Two remedies had been applied at different times; but he believed one would be effectual. He meant the revival, in proclaimed districts, of the courts-martial clauses of the Act of 1833, and the regulation which prohibited persons being out between certain hours of the evening and certain hours of the morning. God forbid that they should be driven to that necessity but anything was better than the present intolerable state of things in Ireland.

The EARL of DERBY explained that what he said, or what he ought to have said, was this, that with one exceptation, namely, the Restoration of 1814-15, every change of Government which had taken place in France for the last fifty or sixty years had been more or less a usurpation; but he applied that term to any authority which was substituted for that which came in by descent, in accordance with the established law of succession in the country; and he said, that he could not admit any distinction between the merits of one Government and another. Changes of Government had no foundation except in the will of the country pronounced in their favour; and in the expression of that will this country had always concurred. He used the remark in this way-it had been argued that we ought not to deal with the Prince President, because he was a usurper. But this country recognised the First Consul, as well as Louis Philippe in 1830, and the Republic in 1848, though one and all of these forms of government were interruptions of the legitimate line of succession, and violations of existing law, resting on no foundation but the will of the country expressed at the time. He did not mean to use the word "usurpation" in an offensive sense.

The EARL of WINCHILSEA complained that the Government had not attempted to carry out the Papal Aggression Act of last Session. He considered it a disgrace for the Legislature of a great country like this to pass an Act ofthe character of that passed last year, if it was not the intention of the Government to carry it into execution; and he believed the allowing it to be evaded had led to the establishment of Ribbon societies in that part of Ireland which had been before free from their influence. He stated last year that the encouragement given to the Church of Rome had conduced to those calamities which prevailed in the south

Lord Brougham

and west of Ireland, and the self-banishment of the population through the terror in which they lived. He stated, at that time, that the next step would be to endeavour to drive from the northern part of Ireland the few remaining resident landlords. He feared his expectations were being realised; and unless something in the nature of a military law was passed, it would be perfectly hopeless to anticipate that the northern would be more secure than the southern and western parts of that unfortunate country. The noble Earl opposite (Earl Grey) had reminded him of an observation he (Earl Winchilsea) had made

that he would never advocate the imposition of a duty on foreign corn for the purpose of revenue. If it were solely for that purpose, he would never give it his support; but he was quite prepared to give his support to protection, and in the light of protection to the home-grower he should be prepared to advocate decidedly the imposition of a duty on foreign corn, The noble Earl suggested that our own corn should be taxed. That was the very ground upon which he (Earl Winchilsea) advocated the taxation of foreign corn. Our corn was already taxed, for the support of the poor, for the maintenance of public peace, for the erection of lunatic asylums and other public buildings, without reference to the amount of production, and we allowed the foreigner to come into the country untaxed and sell untaxed corn. All they (the Opposition) asked was protection

that no foreigner should be allowed to bring corn into the home market to compete with that of the English farmer, except he paid a certain amount of taxation, equivalent to that which the producer in this country was called upon to pay.

The EARL of YARBOROUGH hoped there would be no misunderstanding on this question of protection. It was much too serious a matter for the farmers to be left in any uncertainty, for if anything operated to depress the farmers, it was the being left in a state of uncertainty as to their position. If the noble Earl (the Earl of Derby) meant to advocate a duty on foreign corn for the sake of revenue, he (the Earl of Yarborough) considered the noble Earl said one thing; but if he advocated it for the sake of protection, he considered the noble Earl said another. For instance, a duty of 2s. or 3s. a quarter might be imposed as revenue, which he was sure would be repudiated as giving any pro

tection whatever to the farmer. He heard the farmers constantly arguing that such a small duty as that would not sufficiently raise prices to enable them to compete with the foreigner. Yet a duty of 2s. or 3s. a quarter would raise a considerable revenue. It appeared, then, to him that the statements by the noble Earl and the noble Duke might be widely different; the farmers might imagine they were going to have a considerable duty, as much as would amount to protection; and perhaps the noble Earl only intended such duty as would raise a considerable revenue, and enable the Government to remit other taxes. He (the Earl of Yarborough) hoped the noble Earl or the noble Duke would state whether they would like to see such an amount of duty imposed for the sake of revenue as would also act as protection, or whether for revenue only. He was happy to say he could confirm his noble Friend who spoke after the noble Earl, as to the great extent to which agricultural improvements were being carried on; from personal observation he could state that he never saw such an amount of drainage being caried out as he had seen this winter; and he understood it was mainly to be attributed to the energy of the farmers themselves, who only asked their landlords to supply them with the draining tiles. Tenant-farmers had taken up, and were still taking up, the draining tiles which had been put in at a depth of 18 inches, and at their own cost were putting them in again at a depth of from three to four feet, their landlords supplying new tiles to replace the few which were broken. The leaving of the farmers in a state of uncertainty would, he repeated, be attended with the most injurious effects; and he hoped the noble Earl would say whether the amount of duty sought was for the sake of protection, or merely for the sake of revenue?

The EARL of DERBY said, he would answer the question of the noble Earl by putting another; which was, at what point did he consider a duty ceased to be protective, and became merely a duty for revenue? And also, what he considered a revenue, what a protective, duty? His (the Earl of Derby's) opinion was, that any duty imposed, whether for the purpose of revenue, or for the avowed purpose of protection, must incidentally act as a protective duty. The amount of protection afforded could be measured only by the amount of duty. The principle was the same; and if the noble Earl wished to

know what he (the Earl of Derby) desired, it was to impose a duty on the import of foreign corn, not for the purpose of revenue alone, but for the purpose of revenue combined with the collateral object of affording protection to the home grower.

The EARL of HARROWBY could not allow the debate to close without protesting against a doctrine which had been laid down by the noble Earl at the head of the Colonial Office, relative to the discussion of foreign affairs. It was of the highest importance that both individuals, as well as the press, should always enjoy the privilege of discussing the acts of foreign Powers, so long as they did so temperately; and he certainly did think expressions had fallen from noble Earls on both sides of the House tending to deny that right, which ought not to go forth to the world without explanation. He felt called upon to say that the declaration made that night, that neither their Lordships nor their fellow-countrymen generally ought to express any opinion respecting the conduct of the French President, would find no sympathy with the people of England. It appeared to him that noble Lords on both sides of the House had gone too far in what they had said on this point. The course prescribed on the present occasion was different from that which had heretofore been pursued. Their Lordships had been accustomed to hear the conduct of the Emperor of Austria, the Emperor of Russia, and the French Republican Government of 1848, commented on very freely, and not the least freely by noble Lords on the opposite side of the House; and why should they not exercise the same privilege in reference to the doings of other foreign Governments? If their Lordships should now for the first time propound the doctrine that neither the press nor Members of the Legislature ought to discuss with freedom the acts of foreign Powers, they would set a very bad and a very unwise example. It was his firm belief that the press, although it might occasionally be too strongly tinctured with personal abuse, did, nevertheless, accurately and faithfully represent the public opinion of this country in regard to the recent proceedings in France. Strange, indeed, would it be to find the people of this country indifferent to what was passing in a neighbouring country. It was not now his intention to pass any opinion on the acts of the French President; but after what had passed that evening, he felt it necessary to rise and

however, for the people of this country not to sympathise with other nations, appreciating as we do liberal institutions. We sympathise with those peoples who in foreign countries are endeavouring to obtain some shadow of freedom. We shall therefore sympathise with the oppressedwe shall offer them in this country an asylum-and let remonstrance come whence it may, I hope it will not be listened to. Nay, more, I hope that to those distinguished men, those able statesmen and generals, who, without crime, accusation, or trial, have been banished from their native shores, we shall offer not only a charitable asylum, but a hearty and generous hospitality. We may tender to those monarchs who owe their restoration to their thrones to the blood and treasure of this country, respectful remonstrance or friendly advice, but beyond that we must not go: no intervention, whether for the people or against the people. Whilst we are on this subject, I cannot help taking notice of an event which, though certainly not amongst the most important, is yet one of the most interesting of the present year-I allude to the visit to our shores of perhaps the most extraordinary man amongst the Continental exiles-Kossuth. He was, I acknowledge, but a nine days' wonder; but still, from the manner in which he was received in this country by vast members of the people, I cannot help noticing him. The misfortunes of Kossuth, the oppressions of his countrymen, and the intimate knowledge he has acquired of the English language, our manners, customs, and even our literature, and the honourable treatment he has received from our old friend and ally, the Sultan, created an interest in the breasts of the people of this country, in which, I confess, I shared. But if any mystery could be attached to his speeches in this country, that mystery is removed by a perusal of those he has made in America. He, it appears, visited this country and America for no other purpose than to engage us in a war of intervention-in a species of crusade which he proposed to form against what he was pleased to call the despotic Powers of Europe. We are informed that his mission has recently failed in America; and as regards this country, it is perfectly preposterous. It appears, however, that he proposes to visit our shores again, and the manner in which he was received by large masses of the people, and the addresses that were presented to him, may have led

Sir R. W. Bulkeley

We know that

him to suppose that something more substantial than sympathy may be worked up in this country. But nothing, as I have said, can be more preposterous. The energies and resources of this country must be reserved for its own purposes, and, I was almost going to say, for its own defence. From the marked manner in which M. Kossuth was received by the people in the manufacturing districts, it may be supposed that I am not speaking the sentiments of the public generally on this subject; they are ably and numerously represented in this House, and can speak for themselves; I speak only the language of those connected with land. We want no war, nor rumours of war. our land is the only tangible security for the expenses of war; we want no addition to the 800,000,000l. of debt; and we are heartily tired of the income tax. But for national purposes it is far different; invade our territory, or threaten our shores, and we will be united as one man. But there is one circumstance connected with the visit of M. Kossuth which, I confess, appears to me somewhat strange and inconsistent: it is the marked attention which was paid him by some gentlemen who are never tired of preaching up peace. can understand why the King of Naples kissed the courier that brought him news of the coup d'état at Paris; but we cannot understand why those gentlemen of should be so anxious to fraternise with one whose sole object in visiting this country was to rekindle the flames of war. Are we, then, to understand from those champions of peace that wars are just when they are proposed by a republican, and for the purpose of establishing a republic-for it was not a constitutional monarchy that M. Kossuth sought to establish? His object was not merely to curtail the privileges of "an overgrown aristocracy, but to establish that form of government which he declares is the only one worthy of the dignity of man. Had he stayed but a few days longer on our shores, he would have seen the result of, for the second time in six years, an endeavour to establish republican institutions among a people who are not fitted for them.

We

Sir, Her Majesty proceeds in the second place to state that She regrets that the war which unfortunately broke out on the eastern frontier of the Cape of Good Hope more than a year ago, still continues to rage. I need not say how greatly Her Majesty's subjects sympathise with Her