brought up the report of the committee appointed to try the return for Great Marlow, stating, that they had come to a resolution that, in their opinion, Richard Gibbons was wilfully guilty of giving false evidence before them, and that he was committed to the custody of the Sergeant-at-Arms, under an order of the chairman, to wait the pleasure of the House. The hon. Baronet then moved that Richard Gibbons be committed to Newgate until the House should make further orders.—Agreed to.

rose to move, pursuant to notice, that the correspondence respecting the resignation of Lord Corehouse, formerly a judge in the supreme court of Scotland, and now retired on a pension for life, as the same was circulated by the said Lord Corehouse and the late Lord Advocate for Scotland, and was by them sent to many Members of both Houses of Parliament, be laid on the Table of this House. He could not imagine that any objection could be urged to the motion. He had got the papers in his hand at that moment, so that there could exist no difficulty in obtaining copies of them. They could not be considered private, for they had been circulated to a considerable extent amongst public men, and six Scotch judges, six peers of Parliament, besides many Members of the late and present Government, were referred to in the correspondence. If there were any portions of the correspondence which it might be considered desirable to omit, he would not object to it; but he was desirous of using some parts of the papers in support of a motion which he intended to bring on on the 19th instant. He concluded by moving for the papers.

said, that the hon. Gentleman had stated no parliamentary ground for his motion. The correspondence in question, although it had been circulated amongst a few persons who were referred to in it, was still of a private character. The hon Member, in obtaining a copy of the correspondence, had been more fortunate than he had been; for some time he had made the strictest inquiries for a copy in London, but did not succeed in obtaining it. If the hon. Member required to refer to the correspondence, when he should bring forward the motion to which he referred he could use the copy he had for the purpose.

said, he did not need to be told by the right hon. Baronet that he could make use of the copy of the correspondence which he had in his possession. He certainly could do so. As the motion was opposed, he would, to save the time of the House, withdraw it.

wished to know whether a report, which he had heard, was true, namely, that the Government was about to impose a duty of 150 per cent, on foreign salmon?

said, that the hon. Member possessed an advantage over him, for he had not heard the report to which reference was made; but he could set the hon. Gentleman's mind at rest by declaring that the report was altogether without foundation.

said, that the right hon. Baronet had stated last night that the amount of Sycee silver received from the Chinese amounted to 340.000l., but that was more than the whole miscellaneous revenue, according to the last returns. He wished to know whether the right hon. Baronet would lay upon the Table of the House an account of the whole of the ransom paid by the Chinese converted into British money.

said, he could promise the hon. Member, that as soon as the Sycee silver should be coined into British money, he would let him know what it amounted to. He would take this opportunity of stating that the exact value of the Sycee silver, for which credit was taken under the head of miscellaneous revenue, was 302,000l. There was an additional quantity of the silver, for which credit would be taken in the public accounts as soon as it should be coined.

expressed a wish that no part of the money should be applied until he had an opportunity of bringing forward a motion of which he had given notice.

informed the hon. Member that the money must be distributed as prize money, under the authority of an Order in Council.

asked, whether instructions bad been sent out to China by the Admiralty for the adjudication of prizes?

said, that proper instructions had been sent out, and courts appointed, one of which was at Singapore.

rose to move—

" That the practice of this House, which precludes the presentation of petitions upon the subject of any tax or duty under its consideration, be discontinued."

The hon. Member said, that up to the time when the right hon. Baronet (Sir R. Peel) made his financial statement, few individuals in that House, and much fewer out of it, were aware that it had ever been the practice of the House to refuse to receive petitions pending the progress of a bill imposing a heavy tax upon the people. But the public were more surprised when they found the Members of the reformed Parliament attempting to shelter themselves under an inconsistent and almost obsolete practice, by refusing to hear petitions which were presented to it by those very individuals who had placed them in the position which they Occupied. He was prepared to maintain and to insist upon the right of the people to address that House upon any subject which they might think proper. He contended that the people had as indubitable a right to address the House by petition upon the subject of taxation, as upon any other measure of general legislation relating to the rights, the liberty, or the property of the subject. He took his stand upon those broad grounds, and he was not prepared to compromise the principle in the slightest degree. It would be necessary to trace the origin of the practice in question, the source whence it sprung, the manner in which it had been enforced, and the instances in which it had been departed from. The House would observe that there was no standing order or rule whatever for the course which they were then pursuing in rejecting the petitions of the people; and he thought, When it was shown how the practice originated, neither the House nor the people could be otherwise than surprised at the slender grounds on which they presumed to reject the petitions of those who had placed them there to protect their property and their interests. It appeared from Hatsell's precedents, which he trusted the House would consider no mean authority, that this practice originated very shortly after the Revolution of 1688. The first time the right of petitioning appeared to have been questioned was in 1689. On the 15th of April of that year, a petition was presented from Protestant Ministers, praying for relief out of a particular revenue. A debate took place on the subject, and the House resolved that it was irregular and disagreeable to the House to prescribe how relief should be given, and the petition was then withdrawn. In 1796 a resolution was passed in a committee of Ways and Means for imposing a tax of 10 per cent, ad valorem on articles of woollen manufacture. A cloud of petitions was presented against it, and although the resolution was carried in the committee of Ways and Means, the bill was dropped in fact, the bill was never presented at all. It appeared, then, that in 1698, the House having felt the inconvenience of admitting petitions that had been presented in a preceding Session, peremptorily refused to receive those petitions on a tax then depending upon coal and culm. On the 20th of April in that year a petition was presented against the proposed tax, and was rejected by a majority of 112 to 99. It was clear, then, that up to that period the House was in the habit of refusing to receive petitions directed against any pending tax; but in 1704 the House departed from that practice. On the 14th of February of that year a petition was presented from various merchants and traders against a duty on calicoes, and the petitioners asked to be heard against the tax by counsel. This was refused, but the petition itself was ordered to lie on the Table till the second reading of the bill. On the 21st of May, 1711, it was proposed to raise 1,500,000l. by a duty on vellum, parchment, and cards; a petition against the duty was presented by merchants trading in Genoa paper, by stationers and haberdashers. That petition was not only received, but was ordered to be referred for consideration to a committee of the whole House on the bill. In 1732 the question was again raised. The agent of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations in that year presented a petition against the Sugar Colony Bill; the same objection was taken to the petition as in 1698; and a Mr. Winning-ton, who appeared to be then a great au- thority on the Ministerial side of the House, said the practice of receiving such a petition had never been allowed except on extraordinary occasions, as it had been found inconvenient that the time of the House should be occupied in discussing frivolous petitions. That objection could not apply at present. In those days petitions could be discussed, and sometimes one petition would occupy a whole evening, consequently nothing could be easier than to defeat a tax by petitions of that description. The petition was rejected by 140 to 112. In the year 1733 a petition was presented from the city of London, against an excise bill then pending. Sir John Barnard moved that the petition be not only laid upon the Table, but that the petitioners should be heard by counsel at the bar. Another long debate arose. Precedents were quoted on both sides. Sir John Barnard, S. Sandys, Gibbon, Bootle, Pultney, Esqrs; Sir William Windham; Watte Plummer, G. Heathcote, and Thos. Wyndham, Esqrs., spoke in favour of the rights of the petitioners; against the petitioners' rights were the Chancellor of the Exchequer (Sir Robert Walpole), Horace Walpole, Mr. Winnington, the Attorney and Solicitor Generals, Sir W. Younge, and Mr. Pelham. The arguments that they used against this right were the arguments used the preceding Session by Mr. Winnington—the fear of multitudes of petitions, which, debated separately, would impede the public business; and as to hearing counsel, that would be still more inconvenient against a tax. It ended by the petition being allowed to remain on the Table until the second reading of the bill, but counsel were refused by 214 to 197. On the following day more petitions against the bill came in from Nottingham and Coventry, which were ordered to lie on the Table, and the bill was subsequently dropped. Now this custom of not receiving petitions had certainly obtained ever since that period, with a few isolated exceptions in cases when the petitions had slipped in without the observation of the House. The question had never afterwards been discussed until the month of May, 1815. On the 1st of May in that year, a petition was presented against the then pending Property-tax Bill. That petition was certainly rejected; but it was rejected not only on the ground of its relating to a tax then pending, but also because it was supposed to be disrespectful and libellous in some of its allegations. Sir W. Curtis presented that petition; it was rejected by 107 votes to fifty-nine. The House would observe, however, that up to the present time there had been no rule laid down upon the subject, and it had always been left to the discretion of the House to receive or reject such petitions. From the year 1815 he would pass to what had occurred the other day. On the 22nd of last month he found that there had been offered to the House a petition from the parish of St. Clement's, Eastcheap; and also a petition from Royston against the proposed duty upon income. Upon that occasion the Speaker stated that it appeared by the proceedings of the committee of Ways and Means, published in the votes and proceedings of the House, that a tax upon income had been proposed as part of the Ways and Means for raising the supply granted to her Majesty for the service of the year, and that, according to the established rules of the House, no petition against a tax under consideration, for the service of the year, could be received by the House. The petitions were accordingly rejected. The right hon. Baronet demanded this tax not merely for the service of the current year, but for three, four, or perhaps five, years to come. But he would not ground his motion on a quibble like that; he would take his stand on the broad ground of the people's rights. What was the case in the present instance? On the 11th of March last the right hon. Baronet laid his budget before the House. By that budget he proposed to take four millions of money out of the pockets of the people; and on the Friday following, no sooner had the House got into a committee of Ways and Means on that budget, than the doors of the House were closed against the petitions of the people. Such a course was most unjust. It was no doubt a convenient way for an unpopular Ministry, but it was a practice not to be maintained without gross injustice. He did not know that there was any occasion for him to occupy more of the attention of the House. He would, therefore, not say more than ask the House to adopt the resolution now in the Speaker's hands. He would ask the House to do justice to the people, and would move in conclusion, the resolution which he had read at the commencement of his speech.

said, he was aware of the disadvantages under which any Member presented himself, who attempted to offer obstructions to the petitions of the people, and certainly no rule adopted for the mere convenience of the House ought to stand in the way of the most valuable of all the rights of the people. But those who had attended to the hon. Member for Finsbury, must have seen, that the practice now objected to was one that had existed from a very early period. Immediately after the Revolution, a great increase took place in the number of petitions presented, and it was soon discovered, that a very great inconvenience arose from receiving petitions against the money bills for the current year; and after a few years, the evil was found to be so growing, that the House, in 1693, came to a resolution that no petition should be received against a money bill under the consideration of the House, and intended for the service of the current year. All parties had since admitted, that this restriction was a salutary one; and he thought the House also had been extremely jealous in preventing such restrictions on the presentation of petitions going beyond that line which was originally drawn in 1693. There had been apparent deviations from that rule. Those deviations arose from doubts entertained by the House as to whether the bills under discussion, and which had been petitioned against were, properly, money bills, or rather only bills for the regulation of trade. If the hon. Member would look to the discussion in 1733, he would see that upon that occasion, when an Excise Bill was introduced by Sir R. Walpole for regulating the duties on tobacco, the point considered was, whether it were a money bill, or one merely for the regulation of trade. The precedents previous to that time were ordered to be read during the discussion upon the bill, when it was shown that in all cases of petitions against money bills before the House, the House had considered it its duty to refuse to receive them. The reason of the rule was a very plain one. If the House of Commons found it necessary, in order to raise a supply in committee of Ways and Means, to have recourse to the disagreeable alternative of imposing fresh taxes, there could be no doubt that the imposition of a fresh tax would be felt as a burden and a grievance by every class of the community, immediately affected by the tax. The House did not require to be informed by petitions that the people felt the imposition of those taxes to be a grievance. It was for the House to judge whether, after having voted large supplies to the Crown, and seeing no other mode of raising those supplies but by the imposition of fresh taxes, they were to desist from the course of proceeding which they had adopted, merely because it was felt by some individuals to be a grievance. After the rule had been completely established in the year 1733, an attempt was made at deviation from it, for, he believed, that in 1783, when an additional duty was sought to be laid on receipt stamps, the City of London presented a petition against the bill, and the petition was received under these circumstances. It was the privilege of the City of London to present petitions to that House by their sheriffs, who, for that purpose, came to the bar of the House. No Member stated the sub stance of those petitions, the petition was merely laid upon the Table, and read by the clerk, and consequently no question could arise as to whether the petition should be received, until it had been read by the clerk at the Table, for until then the House could not be cognizant of the contents of the petition. When, however, that petition had been read, an objection was immediately taken to it, and it was declared that it should not be received as a precedent for a departure from the rules of the House. Mr. Fox, on that occasion, than whom no man, in the then, or in the present House of Commons could be more jealous of the rights of the people, had said, that although he had considered the subject of petitioning the House of Commons to be an invaluable right of Englishmen, yet if they permitted every man to petition against every new tax, it would be impossible for the House to go on with the business. Mr. Fox even went still further, and said, that the more universally a tax should be petitioned against, the greater argument, in his mind, did that constitute in its favour; because it proved that the tax acted impartially,— that it was an equal tax, pressing equally upon all classes. This practice could not be attended by any inconvenience, because, if a tax were proposed, those who were affected by it had an ample opportunity of making their representatives aware of their feelings on the subject. He did not complain of the course which hon Members opposite adopted before the recess for the purpose of delaying the progress of the resolutions. They had taken that opportunity of the recess to ascertain the sentiments of their constituents; and, therefore, whenever they should come to a division on the subject, every Member would be as well prepared to state the sentiments of his constituents, as if they had had an opportunity of presenting forty or fifty petitions on the subject. No practical inconvenience could arise from a perseverance in this rule. The imposition of a new tax must be felt as a burden by all those who were affected by it and he would put it to the ingenuity of the hon. Member for Finsbury to suggest a new tax that would not increase the burden of some class or other of traders. But if they refused to relax the rule when a tax affecting only a class was concerned, how much more imperative was it upon them to enforce the rule in the case of a tax affecting all classes. It was for these reasons—because he heard no argument from the hon. Member for Finsbury, showing, that inconvenience had resulted from the rule—because it had been adopted by the House of Commons for 150 years, and had been found by all parties a very expedient rule—because it had not been rashly adopted by them, because it was likely to secure the rights and privileges of the subject and of the country; it was for all those reasons that he opposed the motion of the hon. Member, however easy it might be to introduce topics of popular declamation with regard to the rights of petition, it would, in his opinion, be very inconvenient to receive petitions on those occasions alluded to by the hon. Member, and would be very detrimental to the public service.

said, that anxious as the honourable Baronet had expressed himself to protect the right of the people to approach that House with their petitions, the hon. Baronet's speech seemed not the less to be directed against the right of petitioning generally. The people, the hon. Baronet said, had representatives to make their feelings known; but if that argument were to hold good, it was an argument against all petitions, and against their beginning business at four o'clock. If the hon. Baronet was right, they, the Members of the House of Commons, need not in future give themselves the trouble of coming down to the House before five o'clock. In proportion as a tax was felt to be more oppressive, more general in its character, was the right of petitioning to be limited? Why, what were the people to petition against, but what they felt to be a grievance. The hon. Baronet cautioned them against the practice of declamation on the right of petition. Now, he would ask any hon. Member whether he had ever heard the right of petition spoken of in more declamatory language, whether he had ever heard the peculiar, sacred, inalienable, hereditary privilege of the people more lightly spoken of than it had just now been by the right hon. Baronet. The only difference between the declamation of the right hon. Baronet, and that which he censured on the other side, being that the declaration of the right hon. Baronet was a prelude to an attack upon it, instead of an introduction to its support. He could conceive only two reasons that ought to lead this House to refuse to receive a petition. The first was, if the petition was worded in indecent or unbecoming language; and the other ground on which the refusal of a petition could be justified was, if the petition asked the House to do what it was not in its province to do. For instance, if a petition were presented, praying the House to interfere to stop an action of ejectment, the House might very well decline to receive a petition, praying the House to interfere with the jurisdiction of the courts of law. But was that the case now? What was the essential province of the House of Commons? When the Sovereign, at the commencement of a new Session, addressed Parliament from the Throne, on all matters of domestic or foreign policy, the Sovereign addressed both Houses of Parliament, but as soon as the question of taxation arrived, the style of the Royal Speech was immediately changed, and the Sovereign addressed herself only to the Gentlemen of the House of Commons. And what was the consequence of the rule on the present occasion? Why, the people, shut out from the House of Commons, were flocking with their petitions to the House of Lords! To the House of Lords, that might indeed reject, but could not amend the bill. Thus was the House of Commons interdicted from the exercise of its proper functions; and for what purpose? Under the ancient system, when discussions were liable to arise on the presentation of every petition, so that no Member could know when the public business was likely to come on, there might be some plausible grounds for the maintenance of such a rule; but under the altered practice—a practice of which he heartily approved, for it was a great and wholesome change, in favour of which he had felt much pleasure in recording his vote—under this altered practice, he would say, what advantage could there be in still retaining this rule But if the them hon. Baronet's respect for old precedents were so great, why did he not vote with those who had proposed to restore the old practice of debating on petitions. He looked upon the old practice as a very bad practice, and he felt convinced that if it had not been reformed, it would not have been possible for the people to obtain a fair opportunity to lay their petitions on the Table of the House. But now, when the presentation of petitions occupied no more time than was necessary to enable a Member to state their sub stance and carry them to the Table, no business could be obstructed by their presentation. Why, that very evening, while the Members were waiting in silence for the commencement of public business, a hundred petitions against the Income-tax might with ease have been presented. He had a number of petitions himself from Scotland against the Income-tax, and could have presented them all in the course of one minute. What was the consequence of their closing the doors against those petitions? Why, their constituents met, and passed strong resolutions against the proposed tax, and then called upon their representatives to state those resolutions to the House in one way or other. Instead of presenting the petitions of the people in a regular manner, hon. Members would be obliged to wait until the debate on the Income-tax came, and then they would have to rise and read those petitions and resolutions as parts of their speeches. He would do so for one. They could not be prevented from doing so, and it was the only alternative left them, when debarred from constitutionally placing the remonstrances of their constituents before the House. He had never voted with a more clear conviction of the justice of a vote than he should do this evening in voting with the hon. Member for Finsbury. The country was highly indebted to the hon. Member for Finsbury for bringing this motion forward. Whether the motion were carried or not, still the people would be indebted to the hon. Member; for if the motion were carried, the people would gain a valuable privilege; and if the motion were lost, the people would receive a no less useful warning.

would vote with the hon. Member for Finsbury, if he thought the success of this motion could be attended with the least benefit to the people; but no such benefit could accrue to them He was surprised to find the Radicals support this motion. An hon. Friend of his, opposite, intended to propose a new reform bill. He would ask how many of the new constituency to be created by that bill would be affected by the Income-tax. The question was one in which those who were not directly represented in that House could have no interest whatever, as the tax would not affect them.

said, he should consider himself guilty of a gross dereliction of duty were he to take any other course than to meet this motion with a direct negative, and he hoped the House would support him in so doing, The rule was one established immediately after the Revolution, and it had been adhered to ever since. The question whether the House should receive petitions against money bills intended for the supply of the current year, was a question that had been discussed again and again, and that at a time when there were men in the House as keenly alive, as any that had succeeded them, to the maintenance of popular rights. The resolution to which they had always come was, to maintain so salutary a rule, and if the right hon. Gentleman now displayed so much zeal for the rescinding of that rule, it was certainly surprising that the right hon. Gentleman's zeal should never have been awakened while he was still in office. In 1840, the Chancellor of the Exchequer deemed it necessary to the supplies of the year to propose an addition of 10 per cent, to the existing taxes. Why did the right hon. Gentleman not then extend to the people the right for which he was now contending. [Mr.Macaulay: I never till lately heard of the rule.] The right hon. Gentleman never before heard of the existence of this rule! It is rather unfortunate for the public that he should not have obtained this knowledge till he was out of office. In 1840 the Chancellor of the Exchequer called upon the House, on considerations of public duty, to make an addition of 5 per cent, to all revenues of excise and customs, and 10 percent, on assessed taxes. If all those who had been affected by the proposed measure had attempted to obstruct its progress by the presentation of petitions, would not the Chancellor of the Exchequer have referred to this rule of 150 years standing? He felt convinced that he would have done so, nor would the Secretary-at-War have abandoned his colleague on such an occasion. At several periods this question had been raised. On the 29th of January, 1760, the maltsters of Ipswich petitioned against a bill then before the House for the imposition of a duty on malt, and when the question was put, that the petition be brought up, the question was negatived nemine contradicente, all parties being agreed that the rule was one that ought to be maintained. In 1783, when party spirit ran very high, a petition was presented against a bill then under consideration for the imposition of stamp duties on notes and receipts. The petition was presented, but on the question that it be brought up, the question was again negatived. In 1795, when the contest was going on between Mr. Pitt and Mr. Fox, and never had public feeling been more strongly excited than it was at that time; — well, on the 4th of March, 1795, when the strongest arguments had been used against the injustice of the war, this question again arose, in consequence of the presentation of a petition from certain dealers in wine, who prayed that the duty about to be imposed on wines might not be imposed upon the stock on hand. When the question was put, that the petition be brought up, it was again negatived, and negatived nemine contradicente. At a time when the popular party was led by such men as Mr. Fox and Lord Grey, these usages were adhered to and maintained. Neither by their votes, nor by their speeches, had those men attempted to obstruct the rule, and was it now too much to ask that the House of Commons would still adhere to a principle adopted immediately after the Revolution, and adhered to ever since. He would make no compromise on the subject. Even though he were assured that the greater number of petitions would be in favour of the Income-tax, he would still ask the House to adhere to the constitutional usage, and he could not help thinking that the greater number of the Members of the late Government would support him in his view of the case. The maintenance of the rules of Parliament formed an essential part of the security for the preservation of public freedom. The rights of the people did not depend merely on acts of Parliament, but also on the construction put upon established rules and usages. With respect to the rule under consideration, it was a sense of public convenience that had induced the House of Commons to adopt it, and a sense of public convenience had led the House of Commons to adhere to it. He felt confident he should be supported by a large majority in his determination to resist the attempt to break through this rule, but even if he stood alone he should feel that he was discharging a public duty in saying "no" to this motion.

said, the question was, one which ought not to have been converted into a party one, and therefore he regretted the more the warmth of language in which the right hon. Baronet had indulged. The right hon. Baronet had addressed an unworthy taunt against the Members of the late Government. The right hon. Baronet professed surprise at this new-born zeal for popular rights, and asked why his right hon. Friend (Mr. Macaulay), when he was a Member of the late Administration, and when the late Chancellor of the Exchequer proposed an increase of the duties of Customs and Excise—why his right hon. Friend had not then moved to have this rule rescinded? But could the right hon. Baronet show, that at that time any Member of the House tendered a petition against those taxes? or could he show that any such petition had been rejected by the House? If so, the taunt would have been just. But no such petition had he heard of during the late Government, though he had witnessed many in the course of the present Session. The Members of that House were sent there to watch over the interests of the nation; and if a tax was proposed, necessarily affecting those interests, were hon. Members to be bound by the practice of their ancestors, to reject all petitions against it, especially in a case in which, as his right hon. Friend had shown to demonstration, and whose arguments he had not heard answered from the other side, the reason which had influenced their ancestors was a reason that had utterly ceased to exist. At the time when the rule was made, a petition might be debated day after day, and the reception of it followed by a motion, that counsel might be heard at the Bar of the House against a tax that was proposed to be laid on. He could conceive, that such a course might be made the instrument of procrastination and delay, where a tax was absolutely required for the exigency of the current year, so powerful in the hands of a minority, as to form a sufficient ground for prevent- ing the reception of such petitions. But that argument did not apply in the present day. The inalienable right of the people to petition had been spoken of, and he greatly regretted to hear it that night praised in terms, while it was attacked in spirit. Precedents had been brought forward against the present proposition, but his right hon. Friend had shown, that by blindly following precedent, they would be adhering to a practice likely to produce a greater degree of public inconvenience than that which had induced their ancestors to restrict the right of the people to petition. Great complaints had been made of the motions for adjournment, and he alluded to this the more strongly, because in the motions before the recess, for the adjournment of debates on the Income-tax, he had voted with the right hon. Baronet; but if the right of the people to petition was to be restricted, and if constituencies were to be debarred from making their feelings known to that House through petitions, it would be necessary for hon. Members to protract debates to an indefinite length of time. [Cheers.] Let hon. Gentlemen hear the conclusion of his sentence before they cheered. It might be necessary to protract debates, not with the view which he utterly disclaimed of mere delay and procrastination, but simply because the only other legitimate avenue to that House had been shut against the people by an adherence to a practice which, however wise and necessary it might have been in its origin, was at the present time unwise, because unnecessary, and because it led to the greatest possible practical inconvenience to that House and to the country, by subjecting the House to repeated and protracted debates and successive motions for adjournment—a course which it was clear it was not to the interest of the country and the advancement of public business should be persisted in. In all sincerity, notwithstanding the cheers of the right hon. Baronet, he did deprecate such a course as he had described; he did deprecate these lengthy debates. He saw, from the adherence to the present practice, that consequences must arise which he deprecated and disliked. Not having heard the slightest reason advanced for the continuance of the practice, which appeared solely to rest upon precedents quoted in its favour, he should most cordially and cheerfully give his support to the motion of his hon. Friend.

begged to remind the right hon, Baronet at the head of the Government that it was he himself, who had rendered the course of moving adjournments upon the Income-tax before Easter necessary and unavoidable by the course which he had adopted, of placing the House in a position that it could not receive petitions upon the question. He (Mr. Buller) had asked the Speaker if the rule against the receipt of petitions was absolute, and upon learning that it was, he had put it to the right hon. Baronet whether he would not postpone his motion for a committee of Ways and Means, that the country might have more than a week to express its opinion. The answer of the right hon. Gentleman was remarkable for its explicitness and brevity. The right hon. Baronet declined consenting to any delay, and he brought forward his resolution. In 1816, when the Opposition wanted to get a tax taken off, when there was a motion for its renewal— the objection was taken, that after the resolution for renewing it was once before the House no petition could be received. The Opposition of that day, however, insisted, and that great constitutional minister, Lord Castlereagh, showed that respect to the popular rights which ought to be imitated by the present Government, and he had the goodness to allow the question to be put off, and the consequence was that public feeling was expressed so strongly in petitions that the obnoxious tax was removed. On the present occasion a tax had been proposed, of which the public had been forewarned by no debate. The country had been completely taken by surprise. One week had been given to the people for consideration, and now the Government availed themselves of the rules of the House to prevent the voice of the country from being heard within its walls. He agreed with the right hon. Baronet in the general rule he had laid down, that hon. Members, when on one side of the House, should do that which they would do when on the other. It was a rule applicable to more questions than the present. It seemed, however, to him, that it was a contrast by no means discreditable to the late Government, to find that for the eleven years they had held office there had been no occasion for the people to petition against the imposition of any new tax. [Dissent from the Treasury benches.] He begged pardon. The occasion had arisen once, on the imposition of a per centage on the taxes; and then so little objection was felt to the tax. that no one petitioned against it. The only argument in favour of the expediency of the present rule was that which had been advanced by the hon. Baronet the Member for Stamford, which, as far as he understood it, amounted to this, that the people ought not to be allowed to petition upon a subject upon which they felt so acutely as in this, because they would probably petition too much. The rule was an absurd one; it might have done very well in the olden time when the voice of the people was not heard in that House, but it was unbecoming a Reformed Parliament, and unbecoming them as representatives of the people. It was a rule which could only be upheld for the purpose of preventing the people being heard in the most peaceful, legal, and constitutional manner.

asked if they were not representatives of the people, and whether they were not component parts of the people? He thought the right hon. Baronet had never been heard to such disadvantage as in his speech of that night, for he had only referred to old usages and precedents. He claimed for the free constituencies of Scotland their undoubted right of petition; and he could tell those hon. Members who opposed his motion of the other night, that they were encroaching upon the privileges of the people. Members ought to have a right to state their opinions on the presentation of petitions. The right hon. Baronet was quite right in strictly adhering to the rule of the House which they were now debating, for if he had not, he would not have passed his Income-tax. The Table would have been loaded with petitions against it. They would have accumulated upon every return of post, and no minister would have been able to carry such a proposal, whatever might be his majority. He intended to renew his former motion next year.

said, this was a matter which materially affected his constituents, and he wished to say a very few words. He should always be jealous of limiting the right of the people to petition. He could not say he had much respect for the Parliaments of William 3rd., for they were bribed, rotten, and corrupt. He should give his vote for the motion of the hon. Member, honestly and fearlessly, be- cause, in so doing, he thought he should best discharge the duty he owed to the people who had sent him there as their representative.

said his constituents were nearly unanimous against the Income-tax, while they admitted there were advantages likely to arise from the other part of the financial scheme. The right hon. Baronet had made a very weak speech, and it was because he had not the semblance of a case. Was the right of petitioning a valuable and constitutional right or not? Hon. Gentlemen who voted against the motion of his hon. Colleague ought in honesty to follow it up by a motion that the right of petitioning was useless and ought to be discontinued; because, if the privilege was ever useful at all, it was when the question before the House was to take money from the pockets of the people. The right hon. Baronet had observed the strictest secrecy with regard to his plan, and having done so he ought now to give the people an opportunity of expressing their sentiments. The right hon. Gentleman's proposal affected every class, and yet but six or seven days were allowed to consider it, and no sooner was the resolution submitted than the doors of the House were closed against petitions. Nothing could be more unfair and unconstitutional. He trusted the right hon. Baronet would be in a minority, though he could not hope he would go out of the House alone.

rose to move the amendment of which he had given notice. Previous to the year 1823, it had been the practice of Parliament for several centuries to pass measures to regulate the price of labour in the same way as it had passed measures to regulate the price of food. But in the year J 823, the last vestige of its legislation for the regulation of the price of labour disappeared in the repeal of the Spitalfields Weavers Act. Previously to that period, and subsequent also to the passing of the Corn-laws, the labouring classes of the community had petitioned Parliament again and again, praying it to adopt some, measure for the regulation of the prices of labour. In 1828 Mr. Alderman Waithman presented a petition from the weavers of ' Norwich, and founded a resolution upon it, praying the House to fix a minimum rate of wages. The worthy alderman's resolution was rejected as utterly inconsistent with sound principle. Yet in that very year the House passed the present Corn-law. In 1835 Mr. Maxwell brought forward a motion' for the regulation of wages. That motion was, treated in the most supercilious manner; the House declaring, that it was quite impossible to accede to such a proposition. Again, in 1837, the hon. Member for Oldham brought forward a similar motion, which met with the same fate as that of Mr. Maxwell. In 1809 a committee of the House, to whom a petition from the journey men cotton printers was referred, declared in their report that they were unanimously of opinion that the proposition stated in the petition, relative to the fixing a minimum for the price of labour in factories, was wholly inadmissible in principle, and incapable of being reduced into practice by any means that could be devised, and, if practicable, would be productive of most fatal consequences. These instances were sufficient to show the way in which the House had treated the repeated application of the labouring classes for protection in the price of their labour during a period that it had steadfastly adhered to a system which gave to another class of the community an absolute monopoly in the supply, and, as a necessary consequence, an absolute control over the price of food. He might probably be met by some vague declaration that Parliament, in legislating upon the article of food, did, in fact, in an indirect manner, regulate the price of labour, because, if the price of corn rose, the price of labour would rise in the same proportion. This fallacy had been too often exposed to need a word of comment now. When the Corn-laws were passed it was never stated that one of the objects of them was to regulate the price of labour; and if such an object had ever been contemplated, subsequent experience proved, that it had never been realised. He had in his hand a list of the prices of various articles of manufacture before machinery came into operation, which clearly established that the effect of a high price of food was not to maintain the price of labour. The House had frequently declared that they could give no protection to the wages of the labourer, but they were now about to give a third reading to a bill which was to give a fictitious price to corn, and so, as far as possible, regulate and keep at a high rate the price of his food. They said to the poor Hinckley frame work knitter, 'We cannot regulate the remuneration to be given for your labour:" but, when he said "Your wheat is, too high, I cannot purchase of you because I can get as good at Hamburgh for 40s.," then the landowner stepped in and said, "Oh, no! we have a law which says you must give us a certain price for our wheat before you can go to Hamburgh or any other place for it." He confessed that although the right hon. Baronet's (Sir R. Peel's) measure had up to that time been carried with a high hand, he could not bring his mind to believe that the House was really going to pass it. He did not object to it simply on the ground that it was a tax upon the people. He objected to it upon another ground. The right hon. Baronet had avowed that the object of his measure was to keep up an artificial rate in the price of corn. Had the right hon. Baronet brought forward a proposition for a fixed duty upon the importation of foreign corn, he should have opposed it in the same way as he last year opposed the proposition of the noble Lord the Member for London (Lord J. Russell). He should have opposed it as a tax upon the food of the people. But the right hon. Baronet did a great deal more. The right hon. Baronet by the measure now before the House was violating the very principle for which he contended, namely, that in the legislation of Parliament the labouring man should be placed on a fair level with the peer and the landed proprietor. He was told, that Parliament could not regulate the price of labour, and yet a measure was brought forward and carried to its very last stage, the avowed object of which was to keep up to an artificial rate the price of food. In passing a measure of this nature, which, under all circumstances, was to give an artificial price to food—denying, at the same time, that the Legislature had any power to give an artificial price to the wages of labour— the House would be violating every principle of justice; and, as he had already stated, he could not bring his mind to believe that the House would assent to such a course. Mark the effect of the system, supposing the right hon. Baronet's measures to be carried. What would be the position of the manufacturing labourer? Articles of foreign manufacture were to be admitted at a lower rate of duty. Prices would be reduced—the rate of wages diminished. Where was the protection to the manufacturing labourer? He was told that the Legislature could not assist him; that he must grapple with the difficulty, and carry on a competition with his foreign rivals without aid or help. What, on the other hand, was the position of the agriculturists? Whatever his ignorance, idleness, or sloth, whatever his negligence, indiscretion, or extravagance, the Legislature assured him that no foreign competitor should be admitted into the same field with him until the produce of his labour had attained a certain price. His wheat, good, bad, or indifferent, was to be protected until it reached the price of 54s. This appeared to him to be the double violation of every principle of justice which characterised the proposition of the right hon. Baronet. If hon. Gentlemen gave to the landlords a certain regulated price of corn, would they not also give to the consumers, to the great mass of manufacturing labourers a certain regulated price of labour? Were they to toil and spin, invent and contrive—and should all their toil, and all their invention, only give them so much more or so much less of the sluggard's corn? Were the landlords still to feed the people upon the landlord's own terms? Were they to have their parks and domains wide spread out—were they to have their herds of deer, their studs of horses, and their kennels of hounds, and yet were the people only to be allowed to live upon the modicum of food which these lords of the soil chose to deal out to them. He would tell the House that this doctrine was revolutionary. He told them that it had awakened views and opinions in the minds of many men in the country who, a few years ago, would have been shocked at the entertainment of such ideas. They were questioning the title of the present possessors of the land; they were denying the right of the privileged classes to their rank and wealth. And why did they do this? Because the landlords were not content with their estates, but, to sustain their position and increase their wealth, made an inroad into the humble cottage of the spinner, and filched the earnings of the depressed and desolate weaver. He believed that this principle of legislation, if carried out, would lead to very important changes in this country. He believed that this law would not be allowed to remain. But if it did remain, it would produce a change which many of those who had taken part in the agitation of the question never contemplated when they set the ball in motion. Even the slightest modicum of justice was refused to the labouring classes. A trade in corn was denied—absolutely denied; for the whole of the foreign supply, whatever it might be, was placed, not in the hands of the general merchant, who would deal honestly and fairly, but in the hands of a few gamblers and speculators. All the sympathies of the Gentlemen opposite were with that class of dealers; and the earnest prayers of millions of petitioners had been treated with less respect than the significant whisperings of half a dozen jobbers. Let hon. Gentlemen who had some stake in the country beware of the consequence of this state of things. Already it had been destructive of capital to an extent unparalleled. He did not hesitate to declare, deliberately and advisedly, that, within the last five or six years, there had been a sacrifice of one-half of the vested capital in Lancashire. He would ask any Gentleman acquainted with that district of the country, if at the present moment, it would be possible to realise, upon the fixed capital of Lancashire, half what it was worth six years ago. How was this? Did it arise from a few failures here of there, or from a temporary depression Of trade? No; it followed from the gradual but general decay of trade—from the decline of profits, which had been eating into the floating capital, at the same time that it had eaten up half the fixed capital of that quarter of the country. He spoke only of Lancashire. Other Gentlemen, he believed, might tell the came tale with respect to other districts. Carry on the same system of le gislation—-continue the sliding-scale, and a State of things would arise for which few probably in that House were at all prepared. The hon. Gentleman concluded by moving the following amendment.—

"That inasmuch as this House has repeatedly declared, by its Votes and the reports of its committees, that it is beyond the power of Parliament to regulate the wages of labour in this country, it is inexpedient and unjust to pass a law to regulate, with a view to raise unnaturally, the prices of food."

Question put that the words "The bill be now read a third time," stand part of the question.

assured the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Cobden) that he had listened to him Upon that occasion, as upon all others, with great attention, and though he differed from him in the conclusions which he drew, he could not impute to him any unfairness in the mariner of advancing his views. He hoped, however, after the lengthened discussion which this question had already undergone, that the hon. Gentleman would not think him guilty of disrespect if he abstained from entering at large upon a topic which would necessarily have the effect of opening the whole subject of the Corn-laws again. The hon. Gentleman's argument went to this, that there ought to be no duty whatever upon the importation of foreign corn, that the whole of the duty ought to be abolished, and that corn, under all circumstances, should be admitted duty free. That was plainly the hon. Gentleman's object, because the terms of his resolution applied as strongly against the principle of a fixed duty, as against the principle of a sliding-scale. No Gentleman, therefore, who thought that a fixed duty was necessary for the protection of our domestic agriculture, would be at liberty to vote in favour of this amendment. It appeared to him that the proposed law would have the effect of facilitating the importation of foreign corn, and of contributing to regulate its price. At any rate, by taking away the sudden fluctuations in the amount of duty, it would diminish the chances of great gains being made by mere speculators and gamblers in corn. The hon. Gentleman, therefore, could not justly charge him with showing any disposition to conciliate the interest of those —parties with whom he had no concern, whose politicial opinions he knew nothing of, and by the promotion of whose interests he could not gain any advantage. The question had been so fully debated on previous occasions, that he Was sure the House would excuse him for not going farther into the subject on the present occasion. He had proposed a modification of the law—a modification which he believed a beneficial one, and which, he trusted, was now about to receive the sanction of the House. He hoped that the hon. Gentleman would not consider it disrespectful to himself, nor the House to them, if, referring to the statements which he made when the general question was before the House, he now stated that he did not consider it necessary to enter into any lengthened discussion in regard to the particular proposal of the hon. Gentleman.

said, that he did not rise for the purpose of supporting the motion of the hon. Gentleman, which seemed to him to be as inconsistent with a proposal for a fixed duty as it was with a sliding scale, he merely rose for the purpose of opposing the third reading of this bill. The object he had in view was to obtain a fixed duty of 8s.; and, in committee it was competent for him to propose a reduction of the high duty of 20s., but when they came to the high price of 66s., it was impossible for him, according to the forms of the House, to propose that duty. It was, therefore, useless for him to propose any alteration in the bill; neither after the opinion which the House had expressed on the second reading, should he wish to take the sense of the House on the third reading. But in allowing the third reading to pass, he wished shortly to state his opinion of the bill now proposed. He thought that they had had experience enough, since 1828, of the evils of a sliding scale. Instead of the ports being opened to the importation of foreign grain in seasons when it was required, they had seen how, by means of combination, the markets had been kept without a supply from abroad, until the prices rose very high, and then a large amount of corn was brought in, injuring the consumer by an artificial rise in the price, and the farmer by a large influx of corn with a small duty. Accordingly he had proposed a scheme which he thought better suited to the circumstances of the country. By that scheme they would have obtained a regular trade in corn, and that regular trade would benefit the agriculturist as much as the consumer—they would have had a trade, by which at all times the merchant could feel certain of a home market, and could calculate, not perhaps to a certainty, but at all events to a probability, the price which he would receive. If a merchant, under the proposed scale, despatched an order for corn to America, when the price was 62s., and if the price should fall to 54s. before the importation took place, he would, under the new scale, sustain a loss of 16s., namely, 8s. of price and 8s. of duty; while under the system of the fixed duty proposed by the late Government, his loss would only amount to 8s. on the price. It appeared to him, therefore, that the sliding-scale would Still continue a system of gambling inconsistent with all notions of what constitutes regular commerce; and this seemed to him a decisive objection against the bill now before the House, as well as against the system at present in existence. He admitted, that the present bill was an improvement when contrasted with the existing law; but when compared with the laws which were in operation from the time of the Revolution in 1688 down to 1800, it was much worse than any corn-law during that period. During that time they had a duty not exceeding 8s. a quarter, until the price got very high. He did not think the law of 1828 at all suited either to the then circumstances of the country, or to the improved knowledge in matters of trade of the present time. Nor was that measure good in itself, nor at all to be compared with the law of their ancestors, who were in favour of protecting all manufactures, and, among other commodities, that of corn. The present bill was not, in his opinion, suited to the circumstances of the country, and he had never heard any one assert that, in passing it, they were laying the foundation for any thing like a real or permanent settlement of the question. All that it did was to take away the most obvious deformities of the present law, and by so doing to shake the authority of the present by not establishing a measure which had any chance of being considered as a real settlement. Whenever they were called on to make an alteration in the duties on French silks and brandies, he felt very sure that they would have again to alter this Corn-law. That time, in all probability, Would soon come; and so far he rejoiced in the passing of this bill, because it would entirely shake the authority of the present law. He looked forward, in the hope of seeing, very soon after the passing of this bill, the plan of a graduated scale altogether done away with, and a fixed duty established. He was not one of those who thought, with the hon. Member for Stock port, that there should be no duty at all. On the contrary, he thought the farmer entitled to a moderate protection, but not with the extravagant view of making this country independent of foreign supply. The law of 1828, which in its essential parts was now proposed to be continued, was, in his opinion, a most faulty mode of giving that protection, and he hoped that the time was not far distant when they would be able to establish a Corn-law founded on those sound principles of trade which regulated other commodities, and which, in reference to those other commodities, the House had adopted by large majorities.

said, that if his noble Friend hoped to conciliate his agricultural Friends by his admission of their title to moderate protection, he thought he would fail, and that they would tell him that if he really wished to protect them, he Must leave them alone, and not as he had just very properly done, denounce the measure with which they had really so much reason to be satisfied. He, however, was glad to hear that the country would have the aid of his noble Friend's energy in seeking to repeal the imperfect measure now before the House, as that might lead to a system more consistent with the views contained in the motion of his hon. Friend the Member for Stockport, and against Which no argument had yet been advanced. The right hon. Baronet had disputed the right of his hon. Friend to quote Mr. Huskisson as an authority against his bill, and had referred to two periods in Mr. Huskisson's life, in 1822 and 1828, when he approved of a graduated scale; but, as the right hon. Gentleman had stated, and truly, that this country had not the misfortune of losing Mr. Huskisson till 1830, he might have remembered that in that year Mr. Huskisson made his last speech; and if the right hon. Baronet would refer to it, he would find, that a speech more appropriate for his hon. Friend to quote could not be found, for it is there that Mr. Huskisson takes his last and deliberate view of the state of the country, and concludes earnestly and confidently that the existing system of protection and taxation could not continue. He there refers to the Corn-laws, and declares, that whatever public grounds there might be for their support, yet they certainly had the effect of raising the price of subsistence to the people, and thereby, together with our system of collecting revenue by taxing expenditure, pressed upon the productive classes in a manner that could not much longer be borne. He said, that the Corn-laws and other taxes had then the tendency of lowering profits and reducing wages, while it increased the fortune of the unproductive consumer. It was in that speech that Mr. Huskisson pointed to the condition which we were then in, and declared, that unless the taxes were shifted, or the protective system altered, that we could not collect the revenue. What my hon. Friend contends for is, that you cannot justly raise the price of food without raising the wages of labour; and if you abandon the intention of doing the latter, you ought not to attempt the former and most surely that you ought not to raise the price of food by means that, of necessity, causes the fall in the rate of wages, for that is the effect of the Corn-law on the condition of the people at present; they have been and are suffering from a high price of food, and from a serious fall in wages, and after, as my hon. Friend has said, you have frequently refused to entertain the most distant notion of legislating for the rise of wages. The consequence of the present bill will be, to continue that system, and he could not let it pass without expressing his unqualified condemnation of it. It seemed to him wholly unsuited to the exigency which rendered any change necessary. It was not recommended by any experience which the agriculturist had of the old law—it was not recommended by the experience on which the community complained of it. He believed that it would satisfy nobody, that it would relieve nobody, and it was his firm conviction that there was not one evil which could be traced to the old law during the last five years, that would not have followed under the present had it existed. It had the same faulty purpose in view, and the same mischievous principle to give it effect. The same absurd fancy, or intended object was maintained, of making us dependent for food upon our own soil, after it had been proved, that we could not produce an adequate supply, and that our population was hourly increasing. While with this scale of duties, varying with circumstances, which it was said fraudulent persons could control, causing uncertainty, which baffled all the calculations of growers or merchants either in Poland or America, who might otherwise supply us. This, then, would lead to all the results which had been experienced before—they would be obliged to buy suddenly, at high prices, in near markets, and which would be attended with all the consequences of an export of bullion, a consequent rise in the value of money at home, a depreciation of goods, and all that embarrassment and depression which we were experiencing, and which of necessity must occur; and when he reflected upon the misery, sacrifice, and ruin which this had brought upon the productive classes of this country, and when he believed that no intelligent man, unbiassed by interest, doubted the connection of these laws with these results, he could hardly repress his indignation at such an abortion of a measure as this being produced to meet such a state of things as existed in the country; and he thought that it deserved to be styled, as it had been when first delivered, and since in so many petitions, as a mere mockery of the sufferings of the people. He knew it was said by some on his side that it was an improvement, and that more food would come in; but they ought to do more than say this to satisfy him, they ought to show that more food would be produced, for unless that was done, the people here would not be benefitted, for their condition was now, that they had to exchange their labour against a constantly diminishing quantity of food. Now, with this law, did anybody believe that one grain more would be grown for this market, or any expense incurred in facilitating the conveyance of it to this country. If no more food was grown for this country, if there was more to be introduced, it would be the food grown for other people, and the price would rise abroad, and if that was the case, how could it come at the duty which it was intended to levy. He heard it stated, that the right hon. Baronet was as much alive as any man to the evils of the law, but that he had proposed all that he could carry, and that he was helpless in the matter—that his party would not allow him to do more. But really he had never heard any of those hon. Gentlemen who sit around him say this: as far as they were concerned, they seemed disposed to go wherever the right hon. Baronet would lead them, and the House had no reason to believe, that if he had submitted a more efficient measure, that it would not have been supported by his Friends. They seemed, indeed, to be a peculiarly docile party, and made fewer difficulties in changing their views than most men. They had never said a word in that House against the hon. Baronet's liberal views, and he doubted not, that they entirely coincided with them. If, however, it is true they would obstruct him in pursuing a more enlarged policy, why let the right hon. Baronet, if he is convinced that he is right, and that the country requires a different measure—let him throw himself upon the country, and let him depend upon the popular party for support. If he did that, who could supersede him? Most cordially would he receive the support of every Liberal on that side, and he would thus render great service to his country. But if his Friends were unreasonable, what could they do without him? Could the Members for Essex, or Lincoln, or Berkshire, form a Government of their own? or could any man replace him on his own side if he threw up the Government. What reason was there then, for this imperfect measure that he offers us? There was only one justification that he could think of, which was, that the constituency of this country, entrusted with the important privilege of returning Members to this House to legislate for the community at large preferred to return men to serve their own interests, and if this is the case, it is a most important matter for the community to consider; for that certainly was not the purpose for which the franchise was confided to them. But if these surmises are incorrect, can such legislation be justified on any national or public ground? There is but one, and to that the right hon. Baronet usually resorts,—namely, that it is to escape dependence on foreign soils, and to become dependent on our own. But what answer, he asked, was that to those who, being dependent upon our own soil, are left without food? They have depended upon you to provide them with food, and what state has this country been in for four years past? What is the good of telling people, that in time of war they might not be able to get food from abroad, when they find themselves by this self-dependence deprived of food in time of peace? The great mass of the people have either to depend upon the landowners of this country or those of the continent to supply them adequately with food — they have found their own lands do not produce enough, and they ask to be allowed to seek it elsewhere. This bill, then, offered an impediment to this natural claim of the people—a restriction unwise at all times, and peculiarly unjust and cruel at this time—and heartily concurring in the principle of his hon. Friend's amendment, he should cordially oppose the bill before the House; and he sincerely hoped, that if it did pass into law, that the people who had sought to abolish the old law would consider that it remained unimproved, and would as zealously seek its repeal as before.

said, that his object in rising was to answer the accusations made, both in and out of the House, against the Members representing the agricultural interest, in reference to their conduct in supporting the measure proposed by Government. They had been accused of sacrificing the interests of the agriculturists at the shrine of political principle. [" Hear, hear, and laughter."] He understood that cheer, but it did not affect him, because he had appeared before his constituents who had approved of his conduct in reference to the question under discussion. Three-fourths of his constituents, by a show of hands declared in his favour; only one individual held up his hand on the other side, and he had called on him to explain himself. He had no hesitation in saying that he agreed on one point with an hon. Gentleman who was once the greatest ornament of the Radical Bench—the late Member for Southwark (Mr. Harvey). That gentleman rejoiced that the Conservative party were in power. Why? Because he believed the Whigs would then concede what they would never have granted in office. That was the reason why he gave his vote against his conscientious conviction. It was all very well to say, "Turn out the right hon. Baronet at the head of the Government, but he wished to know, if they should do so, who the persons were that would be likely to succeed him? In regard to the tariff, he admitted that an universal panic had seized the agriculturists in reference to it. He knew that the right hon. Baronet had got unanswerable arguments on those parts of the tariff which were thought to be the greatest grievance. The other night the right hon. Baronet almost obstructed the order of the proceedings in the House for the purpose of presenting a petition from Ireland which he thought greatly tended to support those views upon the tariff which the right hon. Baronet had put before the country. Before the right hon. Baronet ended his observations in presenting the petition, they so coincided with the views of hon. Gentlemen on the Opposition Benches, that they absolutely drowned the closing remarks of the right hon. Baronet with their cheers of approbation. This excited his curiosity, and he read the last few lines, or what was vulgarly called the prayer of the petition, and it was to this effect, protection to all classes of the community. In that principle he himself entirely coincided; and, taking that view of the case, he confessed, he was surprised, at witnessing the great approbation which the right hon. Baronet received from hon. Members opposite on that occasion. He did not join in the opinions entertained by the noble Lord (Lord Palmerston) the late Secretary for Foreign Affairs, who looked forward to the advantage, by an alteration of the tariff, of enjoying a buffalo steak, instead of a beef steak, in the torrid zone. He might be told that he was afraid a buffalo's rump would supersede a round of beef. [" laughter."'] Hon. Gentlemen might ridicule his fears; but this he would say, to those who threatened the county Members with being called to an account at the hustings for having sacrificed the interest of the agriculturists in supporting the Corn-bill, that they were mistaken. Whatever ridicule he and his friends might expose themselves to, and whatever motives might be imputed to them—however they might be taunted that this bill would not be a final measure, and the noble Lord (Lord J. Russell) had said that the right hon. Baronet was only paltering with the subject, he was prepared on his own part, and on the part of a great majority of the county he represented, to say, if the figures of the right hon. Baronet should not be that protection which he had told them would be sufficient, but which they thought would not be sufficient, and if they should wade through that distress which the agriculturists apprehended, then that the agriculturists and those who represented them would come forward and declare that this Corn-bill should not be a final measure. [Cheers from the Opposition.] He had no objection to those cheers. On the one hand, the Gentlemen opposite said that he and those who agreed with him, must go on making concessions; they hailed the tariff and the Corn-bill as measures that cut the ground from under the feet of the agriculturists. The Friends of the noble Lord (Lord J. Russell) had said, that the noble Lord made the greatest mistake that ever a great statesman made in butting his head against the wheatsheaf. The noble Lord had had time for reflection since then, and the proposition which he now held out to the agricultural interest was, that he was prepared to restore all those old taxes which had been repealed since the war. If her Majesty should be pleased to send for the noble Lord in the event of "our" turning out the right hon. Baronet, he had no doubt that the noble Lord's sagacity—notwithstanding the noble Lord had stated, when proportioning the constituencies under the Reform Bill, that it was his intention to give a preponderance to the agricultural interest-would direct him again to his favourite Corn-bill. He was quite aware that the arrangement of the constituency by the noble Lord was the rock on which the noble Lord split; but he remembered hearing the noble Lord declare that it was his intention to give a preponderance to the agricultural interest. The noble Lord shook his head; but he was perfectly aware, that the noble Lord did not intend to give so great a preponderance to that interest. And although he and other hon. Members on the Ministerial side of the House might be accused of being as dull as the animal that browsed on the thistle, still their simplicity was not so great as to agree to the noble Lord being restored to power. It was said in the East, that when they crossed the desert they put a donkey in the front, [Laughter."] for the purpose of regulating the pace. The donkey was the regulator. There were Gentlemen on both sides of the House who had been in India, and who had crossed the desert; they could give some more particular information upon the subject, and would, no doubt confirm his views. The right hon. Gentleman, the late Chancellor of the Exchequer, had in his budget proposed an alteration of the duty on the animals to which he had just been referring. He did not mean to compare the right hon. Gentleman to a donkey; but this he did say, that his proposition to relieve the financial difficulties of the country was utterly unworthy of a great Statesman. Although the House might have derived some mirth from the manner in which he had stated his sentiments, still the subject was one of so grave a character, and those whose properties they were dealing with in such a state of trepidation and alarm, that he confessed, although he was about to support the measure of the right hon. Baronet, he did so solely because he considered, under all the circumstances, he was acting the best for the interests of agriculture, and because he could not see how he could better himself by taking the chance of any measure that might be proposed by the noble Lord and his party opposite. Although the noble Lord might flatter himself, that by a combination of miscellaneous party, formed out of those who were opposed to a Corn-law and an Income-tax, he might regain an ascendency, yet he could assure the noble Lord, that whenever the time should arrive for him to make an appeal to the country, such would be the effect of the opinions which the noble Lord entertained respecting the Corn-law on the minds of the community, that instead of gaining strength, he would find himself reduced to a very considerably smaller minority.

would not attempt to follow his hon. Friend who had just sat down in his attempt to reconcile his intended conduct with his professed principles. In one of the arguments of his hon. Friend, he alluded to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but he did not say whether it was to the present or to the late Chancellor of the Exchequer that he referred. He did not understand how the parallel which his hon. Friend had attempted to draw between putting a certain dull animal in advance in the East and the budget of a Chancellor of the Exchequer—whether the present or the late one—applied. The donkey still remained unappropriated. He did not exactly see the parity of the two cases, and, therefore, leaving that part of his hon. Friend's speech, he would turn to that which bore more immediately upon the subject before the House, and consider what his hon. Friend had advanced in defence and support of his own consistency in voting for this bill. He had stated very fairly that the charge which had been brought against him by his constituents—and it was a charge not brought against him only, but against all those County Members who were acting with him—was the gross inconsistency of supporting a measure which they admitted they would have scouted if it had originated with the noble Lord near him (Lord John Russell), instead of with the right hon. Baronet whom they so willingly followed. [Cheers.] He was happy to hear that those hon. Gentlemen acquiesced in that reason. They looked to men and not to principle. They had no principle. They had no principle whatsoever. He might go through the whole series of hustings speeches made at the last election, and through every appeal made to the agricultural constituencies in the kingdom by every individual who sat on the Ministerial side of the House, and he would defy any one of them to show him any one sentence, emanating from any one of those Gentlemen, which held out the slightest indication of an acquiescence in the very measure they were now supporting. Let hon. Gentlemen contradict it if they could. He would challenge every one of them. The noble Lord the Member for North Lancashire (Lord Stanley) in his speech at Lancaster ridiculed the very idea of dealing with the Corn-laws: so did all the hon. Gentlemen opposite, down from the first Bench to the second, the third, and the fourth; not one of them held out the slightest prospect that they would ever acquiesce in such a change in the Corn-laws as they were now prepared to support. Every man on that (the Ministerial) side of the House denounced the then existing Government as the bitterest enemy of the agriculturists, because it had ventured to propose an alteration in the Corn-laws, absolutely indispensable under the circumstances of the country, whereas now he had the pleasure of hearing several of the constituents of the hon. Baronet the Member for Essex (Sir John Tyrrell) tell him within the last week that they would sooner have had an 8s. Fixed duty than the present sliding-scale, with the tariff, and the Income-tax on the top of it. That was the position in which the representatives of the agricultural constituencies, with a single exception, the noble Lord the Member for North Lincolnshire (Lord Worsley), to whose consistency honourable testimony had been borne that evening, stood in the House of Commons. The hon. Member for Essex him- elf admitted, that consistency was a very pleasant thing, and regretted that it was a pleasure which he could not indulge in But what did his inconsistency, and that of those near him suggest? It suggested the reflection that they and the party whom they supported had come into power under false pretences. His hon. Friend (Sir J. Tyrrell) had talked of the noble Lord (Lord John Russell) butting his head against the wheatsheaf. What was the right hon. Baronet (Sir Robert Peel) doing now? What, if those hon. Gentlemen opposite dared to speak out their sentiments, was the language they would use respecting this very measure they were going to support? Take the hon. Member for Essex, for instance, what was the justification he put forth at the meeting at Chelmsford? The hon. Member said, that all his leaders had deserted him; that one noble Duke had lost his confidence because he had accepted a seat in the Cabinet, and was never worth any thing afterwards. That was the Duke of Buckingham. Another noble Duke (the Duke of Richmond) had met him (Sir J. Tyrrell) in the lobby of the House, and observed to him that, although he disliked the Corn-law exceedingly, yet the noble Duke would recommend him (Sir John Tyrrell) to take it. That was the account which the hon. Baronet gave of his leaders, and he said of himself that, being an humble individual—for the hon. Baronet did not profess to put himself in the front rank, even upon the eastern principle—that being an humble individual, he was unable to find leaders in whom he could place confidence. These two noble Dukes had abandoned the agriculturists altogether. The right hon. Baronet the Member for Dorchester (Sir James Graham) was disqualified for replacing them, for he was unhappily identified with this ill-starred and fatal bill. The noble Lord the Member for Lancashire (Lord Stanley) was in the same painful condition. The hon. Baronet (Sir John Tyrrell) and the hon. Gentlemen on the Ministerial side of the House were, therefore, compelled to support this odious and most indefensible measure as they regarded it, upon the principle of not falling out of the frying-pan into the fire. That was the principle upon which this law would be passed. It took away all idea of stability from the law. The hon. Baronet had himself disclaimed all idea of finality. The right hon. Baronet the Member for Dorchester did the same. Those who sat on the Opposition side of the House did the same thing, but upon a very different principle. It was said that this measure was to be a settlement of the question. There never was so paltry or contemptible an attempt! It was perfectly absurd to talk of its being a settlement. Nobody assented to it. Nobody dreamt of its being anything of the kind. It was only the beginning of a series of agitations, and party conflicts upon a question, which ought to be settled, because of the vast pecuniary interests which it involved, — conflicts upon a question which, it was his conviction, might have been, and would have been, settled by the late Government, if hon. Members on the Ministerial benches had not thrown overboard, for party purposes, the measure proposed to them. The right hon. Baronet, on the other hand, had settled nothing and disturbed everything. The arrangement proposed was equally unsatisfactory to those, whose peculiar interests hon. Members on the Ministerial side professed to represent, and to those who sat on his (Mr. Ward's) side of the House. The agricultural Members indeed supported it, but at no distant period they would find it a difficult matter to reconcile their professions to their constituents with their conduct in that House. They no doubt hoped to find support elsewhere, but if wise, they would trust to time for making their peace, and not put forward any pretentions to consistency. The speech of his hon. Friend (Sir John Tyrrell) was the best proof of the danger of such an experiment. He could not succeed in that House as he had in Essex; he could not throw dust in their eyes as he did in the eyes of those who held up their hands in his favour at Chelmsford. Trading upon the panic fears of his constituents, his hon. Friend succeeded in getting a reluctant vote in favour of his conduct, by threatening the farmers with the ghost of the late Ministry. But here, in the House of Commons, they knew how matters stood. They knew that principle had very little to do with the matter: that Gentlemen who supported the Government looked to the success of their party, and to very little besides; and that though they came into power professing one set of principles, they were quite ready to carry out another set of principles, which had been forced upon them by the influence of those, whom they were most hostile to. He (Mr. Ward) was perfectly satisfied with this state of things. In the course hon. Gentlemen on the Ministerial side were now pursuing, he saw public opinion going on steadily. Even his hon. Friend (Sir John Tyrrell) was reluctantly yielding to its influence. He never expected; to be reduced to the humiliating necessity of justifying a vote in favour of a modification of the Corn-law. The stone had been set rolling. He had admitted the principle, that the protected interests were no longer to form that sacred alliance which they maintained all last Session. He felt that he must concede something to other interests. He had admitted, that great concessions must be made as the price for the possession of power in this country. Now he was very glad at all this. These concessions never would have been made to the Whig party. They were made by hon. Gentlemen opposite to their own Tory party, as the condition of their maintaining power. This power they certainly would maintain, but at a very considerable sacrifice of character. [Cries of" No, no."] Yes! at a very considerable sacrifice of character for consistency; because every body must re collect the language which was used by that party in the House of Commons last year. Then all the protecting interests joined hands, and formed a mighty phalanx. The monopolists in corn said, we must support the monopolists in sugar, and the monopolists in timber, and every other kind of monopoly, down to the most insignificant, or we never can hope to stand ourselves. There was something intelligible in this. The monopolists put the advocates of free-trade down. They had everything their own way at the election; they returned such a majority as had seldom been seen in that House before. But now what did they do? Did they attempt to carry out any one principle they before professed? Did they ground upon this their claim to public confidence? No; they stood upon the individual character of their leader, and he stood upon a perfect abnegation of all those principles on which they professed that he was to take office. He (Mr. Ward) was well content with that bargain, because he saw his own principles, by means of it, gaining the upper hand in a modified way. And now that (the Ministerial party) had abandoned their principle of monopoly, they never would be allowed to re-assert it. They could not do it. They were pledged upon the Tariff. Their own leader stood pledged as an honourable man to abide by its principle, and to make no considerable alterations even in its details. They might petition, they might hold out in terrorem the noble Lord (Lord J. Russell) as a reason, or as a palliation, for giving their support to the present Ministry, but the hon. Gentlemen, who now gave that support, must go on, or public opinion would desert them, and then they would have nothing to stand upon at all, for they were already totally destitute of any principle of their own. They could not resume the ground they occupied last year, for they had no one principle left, of all those, which they then put forward. [Great cries of "No, no."] Well, if they had a principle, let them state it. It ought to be carefully preserved as a precious relic, for never had public professions been more flagrantly violated in the whole history of party contests in this country, than they had by the conduct of those hon. Members who were now forming the majority of the right hon. Baronet, As to the bill before the House, he did not care whether he voted for it at all. He was not answerable for it. He did not approve of it, though he thought it was some improvement upon the existing system. He was not afraid of the consequences, even of a free-trade in corn, to those cold clays and bad soils which pure patriotism alone had no doubt induced the hon. Baronet (Sir John Tyrrell) to bring into cultivation, though some might suspect that the cultivation of such bad land had been caused by the false, and delusive hopes held out to the landowners by the old Corn-law. It was obvious, that those bad lands must at some time go out of wheat cultivation, under a state of things to which they were now happily advancing. He did not believe, that the present bill would be a permanent settlement of the question, yet he thought it would do some good. He hoped, that the anticipations entertained by the leader of the party opposite would be realised. He was, however, far from believing anything of the kind. It might have the effect of letting a little more corn come into this country, but, if he voted for it at all, he should only do so to mark his dissent from the doctrines of the agriculturists, and in resistance to the opinions which they still professed to entertain. The right hon. Baronet (Sir Robert Peel) was dreaded by his very sup- that porters as] being a free trader in his heart. His principles were suspected by them, and the only reason why they gave support to measures, which they themselves detested, was, because they feared that there might be something still worse behind. They might fall into the hands of the noble Lord (Lord John Russell). There might be an 8s., or even a 5s. duty, nobody could tell. And when they met to talk at county meetings in Essex upon this unfortunate bill to those, whom they had misled, and were now abandoning, it was convenient to have this bugbear about their dread of their leader going out of office, and others coming in, to allege, in order to reconcile the people to their conduct. He was quite sure that nothing else could.

said, that when the hon. Gentleman said, that the agricultural Members had deceived their constituents he begged to declare, that it was not so, as far as he was concerned; and when the hon. Member told him so, he begged to tell the hon. Member that he stated that which was not the fact. He begged to say, that no one Member at the time he addressed his constituents from the hustings at the late election could tell what the measure of the right hon. Baronet at the head of the Government was to be. No one could tell that, before he had seen the measure. The question was put to him on the hustings, whether he would support any measure which the right hon. Baronet might bring forward with respect to the importation of corn? and he said, that he would not pledge himself either for or against the measure before he saw what it was. That was what he had said to his constituents, and for the rest he begged to say he declined being made responsible for the sentiments and opinions which the hon. Gentleman put into the mouth of hon. Members, as addressed by them to their constituents. He was not responsible for those opinions, and he would not be made so. He said, as far as he was concerned, that he had given no pledge to his constituents, and therefore he could not be accused of want of consistency. What he said to them was, that he would agree to nothing which he was not convinced would be for their ultimate benefit. He said, moreover, that in his opinion a Member of the House of Commons was not worthy of the confidence of any constituency who did not pursue that course. But the hon. Gentleman had talked a great deal about want of principle, and had attributed want of principle to hon. Gentlemen on the Ministerial side of the House; he, however, begged to tell the hon. Gentleman, that when he wanted to look for principle he would not leave his own side of the House to go to seek it on the other; and if he was in such a position as to know that this question of a Corn-bill must be settled, after two Speeches from the Throne on the subject, and that whenever carried it must be carried by some Government capable of carrying its own measures, he should not put confidence on such a question in a Government which came down with the proposition they were about to produce, altered at the last moment, and which, if in power that evening, would have been found to have abandoned the scheme which they proposed last Session. That was not the kind of Government he should look to with any hope of seeing this question finally settled in their hands; that was not the kind of Government in which the people of this country could, or ought to, have any confidence. He said, that the agricultural Members were perfectly justified in the course they were taking, knowing that this great question must be settled, in supporting a measure which was calculated to effect that object. There was a growing opinion in the country, that the Corn-law must be settled. He had enjoyed but little communication with his constituents of late, but he was proud to say, that they had trusted him throughout this matter, and as to what little he had seen of them, he had always been told, "We believe, that you have acted right, and will leave it entirely to you." Now, it appeared to him, that under the existing circumstances of this country, when he saw affairs in so unsettled a state, and when the financial difficulties of the country were so great, the worst thing he could do, that which would be most detrimental to the interests of his own constituents and the country at large, was by any crotchet of his to stop the settlement of that great question. Now, he begged to ask the noble Lord, the Member for North Lincolnshire, whose consistency had been so much lauded, whether he wished to bring back the late Government as a strong Government, or as a weak Government? Did he wish to bring them back as a weak Government? What could a weak Government do in the present difficult position of this country? Then, did he want to bring them back as a strong Government, to carry all their own measures? Could the noble Lord form a Government himself from the other side of the House. Would he apply to the noble Lord the Member for Tiverton to form part of his Government, that he might come with the strong arm of truth to sweep away all the cobwebs of monopoly; for that was the language of the noble Lord? Hon. Gentlemen might taunt him with inconsistency, and charge him with having promised not to deal with the corn question, but he answered that charge by saying, that the agricultural constituencies were perfectly well aware that the corn question would be dealt with. The right hon. Baronet had stated in the last Parliament that he should abide by the sliding-scale, but with the details of the existing Corn-laws he would not tell them what he should do. It was impossible to believe, that any man of common sense should have had any doubt about the fact, that the right hon. Baronet did mean to deal with that subject. It then became a question, whether any modification of those details should be accepted by the agricultural interest. What else could be done? Suppose a higher protection were demanded, and supposing upon that, the right hon. Baronet were to go out, with the general opinions entertained on this subject, what prospect was there that a Cabinet could be formed on that side of the House, on the principle of giving higher protection? Well, then, if a Cabinet was to be formed from the other side, what had they to expect? They knew that the noble Lord had deserted his plan of last year. Did the noble Lord mean to say, that he adhered to the principle of an 8s. fixed duty and nothing more? No, the noble Lord's proposal now was an 8s. fixed duty, with a sliding or vanishing scale at the end of it. Indeed it was somewhat doubtful whether the 8s. duty would be allowed to stand; for a noble Lord, formerly a colleague of the noble Lord, the Member for the City of London, had stated that an 8s. duty, if they came into office again could no longer even be thought of; it must then be a 5s. duty. He considered the motion of this year entirely different and distinct from that of the last. And consequently in the course which he felt it is duty to pursue, he would not lose sight of the state of parties. As an abstract proposition, he did not object to the motion. Abstractedly he opposed any system, the necessary effect of which was merely to raise the price of corn. He did not believe, that an unnatural price was beneficial to any class. As a farmer, and as the representative of an agricultural county, he did not wish —he believed it would not be for their interest—to see an unnatural price. He thought that the interests of the farmer and the interests of the consumer were not altogether separate. He thought that it was perfectly consistent that the consumer should receive some benefit from the proposition of the right hon. Baronet, and at the same time time that the farmers should not suffer. But they were told that the agricultural classes felt serious apprehension on this subject. To this remark he would answer that it was impossible not to feel some apprehension on a question of this nature. He begged pardon of the House for thus detaining them. He had not had the slightest intention of speaking when he came into the House. The hon. Gentleman had made him rise—but he would repeat that he would consider this question, surrounded by all the circumstances of the present times, when he was forming his judgment how to act, and that when he acted upon principles, he would not learn his principles from Gentlemen on the other side.

observed, that the speech just delivered might be taken as a sample of many which would be heard during the present Parliament, and probably during the present Session. There was a growing feeling out of doors which would render such speeches necessary—a feeling that even now was causing considerable uneasiness on the opposite benches. There seemed a strange inconsistency between hon. Members on the other side of the House. The last speaker had said, that he could support the amendment as an abstract proposition, if it were not introduced in connection with the Corn-bill. What then was the amendment—

"That inasmuch as this House has repeatedly declared by its votes, and by the reports of its committees, that it is beyond the power of Parliament to regulate the wages of labour in this country, it is inexpedient and unjust to pass a law to regulate, with a view to raise unnaturally, the prices of food."

For that proposition in the abstract the hon. Member for Sussex was ready to vote. That hon. Member affected to be a consistent and an honest politician. According to his own account, he had given no pledges on the hustings, but he did not say, that he had given no opinions, which were implied pledges. In connection with the terms of the amendment, he would ask what was the proposed Corn-law? Was not the effect of it to raise the price of corn unnaturally? Gentle-men, in their candour and integrity could not deny it; they said, indeed, that it was for the good of the country to pass it; but the amount of the concession, when the hon. Member for Sussex said, that he would support the amendment as an abstract proposition, was only this, that it was in itself an excellent amendment; but that if it were to have any practical application in the accomplishment of benefit to the people he would resist it. So much for the hon. Member for Sussex; and what did the hon. Baronet, the Member for Essex say? He spoke in the tone of a sufferer and a martyr. He complained that he had been accused of sacrificing the interests of agriculture; but this was not the whole of the charge—he had been accused, not only of sacrificing the interests of agriculture, but of sacrificing his principles and his consistency also. How did the hon. Baronet get out of this scrape? How did he defend his conduct in Parliament? He was sorry that the right hon. Baronet had not been in the House, or he would have been exceedingly amused by the ingenuity of his proselyte. The hon. Baronet, the Member for Essex, had informed the House that such was his determination to support the right hon. Baronet, that he was prepared to give a conscientious vote in direct opposition to his conviction. These were his words, "I am prepared to give a conscientious vote in defiance of my own conviction." Here there was a question for casuists: If a vote be honest which is in opposition to conviction, what is that vote which is in accordance with conviction? Could that be honest, too? "He could give no answer, the question was a puzzler; but the constituency of Essex would have the satisfaction of knowing that they had a representative who could be convinced one way and could conscientiously vote another. The hon. Baronet had talked of charges against him and of his triumphant acquittal in Essex. No doubt his con- stituents, like himself, had been convinced that their representative had done wrong, but that he had been right in doing wrong. Like Caesar, "he never did wrong but with just cause." Those who had so triumphantly acquitted the hon. Baronet had been the same parties, the farmers of Essex, who had shown so much alarm at the prospect of the introduction of calves under the tariff of the right hon. Baronet. No wonder; they saw that oxen might be brought in at a duty of 20s., and that calves might be imported for only 10s. duty. This was enough to alarm them, for they had every reason to expect that calves would soon be at a discount. The hon. Baronet had further expressed his conviction (perhaps, however, he would conscientiously vote in opposition to it,) that the heavy clay lands and the sterile sandy soils recently brought into cultivation would be sacrificed. Was it, he would enquire, one of the opinions of the hon. Baronet, that these heavy clay lands and sterile sandy soils ought to be cultivated at the public expense? Supposing a body of mill-owning manufacturers were to come to Parliament and say, "Such have been the improvements in machinery of late that our old machinery is of little or no value. We can no longer compete with foreigners, therefore be so good as to pass a law which shall enable us to work our worn out defective machinery, and to pay our workmen at the public expence. What would the right hon. Baronet say to such a reasonable application? He would refuse at once to grant such protection. That would be his honest answer, and why was it not to apply to those who had brought lands into cultivation which ought never to have been cultivated, and which never would have been cultivated but for the law which enriched the landlords at the expense of every other class of the community. A great deal had been said about the inhuman conduct of mill-owners and manufacturers to persons in their employ. Many of the charges were, no doubt, strictly true; but what had been the conduct of landlords? The moment an alarm was sounded, had they come forward to reduce their rents? Did landlords tell their tenants, "We think it for the public good that the law should be changed, and we are prepared to make a sacrifice: you who have leases are absolved from them, and we will enter into a new, and to you a more advantageous bargain?" Did they hold any such language as this? No; had they done so the farmer would have been able to pay the reasonable wages of his labourers; but instead of that, the gallant colonel and another hon. Member for Lincolnshire had stated, that in that county the wages of agricultural servants had already been reduced from 15s. a week to 12s. Thus one-fifth of the income of hard working, hard handed peasants was taken from them by hard hearted landlords. Why did not landlords, so loud in their claims for a character for liberality, say to the farmer, "If we exact our whole rent, you cannot pay your labourers their whole wages; we will remit a fair portion; those who can least afford to suffer will thus be spared, and the load will fall upon our shoulders, so well able to bear it, and the loss be taken from our pockets, so abundantly filled by the operation of the late Corn-law?" No such language as this had been heard in any quarter, and yet the landlords were the first to assert that the measure of the right hon. Baronet would be highly injurious to the agricultural interest. Out of doors an impression certainly prevailed, that if such a proposition had been made by a Whig administration, it would have been scouted by the agricultural interest from one end of the kingdom to the other. The farmers were not satisfied as it stood; nay, some of them were loud in their exclamations against the right hon. Baronet, and if he were rightly informed, one of this class, on the last market-day at Honiton, declared that he had at last found out that there was a worse devil than even Lord John. He was one who thought that, in the present state of the country, if people would but abandon faction, and forget self, much might be done for the good of the people. He thought also that the right hon. Baronet had done all the good his party would permit him to do. He believed, that he had gone to the utmost extent of liberality with reference to the votes of his supporters; but before the conflict was at an end, and before he was able to carry some of his measures, he would have to appeal for aid to the other side of the House—to his political adversaries. He considered the bill before the House an improvement, a great improvement, upon the present system, inasmuch as it would occasion a more fixed and regular price of corn. He did not believe, however, that it would produce any con- siderable reduction in the price of bread. He had been asked that morning a question in Finsbury, by a person in the watch making trade, and it was this, "What calculation has the Minister made as to the reduction in the price of bread in consequence of his proposition?" He had heard him make none, and could, therefore, give no answer. The watchmaker continued, "We are already great sufferers by the importation of watches at a duty of 25 per cent., and yet by the tariff Sir Robert Peel, we find that they are hereafter to be introduced at only 10 per cent. How shall we be able to compete with the foreigner then, when we are unable to compete with him even now, and what hope is there that we shall have a proportionate reduction in the price of bread?" That had been a question put to him to-day, but ere long it would come from every quater' of the kingdom, and from every interest.' "What reduction are we to have in the price of bread?" He advised the right hon. Baronet to be prepared with a reply. What were the promoters of this bill doing with the estate of the landed proprietor? Protecting it by law and keeping up its value. The poor man had an estate also, and what was it? His power to labour. What did they do with his estate? Did they protect it and keep up its value? That would be a question put on all sides, and that question must have an answer. The working man asked for no more than equal justice. He made that demand on his behalf, and he never would cease to urge it as long as he had a seat in that House.

said, that the hon. Gentleman opposite had occupied the time of the House, not in discussing the bill, but in throwing obloquy on Gentlemen on his side of the House. He appealed to any person if he had ever given a promise to his constituents to maintain the Corn-laws entire. He referred to his speeches and addresses to prove the reverse. There was not a man in the county he represented who was not aware that the existing Corn-law was about to undergo some alteration, and that not an immaterial one, by whatever Government might happen to be in office. The question discussed at the last election was the proposition of the noble Lord as to an 8s. fixed duty. That the country entirely rejected. He at that time stated to his constituents that if the noble Lord should again have the opportunity of introducing that proposition to the House he should again oppose it, because it was one most detrimental to the agricultural interests and to the genera) interests of the country. And, at the same time, he stated to his constituents that some, and not an immaterial, alteration should be made by whatever Government should come into office. The hon. Member for Wallingford had stated with truth that a very considerable alarm did exist in the minds of the agricultural body with respect to this measure. They did not expect so material an alteration as had been made, for it was no small thing to propose that the protection which was given them by law should be reduced by one-half. He had endeavoured to ascertain the sentiments of his constituents on this measure, and to learn the course they would have their representatives to pursue; and for that purpose he had attended a very numerous assembly in a market town of no small importance, and he would appeal to his hon. Colleague whether the unanimous opinion was not, that it was both wise and prudent for the agricultural body rather to acquiesce in the proposition of the right hon. Baronet 'than to offer any opposition to it. And the reason was, because they knew there was no middle party in the House, and that it would not be in the power of the Members for Essex or Berkshire to form a Government of themselves. One of the two parties in that House should become the Government, and under the present circumstances of the country, if the present Government were thrown out of office, the agricultural interests would be necessarily placed at the mercy of the noble Lord opposite. By a resolution which stood on the paper, for Friday, to be moved on the bringing up of the report on the Income-tax, it could be distinctly seen that the opinions of the noble Lord were not changed with regard to the agricultural interests, and that he would be prepared again, if he had the opportunity, to propose what he called his moderate fixed duty on corn, which might be 8s. now, but which would then be on a considerably tower estimate. On the whole, he came to the conclusion, that, under the circumstances in which the country was placed, by acquiescing—which he confessed he did reluctantly—in the measure of the right hon. Baronet, he was taking the last course which he could secure to the agricultural interest, the maximum protection which, at the present moment, it was practicable to maintain,

As the representative of a large agricultural constituency, would state the reasons for the vote he was about to give. He had voted for the second and third reading of the bill, hoping to see it modified in committee. Alas! he had been deceived. He believed with his constituents that the scale for wheat was too low, whilst the scale for barley and for oats was repudiated by all. Besides, when he first voted for this bill, the right hon. Baronet's tariff had not been introduced. Although it was with considerable reluctance, he must withdraw his support from the right hon. Baronet, for he should not be doing his duty to his constituents if he did not op pose a bill fraught with so much danger and destruction to the agricultural interests.

said, that the motion of two affirmative propositions, both of which the hon. Member for Stockport contained were true. Mr. Huskisson had been quoted as an authority, but he denied that Mr. Huskisson was such an authority. He was one of those who was either for having protection to the whole body of the people, or for having protection for none. Was there protection for the working men? What was the condition of the handloom weavers? In 1815 they passed the Corn-bill, in 1819 they altered the currency, and from that time to the present the condition of the handloom weavers had become worse. Protection, in fact, was all on one side. If he voted for the third reading of this bill, and against the proposition of his hon. Friend, he would be voting for what was unjust in principle and in practice. He would be glad to see hon. Gentlemen opposite get up and answer the argument of the hon. Member for Stockport. They did not, because they could not.

could confirm the statement of the hon. Member for Oldham with regard to the reduction of wages which had been going on since 1815, though the price of corn was kept up as high as when the working men were receiving so much higher remuneration for their labour. He held in his hand a document which showed the depreciation of the wages of handloom weavers since 1831. In that] year 1s. 10d. a piece was paid for one description of goods; in 1841 only 1s. 1d. was paid for the same description; and he understood that the price was now reduced below 1s. He saw by the public prints that the hon. Member for Blackburn had been in the habit of employing 1,500 hands, who were now unemployed, owing to the reduction of wages. This reduction was still going on, and where they were to stop he could not magine. The reduction had not taken place in the wages of the handloom weavers alone; it had occurred in the spinning trade. The price paid for fine spinning in 1835 was 1s. 3d.', in 1841 that sum was reduced to 9d.; and spinning for which 2s. 2d. was paid in 1828 was now reduced to 1s. 2d. In the years 1835, 1836, and 1837, wages had rather increased than diminished. This showed that wages did not depend on the price of food, but on the quantity of supply and demand. In the borough of Stockport, it appeared, by recent returns, that 14,000 persons were not earning more than 9d. or 10d. a-week. By an adherence to the principle of the sliding-scale, if the produce grown in this country was 40,000,000 or 50,000,000 quarters, every increase of a shilling duty would lay a tax of 2,000,000l. on the people; and the whole loss to the public by this law would be 20,000,000l. It was a fallacy to say that we were not dependent on foreign countries for a supply, for since 1828 nearly 2,000,000 quarters of grain had been annually imported, so that we already depended on foreign countries; and when we saw our population increasing which could not be provided for by an increased production on our own land, it must be by extended manufactures. It bad been computed that 200,000 quarters of grain were used by the manufacturers; they were necessary in sizing, printing, and other departments, and several houses assured him that if the duty on corn were taken off they would save 800l. or 1,000l. a-year each. This was a heavy tax upon the public, and it was therefore convenient that the people of this country should understand that the sliding-scale imposed a tax of 20,000,000l. a-year, and that this accounted for the depreciation in the value of our own manufactures. The effect of the present bill would be to restrict commerce; it would not produce a regular trade in corn; if it did not produce a regular trade in corn it would operate against the interests of the manufacturers; if it operated against the interests of the manufacturers, it would ultimately operate against the agricultural interests, and he did ask what the agricultural interests would come to if they destroyed the manufactures of this country? He did not wish to bandy terms, or to abuse the agricultural interests, but he wished them to look to facts, and he believed that by this bill they would raise a tax which would not benefit the farmer,, and would be acting unjustly towards the rest of the community.

observed, that it had been stated that the country at the last dissolution expected the Corn-laws would be dealt with. That sentiment was not only cheered but re-echoed. He confessed that it was expected that the Corn-laws would be dealt with, and that there would be an alteration of the sliding-scale, but he would ask whether it was really believed that so vast and great an alteration would be proposed by the friends of the farmer? He would frankly state, that he would not consent to the alteration which was demanded of the farmer. But was be singular? He was not going to read the addresses of hon. Gentlemen to their constituents, but he would ask the House whether if this measure had been proposed by the noble Lord, the Member for London, any one of the county Members in the House would have supported him? He had had an opportunity of meeting his constituents, and he found that there was a strong and almost unanimous expression of dissent on the part of the agricultural interest. He had been since the recess in many parts of the West of England, and, be believed, he was stating the opinions of the great majority of the agricultural classes when be said, that there was a strong feeling of opposition to the measures of the right hon. Baronet, and that the proposition for the importation of live stock at a small duty would be attended with the most disastrous results to that body.

had not intended to take any part in the debate of that evening, but after the very pointed manner in which he had been referred to by the hon. Member for Essex and Sussex, he could not avoid saying a few words. The hon. Member for Sussex had stated, in reference to the scale proposed by his hon. Colleague, and that proposed by himself, that he hoped the county of Lincoln was not to be sold to the highest bidder. He hoped that such was the case; but he thought that if the hon. Gentleman bad been at the meeting of Monday last, at which he had attended, and had witnessed the reception given to his hon. Colleague, and that with which he was honoured, the hon. Member would hare been better able to judge of how the conduct of each was regarded by the people of Lincolnshire. He had been asked whether he were prepared to see a strong government coming forward with the propositions of his noble Friend, and which would have enabled him to carry the plan of a fixed duty upon corn. He could not, however, forget that the last dissolution took place upon the corn question, and when it was recollected that the opinion of the public upon the subject were known—that there had been divisions during the present Session upon a fixed duty and upon the motion of the hon. Member for Wolverhampton; and when the majorities upon these motions were recollected, he would ask the House, as he had asked at the meeting on Monday last, whether any one could say, that, if the present bill was thrown out, there was any chance whatever of a proposition for a fixed duty being carried. The majority against the proposition of a fixed duty had been upwards of 150, and no one could say after that that there was any danger whatever of such a result. He believed there had frequently been much mischief done in this country by a very strong government, and history contained many instances of the truth of the observation. On the one hand, he had the right hon. Baronet, with whose political opinions he could not agree, and who had for a length of time opposed measures to which he had afterwards given his assent,—on the other hand, he had his noble Friend, who had done such service to the cause of civil and religious liberty; and he should have no hesitation in seeing that party again in power, believing that if they went to a dissolution again upon that question the proposition of a fixed duty would not be carried in that House. The hon. Member for Sussex had said, that there was an opinion in the country that the Corn question should be settled, and the hon. Member for Essex had expressed a hope that the measure proposed by her Majesty's Government would be a final one. Now, with these two conflicting opinions[Sir J. Tyrell: Only in case it worked well.] He would remind the hon. Baronet of the speech he had made the other night, when he stated that he thought the scale too low, but that he would take it rather than allow the Government to fall into the hands of those who sat on his (Lord Worsley's) side of the House. The hon. Gentleman had, in fact, made a strong case against the measure. The hon. Member for Sussex had said, that he had made no pledge on the subject of the Corn-laws, but he would ask whether others had not done so? He would ask whether one of his hon. Colleagues had not stated that his first object was to secure just protection to the agricultural interest—that less protection than the present law afforded he would not consider just, and that therefore he would oppose any measure which would give them less protection. Now when such a statement was put forward by a candidate, was it not to be expected that if returned he would do his best to prevent any material alteration in the Corn-laws. He was justified in saying, that, at a meeting of an agricultural association at Brigg, in the county of Lincoln, resolutions were passed unanimously against the Corn Importation Bill, the Tariff, and the Income-tax; and that several of the farmers who had attended that meeting said that they would as soon have had the 8s. fixed duty as these combined measures of Sir Robert Peel. In opposing the motion of the hon. Member for Stockport, he begged to be understood as not giving any support to the Corn Importation Bill. He looked upon the motion in this way. He did not think the Corn-bill was intended to regulate wages, but he believed that under any Corn-bill wages would be regulated very much by the price of corn. For these reasons he should vote against the motion; but in doing so, he would repeat that he did not mean to give any support whatever to the propositions of the right hon. Baronet.

said, he had intended to bring forward an amendment to the proposition for the third reading of this bill, the nature of which he would state to the House. He had proposed to move.

"That notwithstanding the benevolent desire expressed in her Majesty's Speech on opening the present Session of Parliament; and notwithstanding the express declaration of her Majesty's Government thereon, that they would not sanction any laws which would in its effect or operation increase the protection to the existing restrictions of the supply of corn for the home market. The House has nevertheless under the auspices of Government, sanctioned a new law which is far advanced in its progress which new laws will in its operation and effect increase the price to the consumer, and render the existing monopoly of the landed interests more valuable and more durable, and therefore more intolerable than ever."

He regretted, that some more able Member of the House than he was, had not presented himself to introduce a similar motion to the House; and that the proposition of his amendment would now be out of order. But he felt it to be his duty to declare that his opinion was entirely in opposition to the principle of this measure. He maintained, that its result would be the increase and not the diminution of the price of food, but he thought, that it was only to reduce that price to restore peace and harmony, and affluence throughout the country. The averages were made up from sales of British grain in specified places, the manner in which the averages were made void, was never attempted till the very high duty was enacted a large holder of bonded corn, and his confederates contrived to evade the duty by fictitious sales, but the result was the introduction of a larger quantity of foreign corn, but by lowering the duty according to the proposed scale, the inducement to evade it by committing frauds would be taken away, and by correcting the frauds in taking the averages foreign corn was excluded, which would be otherwise introduced and the price of bread would be consequently increased. From the transactions of the Society for the Diffusion of Useful Knowledge, it was easy to ascertain to what extent fictitious sales were made, all founded upon the fluctuating scale; as, for instance, supposing there were 800,000 quarters of wheat under bond, and the average price was 66s., the duty was 20s. 8d., which on the whole would amount to 826,000l. Thus the construction of the sliding-scale was calculated to encourage frauds, and if the average price could only be raised 7s. per quarter by those frauds, the duty to be paid would be only 40,000l., making a difference to the holders of upwards of one million, namely, 786,000l."by the fall of the duty, and 280,000l. by the advance of prices; so that in this way, by correcting the frauds, the already wretched consumers were thrown more entirely than heretofore on the tender mercies of the landed aristocracy. He always thought that God's laws were immutable. To what purpose did they pray for daily bread? To what purpose did they offer up prayers each day at the commencement of the sittings of the House? To increase the fruits of the earth. Was it for the benefit of all, or was it only for the benefit of the favoured few, the possessors of an unrighteous mono- poly, who would do well to recollect that t was laid down in Holy Writ, "That he who keepeth the people from corn, him shall the people curse." One word only more, upon the subject of this motion. It was said, that if the price of bread were lowered, the master manufacturers would thereupon lower the wages of the workman. It was rank nonsense to make this assertion. This, and such other trash about the truck system, and the devil's dust, and the devil knew what besides, was all the result of the high price of corn, by which the manufacturers were prevented from disposing of their goods, and hence the depressed state of trade. If there were four or five men seeking for employment, and only one or two vacancies, surely it was manifest that the unfortunate labourer was at the mercy of the master-manufacturer, who selected the person who would do the work on the lowest terms; but if they reversed the picture, encouraged trade, and gave employment by lowering the price of food, they would then find the master-manufacturer coaxing the working classes, and giving high wages; because it was manifest that labour, like every other commodity, must obtain its price according to the demand.

observed, that he was most anxious that the House should come to a decided opinion on the principle of this measure, as it would affect the agricultural interests of this country; he should therefore move, "That the debate be adjourned until Monday next." He should take the sense of the House on the subject, if any hon. Member would second the motion.

seconded the motion.

stated that he should take the sense of the House on the motion.