wished to ask the hon. Member for Lancaster what was the present state of the new House of Commons, and when that House was likely to be ready for the reception of Members?

said, in reply to the first question, it was not very easy to define exactly the progress that had been made with the new House; but he supposed the principal object of the hon. Gentleman was to ascertain whether it could be completed during the present Session for the occupation of Members. He (Mr. Greene) had no hesitation in saying that it would be perfectly possible to finish the chamber in which that House was to sit, so far as to render it fit for the reception of Members during the present Session; but he apprehended that it would be utterly impossible for Members to use the new House with convenience or comfort to themselves until the refreshment-rooms, the library, and other apartments were completed. He had yesterday written to Mr. Barry, to ascertain from that gentleman when he conceived it possible that the House would be ready; and in reply Mr. Barry said, speaking of the refreshment-rooms, and other apartments necessary for the convenience of Members—"These portions of the building are now so far advanced towards completion that, if a sufficient vote is taken shortly, the whole will be got ready for use by the commencement of the next Session of Parliament."

observed that considerable uneasiness had been caused among the persons engaged in the Greek trade, in consequence of reports which had appeared in the newspapers, as to the position of Admiral Sir William Parker on the coast of Greece. He wished to ask the noble Lord the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, if he could give the House any information upon the subject?

said, that for a considerable time past negotiations had been carried on with the Greek Government on the subject of compensation claimed by certain British subjects, as well as by inhabitants of the Ionian Islands, for wrongs inflicted upon them in Greece. Instructions had been given to Sir W. Parker that on his return from the Dardanelles he should proceed to Athens, and place himself in communication with Mr. Wyse, the British Minister at that Court, in order to support these demands. By the last accounts it appeared that a correspondence had been carried on between Mr. Wyse on the one part, and the Greek Minister on the other. Up to that time the result had not been satisfactory, but then the account left off. I may add that Mr. Wyse had gone on board the fleet, in order that he might be in a more proper position to act in concert with Sir William Parker, in enforcing the demands. I shall have no objection to lay before the House any papers connected with the subject which my right hon. Friend or any other hon. Member may please to move for.

begged to ask the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade, whether there was any intention on the part of Government to introduce a Bill for the audit of railway accounts this Session?

said, that another hon. Member had given him notice of asking a similar question to-morrow, but he had no objection to give an answer at once. The House would recollect that when he had expressed an opinion as to the necessity of such a measure last Session, certain hon. Gentlemen, who were directors of railway companies, deprecated any intervention in the audit of railway accounts by the Government, but at the same time they undertook to consider the course that they might think necessary to pursue during the recess. He had stated at the time that it was extremely desirable an efficient system of audit should emanate from that body rather than from the Government, but that he should not consider the Government precluded from doing what they thought necessary on the subject hereafter, should the directors fail in agreeing to an efficient measure among themselves. Until very recently he had been in hopes that a Bill would be brought forward on the part of the railway directors on this subject, though he had had no source of information on the question except the usual channels open to the public; but he believed it was now generally known that the directors had failed in bringing the matter to that form in which it could be brought before the House. At the same time he believed that a considerable body of shareholders were desirous to bring an Audit Bill before the House. He begged again to say, what he had stated last Session, that he thought it extremely desirable a measure should be brought forward by the proprietors of railway companies, if possible, and that it should be submitted without delay to the House. It was desirable that they should be put in possession of the views of the shareholders themselves, before any proceeding was taken; and if a Bill were introduced by them, he should be ready to give it the best consideration in his power; but, in the meantime, if no Bill were brought in by those connected with railways, he would not hold himself precluded from taking up the question.

brought up the Report on the Address, which was read a first time.

said, the question that had been asked a few minutes ago by the right hon. Member for Manchester, and the answer that had been given by the Secretary of State, reminded him that the assertion in the Speech from the Throne, that Her Majesty was in peace and amity with all foreign Powers, was at least premature. It appeared to him that that statement was one which ought not, under any circumstances, to have passed unnoticed by that House. This was the second year in which a very significant alteration had taken place in the terms in which the Sovereign had communicated to the representatives of the people the relations which subsisted between this country and foreign Powers. The language of the Royal Speech in 1845—language which he believed had been used on all recent occasions with the exception of last year—was that—

"Her Majesty continues to receive from all foreign Powers and States assurances of their friendly disposition."

Now last year there was a singular omission, or alteration, in the Speech from the Throne; and they were not assured, as they had been previously, that Her Majesty received from foreign Powers the assurance of their friendly disposition. But the language of the Speech this year was still more meagre and suspicious than that of last year, for to inform Parliament that—

"Her Majesty happily continues in peace and amity with foreign Powers,"

was merely to inform them that Her Majesty was not at war. Although, to a certain extent, that was a satisfactory announcement, it was not an announcement so complete that the commercial classes of this country could be assured that there was not a prospect of the continuance of those blockades for the establishment of which the present Administration had been remarkable. He would have taken the opportunity of calling the attention of the House to this subject the other night, but for the anxiety which existed on both sides to come to a decision upon the Amendment; and if he had then introduced the question, it might have tended to retard the debate. He might probably have passed the sub- ject unnoticed on the report, had it not been for that remarkable circumstance which had been referred to, and which, he thought he might say without exaggeration, had occasioned a very considerable sensation in this country. He would, therefore, take the opportunity of adverting very briefly to one or two other subjects connected with the foreign policy of the Government, upon which, after what had occurred, he thought they might reasonably expect some information from the Secretary of State. As the Speech stated that Her Majesty continued in peace and amity with foreign Powers, the noble Lord might perhaps find it convenient to inform the House whether Her Majesty's representative had yet been received at the Court of Madrid, and also whether there was any prospect of the Court of Vienna sending an ambassador to the Court of St. James's? The noble Lord might also find it convenient to offer to the House some explanation with regard to certain passages of the Royal Speech which appeared to him (Mr. Disraeli) of a very ambiguous character. The Speech informed them that—

"In the course of the autumn differences of a serious character arose between the Governments of Austria and Russia on the one hand, and the Sublime Porte on the other, in regard to the treatment of a considerable number of persons who, after the termination of the civil war in Hungary, had taken refuge in the Turkish territory. Explanations which took place between the Turkish and Imperial Governments have fortunately removed any danger to the peace of Europe which might have arisen out of these differences."

That seemed to him to be a complete statement; but a subsequent paragraph, which appeared to be introduced without any coherent or logical consequence, informed them that—

"Her Majesty, having been appealed to on this occasion by the Sultan, united Her efforts with those of the Government of France, to which a similar appeal had been made, in order to assist, by the employment of Her good offices, in effecting an amicable settlement of those differences in a manner consistent with the dignity and independence of the Porte."

Perhaps the noble Lord would inform them how it was that after the explanations had taken place between the Turkish and Imperial Governments, which removed danger, and were so completely satisfactory, the mediation of England and France was asked to effect that which had been already accomplished. The only way in which he could account for this obscurity was by supposing that in the hurry of the printer the paragraphs might have been transposed. If the three paragraphs had been thus arranged, first, as to the statement of the difference; secondly, as to the mediation of England and France; and, thirdly, with reference to the fortunate termination of the negotiations, they would have been perfectly intelligible to the House and to the country, and would have been quite satisfactory. But why England and France should have interfered, when according to the Speech there was nothing to interfere about, when an amicable arrangement had already taken place between the Sublime Porte and the two Imperial Powers, was a matter, he confessed, beyond his comprehension, and one which he thought fairly required some elucidation from the Secretary of State. There was also another point on which he thought the noble Lord might perhaps find it convenient to give some information to the House. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had congratulated the House the other night on the revival of commerce which had been occasioned by the termination of the blockade in the north of Europe. The House, no doubt, well recollected the circumstances which led to that blockade. It was now about two years since he (Mr. Disraeli) called attention to those circumstances, anticipating that a blockade—which afterwards occurred—would take place. The noble Lord, on that occasion, although he recognised the importance of the circumstances, gave the House those sanguine and satisfactory assurances in which he dealt so liberally, that no inconvenience would result to the commercial interests of this country. Nevertheless, in due time a blockade did occur in the Baltic, which was found at the time extremely vexatious to British commerce. Now, he would like to know from the noble Lord whether the Danish question had yet been settled? Three or four times since he (Mr. Disraeli) first brought the subject under the consideration of the House, he had recalled it to the recollection of the Government, and on every occasion the House had received from the noble Lord the most satisfactory assurances that, though the question was not settled, it would probably be settled in the course of the next week or ten days. Two years had now elapsed; the blockade had certainly not been revived; but, as far as he could judge from the circumstances open to all Members of that House, there was no reason why a blockade in the north of Europe might not again be established, because the settlement the noble Lord had assured the House would take place, and which it was understood was to he brought about by the mediation of the noble Lord, had not been effected. Instead of hearing of the satisfactory settlement of this question, they learned to-day with the greatest surprise that our free-trade Government—which had occasioned so many blockades that they had gained a peculiar character for such measures—had established another blockade, which must be extremely vexatious to the commerce of this country. He hoped the noble Lord would take the present opportunity of giving the House some details upon these points. He hoped the noble Lord would assure them that the relations of this country with Spain and Austria were such as might be expressed in the language which had been customarily used by the Sovereign in communicating with Parliament—that the most friendly dispositions subsisted between Her Majesty and those Courts. He trusted that the noble Lord would throw some light upon those ambiguous paragraphs in the Speech which referred to the transactions in the Levant with reference to the Sublime Porte; that he would also assure the House that there was a prospect of an immediate settlement of the question between Denmark and Schleswig-Holstein; and that, without waiting for papers, he would give them a more popular and satisfactory account of our relations with Greece. He (Mr. Disraeli) would like to know what had been the immediate cause of this unhappy misunderstanding, because there had to-day appeared what professed to he a semi-official account of the transaction, and the great offence on the part of the Court of Athens appeared to be, that they had deprived a British subject of some land which he had purchased in Greece. In ordinary times, no doubt, that would be a sufficient cause for the interference of the Government of this country in vindication of the rights of one of its subjects; but they were now living in days when British subjects were deprived of their interest in the land, without any sympathy being expressed for them even in the Speech from the Throne. It appeared to him, therefore, hardly a sufficient cause that, because the interest a British subject had in the land might have been compromised by the conduct of the Greek Government, Her Majesty's Ministers should send a squadron of three-deckers and steam-ships to vindicate his rights. The measure, however, showed a sympathy with the territorial interest, which he (Mr. Disraeli) was very glad to see entertained by any Member of the Government.

said, that before the noble Lord answered the questions put by the hon. Member for Buckinghamshire, he (Mr. Roebuck) wished to add a complement to those questions. As he understood the matter, there were certain long outstanding claims made by persons either in the character of British subjects, or who actually were British subjects, which had not been satisfied by the Greek Government. But there was also, as he understood, another claim of a much more important character—namely, with respect to certain islands to which the Government of England laid claim, and which claim had not been satisfied by the Government of Greece. The question, therefore, really became one of national importance. He believed that the Governments of France and Russia were parties to the guarantee of the integrity of the monarchy of Greece, and, therefore, any claim on the part of England to any portion of the territory of Greece, was a matter in which France and Russia had a right to interfere; and every step taken by England with regard to the monarchy of Greece, must have been taken with the full understanding on the part of our Minister for Foreign Affairs that he was running the risk of calling in the intervention—perhaps the hostile intervention—of the Governments of France and Russia. Passing over, then, the case of the Portuguese Jew, and the outstanding claims so many years old, the question became one of national importance—of importance to the whole world. Had we sent a fleet to the Piræus for the purpose of enforcing the claims which he had mentioned, before there was an understanding with the Governments of France and Russia—sent a fleet in a hostile shape, with an intention to resist the Governments of France and Russia if they attempted to interfere? Passing from this to another question of the hon. Gentleman opposite, with respect to Spain, he (Mr. Roebuck) hoped the noble Lord would be able to tell the House that there was not the slightest chance of any arrangement with Spain. We had gone on so admirably while we had no arrangement with Spain, and we went on so exceedingly ill while we had anybody there, that he thought the most enviable condition in which we could pos- sibly be, in regard to the Court of Spain, was when we had no representative there. The thing that would give him most pain would be to see Spain sending a representative here, and an ambassador sent hence to Spain. He was very much inclined to believe that from this singular case we might arrive at a general proposition, and that the sooner we reduced our diplomatic establishments and expenditure, the better. He hoped Gentlemen opposite, who were casting about in every possible way to cut down the expenditure, would direct their attention to this matter. They said they were about to be most vigilant and ardent economical reformers, and he trusted their aid would not be lacking when the proper period came for cutting down what appeared to be an unnecessary expenditure.

following the example of the hon. and learned Member for Sheffield, wished also to call the noble Lord's attention to another point. In reference to the passage in the speech of the Lords Commissioners relative to the settlement of the differences that had arisen between Austria and Russia and the Porte, the Secretary for Foreign Affairs might be congratulated on the noble position his Government occupied in the solution of those differences, though he (Mr. Anstey) could have wished our interference had been better timed, and had secured the total emancipation of the Sultan from the evil influence which we, in concert with France, had enabled Russia so long to exercise over him. But the subject to which he rose to call the noble Lord's attention, was that of the state of affairs in the principalities of Moldavia and Wallachia. In the capacity of mediator between the Porte and Russia last year, Sir Stratford Canning, our Ambassador, was enabled to bring about an accommodation—which he (Mr. Anstey), for one, regretted, being more willing that the question should have been decided in another manner—an accommodation in virtue of which Russia, undertaking to withdraw her troops beyond a certain number (limited, he believed, to 10,000), was to be allowed to occupy those principalities to that extent only down to the end of last year. Now, it was asserted, and most authentic evidence had been laid before him to enable him to judge of the probability of the assertion, that not a single Russian soldierhad been withdrawn—that the number of troops occupying these principalities at the date of the accommodation in question had been very materi- ally increased—and that the Turkish Government had not ceased to arm its population and to strengthen itself on that frontier, in the anticipation, amounting almost to an absolute certainty, that when the approach of spring should open the passes of the Balken, that question, if not that of the extradition of the Hungarian refugees, would be reopened and become a pretext for an aggressive war. His question, then, was this—were our Ministers in possession of such satisfactory information on the subject of this occupation of the pricipalities of the Danube, as should justify them in calling upon the House not to append to their congratulation of Her Majesty in the reference to Russia, the expression of a hope that Her Majesty, having regard to the perfidy of that Power, as evinced in past transactions, and to the alarming attitude it continued to present on the side of the Danube, would, in entering into new treaties, or in maintaining correspondence with Russia, with regard to subsisting treaties, take care to exact real security for their performance.

Sir, adverting, in the first instance, to the questions put by the hon. Gentleman opposite the Member for Buckinghamshire, and referred to by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sheffield, relating to Greece (though not put first in order), I would state—giving that explanation which the hon. Member desires—that the grievances for which redress has been asked have been chiefly these: —In the first place, there is a Mr. Finlay, who has been long established in Greece, and who had lands there, part of which was taken forcibly from him several years ago for the purpose of forming a portion of the gardens of the palace which King Otho was building. Mr. Finlay has been, for a long course of time, supported by Her Majesty's representatives, endeavouring to obtain proper payment for the land so taken. That payment, however, has never been got. That is one of the wrongs for which redress has been demanded. The other case is that of a Gibraltar subject—not a Portuguese Jew, as stated by my hon. and learned Friend—of the name of Pacifico. His house, in Athens, was violently broken into at mid-day by a mob, of which part were soldiers, in the service of the King of Greece, some gendarmes; the son of the Minister of War heading and encouraging them. The demands for redress in respect of this have not yet been attended with success. There were, be- sides, Ionian subjects, who, upon different occasions, were victims either of plunder or of bodily ill-usage, for whom also compensation has been required. The other question about the possession of the two islands stands thus: —By the treaty between Russia and the Porte, signed in 1800, the Ionian State was constituted with the consent of the Sultan, and that State was to consist of certain islands therein named, and of all other islands and islets lying between those islands and the coast of Greece, up to a certain point. In pursuance of that treaty, the two islands in question, Elaphonisi and Sapienza—two very small islands, though, from circumstances, one of them is of importance—were by a decree of the Ionian Government in 1804, by name aggregated to two of the larger islands named in the treaty; and those islands have ever since been considered by the Porte, and have been considered by the Sovereign of Greece, as part of the Ionian States. When the protocol of February 1830 was signed, by which the Greek State was constituted, the territories of that State were specified as consisting of certain portions of the Continent, and of certain islands; those islands did not include the islands of Elaphonisi and Sapienza. There can, therefore, be no doubt whatever that those islands have been, ever since the treaty of 1800, confirmed by the treaty of 1815, portions of the Ionian States. With regard to our relations with Spain, which the hon. Gentleman opposite wishes to see renewed, but which my hon. and learned Friend wishes to remain suspended, I am not enabled to state that diplomatic relations have been renewed. Communications, not official, have taken place. After the discouragement the hon. Gentleman has given me with regard to anticipations of the future, I will confine myself at present to stating simply what is—not informing him what I may hope or not hope as to the future; that undoubtedly, up to the present moment, no arrangement has been made by which the diplomatic relations between the two countries have been renewed. With regard to our relations with Austria, those relations—I mean diplomatic relations—are such as are well known. The Austrian Government has not, at the present moment, a Minister at this Court, the Minister who was here having, for private and personal reasons, retired from that position; but, as an indication that the feelings of Her Majesty's Government towards the Court of Austria are of the most friendly nature, we have continued our Ambassador at the Court of Vienna, though, for the moment, there is no such representative of Austria appointed to the Court of St. James's. Of course, if that arrangement should become permanent, and the Austrian Government should continue to have here only a functionary of a lower rank than that of ambassador, it could not be expected that Her Majesty's Government should continue the appointment of an officer of that rank at the Court of Vienna. It is well known that differences of opinion have existed for the last few years between the Government of this country and the Government of Austria upon matters of great importance to Austria; those differences of opinion must often exist between Governments taking respectively their own view of affairs, but they have not led to any cessation of friendly relations between the two Courts. No person can be more sensible than Her Majesty's Government are of the importance to Europe that the two Governments should be upon friendly and intimate terms. We are sensible of the great importance of Austria as an element in the general balance of power in Europe; and we see with great pleasure any progress which the Government of Austria may make towards a friendly reconstruction of those elements which for a time were placed in jarring collision. With regard to Denmark, my memory is not so good as that of the hon. Member for Buckinghamshire; I do not recollect ever having assured this House that in the course of a week or ten days from the time when I was speaking the question would be settled. I may have stated, that certain preliminary arrangements—that an armistice, forinstance, would be concluded; but I never so far shut my eyes to the difficulty of the questions involved, as to hold out to the House that in a week or ten days the whole of them were likely to be settled. The House will remember, that in the course of last summer a preliminary treaty was signed, and an armistice concluded. The hon. Member treats the Danish blockade as if it was our blockade. It was established by Denmark very much against our inclinations. The hon. Member, in dealing with the question, seems to consider the British Government as invested with some great power of settling these questions according to its desire, and within the period it may wish. [Mr. DISRAELI: You can interfere under the treaty.] Yes; but how are you to adjudicate upon points on which the parties may happen to differ? Those who have attended to this Danish question must know that it is, of all questions perhaps that ever arose in Europe of equal intrinsic importance, one of the most complicated, with regard to the number of parties interested in it, and the number of interests involved in it. You have the Danish nation, the duchies of Schleswig and Holstein, each having its particular feeling; you have Germany, taking it up as a German question; you have the Prussian Government dealing with it; you have the Governments of Russia, of Sweden, of France, feeling it a matter in which they are more or less interested, although they may not join in the negotiation in the same manner as England. Therefore it is a question with regard to the settlement of which more separate feelings and wills must be brought into unanimity than perhaps in any question of equal importance ever submitted to the skill of negotiators. I cannot pretend to say, that hitherto there has been much progress, during the recess, in regard to the final settlement of this question. It is well known, that for a considerable time the central power in Germany was in a state of abeyance; it has only been recently reconstructed. Prussia had been the primary negotiator on behalf of Germany, not as Prussia, but as appointed by the central power in Germany. It was necessary that Prussia should be reauthorised by the new central Power; and that has been done, and the negotiation has been renewed. I should hope, from the assurances of a friendly nature which are given to Her Majesty's Government—even though those assurances have not been mentioned in Her Majesty's Speech—I should judge, from the tone of the parties concerned, that they are entering into that negotiation with a real and sincere desire to bring it to a friendly conclusion. I assure the House that no effort will be spared on the part of Her Majesty's Government to induce the parties to come to a final settlement. But there are grave questions to be determined. There is one relating to the succession to the Danish Crown; another, what should be the constitution of the duchy of Schleswig in relation to the other part of what we call the Danish monarchy. These are points in- volving national feelings and considerations; and however much we may wish to see them settled, and in a short time, yet when so many different parties are concerned, we must not expect that matters of that kind can be arranged so quickly as we should wish; and more especially considering that Her Majesty's Government is only acting as mediator, and that we have no power to exercise authority in regard to these questions. Now, with regard to the differences between Turkey and the Imperial Governments, the hon. Member for Buckinghamshire complains that the second paragraph relating to that subject in the Queen's Speech, states that explanations had been entered into; and a third paragraph comes afterwards announcing the employment of the good offices of Her Majesty's Government. It was impossible to put the two paragraphs side by side together; but it is not the less true that the good offices of Her Majesty's Government did accompany the explanations between the two parties concerned, and I think we may fairly assume that the exercise of those good offices, in concert with those of the Government of France, did materially contribute to render successful those explanations which took place between the parties concerned. The hon. and learned Member for Youghall wishes to know whether it is likely that the Russian Government will fulfil the engagements in regard to the principalities of Wallachia and Moldavia which it entered into with the Porte in the course of last year. It is quite true, I believe, as he has stated, that at the present moment the Russian force in the principalities considerably exceeds the number stipulated by the arrangement of Balta-Liman concluded last year; but one must make some allowances for the various and difficult circumstances which have arisen since; and it is not fair to infer from the fact that that force has not yet been reduced to the stipulated amount that it will not be so reduced at an early period. I can assure the hon. and learned Member that I have no apprehension of that attack on Turkey which he seems to think intended by the Russian Government. I am persuaded—and my persuasion is founded on assurances given by the Russian Government—that that Government entertains none but friendly feelings towards the Turkish empire; and that as soon as local circumstances will permit, the Russian force now occupying the prin- cipalities will be reduced to the number stipulated by the arrangement of Balta-Liman. That number, as he stated, is to be 10,000 on behalf of each of the parties; the Turkish force has been reduced, I believe, to the number of 10,000, and I feel perfectly convinced that the Russian force will he reduced to the like number so soon as the season admits of the removal of troops. I will just add, with regard to blockades, that I am not aware that we have instituted a great number since we have come into office; the Government which preceded us instituted several during its existence. I remember three, at least, on the coast of South America. I must beg to disclaim any responsibility for the blockade established by Denmark. It was exceedingly injurious to the commercial interests of this country, and I assure the House that no effort shall be wanting on the part of Her Majesty's Government to persuade the parties to come to some final and satisfactory arrangement, which shall put out of question any renewal, either by land or by sea, of hostilities between the Danes and the Germans. They have the strongest inducements to be on the best terms with each other. If the Germans have an interest in regard to Denmark, it is that Denmark should be maintained as a separate and independent State; and if the Danes have an interest in regard to Germany, it is that the intercourse between Denmark and Germany should be as free as possible.

said, the noble Viscount had most successfully avoided the slightest reference to that question which, without disparagement to the others, he ventured to assert was by far the most important, namely, whether in that crisis of affairs now existing in Greece, the officers under the authority of Her Majesty's Government had or had not acted with the concurrence of France and Russia; the whole danger of the crisis (saying nothing of the credit or discredit of attacking a weak State, even in a just cause) being that of provoking a European war, if Her Majesty's servants had acted without that concurrence. The noble Lord had carefully evaded the point, satisfactory as his speech was on some others. He (Sir R. H. Inglis) trusted that he would state that whatever measures had been taken on the part of England had been taken, first, in accordance with existing treaties; and, secondly, with the concurrence of her allies in the treaties relating to Greece, namely, the Governments of France and Russia. Another question also he wished to ask was this. Whether M. Pacifico, whose wrongs were, he was sorry to say, in danger of being redressed at such risk to the peace of Europe, were or were not a British subject? And, lastly, whether Mr. Finlay were or were not a British subject? Because, he apprehended, no one would contend that England was bound to redress the wrongs of any and every man who chose to call for her protection in any part of the world. He regretted the loss of the services in Greece of a gentleman who was second but to one as a diplomatist—he meant Sir E. Lyons. And he regretted that a Minister of such special experience in the relations between Greece and England should have been displaced by one, who, whatever were his other merits, had no diplomatic experience in Greece or in any other country. He did not assert or insinuate that it was in consequence of this change; but it was a fact unanswerable, that, subsequently to the removal of Sir Edmund Lyons, and within a few months after the arrival of the present Minister, the actual danger had occurred; no such danger having arisen in the long period during which Sir E. Lyons had represented the name of England. He alleged nothing against the discretion of his successor; but the present state of things justified an additional regret that the affairs of this country, in Greece, were no longer conducted by the eminent diplomatist whom he had named. He awaited the reply of the noble Lord to the important question originally put to him by the hon. and learned Member for Sheffield.

Sir, proceedings of this kind, which are directed to obtain from the subjects of one country compensation for injuries sustained by them, are carried on by the agents of that country, and it is not usual to make any appeal to the agents of any other Power. With regard to the hon. Baronet's allusion to Sir T. Wyse, I should say that those questions arose during the period when Sir E. Lyons was in Greece; they were pressed and urged by him without avail, and had been pressed and urged by Sir T. Wyse without avail. It is only in consequence of our experience that no efforts of either have obtained redress, that the interference of the Admiral Parker took place. With respect to the other question, the parties are both British subjects.

said, that the hon. Member for the West Riding had challenged the protectionists to rise and defend protection on its merits. Now he was not going to produce any fire-works of rhetoric in support of his opinions, but he would undertake to show the House by facts and figures that the agricultural producers of the country were being ruined by free trade. He advanced this position boldly—namely, that the farmers and labourers of the kingdom must be irretrievably ruined by a persistance in the policy of free trade. All the hon. Gentleman's experience of agriculture was derived from his recent acquisition of a farm which consisted of two plots, one of twenty-one acres, occupied by a miller, the other of thirty-two acres, occupied by a shopkeeper, neither of whom were dependent for subsistence upon farming. He would ask the House whether such examples were sufficient to warrant the hon. Member for the West Riding of Yorkshire in bringing them forward as proofs of the success with which agriculture could be followed under the reduced prices occasioned by free trade? Now he (Mr. Packe) as a tenant-farmer, would give the results of his experience on a farm of 100 acres, which he held near Loughborough, and with the permission of the House he would read a statement of the comparative expenditure and receipts of that farm under protection and under free trade;^* but before doing that he would call the attention of the House to a matter connected with that part of the Speech relating to the sanitary condition of the people; and here he must leave it to the House to determine with what degree of justice it was expected that the land should not only provide the poor with cheap food, but bear the charges of drainage and of making the air wholesome for the people. The Sanitary Commissioners had sent a letter to Loughborough directing that it should be drained; and he begged to assure the House that no one could be more desirous than himself of doing everything that could be required for the health of the people, and by the blessing of God to avert the return of the pestilence of last year; but he could not see why the expense of doing so should fall exclusively upon the land. In the present instance, however, as his farm was in that parish, he would have to pay 6s, 6d. an acre for that purpose.

^* See Table in following page

said, that the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down, though he attended quarter-sessions regularly, appeared to be totally ignorant of the principles which regulated society in reference to commerce and manufactures. What would be said if the manufacturers were to come to Parliament, and—representing the deplorable state to which they were reduced by the reduction of the prices of their manufactures: that they were obliged now to sell cotton goods for which they formerly obtained 9d. a yard for 3d.—demand protection, on the ground that Par- liament had been instrumental in producing that result, in consequence of its having consulted in its legislation the interests of the consumer rather than of the producer? Such a demand would be scouted as ridiculous. Gentlemen opposite seemed to have been asleep for the last half century, if they supposed that was the principle on which those things proceeded. He hoped his hon. Friend the Member for the West Riding would treat the uncalled-for attack which had been made upon him by the hon. Gentleman who had just spoken, with that contempt which it merited. The hon. Gentleman appeared to fancy it to be the duty of the House to attend to whatever demand the producers of corn might bring before it, without any reference to the interests of the consumers. The hon. Gentleman mistook altogether the duty of Parliament. Throughout all its proceedings, except while monopoly prevailed in favour of the landed interest, Parliament had proceeded on the opposite principle. He recollected, certainly, when monopoly was the law of the land, the interests and dictates of the monopolist producers only were respected; but as monopoly was now scouted, and the cry on the other side, as well as on that, "no monopoly," he could not understand the drift of the hon. Gentleman's argument. No speech had satisfied him more in the course of the debate on the Address, than that of the hon. Member who moved the Amendment. Though he did not agree in all his conclusions, he went fully with him in his demand for carrying out the free-trade principle in everything. No doubt the sudden transition from protection to free trade in corn occasioned much difficulty to the producers; but that difficulty was mainly due to the agriculturists themselves, who had strenuously refused to proceed gradually from the bad and unnatural to a good and natural system. But hon. Gentlemen opposite would never listen to any proposition of that kind. In 1829 he endeavoured to show the absolute necessity of abandoning the unnatural and artificial state of things in regard to the corn laws which then prevailed, and proposed that they should do it gradually by fixing a duty of 10s. for the first year—and he would not have objected had it been greater—and reducing it 1s. a year afterwards until they returned to a state of perfect free trade; but out of a full House—he believed nearly 600 Members—only thirteen voted for the proposition. Since then, however, a revo- lution had taken place in men's minds; the evidence taken by the Import Duties Committee had opened the eyes of the whole world, he might almost say, but certainly of the mass of the people of this country, and free trade in corn had been established. Well, now, hon. Gentlemen who represented the agriculturists, and who were formerly the great opponents of that measure, ask to be placed in the same category as the rest of the community. That was a most reasonable and just demand, and he, for one, was prepared fully to concede it, and to say that whatever burdens there were upon land which other interests were free from, ought to be removed. He was quite confident that that was the principle on which free trade had been established, and that the right hon. Baronet the Member for Tamworth, who proposed and carried free trade in corn, never intended to have any part of the manufacturing interest protected while he deprived agriculture of protection; and he was sure that the right hon. Baronet's assistance would be given towards the establishment of a perfect equality. It was useless to bring before the House the case of one farmer or another, with the view to show the cost of cultivation in comparison with the return from the produce of the land, because no two farmers, though their farms might be alike in every other particular, would agree as to the outlay. He would say to the farmers, let them put themselves in the category of manufacturers; they were manufacturers of corn, cattle, and various productions of the land; and there were no manufacturers who possessed any claim to protection. It was of no use to talk about the rent of land. It might be worth 40s. an acre. It might be worth 20s. or 10s.; but whatever it was worth the landlord must be content to take. No doubt it was the duty and the interest of the landlord to see that the various charges upon land were reduced to the lowest possible point; but as to rent, the landlord must take what he could get for his farms. Whatever protection the manufacturers enjoyed, the farmers should enjoy the same, but no more. But the hon. Gentleman wanted more. He asked the House to take his debtor and creditor account, and if there should be loss by his farming operations to make that loss good. What had Parliament to do with that loss? If prices continued so low that the land could not be cultivated at its present expenditure without a loss, that expenditure must be reduced either by lowering the rent, or in some other way. He did not refer to wages, which, it appeared, were sufficiently low already. He was sorry to say that wages were as low as 7s. or 8s. in the hon. Gentleman's neighbourhood. It was not so in his part of the country. But the landlords had raised the alarm unnecessarily, and instead of exhorting the fanners to exertion to meet the difficulty in which the sudden change from protection to free trade had placed them, and assisting in that object themselves, they went round the country calling public meetings, raising the cry of alarm, and telling the farmers that they must all be ruined, and there was no help for it, until they had so impressed the farmers with the truth of their statements, that he believed that they would be miserable, if they were not ruined. In this respect the country gentlemen had taken a most insane and injurious course. No doubt the farmer could not live if prices continued disproportionately low, as compared with the cost of cultivation; but then it would become a question between him and the landlord whether there must not be a reduction in the rent, and, instead of the hon. Gentleman coming down to Parliament to ask for legislation and protection for the farmer to enable him to maintain a profit, he ought to set his mind to consider now the land might be cultivated at less cost. He (Mr. Hume) recollected last year, when he moved for a Select Committee to inquire into the subject of the county rates, with the view to reduce that burden, very few of the agricultural Members voted with him. The subject of depreciation had been referred to by the hon. Gentleman who last spoke, and he seemed to suppose that depreciation in farming stock and farming capital had never taken place before in this country. In 1843, when that question was before the House, a gentleman—a member of the Agricultural Association—sent him (Mr. Hume) a paper pointing out the great depreciation which had taken place in 1842, in consequence of the low prices of that year. The calculation this gentleman made was, that farming stock and farming capital had suffered a depreciation in 1842, as compared with the previous year, of 25 per cent, or, in the gross, 117,000,000l. This return was made in Feb., 1843. But he (Mr. Hume) took it that the greater the depreciation, as resulting from free trade, the greater the injustice which had been committed by monopoly on the people at large. He hon. Friend who had moved the Address, had calculated that the loss to the community by protection had been 91,000,000l. a year. Now, he (Mr. Hume) remembered that, in his evidence before the Import Committee, the hon. Member for Glasgow stated, as the result of a calculation made by him, in conjunction with Mr. Deacon Hume, that the loss to the community by these protective laws was 60,000,000l. a year—an amount equal to the whole of the taxes laid on by the Crown. That statement was pooh-pooh'd at the time, but he rejoiced to find that its correctness was now confirmed. In his opinion, the corn laws had for many years operated as a great check on the property of the kingdom, while free trade would give a wider field for the exertions of all classes, and tend to universal prosperity. The hon. Gentleman the Member for South Leicestershire had put down the agricultural population at upwards of seventeen millions, while he had estimated those engaged in commerce and manufactures at only nine millions. He (Mr. Hume) believed the more correct estimate to be, that one-third of the whole population were dependent on agriculture, and the remaining two-thirds on commerce and manufactures. It was clear, therefore, that free trade already benefited the greater number; and it was his firm conviction that, in the end, it would be found equally advantageous to all. The hon. Member for West Surrey, whom he was sorry not to see present, had accused his hon. Friend the Member for the West Riding with having been the means of deteriorating the condition of the British labourer. He admitted the industry of the working classes of this country—he believed the labourers in no other country worked so hard and so continuously; but if anything more than another was calculated to improve their condition, it was this very measure of free trade. What situation should we be in if our foreign trade were stopped, and we had to depend on our own resources, recollecting that we were essentially a manufacturing people, and imported more than half our supplies? Twenty years ago the cotton trade amounted to thirty-four or thirty-five millions, one-fifth only of which was taken by the home market, the rest being exported to foreign countries. The opening of the trade in corn was the means by which the industry of the country would be best promoted, and the condition of the labourer improved, as it would enable the foreigner to send here that alone which he could pay for our manufactures with. He should be glad when the day came for the promised debate as to the effect of free trade on labour, because he was sure that the result would be that it had been, so far as it had gone, most beneficial. The present debate, in which the leaders on the other side appeared to be altogether beaten in facts and in argument, must be peculiarly gratifying to the right hon. Baronet the Member for Tamworth, as evidencing the triumph of those principles he so ably expounded in 1842. He wished, while on his legs, to obtain some information from the noble Lord at the head of the Government, not on our foreign relations, but our home affairs, which appeared to occupy not one-tenth of the attention on the part of Ministers which were given to foreign matters. They had already received some information regarding foreign affairs—they had had a great blue book given them about the affairs of Italy, and another about Hungary; he wanted to know something about our affairs at home; they had been told nothing about remedial measures, or about any measure of importance respecting the internal condition of the country. The Members of the Government gave ten times the attention to foreign that they did to domestic affairs. Ministers had intimated some change in respect to the elective franchise in Ireland, but he thought the people of this country were also entitled to some consideration. Looking at the situation in which we were placed, and the manner in which the people had supported the Government in their endeavours to preserve the peace, the quiet orderly manner in which they had conducted themselves amid severe privations and suffering, entitled them to some attention and some relief. He regretted to find no allusion in the Speech of the Royal Commissioners to the extension of the suffrage. The promise made by the noble Lord, in 1832, of the entire removal of class legislation—the taking the power out of the hands of the few, and placing it in those of the real representatives of the people—had not been realised under the Reform Bill. This brought him to the last paragraph in the Royal Speech; and he hoped the noble Lord would avail himself of the present opportunity to state to the House whether he meant to introduce a reform in Parliament, and make such other changes as would di- minish the amount of crime in the country. The paragraph was as follows: —

"It is Her Majesty's hope and belief, that by combining liberty with order, by preserving what is valuable, and amending what is defective, you will sustain the fabric of our institutions as the abode and the shelter of a free and happy people. "

He asked nothing more. He wanted nothing more than to preserve what was valuable, and to amend what was defective. The noble Lord had admitted, and all hon. Gentlemen were aware of the defective state of the representation; therefore it was sincerely to be hoped, that the noble Lord would be able to state whether it was his intention to propose any extension of Parliamentary reform, so as to take away that which was odious in the eye of the people—namely, the nomination of hon. Members to that House. He did not ask the noble Lord and his Colleagues to go to the extent that he (Mr. Hume) would go, for he had always trusted the people, and had the most perfect confidence in them, and therefore he would grant them extensive rights. The principle of the constitution was, that the people were the root of all power, and that they should possess the full privilege of electing those who had to dispose of their lives and liberties. Seeing that the defects in the representation were admitted, and that the people of England were anxious for improvements, could the noble Lord give any information on the important subject of reform in addition to that the Royal Speech contained? Was it intended that there should be such a reform in Parliament as the people required? He had no wish that any change should take place which should not consolidate the Government of the country. He was as great a friend to peace and order as any man in the land, and it was on that ground he wished the noble Lord to reconsider the speech he delivered two nights ago, because every able argument he had then adduced against altering the present system of free trade, would apply still more strongly in favour of having reform in Parliament, and granting contentment to the great masses of the people. He believed that a large portion of our military establishments were kept up in order to suppress the demands of the people. He supported the principles of the Charter, but repudiated altogether the attempts made to carry it out; and it appeared perfectly clear to him that the noble Lord and his Colleagues had been obliged to add to the military force, and to increase the number of their coercion laws, with the view of putting down the demand which existed almost universally in favour of improved Parliamentary representation, particularly among the labouring classes. Let the noble Lord place them within the pale of the constitution, and not restrict the franchise to 1,000,000, instead of 6,000,000 or 7,000,000 persons. He submitted that the speech of the noble Lord against the demands of the protectionists, would apply equally well in favour of giving the people Parliamentary reform, placing them within the pale of the constitution, and interesting them in the institutions of the country; and he believed that if these rights were granted, the noble Lord would do more to establish Her Majesty's throne in the hearts of Her subjects than by any other plan he could adopt. Another question he wished to ask was this, was it the intention of Her Majesty's Government to afford relief by taking off those taxes which were known to be most mischievous and injurious to the people? Her Majesty had alluded in Her Speech to the precautions against sickness, and to the necessity of adopting sanitary measures; but how could the noble Lord put a sentence of that kind in Her Majesty's mouth, or appear earnest in his expressions of wishing to attend to sanitary measures, when he still imposed the window tax, which was the greatest of all enemies to the health and comfort of the working classes? If the noble Lord wished to carry out the recommendations contained in the Speech, and to congratulate the House on steps having been taken in the country to promote sanitary measures, why did not he state, at the same time, that the burden of the window tax would be taken off the people? It was a downright mockery to tell the people of England that they should raise money to promote the health of their respective boroughs, by draining and pure air, whilst they shut out, by legislation and taxation, fresh air from the inhabitants. He further called upon the noble Lord to lessen the burdens at home by reforming the whole of our colonial system, making the colonies free and willing adjuncts of this country, giving them the means of managing their own affairs, and paying their own expenses. The advantages of this reform would be tenfold. We might then relieve ourselves rom the support of that large military force which was now maintained for the preservation of order in the colonies, and we should have emigrants in large numbers proceeding from this country of their own accord. These were three points, then, upon which the country required information; and he should feel thankful to the noble Lord if he would at once avail himself of the opportunity to satisfy all inquiry.

thought that the questions which had been asked by the hon. Member for Montrose might he answered on some other occasion. He had himself risen for the purpose of saying a few words as to the vote which he had given on a previous evening, on the Amendment to the Address. It was painful for him to have to answer for that vote, because, however satisfied he might be as to the prosperity of this country, he had no satisfaction as regarded his own. In the one they had, comparatively, a picture of happiness; in the other, a picture of desolation. It was the duty of the Government to account for such a state of things; for it was not merely a matter of interest to his country, but a matter of life and death. He had admired the speech of the hon. Gentleman who had moved the Address, but quite as much for what he had omitted as for what he had told them. He had told them, however, that if Ireland had been properly managed she would have given corn enough for this country as well as for herself. Well, for fifty years past they had Ireland under their control, and what had they done? They had brought matters to such a pass that they had driven the farmers and labourers out of the country. It had been stated that the consequences of the scarcity which prevailed in Ireland had been mitigated by the tranquillity which existed in that country; but the proposition was one which he confessed his inability to understand. He could not understand how the consequence of scarcity, which was hunger, could be mitigated by tranquillity. The inconvenience which was the result of hunger might no doubt be succeeded by tranquillity, but it was the tranquillity of the grave; and he could not help thinking that a large loaf, or even a small one, would be preferable to quiescence purchased at so dear a price. It was made a subject of felicitation in the Royal Speech, that the necessaries of life might be had for little or nothing in Ireland at present; but from that assurance, he, for one, could derive no comfort. In Ireland they had not even a little now, and what had become of the nothing? The un- fortunate Irishman was in the position of the ill-fated individual whose hapless case had been so pathetically alluded to by the Roman satirist—

"Nil habuit Codrus; quis enim negat? Ettarmen illud

Perdidit infelix totum nil."

Of what avail was it to a starving man that the comforts or even the luxuries of life might be had at an insignificant expense, if he found it as difficult to procure a small sum as a large one? With respect to the free-traders, he candidly confessed that he never believed one-half they said; and if the hon. Members who were now listening to him would do him the favour to look over the list of divisions on free-trade questions, they would not find that his name figured there. He was sorry to say that he believed the free-trade party had fallen into many errors, and committed many mistakes. The hon. Member who had moved the Address was the real author of the repeal of the corn laws. Him he (Mr. Grattan) believed, because he was not a merchant or a trader; but if he had been either, he would not have been so ready to give credence to his representations. He remembered having asked that hon. Member whether he thought that, in the event of free trade being carried, the prices of the necessaries of life would be reduced, and also whether he thought it probable that foreigners would receive the goods of our manufacturers; and to each inquiry the hon. Gentleman replied in the affirmative. But the event had lamentably falsified his prediction, so far, at least, as the latter part of the assurance was concerned. Foreign nations, so far from manifesting any desire to receive our goods, and to reciprocate our free-trade policy, had enacted hostile tariffs, and seemed resolved to pursue, in our regard, as unfriendly a system as possible. True, the English were still as they had been described by Voltaire, des gens fiers et hardis, and they might perhaps recover from the experiment; but as for unhappy Ireland, he saw that day by day she was going from bad to worse. He denied that there was free trade in any fair or equitable sense of the word. He had received from abroad a letter from a friend who could not drink British port, and who was in the habit of getting over a cask of foreign wine. Well, that wine paid 5l. duty, and his friend wanted to know why, with free trade, he was to pay that for German wine? Well, another friend received some Sicilian wine, which cost 22l. in that country, and for which he paid 15l. duty. An Irish Member coming over to attend his Parliamentary duties in this country, could not dare to bring a gallon of Irish whisky over with him. If he were to do so, he would have to pay 100l. to Her Majesty's Chancellor of the Exchequer, which would be purchasing Irish whisky at rather too dear a rate. At the present moment some of the best spirituous liquor in the empire, of the richest possible flavour, and more than thirty years old, was lying in the Queen's stores at Liverpool, having been forfeited under what they were pleasantly told was the free-trade system. If the Irish Member, misled, poor simple fellow! by the representations of English excise officers, who ridiculed him for bringing over so small a quantity as a gallon, were to fetch over a puncheon the next time, he would find that before the end of the Session had arrived, more than one-fourth would have escaped or evaporated; and yet, when he came to settle accounts at the Excise Office, he would find that he would have to pay duty for the whole. And that was what they called the free-trade system. Such treatment of the Irish was in direct violation of the assurance which Lord Castle-reagh gave to Sir John Newport at the time of the Union, that Irish whisky should for the future be imported into England free of duty; but Irish whisky was taxed to protect the West India interest. The fact was, that in this as in every thing else, Ireland had been made the victim of the grossest and most monstrous mismanagement. The country had been devastated and desolated as by a plague. Where were her exports and her imports? De non apparentibus et non existentibus eadem est ratio. He could find no account of them. The fact was, that of late years her exports in every single article had been going back. This was true even of the article of whisky. In the year 1817 the revenue of Ireland was 7,600,000l. Would it be believed that it was now no more than 3,968,000l? What were they going to do for that unhappy country? What did they purpose on the general principle of Government to assuage the sorrows, to remedy the sufferings, and to redress the grievances of that ill-fated land? Nothing, absolutely nothing. They would compel the Irish Members to spend six months in London, and then they would send them home to their estates as wise, but not as rich, as they had come. The exports of Ireland were rapidly decaying. There was a time when the value of the exports of corn from Ireland averaged 2,000,000l. a year. At present there was not, of all descriptions of corn, whether wheat, oats, or barley, more than the value of 14,000,000l. in the country. Ireland now was nothing better than a lifeless block, floating on the western waters. Her exports were gone, and her imports were only injurious to her, inasmuch as they injured her native manufactures. In 1792 there was exported 90,000,000 yards of linen; and now they were told by the hon. Member for Rochdale—as a proof of prosperity—that Ireland exported last year 87,000,000 yards of linen. So much for the linen trade. If it was true that the Boyal Speech was to be the programme of the Session, how came it that it contained no allusion to the poor-law? It was well to call upon the Irish gentry to employ the people, for it was known that agricultural produce could no longer command a remunerative price. Little or nothing was got for corn and mangel wurzel; carrots and turnips sold at a mere nominal price. The present poor-law system was eating up the country like a cancer. It had been established, not for the purpose, as had been often said, of ascertaining whether the property of the country might not be made to support the poverty, but for the purpose of ascertaining whether the wretched remnant of property that still remained might not be made to support the great mass of the people in idleness. In what a condition were the unions of Kilrush, Scariff, Mohill, and Carlow? Nothing but nakedness, misery, disease, and death was anywhere to be seen. The workhouses were the pest of society, and if he had his will they should all be burnt to the ground. He was credibly informed by a gentleman who derived his information from a person connected with the police, that the practice was known in this country of making a contract for supplying houses of ill-fame in this metropolis from the female inmates of the workhouses in Ireland. It was impossible to calculate the amount of evil which the poor-law system had effected in Ireland by demoralising and debasing the people. You might travel all day through Ireland, and without meeting anything but misery, disease, and death. The fit place for those men, whether Whigs or Tories, who had brought a fine country to such a condition, was neither the Ministerial nor the Opposition benches, but the bar of the House, when they should be called upon to answer for their misdeeds. The attacks of the bon. Members for the West Riding and Man- chester, he threw back upon them with all possible indignation. No more unjust or undeserved attacks had ever been made on any class of men than had been made by the hon. Gentlemen in question. He would take leave to assure the hon. Member for Manchester that the persons in this country whose favour he sought to propitiate by calumniating the Irish landlords, would as soon cut his own throat as the throats of those landlords. It was not true that the resident landlords were universally despised and detested. Was Lord Fitz-william detested? Were the La Touches detested? What would Government do on behalf of the poor Irish clergy, Catholic and Protestant? He was in a position to show that many of both classes were in a state of the most abject destitution. [The hon. Member read a number of letters, chiefly from clergymen of the Established Church, complaining that they had been reduced to the direst distress. One expressed his thanks for a few articles of clothing; and another said he had only 41l, to support himself and ten children.] He again asked the Government what they intended to do for Ireland. Many suggestions had been made, and many expedients had been tried, but nothing effective had been done. Would they give back the absentee rents which were daily drained from Ireland, or cause capital to flow into the country? Did the House know that within a few months 700 inquests had been held upon persons who had perished by starvation? Did they know that men were employed in the west of Ireland to drive the dogs from the churchyards to prevent them from feeding on the wretched corpses of the people, which were barely covered with sand? If he had his will, he would send the Ministers to that country to behold with their own eyes a scene of horror and misery unparalleled in the history of the Christian world. To the block, and not to the bar, the Ministers ought to be sent who could permit such a state of things. As the cackling of a goose once saved the Capitol, so, perhaps, the bleeding head of a British Minister might yet save the fallen destinies of Ireland. Entertaining the feelings that he did, he could not have felt himself justified if he had not voted for the Amendment.

begged to address a few words to the House on what had fallen from the hon. Member for Montrose. They had seen with satisfaction that Her Majesty's Ministers proposed to extend the now contracted limits of the Irish constituency. Now, he did not feel any jealousy as regarded them, but he thought it would be most satisfactory to the people of this country, if the noble Lord at the head of the Administration were to take some steps at this time of profound peace to extend the franchise in this country. He thought Government might do it now without appearing to follow in the wake of foreign Powers. The people had shown by their good conduct that they were ripe for further elective privileges, and he thought some concession should now he made to them. He thought that an extension to household suffrage might now be made, that it might he done with perfect safety, and that it would be duly appreciated by the country at large. It would be an extension consistent with the ancient constitution of this country. Many Members might wish to establish the principle of the ballot. He only wished to see the constituency extended, to see the liberties of the country placed upon a broad foundation. Many years had elapsed since the Reform Bill was carried. Since then the progress of education had been great, and he was sure if a project was brought forward by Government, it would be the best and most likely way to secure the general assent of Parliament; but if it was not, he should certainly take an opportunity of forwarding as much as possible his own views on the subject.

said, he should not have risen but for the misrepresentations which the Mover of the Address had made with regard to the labouring classes. He looked forward to free trade affecting the people, the labouring classes, more than any other class; and by the labouring class he did not mean merely the workmen congregated in large towns, but the labouring classes spread all over the country and living in towns which were in a great measure dependent on agriculture, and he believed that the number of those connected with agriculture was much greater than those connected with manufactures. The hon. Mover of the Address said, that even in the agricultural districts the labourers were better off, as they had either more wages, or they got more for the same money. Now, he (Mr. Bennet) denied the fact of their receiving more wages. Their wages were dreadfully reduced. In his county there were more men out of work than in any district in the kingdom. He might be ashamed of that; but from the great reduction in the price of produce, the farmers were not able to employ them. Distress had been felt by the agriculturists not only in 1849, but in 1848, for the crop was so very small, and the harvest so extremely wet, in 1848, that with better prices it was equally bad for the producer. In 1848, the produce was much over-rated; it was hardly an average. At the present moment there were immense numbers of labourers loitering about without employment. Some farmers had thought it better to reduce the wages, others had reduced the number of days on which they employed the men; and the fact of the price of the principal articles of consumption being reduced was of no avail to them, for they had no money wherewith to purchase them. The wages were 7s., in some places only 6s. a week, and many ablebodied men were in the union-house. A public meeting would be held on Thursday, in the county of Suffolk, which he had the honour to represent, which would be attended by a great many who would express their feeling that they would be obliged to turn away more. Seeing the Secretary of State for the Home Department in his place, he would ask him whether he had received information at the Home Office that the military from Ipswich had been obliged to be called out in aid of the civil power at the union-house of Bosmere and Claydon on Barham, and that the police were in requisition at the Newmarket union on the borders of Suffolk?

observed, that Government had received no such information.

said, that such disturbances had taken place, and he supposed the information had been communicated to the hon. Secretary of the Home Department. He then proceeded to observe, that it was said farmers might get on with wheat at 5s. a bushel, because what the farmer consumed fell in the same proportion. But that was not an advantage to him, because he produced what he consumed. The Chancellor of the Exchequer remarked, that he was decidedly of opinion that the agricultural labourers who had been able to retain their work, had been considerably benefited by the reduction in the price of food. There could be very little doubt that if they had work, and the articles they consumed were cheaper, their condition had improved. With respect to the farmers, he had heard no one come forward and give them the means of improving their condition. The ideas of some of the Mem- bers on the Treasury bench were so extravagant as to the profits of farming as proved they were not acquainted with the subject [which was assented to by Mr. Hawes, to whom he (Mr. Bennet) referred]. The malt tax, amounting to about 3l. or 4l. to the acre, on every acre of barley grown, was a great burden on the farmer. If their condition could be improved in any way, it was by the reduction of the local taxes which pressed so heavily upon them—if they were in any way placed on a level with the rest of the community, then they might compete with foreigners; but at present the local burdens were so great that they could not compete. The hon. Gentleman concluded by stating his regret that the Speech had only referred to the complaints of the agriculturists, and omitted the distress of the agricultural labourer.

had felt extremely anxious to speak the other evening because he had had the honour of seconding a resolution at one of the most important public meetings that had ever been held in Lincolnshire. There were from 15,000 to 20,000 men assembled at that meeting. He had thought it fair to put a question to one of the most earnest opponents of the landed interest in that county—he meant Mr. John Norton, mercer and draper, of the city of Lincoln. He asked that gentleman, "What sort of a meeting do you think we have had to-day?" His reply was, "An excellent one." "Do you not think that you are dead beat?" His answer was "Decidedly." "Did you ever see a more influential meeting?" He replied, "Never in my life." This he (Colonel Sibthorp) considered most satisfactory, coming, as it did, from so strong an opponent. Mr. Norton told him that the hon. Member for the West Riding had come down to Lincoln on Tuesday. He (Colonel Sibthorp) presumed that it was not on any secret matters; that there was nothing going on clausis fores. But why was he not at the meeting? If he could not have appeared as a freeholder of the county, there was another opportunity given him for arguing the question of free trade; a meeting was held in the city of Lincoln where every one would have been at liberty to speak. He, however, came not, but preferred employing himself, like some quack doctor, in disseminating little tracts by which he hoped to poison the minds of the inhabitants; but he did not succeed. The other night, indeed, the hon. Gentleman challenged the hon. Mem- ber for Buckinghamshire to come forward and enter into the question as to the state of the agriculturists, or rather, he should say, of native industry; but as that hon. Member had given notice of a Motion to the same effect, it would have been wrong for him to have entered upon the subject then. [An Hon. MEMBER: The notice was about the poor-law.] He should like to have added to the Amendment a declaration that the House of Commons, as at present constituted, was inefficient to enact laws which would tend to benefit the country, or to carry out more satisfactorily the administration of its affairs. With respect to protection to native industry, he was afraid there was very little hope. While he saw so many associations formed, there was little chance for protection. There was the National Reform Association—what a society!—a sort of Anti-Corn Law League revived—small in numbers, but exceedingly deceitful and treacherous. Then there was the Anti-Peace Society—[Laughter]—he meant the Peace Society. Oh! slips went for nothing. Well, those he called revolutionary societies; but then there was the commission for the grand exposition in 1851; and who patronised it? He was sorry to say, those who ought not to do so. Foreigners would carry off the premiums out of English purses. Perhaps some of the secret service money might go towards them, and he was not prepared to say that it would not—every trick would be tried. He had looked over the list of commissioners, and he did not see much to give him confidence in protection to native industry. First, he saw "our right trusty and well-beloved councillor" the right hon. Member for Tamworth; and then our "trusty and well-beloved "the hon. Member for the West Riding. If such were to be the component parts of the commission, he could only augur, for experience had made him wise, that there would be nothing but trick and manœuvre—native industry would be forgotten, and the foreigner would be encouraged too much, as he had been, in this metropolis and elsewhere—outwitting, if he could, and outselling the hard-working people of this country. But then there was the Emigration of Females Society. He was sorry to use such a term, but that society was a premium for promoting prostitution, and nothing else. The system was a "cheap and nasty one." If they gave them employment here, by putting a duty on foreign articles so as to enable them to compete with the foreign, it would do them some good. He did not place much reliance on the apparent prosperity referred to by his right hon. Relative. A man might have 5,000l. at his banker's on Thursday night, but if he paid his debts he might find that he had nothing there on Friday morning. Accounts might be arranged so as to present a favourable appearance—he had heard of such things, and such things might happen again. Orders might be given for 50,000l. or 60,000l. worth of timber to be sent to a dockyard, but you might not hear of payment until it was convenient, and then, when it was put into the account, it was mentioned as a small item. He believed that at that moment items were put into the accounts to suit various party purposes. His right hon. Relative spoke of the Excise as being in a thriving state; but he believed that there were mis-statements and misrepresentations about it. The most favourable period, from the 10th of October to the 5th of January, was taken; but he believed that if the statements were analysed and scrutinised, the fact would not be found to be as stated.

begged the House would permit him to correct a misapprehension, or mis-statement, in a portion of the evidence that had been taken before the Poor Law Committee; but before doing so he must say he was surprised to hear the hon. Gentleman the Member for Meath attribute the state of Ireland to the want of protection for native industry. He entirely agreed in the opinion expressed by the hon. Gentleman the Member for the city of Cork, that the tenantry of Ireland had very little interest in the question of protection. They had none whatever, and as a proof of his assertion, he would read a passage from a statement made in the year 1836, when protection was in its zenith; and he would recommend that statement to the consideration of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Meath. Three tables were prepared stating the average employment during each month, of three classes of labourers. The more skilful were employed 150 days in the year; labourers of a general average class were employed 115 days; and the labourers who had not acquired their full strength, or were becoming old, were employed only 70 days in the year. That was at a time when the protective laws were in their zenith, and it was not in a distressed part of Ireland, but in the rich county of Meath, the best land perhaps in the world. He knew the county well; he lived on the borders of it; and the habitations those persons lived in were habitations that no English cottier would occupy. For twenty years the appearance before their doors was not to be equalled in the worst lanes of the most filthy towns in Scotland and England; and a state of famine and pestilence was the constant fate of those people in the best days of protection. They should attend a little to the facts, and these were the facts with regard to Ireland. He felt bound to make this statement, because a gentleman who inherited a great name, and also added to it by his writings, had represented the distress to arise from the want of protection. The error he now wished to correct appeared in the report of the Committee who sat on the poor-laws last Session. It was in answer to a question by a gentleman of the name of O'Sullivan. He stated that he was acquainted with the union of Kenmare, and he said the rents there were generally 20 per cent over the poor-law valuation. On this evidence the inference was drawn that the rents on the Marquess of Lansdowne's estates were 20 per cent over the poor-law valuation. His Lordship having instituted an inquiry into the matter, wrote a letter, which he had since forwarded to him, with a request that it should be printed in the Appendix. That letter gave as formal a contradiction as possible to the statement; and the Marquess of Lansdowne requested of him to take the earliest possible opportunity of making public the fact. He begged to read to the House the letter received by him from the Marquess of Lansdowne: —

"London, Jan. 23.

"Sir—I take the liberty of addressing you, as chairman of the Committee of the House of Commons which sat during the last Session to inquire into the Irish Poor Law, to correct a gross error in the evidence adduced before it. Having observed with great surprise that Mr. O'Sullivan (the priest of Kenmare) had stated that my rents in that neighbourhood were 20 per cent above the poor-law valuation—a statement which I knew must be false, though I could not exactly state to what extent—I directed, therefore, during the recess a minute inquiry to be made on the subject; and having had it proved to Mr. O'Sullivan how erroneous his statement was, I have desired him to address to you the paper which I enclose, admitting the fact; indeed, the gentleman who conducted the investigation assures me that they are still more below the valuation than he now admits. Allow me to add, that it is not so much with a view to setting myself right in your opinion and that of the Committee, that I trouble you with this, as for the purpose of administering the only corrective in my power to that habit of loose statement and rash assertion which prevails so much, and takes off from the utility of all inquiries by diminishing the confidence attached to them. I have no reason to believe there was any malice in the reverend gentleman towards me—quite the contrary, as he has always spoken well of me—hut merely a desire to appear to know what he did not know, at the risk of misleading others.—I have the honour to be your very faithful servant,

"Sir John Young, Bart." "LANSDOWNE.

said, that as the hon. Baronet who had just spoken, undoubtedly with great authority (as an Irish Member, and who held office under the late Government), had thought it right to say that during the existence of the protection system Ireland was in a state of famine, pestilence, destitution—[Sir J. YOUNG: I said the Irish peasantry.] As the hon. Baronet represented the Irish peasantry to be in a state of famine, pestilence, and destitution, it was becoming in any hon. Member who entertained different opinions to appeal to an authority to which he thought the hon. Member was a party, as affording a solemn contradiction to that which he now ventured to assert. He (Mr. Bankes) had observed in the course of the debate on the present occasion, that it was very convenient for those hon. Members who supported free trade, commencing with the hon. Gentleman who moved the Address, to appeal only to years subsequent to the repeal of the corn laws, for the purpose of comparing them with the year now under consideration; and then they spoke of free trade and the progress of commerce and the improvement of manufactures as compared with those years. Now, he asked the hon. Baronet to take one of the years before the removal of protection, when he was himself a Member of the Government, and compare it with the present year. Let him take any year from 1841 to 1845, and compare the present state of the kingdom with the state of the kingdom in those years. He thought the hon. Baronet would have acted more fairly if he had taken the year 1845, the alteration having been made in 1846—the hon. Gentleman was then a Member of the Government—and let the House see what was the account given by that Government of the state of the united kingdom, and especially of the state of Ireland, in the year 1845. He would take Her Majesty's Speech at the opening of the Session of 1845, and what then were the opinions of the Government of the country. Her Majesty in Her Speech was advised by those Ministers to say—

"My Lords and Gentlemen—I rejoice that I am enabled, on again meeting you in Parliament, to congratulate you on the improved condition of the country. Increased activity pervades almost every branch of manufacture; trade and commerce have been extended at home and abroad; and among all classes of my people there is generally prevalent a spirit of loyalty and cheerful obedience to the law. I continue to receive from all foreign Powers and States assurances of their friendly disposition. I have had much satisfaction in receiving at my Court the Sovereigns who in the course of last year visited this country."

And then with reference to Ireland, the Government, of which the hon. Baronet was a Member, advised Her Majesty to express herself thus: —

"Gentlemen of the House of Commons—I have observed with sincere satisfaction that the improvement which is manifest in other parts of the country has extended to Ireland. The political agitation and excitement which I have had heretofore occasion to lament, appear to have gradually abated, and as a natural result, private capital has been more freely applied to useful public enterprises, undertaken through the friendly co-operation of individuals interested in the welfare of Irelend."

Yet an hon. Baronet who was connected with that Government now rose in his place to say, that during the whole continuance of that system, which he, with his party (he should not misrepresent the hon. Baronet), continued to promote—

I rise to order. What I said was, that the Irish peasantry had little or no interest in protection. I instanced the small amount of employment which they received under that system; and I stated that in the county of Meath famine and fever were frequent during the existence of protection. What has that to do with the abatement of agitation, and the cheerful submission of the people to the law?

thought the condition of the peasantry of the country had much to do with the welfare of the country. He did not think that Gentlemen would have put into the mouth of the Sovereign a statement which would have been a glaring falsehood if that peasantry were then suffering from the system which they now condemn. The hon. Baronet and other Members of the Government, five years since, were ready to rise in their places and propound the very opposite sentiments. It was not for him to quarrel with the hon. Baronet if he thought fit to change his opinions. [Sir J. YOUNG: I never changed my opinions in my life. I deny it.] If the hon. Baronet entertained a different opinion, he refrained from expressing it during a long period of his life. As to the division the other night, when it was recollected that one great party was opposed by three several parties, united for this one only object, he saw no reason to despair; and with regard to the division in the other House, he, for one, did not so much deplore that some of the greatest in the land should refrain from offering an opinion, and avoid furnishing a pretence for the observation that the question was merely a landlord's question. It was a battle to be fought in that House and in the country, and he did not think the Peers of the realm lost any of their dignity by abstaining from mixing in the contest. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Montrose—although he agreed with them, and admitted they had grievances to complain of, and good grounds for calling for redress—said they were wrong, because they did not adopt the line he recommended; but when he saw only thirteen persons in the House concurring with the hon. Gentleman, there was, he thought, some absolution for them. The hon. Gentleman treated them too severely when he said, "As you do not pursue the remedy I have pointed out, you shall have no remedy at all." However, the hon. Member for Montrose, whatever might be his sagacity, seemed at a loss to tell them what to do. [Mr. HUME: Reduce your expenses, and do as others do.] The hon. Gentleman was mistaken if he did not think that system would be adopted as far as possible. They should, however, hesitate in making experiments, which might seem to the hon. Gentleman to be very cheap, but which, like other experiments, might be liable to error. The advantages which our neighbours had gained by their cheap revolutions, were not such as to justify us in embarking in similar experiments. The hon. Gentleman had fallen into a very serious error with regard to this question. He had heard him say that the result of the repeal of the corn laws would be, not a fall in prices, but an equalisation of prices. [Mr. HUME: Hear, hear!] At a time when the price ranged at about 54s. or 55s. the quarter, the hon. Gentleman had said that the effect of the change of law would be to enhance that price, and to equalise it throughout all corn-producing countries. But the hon. Gentleman was disappointed in his expectations, and he could not blame them for declining to follow his advice until they found he was right in some of his prophecies. He had referred them to the Speech of Her Majesty in 1845 to show the opinions of the then Ministers of the Crown; and he might say that such also was the opinion of the whole House, for there was no amendment moved on the occasion, and Her Majesty was not then placed in the painful situation of hearing the complaints of any portion of Her subjects. The noble Lord at present at the head of the Government made a speech upon that occasion, but said not one word about depression arising from prices, or anything of that sort. Totally different were his observations; and he (Mr. Bankes) would read a portion of the speech of the right hon. Baronet the Member for Tamworth, then at the head of the Government, made in answer to that speech: —

"The noble Lord has admitted that in the Speech delivered by Her Majesty this day, and in the answer to that Speech, and also in the speeches of the Mover and Seconder of the Address, he can scarcely see anything to find fault with. Of the Speech the noble Lord said he had no complaint to make; neither of the Address, nor of what fell from the Mover and the Seconder. That being the case, I wonder the noble Lord did not approach the commencement of the Session with something more of an equable temperament. What was there for the noble Lord to be wroth at? And yet the noble Lord has given utterance to a most violent and bitter party speech. Is it that the noble Lord's temper has been provoked by the contrast which the Speech from the Throne this day presents to the Speeches which the noble Lord, when in power, was obliged to counsel? Is it the congratulations which Her Majesty offers to Parliament on the present state of the trade and commerce of the country, of the improved condition of the manufacturing industrial classes, and, above all, of the flourishing state of the public revenue; is it these things which have suggested to the noble Lord reminiscences of a very painful nature, and which has disturbed that equanimity of temper which is usually displayed by him, and which is generally observed on the first day of Session?

'Vixque tenet Iachrymas, quia nil lacrymabile cernit.'"

But now there was some lacryrnabile, and yet these were the palmy days of 1850, in which they were called upon by the hon. Member who moved the Address to consider that a new day-star had arisen, and that free trade was now dawning upon them with all its benefits, and that such happiness as they had never seen before was now destined for their enjoyment. It had been said in the course of this debate that manufactures were in a state of wonderful prosperity. There were some cotton manufacturers now present in the House, and he would be happy to hear any one of them rise in his place to state that he considered the present state of the cotton manufactures to be in a sound, healthy, or happy condition. That they had greatly improved during the last year as compared with former years of free trade, he was most happy to believe; but he totally discredited the assertion that they were in a secure and healthy condition. The hon. and learned Member for Sheffield had alluded to the disruption of their relations with Spain, and hoped that their diplomatic relations with that country would never be re-established. It was impossible to avoid a painful feeling when allusion was made to that topic. It could never be forgotten that England had been subjected to the humiliation of having her ambassador expelled from Spain, and up to this time had received no reparation for the insult. He did not concur in the hope expressed by the hon. and learned Member with respect to a renewal of diplomatic relations. During the cessation of these relations an alteration had taken place in the tariff of Spain, by which the duties upon some of our manufactured articles had been raised considerably higher than in 1846. Whatever might have been the effect of the travels of the hon. Member for West Riding, through the various countries of the Continent, free trade had not, however, followed in his wake. With the exception of Spain, every country which he had visited had had its revolution. He supposed that Spain saved itself from such a catastrophe by the expulsion of our ambassador. From none of the countries which the hon. Member had visited, had they had a single beneficial tariff, and from Spain they had one directly the reverse. Some foreign news from the Levant, received on Saturday, had startled some of the manufacturers of Manchester; and he could not but believe, from the statement made to-night by the noble Lord the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, that there was something in the question not altogether fully explained; he trusted that no trivial or foolish circumstances would be suffered to interfere with the interests of a large commercial nation such as this was, and such as he trusted it would ever continue to be. It would be the grossest mismanagement to allow such petty causes as those which had been assigned to cause anything like a suspension of the industry and commerce of the country, and it would be past all endurance if such should turn out to be the case. He cordially concurred in an observation which fell from the hon. and learned Member for Sheffield, to the effect that in any question of reduction of expenditure it would be well to consider the expense of our diplomatic relations. Should the question come to one of cheapness, he certainly thought it a fit subject for consideration whether they could not, without in any degree detracting from the honour and character of I the country, maintain their honour and dignity in foreign countries at less expense. But while he was ready to consider that! subject, he was not prepared to consent to any reduction which would affect the dignity of the Throne, or the safety and honour of the country.

trusted the House would give him its attention for a few moments. He should have contented himself with a silent vote if he had not been directly alluded to by the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the hon. Gentleman who moved the Address. He was called on to explain why the prophecies which had been alluded to with respect to the currency had failed. The hon. Mover of the Amendment had left it to him to answer the currency part of the subject; but he had no intention at present of entering upon the question of currency. He was, however, ready to answer the challenge which had been thrown out. The hon. Gentlemen had said, that they on his (the protectionist) side had prophesied that free importations of corn would lead to an exportation of bullion, but that the reverse had taken place. He (Mr. Spooner admitted it); but there were causes for the great influx of bullion. The first cause was one which had frequently occurred. If hon. Members would look back at the various speeches delivered from the Throne since 1819, they would find them noticing alternate periods of prosperity and distress, followed at periods by an influx of bullion, which gave a stimulus —lasting, however, only long enough to raise prices above the prices of the Continent, and then out went the bullion, followed by a period of distress. In a year of distress our manufactures were forced into foreign markets, and were sold too frequently at a loss to enable the exporters to meet their engagements, and bullion was brought back. Such a cause had lately been in operation in this country, which accounts, in some measure, for the present large amount of bullion in the Bank. Another cause of the increase of bullion was the state of the Continent for the last two or three years. He spoke on authority when he said that not less than 25,000,000l. had found its way to this country for investment. Another cause was the mania which existed to such an extent some years ago for travelling on the Continent. Not less than 12,000,000l. had been taken abroad for that purpose. But the mania and the expenditure had lately ceased. Another cause was, that the sovereign was no longer a legal tender in Belgium, and the consequence was, that not less than 2,000,000l. or 3,000,000l. in sovereigns were released from the circulation of Belgium, and found their way to this country. These were the causes, not unattended with danger, of the present accumulation of bullion in this country. On the restoration of order on the Continent, much of that bullion would be in demand for exportation, and then it would be seen that it had not been brought here as a balance of trade, but from unforeseen circumstances, the continuance of which they had no right to expect. It was a serious thing to consider what would be the effect on trade. The returns furnished by the Board of Trade showed that for a number of years the balance of trade had been against this country—a proof that the accumulations of bullion had not resulted from commercial transactions, but must be attributed to the causes to which he had alluded. Another false prophecy charged to the protectionist party was their statement that the adoption of a free-trade policy would be injurious to our commerce and manufactures; for it appeared that under that policy they were enjoying a state of great prosperity. Now, he should observe that he had never said, nor did he know any of his hon. Friends who had said, that the immediate effect of a free importation of foreign corn would be to injure our manufactures; but he had always maintained, and he still maintained, that it would ultimately lead to such a re- sult. Let the House bear in mind how much more important was our home trade than our foreign trade. The hon. Member for Montrose had said, that one-third only of the labourers of this country were employed in agriculture. That statement might be true, if it merely referred to the number of labourers engaged in the cultivation of the soil. But if the hon. Member would include in the list of labourers connected with agriculture the various classes of artisans who manufactured the machinery and the other articles employed by agriculturists, he would find that that list embraced at least two-thirds of our entire labouring population. The value of the home trade was too apt to be underrated, and the consequence would be, that if they were to destroy the home trade, as destroyed it would be, if they continued the same course of policy, they would find all our towns and villages swarming with paupers, who would have lost their only source of employment; and they would learn, when too late, that they had sacrificed the best interests of the country to a prosperous home trade, which it should have been their aim to have nourished, for an uncertain and precarious foreign trade. He agreed with the hon. Member for Montrose that the agricultural interest had no right to any exclusive legislative favour; that they had no right to any protection which was not extended with equal liberality to the members of every other productive class. For his part, he wished to protect every branch of domestic industry in this highly-taxed country against the untaxed foreigner. The foreigner, who bore no share of our taxation, ought not, in his opinion, to be allowed to compete freely in our markets with our own producers. The protectionist party did not come to that House to ask for a favour, but for simple justice. Will any one deny that taxation enters into the price of every native production? Can a bushel of wheat, or a pound of meat, or a single article be produced, the price of which is not increased by taxation before it can be brought into the British market? Why then should the foreign producer be permitted to come into competition with native producers in our own markets without bearing his due share of taxation? He confessed that he looked with great alarm at the results which were likely to follow from a continuance in our present commercial policy. We had an immense population employed in the manufacture of cotton goods. Now, there could be no doubt but that the people of the United States grudged us the profit which we derived from that manufacture; and who could feel assured that the opinions of their President and of their Secretary of the Treasury might not yet be carried fully into effect, and that they might not impose a tax on the exportation of cotton, for the purpose of destroying that great branch of our manufacturing industry? Then let the House look at the danger of our leaving ourselves dependent on foreigners for our supply of food; for it should be remembered there was a great difference between being dependent on other nations for the luxuries, and being dependent on them for the necessaries of life. In the year 1842 that view of the case had been enforced by the right hon. Baronet the Member for Tam-worth in the following most clear and cogent language:—

"Looking, then, at the question in this point of view, I retain my opinion, which I expressed some time ago, that it is of the utmost importance to the interests of this country that you should as fer as possible be independent of foreign supplies. By this I do not mean absolute independence, for that, perhaps, is impossible; and nothing, I think, would be more injurious than to pass such laws as would give rise to a general impression that it was intended to keep this country in absolate independence of foreign supplies. But, speaking generally, I say that it is of importance in a country like this, where the chief subsistence of the labourer consists of wheat, that if we resort to foreign countries for our supplies, we take care that those supplies should be for the purpose of making up deficiencies rather than as the chief sources of our subsistence."

Now, in that opinion he (Mr. Spooner) entirely concurred. Let them look at the present condition of Ireland as an exemplification of the results of their free-trade policy. What was the reason why whole districts were uncultivated, and the labourer at present unemployed in that country? It was because prices had so fallen there that agriculture afforded no profits, no means, for the payment of wages. That was the view of the subject expressed in the very passage read by the hon. Baronet the Member for Cavan, for the purpose of proving that periods of great distress had occurred in Ireland under the protective system; for it was stated in that passage that the diminution of the profits and of the capital of the farmer was the cause of the diminution of employment. He would tell them that a perseverance in their present commercial policy would ultimately reduce the labourers of this country to the unhappy condition of the Irish labouring population. If it were a mere question of rent, as opposed to the welfare of the labouring classes, he should at once say, "Down with rents, and up with the labourers!" But he believed that it was the labourer who would most severely suffer from the depreciation of property; and it should also he remembered that the rent received by the landlord did not remain idle in his hands, but was distributed among servants, labourers, and tradesmen. Let them not decrease the means of affording employment to the people. Let them retrace their steps, or they would find,; when it was too late, that they had given; up the substance for the shadow. With regard to the commercial and manufaeturing population, he had no hesitation in stating that they were at present in a better condition than they had been in for some time past. The price of labour had not yet come down while they obtained the necessaries of life at a cheaper rate than on any former occasion. But he would tell the House that the manufacturers were now receiving no profits, and he feared that before long they would again have their markets overstocked, while they would witness that worst symptom under our monetary system—gold becoming the cheapest article of export, the employment of labour ceasing; and then the manufacturers would be thrown out of employment as well as the agriculturists, and a general distress would be the result. He prayed that Heaven might avert from us those calamities which he solemnly declared he believed to be imminent, after having considered the question, not as a party man, but as one who had a long acquaintance with the commercial transactions of this country. He earnestly hoped that the noble Lord at the head of the Government would take these subjects into his most serious consideration; and that he would not deal with the case of the agriculturists merely as one of "complaints," but as a serious evil, in which the interests of the members of every other class were more or less concerned. One word with respect to the poor-rate returns. They had been told that the poor-rates had last year been much less than in the year 1848; but it should be remembered that the latter year had been a most unfavourable one, and he had every reason to apprehend that a change for the worse could not be far distant. He would state from his personal knowledge of many farmers in Warwickshire and Worcestershire, that the vote of the House on last Saturday morning would spread dismay among the agricultural classes. Many farmers had of late continued to expend their money in the cultivation and the improvement of the soil, in spite of the difficulties with which they had to contend, because they had hoped that Parliament might at length be induced to adopt towards them a different course of policy; but that hope was at present at an end; and he feared the consequence would be that a check would immediately be given to agricultural industry, and that a great addition would be made to the number of the unemployed poor. But they had been told that there could not at present be any depreciation in the value of land, as there were numerous applicants for every farm that was to be let. Now he believed that a good deal of misapprehension prevailed upon that point, and he could state to the House a fact confirmatory of that view. A certain noble Lord had said that he had no fear of his land being thrown out of cultivation, as he had abundant applications for all the farms he had to let. Among those farms was one for which he had fifteen applications; but of these fifteen he found, on inquiry, that twelve had come from persons possessed of no capital, and in whose ability to meet their liabilities no confidence could of course be placed, while the three remaining applicants had each in succession declined to take the land except at a reduced rent, and as no concession to that effect had been made to them, the farm in question still remained untenanted. He would conclude by quoting to the House a passage from Locke, no mean authority:—

"An infallible sign of the decay of wealth is the falling of rents; and the raising of them would be worth the nation's care—for on that, and not on the falling of interest, lies the true advantage of the landed man, and, with him, of the public."

said, he would take the liberty, in the outset, of making a few remarks in reply to the statements of the hon. Gentleman who had just resumed his seat. As far as he (Mr. Monsell) recollected the course of the debate, the hon. Gentleman was the first who had the boldness to assert that the present misery of Ireland had been aggravated by their recent commercial legislation. He entirely disagreed in that statement. [An Hon. MEMBER on the Opposition benches: Why, that is stated in our Amendment.] That might be; but he had not heard the declaration made before by any hon. Member. He would not take advantage of the admissions made by all Gentlemen, as regarded the improving and prosperous condition of the north and east of Ireland. He would go to one of the worst districts in Ireland, a district which he represented, situated in the vicinity of Limerick, and which was in a most miserable and melancholy condition, indeed it would be impossible to exaggerate its condition. The landlords were without rents; the labourers were starving, and the capital of the tenantry rapidly disappearing; but yet he asserted, were it not for the change recently made in their commercial legislation, bad as at present was the condition of the people in that district, it would have been infinitely worse; had it not been for the change in our commercial legislation, under the circumstances, trebly worse. What had been the history of the corn trade in the port of Limerick, in a rich and agricultural district, during the last three years? This, that the imports had greatly exceeded the exports. In 1847, the exports from the port of Limerick were 209,000 quarters, and the imports 472,000 quarters; in 1848, the exports were 295,000, and the imports, 267,000; and in 1849, the exports were 182,000, and the imports 391,000 quarters. If free trade had not thrown open our ports to the admission of foreign corn, the result would have been that in Ireland they would have been compelled to pay an additional price for the excess of corn imported over that exported; the poor-rates would have been higher; and the condition of the country in every respect worse. Previous to the failure of the potato, Ireland was an exporting country; since then she was an importing country, and being so, it was essential that she should get her corn as cheaply as possible. That proved at once how the dependence of Ireland on the potato crop was the result of the protective system. During the continuance of the penal laws the people were not allowed to possess capital. It was, however, the direct interest, of the landlord particularly, when the high protecting duties were imposed, to have the largest amount of corn grown upon his property; and the only way that could be effected was by a minute subdivision of land. The subdivision of land went on—the people living solely on the potato, and never touching corn. There was thus an undue and unnatural stimulus given to the growth of corn and to protection, which he regarded as a main reason why Ireland was sunk in her present miserable condition. The hon. Member for Dorsetshire described the people of Ireland as extremely happy in 1845. That was the year the Devon Commission made their report to that House, and one of the first statements it contained was—

"That the agricultural labourer in Ireland continues to suffer the greatest privations and hardships, that he was still badly housed, badly fed, badly clothed, and badly paid for his labour. "

In another part of the report, it was stated that their only food was the potato, and their only beverage water; that the cabins they lived in seldom sheltered them from the weather, and that a pig and manure was their only property. It was evident from that report that the labourers and the great mass of the people of Ireland had no interest in protection, and that they never enjoyed any produce of the land except the potato. For his own part, he believed that any change was likely to be for the better, and when the hon. Gentleman spoke of the prosperity of Ireland in late years, he only showed his ignorance of the condition of the country. He begged the protectionists to consider what an amount of evil they were inflicting on Ireland by the course they were pursuing. The agitation on this subject which had been carried on during the last three months in Ireland had done immense injury, by setting class against class—by impeding the progress of improvement, by diverting the people from self-reliance. He implored of hon. Gentlemen to be certain of the sound I ness of their principles before they decided upon continuing a course which they must perceive was at variance with the best interests of the country.

had just entered the House when the hon. Member for North Warwickshire was arguing that it was unfair to expose the English agriculturist to competition with foreigners, on the ground that the latter were untaxed. But he (Col. Thompson) appealed with confidence to the House whether it was not the real fact of the case that the struggle was, not between the taxed agriculturist and the untaxed foreigner, but between the taxed agriculturist and the taxed labourer of Bradford and elsewhere, whose trade it was to manufacture goods for the purpose of being exchanged for foreign corn. The question was, whether it was right and just to put the manufacturers of Bradford down to serve the agriculturists? What would be thought of the former, if, because they were heavily taxed, they were to insist upon taxing home-grown corn? His constituents said, "If we are not taxed enough, tax us more, but do not stop our trade, the success of which alone enables us to pay our taxes, which is, in fact, our life-blood—our all." A great deal was said about the encouragement of native industry. Are we not native industry? Encourage that, or, at all events, leave it alone to follow its honest course, without checking it in order to fill the coffers of another interest. The principle advanced by hon. Gentlemen opposite was the same as if they recommended putting a stop to omnibuses in order to encourage the ancient body of hackney coachmen, or putting heavy duties upon the port wine of Portugal, in order to give employment to the glassmakers and gardeners of this country; the result of which on the total balance of the account would only be, that the consumer of port wine would give an increase of price without getting anything for it in return?

was not a little surprised to hear the lamentable condition of the Irish labourer under protection in many parts of the country turned into an argument in favour of the measure lately introduced, for he had yet to learn that the free-trade measures had improved the condition of that class. His hon. Friend the Member for the county of Limerick had stated that the protection meetings had done incalculable mischief, and had set class against class. Connected as he (Vis count Bernard) was, with a large agricultural county, the central town of which had been the first to advocate this protective principle, he utterly denied the statement, for he had met at those meetings men differing in politics, and on all other subjects, but united on this. He regretted that he could not gather one ray of hope with reference to Ireland from the Queen's Speech. The existence of agricultural distress in this country had been admitted; but if the change in the law had produced mischief in England, what must be the aggravation of that mischief in a country already borne down by the pressure of a calamity lately inflicted on it by Providence? He could testify to the fact, that not only the agriculturists, but every class in Ireland, had suffered. He would venture to suggest to the Government that there were ways in which they might materially assist Ireland at the present time, by relieving that country from the enormous pressure of the grand-jury taxation and the poor-law instalments—matters within the province of the Government to remedy. In Cork, the grand-jury cess had increased from 70,0002. a year to 130,000l., caused by repayments of the instalments to Her Majesty's Government. He did not complain of these repayments, but thought they were not levied with all the leniency provided by the law. He thought Government would do much towards restoring confidence if they would extend the time for payment of the labour-rate, and the instalments of the temporary relief loan. By a paper presented to the other House of Parliament in July last, he observed that 821,188l. 14s. was still remaining due for advances under the Temporary Relief Act; and this these unions were at any moment liable to be called on to repay. He believed also that there were auxiliary measures which would confer incalculable benefit on Ireland, such as the development of railway communication. He would ask the Government to give them some measure which would facilitate the formation of railways in Ireland. Why could they not embody in a public Act the Galway Act of last year, and compel the landlords to give land at a fair value? If this were done effectually, he was convinced that railways might be constructed at from 5,000l. to 6,000l. per mile. He hoped they would bring in a Bill to facilitate the sale of land for such purposes. If free trade was really a benefit, let it be honest. At least, let them afford to the Irish farmer the means of conveying his produce to the best market. The advantage of railways was evident in America, where it had materially developed the resources of the country. Let them look at the geographical position of Ireland, and the sources of inexhaustible wealth she had in her fisheries—these were at the present moment utterly useless, unless some means of communication were afforded by the Government. Again, look at the condition of the labouring classes—was it not most lamentable to see so many ablebodied men in the workhouses, instead of employing them in permanent and profitable works, which would lead to the ultimate prosperity of Ireland. Now, with regard to the land being thrown out of cultivation, he happened to have read a very able letter from the Professor of Agriculture in the Queen's College at Cork. Speaking of the culture of flax, he observed, that it was largely imported from abroad; and if the low price of corn continued, much of the land at present under corn would be devoted to the cultivation of flax. In all probability that would pay the farmer as well; but look at the position in which the country generally would be placed. He had always apprehended the greatest danger from the dependence of any country upon foreign supplies of food, and he had been too lately a witness of its injurious effect in Ireland to alter his opinion. That calamity had been greatly aggravated by the iniquitous conduct of the corn engrossers. He knew an instance of a ship having been twice sold during its voyage to Ireland. They had many instances of the danger of such dependence in ancient history. Let them look at Greece, which, when dependent on foreign supplies of corn, was frequently startled by the reports of ships being lost to raise the price of corn. Look at proud Tyre, which was a suppliant at the foot of a Judean prince for its supplies of food. If they were to have no protection for corn in Ireland, at least let not the agricultural body be the only suffering body in the community, but let something like justice be done to them.

would not have trespassed on the House but for the statement made by the hon. Member for the county of Limerick, that Ireland was not suffering from recent legislation. The constituents of that hon. Gentleman would, he (Colonel Dunne) felt convinced, be somewhat surprised to hear that their Member had made such a statement; and he was, above all, surprised to hear this statement, when he heard that the hon. Member had himself drawn up an able report on the state of the Newcastle union in the county of Limerick, in which it was shown that it had been much affected by that cause. Had he (Colonel Dunne) not been convinced that the distress of Ireland was owing entirely to the legislation of England, he should not have voted for the Amendment to the Address. The hon. Member for the county of Limerick voted for the rate in aid. Now, there was not a man in all Ireland, except the receivers of that rate, who did not believe that that rate had been deeply injurious to his country; and yet the hon. Gentleman said that Ireland was not suffering from recent legislation. Ireland had been suffering from legislation for the last eighty years; her manufactures had all been destroyed by legislative measures. Upon the understanding that she was to supply England with agricultural produce, and now that market was taken away from them, they were told that Ireland was not suffering from recent legislation. Whatever good free trade might have done in England, in Ireland it had done unmitigated injury. He knew of no part of Ireland which had not suffered. The hon. Gentleman who moved the Address had spoken in glowing terms of the returning prosperity of Ireland. He (Colonel Dunne) did not know where to find it; taking the country altogether, it was his opinion that Ireland was gradually sinking. He would not trouble the House with many statistical details, he would merely quote one or two points. The deposits in the savings banks in 1845 amounted to 2,927,000l., while in 1848, they had fallen to 1,334,296l.; the certified circulation was in 1845, 6,354,000l., and in 1848, 3,331,000; the land in cultivation, taking the valuation, had been reduced from 16,250,000l. in 1847, to 12,250,000l. in 1848. Were these signs of the prosperity of Ireland? The diminution of the number of paupers had been mentioned as another sign of prosperity. It was true that the number of paupers had apparently diminished, but it was only because outdoor relief had ceased to be given, and because the resources of many districts, such as Kilrush, had failed altogether; and it did not follow, therefore, that the same, if not a greater, amount of relief was not required. If the number of paupers had diminished, the expenses of the poor-law had not diminished, and he found that just those parishes which were completely under the control of the salaried Government officials, were the worst off of all. How could it be said that Ireland was not suffering from recent legislation, when the average local taxation of the country had been raised to 8s. 4d., while in England it was only 2s. 2½d.? It was well known also that on several estates in certain parts of Ireland, the debts exceeded the value of the land. He trusted he had said enough to show that the statement of the hon. Member for the county of Limerick was utterly unfounded.

said, the noble Lord the Member for Bandon had spoken of the different payments made on account of former advances to railways in Ireland, and suggested that they should be consolidated. That question had been for some time under the consideration of the Government, and he hoped that on a very early day his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer would be able to state the pro- position which the Government intended to make. With regard to the wish which the noble Lord had expressed that further assistance should be given to those railways, be hoped the noble Lord would not forget that not only had there been the advance he had mentioned, lately made by the Exchequer Loan Commissioners, but likewise with respect to the trunk lines, both in the south, south-west, and west, there had been schemes proposed to Parliament, and now carried into effect, for the formation of lines to Athlone and Galway, and to Drogheda and Armagh. In the present state of the north of Ireland, with the prosperity experienced by Belfast and the neighbourhood, there would be no difficulty in completing the lines which they had been told last year it was desirable that the Government should undertake. As regarded the general state of Ireland, no doubt there would be other oppertunities presented to them of discussing that question. In respect to the statement of the hon. and gallant Gentleman who spoke last, that though there had been a diminution of the numbers relieved under the poor-law in Ireland, there had been no diminution in the expenses, he begged to state that this was an error. He believed the difference of expense for last December, as compared with December of the former year, was nearer 60,000". than any other sum. Comparing the 5th of January, 1849, with the 5th of January, 1850, he found the decrease of expenditure was upwards of 9,000l. The hon. Member for Montrose, who spoke early in the evening, addressed several observations to him on the subject of the extension of the franchise in this country. He would not enter into argument, or give any reasons on the subject at the present moment, as his hon. Friend had left the House, but would merely state that it was not the intention of the Government to propose any Bill for the extension of the franchise in England during the present year. The hon. Gentleman and other Members would probably discuss that question in the course of the present Session, and he (Lord J. Russell) would be ready then, as he hoped he should be at all times, to assert and maintain the opinions he held. He should not further detain the House.

wished to explain his statement relative to the expenses of the working of the poor-law. No Member was in possession of the returns, and he had taken the early months of last year, the expenses of which he had doubled, and had thus arrived at the conclusion, which it now appeared, was erroneous.

said, that his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Portarlington had wished to represent that there had been no very considerable diminution in the expenditure for the relief of the poor; and the noble Lord at the head of the Government had unintentionally, no doubt, misrepresented his hon. Friend's statement. There had been a diminution in the numbers of those who were receiving outdoor relief, but this was owing to the great waste of human life in Ireland, which he designated as disgraceful. His hon. and gallant Friend might have impressed on the Government that each week numbers applying for outdoor relief were refused it. He held in his hand a letter received from Thurles, in which the writer stated that out of 3,000 applicants, only fifty-eight had been relieved during the previous week. He did not conceive that this was the time for discussing the question as to the wisdom or impolicy of free trade, and he would have wished to see no discussion take place on the policy they had deliberately adopted so recently, and which he thought should have a fair trial. He was anxious, however, that no errors should be disseminated respecting the prospect of renewed prosperity in Ireland. He thought the hon. Mover of the Address was too sanguine in his expectations of immediate prosperity, and that it would be many years before Ireland recovered that position which she held anterior to 1845. It was said that in former times the misery in Ireland had been more intense than it was in the present day, and that misery had been attributed to protection. He was anxious the House should bear in mind that her former misery could be attributed to other causes than protection, and he was astonished to hear hon. Gentlemen assigning protection as a cause. They might remember a time when repeal speeches were answered in that House by a reference to the rapid and extensive improvement of the Irish in agriculture during the palmy days of protection—a fact which had been demonstrated by a former Whig Chancellor of the Exchequer. A free-trade policy must necessarily press severely for the present on all classes in Ireland. No man could contend that they had not in the time of famine and scarcity reaped a benefit from the free importation of food; with the Irish tenant- farmer the question was eminently one of rent, simply because they were without capital. The amount of rent to the tenant-farmer in this country made little difference; but when he found himself with an enormous capital sunk in his land, and with diminished prices, then, indeed, free trade was a serious question with English tenants. The tenant-farmer in Ireland said that if he had a lease, and was at a reduced rent, he could see his way to prosperity; but there was this difficulty in the way of an equitable adjustment of rents in Ireland—large blocks of land were held by nominal proprietors in an excessive quantity, and a greater curse could not exist in any country. Between this circumstance and the, generally speaking, encumbered position of the owner—who, frequently, with an apparent rental of 1,000l. a year, had an available income of 200l. only—it was impossible to arrive at an equitable adjustment of rent; for to say to such an owner, "Reduce your rents," would be as much as to propose that he should abandon all social distinctions enjoyed as an owner of property in Ireland—it would be as much as to tell him to retire to the workhouse. One of the results of free-trade policy in Ireland was, that the labouring classes were not as well employed now as formerly—for the quantity of land under cultivation and tillage was diminished. Then as to the rate of wages—in fact, there was no rate of wages. He knew ablebodied men gladly work for the cottier tenant for their two meals a day, contented if they could have the additional advantage of sleeping in an outhouse; so that it was folly to talk of 1s., of 8d., or even of 4d. a day as the wages paid in Ireland. He could not help observing that hon. Gentlemen who were now so zealous in their advocacy of free-trade policy, and who expressed so much sympathy with the tenantry of the country, were perfectly contented last Session to have those most unjust provisions introduced into the Poor Law Act, which bore so severely upon the occupiers of land in Ireland. He maintained, the advocacy of protection was not exclusively a landlord question—the landlords were interested in everything that interested their tenants—their interests were identical—they were in the same boat. But these Gentlemen silently acquiesced in the introduction of a clause into the Poor Law Act of last Session which had the effect of diminishing the tenant's right of deduction of poor's rate from his rent—and that, when the prices of agricultural produce and of stock was diminishing day by day. A more unfair or unjust clause could not possibly be conceived. As the noble Lord at the head of the Government had left his place, he would press upon the other Members of the Government in the House, the importance of what had fallen from the noble Lord the Member for Bandon, in every sentence of whose speech as related to railways he agreed—namely, that the Government should turn their attention to the introduction of a general Act during this Session to enable railway companies to obtain land by the arrangements secured in the Great Western Act, known as the "Mullingar Clauses," so that existing railway companies in Ireland may have the benefit of the acquisition of the land that they require for the completion of their useful projects. He believed there was no possible way in which the Government could more substantially assist the agricultural interests than by enabling the railway companies to complete the unfinished lines in that country, and affording companies an easy mode for the purchase of the land necessary for their various lines, and by that means put an end to the frightful system of adverse swearing which prevailed so extensively in Ireland with reference to the probable value of half an acre. [The hon. Member read an extract from a report of the expense of the South Western Company, to show that the solicitor's costs for the purchase of land were no less than 45,000l.] He (Mr. Sadleir) knew something of this matter, and he had no hesitation in saying that if the South Western Company had the benefit of the Mullingar Clauses to Dublin and Cork, the expense would not exceed 5,000l. or 6,000l. In that one item alone there was a waste of property to the amount of 40,000l. In the investigations about this land, in which a large share of drinking was mixed up and other excesses, the South Western Company had expended 36,000l. He should conclude by calling on Her Majesty's Government to grant the necessary facility to those companies by which the evils he alluded to might be averted.

not having had an earlier opportunity of addressing the House, considered it his duty to his constituents to express the great regret and deep dissatisfaction with which they, in common with a great portion of the people, would re- ceive that part of Her Majesty's Speech to which the Amendment referred. He rejoiced that the Government had declared that they did not intend to offer an insult to the agricultural interest; but notwithstanding that disavowal, he could not but regret that the Speech had not contained different language. As by a coincidence of circumstances the expressions had not passed Her Majesty's lips, so did he not believe they had proceeded from her heart. The statement of the hon. Member for Buckinghamshire, that the cause of protection was not the cause of the farmers and agriculturists alone, but of all classes, had been met by smiles and ironical cheers from the opposite benches, but he had read the report of a meeting of the operative silk weavers of London, convened by themselves, to consider the rights of labour, whereat several speakers expressed similar opinions amid the cheering of the operatives. A gentleman named Kyd, with whom he had no acquaintance, but whose views, he understood, were not those of the protectionists, but rather of the extreme nature generally called chartist, was cheered by the assembled operatives when he declared that the principle of buying in the cheapest and selling in the dearest market, must be ruinous to the mechanic. Another speaker said, that the alterations made by Mr. Huskisson in 1824 laid, the foundation of the operatives' ruin, and that when waiting, as one of a deputation, on the hon. Member for Montrose, in 1834, on the state of wages, the hon. Gentleman confessed he wished to destroy the weaker interests of the country to force them to ask for the repeal of the corn laws. Thus it appeared that whether that measure was right or wrong, the advocates of it were aware it would ruin the weaker classes of the country twelve years before it was carried. He did not admit the justice of charging the hon. Member for Buckinghamshire with ambiguity of purpose—what he said was, in effect, that though he believed the system of protection to be the fairest and best, yet, as Parliament had by large majorities chosen to enforce the system of free trade, he only called on them to carry it out to its full and legitimate extent, to take the burdens off the agricultural interest, and to remove the duties on malt, hops, spirits, tea, and tobacco, as a matter of principle to which they were entitled. To the best of his belief that was the position taken by the hon. Member for Buckinghamshire, with which the noble Lord at the head of the Government and the hon. Member for the West Riding found fault, but in which he fully concurred. He could assure the Government, if it was any consolation to them, that he had given his vote against them in no spirit of hostility. On the contrary, he would much regret to see them defeated by a combination of parties, in most of whom he could not place political confidence; but he would tell Her Majesty's Ministers that unless they carried out their principles in a fair, just, and impartial manner, by removing the restrictions which fettered agricultural industry, as well as the duties which entered largely into the consumption of the people, they would be compelled by the justice of the people of England to make way for other statesmen who would place the commercial and social system of the country on a sounder principle, and that he believed to be protection to native industry.

begged permission briefly to explain his reasons for voting in the minority on Friday night. He had not spoken in the debate, because, having only arrived from Ireland on Thursday, he was too late to speak on that day, and on Friday the House was too impatient and desirous of coming to a decision. He therefore voted, with the determination of explaining at the earliest possible period. The fact was, he liked neither the Address nor the Amendment, and he voted in the minority, not out of any spirit of hostility to the Government, nor in the spirit of the Address, but merely because he felt that the kingdom of Ireland, as an important part of the united kingdom, had not met with the proper respect with which it should have been treated in Her Majesty's Speech. There might have been at least some expression of sympathy for its condition, if no hopes were held out of remedial measures; whereas all that it had met with was a recognition of its deep distress. But even that was glossed over and immediately followed by a jubilation upon the general prosperity of the empire. For that reason he had voted against the Address; but he at the same time did not coincide in the least in the idea that the distress of Ireland was owing to any late legislation—to any of the so-called free-trade measures. For he thought that Ireland could be very prosperous under free trade, if it were not for the unfortunate circumstances that had preceded the passing of those measures. He had listened with pleasure to the most able, eloquent, and winning speech of the noble Lord at the head of Her Majesty's Government; but not one word about Ireland did he hear from beginning to end of it. He could only say that he wished he were as ignorant of her miseries as the noble Lord seemed to be.

said he had been misunderstood by an hon. Gentleman opposite. He firmly believed that protection would be regained.