tional principle that the opinions of the sections were entitled to bring the charge Minister of the day must be in conso- of inconsistency against the present GovernDance with the opinions of the majority ment. Was the noble Lord, the late Prime of the House-about which there could Minister, consistent on the Appropriation be no doubt and that, in order that Clause, coming into power expressly upon the Minister should be able to maintain a it, and never alluding to the subject after constitutional position, he must follow one gaining office by it? or on the Militia of two courses-he must first ascertain Bill of last Session? or was he consistent whether the opinions of a majority of the in telling Her Majesty that it would be a House were the same as his own; and if disastrous course to resort to a dissolution not, he must either recant his own opinions of Parliament, and then immediately afteror resign. Now, he (Mr. Adderley) would wards pressing the present Government to take leave to say that there was a third adopt that course? or was he consistent course that might be followed, and that when, opposing the Militia, he suggested was to allow any opinion which he had supplying our home defences by troops formerly held, but which he was now un- drawn from the Colonies; a measure which, able to carry out, simply to remain at rest. when he (Mr. Adderley) proposed it on He saw no need for an absolute recanta- other grounds, he denounced? And, with tion. When Sir Robert Peel took office regard to the Colleagues of Sir Robert Peel, in 1835 it was not found necessary to what sort of a recantation was it that the ask him to make an affidavit that he would right hon. Baronet the Member for Carlisle never attempt to repeal the Reform Bill of (Sir James Graham) and his Colleagues 1832; neither did the noble Lord the Mem- wanted from the Government, after they ber for London think it advisable to come had stated, as plainly as language could, under any pledge with reference to the cele- that they had no intention of raising the brated appropriation clause" when he be- question again? Was it a recantation such came First Minister of the Crown. The noble as Sir Robert Peel himself made in 1846, Lord found it more convenient to let that when he all at once announced his intensubject pass away sub silentio, though he tion of introducing a measure in direct ophad turned out a strong Government ex- position to every argument he had formerly pressly upon it. The noble Lord and his used, and reversed not only his policy, but friends, therefore, were not the men to avowedly every principle on which he had ask that an affidavit, security, or gua- based it? Was it a recantation like that rantee should be imposed upon the present which had been made by the right hon. BaGovernment-that in no circumstances ronet himself? He was sure that many whatever should they attempt to revive hon. Members would recollect how the House the question of free trade. He observed was electrified by the rapidity with which that there were three sections of the Op- the right hon. Gentleman reversed all his position united in calling in question the former arguments, and how, to use his own paragraph of Her Majesty's Speech on the phrase, he swept whole volumes of Hansubject of free trade. There were-first, sard away by one single word. If it was the immediate predecessors of the present a recantation of this kind that was wanted, Government; second, the leaders and staff he could only say that it was unreasonable officers of the Government of Sir R. Peel, to ask it of them, and that it would not at strangely hostile to the remainder of their all meet their views to accede to the reown party now in office; and, third, the free- quest. Then, with regard to those whom trade party, to whom the whole credit should he might call the apostles of free trade, be given of the free-trade measures which they seemed to him like the children in the were now the law of the land-he meant market-place-there was no pleasing them. the hon. Member for Wolverhampton and If the Government and their friends dehis friends, to whom alone, he repeated, clared themselves to be Protectionists they belonged the full credit of being the friends were not satisfied; and if they called themof the poor on this question; and he must selves Freetraders they were equally dissasay that he thought it gross presumption tisfied. He denied that the Government had on the part of the party which called them- reversed any principle on the subject of selves by Sir Robert Peel's name to at- protection, or that it had ever been held by tempt to take to themselves the credit of a them as a principle at all, It was, indeed, measure which they had tried so long to based upon a principle-and principles are delay, obstruct, and keep down. He de- of eternal obligation, essential and fundanied, however, that cither of these three mental, and are never to be reversed-he meant the principle of equal justice-the | not listening to the advice which comes principle that all classes should be taxed from the other side, with respect to his inalike; but the system which was known as tention of bringing forward a substantive Protection was only an artificial arrange- Motion on the question of free trade. I ment based on that principle. He had al- think my hon. Friend has duly appreciated ways said that if protection meant the fa- his position before the country with refervouring one class at the expense of an- ence to that subject. He has long been other, he would not defend it for a single the faithful representative of the principle moment; it was only to be justified as a of free trade in this House; and the counbalance of unequal taxation. Protection, try is deeply interested in our discussions however, having been withdrawn, the same on that subject, and they will expect that principle called upon them to adjust the those discussions shall be brought to some inequality which the removal of protection definite result. Now, I ask, is it possible had produced. The party which was at that the plain, honest, and simple-minded present in power was the same party which people of this country can consider that was formed by Sir Robert Peel in 1841; this clause in the Queen's Speech is a sufand the cause of the indignation which had ficient solution of the fourteen years' conbeen expressed against them by their late troversy which, within my knowledge and excolleagues, now in opposition, was, that perience, have passed away upon this questhey had not been able to follow their com- tion? Why, if I read the passage aright, mon leader equally in opposite directions. it is put into that form with an intention The hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid- that it shall not mean anything. It begins dlesex (Mr. Osborne) sneered at the want with an "if." A right hon. Gentleman of independence shown by the country has said that the " if" is intended to be a Gentlemen; but if following a leader one peacemaker; and Shakespeare has said day in his advocacy of protection, and that "your if is a great peacemaker"— being ready the next day to share in his but, if this passage be hypothetical and advocacy of free trade, was his idea of means nothing, how can we come to any independence, he differed from it toto decision on the question, or how can it be cœlo. He had always admitted that the said that we are satisfying the country, or conduct of Sir Robert Peel on that occa- convincing them that the views of the sion was highly honourable to himself: the House of Commons are in harmony with rapidity, ill-adjustment, and inconsistency those of the great majority of the people of his change of policy was at least not out of doors upon a question so interesting selfish, but a great personal sacrifice; but to them? I think, therefore, my hon. he thought it rather hard that his party Friend has pledged himself most wisely should be blamed for not following him in before the country that within a fortnight the last phase of his political career, simply of this time he will bring this question because their minds had been too inefface- substantively before the House. Supposably impressed with the arguments which ing, however, what the Chancellor of the he had urged upon them just before. The Exchequer says be true-and I understand hon.Member concluded by protesting against that a noble Earl in another place has the House being called upon to give the made a statement confirmatory of his opinguarantee which the proposed Motion of ion-supposing it to be true that the Cathe hon. Member for Wolverhampton im-binet have resolved to adopt the principle plied. It appeared to him to be a dan- of unrestricted competition, where can be gerous precedent, and he hoped the House would not assent to it: that any measure, however inappropriate and set aside for the present, should be put under a perpetual ban of excommunication from all future discussion-a ban which, moreover, would not be binding on any single Member of the House the hour after it had passed into a resolution. MR. COBDEN: I don't know that I should have trespassed upon the attention of the House, had I not wished to impress upon my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. Villiers), the propriety of the difficulty, or where the delay, arising out of the Motion of the hon. Member for Wolverhamption? I undertake to say that his resolution will do no more than affirm the principle of unrestricted competition with a view to carrying it out. The Chancellor of the Exchequer says that is the opinion of the Cabinet. Then the right hon. Gentleman will only have to second the Motion of the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, and in one night-nay, in one short hour-for I promise him he will not be troubled with many speeches-this question will be disposed of for ever. But it must not be mixed up with other questions, I have not proved it. I could mention two it must not be mixed up with questions of or three circumstances that would stand finance. I think the hon. Member for in your way at the outset. Some of Wolverhampton has had too much expe- the largest landowners in the kingdom rience of this House, and has seen too have declared that their rents have not much of what is required for success in the suffered in consequence of free trade. Last advocacy of any measure, to allow one year we heard this stated by the Duke grave question to be mixed up with any of Buccleuch and Sir James Graham. others. We must have the pure and sim- Farmers have not all suffered either. free-trade principle affirmed, and that Those engaged in grazing, in raising wool, is a principle not to be based upon the and in dairy farming, have all been profitcasual prosperity of the present day. The ing by the prosperity of trade which has hon. Gentleman who spoke last is most arisen from the changes which have taken anxious that we should allow this question place. But when you talk of relieving only to be settled for the present. Yes, landed property, you are going not only to yes, there would be great convenience in relieve wheatgrowers from taxation-you that because hon. Gentlemen might then contemplate not only a modification of taxgo down to the farmers' tables a month ation for the benefit of wheatgrowershence, and say, "We only assent to this but you relieve railway property, house for the present. You have only to agitate. property, and, in fact, more than half the Get up meetings, subscribe to protection real property of the country, which does societies, and the time will come when the not come under the denomination of agrimanufacturers, instead of being prosperous, cultural property at all. Besides, what will be suffering, and then we may reverse are you going to do with the 7,000,000l. this principle, and adopt again the policy of or 10,000,000l. worth of property in Ireprotection. ["Hear!"] Ay, but we don't land bought under the Incumbered Estates intend to act upon that principle at all. Act, since the free-trade measures passed? We say that the principle of unrestricted These parties have bought their land under commerce is true, and sound, and politic, free-trade conditions. Are you going to and just at all times, in all places, and un- give compensation to them? There are der all circumstances. If it be a truth it many millions' worth of property sold will answer to all these conditions; and if every year. On what principle, then, are it be not, it is not worth the fourteen years' you going to make your remission of taxstruggle to establish it by legislation. Iation? I deny the loss; but I say it have no objection to see a financial scheme brought forward. I think that, apart altogether from the principle of unrestricted commerce-apart from abolishing protective duties-there is a very great field open to any ingenious Chancellor of the Exchequer in the modification of our system of taxation. That is a process which I invoke quite as much in the interest of my constituents, the woollen manufacturers of Yorkshire, as you who are opposite can do in the interest of the landed proprietors; because my constituents in West Yorkshire, the manufacturers of woollens and stuffs, are open to the unrestricted competition of the whole world, and are equally interested in the question of taxation. Therefore I cannot allow you to go into the question of taxation with the view of remedying what you call an injury done to certain interests in 1846. I know what those interests are. You mean the parties engaged in agriculture. Well, but that will open a very wide question. In the first place I deny the injury you talk of. You will have to prove your case. You would be a most clumsy thing to attempt a compensation which must cover all the owners of real property, when, avowedly, you only want to reach the growers of wheat, and the owners of two or three other descriptions of property. I deny that even your agricultural proprietors your owners of land-can show a loss. Is the land worth less now that it was when Sir Robert Peel made the change in the law? I say, then, that you must begin by showing your case. Where is the injury-the loss? You must then show your right to compensation, because I can point you to other people who have sustained losses. You don't intend to compensate lawyers, who are now suffering great losses, because you have abolished their "John Doe and Richard Roe," and other expensive processes. No; they may emigrate to the "diggings." I lay down this rule-that when a class of the community has been benefiting under the operation of laws, such class can have no beneficial interest in those laws; and if the laws are abrogated, the class can have no right to compensation for their loss. If may be, their policy will be in accordance the corn laws entitle anybody to compensa- with them, if we give them the opportion they will hold it with bloodstained tunity of carrying those convictions out. hands; for I will on a future occasion give Can it be supposed that right hon. Gentleyou some recitals of what took place in men would take office, holding certain 1816, in 1819, and in 1829-of riots, of convictions on the greatest question of the murders, and of executions-and I will day, and that, notwithstanding those condistinctly trace them all to the operation victions, if you will let them remain in of your corn laws. If you had now in office, they are perfectly willing to carry force the law which existed in 1815, I am out the very opposite policy? That would convinced that in the last autumn, when be a very compendious mode of dealing the harvest threatened to be a failure, you with party politics; it would simplify prowould, instead of contentment and happi- ceedings very much. There would be ness, and a well-affected state of mind none of those migrations from one side of among the people, have witnessed the the floor to the other which occasionally misery and crime which prevailed at the take place. Once "in," and whatever periods to which I have referred. I say, the demands of the country might be, the then, you are wrong in meddling with this convictions of Gentlemen in office would question at all. Why, you surely don't never be any obstacle to their acceding to expect that the country, and the majority such demands. Now, I could more easily of this House, will go into a discussion on tolerate that doctrine, provided the Gentlethe financial state of the country with the men opposite had never given their reasons foregone conclusion that certain interests for the faith that is in them. I cannot are entitled to compensation? That is forget, however, that the Chancellor of the the very thing we (the Opposition) have Exchequer told us, not in the heat of debeen fighting about, and you ask us to bate in 1846, but as lately as 1849, the reopen the whole question! The first reasons why he was in favour of protection, thing my hon. Friend the Member for and why especially he was in favour of Wolverhampton must do is to see that we reciprocity. He has given most elaborate are put in as good a position as before the arguments to show that free trade, accordelections; and if the Members of the ing to the "Manchester school," as he House of Commons pledged to free trade was pleased to call it-that is, free imdo their duty, as I believe they will, we ports in opposition to hostile tariffs-are shall have free trade recognised by a vote calculated to degrade the labourer, to of this House, and without its being in lower the rate of wages, to diminish caany way alloyed by the question of com- pital, and to increase pauperism. He pensation. The right hon. Member for has told us all that within the last three Oxford University (Mr. Gladstone), who is years. I am the last person to wish perhaps more difficult to follow in his to go back to Hansard to quote statespeeches than any one in this House, ap-ments which have been made in this peared to me to fail in what I should have thought of all other points he would have been least likely to err-I mean his casuistry. He laid down the principle that we might call upon a Government for a declaration of their policy, but that we had no right to put them in the crucible, in order to extract from them a declaration of their opinions and convictions. Now, if I were engaging an agent or steward, I should like to know what his views were upon the business I wished him to perform; and, knowing his views, I should conclude that, if he were an honest man, his practice would be in accordance with those views. It is upon the same principle that I wish to know the sentiments of the Ministry; because they are the agents, or stewards of the people at large; and I believe that, whatever their convictions We House; but when I find the right hon. opposite what are their present convictions | for ever for me. If they resist it, I shall on this question? I would not subject be their opponent as long as I remain in them to the ordeal to which they subjected this House. the late Sir Robert Peel when he changed his opinions. The hon. Gentleman who last spoke has talked about the way in which Gentlemen on this side of the House are constantly assailing those on the other side. I imagine he must have been mistaken, and have been thinking of what happened four or five years ago. The late Sir Robert Peel avowed changing his opinions, and yet he was not allowed to remain in peace with his new convictions, though he abandoned office as the price of his conversion. I don't think the Gentlemen opposite have any reason to complain of the restribution with which they have been visited. I have often felt, and I have often been on the point of saying, what I will not hesitate to say now-that the personal friends and political Colleagues of the late Sir Robert Peel have, in my opinion, shown more forbearance towards his assailants than ever I could have done with the Christian temper I aim at possessing. But if the Gentlemen opposite will come forward when my hon. Friend (Mr. Villiers) makes his Motion, and will give in their adhesion to free trade, and declare that they have changed their views upon that question, I give them my solemn pledge that from that moment they will never hear one taunt or one single reproach from me. If we have not that declaration, others may be inclined to trust Gentlemen who profess one set of opinions, and who carry out another set in practice; but I can only say for myself that, representing a constituency the largest in the Empire, and a population of a million and a half, whose opinion is unanimous, unless right hon. Gentlemen opposite do avow a change in their opinions, they shall not remain in office one day with my consent, or a day beyond the time that I can turn them out. I have only to repeat to my hon. Friend (Mr. Villiers) what I am sure he does not require to be cautioned about-namely, that he should take the earliest opportunity of bringing forward his substantive Motion. Let it cover the whole ground. Let him declare emphatically the right of the people of this country to free trade in corn; let him avow that principle as just and politic, and one that must be maintained, enlarged, and extended in every practicable way. If the Gentlemen opposite will endorse that resolution, they will have a truce MR. E. BALL said, that though he stood alone in the House, he would still declare his conviction, in spite of all that had been said on both sides, that protection was the best and wisest policy for this country and for all nations to adopt. He might be ridiculed for maintaining such a doctrine; but he had some consolation in the knowledge that there was not a single nation of the earth, save Great Britain, that did not adhere to the principle he advocated. He had the satisfaction of knowing that all the greatest men of America, France, and the whole Continent, agreed with him, maintained his views, and carried out in their several countries those principles which he believed to be sound and right: and he believed that, under the guidance of a gracious Providence, this country had attained its greatness and its superiority over all other nations by the maintenance of that protective policy which many Members of that House now despised and condemned. It had been very properly remarked, that they had arrived at a period when it was necessary for all men and for all parties distinctly to avow what their opinions were. But the Home Secretary had truly said, that this was not a night to be devoted to political and party discussion, but one on which they had met unitedly to testify their honour and attachment to Her Majesty, by receiving and responding to the Royal Speech. ["Hear!"] Surely the case was not so urgent, or the matter so pressing, that it was necessary to enter upon the question of the Ministerial policy immediately; and when the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had asked only for a delay of a few days, the denial of his request must be promoted rather by party spirit than by any desire to benefit the country by extracting now an opinion from the House. The noble Member for the City of London (Lord John Russell) had stated that there was one paragraph in the Royal Speech of which he could not approve-a paragraph so mystified and unintelligible, one part of it professing one principle, and the other part another, that he was much disposed to take the sense of the House upon itmeaning thereby the paragraph which related to the question of free trade. Now, he (Mr. Ball) could very well understand how a particular policy might be very good for one portion of the people, while it was |