come forward to resist interference with one protecting duty, lest another should be touched, and one hon. Member had said, "I must defend your monopoly, for, if not, I cannot defend my own." He believed that measures of the kind proposed by the late Ministers were indispensable, and that whatever party administered the finance of the country must have recourse to them. He felt confident that the right hon. Baronet would propose some such measures, but it was impossible not to see the formidable difficulties with which any Government proposing them would be surrounded. It might require all the time between this and February to win over their supporters to such a course, and throw aside those who resolutely opposed it. He trusted the time would come when the consideration of topics like this would be divested of all party feeling and considerations, and not be made questions of turning out this or that Government; and that when party motives should have died away, the landed gentlemen would turn a favourable ear to the arguments that had been urged upon them. No accusation was more unjust than that the landed proprietors were wanting in feeling for the sufferings of the population. They had been deluded by-such fallacies as that steadiness of price was produced by the sliding scale, and they had been made to believe that this country should be independent of foreign supply, when she had imported a million and a half of quarters of foreign corn per annum, ever since the Corn-laws had been in operation, and when, with an increased population, there were no increased means of supporting it. The landed gentlemen, would bind the country to them by placing their interests and those of the people on one common footing—for he believed, in reality, there was no separation of interests. If that should be accomplished by the power and authority of the right hon. Gentleman opposite, the greatest blessing would be conferred upon the country that had been, bestowed upon it for years, and he would be the last to interpose any difficulty in the way of obtaining time or delay for the accomplishment of so great an object.

rose to answer a question put to him by the right hon. Member opposite (Mr. Baring), in consequence of a misunderstanding of what he had stated. When the Budget was brought forward by the right hon. Member for Portsmouth last year, the right hon. Gentleman distinctly said, that he included in his estimates the whole of the probable revenue from corn. He understood the right hon. Gentleman to mean, in reference to his statement of the amount of the customs, not that he could tell the exact produce of the various items but that he had formed his opinion as to the total result on the usual probabilities. With respect to corn—and this principle was admitted in every discussion on the subject, what the revenue gained by corn was abstracted from the produce of other items, and that what the revenue lost by corn was gained by an increase upon other articles. On these principles his calculations had now been founded; and all that he had meant to say was, that, balancing one set of duties against another set, and comparing the weekly returns of consumption, the calculations he had submitted to the House, would be found to turn out accurate. With respect to what he had inferred respecting the sugar duties, he would explain the grounds on which he had formed his conclusions. Last year, there was a reduction in the sugar duties of 163,000l. as compared with the previous year, but in this year there was an augmentation to the extent of 120,000l. and in only four months from last August an augmentation of 300,000l. as compared with the corresponding period in the former year. Of course, general views o the results of the customs could only be made, by comparing the produce of the different articles one year with another.

explained. He had stated in June, when he brought forward hi budget, that he expected the customs, in eluding corn, to produce 22,000,000l. and he had been then asked by the right hon. Gentleman what sum he had calculated corn would realise to the revenue. He was unable to give a reply at that moment, but he took the first opportunity of stating how he made his figures out— when he became aware, that the Corn-laws would not come on for discussion. The way he had made his twenty-two millions out, were to allow twenty-one millions and a half for general items and half a million for corn. He had made this calculation by comparing the amounts produced by malt and corn in different years, and this mode of drawing an inference was generally found to be pretty near the truth. With respect to the amount to be received from the sugar duties he had reasoned in this way, that if Government succeeded in bringing down the price of sugar to a low figure, a large consumption would be insured, and a sum of 700,000l. would most likely be yielded to the revenue. If the right hon. Gentleman opposite expected to get that sum now, it must be by adopting the principles upon which he had made his calculations.

said, when the sugar duties were discussed, the simple question between them was—was British plantation sugar likely to be reduced to such a price as foreign sugar could be imported and sold for, namely, 61s. 6d. He had formed his calculations this way. If the price of British sugar was reduced to that of foreign sugar, consumption would greatly increase, and the revenue would be proportionately augmented. The price of sugar had fallen greatly, and he was, therefore, not unwarranted in setting down the amount to be realized to the revenue, as being as large or larger than the sum stated by the right hon. Gentleman opposite.

said, his right hon. Friend (Mr. Baring's) opinion was, when he brought forward his budget, that a sum of 700,000l. would be produced to the revenue by the alteration in the sugar duties; now, as the right hon. Gentleman opposite had taken his customs at twenty-two millions, he wished to know if the right hon. Gentleman considered that if some of the items fell short, he would have the deficiency made up by the amount of the duty on sugar?

said, the right hon. Gentleman opposite had proceeded on the idea, that the amount he stated would be made up either by additional consumption of colonial or foreign sugar. He (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) said at the time, that consumption would greatly increase according to the fall in the price of sugar, and this prediction had been verified, for sugar had since fallen to the price at which foreign sugar could be sold. He had, therefore, been fully justified in the view he had taken in respect of the revenue to be derived from that source.

moved the order of the day, for the House to go into Committee on the Poor-law Commission Bill.

expressed a hope that, considering the late hour of the night, this bill would not be proceeded with, The parties who were opposed to the Poor-law Bill, had made a very great concession in not resisting it in the present Session. He thought, therefore, that they were entitled to consideration, and that the subject should not be brought forward at a time when it could not be fully discussed. If, however, it were the wish of the House to proceed, he would not interpose to prevent it.

called upon Mr. Roebuck, who had given notice of a motion, but that Gentleman was not in the House. The right hon. Gentleman then called upon.

, who rose to move,

"That it be an instruction to the Committee, that they have power to make provision that the commissioners be not empowered to enforce indiscriminate separation between man and wife; and that in no case shall they sanction or permit separation, when the application for relief shall be substantiated as arising from positive inability to obtain work, or from physical infirmity, and not from idleness, vice, or crime:"

He submitted this clause to the consideration of the House upon the two scriptural grounds that "those whom God hath joined together, it is not lawful for man to separate," and that it is right "to do unto others as we ourselves would be done by." These were grounds constantly referred to upon the hustings by the supporters of the Government as showing the absolute necessity of an alteration of the existing Poor-law, and he consequently expected that those Gentlemen would feel bound by every feeling of consistency to support the motion which he (Mr. Yorke) now submitted to their consideration. He was fully aware that it was much more easy to talk of a remedy than to provide one; and a remedy in full he knew at that moment it would be premature, if not factious to expect; but a remedy in some degree, it struck him, it would be in the power of the House to give—a remedy to remove from poverty a legislative penalty. He put it to the House whether it would not be more likely to soften the asperity of feeling entertained by vast masses of the population by a judicious relaxation of the law, than to enforce obedience by the execution of its harsh provisions. He was most anxious that the clause he proposed should not be misunderstood. It was to be observed, that it did not go into any unnatural or wild advocacy of the worthless or offending. For them it proposed to say nothing; they were naturally nuisances to the state, and were justly amenable to its most rigorous enactments. But were there no other paupers than these? Did pauperism fall alone upon the head of the vicious and profligate? Was it not evident, from the many truthful statements that bad recently been made in that House, that the country generally was in a state of great distress? It was plain that its resources, comparatively speaking, were stagnant. The national stomach was hungry. Yes; unhappily, the national stomach was hungry, and it struck him that that was rather a subject for sympathy and respect than for ridicule and laughter. Well, then, the country being in that state, he put it to the humane feeling of the House, whether the poor man who necessarily became a pauper ought to be punished for his poverty. That was the point and gist of his argument. A married man, as the law stood, could not obtain parochial relief without submitting to a penalty which was disgraceful to human nature. Considering the hour of the night, and considering also that there were many Gentlemen who were anxious to speak upon this subject, he would purposely forbear from going through a number of long statements which he had collected with much care and trouble. He would, therefore, merely allude to one point, which struck him as being of a very important and pungent nature, and which had been suggested lo him by one learned in the law, in rather a curious way. It was founded upon an extract from our statute-book showing with what extreme care those who framed the Slave Emancipation Act had taken to provide for the preservation of the social ties of the negro. In that act it was specially provided that, under no circumstances, should a negro ever be removed from one plantation to another, if such removal subjected him lo separation from his wife or children, or even from his reputed wife. So that, in truth, as the law now stood, the wife, or the reputed wife, of a negro in out colonies stood in a better position than the wife of an Englishman; and the unhappy pauper compelled in England to ask parochial relief was put to the degradation of seeing his own wife in a worse condition than the reputed wife of the black. That was his case, and without further comment, he begged to commend it to the justice and humanity of the House.

would avail himself of the opportunity afforded by the motion just made, of announcing to the House the course that he proposed to take, as well with respect to the motion then under its consideration as to the other motions relating' to the same subject which had been placed upon the notice paper. It was impossible to over-estimate the importance of the subject which was thus incidentally brought under the consideration of the House. He did not believe, that it was possible to discuss any subject which touched—more nearly touched—the feelings, or which was more immediately connected with the interests of so large a portion of our fellow-subjects. Feeling this, as lie did most sincerely, he considered it necessary lo approach the subject with particular caution. If he followed the hon. Gentleman who had just spoken into the discussion of this particular instruction, involving a portion of the workhouse regulation, he clearly saw that it would be impossible for him not to follow other Gentlemen in other instructions into other details; and thus incidentally and gradually, but with his eyes open, he should be betrayed into a consideration of all the details of the measure. He thought it necessary to be thus explicit. The object of the Government in the introduction of the present bill was, to avoid precisely the course to which the hon. Gentleman would now lead him. Government introduced the bill simply and solely for the continuance of the Poor-law commission till the 31st of July next, with the view of affording to themselves and to the Legislature time and opportunity carefully and cautiously to consider every portion of the important measure which was adopted by Parliament some five or six years ago. There might be defects in the measure: they (the Ministry), were anxious to correct them. There might be imperfections in it: they were anxious to remedy them. Bui this was a matter of consideration, that required time and caution. To be done safely it must be done by the executive Government upon their responsibility. The Government did not shrink from the arduous task of considering the measure, alluring defects, and supplying imperfections where they were found to exist; but he repeated, that time and caution were necessary, and that the interval that the Government asked was not an unreasonable one. All that they asked was, that the commission should be continued until the close of the next Session of Parliament. Before the commencement of the next Session Government would apply its attention to the subject. In the course of the next Session it would be necessary, imperatively necessary, to legislate upon it. In the last Session the labours of Parliament were of a sudden cut short. The executive Government had brought forward a measure, not dealing with the commission only, but with the whole subject. Some of the proposals made by the Government were withdrawn, other proposals upon discussion were adopted or amended, and a considerable portion were not considered at all. It would be the duty of the present Government to review the whole of those proposals. From some of them they had already expressed a decided dissent. To that dissent they would, of course, adhere, unless some very cogent reasons, such as he could not anticipate, should lead them to adopt a different opinion. To those proposals which the House in the last Session adopted, the Government would give a more favourable consideration, and those which had not yet been discussed, it would carefully weigh. But, upon the whole, he thought he was entitled to call upon the House, not upon that occasion, to discuss the Poor-law in detail, but to confine itself to the simple and single question before it, whether, under the circumstances, it was not expedient that the commission should be renewed for the term he had stated. He would not be betrayed into a discussion of the point immediately raised by the resolution of the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Yorke), The hon. Gentleman, had stated most truly that it was much more easy to point out an evil than to supply a remedy, and in the present state of the House, and at that period of the Session, it would be factious, as well as premature, to press his proposition. He was unwilling to enter into discussion of the particular point raised by the hon. Gentleman's motion, but he would just throw out for the hon. Gentleman's consideration, that the particular regulation of the union workhouse system was no new regulation. It was a regulation which had long existed under several local acts. Wherever several parishes had been united under local acts, and large union workhouses built there, where large numbers of both sexes were congregated, from the necessity, the absolute necessity of the case, a division of the sexes was enforced. This had been the case in the Gilbert unions for the last fifty years, and in the Isle of Wight, where, under the operation of a local act, large numbers of both sexes were congregated in one house, and where, from the very necessity of the case, a separation was enforced. It must be observed, that an argument against such a division of the sexes amounted to nothing more nor less than an argument against assembling a large portion of paupers in the same building. It was not his intention, however, to be led at that moment into a discussion of that particular point. It would be his duty to resist the hon. Gentleman's instruction on the ground he had stated; and upon the same ground he should resist all other instructions that might be moved raising incidentally questions which really related to the Poor-law Amendment Bill, and not to the renewal of the commission. He hoped that the hon. Gentleman would not deem this disrespectful; he hoped that the House and the country would not think that arose from any unwillingness to bestow the most careful consideration upon question so full of interest and importance It was because they entertained a deep respect for the feelings of those who would ameliorate the provisions of what they deemed a harsh enactment, and because they were anxious not to make any mistake upon a matter so immediately affecting the interests of so vast a portion of their fellow-subjects, that they thought it would be inexcusable on the part of Government not to weigh carefully and maturely the measure that they intended to submit.

thought that the House must see the very great reasonableness of what had fallen from the right hon. Baronet, and he trusted that the hon. Member would consider that he would be placing even those who were willing to support him in a position of some difficulty, if he should persist in his motion. The hon. Member would place them in a position of some difficulty for this reason, that it would be repugnant to their inclination to give a vote affirming a principle contrary to the instruction which the hon. Gentleman wished to submit to the House; but, on the other hand, they must feel that to vote with the hon. Member in favour of the instruction, and to take the opportunity of passing a mere contingent bill for the purpose of making an alteration in the Poor-law Act, would only have the effect of opening the door to alterations of all kinds in the law, and that the House would then, in fact, be undertaking to do that which the proposal of Government had for its object to prevent—namely, to commence the entire discussion of this great and extensive question. Under these circumstances he could not help thinking that it was no unreasonable request to make to the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Yorke), that he should give way upon the present occasion, in order to leave the point involved in his instruction as a part of the great question to be discussed hereafter. In saying this he did not intend in the slightest degree to give any countenance, so far as anything that he could say, or do could be taken as affording a countenance to any proposition—he did not intend, he said, to give any countenance to the principle which the hon. Gentleman wished to condemn—the principle which was said to justify the separation of the sexes to the extent to which it had been carried under the operation of the Poor-law Amendment Act. But what the right hon. Baronet (Sir James Graham) had said, was perfectly true—that this question with respect to the separation of the sexes depended upon the question also as to whether large numbers of paupers should be collected in one House. Therefore if the House entered into the discussion of whether the sexes should be separated, it must also enter into a discussion of the prohibitory order, and go through the whole question as to the propriety of enforcing that order, namely, that all those who received relief should be brought into one building. It would be necessary that the House should do this, in order to enable it to judge as to whether it was right or not that the sexes should be separated. Now this appeared to him to be a reason for adjourning this portion of the great, extensive, and important subject to which it related. For his part, he had no hesitation in declaring that if the hon. Gentleman persisted in pressing his instruction it would be extremely repugnant to his (Mr. Wortley's) inclination and feeling to give any vote that would countenance in any degree the principle which that instruction went to condemn; but yet he confessed that, under existing circumstances—[Cheers from the Opposition.] —He knew what that cheer meant. It meant that he was unwilling to face the question which the hon. Gentleman, (Mr. Yorke) was inclined to place before the House, for fear of embarrassing his Friends, the Ministers. Hut that was not his feeling —he intended to take an opportunity of expressing his opinions upon this question fully, clearly, and decidedly. He would not shrink from making known to the Government, or indeed, to any who differed from him, what he thought upon this subject. But for the dignity of the House, he thought it desirable that they should now do one of two things—either proceed at once to the discussion of the entire question—either take the Poor-law Amendment Act in hand, and deal with it as it was intended to do at a future time, or else consent to allow a question like that, raised by the present motion, and which would open the whole question, to remain till the period arrived at which it should appear reasonable to consider the subject at large. When he looked at the instructions, of which notice had been given, he observed that one of them was similar to that proposed by the hon. Member for York; while the second instruction of the two, given notice of by the hon. Member for Rochdale, goes to condemn altogether the prohibitory order of the commissioners He had the same objection to this instruction as he had to that now proposed; for if they allowed these two instructions would they not be obliged also to allow the questions of the bastardy clauses and those in regard to the state of the Unions? Were there not many other points on which hon. Gentlemen would be entitled to offer instructions if the House should agree to the two he had mentioned? In short, they would bare to take the whole question into con- sideration, if they were prepared to discuss propositions like those proposed. But, as he had already said, he thought that the present Government had been placed in power under circumstances in which the right hon. Baronet, the Member for Tamworth, and his colleagues, were justified in asking for an interval of time for the consideration of this question—a question, be t remembered, which the Whig Government of 1833 and 1834 took two years to consider: they were, then surely, justified in asking a delay of two months, in order to investigate well and fully the subject before they came down to Parliament with a bill for the purpose of placing the Poor-law on a satisfactory footing. While he said this, he begged to state that there was one of the instructions on the paper to which he thought his objections did not apply: it was the first instruction, given notice of by the hon. Member for Rochdale and was in the following terms:—

"That it shall not be lawful for the commissioners, from the date of the passing of this bill, to declare the formation of any new Unions in districts which are not already placed under the operation of the Act 4 and 5 William 4th, c. 76."

He thought such a resolution was in itself reasonable and just, independently altogether of the merits of the general question, which, for the next six months, might be considered to be in a state of suspense. For this reason he thought it but fair that those who felt a strong interest in the question should ask, that during the period in which the question was in such a state of suspense, the commissioners should abstain from carrying the act into operation in places where it did not now exist, and it was on this ac count that he could not help feeling that the second instruction was of a totally different nature from any of the others on the paper. He should unquestionably rejoice if either the right hon. Baronet, the Member for Tamworth, or the right hon. Baronet the Member for Dorchester, could give the House and the country some intimation—he did not mean in regard to the other parts of the bill, but some intimation that so long as the question was in a state of uncertainty, the commissioners would not proceed to extend the Unions in those parts of the country in which there were none at the present time. He represented a part of the country deeply interested in this question, and there were places in the district which he had the honour to represent, where the law had never yet been introduced, and he was but doing his duty to those constituents, when he said that they had a right to ask that the question should be left in statu quo until the Government were enabled to propose their views on the subject.

said, that he felt for the embarrassment of the hon. Member who had just sat down, when he recollected the declaration made by him on the hustings at the West Riding of Yorkshire against the Poor-law, and when he saw him now called on, either to take the course proposed by the right hon. Baronet, the Member for Dorchester, or to adopt the amendment proposed by the hon. Member. The course which the hon. Gentleman had proposed, would, he thought, be unbecoming the dignity of the House to adopt. The hon. Member did not wish the leading features of the Poor-law to be discussed—he did not seem to consider the separation of man and wife as a point calling for their interference, but gave his support to the instructions which sought to prevent the commissioners from extending the Unions to places in which they had not, as yet, been introduced. He must own, that since they were not to discuss the great question, as the right hon. Baronet had been forced to announce, after much expostulation, they ought not to make a deviation in regard to a question which it might be convenient for some Gentlemen opposite to discuss. If they were not to discuss this question, in conjunction with the question of the Corn-laws—if Gentlemen opposite, whose miraculous powers had been so loudly proclaimed, had really not advised the Crown, because they had nothing to advise—if that was the case, then he thought that the proposition of the right hon. Baronet, the Member for Dorchester, was not an unfair one on the present occasion. The hon. Member for the West Riding of Yorkshire must attribute his embarrassment to the course pursued by Gentlemen opposite. They had introduced a hill to continue the expiring laws from December next; but it was the commission only that expired. Why had the hon. Gentleman not come forward, and told them the terms on which he meant to continue the commission? He would not move any amendment, because he believed that hon. Gentlemen opposite would be found strong in opposition to the bill. He believed the hon. Member for Knaresborough had declared that a great number of the Gentlemen opposite had come into the House pledged to support those representatives who had gained their seats by declarations against the Poor-law: if that were the case, why had the hon. Gentleman not the manliness to state his views as to the continuance of the commission, and not keep paltering with the House in the way he had done? No man could have been so inattentive to the working of the law, as not to have made up his mind as to whether the central authority over the guardians ought or ought not to be continued. The right hon. Baronet, the Member for Tamworth, had no doubt on this point, for he had declared his opinion during last Parliament, that the commission ought to be continued for five years. Nor could the right hon. Baronet, the Member for Dorchester, have any doubt on this head. He, of all men, was best able to say whether the commission ought or ought not to be continued. If any man could produce off hand a Poor-law bill, he could, for the right hon. Baronet was chairman of the committee which sat on this subject. [Sir James Graham; No, no; not chairman.] At all events, the right hon. Baronet took an active and a laudable part in the proceedings of the committee. He had lately read the speech made on a recent occasion by the noble Lord, the Member for Monmouthshire. That noble Lord said, he felt glad that the right hon. Baronet, the Member for Tamworth, had admitted the noble Lord, the Member for North Lancashire, and the right hon. Baronet, the Member for Dorsetshire, into his cabinet, because they were persons of the highest business-talent, and "it would have grieved him," added the noble Lord, "had the right hon. Baronet, the Member for Tamworth, left them out." Now, this being the case, the business-talent of the right hon. Baronet being admitted, he repeated, that if any one could have introduced a bill for the continuance or alteration of the Poor-law, the right hon. Baronet, from his talents and knowledge of the subject, was the man. As, however, he had not done so, and as the great questions were to be held in abeyance, he could not say that this one should not be of the number, and therefore, if called on, he would vote against the instruction —in order that the sole question might be, whether the Poor-law ought to be continued or not. He saw that many hon. Gentlemen opposite were desirous of speaking, and he anticipated that the hon. Baronet would find the opposition of his own party on this subject to be of rather a formidable nature, for they were even now firing at the right hon. Baronet from behind.

The hon. Gentleman is so much excited on tins subject, that, wishing to calm down his subordinate indignation in the absence of his leader, I beg to acquaint him that it was intimated to me at an early period of the present session that the noble Lord the Member for London, and then the leader of the House of Commons, intended that some Bill should be introduced for the purpose of continuing the Poor-law commission to the end of the next Session. And the measure which is now proposed is exactly in conformity with that which the noble Lord, if he had remained in office, intended to introduce. The noble Lord the Member for the City of London, lately at the head of her Majesty's Government, thought it impossible in the present session to proceed with the consideration of those modifications in the Poor-law, to which it was his intention to call the attention of the House at a future time; and it was his intention to have given notice of a Bill for the purpose of continuing the commission during the interval. That was intimated to me on the part of the late Government; it did appear to me rational to make such a proposition, and I confess I was very much surprised when the hon. Gentleman favoured the House with the display of so much unnecessary indignation.

was at a loss to understand how what had fallen from the hon. Gentleman opposite could dissuade those who were opposed to this measure from giving their opposition to it. It might be a reason if the hon. Gentleman fairly represented the views taken by the hon. Member for Northampton, but it was no ground whatever for calling upon those who had formerly opposed the law, or those who were returned for the express purpose of so doing, not now to press on the present Government this question, on which at all events, the Secretary of Stale for the Home Department, and the Members of the Government, must be prepared to ex- press an opinion, and with the details of which every Member of the House must be acquainted; for the right hon. Baronet could not urge the necessity for access to information peculiarly within reach of the Government as a ground for delay, information on this subject being as open to all as it was to the Government. But his hon. Friend (Mr. V. Smith) did not apply his observations to the Bill to be introduced by the noble Lord. His complaint was, that this was not a Bill to renew the Commission, but a Bill to renew the law—[No, no]—and when the right hon. Baronet concurred with the noble Lord in renewing the commission for five Years, he thought that he ought now to be prepared to bring forward his measure boldly and openly, though he might alienate the support of many hon. Gentlemen, the opponents of the measure, by whom he was brought into office. He apprehended they had a right to call on hon. Gentlemen opposite to tell them how they would deal with this measure, and having opposed the whole Bill, though he had never lent himself to excite the people against it, he would oppose the Government on the question, so long as they would not boldly declare their opinions upon it. He was happy the right hon. Gentleman had said that this was something like the measure to be proposed by the noble Lord (J. Russell), for that would release the hon. Member for Finsbury (Mr. Wakley) from all his new engagements; for it was certain, that if it had been proposed by the noble Lord, the hon. Member would have opposed it, as also would many other hon. Gentlemen opposite. When the address to the Crown was moved, the hon. Member doubted whether it admitted the existence of the distress in the country, and put the question to the right hon. Baronet, who stated that he admitted the prevalence of great distress. Had they then not time between that and winter, when distress was increasing, and when, in consequence, thousands of people were ground to the dust — had they not time to spare from their shooting and hunting and recreations, to inquire at least into the causes of that distress? He spoke not of the great financial question on which it was said time should be afforded, but of that mode of administering relief by which it was supposed by some that distress was greatly increased. Was further information required or not? or had they not to deal with the one or two main principles which the right hon. Baronet (Sir J. Graham) had contested, step by step, with Mr. Walter, the late Member for Nottingham, and beat him on them? When the right hon. Baronet said, that the separation of the sexes was a necessary consequence of assembling a large body of persons in one institution, was he not aware that this assembly was owing to the refusal to grant out-door relief? Anil when they considered that, in order to obtain relief, the poor were obliged to sell any furniture they might possess 10 enter the workhouse, thereby taking from them the means of returning to their homes— when this was considered, and the distressed state of the poor was deplored in that House, but not remedied—when all this was considered, was it too much to call upon the right hon. Baronet to enter upon the consideration of the subject? And would it satisfy the people to know that hon. Gentlemen opposite wanted time to inquire into what they had uniformly opposed out of office, and on which they had excited the people to remedy which, when in office, they had not the courage to undertake the responsibility? [Hear, hear, from Sir R. Peel.] He understood the right hon. Baronet's cheer, but the right hon. Baronet could not accuse him of exciting his constituents on the subject. He had never addressed them on the subject at all. He had been uniformly opposed to the measure, but he had scorned to use it for the purpose of exciting the people. He had scorned to make it the means of his advancement out of the House, and to shrink from the responsibility of opposing it there if it were the means of annoyance to the party with which he was connected. The only excuse that could be made for separating the House at that period of the year was, that it would be convenient for the present to forget the distress of the people.

deprecated the acrimony with which it seemed that this debate was to be carried on. With respect to the question of separation of the sexes in workhouses, he believed he might go beyond the right hon. Member for Dorchester (Sir J. Graham), because, not only in the Gilbert union workhouses, but in every well regulated workhouse throughout the kingdom, the separation of the sexes was carried into effect. For his part, he regretted that the House should be troubled with these instructions. He could not see the propriety of them. They appeared to him to form a bad and ungracious return for the spirit in which her Majesty's Government had brought forward this measure. This bill was to continue the Poor-law Commission till next July, thereby offering a guarantee to the House and the country that the whole of the subject should be fully gone into before that period. He thought, therefore, it was undesirable and premature to enter into this discussion at present, for it did seem to him that the manner in which the Government had brought forward this bill was calculated to give them an increased claim to the confidence of the country. The accession of her Majesty's Government to power was in the mode of it, a full proof of the confidence of the country. He did not believe that any Government had ever succeeded to power carrying with them more of the confidence of the country than the present; he thought that no Government had ever fallen from power more generally distrusted than the late Government; and with respect to the conduct of the Opposition, ho must say that their conduct savoured more of faction than that of any Opposition he had ever heard of, pressing as they did, night after night, upon her Majesty's Government, in order to force them to declare with regard to every one of the great questions of the Corn-law, of the Poor-law, of the distress, and of the finances, what measures they were prepared to advise and adopt, and declaring that it was their bounden duty to proceed to legislation immediately. [No, no.] Why, they had been told in his hearing, not three nights ago, that winter was coming on, and that with regard to the Poor-law it was the bounden duty of her Majesty's Government not to admit of any delay, but to agree to proceed with the discussion of the various points of the measure. It was the hon. Member for Dover, he thought, who had used this argument. But if anything could shake the confidence of the country in her Majesty's present Government, it would be their hastily going into this discussion, and not taking time to give a mature consideration to the whole of the enactments of the Poor-law as well as its practical operation. He agreed that, with respect to this question of the Poor-law, the country was in a very critical state; that the finances were embarrassed, trade depressed, and that we were in many respects in a disastrous position. He believed that the history of the year 1841 would be found to be a complete blank as regarded useful legislation, and that hereafter public attention would come to be forcibly directed to this fact; but to whom would they attribute such an extraordinary result? Not to her Majesty's present Government. No; they would attach the cause of all this to the former Government, who, instead of giving their attention, in the last year of their holding office, to the means of removing the existing distress had preferred to devote themselves to a desperate attempt to keep up their own power. But, however this might be, he would say, that he cared not what was represented out of doors, he should not fail to express the favourable opinion which he entertained with regard to the Poor-law. As to the taunt with which the Opposition had been pleased to attack hon. Members on his side of the House—namely, that they had made use of the Poor-law in addresses to their constituencies—he would say, for himself that he had never held other language to his constituents than that which he had held in his place in the House of Commons. And he had no reason to do so, because he believed that the character and tendency of the Poor-law, were such as to entitle it to the approbation of the country. He went further, and he said, with respect to the commissioners, that without concurring in all they had done—on the contrary, he had sometimes had occasion to remonstrate with them—he thought that, placed in circumstances of great difficulty, as they had been, they most ably discharged their duties, and, he believed, with the very best and purest intentions. With respect to the Gentleman who lately filled the office of first commissioner, and who was related to the right hon. Gentleman in the Chair, he had discharged the duties cast upon him, in a situation of peculiar difficulty, in such a manner as to gain universal approbation. Having said so much, he could not withhold the tribute of his applause from those who had to carry into effect the details of the measure; and he would say, that, as far as the gentry of England had been concerned in working out the measure, they had undertaken and discharged the duties imposed by the law without reference to party or political considerations. The gentry of England had shown in their conduct in this respect a perfect freedom from party feelings. Once more he must beg leave most earnestly to deprecate entering into the discussions it was proposed to create by this and the other instructions to the committee on this bill. In his opinion those were no friends of the Poor-law who represented its merit to consist in having effected a saving of rates. That was not the main object of the bill. Such was not the object of the gentry of England in working out the measure, who in doing so had shown an entire absence of party feeling. He wished that hon. Members should study to acquire this feeling, for it was the proper feeling and the proper spirit in which such a subject ought to be discussed. There was no subject more important— there was no subject more deeply affecting the welfare of the people—there was no subject which the House of Commons ought to approach with more of deliberative calmness. He asked hon. Gentlemen whether they were prepared to deny this? Let the House approach the subject, not then, but next Session, with an anxious desire to remove deficiencies and imperfections, and to increase the material comforts of the people. For himself, he would say that he should be most willing favourably to consider any amendments that might be proposed—any that would make the law more acceptable to the great body of the people—but he did hope that her Majesty's Ministers, anxious as they were, he was sure, to make the law more acceptable to the people, would not in doing so depart from any of its great principles.

said, that he so entirely concurred with what had fallen from the hon. Gentleman in the latter part of his speech, that he should make no further allusion to the former part than to say, that he hoped the next time the hon. Member came down with the intention of addressing to the House his exhortations to lay aside party and political feelings, he would not allow himself to be seduced into every possible irritating subject. In the substance of the hon. Member's admonition he fully agreed, and he hoped that on a question which concerned interests that would last, not for a day or a year, or for the duration of a Ministry, on a question which so much and so deeply affected the permanent interests of the people of Eng- land, the House of Commons would be enabled to go to the discussion without indulging in the exhibition of the lowest i party feelings. He had come down, though not very well able to do so, because he thought it his duty to support her Majesty's Ministers on this occasion. He had voted for the Poor-law Amendment Bill when it first was brought forward; he had voted for it ever since; he had supported it before his constituents; and he was ready to support it now, although he was prepared to consider and support amendments of whatever should be found to be harsh or severe in the operation of the law. He had come down to support her Majesty's Ministers in defence of what he believed to be an honest and a wise law, which he firmly believed was meant to promote the best interests of the people, and which, in his opinion, was the best law that was ever constructed in this country, with the best motives, with a view to support the moral and social welfare of the people. This measure of the Government he regarded as a wise measure. Many hon. Members had said, that there prevailed great distress throughout the country; then he should say, if that were so, let not Parliament proceed to deal with a permanent measure under the influence of that feeling which the sense of such distress must necessarily occasion. In his opinion the Queen's Government had done most wisely in proposing the simple continuance of the measure until there should be sufficient time for careful and deliberate discussion. He said this, not merely because the Ministers of the Crown were only recently appointed to their offices, but because it was most important that Parliament should not legislate without full and careful examination. He therefore put it to the hon. Member for York to say whether under the circumstances, he thought it right to press his instruction. Could he fairly, in such a state of the House and of the country, call upon them to pass a single detail, being part of a measure involving matters of so much delicacy and of such great moment as the provisions of the Poor-law Amendment Act? He hoped that the hon. Member for York would be induced to look at his own proposition in this point of view—that voting for it amounted to voting that the act as it now stood required no other alteration than that which his own instruction went to effect—that, in short, every other part of the measure was unobjectionable. To him it appeared, that if they must take the instruction of the hon. Member for York, they ought to go into the whole of the act from beginning to the end, and then with diligence they might, by continuing their sittings till this time next year, make some approach to a conclusion of the undertaking. He scarcely believed that any one of the clauses would escape; he believed that there would be amendments moved upon every line of every clause. That being so, he took the liberty of suggesting to the hon. Member for York, to allow his amendment to share the same fate as all the other amendments which were to be proposed to the existing law. Before he sat down, he wished to make one remark upon the speech which the House had heard from the hon. Member for the West Riding of Yorkshire. It appeared to him, that that hon. Member was perfectly consistent. He did not mean to defend the consistency of the hon. Member from day to day—he could not do that for any one; but what he meant to say was, that the conduct of the hon. Member was, upon the whole, consistent—that was to say, that the speech which the hon. Member made that night in the House was not inconsistent with the address which he delivered to his constituents in Yorkshire. Doubtless, the speech made in Yorkshire was nothing like so sensible or discreet as that which he had delivered in the House of Commons, He, of course, did not on the hustings tell his constituents that he would support a motion for postponing the consideration of the subject for six months— the hon. Member said nothing of the sort; if he had he might probably not have obtained the support of so many voters as gave him the benefit of their suffrages; and had he made the same sensible speech on the hustings that he did in that House, he possibly never would have been returned to Parliament. The amendment of the hon. Member for Rochdale stood upon a totally different ground from that now under the consideration of the House, and he confessed he did not understand how those who opposed the present law could fail to see the subject in the same light as the hon. Member for the West Riding of Yorkshire. It was impossible for those who opposed the measure to say, that it was equally ob- jectionable all over the kingdom. They might apply to it the most opprobrious epithets; they might say, "Down with the Bastiles;" they might cry out that the law was abominable, that it was diabolical: they might rebel against the tyrannical government of the three devil kings, but with what show of reason could they support a proposition for merely dealing with a part of the subject, and leaving the old system still; to exercise its evil influence over a portion of the country? The hon. Member had spoken: of the status quo; but a status quo could only be said to subsist between equal belligerents, it could not have any existence in a case between a law on the one hand, and those who were agitating against that law on the other. But, whatever he might have to say regarding the conduct of the hon. Member for Yorkshire, he was at least very glad to have the benefit of his assistance in supporting her Majesty's Government upon the present occasion. He did not wish to say anything offensive, but, without meaning the least disrespect to any individual, he must be permitted to observe, that there had been a good deal of humbug on the subject of the Poor-law; there had been a great deal of vague nonsense talked about it, and he would add, there had been a great deal of dishonesty, and what he wished to do was to bring Gentlemen to the test on this subject. He wished to keep the House and the country from being misled by false hopes, and above all, he wished to save the country from being agitated respecting plans which could not be carried out. The question which hon. Members had to put to themselves was this—would they support a measure which the present Government favoured, and which the late Government likewise supported? Did any one in that House hope to be able to show by a majority on such motions as the present, that the Poor-law would be repealed.

thanked the hon. Member who spoke last, for having restored the tone of good humour in which such a debate ought to be carried on, and he sincerely hoped that nothing would induce them to conduct the discussion of this most important question with the feelings of partisans. For his part, he did not think the proposition of the hon. Member for the West Riding of Yorkshire, at all so unreasonable as to the minds of some hon. Members it appeared to be. The Poor-laws had been with him no topic of declamation at the hustings; he had never used them for any purposes of agitation; but the House, he trusted, would recollect, that when the continued existence of the commission was under the consideration of that House, he voted its continuance only for a few years, and he had no hesitation in saying, that when the bill was passing through that House, there was a vast number of Members who had no idea that the measure was to be applied indiscriminately to all parts of the kingdom. The general opinion of the House was, that the Poor-law operated most injuriously in the southern counties, but that many of its evils did not exist in the north. They thought, and as he believed were right in so thinking, that in the north, the wages of labourers were not paid out of the poor-rates, and that the cottage rents were not paid out of them. In the principality they certainly were not defrayed by the rates. He, and those who thought with him, were certainly of opinion that where the evils to which he referred did not exist, the parishes ought not to be formed into unions. That was a view of the subject which influenced his mind at the time, and he could show that the provisions which ought to be founded on it were not in themselves unreasonable. Under all the circumstances he did hope that the hon. Member for York would not press his motion, and it was to be hoped that no hon. Member would suppose that Government made the present proposition from any wish to stave off the evil day. He was sure there was nothing like so much cause of complaint as some people supposed. In the union of which he was ex officio a guardian, they had done all in their power to prevent the separation of aged men and women. They had, he trusted, succeeded in rendering their workhouse what it ought to be, a place of alms and a school for the benefit of all who entered it. He hoped, then, that the whole question would be allowed to stand over till they met after Christmas.

did not regard the present as a factious opposition; but he wished to know whether it were the intention of her Majesty's Government to take those towns out of the operation of the measure which had local acts of their own, and whether it was intended, under the new bill, to comprehend places now under Gilbert's Act. In the latter class, he believed, that relief was now administered to the poor in a manner that gave satisfaction to all parties. Before he gave his vote, he wished to ascertain what the intentions of the Government were.

said, that to every one of the amendments he had originally advocated, he still adhered. He was now, as he had previously been, of opinion, that the administration of the Poor-law ought to be transferred from the commissioners to a responsible. Minister of the Crown, who would always have a seat in that House, and he did not think that such a Minister—still less that the commissioners —should possess the power of legislating: he should limit their authority to the mere execution of the law, for he was unwilling to trust any man with the power of affixing a stigma upon one who had not been convicted of any offence. He well knew that separation could not be avoided in the present state of the unions, and, therefore, he held that out-door relief ought to be granted. He should support neither the one instruction nor the other, but, on the contrary, vote for postponing the whole matter till the entire machinery of the Poor-law could be brought under their consideration.

had recently received two letters from constituents of his in Preston, expressing in the strongest terms the objections which they felt to the re-enactment of the Poor-law. He should not then go into the general question, for he quite agreed with those who thought that it ought to be postponed till the House next met. He wished, however, to say, that he hoped during the approaching recess, no parish not now under the law would be placed within the scope of its provisions. According to one of the letters which he held in his hand, a petition on the subject of the present measure had been forwarded to his hon. colleague, the late Member for Yorkshire, signed by 1,260 of his constituents, every one of whom had appended to his name a statement of his residence and his trade. These petitioners were all out of employment, and were now living upon the bounty of such amongst their neighbours, as were able to give them any support. It surely might be allowed to persons to act on behalf of their own funds, instead of having to look for their administration to the poor, to what he should always consider the uncon- stitutional appointment of commissioners in London. He did not wish to occasion any embarrassment to the Government, and was willing to let the matter rest to the next Session of Parliament, provided discretionary power were given to the boards of guardians in the intermediate lime to try any beneficial measures which might appear desirable to them in their neighbourhoods, for it was from that alone that any proper legislation could come; and that if the discussion of this question was put oft' till next spring, it was to be with the understanding, that any part of the country not yet put under a un on should not be so put, that out-door relief should be enabled to be given, and that all boards of guardians be requested to endeavour to show how improvements may be effected, that that House might come to the discussion of this question with full information before them, free from party feeling, and with the determination to legislate a good law for the country.

said, he should consent to the delay in the settlement of this question which was demanded, and was anxious to state his reasons for so consenting. When they looked at the number of notices of amendments in the law, which had been given from both sides of the House in the last Session of Parliament, very little less than 140, he thought it would be very inexpedient and undesirable to legislate hastily on this subject; and, therefore, he entreated the hon. Member for the city of York not to press his amendment. He was firmly of opinion, that this law might be carried into effect without the central and unconstitutional power of the Poor-law commissioners. He would undertake 10 say, that in any given district of England—let them take Sheffield, if they thought proper, where the commissioners had been more fortunate than in other districts—if they canvassed the opinions of the middle classes of the people of this country, they would find, that the system on which this law was carried out was universally condemned. The working of the system of the New Poor-law was doing serious injury to our social system—it was drying up the sources of private charity and doing more mischief than the House was aware of. But in the present unprepared state of the Government, he thought it most unfair to press on this subject for discussion. He trusted, that in any bill which the right hon. Baronet might bring in on this subject, he would not rely on information which emanated from Somerset-house, but that he would form his opinions from the experience of others, and from other statements. He would suggest to the right hon. Gentleman, that he should make inquiries in the country as to the working of the Poor-law Bill, and that those inquiries should be made by persons wholly independent, uninterested, and without salary, by experienced persons, and men of character and honour. There were several principles in the bill which he thought highly objectionable— the workhouse test, for example. Out of twenty-six unions, there were six or eight with a population of from 50,000 to 100,000 inhabitants, and in each union there were at least from 3,000 to 4,000 paupers, and how was it possible to apply the workhouse test to all these, and fully to carry out this principle? Again, what was the law in one union, was not the law in another. Now, a law to be just and good, ought to be uniform and affect all, and not to be binding on but part of the community. He trusted, that the Secretary of State for the Home Department, before he brought in his bill, would well consider all these points, and that the main principle of his bill would be to abrogate centralization, and to re-establish the system of self-government in the distribution of the parochial funds.

said, he was one of those who had suffered so much from the cry against the Poor-law, which had been get up upon the hustings by hon. Gentlemen opposite, that he should support the motion of the hon. Member for York. He really thought, that hon. Gentlemen opposite had brought this question upon themselves, by their conduct on the hustings. He much deprecated, that hon. Members should use questions of this kind in order to mislead and rouse the passions of their constituencies. If the hon. Member for York felt it necessary to divide the House on this question, he (Mr. Wigney) should vote with him. But he thought there was much good sense in the observations of the right hon. Baronet, the Member for Dorchester, that it was the determination of the Government to take this measure into deliberate consideration, and to weigh well all its difficulties, in order to bring forward a good measure; yet he had been so used on the hustings and elsewhere on this question, that he was unable to act impartially, and felt called upon to support the proposition of the Member for York.

said, as one of those Gentlemen who had been guilty of the heinous crime of having expressed his opinion on the Poor-law, he begged to rise to vindicate his opinion. It was the first time that this language had been used in the House—that on great questions of internal policy Members who appeared before their constituents for the purpose of explaining their opinions should be told they ought to suppress them. Was it only to be allowed to a Whig or a Radical to have an opinion and to express it? Why was it that a Tory alone was not to express his opinion? Why was it lo be allowed to Whigs and Radicals to oppose and abuse the Poor-law if they thought fit, but that a Conservative was to be thought to be only tampering with the feelings of his constituents if he expressed his opinion? This tyranny of opinion was not to be tolerated. The Conservatives had a right to express their opinions; and he would not be deterred by any statements which might be made on the other side of the House from expressing boldly those opinions which he entertained to his constituents. And certainly, for Gentlemen on the Opposition side of the House to talk of "appealing to the passions of the people," as if they so carefully abstained from appealing to their passions, was most inconsistent. The trick of the big loaf and the little loaf was not forgotten, nor yet their habitude of calling the Conservatives tyrants and oppressors. It really came with a bad grace for them to say that those who took the liberty of dissenting from the wisdom and humanity of the Poor-law did so only to inflame the passions of the people. He for one would not submit to such dictation, that a Conservative alone was to be forbidden to express his opinion on that or any other measure. The proposition of the hon. Member for York might be good, but he was not to be driven out of season and out of place to support it. By voting for one or two instructions here or there, they should not do justice to the measure. The question was one of extreme difficulty, and one that required to be looked at as a whole and not in part; and he could conceive nothing more important for the proper consideration of this question than that her Majesty's Ministers should employ the next three or four months in maturely looking into it, and when the whole question was properly reviewed to present the result. And if it did not then appear that the opinion of the Government coincided with that of individual members, that those Members should be at liberty (not with any factious feeling) to come forward and maintain in a straightforward manner their own views. For these reasons he did not feel called on to support the opinions of the hon. Member for York, but concurred most heartily in the policy of her Majesty's Government in referring the measure for due consideration.

deprecated the introduction into the discussion of this question of party and political feelings; and he really felt that nothing had fallen from his side of the House to justify the observations which had been made by the noble Lord. Hon. Members on his side of the House fully admitted the right of openly expressing opinions on this as on other subjects. It was a right they claimed for themselves. He had expressed to his constituents his entire approbation of the whole principle and general tenour of the Poor-law Bill, without, at the same time, agreeing to all its details; and he should, therefore, be the last person to deny to the noble Lord the right of expressing to his constituents his opposition to the measure. But what he and those around him objected to was, that the opposition to the Poor-law Bill had been made use of as an engine of political warfare. That was what they objected to, what they had a right to object to, and what he was sure his noble Friend would not venture to justify. Now, in that part of the country with which he was connected such a course had been pursued, and the best proof of it was, that until the election of 1837 no warmth of feeling whatever had existed upon the subject of the Poor-law in the West Riding of the county of York; while the best proof that the feeling existing at the period of elections was fictitious was to be found in the fact that strong opinions had been expressed in those parts of that riding only where, practically speaking, the due administration of the Poor-law had never come into operation. A petition had been presented to that House last year complaining of the operation of the Poor-law, and the hardship of the workhouse test in the Halifax union. But on examination he found that the workhouse, though large, contained fewer inmates than he had ever known in the parish workhouses, and that the accommodation and food were infinitely better than had ever been afforded under the old system of separate parishes. It was true that the rates had been increased by the building of the workhouse, but as regarded the humanity of the measure no one could assert that the out-door relief was restricted, or that the comforts of the inmates were not materially greater than under the former system. It had been almost universally believed too that the separation of old couples was a general rule; and people were greatly astonished to learn that aged couples were taken into the workhouse without being separated, and that the prohibitory principle had been applied solely and exclusively to the able-bodied. When he found such utter want of information throughout the whole of that district in reference to a measure which the people complained of as inflicting various evils, while of those evils they had had no experience, he thought he might fairly conclude, that the feeling of hostility which had been created and afterwards applied to political purposes, was a fictitious and not a natural feeling. He made no personal allusions whatever, and should cautiously abstain from making any; but it could not be forgotten that the war-cry of one party during the late elections was "No Bastiles." Any man who knew any thing of the West Riding of York could not deny these facts. He entirely concurred in the course which the Government were pursuing upon the subject. He thought they were perfectly right to continue the Poor-law Bill to the end of the nest session of Parliament, although he scarcely thought it advisable to have encouraged discussion upon it at present by the admission of motions, some of which were utterly irrelevant, and which it appeared to him incompetent for hon. Members to make by way of instruction to the committee on a bill of mere continuance. He thought it far better that this bill should merely pass as a continuance bill, and that the discussion of the question, and of those amendments which hon. Members were anxious to effect, should not have taken place until next Session. He could not conclude these few remarks, without expressing a hope that either the right hon. Baronet, the member for Tamworth, or the right hon. Baronet, the Member for Dorchester, would utterly deny any such interpretation as had been put upon the course of the Government by the hon. Member for Finsbury, on a former occasion, and by the hon. Member for Preston that evening; in order that it might might not be supposed that the Poor-law would not be fairly carried out according to its present spirit, between this and the period when it should again be brought under the discussion of that House. The hon. Member for Finsbury intimated that he felt himself justified in supporting the Government in the course they pursued upon this question, because it indicated a shrinking from that support which the right hon. Baronet, the Member for Tam-worth, gave to the measure of last Session. If such an impression as that were allowed to be produced upon the uninformed portion of the community, the effect might be exceedingly injurious; while those who had to administer the law in the interval, might feel that it was, in a great measure, a law which was condemned by the present Government. That was his only reason for requesting an explanation from one of the right hon. Gentlemen opposite. They need not be under any apprehension as to the opinions of hon. Members on that side of the House, who perfectly understood that the Government proposed this bill for the purpose of affording an opportunity in the next Session of Parliament, of fully and freely discussing the whole question. For his part, he was sure that the right hon. Baronet, the Member for Tamworth, would feel it his duty, next Session, to propose the continuance of the commission for at least as long a period as he suggested last Session; and that he would, in accordance with opinions which he had already expressed, maintain the principle and main provisions of the present law, as eminently calculated to improve the condition of the poor of the country. If that were so, it was the more incumbent on the right hon. Baronet not to allow any such additional obstacle as he (Mr. Wood) had referred to, to be thrown in the way of the operation of the law, during the recess, by erroneous inferences, and the unfounded expectations to which those references would give rise.

said he was extremely anxious, if the consideration of the question were to be deferred, and he thought it desirable it should, that a public understanding should be come to regarding out-door relief, which was of so much importance to that part of the country in which he resided. Having had the curiosity to look into the last report of the commissioners, he there found, to his astonishment, that in an account of the expenditure for the maintenance of the poor in the West Riding of Yorkshire, it was stated, that in the years 1835 and 1836 it amounted to 423,811l.; but that for the two last years—years of great and admitted distress, the sum expended was only 421,129l. There must have been a considerable increase of the population within that period; and in 1835–36 wheat was 39s. and 44s. per quarter, while, during the latter two years, in which the relief amounted to the lesser sum, wheat was 68s. and 69s. per quarter. It was further to be considered how many people had been thrown out of employment by the stoppage of mills, as stated by the hon. Member for Dundee. Those unfortunate people had no resources whatever, but from parochial relief. He was extremely anxious that it should be understood, that the law should be relaxed throughout the coming winter, and that out-door relief might be received by them, as under the old system.

said, that as several allusions had been made to him in the course of this debate, he wished to make a few observations upon the subject before the House. In the first place, he would tell the hon. Member for Chester, that he had no more engagements in this House than he ought to have as the representative of-one of the metropolitan constituencies. He had heard, with pain and sorrow, much of the language used to-night on the Poor-law; he had heard it with a sense of pain that it was impossible to describe, because he was satisfied the result would be to produce throughout the public mind the greatest possible dissatisfaction. The new Poor-law had been commended by the hon. Member for Halifax (Mr. C. Wood), the Member for Droitwich (Mr. Pakington), and, indeed, by both sides of the House; it was spoken of in the highest terms of admiration; it was referred to as one of the brightest specimens of legislative wisdom that was ever produced in a civilised country. He only wished, however, that hon. Members who thus spoke of the law felt its effects. He only re- gretted that they themselves were not,. for a short time, the victims of the torture which it inflicted, instead of being the administrators of that which was called the new Poor-law; and he did fear that the present Government was about to commit the mistake of pledging itself to: the principles of this law. He feared that he heard the right hon. Baronet, the Member for Tamworth, cheer when the principles and the effects of the law were commended by the hon. Member for Droitwich; but he had marked peculiarly the deep-seated anxiety which seemed to exist in the minds of hon. Gentlemen opposite, to draw from the executive Government a pledge that it would adhere to the principles of this law. He observed that there was a manifestation of most extreme anxiety to obtain that pledge. Was it done from a kindly feeling? Was it from a generous motive? Was it done for the purpose of aiding the present Administration? He was wholly unconnected—and he thanked God for it!—with party in this House. He came to this House pledged to his constituents to maintain himself perfectly free and unconnected with any individuals who should call themselves or class themselves as parties here. He was therefore free as the air itself to comment on and to notice the new Poor-law. He was free to notice what had been the effects of that law, and for one, representing a large constituency in this metropolis, he did claim for himself the right of exercising his judgment on that law, and in the present Session of Parliament; and he would say, that the executive Government would not act fairly by the law, the public, or the poor of this country, and, above all, in his opinion, in this case they would not act fairly by those who declared they would not offer obstructions in this House to the continuance of the commission, if they did not permit the opponents of the bill, and all in this House, to declare their opinions and point out the objections to the law. He repeated that the public and the poor would not be treated fairly if this were not done. The right hon. Baronet, the Member for Dorchester, said, don't discuss the law now—wait until the next Session of Parliament; in the meantime, the executive Government will apply itself to the subject, investigate all the circumstances of the case, and, on the meeting of Parlament, will be prepared to submit their measures to the House. How many new Members were there in this House? Did not the executive desire to hear the opinions of those new Members? There were nearly 200 new Members in the House; and, he asked, was it fair to those Members, was it fair to the poor themselves, that those parties who had come to the House entertaining hostility to the law should not have the opportunity of stating their objections to it until the measure came down cut and dried from the Home Office, when the executive Government were pledged to the measure. The executive would not yield, after framing and fashioning the measure to the shape in which they thought it should be submitted to the House. They would then be pledged and committed to it; it would be supported by the Government, and it would not be in the power of those in this House who were hostile to it to produce the changes they desired to effect. With regard to the motion of the hon. Member for York, he entreated him not to divide the House upon the subject, because he would see, on reflection, that if he committed a majority of the House to his motion, he would not hereafter be able to induce them to relax. He was satisfied it would be damaging the cause which hon. Gentlemen were so desirous to advance. He was convinced they could not do more injury than would be caused by a premature discussion on the subject; and he now asked the right hon. Baronet, the Member for Dorchester, when he would give the House an opportunity for discussing the provisions of the bill? If he had no other opportunity, he would take it on the motion for the third reading. He did declare, that he thought it would be the grossest injustice to the poor if that opportunity were not given, and that the sentiments of this House ought to be expressed as to the question of out-door relief in the coming winter. It was a subject of great importance, and he was sorry to observe the light manner in which such a serious question had been treated in the present discussion. He predicted that if the present Administration should support the principles of that bill, and bring in a measure for continuing the commission, and for maintaining all the obnoxious provisions that bill contained, it was the last time that the right hon. Baronet would command a majority of that House.

, on the question for going into Committee on the Expiring Laws Bill, moved: the following instruction which was agreed; to, viz.—

"And whereas, by an act passed in the seventh year of the reign of his late Majesty, intituled,' An Act for the Commutation of Tithes in England and Wales it was among others enacted That no commissioner or assistant commissioner, secretary, assistant secretary, or other officer or person appointed under the said act, should hold his office for a longer period than five years next after the day of the passing of the said act, and thenceforth until the end of the then next Session of Parliament; and that after the expiration of the said period of five years, and of the then next Session of Parliament, so much of the said act as authorises any such appointment should cease:' and whereas it is expedient that the said commission should be further continued, be it enacted, that so much of the last recited act as is hereinbefore recited shall be repealed, and that no commissioner, or assistant commissioner, secretary, assistant secretary, or other officer or person so to be appointed, shall hold his office for a longer period than until the thirty-first day of July, one thousand eight hundred and forty-two ¿ and after the said 31st day of July so much of the last recited Act as authorises any such appointment shall cease."