prepared to propose any alteration in the mode of assessment. He would, however, relieve the agricultural interest of the charge of maintaining prisoners in the county gaols, and would provide for that charge by an annual vote of that House. He also proposed that that portion of the charge for prosecuting felons which was now defrayed in England and Wales out of local rates imposed upon the land, should be transferred to the State. The relief in point of money would not be large; but if it enabled you to exercise an increased control over prosecutions, it would be a great social advantage. In Ireland, the relief would amount to 17,000l., and in England, to 100,000l. a year. He then proceeded to contend, that if there was any part of the United Kingdom likely to suffer from the withdrawal of protection, it was Ireland for Ireland had not, as England had, the means of finding employment for her agricultural population in her manufacturing districts. Here, again, he would propose no relief from local burdens which was not accompanied by social advantages. In Ireland, the police was paid partly by the land, and partly by the Treasury. He believed that it would be for the general advantage to place the police entirely under the Treasury, and to vest the control of it in the Executive Government. Such was the recommendation of Lord Devon's Commission; and he, therefore, proposed that all the charge for the rural police in Ireland should thereafter be borne by the public Treasury. Sir Robert then adverted to the subject of the medical relief of the poor in this country. He believed that there was no part of the Poor Law which

had given greater or more just dissatisfaction. He proposed to relieve the unions of half of the charge on this score by taking it upon the Government. He estimated that the amount of charge in that case would be 100,000l. for England, and 15,000l. for Scotland. The subject of medical relief in Ireland was under a differ

ent system, and would shortly occupy the attention of the other House of Parliament. He next proceeded to intimate his belief, that in the parish workhouses of England the provision for purposes of education was very inadequate. He did not purpose in any way to interfere with the right now vested in the board of guardians to appoint a schoolmaster or schoolmistress to superintend the education of the pauper children; that right of appointment would remain where it now was; but Government, in undertaking to provide 30,000l. a year for the salaries of schoolmasters and schoolmistresses, for the children of the destitute, would reserve to itself power to inquire into the qualifications of those instructors, and a power of inspecting, and, to a certain extent, controlling the schools. Then, again, as to the auditors of the unions: he proposed that their salarics, like those of the Commissioners and Sub-Commissioners, should be defrayed at the public expense.

He called upon the House to recollect that in every compensation which he had proposed for the land, he had also proposed to give to the community great social relief.

He therefore hoped that, before this law was rejected, both parties, if their immediate views were not accomplished by it, would recollect that it proposed great benefits for society at large.

Whether those benefits would be sufficient to induce both parties to give their assent to his proposition, he could not as yet tell; but he wished them to consider it calmly and temperately, and to reflect upon the consequences which might accrue from its rejection. He concluded with two observations; one connected with our foreign and our commercial policy, and another connected with our domestic policy. In making these great reductions on the importation of articles, the produce or manufacture of foreign countries, he could give the House no guarantee that foreign countries would follow our example. He had resolved to consult our own interests alone, and not to punish other countries and ourselves by continuing high duties, and the necessary concomitant of high duties-smuggling. He could not promise them that foreign countries would exhibit any gratitude for what they were now doing. On the contrary, he might be told that many countries which had benefited by the relaxation of our duties on their commodities had applied a higher rate of duties to our goods. He relied on that fact as an encouragement to proceed in our past course. What had been the result of those increased duties on our export trade? Why, that it had flourished in spite of them, because the smuggler of foreign countries had been called in by the inhabitants to our aid. He was convinced that our example would ultimately be followed by foreign countries, and that reason and the common interest of the people and the Government in those countries would induce a relaxation of hos tile tariffs. He illustrated this by reference to recent publications in the United States, Naples, Nor

way, Sweden, Austria, and Hanover. With respect to our domestic policy, he had been asked why he had determined to disturb the prosperity which had now lasted for nearly three years. "It had coexisted with the Corn Laws of 1842-what reason was there to disturb it?" His answer was, that up to October last all those indications of prosperity did exist; but since that time there had been indications of sympathy in the manufacturing districts between employment and the price of provisions. What had occurred since October, 1845, was one of the grounds on which he had determined to bring forward his present proposition. Such were the proposals he had to offer for the ultimate adjustment of this great question. He believed that there was at present between the master manufacturers and the operatives, a sympathy which did not prevail in 1842, and which led both of them to the conclusion, that these laws ought to be altered. But although that was the case, there was nothing but general content, loyalty, and confidence on their part in the wisdom of the Legislature. But because there was a calm, and no coercion, he entreated hon. members to bear in mind that the aspect of affairs might be changed. They might have worse harvests, and therefore they ought to avail themselves of an adjustment of this question, which must ultimately be made, and which could not long be delayed without endangering the peace and security of the empire. He recommended his proposition to the calm consideration of the House, in the hope that it would, in the language of Her Majesty's Speech, "promote friendly feelings between different classes,

He shortly afterwards rose again to suggest that the discussion on his resolution should be taken on that day week. His measure involved a great remission of taxation, and, therefore, a defalcation of the revenue. Besides, it incurred an annual charge amounting at least to 600,000l.

Mr. Stafford O'Brien, Mr. Miles, and other members, then urged upon Sir Robert Peel the expediency of allowing a longer time than he had proposed to give for the consideration of the measures now offered, before the discussion was resumed. Sir Robert Peel assented to the suggestion; but, at the same time, stated that he should then ask the House to proceed de die in diem with the consideration of them. In answer to certain questions addressed to him, he stated that he could not exactly calculate the probable effect upon the revenue from the adoption of his propositions. He thought that by the alteration of the Excise duties he should lose one million, but the revenue from that source was now as good as it had been before the recent alterations. He had expected to lose four millions by the former reductions of the Customs' duties, but nothing of that sort had occurred. He was, therefore, unwilling now to estimate the loss which would accrue to the existing revenue. The charge which his scheme would impose on the Consolidated Fund would be an additional charge of 513,0001.

A desultory discussion ensued ; some members asking additional information, some expressing hostile opinions, others promising support. Mr. Newdegate inquired if Sir Robert Peel had formed any estimate of the price wheat would bear after his measure came into operation. Sir Robert Peel replied in the negative. Lord Ingestre desired to know what provision had been made for the regulation of the tithe averages. Sir Robert Peel answered, that it was not necessary to determine that question at the present time. In answer to further questions on the same subject, from Lord G. Bentinck, he answered that he did not propose any alterations with regard to the tithe laws, not anticipating any material change in the price of wheat. If there should be, the House ought in justice to reconsider the subject. Mr. Wodehouse inquired if it was intended to submit to the House any of the communications which had been received from some of the crowned heads of Europe. Sir Robert Peel said, that any convention entered into would be laid on the table. There had been some strong expressions by the Secretary of the American Treasury with regard to a relaxation of the American tariff, and he expected shortly to be able to lay on the table a convention with Naples in favour of free trade.

Mr. Curteis thought the duty on hops ought to have been repealed, and for not doing so the Ministers would incur the censure of the hopgrowing counties. He wished Sir Robert Peel to take the case into consideration, but would not press for an answer.

Sir Robert Peel said: "But I must give you an answer; and, if I were in private, I would earnestly

advise the honourable gentleman not to encourage the hop-growers in Kent and Sussex to agitate this question." In 1842, when he proposed to reduce the duty from 107. to 41. 10s., he was told it would ruin the home-grower: but what was the fact? Why 47. 10s. had proved as great a prohibition as the former duty of 107.; the whole amount of duty paid at the reduced rate being only 101. He thought that a duty of 21. 10s. would confer a fair protection. With regard to the Excise duty of 18s. on home-grown hops, the state of the revenue did not admit of any further reduction. Several members expressed determined hostility, among whom were Mr. Stafford O'Brien, the Earl of March, Sir John Tyrell, and Colonel Sibthorp, who severely taunted the Ministers with tergiversation and inconsistency. Lord Ingestre, Mr. Liddell, Mr. R. Scott, and Lord Newport expressed disapproval of the scheme, though in more measured terms.

Mr. Hume, Mr. Wakley, Mr. Gisborne, and Mr. Philip Howard, strongly supported the proposi

tions.

Mr. Sidney Herbert (who had been twitted by the Earl of March for changing his opinions) declared that his views had altered, not from any wish for power, nor for currying favour or popularity with a peculiarly agricultural constituency, but from a conviction that the proposed changes would effect much good. He himself had suggested some of them, and was ready to explain, advocate, and defend them.

It was finally arranged that the House should enter on the discussion on Sir Robert Peel's motion to go into Committee on his resolutions on the 9th of February.

On that evening, accordingly, the debate commenced, and was continued, by repeated adjournments, into the third week, when it finally terminated, on the 27th of February, by a division on the twelfth night. Forty-eight members spoke in favour of free trade, fifty-five on the side of protection; making a total of 103 speeches delivered. It would be vain to attempt, within our allotted limits, to give even a brief summary of the individual speeches. We shall, therefore, confine ourselves to an endeavour to present the more prominent arguments which were urged on either side of the question, by selecting some of the principal speeches as a sample of the rest, and exhibiting, in a condensed form, the grounds on which they mainly supported their views.

He

The debate was commenced, after a great number of petitions had been presented on both sides, by Mr. Philip Miles, M.P. for East Somersetshire, who moved as an amendment, "That the House do resolve itself into the said Committee on that day six months." said he did not see any necessity for departing from a course of policy which had been pursued in this country from an early period of its history, and under which it had risen to great eminence. True, there has been a failure of the potato crop in Ireland; but the crop in this country had been very large. That famine was not apprehended was shown by the fact that wheat was then at 56s. a quarter, a price which, in 1842, Sir Robert Peel thought a fair one. Taking prices into account, and the circumstance that Sir Robert's colleagues had refused to assent to the opening of the ports, Mr. Miles was led to think that the cause of protection had

been long doomed in the mind of the Minister, and that the propositions now made had sealed its fate. He did not deny that there were parts of the measure from which benefit would be derived; but he deemed the continuance of a moderate amount of protection essential to the welfare of the country. Ile had brought forward his motion not on account of the agricultural interest alone, but of all the interests of the country: he was connected with them all. He knew the difficulties which stood in his way in the House; but he should not be disheartened, knowing that a large and influential party without the walls held opinions in accordance with his own. One chief objection entertained by him to the proposed measures was, that he could see no end to them: every session would bring additional change; and when all these things were considered, he thought the opinion of the constituencies ought to be taken before the measures were allowed to pass. He did not think that the recent prosperity of the country was altogether to be attributed to the measures of Sir Robert Peel. When Sir Robert succeeded to office trade was in a bad state, owing, mainly, to a succession of bad harvests. Railroad speculation sprang up, labour came to be in demand, prices rose, and the termination of the wars in India and China gave a great impetus to trade. Adding to these the succession of good harvests, he could not admit that the prosperity boasted of was attributable entirely to Sir Robert Peel's policy.

Neither was the state of exports a test of prosperity. The foreign markets had been glutted, China and India had been inundated with British goods. When

the proposed measure passed into law, the country would be inundated with foreign goods, to the discouragement of the home trade. Wages on railroads and public works might for a time be higher, but reduction would soon come. In many things the manufacturer possessed a great advantage over the farmer; his establishment was much better conducted. (Laughter.) He could exercise a better control over his servants, and he was not so heavily burdened with taxation. On this point, Sir Robert Peel's professed compensation was altogether inadequate; and Mr. Miles believed that the agriculturists would almost have been better pleased had nothing at all been. offered.

As to the Colonies, Mr. Miles thought the Ministerial scheme most imperfect. If the principle of the Canada Corn Bill were ge nerally extended, he would not withhold his support. If free-trade principles were to prevail, they ought to be extended to the Colonies; and the manufacturer of this country ought not to be allowed to have a monopoly of the colonial market.

Sir W. Heathcote seconded the motion, but declared that he did not intend to follow those who had charged Sir Robert Peel with dishonesty in the proposition of these

measures.

The plan professed to be a great and comprehensive scheme of free trade, which it was not; but, even if it had been impartial, he would still have looked upon it as a step in a downward course leading to evil. He was not afraid to avow that the legislation of the last twenty years in the same direction had produced greater evils than had been supposed, but the