Viltutto nut Vrartritingo in Valiant.
PRINCIPAL BUSINESS OP THE 'WEER.
Erma OF Loans. Monday, Nov. 22. Crystal Palace; Statement by Lord Derby as to proposed Sunday Opening—Convocation ; Question by Lord Shaftesbury and reply by Lord Derby—Business of Session; Statement by Lord Derby. Tuesday, Nov. 23. No business of importance. Tuesday, Nov. 23. No business of importance. Th , Nov. 25. No business of importance.
.Friday, Nov. 26. American Fisheries ; Statement by Lord Malniesbury. Room or COMMONS. Monday, Nov. 22. Mr. Paget ; Question by Mr. M. Milnes --Maynootla ; Mr. Spooner to move for a Committee after Christmas—Westminster Bride; Government to build a new one—Episcopal Incomes; Sir B. Hall's Notice of bringing in a Bill to regulate--Call of the House ; Motion withdrawn—Landlord and Tenant, Ireland; Government Bills read a first time.
Tuesday, Nov. 23. Clergy Reserves in Canada ; Returns ordered—Church-rates; Sir W. Clay's Notice. of Bill to abolish—Mr. Villiers's Free-trade Motion ; Mr. Dis- raelPs Amendment; debate adjourned. Wednesday, Nov. 24. County Polls Bill, read a second time. Thursday, Nov. 25. Tenant-Right (Ireland); Sergeant Shee's Bill read a first tune —Free-trade debate continued; Explanations by Sir James Graham and others. _Friday. Nov. 26. Financial Statement, fixed for December 3d—Established Church of Ireland ; Mr. Moore to move for Committee after Christmas—Uni- versity Tests, Scotland; Mr. 31oncreiff to bring in a Bill after Christmas—Free-trade debate concluded; Mr. Villiers's Motion negatived by 336 to 256; Lord Palmerston's Amendment carried by 468 to 53.
TIME
The Lords.
Hour of Hour of Meeting. AOlombnient.
The Commons.
Hour of Hour of
Meeting. Adjournment.
Monday
5h 611 30m
Monday 4h .... 911 30rn Tuesday No business Tuesday 4h .(its) 12h lam Wednesday No sitting. Wednesday Noon .... 2h 45m Thursday 5h . Oh 10m Thursday 4h jut) 12h 46m Friday Oh bh 25in Friday th .(m) 2h Om
Sittings this Week, 3; Time, Oh bui — this Session, 10; — 154 Om
Sittings this Week, 5; Time, Sbh ibro
— this Session, 12; — 11155 Om
THE FREE-TRADE DEBATE.
The great debate of the week was prefaced by a discussion in the House of Lords, on Monday. The Marquis of CLANRICARDE desired to know what would be the nature of the public business to be proposed by Min- isters before Christmas, and of that to be proposed during the remainder of the session.
• The Earl of DERBY, in answering the query, called attention to the general circumstances under which Parliament met.
He referred to the understanding with regard to the present session, that an opportunity should be given for coming to a decision on the policy of the Government; and he confessed again that the sense of the community was in favour of our present commercial system. "I therefore did not hesitate to advise her Majesty, in the Speech from the Throne, to declare, in terms as explicit as I thought it proper and fitting as a Minister to place in her Majesty's mouth, not any opinion as to the policy to be pursued, but only an expression of fact, that the principle of unrestricted competition was one which the wisdom of Parliament had decided ought to be adopted by the country." Any ambiguity in the Speech from the Throne had been re- moved by Lord Derby himself in the House of Lords on the first night of the session, and by a similar statement by the leader of the House of Commons. Be doubted whether language could be framed pledging Government more explicitly to any line of policy. But they went further. Instead of post- poning the financial statement until the period of the session when it is usually made, they had resolved to lay before Parliament, in full detail, the fiscal and financial regulations which they recommended, and by which Par- liament would be best enabled to judge of the sincerity of their professions and the wisdom and policy of their performance. He proceeded to censure the course about to be followed in the House of Commons by Mr. Villiers and his friends, in the face of the promised de- velopment of the financial policy of Government on the 26th. "The abstract resolution to which I have referred was couched, and I suppose intentionally, in language and terms which it is impossible for Government or its supporters to accept. It was not confined to a declaration of policy for the future, but con- tained reflections and opinions on the past in which it is impossible for us to agree. So far as regards the affirmation of a principle, it goes no further than that amendment which, for the purpose of recording the opinions and inten- tions and principles of the Government, my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has placed on the notice-paper of the other House. As an announcement of principle, it is utterly and entirely unne- cessary. Whatever other views the party may have in proposing it, I know not. If it be to overthrow the Government before it has announced its plans and its policy, I only hope that the honourable gentleman, and those various sections into which the Oppositien is now divided, will consider the full amount of the responsibility which they are taking upon themselves ; that they will consider, not merely how they may combine the largest force to overthrow the Government, but that they will consider, if the Government be overthrown, whether they have among themselves that concert and union of action which is necessary to form another Government, and to save the country from all the inconveniences of a Ministerial interregnum. It may be that they have no such intention to take upon themselves the responsi- bility of overthrowing the Government. If it be so, and if their motion be merely to affirm a principle, not more strongly than we are prepared to affirm it ourselves, where is the honesty of it ? But if it be not to overthrow, but only to weaken the Government by forcing upon it a resolution offensive to the Government and its supporters—if that, I say, be only the intention of the movers, then I have great confidence that the House of Commons and the country will not sanction and support a proceeding which, if it have that intention, is merely factious, and which, if it be successful, must involve more serious consequences than its authors anticipate." Not their own action, but the intervention of other parties, has thrown impediments in the way of Ministers. They had met to close for ever the controversy with regard to Protection or Free-trade. And with respect to making a statement of the measures they intended to bring forward, al- though a Committee had been appointed on our Indian territories, and the Lord Chancellor had submitW' an outline of measures of extensive legal reform, "and the Attorney-General for Ireland is probably at this very mo- ment engaged in laying before the House other measures of the utmost im- portance to Ireland, yet, bearing in mind that Parliament has been sum- moned to meet at this moment in order to come to a decision upon the com- mercial and financial measures of the Government,—and by that decision, !,0 be given before Christmas, we are prepared to stand or fall,—it is not the intention of the Government to submit any important measures to your Lordship. during this preliminary session." The Marquia of CLANRICARDE contended that Ministers were not driven by the motion of Mr. Villiers to embody their views in an amend- ment, They might have rejected or negatived the resolution, or met it
by the " previous question." Lord Derby had no right to assume that the Speech from the Throne and his own speech had satisfied Parliament.
Lord DEBBY here interrupted the speaker ; suggesting that, having put his question and received his answer, if he wished to speak again, he should propose a formal motion. 'Lord CLANRICARDE said he would conclude with a motion.
This great question was not to be settled by a passing speech; Parliament should record its opinion. What effect the threat of resignation might have he did not know ; but when he recollected that Lord Derby took eighteen gentlemen down to Windsor to be sworn in Privy Councillors for the first time, and that his three Secretaries of State and Chancellor of the Exchequer had never held office before, it did not appear probable that the House of Corn- moos would be deterred from taking any course they might think it ad- visable to pursue, by the apprehensien of not being able to find successors to
the present Ministers as able and experienced as they were. (Laughter.) He moved that the passage in the Queen's Speech relating to the state of country should be read.
The motion was agreed to, and the passage read. Lord WODEHOUSE then rose • apparently resenting what he considered an attempt on the part of the Premier to stop debate. Lord Derby had tried to persuade them that there was no difference be- tween the two resolutions. [Lord Derby—" Oh no I "] The difference wae, that one declared Free-trade wise and just, while the other did not do so. The conduct of Ministers had been so equivocal and doubtful, that it was necessary to exact from them stronger pledges than were usually demanded from Ministers of the Crown. The Premier himself had stated that he went to the country prepared to bring in Protectionist measures if he got a ma- jority, but to adopt Free-trade if he did not. It was utterly inconceivable, how, with ordinary regard topolitical morality, such a course could be taken by a Minister. Placa. in a similar position in private life, Lord Wodehouse himself would have felt it inconsistent with his personal honour to act so. In such matters he could see no difference between a private individual and
I a public man. f Lord Derby still thought well of a Protectionist policy, he ought either to attempt to restore it, or to resign. The agriculturists are looking for compensation ; and what the Opposition want to know is, do Go- vernment intend to give it them ? Lord Derby condemned factious conduct in others; but his whole conduct since 1846 rendered him as obnoxious to that charge as any man in the kingdom. He broke up the Conservative party by separating himself from Sir Robert Peel in 1846. He then con- tributed to break up Sir Robert Peel's Government, and aided year after year in inflaming the muids of the farmers, saying he would stand or fall by Pro- tection ; yet, the moment he was called upon to take office, he said he would defer to the feelings of the country.
The Earl of DERBY rejoined, that he would not answer Lord Wode- house's speech. "It is unnecessary for me to make any observations on the temper, the language, and the tone of that speech. My conduct has been before the public for—I am sorry to say—nearly thirty years ; and I am not now going- to defend myself against imputations which I feel to be utterly unworthy of further notice. The noble Baron may be a competent judge of what is due to his own personal honour ; I claiin to be the best judge of what is due te mine and I want no advice from him as to the mode in which I should maintain it." As to attempting to prevent Lord Clanriearde from speaking,. he was sure Lord Clanricarde would acquit him of that. He had merely wished to place the debate on a footing of order. Lord WODEHOUBE withdrew anything which might be considered a re- flection on the personal honour of Lord Derby ; and the latter said, that after that he would cease to remember a single word of what had been said.
The engagement in the Commons commenced on Tuesday, according to the arrangements made last week.
Mr.Vrixrans brought forward his resolutions worded as follows- " That it is the opinion of this House, that the improved condition of the country,. and particularly of the industrious classes, is mainly the result of recent commercial legislation, and especially of the act of 1848, which established the free admission of foreign corn; and that that act was a wise, just, and beneficial measure. •• That it is the opinion of this House, that the maintenance and further extension of the policy of Free-trade, as opposed to that of Protection, will best enable the property and industry of the nation to bear the burdens to which they are exposed, and will most contribute to the general prosperity, welfare, and contentment of the people.
•• That this House is ready to take into its consideration any measures consistent with the principles of these resolutions which may be laid before it by her Majesty's Ministers."
In order to show why he moved resolutions at all, Mr. Villiers pointed out that they had met for the special purpose of settling the basis of their commercial legislation. They had nevertheless bound themselves by the paragraph in the Queen's Speech, which, although generally objected to, had been permitted to pass without amendment; because it was felt that as they had met for the purpose of coming to a specific decision, delibera- tion on a specific occasion was advisable. Under these circumstances it was that he gave notice of his motion.
There was a peculiar propriety, then, in submitting the resolutions, as the paragraph in the Queen's Speech had given "universal dissatisfaction." They had expected to find a distinct opinion' but what they found was felt by the country to be an unworthyevesion. It concluded in terms "used purposely not to be respectful." (Cries of "Oh, oh !" from the Ministerial side.) Everybody knew that "the wisdom of Parliament," was a cant sort of satirical phrase. How Ministers could have considered that that paragraph would be satisfactory, he could not understand. When he gave notice of motion, he was asked to waive his resolutions until Government had sub- mitted certain measures. But what had those measures to do with declaring the verdict on the great question at issue ? Ministers had consented to be tried by the country ; they had been tried and found wanting ; and was it any an- swer to such a verdict to say, " Well, if this will not do' we have got some- thing else—we have a colleague of such astounding geniusthat he will produce you something as a substitute, which will delight you beyond everything— which will be perfectly satisfactory to till parties." (Laughter.) There are many geniuses of that kind, especially in medicine ; but the thing now to be done was to pronounce a decision on our future policy. He did not know why he was to trust Ministers ; their intentions were not quite clear from their speeches. [Mr. Villiers here cited divers contradic- tory opinions of the Protectionist Members.] Members on that side had been called " factious" : they were not so factious as to try and prevent a new policy ; but as far as we can make out at this moment, he said, "you are no converts at all—you are acting from necessity." Still developing this point, he insisted that if Ministers were not disposed to make a confession, at least the House might have an opportunity of doing so. He declined therefore to withdraw his motion. They all agreed that recent legislation had improved the condition of the working classes ; and he had ventured to characterize that legislation as "wise, just, and beneficial." Everything that affects the condition of the i people s involved in the price of food ; a topic which Mr. Villiers treated at some length. Passing from this, he alluded to Lord Derby's threat, that if Ministers were beaten on these resolutions, they intended to resign. Ile had not the smallest desire to see them dismissed. (" Oh, oh !") The Premier was a great authority as to what was faction. ("Hear, hear !" and laughter.) His experience of thirty years made his authority in such matters indisputable. Nevertheless, it is still possible for a man to be singleminded—atill possible for a man not to be ready to adopt every principle and abandon every party for the sake of power. He would be sorry to see the calamity contingently menaced by the gentlemen opposite, but he was not without hopes for the country even if it should happen. If he might offer a little advice to the Chancellor of the Exchquer, it would be, to do no such thing as go out, but rather, if the motion were carried, accept it with thankfulness. "He seems to be at last willing to enter on a career of usefulness, and I would entreat him not to be deterred by the novelty of the thing from pursuing it." (Cheers and laughter.) By his present amendment he had taken a good step onward.
Mr. Villiers occupied a large proportion of his speech with statistics to show how beneficially the Free-trade measures had operated, not only on the condition of the operative classes of the towns and manufacturing dis- tricts, but also on the condition of the agricultural labourers, the tenant- farmers, and the landlords ; and he read documents proving the latter points. Farmers had very distinct grievances there was the law of distress, the law of settlement, compensation for unexhausted improvements, and the Game- laws : but these are distinct from Protection. The time is come "when the interests of the farmers must be more considered in this House than they have been. I can't help thinking that the farmers have been a very ill-used class. (Cheers from both sides of the House.) In my opinion, their distress has been made capital of by the gentlemen opposite." (Cheers from the Opposition.)
He desired that a distinct statement should be made on the part of the Government, as to what cause in their opinion the improved condition of • things should be ascribed ; not leaving that cause to be guessed at. He be- lieved it was almost entirely due to Free-trade, and not, as had been al- leged, to the gold-diggings or emigration. He hoped the Chancellor of the Exchequer would not evade the question by talking of faction or questioning motives, but would let the House and the country know at once what they have to expect. The position of the Protectionists was always referred to when negotiations were attempted with other countries ; and "enormous mischief" had been done by them in their six years' agitation and assertion of their views.
Mr. EWART seconded the resolutions.
The CHANCRLLOR of the EXCHEQUER rose to move an amendment on the part of Minister. The question to be decided, he said, was not whether Protection or Free-trade should be repealed or supported, but whether her Majesty's Ministers, by their conduct since their accession to office, have fulfilled their pledges to Parliament and to the country ; and whether they had frankly communicated to the Howe the resolution at which they have arrived, if, as Mr. Villiers had stated, "enormous mischief" had been caused by the conduct of the Protectionist party, then it was the duty of the House to express, in a manner that could not be mistaken, that they have no confidence in the man who have perpetra- ted "enormous mischief." Claiming attention while he laid before the House an "accurate statement" of the principal incidents which had oc- curred during the last five years, he explained how they had opposed the repeal of the Corn-laws in 1846, on two grounds. The main and princi- pal ground on which he had placed it was, that it would be injurious to the interests of labour ; and in 1850 he had said that it was a labourer's question, or it was nothing. Another ground was, that it would prove injurious to a considerable interest. He showed how the same Mini- ster who repealed the Corn-laws objected to the repeal of the Sugar-laws. Then followed the Navigation-laws ; and shortly afterwards complaints from the three interests involved : so that since 1847 they had been mainly engaged in discussions and legislation on agricultural, colonial, and shipping distress. From that to the present time, not a single at- tempt had been made in the House of Commons—at least with the sanc- tion of any party—to abrogate the measure of 1846, or to bring back that Protection which had been so unnecessarily attacked. And why ?— Because there were no facts to show that the condition of the working classes was injured by the act of 1846. He appealed to the House to pronounce whether the party, said to ha-ze perpetrated "enormous mis- chief," had acted in a factious spirit in regard to the Sugar-laws ? He described how a Committee had been appointed to consider the question, composed of fifteen Members, of whom three alone were Protectionists; and yet those gentlemen had recommended a differential duty of ten shillings in favour of Colonial sugar. If there were "enormous mis- chief" done, let gentlemen opposite take their share of it. The con- duct of the then Opposition had influenoed the Minister of the day ; for Lord John Russell came down to the House and asked leave to bring in a bill to suspend the change in the Sugar-duties and to prolong the protection which he had himself taken away. Had they attempted to disturb the settlement of the Navigation-laws ? He described what had been his own policy; how he had resisted the demands of the discontented farmers that Protection should be restored, and had recommended them to look for remedial legislation ; how he had brought forward a motion on the subject of local taxation; and how it had mainly contributed to shake the Government out of office in 1851. He twitted Lord John Russell with having told the shipowners that they were subjected to burdens which impeded their prosperity, yet Lord John had not attempted to remove them while in power ; and he asked if they were surprised, then, at the existence of a party discontented with recent legislation ? Here he brought the conduct of ',cord Derby into contrast, and told how it was by his advice that the Protectionist party had ab- stained from attempting to disturb existing laws. This brought him down in his retrospective glance to February 1852, when the late Ministry having fallen through internal dissensions, Lord Derby was called in. Then he described successively their great successes,---the Militia by voluntary enrolment, and the Chancery reforms. Reverting here to the conduct of the sections of the Opposition upon the remedial legislation which he had proposed, he boasted that it had met with the support of Mr. Gladstone, to whom he paid many compliments ; and that Lord John Russell inserted an acknowledgment of agricultural distress in the Speech from the Throne, which he subsequently defended in Parliament. For the rest, Mr. Disraeli vindicated the course pursued in reference to the appeal to the country, the meeting of Parliament, and the paragraph in the Queen's Speech. He appealed to the example of Sir Robert Peel, who, when he became Minister in 1835, expressed his determination not to disturb the Reform Bill, although he had strenuously opposed it. "If you carry your motion, you will render Parliamentary government im- possible in this country." He illustrated -this by supposing that the fol- lowers of Sir Robert Peel took office in that case, they might be met with a resolution declaring the Ecclesiastical Titles Act, which they had opposed, a wise, just, and beneficent measure. Ministers had ful- filled all their pledges but one and now they were ready to fulfil that. The Government measures would have been brought forward " but for this vexatious motion." He might have moved "the previous ques- tion "—he would. not. " I say it for myself, and in the name and on behalf of my colleagues, that we neither seek to be, nor will be, Minis- ters on sufferance."
" Sir, I believe I have now said all that is necessary for me to address to the House, and I am content here to leave the case of the Government. I have placed before the House, very imperfectly I can easily conceive, the whole of that case. The subject is somewhat large, and I have endeavoured to be as succinct as circumstances required. If I had only personal feelings to consider, I should sit down ; but I think, without vanity and speaking in the name of the Government, that there is, in the circumstances in which we find ourselves placed, something which a sense of duty may justify ma in looking beyond personal considerations. We believe that we have a po- licy which will conduce to increase the welfare, content, and prosperity of the country. I hope it is not an unworthy ambition to desire to have an op- portunity of submitting that policy to Parliament. But I am told that that 18 not to be the case. Now, although I have too much respect for this House to condescend to advocate the cause of a Government, yet I will say some- thing on behalf of a policy. I will not, therefore without a struggle, consent to yield to an attack so unfair as that to which we are subjected. I will not'. believe, remembering that this is a new Parliament, that these who have entered it for the first time have already, in their con- sciences, recorded their opinions. On the contrary,: I believe that they will listen to the spirit and to the justice of the plea which I put before them to- night. It is to thou) new Members, on whichever side of the House they may sit, that I appeal with confidence. They have just entered, many of them after much longing, upon that scene to which they have looked forward with so much firmness, suspense, and interest. I have no doubt they are animated with a noble ambition, and that many of them will hereafter real- ize their loftiest aspirations. I can only say, from the bottom of my heart, that I wish that, whatever may be their aim in an honourable career, their most sanguine hopes may not be disappointed. Whatever adds to the intel- ligence, eloquence, and knowledge of the House, adds also to its influence ; and the interests of all are bound up in cherishing and maintaining the moral and intellectual predominance of the House of Commons. To the new Mem- bers therefore, I now appeal. I appeal to the generous and the young ; and I all diem to pause now that they are at last arrived on the threshold of the sanctuary of the constitution, and not become the tools and victims of exhausted factions and obsolete politics. I move the following amendment- " That this House acknowledges with satisfaction, that the cheapness of pro- visions, occasioned by recent legislation, has mainly contributed to improve the con- dition and increase the comforts of the working classes ; and that unrestricted competition having been adopted, after due deliberation' as the principle of our commercial system, this House is of opinion that it is the duty of the Government unreservedly to adhere to that policy in those measures of financial and administra- tive reform which, under the circumstances of the country, they may deem it their duty to introduce.'" Mr. BRIGHT, in reference to the elaborate defence set up by Mr. Dis- raeli, that the "Protectionist party" had not attempted to unsettle the legislation of 1846, said he appeared to have forgotten that he had voted for Mr. Grantley Berkeley's motion in 1850; that Sir John Pakington had always been opposed to the existing policy ; and that Mr. 'terries had brought the question of the Navigation-laws before the House. In fact, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in his peculiar and adroit manner, had endeavoured to evade the question before the House, by showing that however bad he himself might be, Lord John Russell and two or three other Members were not a bit better. But the matter in debate was too important to be disposed of by recrimination between party and party. The Protectionist Government had appealed to the country, and lost their appeal; and as a final verdict has now to be taken, should that verdict be drawn up by one who had altogether repudiated Free-trade, or by one who had consistently supported it ? Mr. Bright thought, the latter. It was not a question of words. One resolution declared that the act of 1816 was wise, just, and beneficial—it established a principle ; the amendment merely announced a fact. It was not correct to say that Ministers had dissuaded the farmers from agitation, by telling them it was a labourer's question. Did not they recollect the speeches which had been made all over the country by gentlemen whom he saw before him ? Turning from this point, Mr. Bright set forth statistics to show that the Corn-laws were not passed in 1315 to enable the landlords to bear the burdens on land; and to show that the farmers had lost nothing by Free-trade which the improved condition of the country had not am- ply compensated. But Mr. Bright questioned the sincerity of the Minis- terial avowal; and to prove how large a portion of the party entertained, in July last, strong opinions that Free-trade would be reversed or an equivalent for Protection devised, he cited a long string of opinions ex- pressed by Protectionist Members. Mr. William Bentinek told the electors of West Norfolk, that "he believed it was impossible for the Free-trade policy to be carried out; and he would do his utmost to have that policy reversed." Mr. Newdegate was "as much a Protectionist as ever," though he was "not the man to break up the Con- servative party." In South Warwick, Lord Brooke said that "his opinions remained unchanged." Mr. Bagge, in West Norfolk, believed that the de- pression of the agricultural interest was solely attributable to Free-trade. Mr. Yorke, in Cambridgeshire, declared he would take the first opportunity that occurred of recording his vote in favour of Protection. Lord George Manners, in the same county, said he believed Lord Derby would re- medy the hasty and inconsiderate measures of 1846, either by a counter- vailing duty or by revision of taxation. Mr. Bankea Stanhope, at the nomi- nation for North Lincoln, wished to protect not only the farmer but the Bri- tish labourer from foreign competition. Mr. Ball, the Member for Cambridge- shire, was reported to have said that "the more he thought over the matter, the more he was convinced that Free-trade was one of the greatest curses that ever befell the country." Mr. Bright hoped the honourable Member was of the same opinion still? [Mr. Ball exclaimed, with energy, "Quito so!" and a burst of laughter followed.] Mr. Halsey in Hertfordshire, Lord Burghley in South Lincoln, had not changed their opinions. The Marquis of Granby 4‘ would ride the horse of Protection so long as he was fit to go with, but when not fit, he would take the beast of burden so far as it would carry him." Captain Vyse believed the present Government to be "Conservative, Protective, and Protestant." According to Mr. Knightley, Lord Derby would restore Protection if he could, or give an equivalent. The Marquis of Wor- cester and Lord Mandeville believed that relief would be given by a read- justment of taxation. Mr. Fellowea, in Huntingdonshire, affirmed that the labourer was better off with the quartern loaf at sixpence than at fivepence- " provided he had a wife and four children." (Loud laughter.) Mr. Wal- pole had argued in favour of compensation for burdens. There was a gen-
tleman, the Member for North Essex, but Mr. Bright did not know whether he would dare to come forward and show himself on this occasion—[Sir John Tyre11 immediately showed himself, and took a seat, amid cheers and laugh- ter, on the front Ministerial benches.] Mr. Bright must apologize for rousing Sir John from his slumber.; but he must say he could not help compliment- ing him upon his admirable temperament in being able to slumber on such an occasion. Sir John told the farmers that Lord Derby would alleviate their burdens; and "treated with sovereign contempt the insinuation that the
old and tried friends of the agriculturalists should be regarded as impostors." Mr. Noel VMS Still a Protectionist. Mr. Frewen would cordially support a
motion to restore Protection ; he was not going to change his opinion. Mr. Drax congratulated the electors of •Wareham on the fact that Protection was not dead. Colonel Sibthorp was still a stanch Protectionist. Mr. Melina of Wallingford only wanted one penny more in the price of the loaf. Of the Ministers, the Lord Advocate, Mr. Christopher, Mr. Bankes, Sir Fitzroy Kelly, and Mr. Henke, were all for Protection. Mr. Herries was very en- thusiastic. Commenting on the progress of the elections in July, he said— "At Grantham we have succeeded ; at Grimsby, at Boston, at Lincoln also : therefore we may willingly accept the challenge and abide the issue." Why did they not now accept the challenge and abide the issue ? (Loud cheers.) Another curious fact to which Mr. Bright called attention, was that of a circular which had been issued asking for support in behalf of an English translation of the Protectionist speech of M. Thiers in the Legislative Assem- bly of France. The circular was dated so recently as the 2c1 of this month : among the subscribers were the National Association for Protection, 100 co- pies ; the Earl of Derby, the Earl of Malmesbury, Mr. Walpole, 10 copies . each ; Sir Fitzroy Belly, 20 copies ; the Marquis of Granby, 40 copies. air. Disraeli's name was not among the subscribers. After the statements he had read, would the House permit an evasion ?
Mr. %En SEYKER made an effective speech in defence of the Minis- terial position. Whatever individual Members may have done, the Min- isterialists have not raised the question of Protection as a party. The
leader of the Free-trade party brought forward a resolution which the Ministerial party could not accept, although they had accepted the policy of 1846. The Free-trade leader was about to be beaten in a Free-trade House ; and this he called advancing the cause of Free-trade ! The measure of 1846 might have been successful, and yet not have been " wise " at the time when it was passed, nor "just" unless accompanied by other measures, such as an equal distribution of taxation. Now the country is tired of the Whigs. Lord Maidstone might have said, "After
Lord Derby," not "the Deluge," but "Chaos," to judge from the chaotic confusion on the Opposition benches. The country i3 anxious that the
Conservative Ministry should try their hands at those reforms which are congenial to the constitution, and with which the Whigs have been tri- fling for years. He had no prejudice on the subject of the franchise ; but the House of Commons as at present constituted is both able and willing to carry such reforms : all that is wanted is a Ministry prepared to introduce them.
Mr. FREDERICK PEEL said, one thing was certain, that Ministers had made great advances in opinion. He believed that they were disposed
henceforth to carry out Free-trade. But it was only the upper part of the Protectionist party, those who had been "warmed by the rays of official dignity," who had accepted Free-trade, and nothing was more reasonable than to demand from them an adhesion to some resolution recanting their old opinions. "I must say also, that I think something is due to the past. It cannot be forgotten with how hard a measure the right honourable gentleman op- posite, especially, along with his colleagues, dealt with others for a change of conviction in their minds—(Loud cheers)—a change of conviction, I must add, which had tenfold the palliation for it, and not one tenth of the provo- cation in it, which had been the course now pursued by her Majesty's Mi- nisters." It would be a striking instance of retributive justice, if those who had heaped obloquy on the authors of the act of 1846, now had the candour to come forward and acknowledge that it was a wise, just, and beneficent
measure. (Cheers.) He did not consider the present a party move against the Government. (Laughter and "Hear, hear! ") The House was dis-
charging a solemn act of duty to the country, and compelled to perform it by the conduct of Ministers. They were halting between two opinions— trying to reconcile retention of office with a character for consistency ; while the country was clear and determined. Lord Paratintsrox undoubtedly thought that the Queen's Speech—" as ambiguous as words could make it"—rendered the motion necessary.
It was desirable that the opinion of the House should • be expressed, "if not with unanimity, at least with a large majority." But while he fully agreed with the mover, he was bound to consider the opin-
ions of others who desired to concur in the proceedings of the House. It would be very dangerous to have an inquisition into men's private opinions. There was very little difference between the resolution and the amendment, except with reference to the past ; and he thought it unwise, if not unjust, to compel persons to go down on their knees and express opinions they did not entertain. He therefore very much wished that some middle course might be sug- geoted—(Ironieal cheers from the Opposition)—that some broad resolution might be proposed. The present resolution, if pressed, might be rejected— it was not an impossible supposition—for not only the young "greenhorns," but many experienced "old stagers" might be disinclined to convert this motion into an opportunity for overthrowing the Ministry. (Great Minis- terial cheering.) What an impression that would make across the Atlantic ! Suppose it carried by a small majority, would that be a satisfactory result ? Though he would not at present move a second amendment with a third set of resolutions, he would suggest one, which might run thus- " That it is the opinion of this House, that the improved condition of the country, and especially of the industrious classes, is mainly the result of recent legislation, which has established the principle of unrestricted competition, has abolished taxes imposed for purposes of protection, and has thereby diminished the cost and in- creased the abundance of the principal articles of the food of the people.
" That it is the opinion of this House, that the policy, firmly maintained and prudently extended, will best enable the industry of the country to bear its burdens, and will thereby most surely promote the welfare and contentment of the people. "That this House will be ready to take into consideration any measures consistent with these principles, which, in pursuance of her Majesty's gracious Speech and re- commendation, may be laid before it."
This contained everything except the word " just" ; and the insertion of that word would not prevent any Ministry from giving "relief" or " com- pnsation " to the agricultural interest. He left the suggestion with Mem- bers on that side, thinking they might, before they next met, be disposed to consider it as offered in a spirit of conciliation.
The House met on Thursday, in order that the debate might be resumed ; buleg that could tale place, it was destined to hear disclosures with retWS Etaik, f the perplexing resolutions before it. Sir Wu,
st*.CLa er the Chancellor of the Exchequer and Mr. Vil- 'efruuld and adopt Lord Pal- menston's ; and whether in the event of Mr. Villiers pressing his motion, the Chancellor of the Exchequer would then accept Lord Pahnerston's resolutions in the place of his own amendment ?
Sir Je.siss GRALIAM immediately rose, compelled by a sense of public duty to make a statement with respect to the original motion, and with regard to certain words—the acceptable middle course—suggested by Lord Palmerston.
Sir James had only reached London on the day before the delivery of the Speech from the Throne ; and that evening he saw no one but Lord Aber- deen, who informed him that neither he nor Lord John Russell thought that an amendment to the Address should be moved. Coming down to the House next day, Sir James met Mr. Bright in the lobby ; who told him that he and his friends were for moving an amendment, but to prevent disunion they had agreed to abstain. Still Mr. Bright, as well as Sir James and his late colleagues, and Lord John Russell, considered the passage in the Speech un- satisfactory ; and it was suggested that Mr. Villiers, on behalf of the Free- trade party, should give notice of a substantive motion on the subject. Sir James concurred in that arrangement. So matters stood when he came to the House ; and, considering that the terms of the Queen's Speech were am- biguous, he and others fully expected the Chancellor of the Exchequer would at once give notice when he intended to bring forward the Government mea- sures. He did not do so. The Address was moved by the Protection- ist Member who displaced Sir George Grey in Northumberland ; and when the seconder had nearly finished his speech, Mr. Villiers, sitting immediately behind Sir James, leaned forward and said, "Shall I give notice of my motion ? " and Sir James replied, " Certainly, give your notice." That notice was given in point of time before any declaration in either House of Parliament of the policy of the Government. Next morning, having con- sidered the Speech from the Throne, and the speeches of Ministers, Sir James endeavoured to frame the terms of a motion. (Some laughter on the Minis- terial side, followed by cheers from the Opposition.) In framing his motion, he was careful not to wound the feelings of any of those who, perhaps, with- out changing their opinions, were ready to change their course with respect to a specific policy about to be triumphant. (Cheers andlaughter.) He could not forget that he had himself been a convert from former opinions. He took the Queen's Speech and a speech made elsewhere, and he endea- voured to insert everything necessary to give distinctness to the assertion of the policy of Free-trade. The original resolution, framed on that morning, stood as follows- " That it is the opinion of this House, that the improved condition of the country, and especially of the industrious classes, is in great measure the result of recent legislation, which has abolished taxes imposed for the purpose of protection, which has thereby diminished the cost of the pnncipal articles of food, and which has es- tablished unrestricted competition.
"That it is the opinion of this House, that without inflicting injury on any im- portant interest, this policy, firmly maintained and prudently extended, will best enable the industry of the country to bear its burdens, and will thereby most surely promote the welfare and contentment of the people."
Sir James asked himself, what, under present circumstances, would be the line taken by Sir Robert Peel ? He believed Sir Robert would have framed better resolutions, but still resolutions in the same spirit. Those resolutions were sent to Lord John Russell, "with whom I had been, lam happy to say, on cordial and friendly communication on the subject." (Laughter from the Ministerial side and cheers from the Opposition.) In reply, Lord John approved of the words on the whole; but suggested a safeguard—something that would prevent the resolutions from being considered as intended to ob- struct the course of the Government; and he recommended a third para- graph, as follows—
That this House will be ready to take into consideration any measures, con- sistent with those principles, which, in pursuance of her Majesty's gracious Speech and recommendation, may be laid before it." .
Submitted to the late colleagues of Sir James, these resolutions underwent a third alteration, with reference to this point, that the passage in the Queen's Speech, by being conditionally worded, studiously raised the pre- sumption that injury had been inflicted, and opened the door to the admis- sion of compensation. The alteration was in the second resolution : as it originally stood, it was thought to have a retroactive effect, and it seemed desirable to make it entirely prospective. With this view, the resolution was altered thus-
" It is the opinion of this House, that this policy, firmly maintained and pru- dently extended, will, without injury to any wsportant interest, best enable the industry of the country to bear its burdens, and thereby most surely promote the welfare and contentment of the people."
Lord John Russell and many of the most distinguished advocates of Free- trade were next consulted ; and at their instance, that special reference was made to the act of 1846, and the words "wise, just, and beneficent," were inserted, which now appear in the resolutions of Mr. Villiers. As an honest man, Sir James said he could not dissent from those resolutions.
He heard nothing more until he saw the Ministerial amendment, and he could not hesitate which to choose. Up to that point it was his duty to vote for the original motion. But then came the suggestion of Lord Palmerston. "The House has heard the words which I and my noble friend the Member for London had framed and agreed upon. Now, the House will see how nearly the words now tendered by the noble Lord the Member for Tiverton are in exact conformity with them. (Great laughter.) Lord Palmerston had taken the first clause nearly verbatim, only "im- proving" the last expressions. But in the second clause there was a most important alteration—the words "without injury to any important in- terest" were omitted. As Sir James and those with whom he had acted in framing the resolutions attached to those words the greatest possible im- portance, he "could not be a party to a compromise of the question if those words were omitted." "On the other hand, if there could be a common con- sent to the insertion of those words—(Loud cries of "No, no !" from the Ministerial side, answered by cheers from the Opposition)—if the Govern- ment could consent to the reinsertion of those words, I for one, and I should almost presume to say, having no authority to speak for others whatever, for the sake of Free-trade itself—for the sake of combining the largest possible support to a question fixing a great principle,. and upon the eve of the intro- duction of measures by the Government having reference to that principle, in an anxious desire that that principle should be sustained by the largest common consent, would earnestly, sincerely, and, if necessary for me to say so, most honestly, entreat my honourable and learned friend [bin Villiers] in that case, by the consent of the House, to withdraw his original motion and adopt these words."
Mr. GLADSTONE signified his entire concurrence in the course recom- mended by Sir James Graham. To himself it had seemed not necessary that the question of "compensation" should be settled in a motion directed to establish the policy of Free-trade. The Government ought not to be precluded from submitting any measures in respect of compensa- tion they thought fit.
The House had only two courses, either to permit the Ministers to go for- ward with unfettered hands and to produce their budget on the principles of Free-trade, or to take the constitutional course and move a vote of want of confidence. (Loud Ministerial cheers.) Therefore it was their duty to wait for the measures of relief, and not decide that question now. That being so, the House had no other course left but to adopt the resolution drawn up by the master-hand of Sir James Graham, and so admirably completed by the words he proposed to insert. He had made up his mind to vote for the re- solutions of Mr. Villiers. But if Lord Palmerston would insert the omitted words, it would be better to carry the resolution he suggested, by a large raajority, than risk a close division on the original resolutions. At this point in the debate, Mr. Tuonas Duncoman enlivened the House by a speech:in which he exposed the irregularity and extreme per- plexity of the course pursued. Let them appoint a Committee, with Sir William Clay at its head, to settle their own meaning, and hereafter be friendly and not say a word about Protection or Free-trade. But would Lord Palmerston move his amendment, which would then become the main question ? If not, the country would think the whole concern a cross ; would consider that the Whigs, finding themselves not yet fit for office—" of course Sir James Graham had been re-whigged for the occa- sion "—did not want to turn out gentlemen opposite. He would ask, as questions were flying about, how came Sir James Graham's amendment into the possession of Lord Palmerston ? (Great laughter.) Before Lord Palmerston replied, Mr. CAYLEY said he would cordially accept the resolutions suggested by Sir James ; and Mr. ROBERT PALMER declared that he would not recant his opinions, but he would bow to the country.
Lord PA.LMERSTON then carried the dispute nearer to an agreement, by consenting to the insertion of the words proposed as applied to the future. As to the resolution of which he had given notice, and for which "as the House is aware, I am greatly indebted to my right honourable friend the Member for Carlisle ' —(Cheers and laughter)—he could only tell Mr. Duncombe that "he had got it by very lawful means." Would Mr. Duncombe support him if he proposed his resolution ? [Mr. Duncombe said—" Yes, as against the Government."] Then, if properly encouraged, he would propose it.
Sir EDWARD BlILWER Iarrox submitted. But the Marquis of GRANBY could not agree to any of the resolutions : they were a mass of mystifica- tion, which completely baffled him. "If this country had been benefited by the commercial policy of 1846, and if the working classes in this country were better off now than they had been before, then he thought that some acknowledgment was due to the memory of a man whose patriotism he for one had never doubted, and the purity of whose motives he had never impugned. (Cheers.) If that were true, which he denied, then some acknowledgment was due to the memory of that states- man ; some acknowledgment that he was not only patriotic and conscientious, but that he was also farseeing and sagacious." (General cheering, more espe- cially from the Opposition side of the House.)
Appealing to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Lord Granby inquired whether he had not been supported by the Protectionists generously and without reserve ?
The Cruxuarmon of the Raman:gm admitted the fact; and, pleading that he had done all he could on behalf of the land of England, gave his version of the story of the resolutions. Before he did so, however, he stated his personal position. Ministers had not come into office on the question of Protection ; had not dissolved Parliament on that question; and it was not their duty to relin- quish office because the country had decided for Free-trade. If any one
thought it was their duty, the issue could easily be tried. (Cheers.) It was only because he believed that it was possible to recommend a policy which
would relieve all the interests suffering from recent legislation, that he con- sented for a moment to hold the position he now occupies. Then came the main subject. Sir James Graham had vindicated the passage in the Queen's Speech, by approving of its recommendation that the claims of a great interest, if the House should decide that they had suffered from recent legislation, should be considered. Sir James had used the word" compensation again and again : but what authority had he for using that word ? "It is possible that the right honourable gentleman may or may not have found such a phrase in some electioneering speech or another, by some Member or another sitting on this side of the House ; but the right honourable gentle-
man is the last person in this House who ought to encourage our having re- course to electioneering speeches, in order to deduce from them the opinions
of great statesmen, and the maxima that ought to regulate the policy of the English Parliament" As to fixing a day for bringing on his financial mea- sures, he had at first intended to mention, before the Address was moved, an "early day "; but that was not satisfactory to his mind, and he deferred it. Finding, however, that there was a general feeling in favour of some decla- ration, Ministers had resolved not to oppose any resolution providing it con- fined itself to an unequivocal announcement of Free-trade as the policy adopted by the country and to be carried out in future. That was essential to the measures he had prepared ; but the Marquis of Granby would find that the just claims of those who had been unfairly treated had not been forgot- ten. Lord Derby concurred in this view. Mr. Disraeli then described how at the meeting of Lord Derby's supporters a copy of the Free-trade resolution had fallen into his hands, in which there was nothing he and his friends could not accept. They did accept it : but the moment that acceptance
was known, three odious epithets" were put into the resolution. (Prolonged Ministerial cheering.) A very different resolution from the copy he first saw was at length submitted to the House ; a reso- lution which his party could not accept, and which was not even re- ceived with favour on the other side. The idea of moving the "previous
question" was thought of ; but rejected, and a distinct resolution, unequi- vocally declaring the success of Free-trade measures, and laying down Free- trade as the principle of future commercial legislation, was drawn up, in the hope that it might be accepted by the House as sufficient. Then came the contingent amendment of Lord Palmerston. Between Ministers and Mr. Villiers there was a clear difference. It was "unjust, ungenerous, and un- wise." "But with respect to the amendment which has been suggested by the noble Lord, I confess, that although I may have that parental fondness 'which has been already confessed in the debate, I cannot feel that I should be justified in opposing the general feeling of the House in any respect what- ever. In the noble Lord's resolution there may be expressions to which I blight demur ; there may be expressions in it which I might regret to see placed on the journals of the House with my individual responsibility and Sanction; but, after all, that is mere fighting about words and not about
facts." "I believe that there is no difference between us with respect to facts ; that it is a mere question of phrases ; and I certainly shall not oppose the general feeling of the House as regards any preference they may have for the amendment of the noble Lord over that of the Government. That is a question of very minor importance. The real question before us is, whe- ther the honourable and learned Member for Wolverhampton and his friends are to outrage the feelings of this side of the House, and of many gentlemen on the other side, by a course which I think, totally irrespective of personal feeling, is most impolitic and unwise." (Cheers.)
[Mr. Disraeli looked very unwell, and once in his speech he described himself as "almost physically incapable of addressing the House."]
Lord Joan RUSSELL, after criticizing the passage in the Queen's Speech, I
and contending that it necessitated the resolutions, denied the statement of Mr. Disraeli as to the " odious epithets."
" I must say the fact is—and it is a fact within my own knowledge—that the very first suggestions made to my honourable and learned friend upon the subject all contained the words ' wise and just,' as words fit to be intro- duced into the resolution; and I myself was one of those who long before the meeting in Downing Street which has been noticed, advisedmy honour- able and learned friend to put the words ' wise and just ' into his resolu- tion." (Cheers from the Opposition.) Nevertheless, he thought the reten- tion of the words might create a hesitation on the part of some Free-traders ; and the words supplied by Sir James Graham seemed sufficient for the pur- pose. The amendment of the Government was so equivocal as to leave it a matter of dispute whether or not the act of 1846 was a measure of injustice. The question is one between Free-trade and Protection, and not, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer seemed to think, only a question whether he should continue to hold office. (Laughter, cries of "No !" and " Oh !"
(.,
from the Ministerial side, and cheers from the position.) The other night, Lord John had been accused of " audacity" or saying it was a ques- tion of Free-trade or Protection. Gentlemen opposite did not mind his be- ing accused of audacity, but that the Chancellor of the Exchequer should attach any importance to holding office is a suggestion they cannot bear. (Laughter.) It is the question ; and he replied to Mr. Disraeli's assertion that it was a question between one side and the other, by accepting the chal- lenge, and promised that he would, if the debate continued, make some com- ments on the subject. Returning from this digression, he ventured to ad- vise Mr. Villiers to withdraw his motion in favour of Lord Palmerston's amendment, so that all might unite and give the resolutions the stamp of the British Parliament. (Loud cheers.) Mr. COBDBN said, he had taken no part in the conferences at which the resolutions were drawn up, and for a long time he found himself un- able to comprehend what they were disputing about. But ho had at last arrived at a clear perception of the matter at issue. Sir James Graham had framed a resolution containing a phrase which declared that the mea- sure of 1846 had not inflicted injury on any important interest, and words acknowledging the justice of the policy of Sir Robert Peel, form- ing the bar to compensation : when the resolution came into the hands of Lord Palmerston, that phrase slipped out. Now it appeared from Mr. Disraeli's speech this evening, that Ministers are preparing measures for compensating the agriculturists. The resolution, too, had been dex- terously drawn to meet the scruples of Mr. Gladstone, who at one time voted with Mr. Disraeli for compensation. Now shall we give compensa- tion at the expense of the taxpayers ? Mr. Cobden warned them, that if they raised the question of compensation, they would be beginning an- other struggle as disastrous as the last ; and he entreated Mr. Villiers not to shrink, but go to a division.
Mr. VIT;LTRPS vindicated the course he had taken, and declared he should persevere.
Mr. NEWDEGATE said, the question was not whether compensation should be given, but whether the honour of public men should be main- tained. Mr. STAPLETON, Mr. STANHOPE, Mr. BARB.OW spoke ; all admit- ting that the question of Protection was settled. Earlier in the debate Mr. GLADSTONE explained, in reply to Mr. Cobden, that he considered himself as approaching the question of relief or compensation with clean hands. There was no connexion between the vote he gave in 1850, and the framing of Lord Palmerston's resolution.
The SPEAKER having intimated that the motion before them [made only pro forma, to allow the explanations to be made] was, that the House do adjourn, Sir JAMES GRAHAM, by consent, withdrew that motion ; and this extraordinary conversation closed, after lasting about four hours.
[Mr. Sergeant Sitsn's bill on Tenant-right stood between the House and the continuance of the adjourned debate ; and in deference to the feelings of the House the first reading was not opposed.] The debate itself was reopened by the formal withdrawal of the Govern- ment amendment, and the formal moving by Lord Rturzwron of the first resolution of his amendment.
Mr. Booxwm, the Protectionist, declared that as he would vote against the motion of Mr. Villiers, so he could not support the amendment of Lord Palmerston.
Mr. OSBOHNB made a slashing speech, full of caustic vivacity. He ob- jected to the amendment proposed by Lord Palmerston—" the wet-nurse of the Administration "; and he adhered to the motion of Mr. Villiers. He showed that Mr. Disraeli had all along patted the agitating Protection- ists on the back ; and that he had now taken a leaf from a great French character—he did not allude to H. 77tiers, but to a leader of the first Revolution—whose motto was "audacity, always audacity" ; for he came there and told them that neither Lord Derby nor himself had tried to re- verse the system during the last six years I Mr. Osborne with great effect quoted the speeches of members of the present Government delivered during the period of agitation ; enumerating Mr. Stafford, Lord Malmeabury, Major Beresford, Lord Eglinton, Mr. Forbes Mackenzie, Sir John Trol- lope, Lord John Manners, and Mr. Christopher. Even since the opening of the present session—on the 13th instant, at a dinner at Wainfleet—Mr. Christopher repeated a former saying of his own, that if the complexion of the new Parliament should prevent Ministers from affording relief to a suffering class by carrying out the principle of raising revenue from the foreign grower, then it would be their duty, by establishing such an equalization and readjustment of the burdens of taxa- tion as indirectly to some extent to effect the same object." "You will have seen," he said, "by her Majesty's Speech, that we have been compelled to adopt the latter alternative."
Mr. Osborne also cited sayings and doings of Lord Derby and Mr. Disraeli.
"In 1849, on the 1st of February, the right honourable gentleman moved an amendment on the Address, and withdrew it.He then said—'In my opinion, the new commercial system has had a trial, a fair trial, and has failed ' : and the right honourable gentleman looked forward to a time when it might be revised. On the 8th of March 1849, the right honourable gentle- man moved for a Committee to inquire into the burdens on land. He then said—'I still believe our new commercial system is founded on erroneous principles.' On the 15th of March, the right honourable gentleman made that allusion to 'protected and regenerated England.' On the let of Febru- ary 1850, the right honourable gentleman voted for the amendment to the Address moved by Sir John Trollope. He said he never made a direct motion in that House against Free-trade, but he took advantage of a motion in 1860 for a moderate fixed duty to speak and vote for it. On the 14th of May 1850, the right honourable gentleman said—' I ask you toprotect the rights and interests of labour generally ; in the first place, by allowing no free imports from countries which meet you with countervailing duties ; and, in the second place, with respect to agricultural produce, to compensate the soil for
CALL OF THE HOUSE.
In the absence of Mr. Hume, on Monday, Sir Josnos. Waist:Balm- moved that the House be called over.
Sir Rozniti Nears and Mr. Comas olilected, although on different grounds. Sir Robert said that calls of the ouse had never the effect in- loaded; that Members could bo made to attend, but'not to vote ; and that it would be a waste of time. Mr. Cobden on the contrary, thought that the object of a call being mainly to ascertain whether Members were in a condition to be there or not, there was a good deal to be said for it. In fact, the motion bad been already successful, as was evident from the number present. Mr. WALroiai said, he had voted for it in deference to Mr. Hume; but it would be convenient if the motion were not pressed. Motion withdrawn accordingly ; Lord Jonx RUSSELL concurring.
IRISH LAND Tsettrnn.
Narren, the Attorney-General for Ireland, gave the outline of four bills, which he asked leave to bring in, for reforming laws relating to Irish land tenures.
The adjustment of this question, he said, is the great enterprise for Ireland,
not merely with reference to present exigencies but to the past. Many of the evils of Ireland arise from the old system of giving land to absentees, and of prohibiting commerce ; causes which compelled Ireland to be- come an agricultural country. Mr. Sharman Crawford's perseverance has forced attention to the necessity of improving the law. la. Napier briefly enumerated legislative efforts since 181-9; including Committees, from that of 1819 to the Devon Commission of 1843. He had seriously considered the facts furnished by these means, and endeavoured to apply remedies to the evils. The first thing that struck him was the possibility of enabling owners to
improve their estates by giving facilities for the employment of capital. Basing his first measure on the Montgomery Act and Sir Robert Peel's Drainage Acts, he proposed to improve their provisions, mainly by. extend- ing them generally.. The bill would in for the registration of improve- ments, not only in townlands but in mountain pastures ; would arrange that money expended in improvements shonld be payable in twenty-two yearly instalments ; that this money might be obtained from the Bank of Ireland or private sources, and should constitute a first charge on the land.
The next bill referred to leasing. There are no fewer than sixty statutes giving special powers to persons and corporations to let land, for special ob- jects and varying periods; and they are based on this principle, that a per- son having a limited interest in an estate should have the power of disposing of that interest. Mr. Napier has specified certain parties who should be en- titled to grant leases, and whose power should be regulated, not according to the nature of their connexion with the land, but aeccrrding to the objects for which the land was let. Thus, land let for agricultural purposes should have a lease of thirty-one years ; waste land let for the purpose of improve- ment should have a lease of sixty-one years ; for mities forty-one years; for building purposes, ninety-nine years ; and for buildings for public institu- tions, nine hundred and ninety-nine years. There are clauses for these dif- ferent leases, so as to save the expense of a conveyance : among theta is one enabling parties to set the rent of a farm *wording to the price of pro- duce ; another giving validity to a lease made by a single tenant ; another fix- ing periods during which compensation for nnexhausted iMprovements, made by specific agreement, may be obtained. Power is given to set off exhaustion of land by bad husbandry against real improvements ; and the case of mort- gagors is provided for. The third bill has reference to the making and enforcing of contracts, ac- companied by a pattern contract. There would be a provision for an open registry, which he hoped would be self-supporting. A landlord might re- strain waste and burning by an order from the nearest magistrate ; and the tenant would be allowed appeal in the law courts. Receipts for rent must specify the day on which the last gale was paid, as the rent would be taken
from that day. As to the law of distress, he proposed that no distress shall be levied for more than a year and a half's rent from the date of the war- rant, and that affidavit should be made that not less than five pounds is due. Forms of ejectment were simplified ; and provisions were made re- speeting deserted tenements. The fourth bill is to consolidate and amend the laws relating to landlord- andlord the burdens from which other classes are free, by an equivalent duty.' And the right honourable gentleman came to the House in a November session in 1852, and, with a face equalled only in the theatre, he dared to tell the House that he had never attempted to reverse the policy of Free-trade ! (Loud cheers.) He said too that Lord Derby had never done so. Of the two, he thought the Chancellor of the Exchequer was a much safer and more discreet man. Lord Derby affected to be affronted the other night in the House of Lords about his personal honour." In proof that this was "gross affecta- tion," - Mr. Osborne cited several passages of Lord Derby's conducts especially
that of 1851, when a deputation waited upon him in St. James's Square, and -he made the celebrated "Up, Guards, and at 'em" speech. The noble Earl had gone into the Rifles now.
Mr. BALL avowed himself an unchanged Protectionist ; but what could they do without the present Government ? If Ministers were displaced, the whole of the merchants, bankers, manufacturers, and shopkeepers of London, would he distressed beyond measure. (Loud .1aughter.) Mr. MEETING% took the same side. Mr. PRILLIMORE and Sir W. PAGE Woon kept up the argument effectively on the side of Mr. Villiers - the latter declaring, that if only as a tribute to the memory of Sir Robert Peel, he should vote for the original motion.
Sir Josue PAKINGTON continued the Ministerial defence. In doing so, he said, the whole question was, whether the settlement of a principle should be accompanied with painful and unacceptable words, as it was in the original resolution, unworthy of those who supported it. Admitting that he had been greatly mistaken in many of his apprehen- sions of the effects of Free-trade, Sir John said that no taunts should prevent a frank confession. "In connexion with the question of change of views, there have been allusions this evening by different gentlemen, and among others by my noble friend the Member for Leicester, [Lord Granby] to the late Sir Robert Peel. My noble friend spoke in a frank and an honourable spirit on that subject. The members of Government have been pointedly
alluded to on that subject since; and therefore I cannot and will not shri m nk fro saying that no single word of disrespect to Sir Robert Peel ever has
escaped or ever will escape my lips. (Great applause.) It was my misfor- tune in 1846 that I could not concur with Sir Robert Peel, and in opposing him on that occasion I made a great sacrifice of both party feeling and per- sonal feeling. I opposed the right honourable gentleman then, and, with whatever degree of diffidence I did so, I never shrank from voting against him when my conscience would not allow me to vote with him. But I agree with my noble friend, that a purer patriot never lived." (Great applause.) On the motion of Mr. Minx= Gnisox, the debate was adjourned till 'Friday. and
and tenant. He should not interfere in any way with the tenant-right of Ulster, which is a varying custom and not reducible to a fixed law. The principle of the bill is the principle recommended by the Devon Commission —it enables the tenant to make necessary improvements if the landlord do not make them ; but if he did that would prevent the tenant from going on. The certificate for improvements would form the tenant's basis for compensa. tion. It is provided that in no case will the tenant be in danger of being interrupted in his improvements. Retrospective improvements ought to be provided for. Mr. Napier considered that a tenant sent adrift has a right to such compensation as would cover the residue of the term during which the improvements would benefit the soil. Such is the outline of the code proposed for the adoption of the House.
Mr. CONOLLY praised the measures for moderation, and Mr. Napier's speech for good temper. Mr. Sergeant &FEE seemed disposed to accept the first three bills, but to object entirely to the last, as inadequate. Mr. GEOR.GE, Mr. KIRK, Mr. Ununatarr and Lord Naafi made some re- marks. Leave was given, and the bills were read a firt;t time.
Eceirsissirc,u. MaTrEns.
In reply to three questions asked by Sir BLNJAMIN HALL, Mr. War, roLz said, that, with respect to a reform in the Ecclesiastical Courts, the Chancery Commissioners would be empowered to consider the whole mat- ter in reference to the proceedings of the Courts of Law, Ecclesiastical Courts, and Courts of Chancery. Government are unanimously of opin- ion that there ought to be "a strong, extensive, and decided reform of the Ecclesiastical Courts." But, pending the consideration of the whole question, Government do not intend to bring in a bill. As to the second question, the Crown has no power to prevent what are called Romish practices in the Church : that must be effected by the good sense of the people. As to the incomes of Bishops, he thought they ought to be left as settled by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners under the act of 1836. Sir BENrs.,smr HALL then gave notice, that after the' recess, he should move for leave to bring in a bill to regulate Episcopal incomes.
In the House of Peers, replying to the Earl of SitAr =BMW Lord DERBY stated that Government had no intention of deviating from the ordinary course with respect to Convocation. He apprehended that when the Convocation met again, the Archbishop would do no more than present the answer to the address before proroguing Convocation. As to the Committees appointed, he believed that their powers are null and void, since he could not understand how a body itself prorogued could leave any official powers in a committee it had appointed. He had no official knowledge of its existence ; and if a Committee met, its members would meet only as private gentlemen.
OPENING OF THE CRYSTAL PALACE ON SUNDAY.
Lord Pasarrere having presented petitions from Dundee, Aberdeen, and other towns in Scotland, against the opening of the Crystal Palace on Sundays, the Earl of DERBY took the opporttmity offered to speak on the subject. Negotiations have been going on between the Crystal Palace Company and the Government,. with respect to the granting of a charter to the company ; and the negotiations went on the assumption that there was nothing in law to prevent the opening of the Crystal Palace and its grounds on a Sunday. The directors had farther stated that they intend to close all the exhibitions of maohinery, manufactures, and commerce ; to carry visitors to and fro by train ; and to prohibit the sale of spirituous liquors within the building. Sub- ject to those restrictions, and to the risk of violating them, he was of opinion that, far from desecrating the Sabbath, the opening of the Crystal Palace on the Sunday would be useful to the population, in giving them fresh air and improvement, and in promoting moral and social improvement among the working classes. But it had become a question, whether there was not a law prohibiting the taking of money for admission to any place of amusement on a Sunday; and if so, the alteration of that law could only be effected by Parliament : no clause authorizing Sunday admission could therefore be in- serted in the charter.
The Marquis of CLANRICARDE suggested, that a law of partnership, on the principle of limited liability, was desirable for the middle and lower classes. Lord t alcennta., avoiding this point, said there was an act of Parliament which prohibited the taking of money for admission into any place of amusement on Sunday ; but he hoped it would be relaxed in favour of the Crystal Palace.
Couterr Pou.s.
Lord ROIMET GROSVENOR has obtained a Second reading of his bill to confine the polling in counties to one day. Mr. Itoniner PALM= opposed it, and moved the second reading on that day six months. Mr. BEcxErr DEsusox supported the bill ; but suggested that an interval of more than one day should elapse between the nomination and the polling-days, to prevent surprises. Mr. WALPOLE concurred with Mr. 'Denison both in this suggestion and in supporting one day's polling ; but he intimated that more polling-places must be provided. Mr. ALCOCK, Sir GEORGE Ps. CHELL, Lord MONO; Mr. virliziANt Bnown, Mr. LOCKE KING, Mr. W. WILLIAMS, and Mr. GEACR, supported the second reading. Mr. Swoon= and Mr. Soorr opposed it. Mr. Mot:sr-Li suggested its extension to Ire- land, and Mr. ELIA.= to Scotland. In the end, the amendment was withdrawn, at the instance of Sir Jorrsr 13truan.
CASE OF MR. PAGET.
In reply to a question from Mr. Monczrox Miutzs, Lord STANLEY stated that Mr. Paget's papers had not been seized by the Austrian Po- lice ; that at the representation of Mr. Forbes, our Minister, they had been restored; that the Saxon Police, who had taken upon themselves to seize them, had been reprimanded ; and that the Saxon Government had expressed regret for the occurrence.
Coirrrcovincrno Ex.ncrions.
Petitions were presented, during the week, complaining of the elections for the following places—YouLhal (2), Plymouth, Knaresborongh (3), Cirencester, Malden, Leitrim 2), Cashel, Londonderry County, Dublin County, Liverpool, Limerick, aidstone, Wexford County, New Wind- sor, Mayo, Mallow, Sligo County (2), Finsbury, Dublin, Totnes, Middle- sex, Hereford County, Clare, Athlone (2), Bolton, King's County, Brad- ford (2), Durham (2), Carlow County- (3), Kildare, Westmeath, Down, New Sarum, Louth, West Norfolk, Leominster, Nereford, Dartmouth, Meath, Sligo, East Surrey, Tipperary, Derby (3)' Frome, Norwich (2), Clonmel, Ennis, Tynemouth, Tavistock, Bridgenorth, Lancaster, Canter- bury, Hull, Leicester, Dungarvon, Cockermouth (2), Gloucester CitY't Carlow Borough, Barnstaple, Berwick, Guildford, Rye, Harwich, Car- lisle, Huddersfield, Boston (2).
Previous page
