Otbatts an Vrotabings in Varliamtnt.

THE ADDRESS.

[In the brief outline of the closing debate on the Address, to which we were restricted in our last Postscript, we were barely able to indicate the gist of the two most important speeches of the whole discussion, Sir Robert Peel's and Lord John Russell's : we now resume the account of Friday's proceedings, with Sir Robert's address. It will be remem- bered that Mr. O'Connell had contrasted, with his usual strong mode of expression, the conduct of the Whigs and Tories, especially in respect of Ireland.] Sir ROBERT PEEL would have felt more acutely the vituperation of Mr. O'Connell, if those very men whom he described as having been so much good to Ireland, had not been loaded with it. If that party had acted so well to Ireland, why did Mr. O'Connell come down to the House night after night and increase their difficulties, denouncing their measures to the country by every calumnious expression which an ima- gination fertile in calumny could invent ? Sir Robert soon dismissed this topic ; regretting that he had been provoked to the use of irritating expressions, as he desired to discuss the great question before the House in a temper worthy of the occasion. For ten years he had con- ducted an opposition to Government, and ultimately expressed his direct condemnation of it, with the absence of every expression of acrimonious or personal hostility. Now that that opposition was likely to be attended with success, it was not the time to be betrayed into a different tone. Sir Robert contemplated the difficulties which the aspect of public affairs presented, with no unmanly shrinking, but at the same time with a sense of the awful responsibility which public office involves. Briefly noticing some points in the earlier portion of the Speech, he rejoiced in the cessation of the estrangement from France. He hoped the reconciliation would be more than nominal. He had

• read with the utmost satisfaction M. Guizot's frank declaration, at the dinner at Lisieux, of the pleasure which he felt at the good under- standing between France and the Powers of Europe. What, indeed, was the first interest to which it behoved European powers to attend-

" Is not the time come when the powerful countries of Europe should re- duce those military armaments which they have so sedulously raised ? Is not the time come when they should be prepared to declare that there is no use in such overgrown establishments ? What is the advantage of one power greatly increasing its army or navy ? Does it not see, that if it proposes such increase for self-protection and defence, the other powers would follow its example? The consequence of this state of things must be, that no increase of relative strength will accrue to any one power, but there must be a universal consumption of the resources of every country in military preparations. They are in fact depriving peace of half its advantages, and anticipating the energies of war whenever they may be required. I do not mean to advocate any xomantic notion of each nation trusting with security the professions of its _neighbour ; but if each country were to commune with itself, and ask, ' What is .at present the danger of foreign invasion, compared to the danger of producing dissatisfaction and discontent, and curtailing the comforts of the people by undue taxation?' the answer must be this, that the danger of aggression is infinitely less than the danger of those sufferings to which the present exorbi- tant expenditure mast give rise. The interest of Europe is not that any one country should exercise a peculiar influence, but the true interest of Europe is to come to some one common accord, so as to enable every country to reduce .those military armaments which belong to a state of war rather than of peace. do wish that the councils of every country (or that the public voice and -sided if the councils did not) would willingly propagate such a doctrine." Nothing could be more unfounded than the belief which Sir Robert considered to be but too common in France, that the old feeling of national hostility still prevails in this country : there is no other wish but that France should consolidate the free institutions by which she is governed, and advance in science, in the arts, and in commerce- ' And if France were in any danger of an unjust aggression, the security. of France would not be found in the number of her regiments, but in the mind and public-spirit with which she would rise as one man to repel the danger. It is the same with that magnificent country which has abolished the name -and distinctions of separate states : Germany at this moment, from Hamburg to the Tyrol, and from Berlin to the Southern confines, burns with a spirit which would intimidate and overbear any invader. These are the securities against aggression and the securities for peace.

• Nut high-raised towers nor malted gates, Not cities proud with spires And turrets crown'd; not bays nor broad artn't1 ports, Where, laughing at the storm, Rich navies ride; not gay and spangled courts, Where low bowed baseness Wafts perfume to pride. No; but man, High-minded man, with powers

As far above dull brutes endued

In forest, brake, or dell, As these excel cold rocks or brambles rude.' " •

He hoped that the time had gone by when public men could be in- fluenced by the imputation that they were afraid of war- " You can't conduct war as Bonaparte did : no power in Europe can do it : you can't make the country you conquer bear the price of the conquest. The thing is impossible. With states, as with individuals, that most unpleasant day the day of reckonidg comes round; and when, in their sober moments, men calculate the relative advantages of immense armaments. and the illu- sions of military glory, with the cost of the taxes to pay for such exploits, they come to take a calmer and more discreet view of the comparative advan- tages than they could be expected to do in the moment of excitement. The expression of these sentiments is perfectly consistent with an earnest determi- nation, if occasion should require it, to risk any thing that the honour and in- terests of the country may require."

Sir Robert regretted the omission of all mention of the United States in the Speech, because it seemed to show that there was nothing agree- able to say ; and, though he did not press for an answer to Mr. Roe- buck's questions, [concerning Mr. M'Leod's affairs,] he could not re- gard Lord Palmerston's explanation either as full or satisfactory. Sir Robert then passed to the questions immediately connected with the Amendment. He adhered to his determination not prematurely to de- velop his plans fill- remedying the financial embarrassments of the country ; a determination which had been sanctioned by the late elec- tion. He protested, however, against the assumption that he was ad- verse to the removal of restrictions on commerce or hostile to the prin- ciples of Free Trade because he opposed the individual measures of the Government : he protested against the principles of Free Trade being tried by any such test. He had proved his attachment to those principles so early as 1825, when he was intrusted with the pre- paration of the Speech from the Throne, -which recommended the removal of restrictions on commerce—further carrying out the policy of Mr. Huskisson. He had supported Mr. Labouchere's measure to prevent the necessity of carrying coffee round by the Cape of Good Hope ; another for regulating the duties on East and West India pro- duce ; and he had not made any formidable objections to another for the free importation of provisions and lumber into the West Indies. No rational objection could be urged to the removal of duties, trifling in amount but vexatious to commerce. He could not acquiesce in the terms of the Address, however, because it was so framed as to solicit an opinion in favour of the three particular measures of the Budget,. and acquiescence might be construed into approval of the details of those measures. Sir Robert then repeated several objections which have been urged against the proposed change in the Timber and Sugar duties. A despatch of Lord John Russell's had just been published in which he promised to spend 100,0001 a year for the fortification- of Canada. Sir Robert did not say that it was improper to do so ; but if it were right, then it indicated a state of public feeling which justified his hesitation in increasing the embarrassments of the Canadian Go- vernment, which Lord Sydenham said the alteration of the Timber- duties would do* Then with respect to the Sugar-duties : it had been said that he meant to confirm himself in power by proposing measures such as those which lie had opposed : he contemplated no such thing.. Seeing that they had intended to admit the sugar of Cuba and Brazil at a differential duty of 12s.—that they had made no stipulation with those countries in respect to slavery—that the promised increased supply from the East and West Indies had given assurance of a reduction in the price—he thought the proposed change impolitic. Mr. Labouchere had quoted details to show that the supply had decreased ; but why had he omitted the last three months in the calculation ? The price of sugar in September 1840 was 58s. 4d. ; in January last, 50s. 10d.; now it is 36s. 2d. At the same time, the consumption had increased : during the three months ending 5th August 1840, the consumption of British Plantation and Mauritius sugar was 937,000 hundredweight ; in the same period this year it was 992,000 hundredweight. Sir Robert now came to the Corn-laws ; and in order that there might be no mistake, he referred to the language which he had used before the dissolution- " I said that, on consideration, I had formed an opinion, which intervening consideration has not induced me to alter, that the principle of a graduated scale was preferable to that of a fixed and irrevocable duty : but I said then, and I say now—and in doing so I repeat the language which 1 held in 1839—that I will not bind myself to the details of the existing law, but will reserve to my- self the unfettered discretion of considering and amending that law. I hold the same language now : but if you ask me whether I bind myself to the main- tenance of the existing law in its details, or if you say that that is the condition on which the agricultural interest give me their support, I say that on that condition I will not accept their support."

Would any man of common sense debar himself from amending the mode of taking the averages? He had been taunted for not declaring his plans ; but had he explained in May what could not possibly be carried into effect before October, his opponents throughout the country would have been engaged in condemning his plan ; and had he devi- ated from it in the smallest degree, they would have reproached him with the difference between his promise and his performance. As a proof that Ministers felt that they ought not to have asked for his plan, he pointed to their having allowed him a year to consider what be would do with the Poor-law. But it was said—" Tell us what your pivot will be ?"—

,, Suppose I had done so, and proceeded afterwards to form a Government. I must, I presume, have informed her Majesty that the great principle of the Government was involved in an adherence to my pivot. I was to go to each colleague to ask him to assent to belong to the new Government ; but I was to tell him, ' There is one irrevocable principle to which you must subscribe— not merely an alteration of the Corn-laws—not a preference of the graduated scale over a fixed duty—but this precise and particular mode of taking the averages, and this particular pivot and price, arc finally determined upon, and from that you cannot depart, because I have publicly pledged myself to it : 1 leave a blank for the name.' Can any reasonable man gravely say that was the course I ought to have pursued ?" And what was the question between him and the Government? Both started from the principle of protection: but the calculations against the sliding duty, as a tax upon. the income of the poor man, were equally applicable to the 8s. fixed duty. And what would be the satis- faction of an intermediate settlement of the Corn-law question ? He doubted, to borrow Lord John Russell's phrase, the " finality " of such a settlement. If a bad harvest were to take place, would they rigo- rously exact the 8s. fixed duty in September or October? (Some one called out " Yes!") " You would! Then I publicly notify to the country, upon the authority of a great manufacturer and a stern Free-trader, that, be corn at the price of 805., or 905., or 100s., his rigid adherence to the principles and doctrines of Free Trade will compel hint to exact the duty of 88.1 No matter what may be the distress that prevails—no matter what may be the extent of privation—no matter what the amount of suffering, yet still the 8s. duty must be exacted— there is no power to remit it. (Repeated cheers.) In vain would it be to show that under the existing scale it would have been admitted at 18."

But for all that parade of principle, in point of fact the duty could not be maintained under such circumstances. Sir Robert had great doubts, too, whether the fixed duty would cause the expected fixity in price : in those countries where there was no corn-law in operation, the price fluctuated. Take the State of New York as an example-

" In November 1834, the price of the Winchester quarter of eight bushels was 93s. 4d.; in October 1836 it was 54s.; in January 1837 it was 63s.; in June

1839 it was 67s. 4d.; and in October 1839—mark, in the same year—it was

39s. 6d. Thus, in the State of New York alone, in the course of six months, the price of corn varied from 67s. 4d. to 32s. 6d. Whence arose that fluctua-

tion? how was it to be accounted for, unless by the nature of the intervening harvest producing so immense a variation ? In January 1837, when corn was 63s. a quarter in New York, it was only 55s. 6d. in England ; and in October, when it was 64s. in New York, it was only 45s. 9d. here."

If he thought that the repeal of the Corn-laws could be an effectual remedy for the distress of the manufacturing districts, the recital of which had caused him much pain, he should recommend it as essential to the welfare of the agriculturists themselves; but he could not come to that conclusion. He took, he owned, but a gloomy view of the subject : he feared that legislation could not guard against the recurrence of such distress ; that some of it was due to the sudden invention and application of machinery. In the Report of the Poor-law Commission in 1835, Dr. Kay describes a most extraordinary increase of manu-

facturing power in Lancashire : within two years mechanical power equal to 7,500 horses was to be brought into play, and 90,000 new

hands, with an outlay of 3,700,0001. Hence an extraordinary accumu- lation of people on the spot : then human ingenuity discovered some machinery to curtail manual labour, and thousands are thrown out of employment. That process, coupled with checks given to trade by wars in Syria and China and disturbances in Europe, would account for much distress without the Corn-laws. Sir Robert alluded sarcastically to Mr. Wakley's sentimental loyalty, which would restrict the House of Commons from doing its duty by submitting its opinions to the Sove- reign, for fear of contravening the private wishes of the Sovereign. He then recapitulated the opposition by which he was turned out of office in 1835 ; maintaining that his position was then quite different from that of the Government at present, since they had two years ago pronounced their own opinion that they had not sufficiently the confidence of the House for the satisfactory performance of their duties, whereas he had only remained long enough to ascertain the decision of the House. He firmly believed that the Ministers' retention of office had weighed with the people at the late election : it compromised the prerogative of the Monarch so to retain power, because it exhibited the prerogative without its jest influence ; it also exhibited the House of Commons as wanting in its just influence, when it could thwart the measures and censure the acts but could not decide the fate of a Ministry. The judgment of the people had been pronounced against that unconstitutional course. The result was to be expected, the resignation of the present Government-

" It is not for me to speculate what may be the result of that ; others have speculated upon it. I contemplate with calmness, without anxiety, nay with confidence, whatever may be the result. if power do not devolve upon me, I shall make no complaint. If power do devolve upon me, 1 shall accept it with the consciousness that I have gained it by direct and constitutional means, and that I owe it to the voice of the people of this country, and to the favour of

the Sovereign. I am told that in the exercise of that power I must be the in- strameat of maintaining opinions and feelings which I myself am disposed to

repudiate. With my views of government—with my views of the obligations which it imposes, the duties which it entails, the sacrifices it involves—I am little disposed to add to those sacrifices by accepting with it a degrading and dishonourable station. I am told that I must necessarily be the instrument of effecting objects in Ireland which I myself disapprove. 1 am asked whether I dare affront my associates and partisans. The honourable Member for Meath has alluded to the conduct of a public functionary in Ireland, who, he said, had offered an insult to the religious feelings of his fellow countrymen by some public act of an offensive nature. I am not afraid of expressing my opinion with respect to acts like this; and I say at once that there is no man

in this House—no Roman Catholic Member in this House—who heard with deeper pain or deeper regret than I did, that a gratuitous, an unprovoked in- sult, and an unnecessary insult had been offered to the religious feeling of the people of Ireland. If I cannot gain power or retain it except by encouraging and favouring such feelings, I say at once, that the day on which I relinquish power, rather than defer to such feelings, will be ten times a prouder one than the day on which I obtained it. If I do accept office, it shall be by no in- trigue, it shall be by no unworthy concession of constitutional principle ; it shall be by no unnatural and factious combinations with men (honest 1 believe

them to be) entertaining extreme opinions, but from whom I dissent. If I Accept office, it shall be by walking in the open light and in the direct paths of the constitution. If I exercise power, it shall be upon my conception—per- haps imperfect, perhaps mistaken, but my sincere conception—of public duty. That power I will not hold unless 1 can hold it consistently with the main- tenance of my own opinions; and that power I will relinquish the moment I AM satisfied that I am not supported in the maintenance of them by the con- fidence of this House and the people of this country." [ Sir Robert was con- tinually interrupted by cheers during his peroration.] Lord Joust RUSSELL did not complain of the motion which had been made, for he thought that the meeting of a new Parliament was the

best opportunity for deciding the question involved in it; but some reason ought to have been shown for such a motion as the Amendment. When former Ministers were directly attacked, it was on some defect in their general policy : the American war was urged against Lord North ; and a war with a formidable enemy, while the naval preparations of the country were in an inadequate state, was the ground for such a motion -against Mr. Addington. But the policy of Ministers had been successful. When Lord Grey pledged himself to peace, of course it only meant that Government would act in the spirit of peace ; and that policy had been maintained with success-

" In regard to the first question to which the honourable gentleman (Mr. Wortley) had alluded, the question of Belgium, that is a question which has been the motive for war and the source of disturbance to Europe from the days of Queen Elizabeth and William the Third to the time of the French Revolution, down to the close of the last war. That question had been by means of nego- tiations amicably settled, partly by the Government of Lord Grey, but con- cluded by that of Lord Melbourne. The other questions alluded to by the honourable gentleman were Portugal and Spain, countries which had also been the cause of involving Europe in trouble and in war. I am not here disposed to enter into any argument in regard to the policy pursudd towards those two countries, but I say that in both instances it was a successful policy. We were in favour of placing Donna Maria on the throne of Portugal : she was placed

on the throne of Portugal. We were in favour of the present Queen of Spain

and of a free constitution, against the pretensions of Don Carlos and Abso- lutism : the Queen is now on the throne, and the constitution exists in Spain. We were of opinion that Mehemet AU could no longer retain Syria : the chief Powers of Europe concurred with us in this respect, and the result of our policy was that Mehemet -Ali was deprived of Syria. In India attempts had

been made to shake our power, and Dost Mahomed had been put forward as an instrument by which the safety of our possessions in that quarter were threat- ened: hostilities were undertaken, and Dost Mahomed is now at Calcutta, seeking refuge under the shelter of the British Government."

Of other transactions still in operation, the result of course could not be known. The Navy, the efficiency of which had once been a charge against Ministers, had disproved the charge on the coast of Syria. Lord John then reviewed the conduct of Government in the Colonial department. In Canada, representative institutions accorded to the disaffected French had created bickerings and finally rebellion.

That was successfully suppressed rather by the energy of the Governor- General than by his cannon : the Whig Government had restored free institutions, and the colony was well-affected towards the Mother- country. Lord Sydeeham had supposed that certain measures would reconcile the colony to the change of the Timber-duties ; and among them were the support of the Queen's subjects in finance and defence, and the earnest that this country would share their future contingencies. At home, even in Ireland, there was loyalty, tranquillity, and obedience to the laws. It had not been shown that any great interest had suffered at the hands of the Government. Lord John recapitulated the events connected with the Appropriation-clause. It was twice defeated in the House of Lords : Ministers might then either have gone on p-oposing the clause and being defeated, or do as they did : Mr. O'Connell said that the clause had ceased to excite so much interest in Ireland—so small a concession could only be valuable if carried soon after it was proposed in Parliament : Ministers chose what seemed to them best for Ireland. That, however, did not remove the great difference between the Government and their opponents : nothing had since occurred to show that Sir Robert Peel would be able to avoid placing the Government of Ireland in the hands of an exasperated minority. The mode used by his supporters in speaking of the majority of the Irish people and their clergy showed the feeling which still prevailed : in that very debate an honourable Member had been unable to help

calling the crowd assembled before a hustings by any other name than " savages." Mr. Roebuck had assailed Ministers for different reasons : he said that if they had gone on with Reform they would have retained the support of the country-

" We have opinions with regard to the consequences of another course; and we bad our opinion with regard to the Reform Bill, and the danger of constant and perpetual changes, which led us to resist the changes proposed to us. If I were to tell the honourable Member for Bath, 'should he profess violent Con- servative opinions and give declaration against the Poor-law Bill and other declarations, like honourable gentlemen opposite, be would rise to a high station in the country, he would say, in reply, that such conduct was contrary to his opinion, and that he could not consistently support such

measures. We tell him the same thing ; and when he tells us Consider the course you took after the Reform Bill ; you lost the confidence of the Liberals, and you did not gain the good opinion of the Conservatives,' I can say to him that we perceived the consequences as well as he did : we knew

we could not expect to conciliate the Conservative party to the policy of the present Government : but it was the opinion of the Government that we could

not, with our views, consistently and honestly support the plans which were proposed; and if any honourable gentleman says that if we had taken such and such steps and had adopted such plans, we could have remained in office, and if our principle were opposed to such changes, I say Welcome the conse- quences."'

Lord John ridiculed Sir Robert's exclusive reserve and apprehension about his intentions as to the Corn-laws-

" Now I am at some loss to conceive why the right honourable gentleman, taking every other matter into consideration—leaving himself at large with

respect to almost every other matter—should be so determinedly wedded to this. He will not say to his Sovereign that he will adhere to the pivot ; but the address which he would make to his Sovereign or to this House would be this—' To be sure, I formerly stated, with regard to the Roman Catholics, that their admission to power would be the destruction of the Church and the ruin of the constitution ; but they have been admitted, and the constitution goes on perfectly well. ' As to Reform in Parliament, it was to be entirely destructive to

the monarchy and subversive of the interests of the aristocracy : but it was passed, and still the constitution, somehow or other, flourishes under this plan, and none of those institutions which were so threatened have suffered in the smallest degree ; and so I am satisfied with the measure of Reform, and I mean to make it the guide of my future conduct and the foundation of my future

proceedings. The admission of the Roman Catholics into Parliament—the admission of Dissenters into offices—entire religious liberty—the change of the constitution of Parliament—the destruction of fifty or sixty boroughs, and the admission of numerous classes to the exercise of the franchise—are trifling

matters, on which a chow e of opinion may take place ; but the sliding-scale is a principle which I never can or will give up : it is so necessary, that come what may—be the change in the Corn-law what it may, the maintaining invio- late of the principle of the sliding-scale is the great matter to which I shall devote my attention.'"

Lord John, however, was convinced that the sliding-scale was the root of all the evil. Lord Ripon, in defending the Corn-laws, had shown that in 1834, '5, '6, the duty was 47 . ; neither more nor less

than a prohibitory duty : in 1837, the duty was ls. 7d., and then 1,718,000 quarters of wheat were admitted, 1,740 times as much as in

1835 and '6. It was impossible that there could be any steadiness of trade in that way. Lord John quoted returns to show how the averages were tampered with by corn-jobbers with a sliding-scale. He admitted his belief that the 8s. duty could not be maintained in a time of scarcity ; but then, with a fixed duty, and the consequent regular trade, there very seldom would be an actual scarcity. The present system is so vicious in its nature that it ought to he abandoned, and we ought to go to a fixed duty of 8.9., or any sum that Parliament might determine. He did not so much expect lower prices as additional employment for the people. He had no reason to suppose that Sir Robert Peel would refuse to put in practice those principles of Free Trade of which he was the declared advocate-

" I am sure, if he does, it will be from the want of inclination, not from the want of power ; for, as for any imputation of his wanting any power to deal with the Corn-laws, as we proposed to deal with them, I think we may despise it, I know not what course he may pursue, but the full responsibility rousing

with him. The right honourable gentleman has no right to say that he is shackled and thwarted by party trammels, because it appears that the party to which be belongs could not resist Liberal measures if he were to propose them."

Lord John, however, gathered that there were various divisions among the party to which Sir Robert belongs : their organs of the press used the most contradictory language, and similar discrepancies were observed in the speeches at the elections: Mr. Stuart Wortley said that one object of his party was to repeal the Poor-law—one of the many instances of a total difference of language between the leaders and fol- lowers. The Whigs, however, had the credit of exclusive harshness. Other misrepresentations had been used: they were said to be the ene- mies of the Church- " We have carried a tithe-law, by which the property of the Church is made more secure ; by which the clergyman obtains a larger income without quarrel or dispute with his parishioners. We have also passed another law regulating the incomes of the higher clergy. And what have we done ?—reduced the Archbishop of Canterbury to the miserable pittance of 15,0001. a year ; cut down the Bishop of London to no more than 10,0001. a year; the Bishop of Durham receives a wretched stipend of 8,0001. a year ! These two bills were our propositions ; and, on the other hand, when a proposition was made that really attacked the Church, we incurred the enmity of the Dissenters for opposing it." Lord John hoped that the party next in power would not suffer by similar misrepresentations : and he finished his last great Ministerial speech in these words, as reported in the Chronicle- " In conclusion, I am convinced that if this country is governed by enlarged and liberal councils, that its power and might will spread and increase, and its influence will become greater and greater, and liberal principles will prevail, and civilization will be spread to all parts of the globe, and you will bless millions by your acts and mankind by your union." aoud and continued cheering.)

THE QUEEN'S ANSWER.

Lord Marcus Hill appeared at the bar of the House on Monday, and read the following answer to the Address-

" It is the greatest satisfaction to me to find that the House of Commons are deeply sensible of the importance of those considerations to which I di- rected their attention in reference to the commerce and revenue of the country, and the laws which regulate the trade in corn ; and that in deciding on the course which it may be desirable to pursue, it will be their earnest desire to consult the welfare of all classes of my subjects.

" Ever anxious to listen to the advice of my Parliament, I will take imme- diate measures for the formation of a new Administration."

RESIGNATION OF MINISTERS.

Shortly after, Lord JOHN RUSSELL rose to address the House, which was at that moment very much crowded. He stated that, in conse- quence of the division on Friday night, Ministers had tendered their resignations to the Queen ; by whom they had been accepted. Very briefly recapitulating the events which had led to Ministers' resignation, and abstaining from arguments to show why they were justified in pro- longing the struggle up to that point,-Lord John said that they had only done so from the conviction of the duty which they owed to the Sove- reign whose confidence they enjoyed. He would not say that while they had power to benefit the country they held office with reluctance- " But I do not think the possession of power in this country can be accompa- nied by satisfaction unless there are means of carrying into effect the measures which Ministers feel essential to the welfare of the country. I do not allude now to particular measures of less or minor importance, but to measures of greater and transcendant moment. With regard to such measures, we began, in the commencement of Lord Grey's Adunibistration, with the Reform Act ; we ended by proposing measures for the freedom of commerce. With large and important measures we commenced; with large and important measures we conclude. In pursuance of great objects we triumphed, in the pursuance of great objects we have been defeated."

The leading members of the Whig Government had not abused the power which they bad possessed-

" Earl Grey, in the first year of the Reform Bill, enjoyed great and un- exampled popularity; Lord Melbourne, as first Minister of William the Fourth, became, at the accession of the present Queen, the adviser of a Princess who came to the Throne at the earliest period at which by law it was allowable to exercise the power of sovereignty ; and therefore it became his duty to offer that advice and give that information which a Queen without experience could not be supposed to have, and which was received with the confidence and re- liance that became the frank and generous nature of the Royal person now on the Throne. Now, I will venture to say, that neither of these powers—neither the great powers of popularity which were enjoyed by the Ministry of Earl Grey, nor the power and favour of the Sovereign enjoyed by the others, owing to the circumstances in which Lord Melbourne was placed—was ever abused by either of them. On the contrary, while fault has been found with both of them for not having proposed measures which it was said at the time would be more to their advantage and the security of their power, they both have shown great forbearance, and a great desire to preserve untouched and unim- paired the constitution of the country and the prerogatives of the Crown." Lord John then turned to considerations personally affecting him- self— " With respect to the merits of the measures which I have proposed, or of the measures which I carried into effect, I will not now enter into any dispute : all I wish to observe is, that I have endeavoured, to the best of my power and ability, to exercise such judgment as I possess for the promotion of the best in- terests of the country, and of the Sovereign whom I serve and whom I had the honour to advise. Sir, this House has decided at the very commencement of the session that it will take measures for directing the attention of the Executive to the measures alluded to in her Majesty's Speech. I can only say, that although that decision may call upon us to give our opposition on measures to which we cannot give our approval, I am sure that in all the future consultations of the House, I shall be ever ready to give that advice to the House which I think will best promote its object, which will tend to secure to it the affections of the people of the United Kingdom, and conduce to the welfare and prosperity of the great empire of which this House is the centre and representative." He hoped that political opposition hid envendered no personal animosity. Lord John concluded by moving the adjournment of the House till Monday.

Lord STANLEY avowed. in the name of every Member in the House, a cordial participation in Lord John's hope that no personal hostility remai ned- " As I feel it my duty to claim for myself, and for every gentleman who has thought it his duty to oppose the noble lord, a belief on the part of the House that we have acted on conscientious motives and no others, so I fully give to the noble lord credit for being influenced by DO other consideration but that sense of dtty which to a man of his high honour must be paramount to every other feeling. No one can have regarded with any sentiment but one of high admiration, the distinguished zeal and perseverance, and the ability and talent, with which, whether in the immediate and peculiar duties of his own department or in conducting the public business in the House, the noble lord has performed his very arduous and difficult task."

Lord Stanley wished to set right a matter to which Lord John had incidentally alluded. He denied that the Government measures had been submitted to the decision of the House : the House had last session pronounced unequivocally that the policy of the Ministry had failed as a whole ; and when Ministers again came before the Parliament they were not in a position to submit particular measures for consideration. That they were not to be construed to have done so, was obvious from the reception met with by the Address ; which was opposed by persons who agreed in the part relating to the Budget, while it was supported by others who, like Lord Worsley, disapproved of the Government proposals. Lord Stanley expressed his regret that the Speech was so framed as to be liable to misconstruction with regard to the sentiments of the Queen ; but he again repeated his expressions of respect for Lord John's character and of admiration for his talents.

Lord Joni( RUSSELL disavowed the construction which had been pat upon the Speech— He was sorry that there should anywhere exist such a misconception as that to which the noble lord had alluded, to the effect that the Speech delivered from the Throne was to be regarded as a speech from the Sovereign and not as the Speech constitutionally advised by her Ministers. He thought that it was so generally known that the Speech from the Throne was advised by Ministers on their responsibility, that he was surprised such a misconception could exist ; but that it might not continue to exist—if, indeed, it did exist— he would at once state that the Speech was the advice of Ministers, and that they alone were responsible for it.

Lord John's motion was agreed to.

Mr. STUART WORTLEY complained of misrepresentation, when Lord John accused him of raising the Poor-law cry against ard Morpeth in Yorkshire, at the late election. When engaged in a similar contest in 1837, his return would have been sure had he joined that cry ; but he refused to make the Poor-law a party question. Mr. Wortley, who was proceeding at some length, was called to order by Mr. ROEBUCK.

Lord JOHN RUSSELL had alluded to Mr. Wortley's own address on the hustings he expressed strong opinions against the Poor-law, and in reviewing the state of the country he should not have omitted that subject.

In the House of Lords, Lord MELBOURNE announced the resignation of Ministers in the following terms- " My Lords, I consider it my duty to acquaint your Lordships, that in consequence of vote which was come to by the other House of Lordships, on Saturday morning last, which was precisely similar in terms to a vote come to by your Lordships at an earlier period of the week, I have, on the part of my colleagues and myself, tendered to her Majesty the resignation of the offices we hold; which resignation her Majesty has been graciously pleased to accept; and we now continue to hold those offices only till our successors are ap- pointed."

EXTENSION OF THE SUFFRAGE.

In the Postscript of our second edition last week we only mentioned the debate which took place on Saturday, on Mr. Sharman Crawford's amendment to the Address : we now supply a fuller account.

Mr. CRAWFORD moved the following as an addition to the Address- " That we further respectfully represent to your Majesty, that in our opinion the distress which your Majesty deplores is mainly attributable to the circum- stance of your whole people not being fully and fairly represented in this

House; and that we feel it will be our duty to consider the means of so ex- tending and regulating the suffrage, and of adopting such improvements in the

system of voting, as will confer on the working-classes that just weight in the representative body which is necessary to secure a due consideration of their interests, and which their present patient endurance of suffering gives them the strongest title to claim. '

He said that he stood in a peculiar position with his constituents : he had been elected by them without solicitation, and entirely in conse- quence of the principles of public polity which he had formerly enun- ciated in Ireland ; and therefore he felt bound to take every opportu- nity for promoting those principles. He stood there as an independent

Member of Parliament, without consideration for the conveniences of party. When he used the term " whole people," he did not mean that every one should have a vote, but that the great body of the people should have such a power of voting as would give a fair representation of the whole— He would ask whether it could be said that there was a fair representation of the people either of England, Ireland, or Scotland, under the present law?

By returns which had been laid upon the table of the House, it appeared that the franchise was enjoyed by 1 out of 18} of the male population, or 1 in 4 of the heads of families ; in Scotland, 1 in 30 of the population, and 1 in 6 of the heads of families; and in Ireland, by 1 in 77 of the population, or 1 in 15 of the heads of families. lie thought, therefore, that the people were not fully and fairly represented. He considered that from the want of such a due repre-

sentation arose all absence of proper economy, a waste of the public money in

all departments—that from this state of the representation arose unjust and unnecessary wars, class-legislation, and gross monopolies, of which the Corn-law

so much complained of was the most flagrant and oppressive instance. He felt, and the people felt, that if they had been duly represented such a monopoly could not have existed as the Cern-law.

He would therefore give a fair proportion of the suffrage to the working-classes ; though he did not wish to pledge the House to his particular opinions. He also recommended protection to the voter from the influence of corruption and intimidation. He denied that it was dangerous to give the suffrage to the working-classes-

They had as great an interest in the prosperity of the country as any other class, and they could not expect employment if the country was not generally

tranquil and prosperous—the working-man could not expect to gain any thing if affairs were unsettled ; he depended for his very existence upon his employ- ment and, consequently, on the prosperity of the whole community. It was

said ;hat the working-classes were obnoxious to be corrupted ; but the source of that corruption must be sought in other places. It was said, too, that the lower classes were not sufficiently educated to make them proper voters. He did not conceive that to entitle a person to vote it was necessary that he should be able to deliberate on all the great and complicated questions of state policy; for if the franchise were to be conferred on those only who were able to do this, many of the higher classes themselves would not enjoy the franchise. Then it was urged that the norki¢g-classes could not be trusted. He would be glad to know m what other class honourable Members could show a greater devotion to public liberty than among the ranks of the working-men. Mr. Crawford justified the proposed change on constitutional grounds-

He contended that the British constitution was founded on the principle of the whole people being represented in the House of Commons: there was

another House to represent the feelings and wishes of the aristocracy: the House of Commons ought to be the representative of the feelings and wishes of the great mass of the industrious classes, which it was not. -The one House was to be a check upon the other- and if the House of Commons were not the representative of the people, it could form no such sufficient check.

He appealed to both of the great parties to support his motion : the Tories should do so, to show that the electors who had given them their majority in the House acted in accordance with the wishes of the great body of the people ; the Whigs, who were in a minority, should reflect that that was the consequence of their having disappointed the expecta- tions of the people, and should seek a return of power by increasing the power of the people. They had supported the principle for which he contended in their Irish Registration Bill, with its five-pound qualifica- tion. And what other way was there to counteract the effect of the Chandos clause? Mr. Crawford, who was much interrupted during his speech, complained of the inattention with which so important a subject was treated by the House.

General JOHNSON seconded the motion. He had not voted either for the original Address or the former amendment, because he had no con- fidence in either party. In one way or another, Sir Robert Peel had obtained a majority at the election ; but there was one thing wanted— he had not the voice of the people with him, nor their good-will ; and he must materially alter his conduct before he could obtain it.

Mr. WARD concurred in all the general principles advanced by Mr. Crawford. He was not, however, one of those who thought that they ought not to consult the convenience of parties. He fully recognized the importance of the subject ; but the more important it was, the more cautious ought they to be in the manner of discussing it. He regarded it as an insult to the popular interests in the House to bring forward a question of that nature when there was in fact no Ministry in exist- ence— Was that a time fur such a motion as this to be cast upon the waters with- out the slightest caution—without the slightest consideration ; one on which no five men in the House had been consulted, and with regard to which no ten men were agreed as to what was to he done in the event of its being car- ried? The motion itself only contained a vague declaration, and then the honourable Member said it was to be taken as a test of popular principles! He denied that this motion was a test of popular principles; and, although he would not record his vote against the motion—in the principles of which be concurred—yet be should not record his vote in its favour when brought for- ward in that questionable manner.

Besides, be thought it but fair to give Sir Robert Peel, the represen- tative of the majority of the constituency, a fair trial and time to con- sider his measures before he assumed the reins of government. If the motion, therefore, were pressed to a division, he should withdraw before the question was put.

Mr. ROEBUCK perfectly agreed with what had fallen from Mr. Ward. He believed that the state of the suffrage was at the bottom of all our evils; but such a question was not to be brought forward at the tail of a great debate—at a time, too, when there was no Ministry in office re- sponsible for the advice that might be given to the Crown. If the mo- tion were pressed to a division, he would at once retire. He was not afraid of the consequences to himself: his opinions on such subjects were too well known. (Mr. Roebuck then rose and retired below the bar, accompanied by Mr. Ward, Mr. Hawes, Mr. John Jervis, and some twenty other Members.)

Mr. WALLACE, amid shouts of laughter, waved his bat to the depart- ing Members to induce them to return. He then said that he knew no rule against making such a motion in the absence of Ministers . he considered it very appropriate. If honourable Members opposite thought that in consequence of the scene which had just occurred a division would ensue in the Radical ranks, they were much mistaken : in opposition the Radicals would be a strong and compact body. No one had a higher opinion than he had of the honourable Members who had just left the House; but he felt that they were in error.

Mr. THOMAS DUNCOMBE was not surprised that, after consuming the time of the House for some days in a most unprofitable debate, honour- able Members should not like such a motion as the present. The whole scene, the four nights' debate and what had just occurred, was worthy of the Houk. Mr. Crawford was but discharging his duty when honourable gentlemen said that he had no right to propose his amend- ment without consulting them ; and then they quitted the House and left him in the bands of his enemies ! Mr. Duncombe liked rather to see open and manly enemies, than professing friends who would leave him in the lurch. He felt bound to support the present motion, because in 1839 he had proposed a very similar amendment upon an address to the Crown assuring the Queen that as the measure of 1832 had dis- appointed the People, the Commons would take into consideration the further reform of the House. That amendment was supported by 86 'and opposed by 426. He doubted whether that majority would not be .ncreased now : if it were, to what conclusion would the people come, except that there was greater proof that the House needed further reform. He knew that Sir Robert Peel regarded the Reform Bill as an irrevocable settlement of the question of the representation ; but there would be no peace nor contentment in the country until the question was resettled. The petition for an extension of the suffrage, which he presented last session, signed by 1,400,000 persons, was a manifestion worthy of deep consideration.

Dr. BOWRINC would try, in the midst of the dejection which would be caused in the country by that morning's division, to infuse into it one drop of sweetness by his own vote. Mr. WILLIAM WILLIAMS could not subscribe to the doctrine that the House ought not to express an opinion unless it were the opinion of the Minister of the day : the House was called upon to express the opinion of the House of Commons, not of any Minister. Mr. PROTHEROE had supported Mr. Duncombe's motion in 1839 ; but then there was a Ministry to be influenced by the result : this was the distinction between that occasion and the present.

Mr. TURNER thought that the constituencies should be enlarged, but that the present motion was untimely. Colonel RAWDON supported the motion. The first act of a new Go- vernment would be to ask for a vote of credit; before making the grant, the grievances of the people ought to e made known and re- dress demanded. The House then divided, several Members on the Liberal side first taking their departure : the numbers were—for the amendment, 39 ; against it, 283 majority, 244.

MISCELLANEOUS.

CONTROVERTED ELECTIONS. Petitions have been presented against the returns for Wigan, Rutland, Harwich, Wakefield, Sudbury, Bridport, Ipswich, and Waterford.

PUBLIC PETITIONS. The following Committee was nominated on Public Petitions, on Monday—Mr. George William Wood, Sir Edward Knatchbull, Sir Robert Harry Inglis, Mr. Greene, Mr. Edward Buller, Mr. Brotherton, Mr. Owen Stanley, Mr. Pusey, Mr. C. W. G. Howard, Mr. Villiers Stuart, Captain Jones, Viscount Duncan, Sir Charles Douglas, Lord Fitzalan, and Mr. Buckley.

CANADIAN TRADE. On Monday, Mr. VILLIERS presented a petition from the Committee of Trade at Montreal, and 180 merchants of all sides in politics in that city, representing that the petitioners viewed with apprehension the effect of the changes in the Imperial duties of the Colonies on their trade with the West Indies; that the duties on the admission of provisions into the United Kingdom are so heavy as to be almost prohibitory, though the growth of agricultural produce in Canada should be encouraged ; and they pray that such duties on pro- duce imported from Canada be repealed, and that a protective duty be retained on produce exported from the United States.