wish not to diminish the just influence and authority of any of them; we wish not to propagate particular opinions in other countries with reference to systems of government; we do not wish to shake the attachment of subjects to their Sovereigns in any of them; but the time is come when we ask ourselves in France and England this question:-Are our interests so opposed to each other, that there is a necessity for our fomenting party interests, and placing ourselves at the heads of rival factions in other countries where the forms of government are different from our own? If there is no such opposition-if we are agreed in the general principles on which a good understanding should exist, I say again, it is for the interest of humanity and civilization that that good understanding should be established. In two countries of such high honour and of such great power, it is absolutely necessary for the cordiality and for the permanence of that good understanding, that there should neither be any secret engagement or special contract with which any other country can find fault, nor should there be the power on the part of the Minister of the one country to boast that he has promoted or attempted to promote that accord by obtaining from the other any advantage. (Cheers.) On the part of France, I say at once that no such concession has been made by the French Government-there has been no compromise of any right; on our own part, I beg to say there has been no concessionno compromise of any right-no compromise of any principle whatever." On the other hand, if in their rivalry the two countries sought to establish a "French"

VOL. LXXXVI.

and an "English" party in every country, they would be the curses of the world. In accord, they would be able to promote successful results in the domestic policy of many states; as in Greece, the harmony of the two countries, at a critical period in that nation's fate, was now helping to build up a limited monarchy with free institutions. Mr. Hume, the representative of extremely popular opinions, Lord John Russell of the Whig party, had concurred in the friendly policy. "I believe it is

the feeling of the great body of the people of this country. There is no wish here to recur to ancient animosities-those feelings of national antipathy and hostility on account of our vicinity to France, which ought to be converted, on account of that vicinity, into sentiments of reciprocal amity and good-will." (Sir Robert Peel was much cheered in this part of his speech.)

Touching the Corn-laws, he said Mr. Hume was correct in his inference, that if Government had intended any change during the present Session, it would have been announced in the Speech from the Throne. Lord John Russell had said that it would be dangerous to apply principles abstractedly right at the hazard of occasioning great disturbance of capital and injury to existing arrangements.

"Sir, in that general principle I do certainly concur. I believe the abolition of the Corn-laws would produce great confusion and distress. There is, however, this difference between us-the dif ference between the fixed duty and the graduated scale. Now here I retain my own opinions. Agreeing in the general principle I have stated with the noble Lord, he proposes to secure his protection [C]

by a fixed duty, and he says Members of Parliament are liable to the invidious imputation of being actuated by personal interests in advocating the sliding scale. Surely the same suspicion attaches to the fixed duty plan. The noble Lord might say he proposed it for revenue; but, if carried high enough, he knows that, however intended, operate it would as protection; and that he would find it difficult to resist the argument, "Why, if you impose a duty on foreign corn, should it not be equally imposed on domestic corn?' Sir, I stated last year that the Government were not prepared to alter the existing Corn-law; but, when pressed to make a declaration on the part of the Government that at all times and under all circumstances I would adhere to the law existing, I said, such a declaration would be inconsistent with our duty to the country and the Crown. I do not repeat this for the purpose of securing any escape for the Government. noble Lord says we may maintain the law or repeal it, but that it is impossible we should adopt a fixed duty. Sir, I do not exactly know what may be impossible. (Laughter.) Sir, I hope those who laugh do not thereby imply an opinion that I am making reservations. Whenever the opinions of the agriculturists take that extraordinary turn which sometimes it has been represented they have already taken in favour of a fixed duty, I am inclined to think that the noble Lord will be the party to propose such a measure, and not myself. (Cheers from the Agricultural Members.) The experience we have had of the present law has not shaken my preference for a graduated duty; and, although I consider it

The

inconsistent with my duty to make engagements for adherence to existing laws under all circumstances, in order to conciliate support, I can say that the Government have never contemplated, and do not contemplate, any alteration in the existing law. (Cheers.) The prices of corn since the law came into operation have been as fixed as at any prior period, and as moderate. They have varied only from 50s. to 52s. for the last four or five months; and the prices for fifty-four years past have been in only seven years lower than the average prices for the last few months; in all the remaining forty-seven years the prices were higher; consequently, neither on account of immoderate nor of varying prices have we found any reason to change our opinion as to the existing law. The Government, I repeat, should not bind themselves by any declarations, adherence to which might be inconsistent with duty; but I again declare they never have contemplated, and do not at present contemplate, any alteration in the law."

Sir Robert Peel concluded his speech by arguing that his past measures had fulfilled the expectations which had been held out; and that although there had been severe distress, in point of fact, the Ministers now met Parliament under greatly improved circumstances both at home and abroad.

Lord Palmerston was gratified by the improvement of domestic industry and revenue; but it might be doubted, he thought, whether those results would not have arrived earlier under a different management. He denied the cogency of Sir R. Peel's argument about taxing home-grown

corn; it might as well be said that all other articles on which customs were levied when imported from abroad should be subjected to an excise when produced at home. The late Government had been taunted in its early days with its subserviency to France. He had then answered, that their amity would relax when their interests should diverge, and so it had happened; but it had not happened from any ill feeling towards France, but from views of European policy in which the other great Powers had concurred. He traced the good effects of his own foreign policy in the benefit produced to Portugal and to Spain, and in the treaties for the suppression of the slave-trade. The now boasted union of the two countries had produced no equivalent advantage. He regretted the present state of Spain: and he expressed his fears for the slave trade treaties and the maintenance of the right of search. With America we were far from being on desirable terms. concession made in the Washington treaty had produced no indication of reciprocal feeling in America on the subject of the Oregon territory. Nor had much, if any, success attended the attempt to negotiate commercial treaties.

The

Mr. Roebuck protested against the doctrine that the Address was to be deemed a mere ceremony. He thought it strange that the House was expected to be silent, and that the Speech should have been silent on the most important subjects of the time, the Corn-laws, and the danger of a repeal of the Union with Ireland. He believed that these topics were waived because it was agreeable to the two leading parties that the evening should go quietly off. But the

time was surely come for expressing the opinion of Parliament on the policy of the Government respecting Ireland. The silence of the House on this night might have the worst effect on the question of repeal: it would enable Mr. O'Connell to tell the Irish people that the British Parliament took no account of them. He had himself intended to bring forward an amendment on the subject of Ireland; but after the course taken by Lord John Russell, the leader of the Liberal party, such an amendment on this night was precluded; and it was fit that the people should know that the noble Lord and his friends had deserted their cause.

Lord Howick defended the practice of the Queen's Speech not being made the standard for contest on debatable questions, and the caution which repelled the intrusion of political considerations into the too accessible Irish jurybox. He should approve of a fixed corn duty, as a fair compromise between extremes; but he pointed out to Sir R. Peel, that his present course, by strengthening those who objected even to so much of protection, rendered a compromise impossible, and brought the question at once to the maintenance of the existing law or total repeal. His own opinion was in favour of the free importation of corn. In Sir Robert Peel's dislike to forming a "French" and an "English" party throughout the world, he heartily agreed: he abominated the whole system; and he had listened with regret to Lord Palmerston's censure of the wise policy of our Government and that of France, at present, in refusing to meddle with the internal broils of Spain. Mr. Wyse urged the necessity

of a settlement for Ireland, and warned the Government that its chiefs would be held responsible for their agents there. Those who now were neutral would ere long be driven by the Government itself to take part against it.

The O'Connor Don desired to be understood as reserving to himself an entire freedom on the subject of Irish affairs.

Mr. Gibson admitted, that there was a considerable improvement in the state of manufacturing industry; but Parliament ought to ascertain the causes of these wide fluctuations, and, if possible, to prevent their recurrence. As to the corn question, he did not understand Sir R. Peel to have said he would maintain the existing laws for more than a month, or to have given any distinct pledge whatever; and he hoped that the occupying tenantry would be careful not to invest their capital on the faith of continued protection. He hailed with satisfaction the meetings of the agriculturists against the League, and only hoped they would discuss the question rationally and without offensive language.

Sir R. Peel said it would hardly be necessary for him to protest against Mr. Gibson's version of his declaration, which he repeated.

Mr. Plumptre was understood to declare himself satisfied with Sir R. Peel's declaration.

Mr. Brotherton disapproved Mr. Crawford's suggestion for stopping the supplies, and Sir R. Peel's determination to maintain the existing Corn-law. He hailed the admissions of the people's returning prosperity, for they proved, that though bread might be cheap, as now, yet the manufacturers did not lower the people's wages

Mr. Villiers considered Sir R. Peel's position to be that of a minister who thought that a change ought to be made, but who felt that, with his present supporters, he could not venture to make it. The mischief was, that the country had been governed ever since the Revolution, not by the sovereign, but by an aristocracy, and the aristocracy would not suffer their minister to give the required relief against their own rents. He referred to an article which he ascribed to Mr. Gladstone, lately published in the Foreign and Colonial Review, a work supposed to be the organ of the Board of Trade. In that article, from which he quoted largely, all the arguments relied on by the opponents of the Corn-laws were enforced. He spoke with great indignation of the threatening language used against Sir R. Peel by some of the agriculturists, and called on him to throw them off with spirit.

Mr. Gladstone said, he had not written the article in question, he knew not who had written it, and he had never even seen it.

Sir J. Hanmer defended the landlords from the charge of selfishness. He expressed some opinions favourable to free trade, and especially as between the mother country and the colonies.

Mr. Scarlett spoke indignantly of the Anti-Corn Law League, their assertions, and their attempts to dictate elections of members to constituencies with which they had no connexion.

Mr. Muntz said, that employment had indeed become more plentiful, but that there had been no rise in prices.

Mr. Mark Philips represented the improvement in the working

He dissented

districts to be only recent, and not of a nature to justify conclusive inferences from it. from Mr. S. Crawford's proposal of stopping the supplies.

Colonel Rawdon and Mr. Hindley followed against the Corn-laws. Mr. Fielden, who had seconded Mr. S. Crawford's amendment, now spoke in favour of it; enlarging upon grievances.

Mr. S. Crawford explained, that he did not intend to make any attempt at obstruction or retardation, but only to move the consideration of grievances when supply should be proposed.

The House then dividedAgainst Mr. Crawford's amendment, 285; for it, 29: majority against it, 256.

Upon a subsequent division upon Mr. Hume's amendment, the numbers were—

Against the amendment, 235; for it, 49: majority, 186.

On the 6th of February, Mr. Sharman Crawford put in execution his threatened intention of moving the stoppage of the supplies-upon the reading of the order of the day, for going into a committee of supply. In the speech with which he prefaced this motion, he briefly enumerated the principal grievances which the House had refused to inquire into or redress,—class-legislation; commercial monopolies, such as the corn duty, the sugar duty, the English and Irish bank charters; the religious monopoly of the Established Church; unequal taxation pressing most heavily upon the poor; the poor-law, which "infringes on the poor man's rights, while the corn-laws prevent him from obtaining food;" the Irish arms bill; the standing army for the home service, which, includ

ing 9,000 constabulary in Ireland amounted to nearly 50,000 men— although, if laws were just and government impartial, there would be no occasion for that great army or for the new system of police. There were charges concerning the judges, the treatment of prisoners in confinement, and the conduct of government in restraining public meetings-all of which the House had unfortunately refused to investigate. But the most important charge against the House was that of not being a true representation of the people. It was proved by the small number of electors, compared with the gross amount of population, and by the corrupt practices at elections, amply disclosed by Mr. Roebuck's compromise committee. Should his motion be carried, he would move either that the House resolve itself into a committee of the whole house, on an early day, or that a select committee be appointed to inquire into the state of the representation. To obviate delay, should Government be ready to go into the proposed inquiry, he would be willing to vote the supplies for three months or six months, or for such time as might be necessary for such inquiry. Whether a minority of the House could succeed in stopping the supplies, was not the question-he wished a majority to go along with him; he was not the man that would attempt upon his own responsibility any course with regard to the supplies, which should not be supported by public opinion out of doors, or by a sufficient number of members in the House. He did not contemplate repeated adjournments; but he wished that those members who represented the popular interest should bring forward motions, on