PAGE

I can

Sovereign, that I continue to regard them with unaltered sentiments both of public regard and private attachinent. I do feel it to be my duty also, at the same moment, distinctly to say, that I am not prepared to take part in any religious warfare against the measures of my right honourable friend. understand, and I have even ventured to vindicate, the principles upon which a Christian state allics itself, for religious purposes, with a Christian church, but if the time has come when, owing to religious divisions, and a great modification of political sentiments, what remains of that system must be further departed from, then I cannot understand how a line of distinction is to be drawn unfavourable to my Roman Catholic fellow-subjects in Ireland. But I most fervently and earnestly trust and hope that they will be regarded as having a title to the favour of the Legislature, on the same grounds as members of other professions of Christians. I have said nothing of the expediency of the measure which my right honourable friend proposes to introduce, because I feel that it ought not to be prejudged, but to receive a calm and deliberate consideration when it comes properly before the House. But I wish most distinctly to state, that I am not prepared to take part in any religious warfare against that measure, such as I believe it may be, or to draw a distinction, on the other hand, between the Roman Catholics and other denominations with reference to their religious opinions. I do not know that I have anything to add.”

SIR ROBERT PEEL vindicated the course pursued by the Government in a very animated speech, and referring to LORD JOHN RUSSELL's allusion to certain "exasperating expressions" declared he cared not who used them, they were never used by him or any of his political friends. He utterly denied that he or any of his friends had ever countenanced insults to the Roman Catholics of Ireland, and as a complete refutation of the reckless allegation of the Noble Lord, he mentioned the secession of MR. GLADSTONE, and referred "to these substantial facts as an answer to the small insinuations of the Noble Lord." The address was carried unanimously.

In a speech equally distinguished for its eloquence and perspicnity SIR ROBERT PEEL made his financial statement. He proposed to reduce the duties upon sugar to the extent of £1,300,000, and to abolish export duty on all articles inclusive of coal which produce above £120,000, and to release 430 articles of raw material, paying at present £320,000. He also proposed the removal of the duty upon cotton wool at a loss to the revenue of £680,000. In the Excise he desired to reduce the charge for auctioneers' licences, and to release glass from all excise duty, which now amounted from 200 to 300 per cent, on its manufacture, and produced £642,000 to the Exchequer. The total abolition of duties amounted to £3,338,000. He then proposed to continue the Income-Tax 103 for three years only! [Peel's Bane and Antidote.] Sixteen years (1861) have passed away, but not the Income-Tax. Many exceptions were taken to the scheme, but MR. ROEBUCK only moved an amendment. It was to omit the words "professions, trades, and offices,' not with a view of excluding them from payment altogether, but to subject them to some discriminating scheme of taxation." MR. ROEBUCK, later in the debate, called attention to the fact, that although every Member on his side of the house had condemned the Income and Property-Tax, and had deprecated it as a permanent tax, every one of them had come to the conclusion to vote for it. The amendment was lost by 263 to 55. Much subsequent discussion ensued, but the Ministerial plan was adopted ultimately without any modifications. MR. M. GIBSON moved a resolution for the equalising the duties on Foreign and Colonial sugars, but the Government opposed it, and carried its rejection by a majority of 133.

In the House of Lords the DUKE OF RICHMOND opposed the reduction of the Sugar Duties and other branches of the Customs Bill, and contended for some relief for the Agricultural interest, but the amendment (which was opposed by LORD BROUGHAM, LORD STANLEY, and EARL DALHOUSIE) was lost by 33 to 15.

surface of the debates from the beginning to the end of the Session, and scarcely a week passed in which they were not introduced into the discussions of the House. MR. COBDEN, on the 13th of March, moved for a Committee to inquire into the effects of Protection upon Agriculture! MR. COBDEN "undertook to prove by quoting the declaration of some of the highest authorities in the agricultural interest, that half the farmers in the country were in a state of insolvency, and that the other half were paying rents out of their capital, and were fast hastening to the same melancholy condition. This was therefore the proper time for bringing on a motion for inquiry." Our space will not allow the recapitulation of his proofs, which were replied to by MR. SIDNEY HERBERT, and the motion was lost by 213 to 121. MR. MILES, a few nights after, brought forward a resolution pledging the House to a Relief of the Agricultural interest, and attributed the present distressed condition of the farmers to the importation of foreign corn and cattle. The EARL OF MARCH seconded the motion, which was opposed on the part of the Government by SIR JAMES GRAHAM, and who recognised an old acquaintance in the proposition of MR. MILES, he (SIR JAMES) having voted against it in 1834 and 1836, and should now give it his most decided opposition. MR. NEWDEGATE supported the motion, and declared MR. COBDEN to be the High Priest of Free Trade, and the occupants of the Treasury Benches as fellow worshippers who were chanting responses to the service which he performed. He denied that Protection was the bane of agriculture as stated by LORD JOHN RUSSELL, who, in reply, declared that his statement had been proved by the evening's debate. MR. DISRAELI considered that Protection was not a principle, but an expedient, and that Free Trade was the question of the age and of the country. Sooner or later the House must come to this test. "Will you have Protection, or will you have, not exactly Free Trade, but a free importation of corn ?" He remembered the introduction of a similar measure by the MARQUIS OF CHANDOS, when the House of Commons was Whig, and now it was Conservative; but MR. MILES might count on the votes of the SECRETARY FOR IRELAND, the VICE-PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE, LORD LINCOLN, and CAPTAIN BOLDERO, the Clerk of the Ordnance, as they supported the MARQUIS OF CHANDOS in 1836. The rest of the Conservative party would follow in the train of such distinguished leaders, but SIR ROBERT PEEL would preserve his consistency as he did then, and walk into the Whig lobby. MR. DISRAELI, amid the cheers and laughter of the House, then assailed SIR ROBERT PEEL for his vacillation, and the tone in which he rebuked the mutinous members of his party, and declared that he would rather see MR. COBDEN carry a scheme for the total abolition of all protection than any noble Lord on either side of the House. "It might be necessary," he said, "before such an abolition was accomplished, for the Premier to dissolve Parliament, for the benefit of the party which he had betrayed, and to appeal to the country which universally mistrusted him. His solemn and deliberate conviction was THAT A CONSERVATIVE Government

WAS AN ORGANISED HYPOCRISY.

remained unchanged. He would not enter into any personal recrimination with MR. DISRAELI, but when on a former cccasion Ministers were charged with retaining power by making pledges which they had not redeemed, that gentleman had volunteered the defence of the Government. He (SIR ROBERT) held in the same estimation the panegyric and the attack, but was surprised that both the praise and censure should have come from the same gentleman. The House divided, and the motion was lost by 87 to 213.

On the 26th of May LORD JOHN RUSSELL brought forward a series of Resolutions relative to the state of the labouring classes, and which he supported in a very comprehensive speech, contending that all restrictions upon food were an injury to the working man, especially such as prevented him purchasing corn where it could be obtained the cheapest. The annexed resolutions are interesting at this time :

"1. That the present state of political tranquillity, and the recent revival of trade, afford to this House a favourable opportunity to consider of such measures as may tend permanently to improve the condition of the labouring classes.

"2. That those laws which impose duties usually called protective, tend to impair the efficiency of labour, to restrict the free interchange of commodities, and to impose on the people unnecessary taxation.

"3. That the present Corn Law tends to check improvements in agriculturo, produces uncertainty in all farining speculations, and holds out to the owners and occupiers of land prospects of special advantage which it fails to

securo.

"4. That this House will take the said laws into consideration, with a view to such cautious and deliberate arrangements as may be most beneficial to all classes of Her Majesty's subjects.

5. That the freedom of industry would be promoted by a careful revision of the law of parochial settlement which now prevails in England and Wales. "6. That a systematic plan of colonisation would partially relieve those districts of the country where the deficiency of employment has been most injurious to the labourers in husbandry.

"7. That the improvements made of late years in the education of the peopio, as well as its more general diffusion, have been seen with satisfaction by this House.

8. That this House will be ready to give its support to measures, founded on liberal and comprehensive principles, which may be conducive to the further extension of religious and moral instruction.

"9. That a humble address be presented to HER MAJESTY, to lay the foregoing resolutions before HER MAJESTY."

MR. SHARMAN CRAWFORD moved as an amendment, for an extension of the Parliamentary Suffrage, as out of 7,000,000 of adult population only 100,000 individuals possessed votes. SIR JAMES GRAHAM spoke at great length, and MR. VILLIERS seized upon some of his admissions as making him an excellent witness for the repeal of the Corn Laws. LORD HOWICK having stated in his speech that the House showed an apathy whenever the interests of the labouring classes were debated, 92 [The Poor Man's Friend] SIR R. PEEL denied that such was the case, and if the House had been less interested in the present debate it was because the motion of LORD JOHN RUSSELL could lead to no practical result. The country was satisfied with the concessions which had been made. He was not prepared to alter the existing Corn-law. MR. CRAWFORD'S amendment was rejected by a majority of 220, and the previous question was negatived by 182 to 104. On the

[JANUARY TO JUNE, 1845.

10th of June, MR. C. VILLIERS brought on his annual motion for the abolition of all restrictions on the importation of corn, which met with the usual support and opposition, and was lost by 254 to 122.

PAGE

No measure during the session produced more excitement in the public mind than the Grant to the Maynooth College. [British Lion and the Maynooth Grant.] The debate 182 occupied three evenings in the Upper House, and six in the Lower. Public meetings were convoked and petitions presented for the purpose of opposing it, and at all the elections which occurred it was made the test of fitness in the candidate. The Dissenters were particularly active against it, and it was considered the first enunciation of a new policy on the part of Conservative leaders, and a distinct repudiation of the claims of the Protestants of Ireland to "ascendency." SIR ROBERT PEEL declared that it appeared to the Queen's Ministers three courses open to them: 1st. To continue the present system and grant without alteration; to discontinue the vote altogether, and repudiate all connection with Maynooth, or liberally adopt, improve, and extend the institution provided for the education of Roman Catholic priests; and they had chosen the latter course. He then entered fully into the proposed scheme, and was met with a direct negative from SIR R. H. INGLIS, but the Bill was carried (as we have said) after much discussion, by 216 to 114. MR. DISRAELI took occasion to indulge in more personalities to the Premier, in a speech of small merit, and which MR. ROEBUCK described as being as poor in execution as it was malicious in motive. MR. DISRAELI'S brilliant talents had been overlooked, for SIR R. PEEL thought of "measures not men." MR. MACAULAY made a powerful speech, and reproached the Government for their conduct in 1841, which had stung Ireland into madness, and now lit up a flame in England, in order to ingratiate themselves with the Irish. The debate is well worth perusal, and the Bill was opposed at every stage. The Academical Education in Ireland Bill produced, also, great excitement, and did not pass without much discussion. The Bill for the Relief of the Jews from Municipal Disabilities was one of the principal miscellaneous measures of the Session, and was opposed by SIR R. H. INGLIS and MR. PLUMPTRE. LORD ASHLEY'S Bills for the Regulation of Juvenile Labour in Calico-Print Works, and for the better care of Lunatics in Asylums, passed with some slight alterations of the Government. SIR JAMES GRAHAM'S Medical Bill had been very summarily disposed of early in the Session [The Medical Man as he will be] to 29 the great satisfaction of the profession. The Parliament was prorogued to the 24th of October.

The dispute with America, touching the boundary line running through the Oregon territory, gave great anxiety at one time, and some of the American statesmen "talked loud," and frightened many old ladies on this side of the Atlantic. PRESIDENT POLK's Address contains some curious paragraphs contrasted with the present (1861) state of affairs in America.