LORD CLEMENTS had no hesitation in meeting the challenge of the last speaker, and in contending that this proposition would not be injurious either to the population or to the landlords of Ireland. He wished Hon. Members would inquire how far the Corn Laws had benefited the agricultural population of Ireland. Nothing could be more destitute or deplorable than the condition of the peasantry of that country. It was forcibly depicted in the report of Lord Devon's Commission, and still more forcibly in the spirited communications of the Commissioner of The Times. He bore the highest testimony to the accuracy of this Commissioner's statements, and asserted that there was not a single syllable in the slightest degree exaggerated in his description of the calamitous state of the Irish peasantry. What, then, was, or what would be, the benefit of protection to a population in such deplorable misery? Had it been, or would it be, of the slightest use either to the tenant-farmer, or had it prevented, or would it prevent, the labourer from standing idle in the marketplace? No such thing. He should, therefore, give his support to the Government proposition for the alteration in the Corn Laws. He then expressed at some length his opinions on the other parts of Sir R. Peel's scheme relative to the payment of the police and of the cost of prosecutions in Ireland.

The MARQUIS OF GRANBY believed that Sir R. Peel was actuated by the most pure and honourable motives; but if he had promulgated in 1841 the same opinions which he now entertained, he would not have proposed them now as a Minister of the Crown. It was not a fair way of putting the question to say that the labourer, if the Corn Laws were repealed, would be enabled to buy cheaper bread. The question was, would he be able to buy and to eat more bread? He was afraid that the labourer would not be able; for where subsistence was cheap, labour was cheap also, and the condition of the population most miserable. Sir Robert had told the House that he could not hold out hopes that foreign nations would follow our example or relax the regulations of their tariffs. But even if they did, you might increase your exports, but in the same proportion your home consumption of manufacturers would fall off, as your agriculturists would be deprived of funds wherewith to purchase them. He should support the principle of protection, which had mainly conduced to the greatness, the happiness, and welfare of Great Britain.

He

MR. GREGORY contended that agriculture had flourished hitherto in this country, not through, but in spite of protection. He derided the fears of the agriculturists, that land would be thrown out of cultivation, and that we should become dependent on foreign nations for supply, if we acceded to the proposition of Government. hoped that the House possessed too much true courage to be afraid of the imputation that this measure was granted as a concession to agitation. The only mischief which he anticipated from it was that which would arise from continuing a portion of the existing duties for three years, instead of abolishing them entirely at once. gave his cordial support to the commercial policy of Sir R. Peel. LORD BROOKE, as the representative of a large and important county, explained the reasons which induced him to give, on this

He

his first entrance upon public life, his decided opposition to the commercial policy proposed by Sir R. Peel. The change in that policy was, no doubt, conscientious on the part of the Right Hon. Baronet; but he must say that the conduct of some of Sir Robert's supporters in agreeing to the same change was not equally straightforward, for it was so sudden as to be almost miraculous. He pointed out the inconsistency of Lord Sandon in supporting a measure which he had denounced as unworthy of approbation, and amused the House, now approaching from its age to a dissolution, by comparing it to a decrepit old man, who from the length of his life had lost his memory, and with it all the recollection of his former pledges. He was afraid too that it was imitating the same old dotard in its mode of making its will, and in defrauding its lawful heirs by bequeathing its property to strangers and aliens. He then handled with considerable tact the usual agricultural arguments against the repeal of the Corn Laws, and declared his intention of voting against the Government proposition.

LORD WORSLEY said, he felt anxious to address the House on a question which, though it had frequently attracted the attention of the House, had now assumed a new shape, since it was not brought forward as an abstract question, but was brought forward by the Government on the ground of expediency: "Could you prove to us that the true principles of mercantile dealing required us to purchase corn in the cheapest market, and to withdraw the capital which has fertilized the inferior soils of his country, for the purpose of supplying it to the rich but unprofitable wastes of Polandstill we should hesitate. If you had called on us to abandon this protection with all the authority of an united Administration, with the exhibition of superior sagacity, and triumphant reasoning, we should not have been deaf to your appeal; but when, inviting us to follow you, you present nothing but distracted councils, conflicting colleagues, statements of facts not to be reconciled, and arguments leading to opposite conclusions, then we peremptorily refuse to sur render our judgments to your guidance, and to throw the protection secured to agriculture by the existing law into the lottery of legisla tion, in the faint hope that we might by chance draw the prize of a better Corn Bill." It was the first step towards making England the workshop of the world, dependent for its daily food upon continental supplies. He believed that other measures might have been proposed, which would have met with the concurrence of the House. The Government might be able to carry the measure they now proposed, but, as he had said before, it would not be regarded as a settlement of the question. Until the year 1849 one party would entertain a hope that they might obtain an alteration of the law which would conduce to their own interests, while the other party would cherish the expectation that they might be enabled to get rid of protection altogether at an earlier period than was proposed by the Right Hon. Baronet. In 1842 the Right Hon. Secretary of State for the Home Department (Sir J. Graham) took another line of argument with reference to the benefits of the Corn Law-he eulogized the advantages of the bonding system. The Right Honourable Baronet "that the warehouses of foreign corn in bond, ready to be

said,

brought into the market for home consumption (whatever might be the loss to individuals), had all the advantage of public granaries to this country at the cost of individuals." But this would not be the case under the proposed measure; and he (Lord Worsley) was at a loss to conceive how the Right Hon. Baronet could reconcile the arguments he used on that occasion with his support of the scheme now under their consideration. He did not know that any Hon. Member of that House had spoken in stronger terms against the total repeal of the Corn Laws than the Hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. G. Smythe), who had recently taken office under the Right Hon. Baronet, as Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (hear, hear). That Hon. Gentleman said, in 1842, that "If they put corn on the same footing as tobacco, if they discouraged or prohibited its culture in England, the consumer would benefit greatly, and so would the revenue. But what, in that case would become of the agriculturists? Were they prepared to sacrifice onethird of the population-he was taking Mr. Babbage's calculationto the other two-thirds? Such might be the scheme of a Minister of a party; such ought not to be the scheme of a Minister of a nation; such was not the plan of the Right Honourable Baronet." Several Honourable Gentlemen had urged upon the Right Hon. Baronet (Sir Robert Peel) the necessity of dissolving Parliament, on the ground that the present Parliament was one which ought not to determine the question now brought before them. It was true that, under ordinary circumstances, a Parliament which had been elected for seven years was justified in considering any question that might be brought before them upon its merits. But, although, at the time the present Parliament was elected, an 8s. duty had been suggested by some Hon. Gentlemen on that side of the House, it was considered by the country that the question at issue was-Corn Laws or no Corn Laws. There could be no doubt whatever that the opinions of the majority of the constituency thus taken at the last general election were opposed to any alteration in the Corn Laws (hear). He was convinced that those electors who had returned to Parliament members who, as they believed, were opposed to any change in the Corn Laws, would be grievously disappointed if their representatives did not vote in accordance with the principles they had formerly professed (hear). He did not know whether the circumstance might be in the recollection of the Right Hon. Baronet (Sir R. Peel), but in 1842, the then Vice-President of the Board of Trade (Mr. W. E. Gladstone), who now filled the office of Secretary for the Colonies, but who, for some reason unknown to him, did not appear in the House to night (hear, and a laugh), had stated that this Parliament was pledged to the maintenance of protection. The Right Hon. Gentleman (Mr. Gladstone) then said— "He did fervently trust and believe, that the House, indicating and adhering to its wise and practical character, would adopt, and by a large majority, the measure which had been recommended by the Government, as a great practical improvement, as a change, considerable and beneficial to the entire community, while maintaining that great principle which the House was pledged to maintain a reasonable protection to the agricultural interests of this country, and to that

large, he would even say, that decidedly preponderating proportion of the population which was directly or indirectly, but essentially connected with and dependent upon those interests" (hear, hear). The Hon. Gentleman considered that Parliament was pledged to continue protection; that was the opinion of the agriculturists and others, and they asked, because they thought, that having altered their opinions, Hon. Members might persuade some of their supporters to do so also. They wished that the question should be put to the country, aye or no. Ought there to be an alteration in the Corn Laws or not? (hear, hear). He had presented sixty petitions to the House, all praying that the alterations in the Customs' duties might not be made, and also praying that the House would place no confidence in her Majesty's Prime Minister (hear). These petitions were got up without any knowledge on his part; and he was never more surprised than to find that this was the prayer, because he recognized in those petitions the signatures of many gentlemen who at the last election refused to support him, because he would not place confidence in the Right Hon. Gentleman opposite (hear). It seemed rather extraordinary that this change which was proposed now by her Majesty's Government was not expected by some of their supporters. His Noble Friend the member for the city of London, gave warning to the Members of that House, that a change might be expected. He held in his hand the answer of his Noble Friend to an address voted to him at Plymouth, in the year 1841, in which the Noble Lord said-"That, if the people were united, in time the prohibitory duties would share the fate of civil disabilities on account of religion; that it was not necessary for this purpose that the late Ministry should be restored to power, but that the man who surrendered what was deemed an essential bulwark of the constitution to the menaces of the Roman Catholic Association in Ireland, would be sure to yield the fortress of restriction when demanded by the peaceful but powerful voice of the people of England. His Noble Friend gave that notice to Hon. Members opposite, but they did not profit by it-on the contrary, they had gone on supporting Her Majesty's Government, thinking, perhaps, that they would be able, when they thought there was danger, to avoid it. It appeared. however, that that was not the case. He could not suppose that, if it were otherwise, the Right Hon. Gentleman would have refused to take the advice of some of his supporters, and take the opinion of the country on the subject. His friend, the Member for Leitrim, had stated that in his part of Ireland corn was produced as cheaply as possible that they had the advantage of good markets, and then he asked what use was protection to the farmers of Ireland? Now it struck him that it was of this use to them, that while there was a duty to prevent foreign corn coming into this country when there was not much need of it, or at all events when the prices in this country were not extravagantly high, the Irish producer could send over to this country his surplus produce; but admit grain duty free he would have to contend against that and not be able to make so much of his land as he now did. It had been stated by the Hon. Member for Wiltshire, that if the landlords took the view which he (Lord Worsley) had of this question, they would lie under the imputation

of being actuated by a love of pecuniary gain, and by seifish motives, that he trusted was not the reason why he, and those who agreed with him, held those views. He did not know that he could give a better proof that it was not so with him, than that it was his intention to support the alteration proposed by the Right Hon. Baronet in timber. It might be supposed that the question of timber did not affect the landlords; but he was prepared to shew that it affected the landlord, when it did not affect the tenants. So far as protection went, the tenants might be better for the introduction of timber at a low rate, but the landlord would suffer. He individually would do so; that was to say, it would be his interest to keep up the price of wood in this country. But he believed that it would be for the benefit of the country generally that timber should be brought in at a lower duty; and, therefore, he agreed to its remission. He was aware that he had wearied the House by reading the extracts which he had done-extracts of a kind never palatable; but he was justified in showing that, at all events, the measure was not considered necessary a short time ago. The fears he entertained as to the effect of a total repeal, he had stated elsewhere; and he believed it was for the interest of this country that this question should be settled (hear), There were only two ways of doing so, either by a vote against any alteration whatever in the Corn Laws, or else settling them altogether. Settle them they could not, by these measures of the Govern ment, because he was satisfied that there would be a hope among the farmers of again getting back those laws. He trusted her Majesty's Government would seriously consider the matter, for there would still remain among the agriculturists a hope of being once more put in the position in which they now were (hear), and the Government like that of the Noble Lord would be found dependent for its support on their opponents (hear). He did not know one thing that tended more to break up the Whig Government than the persevering cry that went through the country from the Carlton Club, that Lord Melbourne and his Noble Friend were kept in power by the support of the Hon. Member for Cork (hear). And, perhaps, they might yet see the day when the Hon. Member for Cork and his friends and supporters would prevent her Majesty's present Government being defeated by their own friends (cheers from the Protection benches).

SIR J. GRAHAM-Sir, I have risen to address you at this time chiefly in consequence of the able and powerful speech of the Hon. Member for Northamptonshire, who addressed the House this evening, and in whose sentiment I most cordially concur, that we ought not to allow this discussion to degenerate into a mere fiscal question (hear). When a great party is on the point of being dissolved, the question, though in itself even insignificant, becomes a great national one (hear). I think that no leader of a great party, such as that which has placed its confidence in my Right Hon. Friend, can be justified for one moment in treating this great occasion, in any other light, except as one of immense national importance, and one that needs the frankest explanation. This is a question that I hope also may not be treated altogether as a question of mere personality (hear). I cannot at all blame my