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 opinions 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 suggested -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 Ministerial 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 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.

"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 recommendation, 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 " compensation" to the agricultural interest. He left the suggestion with Members on that side, thinking they might, before they next met, be disposed to consider it as offered in a spirit of conciliation.

After Lord Palmerston's speech, the debate was adjourned to the 25th. Before it was resumed on

that day,

Sir W. Clay rose to inquirefirst, of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, whether he was willing to withdraw his amendment upon the understanding that the House would acquiesce in the resolution moved by Lord Palmerston; secondly, of Mr. Villiers, whether, on a like understanding, he would withdraw his motion; and thirdly, of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, whether, in the event of Mr. Villiers refusing to withdraw his motion, he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) would accept the resolution of Lord Palmerston as a substitute for his own.

Sir J. Graham, before answers were returned to these questions, wished to make a statement relative to the share he had taken in fram

ing the original resolutions moved by Mr. Villiers. The right hon. Baronet then narrated the communications he had had with Lord Aberdeen and Lord J. Russell respecting the wording of the resolutions and the changes they underwent, in which he had sought to retain certain words with the view of traversing a presumption arising upon the Queen's Speech, that the question of compensation would be entertained, and he had inserted the words, "without in. flicting injury on any important interest," expressly to bar that question. He could be no party to any compromise if those words were omitted; but if they were adopted he should entreat Mr. Villiers to withdraw his motion.

Mr. Gladstone said, that he did not think that, with regard to the question of compensation, the Government ought to be precluded from bringing it forward by an anticipatory motion. The House might take one of two courses: either allow the Government to go on with unfettered hands, or adopt a vote of want of confidence, which was the sound, constitutional course. His mind had been made up to vote for the original motion, though there were reasons which would make this course painful to him; but the amendment proposed by Lord Palmerston had saved him from this alternative, and the interests of free trade would, he thought, be best served by the concurrence of the great body of the House in that amendment.

Mr. T. Duncombe complained of the novel character of this proceeding, which he considered to be trifling with the House.

Mr. Cayley thought it unfair that he should be required to retract the opinions he entertained.

He saw that the country was placed in an unusual dilemma, and thought it was for the public advantage that this unseemly discussion should be brought to a close.

Mr. Robert Palmer said, his intention had been to vote against the original motion, and he protested against being a party to Lord Palmerston's resolution.

Lord Palmerston hoped that this conversation afforded a prospect of a general understanding. He had no objection to the words proposed by Sir J. Graham if they were confined to the future. Both sides of the House must feel that it was of great national importance that this question should be set at rest. It was not a question as to the private opinions of the Administration, but what they meant to do, and all must see that the reversal of our late policy was unattainable. Let the House, then, calm the public mind, and, without criticising past opinions, affirm what was to be the foundation of our future commercial legislation.

Sir E. B. Lytton, though he preferred the resolution of the Government, thought it unnecessary. to be very nice in verbal criticism, and recommended the resolution of Lord Palmerston to the favourable consideration of his friends.

The Marquis of Granby declared, that he could not agree with any of the resolutions-they were a mass of mystification, which completely baffled him. The noble Lord added, emphatically:

"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 statesman; some acknowledgment that he was not only patriotic and conscientious, but that he was also far-seeing and sagacious." (General cheering.)

Lord Granby appealed to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, whether the Protectionists had not given him a generous and unreserved support.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer fully admitted that fact, but he explained his views of the Ministerial 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 relinquish office because the country had decided for free trade. If any one thought it was their duty, the issue could easily be tried. 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 consented for a moment to hold the position he now occupied. Then came the main question. 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 hon. Gentleman may or may not have found such a phrase in some electioneering speech or another, made by some

Member or another sitting on this side of the House; but the right hon. Gentleman is the last person in this House who ought to encourage our having recourse to electioneering speeches, in order to deduce from them the opinions of great statesmen, and the maxims that ought to regulate the policy of the English Parliament." As to fixing a day for bringing on his financial measures, 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 had deferred it. Finding, however, that there was a general feeling in favour of some declaration, Ministers had resolved not to oppose any resolution, providing it confined 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 forgotten. Mr. Disraeli then described how, at a recent 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 resolution which his party could not accept, and which was not even received with favour on the other side. The idea of moving the previous question" was thought of, but rejected, and a distinct resolution, unequivocally

"

Mr. Villiers vindicated the course he had taken, and declined to withdraw his resolution. Sir W. Clay likewise justified the questions he had put, and expressed his regret that his endeavours had met with so little success.

On the order of the day being read for resuming the adjourned debate, the Chancellor of the Exchequer withdrew his amendment, whereupon

Lord Palmerston moved in lieu of it a resolution "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 the purposes of protection, and has thereby diminished the cost and increased the abundance of the principal articles of the food of the people."

Mr. Booker avowed his unaltered convictions on the subject of protection, and declined to vote either for the original motion or the amendment.

Mr. Osborne amused the House for some time with extracts from protectionist speeches, with the view of refuting Mr. Disraeli's assertion that no attempt had been made to reverse the policy of free trade. Although, he observed, Mr. Disraeli had not made a direct motion to overthrow that policy, he had taken advantage of the motions of others; and Lord Derby had done all he could, both in and out of Parliament, to reverse free trade. A member of the present Ministry had, in his address to his constituents, told them that he accepted office "under a conviction that Lord Derby's desire was to reverse that policy, which was so injurious to native industry and

capital." Could there be any doubt, he asked, that Her Majesty's Ministers intended to do indirectly what they had not courage to do in the face of the House? He called upon the House not to be deluded by a great State conjuror; not to give their confidence to a gang of political latitudinarians, and not to hesitate to vote for the original motion.

Mr. Ball controverted some of the economical maxims of the Freetraders, denying, in particular, that cheapness was a desideratum. It was to practise a delusion upon the poor, he said, to persuade them that cheapness was a blessing. The advocates of a repeal of the Corn Laws had, however, declared that it would not make food cheap; but scarcely a prediction of theirs had not been falsified. After the appeal made to the country, he was bound, as one of the minority, to bow to its decision; but he never would be a party to any resolution which declared that the happiness of the people and the prosperity of the country had been the results of free trade.

Mr. J. G. Phillimore supported the original motion. He urged that if the measures of 1846 had produced the effects admitted by both resolutions, it was a natural inference that they were wise and just.

Mr. Bentinck avowed that he held the principles of protective policy, and he rested his opinions upon the written and spoken arguments of Sir R. Peel, Lord J. Russell, and Sir J. Graham. With. respect to the motion, he could not perceive its object, except to displace the Ministry. No one could believe the principle of free trade to be in danger.

Sir W. P. Wood observed, that