, in pursuance of the Notice he had given, rose to ask leave to bring in a Bill to amend an Act of the fourth and fifth year of his late Majesty Will. IV., relating to friendly societies, in order to give protection to those very valuable institutions. The first Act that had been passed for the regulation of those societies was the 10th Geo. IV., cap. 56, which was amended by the 4th and 5th Will IV., cap. 40. The object of those Acts was declared to be to give greater security and power to extend the objects of friendly societies for any purposes which "were not illegal." Now it would appear to every one not learned in the law, that those words were sufficiently comprehensive; but he was sorry to say, that very lately a doubt had arisen upon the subject, in consequence of a case which had been tried in the Court of Queen's Bench, in which Mr. Justice Wightman had pronounced judgment. That judgment had had the effect of paralysing the certificate given to those societies. The case had arisen in consequence of a dispute between the directors and one of the members (named Scott) of the South Shields Investment Friendly Loan Society. That society had duly submitted its rules to Mr. Tidd Pratt, who had certified it in 1841. The directors, on the dispute arising with Scott, summoned him duly before the magistrates; but they refused to entertain the case, which was finally and consequently brought before the Court of Queen's Bench, when it was ruled by Mr. Justice Wightman, that the society did not come under the provisions of the law. The learned Judge had said, "I am of opinion this society is not a friendly society, and that the words, 'for any purposes which are not illegal,' must be considered so as to bear some relation to the objects of the Act." Now, it would be probably found that two-thirds of the friendly societies in the kingdom might be disputed on the same grounds, and the object of his Amendment was simply to make more plain the meaning of the words, "purpose which is not illegal." Those societies were most valuable, and it would be a very serious detriment to their utility if they were not supported in time. The Amendment which he was about to propose had received the approval of all the persons connected with loan societies to whom he had submitted it, and it had the approval also of Mr. Tidd Pratt. With respect to the opinion of Mr. Justice Wightman, he should say that the Solicitor General had given another opinion, to the effect that Mr. Tidd Pratt was right in certifying to that very society the rules of which were now doubted. The Solicitor General had given a similar opinion with regard to another friendly society; and when they saw such doubts upon the subject it was evidently highly necessary that they should be removed. He, therefore, asked permission of the House, and the right hon. Baronet, to bring in a Bill to amend the law relating to friendly societies.

moved for—

"Copies of all Reports and Correspondence respecting the loss of the emigrant ship Cataraque, in Bass's Straits, in August last, having 369 emigrants on board;" also a "Copy of the Report of the Officer at Liverpool, on the state of the Cataraque before sailing from Liverpool in April, 1845, and what the length of Contract: Whether the captain and mate had passed any examination, and how long the captain had been at sea."

In moving for those Reports, he had no wish to cast blame on any one; but where they saw out of 415 persons who left Liverpool on board that ship, that no fewer than 369 were lost, it did appear that something should be done to investigate the cause, to prevent a recurrence of such a calamity, and to preserve the lives of people in future. Whether there was a defect in the ship, or whether the officers were to blame—whether the charts on board were defective or incorrect, or whether the lighthouses were wrongly situated (and there he should beg to say, that he hoped all lighthouses would be placed under the management of the Government shortly) he did not mean to say; but he thought that a strict inquiry ought to be instituted.

wished merely to state, without offering any opposition to the Motion, that the vessel alluded to was a remarkably well found ship. She had an experienced captain, and her owners were most respectable. It should also be remembered that out of above 50,000 persons carried out to the Australian Colonies, under a similar system, the unfortunate case under consideration was the very first loss that had been sustained.

rose to call the attention of the House to the state of famine and disease in Ireland. His intention was to move—

"That this House will, on Monday next, resolve itself into a Committee of the whole House, to take into consideration the State of Ireland, with a view to devise means to relieve the Distress of the Irish People;"—

and it was a Motion to which he respectfully demanded the utmost attention of the House. The importance of the subject was of itself sufficient to demand attention; but he should have been spared the whole of his labour had it suited the purpose of the right hon. Baronet, in the course of his speech on the previous night, to state what were the intentions of the Government with regard to Ireland. That, he begged to remind hon. Members, was no party question; he certainly introduced the subject without any party motive or party object. He was moved by no partisan feeling; nor did he expect that he should be met by any any party opposition. He was sure that all parties would agree with him in feeling deep anxiety at the prospect of distress; and that thus the House would come fairly to the consideration of the subject, without bias or prepossession. It was certain that there was a fearful prospect of a most calamitous season before the people of Ireland. The extent of that calamity had been disputed, and there had been a time when there was a prospect of some portion of it being possibly averted; but he believed that hope had now quite vanished. The calamity was pressing, was imminent—more pressing, more imminent, and more fearful than that House was aware of. In order to understand it, it was right that the House should be made aware of the state of Ireland before the calamity, had impended. That calamity, they should observe, was not one brought on by any fault of the Irish people. It was not a consequence of the sterility of the Irish soil. The country had enjoyed an abundant harvest. That calamity was a dispensation of Providence, and they should bow to the will of an all-dispensing Power, whilst they fulfilled the duties of charitable Christians, and endeavoured to mitigate the evils that might arise. But to enable them to relieve the distress, it would be necessary for the House to understand the previous state of Ireland; and he was sorry to have to state in the commencement that, from the public documents, it appeared that, for several years past, the population of Ireland, instead of increasing, according to the rules of nature, and as in other countries, had been failing and wasting away. But the condition of the people, especially of the agricultural population, had been long known to be miserably wretched. The agricultural population had been long described as ground down by famine and distress. All accounts agreed in describing them as in a state of actual starvation. Now, he did not propose to call upon the House to believe any mere assertions of his. He had no intention of asking them to believe anything he did not prove by documents. He meant to show, from documents of the most unquestionable character, the increasing misery of the Irish nation. The first document would be an abstract of the Population Returns for 1821, 1831, and 1841, by which the following facts were placed beyond a doubt. Between 1821 and 1831, the population of Ireland increased nearly a million, viz., 965,570 souls; but between 1831 and 1841 the increase had only been about half that number, or 437,980 souls. Attempts had been made to account for this decrease by the increase of emigration; but the argument was most unsatisfactory. Those who used it gave no returns of emigration between 1821 and 1831, but confined themselves to the emigration between 1831 and 1841: there was no reason at all to imagine that the emigration was less between 1821 and 1831, than it had been between 1831 and 1841. This fact, therefore, stared him full in the face, that in ten years the population went back half a million; there was an increase of half a million fewer human beings in Ireland between 1831 and 1841 than there had been between 1821 and 1831. One of the topics in connexion with the state of slavery in the West Indies, which made the strongest impression from the lips of Sir Fowell Buxton, was the circumstance that the black population had decreased; but his case was not so striking as that of Ireland. The next public document to which he begged leave to refer, was the Report of the Commissioners of Poor Law Inquiry in 1835; they had been appointed by the House to investigate the state of destitution in Ireland, and they distinctly stated that 2,300,000 of the agricultural population were in a constant state approaching to starvation. For several weeks in the year they lived on the charity of their neighbours. The last Population Returns of 1841 showed that, out of the whole rural population of Ireland, 46 per cent. lived in a single room; the entire human family and the pigs occupied the same apartment together. The next fact was, that of the civil population—that is, of the inhabitants of towns—36 per cent. lived in a single room, and that two or three families sometimes occupied the same room. Perhaps the most important document of all was the Report of Lord Devon's Commission; it had been directed to that noble Lord and four others, and perhaps a better Commission was never formed by the hands of any Government. It was impossible to believe that they were deceived themselves, or that they meant to deceive others, and the following were the terms they used, warranted by the evidence they had taken, and their own observations:—

"That the agricultural labourers of Ireland suffer the greatest privations and hardships; that they depend upon precarious and casual employment for subsistence; that they are badly housed, badly fed, badly clothed, and badly paid for their labour; that it would be impossible to describe adequately the sufferings and privations which the cottiers and labourers and their families in most parts of the country endure; that in many districts their only food is the potato, their only beverage water; that their cabins are seldom a protection against the weather; that a bed or blanket is a rare luxury; and that nearly in all, their pig and their manure heap constitute their only property; that a large proportion of the entire population comes within the designation of agricultural labourers, and endure sufferings greater than the people of any other country in Europe have to sustain."

Hon. Members would recollect that these were not the assertions of demagogues, or even of persons interested in reporting exaggerated scenes of misery; they were the distinct and emphatic statements of men above all suspicion, and beyond the belief that they could have been imposed upon. The rural population in the last census was calculated at seven millions, and five millions of these were in the condition described in the Report of the Earl of Devon's Commission, it was a Report made forty-five years after the Union with England—after the Union with the richest and most industrious country on the face of the earth; and what did the Commissioners say but that the agricultural population of Ireland was badly fed, badly clothed, badly housed—that their food was potatoes, their drink water, and that they endured greater privations than the peasantry of any other country of Europe. He would appeal to hon. Gentlemen who listened to him, whether this was not a frightful state of society. They must remember that the Irish did not govern themselves, that there was no Irish Parliament, and that after a government by England of forty-five years duration, this was the result. He would not enter into all the topics this part of the question presented: he would only put it distinctly to those who heard him, that they were responsible for the present condition of Ireland. If England could not govern her, she ought to abdicate; but if she continued to attempt it, she was bound to rescue the people of Ireland from their present misery. This Report, too, was not made in a year of calamity, a year of famine, but in 1844, when the harvest was abundant, and comparatively little distress was known in Ireland: it was made at a period of comparative comfort, if he might use the expression, of comparative freedom from calamity. It might be said that it was the fault of the Irish people; but Lord Devon's Report did not say so. The Commissioners had reported two points: the first was, that "the patient endurance which the labourers exhibit is deserving of high commendation, entitling them to the best attention of Government and Parliament." The Irish people were therefore not to blame for their misery; and the Commis- sioners called upon the Government and the Parliament to give their best attention to their condition, with some confidence that the call would be responded to. Another matter of commendation on the part of the Commissioners, was the habits of temperance of the Irish peasantry:—

"Up to this period (they said) any improvement that may have taken place is attributable almost entirely to the habits of temperance in which they have so generally persevered, and not, we grieve to say, to any increased demand for their labour."

In addressing himself, therefore, to the present distressed state of the inhabitants, he carried with him the hope that he had impressed upon the House the real claims of the sufferers. What had they to fall back upon at this moment? Potatoes were their only food—their only drink water; and they had neither bed nor blanket to cover them from the cold. It was singular enough that they were threatened now with this calamity; it was not to be attributed to the population—to any refusal to labour and cultivate the soil. He had two Parliamentary documents before him to show how unfounded was any charge of that kind. The first was this—

"An account of the quantities of wheat, barley, oats, wheat flour, and oatmeal imported into Great Britain from Ireland, in the years 1842, 1843, 1844, and 1845, distinguishing the quantities in each year:—

Years.	CORN OF IRISH GROWTH,
	Imported into Great Britain from Ireland.
	Wheat.	Barley.	Oats.	Wheat Meal, or Flour.	Oatmeal.
	Quarters.	Quarters.	Quarters.	Cwts.	Cwts.
1842	112,195	50,287	1,274,326	314,311	1,551,172
1843	192,477	110,449	1,561,997	773,463	1,706,628
1844	200,276	90,656	1,509,870	839,567	1,150,976
1845	372,719	93,095	1,679,958	1,422,379	1,059,185

That Return gave this result; that 2,145,772 quarters of grain were imported from Ireland into England, and 2,481,564 cwts. of flour and meal; showing that there was an abundant crop in Ireland last year; that while her people were starving she produced a large quantity of grain and meal for the consumption of England. The second Parliamentary document he had to refer to, was—

"An account of all cattle, sheep, and swine, imported into Great Britain from Ireland, from the 10th day of October, 1845, to the 5th day of January, 1846. Oxen, bulls, and cows, 32,883; calves, 583; sheep and lambs, 32,576; swine, 104,141."

These two documents proved an anomalous state of society to exist in Ireland; for while the country produced such abundance, the inhabitants were starving. So blessed was she by Providence; so cursed by man! Others might account for it as they could; but the fact was indisputable, that the best state of society there, was the worst in other parts of the globe. Having shown what Ireland was, even in the best times, he would now advert to the extent and formidable nature of the calamity by which she was now visited. The documents he should first employ for this purpose, were such as had been furnished by Government; and with some of them hon. Gentlemen must be familiar: to them the reading might seem tedious; but it was his duty to lay the case of Ireland, in the fullest manner, before the House; and on this account he trusted he should be excused if he offered a few known details. The subsequent passage was contained in the Report of Messrs. Lindley and Playfair, dated November 15, 1845:—

"During our stay in Ireland, we carefully examined such official Papers as were transmitted to us from the Castle; we consulted persons acquainted with the facts of the disease; we visited the district lying between Dublin and Drogheda; and inspected various potato fields and stores in the counties of Dublin, Louth, Meath, Westmeath, and part of Kildare. Judging from the evidence thus collected, and, from what we have seen of the progress of the disease in England, we can come to no other conclusion than that one-half of the potato crop of Ireland is either destroyed or remains in a state unfit for the food of man. We, moreover, feel it our duty to apprize you, that we fear this to be a low estimate."

The next extract he would read was from the Report of the Commissioners of Inquiry at Dublin Castle; and the House would observe that it was a remarkable paragraph:—

"It appears from undoubted authority, that of 32 counties in Ireland, not one has escaped failure in the potato crop; of 130 Poor Law Unions, not one is exempt; of 2,058 electoral divisions, above 1,400 are certainly reported as having suffered; and we have no certainty, until the receipt of the more minute returns, now in progress of completion, that the remaining 600 have altogether escaped."

That Commission had corresponded with nearly all the local authorities in Ireland; and the following was the conclusion at which it had arrived, after having written 362 letters to obtain correct information:—

PROPORTION OF POTATO CROP LAST YEAR.
Provinces.	All.	9–10ths.	4–8ths.	5–4ths.	2–3rds.	Halves.	1–3rds.	1–4ths.	1–5ths.	1–7ths.	1–8ths.	1–10ths.	Total.
Ulster	6	1	3	15	37	133	32	6	…	…	6	…	239
Munster	…	…	1	9	13	88	16	4	1	…	1	…	133
Leinster	…	4	1	28	41	97	9	2	1	1	…	…	199
Connaught	…	…	1	8	12	49	6	4	…	…	1	…	81

A more authentic document could not be produced; and the accuracy of its details might, therefore, be fully relied upon. Sir Lucius O'Brien, at first, had been difficult to be persuaded of the extent of the disease in the potatoes; but he had subsequently waited on the Lord Lieutenant, and had admitted that he had been mistaken, and that it prevailed to the excess that had been stated. He need not remind the House of the documents read by the right hon. Baronet in his speech last night. Hon. Members would be aware how fully, deeply, and entirely, they corroborated the representation he had given upon the subject, without any point of mitigation: misery, poverty, famine, and disease, were the fea- tures belonging to the present wretched state of Ireland. A Committee, called the Mansion House Committee, had been appointed in Dublin, and the utmost care had been taken to collect accurate information. Between the 10th December and 26th January, they issued 923 letters, and had received 523 answers: viz., from Leinster, 141 letters; from Ulster, 163 letters; from Munster, 152 letters; from Connaught, 67 letters. Of these there were — from ministers of the Established Church, 216 letters; from Roman Catholic clergy, 195 letters; from Presbyterian ministers, 40 letters; from lieutenants and deputy ditto, 47 letters; from poor law boards, 25 letters. The following was the degree in which they represented that the potato crop had suffered, and was unfit for human food:—Under one-third, 110; one-third, 111; one-half, 148; over half, 84. Such was the synopsis of the letters and answers. At one period, when the potatoes were stored, and the calamity not immediately before the eyes of the people, they had hoped that it had passed the crisis: that appeared to be a mistake; but whether it were true or false that there was at one time a lull in the disease, it was now quite certain that it was making frightful progress again. He had now to trespass on the patience of the House while he brought under its view other documents, collected from various parts of Ireland, describing the state of the disease in different localities. Unless the occasion were grave and pressing, he should not have felt justified in taking this course; but some of the leading journals within the last ten days had asserted positively that the disease had ceased, and that there was no danger of a want of provisions. He did not accuse the writers of party motives, but of having been easily deluded, and willing to delude others. The conviction that the disease was most destructive was not merely local; it was not confined to a particular district, but from one end of the country to the other the cry was echoed of coming famine. Upon this part of his case he would trouble the House with the subsequent extract of a letter from Tralee, dated the 2nd instant:—

"Potatoes, I regret to say, from the progress of the rot, advanced a third; and this, as I stated a few days past, at a period when the rate of remuneration for agricultural labourers is 2⅞d. per day, and diet a few wet lumpers. This is low enough, but the tradesmen in this town are not earning that same. The inevitable consequence of this is already manifesting itself. Fever is on the increase both here and in Killarney, and unless the most vigorous efforts are made to facilitate public works, and employ those able and willing to exchange their labour for the means of purchasing commodities for human consumption, the pestilence of 1817, also the result of scarcity, will bear no proportion to what is likely to ensue shortly. In that year disease did not appear until the approach of summer; then the poor creatures lay in dozens in the market-house of Killarney, and in other dilapidated ruins with which that neglected town abounds for a long time past."

The Londonderry agricultural report for January contained the following statements:—

"The wheat plants have made great progress during the month, and have a very healthy appearance, and the grass fields are as forward in their look as we often observe in March. We are sorry to observe so many of the potatoes, which were confidently relied upon for seed, giving way under the disease. Now, after having been subjected to pitting and housing, great quantities of them are found to be rotten; nor are those still in the ground much better, for although apparently sound, a few days after being dry they assume a very different aspect. We still fear the consequences at seed time. Many were disposed to try autumn or winter planting; but the weather has been very untoward for that purpose, and those who tried it report unfavourably of it, the excessive moisture having destroyed the seed."

A respectable farmer in the county of Wexford wrote thus:—

"I said in my last that the apple potatoes that were not rotted might be used for food. Our apples were as dry as possible when we pitted them, and we kept them dry by our manner of covering them. We thought we might have some for summer, but we find they are scarcely fit for cattle now, and more than half of them are completely in pulp. We cannot use any apple potatoes this year, and this is a general complaint here. The cups are not very much lost, but there are ten times more of them rotted than when I wrote last."

The Reverend J. Fitzpatrick, of Castletownroche, county Cork, on the part of a meeting held there, addressed circulars to all the landlords possessing property in the district, containing a minute description of the state of the population. The result was—

"More than half the potato crop is unfit for human food, and the disease is progressing. More than half the labourers are unemployed, and are likely to continue so for the next three months, and during the months of July and August, as the farmers will not have money nor food to give them."

He would now advert to the centre of the country and to the state of the disease there. The first quotation he would make was from a letter from Nenagh, dated Feb. 4:—

"We continue to receive the most distressing accounts of the fearful progress of the disease from various quarters. In the King's County the complaints are universal. In this county the disease has gone on with amazing celerity within the last three weeks; many persons on examining their pits found their potatoes in some instances altogether useless, not even fit for pigs or cattle. In several districts the poor are pining in the utmost misery, but with unequalled fortitude and patience, hoping, even where there is nothing but religion to assuage their wretchedness. The heavy and constant rains of the last few weeks—raining almost without intermission — have done great injury; and the softness of the weather otherwise tends, in a great measure, to produce that fermentation of the potato which causes its destruction as an article of food. Landed proprietors should endeavour to aid themselves and the people at this tremendous crisis."

The subsequent letter from John F. Hodges, M.D., dated Downpatrick, 2nd February, referred to the condition of the counties of Down, Armagh, Antrim, and Monaghan:—

"During the month of January I had occasion to visit several districts in the counties of Down, Armagh, Antrim, and Monaghan, and I carefully inquired into the state of the potato crop. I found that though there was considerable difference in the amount of loss in the districts examined, yet that everywhere, with a few trifling exceptions in some moory soils in county Monaghan, the disease continued its destructive ravages, unchecked by any of the methods recommended to stop its progress; that in every description of pit, in the moist field, and the dry loft, the potatoes were, either as the farmers expressed it, 'melting away,' or 'shrivelling up with a dry rot.' In some districts in Armagh I was informed that the destruction was progressing with such terrible rapidity, that of potatoes raised, thrice picked, and stored up in pots as free from all taint, not more than one-third was found fit for use some days ago. In the neighbourhood of the city of Armagh, the extent of loss was represented as very great. In the neighbourhood of Markethill and Portadown the loss has been also very great, and will, I fear, be severely felt by the small farmers in that part of the country. In Monaghan I made particular inquiries from several farmers, among whom I may mention the name of Mr. Gowdy, one of the most intelligent agriculturists in the district in which he resides, and I found it to be the general persuasion, that fully two-thirds of the crop, at that time (6th of January), had been rendered unfit for food. Along the north-east coast again, in the neighbourhood of Larne, the destruction has also been great; and several Antrim farmers, whose names if required, can be supplied, have last week assured me that the stock of potatoes which they have at present on hand is not so large as they were in former years accustomed to have in the month of May."

The next document he had to offer presented a peculiar feature well deserving notice: it was an extract of a letter from Tullamore:—

"A great many petty robberies are daily committed about the suburbs of Tullamore, from the great distress and poverty arising from want of employment, together with the scarcity of potatoes and the high price of provisions, the unfortunate people having no other remedy to keep them from starvation. Fever and sickness are on the increase, both in that town and country parts."

From the parish of Killard, in the county of Kildare, they wrote in these terms:—

"It contains sixty-six families, comprising three hundred and seventy-four individuals, having out of their crop of ten hundred and ninety barrels of potatoes but one hundred and six barrels fit for human food. That in the townland of Doonbeg (same parish) there are forty-five families, comprising two hundred and seventy individuals, with but eighty-five barrels of good potatoes out of a crop containing six hundred and sixty-six barrels. That in the townland of Kilfeira (same parish) there are eighty-eight families, whose total produce of potatoes was fourteen hundred and fifty barrels, of which one hundred and eighty-seven barrels only were fit for human food. That in the townlands of Dunmore and Doonbeg (same parish) there are twenty-nine families, or one hundred and twenty-seven individuals, whose total produce was three hundred and seventy-two barrels, of which there were but fifty-eight barrels fit for human use. That in the townlands of Frureeree and Donoughboy at least three-fourths of the crop are lost."

On the want of food in the county of Galway they wrote as follows:—

"The question of famine is no longer one of surmise. Its certainty, in a few months at furthest, is even acknowledged by the Government, and the reports which come in every day from the rural districts but too sadly confirm the conclusion which has been arrived at from the most carefully collected facts. Potatoes bear even now a famine price in the market. White potatoes go 4½d. per stone, and cup potatoes 5d. We believe 10d. per stone, in times of the greatest famine, was the highest price for potatoes ever known in Galway; and when we take into consideration that the potatoes now brought for sale to market are not only diseased to a great extent, but one-third of them completely waste to the purchaser in two or three days, the 4½d. per stone rises in real value to 9d. or 10d. When this is the case at present, what will it not be in a few weeks hence, when the crop is more exhausted? At the price which potatoes are even only now, a labourer employed the whole week at 10d. per day (the usual price of labour in this district is often lower) has to lay out the entire of his week's wages on them alone, if he is even so fortunate as to be able to purchase with it a sufficient quantity of this lowest of human food. There is nothing for any other accompanying article of diet; nothing, unless the belly is stinted of this worst kind of food: nothing for fuel, rent, or clothing; nothing for milk or fish; meat is out of the question. If this is the case at present with the labourer in full employment, how must it fare with the unfortunate creatures who have it only occasionally, or fare with both when food becomes dearer, and is placed totally out of their reach? A troop of the 13th Light Dragoons, from Gort, arrived here on Tuesday, under the command of Captain Hamilton, for the purpose, it is said, of repressing any outbreak among the people which may arise owing to the exportation of corn from this port. Two compa- nies of the 30th are likewise expected—one from Loughrea, the other from Outerard—to aid the force in garrison if necessary. The dragoons and additional military are expected to be stationed here for some time. This increase of troops is said to have been caused by the posting of a threatening notice last week to the effect that the merchants' stores would be broken up by the people if any further exportation of corn was attempted. Her Majesty's steamer, the Stromboli, arrived at the port of Galway on Monday evening, and anchored at the roadstead."

It was not less remarkable than creditable, that not a single instance of riot, or disturbance of the public peace, owing to the want of food, had yet occurred in any part of Ireland. To the preceding documents he might be allowed to add the following report from the board of guardians at Nenagh:—

"At the weekly meeting of the Nenagh board of guardians on Thursday, 29th January,

Sir T. B. Dancer said: I am sorry to say, at least of my own potatoes, that the disease is progressing; out of eight or nine acres of potatoes which were dug last week, I had four cartloads of them affected with the disease, and within the last fortnight nearly all my cups are failing, the one-third of them at least. In this month and next, which are generally soft months, I am of opinion that the great portion of the potatoes, now apparently sound, will become rotten or diseased. I have also inquired amongst my workmen and tenants, and they all bore the same testimony; and to show you as a proof of what I have stated, that when I lately found the disease so prevalent among my tenants' potatoes, I offered them 10 per cent allowance.

"Mr. Michael Meagher: I am bound to tell you this—that for the last three days I had been in Borrisoleigh; it is strange to say that it is not the black potatoes are going, but the white and sound ones, which were heretofore not diseased, or affected with the regular lot.

"Mr. John Kennedy: It is a general complaint that it is the sound potatoes that are failing under the malady, and not the black ones.

"Sir Thomas Dancer: What do you call 'black ones?'—The previously diseased potatoes.

"Mr. Hayes: There is no doubt but the disease is every day becoming more prevalent.

"Chairman: I am afraid that the opinions of the guardians are unanimous on that subject; but as far as I am concerned myself, I can say to the contrary."

At Tralee Poor Law Union a meeting had been held on the 3d inst., to present a memorial to the Lord Lieutenant, and the subsequent was a report of what passed on that occasion:—

"Mr. Trant, introducing his motion that a committee be appointed to draw up a memorial to his Excellency the Lord Lieutenant, on the subject of the expected famine, regretted to say that there was even then more reason for the board carrying out his motion than when he had given notice of it, for he could assure them that the disease was rapidly extending in his district.

"Mr. Foran, the poor rate collector for the barony of Corkaguiny, said he was sorry to be obliged to acquaint them that in some parishes in his barony one-half of the crop was lost. Potatoes were unusually high in price, too, at one side of Dingle; the minions were 12s. a peck (32 stone). The disease was, in his opinion, decidedly on the increase.

"Mr. Quinlan thought that out of two farms of his he would not have a sound potato on May day. The spread of the disease was frightful.

"Mr. Rae was sorry to be obliged to corroborate what had been said about the spread of the epidemic; and, to make the matter still worse, the late high tides had washed away a quantity of the potatoes of the poor people in his neighbourhood, the parish of Keel.

"Captain Chute, Mr. Gorham, and other guardians, bore testimony to the spread of the disease.

"Colonel Stokes could state, from personal knowledge, that labourers in the vicinity of the Spa were now purchasing potatoes in the market, not having any of their own. Lumper potatoes were selling at 24s. per peck. At the rate potatoes were selling on Saturday last, potatoes sufficient to support the family of a labouring man for a week would cost upwards of 6s., 2s. more than the entire week's wages of most labourers in employment. He might in the present season safely say that two-thirds of the labourers were unemployed. He had paid 12s. a peck for diseased potatoes to feed cattle, in the market last week, and good lumpers were 24s., and minions 32s. per peck. In conclusion, he urged on the Board the necessity of representing to Government that they were willing that a tax should be levied on the properties of gentlemen, both resident and absentee, to provide food for the poorer classes, in the event of a famine.

"Mr. Trant's motion was seconded by Colonel Stokes, and passed, and a committee was appointed."

At Youghal a public meeting had been held on the 11th instant, and what passed was contained in the following report of the proceedings:—

"The Rev. Mr. Smiddy said: Mr. Chairman, as I am in possession of certain documents connected with the state of distress, I shall occupy your attention while making a few observations on the subject. A short time since, by order of the Poor Law Commissioners in Dublin, inquiries were made in several parts of the Union as to the state of the potato crop, the result of which was forwarded to the Poor Law Commissioners. This was set on foot here, and inquiries were very accurately and minutely instituted, and the result of that is such as to convince every person that something must be done in order to provide for the approaching season of want and scarcity. By this arrangement we had parties appointed in several districts of the country to inquire what supply of potatoes remained on hand, and what amount of labour or employment was available for the people; the result is that in the country parts of this parish the farmers have only a supply sufficient for their own consumption, with the exception of two or three farmers, one of whom would be able to send twenty barrels to market in case the present supply remain free from disease, and that farmer is from the neighbourhood of Windgap. We have procured accurate information in reference to those persons who are objects of destitution. With regard to the labouring population, many of them are already obliged to live on the diseased potatoes, and the large body have only a supply which they expect will not last longer than two months [sensation]. That is the state of the potato crop in the country, and the amount of employment is very small indeed. Some of them, it has been ascertained, have only employment for nine months of the year, while others are only employed for five and six months during that period. The state of things in the town is even still worse. We all know that a general calamity has befallen the country with respect to the potato crop, and this misfortune must be more generally felt in large towns, as there is no supply of food there, as in the country, to relieve or alleviate the lamentable visitation. Inquiries have been made in several lanes in this town, and I am confident this meeting will be appalled and astonished at the result of the investigation. The Rev. Mr. Smiddy here read an abstract of the condition of the inhabitants of lanes in Youghal who lived by manual labour, showing the number of families and individuals, and the portion of the year, up to six months, to which the employment of more than a mofety is limited. From this return it appeared—

	Families.	Persons.
That there are living in lanes	908	4,579
Living on charity	88	356
Employed only 3 months, and less	56	235
Ditto, four months	72	253
Ditto, five months	95	453
Ditto, six months	228	1,245
	539	2,642

So that 539 families out of the 908, and 2,642 individuals out of the 4,579, are limited in employment, all to six months; many of them to three and four months of the year; and the wages, in many instances, so low as scarcely to give them subsistence, even for the time they are employed. This (continued the rev. gentleman), is a problem for the political economist; and a subject of serious reflection for all who are interested, not alone in the welfare, but in the actual existence of their fellow creatures. And such being the state of the distress, such being the amount of destitution, it is evident that something must be done, and done immediately, to remedy the awful circumstances of the people.

"Mr. Lomaseny, though a resident in the town for thirty-six years, had no idea of the destitution which he saw in Donovan's-lane; in that place there were six individuals living upon a floor ten feet square; there was not as much straw for them to lie upon as would be allowed a favourite dog—the covering at night consisted of the remnant of one blanket, with clothes which they wore during the day! In other places similar sights were to be seen; similar, and perhaps, if possible, more frightful poverty was to be witnessed."

There was no distinct specification of the sufferings of the poor in towns and cities; but, according to the Report of Lord Devon, they were most afflicting. He would trouble the House with one more letter; it was from Lord Cloncurry, and was in the following form, addressed to the editor of the Dublin Evening Post:—

said: I am sure I express the general sense of the House when I declare that the hon. and learned Gentleman, in bringing forward this subject, is entitled to the respectful attention of every hon. Member. The state of Ireland at the present moment deserves the anxious and serious attention of Parliament; and I admit to the hon. and learned Gentleman, that the importance of this subject can hardly be over-estimated. I also agree with the hon. and learned Gentleman, that whatever differences of opinion may exist between various parties in this House, yet that the difficulty and danger to which he has called our attention will receive from all sides a patient and anxious consideration. Sir, it is my painful duty to state, that having taken the utmost pains to inform myself accurately of the facts of the case, I cannot say that in any important particular the hon. and learned Gentleman has exaggerated the present evils in the condition of Ireland. What are the striking facts? The hon. and learned Gentleman states that a very large proportion of the potato crop of the present year has failed in Ireland: before we consider the effect of that statement it is necessary to remember what is the portion of the whole population of Ireland dependent almost exclusively on the potato for daily food. The hon. and learned Gentleman has estimated that portion of the population at 5,000,000. I should estimate it somewhat lower; but it is admitted on all hands that one-half of the entire population of Ireland is dependent on the potato for food. Now, consider the effect of one-half of the entire population being dependent upon the plant, which by the visitation of Providence has this year signally failed; it is very difficult to ascertain, by any calculation that can be made, the exact extent of that failure. Dr. Playfair and Dr. Lindley, at an early period of this visitation, estimated the loss at one half of the entire crop. Admitting, for a moment, that there may be some exaggeration in this estimate, I will state to the House the result of the extensive and accurate inquiry which the Government, with all its resources, has been able to make. Early in November last the Government constituted a Commission to inquire, composed of officers, all responsible to the Government, as the best mode of ascertaining the facts of the case. At the head of this Commission was placed Mr. Lucas, long Under Secretary for Ireland, a Gentleman known in the House as the representative of an Irish county, conversant with all the affairs of that country, and certainly well entitled to be intrusted with the conduct of such an inquiry. Under him were placed Colonel Jones, the head of the Board of Works; Colonel Macgregor, the head of the Constabulary, who had the means of obtaining information from the most remote parts of the country; Mr. Twisleton, the Poor Law Commissioner in Ireland, who was in communication with the boards of guardians of all the Unions; Sir Randolph Routh, the Commissioner General, and Professor Kane. The result of their inquiries was stated last night by my right hon. Friend (Sir R. Peel), in some of its most striking features; and I fear that in the larger number of electoral divisions throughout Ireland the estimate of Dr. Playfair and Dr. Lindley, so far from being falsified, is unfortunately but too strictly verified. In ordinary years, with an average crop of potatoes, it is always the case that for a period of six weeks after the old crop is consumed, and before the new one comes into use, the population is compelled to subsist on a food of a higher and more expensive kind. Suppose the exaggeration of the present failure is one-half; assuming, for the sake of argument, that the failure is only one-fourth of an average crop, you then have this state of affairs; in addition to the six weeks during which, in ordinary years, this population, dependent on potatoes, is obliged to subsist on a dearer kind of food, there will be four months of the present year during which 4,000,000 of the population must be fed on food of a bigher quality than in ordinary years. A more alarming case has hardly ever been submitted to the consideration of Parliament. It is not ordinarily the duty of Parliament to provide food for the people; but it is the imperative duty of the Government, and I am sure it will be the natural impulse of a representative assembly, under such circumstances, sympathizing with a population in such distress, to admit that general rules must bend to such a necessity; nor could the circumstances of a country so unhappily ciruumstanced be disregarded by the Government. But is this the whole of the case? The information we have received, with perfect accuracy, does not extend to a later period than the end of January; but what we have received within the last fortnight is quite confirmatory of the statement of the hon. and learned Gentleman—that the disease, so far from being arrested, has progressed; that the potatoes in the pits have not kept well, but have decayed; and that there is great danger of sudden and early want, unless further precautions are used in time. If seed, too, is not preserved for the ensuing year, the difficulty, great as it is at the present moment, is but the com- mencement of a series of evils of such an extent that I hardly dare to contemplate them. I must also state, that I entirely concur with the hon. and learned Gentleman, that the conduct of the Irish peasantry generally, in the midst of such great distress, and of such alarming prospects, has been most excellent. There have been no tumultuary meetings, no riots; all has been borne with the utmost patience. I have one account of 190 labourers who came to meet the guardians of a Union, to state that food was failing them; that all they wanted was work; that none was offered them; that they had no labour within their reach. They did not tumultuously demand admission into the workhouse; all they asked was work for wages. A more touching case than this cannot be conceived. Hunger and destitution, when they fall on those willing to work, and who cannot find employment, may well give rise to despair. The hon. and learned Gentleman has stated with great accuracy the general state of want and deprivation among that suffering and gallant people. From some of the facts the hon. and learned Gentleman has mentioned, I should be inclined to draw different conclusions from those he has drawn. If it is the fact that the population of Ireland has not been increasing so much of late years, I should doubt if that is any proof of the increase of poverty; I believe that a superabundant population is one of the consequences of extreme poverty. The fact is, that the manufacturing prosperity of England and Scotland attracts large numbers of people from Ireland to partake of it. In Manchester, Glasgow, and Liverpool, there are immense numbers of Irish congregated, exercising an exemplary industry in pursuits incidental to that manufacturing prosperity. The hon. and learned Gentleman has also observed that the imports of corn and cattle from Ireland to England have increased. I cannot regard that circumstance with anything approaching to regret. My confident opinion is, that as those imports have increased, the wealth of Ireland must naturally have accumulated. The cultivation of wheat has also been improving in Ireland, and within the last few years the export of wheat from Ireland has not increased: I believe, therefore, that it has entered more into the consumption of that country. But these are passing observations in reference to the general condition of the people. I now wish to point out to the House what the Government has done to meet this great emergency; the difficulty of which I am not in the least disposed to underrate. Early in November last the Government appointed the Commission I have already alluded to. Up to the present time the principal occupation of that Commission has been to ascertain the facts of the case. Unhappily, those facts are now well ascertained; and the extent of the danger, it must be admitted, is very great, and the time has arrived when it is necessary that executive measures should be speedily taken. With this view Her Majesty's Government have thought it expedient to reduce the number of the Commission, as some of the gentlemen forming it were unable to attend uninterruptedly to its duties; its functions will henceforth devolve on three officers—Mr. Twisleton, Professor Kane, and Sir Randolph Routh. Short as the present Session of Parliament has been, considerable progress has been made in measures involving public grants and advances for public works, to aid in meeting the emergency of the case. This House has already given its consent to a Public Works Bill, by which an absolute grant of 50,000l. is made from the public funds; there is also a Ports and Harbours Bill, containing a further grant of 50,000l. The Drainage Bill contains clauses which provide for the improvement of the inland navigation of Ireland connected with draining of lands, comprehending four great works, for joining the northern loughs with the navigation of the Shannon and the waters of the west. The Government has given a separate consideration to the estimates for these four great works; and it will be prepared to bring them under the notice of the House in a Committee of Supply. The estimate for these works is not less than 120,000l.; altogether no less than 220,000l. in the shape of grants will be applied to the increase of public works in Ireland. With respect to advances of money as loans, under the Drainage Bill, which now stands for the third reading, an advance of 50,000l. will be made for preliminary expenses; on the Ports and Harbours Bill 2,000l. will be advanced for the same purpose; on the County Works Bill there will be an advance of 100,000l. Altogether the advance in the shape of loans will be 228,000l., in grants 220,000l.; thus as loans and as grants no less a sum than 448,000l. would be laid out in public works in Ireland. The hon. and learned Gentleman has referred more particularly to the railroads now under the consideration of Parliament. Allow me to call to the recollection of the House that in the last Session of Parliament and the Session preceding it, Railroad Acts passed, by which it is generally assumed that an outlay of 9,000,000l. will be made in Ireland in the next three years. But I should be sorry if the House deceived itself by thinking that this capital thus brought to bear on the labour market will prove a sufficient provision. From a Report laid on the Table of the House, it appears, from a competent authority, that meney spent in such works only operates beneficially within a distance of from five to ten miles on each side of the line of railroad. What is the effect of that? Unfortunately it is only the able-bodied men who are attracted by that employment from a distance; they leave their wives and families in the places they come from, sometimes entirely destitute. Such is the particular nature of the difficulty, that a railroad, or long line of railroads, at great intervals, will not meet the case. The difficulty is this—in all former cases the potato crop has only failed in districts and counties; but at the present time it is widely different, as the hon. and learned Gentleman stated, on evidence that cannot be doubted: there is not a county in Ireland in which the unfortunate calamity does not to some degree exist. Out of 130 Poor-Law Unions, not one has escaped it; out of 2,000 subdivisions of these Unions, in 1,500 at least the disease has appeared. The calamity is widely spread in different degrees, and thus the difficulty of the operation of a remedy is quite equal to the extent of the danger. The hon. and learned Gentleman says the Poor Law is quite insufficient to meet the evil. I agree with him, considering the nature of the Poor Law in Ireland—under which no claim to relief is gained even by destitution, from the size of the Unions, and the small number of workhouses yet built—that the Poor Law is insufficient to meet the case. I have stated to the House already some of the steps the Government has taken; and I hope the House will give the Government credit for not having neglected any precaution which prudence and sympathy for the sufferings of the people render necessary. I am pressed to give the details of the instructions the Government has issued with respect to these measures; but as I consider any detailed statement of them would not be consistent with the public interest, I hope the House will not expect any such detail. It will be sufficient for me to say that in no one particular has the extreme difficulty of the case been overlooked: early in November instructions were given specifically upon all the leading points; and I can assure the hon. and learned Gentleman and the House that, be the calamity as extensive as it may, Her Majesty's Government will not be taken by surprise. The hon. Gentleman has stated that in Ireland destitution from a failure of the potato crop is always followed by fever of a most malignant kind. In this respect I think the Poor Law does afford most important assistance. Under the existing Poor Law, cases of fever can be relieved in four different ways: the person may be received into the workhouse, or removed from the workhouse to the Fever Hospital. I see an objection to the admission of fever cases into the workhouse, as it may tend to spread infection; and by the law as it now stands, except from the workhouse, there is no power to remove the patient to the hospital. I have not much reliance on these two provisions; but there are two others which I think of immense importance if brought into full operation. The first gives the power of erecting temporary fever hospitals in the vicinity of each workhouse; out of 110 Unions which have workhouses built, forty-two have already temporary fever hospitals provided. Measures have been taken in the remaining Unions for compelling this accommodation to be provided where it does not now exist; and a power is also given to the guardians to hire houses for that purpose. In Galway, in 1844, there was a malignant typhus fever, and I am told that nearly 1,100 patients were received in the temporary fever hospital connected with the workhouse of that Union, and 1,000 patients were discharged convalescent. I admit it is possible that even these provisions may be insufficient to meet the exigency of the case; and I am prepared, on the part of the Government, to ask leave to bring in a Bill on this subject, founded on the precedent of the cholera hospitals of 1832. If the disease should spread, this Bill will be proposed as a temporary enactment, providing that a temporary rate shall be levied in each Union to meet the cost of maintaining the fever patients. I am not aware that I need go at greater length into these circumstances on the present occasion; and I must say, I am most unwilling that this discussion should be prolonged, or should have the effect of interrupting for two hours the progress of the important debate in which the House is engaged. My humble opinion, an opinion sincerely and confidently entertained is, that in the present circumstances it is the first and primary duty of the Legislature to remove all restrictions on the free importation into this country of all articles of the first necessity constituting the food of the people. I am satisfied this is the first duty of Parliament; and I think the hon. and learned Gentleman will see, notwithstanding the measures he has mentioned, if this calamity should spread to the extent we apprehend, that it is necessary to call on Parliament for a generous exercise of that great virtue inherent in a representative assembly—that of allowing the sufferings of no part of the people to be neglected, when public aid can be afforded for that necessity—I hope, then, that the House, without further delay, will proceed to take that primary step, and will consider the all-important and special necessity of relaxing the restrictions on the importation of food into this country.

accepted the invitation of the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. O'Connell) to approach that question without irritation or party spirit. He would not willingly say a word that could check the sympathies of the House or the Government towards his poor and always suffering fellow countrymen; but, as the question of the potato failure in Ireland had become so prominent in the debates of the House, and so paramount in influencing the measures of the Government, he thought it right to inform the House of the real facts of the case, as he believed them to be, without adding to or taking from them. The statement of the hon. and learned Gentleman must be borne in mind, that there was scarcely a season in Ireland, especially towards its close, that there was not scarcity and consequent distress in many parts of the country. The Poor Law Commissioners had, as quoted by the hon. and learned Gentleman, reported, that for some portions of every year, upwards of two millions of the population were without the means of procuring food, and in a state of destitution. That there would be an aggravation of the usual periodical distress during the ensuing season, he grieved to say he could not doubt; but still he was bound to add, that he considered very exaggerated statements had been put forth, and undue alarm excited on the subject. He desired to speak with great caution and diffidence on a question upon which so much learning and science had been employed, and which involved not only the comforts, but, literally speaking, the vital interests of a large portion of the community. He had every respect for the high character and attainments of Dr. Playfair and Mr. Lindley; but he must remark, that when in November they reported that at a low estimate one-half of the potato crop was destroyed, there was no practical man in Ireland who did not believe that they had been imposed upon. With regard to the Report that had lately been laid upon the Table, dated in January, from the Commissioners of Inquiry, he concurred in it, to the extent that, more or less, the potato crop had been affected in every part of Ireland, and that every possible precaution should be taken against famine. He had heard the letters of Sir David Roche, and those others, which the right hon. Baronet had read with such effect to the House the night before. He gave those Gentlemen every credit for sincerity and good feeling; but while the letters gave him pain, they did not surprise him, as they were from those parts of Ireland where he knew the disease to be most prevalent. He could not pretend to such information as could enable him to form a perfectly accurate opinion; but he had taken great pains, and had some opportunities of informing himself on the subject. He had, during the autumn and winter, visited and made personal inquiries in the counties of Cork, Tipperary, Kilkenny, Carlow, and Wicklow, besides the county of Dublin, in which he resided; he had had correspondence with most parts of Ireland; he saw about him some friends who could speak for Donegal, Fermanagh, Tyrone, Down, and generally of the north of Ireland, and the large and important county of Mayo. He had communicated with contractors of potatoes for large establishments, such as gaols and workhouses, and he had watched the markets since the panic had ceased. The result of all which was, that, he believed, in most parts of Ireland there was still an average crop, while in some there would be a considerable deficiency—an admission quite sufficient to justify every precaution the Government could take against even the possible calamity of a partial famine. He would gladly support all their measures for giving employment to the labouring population, and alleviating the distress of the destitute poor in Ireland. All he had risen for was to deprecate the exaggeration of, while he did not desire to understate, the evil. He might have been tempted by some of the concluding observations of the right hon. Baronet (Sir James Graham), in reference to the Corn Laws, to show that a use had been made of the potato failure in Ireland, neither justified by the facts nor by fair reasoning; but he would reserve himself on that point for what he considered a more fitting occasion—the Adjourned Debate on the general question of the Corn Laws which was to be again resumed that night.

hoped that if the hon. and learned Gentleman believed the Government to be intent on providing every remedy that could be expected or was necessary, he would not press his Motion on the present occasion, but consent to leave it in the hands of the responsible advisers of the Crown.

said, he had always voted for a repeal of the Corn Laws, for he thought such a course demanded by the claims of humanity and justice. It was not likely, then, that he should wantonly throw impediments in the way of the great measure then before the House. He did not doubt that the measure would be beneficial to the Empire and to Ireland in its ultimate results. But no doubt the immediate benefits flowing from it would be most felt by the people of England, and not by those of Ireland, who were without the means to purchase bread. If any failure, too, should take place in the effects prognosticated from this measure, from the monopoly which Ireland had enjoyed in supplying food to this great market, she must suffer most severely. He did not believe that such failure would occur; still so long as the issue was in any uncertainty, it was natural the Irish people should wish that measures calculated to provide against any evils that might accrue, should meet their share of discussion. He therefore should be pardoned if he asked the House to delay a little upon these. With regard to the arguments of the learned Recorder against the existence of any failure of the potato crop in Ireland, he left the quarrel to be settled between the right hon. Gentleman and the Government. The official documents brought forward by Government corroborated the statements made on his (Mr. J. O'Connell's) side of the House; and until the right hon. Gentleman could invalidate those documents, they must be taken as the best evidence which the House had before it of the existing state of things in Ireland. The right hon. Secretary for the Home Department deplored the redundancy of the population in Ireland. He believed it was well known that Ireland produced as much as would feed three times her present population. She could not, then, be said to be over peopled, if it were not that something radically wrong in the Government deprived the people of a fair share in the produce of the soil. The right hon. Gentleman, too, expressed his satisfaction at the increase of our exports. Undoubtedly if Ireland had the management of her own resources, if the country could develop all its natural advantages, even a larger amount of exports might be spared to this country than she now supplied, as the people would be well assured of a sufficient supply of food. But it was certainly a most startling anomaly to have large quantities of corn exported from Ireland before the eyes of a starving people. He could bring forward, if necessary, many proofs to confirm the mournful accounts from that country. He had good reason to attest the strict accuracy of the statements respecting the distress of Ireland which had been made to the House, and from his own experience and observation was further enabled to say, that instead of being exaggerated those statements fell short of the truth. He willingly bore his testimony to the attention paid to the subject of Irish distress, which he had remarked since his arrival in this country to be generally prevalent among all parties; but he alluded more particularly to the great anxiety manifested by the Members of the House to take some measures to remedy the threatened evils. It was an obvious reflection that the interests of both countries were involved in remedying this evil; for such a calamity as the present could not occur in Ireland without producing the most serious consequences in the Empire at large. The House could not exaggerate the effect of such a calamity, nor the extent of its results. In any other country it would have amounted to little short of a dissolution of society; and if that were not the case in Ireland, it was owing to the circumstance that his unfortunate countrymen had been broken, as it were, into suffering, and could go through greater privations than any other people; and in the next place—he cared not how much he might be mocked for saying so—because of the admirable discipline of mind and soul which the Irish peasant had taught himself. He implored the House not to believe that anything which had been done as yet, great as appeared the amount spoken of, was applicable to the wants, to meet the terrible danger with which Ireland was threatened. He implored the House not to deceive themselves on that question, nor to think that the people of Ireland asked for those measures of relief as any boon or gratuitous benefit. The people might acknowledge the goodness of intention displayed towards them. They did acknowledge it; but they could not and would not admit that the great efforts to be made for their relief, or even greater exertions for the same object, were boons, favours, or allow they were anything else than the employment of some of that money of which Ireland had been unjustly deprived. He implored the House, at the present time, when Irish distress had made such an impression, and when they were about to alter and review their whole system of policy in all its branches; that they would also examine what had been their policy towards Ireland, and see whether they might not thus find the reason for much of the phenomena of the frequently recurring famines and perennial distress of that country. There surely must be something bad in the system and administration of affairs where such calamities were constant; and it was for the House, now that their attention had been thoroughly awakened to Irish matters by the present startling emergency, to think not only of temporary expedients, but to go to the roots of the evils of which he spoke. He was not now going into what might be called merely political matters, which it was desirous not to mix up with the present subject; but there were circumstances strictly relevant in the history of the international relations of the two countries which he should touch upon, but would do so very briefly. According to the statements of English writers and statesmen, up to fifty or sixty years ago, England stood charged with having systematically sacrificed the commercial interests of Ireland to what she conceived to be her own, and with having impeded the growth of her manufacturing enterprise and prosperity. On their testimony she stood charged with having denied to Ireland the use of her own resources. Let the House look to those matters, and see if there was not something of that policy remaining to the present day, and let them resolve to lay the axe to the root of the evil at once. The "hand to mouth" system would not do any longer. It would not answer to afford relief when some sudden emergency came upon Ireland, and when that had pased away, to forget. It was an unworthy system—unworthy of them, ruinous to the dependent country, and highly dangerous to the other. The authorities to whom he alluded were Mr. Pitt, who in 1785 and in 1799 charged them in the House of Commons—and was not contradicted—with having impeded the prosperity of Ireland. That charge was repeated by Mr. Huskisson in 1825, with the addition of a feature of Irish policy which they would do well to change. The right hon. Gentleman said—

"State necessities" (the disasters in America in 1779) "acting under a sense of political danger, yielded without grace that which good sense and good feeling had before recommended in vain; and in 1782, under a like pressure, these concessions were made irrevocable."

Under the influence of the distresses of the American war you conceded some of the privileges which Ireland claimed; but since the concessions at the time of the Union no other concession was made to her. He must be pardoned for going into those old stories; but he was endeavouring to trace out the course of policy which had had such an effect on Ireland. In 1780 that injurious and cruel system by which they had impoverished the sister country was, for the first time, relaxed; but the right conceded to Ireland was merely, as he had before said, that of trading with the Colonies and foreign countries. No further concession was then made. The market of England was kept hermetically sealed against nearly all our valuable goods, while our manufacturers had the protection only of very moderate duties against English competition. In 1785, the notorious commercial propositions were brought forward nominally offering us the English market if we would consent to give up our independence of commercial arrangements with foreigners, and furthermore consent to fix Ireland with an annual specific tribute money in England. But even had Ireland consented, she would have gained nothing; for the higher rate of excise in England gave an excuse for supperadding countervailing duties against Irish goods coming in, in addition to the ordinary duties of import. The scheme failed. Ireland would not be deluded, and the propositions had to be abandoned. Notwithstanding our exclusion from the English market, still under the care of our own Parliament, our manufactures being se- cure of their home market, began to flourish in a most extraordinary degree, and with, perhaps, a mistaken idea of further encouraging them, the Irish Parliament, finding it was in vain to seek to induce England to adopt a commercial system of mutual fairness and advantage, raised the duties on imports of English goods. To meet and crush this attempt, was brought forward—and, by what means it was not necessary nor fit he should now describe, was carried—the Legislative Union. Under the provisions of that Act, had they not impeded the resources and prosperity of Ireland? They had, of course, at once caused the duties on English goods to be lowered again, and then made a boast of allowing Ireland to retain for some twenty years more what remained of those duties. They left many protections to their own manufactures; but the duty left on Irish imports was low in amount, whilst the markets of England were shut against Irish exports. On account of the higher rates of excise in England, they had countervailing duties on Irish goods, which practically made the amount to be levied on the latter higher than that on English commodities in Irish ports. The operation of the Union revived once more the curse of absenteeism, which had been declining during the short period of independence enjoyed by the Irish Parliament. That drain increased enormously during the twenty years subsequent to the passing of that measure: the rich consumers began to leave the country in numbers, and her general condition proportionably declined. The Irish manufactures, thus deprived of their natural and best support, home capital and home customers, languished on till the expiration of the Union duties, and then fell to the ground, unable to stand the competition of the long-established and wealthy manufactures of England. At the present day it might be said that, with the exception of the struggling linen trade in Ulster, Ireland had no manufactures. It was impossible she could have any until the drain of absenteeism was stopped, and her rich proprietors returned to their homes. They had crushed Irish manufactures in consequence of the Union; and he said to them, if the people of Ireland had been driven to agriculture as their only means of employment, and if her large population overstocked that sole branch of industry, the condition to which they were reduced was owing to that Union which had deprived them of the benefit and profitable employment of manufactures. Whatever was to be done for Ireland, the House must interfere to stop the absentee drain of 4,500,000l. annually. He would implore the House, though that sum might appear paltry to speak of in a place where they were accustomed to dispose of such large amounts of money, to reflect that the whole rental of Ireland was but 13,000,000l.; and when they added to that the fact that her whole revenue was not more than 4,500,000l., they would see the importance of the sum. He asked them in what condition would their country be, if she suffered from an annual drain equal to their entire revenue, and one-third of their whole rental; would they not have starvation in their streets, and misery in their fields? Could they wonder, then, that the same effects should be produced from similar causes in Ireland? He knew it was in the power of the Government to check that drain—at least by indirect means; but its evils were aggravated by others, which it was directly in the power of the Government to stop. There was 70,000l. a-year from the quit and Crown rents, and a large revenue paid on the foreign goods that came to Ireland through England, and on the English goods subject to English excise which were consumed in Ireland. It was the Irish consumers who paid those duties in both cases ultimately; and that being the case, why should not the revenue thus derived be duly credited to Ireland? It could easily be ascertained what the amount of the latter sum was, if a registration were made of the goods so transferred from one country to the other; but now there was no way of knowing the value of the commercial intercourse between England and Ireland, which in itself was a serious statistical defect. They ought to give credit to Ireland for the amount to which she was fully entitled in her contributions towards the revenue. When they spoke of making advances to Ireland (though they did not indulge in any boast on the subject, for he was bound to say nothing of that nature was visible in the speeches of hon. Members), and uttered public declarations as to the extent of their grants, had not his countrymen a right to say—"Look to the conduct of your country towards ours for centuries; see how you have prevented us making use of our resources, and interfered with our prosperity; and do not suppose that you now compensate us for all your past injuries." It might not be in their power to reverse the effects of the course which had been hitherto pursued; but they could, at all events, prevent the absentee drain going out of the country. How could it be expected that the capital, which was said to be in Ireland, could be in a vigorous and healthy circulation, when there was an annual drain from the system to the extent of eight or nine millions, for which there was no return? It was with the body politic as with the body natural. It could not be expected that a vigorous or healthful action could take place, if the blood which ought to circulate through its members was continually drawn away. There had been much talk of those grants of money, and of the 468,000l. which they were to receive; but he said that those sums did not equal the amount of Irish revenue which went into the public coffers of England. What were the remedies to check that drain? An absentee tax was suggested. In Ireland they had a remedy of their own in a measure which they believed to include and comprise every remedy for the political and social evils of Ireland, and that was the restoration of their native Parliament. The Irish had been mocked at for demanding this, and a mongrel species of persecution had been carried on against its advocates. What could the Government and the House propose instead? Would they tax the absentees? Was it not monstrous that they should allow such a drain from a country whose population were exposed to the sufferings of starvation for nearly six months of the year? If they would not consent to grant them a Repeal of the Union, would they adopt the less natural but more forcible measure of taxing the absentees? It was in their power to do that, and they could by such a measure obtain a large rental, and at the same time cause the surplus of the contributions which Ireland made in abundant fulness to the revenue, to be spent in that country. If Ireland contributed her full proportion to the burdens of the State, why should she not enjoy a fair share of the State's expenditure? It was true that they had a share in the expenditure of the army and general military establishments; but why should they not have their proportion of the navy also? Why were their splendid harbours—the finest in the world, safe and capacious, easy of success to a friendly fleet, he would also add open to the foreign enemy—why were they left empty and unprotected? Why were there no guardships in her ports, and no dockyards along her coasts? If Ireland contributed to the national revenue, why should England absorb the whole expenditure? Those were matters which it was within the province of Government to control, and they could carry those ideas into effect to-morrow, if they chose. Those were practical tangible matters wherein improvement might be made, and they could not talk of giving Ireland a boon when Government was called on to grant her justice. There would be no public purpose left unanswered by acceding to those demands, for the service would be as well done there as in England, whilst Ireland would have the benefit of the expenditure. The reduction of Government offices and establishments in that country was a great evil to such a poor country. It was done under the pretence of economy of the public money; but taxes were seldom remitted in consequence, and where remitted, the benefit was spread over the three kingdoms, if Ireland were allowed a share at all; while the whole of the loss of the expenditure so saved to the public purse, was felt by her exclusively. As he had alluded to taxes, he would just state two facts to show that Ireland had been as unfairly treated with reference to them as on other points. He could prove that taxes had been remitted for the benefit of England alone; that, since the Union, taxes had been put on Ireland in the proportion of one to seven, and remitted in the proportion of one to eighteen; and that when grants were made to Ireland, the grants to England were out of all proportion, and those to Ireland were charged with a higher rate of interest—5 per cent., when, in Scotland and England, they bore either no interest, or 4 per cent. at the utmost, and generally only 3 per cent. He was ready to prove that these gifts and grants were only repayments of money obtained by England from Ireland; that the terms of the Union had been violated, and that Ireland had been subjected to an annual robbery. "You talk," said the hon. Member, "of our speeches at Conciliation Hall, and of our then coming here to supplicate for grants of money. I enter my protest now, and always will, against its being supposed that we ever asked for money: we never begged; we have demanded of you, and will again demand, our rights. I have pointed out these evils to you; it is not my fault if you will not believe them. While you are providing a remedy for temporary distress, I call upon you to correct perennial evils. We ascribe these evils to the whole course of your policy towards Ireland; do not blame us and say we are wasting your time, if we take this opportunity of endeavouring to show it. If at any time the calamity of war should come upon you, you will prove more formidable to your foes if you have Ireland conciliated, and conciliated you cannot hope to have her, unless you do her justice in these respects as in all others."

I am far from complaining of the hon. and learned Member for taking this opportunity of speaking of what he considers to be the grievances of Ireland: so far from it, I could wish that the hon. and learned Gentleman would take every opportunity (whatever may be my opinion as to its fitness) of speaking in this House of anything which he may think a grievance in Ireland, and of stating in what respect he thinks the prosperity of Ireland may be improved. I am sure, and he has himself observed, that with regard to the present distress in Ireland, there is a disposition in this House to listen to any proposition that is calculated to relieve that distress; and I assure him that, whether in reference to the origin of grievances in former times, or whether in reference to the measures that may be taken to promote the good of Ireland, there will always be a disposition in this House to discuss the proposition fairly; and if we cannot find that other measures proposed are for the good of Ireland, I, for one, shall be ready to agree with him, if he can only show that his proposition is for the good of Ireland. I am very far from saying that a grant made to Ireland on the ground of her distress is to be regarded as a boon to Ireland. I consider this House, as representing the United Kingdom, is bound to consider every part of that kingdom; and if one part is more distressed, at any particular period, than another, it is the bounden duty of this House to attend to it, and there is no call upon that particular part to feel grateful to any other particular part. I own it appears to me that, so far, the measures of the Government have been judicious measures, avoiding the two evils, of neglect on the one hand, and that which is equally dangerous, the ostentatious display of relief on the other, which might have tended to augment the distress we are so anxious to relieve. This being my opinion, therefore, and thinking that the Government, having acted thus, will bring forward more extensive measures, if they should be necessary, in this confidence I recommend the hon. and learned Gentleman to withdraw his Motion; because, if, in his opinion, at any future time—a fort- night or a month—Government shall appear not to have acted with sufficient promptitude, or the measures shall appear to be not sufficiently large, he will always have an opportunity of renewing his Motion, and of suggesting another course more conducive to the end in view. I think the hon. and learned Gentleman has rendered a service to the House by the statements he has made as to the real condition of Ireland at this period; but I think it is desirable, pending the measures of the Government, that his Motion should be withdrawn.

proposed to withdraw the Motion.

wished to say a few words before the Motion was withdrawn. He wished to speak on the subject as an independent Member of the House, for he hoped he had established his perfect independence there. He was then without alliance or connexion with any leader in that House, and he desired to state his opinions in a few words. He did not, when he entered the House, contemplate making any observation upon the particular question which had been brought under the notice of the House by the hon. and learned Member for Cork; but after the statements which had been made by the hon. Member, and also by the hon. Member for Kilkenny, who succeeded him, he felt himself constrained to trouble them with a few observations, and perhaps he might be a little more loquacious than he had hitherto been, not only upon the question referred to, but also on the general question under the consideration of the House. He felt himself the more obliged to state his opinions, since they, on his side of the House, found that all the opinions of the leaders in whom they placed confidence had been overthrown; and he found that each one had to judge for himself. He should therefore state, very shortly, but very sincerely, the opinions he entertained with regard to Ireland. He thought, as regarded the question of famine that had been brought before them, there was no one on his side of the House who did not sincerely lament the sad position of Ireland, as it had been detailed by the hon. and learned Member for Cork—who, he thought, in the observations he had made, had displayed great good taste and feeling, as he had not interwoven with those observations much of political matter, except in so far as regarded the social welfare of Ireland. In following out as far as he was able the remarks of the hon. Member for Kilkenny, he should endeavour to show, that, in many points, those observations were very pertinent to the question in general debate before the House. ["No, no," and "Order."] He was sorry, it being the first time for many years that he had had reason to offer any observations, that he had met with any interruption. He thought, in a question of such vast importance, it was quite competent for English Members to offer their sympathies with the sister country, and feel sincerely the sufferings of its population. Therefore, notwithstanding the interruption he had experienced, he should go on. The hon. Member opposite had said that the absence of the gentry from Ireland was one of the great sources of evil to that country. Now he thought it would be well for those who were hurrying on the question of Corn Law repeal, and the destruction of the agricultural interest in England, to consider whether the withdrawal of the gentry from England, and consequently the withdrawal of the available capital of the country, by the measures proposed by the right hon. Baronet, might not bring a similar calamity upon England. Another point to which he wished to refer, was a very significant one to the gentry and people of England generally. It was in reference to a drain of capital from this country for the purchase of foreign corn. If it happened that there should be a drain of gold from this country for the purpose he had mentioned, then the same calamity which the hon. Member opposite had so well depicted with regard to Ireland, might occur with regard to England also. This was a matter of the greatest importance. He then alluded to the potato crop, and said, if the people of Ireland suffered so much from the failure of an article of food, upon which they depended from year to year, and thereby were compelled to have recourse to others for the means of sustenance, the people of England should take a lesson, and be cautious before they placed themselves in the same precarious and uncertain situation of dependence from year to year, at the mercy of foreign nations, many of whom probably entertained hostile feelings, and others might not retain the same kindly and social feelings towards England which the people of England did towards the people of Ireland. He, therefore, hoped the people of England would consider, when they thought kindly of the people of Ireland, and sympathized with their distresses, that, if they wished still to continue that kindness, they must take care that they did not give their consent to measures which would produce nearly the same causes in England, and thereby deprive them of all possibility of extending their assistance to the people of Iacland. He remembered that, in 1822, he had the great satisfaction of subscribing wards a fund for what was then stated to be for the relief of the people of Ireland from a famine. Now he recollected, as regarded that subscription, and that calamity, that then the House saw no cause for the repeal of the Corn Laws. A temporary expedient met a calamity. At that time 300,000l. was subscribed in England; but what was the effect upon the people of Ireland? He believed that the distresses of Ireland at that time would have frightened the right hon. Baronet at the head of Her Majesty Government from his propriety, and would have induced him to come down to the House with some extravagant measure to meet the necessities of the occasion. But there then existed no fear of this sort, but 300,000l. was subscribed to purchase provisions, which were sent to Ireland. But what was the result. There was no money in Ireland to buy the provisions with. Well, then, might not a similar result occur in England if its population was made dependent upon others? It was of no use telling them they should have cheap corn, if they had not money to buy it. What was the step at last taken with regard to Ireland? It was found to be necessary that the money should be sent to Ireland to employ the people upon public works. After that was done, there was a surplus of 100,000l. which it was found impossible to employ in Ireland, and that was reserved to be applied to permanent works. He hoped, therefore, the House would pause before they gave their consent to any measure, such as that of the right hon. Baronet, which must have the effect of making England dependent upon others for the means of sustenance. He would say, in conclusion, that he should never be a party to any measure which would contribute to take away from Ireland that immense advantage which it possessed of affording an ample supply of grain, not only for this country but for itself also. That that country might long continue to enjoy prosperity was his sincere wish, and that, under an improved state of affairs, it might become and long continue to be a source of strength to the Empire at large.

said that, after what had fallen from the right hon. Baronet (Sir J. Graham), and the observations of the noble Lord the Member for London (Lord J. Russell), he would consent to withdraw his Motion, reserving to himself the exercise of his right to bring it forward hereafter, if he should deem it necessary.

I know, Sir, under what a disadvantage a Gentleman rises to take a part in this momentous discussion, who cannot enlist heartily under either the blue banner of my hon. Friend the Member for Northamptonshire, or that of Her Majesty's Ministers and the hon. Member for Stockport; but who, regarding both as Englishmen, and both as really anxious to promote the best interests of the country, strives to the best of his ability to reconcile the contending forces, and to unite in one league of harmony and concord the conflicting elements of trade and agriculture. Knowing then that I cannot appeal to the excited feelings and animosities that prevail within as well as without these walls, and that my appeal must be to the calmer judgment of some less troublous time, I shall confine within the narrowest limits that which I have to say. Before entering into the main question, let me correct a misapprehension into which the noble Lord the Member for Lincolnshire fell the other night with respect to my hon. Friend the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs: quoting an isolated passage from a speech of my hon. Friend's on the Corn Law of 1842, the noble Lord placed him in the category of Ministerial converts; but my hon. Friend's speech was altogether a free-trade speech, in which he accepted that amended Corn Law as only an "instalment of justice." Sir, I have been much struck, in approaching the consideration of the question, with the very general inclination on both sides of the House to view the problem how a country is to be supplied with food, as one exclusively of political economy. Now I entertain great doubts whether such a question should be so argued; and, without referring to those English political economists of whose opinions the House must be satiated, I will take leave to cite the language of one who in Italian literature occupies the same rank as Adam Smith occupies in English. Count Carli, the President of a Supreme Council of Public Economy at Milan towards the close of the last century, in a remarkable treatise on the Corn Law, expressly separates the question of supplying a country with food from the category of commerce; he says—

"The matter of corn is an affair of administration, and not of commerce, contrary to the other productions of the soil, such as wine, oil, &c.; because without these man can live, which is not the case with bread;"—

and after referring to a period when England suffered much from a constant deficiency of the home harvests, he says—

"In these circumstances, with that wisdom which is worthy of a people free and thoughtful, the Government set about considering whence they might animate internal agriculture, and step by step diminish the need of foreign corn, in proportion as they augmented the produce of their own soil. It is sufficient for me to observe, that the material of which we are treating is an affair of administration, and not of commerce, and that no prudent Government will renounce it, because neither are the seasons always equal, nor are men always heroic."

Well, then, I am justified on such authority in considering this question apart from the doctrines of political economy. I will own, Sir, without giving in my adhesion to that most melancholy theory of my noble Friend the Member for Liverpool—a theory which if carried into general practice, would place the charter of the poor man, the mitre of the prelate, and the crown of the monarch alike at the mercy of that most odious of all despotisms, the oligarchy of red tape—without acceding to that theory, I will own that when I heard nearly all the statesmen of the country had come to the conclusion that the Corn Laws should be abolished, I thought it was the duty of that great party who still believed protection to be essential to the welfare of the country, to carefully reconsider the whole subject, and, maturely weighing all the evidence that has of late years been submitted to the public, counting the cost of a protraction of the struggle, and estimating the chances of success—then, and then only, after that anxious deliberation, to come to a determinate resolution. For myself, being of opinion, on grounds with which I need not trouble the House, that the effects of a free trade in corn have been greatly exaggerated on the one side and on the other, I was prepared to consider carefully and favourably any proposition that might have been legitimately submitted to the country either by the noble Lord the Member for London, or by the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury, that should have for its object the settlement of this long agitated question, and the extinction of those flames of civil discord which were then, and are now, so fiercely raging. But I was persuaded then, and am so now, that any such proposition, to be permanently successful, must be made not on narrow, temporary, evanescent, self-contradictory, and suspicious grounds, but on broad general principles; not hurried as the expedient of a terrified Cabinet, through a mystified Parliament, into a premature law, but submitted to that full and free discussion, and verdict of the English people, without which I am convinced no such mighty change can be beneficial now, or satisfactory hereafter. I can easily conceive such a course being adopted; and indeed, after the speech last night of the right hon. Gentleman, were it not for the indisputable evidence of eyes and ears to the contrary, I should deny the possibility of an adverse policy being attempted. How different, Sir, would be now the position of Her Majesty's advisers; what other and far better feelings would now prevail in the various counties of England, had the right hon. Baronet opened in the autumn of 1845 the ports, and on the meeting of Parliament announced that his convictions were changed; that, to use his own metaphor, he could no longer steer the vessel the same course; and that after those measures which the exigencies of the time required had been passed, he should appeal to the people to know whether they had faith in his wisdom, skill and integrity, and would sanction his new commercial and industrial policy! I have listened Sir, to all these long debates, in order to hear what reasons could be assigned by Her Majesty's servants for pursuing an opposite course; and the main plea of the right hon. Gentleman I take to be this: "Most people," said he, "agree that, following the example of foreign countries, and the precedents of our own Parliaments, we ought, being satisfied of the reality of the danger in Ireland, to have suspended, in the autumn of 1845, the laws regulating the importation of grain." Yes, Sir, I for one, agree with the right hon. Gentleman, the ports ought then to have been opened; but what can we, what can the country think of a Government who, not doing then what it affirms it ought to have done, turns round now to its old supporters, and calls on them to remedy its own laches, by adopting a course fatal, as they believe, to the best interests of their country? Nor, Sir, will it do for the right hon. Gentleman to say that the opposition he met with from his Cabinet was so strong, that he could not carry his proposal; for there is not, I venture to say, a man in England who believes that those Members of the Cabinet who, returning to power at the invitation of the right hon. Gentleman, acceded to this far greater revolution, would have offered any very resolute or determined resistance to the minor step of opening the ports, sanctioned as it had been in the interim by the Central Protection Society of England. "But if I had done so," says the right hon. Gentlemen, "the country party would have expected a guarantee from me that I would close the ports again, and that I was not prepared to give." Now, Sir, I have not heard any one Gentleman on this side of the House say he looked for any guarantee of the sort: on the contrary, the universal language has been, let that question be left to the decision of the country; and even now, late as it is, far later than if that much-derided Protection Government had been formed at Christmas, even now, if the right hon. Baronet is really in earnest—if he believes the danger to be so imminent, the necessity so pressing, and the remedy so easy—the shortest way would be, before the end of this week, with the assent of every Gentleman in this House, to suspend the Corn Laws, open the ports, and leave it to the good sense of the English people to decide whether they should be closed again, and this Corn Law, or any other, or none at all, be adopted. But if you persevere in your present lumbering course of action, let me ask how soon do you expect to pass your measures into law, without your Committee to inquire into the burdens on land, and, for aught I know, your Committees to inquire into the operation of free trade on the Colonics and on the finances of the Empire! No, Sir, if you believe present Irish distress is to be remedied by these measures, open the ports now, and leave your great schemes to the decision of another Parliament. I trust, Sir, I have shown how unfairly the right hon. Gentleman has urged that plea; and as in urging it he taunted needlessly many Gentlemen around me, I will take leave to assure him, that so far from expecting from him a guarantee to close the ports again, I don't believe there is a man, woman, or child in England who will, for the future, ask him to guarantee the Corn Laws, or anything else. No, Sir, the right hon. Gentleman may rely on it, that those who think protection to native industry as inseparably connected with the welfare of the country as it is deeply rooted in the affections of the people, will depend for the future on the good sense, courage, and determination of the English people, not on the pledges or guarantees of statesmen and politicians. Throughout the speech of the right hon. Gentleman, I have to complain of the same want of candour and fair dealing with the arguments of his opponents. Now, it is extremely pleasant at the time, though I don't think much of it, afterwards to hear the way in which the right hon. Gentleman disposes of the particular course of action, or line of argument, his opponent may chance to adopt. Thus, last night, the right hon. Gentleman said, if the hon. Member for Bristol had proposed a vote of want of confidence in Ministers, or a declaration in favour of protection; or, if in short, he had done anything except that which he had done, then the right hon. Gentleman could have understood, and perhaps have been induced to support him; and Members are rather caught by that sort of reasoning. I was myself at first; but it is my firm conviction that whatever course the hon. Gentleman had adopted, he would have been met by a similar opposition from the right hon. Gentleman. But to return to the right hon. Gentleman's main line of argument. He is horrified that the hon. Member for Bristol proposes the question shall stand over for six months: "to stand still for six months in a country like this is to retrograde." We used to hear very different language not only from right hon. Conservatives, but even from that eminent champion of progress, the noble Lord the Member for the city of London. He used to tell us that the country could not stand a yearly revolution; but now the right hon. Gentleman's specific for all the evils of the country is a revolution every half year! Truly, Sir, after such a declaration from the First Minister, I think my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyne, and others who think with him that there are still institutions and things worth fighting for left in England, are justified in withholding their confidence from so revolutionary a Government. Well, Sir, I now come to the right hon. Gentleman's estimate of the effect to be produced on foreign countries by this great commercial and industrial revolution. "Prussia," said he, "is shaken;" but no evidence has been submitted to us to show that Prussia is shaken: on the contrary, every public sign that Prussia has given is in the opposite direction; and I shall be very much surprised if Prussia, after the passing of these measures, does alter her present policy, for she will then have got all that she can ask or wish for from us, without making any equivalent to us. But passing from Prussia to France, the right hon. Gentleman said, that although the commercial aristocracy of France was opposed to free trade, yet intelligent public opinion was in favour of it. Let me ask, Sir, who are the leaders of this intelligent public opinion of France? I suspect Arago, and Thiers, and Berryer, and Louis Blanc, are the leaders of that public opinion; and so far from being advocates of free trade, they are strenuous maintainers of protection to French industry. I come now, Sir, to the main plea on which this Parliament is asked to consent to these sweeping changes—the failure of the Irish potato crop. Of that failure, and the probable results, more especially after the statements we have lately been listening to of the hon. and learned Member for the county of Cork, I wish to speak in deep sympathy; perhaps I cannot evince that sympathy better than by not needlessly parading it. But, Sir, I must be allowed to say that when the right hon. Gentleman argues from the failure of the Irish potato crop, in the autumn of 1845, to a total repeal of the Corn Laws in 1849, my reason is not so much convinced as my sympathy is affected. The right hon. Gentleman inaugurated with solemn and melancholy pomp the laying of that great corner-stone on which the now social edifice of free trade was to be raised; but the very first stroke of the argumentative trowel he applied to it, shivered that stone to pieces, and now it lies there a shapeless mass of jarring and self-contradictory atoms; for the right hon. Gentleman himself told us that he did not expect his measures would reduce the price of agricultural produce; and the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary at War, improving on that text, delivered a most eloquent homily to show that not only prices could not fall, but that there were no foreign provisions that could come in. Well, then, Sir, if this be so, how can present Irish distress be remedied by these measures? I say, therefore, that apart from the merits of free trade or protection, no case has been made out by Her Majesty's servants for proposing to this Parliament a total repeal of the Corn Laws; and I am consequently justified in voting with my noble Friend the Member for Salop (Lord Clive) in favour of an appeal to the country; nor am I answered if told that I can appeal to my own constituents, for it is not an appeal to the electors of Newark alone that I seek for, but an appeal to all the constituencies of England. But now, Sir, let me say that I do not regard the proposal of the Minister as the best that could be made. I concur in many of the objections that have been urged against it. It is not a fair measure—it is not a free-trade measure—it is hardly a measure of free imports; it leaves on the one hand a 10 per cent. protection on manufactures; and a burden of 5,000,000l. in the shape of a Malt Tax, and a prohibition of the cultivation of tobacco, on the other. It is of course in vain for a person in my position to offer any opinion to the country on so great a question; but I am anxious to leave on record what that opinion is, and I think that a scheme which would admit the produce of our own Colonies and Indian corn duty free, and foreign grain at a moderate fixed duty, would place the corn trade on a basis satisfactory to the great mercantile interests of this country, would bind the various Members of our vast colonial empire by the closest ties of common interest to the mother country, and afford to the English farmer a fair security against the undue competition of his foreign competitor. Were this, Sir, my opinion alone, it would be worthless; but it is the opinion of many able and experienced men in the city of London and in Manchester; and I entreat the attention of the House to the following extract from the last circular of Messrs. Ferguson and Taylor, of Manchester:—

"We are not," say they, "insensible to the advantages of providing the benefit of cheap food for the population of these countries; and we think the safest means of doing this, is by affording every facility for developing the resources of our soil, and making its yield abundant by the encouragement of those engaged in its cultivation. A low fixed duty of about 5s. or 6s. would uphold British agriculture, whilst the protection would not be so great as to place the native corngrower beyond the risk of competion."

Non meus hic sermo: this is not the language of the Central Protection Society, nor of any of the old-fashioned supporters of the landed interest; it comes from those most deeply interested in the welfare of Manchester and English manufactures; and I say that opinions and authorities such as these cannot be pooh poohed away in a single sentence, or got rid of by a con- temptuous sneer; and, with all respect for the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary it will not now do for him to say that a fixed duty cannot now be thought of because some time ago he said he never would vote for a revenue duty on corn. Entertaining, then, these opinions, not fearing free trade, and hoping that a future Parliament may sanction some such scheme as that I have presumed to sketch, I yet deprecate any rash and hasty interference with that system of protection under which trade and manufactures have risen to so marvellous a prosperity—under which agriculture has made such gigantic strides—and above all do I deprecate this House, at the dictation of the right hon. Baronet, so acting as to alienate from itself, and from those rulers whose edicts it seems prepared to register, the sympathies, the affections, and the confidence of that great rural population to which, in times of danger and distress, the Sovereigns of England have ever been wont to look—nor look in vain—for ready obedience to the laws, dauntless courage, and unswerving fidelity. For these reasons, while I neither fear nor hope much from a free trade in corn; while I am anxious to see a settlement of this great and long-agitated question—but in a manner satisfactory and honourable to all classes—I shall give a most hearty vote in favour of an appeal to the country; and oppose a resolute, though it may be an ineffectual, negative to the proposition that this House of Commons do resolve itself into a Committee for the purpose of considering the Corn Laws, with a view to their repeal.

observed, that whatever might be the opinion formed by some hon. Gentlemen on the other side of the House, concerning the great question proposed to their consideration by the right hon. Baronet at the head of Her Majesty's Government, looking upon it, as he did, as a question of vital importance—as a question by which the great principles of free trade were at once to be established; or, should the measure be rejected, for some time delayed (for he was one of those who never had the smallest doubt that free trade must ultimately succeed), it was his intention to give his warmest support to this great and beneficial measure; and he earnestly trusted that hon. Gentlemen would well and deeply consider the fearful responsibility that would attach to them if they any longer banded themselves together, and, under the cry of protection to native industry, tried to main- tain a monopoly, which was nothing more nor less than a restriction on the food of the people. No cause that had ever been brought before Parliament had progressed so rapidly as that of free trade within the last few months. Those who had been the most skilful and strenuous defenders of monopoly had thrown down their arms, and said they could no longer defend so weak and hollow a cause; and what argument had the protectionists brought forward that had not been refuted over and over again? They had stated that a quantity of land would get out of cultivation; but let them remember the meeting at Goatacre, among the Wiltshire labourers, where the protectionists petitioned against protection, and where it was stated that when the labourer requested to be allowed to rent patches of ground, he was told by the farmer he must pay 8l. for that for which the farmer paid but 2l. For his part he believed that with such an increasing population—that with such an impetus as would be given to trade were this measure carried — that so far from any land going out of cultivation, in places where now there was only a wilderness and a game preserve, we should shortly see extensive and flourishing gardens. In every experiment made by the right hon. Baronet, approaching free trade, he had been eminently successful; and the last alteration in the Tariff had more than realized his most sanguine hopes. What was the use of experience? Were they to shut their eyes to it? Were they to be for ever blind? However that might be the case with some Gentlemen, he believed a far different feeling began to pervade the country, and he believed a better proof could not be adduced to support the truth of the assertion, than the wise, the judicious choice made the other day by the West Riding of Yorkshire; a choice, in his mind, equally honourable to the electors and the elected. What could be a more ample proof of the alteration which had come over the feelings of the people, than that a few years ago the noble Lord was beaten because he was not a sufficient protectionist, and now he stood in the proud position of their Representative as a free trader; or the course about to be taken by the noble Lords on the other side of the House? He alluded to the noble Lord (Viscount Sandon) the Member for Liverpool, and the noble Lord the Member for Newark. The first noble Lord made a speech in favour of protection, which was claimed, and justly so, by the hon. Ba- ronet the Member for Oxford. The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary at War had also put in his claim; but, in his opinion, it was about as just a one as the American claim to Oregon, and seemed to show that right hon. Gentleman to be of a very avaricious disposition, as the noble Lord had, in the division he had made of himself, given his old friends (the Government) what they, no doubt, considered upon this occasion the better half—namely, his vote. Now, the line thus pursued by the noble Lord put him in mind of a circumstance that happened a few years ago. A person at Huntingdon having given a vote to a successful candidate, the Member, from those pure motives of gratitude which actuated so many politicians, procured for the man the place of chorister at Canterbury. But when he was required to perform the duties, he was found to have no voice at all. Some one, patronised by the genius of poetry, though in a very inferior degree to the hon. Member for Pomfret, put the story into rhyme, and it ran thus:—

"A singing man and cannot sing!

No need to thank your patron's bounty:"

"Excuse me, sir, if I can't sing,

My voice is in another county."

So it was with the noble Lord the Member for Liverpool, who had made a right good speech for protection, as far as was possible in such a cause; but his voice, like the chorister's, was in a different direction. Then the noble Lord the Member for Newark wrote a letter to his constituents, and said, if ever he was returned again, he would not vote in favour of protection. What the noble Lord would now do it was impossible to say. He defied any Member who had listened to the noble Lord's speech to say what the noble Lord's actual views on the question now were. He could not help thinking it would have been just as well if the two noble Lords had paired off and said nothing at all on the matter. When he heard the right hon. Gentleman, then Secretary at War, state in his free-trade speech—which he congratulated him upon—when he said in that speech that the Corn Law of 1815 was, in his mind, a great mistake, he agreed with him in that opinion; nay, for his part, he went further, and not only thought it a great mistake, but a great crime. By that mistake or crime, whichever they chose to call it, commerce had been crippled, agriculture had been injured, crime and misery had increased. It had given rise to difference of feeling greatly to be deplored. But like other crimes, it had brought its own punishment. It had for years kept the agriculturists in hot water and uncertainty; and at last received its just retribution and condemnation by the very hand that millions had been spent to raise in its defence. They were told by the protectionists, that it was by this law that great and glorious England had taken her stand as one of the greatest nations of the earth. But what a fallacy! He would give them an illustration. He supposed no one, either in the House or out of it, would doubt for a moment that the right hon. Baronet at the head of Her Majesty's Government was a free trader. Now, did any one suppose for a moment, that because the right hon. Gentleman had lived with the protectionist party, had spoken with them, and had acted with them, that that was the reason he was a free trader? Certainly not. Those had been his hindrances—in spite of all these he was a free trader, from honest and sincere conviction. And who could doubt that he would have been a free trader long ago, if it had not been for these unhappy connexions? So it was with England. It was not on account of these Corn Laws she had become great and glorious, but in spite of them; and she would no doubt have arrived at a higher pitch of grandeur if she had not suffered from the ill effects of these baneful laws. He could not help expressing his surprise (though certainly there were times when a wise man ought to be surprised at nothing), though on the last occasion that he (Captain Layard) had the honour of addressing the House upon this subject, he had foretold that the hon. Baronet at the head of Her Majesty's Government, and the present Secretary for the Colonies (Mr. Gladstone) would become ere long free traders. He was delighted to find that his prediction had been correct, though at that time he was not sanguine enough to hope that the change would have been made so quickly and completely. But he congratulated them on having acted in a manner worthy of the high station in which their talents had placed them. They had been undismayed by the thunders of the Caucasus, unscared by the virulent attack of the hon. Member for Shrewsbury; though, indeed, they were manifestly guilty of the charge brought against them by that Gentleman—the charge of sacrificing that which was supposed to be the benefit of their party, to the welfare and happiness of their country. They had been told by the hon. Members for Shrewsbury and Newcastle-under-Lyme, that rotten potatoes had given rise to rotten argument—that the fear of scarcity had been exaggerated; but the deplorable accounts received from Ireland, unhappily, too surely proved that the prudent measures taken by the Government were only those which were absolutely necessary; and he, for one, believed most men would agree with him in thinking that those who prepared for a scarcity acted more wisely, ay, and more conscientiously, than those who, with the fact staring them in the face, of the fearful loss which had happened to the potato crop, endeavoured to argue that no scarcity need be feared at all. In that able pamphlet entitled "An Attempt to estimate the Effect of Protecting Duties on the Profits of Agriculture," by Mr. Morton and Mr. Trimmer, it was proved to demonstration that the tenant-farmer and the agricultural labourer were considerable losers by this so-called "protection." By that pamphlet the truth was proved of the declaration of the hon. Member for Stockport, Mr. Cobden, that the system of protecting duties was a system of mutual plunder between the growers of the different descriptions of agricultural produce. He would have been delighted had the right hon. Baronet proposed to do away at once with all duty upon the importation of corn, because he believed the only real danger attending the agriculturists was the uncertainty with which they had to contend at present, and which must continue for the ensuing three years—an uncertainty which prevented that self-reliance, that outlay of capital and industry, which could alone raise them to that independence which they ought to aspire to, but which was unattainable as long as they relied on artificial prices and a bolstering system. He, for one, had the greatest reliance on the ability and judgment of the noble Lord the Member for London; that reliance was, if possible, increased when the noble Lord made the assertion, which to him seemed so wise, but to many so startling, that protection was the bane of agriculture. For his part, he looked on this measure as a great and beneficial one—one not only advantageous to this country, but which set a bright example to the world at large, and an example worthy of all imitation. He would vote for this measure, believing that it would prove one great link to assist in binding together the nations of the earth in unity and peace.

rose for the purpose of expressing the opinions of the constituency he had the honour to represent, and with whom he entirely concurred on this question. His constituents were awaiting with the most intense anxiety the result of their deliberations, believing that upon it would depend either their future prosperity or permanent distress. It was, however, unnecessary for him to state the feeling of the public on this subject; since a number of meetings had been held in various parts of the country since these measures had been announced, and, almost without exception, they had been unanimous in condemning the measure. Persons connected with the agricultural interest had never calculated that the right hon. Baronet, so long the advocate of protection, would, almost at a moment's notice, have turned round and advocated a precisely contrary course. He thought they were justified in that opinion by the speeches the right hon. Baronet had delivered in that House. He was not going to quote Hansard at any length, yet he thought he should be justified in referring to a speech delivered by the right hon. Baronet (Sir R. Peel) in 1844, on a Motion by the hon. Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. Villiers). The right hon. Baronet then said—

"I think the agriculture of this country is entitled to protection, and that it is so entitled to protection from considerations of justice as well as policy. I do consider that there are special and peculiar burdens on agriculture. I do believe that that portion of the Act which imposes burdens for the relief of the poor, and subjects the profits of trade to those burdens, as well as the profits of agriculture, has not, so far as the profits on trade are concerned, been acted on, whilst it has been acted on with respect to the profits on agriculture. I say, on that ground, that I think there are special burdens applicable to agriculture. I think also that there are restrictions on the application of capital as concerns agriculture. I think, therefore, that considerations of justice do entitle agriculture to protection. I think that considerations of policy, so far as the general interest of all classes is concerned, justify this protection."

And the right hon. Baronet concluded his speech on that occasion by saying—

"I repeat the declaration I made at the commencement of the Session on the part of the Government, that we do not intend, and have not intended, to diminish the protection which the existing Corn Laws give to agriculture."

It was on a statement of this kind that the country had placed reliance; and nothing could have caused more surprise than the recent change of opinions avowed by the right hon. Baronet. He had been present at several meetings in the county he represented, and he must say he never saw such unanimity of feeling in his life. Neither was it confined to the cultivators of the land; for many respectable tradesmen he had conversed with were all convinced of the alarming consequences which would ensue from these measures. The question was universally asked in the country, what grounds are there for these great changes? He had listened with the greatest possible attention to the greater part of the debate, and especially to the eloquent speech of the right hon. Gentleman last evening; but he had not heard any one substantial reason—nor, indeed, was there any reason brought prominently forward, either by the right hon. Baronet or the Secretary for the Home Department, or the Secretary at War, except the failure of the potato crop in Ireland. Now, he heard with great regret the statements made on this subject last night by the right hon. Baronet. But the question which naturally arose on hearing them was this—whether the measure the right hon. Baronet now proposed could by possibility remedy that particular evil? He could perfectly understand, that if the right hon. Baronet had proposed to open the ports for a time, it might be the means of giving greater facilities for the purchase of food to relieve a starving population; but it did not appear to him that opening the ports, whether temporarily or permanently, could have any effect, unless the unfortunate individuals who were the subjects of that calamity had the wherewithal to purchase corn? The right hon. Baronet said that he had proposed to the Cabinet to open the ports at once, but that they rejected that suggestion. Now, he, for one, did not think that in such a measure there would have been much difficulty. He thought the right hon. Baronet might have taken upon himself the responsibility of suspending the law, and opening the ports for a time: for he, for one, after hearing the statements of the right hon. Baronet respecting the distress in consequence of the failure of the potato crop, would never, for a moment, have objected to any Bill of Indemnity which it might have been necessary to bring in in consequence of such a measure. He did not believe that any persons, however they might advocate the existing law, would oppose any Government which considered it absolutely necessary, for the security of any part of Her Majesty's subjects, that such a temporary suspension of the law should be adopted. But the right hon. Baronet argued that, in his opinion, it was impossible to open the ports as a temporary measure, without involving the reconsideration and repeal of the Corn Law itself. He was not sufficiently versed in political affairs to say whether that was a correct opinion or not; but he did not see that the one was at all the necessary consequence of the other. The right hon. Baronet alluded last night to several occasions on which the Corn Law had been temporarily suspended by Orders in Council. He recollected also that in August, 1827, Mr. Canning obtained an Order in Council for the admission of 500,000 quarters of corn, in consequence of the rise in price occasioned by a deficient harvest. No doubt, in so doing, Mr. Canning did right; and he recollected that a Bill of Indemnity was passed in the next Parliament. But Mr. Canning, having done this, never thought of coming to that House and saying the Corn Law itself must be abandoned. Nor could he see, at the present moment, any good reason why, if the temporary suspension of the law had been again adopted to meet this temporary difficulty, the law might not again have come into operation. It would require no Act of Parliament to bring back the law into operation; for it would come into operation of its own accord when the necessity for its suspension had ceased. A great deal had been said as to protection, not alone to agriculture, but also to all other products of native industry; but he should confine himself to the protection afforded to agriculture. That had been abandoned by Her Majesty's Government, who stated that they had good reasons for changing their mind on the subject, though they had not adduced any satisfactory reason to him for its abandonment. Protection to agriculture was, however, no new part of the political wisdom of this country; it had been the policy of England for centuries. In Lord Campbell's "Lives of the Chancellors," reference was made to it in the first year of the reign of Henry VII.; when the Lord Chancellor of the day, Morton, the ancestor of a noble Lord connected with the Anti-Corn-Law League, addressing Parliament, which was then the practice, instead of a Speech from the Throne as at present, cautioned the people of this country against allowing British gold to be sent out of the country for the purchase of foreign produce. That was the earliest instance of protection he had seen recorded; but he believed that it had existed from a period still earlier in the history of this country. The hon. Member for Sheffield had quoted Mr. Huskisson on a former evening in support of free trade in corn; but he remembered that right hon. Gentleman's speech on the silk trade, in which the principle of free trade was enunciated, as well as another speech in which a contrary principle was maintained on the subject of corn. And whatever Mr. Huskisson's opinions might be on other points, one thing was clear, if his own words were to be trusted—namely, that he was in favour of protection to agriculture. These were the words of Mr. Huskisson on that subject:—

"Let bread," he said, "be the produce of your own soil. I care not how cheap it is; it is cheap now; and the cheaper it is the better. But let us have a sufficiency of our own growth for our own purposes, as far as possible. And, in order that we may ensure the continuance of that cheapness and sufficiency, we must ensure to the home grower that protection which has contributed to produce them."

That was high authority; and he (Mr. Palmer) fully concurred in the views of that right hon. Gentleman, because he had never seen any reason to suppose them erroneous. The noble Lord the Member for London had held equally strong language in favour of protection in former days. The noble Lord had since changed his mind on that point; but he only wished to show how the principle of protection had been at all times maintained by men of the greatest ability in that House; and that, therefore, those who clung to it still had, at least, high authority for so doing. A good deal had also been said on the subject of compensation to the landed interest. He (Mr. Palmer) had never contemplated compensation; and in his opinion, it was not an argument which ought to be put forward in a debate upon the principle of protection. The principle of protection was either right or wrong: if it was right, it ought to be maintained at every hazard; if it was, on the contrary, wrong, and unjust, and unfair, then those who enjoyed it had no right to ask for compensation on its removal. But as the right hon. Baronet had alluded to it in his speech, or, more properly speaking, as he had referred to the equivalent advantages which his proposition would confer upon the agriculturist, as a counterbalance to the removal of protection, he could only say that, as far as he was able to collect them, the opinions of all those whom he had consulted on the subject, or conversed with, were opposed to the plans of the right hon. Baronet, which they considered in the light of so much waste paper, and as forming no equivalent whatever for the direct loss they would sustain. The right hon. Baronet had stated that the effects of the former alterations made by him in the Corn Law and in the Tariff of duty on provisions, had been productive of no injury, but, on the contrary, had been productive of great benefit to all parties; and the right hon. Baronet had instanced the great rise that had taken place in the prices of cattle, of meat, and of other commodities, as a proof of that position, notwithstanding the anticipations of many to the contrary. The hon. Member for Somerset, however, had stated many reasons why that rise in prices should have occurred, and therefore he should not touch on that part of the subject; but he certainly did think that the right hon. Baronet could not take credit for that rise on the ground of removing protection, because when the right hon. Baronet had introduced the Tariff, he stated it to be for the express purpose of reducing prices. The alterations, therefore, made by the right hon. Gentleman would appear to have been of no great advantage to the farmer or to the consumer. But, even admitting that the facts were as the right hon. Baronet inferred, and that the circumstances had actually occurred which he took credit for, did not that furnish an exceedingly good and sufficient argument for leaving things alone, and not meddling with them any further? He believed that the constant meddling with the Corn Law had caused more difficulty and distress to the agricultural party than any badness of seasons or other circumstance whatever. After the alterations of 1842, the farmer had just now begun to recover strength; he was getting remunerating prices for his produce; the labourers were better paid; and a general prosperity commenced to prevail in the country. But the right hon. Baronet, by the proposition he had made, had done much to turn the scale the other way, and reverse the balance. The effect of the agitation which had succeeded upon the question raised by his proposition, was a complete stagnation in the market for agricultural produce. No miller bought now, except for present purposes, as it were "from hand to mouth." No business had been done in the market of the county which he represented, the market of Reading, since the period of the proposition of the right hon. Baronet; and though prices, perhaps, were quoted as high as on any previous occasion, and though it might be, also, that a few parcels of very good wheat were sold at these prices, still there was no actual dealing, no actual sales, in the great majority of instances. That stagnation was a most material disadvantage to the farmer, especially at this time of the year; and it created a difficulty in making up his rent, fully equal to a difference of 7s. or 8s. a quarter in the price of his produce. The time, as well as the circumstances, were each most unfortunate for the farmer in regard to the plan of the right hon. Baronet. It had been said by the noble Lord, whose sentiments had been quoted by the last speaker on the subject, that protection was the bane of agriculture; but he (Mr Palmer) would put it to any person acquainted with the face of the country during the last twenty years, whether a more scientific system of cultivation did not now prevail in all places; whether more capital was not employed upon land; and whether the produce was not much greater now than at that period? Yet all this had occurred under what the noble Lord had termed "the bane of agriculture"—a system of protection. He (Mr. Palmer) believed protection not to be the bane of agriculture, but the contrary; for it was his opinion that the farmers were induced to lay out their capital upon the land on the strength of the home market being ensured to them, a consequence of protection—an argument which had been often used in that House; and he liked it none the worse for being old, although old arguments as well as old principles were now going fast out of fashion—that argument was, that protection to British agriculture was given with the view to make this country independent, as far as it could possibly be made, of the foreign supply. This argument had been supported with great ability in that House upon several occasions by various hon. Members, but by no hon. Member with greater ability than by the right hon. Baronet the Home Secretary. These were the sentiments of the right hon. Baronet expressed upon that occasion:—

"It appeared to him that for a State of the power and the magnitude of Great Britain, deliberately and voluntarily to place itself in a state of dependence on foreign Powers for its daily food, was the most foolish thing that could be imagined. It was like placing the country in a state of siege—all the supplies were to be drawn from without, and if they were stopped there would be a state of dearth which would lead to absolute desperation, and there would be this destruction if our supplies could be cut off by any foreign Power. If we placed ourselves in that position, there were enemies so jealous of us, that they would readily cut off the supplies, and reduce us to the greatest extremity; and when he heard such a proposition pressed, he could but consider it most dangerous and most unwise. After all, it was not in the power of any human legislation to prevent occa- sionally a deficient harvest. Neither was it possible for any legislation to prevent a deficient harvest from being a national calamity."

That was the opinion of the right hon. Baronet in 1839; and the opinions of the right hon. Baronet at the head of the Government were analogous, as expressed on the same occasion. In that debate the right hon. Baronet spoke as follows:—

"Now, if you are right in maintaining that the shores of the Baltic will afford our chief supply, and if in reliance on that supply we diminish materially the production of corn at home, the misfortune of a generally deficient harvest may involve us in the greatest peril. In ordinary seasons we may safely trust to a regular supply from abroad, and the discouragement of home production may not be seriously felt; but if the common calamity should arrive (and Mr. Tooke and the highest authorities show that it ought to be foreseen), then we may have cause bitterly to repent our loss of independence, and to find that the encouragement we gave to home production, by restrictive duties, was a provident insurance against the dangers of famine."

These were no small authorities in support of that view of the case; and he should leave them to the House to weigh at their leisure. A good deal had been said in the course of the debate about the question under discussion being a labourers' question and a landlords' question. The strongest proof, however, that it was not altogether a landlords' question was furnished by the manner in which it had been taken up by the tenant-farmers at the meetings which had taken place in all parts of the country. Go where one would, very few of the landlords were to be found at these meetings; they were all, or mostly all, composed of tenant-farmers. The tenant-fanners felt that their interests were materially involved in the question at issue, and therefore they displayed unwonted activity. The landlord was, in most cases, an opulent man, to whom it was not perhaps important if his rental was reduced some 20 or 25 per cent.; but the tenant-farmer had invested all his capital in his farm; every thing he had in the world was at stake; and consequently he felt himself to be in a very different position. And when people said that the landlord had but to reduce the rent to place the tenant in a safe position, they spoke without a knowledge of the real facts of the case in question, as regarded the farmer. Rent, in point of fact, was by no means the heaviest charge upon the land of the tenant. Ten shillings a quarter difference in the price of corn would not make more than half the difference in the amount of rent. An intelligent tenant-farmer had informed him, that if wheat was reduced 10s. below an average of 54s., it would make to him half the difference of the rent he paid his landlord; and he had argued, therefore, that the question was one of vital importance to him. If the price of corn was low, because of the largeness of the produce, no man could reasonably complain; but when the remunerative price of that article was beaten down still lower by foreign competition, then indeed he considered that the farmer had a good right to complain of the system which led to such ruinous results. With respect to the question being a labourers' question, it was a common observation, that it was to the advantage of the labourer to have bread as cheap as possible. That sounded well, no doubt, and it was true in fact, so far as fixed incomes were concerned. To the man with a fixed income it was most desirable that bread and meat, and every other article of consumption, should be obtained at as cheap a rate as possible; but that rule did not apply to the daily labourer, who had to subsist upon the wages he earned from day to day. The right hon. Baronet at the head of the Government, and the right hon. Baronet the Home Secretary, had both come to the conclusion that the wages of labour were not dependent upon the prices of provisions; and he did not deny that to a certain extent they were right; that the price of wages and the price of provisions did not rise and fall like alternate buckets in a well. He said, however, that in the agricultural districts the price of corn was the basis on which wages were founded. When there was a considerable addition to the price of corn, there was always a rise in wages, and when there was a great fall in the price of corn, wages, in like manner, fell. When farmers were unable to get good prices, and when matters went unfavourably for them, he had always found that the labourers were the worst off. He recollected when corn was much lower than at present—in 1822, and again in 1835, which was a remarkably low year—that there was the greatest distress among the labouring classes, because the farmers were unable to obtain remunerating prices for their produce. The right hon. Baronet the Secretary of State for the Home Department did not always entertain the same opinion on this subject which he now professed. He did not find fault with him for the change; but he wished to quote the opinion expressed by the right hon. Gentleman in 1839 on this question. At that time, in addressing, he presumed, the ad- vocates of a repeal of the Corn Laws, the right hon. Baronet said—

"If they desired a low price of corn, let them declare their intention, and he would tell them that their object was to reduce the rate of wages; for low wages would certainly be the result of the low price of corn."

That was the right hon. Baronet's opinion in 1839, on this subject, and, as it would appear, in direct opposition to the sentiments which the right hon. Baronet appeared now to entertain. He was aware that the whole subject had been so long, so ably, and so successfully debated, that he had to apologize for trespassing on the attention of the House at such length. He was not one of those who would cast blame or throw any imputation on any man or set of gentlemen who, on a great political question, should find it necessary to change their opinions; but when he saw a statesman like the right hon. Baronet at the head of Her Majesty's Government, who was certainly no novice in the conduct of public affairs, and who must have made such subjects the study of his life—when he saw a Gentleman of such ability and experience throw overboard all his former arguments, and abandon all his former principles—when he heard him admit that all his former views, founded on some experience, were erroneous—and when he heard the complimentary language which he used towards the heads of the party that went by the name of the Anti-Corn-Law League—when he recollected all this, however he might admire the boldness of the Minister, it was not surprising if his confidence in him as a statesman was very materially shaken. For his own part, entertaining a strong opinion on the expediency of protection, not alone to agriculture, but also to other branches of native industry, and seeing no sufficient reasons for the contemplated change, the right hon. Baronet would excuse him if he declined following him into the path through which he would wish to lead them. The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary at War told them the other night that this was a fine opportunity for the display of their honour and disinterestedness; but he for one could not see how he was to maintain his honour at the expense of his political honesty. He had never given any pledge, and had never been asked for one, but still he thought there was an implied agreement between him and his constituents that he would endeavour to maintain the protection for which he had hitherto struggled; and, therefore, so long as he had the honour of having a seat in that House, it should never be said that he had betrayed the trust that had been reposed in him, or the interests that had been committed to his charge.

had hoped that after the able, brilliant, heart-stirring, and unanswerable speech of the right hon. Baronet the First Lord of the Treasury, the hon. Members opposite would have allowed the debate to come to a conclusion that evening. He feared, however, from what had fallen from the noble Lord the Member for Newark, that if it was still the intention of hon. Members to proceed with that debate, they would no doubt, follow out the same course of invective in which they had hitherto indulged against the right hon. Baronet, in the vain hope of inducing the right hon. Baronet to alter his mind, and adopt another course. He was glad that the hon. Gentleman who had last addressed the House, had not spoken in the same bitter tone of feeling as the other hon. Members who had spoken on the same side. The great complaint that hon. Gentlemen had made against the right hon. Baronet was, that he had proposed a new Corn Law in consequence of the state of the potato crop in Ireland, and the depression and distress which were soon to follow it. But he did not see why the right hon. Baronet was to be blamed alone. The right hon. Baronet at the head of the Home Department had changed his mind as well as the right hon. Baronet the First Lord of the Treasury. The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary at War had followed in their wake; and he believed that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was of the same opinion as the right hon. Baronets. The rest of the Cabinet had also followed the right hon. Baronet in adopting the just and popular view which he had taken. Why, then, was the censure of hon. Gentlemen reserved for the right hon. Baronet? He wondered that they had not blamed hon. Gentlemen on the Opposition side of the House, who, having formerly been advocates for a fixed duty, now agreed in opinion with the noble Lord the Member for London, and thought that the time was come for a total repeal of the Corn Laws. He was surprised that this change had called forth no expressions of astonishment or indignation from those hon. Gentlemen who ploughed with the same horses which they had yoked together twenty or thirty years ago. Had not the right hon. Baronet told the House over and over again, that on the 1st of November he proposed to his Colleagues to open the ports, and that he was only supported by three of his Colleagues? The right hon. Baronet, seeing that his Colleagues would not agree with him, gave his resignation into Her Majesty's hands. The noble Lord the Member for London then attempted to form an Administration, but failed in the attempt; and he (Sir C. Napier) for one rejoiced that the noble Lord did fail, because when he saw the numbers who had deserted the standard of the right hon. Baronet, he could not but think that the hostile array presented on the other side of the House, would have been much more formidable than it was now likely to prove. The noble Lord the Member for Newark had asked why the right hon. Baronet did not now open the ports? The noble Lord blamed the right hon. Baronet for not opening the ports, because in November he had expressed his opinion of the necessity for opening them; but he (Sir Charles Napier) believed that if the right hon. Baronet had proposed to open them now, hon. Members opposite would have opposed the project just as much as they did the present measure. He thought that the right hon. Baronet was perfectly correct when he wished to open them. Hon. Members opposite now told the right hon. Baronet that they would much rather have an immediate repeal of the Corn Laws than a repeal at the end of three years; but he (Sir C. Napier) was not going to fall into that trap. He believed that the right hon. Baronet had gone just as far as he could go. Hon. Gentlemen opposite hoped, by inducing the right hon. Baronet to agree to this alteration, that the measure would be defeated in the House of Lords; but he trusted that it was a settled thing on that (the Opposition) side of the House, that they would not take the bait which hon. Gentlemen were so ready to offer them. The noble Lord the Member for Newark had said that there ought to be an appeal to the country on this question. But was this the time, when Ireland was in a state of starvation—and hon. Gentlemen must know that Ireland was in a state of starvation when they did not contradict what the right hon. Baronet said on the subject—to make matters still worse than they were by an appeal to the country? The noble Lord was the most extraordinary man whom he had ever heard speak on this subject. He changed his arguments constantly. The noble Lord, who had always, he believed, been a sliding-scale nobleman was now ready, it seemed, to accept a fixed duty. The noble Lord had changed his mind, just as the right hon. Baronet had changed his, with this difference, however, that the right hon. Baronet changed his because he was convinced that he had been wrong; while the noble Lord changed his in order to keep up his rents. ["Oh, oh!"] Hon. Gentlemen opposite did not like to hear the truth; but he would tell them very plainly what his opinion was on the subject, namely, that if they did not think their rents would fall in consequence of the measure, there would be no opposition to it. ["No, No."] He knew that plain speaking was not in fashion in that House; but he must remind hon. Members that when interest swayed the human heart the mental vision was not always perfectly clear. The right hon. Baronet had adverted to what had fallen from the hon. Member for Northamptonshire (Mr. S. O'Brien), in relating a conversation which bad taken place between the hon. Member and his good friend the tenant-farmer. Now he (Sir C. Napier) would take the liberty of giving a little advice to the hon. Members opposite. He would recommend them, instead of making long speeches, to grant long leases to their tenants, and then they would gain much more than they would get by protracting this debate. Let them go to Scotland, and see how the land was farmed there. That country had an adverse climate, three weeks behind that of England, yet let Members look at the manner in which turnips were cultivated—let them look at the mode in which wheat was drilled, and the crops were thrashed out by machinery, instead of employing men and horses. If they would imitate the example of Scotland, England would become an exporting instead of an importing country. "It may seem, Sir," said the hon. and gallant Officer, "very ridiculous in a sailor like me to give advice to hon. Gentlemen opposite, on the subject of agriculture; but I myself am a farmer. True, I am not a farmer of very long standing, having only been a farmer four years. Four years ago I took a farm of forty acres. [Laughter.] Hon. Gentlemen may laugh, but what is good for forty acres, is good for four hundred. I took, I say, a farm of forty acres, and I wish I could have afforded to have taken more land. The land was very bad; what is called in Hampshire 'forest land,' which had been under the plough fourteen or fifteen years. The land was very foul, and those who had it before me used to plough it with four horses, and two or three men conducting them. As might be expected, they lost money by farming it. One man gave it up; another took it; no one could do anything with it, and they all went away ruined. I hope I am not fatiguing the House. I began farming much in the same way as my predecessors had done, and the consequence was that in the first year I lost 200l. Sir, I began to think this was very bad farming. I looked about me, and I saw a poor man, a neighbour of mine, who had a piece of land of ten acres, who had always good crops, and who contrived to keep his land dry. I went to him and said, 'Well, old boy, how is it that you, who have no capital at all, you, who have only a little pony, your wife, and yourself, manage to have such good crops as you do?' In reply to my question he said, 'If you will follow my advice you will have good crops too. Cleanse your ditches, level your banks, and drain your land well.' I acted under his directions in managing my land; and the next year, in place of four or five quarters of oats, which was the utmost which the land had ever borne before, I had eleven quarters of oats to the acre. I went on under his advice; and now, instead of the land belonging to me lying fallow during the winter, as is the case with nearly all my neighbours, all my land, with the exception of three acres, has crops upon it. If hon. Gentlemen will do the same as I have done, they will, I doubt not, succeed equally well. Mr. Speaker," continued the hon. and gallant Member, "I have taken up arguments different from those used by others, because the question before the House was so completely worn out, that I thought it necessary to get up something fresh, and to enlighten the agricultural mind."

said, that unaffectedly, if he were to consult only his own feelings, he would much rather have taken no part in that debate. In every view that he could regard the subject to which it related, and the circumstances under which it had been brought forward, they were painful and repulsive—they brought personal friendships and party predilections into direct collision with public duty, and left him but the alternative of perfect silence, or a condemnation of those men, whom, for the sixteen years that he had then been in public life, he had followed and esteemed. The conviction, however, that not only the measure itself, but, above all, the means by which it was about to be carried, would more injuriously affect Ireland than any part of the United Kingdom—as well as the pecu- liar course the debate had taken, constrained him to trespass for a short time upon the attention of the House. The hon. and gallant Member (Sir C. Napier) would excuse him for not thinking it necessary to attempt an answer to the gallant Officer's speech. With few exceptions, the discussion had been kept up on that side of the House, between the former supporters of the Government and the Members of the Government, aided by the select number of independent men who, "few and far between"—had risen to say they would vote for the Government, while generally they had made their speeches against them. Amongst those, indeed, throughout the whole debate, there had been no speech with the reasoning of which he more entirely concurred, than that of his noble Friend the Member for Liverpool. His noble Friend described the course taken by the Government as unwise, impolitic, and unjust; and the reasons which they had adduced to sustain their sudden change of opinion as inconclusive and unsatisfactory; and although his noble Friend expressed a strong hope, in which he cordially joined, that if the measure did pass, it would disappoint both the hopes and the fears that were then entertained respecting it—yet his noble friend regarded it as a most perilous and uncalled-for experiment. He only regretted that his noble Friend and he had come to different conclusions with respect to their votes. And when the right hon. Baronet (Sir R. Peel) alluded to Lord Ashley and those other hon. Members who had resigned their seats, rather than repudiate their implied engagements to their constituents, the right hon. Baronet had no right to claim them as approving of the course he (Sir R. Peel) had taken; but, like his noble Friend (Lord Sandon), they probably considered that when the leader of the Conservative party had taken that course, and proposed a sweeping measure of free trade, that that was entirely a new element in the question—that it rendered the result inevitable—and that a protracted contest would be injurious to all parties. That, more or less, every thinking man must admit. But, with all the esteem which he sincerely entertained for his noble Friend and those honourable men, he felt it to be the duty of every independent Member of that House to oppose what he thought wrong, and support what was in itself right, irrespective of the acts of others, and of consequences for which he could not fairly be held responsible. True it was that they must reckon on defeat; but was that surprising? A comparatively little band suddenly separated from what had been a powerful and commanding body in that House. The noble Lord (Lord Morpeth) taunted them that they were without leaders or a head. Yes, their leaders had not only abandoned them, but gone over to the enemy. They were necessarily in some amazement and confusion—without concert, ill-arranged and unorganized, undisciplined, unofficered; but yet undismayed—and believing the cause in which they had enlisted to be just, they at least would not be deserters from it. But whether victory or defeat awaited them, they were resolved, with God's help, to be true and faithful to the end. The subject of the potato failure, on which the right hon. Baronet (Sir R. Peel) had laid such peculiar stress, had been already that night debated on a separate Motion by the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. O'Connell). He (Mr. Shaw) on that occasion had stated his opinion, that although there would be in Ireland a considerable aggravation of the usual periodical distress at the close of the present season, still that he thought very exaggerated statements had been put forth, and undue alarm excited on the subject. His desire was to be most guarded and cautious on a question involving the vital interests of the suffering poor in Ireland. But, while he would not for a moment check the sympathies of the House, nor discourage the efforts of the Government, he could not avoid deprecating exaggeration of the evil. He had taken great pains, and had considerable opportunity of making personal inquiries on the subject. He had communicated with contractors for large establishments, such as gaols and workhouses, and had watched the state of the market since the panic had ceased; he had visited and made personal inquiries during the autumn and winter in the counties of Cork, Tipperary, Carlow, Wicklow, besides the county of Dublin, in which he resided; he had held correspondence with various other parts of Ireland; and the result he came to was, that although there had been in the digging out season a general apprehension of failure, that that had since been greatly allayed, and that there was at present, in most parts of Ireland, the reasonable expectation of a fair average crop. In some parts he feared it would be very deficient, and that the evil had been increased by a waste of the potato, and a glutting of the market under the influence of an early panic. He should also observe that there was, that year, a more than ordinary supply of grain and other food in Ireland, as a substitute for the potato, and he trusted, likewise, better means of purchasing food, from a more more than ordinary employment of labour. He was, however, far from blaming the Government; on the contrary, he commended them for taking active means for averting the possible calamity of famine, and would gladly support every measure for employing the labouring population, and alleviating the sufferings of the destitute poor in Ireland. What he deprecated was, the attempt to turn the potato failure in Ireland to a purpose which neither the facts of the case nor sound reason could justify. But, assuming that the potato failure had been as general and entire as some persons had represented, could that for one moment be seriously urged as a sufficient reason for the sudden change of the Government on the subject of the Corn Laws? Were they to be told that a man of the ability, the knowledge, the information, and practical mind of his right hon. Friend at the head of the Government (Sir Robert Peel), could, for thirty years of public life, have recommended and advocated the system of protection as applicable to all the varied wants and circumstances of that great country, without taking into calculation the liability to partial failures, deficient crops, and bad seasons, to an extent far beyond what it could for one moment be contended the potato failure could affect the present controversy? It was only within the last few days that he had heard the right hon. Baronet (Sir J. Graham), in answer to the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Sharman Crawford), when proposing outdoor relief under the Poor Law in Ireland as a remedy for the potato failure, ridicule the notion that a temporary emergency should be met by altering the principle of an established system. With reference to the diminution of the committals for crime during the last three years, quoted by the right hon. Barenet, he, or any one acquainted with criminal statistics, could have told the right hon. Baronet that such was always the case when the demand for labour and the employment of the poor increased; and he thought the stimulus given in that respect by the railway works of the last three years had been rather unfairly kept back by the Government speakers. He was not there to deny that there was not only much that was plausible, but much abstract truth in the principles of free trade, and the maxims of political economy. They were not, at that side of the House, so ignorant as their opponents affected to think of the writings of Adam Smith, of Malthus, M'Culloch, Ricardo, and other eminent men of that class; they had read them, but they also knew a little more; and that while those doctrines might be very sound as regarded a new country, or if you could persuade all the nations of the earth to act with the reciprocity and simplicity of a single community, ruled by one authority, yet that when you came to apply them to such a country as England, you could only do so having a full consideration of her artificial condition, the national debt, and consequent heavy taxation, under which she laboured, as well as all the peculiar circumstances and complicated interests upon which essentially depended the welfare, prosperity, and happiness of that mighty Empire.

"A thousand years scarce serve to form a State,

An hour may lay it in the dust."

From whom had they so frequently and profitably learned these lessons of practical wisdom as from those very men who would now have them untaught them all? The speech of the right hon. Baronet (Sir Robert Peel) on the previous night, had been, from first to last, an absolute free-trade speech, unqualified by any one of the doctrines of caution or practical experience of which he had not only been the disciple but the teacher for the last thirty years; the new convert had almost surpassed the old professors, and the right hon. Baronet's whole argument was a petitio principii, in regard to that which was the real gist of the question in dispute—namely, whether the theories of the free-trade philosophy were to be applied in their full latitudinarianism, or cautiously adopted with the careful discrimination and matured wisdom which the existing circumstances of an ancient and highly artificial country suggested. The onus lay upon the right hon. Baronet to convince those whose opinions had been formed under his own teaching for the last thirty years, that he (Sir R. Peel) had been wrong all the rest of his life, and was only right since the 1st of last November; and that, either by the proof of altered facts or circumstances, not temporary emergencies—or by a new course of reasoning, not by the trite truisms borrowed from the school of the more consistent free traders, nor plagiarisms from the speeches of hon. Gentlemen opposite, or the Anti-Corn-Law Leaguers—all which had been a thousand times explained or refuted by the right hon. Baronet himself. His vocabulary or powers of reasoning could add nothing to those able arguments and eloquent statements made at former times by the right hon. Baronet and the Members of the present Government, with all the force of sincerity and truth; and it would be nauseous to the House and the country were he to attempt to reproduce them then, when, night after night, the process was going on of the words in which they had been spoken being eaten at that very table, where, and by the very men by whom, they had so recently been uttered. The right hon. Baronet the Secretary for the Home Department (Sir J. Graham) had tried to gulp all his at one swallow. But that was too much even for the stomach of the right hon. Baronet, and it quite overcame the nerves and gravity of the House. No, it would not do for the right hon. Baronet now to talk of "abrogating his inheritance," rather than wring his wealth from the poverty of the poor man. Was that, then, what the right hon. Baronet had been doing for the last thirty years of his life? That assumption was really the begging of the whole question. Did the right hon. Baronet think that even the poor rustic labourer was so simple as to be taken by that appeal, recollecting who it was that, as it were only the other day, so poetically described—

"The breezy call of incense-breathing morn,"

as compared with "the sad sound of the factory bell"—and drew the pathetic contrast between "the blooming garden and the foul garret"—the "innocent walk of the country Sabbath, and the debauchery, the sorrows, and the sins of the crowded manufactory;" who spoke of "sinking hearts and rebelling hands;" and asked, "where were the moralists that they did not lift their voices against those fearful consequences?" Ay, but where was the moralist now, when the right hon. Baronet was himself proposing to perpetrate a cruelty which he then described as "far more atrocious than sending the Poles to Siberia?" and declaring that that very system would make this "the last country he would wish to inhabit," which he now said was to render it prosperous, peaceful, and contented? Depend upon it, this sudden change in six months from the opinions of a whole lif-would much more affect the public characeter of the men than the soundness of their former opinions; and, unless that change could be supported by facts and reasoning very different from any that had been adduced in the present debate, their former opinions and arguments would remain un- touched, and bear all the impress of their intrinsic worth. But, passing from the six months' converts to those whose conversion appeared, as far as the public was informed, to have been brought about in not many more than six days, he came to what did appear to him the most inexplicable, what certainly had been the wholly unexplained part of the entire case; he meant the conduct of those Colleagues of the right hon. Baronet who had resigned their offices and raised the first alarm throughout the country because they disapproved of his proposed measure; and yet in not a great many days resumed their offices again for the purpose of supporting those same measures. It was no answer to say, that they were all honourable and upright men, who could not be influenced by dishonest or corrupt motives; he had the pleasure of a personal acquaintance with most of them, and he could say with the most unaffected sincerity that he knew all that to be true: there was one of them whom the whole civilized world knew to be incapable of trickery or double dealing. But that was not enough: as public men, the public had a right to demand a public explanation of them. It was not for this country only, but that the conduct of their Government might be intelligible to all other countries. It was not for the present time so much as for history. It had been justly observed by Lord Mansfield, if he rightly recollected, or some other eminent man, that the worst precedents had often been established from the best motives, and that when a sound principle was departed from, in order to meet the exigencies of a particular case, that which was in itself well intentioned, and in the particular instance just, could easily be turned by designing men, and from bad motives, to the purposes of injustice. The right hon. Baronet seemed to think that the personal conduct of the Members of the Government was a matter of little moment; but he protested against that doctrine; and while he did not attribute to the Members of the Cabinet the slightest taint of personal corruption or dishonesty of motive, yet if their conduct continued unexplained, he believed that the discriminating public of that and other countries would consider that it evinced an infirmity of mind—an instability of purpose—a political tergiversation—a species of Cabinet juggle unprecedented in the annals of English statesmen. Would their powerful neighbour, France, fail to draw the striking contrast between the eminent man the First Minister of the Crown in that country, by his firmness and consistency strengthening their Government, and consolidating their power—and ours, weakening and dissolving both by the exhibition of the very opposite qualities? Was that a moment that America, however you might attempt to bribe her to peace by a repeal of the Corn Laws, should see the public men of England wanting in that true English spirit which refused to succumb to blustering and clamour? He was persuaded the Members of the Government were all men of personal courage, who would not hesitate to risk their lives in the discharge of their duty; but he maintained that they would be handed down to posterity as the greatest political cowards that ever wielded the destinies of that great country. The right hon. Baronet (Sir J. Graham) not only seemed to speak with all the incautious zeal of a political apostate, but to be ready to act with all the desperation of a political coward. He made it the substance of his speech—the very point of his peroration. He did not see how it could bear any other construction than that the right hon. Baronet, for the sake of peace and good order, discarded that great party which had always been the friends of order—which comprised an immense proportion of the rank, the property, and, let what would be said to the contrary, the intelligence of the country—and who at all events inherited the principles as well as the blood of those who for centuries had been distinguished as the supporters of good order, the laws, and the Constitution. And, forsooth, to prevent revolution, anarchy, and ruin, the right hon. Baronet (Sir James Graham) would throw himself and the Government bodily into the hands of the Anti-Corn-Law League in England, and of the Repeal Association of Ireland! He had been much struck the other day by the speech of a tenant-farmer, he believed in Northamptonshire, who told the anecdote of a manufacturer's remark to him, "Why you farmers are fools; why don't you agitate and annoy the present Government, for that is the only way of obtaining anything from them?" The lesson had not been lost in Ireland; he observed that an hon. Friend of his, and one for whom he had much personal regard, widely as he differed from him in politics, (he meant Mr. Smith O'Brien), had hailed the present concession as an harbinger of a Repeal of the Union; and his hon. Friend was an enthusiastic and earnest man, who would not fail to profit by it; and he himself protested he should not be so much astonished, if, in two years hence, he found his right hon. Friend (Sir R. Peel) under the pressure of sufficient agitation, and in deference to popular clamour in Ireland, proposing some modified plan of a Repeal of the Union, as he would have been two years ago, had any one then predicted that he (Sir R. Peel) would, at the present time, have proposed the measure that the House was then discussing. As regarded Ireland, the measure would, in a twofold point of view, he unfavourable to the Union: first, it would take from the friends of that measure the argument of the great advantage Ireland derived from the certain demand of the English market for her agricultural produce, almost her sole staple commodity; and her imports of corn to Great Britain were yearly and rapidly increasing. Next, it would furnish to the repealers the strongest inducement to persevere, seeing, that while protection was abolished, and all bounties taken from other trades, a great encouragement and a monster bounty was offered to the trade of agitation. And when the right hon. Baronet (Sir R. Peel) had last night used a threat to the agricultural interest, which he thought was not very worthy of the right hon. Baronet, nor could much alarm them—that if annoyed he would not be very unwilling to yield the total and immediate repeal of the Corn Laws—surely that was but a further proof of the instability of mind of the right hon. Baronet, as a public man, and of his besetting infirmity to adopt the counsel of his opponents, and to yield that to pressure and to clamour which he refused to reason and to justice. The noble Lord (Lord J. Russell), in concluding his speech the other night, spoke of the "glory" to be reaped by the present Government, and the solid satisfaction by the noble Lord and his party from their coalition for the carrying of the measure then before the House. When he heard the noble Lord apply the term "glory" to the present Government as their share, he could not but think that the noble Lord was speaking bitter irony. If glory at all, it must be the glory of martyrdom. For let success or failure be the result, let that measure bring weal or we to the great interests of the country, surely glory, or honour, or credit, could never attach to the means by which the present Government would have carried it. No; the noble Lord, and men of all parties, in and out of the House, well knew that the conduct of the Government in that regard would have given a shock to public feeling, which would vibrate through every portion of the Queen's Empire, and shake throughout the world all public confidence in their public men. But that the noble Lord and Gentlemen opposite, as party men—and he was one of those who thought that the country must be governed by parties—he did not wonder that they as party men should feel great satisfaction. It was only natural. They saw on his side of the House their ranks broken—their strength scattered; his right hon. Friend (Sir R. Peel) having committed suicide on his own party with the very weapon by which he had formerly overthrown the noble Lord and his party: the man who, at the head of an united and overpowering phalanx of that House, had triumphantly driven the noble Lord from his position, now supplicating the noble Lord to spare the existence of his Government—["No, no."] Well, if they objected to that expression, he would correct it—then, at all events, existing as a Government upon the sufferance of the noble Lord; a Government obviously in extremis; Cabinet Ministers, without seats in Parliament, offices vacant, and which could not be conveniently filled up. For whether the popularity of the Government was tested by appeals to a Conservative or free-trade constituency—to an agricultural or metropolitan district—failure was equally likely to be the result. For his part, he said—and he said it in the sincerity of his heart—that when he recalled what the party led by the right hon. Baronet was three years ago, and what it had become, he was sorry his political life had lasted until he saw that day, and was impelled by an imperative sense of duty to renounce the leadership of the man with whom he had been associated throughout his (Mr. Shaw's) political life, whom, however, he trusted, he could still be permitted to call his right hon. Friend. Mistaken, and greatly mistaken, as he thought his right hon. Friend, he was satisfied that his right hon. Friend was influenced by a sense of what he deemed his public duty. He claimed for himself the same just construction of his motives, in opposing the measures of his right hon. Friend; and it was very painful to him (Mr. Shaw) personally. He would conclude by addressing to his right hon. Friend on his own behalf, and that of those who felt with him, the words which not very long before, and on a similar occasion, his right hon. Friend had addressed to the noble Lord opposite, the Member for London: "While you invite us to follow you, you present to us only distracted councils, conflicting Colleagues, statements of facts not to be reconciled, and arguments leading to opposite conclusions. We then peremptorily refuse to surrender our judgment to your guidance, and to throw the protection secured to agriculture, under the existing law, into the lottery of legislation, in the vain hope that we might by chance draw the prize of a better."

said, that he had hoped when the hon. Member for Bristol moved his Amendment, that they were to have the question of protection discussed; that when the right hon. Baronet moved that proposition which had been so often and so ably brought forward by his hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, they were to have the whole question fairly gone into, as being that about which the country really cared; for he would assure hon. Gentlemen opposite, that they never committed a greater mistake than in imagining that the great body of the people cared one farthing about the quarrel in the great Conservative patty. He had been an attentive listener during the debate, and had endeavoured to find out any reasons which might be alleged in favour of agricultural protection. The hon. Member for the University of Dublin would forgive him if he did not attempt any answer to his arguments; as, if he was not mistaken, this was a discussion on the merits of protection, and on these merits the hon. Gentleman had said not one syllable. He passed, then, to the speeches of those Members who had at all grappled with the question. The hon. Member for Bristol said, that the farmers of England would not consent to sell cheap corn, and buy dear sugar; and the hon. Member for Lincolnshire had stated that the Colonies of England had been protected at a heavy expense to the English farmer. From this he gathered it to be the opinion of hon. Gentlemen opposite, that it was not fair to give protection to the colonial sugar grower if protection were withdrawn from the British grower of corn. He admitted it most freely. If this great inroad were to be made upon protection, the principle must be extended to all—manufacturers, agriculturists, and colonists. If, then, it were unfair to protect sugar and not corn, it must be clear that if there were any industry to which the Government did not now afford protection, that the protection which it extended to agriculture must be unjust to the class pursuing the unprotected branch of trade. He supposed they would not deny that. Well, he was then, in some sense, the representative of one of the largest trades carried on in this country; a trade to which no Gentleman on the opposite side had ever proposed to extend the protection of legislative enactments. Since he had entered the House a proposition had been made to remove restrictions on the export of machinery—much of it used in the trade referred to. Every hon. Member connected with that trade had voted for it. Last year it was proposed to sweep away the protective duty of 10 per cent. from cotton yarn. Every hon. Member connected with the trade voted for the proposition. And there was now not a person in any way interested in the business, who did not regret that the right hon. Baronet had not swept away every vestige of protection. But he would not talk of the cotton and woollen trades—he would come to that great branch of industry of which hon. Members opposite talked so much, and appeared to know so little. He had passed by the door of the Central Office of the Protection Society the other day, and certainly the place did look what was generally called "seedy," and very forlorn. There was not the least appearance of business; but he observed a handsome brass plate on the door, marked "Central Society for the Protection of Agriculture and Native Industry." Now, what was this native industry that they were so anxious to protect? Did they recollect that in 1842 his hon. Friend the Member for Stockport (Mr. Cobden), proposed that before they proceeded to make a law to raise the price of bread, that it was becoming to ascertain whether it was possible to make a law to raise the rate of wages? What, on that occasion, was their answer? That spinners and weavers did not understand political economy—that it had long ago been settled that wages could not be raised by Act of Parliament. They had said so, and within an hour of the declaration they proceeded to make a law for the express purpose of raising the price of the wheat which they had to sell—the produce of their own estates. They would impose prohibition, and raise the value of the article to a certain pitch. They did not mind the starving of an operative in Lancashire, or a labourer in Wiltshire. To a certain point they seemed determined to carry prohibition. The population was increasing—the competition for food increasing, and, therefore, they hoped, as they said, that there would be an increase of profits to their farmers—a hope which the public was ill-natured enough to translate into a hearty aspiration for an increase of rents to themselves. But now, where was this protection to the labourer? He had heard a clergyman of the Church of England say that the protection of the labourer was the Poor Law. But it was as much the protection of the landlord. If the latter became poor he would betake himself to the Union. But what protection had the labourer akin to the protection which the Corn Laws gave the landowner? That House, within the memory of the oldest of those who now sat in it, had passed no law for the purpose of giving employment to the labourer, or raising the rate of his wages. The hon. Member, the senior Member, he believed, for Wiltshire (Mr. Benett), at a meeting held the other day in his county, made a long speech to the farmers, He reviewed the condition of the agriculturists in this happy land; and concluded by stating that, had he to come into the world again—had his life to be lived over again—he knew no condition which he would choose with so much contentment—with such Pleasure—as the humble lot of an agricultural labourer. He (Mr. Bright) really felt some delicacy in saying anything which could imply a doubt of the sincerity of the hon. Gentleman. The hon. Gentleman was older than himself, he had lived among agricultural labourers all his days, and he ought to know something of their condition. However, after all, he would take the opinion of the agricultural labourers themselves upon the point, rather than that of the hon. Member, landowner in Wiltshire though he was. Now, it happened that there was a meeting of peasantry, at which the matter was debated the other night, at Goatacre. He was aware that some hon. Members had stated that that meeting was got up by the League. And he must say that the omnipresence of the League had been so impressed upon hon. Gentlemen, that if he stated that the League had nothing to do with the Goatacre meeting, he believed that some of them would go away with the impression that, nevertheless, it had. But there had been a second meeting at a place called Bremhill, at which the chair was taken by a labourer named Job Gringell. He knew not whether this poor fellow was a pattern labourer of Wiltshire; but he told his auditory, "I be protected, and I be starving." And it was not in Wiltshire alone that such scenes were passing. Since he had come into the House a paper had been put into his hand, drawn up by a most respectable person at Tiverton, and containing accounts of the circumstances of twenty-eight families—the number of each family, and the wages earned by its members. And how much did these wages amount to? Why 7s. a week. These men—with wives, and five, and six, and seven children each—lived in miserable huts, and earned 7s. a week. The hon. Member for Northamptonshire said that the labourers there had 12s. a week. He asked him whether it was protection that had given the labourer in Wiltshire 7s. a week, and whether the peasant there had protection commensurate with that which Parliament had accorded to the owners of the soil? The hon. Member for Northampton was very pathetic on the subject of the coach-makers, who, he contended, were to be thrown out of employment by the change in the Tariff; but if the hon. Member would go to Southampton, and interrogate Mr. Andrews, the coachbuilder there, he would be told that at this moment he was constructing carriages to go to almost every part of Europe. Why, he would not insult his countrymen as some hon. gentlemen did. He would not believe that they were so inferior in skill and enterprise that they could be beaten on all hands—the man of taste by the Frenchman—the English farmer by the serf of Poland. But hon. Members persisted in expressing great horror at the consequences of the repeal of the Corn Laws. They were continually talking of an inundation of wheat. Now, we had different sorts of inundations. There were actual inundations of water—there were talked-of inundations of wheat; but it was the remark of a wise and acute writer on the subject, that rivers of wheat were as rare as rivers of gold. No country produced more corn than was necessary for its own wants, and there was nothing in the circumstances of any foreign nation which would make it a formidable rival in agriculture to this country. They drew from every acre in England a larger quantity of corn than was grown on a corresponding space in any country in the world. There could be no doubt of the fact, and as little of another fact, that of the produce of the land the English labourer got less for his share than fell to the lot of the actual tiller of the soil in any other country whatever. Why, if their prices were so much higher, as they said they were, and the wages they gave but 7s. a week, and if each of their acres grew nearly twice as much as any other acre in the world, how could any conclusion be come to other than that the labourers of England received a smaller share of the produce of their toil than the peasantry of any country in the world. Then look to the advantages by which the landowners were assisted. They possessed more manure, they could hire better and cheaper agricultural labour, they had superior implements, they had better roads, and markets more valuable beyond comparison, and yet they complained of not being able to get on. It was protection which had damaged them—they had protected their farmers into a state of decrepitude; and now, when a stimulus was to be applied, they trembled for the consequences. How did matters at present stand? Take the county of Chester. There they found a high aristocracy and a poor tenantry—land of fair quality most wretchedly cultivated—in fact all the elements for the production of a mass of pauperism as great as that in the southern and western counties, had it not been for the proximity of Lancashire. It was not that the people of Cheshire were inferior to their Lancashire neighbours; but that an unfortunate system of legislation had destroyed the vitality of agriculture. An hon. Member complained of the burden of poor rates on the land. He contended that the tenant-farmers paid no poor rate whatever according to the scale which the hon. Gentleman would lay down, and that their capital was wholly exempt from local taxation. Those opposite complained that he did not pay poor rate on the machinery in his mill, and on his stock in trade. Well, they could not wish to mete out another measure to the manufacturers from that which they applied to themselves. Let them see how this plan of taxation would work. The hon. Member might have a tenant who had some thousands wherewith to cultivate his land; that tenant paid no poor rate on his household furniture, on his stock, or his growing crops, or his cattle, or his horses. Not a farthing poor rate did he pay on all these things until a permanent improvement in the land rendered him liable. Was that true or not? Now if he (Mr. Bright) was obliged to pay on his machinery, it was quite clear the tenant farmers must pay on their stock. Such a system would never be found practicable, and as it would work infinitely greater injustice than service, he advised the hon. Member for Berkshire to say nothing more about it. [Mr. PALMER: I only quoted Sir Robert Peel's speech on that topic] Yes, but you used the right hon. Gentleman's argument as unanswerable at the present time. There was another burden on land about which they heard nothing in that debate, and that was the burden of game. Two sons of the Duke of Rutland had spoken in that debate, and were about to vote against the proposition of Government. Now in 1844 that noble Duke paid 915l. for damage done by game on 389 acres of land. Now he asked hon. Gentlemen how they could sanction a law which prevented a foreign supply of food being furnished to a starving people, and at the same time destroy quantities of food solely for their own gratification? I believe, in reality (said the hon. Gentleman), you are not afraid of a repeal of the Corn Laws. You are angry with the Government, but you are not afraid of protection being abolished. In this House and out of it you have said repeatedly, "that if the Corn Laws were abolished the land would be neglected, and no rent paid by the tenants (an assurance some of you will be reminded of before twelve months elapse)—the labourer would starve, the national debt not be paid—that there would be no revenue—that a proud aristocracy would be lowered—that the Church, and therefore Christianity, would be endangered — that the Crown itself would be insecure—and that the sun of England, whatever that means, would set for ever." This is a short list of the calamities that were to come upon the country. Now do you adhere to the statement, or are you anxious to repudiate it? Why, you exhibit no alarm, you show no resistance. You say that seven-ninths of the population are connected with agriculture, and nearly all are in favour of protection; and yet, though all the calamities I have enumerated have been predicted by you, their leaders and guides, there is not the smallest prospect of insurrection; and the right hon. Secretary for the Home Department assures us, that for the last twelve months not even the sound of sedition has been heard within the precincts of the Home Office. But you don't believe that any such dread calamities are at hand. Where, if you do, are your public meetings? There was a meeting in Dorsetshire of 1,500 persons. I myself addressed 3,000 in that county, and presented their petition for total abolition. But where else have you held meetings? Did you see the Lancashire petition with 300,000 signatures? Did you see the petitions presented by the Metropolitan Members, signed by 400,000? and hon. Gentlemen opposite coming down with their 150 petitions, with twelve or eighteen signatures to each? Where is public opinion in your favour? Look to the public press. All the newspapers which have the widest circulation are, almost without exception, in favour of the Government proposal. We have all heard of men going merrily to battle with a chance of losing their heads, or gaining that glory which they look on as a sufficient reward for every peril. We have even heard of some reckless and daring criminals who joked upon the scaffold; but never could we imagine men sliding into the unfathomable abyss of ruin with faces so jovial and complacent as those of the hon. protectionists opposite. You say the right hon. Baronet is a traitor. It would ill become me to attempt his defence after the speech which he delivered last night—a speech, I will venture to say, more powerful and more to be admired than any speech which has been delivered within the memory of any man in this House. I watched the right hon. Baronet as he went home last night, and, for the first time, I envied him his feelings. That speech has circulated by scores of thousands throughout the kingdom and throughout the world; and wherever a man is to be found who loves justice, and wherever there is a labourer whom you have trampled under foot, that speech will bring joy to the heart of the one, and hope to the breast of the other. You chose the right hon. Baronet — why? Because he was the ablest man of your party. You always said so, and you will not deny it now. Why was he the ablest? Because he had great experience, profound attainments, and an honest regard for the good of the country. You placed him in office. When a man is in office he is not the same man as when in opposition. The present generation, or posterity, does not deal as mildly with men in Government as with those in Opposition. There are such things as the responsibilities of office. Look at the population of Lancashire and Yorkshire, and ask yourselves whether, with all your valour, and although you talk of raising the standard of protection, and crying, "Down with the Anti-Corn-Law League," there are men in your ranks—and I defy them—who will take that bench (the Treasury) pledged to a main- tenance of this law. The right hon. Baronet took the only honourable course. He resigned. He told you by that act, "I can't any longer do what you want—I can't defend your cause." The right hon. Baronet, no longer your Minister, came back the Minister of the Sovereign and of the people, and not the advocate of a class who placed him at their head for their own special and private objects. Why, the right hon. Gentleman has not used you badly. He offered no obstruction to your taking office. The right hon. Gentleman stated distinctly that he had not advised the Sovereign to send for Lord John Russell, but that he left it to the Sovereign to use Her own discretion as to the party to be selected for Her Minister. It would be presumptuous in me to assume what were the considerations that swayed the decision of the Sovereign; but I doubt not there entered into Her mind the question, "Shall I select for office men pledged to uphold the present Corn Laws?" and if she had done so, she would thereby do that which would jeopardize the aristocracy, and do a thousand times more damage to your institutions than the instantaneous sweeping away of every vestage of the system of protection. Why, what sort of Government would you have made? There is a programme of your Administration printed this morning in the Times. There is the hon. Member for Somersetshire at the Board of Trade. I don't say that all the mills of Lancashire would shut up at the announcement, but irrepressible laughter or the utmost consternation must have spread in all the trading districts. Lord Stanley was to have been a leading man in your Government. Now, recollect the noble Lord's geography as to a Russian province. The hon. Member for Norfolk, who sits at the Table, challenged my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport to a discussion, at St. Andrew's Hall, Norwich, and, in the courtly language of the Central Society, he predicted there would be a "shindy." Well, the hon. Gentleman told the assembly that certain resolutions were advocated by Henry Clay, once President of the United States. Well, if one Member of your Cabinet does not learn better geography, and another more correct history, I am afraid your rule over the destinies of this Empire will not be very brilliant. You were, too, to have the Duke of Richmond. That noble Duke said, last week, that my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport got thirty thousand pounds a week by his business, and that one of his own tenants paid a larger amount of poor rates than all the Leaguers put together. That may be true; but if it is it speaks badly for protection, when one tenant of its greatest advocate is obliged to pay so much to the poor rate of his parish. But what sort of Government would Lord Stanley, the hon. Member for Norfolk, and the Duke of Richmond have formed? I am quite sure of one thing, that in all my public speaking, of which so much has been said elsewhere, I never did anything so disastrous to the aristocracy, and especially to the order of Dukes, as the noble Duke of Richmond has done for the last four months. Yes; for exaggerated statements, for charges against men from whom he differed, for such statements as he is said to have made last night, "that it would be easy to send itinerant agitators into the manufacturing districts to show that cotton would burn as well as stacks." And yet for men capable of such things, you profess yourselves anxious to remove the statesmen who now occupy the Treasury benches! You know the country would not tolerate such a Government a week. I do not believe that even you are anxious to place the protectionists in office; but you wish to be avenged on those who have forsaken the obligations of party, in order to obey the call of a great country, imploring them to work out its commercial deliverance. I was going to make an observation to the Member for Oxford, if he had not left the House: I fear the hon. Baronet has forsaken his usual associates in politics, the bishops. ["Oh!"] I understand all the bishops are to vote with the Government; if this be true, the orthodoxy of the hon. Baronet will at least be doubted. Why, would any Gentleman dare to say that when there is the intensest suffering in your counties, and when famine is at hand in Ireland, one dignitary of a Christian church would dare to give a vote for preventing the opening of the ports and allowing a supply of food to a starving people? Though the hon. Baronet may not truly convey on this occasion the sentiments of the bench of bishops, he is certainly the fitting representative of that Oxford which, from its celebrated decree in 1683 down to the present time, has done more than any other city to prove that there may be the greatest possible acquaintance with books, united to the profoundest ignorance of men. Now, as to the measure before the House, I hesitate not to say that it is a great measure, and does great credit to the Government. But great measures, like great pictures, are sometimes tarnished by defects; and I believe it is a serious defect in this measure, that it does not propose an immediate abolition. I know that the tenant-farmers in many districts prefer immediate to gradual repeal. I ask it, not only because there is no alarm in this country, and men are giving higher prices for their farms, but on this ground, that we have always advocated the repeal of the Corn Laws, because they were unjust, in defiance of the laws of God, and an odious abuse of the laws of man. If the emergency has been so great as to justify the Government in going so far, it pronounces their condemnation if they stop where they are. If there be suffering throughout England, and a pending famine in Ireland (and no man is insane enough to deny it), the Government can never defend the duty of from 4s. to 10s. for three years on the importation of food. Hon. Gentlemen say, the emergency is not great; but as some will not believe in a flood while it drowns only those in cellars, others will not give credit to the existence of famine until it reaches Belgrave-square. The hon. Members for Hertford and Warwick made an attack on the League, because they were said to purchase votes in the counties. I recommend them to read the decision of the Chief Justice of the Common Pleas. He says it was a course not only legal but laudable. If there be any Member of this House who fears that the incompleteness of the Reform Bill may give cause for agitation, it must be a matter of rejoicing to him that a mode has been discovered by which tens of thousands of honest, industrious, and meritorious artisans have brought themselves within the pale of the Constitution. But not a farthing have the Anti-Corn-Law League given for qualifications. We merely ask those who are of free-trade principles to qualify for counties if they have the means of doing so. A noble Lord elsewhere has called on the Government to put down that proceeding. The League is expressly framed for the purpose of procuring the abolition of the Corn Laws; and when that abolition is effected, its organization will be instantaneously dissolved—and not till then. I doubt not that the class of men, who, through its instrumentality may obtain their franchise, will use it at least as independently as the tenant-farmers, and as much for the good of their country. I ask the hon. Members opposite, representing pocket boroughs, and nomination boroughs, what they imagine their countrymen will think of the course they have pursued; when, if there were truth in the Minister—if there were truth in the statements of the hon. Member for Cork, and of all those who had any opportunity of being acquainted with the facts, there was a terrible calamity impending over the country, for which somebody must be responsible? The Government say they will not take that responsibility upon their shoulders, and sooner than do so, they risk everything to remove it, and ask this House to do that which common justice makes imperative. I ask you if you think that the execution of your vengeance against the Minister will be held as any excuse for the course you are now pursuing, by your country and by posterity? Do you believe it will? What a glorious recompense will it be to you, if, after that you have turned the Minister out of office, and have appealed to the country, you should see famine and distress stalking throughout the land, and recollect that you have been, through your factious proceedings in this House, the means of aggravating want and suffering among your fellow creatures?

In rising, Sir, to state the views which I entertain on this important question, I think I may fairly bespeak the indulgence of the House, for though I am in the habit of addressing public meetings, I am now about to speak on a question of great importance in an assembly with the forms of which I am imperfectly acquainted. Sir, I must say, in the first instance, that I have not been returned for a pocket borough—and that I came here on as independent grounds as the hon. Gentleman who last addressed the House. I will go further, and say that to the constituency who elected me, I can go back with as much confidence, and as much honesty of purpose, as that hon. Gentleman can revisit those whom he represents. Sir, this is a subject to which I have given the deepest consideration. Before I had the honour of being a Member of this House, I read with the greatest interest the speeches of the right hon. Baronet, and thought upon them as an individual who had a right to feel deeply in the welfare of his fellow men. I have listened with the closest attention to the speeches of the right hon. Baronet since I entered Parliament; and I confess that, having applied the most anxious consideration to his arguments, I am confirmed in the belief that those opinions which I entertained when I addressed the electors of Sunderland, were both sound and constitutional. While I deplore most deeply the calamity which it is anticipated may take place in Ireland, in consequence of the unfortunate train of events that has arisen there, and many comments upon which have been introduced into this debate; while I am prepared to sympathise with the sufferings which may possibly grow out of those unfortunate occurrences in the sister country; I nevertheless contend that this calamity, sudden in its effect, and which can easily be met by special measures of relief, should not be made the basis of a call upon this House to pass a measure of legislation which may injuriously affect the great interests of the country. I think that the right hon. Baronet has not treated his party with the fairness which they have a right to expect from him. I confess that I cannot coincide with the view which the right hon. Baronet has thought fit to adopt. In common with him, I entertain a strong sense of the emergency of the occasion; but, with the conviction pressing on his mind that it was necessary to do something at once, why, I ask, did he not come down to Parliament prepared to propose a measure, the object of which would be the immediate alleviation, if not removal, of the great misery, sickness, and distress, which are said to exist in Ireland? I regret that, not being provided with any such measure, and not intending to propose one, he should have dwelt with such harrowing effect on that subject; and entertaining, as I do, the deepest commiseration for the wretchedness which has been described to us as likely to ensue in Ireland, in consequence of the failure of the usual supply of food there, I call on the right hon. Baronet at once to provide for that emergency. I am sure that every one not divested of right feeling will give his cordial support to any such measure. I freely give mine; but I object to be called on to assist in passing a measure of general legislation to meet a merely special emergency. Having fairly stated to the House my views upon this branch presented to us for consideration, I come to the question itself—the policy of a repeal of the Corn Laws; and that, in my opinion, is a question of the gravest importance—of too much importance to be embarrassed with the extraneous matters which the right hon. Baronet has introduced into its discussion. The right hon. Baronet certainly grounded the appeal which he made to the House chiefly on the success of his Tariff. Last night he found that ground untenable, and went back to the state of things in the year 1825; but, Sir, for my part, I believe that there were other measures which contributed to the prosperity of the country rather than the action of the Tariff of 1842, even though that Tariff included the Premier's all-important repeal of the duty upon grease. Let us examine what was the condition of the country when the right hon. Baronet assumed what he calls the "helm of public affairs." I recollect that my first interview with any Member of Her Majesty's present Government had reference to the construction of a railway of some importance between England and Scotland. At that time the depression was so great, and the foreign exchanges were so much against us—in consequence, be it observed, of the importation of corn—at that time, I say, the balance of trade was so much against us, that it was impossible to raise funds for any railway purpose whatever; and in order to carry out a system which will, I believe, confer greater benefits on the country than any of the Prime Minister's measures—I was obliged to go from company to company, to beg that, with respect to the sum of about 500,000l., they would consent to guarantee some 6 per cent. to the proprietary of the line in question. Now, from 1842 a change came over the state of public affairs. We were then blessed with abundant harvests; and I must say that, when the right hon. Baronet spoke last night, I think that, in his exultation at our recent prosperity, he should not have forgotten that it was to those harvests, and to the success of railway speculations, that we were indebted for our national prosperity. [Sir R. PEEL: Hear, hear.] It is well for the right hon. Baronet to say "Hear, hear;" and had the prosperity I refer to been produced during a period when there was a large importation of corn, I perhaps might have joined in his "Hear, hear," also. But such was not the case. The prosperity was coincident with home production, not with importation. The right hon. Baronet spoke of the silk trade, and, said he, "See how the silk trade has increased." I admit it; but that trade has flourished under a system of protection. There has been a duty upon foreign silks; and what we want with respect to foreign corn is a similar duty for a similar purpose — a protection not immoderately large, but adequate to enable us to meet the burden of poor's rates, highway rates, land tax, and the other charges to which the agriculturists are peculiarly liable. The right hon. Baronet proposes to reduce the duty on shoes, paper, and other articles of manufacture. Why, Sir, I would ask him is this not a question of labour? The whole question resolves itself into that. If it were merely a question of machinery, I know we might contend, and contend successfully, with the whole world; but when it comes to be a question of labour, the burdens and the heavy taxation which the labourers of this country are subjected to, makes all the difference. The right hon. Baronet calls upon the poor man—the artisan, to exert himself and enter into competition with the labour of the world, but he seems to forget there are charges imposed upon the poor man here, which shackle his exertions and impair his energies, from which the artisan and the labourer of other countries are free. The shoemaker of France who contends against him, has to pay no poor rate, highway rate, or other burdens, has a great advantage in the contest. I have, however, no fear of the competition of the labour of France, or any other country, against the labour of this, if both are placed upon the same footing. We have been talking about the price of corn; and it is a question for serious consideration—and to this I would invite the especial attention of the House — what is the probable price at which we shall be able to purchase corn in this country, under the measure of the right hon. Baronet? I have taken some pains to ascertain what will be the probable price of wheat when the Government Bill shall have passed—I mean in the year 1849, when that measure will be in full operation. I have had large dealings in corn, and speak as a practical man; and I have not felt justified in offering any opinion to the House, until I consulted with men of practice and experience on the subject. This is a question which I think important, and which the House ought to weigh well before it decides on the proposition which has been submitted to it. In the year 1837 I had a corn transaction, in which I was enabled to deliver wheat at a port in this country—all charges paid, at 25s. a quarter. [An hon. MEMBER: In what year?] In the year 1837 I was enabled to deliver wheat in a port of this country at 25s. a quarter, each bushel weighing 61½ lbs. Now, I ask, what will be the case in 1849, supposing this measure to pass? And I say before you legislate on a matter of such importance—a measure affecting such vital interests—a measure that must tend to the weal or ill of the country—before you come to a decision repealing the Corn Laws altogether, you ought to have an account of the probable price at which corn can be sold, when this change shall have been effected. Why, if I were to add 10s. per quarter as the probable effect of free trade in corn to the 25s. I have stated, I do not think I should be taking an unfair view of the matter, or a view that is not borne out by the information I have derived from the average prices of corn under the new Bill. I shall rejoice if it should be otherwise; but at the same time I cannot refuse to give to the House information obtained from sources of the highest authority, and from my own practical experience. The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary at War spoke the other night of the distress which prevailed amongst the farmers and agricultural labourers of the county of Wilts. I heard the right hon. Gentleman's statement with considerable dismay; but I should like to ask him, when he said that protection was of no benefit to the farmer, whether he thought that 35s. or 40s. per quarter will make the farmer better off than he would be with 45s. or 50s.? To state this, it seems to me, is a mockery and an attempt to deceive. I listened with much attention to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. S. Herbert), and to his statements as to existing distress in Wiltshire. The hon. Member for Northamptonshire (Mr. S. O'Brien) has invited the right hon. Gentleman to visit that county. I invite the right hon. Gentleman to visit Yorkshire, and I promise him he will not find distress, or anything like distress, there; but I will not answer for what may ensue if the present Bill pass into a law. As to the question being a matter of rent, I believe firmly and honestly that it is no such thing; for if land were let without rent, the farmer would be unable, under the new law, to cultivate it and obtain prices that would remunerate him. The right hon. Baronet at the head of the Government believes that the farmers will be as they were before, and that it will not be necessary to make any relaxation from the charges of income tax; which, under the present law, the right hon. Baronet will take care that the farmer shall pay whether he realizes it or not. Now, I have got a paper here, to which I beg the attention of the House, and from which I shall take the liberty of quoting the language of those gentlemen who advocate the measures of free trade, which it seems the right hon. Baronet is to be the great instrument to carry out. It is a paper which I do not know whether or not the right hon. Baronet has ever seen—it is called the "League"—and that paper has ventured an opinion as to what will be the result of the operation of the proposed Bill in the year 1849. Having stated that it was probable the Bill would work well, they go on to state that it is equally probable that the "1st of February, 1849, may be the commencement of a period of unexampled distress to the whole class of farmers, a distress and ruin reacting in the most fearful way on the entire community." That is the opinion expressed by those persons who are the great agitators of this measure. I for one am not prepared, in the excitement of a moment, or under temporary pressure, to recant the opinions which I have entertained for many years. I am not prepared, because the right hon. Baronet has thought proper to change his opinions, for reasons which I believe are most unsatisfactory to every person who has heard them—I am not prepared, I say, to overthrow in a moment those principles under the influence of which this country has been brought to a state of prosperity unexampled in the history of the world. What was the state in which the right hon. Baronet found this country when he thought right to agitate the question which he has now brought before the House? I believe it is admitted on all hands that it exhibited every feature of returning prosperity. Agriculture was rising from its previous depression, and looking as prosperous as its most sanguine friends could wish. The commercial interests were equally prosperous, the exchanges constantly running in favour of this country. But, Sir, I will acknowledge that the effect of all this prosperity was to create a rise in prices. Still I should like to ask this House and the public, why, when all the interests of the country are prosperous, should not agriculture be prosperous among the rest? When bricklayers are getting 28s. a week, stonemasons 30s., and labourers from 18s. to 21s., why should not the agricultural interest enjoy that prosperity which extends to all other in- terests? But it seems as if a bane were to be put upon this interest, which I believe to be the great interest of the country. I am aware that it is utterly impossible in a country like this to contend for anything like an excessive protective duty, or anything like monopoly. But the right hon. Baronet does not carry out his own principles: he still leaves 10 per cent on manufactured goods. The shoemakers, for instance, are most hardly treated. I know several of that industrious class, and I know well that they will not be able to contend with the overwhelming flood of foreign competition which is preparing for them. Then there are the paper-stainers. It may be known that York has long been famous for paper-hangings. I know a gentleman in that trade who employs great numbers of persons at wages varying from eighteen shillings to a guinea. He has a most extended trade in all the large towns of the country. But, no sooner did the right hon. Baronet bring forward his Bill, than my friend received several letters stating that the effect of the measure would be to introduce large quantities of paper of French manufacture, this paper having previously been subject to a very large duty. My friend immediately reduced his works, and was obliged to discharge several men from his employment. I know that these are are not interests in which the great bulk of the nation are concerned; and that they may not, therefore, engage the attention of the House; but the real question is, "Are the real interests of the country concerned in the measure of the right hon. Gentleman?" I believe that the effect of this measure will be to throw a large tract of land out of cultivation. I believe that similar results will take place to those which occurred in the years 1835–36, when the average price of wheat was 39s. At that period large tracts of land were thrown out of cultivation, and applied to other purposes. If the proposition of the right hon. Baronet should be adopted, the consequences will be that the land will be uncultivated. No doubt for a short time there would be great cheapness; we should revel in low prices, and in the meanwhile have an abundance of supply. But my humble opinion is, that the right hon. Baronet will not derive that benefit from this circumstance which he anticipates. He will lose the best of all customers—the home customers—and then comes the time of a bad harvest, and a sudden change from low prices to high prices. What would the right hon. Baronet then do? If he continued to rule the destinies of this nation, the right hon. Gentleman would have to come down and propose some extraordinary measure for the sustenance and maintenance of the people. What would be the effect of low prices? It withdraws capital from the cultivation of the land; the skill and industry of the people are applied to other purposes and pursuits, and ultimately the country is thrown entirely upon a foreign supply of food, that supply being dependent upon circumstances over which this country never has any control. I believe that the effect of this measure will be to paralyse the industry of the country. Indeed, I fear its effect has already been very seriously felt throughout the land. The right hon. Baronet has referred to what occurred in October—namely, the alarm of a deficient harvest. He feared that we should have to send out our gold to buy foreign corn. The consequence would be, that the bankers, as they always did when they saw any prospect of our being obliged to buy foreign corn, would immediately shut up their coffers, and would show an unwillingness to afford that accommodation which they are ever ready to do under more favourable circumstances. The right hon. Baronet says, that this was rather the effect of other causes than of the price of provisions; but I can only express my entire conviction that we shall see the same thing happen whenever we have a short harvest. In short, Sir, my belief is, that if we agree to the measure of the right hon. Baronet, we shall throw a vast quantity of land out of cultivation, and the effects cannot but be most ruinous. But I understood the right hon. Baronet, when he brought forward his plan, to state to the House that he had a number of equivalents to offer to the landed interest as a compensation for the loss of protection. But on looking very carefully through the whole of his scheme, I must say that I cannot discover those equivalents. I ask the right hon. Baronet why he did not deal with the poor rates — why a man who is in the receipt of 3,000l. a year from the funds should not contribute in the same proportion to the poor rate as the man who derives 3,000l. a year from land. Why should you cast the burden of supporting the poor wholly upon the land? If the right hon. Baronet is determined to pass this measure, then let him charge the support of the poor upon the Consolidated Fund. I, as a practical man, assert that there is no difficulty whatever in doing this. I have had to do many things quite as difficult as that. Why, I ask again, should the fundholder, receiving his 3,000l. a year, contribute nothing whatever to the maintenance of the poor? It is monstrous that such an exemption should be made in his favour. The whole country is bound to provide for its poor by the highest command that can emanate to man. There are other burdens which are peculiarly oppressive to the landed interest. I recollect a deputation waiting on the right hon. Baronet respecting the malt tax. He said then that there were certain burdens which the land must necessarily support, and that they had, therefore, better be quiet and say nothing about it. But I again repeat, I do not see why the land should bear the principal burden of the poor rates, and the fundholder entirely escape. If the poor rate were charged on the Consolidated Fund, the poor would be provided for wherever they might be found; and there would, in that case, be no necessity for their removal from place to place, as the present law of settlement now renders necessary. Nor do I see why the land should be exclusively burdened with the county rates. I think it is extremely unfair to the agriculturists. What we want is justice. If you tax malt for the benefit of the revenue, why should you not likewise tax the manufactures of the country? Why not say to the manufacturers, "You shall not make cotton into gowns, before it has paid a tax for the benefit of the State." You say to the farmers, that they shall not make their barley into malt without paying a tax to the State. Why should you not say the same to the cotton manufacturer, if such be necessary to the State? Then, I say, this is really a labourers' question; it comes down, after all, to the poor labourer, whether a manufacturing operative or an agricultural labourer. Why not cheapen to him his tea and his coffee, before you call upon him in this way, and thus tax his industry and his exertions? Why not give him a boon along with that, if he must, in the end, pay the tax? For it is absurd to suppose that the effect of this alteration must not fall upon the labourer. Fall upon him it will—fall upon him it must, because the very thing which we have to contend with, as an agricultural country, against other States, is, that our labour is dearer than that of other countries. For the farmer of this country is bound to pay more; he is charged with many other things, which are no charge upon the labourer or the grower of corn in any other country. And, therefore, I say, if you call upon us to contend with these things, put us upon an equal ground. Why should we be called upon to contend with other countries, when we have not the same advantages? I admit there is the protection, as it is called, of the freight; but is it not notorious that the freights from Hamburgh and Dantzic are extremely small? But this is not a measure which ought to be passed hastily; it ought not to be forced upon the country without giving it the opportunity fairly to express its opinion. It is impossible to deny that the present Parliament, either by implication, or by direct declaration, was returned upon the question whether an eight shillings' fixed duty should be adopted, or whether the protective principles of the right hon. Baronet should be predominant. Let an appeal to the country be made, and let the country decide as to this great and important measure. You have already once had a Parliament that abused the confidence of this great country. At that time, I did not take a deep interest in politics; but I recollect the passing of the Catholic Relief Bill, and I recollect, as a consequence of the course then pursued by Parliament, the passing of a great measure of Reform—a reform which in my opinion, never would have passed, had it not been that Parliament had abandoned the great principles on which it was elected. Though the right hon. Baronet may be able, by the force of his majority, to carry this measure through Parliament, I do trust that he will have some regard for the feelings of the country—that he will appeal to the people, and let the country determine whether the Bill shall pass or not. If the relief of Ireland be the object of Her Majesty's Government, let them bring in any measure they think wise and expedient for the immediate relief of that important country, and I am satisfied there is no Member of this House who will not readily assent to any such temporary measure. I am perfectly satisfied, from my intercourse with my fellow countrymen—and it is pretty extensive—that however they may advocate this measure or the other in Parliament, they are, for the most part, decidedly hostile to the passing of this Bill in the present Parliament. If you pass this measure, you will make it objectionable to the country. The right hon. Baronet has referred to the parties who have been obliged to resign their seats. It was only their duty to do so; and I think it is not a subject of regret, but of rejoicing, that there have been found in this House some hon. Members, who are not forgetful of the solemn pledges which they gave, either by implication or direct promise—who are not forgetful of those engagements which bind man to man in this great commercial country—and who are actuated by feelings so honourable as to induce them to vacate their seats, rather than sacrifice their honour. I know, Sir, that the observations which I have addressed to this House are unworthy of the acceptance of the House and of the Government; but I can assure the Government that when I first aspired to a seat in this House, my principal object was to support the Government and the right hon. Baronet. I went to the hustings, and I stand here, with the honest purpose of promoting the interests of my country; but I do not stand here to vote for a measure the offspring of a divided Government, and which has not been the subject of that mature reflection which the measures of that Government have hitherto received. I hope the country will not suffer by the abandonment of this measure at present; and I think the Government will best consult the interests and feelings of the country, by, as I said before, giving their immediate attention to the condition of Ireland; by allowing this measure, perhaps, to pass through a division, and then appealing to the country to see whether there shall be protection or no protection—to see, Sir, whether the labourer of this country shall be called on to compete with the labourers of Poland and Prussia—the former receiving 12s. and 14s. a week, and the foreign labourer getting only 4s. or 5s. a week. I say let the constituencies of this country decide the question. The hon. Gentleman the Secretary at War said that the labourers of Wiltshire were only earning 8s. a week. I would recommend him, then, to give his serious attention to the alleviation of the pitiable condition of the labouring classes in his district, and he will then confer a vast benefit on his county. I can only say that if such a state of things had existed in my neighbourhood, I should have been ashamed to have acknowledged it, and should have tried to remove it. I feel that in opposing this measure, I shall be performing my duty to my constituents, and to that commercial interest in which I am so deeply and so interestedly concerned. The right hon. Ba- ronet stated that he was quite ready, when it would seem fit, to throw aside the three years that he gave to agriculture. I shall shall give my vote, believing that protection is a benefit to the agricultural interest. But as between the immediate repeal, and the extension of protection, I am, of course, in favour of the latter. If the right hon. Baronet had made out a case that the protection to agriculture should be less than hitherto, I should be prepared perhaps, to go along with him. It may be charged against me that I am deeply interested in land; but though I am largely interested in commercial pursuits also, I believe that I am as incapable as the right hon. Baronet of shaping my course by any reasons but a regard to the good of the country. This measure is favourably received by the Anti-Corn-Law League, though it may end, as they state, in an unexampled state of distress, spread over the whole of the community. I will conclude by expressing my intention to give my vote against the measure of the right hon. Baronet.