ment in some important branches of our industry, but complained that the principles of free trade were not carried out as they should have been if the Ministers had meant to be consistent. The AntiCorn Law League meetings, and the language used there were then commented on; in the course of the hon. gentleman's remarks he expressed an anxiety that the tenantfarmers should not be deluded by the landlords. He did not believe that the Ministers meant to give relief on the corn question, but he thought they ought to have dealt with it in the Speech; at all events, they ought to speak out in this debate; unless they did so there would be a civil war between Leaguers and Anti-Leaguers. He believed it was as much the interests of the landlords as of all other classes to get rid of the corn laws, for their abolition would clear the land of a million of paupers. It was not a measure likely, as some supposed, to lower wages, for wages were already lower in England than in any other country of the world. Where else could you buy a knife and fork for three halfpence, or get a shirt made for threepence? He meant to move two amendments-one, introductory of a declaration about the corn laws, and the other relative to that passage in the Speech which touched upon taxation. To reduce taxation was the true way to benefit the public creditors, of whose rights he professed himself the strenuous supporter. Ministers might talk about the late increase of revenue; but it was not a genuine increase-not an increase from increased consumption, but a sum obtained from an income-tax, and from a tax on imported corn, with an addition for the money paid in by China. A great part of our expense arose from the military force kept up in Ireland, where the people were tranquil in everything but their language, and where no force at all would be needed, if justice were but done to that country. Mr. Hume concluded by proposing the following resolution:- To declare that we should ill discharge the duty we owe to Her Majesty, if we did not direct her most serious attention to the present condition of her faithful people; which, notwithstanding the improvement in some branches of industry, still exhibits such an extent of destitution and suffering as to demand from Her Majesty's faithful Commons an expression of their opinion of the causes, and the best means of removing the same: To assure Her Majesty, that, although we fully appreciate the progress made by this Parliament in reducing the duties on many articles of import, we at the same time deeply lament that Her Majesty has not been advised to call our immediate attention to the repeal of those pernicious laws which prevent free trade in corn and provisions, so essential to the sustenance and comfort of the people, and to the prosperity of the state; and that we earnestly implore Her Majesty's gracious co-operation for the repeal of those prohibitory and restrictive laws which give monopolies in sugar and other articles to certain classes of Her Majesty's subjects, to the detriment of the rest; so that no duties may be levied on any imports except for the direct purposes of revenue to Her Majesty's Exchequer. To submit most respectfully to Her Majesty that an excessive and unequal taxation, disproportionate to the reduced value of property, the diminished profits on capital, and the inadequate wages of labour, pressing on all ranks of the community, but especially on the working classes, is a principal cause of the existing distress, and that a reduction of the same is absolutely necessary for the relief of Her Majesty's loyal, peaceful, and suffering people. That, as this country is, and, as we rejoice to hear, is likely to continue, at peace with all the world, we humbly represent to Her Majesty, that many branches of the civil, military, and naval establishments may be so greatly reduced as to procure for the people considerable relief from the pressure of taxation, without detriment to the public service." Mr. Sharman Crawford proposed another amendment, upon the tenth paragraph of the Address, which applied to that part of the Speech having reference to the estimates. He wished to add to that paragraph the following To assure Her Majesty that her faithful Commons will be always desirous to vote such sup plies as may be found just and necessary for the public service; but that under the existing cir cumstances of the country we shall deem it our first and most important duty to inquire into the various grievances complained of by her people, and to devise such measures as may be most effectual for redressing all just causes of complaint." He said his object was that Her Majesty should be informed that the people had deep cause of complaint for grievances which required to be redressed: among which he enumerated unfair and inadequate representation in Parliament, class legislation, accumulation of capital and property in the hands of a few, taxation of food, and extravagant public expenditure. They complained of all these things, and they could not get their complaints so much as listened to, much less redressed. Therefore it was that he maintained that those members who represented the people in that House should adhere to the constitutional principle of demanding the redress of grievances before granting the supplies. Mr. Warburton said, that when the House stopped the supplies in former times, the evil was small in comparison of what would result from a stoppage in our day. The Crown of old had large revenues of its own; but at this day the revenues of the Crown were as nothing in comparison with the expenses of our establishments. The grievances of the country were now so many that if the supplies were stopped till they were all redressed, the whole session would be gone before any supply was voted. He could not, therefore, now agree in the propriety of that course, and in voting with Mr. Crawford, he only desired to signify his opinion that the estimates would admit of very considerable reduction. Mr. Wallace said, he could not be bound by such fastidious laws as Mr. Warburton had laid down; and under any circumstances he should vote for stopping the supplies. (Laughter.) Lord John Russell next ad dressed the House, speaking in the first place with reference to the two amendments that had been moved. If Mr. Crawford's motion meant that the majority of the House had the power of stopping the supplies to enforce measures of redress, he knew of no power in the Crown to hinder it, and the assertion of the right was superfluous but if it meant that a minority could stop the supplies, to force opinions on the majority -which seemed to be the intention-he could not support any such motion; and he gladly expressed his dissent from projects which he had seen proclaimed elsewhere. Mr. Hume had said, that the House ought to have time to consider the topics in the Address; which would be very well if the vote pledged the House to any decided conclusion-in respect to Scinde, for example, he should pause before thanking the Crown for the annexation of that territory to the British empire: but in truth the Address only thanked the Queen for communicating the fact to the House; which obviated all difficulty in paying the compliment to the Crown of agreeing to the Address without division. Adverting then to the Speech and Address, he commended the cautious allusion to Irish matters, in imitation of which he would reserve his opinion for a future occasion, only now stating that he did not give his sanction to the late measures of the Government in that country. In several topics of the Speech, however, he expressed his concurrence, such as the passage respecting China. He was glad to find it now made matter of congratulation, that England had not in the time of the late Ministry submitted to the injury and affront which the Chinese Emperor would have put upon this country and her merchants. He rejoiced also in the present state of our relations with France; and that her Foreign Minister had reverted to the ancient policy of his country, the support of Turkey, from which for a while she had deviated. "I am glad that we shall be on the most intimate terms with France. She is one of the most enlightened as well as one of the greatest countries in Europe. From France, as well as from England, have proceeded some of the greatest and most distinguished men of letters and science, whose labours have enlightened the world; and I trust that the two countries will never again have occasion to meet in those fields of warfare which, however they may produce deeds of brilliancy and glory, cannot, in the end, but be productive of great calamity to thousands." (Cheers.) With respect to domestic affairs, Lord John Russell said, he had no doubt that, although there had been some exaggeration, there had yet been a solid improvement in the manufacturing districts. This he thought was partly to be ascribed to the last two harvests. "I have made particular inquiry with respect to the effect of the harvest amongst the poor. With respect to the price of food, and the effect to some poor families of whom I made inquiry, I was told by one that the price of bread this year was to them a saving of a shilling every week in the consumption of the family; and if we multiply the number of families who must be in that condition, we see that there must be a saving in the article of food to the amount of 7,000,000l. or 8,000,000l. sterling, to be devoted to the purchase of articles of clothing or other goods of which the poor man stands in need. I think it is obvious, then, that that bounty of Providence goes far to account for the improvement which has taken place in our manufactures." That effect, however, would have been much the same with a prohibitory duty, as with a sliding scale, and could not be quoted in favour of any particular law. Sir Robert Peel's policy had in fact placed the agricultural interest in a disadvantageous position. There were three schemes on the subject. One was the old scheme of protecting British against foreign industry; another was competition freed of all protection, with no du⚫ties except for revenue. The third was the opinion maintained by the present Government. "Now, although the first opinion is totally erroneous, and although the second opinion is in itself absolutely true, yet in the condition of this country, having to raise the interest of a debt of 800,000,000l., and to support its establishments, and having for these purposes laid on many taxes at various times, some pressing on one class and some on another, when you make a change from what is erroneous to what is sound and true, you should make that change with great caution, and should rather look how a fair competition with foreigners can be established with some advantages to our own producers, who have hitherto been unduly favoured, than go at once into a system of entire freedom. That, I think, was very much the principle upon which the right honourable gentleman proposed his tariff two years ago. He stated that as a general proposition, but he said he never would go the whole length of it at once. But the misfortune in his corn law is that it does not go the proper length." If the principle here is good for any thing, it is founded on the protection of British interests. All who defended it defended it on that ground. But this law is left alone and repudiated in your policy with respect to all other articles. It is therefore a law which can be defended only on a principle which you say yourselves is indefensible. That appears, then, to be placing the agricultural interest and the whole landed interest at a disadvantage as respects the rest of the community. If you could say that you protect British agriculture along with all classes of British industry, for that is the true principle, then you would tie up your corn law in a faggot with the rest; and either corn and every thing else might be made perfectly free; or again, they might be subjected to moderate duties of 5, 10, or 20 per cent. But what do you say with respect to almost all articles of trade and commerce? We adopt a moderate duty; but with respect to an article in which the great majority of the House of Lords and the great majority of the House of Commons are deeply interested, we have a duty of 40 per cent. levied-(Loud cheers from the Opposition benches) and that duty is a shifting and changing duty, and one which every commercial man declares to be irreconcilable with every sound principle.' Now, that does seem to me to be the difficulty of the present situation in which you have left the corn laws. And when I see gentlemen at agricultural meetings, after expressions of distrust of the right honourable baronet, much greater than I, one of the leaders of the Opposition, ever ventured to express, bid him openly come forward, declare that the corn law shall not be changed, year, and bind himself to it in all perpetuity, I must say, such men make the most extravagant and absurd request that ever was made of any statesman in this country. The right honourable gentleman told us last session that he did not mean to alter the corn laws last but that with respect to the future, he must judge of the condition of the country, and of the effect of this as of any other commercial law. I thought that the only answer the right honourable gentleman could give; and I should certainly be very much surprised if I found him now saying, I am so enamoured of my law, I think it in all respects so perfect, that I will stand by it to all eternity.' I should be surprised if he made that declaration; and I think that the agricultural cry is a most unreasonable one." (Cheers.) Sir Robert Peel, after paying a well-deserved compliment to the mover and seconder of the Address, opposed the two amendments, and vindicated his own position. He opposed the motion of Mr. Crawford, to whom he pointed out the injury which his amendment would do to his favourite democratic opinions. "I can conceive nothing more injurious to the popular principle of the Constitution than to abuse the privileges we possess, and which are calculated for our guidance on great occasions. The power of moving constant adjournments is a power of which it may be right that individuals or a minority should continue in possession; but it is intrusted to them, like other powers under a great responsibility (hear hear); and they are seriously affecting the popular principle, and injuring those interests of which they are, I am bound to suppose, the sincere and strenuous advocates, if they lightly call into action instruments which ought only to be invoked on great occasions. The honourable gentleman says that he will stop the supplies until the grievances of the country are redressed-why, what various opinions are entertained both as to grievances themselves and as to the best mode of their redress? And if the honourable gentleman and those friends of his who entirely concur in opinion with him were to form the Government of the country, and possessed a great majority, they would be setting an example fatal to their own power of conducting the public business; for they would have set the example to a small minority, differing with them as to the nature of grievances, and as to the mode of redress, to obstruct the conduct of public business by themselves, by exercising the privilege intended for other purposes. (Cheers.) Mr. Hume had required twentyfour hours to consider the topics in the Address; but would that time suffice, if each separate question were really to be considered and decided? Referring, then, to French affairs, Sir R. Peel remarked with much satisfaction on the unanimity of the House with respect to the "good understanding" with France. He then explained what he meant by a good understanding." "I do not mean any secret engagements between France and this country, which might give offence to any other of the powers of Europe: our understanding ought to be patent and open to all the world. We seek to interfere with or prejudice the rights of no other country; we covet no invasion of the territory of any of them; we 66 |