ing the President's misapprehension, that Lord Aberdeen had insisted, in 1841, on the right of search, which extends to the cargo and destination of a vessel, instead of the right of visit, merely to ascertain its nationality. He was surprised that a conventional right of search should be resisted by the United States, affording, as it did, protection to the honest flag, and leading to the exposure of contraband trading, which must be as injurious to their commerce as to their revenue. Nay, if Mr. Canning would have consented to exempt the coasts of the United States from the operation of such a treaty, one would have existed, almost at the instance of America, through Mr. Rush, who negociated one with Mr. Huskisson in 1824. He made a passing allusion to the French view of this question: "I hope that those who at present appear so eager in the French Chamber, who are opposed to a treaty so calculated to promote the cause of humanity, and who are urging on the United States to resist it, will not succeed in their efforts. For myself, I do not look upon the concession of the right as peculiarly import ant to England. The question is one which considerably affects all commercial nations. It is the only security which can be adopt. ed against fraud, and even on a principle of mercantile security, it should be consented to by all maritime nations. I am ready, therefore, whenever it is necessary, to prove that the doctrine of the right of visitation laid down in the dispatch of 1841, has been strictly carried out. With respect to the treaty lately signed between this country and the United States,

treaty, we have not abandoned our claim to the right of visitation, nor did we understand that in signing that treaty the United States could suppose that the claim was abandoned. On the contrary, we thought that a step in advance of our object had been taken, when the United States consented to send a naval force for the suppression of the traffic in slaves, though we by no means considered or accepted of that proceeding as an equivalent for any right which we claimed with respect to visitation."

Turning to the revenue, Sir Robert Peel said, he would produce such an account as Mr. Wood had alluded to; but nothing could be more unfair than to infer future results from what might appear on the face of that: "In the last Session I admitted that there was a great deficiency; and I also said, that I proposed to create a new deficiency by the measures which I should bring forward, by the decrease of the import duties, and those upon several articles which formed primary sources of our home manufacture. For instance, timber was one of those, and 700 out of the 1,100 articles included in the tariff, The reduc tion of the duties it must be remembered, took place at an early period, in most instances as early as July, and in other instances, in October; and this, of course, produced a material effect in increasing the deficiency, whilst the taxes which were imposed to supply the want created have not yet come into sufficient operation. The honourable Gentleman ought, therefore, to wait for the next quarter, and yet I do not know that even then there would be a sufficient

Government upon which we can depend.' They had a firm Government now he was sure they had a sufficient majority. (Cheers from the Ministerial benches.) But he would say for himself that he saw little difference between a tottering Government with firm principles of action, and a firm Government which was vacillating in its principles."

Mr. Charles Villiers thought that a Committee on the state of the nation ought long since to have been appointed; and the variety of opinions expressed on the Ministerial side of the House made inquiry the more urgent, as it had been impossible to elicit what were their views of causes, or of the course that Government ought to take. They ought to consider whether the present state of things was not in some way connected with the present tendency of legislation: that position seemed to be disputed on the other side; and if so, that alone was ground of inquiry; if it were not disputed, then there was ground for legislating immediately. He repeated his often expressed opinion, that the true cause of the distress was the disproportionate power of production, compared with the power of consumption: hence every trade complained that there was not the same reward for capital, or the same employment for labour as formerly. The consequences of such a state of things were alarming. Sir Robert Peel had said last year, that he expected to reduce the cost of living by his financial changes; and by giving activity to trade, to increase our exchanges with foreign countries. If that were the true principle, why not extend it?

duce the cost of living? had the people so much employment that they did not need more? Yet both in the case of Brazil and America, which had produce of their own to send us, nothing had been done to increase the exchanges; while the burdens of the people had been increased by the Income Tax: that obliged them to reduce their expenditure in taxed articles, and the other branches of revenue failed, so that the Income Tax itself missed its object.

Mr. Gladstone had vindicated the restrictive principle of the Corn Law, because it had been the rule in the whole course of legislation to treat corn in a peculiar way: "Of course it had been the rule. Persons who had great interests of their own would always be found to legislate with regard to their interests. He said too, that there had been twentyfive Corn Laws since 1765. Yes, and in 500 years there had been forty-one every twelve years. Of course, there was a disposition in every preponderating party to help themselves. They had been doing so for 800 years, ever since the Conquest. The same party had attempted to resist the intercourse with Scotland at the time of the Union, and the House knew they did resist that with Ireland, and there was not an argument in favour of either that did not apply equally to the case of trade with our colonial possessions. It was not a century since a petition was presented by one county against another; the former had always grown beans, and wished to retain the monopoly. The metropolitan county had petitioned against good new roads being made, because

forts to create contentment you produce distress you run the risk of obstructing the fair and satisfactory progress of right principles. I cannot therefore state that I have any great changes to propose in the commercial code of this country. When I do, it will be in conformity with the principles I have laid down; but I should deceive the right honourable Gentleman if I led him to suppose there would be any such extensive change as he has hinted at this year." In conclusion, he said, that many of the arguments used last year against the present Corn-laws had not been verified by experience; the alteration of the method of taking the averages for instance, had not had the effect of lessening the apparent price 5s., and thus raising the duty. He remained of opinion that the law had not had a sufficient trial to warrant him in proposing its abrogation. He concluded with a renewed and distinct declaration.

"When I introduced the Income-Tax Act, I stated my firm conviction that the effect of the other laws introduced would enable every party to make a saving in his expenditure equivalent to the sum I called from him in the shape of income-tax. I believe that prediction has been fully verified, fand that there has been such a reduction of prices as enables all parties to make a saving equivalent to the amount contributed by them in the shape of income-tax. There will be other opportunities of discussing all these important matters, but as I was asked by the right honourable Gentleman to come forward and declare my intentions, I think it right now to avow that Her Ma

contemplation any amendment of the Corn-laws."

Lord John Russell disclaimed the intention to express by vote any difference of opinion with respect to the Address which had been moved in answer to the Speech from the Throne, which had been "wisely and judiciously framed to avoid calling for a difference of vote." He concurred with the Seconder of the Address in praising the energy and promptitude with which the Government had directed the forces in China to the attainment of peace; but if there has been any charge made with regard to the means placed at their disposal by the late Government, he should have been prepared to answer it. Before thanks, however, were voted to the Governor-General, and the army in India, according to a notice which had been given, two points ought to be explained; first, there was a rumour that the victories of our troops had been stained by a spirit of revenge and retaliation; and secondly, there was a rumour that at a certain period the Governor-General had issued an order for an immediate retreat of the whole of the forces. Nor could he avoid adverting to two remarkable proclamations: one was a violent party attack on his predecessor, containing also very extraordinary and very shocking doctrines

"The Governor-General states, that he was about to leave Affghanistan to that anarchy which the crimes of the country had created. Now, I should have thought, without disputing the policy of the Executive Government, that if it were thought right to evacuate Affghanistan-if the

perity which had lately taken place. He attributed the distress of the shipping-interest to the cessation of emigration; and called upon the House to consider whether by a sound system of emigration they could not do much towards relieving the wants of our people at home, and towards contributing to the strength and power of our colonial possessions.

Mr. Colquhoun also entered extensively into many grounds of argument already traversed.

Mr. F.T. Baring defended some of Lord Howick's positions which had been attacked. The motion itself was a perfectly Parliamentary proceeding, to refer the declaration in the Queen's Speech, that great distress was prevalent throughout the country, to the consideration of the House in Committee. He contended that no Member was precluded from coming before the House with a principle, though unprepared with plans and details; otherwise, all discussion might as well be abandoned at once. He gave a new turn to Sir James Graham's favourable statistics of mortality :

"In reference to this deeply interesting point, it was to be borne in mind, that the beneficence of the Great Lord of all, which had been so graciously manifested in an abundant harvest of the last year, was in reality the cause why amid our fearful distress, the mortality of the period in question had been numerically less than in former similar periods. The House could not but call to mind, that the four preceding years which had been cited by the right hon. Gentleman were years of high prices; while in the autumn of last year,

cy, were considerably lowered. This was a most important point for consideration; as it showed that, even where there was great distress-where there was terrible want of employment - broken down, as we had been during the last year-yet the cheapness of provisions had contributed mainly to save the lives of the people."

A great admission had been made in Sir James Graham's declaration that principles of commercial freedom were principles of common sense; and that admission entitled him (Mr. Baring) to ask why, the distress of the country not being lessened, they should not be acted upon? Changes, indeed, are diffi cult; and if everything had been settled, he might have said, allow the measures of last year more than a temporary trial; but Sir Robert Peel had unsettled everything and settled nothing.

Mr. Goulburn insisted that the motion was for a vote of want of confidence in the Ministers; and as to Government's leaving the Cornlaw in a state of uncertainty, he would ask would an 8s. fixed duty settle it ?

On the fifth and last night of the debate, Sir Andrew L. Hay commenced the discussion. He said, that so far from regarding this motion as an attack on the Ministers, he should have supposed, if he had not known the state of parties, that the noble Mover was some Member of Government, proposing to effectuate the recommendations of Her Majesty's Speech. At all events it was no answer to that motion to say that it was brought forward for party purposes. The Minister ought not last year to have shaken

told that even the the most superstitious of the Hindoos have no knowledge of those transactions of 800 years ago; but, as regards the mass of the Hindoos, that must greatly diminish their belief in our conscientious attachment to our own faith which sets up their superstitious idolatry as the object of respect and almost of reverence. These matters in the proclamation are not, as I consider, simple and insulated blunders. They certainly do alarm one as regards the general calm, sober, and judicious conduct of the present Governor of India. That noble Lord is doubtless a man of considerable talent, a man who took an active part with others in the Cabinet and House of Lords, where he gave proofs of those talents; but when a man is placed in the extraordinary and almost awful situation of Governor of India, where so many millions of inhabitants and so much of the power of this great country are intrusted to his hands, it requires more than a common degree of judgment, more than common exoneration from the temptation of vanity to carry on that government in a manner calculated to satisfy his country that that empire is in no danger. I need not say any thing respecting the original expedition into Affghanistan, as an honourable Gentleman has given notice of a motion on the subject. The question, too, was discussed last year, when my right honourable Friend the member for Nottingham made an excellent speech in reference to that expedition. When it comes before the House again we shall be quite ready to enter into the discussion of it.

For my part, I shall shrink

belong to me respecting the conduct of Lord Auckland.

In adverting next to the Ashburton treaty, Lord J. Russell blamed Lord Ashburton for ultimately conceding what in his first dispatch to Mr. Webster he said could not be conceded, as the Madewaska settlement. The Americans believed in the justice of their claim, we in ours. As for war, we had no more reason to be apprehensive of it than they. We had great reluctance to go to war; so had the United States; and we had both the same reasons for wishing to avoid it. The circumstances, therefore, having been equal, the settlement ought to have been equal. He considered that in one respect, though not in others, the choice of Lord Ashburton was unfortunate. Of his ta lents, his long experience, his knowledge of this country and of America, no one could be ignorant; but in 1838, Lord Ashburton, after a two days' previous notice in the other House of Parliament, gave a very elaborate opinion not only respecting the colonies in general, but Canada in particular. He stated it to be his opinion, that no wise man could expect Canada to belong to this country for more than twenty years.

He (Lord J. Russell) could not but think that some such feeling must have swayed him in consenting to such a boundary. He believed that the hold of this country upon Canada depended upon two things,-giving the Canadians a constitutional government, which he thought the Government had done; and giving them proof that the Queen of this country would be ever ready to