cused of too great a love of place, he (Mr. Duncombe) was inclined to ask, with the Weekly Chronicle, why did not the noble lord take the whole of the late Cabinet? He would have had an able Secretary of State for the Home Department, and an old and experienced Chancellor of the Exchequer, whose budgets had braved the battle and the breeze. When such things were stated to have occurred, and were certified by the Government organ, would any one venture to say that no explanation was required? Mr. T. Duncombe also called on Lord John Russell to explain his opinions upon the Irish Church. Was he prepared to act on the principles which he had declared in March 1845, when he said that he supported the increased grant to Maynooth merely as a prelude to the payment of the Roman Catholic Clergy by the State? Earl Grey went even still further at that time, and stated that he would take the revenues of the Irish Church for educational purposes, and would apply them first to the education of the Roman Catholics, as it was from the Roman Catholics that they were taken. He hoped that Lord John Russell was actuated by the same principles, and if so, he should be most happy to support him. He then asked the noble lord whether he would support any extension of the franchise, or whether he intended to adhere to his old opinions on the finality of the Reform Bill. Adverting to the restriction of the hours of labour in factories, he told the noble lord that he now had it in his power to carry out a ten hours' Bill; and he hoped that, as the noble lord had voted in favour of shortening the hours

of labour, he would not leave that subject in the hands of private individuals, but would introduce a Bill on it himself, and carry it through Parliament by the influence of Government. For the sake of all parties, the intentions of the Administration ought to be known.

Lord John Russell explained the reasons which had induced him to abstain from answering Mr. Thomas Duncombe's question on a previous evening. He had thought it unnecessary that he, who had for so many years constantly taken an active part in that House in the discussion of public questions, should now make an explicit declaration of his opinions. Mr. Denison and Mr. Duncombe had both made several comments. on the constitution of his Government. Considering the vast extent of the commerce and manufactures of this country, he thought that it would be a juster criticism than that which Mr. Denison had made on the composition of the Ministry, to say that there were too many Members of it connected, by their families, with land, and too few connected with commerce. He would not, however, enter into that question. A Government was not to be formed for the exclusive benefit of either land or commerce, but for the general benefit of all the interests of the country; and it was by the degree in which it accomplished that end that its conduct was to be estimated, and not by the amount of income which its Members derived from land or from commerce. He admitted that he had asked Lord Dalhousie, Lord Lincoln, and Mr. S. Herbert, to do him the honour of becoming his colleagues in the Government. It was his opinion that he should

not ask aid of those from whom he differed widely in political opinion; but, at the same time, he thought it of consequence to the honour of the Sovereign and to the welfare of the country, that a ministry should be formed combining in its different members the greatest possible amount of public confidence. Now, with regard to all the great questions which had been agitated within the last two years, he found himself agreeing in opinion with those distinguished colleagues of Sir Robert Peel. He had agreed with them in the measures abolishing monopoly, and establishing free trade, and also in the measures necessary to conciliate Ireland; and, therefore, he saw no loss of honour on their part or his own in seeking a junction between them. They had declined his offer in terms very courteous to himself personally; but he could not reproach himself with any dereliction of duty to his Sovereign in having made them that offer. He then proceeded to state that he considered it necessary to combine in office those who agreed on the principles on which the Administration was to be conducted, but that he did not consider it necessary that they should agree on every question which might come before Parliament. Such was the mode in which statesmen of great names had formed their Administrationsas for instance, Mr. Pitt, in 1784, Mr. Fox, in 1806, and Lord Liverpool subsequently. Sir R. Peel had aimed at a greater union of opinion and identity of conduct than either Mr. Pitt, or Mr. Fox, or Lord Liverpool. But though Sir Robert Peel, from his great talents, had succeeded in that attempt, he did not think it likely that any person would succeed

again. He said this, because there were several points upon which the Members of his Administration were not agreed in opinion. For instance, with respect to the Irish Church, he did not concur himself in the opinions of Earl Grey. He then stated the intentions of himself and his colleagues with respect to Ireland.

Mr. Osborne could not tell what the effect of the declarations which had just been made by Lord J. Russell might be out of doors; but he was quite certain that, if they had been made when the Liberal members were sitting on the opposition benches, a great number of them would have followed Sir R. Peel, rather than the noble lord. For his own part, after the speech which had just been delivered, he could see no difference between Tweedledum and Tweedledee.' He had fancied that the great difference between Lord John Russell and Sir R. Peel was occasioned by the Appropriation Clause; but the noble lord had just informed the House that he would not touch the great question of the Irish Church. Now, that Church in its present position was a disgrace to the country. If there were at present no difference between Lord J. Russell and Sir R. Peel as to the measures to be applied towards that Church, what was it that prevented the noble lord, who set so high a value on the benefit to be rendered to the country, from himself serving under Sir R. Peel? He would not say that he intended to withhold his confidence from Her Majesty's present Government; but, in order to test whether that Government deserved confidence, he would bring forward, upon an early day, the motion on the Irish Church

which had been so frequently made by Mr. Ward. In conclusion, he praised in very high terms the parting speech of Sir R. Peel, and predicted that, if he acted upon the principles of that speech, he would very shortly be returned to power as the minister of the middle classes.

Mr. Hume asked Lord J. Russell whether he was prepared to take into consideration the propriety of abolishing the office of Lord Lieutenant of Ireland.

Lord J. Russell was of opinion that the office to which Mr. Hume referred could not be abolished at present with advantage to the country.

Mr. B. Escott reminded Mr. T. Duncombe, that Lord J. Russell was not a new man, and that therefore there was no occasion for him to make any declaration of his opinions. He had watched the conduct of Lord J. Russell very closely, and had observed that he had always given a distinct enunciation to his principles. His conduct during the present Session entitled his Government to a fair trial, and to the candid consideration of the House. Having stated that he could not acquiesce in the propriety of all the declarations which had that evening been made, he expressed a hope that Lord J. Russell would avoid that which had hitherto been the stumbling-block of all former Whig Governments. They had startled the people of England by announcing principles which were new to them, and had disgusted their Conservative feelings by attempting to carry those principles into execution before the people were prepared for them.

Mr. Wakley entered into a defence of Mr. Duncombe's conduct in putting his various questions to

Was it to be

Lord John Russell. understood that the noble lord was going to act on his old Whig principles? If so, he had some experience of them, and wanted no more. He reminded the last speaker, that during the whole period when Lord J. Russell was last in office he had been one of the most effective opponents of those principles for which he was now asking a fair trial and impartial consideration. Who was it that had changed? the noble lord, or Mr. B. Escott? He would not decide; but would merely remark, that there was a curious change somewhere. He was one of those who wondered why Sir R. Peel was out of place. It was said to be, because he had brought in the Coercion Bill; but if that were the cause of his removal from place, why was Lord J. Russell in power, who had tried to include in his ministry the Earl of Lincoln, who was the identical man who had introduced that Coercion Bill into the House of Commons? He then passed a glowing eulogy on Sir R. Peel, whose conduct, in carrying the Corn Bill, had rendered him not only beloved, but adored by the people of England, and lamented the apathetic course, the do-little policy, which the present Government seemed inclined to pursue.

Mr. Newdegate had not heard any county member complain of the constitution of the present Government on the grounds brought forward by Mr. E. Denison. The landed interest had received too bitter a lesson recently to place its confidence rashly in any Govern. ment whatsoever. He denied that Sir Peel had acted up to his principles and professions; if he had so acted, he would not have lost

office. The praise which had been bestowed on Sir R. Peel for his parting speech was, in point of fact, the bitterest satire which could be pronounced upon his former policy.

Mr. Ward, in consequence of the appeals which had been addressed personally to himself, felt it necessary to state that he had never concealed his opinions on the subject of the Irish Church when out of office, and that he would not sacrifice those opinions in order to retain himself in office. If the speech which he had made on the first reading of the Coercion Bill were referred to, it would be found that he had then stated his conviction, that the social grievances of Ireland formed the first practical question with which the House ought to deal, and that they must be cured before any Government conld successfully deal with the Irish Church. Having been already twice defeated on the subject of the Irish Church, he had not intended to bring the subject forward again in the present session, and he had told his Irish friends so, who were satisfied with his reasons. He thought, however, that when it was brought forward, not even Mr. Wakley would be inclined to quarrel with his vote. Mr. Horsman considered the explanation of Lord J. Russell to be most satisfactory. When the noble lord referred to the conduct which he had pursued during a long political life, he gave the best pledge which a Minister could give for the conduct which he would pursue in future. He replied at some length to the criticisms which Mr. E. Denison had pronounced on the construction of the present Government.

The discussion then terminated.

The question of the Sugar Duties was one which possessed the most urgent claims on the attention of the new Ministry, as a necessary sequel to the settlement of the Corn Laws. Sir Robert Peel's Government, if it had remained in office, must at once have grappled with this difficulty, which was now left a legacy to its successors. On the 18th of June, Mr. Goulburn, as Chancellor of the Exchequer, had given notice of his intention to bring in a provisional bill to continue the existing Sugar Duties, from the 5th of July, when they would have expired, to the 5th of August. He stated, as his reason for making this proposition, that owing to the length of the debates on the Irish Coercion Bill, the time could not be given to the consideration of these duties, which their importance required. A Bill was accordingly introduced, and carried for this purpose.

On Lord John Russell's accession to office, one of the first steps taken by him was to announce a measure for the settlement of the question; but, owing to the time which had been lost in consequence of the change of Government and the ensuing elections, it became necessary again to continue by Bill the existing duties till the 5th of September. At length, on the 20th of July, the Ministerial measure for the permanent adjustment of the question was brought out by Lord John Russell, in a full and comprehensive speech. The noble lord began by setting forth the necessity that existed for a permanent settlement for all interests-the consumer, the producer, and the revenue.

First, with respect to the supply of sugar for the current year, he