impossible not to see that a great po- | because I should not have expected that a pular agitation upon any one question, dissolution would have given a majority in carried on from year to year, may extend favour of the repeal of the Corn Laws. to other subjects, and may affect some of My hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, the most valuable parts of our institutions. who made this statement, has not rightly I wish, therefore, most ardently to see this understood me. What I said was, that I question settled; and after weighing in my did think it desirable, and I do think it deown mind in what manner I should act in sirable, that there should not be a dissoluorder to obtain that settlement, I think, tion of Parliament upon this question. I upon the whole, that the plan most condu- think all the statements that have been cive to this end will be to support, against made in this House as to the incompetency every Amendment, the proposition of Her of the present House of Commons to decide Majesty's Government." I do not think the question of the Corn Laws are founded that any question brought before this House on an ignorance and misapprehension of ought to be considered merely on the ground the Constitution. I consider that when a of the preference of one proposition over an- Parliament is elected, that Parliament is to other. I think it should be considered with provide for all the most important affairs of reference to times and to circumstances, the country, be they foreign or be they dowith reference to the general views Parlia-mestic, according to the best of its judgment may take, and with regard to the ulterior state of the country. Having said thus much, I would beg for one moment to refer to a statement made to-night by the right hon. Gentleman opposite, that if he had proposed the immediate repeal of the Corn Laws, he thinks that proposition would have failed. Now I understood that right hon. Gentleman, on a former occasion, to say that he regretted I had not undertaken to settle this question; and that he thought I should have been successful in such an attempt. I will own I was surprised at that statement; for though I fully believe that the right hon. Baronet (Sir R. Peel) would have supported me most fairly in any measure I might have brought forward for the settlement of this question, yet I think, during the time that has elapsed since he introduced the present measure, he must have heard statements and objections enough to convince him that those who would have followed him in that course, and would have supported me in the proposition of such a measure-I being in office, and he out of office-would have been very few in number. My belief, I may fairly state, is that not more than forty Members, or somewhere about that number, perhaps fifty, would have followed him. ["No!"] Some hon. Gentlemen seem to intimate that I am making an exaggerated statement; but at all events I do not believe that, if all the| Members of the present Cabinet in this House had gone with me, I should have had a sufficient number to enable me to obtain a majority on the first proposition for going into Committee. An hon. Friend of mine has stated to-night that he understood me to say that I should have been very sorry to see a dissolution of Parliament,

ment and discretion. I can conceive no assertion of an opposite principle-no assertion that the House of Commons is not competent to decide such a question as the present, which would not lead to the doctrine that we are not competent to decide any question of great importance unless we have been immediately elected by the people for the express purpose of determining such question. Such a doctrine, let me observe, is most democratic in its nature— a doctrine which leads almost to annual Parliaments, almost to the conviction, that unless elected for that express purpose, Members are not justified in giving their votes upon any great measure. This question bears directly upon the general powers of the House of Commons; and I may say, with regard to one question which arose out of the settlement of the house of Hanover, that I conceive the Parliament which was elected for three years was perfectly justified in prolonging its existence for seven years, and thereby saving the country from anarchy and rebellion. Now, if I am right in that opinion, will any one say that the House of Commons, which was competent to prolong its own powers from three years to seven, exceeds its powers in claiming to settle the question of the Corn Laws? I might also refer, if it were necessary to do so, to the circumstances which occurred with reference to the Union with Scotland and Ireland. I do not meddle with the question as it regards the engagements into which particular Members may have entered, or as to what their feelings may be with respect to their own private honour or their public character. My conviction is that this House, as at present constituted, is perfectly competent to settle the

it to be understood that it was out of no
preference which he entertained for the
measures of the Government that he voted
against the hon. Member for Wolverhamp-
ton. As long as a firm body could be
found in this House, and in another place,
and a much larger body out of doors, he
should cherish the hope that those mea-
sures would be defeated. The measure
was objectionable in every point of view.
It was most objectionable, even on his own
showing. He said it was to meet an
emergency for which it was not at all cal-
culated; and then, as if not to leave poor
consistency a single inch to stand upon,
an hon. Gentleman proposed a fixed duty,
which could not be maintained when prices
rose to a height when foreign corn would
be really wanted. If they were to have a
great change, let them have it at once, for
it would be even less dangerous to the
country than at the end of three years.
The country was now prosperous; agri-
culture had been, for the last six months,
in a flourishing condition; the farmers had
straight accounts with their landlords-
they could, therefore, better endure the
measure introduced in an intelligible
straightforward way, than in the insidious
manner in which it had been at present
introduced. It was like making a man
live on half a meal a day before he under-
went some great bodily exertion: would
he not much sooner undertake it when in
health than when in decay, and would he
not be much more able to execute it? As
it was with the body physical, so it was
with the body politic. In conclusion, the
hon. Gentleman said he should vote against
Mr. Villiers' Motion, because he had al-✔
ways opposed it, and against the measures
of Government, because they seemed to
have neither justice nor common sense in

question of the Corn Laws; and unless
there were a great popular-a great na-
tional feeling the other way, I conceive that
no one can with propriety maintain a con-
trary opinion. But having stated that I
consider the present House of Commons
competent to determine this question, I
may add that I think it desirable there
should not be a dissolution. I do not en-
tertain this opinion because I consider that
in the event of a dissolution we should not
obtain a majority in Parliament for the re-
peal of the Corn Laws. My belief is, that
we should have such a majority. But my
belief also is, that that majority would only
be attained after a great collision of opin-
ion, after very angry feelings had been ex-
cited in the course of the elections; and
that, under those circumstances, such a ma-
jority would hardly have that weight with
the other House of Parliament which I
think a majority of the present House of
Commons is likely to exercise upon its de-
cisions. I think the question would then
excite much greater discordance between
classes; that men would be much more apt
to stand upon pledges they had given,
against their more reflecting opinions; and
that we should be for some years in a state
of agitation on the subject which would be
most injurious to the country. For these
additional reasons, therefore, I am going to
take the only course which it seems to me
-after pondering upon this matter most
seriously to be my duty to the country to
follow. I am going to take the course of
voting with the Government against this
Amendment, and against any other Amend-
ments that are likely to be proposed in
Committee. I shall be prepared to vote
with them upon every stage of this Bill;
and I think the interests of this country
are deeply involved in the speedy, safe,
and tranquil settlement of this great ques-them.
tion.

SIR W. JOLLIFFE was anxious to address a few words to the Committee in explanation of the vote he was about to give, without making any reference, if he could possibly help it, to the debate on the Corn Law, on which, however, he should have been glad to speak had the opportunity been afforded him. He had always consistently voted against the proposition of the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, on the question of the Corn Law, and it was his intention still to vote against that hon. Gentleman. But if he did not enter into some explanation in doing so, he might be liable to misrepresentation; for he desired

MR. HUME hoped that on this occasion the speech of the hon. Member who had just resumed his seat would teach those who were about to divide the ranks of the supporters of the measures of Government what course they ought to adopt. After the speech of the noble Lord the Member for London (Lord J. Russell), he thought that every individual who was anxious to carry those measures should do his utmost to support the right hon. Baronet. He confessed that he should prefer an immediate repeal of the Corn Laws; but seeing what the right hon. Baronet had stated, he considered they would be acting in a manner that was calculated

to risk the great question; and on that | Allix, J. P.
ground he appealed to his hon. Friend (Mr.
Villiers) not on this occasion to divide
their ranks. At any rate, he (Mr. Hume)
could not give him his support.

MR. BORTHWICK, amid cries of "Divide," and "Oh!" from the Opposition, moved that the Chairman report progress and ask leave to sit again.

The MARQUESS of GRANBY would detain the Committee but a few moments. The noble Lord opposite had said that the present House of Commons was in a situation to settle this question. He contended that it was not, and he would prove it from the noble Lord's own observations. The noble Lord said, "If I had undertaken the government, and proposed the same measures that the Government now I should not have been able to propose, carry those measures in the House of Commons by a greater majority than 40 or 50. He now asked the Committee, in common fairness and candour, whether they thought they were in a position to carry those measures with satisfaction to the country or to those hon. Members who had always maintained that the Corn Law ought to be immediately repealed? He contended that it was not the opinion of that House. It had been proved by the noble Lord that it was not the opinion of that House. Even if the measure were right, this was not the way in which it should be carried.

Arkwright, G.
Bailey, J., jun.
Bankes, G.
Benett, J.
Bennet, P.
Bentinck, Lord G.
Bramston, T. W.
Beresford, Major.
Brisco, M.
Broadley, H.
Broadwood, H.
Brooke, Sir A. B.
Buck, L. W.
Brotherton, J.
Buller, Sir J. Y.
Churchill, Lord A. S.
Clifton, J. T.
Cole, hon. H. A.
Deedes, W.
Du Pre, C. G.
Fielden, J.
Filmer, Sir E.
Finch, G.
Fuller, A. E.
Gardner, J. D.
Granby, Marq. of
Grogan, E.
Halford, Sir H.
Halsey, T. P.
Henley, J. W.
Hildyard, T. B. T.
Hope, Sir J.
Hussey, T.
Ingestre, Viset.
Jolliffe, Sir W. G. Ę.

Acland, T. D.
A'Court, Capt.
Antrobus, E.

Baine, W.

TELLERS.

Borthwick, P.
Ferrand, B.

List of the NOES.

Archbold, R.
Austen, Col.
Baillie, Col.
Bannerman, A.
Baring, rt. hon. F. T.
Baring, rt. hon. W. B.
Barrington, Visct.
Beckett, W.
Bell, M.
Benbow, J.
Berkeley, hon. Craven
Berkeley, hon. H. F.

LORD WORSLEY rose to explain. He feared his noble Friend (Lord J. Russell) had misunderstood what he (Lord Worsley) had said in an earlier part of the evening, when he declared his intention of supporting the proposed duty of 5s., not as a measure of protection, but as one from which a revenue would be obtained. He would also take the opportunity of declaring that he saw nothing inconsistent in those opinions, or in the vote he was about to give, with the speech quoted by the hon. Member for the city of Durham (Mr. Bright). The EARL of MARCH said, that the House was in such a state of confusion that they seemed to have forgotten the question before the Committee. derstood that his hon. Friend the Member for Evesham had moved that the Chairman | Bright, J. should report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Bernal, R.
Blewitt, R. J.

Bodkin, W. H.
Boldero, H. G.
Botfield, B.
Bouverie, hon. E. P.
Bowes, J.
Bowles, A.
He un-Bowring, Dr.
Boyd, J.

The Committee divided on the Question-Ayes 70; Noes 227: Majority 157.

Browne, hon. W.
Bruce, Lord E.
Buller, C.
Busfeild, W.
Cardwell, E.
Carew, W. H. P.
Carnegie, hon. Capt.
Cavendish, hon. G. H.

Chapman, B.
Chelsea, Visct.

Chichester, Lord J. L.
Childers, J. W.
Christie, W. D.

Chute, W. L. W.
Clerk, rt. hon. Sir G.
Cobden, R.

Cockburn, rt. hn. Sir G.
Colborne, hon. W. N. R.
Colebrooke, Sir T. E.
Collett, W. R.
Collett, J.

Conolly, Col.
Corry, rt. hon. H.
Cowper, hon. W. F.

Craig, W. G.
Crawford, W. S.

Cripps, W.

Currie, R.
Curteis, H. B.
Dalmeny, Lord

Dalrymple, Capt.
Damer, hon. Col.
Davies, D. A. S.
Dodd, G.

Douglas, Sir C. E.

Douglas, J. D. S.

Drummond, H. H.

Duckworth, Sir J. T. B.

Duke, Sir J.
Duncan, Visct.
Duncan, G.
Duncombe, D.

Dundas, Adm.

Ferguson, Sir R. A.
Fitzmaurice, hon. W.
Fitzroy, hon. H.

Fleetwood, Sir P. H.
Flower, Sir J.

Maule, rt. hon. F.
Maxwell, hon. J. P.
Mildmay, H. St. J.

Mitcalfe, H.
Mitchell, T. A.
Moffatt, G.

Morpeth, Visct.
Morris, D.

Napier, Sir C.
Neville, R.
Norreys, Sir D. J.
O'Connell, D.
O'Connell, M. J.
O'Connell, J.
Oswald, J.

Palmerston, Visct.

Patten, J. W.
Pattison, J.
Pechell, Capt.
Peel, rt. hon. Sir R.
Peel, J.

Pennant, hon. Col.
Philips, G. R.
Philips, M.

Plumridge, Capt.
Protheroe, E.

Pusey, P.

ment seemed too heavy to inflict on the | letter to which he alluded, he would perHouse for a speech of his (Lord J. Russell). ceive he was totally unjustified in drawing He had said that no good result could arise the conclusion he had from it, and that in from a dissolution; but he thought there that letter he had never said anything might be one advantage from it. As far which could justify the noble Lord in drawas he could see from the noble Lord's pub-ing a conclusion that he would in a new lished opinions, the noble Lord said, that Parliament vote for the present measure. the measure of protection, which he conMR. M. J. O'CONNELL said, it was sidered it quite necessary to vote for as a really too bad that they should have perbenefit to the country in the present Par-petually quotations and opinions cited from liament, he should, if re-elected to a new former speeches on all occasions, and parParliament, consider it to be his duty to ticularly on such an occasion as the prevote as illegal; and that the Corn Laws, sent. He really wanted to know what instead of being maintained, should be re- any opinions expressed in a speech on a pealed. He must confess that getting the vote of want of confidence in a former Gonoble Lord's vote would be an advantage vernment had to do with the question of from a dissolution of Parliament, and it adjournment on the present occasion? As would be the only one. he did not want to see the character of that House lowered in the public estimation by such conduct, he, for one, rose to enter his solemn protest against such a course of factious opposition as a small minority of those who were opposed to the measure of Her Majesty's Government were now offering to it.

SIR A. BROOKE complained that several Irish Members had waited for thirteen nights, wishing to speak on this question, without ever getting an opportunity. This night, the whole time had been occupied by the hon. Members for Durham, Manchester, and Wolverhampton, by the noble Lord the Member for London, and the right hon. Baronet the First Lord of the Treasury, so that those who were in favour of protection had been prevented from speaking. Under these circumstances, he thought the call for a division very unfair, and should move that the House do now adjourn that this debate be now adjourned.

SIR R. PEEL said, if they came to a vote now, it would not close the question on the Resolution. There were other amendments before the House, but probably the best course would to dispose first of the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman.

MR. FERRAND said, he was prepared to justify the course they were pursuing that night, by reference to a speech of the right hon. Baronet, delivered on the 31st of January, 1840, in the debate on the vote of want of confidence in Ministers. Substitute the name of Stanley for that of Howick, and the exactness of the application was perfect. The hon. Member then read the passage referred to, to the effect that Lord Howick had quitted the Ministry of Lord Melbourne, because he had no confidence in its principles or professions. The hon. Member concluded by moving that the Chairman do now leave the chair.

LORD J. MANNERS wished to observe, in reply to the observations of the noble Lord, that if the noble Lord would have the kindness to refer with more care to that

Such a course could but bring the House of Commons into disrepute with the public.

MR. G. BANKES said, that as the hon. Member (Mr. M. J. O'Connell) asked why hon. Gentlemen desired to speak upon this subject, viz., whether the repeal of the Corn Laws should be immediate, or according to the right hon. Baronet's proposition; he would tell him it was because the hon. Member for Essex (Mr. Palmer), as honourable a Member as any in the Houserespectable as well for his long standing, as for his many other qualifications, was interrupted from the commencement of his speech until the conclusion-so much so, that even those who sat on the same side with him could scarcely catch a single observation he had made. When a Gentleman of such high character and standing, could meet with no more respect than that, it was surely foolish for other hon. Members to attempt to get a hearing. Whatever might be the trouble and inconvenience it occasioned, they (the protectionists) were determined to persevere in their course. For his own part, he felt that the observations made by right hon. Baronet (Sir R. Peel) called for a reply.

House resumed.

Chairman reported progress. Committee to sit again following day.

House adjourned at half-past one o'clock.