ed only facilities to our successors. (A laugh from the Ministerial benches.) What, do you laugh at that? why, you have been abso lutely living upon our leavings. You have been subsisting upon the broken victuals left upon our table. (Renewed laughter.) Gentlemen opposite remind me of nothing so much as a pack of people who have made a forcible entry into a dwelling-house, and sat down to carouse on the leavings in the larder. Hardly a month, nay hardly a week has passed, since the beginning of the session, with out Ministers bringing in some measure, which they have acknow ledged was proposed by their predecessors."

Ministers came into office on the 3d of September; the Speech from the Throne was delivered on the 3d of February; yet the whole of the Speech, with a single exception, was a record of what had been done by their predecessors: it made no complaints of embarrassments, but contained only expressions of satisfaction at what had passed, and happy anticipations as regarded the future.

It mentioned the treaty concluded with the Four Powers for the suppression of the slave-trade; "a treaty," said Lord Palmerston, "concluded by us." It next mentioned a treaty concluded with the same powers for opening the straits of the Bosphorus and Dardanelles; to which the present Ministers gave a more imposing title, for they described it in the Royal Speech as" having for its object the secu rity of the Turkish empire and the maintenance of the general tranquillity." That was saying in other words, that we had succeeded in fixing an important element in the balance of power. The next point

was the restoration of friendly intercourse with Persia. Then the Speech said, that the Government were engaged in negotiations with several powers to extend the trade and commerce of the country; negotiations carried on for some time by the late Ministers, with Spain, Brazil, and Naples; the negotiations with Portugal having been concluded in a recent treaty. Exception had been taken to the policy pursued respecting China; but on that head he would appeal to the declarations of the Duke of Wellington in the House of Lords; and he must himself observe, that if our hostilities with the Chinese should terminate in a satisfactory arrangement of commerce with a nation containing 200,000,000 of people, a greater benefit to British manufactures could hardly be conceived. He would take some credit also for the settlement made with Denmark respecting the tolls of the Baltic; and he should be glad to know, how soon the present Ministry would be able to produce a like settlement with Hanover respecting the tolls of the Elbe. If, as he had been informed, they meant to sacrifice the rights of British subjects to the interests of the King of Hano ver, then the settlement made with Denmark by their predecessors would indeed be an embarrassment to the existing Cabinet. On entering office, the late Ministers found eighteen treaties: they concluded fourteen; two of them, those with Austria and Turkey, of great importance. He included the convention with France to regulate the fisheries of the two countries. One point in that was not concluded-it respected a demand by the French Commissioner, that French boats should be allowed to

anchor within three miles of the British shore,-evidently in order that a French fishery on the coast of England might be made a nursery for manning the French navy: he did not know whether the present Government meant to concede that point? There was one instance in which the late Ministers failed-the settlement of the Portendic claims: their successors would know how that question was beset by difficulties.

Lord Stanley had said, that they had bequeathed their difficulties in America. The Boundary question grew up before they entered office- before Lord Stanley himself grew up: but they had done what it had occurred to no previous Government to do they appointed two Commissions, who had ascertained that the boundary-line claimed by Great Britain did correspond with the terms of the treaty of 1783, and that the line claimed by America did not. The second Report, just issued, showed that part of the American line, like ours, proceeds from the due North line; but from a point further North, and although it does go along a range of high lands, and so far would fulfil the terms of the treaty, yet that line of high lands, instead of going to the head of the Connecticut river, as it ought to do, goes twenty-five miles wide to the North, and is separated from that head by a large tract of swampy plain, and not a part of the range of highlands. In the Right of Search question, Ministers had adopted the arguments of their predecessors. Lord Palmerston himself claimed credit for extending British commerce by opening new markets on the coast of Arabia, and on the

coast of Abyssinia, (whence comes the "Mocha coffee,") by laying the foundation for the commerce which must take place in China, and in the countries to the West of the Indus, a river navigable for 1,200 miles from its source. The late disaster, which had nothing to do with the original measure, he attributed to the want of 66 ordinary military precautions." He interpreted a reply which he had received from Sir Robert Peel to admit, that orders had been given by the Governor-general of India to evacuate the countries West of the Indus, whatever might have been done to defeat those orders by the misapprehension of the orders themselves, or by the fortunate arrival of an overland despatch, to save us from the eternal disgrace. He would submit what the late Ministers had done for commerce to the test of figures: the declared value of our exports rose from 37,000,000l. in 1831, to 50,000,000l. in 1841; the exports to Turkey, Syria, and Palestine, from 838,000l. in 1831, to 1,461,000l. in 1840; the trade with India and China, from 3,377,000l. in 1831, to 6,547,000l. in 1840.

In regard to home affairs, he found the prospect was rather cheering than otherwise. Government was pledged to the principle of free-trade; they could not recede-they could not stand stillthey must go on: and if they should be deserted by any powerful body of their own friends, they would have the cordial support of the Opposition in their march of improvement. As to foreign affairs, he looked with considerable apprehension and fear to a Government acting upon a system of timidity, of apathy, and of com

promise. Whether it be in reference to the King of Hanover, or to the French-fishery Commissioners, or to the United States, or to Akhbar Khan, they seemed to be prepared to act on a system of submission: but in that course they would be jealously watched by the same Opposition. Much cheering followed Lord Palmerston's speech.

Sir Robert Peel rose to second the motion, which Lord Palmerston, he said, had copied, even in the very wording, from one by Colonel Sibthorpe on the 25th of May, 1841; though without giving credit to his predecessor for the example. He thanked him for the opportunity of comparing the efforts of the two Governments. Following Lord Palmerston in the historical review of the state of parties since the peace, and beginning with the Roman Catholic Relief Bill, he said:-The result of that attempt was perfectly known to us when we felt it our duty to propose that measure to Parliament. We were aware what its inevitable result must be: it was foreseen that it must cause a temporary forfeiture of confidence among those who had been our supporters. When, however, the noble Lord reflects on his own conduct respecting Parliamentary Reform-conduct which I am sure was dictated only by the most honourable motives-I think that the noble Lord ought to be one who would have some toleration for changes of opinion. The noble Lord, till the death of Mr. Canning, the bitter opponent of Parliamentary Reform, was the faithful adherent of that right honourable Gentleman. In 1832, the noble Lord was as faithful an adherent to Lord Grey, the great

Minister of Reform. If the noble Lord did not, under Mr. Canning, see those clear indications in the country that Parliamentary Reform was close at hand, he ought at least to have some toleration for those who with only equal blindness overlooked the coming necessity.

Sir Robert Peel denied that the necessity for Commercial Reform originated in the change produced by Parliamentary Reform. In years long prior to that, Mr. Huskisson and others maintained the true principles of commercial reform. Nay, in the ten years preceding the Reform Bill, there was a greater application of commercial reform, and much larger abolition of monopolies, than took place during the ten years which followed the Reform Bill. But if from the era of Parliamentary Reform ought to have been dated the necessity for commercial improvements-if that be true, then the noble Lord passes the most severe censure on those to whom the Reform Bill gave political power. "Why, when you were strong-when you were, as you would represent, convinced of the necessity of commercial reformwhen you saw, as you say, that Parliamentary Reform necessitated a new course of commercial policy, not only by the reason of the thing, but by the coincidence of great events-how can you justify yourselves for having left commercial reform to utter neglect at the very time when you had most power to secure it? Then, when you had powerful majorities, you might have disregarded any opposition of ours to measures you proposed. Parliamentary Reform had nearly annihilated the Conservative party: you, who tell us you had

been long convinced of the necessity for such a course-why, you neglected it altogether for the first five years of your predominance in political power; and when you were in the last conjuncture of distress the direst emergency of difficulty, distress, and despair then you came down with your tardy, penitent-like confessions. [Long-continued cheers.] How were you spending then the leisure of the recesses? In reading Adam Smith and Malthus? in trying to reconcile the opinions you professed during the first fifteen years of your public life with those you have declared in the last? [Great laughter.] But if you were so thoroughly convincing yourself of the wisdom of the doctrines promulgated by the Smiths and the Ricardos if you, at the time you were possessed of the predominance of political power, were satisfied of the necessity of setting the example of liberal policy in commerce-how can you now account for your own conduct in having then utterly neglected all these things? How have you registered your own condemnation! You have shown that either you were not convinced of the truth of the principles, and that you had not made progress enough in the doctrines of political economy; or else, that having mastered those principles and embraced those doctrines, you, when you had perfect possession of the requisite power, neglected the opportunity of effecting that which you now represent as having been of such vast moment."

Even when their power began to wane, the late Ministers did not act on the principles to which they now professed such adhesion. "When Mr. Robinson or Mr.

Hutt brought forward the Bonding Corn Bill, you taunt us with having opposed it: you opposed it, and the leader of your Government in this House voted against it. Why did not the noble Lord, if he had then become a convert to the philosophy of the free-trade writers-why did he not then come forward to read us a great lesson in political economy? Then again on the sugar question, you, who now cannot tolerate a doubt as to the propriety of admitting slavegrown sugar-you who call it hypocrisy to profess a dread of encouraging the slave-trade-you opposed Mr. Ewart; and when, even in 1839, he proposed to reduce the duties on foreign sugar, he divided with some twenty-five, and the whole strength of the Government against him."

Sir Robert Peel then turned to the fulfilment of the declarations in the Address at the opening of the Session. He had presented proposals for equalizing the revenue and expenditure, for reducing the duties on foreign corn, for removing the prohibition on foreign cattle, and for making extensive alterations in the Tariff: all those measures gained the approbation of the House. He was charged with having proposed measures that had taken his agricultural friends by surprise, and which they believed would undermine agricultural prosperity; and then it was made a charge, that his measures utter delusions, and that the agriculturists were not alarmed: which of the two accusations was it intended to urge, since the two were clearly inconsistent with each other? Lord Palmerston seemed to insinuate that Sir Robert Peel had deceived his friends as to the conditions on which they were to

were

give him their support. His answer was this: "I deny that I ever received support in such a manner. My public opinions were distinctly put on record in 1835; I have ever avowed the same prin ciples, and no one can justly accuse me of having deceived my friends by measures inconsistent with what I formerly have held. Why, when last in office I was taunted with being more liberal than my colleagues, and when I have proposed in office measures in accordance with the very principles I then avowed, I ought not to be charged with inconsistency or deception. The noble Lord talked, forsooth, of my having adopted his principles. Why, where could I have found them? [Cheers and laughler.] The noble Lord himself has told us that we could not have inherited our measures from him or his colleagues; that we could not have found them in the red boxes that is quite true. Truly did the noble Lord say, that we could not (according to the Indian fable) have imbibed the spirit of the last occupants of the seats we now fill. We derived no assistance from the principle or practice of our predecessors. But let me observe (for I never would withhold credit from those to whom it is due), those who first paid great attention to the state of our import duties were not the late Government-it is idle to talk of their efforts for the liberalization of our commercial policy, merely on account of some trifling remission of duties on timber-but who brought forward that investigation which led to the consideration of the restrictions on commerce? Why, the hon. Member for Montrose [A laugh]; and my noble Friend the Member for Monmouthshire

to whom it was said at the time, that there were "some slight inequalities in the Customs," which the House might be usefully engaged in remedying. Was this committee brought forward by the Government? Was there, on the part of the Ministry, manifested any interest at all in the approach ing liberalization of our commercial system? Not at all. There was a bare acquiescence in the appointment of the committee. There never was a question which excited less of support from a Government. No Member of the Government was even in the chair. Did any Cabinet Minister sanction by his presence the inquiry? Did the President or Vice-President of the Board of Trade attend at all constantly? No.

There was only one subor dinate Member of the Govern. ment who (little foreseeing the sequel) gave something like an attendance. As to the late Government, then, claiming any degree of credit for the appoint ment of that committee, or for the consideration of the evidence, or for the production of the results, nothing could be more perfectly preposterous. There could not be a more unjust attempt to defraud other men of their just credit; and then the defence of the noble Lord for not bringing forward these measures when his Government was weak, is no better than his defence for not having brought them forward when he was strong. For what does this defence of his neglect during the period of weakness amount to? Says the noble Lord, "We had not strength to carry out our principles." Then why did you not risk a dissolution or a resignation? [Loud cheers.] You declare that the public feeling