Lord William That, cannot form a Minis- | what I cannot endure is to hear a man try, and saying, "Then I must form one, come down and say, "I will rule without and bring all my Colleagues to support mea- respect of party, though I rose by sures that they entirely disapprove;' party; and I care not for your judgis that the Constitution that governs Eng- ment, for I look to posterity.' Sir, land? If the Constitution that governs very few people reach posterity. Who England be a Constitution that makes men amongst us may arrive at that destination recommend that of which they do not ap- I presume not to vaticinate. Posterity is prove, then the sooner we get rid of this a most limited assembly. Those gentleConstitution the better. It comes to that; men who reach posterity are not much and the noble Lord opposite, the Member more numerous than the planets. But one for London, who has a respect for the Par- thing is quite evident, that while we are liamentary Constitution, and who repre- appealing to posterity-while we are adsents a party that are nothing if they do mitting the principles of relaxed commerce not respect a Parliamentary Constitution, there is extreme danger of our admitting ought to resist such a vulgar, ignoble inno- the principles of relaxed politics. I advise, vation. I can understand an absolute therefore, that we all, whatever may be Sovereign, in a country of high civiliza- our opinions about free trade, oppose the tion, governing through a Council of State introduction of free politics. Let men selected by her arbitrary but intelligent stand by the principle by which they rise will, from the ablest men of the country;-right or wrong. I make no exception. but we have a Parliamentary Constitution. If they be in the wrong, they must retire It may have committed great wrongs: un- to that shade of private life with which our doubtedly it has achieved immense and present rulers have often threatened us. magnificent results; but this House of There are always men ready to form Commons still forms a part of the Consti- a Government; and if the noble Lord tution, though how degraded and de- had formed one, and the country would moralized it may become, if the principles not support free trade, that would not we have heard to-night are to be acknow- show that his principles were wrong; ledged, I confess I cannot tell. If the but it would show a great political fact, principles advocated by the right hon. important in the state of our country, that Baronet to-night be once admitted, I ask the nation was not ripe for those opinions, any one capable of forming an opinion or that it was against them. This is a upon public questions, whether Parliament legitimate thing; but it is not a legiti can be anything but a servile senate? Six mate trial of the principles of free trade hundred men met together without the against the principle of protection, if a sympathy of great principles and great Parliament, the majority of which are ideas, to wield all the power of a country, elected to support protection, be gained with all the patronage of the country, at over to free trade by the arts of the very the command of one man appointed by individual whom they were elected to supthe Sovereign to direct them as he wills, port in an opposite career. It is not fair -who can doubt what the result would to the people of England. As for whether be? In a neighbouring country, yet in the right hon. Baronet made the Conthe infancy of its representative system, servative party, or the party made him, I and therefore to be looked at in a kind have no doubt there was a reciprocal influapologetic spirit, they have no Parliament-ence; but he is a great Parliamentary ary parties; and at this moment, while leader, and undoubtedly we might, with a we are talking of the danger of the Napo-leader less able, not have gained such a leonists and the republicans, the danger is a corrupted senate-an assembly professing to represent the people, and wielding all their power, at the command of a single individual. Do you aspire to such a position? You will not be brought to this. But what may you in the interval have to pass through? If you had a daring, dashing Minister, a Danby or a Walpole, who tells you frankly, "I am corrupt, and I wish you to be corrupt also," we might guard against this; but

result as we did. I attribute our success at the last election in some degree to the impolicy of the Whigs: warmly opposed to them as I am, I may say that, though I wish to say nothing against Gentlemen who happen to be in adversity; but if the right hon. Baronet had not led us so many years with most adroit ability-if, during that term, he had not had recourse to all the acts of party-if he had not proposed subtle resolutions, and, even if necessary, Amendments on the Address-if he had not

the right hon. Gentleman seemed to indicate. He did not rise to propose an Amendment, but he thought it right to express his regret at the apparent intentions of the Government.

MR. MILES found it impossible to allow the debate to terminate without saying a few words. First of all, he cordially agreed with the right hon. Baronet that no Amendment ought to be moved to the Address; but he wished it to be understood, and the public to know, that it should not on that account be inferred that he concurred in the principle now declared by the right hon. Gentleman. He never listened with more surprise and regret to any speech than that of the right hon. Gentleman that night. The right hon. Gentleman had cast reflections on his own supporters, though they were mixed up, certainly, with some words of kindness; but an unfavourable impression as to his own party was conveyed in that sarcastic way which the right hon. Gentleman so well knew how to adopt. He must ask the right hon. Gen

with a frankness unusual to him, expressed | side or the other, from Ireland would have principles to which the country responded, risen to protest against the course which would he have been carried into power by an enthusiastic people? Then how can you, the Opposition, if you are for Parliamentary Government, offer him this adulation because he now supports your views? You may be very glad that an eminent Member of the House is on your side that is an historical fact which you may register, and adduce it in evidence of the truth of your views and the advance of your cause; but depend upon it you err when you admit the principle that you are to support any man, whoever he may be, who supports your opinions. The Minister who attained as he did the position which the right hon. Baronet now fills, is not the Minister who ought to abrogate the Corn Laws. That feeling is, I believe, not confined to this House. Whatever may be the fate of Government-whether we are to have a Whig Administration or a Conservative-whether the noble Lord or the right hon. Gentleman is to guide the sceptre of the State-whatever, I say, may be the fate of Cabinets and they are transitory and transient things-tleman a question, which he was the more things which may not survive the career of emboldened to put after the admirable many men in this House-on Parliament, speech of his hon. Friend (Mr. Disraeli)— as an institution, and still a popular in- whether they, the Conservatives, returned stitution in this country, is dependent, and in 1841 to support the right hon. Gentlenot upon the Government, the considera- man in a particular policy, were now to be tion of the vast majority of the Members called on to abandon that policy, and thus of this House. Do not, then, because place themselves on the lowest seat of you see a great personage giving up his ignominy? What had become of the right opinions, do not cheer him on-do not hon. and noble Members of the Cabinet yield so ready a reward to political ter- who first of all opposed the proposal of the giversation. Above all, maintain the line of right hon. Gentleman? Was there no demarcation between parties; for it is only public spirit, no enthusiasm, no recollecby maintaining the independence of party tion-he should not say of pledges, but of that you can maintain the integrity of pub-implied opinions, given at the hustings? lic men, and the power and influence of Parliament itself.

VISCOUNT NORTHLAND said, he could only interpret Sir R. Peel's speech as indicating a total repeal of the Corn Laws. He must protest, in the name of the people of Ireland, against such a proposal. If the right hon. Gentleman wished to make the condition of Ireland even worse than it now was, a proposal for the total repeal of the Corn Laws was the most direct means for effecting his object. Ireland was an agricultural country; and if the gentry of that country were ruined, what, he should like to know, would become of the agricultural labourer? It was well known Ireland had no manufactures. He certainly expected that some Member, on one

And when the right hon. Gentleman, with the ingenuity which belonged to him, brought forward a proposition to which the majority of his Cabinet were decidedly opposed, were the other Members of that Cabinet to sacrifice every thing at the feet of their idol? If determined on that course, why not return the power vested in their hands to their constituencies, and see whether they would sanction such conduct? It was a high constitutional question, as argued by his hon. Friend (Mr. Disraeli), that they should have a certain sound basis as the foundation of party in that House; and he did not see how, in the present state of things, public principle could be upheld, except by taking that course which every constitutional Minister

privilege which he desired to neutralise, so | day before that for which they stood, which of the list the Government wished to give precedence to, as he was desirous of giving every possible facility.

LORD JOHN RUSSELL observed, that the course adopted by him was always to give notice of the Orders of the Day which should take precedence. He thought it would not be a good arrangement if the Government were obliged to take the Or

far as one part of the community was concerned, was conferred by that very Act to which the Members of that House owed their seats. The hon. Member should have endeavoured to procure the abrogation of the principle when the Reform Bill was under discussion. The hon. Member wished to go much further than the Sessional Orders, and prevent every landowner from interfering in any way with elections-aders in the course in which they were set rule which, considering their great stake, would be both arbitrary and unjust. He might not see sufficient reason for retaining the Order, but he saw no reason at all why it should now be either abrogated or rendered more stringent. Order agreed to.

down; for it then might happen that the one for the advancement of which there was no pressing necessity for despatch, might be brought on, whilst some measure of much greater interest and consequence would be left by. He had no observation to make upon the Order, except to suggest On the reading of that regulating the that during the ensuing Session on Wednights for Government and Private Busi-nesdays the House should sit at twelve o'clock in the day for the despatch of busi

ness,

SIR ROBERT PEEL had expressed a wish, in the course of the last Session, that the course proposed by the noble Lord who had just sat down should be adopted. He wished the House to sit from twelve o'clock to six. He thought that such an arrangement would be the best.

MR. WILLIAMS objected to the pro-ness. There would then be a greater likeposed arrangement. On the Wednesday lihood that they would have an attendance nights the business was open to Members of Members than in the evening. generally, and Bills were taken in their various stages. Motions on the Wednesdays were taken in the order in which they appeared upon the Paper, whilst on the contrary, on the nights of which Government had the control, when there frequently appeared thirty or forty Notices, any Member of the Government might upset the order, and bring any one he chose forward first. He might take the first order last, or the last first. That was a very great inconvenience to the Members of the House. He himself had often waited until three o'clock in the morning for his turn, and if he chanced to turn his back or leave the House for a moment, his business might be called on and passed by. What he had to suggest was, that Her Majesty's Government should consent to take the Orders of the Day on Mondays and Fridays in the order in which they stood upon the list. He was aware of the difficulties which surrounded the right hon. Baronet opposite in regulating the Orders; but if they were taken in rotation, he thought it would tend to the great convenience of the House.

MR. WAKLEY must say that he thought the arrangement most objectionable; and nothing could be more unwise or more likely to be detrimental to the public interest. If he understood the arrangement correctly, independent Members of the House, who had measures to advance which were not supported by the Government, or in which the Government were not interested, were to assemble on a Wednesday at twelve o'clock, and pursue their labours until six in the evening; and after that period the Government were to be at liberty to bring in their measures. Then he was to understand that the House would rise at six. And the usual dinners were to be enjoyed after that hour.

SIR R. H. INGLIS objected to the proposed arrangement on many grounds. He understood that from twelve to six on Wednesdays was to be devoted to Private Business, or rather business that was not connected with the Government. Now his noble Friend had, within the last half-hour, given notice of one of the most important Motions which could be brought under the consideration of the House; and if it was the intention of Ministers to absent themselves from the House on a Wednesday,

F