not less so even when some of his wit was directed against himself; but he did not suppose it would be expected of him that he should now enter into any arguments in defence of a speech which Viscount Melbourne had had a full opportunity of answering at the time when it was made, but which he had not chosen to answer till the present occasion, and then in a manner which seemed to him (Earl Ripon) by no means conclusive. It was a mistake to say that the present measure was a failure: the Chancellor of the Exchequer, it was true, had not obtained all the five millions, but he had obtained a million more than enough to cover the deficiency. Although the late Government stood pledged to bring forward certain measures, it did not follow that their successors were bound to strike out off-hand some new plan of Finance. Besides, all that the late Chancellor of the Exchequer expected to raise by his measures was 1,700,000l.; so that he would still have had to raise 700,000l. by loan.

The Duke of Wellington thanked Viscount Melbourne for his suggestion as to the mode of obtaining a large attendance of Members in the House, but he would never announce any intention which he did not entertain:

"I have no intention of bringing forward a scheme for the alteration of the Corn-laws. I have not the power of doing so: I have not sufficiently considered these measures, and therefore I will not. I decline to announce any such intention to the House; and I beg to suggest to the noble Viscount, that if he wishes to collect a number of Peers, he must propose some other scheme."

The deficiency of two millions and a half was not the entire amount of the arrears to be provided for. Demands were coming upon the Treasury from the Colonies and elsewhere:

He found that, what with Bills from the Colonies and the demands from the East, from Canada, and elsewhere, there was a very large outstanding account, which had never been reckoned at all in the statement of the Budget, and which, with the other additions he had named, besides other items, had to be added to the declared deficiency of 2,500,000l.? Moreover, if he had not been misinformed, there was a number of orders which had been issued for carrying out a variety of things, which were not reckoned, but all of which must be taken into consideration before any Government could pretend to come before the country and state what would be the permanent expenditure.

Lord Brougham hoped that the Government would be prepared soon after the re-assembling of Parliament, to enter on the consideration of the Corn and Provision-laws.

The Bill was then read a second

time.

A few days afterwards the Earl of Radnor revived the discussion, alluding to the Duke of Wellington's declaration that he had no alteration to propose in the Corn-laws, which he understood as a general assertion of the intention of the Government to propose no change in those laws. He thought that such a declaration was calculated to excite serious feelings of dissatisfaction in the public mind. He enlarged also upon the distress of the country, and said he thought the Government were assuming s

great responsibility in advising her Majesty to turn a deaf ear to the prayers of the people, and to send Parliament about its business.

The Duke of Wellington reprobated the disorderly practice of referring to former debates, and complained that he had been completely misrepresented in the present instance.

"Now, if the noble Earl had attended closely to what passed, and had remembered it accurately, he would have known, and of course would have said, that it was not I, but the noble Viscount lately at the head of the Government, who had referred to the subject, when he said that if I would give notice of a motion for an alteration of the Corn-laws, I should soon secure a full attendance in both Houses of Parliament. My answer to that was, I will not announce any intention which I do not entertain, in order to secure a full attendance of Members. I am sure the noble Viscount will admit the correctness of that statement, and that what I referred to was the attendance of Members in the present session of Parliament. I am sure the noble Viscount could not mean that the notice was to be given to secure a full attendance in six months' time, or any distant period. ("Hear, hear!" from Viscount Melbourne.) I admit that such a notice now would bring a full attendance in both Houses; but what I meant to convey and stated was, that I am not prepared at the present time to bring forward any motion for a revision of the Cornlaws."

The subject required to be considered in all its bearings on Commerce and Finance, and other important matters, with which it was

connected by the late Government. He had certainly once brought in a bill to establish the present law; but he found it necessary to renew his information on the subject. He had at different times since discussed the question, and had endeavoured to refresh his memory on the subject by the perusal of important documents connected with the principle on which it was founded. He did possess some knowledge of the subject; but he must say that it stood in a different light now from what it did when he brought it forward twelve or thirteen years ago; and those who would consider it must look at it with deep attention, and not submit any scheme on the subject to that or the other House of Parliament, which was not ma turely weighed and considered, not only with reference to other questions with which it was connected by different motions made and discussed in the other House of Parliament, but also in reference to treaties between this country and other powers, and also the treaties of other powers with each other, and combined with these the general relations by which it was connected with the social system of this country. On these grounds he fully agreed that it was a matter which should not be taken up in a hurry, but must be deliberately examined in all its bearings. He did not deny the distress; but the sitting of Parliament could not remedy it. The noble Earl himself had stated that there had been lately imported into this country 1,700,000 quarters of foreign corn, and he was aware that before that importation there was in store a supply of corn amounting to 1,200,000 quarters-making in all nearly 3,000,000 quarters, besides

the produce of the harvest, which was now got in. From these facts he concluded that there could be no distress arising from want of a sufficient supply of corn. There was, he regretted to say, distress existing from want of work and deficiency of wages, and other causes, into which he would not then enter; but he repeated that he did not know, and had not heard from any quarter, how Parliament could remedy such evils. They were the results of a variety of causes, which Parliament could not remove if it sat continuously from now till February next.

Lord Kinnaird expressed his satisfaction that the Duke of Wellington had given this explanation, as he had understood his words in the same sense as Lord Radnor had done, and he was strengthened in that impression by the declaration which had been made by the Duke of Richmond, that the agricultural party, who had brought in the present Government, could easily turn them out again.

The Duke of Richmond disavowed the declaration imputed to him. It had been said that Sir Robert Peel and his friends would turn round upon the agriculturists, as they had done upon the opponents of the Roman Catholic Relief Bill, and force upon them the very measure they had denounced; and he had said, merely in reply to that argument, and not as a threat, that if Sir Robert Peel supported the 8s. fixed duty, the agriculturists, who helped him into power, would have no difficulty in turning him out. He was not one of those who thought that the Corn-laws could never be touched; but in any alteration care must be taken to give due protection to agriculture. The discussion here ended.

The Supplies having been granted, and the financial necessities provided for, the only measures of importance which it remained to carry into effect during the Session were the Bill for the better administration of justice in the Court of Chancery, and the Poor-law Commission Continuance Bill. The former, being merely a revival of the measure which was thrown up by the former Government in the preceding Session, as has been related in a former chapter, quickly passed through both Houses, meeting with scarcely any discussion in its way, and received the Royal Assent. The latter subject, being more closely connected with political interests, and affording occasion for reference to other existing topics of a kindred nature, gave rise to a good deal of desultory debate in the House of Commons.

On the 21st Sept., Sir Robert Peel obtained leave to bring in a bill to continue the office of the Commissioners for six months only, viz. till 31st July, 1842.

He did not, by proposing the continuation of the Commission for six months mean to imply any reflection on the determination to which the House might come upon his suggestion: he proposed it in conformity with the principle on which he had acted, namely that it was not desirable to call upon the House to discuss important matters of extensive bearing during the present Session of Parliament; entirely reserving to himself the power, after mature consideration, of making a proposal of a more extended character, or such other proposal as the Government might deem necessary for the public interests, when the Parliament should again assemble.

Afterwards, Sir Hesketh Fleet

wood having expressed a hope that it was distinctly understood, that no person who voted for the motion implied his approval of the Poorlaw, Sir Robert Peel observed, that the present was a separate Bill, to continue for a given time the Poorlaw Commission; and he added a more decided caveat against meddling with the general law in dealing with the Bill before the House -he would at once state, that he meant to oppose any amendments that might be brought forward in the discussion upon the present measure which would affect the principle or the operation of the Poor-law itself. He had already said he would give honourable gentlemen every opportunity of opposing the present measure, and he certainly could not prevent them from discussing amendments having for their object alterations in the Poor-law; but he could not permit any such amendments to be introduced into the present Bill, which was one merely for the continuance of the Commission.

In the course of the discussion, Mr. Lefroy bore testimony to the generally successful working of the Irish Poor-law. Mr. Escott would not oppose the second reading of the Bill, as there was not sufficient information before Parliament on which the House could fairly legislate.

Mr. Rice could not disconnect the Poor-law from the Corn-law; and since Sir Robert Peel was not prepared to state what he should do with the Poor-law as a whole, he ought not to allow partial discussions of it.

Sir Robert Peel took advantage of this remark to strengthen his position in postponing the discussion on the Corn-laws.

"The honourable member oppoVOL. LXXXIII.

site said that the Poor-law and Cornlaw questions ought to be settled together: supposing this to be right, it would have been his duty on accepting office, not merely at once to have brought forward a Bill for the adjustment of the Corn-laws, but to submit to the consideration of the House, during the present session of Parliament, all the modifications which it might be the intention of the Government to suggest respecting the permanent improvement of the Poor-law. Now he asked the House, whether the Government could possibly do justice to the Poor-law question, without having an opportunity of considering the local operations and bearings of that law throughout the country. Would it be possible for a Government, without availing itself of that information which the Commissioners could enable them to procure, to take a question of such immense importance, upon which it was desirable to conciliate the public mind, into their immediate consideration, within a week of their acceptance of office? to be prepared, not only with a Bill for the amendment of the Cornlaw, but also with one for the amendment and regulation of the entire Poor-law? Whatever might have been the intention of the honourable Member, a more powerful justification of the course pursued by the Government had not yet been made."

On the House going into Committee on the Bill a few days afterwards, Mr. R. Yorke, one of the Members for York, moved an instruction to the Committee, to the effect that the Poor-law Commissioners should not be empowered to enforce separation between man and wife, except where the application for relief arose from

[Q]

idleness, vice, or crime. He quoted the injunction of Scripture against separating those whom God had joined together, and called on Members on the Ministerial side to act up to their pledges given on the hustings.

Sir James Graham, feeling the great importance of this subject, excused himself from following the last speaker into the merits of his argument, lest he should be obliged in like manner to discuss other proposals of detail, and thus defeat the very object of the present Bill, which was simply to postpone the whole consideration of the measure until the Government should have had time to weigh it carefully, and to mature such remedies as might be necessary for particular defects and evils. On the present proposal he would only observe, that the separation complained of was not a novelty introduced by the Poor law Amendment Act.

Mr. Stuart Wortley, approving what had been stated by Sir James Graham, suggested to Mr. Yorke that his perseverance would place those who wished to support him in a difficult position. He himself was reluctant to vote against the instruction, and yet he felt the inconvenience of ingrafting it upon a mere Bill of temporary continu. ance. Either they ought to discuss and remodel the whole Poor-law now, or they ought to confine themselves to the mere prolongation of the Commission. He was not shrinking from his own pledges; he would deliver his opinions fully when the subject should be regularly before the House. The only instruction among those announced which was fit to be now considered, was that which went to forbid the formation of new Unions in the mean time.

Mr. V. Smith said, that since no great measures were to be discussed this Session, the Poor-law might as well be postponed as the rest. He thought, however, that the Government were bound at once to state whether they were prepared to continue the Commission.

Sir Robert Peel said, that this was the precise course intended to have been adopted by the late Government: when they found it was too late to proceed with the consideration of the Poor-law, they had been prepared to continue the Commission for one year.

Mr. Pakington deprecated the acrimonious spirit in which the debate had been carried on by the Opposition. He believed that the regulation to which the proposed instruction referred was carried into effect not only in the Gilbert Unions, but in every well-regulated workhouse throughout the kingdom. He believed that no Government ever enjoyed more of the confidence of the country than the present; but if anything could shake that confidence, it would be their consenting hastily to go into the discussion into which the Opposition by their factious proceedings tried to force them. He believed, that with respect to the Poor-law, as well as embarrassed finances and depressed trade, the country was in a very critical state: he believed that the history of the year 1841 would be found to be a complete blank as regarded useful legislation, and that hereafter public attention would come to be forcibly directed to this fact: but to whom would they attribute such an extraordinary result? Not to her Majesty's present Government. No, they would attach the cause of all this to the former Government, who, instead of giving their