rose, in consequence of the notice which he had given, to move for a select committee to inquire into the proceedings of the commissioners for the reduction of the national debt, the commissioners for the management of Savings-banks, and the Lords Commissioners of the Treasury, with the monies of the Savings-banks, in the years 1836 to 1841 inclusive, by which proceedings a large sum had been added to the national debt without the sanction of Parliament. In the first instance he wished to observe, that his motion did not affect, and was not intended in any way to affect, the property or the credit of the Savings-banks. All he wished was to lay before the House a novel proceeding, novel at least, till within these few years, from which, if it were not checked, much evil would assuredly arise. A power had been assumed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Lords of the Treasury to add as they pleased to the national debt, without coming before that House, as they ought to do, for the necessary authority. Since the national debt was first established, until the year 1836, no power had been assumed by any party to add to the national debt without the sanction of Parliament. But it appeared that between the years 1836 and 1841, the sum of 5,395,569l. had been added to the permanent debt of the country, without the previous knowledge and Sanction of Parliament. Such a thing was never known until the then Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. S. Rice) devised this mode to meet the financial exigencies of the day. He held in his hand the act of the 4th George 4th, cap. 92, which was entitled "An Act to Consolidate and Amend the Laws relating to Savings-banks," and in it he found not one word respecting Exchequer-bills, not one word connected with the national debt; and yet, strange to say, it was under certain of the clauses of that act that the former Chancellor of the Exchequer, with the sanction of the Lords of the Treasury, had increased the national debt without the intervention of Parliament. It would be recollected, that in the year ending the 5th of January, 1837, the surplus revenue was 2,130,092l. In the five successive years, 1838, 1839, 1840, 1841, and 1842, there was a deficit, and the public was very much puzzled to know how the then Chancellor of the Exchequer contrived to carry on the business of the country without coming to Parliament. This remained a mystery until 1838, when he discovered the sleight-of-hand— as he might term it,—the manner in which the Treasury had been recruiting its finances, without paying the compliment to the House of Commons of requiring its authority, without in any respect requesting its sanction for their proceedings. If this power were allowed, why then the Government might raise any sum of money by funding the proceeds of the Savings-banks, which was the course taken, and creating a permanent 3 per cent, debt, without the trouble of coming to Parliament. In the years 1838,1839,1840,1841, and 1842, the Chancellor of the Exchequer borrowed money from the Savings-banks nearly sufficient, with the surplus of 2,100,092l. of the year 1837, to meet the deficit of the revenue. He had found out how the matter was managed. When, for instance, the Chancellor of the Exchequer wanted 100,000l., and there was a deficiency in the revenue, as of late years had generally been the case, he directed the commissioners of the sinking fund to take 100,000l. of the money deposited by the Savings-banks, and to apply that 100,000l. to the purchase of Exchequer-bills. Thus, so many Exchequer-Bills were taken from the Government; and at the end of the quarter the commissioners for the reduction of the national debt were directed to calculate what the current rates of stock were, and to pay over to the commissioners of the Savings-banks the amount borrowed—adding, by this means, to the funded debt of the country 100,000l. The hon. Member then proceeded to enumerate the addition made to the funded debt in consequence of this system, from October, 1836, to April, 1841, amounting to 5,395,569l. 3 per cents., and creating a charge upon the public of 163,940l. annually. The deficit for the years 1838 to 1842, inclusive, amounted to 6,209,120l. If they deducted from that the surplus of 1837, being 2,130,092l., it would leave a net deficit of 4,079,028l. But the Chancellor of the Exchequer had in that period borrowed from the Savings-banks, through the agency of the commissioners of the sinking fund, and without the sanction or knowledge of Parliament, 4,916,757l., being actually 916,000l. more than the occasion required. The right hon. Baronet the Member for Tamworth had stated that when he came into office the deficiency was 10,000,000l.; but there was no such deficiency. The fact was, that when the late Ministry give over their charge to the right hon. Baronet there was not a single shilling of arrear—all had been funded. When the right hon. Baronet assumed the Government of the country there were no arrears. His object, in making this motion, was not to censure one party more than another. What he contended for was, that Government had no right or power to take such steps as had been taken, in borrowing money from the Savings-banks, and adding to the funded debt of the country, without appealing to Parliament. In 1838, he had brought this subject before the House, and in a series of resolutions, one of which he would read, as it proved that he was perfectly cognizant of the evil which he wished to check. It ran thus:—

"That by the existing law the commissioners may buy, sell, and exchange the Government security of the Savings-banks as they may think fit; they may purchase Exchequer-bills, and exchange them for stock; they may sell out stock and purchase Exchequer-bills, thereby affecting materially the currency of the country, and changing the nature of the public debt, without the previous knowledge of Parliament; and it appears they have exercised these powers largely during the last 20 years, having paid 35,355,014l. for the purchase of stock and Exchequer-bills, and received from the sale of stock and Exchequer Bills the sum of 16,684,645refl., leaving 18,670,369l. as the amount of cost of the stock and Exchequer-bills standing in their names on the 20th of November, 1837."

The facts which he stated at that time were all admitted, but the time was not considered fit to remedy the evil. In 1838 the hon. Member for Portsmouth (Mr. T. Baring) who was then Chancellor of the Exchequer, admitted that the law was a bad law. He observed that he had found the law, that he had used the law, but at the same time admitted that it was bad. Still, notwithstanding that declarat on the right hon. Gentleman had continued to act on the same principle. If the matter were not inquired into and checked, the Government might add as much as they pleased to the debt of the country, and set Parliament completely at defiance. He wished for the appointment of a committee, in order, if any error had crept into the mode of managing these funds, that it might be corrected. It had been argued, in opposition to those who objected to the system, that it was beneficial, inasmuch as if the Government were pressed for money, and the facility afforded by the Savings-banks with reference to Exchequer-bills were removed, the public service might be impeded. There were some men who would try any shift rather than proceed in the direct line of honesty; but every wise man would see the propriety of adopting a different line of conduct. The late Chancellor of the Exchequer belonged to a Government that had exceeded their income every year since 1838, and in consequence they had recourse to those schemes and shifts which he so strongly censured. Now in his opinion, an inquiry ought to be immediately set on foot, and a bill afterwards brought in to correct the evil which he had pointed out—the monstrous evil of the Government having it in its power to increase the national debt at pleasure, without applying to Parliament. He was perfectly satisfied, from the manner in which the right hon. Baronet had expressed himself when he brought forward his financial statement, that he would be the last man to have recourse to such expedients for the purpose of raising money, but still he should be very sorry indeed to intrust any individual with the power of doing what had been done—with the power of adding to the funded debt of the country, without making a regular application to the House of Commons on the subject. The hon. Member concluded by moving

"That a select committee be appointed to inquire into the proceedings of the commissioners for the reduction of the national debt, the commissioners for the management of Savings-banks, and the Lords commissioners of the Treasury, with the monies of Savings-banks in the years 1836 to 1841, both inclusive, by which, under the act of 9 George 4th, cap. 92, entitled 'An Act to consolidate and amend the laws relating to Savings-banks, the amount of 5,395,569l. of 3 per cent, stock has been added to the national debt, without the previous knowledge or sanction of Parliament."

had listened to the speech of the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down with great attention: but he confessed that he did not think that it had assigned any sufficient reason for the House to grant the committee for which he sought. On the contrary, the speech of the hon. Gentleman in itself furnished grounds for resisting the appointment of a committee of inquiry. The hon. Gentleman had stated that a committee was necessary because the law with reference to Savings-banks had left a power to the commissioners for the reduction of the national debt of investing the money of Savings-banks either in Exchequer-bills, or otherwise in the funds, as might seem best for the convenience of the Government. The hon. Gentleman stated that the practice had been opposed by different Gentlemen who filled the office of Chancellor of the Exchequer, and admitting, as the hon. Gentleman did, that the law sanctioned the practice, the hon. Gentleman called for an inquiry into the extent to which it had been carried. But as the hon. Gentleman had admitted that the law sanctioned the proceedings in question, he surely needed no committee to ascertain under what circumstances they had been carried on. And if he objected to these practices, he should have called upon the House at the time when they last took place, or even at a subsequent period, to condemn and put an end to the system. This course the hon. Member had not pursued, and now he had no claim upon the House for a committee of inquiry. If the hon. Member thought the law defective, he should have moved for its amendment, and for the taking away the power of the exercise of which he complained, but to call for a committee of inquiry was certainly a work of superfluity. But the hon. Member would probably say, "You may make an inquiry at once, and you can do no harm by it." But he could assure the hon. Gentleman that it was at all times a delicate matter to create discussion upon. To discuss the investment of the funds of Savings-banks was apt to create in the minds of those who had money invested in them, doubts as to the validity of their security, and, at the present time, especially, that was not desirable, on account of the distress and consequent anxiety which so generally prevailed. He could assure the hon. Member, that since he had given notice of his motion, he had received intimations that there did exist a feeling of anxiety among the holders of those funds, which an inquiry would probably tend to increase, not, indeed, to the injury of the public, but to the individual injury of those who might have small sums invested in Savings-banks, and who would thus be induced prematurely to withdraw them, and, in consequence, to forfeit the benefits accruing from this species of investment. On these grounds, he would oppose the motion of the hon. Gentleman. He would be most happy to furnish the hon. Member with any information upon the subject which he might wish to obtain, but he must say that the facts relating to the transactions in question had been already detailed, usque ad nauseam. To grant the committee sought for, to allow the hon. Member to go into those minute details which he knew the hon. Member was apt to indulge in, to allow him to examine all sorts of functionaries connected with Savings-banks, was a course to which he would not accede, and which he thought it was his bounden duty, as far as he could, to prevent. The hon. Gentleman had told them of the late excess of expenditure over the revenue, and they had also been told, that that deficiency had been supplied by using the funds of the Savings-banks. He regretted the excess, and he admitted the application of the funds to a certain extent; but upon that subject he had expressed his opinion, when the matter was, upon a former occasion, brought under the notice of the House. He then said, that it was not expedient to raise money, without the Government having obtained the consent of Parliament for the loans in question, and he required no committee in order to form and pronounce an opinion upon such a subject. But he also said then, and he repeated the assertion now, that the transactions in question had no effect upon the security of the money invested in Savings-banks, which was as good as that which every holder of funded; property in this country possessed. They had been told, that everybody had been puzzled as to how these transactions had been carried on, but the mode had been described every year by every person who had taken part in the discussions upon the subject. It was set forth in the returns and documents laid upon the Table of the House, and the hon. Gentleman must have been quite aware of that mode as appeared from his speech upon the question in 1838. The resolution which the hon. Member proposed then had no reference to the point of Government raising money through the medium of Savings-banks, but it referred to the power given to the commissioners of Savings-banks of investing the money under their charge in the funded and unfunded debt, to the extent of 20,000,000l. Why, in 1838, did not the hon. Gentleman move a resolution condemning the practice of which the hon. Gentleman now complained —a practice which was apparent in the papers of the House? But the hon. Gentleman having omitted that which was the proper course for him to have pursued, of either moving such a resolution, or of bringing in a bill to put an end to the power of the existence of which he disapproved, he now came down, five years after, and stated that nobody knew of what was going on, and that he must have a committee to inquire, at the risk of disturbing the whole Savings-bank system. Thinking, therefore, that there was need for no such inquiry, he should resist the motion of the hon. Gentleman. With respect to the practice complained of, he had already expressed his opinion. He thought that Government should have stated to Parliament that there was an intention of making use of the discretionary power given to it by law, and of raising money by borrowing the funds of the Savings-banks; but that there had been any intention of concealment in the matter he most distinctly denied. The figures and facts of the case were already before the House—there was nothing to be inquired into—and he entreated the House not to grant the committee moved for.

concurred with the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and from the experience which he had had in the Treasury he could bear his testimony to the fact that an inquiry like that which was now moved for could not be carried on without great public inconvenience. Although such inconvenience might be disregarded if it were absolutely necessary that it should be encountered for the purpose of an investigation to find out the truth, yet, in a case like the present, where there had not been the slightest attempt at concealment—where the practices in question were admitted to exist—he did not see the least necessity for an inquiry. Returns relating to the subject had been already laid upon the Table of the House, and if further information were wanted, the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer stated that it should be forthcoming. The proper course for the hon. Member for Montrose to have pursued would have been to take away the power of which he complained, and which was admitted to exist under an act of Par- liament. In fact too the figures and statements of the hon. Gentleman were inaccurate. In framing his motion the hon. Gentleman had confounded operations of different natures. Changing unfunded to funded debt did not give rise to an increase of debt. It did not create new debts; it was merely a change of name. The whole amount of debt actually contracted did not amount to more than 2,500,000l. instead of 5,000,000l. as stated by the hon. Gentleman's motion. It was hardly fair to charge the late Government with anything like secresy in these transactions. Every year regular returns on the subject were laid upon the Table of the House. It was well known that however secret a Minister might be with respect to his intentions, he could not be secret with respect to his acts; and every person who took an interest in the subject had an opportunity from the returns of ascertaining the conduct of Government in the matter. Last year, when he was asked his opinion as to whether the power under discussion should be invested in a Government, he had stated that he conceived it should not be left in the hands of the Executive Government; but he did not want a committee of inquiry to enable him to pronounce such an opinion. Let the hon. Gentleman, if he chose, bring in a bill upon the subject, and he would join in its discussion. But without abandoning his opinions upon the point, he must say that if he came into office and found the discretionary power in question left in the hands of the Executive Government, he had yet to be taught that the Executive should not carry into effect the powers which by law belonged to it, whatever might be the opinion of individual Members of that Executive with respect to the propriety of its being invested with those powers. If every official connected with the revenue, from the Chancellor of the Exchequer to the Custom-house officer, were to consider and debate upon the propriety of the powers delegated to them, instead of putting them into operation, they would soon make a pretty mess of the collection of the revenue. He had heard with much satisfaction, and he quite agreed in the statement, that, whatever opinion might be entertained with reference to the expediency of the practices under discussion, there was no doubt that nothing irregular had taken place with respect to the funds, and that nothing had been done which tampered with the security of the funds of Savings-banks, or which would tend to place them in a less advantageous position than that which they at present occupied.

remarked that the practice under the notice of the House had been condemned by both the right hon. Gentlemen, the present, and the late Chancellor of the Exchequer. The proper course would, therefore, be to introduce a bill doing away with the discretionary power held by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. It was not similar to any power exercised by any individuals in this country with the exception of that enjoyed by the Poor-law commissioners. The Government could convert the funds of Savings-banks into Exchequer-bills whenever it pleased, or could convert them into stock, and by means of this system they could neutralise the power, constitutionally enjoyed by the House of Commons, over the expenditure and monetary system of the country. He had given notice at the close of last Session that he would bring in a bill to do away with the system under discussion, for he believed that many of the evils which at present were pressing upon the country, had their origin in this tampering with the currency between the Chancellor of the Exchequer for the time being, the commissioners of Savings-banks, and the Governor and Company of the Bank of England, who could withdraw or put into circulation enormous sums of paper money. These agents, he believed, were at present at work, and he was most anxious that the power of meddling with the Savings-banks by the Executive should be put an end to. He had been prevented from bringing forward the bill of which he had given notice by the extent and importance of the public business which had been under consideration this Session; but if the hon. Member for Montrose did not bring in a bill next Session, he would pledge himself to introduce a measure to take away from the Chancellor of the Exchequer the power of meddling with the stock of the Savings-banks without the concurrence of Parliament. Such, he thought, the best course which could be pursued.

would take the sense of the House upon his motion. If there was nothing wrong to be exposed, what could they fear from an inquiry? The manner in which Exchequer-bills were managed was not, he suspected, altogether blameless, and if they gave him his committee, he would prove that there existed partialities as regarded their issue. What he wished to destroy was the power of adding to the permanent debt of the country without the consent of the House of Commons.

rose to move the resolution on this subject which he had placed on the paper. He merely wished to call the attention of the Government to a pressing and sore grievance, which was one, moreover, that he believed a vast majority of the Members of that House were wholly-unacquainted with. Some months since he had the honour of presenting a petition, signed by 13,000 persons, on the subject of this impost. It was signed by persons of all denominations, and it emanated, not from any sectarian notions, but it came before the House because the persons who signed it were persuaded they were appealing to be relieved from a heavy grievance, and one which called for legislative redress. But as, in his opinion, the House was not acquainted with the nature of this impost, it was necessary, in the first instance, briefly to state in what the grievance consisted, and he should preface his description of the origin of the tax by only one remark— that after tithes and Church-rates had been abolished in Ireland, it struck him as extraordinary that a payment equally onerous and unjust should be suffered to remain in existence. By an act passed in the year 1665, which was for the purpose of providing for the payment of ministers' money in corporate towns, it was provided (as stated in an extract of the statute embodied in a report of the commissioners) that the Lord-lieutenant and Chief Governor, with a certain number of the council, might assess the liberties and suburbs of Dublin, and other cities, to such an amount for the cure of souls out of each house as they might deem fit, provided that the assessment did not exceed ls. in the 1l. on the yearly value of each house. It then went on to state this should be the measure of the allotment for each house up to those of 60l. a year, and not exceeding that sum. Now on the bare statement of those provisions of the statute, he thought it must be obvious to every person, that the valuation which had been sanctioned by this act must press with a very unequal severity on many classes, and these the most indigent of the population. The first valuation was made shortly after the passing of this act, and from that time to the present no change had been made in the principle of the allotment. The corporate commissioners made an observation on this subject, which was well worthy the attention of the House, and which was to this effect—that the improvement which had been made in modern times rendered many of the houses in old parts of the cities comparatively valueless, and the consequence was that the greatest inequality prevailed in the imposition of this tax. Indeed it must be obvious that the fluctuations in the value of property since 1655 must render the impost, one of peculiar hardship; the more especially as the assessment being limited to houses up to 60l. a year, a house of twice that value was taxed in the same proportion as one only worth 10l. a year. When the period at which this law was originally introduced into Ireland was taken into account, it became plain that the circumstances of the time did not render it any peculiar hardship. It must be borne in mind that, according to the policy of those times, the corporations represented nothing but the predominant sect; and it was quite consistent with the number and influence of their members that they should set apart for the sustentation of their spiritual ministers such a sum as they deemed adequate to compensate their services. Had that principle been retained in its former integrity, he should be the last man to quarrel with it, because it was his opinion that the legislators of a country were quite justified in maintaining that the ministers of religion should be sustained by those who looked to them for spiritual consolation. But how completely had the affairs of Ireland been altered since that period! In the town which he represented, the inhabitants amounted to 110,000, and the Roman Catholics were to the Protestants as 5 or 6 to 1. And, according to the late census, the proportion throughout Ireland was as 8 to 1. Tithes, which were a charge and burden on the land, had been done away by legislative enactment; Church-rates, which had been long sustained as the peculiar favourites of the Church, had also at length been done away by legislative enactment within the last seven or eight years, and ministers' money ought to be treated in the same manner. Let no one who heard him suppose that in bringing forward this motion he was at all actuated by any spirit of hostility against the integrity and maintenance of the Protestant Church in Ireland. He had no such notion. He thought Protestants entitled to the same rights of conscience as he claimed for himself; and he believed it would do much to assuage the differences which unhappily sprung from religion in Ireland, and to amalgamate all classes, if they adopted his proposal to allow contributions to be made by each religious persuasion in the towns, according to the spiritual services which were rendered it. This was no novel doctrine. It had been promulgated in that House already; and though it might be said that in trenching on the revenues of the Church he was not acting in accordance with the spirit of that oath which he took on becoming a Member of that House, he was happy to say that when a similar objection was made in 1834, the noble Lord the present Secretary for the Colonies'—one whose devotion to the Establishment was unquestioned—one who separated himself from his own political connections by reason of their supposed hostility to that institution in its integrity—rebuked the taunt that hon. Members of the Roman Catholic persuasion violated their pledge when they voted for the abolition of Church-rates. The noble Lord stated that he supported the measure then proposed, not because it would injure the Protestant Church, but because it would extend that Church, by making religion more beneficial, and giving security to the Establishment. He had witnessed the heart-burnings to which this payment gave rise, and how it fomented political animosities. If, then, in 1834 they had abolished Church-rates, and in 1835 they had mitigated the burden of tithes, he left it to every dispassionate mind to say whether the system which enabled the minister of religion, through the agency of the proctor, to enter the humblest hovel, which was rated at 1s. in the pound, and, without any preliminary notice, except the mere fact of non-payment, to sell the wretched furniture of the occupant by public auction, ought not to be at once discontinued. He did not mean to infringe longer upon the time of the House. He had heard, and he admired the sentiment of the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government, that when any abuse was proved, he and the Government were bound to remove it. He had stated to them an admitted abuse; he had shown that two imposts on the same footing had been abolished, and when it was added that the burden fell with a different pressure on the rich and the poor, he thought he had established such a "proved abuse" as called loudly for abolition. Let them act on their own principles and adopt his resolution, and they would calm the dissensions which prevailed amongst the upper and lower orders, and make religion—what of all countries it was necessary it should be in Ireland—the union of peace and good will amongst men of all persuasions. [Mr. Shaw: What is the substitute for this tax?] The right hon. Gentleman might as well have asked for a substitute of Church-rates or tithes, when they were proposed to be abolished. The Government had avowed their desire to deal with "proved abuses." They had done so in the two instances he had stated, and the right hon. Gentleman's logical and perspi- cacious mind must be satisfied that his case was made out for the extinction of this, when he had proved its existence. There was the evil before them, and it was the duty of the Government, on its own showing, to apply a remedy. The hon. and learned Gentleman concluded by moving the following resolution:—

"That this House will, on Wednesday, the 13th day of this instant July, resolve itself into a committee of the whole House, to take into consideration the act 17 and 18 Charles 2nd, c. 7, intituled, 'An act for provision of Ministers in Cities, Corporate Towns, and making the Church of St. Andrew's, in the Suburbs of the City of Dublin, presentative for ever,' with a view to the repeal of so much thereof as relates to the provision of ministers in cities and corporate towns in Ireland."

said, that the act provided for the revision of this impost every seven years, and if it were unequal, that was an argument for a new valuation, but no ground for abolishing the means of support which the clergy enjoyed in the towns. His hon. and learned Friend seemed to contend that there was nothing analogous to this impost in England. Now that was not the fact, for the 2nd and 3rd Edward 6th provided for the payment of personal tithes in several towns in England, but excepted Canterbury and London, on the ground that in the latter a poundage rate (such as that enforced in Ireland) existed. This rate was exceedingly low, and the means of support which it afforded the clergy were as moderate as was consistent with their station.

thanked his hon. and learned Friend for having brought forward the question, which was one that greatly interested the people of Ireland. Unless the Government should exhibit a disposition to accede to the wishes of the Irish, they might expect to have the Roman Catholic question revived, in all its force, in the course of next Session. He maintained that the property of the Church of England belonged to the State, and might, purposely, be subjected to such modifications as the Legislature might determine upon. The Legislature abolished Church-cess in Ireland, on the ground that it was an obnoxious tax so was Ministers' money, and ought, therefore, for the same reason, to be abolished. His hon. and learned Friend was asked to point out a substitute for the tax which he sought to get rid of. Now he thought that it would not be difficult to find an equivalent in the Irish church temporalities fund. If the motion should be lost now, he trusted that it would be renewed next Session.

could not believe that the proposition before the House was brought forward seriously. He did not like the mode of paying Ministers' money, nor did the clergymen themselves approve of it. He believed that nothing would be more agreeable to them than to be paid in another manner. If an arrangement of that kind could be devised, he would cheerfully assist in carrying it into effect; but he never could consent to deprive a clergyman of his income without offering him any compensation.

said, that if the present proposition had been brought forward by the Government, it would have been very proper in them to provide a substitute for the tax which it was sought to abolish; but individual Members who complained of a grievance were not bound to take that course. They would leave to the Government the task of finding a substitute. If, however, he felt himself called upon to say whence a sum equivalent to that of Ministers' money might be derived, he would point to the sinecure bishoprics and sinecure livings in Ireland. It was a remarkable fact, that most of the clergymen of Dublin and Cork had other sources of income besides Ministers' money. He would give his hearty support to the motion, and he believed that Government could not follow any course more calculated to conduce to the peace of Ireland than by taking up this question.

said, that the declaration made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dungarvon, that they might expect the Roman Catholic question to be revived in all its force next Session, coupled with the fact of a motion being now brought forward to deprive a portion of the clergy of Ireland of their incomes without giving them any compensation, was a proof of the perfect inutility of all the concessions which had been made to the Roman Catholics. The experience of the last twelve years ought to convince the House of the folly of continuing in the same course.

said, that the Government ought to do something with respect to this question. If the present state of things should continue, it would be hopeless to expect that amalgamation of parties and removal of religious bickerings which was so desirable. He believed that the Irish people's objection was not to the establishment, but to the payment for its support. If the Protestants would only pay their bishops, the Catholics would not care how many they had. He trusted that the present motion would be the precursor of many others on the subject.

said, that the Ministers' money was not a tax on occupiers, but on landlords, for when a lease of a house was granted, the amount of the rent was always measured by the amount of the local impositions to which the property was liable. He certainly thought it was desirable that the mode of levying this tax should be altered. He wished some arrangement might be made similar to that made with respect to tithes.

felt obliged to his hon. and learned Colleague for having brought this motion forward, even at this inconvenient period of the Session, where it only for the admissions which had been elicited from the other side. It was now generally admitted that the manner of levying this tax was an objectionable one, and that the only thing to be wished was to find a substitute. Many of his constituents shared in the opinion that the Church Establishment was a burden on the country, and that the sooner it was put an end to the better.

said, the grievance, so graphically described by hon. Gentlemen opposite, was now for the first time, brought before the House of Commons, He, holding the situation of Secretary for Ireland, had not received a single memorial on the subject. He agreed that it was desirable a less objectionable mode of levying the tax should be devised; and if it could be shown that in some other manner an adequate provision might be made for the clergy, he for one, should not be disposed to object to such an arrangement. He could, not, however, look upon the clergy of Ireland as an adequately remunerated body of men, and could not consent to see them deprived of any of their present sources of income, unless a proper substitute was proposed. The hon. and learned Gentleman had- not moved for a committee of inquiry, but demanded at once a committee to repeal this source of income, without attempting to suggest a substitute. Under these circumstances, he thought the House was called on to reject this motion by a very large majority.

said, that though the question of this grievance had never been mooted in Parliament since 1665, yet every man connected with the Irish government who had spoken on this question, had admitted, that it was a grievance which the whole clergy wished to see modified. Was not that admission in itself a justification of his motion? An admitted grievance was now shown to exist, and it was not his business but the business of Government, to provide a remedy. Surely, it would not be said, that the Church was not rich enough for its own maintenance?

rose, pursuant to the following notice:—

"To take into consideration the petition of William Roberts on the Anatomy Act, and to move for a committee to inquire and report on the working thereof, and to recommend, if necessary, amendments of the same."

The petitioner, he said, had discovered a fluid which, applied to human bodies after death, rendered them capable of being used for anatomical purposes in the summer months, and for a much longer time than without such preparation they could be rendered available for the purposes of science. But it was stated to the petitioner, that the summer lecturers were opposed to the use of the fluid invented by Mr. Roberts, and proposed to be used in preventing the putrefaction of animal substances. It appeared that Mr. Roberts had discovered a mode of preserving bodies for the purpose of dissection, which would prevent medical students from injuring their health, or running the risk of losing their lives, which they frequently did under the present system; and therefore he trusted that the House would agree to his motion.

said, that amidst the great variety of subjects that were brought under the consideration of the House, scarcely any question was less calculated for public discussion in an assembly of that kind than the present one. He thought also that it was still less eligible for discussion before any tribunal which that House might appoint. He admitted, at the same time, the importance of the question. However distressing it might be to the feelings of some persons, it was absolutely necessary, for the benefit of the living, that anatomy should be practised. Until the Anatomy Act was passed, there were many outrages committed upon public decency, and much danger to human life was incurred in the mode in which bodies were procured for dissection. During the inquiries before the committee which was appointed at the suggestion of Mr. Warburton, to whose exertions the passing of the Anatomy Bill was mainly attributable, sufficiently disgusting exposures were made respecting the disinterment of bodies; but since that bill had become the law of the land, the scenes of violence and crime which accompanied those exhumations had almost, if not entirely ceased. He would inform his hon. and learned Friend that so long ago as that time, Mr. Warburton was in communication with the inventor upon the subject. It was then thought that the experiment of Mr. Roberts would be an available one. He could not dissemble from the House that two or three of the enactments of the Anatomy Act had not been complied with; but he wished to set his hon. and learned friend right with regard to the provision respecting inspectors. The act did not prescribe three inspectors, but the clause was of a permissive nature, giving a power to appoint three inspectors should that number be thought necessary. One only had been nominated, consequently the expense of the whole establishment was less than if three had been appointed, while, he believed, the duty was better fulfilled than it would be if three inspectors were engaged. As to the quarterly returns, he had in his office distinct proofs that his predecessors had from time to time watched the working of the act, therefore it had not been a dead letter; and he could assure his hon. and learned Friend that he had paid due attention to this department of his public business. The allegations respecting the burial of bodies were submitted by himself to a commission consisting of Mr. Rogers, a Queen's counsel, and he believed now a deputy judge-advocate, and Mr. Green, a distinguished surgeon! and all the abuses complained of were checked, Dr. Somerville being warned of them and desired to prevent their re- currence. All the provisions of the act were, he believed, most carefully attended to. Having stated the substance of the report, he hoped the House would not press for its production. Passing from the Anatomy Bill, he would now come to the prayer of the petition, which he believed to be, under the guise of an attempt to carry out more effectively the objects of that bill, an application of a grant from the public purse for an alleged discovery of national importance. If Mr. Roberts had made such a discovery as he had described, he would be entitled to a reward; but from the best information he had been able to collect, he was led to the conclusion that such was not the case. His hon. Friend had mentioned a certificate which was signed in 1836 by many eminent men, who stated that, from what they saw, it was a discovery of great importance and most useful to society. Three names were mentioned by his hon. Friend—Sir B. Brodie, Mr. Stanley, and Mr. Green—and three more eminent persons and competent judges of the matter could scarcely have been found. His hon. Friend also said, that the teachers of anatomy were prejudiced against Mr. Roberts, and wished to continue the present system for the sake of obtaining pupils. Why, to such a man as Sir B. Brodie it must be a positive sacrifice to be withdrawn from his professional business with patients; but he was a man who disregarded personal advantages in his zeal for the promotion and improvement of that science which he adorned. In April, 1836, Mr. Roberts proposed to the College of Surgeons that they should give him 1,000l. for his invention, and use their interest with the Government to procure for him a further sumof 2,000l.

"I cannot find that the College (says Sir B. Brodie) ever answered this application. Mr. Roberts afterwards made some similar proposals to the teachers of anatomical schools. Sir A. Cooper and myself signed a paper, which you have seen, after examining a body which Mr. Roberts said had been unburied some time. But subsequently it appeared that the whole experiment was a complete failure."

This was the testimony given on the authority of Mr. Harrison, the treasurer of Guy's Hospital, and Mr. Stanley. Sir B. Brodie went on to state that the same discovery had been made in France; and he added in his communication—

"However, useful it may be, it can never supersede the necessity of dissection;"

He thought, then, that it was sufficiently clear from the opinions of men whose original impressions were in favour of the discovery, that it had been already fully investigated, and had proved to be a failure. He therefore trusted that his hon. and learned Friend would not press his motion.

replied, that he should be sorry to press this or any other motion upon the attention of the House after observations similar to those just made by the right hon. Baronet. He was not aware that the facts detailed in the petition, which certainly seemed to be very extraordinary in their nature, had been the subject of previous consideration, or he would not have urged them again upon the notice of the House and the Government. After what had been stated by the right hon. Baronet, and seeing the disposition of the House, he should not press his motion.

in rising to bring forward a motion respecting the secret proceedings of election committees, said, that he felt himself somewhat embarrassed, because he had been given to understand that the committee over which the hon. Member for Bath presided had made its report to the House. [Mr. Hume: No, no!—agreed to it.] Then he was quite in order in moving the resolution to which he had given notice, and it was this:—

"That in all the proceedings of the committees specially appointed to investigate the charges of alleged corrupt compromises and bribery in respect of the late elections for the boroughs of Nottingham, Reading, Harwich, Lewes, Falmouth and Penryn, Bridport, Belfast, and Southampton, respectively, the parties accused or implicated in such charges shall at all times, save at such times only as the said committee shall deliberate thereon, be entitled to be present at such committees, irrespectively of the right which such of them as may be Members of this House have to attend all committees, except secret committees of the same."

He thought he might say with absolute confidence that no Member of that House would vote against such a proposition; some might not assent to it; but without wishing to be offensive, he defied any one to vote against it. Those who were not able to comply with it might move the previous question; but they could not venture directly to negative such a proposition as this—that an accused person had a right to enter the court before which he was to be tried. Again and again he must declare that this was a case in which a person was tried on accusations made before a tribunal, and from which he was excluded. It was no preliminary inquiry; a direct charge was made by an hon. Member in his place in that House, and on his motion a particular tribunal was appointed for the purpose of trying the person against whom the charge was made. He was afraid of wearying the House by restating that which he had already stated more than onc.e—that the hon. and learned Member for Hath distinctly made a charge against individuals, and said he would fix and crucify those individuals whom he alleged to be guilty of that which he called a crime before their countrymen; and it was under those circumstances that the hon. and learned Member had prevailed upon the House to grant him that tribunal before whom those he accused were called to appear as witnesses. He contended that they had a right to be present throughout the proceedings; and the only consideration which might have induced him to pause in bringing forward his motion would be that the committee had made its report; but even if that had been the case, he should think he was best discharging his duty by changing the terms of the resolution, and introducing it as a resolution laying down a principle the application of which might be left to future cases, if any such should arise—an occurrence, however, of which he had little fear, for he believed no such committee as that referred to would ever again be granted. But, be that as it might, he was free from the necessity of considering the point, when he was informed that the committee had not yet brought their labours to a close; and in consequence the only matter he had to insist on was the right of an accused person to hear the charges brought and the evidence adduced against him. He was told by the hon. Member for Harwich, as well as by others who had attended the committee, that the proceedings were conducted with courtesy; but let him ask, what security had they that such courtesy would be shown in other cases? He wanted to establish the principle, and he said again that he believed no one would be found to negative the abstract proposition, and if that were so, then, let the fate of the motion be what it might, it could only be got rid of indirectly. In deference to the House, as much as in deference to the advanced state of the proceedings before the committee, he would not attempt to support this motion by any lengthened statement. He repeated again, that he believed it would be impossible to find any Member in that House, and he ventured to hope he should find no one out of it prepared to enunciate as his principle, that an accused person was not entitled to be present when accusations were made against him. The hon. and learned Member for the county of Cork had suggested to him that these regulations were not laid down by the committee over which he presided, or by the committee sitting on the business of the Southampton election. But if his motion was good for anything, it was good as a principle not applicable only to present, but to all cases. He contended that it ought to be made a matter of right that accused persons might be present if they pleased, with the single exception of occasions when their judges were sitting to deliberate among themselves. Such being the circumstances, and such being the principle, he would conclude by putting his motion in the shape of an abstract proposition in the hands of the Speaker, leaving its application to this or any future tribunal, and impressed with a full conviction that the principle he laid down was unimpeachable.

was exceedingly sorry to be obliged to trouble the House on this occasion, but he could not help remarking that he was entirely at a loss to know why this motion should have been brought forward at all. The hon. Baronet said it went to establish a principle, and he inferred that he would not leave the application of that principle to the individual discretion of the chairman of a committee. Now, he would appeal to the hon. Baronet's own judgment to say, was it left to the individual discretion of the chairman? And why should he come down to that House with a proposition of this sort, carrying its own refutation, and put forward as it seemed to him merely ad captandum? There were on this committee eight Members besides himself: the House had intrusted to them to conduct a delicate inquiry; it had left to them a certain discretion as to the mode of conducting it, and all they asked was, that the House should continue that discretion until they saw cause to withdraw it. Having granted that discretion, this motion implied a direct censure upon their employment of it. It was an interference with their proceedings without any cause assigned. If the hon. Baronet would have waited until the proceedings of the committee were laid on the Table, he would have acted wisely, and would have done no harm to his cause. At that moment their report, as regarded five of the cases referred to them, was printed. It would soon be in the hands of Members. What then did the hon. Baronet want? What did he desire to effect by this motion? All they said was this—

"So long as we conduct the inquiry fairly, without any appearance of hostility to any one so long do we think we shall best fulfil the commands of the House."

And certainly, in exercising the discretion put into their hands, they were of opinion that they should best conduct their investigation—not in public, so that their proceedings might be published in the newspapers day by day—but without public interference, in a private and friendly manner, for friendly they had been, and he was glad to say continued to be. So long as they got the evidence from the parties themselves—so long as they were without the necessity of resorting to hostile sources for information, so much would it be the better for the parties concerned; and he might add, that for the purpose of the inquiry, which was merely to elucidate examples of a system, it would be far better than any course they could otherwise adopt. He would venture to promise the hon. Baronet, that in a few days he should see the whole body of the evidence taken by the committee, and he would there find such statements as the House could not possibly acquire by any other means, and as, he would venture to say, would not be disputed by any of the parties. This evidence was given by those concerned; it was given by themselves, of themselves, about themselves, and concerning their own acts. What could he say more? All he could add was, a repetition of his advice that the House should wait a little while longer—should continue to the committee the discretion they used, and he hoped had not abused, and then the House might do what it pleased. What he entreated, and what he thought he had even a right to demand, was that hon. Members would not cast a censure on the proceedings of the committee, before they knew what had been done. One word as to the hon. Baronet's challenge to the House. No one had attempted—no one, to use his own term, dared to dispute that when a man was brought to trial he should see his accusers face to face; but there might surely be inquiries as to personal matters, with regard to which it might not be desirable that the parties should interfere; and if they could obtain evidence in such cases without resorting to third parties, he did say that it was infinitely better than to run the risk of the annoyances which would result from pursuing a different system. But, above all, he said, let the House wait and see what the committee had done, and not attempt to rush hastily into a matter of which it could know nothing. He sat down with the most perfect assurance that the House would continue its confidence in the discretion of the committee, and would adopt no resolution implying a censure on the conduct of the committee.

said, the hon. Member for Bath had implied that every witness before his committee was to state what he himself knew, and to make no charge against any other person. Now this was curious, for if a witness stated what he knew of his own knowledge, in all probability he would implicate some other person. It was quite possible, that when the report of the committee was published they would find in the evidence a vast variety of accusations against individuals, which, on examination, would be found inconsistent with facts, and with regard to which those individuals would say that had they been called before the committee, or allowed an opportunity of hearing them, they could have rebutted or explained away the allegations. This appeared to him to be a very possible result, and it was therefore highly necessary, not only for the sake of private justice, but for the public satisfaction, that the parties accused should be admitted to hear the charges.

hoped that the hon. Member for Bath would not attribute to him that he entertained any desire to impute to him, and to him alone, the outrageous acts the committee had been guilty of on the confession of their own chairman. He did not impute those acts to the hon. and learned Member any more than to any other Member of the committee, but he presumed it would not be thought very extraordinary if he drew the conclusion that the deliberations and proceedings of that committee would be very much guided by the superior learning, intelligence, and ability of the hon. Member for Bath. The hon. Member told them that they were to judge of the committee by their conduct. He did so, and he found that a part of that conduct was to prevent the parties implicated from being present to hear the evidence given against them. He presumed the hon. and learned Member adhered to that determination, and, not knowing whether the report of the committee might be final or not—not knowing how much longer they might choose to sit and deliberate, he did think it highly desirable that they should adopt the principle embodied in this resolution. The hon. Member told them that he excluded the parties for their own benefit. Now he was not particularly anxious to benefit these parties. He wished, all who bought or sold in boroughs to pay the just penalty for so doing. He did not desire certainly that they should be punished with the extreme severity suggested by the hon. Member—that they should be put to the tortures he would inflict upon them—but he did wish them to be properly punished, and he was not to be told that these proceedings were to be carried on in secrecy, because the parties whose dirty practices were to be inquired into were to have their feelings carefully considered. Why should not all the courts be shut against parties either implicated or interested? Because feelings might be hurt by letting in the light of day on evidence by means of which crime was to be punished. He confessed he did not understand the principle laid down by the hon. Member for Bath. He said cross-examination was to be avoided, because he wished that all the proceedings of the committee should be conducted without offence to the feelings of any one. Why, he had always thought that cross-examination was the best security which was provided by the law of England for the elucidation of truth. But, said the hon. Member for Bath, it would be very inconvenient, and would interrupt the harmony of the proceedings of the committee; he called upon the House to wait until they had seen the report; and in the gentlest terms he said or implied that it was drawn in so mild a form, that nobody's feelings would be hurt. He would certainly wait to see the report before he formed any opinion upon the evidence; but what he wanted to know was, why feelings should be allowed to interfere with justice, if such a term could be applied to the proceedings of the committee? He might be wrong; but he had formed an opinion, and, whatever the House might think of it, he would tell them what it was; he suspected that there was another compromise. He might have been hasty in coming to such a conclusion, but he suspected it from the tone and language of the hon. and learned Member for Bath. What a contrast between the indignation he showed when he denounced the corrupt practices he alleged to have taken place— what a contrast between the language which fell from him when he took the House by storm, and the gentle tone in which he now spoke of the feelings of parties whom he formerly denounced. Seeing such a change, he could not help suspecting, that there had been a compromise— that the whole matter was to end in some gentle, mild report, which could not, by any possibility, injure the feelings of any one. The House showed itself anxious to probe the whole charge made by the hon. Member for Bath to the very bottom, and they had armed the committee with powers accordingly; but now they were to be put off with a report which would make them all look foolish at their having allowed themselves to be taken by the stormy invectives of the hon. and learned Member. He would not say, that the hon. and learned Gentleman would be haunted by any of those feelings of foolishness, but he must say, that he thought the hon. and learned Member had been very ill-advised, when he allowed himself, and induced the committee, to depart from the acknowledged and regular rules of judicial investigation. From the moment the hon. and learned Gentleman declared in that House that the accused were not to be allowed to be present at the inquiry into the charges brought against them, from that moment all the importance which the people of England attached to the proceedings of the committee was gone—utterly annihilated. He did not care what might be the result of the report promised by the hon. and learned Gentleman, but he would tell him that he must in it convince both that House, and the intelligent, thinking part of the public, that he had a strong case, which had justified him and the committee in departing from the regular and established principles of fairness which governed all temples of justice, and to which this committee was the only exception.

would confine himself strictly to the question before the House; it was not whether the committee had or had not properly used the discretion given to them, by closing their doors. Upon that point he felt himself compelled to suspend his judgment until their report had been laid on the Table of the House, and he saw how they had conducted the important inquiry intrusted to them by the House. At the same time, he must say, that if the charge made against them — if he found it should turn out that they had inculpated individuals in the dark—if they had conducted judicial inquiries without giving ample opportunity to the parties charged to hear the charges and make their defence, he should consider that they had acted improperly and irregularly. But that was not the question before the House; it was, was the House prepared to step out of its way to interfere with the discretion of a committee relating to a resolution to which they were informed they were unanimous in coming? In his opinion, the House would deal unfairly and unjustly with the committee if they interfered with them in the manner sought by the hon. Baronet, the Member for the University of Oxford. It was a motion for which he had been unable to find any precedent, and one to which he hoped the House would not give its assent. They were now informed, that the committee had concluded their labours in respect of five of the cases which had been referred to them—that, in fact, the report was printed, It would, therefore, be highly inexpedient for the House to interfere, and require the committee to carry on the remaining inquiry in a manner different from that in which they had thought it their duty to conduct the previous ones. Upon these grounds, he should be prepared to give a negative to the motion.

in making up his mind upon the motion of his hon. Friend, would throw out of consideration all regard to the committee now sitting; in fact, they knew nothing of it; but he must say, that if the House had no confidence in it, it would be better that a motion should be made, rescinding the resolution which appointed it, but if the House continued the committee, let it have the full confidence of the House and a free exercise of discretion. Surely the House would not make a retrospective rule, and require the committee again to go over the ground it had cleaved. Would they, then, make a prospective rule, applicable to future committees? Would it be wise for the House to lay down a rule which would have the effect of controlling the conduct of all future committees? He, for one, was not prepared to lay down a rule which would so control all commit- tees to be hereafter appointed as that they should have no discretion as to whom they should admit to hear their deliberations—that they should not have power to say to parties who might be implicated by their proceedings, "You must retire." He was not prepared to say that all parties implicated in charges which were under investigation before a committee should have an absolute right to insist upon being present, even against the opinion of the committee communicated to them. Supposing such a rule to be laid down,—charges were sometimes made in committees of the whole House; inquiries were sometimes made at the Bar, in which individuals were implicated; would it then be right that those parties should be able to invalidate the act of Mr. Speaker, to invalidate the standing orders, or even to set at nought the unanimous vote of the House by insisting on being present; or that they should have the power to rescind that order of the House which requires that the House should be cleared if one Member should remark that strangers were present? He much doubted the policy of making such a change. He thought it infinitely better that the House should, when they appointed such a tribunal, leave it to the discretion of the committee either to exclude or to allow the presence of such parties as they pleased. There might be cases where charges were under investigation in which the presence of parties might defeat the ends of justice. Take the case of grand juries. [Sir R. Inglis: Before the grand jury only a preliminary inquiry is gone into.] That strengthened his argument, because the committee had no right to affect the rights of any one individual, but the grand jury had the power of sending any person charged before them to his trial, and if the bill was ignored by the grand jury, the party charged stood in a very different and a much better position in society than if they stated that a prima facie case had been made out against him; yet the party had not only no right to be in the grand jury-room, but he was expressly excluded by the law. Looking at the function committees were intrusted with, he did not think it would be wise to control them in the exercise of their discretion in the manner proposed by his hon. Friend. He was therefore prepared to give a decided "No" to the motion.

in reply, said, he had worded his motion in the manner in which it appeared on the paper, because he was informed the committee had not yet reported, and of course the House was presumed not to know in what stage their proceedings were. His right hon. Friend had compared the functions of the committee to those of a grand jury, but he contended that there was no analogy whatever between the two tribunals, and for this simple reason—in the latter, the proceedings were for the purpose of inquiry, those before the committee were for the purposes of trial. He insisted the parties charged before that committee were on their trial. In election committees, the very first proceedings taken were to call in the parties, their counsel and agents, and he contended that the proceedings before the committee of the hon. and learned Member ought to be as open, for he contended the parties before them were on their trial. The hon. and learned Member for Bath could not deny that he had made certain charges before that House, sitting in the character of a grand jury. The charges were entertained, and sent before the committee, who were the jury for trial. [Mr. Roebuck: Investigation.] It might be called investigation at the Old Bailey; but still the investigations entered upon there were trials in every sense of the word. Personally he had nothing to complain of,— he had to return thanks to both sides of the House for the manner in which he was received when he felt it his duty to address them, and he had to thank the hon. and learned Member for Bath for much courtesy; but he could not, like his hon. Friend the learned Member for Winchester, pay him a compliment upon his learning and ability at the expense of the other Members of the committee, especially of the Member for Lambeth, who sat beside him, and whom he knew served upon the committee. With the exception of that hon. Member and one other he confessed, with something approaching shame, that he did not know of whom the committee was composed; but he could not pay them so bad a compliment as to suppose for one moment that they would allow themselves to be passive instruments in the hands of the hon. and learned Member who presided as Chairman. The hon. and learned Gentleman had himself admitted the principle for which he was contending: he said, if they were compelled to deal with hostile witnesses the doors would be thrown open at once. He further said, he had thrown aside his character of judge—he sat no longer in a court of justice—he sat now as father confessor in the confessional, turning an ear first to one side and then to another to hear all that parties had to say against themselves—to hear all that might be confided to him by willing witnesses. He thought, therefore, that the hon. and learned Member had practically conceded the point for which he contended. The hon. and learned Member for Bath said,—

"By the adoption of this motion, you pass a severe censure on the committee. We have adopted a particular line of conduct, and you, without knowing how this course has operated, censure us for pursuing it."

He thought, however, that the refusal of the House to entertain this motion would imply a direct censure upon those committees who had made their proceedings public. If the right hon. Baronet at the head of her Majesty's Government had moved the previous question, he might not, perhaps, have thought it necessary to press his motion to a division; but, as the right hon. Gentleman was prepared to meet the question by a direct negative, he considered that he ought to take the sense of the House upon it.

hoped the House would adopt some rule for regulating the future proceedings of committees on the point at issue; and he moved the previous question.

said, he understood the h o Baronet (Sir R. Inglis) to have stated that, if the previous question was moved, he would not press his motion to a division; but the hon. Baronet had now intimated that he felt bound to take the sense of the House on the subject. The substantial question was, he conceived, whether the proceedings before the committee, of which the hon. Member for Bath was Chairman, were in the nature of a trial. The difference between an inquiry—as before a grand jury—and a trial, was this—that in the former case only one party was heard, while in the latter the person accused had an opportunity of meeting the charges alleged against him. Before the committee appointed on the motion of the hon. and learned Member for Bath, charges were made seriously affecting the character and conduct of individuals; and the report of that committee would be, in fact, a verdict as to the proof of those charges.

said, it was alleged that certain parties were implicated in the charges made before a committee of that House, and that those parties were entitled to be present at the proceedings of the committee. The House was, then, called upon to say "Aye," or "No." If they considered that these parties had a right to be present, let the House say "Aye," but why should they have recourse to the previous question? He thought it was more advisable, when they could do so, to give a direct negative, than to avoid that course by affirming the motion of the previous question.

considered that the motion of the hon. Baronet (Sir R. Inglis) would not lead to any practical result. In the case of that committee, of which the hon. Member for Bath was Chairman, the evidence had been almost wholly heard, and the parties affected by that evidence had not been permitted to be present. He thought that it was right and expedient, as a matter of justice, that in all cases parties accused should have an opportunity of hearing the evidence against them. In this instance, however, the evidence had been heard, the committee had come to a decision, and the motion of the hon. Baronet could produce no result, as far as that committee was concerned. In the cases of the Belfast and Southampton committees, the parties implicated in the inquiry were allowed to be present; and it was, therefore, unnecessary for the House to affirm, by adopting the motion of the hon. Baronet, the propriety of the course which those committees had pursued.

said, the question was whether, by a general resolution of the House, they should deprive future committees, appointed to conduct inquiries of this description, of all discretion as to the exclusion of particular parties. In the case of the committee of which he was Chairman, the House allowed them to exercise a discretion. The committee had, in the exercise of that discretion, pursued a particular course; and he appealed to the House whether, under present circumstances, they were capable of judging whether the conduct of the committee was right or wrong. All he asked the House to do was, to suspend their judgment until the evidence taken by that committee was placed before them, and not to adopt a general proposition of this nature.

said, the question was, not what was the nature of the evidence taken before the hon. Gentleman's committee, but whether that committee had acted in a legal and constitutional manner. The hon. Member for Bath had not defended the mode in which evidence was taken by the committee; but he asked the House to suspend their judgment until the evidence was laid before them. Whatever might be the nature of that evidence, it must be unsatisfactory and nugatory, because it had been obtained in an unconstitutional manner.

did not understand what the hon. Member meant by asserting that this committee had proceeded in an unconstitutional manner. This committee, in taking evidence, had adopted the course usually pursued by committees of that Housse, as well as by commissioners appointed by the Crown. In the case of the committee appointed to inquire into the subject of slavery in the West Indies, evidence was taken affecting parties, who had no opportunity of refuting the statements which were made by the witnesses. With respect, too, to the recent inquiry into the state of the mining labourers, the committee went down into the mines and reported on the condition of the people, but they did not take the evidence of the owners or of their agents. In this case they could not determine whether the committee of which the hon. Member for Bath was Chairman, had acted in a constitutional manner with respect to receiving evidence, until they learned whether it was the intention of the committee to follow up the inquiry by penal measures. If the committee merely, inquired into the extent of the corruption which had prevailed, and into the compromises alleged to have taken place, and reported to the House the result of their investigation, with a view to future legislation, he thought the conduct of the committee had been in consonance with the usual practice. If, however, it was intended to follow up the inquiry by penal measures, then he thought it had not been conducted according to the forms of justice, for the parties accused ought to have had an opportunity of being present, and of refuting the charges made against them. He thought the course pursued by the hon. Member for Bath proved that he did not intend to propose any vindictive measures. He believed the object of the hon. Member was to obtain information which might enable that House to legislate for the public benefit. With regard to the Southampton and Belfast committees, which had adopted a different course to that pursued by the committee of the hon. Member for Bath, if they followed up their inquiries by recommending penal measures, he thought the parties affected by those measures would have no ground of complaint.

could not see any practical difference between saying no to the proposition and voting for the previous question. The taking the division on the previous question would lead to two divisions, and so little willing was he to waste the time of the House by technicalities, that he would vote for the previous question, if, by so doing, two divisions would be prevented. The House divided on the previous question: — Ayes 49; Noes 129: — Majority 80.

in moving for a copy of the report of the officers appointed by the Admiralty to consider the plans of Mr. Cubitt for constructing a harbour of refuge at Dover, expressed a wish that the right hon. Baronet (Sir R. Peel) would give some assurance that the serious attention of the Government would be directed to the very important subject of constructing a harbour of refuge in the narrow channel for the protection of our coast. With regard to the expense, it was his opinion that in a few years the whole expense would be saved, not only in the saving of time, but in the saving of human life in our commercial navy.

had no objection to the production of the paper called for by the hon. Member. He was quite sensible of the great importance of the subject to which the paper related. But it was a question which required very full consideration on the part of the Government before it undertook so great a work. The expense of the proposed harbour had been estimated to amount to between £500,000 and £600,000. The hon. Gentleman must not therefore be surprised if he, in the present state of the national finances, forbore giving any pledge as to what course the Government might at any subsequent period take. He would repeat that he was quite sensible of the importance of having harbours for the protection of the commercial navy on all parts of the coast. A variety of plans had been submitted to the Treasury, each plan in itself of great importance, and it would be premature for the Government to pledge themselves to any work of an extensive character before they had fully considered all that bore upon the undertaking.

was willing to abide by the opinion he had expressed on a former occasion, when this subject was brought under the notice of the House. That opinion was, that mere local exertions were not likely to be effective, and that he thought it would be better to make one extensive harbour, constructed on the best principles that science could suggest. But whether that harbour should be at Margate, at Hastings, or at Dover, he expressed no opinion. He thought that the Government should take the highest professional opinions upon the subject, and then form one harbour upon an extensive scale. He also had said that in the present state of the national finances he could not press upon her Majesty's then Government to undertake so great a work. He confessed he could not see any such improvement in the financial affairs of the country as to induce him to be more earnest in pressing forward the undertaking now than he was formerly. He could assure the hon. Gentleman that there was hardly a port on the coast respecting which similar plans had not been suggested to the plan which related to Dover. One plan had been proposed with respect to the island of Jersey, another to the Isle of Man, and others with respect to the eastern coast. The hon. Gentleman must, therefore, excuse him, if he declined giving any assurance whatever respecting an undertaking depending so much upon contingencies; even if he could foresee that prosperity in the affairs of the country which the hon. Gentleman appeared to an- ticipate, still he should like to realise it, before he made any pledge as to the works the Government might undertake in consequence of that prosperity.

wished to call the attention of the right hon. Baronet to the case of the harbour at Falmouth, which he considered to possess peculiar claims on the Government. It was a port where nature had done everything, and art had done nothing but to destroy. It was the very eye of the channel, and he hoped the right hon. Baronet would grant the loan of a steam vessel to be stationed at Falmouth, the use of which would be extremely advantageous. He made this appeal in the name of his constituents and of his own to her Majesty's Government.

without wishing to mean anything discourteous to the hon. Gentleman, felt bound to decline giving any pledge on the matter. It would be much better that these things should be done in a formal shape.

rose in pursuance of notice, to move the following resolution:—

"That it is the opinion of this House, that, considering the present state of the country, it would be highly expedient to vest in her present most gracious Majesty similar authority to that which was given to her predecessors, and this House, before the close of this Session, will cheerfully acquiesce in granting such powers as may enable her Majesty, with the advice of her Privy Council, to reduce or discontinue, should circumstances so require, the duties which now regulate the importation of foreign Corn, until the 1st. day of January, 1843, or for six weeks after the commencement of the next Session of Parliament."

It might be said that if it were at all necessary that her Majesty's Ministers should have the powers he proposed to give them, they ought to come down to the House and ask for it: it might be said also, that this was a reopening of the discussion on the Corn-laws; and it might further be said that if the House agreed to this resolution, it would be tantamount to giving the right hon. Baronet a vote of confidence, and thereby leave in his hands a discretionary power either to relax the corn duties, or entirely to discontinue those duties which Parliament in its wisdom decided to impose. All these things might be said, but it was his decided opinion, that it was their duty be- fore the close of the Session, not only to agree to any measure which might be proposed by the Government, but to anticipate her Majesty's Government in any measure which might tend to alleviate the unparalleled, the alarming, and the long-continued distress which had existed in this country, and which he feared would not merely pervade the manufacturing districts, but would extend to almost every class of her Majesty's subjects. The existence of that distress was acknowledged on all hands; he, therefore, could not see any ground for refusing to give the power to her Majesty's Government which he proposed to do, and which, without doing injury to any party, might be beneficially exercised for the suffering multitudes of her Majesty's subjects. For a long series of years this country, it was almost needless for him to state, was a large exporting country for corn. From the year 1697 to the year 1765 the exports of grain exceeded the imports by many millions of quarters. Since the year 1797 this country had generally been an importing one for grain. Parliament had oftentimes interfered to prevent the exportation of corn and to encourage importation of foreign Corn. By the 8th of Anne, chap. 2, the Queen, by proclamation, was allowed to prevent the exportation of corn, and distillation from grain. The Parliament of that day anticipated a scarcity of grain, and they wisely provided against it by giving the Crown power to prevent exportation. By the 14th Geo. 2nd (1741), the same power was given to the King; and by the 5th Geo. 3rd (1765), his Majesty was authorized to prohibit the exportation of wheat, wheat-meal, and other articles of grain. A return was made to that House, dated 11th February, 1842, setting forth the various acts of Parliament which had been passed for the regulation of the exportation of corn. Useful as this document was, still it was defective. It referred only to those acts which related to the exportation of corn, amounting to thirty-one in number; but it did not set forth the acts relating to the importation of foreign corn, although there were twenty-one such acts. One of those statutes was rather important. It was the 35th Geo. 3rd, cap. 4. (1795), and was introduced by the Government in consequence of a Speech from the Throne, on the opening of that Parliament, in which his Majesty said, that he had observed, for some time past, with great anxiety, the high price of grain; and that that anxiety was increased by the apprehension that the wheat harvest for the then year would not be effectual to relieve the people from the afflictions with which they had to contend. In consequence of that speech, a law was passed to prohibit distillation and exportation of corn. On the 7th of December, 1795, he found the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in stating his budget to the House, speak thus:—

"Another important sum which they would have to look for in the course of this year would be, the bounties on the com to be imported into this country. On that head he could not pretend to speak with any certainty. It was a head of service to the amount of which he looked with hope rather than fear, and he should be extremely happy to find that he had a great sum to provide for upon that account. He thought, however, the sum of 1,000,000l. was as large a sum for bounties as was likely to be called for."

From the year 1796 to the year 1805, no less a sum than 2,856,000l. was paid for bounty on the importation of foreign corn. He would now call the attention of the House to another important statute— the 39th Geo. 3rd, cap. 87. (1799). It authorised his Majesty to prohibit the exportation of corn, and to permit the importation of foreign corn in British and neutral ships, duty free, which act was continued by subsequent statutes to the end of the war. But important as were these provisions, there were others still more striking; for the statute went on to authorise the importation, duty free, of all sorts of pulse, of bulls, cows, oxen, calves, sheep, lambs, swine, beef, bacon, hams, tongues, potatoes, rice, poultry, and many other articles, without payment of any duty whatever. The next statute to which he would refer was one of a much more recent date than those he had hitherto quoted. It was a statute which was passed in the year 1826, when the right hon. Baronet (Sir Robert Peel) was Secretary of State for the Home Department, during Lord Liverpool's administration. On the 18th of April in that year Mr. Whitmore brought forward a motion for a committee to revise the Corn-laws. The Government resisted the motion. Great distress prevailed in the manufacturing districts during that year, and although the Government refused to interfere with the Corn-laws, yet Mr. Canning came down to the House on the 1st of May, and gave notice of a motion with regard to the distress which pressed upon the manufacturing population of the country. Mr. Canning, on that occasion, observed that—

"He was sure a measure of relief at the present crisis would come home to the feelings of every Member of the House; and whatever might be the inexpediency of interfering to disturb a measure which Government had refrained from altering, there were moments when general expediency should give way to cases of particular emergency. Under the existing distresses, it was the intention of Government to propose to the House a measure the least pregnant with evil, and the most calculated to do good."

It was then proposed that wheat and wheaten flour then in bond should be allowed to be taken out of the warehouse at a certain duty, and that the King in council should have the power to allow the importation of foreign corn, the quantity not exceeding 500,000 quarters. The agricultural interest was most strenuously0020opposed to the Government on the occasion. [An hon. Member: What was the duty at that time?] 12s. a quarter. On the 5th of May the question was debated, and Mr. Canning quoted two letters which, with the permission of the House, he would read, as they served to show the very great and good effect which the measure proposed by Government had on the mercantile interests of the country —

"I hope it will not be considered an unfair inference, that if I show what we have already done, and the expectation of what we are about to do, to be producing great good, I may be allowed to anticipate still greater good from the consummation of our intentions. The account of what we proposed upon the subject of the bonded corn reached Liverpool on Wednesday morning; and on this day there are letters in town, one of which has been put into my hand just before I came down to the House. It is not from any friend of mine, nor an acquaintance, nor a political supporter either of mine or of my right hon. Friend who succeeded, me in the honour of representing that city in this House; but, on the contrary, from a gentleman decidedly opposed to me in politics. I know him, however, to be a man of high honour, unquestioned integrity, and possessing great estimation as a mercantile character in the city where he resides. In this letter, dated from Liverpool, an extract of which I shall take the liberty of reading to the House, he says, ' There has been a slight improvement to-day in Manchester goods, but the moment it became known that it was the in- tention of Ministers to introduce a measure for our relief, by removing the restrictions which kept the bonded corn out of the market, cotton could not be obtained at an advance of 5 per cent.: and there seemed to be a very general restoration of confidence, arising from the feeling that Government would do all in their power to relieve the sufferers.' This was the language of one letter. Since I entered the House, however, I have received another, which is also not addressed to me, or to any friend of mine, and I believe the writer to be opposed to me in politics. I know, however, that he is a person of respectability. His letter, dated 3d of May, runs thus:—' The account of what has been proposed by Ministers has made us all alive, and led to a very general improvement in trade. Holders of cotton are all speculating upon a rise; and there are no sellers to-day.' Surely it could not be said, after this, that the measure recommended is not founded upon good principles; and, even if the practical effect may be in some measure over-rated, it must be a matter of congratulation to its proposers, and an encouragement to perseverance, when they see that the expectation of its effects is likely to produce a return of that confidence, without which the manufacturers cannot hope to be rescued from their present difficulties."

The next quotation which he would take the liberty to read to the House was from the speech of a living statesman whom he saw on the opposite bench—the right hon. Baronet the Member for Tamworth. During the discussion on the motion of Mr. Canning, it had been argued that it was needless to open the ports, or to take corn out of bond, because what the people wanted was work, and that without it they had no money to pay for the corn, whether bonded or not. How did the right hon. Baronet meet that objection. He said:—

"My hon. Friend who spoke last has said, and I have heard the observation repeated more than once by others, that there is no use in increasing the supply of corn in this country, and lowering its price; since they who are in want of money altogether cannot buy it at any price, however low. Why, Sir, what miserable sophistry is this? To suppose that there are no classes in this country except those who are abounding in wealth, and can command all luxuries—and those who are in the other extreme, and unable to purchase even the necessaries of life. But I put it to my hon. Friend, whether there are not between those two classes many intermediate Ones, who possess, in various degrees, the means of purchasing some of them the luxuries, some the comforts, and some the necessaries of life? Is it possible to contend, that no immediate advantage will result to the other classes from lowering the price of corn to them, if it shall have attained such an additional price in the market as to render it dearer than it is at present? Look at the distressed classes of manufactures; look at the number of unemployed persons who are suffering, at Rochford there are 10,000, at another place 12,000, at another 15,000. How are they supported at this moment? Why, Sir, they are supported by the benevolence of their neighbours. And if the effect of the measures proposed by my right hon. Friend be to enable those neighbours, with the contributions raised for their relief, to purchase additional supplies of corn, to be afforded to those who have no means of purchasing it, what folly is it to contend that lowering the price of corn, and thereby enlarging the quantities which such monies will purchase, will not relieve the unfortunate people in question? When my hon. Friend says that no case had been made out, I would ask what it is he means? Quite sure I am that I may appeal to the committee whether, in the very fact of those existing distresses, such a case is not made out? I am so confident that the general conviction of the distress which now prevails in the manufacturing districts must have come home to the mind and knowledge of every man, from the information which has been supplied on that head by the daily newspapers, as to be perfectly satisfied that the same motives which induce Parliament to concur in the proposition for letting out the bonded corn, will also induce it to give a discretionary power to the Government to do precisely the same thing, or a measure of similar effect; that is to say, to admit 500,000 quarters of foreign corn into our ports."

Certainly no Member could controvert the arguments then used by the right hon. Baronet. He would now advert to the expressions used on the same occasion by the noble Member for North Lancashire, who at that time, as at present, he was bound to admit, entertained a strong feeling in favour of the distressed manufacturers. The hon. Member read an extract from the speech of Lord Stanley, in 1826, applauded the beautiful language in which his sentiments had been expressed, and continued by reading a quotation of precisely the same tenor from a speech by the Earl of Aberdeen. He had thus quoted to the House the opinions of these distinguished individuals, Members of the present Government, delivered in the year 1826. It would no doubt be urged that the years 1826 and 1842 were dissimilar in several respects, particularly as far as Parliament was concerned, because in the former year it had refused to legislate regarding corn, whereas in 1842 a measure had actually been passed at the instance of the right hon. Baronet, and after long discussion. But he begged to direct the attention of the House to the operation of the new law as far as it had gone, and as far as it would be collected from a return up to the 5th June, moved for by the noble Member for London. It appeared that on the whole there were in bond at the present moment 1,375,000 quarters of wheat, and how much had been taken out of bond? Only 92,000 quarters of foreign wheat at a duty of 12s., and 60,000 quarters of colonial wheat at a duty of Is. Thus it appeared that the right hon. Baronet was completely wrong in his anticipations as to the effect of the new law, since so small a quantity of wheat had been taken out of bond. The answer might be that if the price ascended more, wheat would come out at a lower rate of duty. But when was that to happen? And in the mean time the people might be deprived of the advantage of having for consumption a large quantity of corn now in bond, and as completely removed from their reach as if it had remained in Denmark or Prussia. This was a state of things that ought not to exist in the present condition and with the present prospects of the country. Before he sat down he would briefly advert to what had been said by the right hon. Baronet on a recent evening. He had stated that, in 1833, 1834, 1835, and 1836, the manufacturing districts were in a most flourishing condition. That was an undeniable fact—it was undeniable, too, as the right hon. Baronet had observed, that little or no corn was imported in those years. The inference he had drawn was, that the exchange of corn for manufactures was not of much consequence to the manufacturers; but what was the case as to price? In the four years when manufactures were so flourishing, the price of wheat had averaged only 46s. 8d. per quarter: while in the following years 1837, 1838,1839, and 1840, the price had been as high as 64s. 4d., a difference of no less than about 17s. per quarter. In 1841 and 1842, the state of things had been even worse, and he left the House to judge, therefore, of the enormous amount paid by the consumers He had given these details in explanation of the statement of the right hon. Baronet, because he found that that statement had produced some effect out of doors. Having fortified himself already by the opinions of three Members of the present Government, he felt justified in asking the House to adopt the resolution he had laid upon the Table, and he would conclude by moving it, without attempting to add one word to the rebuke administered by the right hon. Baronet, to those who contended, in 1826, that it was an advantage to the poor to reduce the price of corn.

said, he was sure it was the unanimous feeling of the House that a proposition which had for its object to afford relief to the labouring population of the country ought to be entertained not only with temper and respect, but also with a desire to discover if it were calculated to effect the object for which it was intended. At the same time he must call upon the House to reject the proposition which had just been submitted to them, feeling that it was one which would fail of attaining the purpose which the hon. Mover had in view, as well as one which involved principles of the most dangerous and objectionable character. The hon. Gentleman had rested a great part of his case on the precedents of former acts. He would therefore briefly refer to those precedents. The hon. Gentleman referred in the first place to a series of acts passed during the revolutionary war, which gave to the Crown very large discretionary powers to permit the importation of foreign corn. He said, with regard to those acts passed during a period of war, they were entirely beside the present question. If they looked to the state of things existing at that period, it was altogether different from the present, whether as regarded the consumers or the producers of agricultural commodities. As regarded the consumers, those acts were passed when extremely high prices prevailed, when commerce was hampered and restricted, and when there was an absolute necessity for gathering provisions from whatever quarter they could be procured. The first act passed under such circumstances was in 1795, when the average price of wheat was 75s. 2d.; the act was renewed in 1799, when the price averaged 69s. There were but two years from 1799 to the termination of the war in which the average price of wheat was under 70s.; it was generally from 70s. to 80s., from 80s. to 90s., or from 90s. to 100s. It was under these circumstances that a discretionary power of opening the ports was granted to the Crown, in order to en- courage the importation of wheat from every quarter. Evidently, under those circumstances, it was a matter of the most vital necessity to the consumer to reduce the price, and on the other hand the producers had no reason to apprehend any reduction of price which could give them ground of complaint But, although we had a right to expect of the producers a total abandonment of their protective laws in time of war, it did not therefore follow that in time of peace, when prices were not extravagantly high, we could make any such demand. The hon. Gentleman referred to the only precedent which appeared to give a qualified support to his motion; he meant the precedent of 1826. There were many particulars in which the case to which that precedent was applied differed from that now before the House. In the first place, the act of 1826 was intended to admit only a very limited quantity of corn—500,000 quarters. That quantity would produce but a very immaterial effect on the price of corn in this country, and he did not think the hon. Gentleman would be at all satisfied with any such reduction in the price as might be occasioned by admitting that quantity. This precedent, then, carried the hon. Gentleman no further, and, in arguing his proposition, the hon. Gentleman must seek other grounds for it than an Act of Parliament which gave a discretion, not with respect to an unlimited, but, on the contrary, a strictly limited quantity of grain. That act passed, he believed, in the prospect of a deficient harvest, of which, he trusted, there was no likelihood at the present moment. The act was passed with the condition that it should be competent for the Government under it to levy any duty on the grain so taken out of the warehouses which should not exceed 12s. a quarter. The intentions of the act would have been fulfilled if 500,000 quarters had been admitted at a duty not exceeding 12s. The hon. Gentleman must be quite aware that to lay down such conditions as that at the present time would be perfectly ridiculous, when any man might introduce his wheat into the market on the payment of a duty, not of 12s., but of 9s. a quarter. Again, the system of Corn-laws existing in 1826, when this measure was passed, was entirely different from that which the House had lately sanctioned. There was a totally different system of averages; the port were opened for three months at a time and shut far three months at at a time, and they were liable to be opened or shut by the very nicest differences in the markets; which made the arrangements totally inadequate to meet the wants of the country. There was then also a prohibition of all importation until the price reached 80s.; corn could not then be introduced, as now, on paying the duty, whatever it was, which happened to be leviable at the moment of importation. The act of 1822, which introduced a different system, had never come into operation, and the act of 1819 was in force. He believed he was not incorrect in stating, that the existence of this prohibitory law and the necessity it was found to superinduce the granting those exceptional powers, was in itself one of the grounds on which an alteration of the then existing Corn-laws was proposed in order to put a stop to the system of absolute prohibition up to a certain price, and substitute one under which corn should be admitted at all times on payment of duty fixed by the act. Thus the Legislature dispensed with the necessity of leaving those large and arbitrary powers in the hands of the executive Government. He would not dwell at any length on a point which must have occurred to hon. Gentlemen—the danger of granting this unconstitutional power on a scale so enormous and unlimited as was contemplated by the hon. Gentleman. The proposition was one which, although not brought forward in that spirit, it would be almost impossible on any considerations drawn from the nature of a free constitution, to entertain. Was it to be supposed that on one of the most important questions that could engage the attention of the Legislature, a question affecting the subsistence of the people, affecting great masses of capital and labour, and nearly concerning the employment and comforts of the bulk of the community, Parliament was entirely to divest itself of its high function of providing for the public weal, and commit an arbitrary, unfettered, despotic power to the hands of the executive Government? Did the hon. Gentleman mean that the discretion which he proposed to vest in his right hon. Friend (Sir R. Peel) as a mark of his high confidence in the Government —and he must say that a higher proof of confidence it would be difficult to give, for never had a more extravagant proof been given by any supporter of a Government than was now proposed to be given by one of its opponents—was it the hon. Gentleman's intention that this extraordinary indication of his confidence was to be at the disposal of the executive Government at a time when the average prices of corn were moderate, or was the discretionary power only to be exercised when they were extravagantly high? ["Mr. Bannerman meant when the price was at 57s.] He wished to know, because the powers which the hon. Gentleman proposed to give were so large that unless accompanied by instructions of some kind, they would leave those to whom they were confided in a state of the greatest embarrassment. But if the hon. Gentleman intended that they should be exercised at the present rates of prices, then he said that the hon. Gentleman was doing that indirectly which he ought to do directly. The hon. Gentleman ought to raise the question of the repeal of the law if he wished to effect that object, and not to propose to set it aside by placing absolute power in the hands of the executive Government, instead of Parliament, the regular constitutional authority. But if, on the other hand, the hon. Gentleman meant that the power should only be exercised in times of scarcity, then his plan would have all the objections which must attach to the alteration of a great economical law as well as all the objections brought against the present Corn-law. It would have those effects of disturbing capital, labour, and confidence, which would attend the repeal of the Corn-law, without the beneficial effects which that measure might have. It would place in the hands of the corn importers the power of increasing the sufferings of the consumer by withholding their corn till the price reached an extravagantly high rate, in order that it might then be introduced at a very low duty, and augment the profits of the dealer. If, therefore, it was proposed that corn should be introduced at the present prices, which without being extravagant or exorbitant were high, this was a most unconstitutional proposition, and it was contrary to common sense and common reason that Parliament, instead of altering the Corn-law, should give the power of doing so to the Government—should divest themselves of their high functions and commit them to the Executive. If, on the other hand, it was intended that the power of introducing corn should only be exercised when prices rose very high, then the hon. Gentleman proposed to do that which had been urged as an objection to the graduated scale, namely, to hold out an inducement to the holders of corn to keep it back, until they could introduce it on terms most advantageous to themselves. If the hon. Gentleman's proposition had any meaning at all, it ought to have been brought forward in the shape of a motion for the repeal of the Corn-law. After the discussions which had taken place during the present Session he would not for one moment entertain any such question. The hon. Gentleman had spoken of the operation of the law in a way which facts did not justify. The hon. Gentleman had alluded to the limited quantity of corn which had come in for consumption since the operation of the present law. Now, it should be borne in mind, that they were still passing through a most critical period of the year; and he could not conceive anything which would have a more unfavourable effect on the minds of the holders of corn, or which was more calculated to induce them to keep back their grain than the knowledge that the hon. Member was moving the House of Commons to stultify and contradict the decision to which it had so lately come, and was actually proposing a measure which would give the holders of grain an opportunity of introducing it at no distant time into the British market free of duty. If there were any disposition, as he was confident there was not, to re-open the question of the Corn-laws, which it cost three months to settle, such a course would have a most unfavourable operation on the corn-market, and on the subsistence and comforts of the people. It was clear that the period o f the two feverish months which had elapsed since the Royal assent was given to the Corn-bill, could afford no rational means of judging of its effects. They must be content to wait longer before they could fairly say how it operated. But, judging merely from the experience of a few weeks, he was not prepared to go the length of saying, with the hon. Gentleman, that the operation of the new law had been totally unsuccessful. As far as the accounts were made up, it appeared that there had been an introduction, since the operation of the new law, up to the 13th of June, of 190,000 quarters. He admitted that this quantity was less than the wants of the country required. But, then, it was the hon. Gentleman, together with those who supported his motion, that contributed more than any other parties to induce the holders of corn to keep it back. He had, however, reason to suppose, that the holders of corn in this country, acting with that sagacity, which almost uniformly marked the operations of British merchants, would be inclined, particularly if they perceived that the mind of Parliament was fixed as to the Corn-law, to introduce a large supply from the bonding warehouses, which would afford seasonable aid to the revenue, and what was still more important, great relief to the consumers. If the contingency contemplated by the hon. Member (Mr. Bannerman) should unfortunately arise, it ought to be dealt with in the same way as it had been dealt with in 1826. The right way in his opinion to meet such a contingency was to act upon the constitutional principle and call the Legislature together to decide and determine as to the course the Government ought to adopt in regard to a question of such grave moment and deep interest to the commnnity. The proposition, then, of the hon. Gentleman, in whatever point of view contemplated, was such, he thought, as Parliament could not entertain.

entirely concurred in one or two observations of the right hon. Gentleman who had just sat down. He admitted that it would have been a much more direct and desirable course for his hon. Friend to have proposed the repeal of the Corn-law; but, unfortunately, such a motion could not be carried. Since, then, the law could not be repealed, the object was to modify and moderate the evil. The enemies of the present system saw a state of affairs approaching pregnant with difficulty and danger, and they wished to take a course which was open to them, and which would diminish the difficulty and mitigate the danger. The only means left to them was to increase and enforce the responsibility of Ministers. The right hon. Gentleman had spoken of this motion as an extraordinary mark of confidence. He admitted that it was so, but there was a great deal in the state of the country which required it. The friends of the suffering classes were taking the precise course which the right hon. Baronet (Sir Robert Peel) had recommended in 1826, and yet his right hon. Colleague insisted that it was unconstitutional, and that no such power ought to be entrusted to any executive Government. He might leave him to settle that point with the right hon. Baronet, and certain it was that all the arguments this night advanced against the motion had been anticipated and answered by Mr. Huskisson in 1826. He had disposed of them all. What was the point upon which the whole case turned? That there were emergencies in the state of this country, under the factitious system which her lawmakers had chosen to establish, which must overrule everything, and which would only be met by extraordinary powers. The supporters of the present motion contended that the present was one of those emergencies; it was impossible to witness the rapid increase of distress in all quarters, without investing Government with the power of administering immediate relief. The present Administration had brought this state of things upon themselves, by insisting upon having a law which kept a million of quarters of wheat from a starving population. If Ministers chose to have this law, they ought to have it with all its responsibilities; and let them answer to Parliament, when it again assembled, for the exercise of the power. Such had been the argument of Mr. Canning in 1826, and that was all that was now sought by the motion before the House. It was his belief that the country gentlemen would be more disposed to refuse placing trust in the right hon. Gentleman than himself. They would not be willing to give him in such a case the power that he was disposed to confide in the right hon. Gentleman. The country gentlemen, he believed, were afraid that the right hon. Gentleman would apply the principles of the tariff to the Corn-law. Their sentiments, he believed, were those that on a former occasion had been expressed, on the part of the agricultural interest by Sir John Brydges when similar powers were proposed to be confided in the Government, for he declared that giving such a power would be "a death-blow to the agricultural interest and a death-blow to the Constitution." He it was, he believed, who said, "Perish commerce, but live the Constitution." Upon a former occasion Mr. Huskisson had met every one of the arguments that had been used now, and he showed that Parliament refusing such powers as were now proposed to be given to the Government would incur a fearful responsibility. As to the Constitutional part of the question, he must say that, as it was one on which the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Gladstone) had so strongly insisted, it was to be wished that he had read the debates which had taken place regarding it very attentively. If he had looked to these debates, he did not think that the right hon. Gentleman would have ventured to touch upon such a point. The right hon. Baronet the head of the Treasury had, on the former occasion, insisted that the Government should have the responsibility that they claimed—that it should rest with his Majesty's Government, and the right hon. Gentleman had well said that there were two kinds of courage — the courage of resisting improper demands, and the courage of assenting to proper demands when they were encountered by an improper clamour. He must say that he wished the Government had had the manliness to admit their error at the commencement of this Session, and to say that the sliding-scale was founded on a false principle. From what he saw, he anticipated that the House would be called upon to meet before the winter, in order that it might meet the fearful state of things that might be expected to arise. He supported the present motion, although he admitted that he should have preferred the question being brought forward in a fairer and fuller shape. This was at best but a temporary remedy for a permanent evil, and as such he preferred it to no remedy at all.

remarked, that the present motion did not attract that degree of attention and observation which it might have done if brought forward at an earlier period of the Session. In his opinion, it was a motion for upsetting the Corn-law altogether. In saying this, he could not but admit that the Corn-law had not attained that object which it proposed to have in view. Now he objected to it on this ground, that the resolution would put it into the power of the Government to destroy the protection of the agriculturists. Such a power he would be sorry to give to the present Government. The only effect of it would be to induce speculation—to incite parties to get up the price of wheat, and to cause the greatest distrust to agriculturists, who could never know when they were safe. The Vice-President of the Board of Trade said, that there would not be a deficient harvest; now he must say that he was sorry to maintain that of which he felt convinced, that there would not be an average crop. He found that under the present law the same tricks were played as under the old with the averages; and he must declare that he was not disposed to place in the power of the Government to decide and judge when corn ought to be admitted. Such a power he would not place in the hands of any Government. Let, he said, Parliament be the authority on this point, and not the Government of the day.

said, he believed the Government was strong enough and virtuous enough to take upon themselves any responsibility whatever, and he therefore very much regretted that they had not willingly acceded to the motion that was made from the opposite side of the House. When he saw, day after day, these frightful accounts of the accumulating distress of the country and the scandalous price of corn, until the last two or three days, when the price was somewhat diminished, he felt that they ought to do nothing whatever to discourage the feeling of the country, that the Government would do everything in their power to relieve the enormous difficulties that now pressed upon the people. He thought that in such circumstances we should be prepared for the worst, and that the Government, having brought in the present Corn-bill under the conviction that the price of corn would be diminished by it, should fake upon themselves the responsibility of relieving the enormous exigencies of the country. He felt very deeply on this question; and nothing but the conviction of the importance of it would prevent him from voting with the party with whom he should always wish to vote.

Member had mistaken the price of corn for the duty—the duty was falling but the price of corn was rising. He supported the motion, because he was convinced that the necessities of the country required it. In saying this, he admitted that he belonged to that small section in that House, destined, he believed, soon to increase, which was for the entire abolition of the corn duties. He believed that it was the object of the Government to have a steady trade in corn; but he could tell them that in such an object they had totally failed. He could tell them that the best authorities in Mark-lane declared that they could scarcely know that the law with regard to corn had been altered—that the trade was now as much a matter for speculation as it formerly used to be. There were now 1,400,000 quarters of corn in bond — that was the precise quantity—and the traders were now playing for the 9s., as they formerly did for the 21s. He could tell the right hon. Baronet that his scale was considered the safer of the two for the speculators; for although the stake was smaller, the risk was less. The speculating, and the playing for the low duty was, however, the same as it had been. He did not know, however, that he should have taken part in this debate, if he had not received that day a letter from New Orleans, which gave an admirable statement of the wants and wishes of the Americans, and so strongly confirmed the views of the hon. Member for Inverness (Mr. Morrison). He should now read the letter, and leave to the right hon. Baronet to make the fitting comment upon it. The letter said this:—

"New Orleans, June 6, 1841.

"We wish we could add that the alteration in the British Corn-laws had been of that nature, to allow the industrious agricultural population of our back states to have placed a greater breadth of their now idle, though rich, lands under cultivation. Unfortunately, no such inducements are held out by an uncertain and varying duty. The new Corn-law of England must act disadvantageously on distant markets, and throw all the favourable opportunities for importing grain into the hands of more the contiguous speculators. Our farmers see themselves not only deprived of what is to all a familiar, and to many a native market; but are also debarred from drawing thence the supplies they are most in need of but for which an adverse policy will permit of no exchange.

(Signed) "LIZARDI & Co." As to the precedent of 1826, he was not disposed to agree with the right hon. Vice-President of the Board of Trade with regard to the opinions he expressed as to the present situation of affairs not being similar. He thought there was a great similarity in the circumstances of 1826 and 1842; but then, indeed, it might be owned that the manufacturers were not distressed the one-hundredth part then that they were now—they had the same misery now that they had then—they had heard that misery described in the debate on the motion of the hon. Member for Greenock—they had then, as they had now, a Royal Letter to raise money for the poor; and what, on such an occasion, were the words of the right hon. Baronet the Member for Tamworth?

"That discretionary power, with which it may be a matter of prudence, and a means of safety to invest them, in the apprehension that there may be a grievous pressure experienced by the people from the possible rise of agricultural produce beyond its present prices."

These words were uttered by the right hon. Baronet on the 5th May, 1826. The average price of wheat then in the London market was 61s., and now it was 63s. The average price of oats then in the London market was 23s., and now it was 20s. 4d. He wished to refresh the right hon. Baronet's memory on these points. And then as to the constitutional question, he should again beg to quote the right hon. Baronet, who said, first —

"I think that circumstances may occur, in which the admission of foreign corn may tend to reduce the poor-rates;"

and then the right hon. Baronet added—

I have no doubt that if we were now to separate, and a case should arise to render the introduction of foreign grain a matter of necessity, Ministers would be threatened with an impeachment, and every word used against the Government of 1766 would be triumphantly thrown in our teeth."

He repeated the words of the right hon. Baronet, and he said, that the power ought to be exercised by the Government to prevent a public calamity. He gave his support to the motion of the hon. Member for Aberdeen.

observed, that it had been most distinctly proved that very great distress prevailed. Distress, he said, to such an extent, and so great, that it was sufficient to alarm the Government. The Parliament was omnipotent to protect the people, and be thought that they should tell the advisers of her Majesty to let her Majesty know the situation to which her subjects had been reduced. He must say, seeing the situation in which the country was, he hoped that the Corn-law would be again mooted this year in the House, and it were not so, he was ready to re- sort to any measure which would compel the Ministry, for the want of supplies, to take the proper means to protect the people from starvation, as he believed they were exposed to it under the present law. He referred to the number of public works, and the money expended on them, to show how easily the people may be provided for by other means than those of mere charity.

said, that in 1826, when a proposition was made to dispense with the customs laws, and to admit corn at a low price for the purpose of relieving the distresses of the people, it was supported by the party to which the right hon. Baronet belonged; but the difficulties of 1826, arising from the panic of 1825, were not to be compared with the difficulties of the present time. The evil of the Government Corn-law was, that it left our trade with America and other distant corn-growing countries open to all the uncertainty which had been objected to against the old law; but had the proposition of an 8s. fixed duty been adopted, it was his belief that those evils would have been avoided and our trade extended. He had attempted, unsuccessfully, to introduce a clause in the Government bill to meet the difficulty he complained of, though he felt that no course could be satisfactory which attempted to grapple with the perplexities and uncertainties of the sliding-scale. It was anticipated by many persons that an emergency might occur in the course of the ensuing autumn, and he, and those who supported this motion, were desirous of arming the Government with a power to enable them to meet it, and he felt that the knowledge on the part of the country that the Government had such a power would increase the public confidence, and tend to improve our trade and commerce.

Sir, the proposition which has been made by the hon. Member for Aberdeen for vesting this discretionary-power in her Majesty's Government rests mainly on two grounds:.—the first ground is that of authority, and that authority is chiefly confined to the precedent of 1826; the second, and by much the more important ground, is that of reason and the public advantage. Now, it is quite clear that this second consideration constitutes the much stronger ground of argument on this question; but still reliance has been placed on the precedent of 1826, and it has been applied to the present case, and therefore I think I am justified in recalling to the recollection of the House the real nature of that precedent and its bearing on the present subject of debate. In 1826, the then existing law, if I am not! mistaken, prevented the importation of foreign wheat unless the average price in this country had attained 80s. I think that was the amount. Now, the Government of that day had to consider whether? they would submit to Parliament an alteration of the existing law, which was admitted on all hands to be desirable,—no, I will not say on all hands, but this I may say, that there was then a general opinion in the country that the law which prevented the importation of corn till it reached a price of 80s. was a law which required revision. In that year—I mean the year 1826—the Government did not think it advisable to submit any proposition to Parliament which had for its object an alteration in the Corn-laws; but they still felt it would not be unsuited to the circumstances of the country if they proposed that the executive Government should be invested with a discretionary power of admitting foreign wheat for one year at a duty of 12s. per quarter. To some extent I admit that the limitation as to duty could not strictly be considered as confined to a 12s. duty, although it cannot be denied that that was to be the amount of duty payable on any quantity imported above 500,000 quarters in any one year. The state of the law was this —there was a limitation as to quantity, but there was no limitation as to the duties payable on that quantity; for 500,000 quarters of wheat might be introduced at any duty which the Government thought proper to impose. Now, what were the observations of Mr. Canning on that occasion? He said, that there was then in the distressed districts a large quantity of corn in bond which would not be brought into immediate consumption; and he further remarked that on a late occasion the Government had decided that no alteration should be made in the Corn-laws. In addition to this, he said that months might elapse (he might perhaps have been more accurate if he had said several weeks might elapse) during a very critical period of the year, and Parliament be not sitting at the time. That circumstance alone, Mr. Canning held, would justify the precaution which, in the year 1826, was proposed by the Government for the adoption of Parliament. The House will observe that the circumstances under which this precaution was taken were very peculiar. A critical period of the year was at hand; it was apprehended that at that moment Parliament would not be sitting; and it was known that there was no sufficient quantity of corn in the country out of bond. I trust I need say nothing more to show that the circumstances in which the country was placed in the year 1826 differed very materially from those in which we now stand in the year 1842. What took place after the arrangement made in the year 1826? So sensible was Mr. Canning of the extreme inexpediency of investing the executive Government with a power so embarrassing and a responsibility so great, that in the very next year he proposed to relieve them from the painful trust, which nothing but the urgent circumstances of the preceding season could at all justify. The sliding-scale was introduced by Mr. Huskisson and Mr. Canning. By the introduction of that principle you dispensed with the necessity of investing Government with a power so great, and, generally speaking, so inexpedient. The fact was undeniable, that the objects of the acts of 1827 and 1828 were for the purpose of avoiding the necessity which you now say exists. I do not mean to rely much on the supposed constitutional power; but this I will say, that if unforeseen circumstances should arise, there is no Government likely to be intrusted with the administration of affairs in this country which will be wanting in the courage to take the power requisite for saving the country, rather than incur the peril of exposing it to any deficiency of food. On the whole, then, I am sure the House will agree with me that it is much better to trust the Government on their own responsibility to exercise this extreme power rather than provide beforehand for an exigency which might not arise. Having thus disposed of the question of precedent, I come to the far more important consideration of the public weal —to the expediency and the reason of the thing. There is hardly any circumstance in which the condition of the country in 1826 does not differ from the condition in which we are placed in 1842. In the former year the responsible advisers of the Crown did not call for any interference with the Corn-laws. In 1842 her Ma- jesty's Government felt it to be their duty to refer the Corn-laws to the consideration and decision of the Legislature. They proposed a material change in those laws, and that change received the sanction of Parliament. We now have-a new Corn-law, determining the amount of the duty, and yet two months after that you propose to give the Government the power of altering that rate of duty. Now, I object to introducing this new principle into the Corn-laws. What is it that you propose to do? You propose to give greater security by investing the Government with the power of altering the rate of duty as they please. I can understand a repeal of the law, but if you do this, how can you notify to foreign countries what the law is to be? You first pass a law, and then you throw the whole subject into utter uncertainty. How will this operate upon foreign countries? If you make this proposed change in the law, you do that which will be exclusively beneficial to those countries which are our nearest neighbours. The news of any change effected by the executive Government would reach America in four or five weeks; but during those weeks Holland and the adjoining countries would pour in an indefinite supply, and America would be excluded from the opportunity of administering to our wants. The whole effect of the arrangement would, therefore, be most unfair towards those countries which are placed at a distance from England. I object to the proposition, not only on the grounds I have stated, but on this ground also, that it would carry with it a degree of uncertainty which would operate most unfairly in those quarters in which it was intended to give a decided advantage. If a measure of this kind were to receive the sanction of Parliament its immediate effect will be to hold out inducements to the proprietors of bonded corn to withhold that corn from the market. What does the House say to a proposition for enabling the Privy Council during the sitting of Parliament to alter the votes of both Houses, and determine the price at which foreign corn is to be admitted? I want to know at what price it is that Government is to admit foreign corn? [An hon. Member: "Corn ought to be admitted now."] If corn ought to be admitted now, why leave any discretionary power on the subject to the Privy Council? Why not at once propose to Parliament that which you wish to sanction as a proceeding of the Government? Why not at once submit to Parliament a proposition for admitting corn at a Is. duty? Whether you have a fixed duty or no duty at all, it is impossible for you to prevent speculation. That applies to all articles, whether admitted duty free or at a fixed duty, namely, that if parties foresee that there is a probability of a rise in price, they will withhold their corn from the markets for the purpose of realizing greater profit. At the same time I admit that a varying rate of duty has a tendency to increase speculation. Under all times and circumstances there must be a disposition, arising from a probability of arise in price, to keep back the article from the market. Now, what is the present state of the case, according to the returns of the averages recently made? The following is the result of the average prices to the 23rd of June. In this return is given the quantity of wheat imported and the quantity taken out for home consumption. In that week there was a tendency in prices to rise, and the averages were rather on the increase; and I heard you say, with respect to the former law, there was no instance of corn being taken out of bond for foreign consumption when there was a tendency in prices to rise. In the last week there was an apparent tendency of that kind, and the quantity of foreign wheat imported during the week ending the 30th of June, 1842, was 68,481 quarters, and the quantity of corn entered for home consumption in the week was 25,756 quarters. I do not mean to say that that was a very large quantity of corn, but that quantity was taken out in the face of a rise of prices, and the duty paid was 10s. a quarter,["Hear."] Now, don't be too confident; I won't fall into that error; I won't undertake to say what the operation of the law will be under the experience of seven weeks only; but don't be too confident in your predictions that corn will be retained in bond till the 1s. duty shall arise. In my opinion those who entered it, if they thought that, not only made a great mistake, but also run a great risk. The rate of duty now is 9s. a quarter. A proposition was made by the late Government for a fixed duty of 8s. upon the importation of corn; the present rate of duty is 9s. If, according to the existing law, that rate of duty shall diminish on account of the increase of price, corn would become admissible without any act of interference on the part of her Majesty's Government. If you had applied a fixed duty of 8s. there would be more reason in the proposition of the hon. Gentleman. The whole amount of the difference in the amount of duty in the present week is 1s., 9s. being the amount of duty, and 8s. being the proposition of the late Government. No proposition was made for the purpose of enabling the Government to reduce the duty last year. That was considered to be most objectionable when there was no prospect by the operation of the law of insuring the admission of corn at a low rate of duty. The intervention of the Privy Council in a matter of this nature was felt to be so objectionable that no provision was made for a remission of the duty. That was the argument held by many hon. Gentlemen on the other side of the House. They argued that when prices were high in this country they would insure the importation of foreign Corn, and then foreign Corp could afford to pay the duty—that, provided you have high prices of 70s., there was no reason why a duty of 8s. should not be paid. I have heard speech after speech, and read pamphlet after pamphlet, tending to show that there was no necessity for the interference of the Privy Council, because when prices were high a certain amount of duty would be paid; and it was also said that the remission of the duty would be no benefit whatever to the consumer; the price of corn would immediately rise as the duty was limited, and the whole benefit would go into the pocket of the importer. What is now the proposition? There is a prospect of realizing an 8s. duty, and a tolerable prospect also of realizing a 6s. duty on foreign corn. it is said that there are 1,400,000 quarters in bond; suppose they are admitted at 7s., you will realize about 400,000l. or 500,000l, of revenue, as you contended, without the least injury to the consumer. As you contended, the remission of duly would put so much money into the pockets of the importers, and there would be no benefit to the consumer. If you give this power corn will be held back in the hope that such a degree of pressure may arise that Government will give way, and the ordinary operations of commerce will be disturbed; but if Government give way you will lose the amount of duty which, upon your own showing, you might realize without any disadvantage. What does the hon. Gentleman the Member for Greenock tell us? He says, that he thinks, from the state of the weather, and the mixture of genial rain and sunshine, there is a prospect of an early harvest in the country. I wish his expectations may be realized. The hon. Gentleman has told us that he has made extensive inquiries, and he is fully confident that there will be an early harvest—so early, indeed, that, to use his own words, the sickle will be amongst the wheat in the middle of July. Well, what effect will that prospect have upon the holder of foreign corn if you now step in and induce him by this power to hope that the Government would be compelled to exercise that power, and admit the corn he has brought here upon a much lower rate of duty? What confidence can foreign countries have in our commercial arrangements, if after this adjustment by Parliament of the Corn-laws, we, within two months of that adjustment, say that it is to be set aside, and not to be acted upon as law, but that there is to be a discretion given to the Privy Council to act as they please in that matter? I have attempted to argue this question much more upon the grounds of reason and public advantage than upon the authority of precedent; if this power be exercised by the Privy Council it is impossible to deny that it is a most dangerous power, and that it cannot be exercised without difficulty. Those foreign countries you wish to favour most will be less benefitted by it, because the moment it is notified that corn will be admitted at a 2s. duty the neighbouring countries will be the first to take advantage of it, and those more distant will be thus kept out of the market. Above all, consider the possible effect of disturbing all the commercial transactions undertaken under the law—consider the probable effect of your promoting by your interference that outlet of corn which if you don't interfere might take place, and which might have the effect of lowering prices and increasing the means of subsistence; also don't throw out of consideration the probable and needless loss to the revenue—the sacrifice of that revenue which will be paid, and cheerfully paid, if you permit the law to remain as it is. I do trust that these combined considerations will induce the House to come to the conclusion that it is not for the public advantage to take from the law the certainty of its operation, and to invest her Majesty's Government with responsibility most difficult for them to exercise, and most dangerous in its exercise, from the risk which you incur not only of losing revenue, but of postponing the period at which natural supplies were to be expected.

said, the right hon Baronet had professed to argue this question upon reason and public advantage, and on both grounds had failed to make out his case. It was perfectly true that there were not many minute coincidences in the details of the circumstances of this year and the year 1826. In fiscal matters it was very seldom the case that two years were exactly alike; but he contended that the broad principle was the same in both cases. In 1826 the country was suffering under extreme distress; and it was felt that the state of the Corn-laws then prevented the application of that relief which otherwise would have been available. He thought, in the intensity of the existing distress, and the impossibility which there was of any reduction in the price of corn, that there was justification for attempting what he believed would afford some mitigation of the present suffering. He did not think, as stated by the right hon. Baronet, that the necessary operation of the resolution proposed by his hon. Friend would be to increase the uncertainty in the price of corn. The operation of the resolution would be, to prevent the duties rising beyond a certain amount for a definite time. He thought it a mistake to say that distant markets would not obtain the advantage of this. At this moment the importation of corn from distant markets was prevented by this circumstance—that though the duty on foreign corn was now only 9s., it was very possible that large importations from various markets, or abundant harvests of our own, might make the averages fall before cargoes from America or Odessa could arrive, and with that fall there might be a corresponding increase in the duty; and therefore the distant speculators were prevented from coming into the market, The effect of this was completely to prevent the shipments of corn from distant markets to this country. The right hon. Baronet talked of the probability of foreign corn being admitted at a 6s. duty; but what was the advantage of that to the consumer? The advantage was entirely to the growers of corn in Poland; it gave them the monopoly of the market, and excluded the competition of the distant grower. The duty might go down to 6s., or fall to 1s., but it would not be to the advantage of the consumer, but of those holding this corn. If the principle of the resolution were admitted, it was competent for the House to declare that no higher duty than 6s. or 8s. should be imposed. If they decided on that, they would give confidence to the market, and thereby cause a demand for labour, and relieve our distressed manufacturers. In the present state of the distress of the country, those Gentlemen who were in favour of the existing Corn-law ought, above all others, to concur in this motion, because their apprehension was, that if a permanent fixed duty were established, so much new land would be brought into cultivation abroad, that it would inflict great injury on our British agriculture; and they therefore refused to give their sanction to a fixed duty. He did not think the argument of the hon. Baronet, used to prove that the existing law was not productive of the evil, conclusive. The right hon. Baronet had told them, with an air of considerable triumph, that 25,000 quarters of corn had been entered for home consumption during the last week; but this was only out. of 1,500,000 quarters in bond. He did not pretend that the measure of his hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen was free from objections; but these objections arose not from the measure itself, but from the nature of the permanent law they had passed. As they had passed that law, and it was not likely that Parliament would consent at this moment to repeal it, he, for one, as the most likely mitigation of the evils of that law, would support the motion of his hon. Friend.

would just observe, that the stupendous quantity of corn which the right hon. Baronet stated had, in one particular week, been taken out of bond and entered for home consumption, namely, 25,000 quarters, was just half a day's consumption for the whole country.

remarked that the right hon. Baronet had admitted that the law, as it at present stood, had increased speculation and variation in prices, an additional argument against the right hon. Baronet's Corn-law. The right hon. Baronet further had contended that they were not to judge of the effects of the new law from seven weeks' experience; but let the House bear in mind it was not the experience of seven weeks that was the question, but the experience of the sliding-scale, that had been pointed out to Gentlemen opposite over and over again when the measure was passing. Every discussion that had taken place, directly or incidentally, on the Corn-laws, showed the false principles on which Government had proceeded in legislating on the subject, and he must confess that he was some what pleased that, in arguing this question, the right hon. Baronet had been obliged to testify to many of those principles which had been urged from that side of the House. As to the proposition now made, he must confess he could not sanction it, because it would be placing in the hands of the executive Government the entire distribution of the food to the country. His opinion was, that the law which had just been made ought to be repealed, and replaced by an entirely different one; and he did not see that the present proposition would at all act as a useful alteration of that law. If an emergency arose during the recess, no doubt the Government would be ready to assume the responsibility of advising her Majesty to take the necessary steps for meeting that emergency, relying upon Parliament to sanction the proceedings which necessity had compelled them to adopt.

should support the motion, because, as matters stood, he saw no chance of obtaining anything better this Session. He would tell the right hon. Baronet that since his Corn-bill had passed, the distress of the country had been doubled, and he was convinced that nothing could stay the starvation that was spreading throughout the country but opening the ports for the importation of corn free of duty. He regretted that the noble Lord the Member for the city of London did not support the motion, for he was satisfied that it was the only mode of sympathising with the people.

objected to the motion on the ground that the production of the returns would have an injurious effect on the public service. The returns could only be produced by resorting to objectionable and inquisitorial proceedings.

said, that the object which he had in view was to show that the promotions in the navy had been disproportionate to the extent of service. If the hon. Gentleman objected to give the returns in consequence of any expense, he could only say that he would send a clerk down to the Admiralty, at his own expense, to copy them out. He knew where they were to be obtained, and they could be produced in a few hours.

said, that the production of the returns would cause the greatest inconvenience at the Admiralty at present. He had particularly wished, in the course of the day, to have some documents prepared, and he found that all the clerks at the Admiralty were engaged in making out the returns for a motion of the hon. Member for Montrose. He should oppose the motion of the hon. Member, unless he could show that the production of the returns was a matter of importance to the country.

regretted, that the returns had been refused, for he thought that it would be advantageous to the House and the country to have the fullest returns on this subject. He believed that if they were produced, that so far from showing that the promotions had been extravagant, it would appear to be quite the contrary. It was most injurious to the interest of the service that so many officers should remain stationary at the rank of captain. A more rapid system of promotion was absolutely necessary for the interest of the service. No doubt a great many promotions had been made during the last three years, but no doubt that could be satisfactorily accounted for.

believed if the returns were refused, that the public would think that there was something to screen, which the Admiralty wished to keep from the public.

corroborated the statement of the Secretary of the Admiralty that the returns moved for frequently impeded the course of public business, and as no ground had been shown for this return, he did not think it ought to be granted.

said, it was not right to debate such a question at so late an hour (a quarter past two), and he should therefore move the adjournment.