begged to ask the right hon. Baronet the Secretary for the Home Department whether it is the intention of the Government to bring in an Irish registration bill this Session, and, if so, at what period?

The Government continues to be of the opinion which it has frequently and decidedly expressed, that an alteration in the registration of voters in Ireland is necessary. We have directed our attention to the subject, and the consideration which we have given to it has convinced us that any amended system of registration in Ireland could not fail to effect a considerable diminution of the county constituency in that part of the United Kingdom. It is not the wish of the Government, that either directly or indirectly, any such effect should be produced. We have found it necessary, therefore, not only to direct our attention to an amended system of registration in Ireland—a task which would be comparatively easy, inasmuch as the measure would be founded on the model of the amended system for England, which basal-ready received the sanction of both Houses of Parliament, and is now the law of the land—but, entertaining the views we do with respect to the county constituency, it would be necessary to combine with that measure some compensation for the diminution of the county constituency which the amended system of registration would cause. With a view to provide a compensation of this nature, the Government directed their attention to the system of rating under the Poor-law—a system founded on valuation. We believed that that system of valuation was sound, and might be made the foundation of a measure: but the right hon. Gentleman and the House must be aware, from a bill which has been read a first and second time, and now stands for committal, that the system of valuation in Ireland has been proved by experience to be defective. So far from one general principle of valuation having been adopted, as it was hoped would be the case when the Irish Poor-law Act was passed, we find that the valuation has varied in different localities to the extent of 25 percent., according to the caprice and will of different boards of guardians. An important clause has been introduced into the Irish Poor-law Amendment Act on the subject of valuation. The clause contains a provision, that the valuation shall be under the control of the central authority, and that it shall be taken under a general scheme, applicable to all Ireland. My answer to the question put by the right hon. Gentleman, then, is this, that the Government adhere to their intention of providing an amended system of registration for Ireland; but, at the same time, they wish to make compensation for the diminution of the county constituency which would be caused by such a measure; and, therefore, before they introduce a bill on the subject they are anxious to have the opinion of the House upon the clause respecting valuation in the Poor-law Amendment Bill to which I have referred. I can assure the House, that Government has not lost sight of this subject; indeed, a bill on the subject has been prepared and is almost ready for introduction, subject to the decision of the House on the clause in the Irish Poor-law Amendment Bill.

The right hon. Baronet has omitted to answer one part of my question; I wish to know what the right hon. Baronet's opinion is as to the probability or certainty of his being able to introduce the bill during the present Session.

It is indispensably necessary that the clause in the Poor-law Amendment Bill should be discussed and decided on by the House before 1 can finally determine on the introduction of the bill.

moved that the House on its rising should adjourn to Thursday next.

I will take this opportunity of giving an explanation respecting a statement which I have seen in the newspapers, purporting to be an account of something which passed in this House, and I will then proceed to offer a few observations on the present state of affairs in Ireland. It appears to have been several times stated that the late Government offered the office of Chief Baron to Mr. O'Connell. The fact is, that the late Government offered that Gentleman only the office of Master of the Rolls, which Sir Michael O'Loghlen was about to vacate for that of Chief Baron. I am not now going to enter into the reasons which induced the Government to make that offer; but if any animadversions should be made upon it, I shall at all times be ready to defend it. I will now touch upon the other subject to which I have already adverted, namely, what appears to me to be the extraordinary state of affairs with respect to the Government and this House relative to Ireland. We are told every day of new regiments going over to Ireland—of large reinforcements of troops being sent there. We are told of military preparations being made at Dublin Castle; and this day it is stated, in an article from an Irish paper, that Admiral Bowles had repaired to the Irish coast, and was to have war steamers under his command. The: Government must be aware that the steps they have taken, particularly by dismissing from the magistracy a great number of persons who have the confidence of the people of Ireland, must production injurious effect in various ways. In the first place, these proceedings were calculated to create considerable alarm; and in the next place, they must add to the repeal agitation, which it is the object of Parliament and the Government to discourage. Then, again, it is necessary to consider how these proceedings bear upon the votes which we have given during the present Session in a committee of supply. Many Members, and I among them, voted for the estimates proposed by the Government, being of opinion that, as hostilities had so recently ceased in China and other quarters, it would not be reasonable to press for further reductions, but still hoping that the Government themselves would, from time to time, prudently and cautiously make such retrenchments as the public service would admit of, so as, in some measure, to repair the deficiency in the revenue, which is so much lamented. I, on one occasion, took the liberty of expressing myself to that effect in the House, and I understood, from the cheers of the right hon. Baronet at the head of the Government, that he concurred in the view I took on that point; but it must be obvious that if we are to keep up a large force for the purpose of maintaining peace in Ireland, no such object as that I have referred to can be carried into effect. I say, therefore, that on the ground of the impolicy of creating alarm; on the ground of the impolicy of increasing excitement, which it is desirable, rather, by every means, to discourage and diminish; and on the ground of the impolicy of keeping up large military and naval establishments, which it is important to reduce as quickly as possible —on all these grounds the measures which have been lately taken by the Government require some explanation, in order to induce the House to sanction them. As I have already intimated, I say we are not justified in now pressing the Government for any statement of circumstances within their knowledge which may have made the adoption of those measures necessary; but I must declare that I have heard of nothing myself—and I have spoken with persons who have lately come from Ireland, and J who are best informed as to the state of that country—which seems to my mind to j justify those measures. I trust, therefore, I that the Ministers of the Crown, who have been entrusted with the disposal of large forces, who are entrusted likewise with the j power of dismissing magistrates—from the responsibility of which I hope the right hon. Baronet the Secretary for the Home Office does not mean to shrink, and to throw it upon the Lord Chancellor for Ireland—will make some statement to the House in justification of the policy which they have pursued. If they should not think proper to do so, I think it may be necessary to ask for the opinion of the House with respect to the policy they have pursued towards Ireland. I am not prepared to give notice of any motion on the subject at present, but I find that the Government intend to propose no measures with regard to Ireland, except the Arms Bill and the Registration Bill—of which, by the by, the prospect is very distant—I shall, in no very long time after the recess, move an Address to the Crown, expressing the opinion of the House with respect to the policy pursued towards Ireland by the Government.

I am disposed to consider the observations which have fallen from the noble Lord rather as a notice of his future intentions, than as intended to provoke a debate on the present occasion on the matters to which he has referred. I am sure the House will feel that, after a continued debate of three nights on a measure immediately connected with the peace of Ireland, which led to discussion on several matters connected with the Government and present condition of that country, it would not be consistent with the convenience of the House now to enter on a fresh debate upon the same subject. The noble Lord and the House must feel, that it is the first duty of the Government to provide for the maintenance of the public tranquillity. The noble Lord also must know, that nothing can be more unwise than to place reliance on every rumour collected from the newspapers. I must guard the House against supposing that these reports, in every case, rest upon a solid foundation, or that they are not in many instances erroneous. I will not now say a word with respect to the dismissal of the magistrates; I think it would be very inconvenient to anticipate discussion on that subject. I cannot, however, help reminding the noble Lord, that when the Government with which he was connected was in power, they attached so much importance to demonstrating their intention to maintain the legislative union, that the Lord-lieutenant appointed by them, and having their full confidence, felt it his duly to make a public notification of a very peculiar and unusual character. Lord Fortescue distinctly notified that no favour on the part of the Crown should be conferred on those who encouraged meetings, or otherwise took part in the repeal movement. Upon that occasion Lord Fortescue distinctly notified that every person who took an active part in favour of repeal should incur the penalty of civil disability, because it would be impossible for any such person to obtain an appointment under the Crown. The noble Lord must bear in mind that the Repeal of the Union has been considered by all Governments as a question of a very peculiar character, and although it, doubtless, is competent to any Member to propose the Repeal of the Union in this House, yet the conduct of the late Government shows that the active supporters of that question ought to be looked upon with disapprobation. Whenever the noble Lord shall feel disposed to bring the subject of our policy towards Ireland under the consideration of the House, I trust that the Government will be able to vindicate the course which it has pursued.

expressed his surprise at the statement of the noble Lord the Member for London, that the late Government had not made Mr. O'Connell an offer of the office of Chief Baron. He heard Mr. O'Connell state publicly in that House, without contradiction, that the offer of that office had been made to him, and he had repeated the same thing in private. The state of affairs in Ireland was such, that Parliament ought not to lose one hour in extracting from Government an explanation of their reasons for making such formidable preparations as were now being carried on. If the Government were about to revert to the old practice in Ireland, and govern that country by coercion, they would fail to establish tranquillity there. The right hon. Baronet said that the House had been occupied during three nights in discussing the state of Ireland and the policy of the Government; but that was not the fact. The right hon. Baronet himself, when he addressed the House, said that he would confine himself strictly to the one— subject immediately under discussion the Arms' Bill. It appeared to him an act of madness on the part of the Government to take their present course. "When a different system was pursued, Ireland was so tranquil that one half of the military usually maintained there was removed. The military force in Ireland in 1793 was 8,500 men; on the occasion to which he referred the force was reduced to within a thousand of that number, and he recollected Mr. O'Connell stating that, if necessary, two or three more regiments might immediately be withdrawn from Ireland. What had produced the extraordinary change now apparent? The people had not changed; it was the conduct of the Government towards the people that had changed. He begged the right hon. Baronet, before he drove the country to civil war, into which he was fast precipitating it, to consider the situation, not only of Ireland, but of England. We were in a state of absolute bankruptcy; notwithstanding the Income-tax, the revenue was two millions and a half below the ordinary expenditure. Instead of reduction, under these circumstances, which he honestly declared he expected from the right hon. Baronet, he was concentrating a large naval and military force in Ireland. The Government were taking the most unconstitutional measures to create a rebellion in that country. They did not intend it certainly; but there was no rational man out of the House who would not say that they were adding to the excitement by the course which they were pursuing. He would tell the right hon. Baronet what he ought to do. He should discountenance the strong party feeling that existed in that country, both on the system of national education and on all other subjects. The right hon. Baronet told them he supported the system of education in Ireland, but every man appointed by the right hon. Baronet's Government to a high dignity in the Church, and every law officer of the Crown, were men who had done everything in their power to oppose that system. So long as the lord lieutenancy was kept up, so long would it be a focus for faction. The lord lieutenancy ought to have been done away with long ago. Ireland ought to be incorporated with England, as Scotland was. As Member for Kilkenny, he (Mr. Hume) had spoken against repeal, and had omitted no opportunity of declaring his belief that the repeal of the Union would be injurious alike to England and to Ireland. On the motion of Lord Althorp, the House of Commons pledged itself to maintain the legislative Union, but pledged itself at the same time to redress the grievances of Ireland. Had that been done? Twenty-four years ago, he (Mr. Hume) had denounced the overgrown Church establishment of Ireland. Since then the country had been robbed of one-fourth of the tithes. He said "robbed," for he considered the tithes public property, and thought they ought not to have been given to the landlords; but the Church was still monstrously disproportioned, and he believed that was the honest opinion of every Member of the House, on whichever side he might sit. Let the causes of grievance be removed, and the Government need be under no apprehension as to the violence of the repealers. For his own part, he should hold Government responsible if any of the serious consequences should occur which they seemed to apprehend, and which they were doing all in their power to bring about. The population of Ireland had long continued patient, but justice had not been done to them; and before the Government had recourse to measures of severity, they ought to have assured themselves that the pledges of Parliament had been redeemed.

hoped the House would allow him to correct a mistake into which the hon. Gentleman seemed to have fallen on rather an important point. The hon. Gentleman admitted that the Government had declared their intention to support the system of national education, but he said that the Government had counteracted that declaration by selecting for every appointment in the Church and the law persons hostile to that system. He would state the facts with respect to the law officers of the Crown. The two principal law officers of the Crown were the Attorney-general and the Solicitor-general. Now, it was of great importance that the Attorney-general for Ireland should have a seat in that House. The high academical character of the Attorney-general entitled him to become a candidate for the university of which he was a member: It was then intimated to him that if he would not oppose the system of national education he had no chance of success. The right hon. and learned Gentleman communicated the substance of this intimation to him, but said at the same time that he should feel much averse to giving such a pledge. He expressed his approbation at the hon. and learned Gentleman's unwillingness to pledge himself in the manner required of him; he refused to give the pledge, and was appointed Attorney-general. As to the Solicitor-general for Ireland, he was one of those appointed by the late Government to act as commissioners for conducting the system of national education. He must caution the House against allowing itself to be misled by erroneous statements with respect to the intention of the Government.

entreated the right hon. Gentlemen opposite to avail themselves of the approaching holidays, and to prepare a statement of what their intentions were. There was a large part of the people of Ireland, who, while they fully agreed with others of their countrymen, that there were many and serious grievances, yet did not concur with them as to the remedy to be applied. What he wished her Majesty's Government to do, was to put those who were opposed to repeal in a position to say to the people of Ireland, that the Government was ready to do everything it could do, to redress all just subjects of grievance. There was one subject that had been much misunderstood. He alluded to what had been called fixity of tenure. For the tenant to wish to possess himself of all the rights of a proprietor, was too absurd a thing to be even discussed; but it was not less certain that there was much in the existing law between landlord and tenant that required alteration. At the last meeting which he had attended of the commissioners for inquiring into the state of the poor in Ireland, he believed it was in 1835 —he had proposed to his brother commissioners to extend their inquiries to the laws for regulating the relations between landlord and tenant, for he was satisfied, that much misery and crime might be traced to those laws. He believed it was an unfortunate circumstance that that inquiry had not been proceeded with. It was a question fraught with the greatest danger to the peace of the country, and if it was not attended to, the consequence would be, that the at- tention of a large part of the population would be so much fastened on the absurdity to which he had alluded, that it would afterwards be difficult to dispose them to accept of a more reasonable arrangement. The fate of Ireland depended very much on the conduct of Government, and he very much regretted the course which they seemed at present disposed to pursue. He thought, after all these large meetings had been allowed to proceed to such an extent without any intimation that the Government intended to take any steps openly to discourage them, and after the public mind had been suffered to be excited by the speeches delivered at those meetings, it was most unwise to come forward and dismiss magistrates who had attended those meetings. It was only making those gentlemen more popular by making martyrs of them, whereas if a previous notice had been given them of the intentions of Government, they would probably have remained away from those meetings, or would have attended them only as spectators. He would entreat her Majesty's Government seriously to consider what he had said.

merely rose to set himself right with respect to one or two facts that had been erroneously stated. He was present when Lord Fortescue made his declaration on the subject of repeal, and Lord Fortescue not only stated that he would discourage the agitation of that question, but said he would carry his opposition to the utmost extent to which Government could go, and would withhold every kind of patronage and favour from every person who, in any way, lent any encouragement to that movement. With respect to the system of national education, hon. Gentlemen opposite were constantly charging the Government with appointing bishops, whose opinions on that subject were at variance with those which Government acted on. Now, there was a very simple reason for th1s. He would not say, whether the Irish clergy were right or wrong in the view they took, but he did not believe that her Majesty's Government could have found any person competent in every other respect to fill the office of a bishop who was not opposed to that system of education. With respect to his (Mr. Shaw's) right hon. Friend the Attorney-general, he (Mr. Shaw) had never before heard that it had been proposed to his right hon. Friend to give a pledge against the present system of education, but he felt quite persuaded that the proper feeling and independence of his right hon. Friend could not have allowed him to take any other course than the one he had taken. If the constituency had asked him (Mr. Shaw) to give such a pledge, he would certainly have refused it. At the same time, he was quite surprised to hear that his right hon. Friend was favourable to the system of national education, he had always thought quite the reverse.

said, as his name had been introduced into the discussion, he trusted the House would allow him to make a few observations. The first intimation which he received with regard to the representation of the University of Dublin was before he was a law officer of the Crown, and before any person was aware that he was to receive any appointment from the Government; and it was conveyed in a letter from a private Gentleman connected with the university, who stated that there was a strong feeling in his favour, and a desire that he should be put in nomination; and required to know from him whether or not he would permit himself to be put forward, but there was not one syllable in it relating to his opinions on any one subject. Perhaps that was occasioned by the fact that his general political views were known from former occasions. As he thought it possible that there might be some misconstruction, and he had made it a rule never to attempt to gain an advantage for himself by practising deception on any man, he wrote in reply to his friend in the university, saying, lest the gentlemen there might be under a misapprehension as to his views, that he would not wish to be put forward if he should be expected to oppose the grant to Maynooth or the grant for the purpose of national education. That declaration was voluntary on his part. He made it because he thought it would not be right that there should be a requisition to him under a misapprehension. In the course of the following month he was appointed to the office of Solicitor-general, without the slightest application having been made on his behalf. Under these circumstances he acted fairly and openly, and stated that if he should be returned he should in all probability support the grants for national education and the College of Maynooth. The requisi- tion was proceeded with, and he had, as he believed, a majority of the electors within the walls of the university; the outvoters, consisting principally of the clergy, were against him; but he believed that if he had pledged himself to oppose the system of national education and the grant to Maynooth College he might have contested the representation. Having been educated within the walls of the university, there was a feeling in his favour amongst many of the electors, and the clergy would have been satisfied if he would have promised to support a grant to the Church Education Society, but he was determined not to be pledged in any way, and upon those grounds declared to offer himself as a candidate for the honour of representing the University.

thought it would have been more expedient had there been no magistrates dismissed. He thought, the large class of persons in Ireland whose lives and property were placed in jeopardy, would consider that the notice taken in this House of the proceedings in that country was not likely to stop, or pacify the agitation, and that it was, on the contrary, very likely to excite in the minds of large classes there, and their leaders a strong impression that they had the sympathy of a large party in this House with them. At this particular moment it was most undesirable that such an impression should go abroad. If this were his own opinion merely, he should not trouble the House with it—but he stated it because it was the opinion of a great number of persons in this House and country. He must say, then, that if the noble Lord was prepared to pass a vote of censure on the Government, he should do so at once—or if not prepared with an immediate vote of censure, he should have delayed his observations till the subject was better understood.

felt persuaded, that when any body of men were deprived of their civil privileges, for doing what was perfectly legal in itself, such injustice would always awaken a feeling of sympathy in that House. He believed, that all parties in Ireland felt satisfied, that when their country was treated with injustice, they would be sure to meet with the sympathy of the people of England.

rose amid cries of "oh, oh," "question, question." He should not allow himself, he said, to be deterred by any cries of "oh, oh," or "question, question," from doing what he believed to be his duty, and he could tell them that the Irish people would resent their insolence, and would deeply feel the insult offered to one of their representatives and themselves. He knew that the appointments made by the Government, had given an impulse to clerical agitation, and that opposition to the education system was looked on as a stepping-stone to a mitre. The Bishop of Cashel had always been the bitterest op ponent of that system, and since his appointment, he had attended a meeting held in the city of Dublin, for the purpose of opposing the system. Was that the way in which patronage ought to be distributed? The natural consequence was, that the people of Ireland looked upon the Government as insincere in their professions of support to the system of national education. Ministers had sent over troops to Ireland, and dismissed magistrates. Every act of this kind they had done, had increased the repeal rent. threefold, fourfold, and six fold, and driven into the ranks of the repealers men of wealth and station, distinguished for their integrity and their love of peace, who had never before joined any political movement. He could declare with certainty, from his knowledge of Ireland, and of the opinions of many men of calmness and impartiality, who were well able to judge of the political circumstances of the country, that there was not the slightest chance of any outbreak of violence occurring, except it were provoked by the tyranny and perverse proceedings of Government themselves. He believed, that both the leaders of the people and the Roman Catholic clergy to a man would oppose themselves, in the most determined and most energetic manner, to everything like violence or revolt. All the armaments that were in preparation, therefore, and all this great display of military and naval force, were merely laughed at in that country, or regarded as an insult to the people, and an attempt to overawe their opinions. Ministers, however, would fail in this, as they had failed in previous attempts to repress the free spirit of public opinion in Ireland, by misplaced measures of harshness and coercion.

wished to make one observation on what had fallen from the right hon. Gentleman, the Recorder of Dublin, as to there being none of the Irish clergy fit to be elevated to the episcopal bench, who were favourable to the Irish national system of education. He might mention, as distinguished examples to the contrary, the lately appointed Dean of Ossory, Dr. Bellew, and the Provost of Trinity College, who were both favourable to that plan. He would only add, that he implored the hon. Member for Ipswich, who had placed a notice on the books for some day after Whitsuntide, of a motion to repeal the Emancipation Act, to reflect whether at the present moment such a notice remaining on the books, would have any other effect than that of inflaming the unhappy disturbances now so widely spread in Ireland. He would implore the hon. Member, in the name of common sense, in the name of the majority of the Members of that House, to withdraw his notice.

As the hon. Member has appealed to me, I beg to say I mean to bring forward the motion of which I have given notice; and I never should have given notice of such a motion, unless on that occasion I was prepared to prove that it is Popery, and nothing but Popery, which leads to the disorders now prevailing in Ireland.

understood that the British ambassador had demanded of General Rosas, the Buenos Ayrean commander, that he should withdraw from the territory of Monte Video. That officer did not comply with the request; he marched onward and continued to lay waste the territories of Monte Video. The British merchants conceived that their ambassador, in not having proceeded further, although there was an ample force on the coast, had not acted up to the notice he had given, and they presented a remonstrance to the ambassador to that effect. He wished to ask whether steps would be taken to relieve the apprehensions felt by the British merchants, and give effect to the demand made on General Rosas by the British ambassador.

said he had already stated to the House that every possible representation and remonstrance of the most urgent character had been made to the belligerent parties, to induce them to come to terms of peace. The representative of the English Government, and the representa- tive of the French government acted together in the most cordial spirit of cooperation, and the united authority of those two countries was brought to bear, in every way in which it could be brought to bear, by measures of remonstrance against the continuance of such hostilities. Every protection which it had been possible to give, either to the French or British subjects had, he believed, been given, and would be continued; but if the hon. Gentleman asked him whether we should take a part in this war, he was not prepared to give any assurance that we should do so. On the contrary, he was prepared to say that the Government, deprecating those hostilities, and convinced that their only effect was to retard the growing prosperity of both countries, determined as they were to use all the influence they could command to put an end to them, and all their power to protect British subjects, could not encourage the hon. Member to hope that Britain would become a principal in the hostilities, or that British forces would be brought to bear on the issue of the contest. He begged leave to assure the hon. Member that every possible means would be taken to protect the lives and property of British subjects.

wished to know whether Government had authorised a letter from Mr. Mandeville, which had appeared in the public journals, requesting the Buenos Ayrean general to desist from advancing on Monte Video in an authoritative tone.

the Government certainly never had authorised the British agent, nor had the French government authorised their agent to hold out the expectation that either one country or the other would become a party to hostilities, but both had been authorised to make representations in the strongest manner against the continuance of hostilities.

remarked, that British merchants in that country declared that our ambassador had assumed a position to which he had not adhered.

moved, "That the Canada Wheat Bill be read a second time."

moved as an amendment, "That the bill be read a second time that day six months." He was convinced that an extensive smuggling trade would be carried on across the border, if the bill became law; but if the duty were collected, on what principle could Ministers justify their giving up an amount of revenue to the colonists which ought to flow into the British Treasury? Again, why establish a system of protection in Canada? The agriculturists of this country wished to uphold the protective system because it had continued for a long time, during which, both agriculture and manufactures had, on the whole, prospered. But the Canadians had no such plea. They did not wish this bill for the sake of the protection it would give, or because they thought it necessary: but they knew if they did not consent to the imposition of a duty on their imports of wheat, there would be no chance of getting the British Parliament to pass the bill.

in seconding the motion, said, that as they had now reached the stage in this measure, when it was usual to discuss its principle, and as the noble Lord had afforded them no fresh information upon it, it was necessary to examine the preamble of the bill itself. Now the preamble merely set forth, that whereas an act was passed by the legislative assembly of the province of Canada, imposing a duty of 3s. a quarter on wheat imported into Canada, therefore it was expedient that an act of Parliament should be passed allowing corn, the growth of Canada, to be imported into England at a duty of 1s.; and all flour ground in Canada, whether from Canadian or from American wheat, at a proportionate rate of duty. There was no allegation that any grievance will be removed, or any special benefit be conferred by this act; in this respect the preamble is candid enough, but it does not quite begin at the beginning, or tell the whole story; if it did, it ought to begin by stating, that, whereas, the Secretary of State for the Colonies wrote last year a hasty despatch to the governor of Canada, without duly considering the consequences; therefore, be it enacted, that this unmeaning and mischievous measure pass into a law; a reason hardly sufficient, indeed, for the Gentlemen opposite, and certainly, by no means conclusive in the eyes of the people of England. Let us look for a moment at the circumstances of Canada, and see whether there is anything peculiar in her condition which can justify the pasting of this measure. Now it is admitted that Canada does not grow corn enough for the consumption of the North American provinces. Upper Canada alone, with a population of about 400,000, produces any surplus corn. Lower Canada, with a population of 500,000, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick. Prince Edward's Island, and Newfoundland, all look to Upper Canada for a supply of corn; and these countries are necessarily dependent on Upper Canada, who, herself, situated at the head waters of the lakes and rivers, has the earliest means, by water communication, of supplying all their wants. Can any country be more favourably circumstanced then than the corn-growing districts of Upper Canada? and what possible need can there be for the great indulgence granted by this bill? But it is said Canada should be treated as an English county. But under this bill she may sell her own corn dear, and buy all she consumes cheap; and what English county has such a privilege? If this bill should pass, English counties must petition to be treated as favourably as the colonies. Suppose Lancashire should address the noble Lord and request to be allowed to sell all the corn she produces in the London market, and to import all she requires for her own consumption at a 3s. duty, she will only be asking for what it granted to Canada by this bill, and what is granted to Canada under the pretence of treating her as an English county. A good deal of difference of opinion has been expressed as to the probability of smuggling under this bill. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Coventry assured the House that very little smuggling could take place; the Member for Bath, a rather more impartial witness on this subject, assured the House that the most extensive smuggling would take place; that what with the facilities of crossing the river in summer and traversing the ice in winter, any quantity of wheat could be smuggled into the colony without the possibility of detection. Now setting for a moment these two witnesses one against the other, he (Mr. Denison) would call forward a still more important testimony, no other than that of the noble Lord himself. The noble Lord, in his opening speech, admitted that it would be most difficult, indeed that it would be impossible to prevent smuggling along a line of frontier of 1,500 miles, unless you had the whole population interested in the support of the law; now he (Mr. Denison) contended that you will have the whole population interested against the law. Will the mailers be interested in paying 3s. duty on every quarter they grind? Will the consumers in the towns, will even the farmers themselves, be interested in the collection of the duty? Certainly not. The farmers indeed would be, if Canada was going to be the market for the corn, but the markets for the corn will be Liverpool and London, and the price of wheat in Canada will always be regulated by the price in Liverpool, minus the freight and charges. The farmers, therefore, who can send all their own corn to England, will be equally interested with everybody else in the colony in obtaining a cheap supply for their own consumption, in evading, and not in paying the duty. Strange to say, the very vice of this measure has obtained for it some supporters; for as it is attacked both by those who desire protection for agriculture, and by those who advocate freedom of trade, some, like the Member for Durham, have said that truth probably lies in the middle, and therefore they would support the measure; but some positions may be so unskilfully taken up, that they may be equally open to attack on either flank, and such seems to be the singular misfortune of the present Bill. Those who desire protection to agriculture say, if the good to be derived from this measure is so small, why interfere with existing arrangements? why harass and disturb the minds of men? Last year you left us at least this cloak for our inconsistencies. We could say, with our leader, have I not preserved the sliding-scale? Now that cloak is snatched from us; a fixed duty of 4s. is imposed on all American wheat; and by favour of the smuggler the 4s. will probably be reduced practically to 1s., and no revenue will come into the exchequer. Say the advocates for freedom of trade, how many bad principles are not embodied in this measure? A Corn-law is imposed on Canada; new protected interests are called into existence. If any quantity of corn finds its way into the country, it will be through the medium of smuggling, which, with all its demoralising consequences, will prevail along the whole frontier. But beyond all these a more serious objection still presents itself. This Act stands in direct opposition to the sound principles of trade laid down by the Government last year, and gives, most unfortunately, just grounds of exception to the United States of America. The President of the Board of Trade, in a very able pamphlet, vindicating the measures of the last Session, has used these expressions—

"Sir R. Peel and Lord Ripon have done away with a practice which had given great, and not wholly unjust, offence to America— and which is alleged, in the recent report of a Committee of Congress, as a serious grievance—namely, that of granting privilege of duty to foreign produce when carried to the United Kingdom from the ports of our colonies, and thereby excluding, under the provisions of our Navigation Act, the vessels of the producing countries from a fair competition with our own, for the voyage across the ocean; as, for example, in the case of their pitch, pine timber, and their ashes. The practice was also open to the objection, that it starved the revenue often without any advantage to the consumer."

Now the measure is open to every objection urged in this passage. It starves the revenue; it affords no advantage to the consumer. It diverts the trade from its direct and legitimate channel; it deprives the United States of a fair competition in carrying on trade of their own produce—and this, for so small an object, at a moment when you are inviting the United States to throw down the barriers of restriction, and to meet you in the open course of an honourable and friendly rivalry. They will say, you give us indeed fair words, but your deeds belie them; you invite us to a reciprocity in commerce, and seeing the next moment that some small advantage can be gained by the protection of your colonial code, you push it into new extremes, forgetful of every thing but the promise of a momentary and exclusive advantage. If anything could be wanting to complete the objections to this Bill, it would be found in the time of its introduction. The Recorder of Dublin told you last night, that this Bill was adding recruits daily to the cause of Repeal in Ireland. It is exciting deep discontent among the farmers of England. Whatever might have been the effects of the Tariff and the Corn-law of last year, they had produced one result of far more importance than a reduction of 10 or 20 per cent, on the value of produce. They have shaken all confidence in the country, all trust in public men, and all security in the future. When the right hon. Baronet, after rallying the whole spirit of monopoly in the country, was carried by that cry to power, and then announced exactly opposite principles, he offended the moral sense of the people of England. His so-called settlement of last year had no principle of fixedness in it, and would surely lead to speedy and much greater changes.

agreed with his hon Friend who spoke last, that this was a most unfortunate time for introducing this Bill. He had not opposed the measures of last year. He had persuaded his constituents to accede to those measures as being final. He knew nothing—his constituents knew nothing—of any pledge to Canada; and the House might imagine his disappointment at finding fresh measures now proposed; at being told by his constituents, " You persuaded us that the bill of last year would be a final settlement; but here is another stride, and a large one, being made towards repeal; who can tell where the next stride will place us?" He was anxious to consider Canada as a county of England; but then Canada should either bear the burthens of English counties, or rather English farmers should be relieved from those burthens. The malt-tax, for example, fell most heavily on the poor man, and at the same time it destroyed itself because the poor man could not drink liquor made from barley. He would have all such taxes removed; and he could say so fairly, because he was the advocate for an income-tax. He thought it the fairest of all taxes. He wished, too, that protection should go hand in hand with a necessity of cultivation.

gave his support to the measure. Some time previous to the introduction of it, the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade had distinctly announced the proposition of a duty of 3s. on American wheat passing the frontiers of Canada. It must not, then, be charged against the Government that the agricultural members were taken by surprise; they were themselves to blame for not having taken greater pains to understand the proposal of the Government. It was a measure which he hailed as one that would relieve this country from the pressure under which it now laboured, and as mediatorial between the landed and manufacturing interests.

said, that a measure so characterised by mystery in its birth and its after-stages, was never before propounded in that House. But if it were more clearly understood, he thought country gentlemen would coincide in the opinion, that the protective system was by no means invaded, but in some degree strengthened by it. There was, however, one ground upon which all English, Scotch, and Irish country gentlemen ought to resist it, and that was its disturbing effect. He had lately been in Scotland for the purpose of letting some farms, but the tenants asked only for renewals of three or five years, instead of the usual longer period, unless he could guarantee the continuance of the Corn-laws. And what would be the benefit of the measure to the consumer here? Would he not have to pay a higher duly on wheat from Canada than he had been paying on an average for some years past? In Canada, too, the millers and those engaged in the transit trade were opposed to it. The consumer in Canada was also against it for it was hostile to his interests. But it must be chiefly considered with reference to its effects upon our foreign trade with America. At first the Americans were induced to like it because it admitted their produce at a fixed duty, although by an indirect road. But why did not the Government at once come to an understanding with the Americans, and revive trade with our best customers by taking her produce in return for ours? He believed that the hostility of the American tariff arose entirely from the same causes as other foreign tariffs—namely, because we forced a false and unsound system so far that they were under the necessity of adopting such a course. Our manufactures were not taken because we would not receive as an equivalent that which she could spare—her agricultural produce. This was a measure of the blindest policy, and there was nothing to justify it but a hasty expression of the noble Lord, to which nobody paid any attention at the time it was uttered. Upon those grounds he should give his support to the amendment of his noble Friend.

said, it had been remarked of this measure that that part of it which was protective would cease, but that which savoured of free-trade would continue. It was impossible not to see that there was a very great probability of that being the case. He must complain of the manner in which it had been brought forward. They had yet to inform themselves as to what were the real feelings of the people of Canada with respect to this measure. It was stated by the noble Lord that it had been received with every degree of popularity in the colony, and carried with an unanimous voice through the Legislature; but it was a fact which could not be concealed, that it was rejected by that very Legislature only a year before; and, looking to the documents upon the subject, they found undoubtedly that there were discussions upon it, the nature of which they could not comprehend from the very meagre details before them, and that it had occupied several weeks in being carried through. It was not, therefore, too much to ask that they should be more fully informed of the real feelings of the population of that colony and of those who governed it, before they agreed to this measure. He might be told that this bill contained provisions by which, if the proposed protection should cease, the protection which now existed should come again into operation; and that if those provisions, as now framed, were not sufficient, amendments might be introduced in committee; but protection once lost was not so easily regained. And if it should happen from some unforeseen circumstances that the colony should, after the experience of no long duration, abandon this protection, he did not see how, even if the act were so skilfully framed as to entitle them to return to the protection which they had now, they would be enabled to insure the benefit of it. The hon. Member for Cambridgeshire had said that the agricultural Members had not been taken by surprise. But he would refer to the manner in which this measure was announced by the noble Lord; and must say, that the charge of the hon. Member against the agricultural Members was rather unfair, as proceeding from one of their own body. He must suppose that in Cambridgeshire this matter was well known. He must suppose that the constituents of the hon. Member had had advantages which the constituents of other hon. Members had not had; and he must suppose that the hon. Member had been directed by his constituents to support this measure, and to bring against the other agricultural Members the charge he had preferred. He believed that the noble Lord who introduced this measure entertained the sincere conviction that it would not have an injurious effect upon the agricultural interests of this country; and if the bill had been proposed last year, at a period when higher prices existed, it might not have been open to such strong objections as under present circumstances, might, as he conceived with justice, be urged against it. It was, however, useless at this time to endeavour to persuade the agriculturists that the measure would be beneficial to them, and that it would not lead to a considerable diminution of their profits. The noble Lord in introducing the bill had taken great pains to remove the impression that it would tend to encourage smuggling; and he enlarged upon the trifling advantage which would be derived from contraband trade and the difficulties by which it would be attended. He believed, however, that the system of smuggling which they had reason to apprehend would be carried on in this manner:—that a vacuum being created in Canada by the exportation of colonial wheat to this country, grain would be smuggled from the United States into Canada for the consumption of the colonists. The only protection afforded to the agriculturists of this country would therefore be the duty of 1s. There was another point to which he wished to direct the attention of the House- Under the provisions of the Grinding Act, any quantity of flour might be taken to the bonding warehouses, and exchanged for an equal quantity of foreign wheat. How were they to guard against fraud here? What was to prevent persons from exchanging Canadian flour which had paid a duty of 1s. for an equal quantity of American or other foreign wheat? Suppose a person imported a quarter of Canadian flour upon which the 1s. duty was paid, how could they guard against his taking it, under the provisions of the Grinding Act, to the bonding warehouses and exchanging it for a quarter of foreign wheat, which ought to pay a duty of 20s., thus gaining an advantage of 19s.? He sincerely hoped, that if this measure must pass into a law it might produce all the benefits anticipated by the noble Lord. He was far from supposing, that if the system of protection continued to be maintained in Canada it would not be productive of benefit to the colony; and, if such benefit did result, he believed it would be productive of reciprocal advantage to this country. But he considered that, in the present depressed state of the agricultural interest, when he saw the anxiety and alarm which prevailed in the agricultural districts, he would not be discharging his duty to those whom he represented in that House if he gave his assent to that measure. He felt great regret in having compelled to differ from those with whom he generally acted, and to whom he gave full credit for the sincerity of the motives by which they were actuated in proposing this bill. He had no doubt they entertained the sincere conviction that the measure would not prove injurious to British agriculture; and he trusted they would do him the justice to believe that he was influenced by equal sincerity in adopting the course which he felt it his duty to pursue.

thought that the importance of this measure had been greatly overrated. He did not think the importation into this country of 80,000 or 100,000 quarters of Canadian wheat would produce any material effect upon the home market. He objected to the bill, however, because he believed it would abstract the difference in the duty from the British Treasury, in order to put it into the pockets of the Canadian landed proprietors, and that it would tend to raise the price of wheat to a proportionate extent in Canada. The measure would therefore inflict a double blow—first, upon the English Treasury; and next, upon the Canadian consumers; and for what object? To support the landed interest in Canada. He considered that the tendency of the bill would be to discourage, rather than to increase, the transit of American wheat through Canada to this country. Hitherto the duty on American wheat imported through Canada had been 2s. 1d. per quarter; but by this measure a permanent duty of 4s. a quarter would be imposed. He also objected to the bill because it would create a vested interest in Canada. Many persons might be induced, under the expectations which this measure encouraged them to indulge in, to invest their capital in Canadian agriculture; and if it should be hereafter found expedient to adopt measures of a different nature, they would turn round and complain of the injury done to them, and of the interference with their vested interests. He did not think that the bill carried out the principles of free trade, or that it would benefit the consumer; and he would, therefore, oppose it.

said, the Government had been charged with having misled the people of this country with respect to the present measure. He might say, in reply to observations which had fallen from several hon. Members, that the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade had last year proposed to impose a 3s. duty on the importation of United States corn into Canada by an act of the Imperial Legislature; but, on consideration, it was thought advisable to leave it to the colonial Legislature to impose a duty on corn passing their frontier. It was eventually suggested that a duty of 3s. should be levied on the Canadian frontier, a duty of 1s. being imposed on importation into this country. He could therefore fully confirm the statement of the hon. Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. E. Yorke); and he thought that hon. Gentlemen had no reason to complain that they had been deceived by the Government with respect to this measure. It had been said that this bill was designed to afford protection to the agricultural interest in Canada, and to give an advantage to the colonists in the home market over foreign producers. But the same principle had been adopted in, he believed, 1836, with regard to colonial sugar, and subsequently with respect to rum. There could be no question, in his opinion, that as a matter of revenue a fixed duty was preferable to a sliding scale. With respect to the operation of the measure, he could not believe that it was likely to have an extensive effect on the agricultural interests of this country. As the noble Secretary for the Colonies had said, the measure had been long looked for as a great boon by the Canadians, and considering all the circumstances of the case he could not but support the second reading.

was afraid that it was almost ungenerous to aim another blow at this almost undefended measure; but he must say he thought that such a measure ought to have received something more of explanation from her Majesty's ministers than the House had yet heard. If the noble Lord who introduced it did not like to say anything in its defence why were others silent? Why was the Paymaster of the Forces absent, introduced as he had been into the Cabinet as a decoy to the country gentlemen,—as the Mrs. Bend who was to invite them to come and be killed? On a former occa- sion he had taken the liberty to ask the noble Lord whether he could support his assertion that the Canadian Act had passed with the unanimous consent of the Canadian Legislature. That assertion had been denied by the hon. Member for Montrose (Mr. Hume), and the noble Lord, in consequence, had produced the journals of the Canadian Legislature, from which, however, he (Mr. V. Smith) must say that any thing but what the noble Lord had stated appeared to have been the case. [Lord Stanley had made no such an assertion.] The noble Lord had certainly been understood by himself and others to have stated that the Canadian act had passed unanimously; however, the noble Lord roust know, at least, he (Mr. V. Smith) hoped the noble Lord knew, that he was the last person to accuse the noble Lord of intentional incorrectness, and he hoped the noble Lord would take an opportunity of informing the House on what precise questions the divisions in the Canadian Legislature had been taken. It appeared that no fewer than four divisions had taken place in reference to this subject. The noble Lord had called upon the House of Commons to pass the measure, because otherwise, he said, it would be an insult to the colony of Canada. Now the insult, if any to the colony, proceeded from the noble Lord himself, for he had made a promise to the colony without having the sanction of the British Parliament. To talk of insult to the Canadian Legislature, he must confess, appeared to him to be idle. If the House of Commons were to be told every time that an occasion occurred for them to exercise the privileges and rights of the House, that they must not do this or that because it would be an insult to the colony, he must say, in his opinion, that would not be fitting Ministerial language. The hon. and learned Member for Cork (Mr. O'Connell), was very differently treated when he said that this or that conduct would be considered an insult to Ireland. To take that into consideration, it was declared would be fettering the privileges of the House. But if the bill passed, would it not be an insult to the other North American colonies, to Nova Seotia, New Brunswick, and Prince Edward's Island, which, though not so valuable at present, might some time or other approach very nearly in value to Canada? The House was told, however, that these were not agricultural colonies. He believed the very same reason applied to Canada. At the present moment it did not raise any great quantity of corn. The House had been told by an hon. Gentleman who was acquainted with the country that the fly destroyed the crops in Lower Canada, and though there might be some surplus from Upper Canada it was only from that part of the colony that any could be expected. But Nova Scotia was advancing in agriculture. The emigration papers presented by the noble Lord yesterday showed that prizes were given there for agricultural improvements. These were small beginnings, it was true, but they were worth something. Because Canada had cost treasure and blood, we should not be afraid to act fairly to the other colonies as well as to Canada. Then the governor of New Brunswick stated, that in his progress through the colony he had everywhere noticed improvements in agriculture. Prince Edward's Island, he was told, had passed a similar act to this of Canada, with a similar prospect of a boon from the noble Lord. The noble Lord denied it, it seemed; but he asked, whether, if the other North American colonies passed similar measures, would the noble Lord dare to refuse them this boon? Writing to Jamaica the noble Lord stated that a privilege given to one colony could not be denied to another colony. He (Mr. V. Smith) took those words, and warned the noble Lord that a boon given to one colony could not be refused to another. Let hon. Gentlemen opposite, therefore, lay their account with having wheat coming in from all the colonies on the same terms as from Canada. The noble Lord had introduced his resolutions at one o'clock in the morning of the 6th of May — a most inconvenient hour — the consequence of which was, that at this stage of the measure, it was too late for him (Mr. V. Smith) to introduce the names of the other North American colonies as he should otherwise have done. There was one thing that he wished particularly to know, whether the noble Lord had taken any additional precautions against smuggling? He did not even know how the noble Lord proposed to defray the expenses of the measure in that respect. Did he mean to call upon this country? If the noble Lord did, he could assure him that this country would not afford him the means; or did the noble Lord mean to say that Canada would defray the expense? How was that to be brought about? It was impossible, in his opinion, that the duty could defray the expense. In fact, he believed, that the duty would not be levied; for he could not see that it was the interest of any person to maintain it. Their act having passed, and received the Royal assent, how could the noble Lord compel them to levy the duty? The noble Lord told the House,—" Oh, we don't want Custom-house officers; every man in Canada will be a custom-house officer." Why so? The largest portion of the population would be interested in smuggling. There would be no one person in Canada who would be interested in the slightest degree in the prevention of smuggling. These things were overlooked by Gentlemen on the opposite side; or, perhaps, their principal object was to support the Ministry, and it was with that view some few came down on one night to vote against one resolution, and a few more on another night to vote against another. The object of the bill was to establish a protective interest in Canada, which ultimately would unite with the protective interest here to oppose the principles of free-trade; and it would be difficult to oppose their united efforts.

said, that no arguments had been advanced against the bill which had not been urged before over and over again. The bill was verbatim the same as the resolutions; and what necessity was there for his noble Friend going over the same ground again. From the course of argument pursued by his hon. Friend it would be supposed that there was no Custom-house in Canada. His hon. Friend ought to know, from the situation which he had formerly held, that duties were collected on other articles coming into Canada from America, and that sufficient security for their collection existed. Where smuggling could be carried on along the frontier there was no corn, whilst, the great lakes were interposed between the corn-growing countries and Canada, and these lakes, as he understood, were never entirely frozen over in winter. Besides this, what would be the gain to the smuggler in comparison with the risk of seizure and the difficulty of landing? There had been formerly a considerable quantity of contraband tea introduced from America, but the reduction of duty to one half, combined with other causes, had done away with the contraband trade. An overwhelming majority of the Legislative Assembly of the two Canadas was in favour of the bill, and, notwithstanding the division in the Canadian Legislature there had been no vote against the principle of the bill. It had been asked by his hon. Friend, who pressed the point with some emphasis, whether it would be possible to refuse the same boon if it were required by our North American colonies; but it should be remembered, that these colonies did not produce corn for exportation. As to the allusion which had been made to the Prince Edward's Island Act, the answer was, that it only related to revenue. When the prices were very high here, American corn, instead of coming by the route of Canada, would come direct, and when the prices were low, American corn would come to this country through Canada. His hon. Friend argued, that the bill would give strength and consistency to the existing Corn-laws which at any rate proved that the measure was not brought forward for the purpose of weakening the present protection.

I do not think that the hon. Gentleman has succeeded in showing that it was not necessary for any Member of the Treasury Bench to have taken part in this debate; nor do I think he has shown, what it was of great importance to establish, that the statement of the noble Lord, the Secretary for the colonies, that there were no divisions in the Canadian House of Representatives on the measure, has been borne out by the facts. I am convinced, that the noble Lord only stated what he believed to be true—the documents, however, which he has produced, prove that the noble Lord laboured under a mistake of an egregious kind. After the noble Lord had stated to the House, that there were no divisions, my hon. Friend, the Member for Montrose, referred to a paper in which it appeared that there was a division on the first resolution. When that paper was reverted to by my hon. Friend, and when he referred to the speeches made upon that occasion, I ask how it is the noble Lord could make an assertion, so utterly at variance with the evidence adduced by the Member for Montrose. The noble Lord said, he had referred to the journal. So have I. Surely, the noble Lord will admit, that a division on the resolution on which the bill is founded is the same thing as a division on the bill itself. What was that resolution? Resolved,—

"That it is the opinion of the committee, that it is expedient, in order to encourage the agricultural interests of this province, and facilitate the free admission of Canadian wheat into the ports of the United Kingdom, to impose a duty on foreign wheat imported into this province."

Did not that resolution involve the principle of the whole measure? Then look at page 5, and let us see who is in the right. We have assertion on one side, met with asseveration on the other, but what is the proof? On the top of page 5, I find this statement:—

"The question being then put on the first resolution, the House divided thereon, and the names being called for, they were taken down as followeth."

On the first resolution, involving the principle of the bill, there was a division taken, therefore the noble Lord had not made out his assertion. Then you say, "read the intermediate portion." Between the first resolution and this division there was a division on an amendment The amendment was lost, and then the division was taken on the first resolution.—

"The question being then put on the first resolution, the House divided."]

I think the noble Lord, with all his ingenuity, will not be able to elicit any different construction from that entry. Then let us see whether other assertions are better founded. The hon. Member for Cambridgeshire said, that the country had not been misled, but straight, the hon. Member for Dorsetshire turns round and asks whether his constituents have been misled? And that question has received no answer The hon. Member for Dorsetshire added that he had not been misled. Did the hon. Member for Dorsetshire convey that information to his constituents? Did he, in this House, take part in the debate with the hon. Member for Yorkshire, who was also not misled? Did either of the hon. Members take pains to impress on the agriculturists the benefits of those measures, taken in reference to which you may well exclaim,—

"O fortunati nimium bona si sua norint."

But the people say they are misled. In order to ascertain whether the charge is well founded let us see the facts. The noble Lord anticipated the charge, and declared that the measure was not clandestinely introduced, and the noble Lord adverted to a speech made by himself. It is true that the Vice-President of the Board of Trade, on the 8th of February, 1842, suggested the advantage of a fixed duty between Canada and America; did he say one word about the abolition of the duty on Canadian wheat brought into this country? Not a syllable. He said there was a disposition in the Government to lessen the duty upon American wheat introduced into Canada, but not a word about reducing the duty on Canadian wheat brought into this country. It therefore required considerable ingenuity and ability to extort from the right hon. Gentleman's statement as an inference that which he now said he had so clearly declared. On the 9th of February the greatest interest prevailed throughout the country to know the determination of the Government; it was supposed that they would adhere in Parliament to their pledges expressed or implied. In the hush of public attention, when every sentence of the Prime Minister not only entered the ear, but was impressed on the mind, the Prime Minister entered into an explanation of the alterations which he intended to adopt. Did he say a word about this bill? Not a syllable. He detailed with the utmost minuteness, the change he intended to make in the duty on Canadian corn. There was to be a 5s. duty when the price was 55s.; as the price advanced to 58s. the duty was to be reduced. What was it incumbent on a Prime Minister to do when, upon such an article as corn, this plan was in meditation? Was it not to apprise the country of the fact? My right hon. Friend the late Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Baring) asked on the 9th of February, 1842, whether the Cabinet contemplated any change. If they did, why did they suppress all mention of it? A hint was given by the noble Lord the Secretary for the Colonies? In what stage of the Corn-law was that hint given? Was it on an amendment of the Government? No. My hon. Friend the Member for the county of Limerick made a motion, and then the noble Lord the Secretary for the Colonies made a motion, which he is astonished we have not borne in mind. He may be astonished that his words were not understood, but the country gentlemen did not conceive the noble Lord's words conveyed any such meaning. This was on the 28th of February. There was another speech made on the 18th of April. No one had mentioned what took place on the 18th of April. The noble Lord then the President of the Board of Trade (the Earl of Ripon), who is now transferred to another department, where I believe control is very necessary, introduced the Corn-law in the other House. Did he say one word in reference to the bill? The Prime Minister had passed it over, the Secretary for the Colonies had introduced it incidentally, and then the President of the Board of Trade left it out. The 2nd of March was passed. At that time the noble Lord's despatch had been written; on the 18th of April, when the corn bill was brought into the House of Lords, the President of the Board of Trade did not utter one word with respect to this measure. I entirely acquit the noble Lord of practising any deception to the House of Commons, but it is most unfortunate that the country gentlemen have been taken by surprise, the hon. Member for Shropshire is taken by surprise; the hon. Member for Suffolk the gallant representative of agricultural astonishment are utterly amazed. If there be a scale of surprise, the farmers of England have gone through every grade of the scale. They marvelled that the Whigs changed their minds before the general election—they were astonished that the Tories changed their minds so soon afterwards. They were amazed at the Corn-bill—they were appalled by the tariff, and now they are still more thunderstruck that fifteen months afterwards you should come forward and introduce a change into your own final measure; that you should give up your sliding-scale and adopt a fixed duty which would prove a fixed imposture. In my opinion this bill is objectionable to the farmers who are the advocates of protection, and it is still more objectionable to the advocates of free-trade. The farmers suppose that they are to have protection, and you give them a duty payable here; whereas you turn round and substitute for a duty raised here in England, a duty to be raised in Canada for the Canadians, and not for England. You may say "imperial policy requires this." Possibly "imperial policy" may require the abolition of the Corn-laws; and you defend those laws, not on a reference to imperial policy, but you defend them in order to support particular interests; in other words class interests. Is it not the same thing to Ireland and to England if flour comes into this country whether it is ground on the Vistula or the St. Lawrence. Will not Canadian corn interfere with home-grown corn as much as corn grown at Dantzie or in America. Will it not equally displace home-grown corn? Will it not equally interfere with contracts—will it not affect pin-money and settlements quite as much as foreign grown corn. Why then do you introduce this bill. It seems from the papers before the House that the Western States of America are by this bill to be converted into the granaries of this country. How do you reconcile that probability with the policy of your Corn-laws, to which yon express your determination to adhere? I pass to the smuggling question. In these papers you have a memorial showing that there will be no smuggling. Who do you think is the authority against smuggling? Why, my Lord Mountcashel. You will hardly believe it—this bill is sheltered under that illustrious name—

"Magni stat nominis umbra."

The North American committee of the Colonial Society sent the memorial, but the first name among the subscribers is my Lord Mountcashel. Giving you the full benefit of all the authority to be derived from the name, see how stands the evidence. We have had the opinion of the right hon. Member for Coventry (Mr. E. Ellice), whose sagacity, whose talents, and whose pure and" disinterested principles are beyond dispute. I know of no man of more shrewdness and sagacity, of whose opinion with regard to matters affecting Canada I would more readily take, but against him we have had the evidence of two hon. Members, one an Englishman, who has been officially connected with Canada, I mean the hon. and learned Member for Liskeard, and the other a Canadian, the hon. Member for Bolton, [No! no!] If be is not a native of Canada, he is most honourably connected with that colony, of which the Legislature, at one period made him the repository of its special confidence, My hon. Friend the Member for Liskeard has been in Canada, he was a member of Lord Durham's government. Both these gentlemen concur in stating that smuggling will be carried on to a very great extent. My gallant Friend the Member for Marylebone concurs in that opinion. He is well acquainted with Canada; against that opinion his testimony has been given by the noble Lord the Secretary for the Colonies, who has been in Canada, but his evidence is rebutted by that of the Members for Maldon and for Taunton, who travelled with him through Canada, when they sympathised with the noble -Lord in sentiments, which he no longer entertains. They think that smuggling will be carried on to a very great extent under these circumstances, where there appears to exist a doubt so strong upon a matter so important, and the witnesses contradict each other so directly, would it not have been a better course to have referred the whole question to a committee? At present we have nothing but assertion upon one side encountered by equally strong asseveration upon the other. I have said that the advocates of free trade also ought to oppose this measure. The Americans are already complaining of the introduction of this tariff. When you are introducing into Canada a Corn-law which has produced such bad effects here, may it not have an equally pernicious effect in Canada without necessity, all the evils of your Corn-laws. There is no pretence for a Canadian Corn-law. There have been no investments in Canada made on the faith of the Corn-Laws, capital has not been introduced there under them, there are no settlements or family arrangements dependent upon them in Canada. By destroying the Corn-laws here you may root up interests which have grown up with them. But this cannot be said in Canada. We have received an intimation that the Corn-laws here cannot be maintained, and my hon. Friend, the Member for Montrose says, "Carry this measure as soon as you possibly can, and the Canadian Legislature will break through it." You, feeling the force of that suggestion, have attempted to guard against it. You have altered your resolutions, you have added to the words, "from and after a day to be named," the words, "and thenceforth during the continuance of the said duty." You feel the force of the objection, and you say that the present act shall be co-existent with the Canada Act. Is not this evidence that you consider, after a trial of your Corn-laws, the Canadians will try to get rid of them. If there be a cry for a repeal of the Corn-laws in this country, why should not there be a cry for the repeal of Corn-laws in Canada. You say that with a fixed duty in a time of famine in England there will be a cry for repeal of this fixed duty; if there be a time of famine in Canada why should there not be a similar cry there [No, no.] You say "No." I am aware of the value of an official denial, but where is your evidence 1 And what is your principle of a fixed duty? You have a sliding-scale on the Hudson, and a fixed duty on the St. Lawrence. You slide along the Erie, and are in what the Americans call "a fix" on the Wel-land Canal. Nay, if you bring American flour down the St. Lawrence, 'and grind it there, you admit it at a fixed duty, whilst if it comes unground, it comes in under the sliding-scale; so that on the St. Lawrence itself, you have in operation at one and the same time, the sliding-scale and the fixed duty. I do not enter into the calculations or into all the mystifications may I say, in which the noble Lord indulged. One word more — I have not heard on the other side anything which can justify the exclusion of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, and Prince Edward's Island. This point has been pressed again and again. It has been pressed by those who have attacked the Government in front, and those who have fallen upon them in the rear; but no definite, skilful, and perspicuous answer has been extorted by the most skilful inqusitor who has administered his interrogatories to the noble Lord. Lord Durham recommended, that all these colonies should be combined into one mass. It was apprehended, however, to be too serious an experiment, and was not adopted. Yet there is no difference in the natural advantages of these colonies; there is no ground for making the present distinction. You say that there is no corn grown there; but I have abundance of evidence to show that there 1s. Mr. M'Gregor says so. Under Sir Howard Douglas a great impetus was given to the growth of corn in Nova Scotia; and the same thing is asserted both by Mr. Buckingham and Mr. Martin. But you do not think, that Nova Scotia will complain. Have you forgotten the proceedings of the people of that colony? Do you not know, that the Legislative Assembly of that colony forced from amongst them certain obnoxious in- dividuals—that they have exhibited a will of their own, and a power to carry out their views? It is only for countries in a state of insurrection, however, that such premiums are reserved. Is it fair on the part of a British Ministry first to enter into what I will not call a clandestine bargain, with the Canadian Legislature, but a bargain without the assent or knowledge of Parliament, and then to turn round and say, "If you do not ratify our treaty there will be a civil war." Those words were not used, undoubtedly, but you talked of the danger to this country, and of the weakest point of the British empire. And you did not stop there. You assembled your Friends; not in this House, but out of the House; they met at the Foreign-office, and you threatened your supporters with resignation. [Cries of"No, no."] We were threatened with a civil war, and then you threatened your supporters with resignation. [Cries of"No."] Did not the noble Lord say, that if this bill was not carried he should advise his Sovereign to refuse the royal assent to the Canada bill, and resign his office, ["No, no."] He said it should be his last act. [Renewed cries of "No."] Well, then, in place of saying that it should be his last act, he said, "though it should be his last act." [Cheers and cries of "No."] If that be not what the noble Lord said, it would be better for the noble Lord himself, in candour, to state what he did say. The threat used at the meeting to which I am referring, however, as it is stated in a letter, written by the Member for Kent, appeared to involve resignation; but as there is so much doubt on that point, I may recommend to the noble Lord, that he should have recourse to a dissolution, and on the Corn-laws, the Canadian bill, and the prosperity with which he has blessed the country, give the people of England an opportunity of pronouncing a practical panegyric on the administration of himself and his associates.

said, that certainly the right hon. and learned Gentleman who had just sat down had introduced something of novelty into the debate, which he had thought so worn out that he should have felt an apology due to the House for again intruding upon its attention, were it not that such a direct appeal had been made to him by the right hon. and learned Gentleman. In consequence of some expres- sions which had fallen from the right hon. and learned Gentleman at the close of his speech, he felt bound to trespass upon its indulgence for a few moments while he endeavoured to show that he did not shrink from the challenge which had been thrown out, and to prove that he was prepared to meet the right hon. and learned Gentleman. When he remembered that the right hon. and learned Gentleman had been for a considerable time a Member of the late Administration, he did not feel great surprise that the right hon. and learned Gentleman should recommend to the present Government any other expedient rather than that of resignation. He thought that if the right hon. and learned Gentleman had carried his example and experience rather than his precept a little further, the last and fatal experiment of a dissolution would not afford the right hon. and learned Gentleman any grounds for urging a dissolution as the best course to be adopted. The right hon. and learned Gentleman seemed to know the circumstances which he supposed to have occurred at a private meeting of gentlemen widely differing from the right hon. and learned Gentleman in political opinions. [Mr. Sheil: " I spoke on the authority of the published letter of Mr. Plumptre."] That letter he had not seen, but the right hon. and learned Gentleman had stated, that on the part of the Government he (Lord Stanley) had taken the undue and indecent liberty of threatening the supporters of the Government, that unless they gave their support to this measure, he should feel it his duty to resign the situation he had the honour to hold. Now, there were many Gentlemen then in the House who, unlike the right hon. and learned Gentleman, had been present at the meeting, and who could remember what had passed. At that meeting—if the right hon. and learned Gentleman wished to know what passed—he had stated to the Gentlemen assembled, that which he conceived showed the groundlessness of the apprehensions of the agriculturists with respect to this measure. He had slated further, the position in which the Government was placed with respect to this measure, but he added, most distinctly, that no Member of Parliament was pledged to its adoption; and he also said—and he now repeated it—that it was then and still was the duty of the Government, considering the pledges given to Canada, to use its utmost endeavours for the purpose of carrying the measure into effect. The right hon. and learned Gentleman had alluded to a speech which he had made in Parliament on the occasion of the motion of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Taunton (Mr. Labouchere. [Mr. Sheil: "Your opening speech."] Be it so. On that occasion he stated strongly, that the Government was pledged to take every step to secure the passing of this measure—that the Canadian Legislature had passed a bill in the full reliance that the measure would become law, and he had stated further, that if unfortunately, and contrary to his expectations, Parliament should refuse its sanction to one side of the contract, he would not be a party to advise the Crown to assent to the other portion embodied in the bill of the Canadian Legislature; and that in the event of the rejection of the bill now under consideration, it would be his first, though it might also be his last official act, to advise the Crown to refuse its assent to the bill passed by the Canadian Legislature. Now, he did not think that any hon. Member could fairly construe this language into a menace. But the right hon. and learned Gentleman had stated that he had not only held out threats of danger to the country by the rejection of this bill, but that he had entered into a clandestine treaty with Canada, and concealed it from the House. [Mr. Shell: "No."] Oh, yes; the right hon. and learned Gentleman said, he had entered into a treaty which the right hon. and learned Gentleman would not designate as clandestine. That was a stale artifice, and one wholly unworthy of the right hon. and learned Gentleman. The right hon. and learned Gentleman had gone on to state that he had said, that if Parliament refused to ratify the treaty, there would be civil war in Canada. He had never said or thought anything of the kind; but this he had said, and this he repeated, that it was not the same thing to refuse to pass a measure when nothing had previously taken place, and to withdraw a boon when an equal benefit had previously been conceded. But the right hon. and learned Gentleman had also contended that he had made statements — which, the right hon. and learned Gentleman defied him, with all his ingenuity, to get out of—with respect to the unanimity of Canada in reference to this measure, and taking in his hand the journals of the House of Assembly, the right hon. and learned Gentleman had charged him with having misrepresented facts. [Mr. Shell: " No, I said you were in error as to facts."] The right hon. and learned Gentleman added, that from those journals he would prove the error. Now, his declaration had been, that the principle of the present measure, and also the principle of the bill passed in Canada, had obtained the universal and unanimous assent of all the branches of the Canadian Legislature; and he repeated that statement. The right hon. Gentleman, the Member for Northampton had said, that in the House of Assembly, as appeared from its journals, there had been some division upon the original resolution; but the right hon. Gentleman had omitted to state, that two of those divisions were with regard to a third resolution, not at all or in any degree connected with or forming a part of the measure under consideration. There had been two divisions on the first resolution, which was to the effect—

"That it was expedient to encourage the agricultural interests of this province (Canada), and to facilitate the introduction of foreign wheat into the province at a duty named."

The amendment moved was to the effect,—

"That such duty should be levied only when Canadian wheat could be admitted into the United Kingdom duty free."

In short, the original resolution was to impose a duty of 3s. without conditions; the amendment was to impose a duty with conditions. On these motions divisions had taken place, and the original resolution was carried by a majority of thirty-nine to eighteen. The main resolutions were afterwards carried by a majority of forty-nine to thirteen; and of the thirteen Gentlemen who voted in favour of the amendment twelve of them had declared, that their opposition was founded on the circumstance, that the bill now under consideration would not give security to the Canadians. [Mr. Sheil: "That statement is very ingenuous."] It might be ingenuous; but what was much better, it was true. A similar amendment had been moved on the bill, and with these exceptions, neither in the second nor in the third reading of the bill had there been any division or difference of opinion either in the upper or the lower House of the Legislature. Now he asked the right hon. and learned Gentleman, and he asked the House whether he had satisfied both, that upon the principle of the measure pro- posed by the Government there had been no difference of opinion whatever. If there had, the passage which had been referred to by his hon. Friend, the Under Secretary for the Colonies (Mr. G. W. Hope), showed that those differences had been misinterpreted. So much, then, for the circumstances under which the measure had been passed by the Canadian Legislature. The feelings and opinions expressed by that Legislature, he took to be indications of the feelings and opinions of the people of Canada. But there remained another point which had been noticed by the right hon. and learned Gentleman opposite. The right hon. and learned Gentleman had said the present bill was a surprise upon that House and upon the country. He regretted, that any hon. Member should have misconceived the intentions and views of her Majesty's Government, and he admitted frankly, that neither Parliament nor hon. Gentlemen opposite were bound by anything which had passed last year. The right hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Sheil) had quoted what had passed on the 8th and 9th of February last year, and had said, that his (Lord Stanley's) right hon. Friend, the President of the Board of Trade, had, in moving the British Colonial Possessions Bill, taken no notice of what the Government intended to do with respect to the Corn-law. This omission had arisen from the simple fact, that then the Corn-laws were not under consideration; but on the 8th of February, before the Corn-laws were introduced, the right hon. Gentleman, the Member for Taunton had taken an objection to the principle of the imposition of a duty by the authority of Parliament, without the consent of the Canadian Legislature. The fact was, that the Government was doubtful as to the course of the colonial Legislature. But the right hon. and learned Gentleman opposite (Mr. Sheil), although he had quoted what had passed on the 8th, the 9th, the 28th of February, and the 18th of April last year, had omitted a very important statement made by his right hon. Friend, the President of the Board of Trade, on the 25th of February, on the discussion of the motion made by the hon. Member for the county of Lincoln (Mr. Christopher), with respect to the Corn-laws. On that occasion his right hon. Friend had used these words:— "With respect to the question which had been alluded to, he believed that no man in that House would contend that any regulation ought to be adopted in the new Corn-law which should raise a new barrier as against our trade with the United States. He had proposed laying a duty of 3s. on wheat imported into Canada. Should Parliament, how. ever, lay a merely nominal duty on the importation of Canadian flour and wheat into this country, he would not venture to pledge himself, that it would not be right to lay the duty on the importation of American wheat into Canada, which stood in his resolution; but if Parliament should adhere to the principle of a 5s. duty on the importation of Canadian wheat and flour in this country, in that case the 3s. duty would not be pressed upon the House." Did not this statement announce the contemplated introduction of American corn into Canada, and of Canadian corn into this country? The right hon. and learned Gentleman had said, that his noble Friend took no notice of the question on the 18th of April; of course not, for it was not then settled. His noble Friend never thought of referring to that which, after all, was for the consideration of the colonial Legislature. With regard to the question of smuggling corn from the United States into Canada, and also with regard to the quantity of corn that was likely to be introduced from the United States into Canada under this bill, the Blatter had been discussed usque ad nauseam. He, therefore, would not go into it. The hon. Member for Maldon, however, had made an observation with respect to smuggling wheat into Canada, which he wished to advert to. The hon. Gentleman had misapprehended what had fallen from him; he did not say, that he could not tell the extent of the smuggling, but he said, that he did not apprehend that there would be any serious extent of smuggling inland, but that it was possible a certain portion might be smuggled that was introduced by the sea board for the use of the fisheries. Again, his hon. Friend the Member for Dorsetshire did not find fault with the engagement that had been entered into with Canada, but be complained that the measure had been brought forward when agriculture was suffering under such depression; but surely the fall of prices could not justify the Government in abandoning the measure. The hon. Gentleman said, that if the measure was to be carried when corn was at the price of last year, he did not anticipate any great evil that would result from it. It was admitted by his hon. Friend, that the measure would prove of great advantage to Canada, and that a great number of British subjects annually-emigrated there, and that no boon could be conferred on those provinces which did not react on the mother country. Now, these were large admissions, and all of them of great importance. He believed, that if they thus did good to Canada, which was the natural refuge for so large a portion of the population of the mother country, that it would react upon the state of this country, and would produce the most beneficial effects. He would not waste the time of the House with going into calculations as to the probable quantity of corn, or rather flour, which was likely to come from Canada under the operation of this measure; but to relieve the apprehensions of some Gentlemen connected with agriculture, he perhaps might be allowed to state, that he had received some communications from mercantile houses connected with the Canadian trade, in which he was assured that the quantity likely to be imported this year under the measure was very small. He found in the communication of one Canadian mercantile house, that it was stated:—

"That the price of flour at Montreal is from 22s. 6d to 25s. a barrel, that was about from 43s. to 47s. a quarter of wheat. The stock on hand is small, and much less will be exported from up the country than there could be last year. The market price in New York is 2s. higher than in Canada, and that still would take up a large proportion of the corn from the western states."

After this he said with perfect confidence, that he did not believe that there was much to apprehend to the agricultural interest of this country from this source. The hon. Gentleman asked, would not Canada corn swamp the home market as much as that from Odessa? Certainly it did not matter so much where the corn came from, if the market was to be glutted; but when they obtained a supply, it was a material thing to consider at what price it was likely to be introduced into the market. If they could get Odessa corn at 14s. a quarter, it would displace the consumption of English corn, and, of course, reduce the price. If two or three hundred thousand quarters of wheat were introduced at this rate, the effect would be strongly felt; but he did not anticipate that any quantity of corn imported from Canada would displace an equal quantity of home produce. It did not matter, how- ever, where the corn came from, if it came at such a price as materially to affect the prices in the British market. As for the remark that had been made, that this measure created an invidious distinction between Canada and the other North American colonies, one hon. Member having intimated that it perhaps arose from the circumstance of there having been no rebellion in the other colonies, that it was not extended to them; and another hon. Member having said, that if the bill passed in its present shape, you would impose an affront on Nova Scotia—he must disclaim any such motives, and say he feared no such consequences. The right hon. Gentleman who spoke last, as well as other hon. Gentlemen who took the same side in the debate, agreed in this objection. And here he would beg the House to recollect, that when he introduced the measure, he distinctly stated, that it was not brought forward to promote the grinding interest of the colony, but for the encouragement of the domestic agriculture of Canada, and that they should send here not American, but Canadian corn. Were hon. Gentlemen aware of the fact, that since the old Corn-law came into operation, the whole quantity of colonial corn brought into this country for home consumption, with the exception of that from Canada, did not exceed 35,000 quarters? He was told, however, that Nova Scotia would consider this measure as an affront to her, and why, he would ask? Nova Scotia did not grow anything like wheat enough for her own consumption. New Brunswick also did not produce nearly sufficient for her own consumption. It had been strongly argued, that Canada produced more than sufficient corn for herself, but not sufficient to satisfy the wants of the whole of British America. Now, he begged hon. Gentlemen to recollect, that Canada, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, and Prince Edward's Island, comprehended the whole of British North America. At present, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick imported corn from the United States without the payment of any duty; but if you extend this measure to these new colonies, you compel them to impose a duty on the importation of wheat into them, and they have no flour of their own produce to send here. He was satisfied that these colonies would regard the extension of this measure to them as being a very trifling boon when you accompanied it with the condition imposed on Canada. The hon. and learned Member for Liskeard asked the other night why the Government did not apply this measure to Newfoundland, which obtained its supply of corn from the states on the Mississippi; and he made the observation, that Newfoundland lay midway between the Mississippi and this country. This might be so; but certainly no map that he had ever seen showed it. But if it were so, it was very strange that it did not find its way into New Brunswick, where it could be ground, and then imported into this country for little more than 1s. a barrel. The hon. Gentleman, however, had added, that it was very true, that these were not corn-growing countries. But independently of this, Prince Edward's Island had imposed a duty of 4s. on the importation of wheat into that colony, without any reference to this measure. This was a revenue act, and a revenue act only, and for the purposes of revenue only; but if other colonies chose to impose duties similar to those involved in this measure, the matter would be considered by the Government, and no doubt would be duly brought under the consideration of Parliament. He would, however, give no pledge on the subject, as he had strongly felt the inconvenience during the present Session of having done so. Could any man doubt it, that there were inconveniences in giving pledges, and that doing so materially interfered with the public business. He had said all along, that this was a measure which was of small importance as regarded its effect on agriculture, but the experience of the Session as to the inconvenience of making promises would make him very cautious for the future as to what he said of any measures to be hereafter proposed. As to the course, therefore, that her Majesty's Government would take with respect to the other colonies, he would not say a word; but special grievances with respect to Canada induced her Majesty's Government to introduce this measure, and they determined not to abstain from settling an important question, because that might raise a discussion with respect to other colonies, which at present could not be touched by the matter.

observed, that a few nights ago he was simple enough to believe, on the authority of the noble Lord, that there could be no smuggling corn into Canada under this bill. Now he had consulted several officers who had served in Canada, who assured him that this was altogether a mistake. He found that this bill, although called a modified free-trade, bill, would have the effect of demoralising the country and exciting all kinds of bad feeling between the American persons on this border on the one side, and the Canadians on the other. If any one would take up a map of America, he would see that there was nothing to prevent corn being brought down from the banks of Lakes Ontario and Erie by the canals and by the American floats, and when they passed from Cleveland and got along the American shore into the Lake of the Thousand Islands, nothing whatever could prevent smuggling. The noble Lord might send Admiral Bowles, and all the ships and all the steamers which they were about to send to Ireland, to Canada instead, and he could not prevent the smuggling of wheat from the United States into Canada. American corn would continue to go free of duty, as had been the case hitherto, into Canada; and as for the duty imposed in the colony, the truth was, that the Legislature of Canada had bamboozled the noble Lord, as he had attempted to bamboozle the country gentlemen.

thought the measure, as applied to English and Irish millers, was excessively unjust. He would not have made any objection to it as a measure of colonial beneficence; but he asked why was the experiment proposed in the present state of agriculture, and why should the experiment be made on agriculture alone? With respect to smuggling, he consulted Sir C. O'Donnell, who had been military secretary in Canada, and it was that gentleman's opinion, that it would be impossible to prevent smuggling under this bill. He complained, that certain friends of the noble Lord had covered him with a panoply of infallibility, which the noble Lord was not at all anxious, he believed, to wear. Sir Colquhoun Grant used to say on some occasions, "I do not wish to say a severe thing, but upon my soul, you are as great a scoundrel as ever I met." And when those friends of the noble Lord came round to him and told him that he had no weak point—that he could not err, he believed, that if the noble Lord followed the course of his own nature, he the weakest set of gentlemen that ever I knew." He thought the hon. Member for Kent was bound to explain For the sake of his constituents his opinions on the bill.

was anxious, before the debate was over, that the hon. Member for Wallingford should have an opportunity of repeating those attacks before the face of the right hon. Baronet at the head of the Government which he had made out of that House. The hon. Member said, the other night, that it was his intention to speak on the second reading of the bill, hut he had not as yet ventured to repeat those attacks on the right hon. Baronet which he had made behind his back. He did not dare to make those attacks before the face of the right hon. Baronet which he had made at an agricultural meeting at Wallingford, which the hon. Member himself had convened. Notwithstanding the attacks which the hon. Member had made on the right hon. Baronet, he was surprised, after the Corn-bill had been before the House for au entire month, to see in the Morning Post the name of the hon. Member as present at one of the right hon. Baronet's parliamentary dinners. If he entertained feelings towards the right hon. Baronet similar to those which the hon. Member for Wallingford had expressed, he! should not have gone and sat at the right hon. Baronet's table amongst his supporters at that parliamentary dinner. As he was coming down to the House, some lines occurred to him which reminded him of the hon. Member and the course which he had taken,—

" Quid immerentes hospites vexas, canis Ignavus adversum lupos?

Quin hucinanes, si potes, vertis minas Et me remorsurum petis?

Tu cum timendâ voce complêsti nemus Projectum odoraris cibum."

And looking at the right hon. Baronet as—

"Molossus aut fulvus Lacon."

The hon. Member might say to himself—

"Cave, cave: namque in malos asperrimus Parata tollit cornua."

But why did not the hon. Member make his attack in the House of Commons? Why had he not fulfilled his pledge and risen in his place? Where did the hon. Member make his declaration? The House own nature, he would be surprised, "and you, too, Sir," (continued the hon. Member, addressing himself to the Speaker), "will be surprised to hear that it was at your house. The hon. Member boasted, with great glee, that he was going to have some fun before Easter." A dinner was to be given, of that the hon. Member informed him, but he told the hon. Member that he would have nothing to do either with the hon. Member or with his dinner. A most flaming handbill was printed and posted; in that it was stated, in large and legible characters, that Mr. W. S. Blackstone had kindly consented to take the chair, and that other persons of consequence would attend. He did not know whether the hon. Member intended that as a puff for himself Well, what took place at that meeting? It was said in vino Veritas. Were the farmers told of the Canada Corn-bill? The Earl of Stanhope said, that the right hon. Baronet would not consent to any alteration in the Corn-bill. Was not, the noble Earl asked, the Canada Corn-bill an infraction of that pledge? Unless it was the object of the hon. Member that those who were present should go away from the meeting, the hon. Member should have risen up and stated the facts. That the noble Earl should not have known what the intentions of Government was, was not surprising, as that noble Earl was not a Member of that House. But the hon. Member pretended to be sensitively alive to the interest of agriculture, and he maintained that the hon. Member ought to have placed before the farmers the true statement of the c8se. The hon. Member, however, came down to the House and shifted the matter off his own shoulders. "It is not my own opinion," said the hon. Member for Wallingford, "but the opinion of the farmers." All he would say was, he who dared to whisper behind a person's back what he had not the courage to say in public to his face, was vilely, grossly, and foully guilty. He did not speak of the hon. Member, because the hon. Member denied the imputation. All he would say was, that the real delinquent had acted foully, grossly, vilely,—just as if any one had gone into Berkshire and said, "Do not you see and know what the Member for Wallingford (Mr. Blackstone) is at. A gentleman of Whig principles has lately bought a property in the neighbourhood. Mr. Blackstone feels that his seat is uncertain, and he wishes to satisfy you, the farmers, in order to secure that he may be hereafter returned as Member for the county of Berks." This was the cause of all the agitation that prevailed. By this course uncertainty was created, and a great depression of price was produced in the markets. Looking at the present bill, he thought it showed a great want of caution on the part of the Government to have postponed a measure of this kind. It appeared to him that the only change which this bill made was the adoption of a duty of 4s. instead of a duty of 5s. a quarter, and he would contend that the other shilling a quarter was made up by levying the duty in advance and the payment of the duty on a bulky article. If his noble Friend in bringing forward this measure were tampering with the Corn-laws of last year, he should have been the first to oppose him. This question had been greatly exaggerated and greatly misunderstood out of doors. When he heard his noble Friend (Lord Stanley) state that he brought this measure forward on his responsibility as a Minister of the Crown —as a measure of great importance to Canada, he could not for a moment doubt the course it was his duty to pursue, and would support the second reading of the bill.

could assure the House, that he had had no intention of offering a single word on the present occasion, but or the pointedly personal manner in which he had been alluded to by the noble Lord. He would assure the House that on no occasion had he introduced — and on no future occasion would he introduce—personalities into any discussion in that House. He stood there as the representative of the feelings of his constituents, and he hoped that feebly as he might give utterance to those feelings, he did not think that for that he ought to be called in question by any Member of that House. His noble Friend, if he could be permitted still to call him so, had stated that he had expressed his intention to speak on the second reading of this bill. If the noble Lord had been present on that occasion, he thought he would have understood him differently. He had been led to say a few words on the first introduction of the measure, but he did not wish to address the House on any of the amendments, and wished to reserve himself until such time as the House would be called on to come to a decision on the principle of the bill itself. What he stated was, that he had no wish to express his opinion on the several amendments, but to wait until they came to discuss the general question. He trusted that he had so far set himself right with his noble Friend, the Member for Oxfordshire. He had been personally alluded to by the noble Lord, and he thought he could explain the reason. He met the noble Lord coming into the House, and asked him was he going to meet his friends at Woodstock—if he was going to attend the agricultural meeting which was to be held next week at Woodstock. He could tell the noble Lord, that the meeting to be held at Woodstock was not convened by him, and if the noble Lord went there, he would meet the assembled farmers, and if they approved of his conduct they would show it. He did not know what course the noble Lord might adopt, but the farmers of Oxfordshire would perfectly know who they had now returned to Parliament. The noble Lord had further stated that he had made an accusation against the right hon. Baronet at the head of the Government, which the noble Lord stated he (Mr. Blackstone) would not reiterate in that House. Now, he would reiterate that which he had stated at Wallingford. What he bad stated was this, that the right hon. Baronet, at the head of the Government had been placed in his present proud position by the farmers of England, because they considered he Would act in pursuance of the views and sentiments which they entertained, and that so far from doing this—and in saying this, he spoke not only his own sentiments, but those of thousands and tens of thousands out of doors—the right hon. Baronet, when placed in his present proud position, not only did not act, in pursuance of the views and interests of the farmers, but directly opposed their sentiments and wishes. He made this statement now, in the hearing of the right hon. Baronet, and of the noble Lord, the Member for Qxfordshire, and hoped that his words would not be misunderstood.