Sitting of 18 March 1839

MINUTES.
Bill. Read a first time:—Drainage of Lands. Petitions presented. By Messrs. G. EVANS, LOCKHART, JONES, PEASE, BLENNERHASSET, Lords G. LENNOX, MAHON, and Captain EGERTON, from a number of places, against the Repeal of the Corn-laws.—By Mr. LUCAS, from Ulster, for permitting Presbyterian Soldiers to attend their own Chapels.—By Lord A. LENNOX, from Chichester, against the Ecclesiastical Duties and Revenues Bill.—By Alderman THOMPSON, from the city of London, against the Metropolitan Police Bill.—By Mr. BAINES, from the West Riding of York, by Mr. W. PATTEN, from Lancaster, and by Lord JOHN RUSSELL, from Stroud, against the existing Beer Laws.—By Sir G. STRICKLAND, from the West Riding of Yorkshire, in favour of the Local Courts Bill.—By Mr. SMITH O'BRIEN, from two places, for the full benefits of the Union to Ireland.—By Mr. M. PHILIPS, from Manchester, against the Highways Bill.—By Colonel PERCEVAL, from Roscommon, against any Grant for National Education in Ireland.—By Mr. GOULBURN, from Cambridge, against the Ecclesiastical Duties and Revenues Bill.—By Mr. WALLACE, from Edinburgh, and a place in Fife, for Mr. R. Hill's plan of a Uniform Penny Postage.—By Mr. F. TRENCH, from Connaught, for establishing Railways in that Province.

ENVOY TO PERSIA.
Sir James Grahamdesired to ask some questions of the noble Lord, the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, with regard to our British relations in the East. He desired to know, first, whether Mr. M'Neill, the envoy or chargé d'affaires at the court of Persia, had returned to this country, and whether he had left any person to fill the situation which he had quitted?
Viscount Palmerstonsaid, that Mr. M'Neill had applied for permission to come home on account of ill health, in the course of last year, and that permission had been given to him to do so whenever the state of the public service might enable him to quit the post of which he was in charge. When the state of the discussion with the Persian government led him to think, that it was his duty to retire
802
from the Persian territory, he took all the members of the British mission with him, leaving Colonel Sheil however, the secretary to the commission. The latter officer was instructed to wait for any communication which might reach him from the Persian government, and to transmit it immediately to the English Government, and there to remain until he should receive instructions. The chargé d'affaires was therefore in a condition to carry on any communication which might be commenced in reference to our friendly alliance with Persia.
Sir James Graham,in continuation of his first question, begged to inquire of the noble Secretary for Foreign Affairs, whether there was any minister or chargé d'affaires at the court of Persia at this time.
Viscount Palmerstonsaid, that there was no person now in that position. Mr. M'Neill, he had already stated, had, in consequence of what had taken place, not thought fit to give notice, that he should retire from the territory, and the chargé d'affaires would not return without instructions from the Government.

STATE OF THE NAVY.
On the motion that the order of the day for the House going into a Committee of supply, be read,
Mr. T. Attwoodrose and said, that he was convinced, that the present supply of men for the army was insufficient; but he believed, that there was a much greater deficiency in the supply of men for the navy, and it was his intention to take the sense of the House upon the question, whether the House should not recommend the Committee of supply to reconsider the vote of 34,165 men for the navy; for he was convinced, that when the number of boys, artisans, and marines were taken away, the 23,000 men left for the real naval service must be insufficient. When he looked at the state of the Russian navy, and at the state of the navies of France and America, and when he considered the state of our foreign relations generally, he thought the House would agree with him in opinion, that it was fit and proper, that the vote should be rescinded. It was a most serious subject, and in the course of a few months it might be too late to rectify the error which was about to be committed. A very small matter in Persia, or in Canada, or in the

803
Mediterranean, would give rise to affairs such as Navarino, and involve us in conflicts with Russia. For instance, if by any accident Sir Pulteney Malcolm had attacked the Russian fleet in the Black Sea, it would have led to an attack on England by the Russian fleet in the Baltic. We had no naval force sufficient to repel such an attack. He did not desire to see the navy augmented at the expense of the army; on the contrary, he thought the army was much too small. But, at any sacrifice, we ought to put our navy in such a state as would render it the defence of the country. We ought at any rate to have a fleet competent to beat the Russians if necessary. There were 30,000 of the best English sailors in the American navy, and he would have every one of them back again. But it was said, "how will you get them?" Why, pay them better than the Americans pay them. But where were they to get gold? Look at mortgage rentals and the funds. The Russians, those barbarians, those second Danes, if they came, the hon. Member for Kilkenny would say "buy them off" [Mr. Hume: No.] We bought off the Danes ten or twenty times, and the oftener we bought them off the more of them came. He wished the safety and honour of England to be protected. What, when they gave twenty millions to the negroes, could they not afford five millions to British sailors. Could not our pension laws be altered? Could not our navy be made equally advantageous to that of the United States for sailors? Why did they not make the royal navy of England the most attractive service in the world. The honour of it was greater than any other country in the world, and the national pride of every Englishman was, thank God, not yet gone. If twenty more line of battle ships were fitted out—fully manned, not half manned—he should be content. Looking to the whole circumstances of the navy of the country, he felt it to be his duty to move, that it be an instruction to the Committee to reconsider the vote of 34,160 seamen and marines, and to enquire whether it would not be advantageous, in the present state of the country, considering its foreign relations, to make an immediate and considerable increase?
The Speaker: Who seconds the motion?
Mr. Attwood: I suppose some honest man will second it.
Sir John Tyrrellseconded the motion.
The Chancellor of the Exchequerobjected to the motion, as instructing the Committee to do what it was not in its power to do. A Committee of supply could reduce, but it was inconsistent with parliamentary or constitutional usages for it to increase a vote proposed by the Crown.
Mr. T. Attwood: I do not propose more money; I only propose more men.
Sir R. Peelsaid, that if the hon. Member for Birmingham had confined his motion to an instruction to the Committee to reconsider their vote, he could then have raised an argument; but having proposed, in addition, that the Committee should enquire into the expediency of an increase of the number of men, he came at once within the restriction imposed by parliamentary usage. It was, he conceived, most important, both in practice and in principle, that the House should not have the power to increase a vote proposed by the Crown. The question involved a great constitutional principle. Once establish the practice of increasing particular votes, and the same thing would be done with all the estimates. The result would be a general adoption of this indirect mode of increasing the expense of the public establishments. He did not mean to controvert the arguments and statements of the hon. Gentleman; but on the constitutional principle he had adverted to, he objected to the course proposed to be pursued.
Mr. Attwoodcertainly would not wish the motion to be negatived, because out of doors that would look like defeat. He believed that there was scarcely a Member of that House who did not think that the navy ought to be increased. He had no objection to withdraw the motion and bring it on another time.
Motion withdrawn.

SUPPLY.—ARMY AND NAVY ESTIMATES.
The House went into Committe of supply. On the motion of Lord Howick a vote of 89,000 men for the service of the army, exclusive of 20,000 for the East-India service, was agreed to. A vote of 3,000,000 l. on account of the estimate of 3,451,000 l., for the maintenance of the military establishment of the country was also agreed to, as also a vote of 500,000 l. on account (as we understood)

805
of the estimates for army half-pay and pensions.
Mr. C. Woodsaid, in pursuance of the arrangement come to at the close of the debate of Friday night, he would now proceed to move certain of the navy estimates that were absolutely necessary for the public service. In order to leave room for discussion on a future occasion, he would leave a portion of the money, and move for the greater part on this occasion. The whole sum required for the navy half-pay, pensions, and allowance due on the 1st of April, was 782,000 l.; he would move for a sum on account.
The money was voted and the House resumed.

CORN-LAWS.—ADJOURNED DEBATE, FIFTH NIGHT.
Mr. Fieldensaid, he should vote for the Committee, but wished previously to state the grounds of his vote. The state of our manufactures was such as rendered it necessary that those engaged in carrying them on should have corn at as low a price as it would fall to, without any protecting law; and that the malt-tax, the hop-tax, and all other taxes and duties on the necessaries of life, consumed by the labouring people, should be repealed, and an equitable assessment on property substituted. He proposed this for the relief of the manufacturers, and to prevent the growers of corn from being placed in a worse position than they would be if the Corn-laws were repealed. He thought every encouragement should be given to agriculture, and that the growth of corn should be increased at home, so as to make us an exporting instead of an importing country, for he was opposed to making this country the workshop of the world, and to the people leaving the land to go into the factories, to an employment not so healthy, more uncertain, and where it is possible, by new inventions in machinery, they could not be long employed. Ten persons could now, in the manufacturing establishment with which he was connected, produce as much clothing as 100 persons could produce forty years ago. This was within his experience, and if he went to a little more remote period the difference would be much greater. He was decidedly opposed to those with whom he should vote who were for having us more dependent on foreigners than we were for a supply of corn. It would be a dangerous position to place ourselves,
806
in, and he would illustrate this danger by a fact arising out of impediments now disturbing the supply of cotton to this country. The American bankers have, as it would seem to enhance its price, made advances to the cotton planters on their crops, and engaged to keep the cotton from the market, or at any rate, from being sold until their object is attained; for, by a Liverpool broker's circular, of the 15th instant, he found that the import of American cotton into the port of Liverpool up to that period this year is only 118,145 bales, whereas up to the same time last year it was 278,236 bales; that is more by 135 per cent., and the price has risen within a few months 25 per cent. Substitute corn for cotton, and imagine, with a deficient harvest at home, what an extremely dangerous state the people of this country would have been placed in. But if individuals can thus impede supplies, what might governments do to effect some great political object? Had not the stock of cotton in the kingdom on the 31st December last (321,000 bales) been larger than at the close of any year since 1828, the inconvenience would have been more severely felt than it has been; for instance, had it been only 185,000 bales, as it was in 1834, the cotton factories would have come to a stand; for he found that the estimated stock in Liverpool on the 15th instant is stated in the same circular to be only 219,000 bales, and the consumption is increased since that year about 50 per cent. As this bears upon the increase of steam power, which has been much disputed in this House, and also is one reason of the business of manufacturing cotton being carried on at a loss to those engaged in it, and also creates an undeniable necessity for shorter hours of work, he would state what the increase of steam power had been, according to a return given in to the Poor-law Committee by Dr. Kay in August last. From January or July, 1835, to the time the return was delivered into the Committee, this return states that within that period steam engines to the extent of 14,647-horse power had been erected, or were erecting, mostly the former, in Manchester and twenty-five towns in its vicinity, and their immediate neighbourhoods, all of them for spinning and manufacturing cotton. By a return made to the House by the factory inspectors, early in 1835, the number of

807
horses' power of steam engines employed in the cotton manufacture in the United Kingdom is stated to be 27,317½; the addition, then, of steam power in this period of less than four years is shewn to be 53 per cent., and that, too, exclusive of the addition in Scotland and other parts of the kingdom, which would most likely make the increase of steam power in this period for the cotton manufacture only 60 per cent. This increased power of production, far surpassing any increase that has taken place in the means of consumption, as stated in the circular to bankers of the 8th instant, was an alarming fact, and indicates a state of difficulty and embarrassment among those engaged in manufactures, which had done much to create the agitation that has arisen for a total repeal of the Corn-laws, and which would probably be continued until that object was accomplished. This state of things had been produced by the pressure of the debt and the unbearable taxation the country groans under, which it was curious, too, was alleged as a reason for continuing entire the present law restricting the importation of corn. The manufacturers have strained every means to bear up and overcome the pressure of this taxation. The increase of consumption of cotton since 1815 had been enormous; in that year it was 80 millions of pounds weight; in 1838 it was 416 millions of pounds; and they received a less sum of money for working up the 400 millions than they did for manufacturing the 80 million pounds. He had proved before the Committee on manufactures, shipping, and commerce, in 1833, that up to that period a decline in price had been progressively going on in articles which constituted a fair criterion of the cotton manufacture, and that in 1832 those engaged in it had 70 per cent. less for manufacturing the same sort of yarn and goods than they had in 1815. He now found that this decline had increased to 75 per cent., and this accounted for the stoppage of the mills, some altogether, and others working only three or four days a week. For all this there was a csuse. The Bill of 1819, enacting a return to cash payments, without adjusting public and private contracts, the tamperings with the currency since that period, the legal tender clause enacted in the renewal of the Bank Charter in 1833, and the increase of joint stock banks, had all
808
tended to produce the present alarming state of things. The number of joint stock banks established in England and Wales between 1826, when the Act of Incorporation was passed, and April, 1833, was only 30; whereas 76 additional joint stock banks had been opened between April, 1833, and the end of the year 1837; and although the legal tender clause enacted in the Bank Charter Act of 1833 did not go into effect until August, 1834, yet in 1836 a panic set in, by the Bank of England protecting itself and drawing in its issues, which had caused the downfall of many, and from which revulsion we had not yet begun to recover. To repeal the Corn-laws without accompanying the repeal with other measures would only add to the evil. If wheat, in consequence, fall from 56 s. 3d., the average of the last nine years, to 45 s., as assumed by the hon. Member for London, the 54 millions now raised by taxation, would, after this fall of price, buy as much wheat as 67½ millions would have purchased at the average price of the last nine years. This would not be fair; it would, to that extent, be another Peel's bill, which must undergo revision before we get into a healthy state. All the owners of fixed money incomes arising from mortgages, bonds, and other securities would derive similar advantages from the repeal of the Corn-laws, while those engaged in agriculture would be injured, and those engaged in manufactures would not be relieved to any extent, though many of them may think they would. To repeal the Corn-laws without concomitant measures, would, therefore, be class legislation of a most mischievous character, which the hon. Member for London condemned. With a repeal of the Corn-laws should go a repeal of the Excise and Custom-house duties on the necessaries of life, and an equitable assessment on property should be enacted for raising the taxation, that could not be dispensed with, This done, the repeal of the Corn-laws would not impede the advance of agriculture, and the poor and their employers would be placed in a better condition; and if this were not done no one could foresee what might happen. Mr. Heathfield, of this city, has just published a pamphlet, containing an argument for the general relief of the country from taxation, and eventually from the Corn-laws, by an assessment of

809
property; it was sold for 2d., and is well worth the perusal and consideration of hon. Members. He did not agree with all put forth in that pamphlet, but it proposed the introduction of a change for the benefit of the humbler classes, which must be obtained in some way. This House had legislated for the rich, and against the poor, for seven Sessions he had sat in that House. It was always wise to attend to the petitions of the poor, and protect them against being oppressed by the wealthy; and if this were not done; if this House does not adopt the opposite course of legislation it has for a long time persevered in, a state of things is at hand which will make the stoutest hearts in this House tremble at the prospect. The signs of the times should not be disregarded. This Corn-law question will not be set at rest by the vote of this night; it will be again and again urged on the House; you cannot convince the people, they should have low wages, and a high price of corn, and he would, therefore, vote for going into Committee.
Mr. W. S. O'Brien,did not see, that any advantage would result from the repeal of the Corn-laws, sufficient to counterbalance the sacrifice of the agricultural interest. Looking to the vast extent and fertility of the corn countries, he believed, that any quantity of wheat, that might be required could be imported into Great Britain, at a price ranging from 40 s. to 45 s. a quarter. The hon. Member for London had contended, that not more than 1,000,000 quarters would be imported under a free trade, but he (Mr. O'Brien) could not adopt that opinion. He recollected, that to supply the deficiency of the harvest of 1830, alone, not less than 4,000,000 quarters had been required. He expected, that at least 5,000,000 quarters would now be imported, and that a fall of prices to the extent of 25 per cent. would ensue. If the protecting duty on corn were abolished, the duties on the importation of cattle, butter, cheese, and other articles of agricultural produce must also be repealed. To the consumers, to the mortgagees, fundholders, and creditors, of every description, such a state of things would be very advantageous. Were the landlords an entirely encumbered class, then, he thought, they would have had, contrary to what hon. Gentlemen seemed generally to suppose, less interest in the settlement
810
of this question than either the tenants or the labourers; but the landlords were an unencumbered class, and the effect of repealing those laws, would be, to give what you took from them to another, and a non-producing class. Also, as everybody admitted, a number of acres would be thrown out of cultivation, and the consequence of this would be the consolidation of farms, by the operation of which a large amount of capital would be drawn away from agriculture, and removed, perhaps, to the colonies. But this system of consolidation was already working many evils and much human suffering in Ireland, which he was certainly not prepared to increase. Of the crimes which appalled this country, nine out of ten arose from the ejectment of tenants for this purpose. There was another class whom he considered would be the most materially affected of any—viz., all those persons who held a beneficial interest in land. In Ireland great numbers lived upon a profit rent (after paying a heavy chief rent, to the first owner of the soil) which had been bequeathed to them; and if their income were reduced 20 or 25 per cent., they would be totally ruined. He was not prepared to inflict that ruin. If the labourer, again, were able to get other employment, after having been thrown out of agricultural employment, it might be different; but it was impossible to hold out a prospect of this. The hon. Member for Sheffield had drawn a picture of the destitute condition of a hand loom weaver. He could multiply that picture by thousands and ten thousands. From the state of the agricultural labourer, he was convinced, that 100,000 of his countrymen would be thrown out of employment if the Corn-laws were repealed. Now, it ought to be remembered, that with the present feelings of the Irish peasant, he had no Poor-law to resort to, no emigration was provided for him, no manufacturing towns were ready to receive him. He, for one, was not prepared to set on foot so great an amount of human misery. He admitted, that the repeal would reduce wages, and that so the manufacturers would be enabled to compete with foreigners in neutral markets, and that foreigners might take our manufactures in return for their grain; but he thought it not certain the manufacturers would not in the mean time lose the home market. But, however this

811
might be, it seemed to be admitted, that the manufacturing workman would gain nothing. Setting, then, the advantages against the evils, he confessed he thought the balance preponderated in favour of the maintenance of the principle of protection; the question of the degree and manner of that protection ought, in his opinion, to be perfectly open; but he did think that some such modification of the present system was desirable as would prevent the recurrence of the present high prices. And first of all he thought that colonial grain ought to be admitted free of all duty; indeed, rather than not advance colonization by every means, he would agree to a bounty; and finally he would so alter the present system as to substitute a permanent and fixed protective duty. He held this to be a question of protection or no protection. If a fixed duty were to be agreed on he could not consent to less than a duty of 12 s. He could not give his vote satisfactorily unless he had had an opportunity of stating what his views were, and having done that as briefly as he could, he should sit down by declaring that he should vote against the motion.
Sir J. T. Tyrrellthought the hon. Member for Wolverhampton had shown his discretion in proposing that this question should be heard by counsel and witnesses at the bar, because he was quite sure much new light would have been introduced into the question by the professional advisers; whereas it was quite clear that, as it was, very little new light had been introduced into the subject. The hon. Member's proposal went to pass the deepest censure on the Members representing manufacturing districts, as if they had not shown themselves capable of discussing this question without counsel. He called the proposal for a fixed duty a miserable one, because after all that had been stated by the noble Lord, the Member for Stroud, who, so far as regarded a fixed duty, must be considered as representing the opinions of the government, that measure had only in the first instance been supported by a solitary petition, and since then by only four other petitions. It was quite clear, after the opinions which had been shown by the hundreds of petitions which had been presented, that no government would be able to maintain anything like a fixed duty in a time of scarcity; it would be a grievous oppression to the commerce of this country if they were to
812
do so. Those Gentlemen who spoke in that House the sentiments of the manufacturers, had a great advantage in being represented by the President of the Board of Trade. He happened to have read a Manchester newspaper, which stated that, five or six years ago the right hon. Member hail gone to the Chamber of Commerce, in Manchester, and had made a speech there on the subject of the Corn-laws, five hours and a-half long, but ever since he had preserved a solemn silence on the question. He should have expected him to have stated what his opinions were. He should always respect the hon. Member for Kendal, for the honourable and handsome testimony he had borne to the prosperity of trade at present. He remembered very well stating, after he had heard the hon. Member make the speech, that next morning, after the account had been read, the hon. Member for Kendal would be tossed in a blanket in Palace Yard, and probably thrown over into the Thames. He was happy, however, to learn a less severe punishment had awaited him, After a four nights' debate, and thirty-four hours had been consumed in considering the question, the hon. Member who had last sat down was only the second Irish Member who had spoken on the subject. A question had been asked the other night, what would become of Ireland in this debate, and it was stated that there was little chance of Ireland being neglected any more than Scotland. Seeing the hon. Member for Dublin in his place, he hoped the hon. Member would state his views. The hon. Member for Dublin had stated elsewhere, that the peculiar charms of this question were, that though it would be a great blow to the people of Ireland, it would draw the eyeteeth of the aristocracy. He coincided in the opinion expressed in a pamphlet by Lord Western, that if the Corn-laws were repealed it would be the most cruel blow that was ever struck by a body of overwhelming capitalists against their poorer fellow subjects. The hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets stated, that he wished to see this country, with reference to the production of corn, in the worst possible state of dependance. He, on the other hand, maintained, that the object and the principle of the law was to have plenty, and security for that plenty. He would not weary the House by attempting to touch on other grounds. Gentlemen had

813
read long extracts, and cast up figures usque ad nauseam. But when they recollected that there were about 150 articles protected by taxes which the farmer could not obtain without paying that protecting duty, it, surely was not too much to protect the farmer's produce from foreign competition. He contended that, if there were a moderate fixed duty, it would throw the trade open chiefly to large capitalists, and on that ground he objected to it. They were as much in the dark on the general question on the fifth night of the debate as on the first night.
Mr. G. W. Woodwould not detain the House with going into any details on the general question, exhausted as it was by the many nights of debate there had been upon it. But there were some statements in the speech of the right hon. Baronet, on Friday, to which he wished to call the attention of the House, and also respectfully to call the attention of the right hon. Baronet. He knew not to what cause he had to attribute it, but on the only two occasions on which he had ventured to address the House that session, he had been honoured on both occasions with the especial notice of the right hon. Baronet. The right hon. Baronet had been pleased to compliment him on the honesty of a former speech, which he (Mr. Wood) had made respecting the exports. The right hon. Baronet had stated that his statements were founded on truth; that the documents had been laid on the table, and that the House had substantiated the truth of those statements. He felt especially desirous of guarding himself from being supposed to go along with the right hon. Baronet in what he conceived to be the most unfounded statements. The right hon. Baronet had expressed a hope that Gentlemen on that (the Ministerial) side of the House, would take into their hands a printed document of the Board of Trade. That paper he had now in his hands: and one of the statements alluded to by the right hon. Baronet was the statement of the exports of British produce and manufactures of the united kingdom, being an account of the exports in the year ending the 5th of January, 1839, compared with the exports of the preceding years—they were in fact the exports for the years 1837 and 1838; and from a comparison of these two years the right hon. Baronet had deduced that this country was in a higher state of prosperity
814
than it ever before experienced. The right hon. Baronet had told them with evident satisfaction and considerable emphasis that this table exhibited an increase of seven millions in the amount of the exports, the exports of 1837 being over thirty-six millions, while those of 1838 were over forty-three millions. He (Mr. Wood) did not quarrel with this statement, excepting that the right hon. Baronet had concealed the important circumstance that the year 1837 was one of great commercial embarrassment and extreme depression. There had been in that year an entire derangement of the industry of the country, a stoppage of a large part of its trade, and a diversion of a portion of its capital into new channels. It could not have escaped the right hon. Baronet's recollection that there were peculiar circumstances attending the state of commerce in 1837. The derangement of the money market in London, and of the exchanges with America, had spread its baneful influence to every commercial establishment throughout the world. It was in order to show, that there had been a comparative restoration of prosperity from that extraordinary depression that he had made his statements on a former occasion, and from them he was not disposed to shrink. But die right hon. Baronet, in using those statements in order to draw his own comparison, ought to have been candid enough to tell the House the peculiar circumstances of 1837. With the leave of the House he (Mr. Wood) would supply the deficiency. It was true, that the exports of the year 1838 exhibited an increase over those of the year 1837, of about seven millions sterling; but the exports of 1837 exhibited a decrease of no less than ten millions compared with those of the preceding year. The consequence was that the right hon. Baronet's boasted increase of seven millions in 1838, was, in fact, a diminution of upwards of three millions from 1836. After the conclusions which the right hon. Baronet had drawn from these circumstances, and by which he had given the House to understand that he had entirely demolished the first ground on which the commercial petitioners claimed the attention of the House, the right hon. Baronet proceeded to attack the second ground. It had been alleged by the manufacturers that the increase of exports which had taken place, was not an increase of manufactured products, but of raw material, or of commodities partially wrought

815
up. The right hon. Baronet had attempted to meet this in the same way, by comparisons of the same years, and evidently supposed that he had demolished this argument also. In the statement which he (Mr. Wood) had taken the liberty of making on the first night of the Session, he had taken what appeared to him a fair view of this subject. He had compared the exports of 1838, not with a solitary year, but with the average of four preceding years, and told the House fairly what the condition of trade was in 1838. But not having made the distinction between manufactured and partially wrought fabrics and raw materials which was thought important by the petitioners, he was assailed on the ground that his statements were calculated to lead to a delusive opinion. On a subsequent night, therefore, he took the liberty of again addressing the House to supply the omission, and gave the statements which fully bore out the case of the petitioners, that there was a much larger increase in the exports of raw material, and of partially wrought material, than in those of perfectly wrought fabrics. To these statements the right hon. Baronet had made no allusion whatever. He hoped that the House would excuse him for refreshing their recollection on the subject. He found that comparing the average of the four years with the year 1838, the exports of woollen, cotton, linen, and silk cloth had increased from 25,757,000 l. to 26,190,000 l. showing an increase of 433,000 l., or 1 7–10 per cent. on the perfectly wrought fabrics. Comparing the same average with the same year, he found that the exports of cotton yarn, woollen yarn, and linen yarn had increased from 6,599,000 l. to 8,452,000 l., showing an increase on the article of yarn, exported, to be wrought up, in foreign countries of 1,852,000 l. or twenty-eight per cent. Thus while cloth had increased 1 7–-10ths per cent., yarn had increased twenty-eight per cent. The next articles were coal, hardware, earthenware, and glass, on which there was a deficiency of 334,000 l., or eleven and a half per cent., while the metal—the raw material—had increased 956,000 l., or twenty-four per cent. In refined sugar, a manufactured commodity though it did give very large employment, had fallen off. There had been a falling-off of 180,000 l., amount to fifty-five per cent., whilst raw materials, sheeps' wool, and coal had increased 395,000 l., or
816
fifty-three per cent. He certainly thought these statements fully made out the case of the petitioners. He would leave hon. Gentlemen who chose to go into the question, to draw such conclusions from them as they might, but these were the facts, and he conceived them to be of importance. He had no wish to occupy the time of the House or to follow the right hon. Baronet through his long speech. As to the evidence given by Mr. Birley and others before the East-India Committee, to show how far we could undersell the native manufacturer, he did sot see how it bore on the question now before the House, and he would not go into it. Considerable details had been gone into with a view of establishing the comfortable condition of the working-classes, by a reference to savings' banks. But the comparison of the right hon. Baronet did not justify any satisfactory conclusion on this head, because they were open to the same objections which lay against his comparisons of exports. He had compared 1838 with a year of extreme distress—1837. The hon. Baronet had stated also, that in 1837, when the exports were only thirty-six millions sterling, corn was cheaper than in 1838, when the exports had increased to forty-three millions. But here, again, the comparison was vitiated by the same cause; for no fair conclusion could possibly be drawn from a year in which commerce was entirely deranged. He (Mr. Wood) had no intention of going into the general question; but he thought it highly desirable that it should be settled when they had no clamours, and when they were able to discuss it as calmly as they could ever expect. The right hon. Baronet, however, had not thought these sufficient motives for taking the subject into consideration. If the manufacturers were in a state of decay, it would be indeed, as he understood the right hon. Baronet, the strongest argument that could be urged upon him for taking it into consideration, and examining whether some change might not be made in the law. But, if he waited until some great injury were done to manufactures, the opportunity of recovering their prosperity would be gone by. It was the part of a wise statesman to see difficulties in prospect, and to endeavour to avoid them by preparation and precaution, rather than to wait until they overwhelmed him. He felt persuaded that this question could not be

817
allowed to remain in its present state. He was himself prepared to alter the existing law and to face the much dreaded measure of entire repeal. He believed that this country would be perfectly safe under a free trade in corn, and that the agricultural had no more reason to dread evil consequences from it than the manufacturers. In all that the right hon. Baronet had said there was nothing which gave him the impression that the right hon. Baronet was so attached to the present system as to consider that no circumstances could justify a change. He therefore hoped that the time would come when, under more favourable circumstances, they might have the benefit of the right hon. Baronet's assistance in bringing the question to a settlement.
Mr. Benettsaid, that, representing a great agricultural county, he considered it was his duty to express his sentiments on the present question. This attack on the Corn-laws had originated with the manufacturers, who, he would maintain, ought naturally to have expected that, under so long a period of peace in Europe, the manufactures of other countries would have increased. It was a hard case that they should now come forward and attack the Corn-laws, which were by no means the cause of any distress they might be suffering. They said nothing about the reduction of wages, which a repeal of these laws would lead to. They stated their object was to raise wages; but they very well knew, and so did the labourers by this time, that their real object was to reduce wages. In short, the whole question was one of wages; for the manufacturers could only compete with foreigners by cheapness, and they could not bring about cheapness without a reduction of wages. Why were we to bolster up an unnatural state of manufactures? The political economists would drive their chariot along, heedless of what they might crush under its wheels. Their sole object was wealth—a thing than which, in his view as a legislator, the comfort of the great mass of our population was of far greater consideration. The great duty of the Legislature was, he contended, to look to the interests of the great mass of the community, and he would not consent to any measure which was inimical to the interests of that mass, which he believed to be the agricultural class. Hon. Members who advocated the repeal of the Corn-
818
laws were not aware of the large mass of capital which had been sunk in the cultivation of poor lands. Did they now wish that all those lands should now be thrown out of cultivation, in order that cheaper corn might be obtained elsewhere? If they did, let them recollect, that not only would large sums of capital be lost, and large tracts of land lie useless, but that a vast number of agricultural labourers would be thrown out of employment. The question was, whether we should be importers or growers of corn. If we neglected the home growth and became importers, we should injure trade and commerce, which grew out of agriculture. If agriculture was injured, it would be impossible that manufactures could thrive; for the strength of our manufactures grew out of the cultivation of the land. He wished prosperity to the manufacturers as heartily as any man, but it should be in conjunction with that of the agriculturists; and he would advise them not to monopolize the profits of foreign countries as well as of their own, by destroying those of the landed interest. He maintained that independence was our chief duty, although the President of the Board of Trade had said it was too late to be independent, and insisted that if agriculture thrived manufactures would flourish simultaneously with it. He was willing, by any reasonable means, to encourage manufactures; but would oppose all attempts at doing so at the expense of the agricultural interest. These were his opinions, and he thought it right to express them. He wished the manufacturing interests of the country to prosper; but he did not think it just that they should monopolize all the advantages to themselves, and attain their prosperity by the destruction of the landed interest. He could go into figures; but he would not, as the House must be tired of such statements. He, however, could not help saying, that figure statements had been unfairly used in the course of the debate, and more especially by the right hon. Gentleman, the President of the Board of Trade, when speaking of the prices of wool. Now, what did the right hon. Gentleman do? Why, he did not take the wool generally, but limited himself to the Leicestershire wool; and if he had taken the South Down wool, he must have arrived at a very different result. The noble Lord, the Secretary of State for the Home Department, too, had not em-

819
ployed his figures fairly; but, without saying such statements were false, he did not hesitate to assert that they were fallacious. He certainly preferred a fluctuating to a fixed duty, and, looking at the matter dispassionately, he must say, that the fluctuating scale appeared to him to have worked admirably. If they had a fixed duty, say of ten shillings, or five shillings, or any other sum, he was convinced they would be pestered with petitions from Manchester and the Delegates sitting in Palace-yard to suspend it by an Order in Council; and, if he were called upon to decide between no protection and a fixed duty, he did not hesitate to say, that his vote should be in favour of no protection at all. He believed, that the present Corn-laws were nothing more than a just protection to the landed interest, and he should therefore vote against the present motion, because he thought it uncalled for, and that the farmers had a right to be secured in that fair return to which the expenditure of capital entitled them.
Mr. O'Connell.It is quite clear that there is an almost irresistible temptation to make long speeches on the Corn-laws, and for each speaker to repeat a great deal of what has been said before; and now I promise to the House two things, first, that I shall make but a short speech, and next, that I shall repeat as little of what has been already said as I possibly can. I must, however, refer to one thing which has been said respecting me by the hon. Baronet, the Member for Essex. He said, that in a speech of mine which had been printed I declared, that "Ireland would receive a strong blow from a repeal of the Corn-laws, but that I was content to support it, as it would draw the eye-teeth of the landed aristocracy." I believe that was the statement of the hon. Baronet. It only shows me that the hon. Baronet never read the report; he only read the paragraph in a newspaper; and there is this difference between the paragraph and the report, that the report is accurate, and the paragraph writer has distorted the sentiment I expressed as much as he pleased. I did not at all say, that the repeal of the Corn-laws would be a great blow—I said distinctly the reverse. I said, that I felt something like regret that the repeal of the Corn-laws would not be a disadvantage to Ireland,
820
because it would be a feeling of pleasure when I was seeking for justice for Ireland from England, I should be happy to make a sacrifice on the part of Ireland to obtain justice for England. And then as to "the eye-teeth"—as to these symbols of wisdom, I can only say that I have not the least intention, I have not the smallest desire, of seeing them extracted from the landed aristocracy. Whatever be the value of "the eye teeth," I most willingly make a present of them to the hon. Baronet. I am for a repeal of the Corn-laws upon principle—I seek for their repeal upon principle: while the Corn-laws are sought to be supported, in order to give to the proprietors of land—to give to those who call themselves the landed interest, a superiority and an advantage over the other classes of the community. No one of any candour can deny it. What is it that you want to do? To get rich at the expense of others. Yes, you want to get more for your corn, for your oats, for your barley, your rye, and other grain, than they can be purchased for elsewhere; you want people to pay more for their bread than otherwise they would be obliged to do; and then you, even you! affect to say that you do not wish to make the aristocracy live at the expense of others. If that were not your object, why is it that you have been here for so many nights together, so strongly arrayed and so perfectly prepared, and so resolved upon battling for your monopoly. It is a remnant of the feudal system. Yes, for of the power and the monopoly formerly enjoyed by the aristocratical classes, this monopoly you have been still able to retain. What you want still to retain is the power of extracting a higher price for grain than that which it ought naturally to have. It is idle to attempt to disguise it. You want to make the poor pay duty for their bread—you want to prevent them obtaining it cheap—you want to prevent the poor creature who can now have but one slice of bread for a penny from obtaining two slices for a penny. Yes; and here you, high, mighty, and dignified, as you are—here you are struggling, night after night, to extort from the wretched, the miserable, and the orphan, a portion of their small crust—[cheers.] And you, too, cheer that. Yes; for if this did not produce you money, why should you so struggle for the Corn-laws? If it did not make, in

821
your opinion, your estates more valuable, why so expose yourselves to public odium, or why place yourselves before the country as public extortioners? Would you place yourselves in that situation without some gain or profit to yourselves? [No, no!] The principle of the Corn-laws is this—to get more money for the landed proprietors out of the working classes. It is a principle that I repudiate—it is a principle that at once decides me to vote for a repeal of the Corn-laws. But there is another principle involved in this matter. It is the principle of free trade. I know that it has been denied, that a class who are calling for a free trade in corn, are not ready to give up the protection they may have for articles of commerce. Now, the delegates have passed an unanimous resolution, calling upon this House not only to repeal the Corn-laws, but also to remove every protection from the articles of manufactures. I would not be their advocate upon any other principle; for I am the advocate of free trade in every thing. I would let every man buy as cheap as he could the productions of this and every other country. Am I to be told that this would destroy your manufactures? If this be said, I reply, point out to me any country in which there is free trade, and that is the worse for it. I deny the assertion; and fortunately for this discussion, I find a report, laid on the Table last week, which illustrates my position. I insist that the elements of prosperity are to be found in a perfect freedom of trade. The principle of monopolies has found defenders in every period of our history. "The wisdom of our ancestors," as it is called, supported monopolies—what was the principle?—to rob each other to make the nation rich. How many heavy folios of volumes—how many hundreds of folios have been put together, proving that you ought to maintain the West-India monopoly? And yet you have repealed that monopoly. How many a stupid and lengthened speech was made in support of the monopolies of the reign of James 1st. and Charles 1st.? There have been at all times vindicators of monopolies; but the good sense of the country got rid of them. We have now a monopoly in corn and other produce of the soil. That, however, will soon fail, and the time will come when this prejudice will be at an end, and regarded like the by-gone notions
822
of witches. Do we want an instance of what has been the effect of monopolies, and of the happy consequences of getting rid of them? We find both in a book published last week. I mean to take two instances, and, if you will permit me, I shall take the Papal States first. I believe no man will accuse me of being influenced by prejudice in speaking of the temporalities of that State. There is no government that can be more anxiously disposed for the benefit of its subjects, consisting of three millions of persons. It is impossible for any reigning principle to take a greater interest in the welfare of the people at large. The proof of that benevolence is exhibited by this fact, that more money is given in charitable works, in hospitals, and in feeding the poor, than in any other three of the European States, even including the benevolence of this most benevolent country. What then has been the conduct pursued in the protection of manufactures? They pay public money to aid their manufacturers, they give protecting duties, and they have prohibitory laws; and what is the result of all? It is thus stated:—
"On the whole it will be thought, that the above report, furnished by the Roman government, presents a melancholy picture of the manufacturing industry of that part of Italy. Many a town in Great Britain, consisting of only 30,000 souls, produces a greater quantity of manufactured articles than the three million inhabitants of the Pontifical States, notwithstanding the enormous sacrifices made by the Papal government, the protections, the prohibitions, the premiums given for the encouragement of what is called native industry. In Rome, as elsewhere, the measures taken to increase and improve manufacturing produce, have been the main causes of decline and decay. Premiums and protections have only served to reward and to render permanent the most rude and ignorant processes of manufacture; and prohibition, as far as it has succeeded, (and it has succeeded of course in the coarser and cheaper articles, which cannot pay the smugglers' profits)—prohibition has kept away those superior foreign manufactures whose presence would have compelled improvement in the home production. I visited some of the woollen manufactures, being the most important. Scarcely a valuable discovery had been introduced; the spinning in some cases by hand, in others by machinery—far behind the universal progress in England, Belgium, Prussia, or France; the looms, such as were generally employed in the fourteenth century, little better than those used by the Indians of the Deccan; the rowing and card-

823
ing, all done by solitary workmen, and with the ancient teazels and handcards; the shearing with the antique hand-shears, such as have been employed from immemorial time; and in some places I saw the fulling performed by men half naked, employed to trample upon the cloth; a process, probably, not now to be found in any other part of the civilized world. How, then, can it be an object of wonder, if manufactures, instead of making progress, remain stationary, or fall into decay, while rival productions move forward in the career of constantly improving change?"
There then is the result of the working of a government of protection and of prohibition. There is the benefit derived from an extension of the principle of protection for the home manufacture, and prohibition to the foreign. But does any other State in Italy present a different picture? There is Tuscany; for there the principle of free trade has been acted upon for twenty-five years, and what is the result?
"Twenty years of free trade have led to a vast extension of cultivation, a great increase of buildings and inhabitants both in town and country; to the establishment of new manufactories, to an enormous development of the growth of silk (a branch whose total destruction was foretold by the enemies of free trade), a very considerable augmentation in the consumption of both the necessaries and the luxuries of life, with all the enjoyments attached to them—a general rise of wages, and a universal sentiment of growing prosperity. The final and the most triumphant result in contrasting our present illimited liberty of commerce with the restrictive policy which preceded it, may be seen in undeniable facts. Our population is augmented in twenty-five years to the extent of 113,868 souls more than we had in 1766 (it was then 945,063). Our annual produce in corn is increased 3½ millions of staja (=337,600 quarters), the average production being, previously to the changes, 9,827,074, staja; the increase, therefore, is about thirty-four per cent.; our export trade in agricultural produce has increased to the amount of 3½ millions of Tuscan lire=116,670 l. (about). Our ancient ruined cottages have been repaired, and a surprising number of new ones built. Epidemics have diminished by the consumption of better corn than that formerly issued from the public magazines. We have suffered little from rise of prices, which have soon regulated themselves, and have never undergone the enormous fluctuations to which they were formerly subjected. Property has been respected; monopoly overthrown; and the innumerable litigations which necessarily grow out of interference completely terminated."
Now then, contrast the One with the
824
other. Sir, in effect of free trade behold the consequence of prohibition. If then, your proposition be good, you must go the full length with it. If you are for prohibition, you also declare yourself the supporter of that which tends to destruction. If you are for free trade, behold the consequences: "our ancient ruined cottages have been repaired," "epidemics have diminished;" and when I come to the later passage, I cannot but think of Ireland. During these debates we have had many proofs from Gentlemen on the other side, of their regard for Ireland. Even the hon. Baronet the Member for Essex, I think, said he was a friend to Ireland. If, indeed, he be a friend to Ireland, he has the oddest way possible of showing his affection upon other occasions. Ireland has in these debates many friends that will not condescend to aid her with their votes, when they could be of use to her; but now their kind wishes are like the story of the blessing, "they give them because they cost them nothing." I wish they would give to Ireland her political rights—I wish they would place us on the same footing with themselves. No, they will not do that; but when you want us to support your monopoly, you then wish, with your kind regards for Ireland, to drag us along with you. Does there live a man who ought to be more alive to the interest of the Irish people than I am. I am the hired servant of the people of Ireland, I am the only man in existence who is paid by a nation. Oh! governments pay; but I do not mean that. If, then, there be a man anxious for the prosperity of Ireland, ought not Ito be the man? And remember, that if I desired to court the prejudices of the Irish people against my judgment and my conscience, ought I not to become in pretence, that which the hon. Member for Limerick is conscientiously, although not very consistently, the advocate of some kind of Corn-laws. You know too, that on a former occasion, when I found combinations amongst the working classes to exist in my native city, I stood forward and risked all my popularity in opposing the wrong, and exposing its iniquity. It is said, that the Corn-laws are a protection to Ireland. But what has Ireland to lose? It is said, that the Corn-laws keep up the wages of the Irish labourer but can any wages be less than theirs? Their labour is purchased at the splendid price of 6d. a day, or ½d. an hour. It is

825
pretended, that the repeal of the Corn-laws will throw some thousands of labourers out of employ in Ireland; but are there not already, according to the Irish Poor Report, two millions of souls in a state of utter destitution in that unhappy country, and 600,000 able bodied men out of employ? This report shows farther, that by the extraordinary experiment tried upon the currency, by the right hon. Baronet, the Member for Tamworth, in the measure of the year 1819, the Irish labourer received a blow from which he has not yet recovered; but that, on the contrary, he has been receding in wretchedness, whilst the English labourer has been improving. The whole report goes to show, that Ireland is now in an unparalleled state of misery and destitution. Why, we are so poor, that we are not able to raise even 2,300,000 l. for railroads, and you refuse us even your credit to assist us in raising it. The present miserable state of Ireland has been so ably and so beautifully described by the noble Lord, the Secretary for Ireland, in his recent speech on this subject, that I cannot avoid quoting a short passage from it:—
"Look at the surface of England, and then contrast it with the surface of Ireland; in the one country the soil is improved by all the natural processes of agriculture in its produce, and its wealth distributed through countless channels. Its mills and workshops are clustered in every direction; its factories are gathered on the banks of every river, and forests of masts are thickening every port, In the other, the country is scantily cultivated; its plains are yet more fertile, and yet more level; but the hand of industry is not heard on every side, and on the yet more spacious and still more rapid rivers, the easily counted sails drop down to the comparatively deserted harbours."
"Look on this picture, and on this," and then pretend still, that your Corn-laws are an advantage to Ireland. The fact is, they are an advantage only to her aristocracy, to her landed aristocracy, whilst to her industrious but starving population they do but confirm and render hopeless their miserable condition. Do but give an increased stimulus to the manufacturing industry of this country, and the beneficial effect of it will soon be felt in Ireland also. A petition has recently been presented to this House, from which I beg to read one passage, as it is my expression on this point. "That our
826
manufactures and commerce have been destroyed; and remittances of great portions of our produce to absentees increase the capital of England and diminish the resources of Ireland, leaving agriculture the only source of national prosperity." The only resources which the Irish people had now to look to, is English manufactures. Why, as it is, there is not a manufacturing town in England in which there are not 40,000 or 60,000, aye, as many as 80,000 of my fellow countrymen employed. What I want, therefore, is to give a stimulant to the manufacturing industry of this country, as the only hope for Ireland. Repeal the Corn-laws, and our manufactures will increase and spread in all directions; continue them, and you make their increase impossible. Persist in maintaining these laws, and you will drive Ireland to despair, and England, I think, to a movement for which you are not prepared. You will have a shout raised in your ears which I think you will be obliged to listen to, when you find the Chartists telling you, in their insolence, that you only represent 700,000, whilst they represent 25,000,000 of people, and that to their superior authority you must succumb. Sir, I promised the House a short speech, and I have kept my word.
Viscount Sandonsaid, that although the hon. and learned Member for Dublin, had kept his promise with respect to making a short speech, he had not failed to raise the old cry of justice to Ireland. He had also attempted to raise within the walls of that House a cry which had, up to that time, been only heard, with one or two exceptions, outside. The hon. and learned Member had endeavoured to create a feeling that upon this question the aristocracy were united in opposition to the poor for their own sordid and private interests, and to represent them as oppressors of the people, who interposed between them and the possession of abundance. He had represented the Corn-law as an unjust protection to agriculture, and had described it as one of the evils resulting from the old feudal system. Was the hon. Member for Dublin aware that in countries where no feudal system had ever existed, as well as in those countries in which that system had been abolished, there were protections for the agricultural interest? In the principal States of Europe there were Corn-laws; even in the United States there was a

827
Corn-law; in France there was a Corn-law, where the charge could not be laid, that it was enacted in obedience to the will of the aristocracy; in Holland there was a Corn-law; in Belgium there was a Corn-law; in fact, there was scarcely any country without a similar law of some kind and with this fact staring him in the face, would the hon. Member for Dublin dare to assert, that the Corn-law in England was merely a remnant of the feudal system? The hon. and learned Member had talked very largely of freedom of trade, and so had many other Gentlemen previously, but it often happened that when Gentlemen connected with any peculiar manufacturing or commercial interest advocated free trade without protection, they stated, that the interest with which they were most intimately connected was the very one which formed the exception as not calculated to experience benefit from the removal of protection. One Gentleman from Manchester, who was an advocate for the removal of all protection from the trade in corn, said, he admitted, that he should be equally solicitous for the removal of legislative protection from the manufacturers, if they could bear up against competition without it, thus admitting, that they required its continuance. The hon. Member for Dublin had instanced the case of Tuscany, as evidence of the good which would arise from removing the protection on agriculture. Nothing could be more different than the position with respect to the trade in corn of Tuscany and this country. Tuscany was a country front which corn had been exported, and the effect which it was feared would follow was an increased price, produced by the increase of exportation consequent to a free trade in that article. That surely afforded no argument to bear upon the question then before them. There was another part of the hon. Member's speech to which he should call the attention of the House, namely, the-assertion of the hon. and learned Member, that he had never said the change in the Corn-laws would have an injurious effect upon Ireland. Now, that assertion did not very well agree with the statement in a subsequent portion of his speech, that he would sacrifice Irish interests upon that occasion to the interests of England. Now, if the repeal of the Corn-laws, would not have an injurious effect upon Ireland, there would be no sacrifice
828
of the Irish interests in the hon. and learned Member's support of such a measure. But it was quite clear, that such an alteration in the law, would injure the interests of Ireland. They had been told by hon. Members opposite, that the repeal of the Corn-laws would have the effect of increasing the demand for our manufactures in Poland and Prussia, as they would then export their corn to us. The noble Lord, the Secretary at War had admitted, that the repeal of the Corn-laws would by this means, benefit the Polish farmers. If that were true, how could the repeal be beneficial to the Irish farmers? Passing from what he must call these vulgar appeals to the country, he could not help thinking that it sufficiently appeared, that there was no reason to doubt that the Corn-laws did not operate injuriously upon the commerce of the country. The noble Lord then referred to statements made by a Gentleman who was an advocate for the Corn-laws, and at the same time interested in commercial pursuits, who declared, that throughout the greater part of the last year, a large and profitable business was transacted. The noble Lord also referred to other letters, showing, but amid much noise and confusion, that the cotton manufacture, had, during the past year, been prosperous, and he contended, that the commerce of the country being admitted to be generally in a prosperous state, and particularly that branch of it from which the agitation on the subject of the Corn-laws had originally proceeded, he could not discover, that ruin, decay, and distress, by which the country had been frightened out of its propriety. His right hon. Friend, the President of the Board of Trade, had, on a former occasion, maintained, that the best test of the prosperity of a country, was the fact, whether the internal consumption of commodities was larger or smaller, and he had been referred, in a tone of triumph and satisfaction, to the increase in the home consumption as an infallible indication of the prosperity which the country at that time enjoyed. But if his right hon. Friend's satisfaction was great at that time, it ought to be much greater now, as our consumption for domestic purposes, had greatly increased since the period to which he had referred. He was aware the House was exhausted, but he had felt himself bound to state some of the reasons upon which looking at this question in a

829
commercial point of view, he had satitfied himself, that no ground had been shown for abandoning that protection to agriculture which it had ever been the policy of this country to afford. Finding, moreover, that her Majesty's Ministers had not even shadowed out a scheme of policy to be pursued in reference to the subject, he should be deserting his duty if he gave his consent to the House going into Committee, as it would have the effect of leaving the whole question open.
Mr. Harveysaid, it was in no disparagement of the many able speeches which had been made during this protracted debate: it was in no disparagement of the many able treatises and criticisms on political economy which had been delivered: it was in no disparagement of those powers of memory by which some hon. Members had been able to commit to their recollection entire pamphlets of statistics, that might be purchased at Ridgway's shop for the trifling sum of eighteenpence: it was in no disparagement of all these circumstances, that he was led to say, that at the close of a five nights' discussion, he found and felt this subject to be more confused than it was at its very commencement. There were so many statements which had been assumed as facts, and which were advanced with all the boldness of facts; and there were so many true inferences drawn from them, if the statements were not false, that there was scarcely any position in favour or against those laws—of their being relaxed or made more stringent, which he would venture to say the Gentlemen who spoke in that House had not amply and ably demonstrated. With this impression, therefore, strongly on his mind, and feeling the force of that truth which had been so frequently uttered (and, as they approached the termination of the discussion, more properly urged), that "nothing new could be said on this subject," he should at once shrink from making an appeal to the kindness of the House, if he did not feel, that there was an interest in this country—that there was a great class whose welfare, so far as it depended on this question, had been very slightly and inadequately noticed. It was, however, to him most gratifying, to find that at length the industrious community (the great sources of national power, and the origin of all wealth, whether their hands were directed to the cultivation of the soil, or supplied the moving power in our manufactories) had assumed an appro-
830
priate position. Not, indeed, that they were present in their own persons, or by direct representation in that House, but from a new course of policy—either by the influence of feelings honestly entertained or hypocritically assumed, the labouring community had become essential parties in their consideration. He would venture to say, that—notwithstanding the partial and glimmering allusions to their condition made in varied terms throughout the debate—if any one of them were present, and the discussion were suffered to close where it now stood, he might justly impute it as neglect in that portion of the House who are the representatives of the people (too few in number), that they had suffered the prominent interest of the working classes to be passed over without being duly considered. He did not rise, then, for the purpose of reviewing this great subject in all its bearings, which had been so ably and so dexterously done by the right hon. Baronet (Sir Robert Peel); but he humbly solicited the attention of the House while he made a very few remarks, having an exclusive connection with that branch of the subject to which he had referred. Identified as he was with the people—sprung from them, and being of their number, as he acknowledged himself to be, and glorying as he did in this distinction, he wished to treat this subject as one not unmindful of the working classes, and for the first time presenting their views on this subject in an uneducated form. He had not only listened to the speech of the right hon. Baronet (Sir Robert Peel) with the attention which his station and high pretensions justified, but he had done that which, he ventured to say, his most ardent admirers could not boast of, he had read the whole of his reported speech word for word; and he could say with great truth, that it would have been extremely unjust to those Gentlemen who originated the debate, had it closed on Friday; because, he must say, that that speech recalled to his mind that of another hon. and distinguished Member, on the Slave Trade, whose speech produced such an astounding effect, that even hon. Gentlemen, who were prepared to reply to him, were staggered and deterred, and vet subsequent reflection made them surprised at their own hesitation. He could easily believe that many hon. Gentlemen who were adverse to any change in the present system, particularly those who belonged to the powerful party by whom the right hon. Baronet was sur-

831
rounded, went away with the impression, that it was one of the most unanswerable and overwhelming speeches that ever had been made, even by himself. In one particular they were right. The right hon. Gentleman did certainly shiver to pieces the case of his opponents. He raked the "economists" without mercy, and he bombarded the Government with great success. He hurled at them the whole weight of the fifty pounders, and the agricultural interest were, no doubt, delighted, and almost reeled with intoxication at the effect which he produced. But, though it was a powerful speech, the right hon. Baronet would pardon him for saying it was not the speech of a statesman. All the right hon. Gentleman said might be perfectly true, and yet beside the question. What though it might be true (and it certainly did appear to be so) that the hon. Member for the city of London admitted that the difference between the annual average importation of corn under the restriction and that which would flow into this country in the absence of all restriction, was about 250,000 quarters, he did not apprehend that the hon. Member for London was the corn-meter of the country. The hon. Member for London might have his calculation, and he might have his speculation, but that did not alter the real merits of the question. Then the right hon. Gentleman thought he demolished the case of the petitioners; the master manufacturers, who made statements, from which it was to be inferred, that the commerce of the country was rapidly decaying, and that our circumstances were of a most alarming description. For, said the right hon. Gentleman, "there is no truth in their statements, because, when I come to compare the amount of exports in 1838 with those in 1837, I find the excess in the former-mentioned year to be no less than 7,000,000 l." Now, if this were true, and that the exports of 1838 were not only greater than the preceding year, but progressively greater than each of the preceding years, he owned, as far as the manufacturers were concerned, he had, to no inconsiderable degree, shaken their claims, and the grounds on which they contended for the repeal of the existing Corn-laws. But though he did not appear there, and did not wish to be understood, as the advocate of the master-manufacturers—though he had no communication whatever with them—though he felt no partiality in their favour, having a strong preference aris-
832
ing, from the recollections of early life for those connected with land, he wished the few statements with which he should trouble the House to be taken as proceeding from one anxiously desirous of coming to a sound and deliberate judgment, free from all considerations of a personal kind. It was right, however, to say, that the statements of the right hon. Gentleman were challenged. He had heard, from the late President of the Chamber of Commerce at Manchester, that the right hon. Gentleman's figures were not incorrect as regarded the years 1837 and 1838, but that, if he had condescended, in his eagerness to balance impartially the facts, without any party bias, and disdaining every attempt which might yield a momentary triumph, intent only on the truth and its elucidation, he had heard it said, that if the right hon. Gentleman had compared the year 1838 with 1836, the difference would be a very substantial one on the other side. The commerce of this country was not to be determined on a comparison of two years. There might be many circumstances which abundantly accounted for the decline in one year, and there might be other circumstances which would explain the superfluous exportation in another, but it was in reference to a series of years, and to all the circumstances connected with commerce, that the actual state of our commercial transactions was to be established. Leaving this part of the subject to the hon. Member who introduced this motion, who would, no doubt, avail himself of the privilege of a reply, and who was in immediate communication with the petitioners, and furnished with ample details, he should proceed to another point. The right hon. Gentleman, with many of those who took part in this debate, was anxious, for very obvious and intelligible reasons, to sympathise with the interest and condition of the working classes. The right hon. Baronet went into a series of figures to prove that they were improving in their condition by reference to the savings' banks. Now, he would at once admit, that if it could be shown that the deposits at the various savings' banks (an institution, the utility of which it was impossible to exaggerate) might be considered as those of the labouring classes, whether agricultural or manufacturing, and if, still more, it could be shown that the numbers were increasing, as well as the amount of capital, he would acknowledge that the right hon. Gentleman had gone a great way to

833
shake the cause of the petitioners. The right hon. Gentleman instanced the returns of many places; that of Liverpool, a great commercial town, and those of Leicester, Nottingham, Manchester, and Glasgow, manufacturing towns. But the numbers of the depositors were comparatively so few, when contrasted with the millions who came under the denomination of labouring classes, and the amount so deposited was so trifling, when it came to be divided amongst so large a mass, that these returns furnished very little evidence of the fact which the right hon. Baronet was desirous to establish. All that the right hon. Gentleman established, he wished the House to observe, was, that the improved amount of those depositors, during the period of two years, over which his calculations extended, was 2s. 7d. to each individual. He took down the words of the right hon. Gentleman, which he found confirmed by the report of his speech, where he stated the average deposit of each individual to be 5l. 15 s. 4d. in 1837, and 5l. 17 s. 11 d. in 1838, giving just 2s. 7d. to represent the highly improved condition of the working classes. [Sir R. Peel: That was as to Glasgow, and Glasgow only.] Yes, but that was the only instance in which the right hon. Baronet had gone into demonstrative detail; and as he gave the right hon. Gentleman credit for using all his details with consummate skill, he, no doubt, put forward Glasgow as the advanced guard of his argument, in order to cover the weaker parts of it. There were many important considerations connected with these returns. It was delightful to find the progress made by the working men in imitating their superiors. These returns showed how fast they were approximating to the character of capitalists. But how frequently had he heard in that House, when hon. Members were enforcing the necessity of economy; and showing the pressure of taxation upon industry, "if you repeal this tax, or the other tax, what difference would it make—not 2s. 7d. to each individual;" but when it served their purpose to show that the condition of the labouring community was improving, then every penny was thankfully received, until, at last, 2s. 7d. was made to be a sum of no slight financial importance. But then the right hon. Gentleman discovered another improvement in the article of coals, and he stated, that as the number of tons of coals carried into Glasgow was something more than double what it had been in the year previous to
834
that to which he referred, he concluded that the people of the town of Glasgow were in a very warm and improving condition. But the right hon. Gentleman also made this admission—that the population had increased greatly and had risen from 102,000 to 247,000. Now, surely, it was not very remarkable, that the demand for coals should have kept pace with the increase in the population. There was one other observation contained in the speech of the right hon. Baronet, which he thought could not fail to strike the House, as he was sure it would do the country, as being of fearful import. He understood the right hon. Baronet to advance this proposition, that a great revolution was going on in the manufacturing interest. It had been stated, and not denied, that the manufactories—the many and prodigious manufactories of the country—were everywhere increasing; that they were presenting their hideous forms (for in his opinion nothing could be more hideous than one of our great modern manufactories) in all the manufacturing towns and districts, and that at Preston, at least (this statement the right hon. Baronet advanced upon information he had received from his noble Friend, Lord Stanley), a vast quantity of capital had of late been employed in the erection of these edifices. Having made that statement, the right hon. Baronet proceeded to observe, that the little manufacturers must be prepared to be swallowed up by the great and more powerful manufactories which the capitalists were in every direction rearing about them, and that they must learn a lesson from the melancholy fate of the handloom-weavers. Did not this fearful statement suggest inquiry? And did it not arouse the fears and apprehensions of that class of persons whose capital was small and machinery defective, and who were thus little able to combat with the great leviathans of capital, who were erecting their establishments in every town? It was one of the mighty evils of the present times—an evil bearing down the general interests of the country—that the small means of the lesser and more industrious class of manufacturers were, day after day, tending to annihilation beneath the force and influence of the powerful efforts of the capitalists. It was the same thing with the farmers. The race of little farmers, who were formerly the pride of the country, and who inherited their property for many centuries from their forefathers—what had become of

835
them? They were swallowed up by the great landed capitalists and loan-mongers, who conspired to divide the soil into larger farms, and thus, satisfied with inferior profits, were rapidly turning the ancient yeomanry of the country into labourers and paupers. And the comfort now held out to the men of small capital in the manufacturing interest was, that they must be prepared to meet the doom and destiny of the hand-loom weaver. Yet when such was their condition, the House was to be told, gravely and seriously, that this was another proof of the growing prosperity of the manufacturing community. The right hon. Baronet, the Member for Pembroke (Sir James Graham) had also declared his sentiments upon this subject, and had sought with great skill to enlist the sympathies and feelings of the agricultural community by contrasting the happy lot of him who was engaged in tilling the soil, with the wretched and melancholy condition of those who were immured in crowded cities, subject to the ills of noxious vapours, and breathing the pestilential atmosphere around them. It was really delightful to listen to the poetical description in which the right hon. Baronet called the attention of the House to the lowly home of the cottager, cast on the hill side, and gladdened by the golden waves of harvest around it. The right hon. Baronet would fain have led the House to believe, that all the agricultural labourers in the country were in a state of enviable prosperity, that they were to be seen musing at evening at the cottage door, chatting over their little inconveniences, putting aside their little deprivations, that they might the better take their children upon their knees, those little treasures, happy as innocent, who in cheerful groups had been waiting "to lisp" their sire's return. If the right hon. Baronet had been allowed to read Gray's Elegy he could not have been more touching. But was his story true? The right hon. Baronet having sat incessantly upon the Poor-law Committee, had the means of ascertaining the actual condition of the agricultural labouring classes, and yet he completely shut out from his mind the whole of the evidence he had heart: and in that House endeavoured by the witchery of his fancy—by the display of poetical and fascinating language—to beguile the House from the contemplation of the actual fact, and to seduce it into the adoption of a conclusion which he knew pet to be true. It was
836
strange the right hon. Baronet, the Member for Pembroke—for he, before all men, had advocated the doctrine, that the labouring man must be thrown upon his own resources; that the standard by which he was to be fed in the workhouse must be the sum it might be in his power to earn outside of the workhouse; and that if this were not sufficient for his sustenance, the lowly cottage must be forsaken, and he must be compelled with his smiling children to become the wretched tenants of the union workhouses. Was it to be said gravely—was it to go forth throughout the country (an insult to the working community, and more especially the agricultural classes) that their condition was at the present moment improved? When they contrasted that statement with the hypocrisy of the motive in which it originated, it was impossible not to feel deeply disgusted. Because to say, that the agricultural labourer was now in the receipt of wages commensurate with the rise in the price of his food, was a statement that could be denied by every workman in every county in England. But there was an object as well as fallacy in that statement. The right hon. Baronet knew full well, and so did the formidable party by whom he was surrounded, that they could not sustain the Corn-laws for another hour unless they could strengthen themselves by causing it to be believed that the question was only, in a subordinate sense, a landlord's question; that it was, in a paramount and direct sense, a tenant's question; but that, above all things, and before all things, it was a labourers' question. Now, he was prepared to contend, that it was primarily a landlord's question; secondarily, in a considerable degree (at least so far as affected a particular class), a tenant's question; and, further, that it was, indeed, a deep question as affecting the working community; but just in the converse sense to that in which the argument had been advanced by the supporters of the Corn-laws. He did not at all agree with his hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton either in the statement or the inference he drew from it, that the farmers and cultivators of the soil were men of little education, unacquainted with business, and strongly attached to localities. Quite the reverse—they were a very able and dexterous class—they bad lived too long, too closely connected with the landlords not to know their own interests. Therefore, al-

837
though he understood the motive which led the right hon. Baronet (Sir Robert Peel) to enforce his observations upon that point so earnestly, that he might enlist on his side the powerful class of tenants throughout the land, and induce them to look with gratitude to the indignant and eloquent vindication which their assumed interests had received at his hands in that House; although he understood the motive which led the right hon. Baronet to take that course, he was prepared to admit that the vindication was complete—that the farmers were not ignorant, were men of business, were fond of their homes (though they never failed to leave them when there was any thing to be got by it). Yes, he quite agreed with the right hon. Baronet that the farmers were not men indifferent to or ignorant of their own interests. But, although the right hon. Baronet and his adherents insisted that the question was not a landlord's question, they had evinced an exceeding anxiety to call the attention of the House to the pressure of what they called taxation, as it bore upon the landlords, and to that extent, at least said they, "it is a landlord's question." Now he was prepared to contend that, so far from the landlords being taxed more than any other class of the community, they were not only exempted from all taxation, but were positively benefited by our system of taxation. He should like very much to have a committee of account, the object of whose labours should be to show, in separate columns of debit and credit, what it was that the great aristocracy of the land—an essential part of our constitution—forming not only its boast but its strength, being not only its most beautiful part, but the part which at any cost must be maintained—he should like to see an account prepared showing what it was that the aristocracy or the great landlords actually paid in direct taxation, and what they actually received. He had never heard it mentioned in the course of the debate,—and considering the length to which their discussions had extended, it was certainly remarkable that anything should have eluded them—he had never heard mentioned the amount of taxation to which the country was subjected, nor the proportions which each class of the community was called upon to pay. The gross amount of the country's taxation might be stated in round numbers at 50,000,000 l. a-year. If they were to go into committee with the view of ascertaining the fact, he
838
would venture to say it would be found that upwards of 30,000,000 l. of that sum fell directly upon the labouring community, while of the remaining 20,000,000 l., he would challenge the right hon. Baronet (Sir Robert Peel) to show that anything approaching to 5,000,000 l., even conceding to him the items he had enumerated as bearing exclusively upon the landlords, were borne by that particular interest. There was a return made to that House not very remotely, in which the places held by every Gentleman in the House were set forth, together with the salary and advantages which attached to each. Now, when they came to consider how many Members of that House were in the navy, how many in the army, how many in the possession of civil appointments, and when they travelled from the individual circumstances of these Gentlemen, to the contemplation of their immediate dependents, in short, when they took a walk through all our great establishments, when they looked at the list of clerks in the financial departments—in the Custom-house, in the Excise, in the Stamp-office—[An hon. Member: In the hackney-coach-office; Aye, or as the right hon. Gentleman with excellent taste said, in the hackney-coach-office; when they looked at the number of clerks employed in all these offices, it would be found that those immediately connected with the land, and who it was pretended were entitled to exception from taxation on account of the heavy burdens imposed upon their property, were receiving back again a great deal more than they actually paid to the general finances of the country. Well, indeed, might these Gentlemen say, that they had a direct interest in supporting the establishments of the country; because whilst they contributed towards their support with one hand, they were abundantly remunerated by what they drew from them with the other. Without enumerating, or still less analysing the claim of these Gentlemen to exemption as regarded the various items which they maintained were exclusively imposed upon the soil, such as the malt-tax, the land-tax, church-rates, and payments of that description—without fortifying the House with arguments to combat their claim to exemption upon those grounds—believing, as he did, however, that the only item which in any way came fairly under the head of an exclusive payment, was that of the land-tax, yet he did wish just to call the attention of the House for one moment to the manner in

839
which upon a former occasion these Gentlemen had dealt with the claims which they now put forward as entitling them to exemption. The hon. Gentleman the Member for North Yorkshire (Mr. Cayley), who moved, or rather placed upon the notice-paper of the House, an amendment which he did not move, amongst other things enumerated the church-rates as one of the burdens upon the soil. Did the hon. Gentleman forget, or could other Gentlemen forget, when, not long since, an effort was made in that House to rescue the Protestant Dissenters from the payment of church-rates, that all the Gentlemen on the opposite side were up in arms, not merely to resist the claim upon general grounds, but to impute motives, to impute selfish considerations, to those who made it. "Oh," said the hon. Gentleman, on that occasion, "the conduct of these men is the more odious, because they come here under the pretence of relieving their consciences, when they are in point of fact, asking for nothing else than the relief of their estates." He had not heard that language repeated in the present debate. But if that charge were well founded, what was the argument advanced in support of it? It was this:—"Did you not buy your estates subject to church-rates, and are you not odious hypocrites when you come to this House, and ask upon the ground of conscientiousness to be relieved from the payment of them? Why did not every man of you, at the time you purchased your property, receive an equivalent for the church-rates you would afterwards have to pay, in the diminished price which you gave, as compared with what you would have been required to pay if the property were not liable to this impost?" Why that argument applied with equal or greater force to the land-tax, because, let it be recollected, that the land-tax was not a modern tax; it was as old at least as a century and a half; and where was the man amongst the hon. Gentlemen opposite who inherited an estate, or who had purchased an estate, who had not taken it subject to the land-tax? If it were not so—if the land-tax were redeemed—was not that circumstance carefully and prominently put forth in the particulars of the sale, and was not the amount of the purchase money greater if the tax were redeemed, and less if it were unredeemed? Then, upon what principle was it that the landlords could claim any protection in the shape of a Corn-law, because that, after all, was the
840
real question. And it was a very remarkable circumstance, that throughout the whole of this debate no one person had endeavoured to vindicate the Corn-law upon any other ground (or at least prominently so) than that protection was called for having reference to the high taxation and artificial condition of the landed interest. It was very true, that there had been two arguments pressed into the discussion which were of modern growth, and which had been forced into the debate by the landlords, because they felt, that their other arguments were failing them. If there were any foundation for these two arguments ail the rest might as well be thrown overboard, because whether the land were lightly taxed, or heavily taxed, the two positions he was about to notice would equally apply. The first argument was this—that no country, and least of all, this country, ought to be dependant for the supply of its food upon foreign states. The second proposition was this—that a Corn-law—(an hon. Gentleman near him said, that this was not a new proposition, but if it were not new, it had, at all events, been pressed far more prominently into this debate than upon any former occasion)—that a Corn-law was necessary to give protection against the influence of climate. Now, if either or both of those grounds were as irresistible as those who urged them contended they were, would they not, under all possible circumstances, be available? But these points had been so successfully answered by many succeeding speakers, that it would only be going over ground already traversed if he were to enter into a train of reasoning to refute them again. He would, therefore, only express his surprise that Gentlemen should contend, that the best way of securing a supply of food or of corn was by the sources from which it was to be obtained. He, for one, was weak enough to suppose, that the wider the field of supply, the more would the chances of failure be diminished. Although it might be said, as indeed it was said by the hon. Member for the North Riding of Yorkshire (Mr. Cayley), and afterwards, he believed, reverted to by the right hon. Baronet in a quotation which he made from Adam Smith, that the corn-producing countries of Europe laid pretty much in the same latitude, and were subject to the same vicissitudes and, same seasons as those which affected us in England, although that might be true, and if it were so, it was evident, that England would be no worse off than other

841
countries; still the larger the extent of ground from which the supply was to be obtained, the less would be the chance of failure. Applying that argument, for instance, only to England itself, look at the returns from the corn districts, and it would be found, that though there had been a failure of crop in Essex, it had fortunately been made up by a more than usual average in some other distant county; and, indeed, if the whole circuit of the counties of England were run over, it would turn out, that the deficiency of crop in one county was more than made up in another county. Take, for instance, the case of hops last season. No person could have gone through the county of Hereford without being struck by the failure of the hop crops—there was last season scarcely a hop-bine to be seen in an healthy state, and yet those connected with the trade were met by the assurance, that though there would be a failure in Hereford, there would be more than an usually large supply in Essex, and that the hop-bines looked well in Kent. If this remark applied to England, would it not apply with still greater force to the more extended surface of the Continent, or to the world at large, to which we might look for a supply, if, indeed, by any unfortunate circumstance, the crop should wholly fail at home. Then as to the other argument, that it was desirable to give protection, because in this country we were exposed to vicissitudes of climate and of seasons, why, of all the mad contrivances, that human legislation ever resorted to, surely none could be so visionary or so vicious, as to attempt to control the seasons, or meet the exigencies of them by any provisions of law. The seasons moved on in harmonious regularity, under the guidance of the wisdom which it would be well for us to imitate; but it did not belong to human beings to control them—the seasons moved on in their course, showering upon the nations of the earth blessings which they did not always appreciate. It was, therefore, incumbent upon them to go back to the inquiry whether this was not in truth a landlord's question. He would very briefly state what he considered it to be; because he was one of those who were at all times anxious to legislate for practical purposes, and he should be well pleased to concur in any plan that would meet the claims of the various conflicting interests which abounded in the country. While, therefore, abstractedly, he owned himself friendly to what was called unrestrained free-trade, he was not so infatuated in his
842
judgement as to believe, that the only mode in which the conflicting interests of the country were to be appeased was by resorting to extreme measures; for he would not conceal his decided impression, that to resort to what was called free-trade precipitately and at once, would shower great mischief upon a large portion of the community. Even as concerned the tenants, whose fortunes it was contended were so closely identified with that of the landlords, there was a class of them to which the solicitude of the House ought to be directed—the tenants under covenants. What would be their condition if a system of free trade were instantaneously resorted to? Was the House prepared coincident with the adoption of free trade to pass a law by which this class of tenants should be emancipated from the stipulations of their covenants? He would not attempt as some hon. Gentlemen had done to soothe the landed interest with an assurance that free trade would not affect them. It would affect them deeply; and so it ought. They had had a long run of advantages, and the time was at hand when they must be prepared to forego a considerable portion of them. On every occasion that farms become vacant the number of applicants outrun the number of farms, and from the competition for land thus existing among the tenantry, high rents are always given, and the landlord reaps the benefit. Therefore he did not hesitate to say, that under these circumstances, and taking into consideration the covenants under which many tenants held their farms, to bring about a system of free trade all at once, and without providing for such cases was a system to which he was not prepared to be a party. Nor was it the tenants under the covenants that would be the only sufferers by such a sudden change; the effects would also prove most injurious to the tenants-at-will, for this class of tenants had embarked their all in the soil. They had invested their capital in agriculture, in farm houses, implements of husbandry, in stock, and the various necessaries for carrying on their business, and what would be the value of all that they had thus embarked in the soil if the Legislature were to destroy altogether and at once the system under which they had thus laid out their capital, and adopt what is called the system of free trade? He considered it would be dealing unfairly to adopt that system at once, and therefore he would not be a party to its introduction. Nor did he

843
think, that the right hon. Baronet opposite had dealt with this question in his speech as a great statesman, although he may have discussed it in a well-considered and skilful manner as the leader of a powerful party. The right hon. Baronet and other hon. Members who followed him on the opposite side, had laid great force upon the circumstance, and had endeavoured to found a strong argument upon the fact, that the Government had not been pleased to communicate what they might be disposed to do when in Committee. It was all very well for the right hon. Baronet to pursue that line of argument; it no doubt suited his position remarkably well, who found it at times somewhat difficult to keep his people in order. But he should have liked to have seen the countenance of hon. Members opposite; he should have been anxious to have witnessed their chuckle if Government had come forward on this occasion, and stated that they were prepared to say what they would do, and had in fact, as they in that case must have done, communicated to the House what plan of alteration, and what extent of change they, as a Cabinet, were prepared to advocate. Certain he was they would not have liked it. Whatever plan Government might have proposed, it would have been objected to. If a fixed duty, it would have been said, that it was too high to answer in years of scarcity, and recourse would be had to an order in council, to set it aside; while in seasons of abundance it would afford no reasonable protection to the home grower. Had the Government, then, announced their plan as had been argued they ought to have done, what chance, he asked, would it have had, under any circumstances, of success? Look at the manner in which this question had been treated in another place, and then let them say, whether the development of the intentions of the Government would have led to any useful result. Well, but the hon. Members opposite will say, why did not the present Cabinet act as other Cabinets have done? Why not state on their responsibility as a Government what course they thought it was for the best interests of this country to follow—abandoning the shelter of an open question—then if they were unsuccessful in persuading this House to consent to their policy, let the Government change hands and allow them (the hon. Members opposite) to step forward and take their places. It was one thing however for a Government to come boldly forward, and
844
to act in that manner for the purpose of proposing measures to carry out the obvious desires and the wishes of the people, but it was another thing when the Government were in advance of the hope to endeavour to control and to coerce public opinion. He had never hesitated, as a Member of that House, to express his sentiments and to lament the backward policy of the Government—he had always felt and declared that their hesitating, vacillating policy, had greatly impeded the march of useful reform. But their backwardness had reference to subjects upon which all sincere Reformers were agreed, and not upon questions like the present, upon which they were so seriously divided. He did not hesitate to say, that the great constituent body of the people of this country were directly and firmly opposed to any great or sudden alteration in the Corn-laws. But he was anxious to advert to two other topics that had been dwelt on by the hon. Members opposite. He was desirous to do so as the poor man's friend, and the poor man's organ in that House. He was anxious to put the question in a new shape, and to advert to one or two points that had not been previously alluded to, and he trusted he would be listened to, because he considered that all arguments bearing upon the truth and tendency of this great subject should be brought forward even if they sat another week. He would allude to them very briefly. It was contended, that when the price of corn was low, the rate of wages was proportionally low; and that when an advance took place in the price of corn, there was a corresponding increase in the price of the wages of labour. He would not repeat the answers that had been already given to this argument; but would observe, that if this were really true, there would be no advantage in the restrictive system. But Ito prove such was not the fact, he would refer them on this point to the evidence taken before the Poor-law Committee; and he would say farther, that he believed that never before in the history of parliamentary inquiry was the poor man asked for his opinion. Though on former occasions they had landlords and their agents, and farmers, before committees on agricultural distress, it was reserved for the committee on the Poor-law of last Session to examine the labouring man; and he thought it but right also to state that when these poor men were examined before the committee, no one who heard them

845
could have overlooked, or could have for-gotten, their straight-forward conduct and plain common-sense answers. So much satisfaction did their conduct afford the committee, that the Chairman was requested to express the pleasure which the committee had experienced from their whole behaviour. The line of examination which was pursued towards these labouring men referred, of course, to the question of wages, and it was shown, that whether the weekly amount of wages was 8s. or 11 s., the labouring man, after paying for his bread, had only 1s. 2d. left wherewith to pay for the maintenance of his wife and family and his other domestic expenses. He trusted, that he should be pardoned in requesting the attention of the House for a few moments to allude more particularly to some of the evidence given before that committee, and he wished it to be known to the world, that the Members of the Senate of England, who sat on that committee, listened to the sentiments of these poor men, with exemplary patience and kindness. There was one poor man examined—a venerable man named James Kershaw, who told them, that if he lived to the next 6th of June he would be ninety-one years of age. He had survived all his family, but his faculties were quite entire, and he could tell the story of nearly a century. This man had no interest to give a gloss to his statement, and he would read a portion of his evidence. The hon. Member read as follows, "What age are you?—If I live to the 6th of June I shall be ninety-one." He had survived his family, and could tell the history of nearly a century; his evidence was important, because the few months of life left him had nothing to induce him to gloss over his story. He was asked "Do you remember the condition of the labourer during your life?—Yes; when I was first married I could have a bushel of malt for half-a-crown, and every poor person had a barrel of beer to drink instead of water, but it soon rose to 3s. 6d." That question had been put by the hon. Member for Kent (Mr. Hodges); who also asked him, "Did the labouring man informer times use to brew as a general thing?—Yes." How long have they left it off?—Ever since malt got to such a price that they could not buy it." Do you know any poor man who brews his own beer now?—Not one." Do you remember the rate of wages at the time of the American war?—Yes; 1s. 4d. a-day, or 8s. a-week." It might be said, that
846
going so far back was referring to a period that had nothing to do with the question. In answer to that he would say, that he had heard many statistical details introduced in the debate that had much less connexion with the question. The witness was further asked, would the labourers be able to do more work if they had better food? The answer was, "To be sure, they cannot do more than half a-day's work." some of them dropped down when they had a little hard work." If it were said, that this man was too old, and that his faculties were impaired so as to affect the weight of his opinion, he would take another labourer of the name of Thomas Preston, whose age was only thirty-eight. This man was asked by a Member of the committee, with whom, although hon. Members may differ in political sentiments, they will not dispute his competency to take a part in such an enquiry—he meant Mr. Wakley. "Do you feel in performing your work, that you have the strength a man ought to have?" He replied, "No, nor yet half the strength; I am not so strong as I was." He asked then, what was the character of that evidence? How did it agree with the descriptions which they had heard of the condition of the labouring classes, and of the rate of wages? How was it these labouring men, for whom hon. Members opposite had of late taken such an extraordinary predilection, that they had received them into their confidence, formed Conservative clubs for their benefit, and joined them at their dinners, with noble Peers for their presidents, and paupers for their stewards, whose opinions were now venerated in high, places, whose sentiments were become hereditary canons with the landlords, whom even dukes quote, and perhaps, it was wise in them to do so, rather than to risk anything original, for these quotations did them great credit. But what did the evidence he had read imply, but that the greatest misery prevailed among these agricultural labourers. What a fellacious picture had the hon. Gentleman opposite drawn of the situation of the agricultural labourer? How different from the simple, unadorned statement of the poor men whose evidence he had just read! It was true, that the labouring men of the present day did not act as their fathers had done in the year 1815. They did not crowd our doors, nor menace Members, nor endeavour to extort promises. Hon. Members did not now live in terror,

847
nor in times when, as seems by the narrative of Mr. Wilberforce, he was obliged to garrison his House and keep a military force within it for self-preservation. But the change for the better was not owing to any improvement in the situation of the labouring classes, but because these classes now thought and judged more wisely and understood far better what was their real interest. He rejoiced that it was so, and he trusted when they appealed to this House, and to the hon. Members opposite for an admission to share in political rights, that their appeal would be graciously received, and that they would be allowed to vote, and thus peradventure give the hon. Members opposite more counties than they represented at present. He trusted, that they would not turn round upon them, and say that they were not fit for high political duties. It surely would be ungrateful in hon. Members opposite to act in that way to their new friends, whose sayings had become proverbs in high places, subjects of eulogy among the great. He trusted, that they would not refuse to admit these men into the pale of the constitution, and that they would find no difficulty in acting hereafter on their present opinions, or betray any difference between what they now said and what they would then do. There was still one subject he wished to touch. It had been said, that wages rise with the price of corn, and that they fall as corn decreases in price. He asked if that was borne out by statistical facts? He would read some calculations on that point from a series of letters that had been published by one of the most extensive landholders in the kingdom (Earl Fitzwilliam). No man could deny to that nobleman the credit of disinterestedness, and he only wished it had been consistent with the rules of that House to allow the production of that noble Lord to have been read from the Chair. He would have wished to have heard the three letters of Earl Fitzwilliam in favour of an alteration in the Corn-laws, and the addresses of Lord Western against alteration, and then that the votes of Members should have been taken on the merits. According to the table of wages given by Earl Fitzwilliam in 1801, when the wages were 10 s. a week; after paying for two-thirds of a bushel, the cost of the family was 9s. 10 d., leaving a surplus of 2d. In 1810, wages at 10 s., flour 8s., surplus 2s.; in 1814, wages 14 s., flour 6s., surplus 7s. 11 d.; 1820, wages 12 s.,
848
flour 5s. 6d., surplus 6s. 6d.; 1822, wages 10 s., flour 3s. 8d., surplus 6s. 4d.; 1829, wages 11 s., flour 5s. 6d., surplus 5s. 6d. The main fact elicited by these tables is, that when corn was cheap the labourer received higher wages than when the price was dear, and thus left a larger surplus applicable to the purchase of the necessaries and comforts of life. It was a fallacy to suppose, that the value of the labourer's wages depended on the specific amount in money. The real test was what he could purchase for the wages which were paid to him in exchange for his labour. A labouring man might be just as well off with wages of 9s. as of 18 s. It was what his labour could bring him in exchange with other commodities—that was the value of his wages. He had received a letter that morning from an intelligent person, a friend of his in the county of Essex, which he would read to the House. The letter was to the effect, that all classes had received their full share in the debate except the agricultural labourers. From landowners on one side, and high price of bread on the other, the labourers had been jammed into a most unfair predicament. The poor labourer was left alone, and the public laboured under a delusion. Notwithstanding the high price of food, wages had undergone no change. Wages were no more than 9s. a week, and this they had been for several years. In some places perhaps wages had risen as much as twenty per cent., but bread had risen from fifty to seventy per cent. He knew that these details were dry and uninteresting, but as stress had been laid upon the argument, that high prices produced high wages he wished to show the fallacy of that opinion. As it was contended, that the maintenance of the present Corn-laws was not so much a landlord's question, or a tenant's question, as it was a labourer's question, he was anxious to lay before the House the facts of the case, as they actually bore on the real interests and condition of the labourer. One word more, and he had done. He regretted much the terms of this motion; it was much too narrow for its object. They ought not to have been engaged now, and especially for the length of time which this debate had occupied, in considering the condition of a mere class interest—for such it was. It was pressed on their attention by a powerful party, in this House and out of it—by the master manufacturers. The motion should have been much wider and

849
larger, and he should have been pleased, that the motion had been, that the House should resolve itself into a committee to consider the financial state of the nation; and although that had not been pressed upon them, it was the question; and say what they would, the Repeal of the Corn-laws would not tend to advance the condition of the labourer, unless they directed their attention to what appeared to him the landlords anxious desire to conceal—the state of our taxation; for if free trade in corn were granted to-morrow, he believed, that it would afford little if any advantage to the labourer either in manufactures or agriculture. He hoped, that he candour of this declaration would not be unpleasant, but he was stating what he believed to be true, and he was indifferent whether it pleased or not. He said, that it was a delusion, and it was supporting a dangerous and pernicious idea to suppose, that England could compete with all the countries with which she was competing, and with whom she was anxious to run a still stronger and longer race of competition so long as there was the present enormous and frightful inequality in their financial relations. An hon. Member, in the course of this discussion, had stated the amount of the debt and annual expenditure in different countries of Europe, and contrasted their respective amounts with the annual taxation of our own: whence it appeared that the amount of taxation of this, as compared with that of other countries, was as fifty millions were to eight millions. He begged to ask hon. Gentlemen in what way they fancied that this country could bear up successfully against the violent efforts now making by the young life and the young blood of foreign trade, which were hourly brought to bear against our manufacturing efforts? If we had free trade in corn, and an unchanged system of taxation, he believed, that the manufacturers would be even worse off, because they would find, that the only resource they had to fall back upon would be the wages of labour, and thus, instead of improving the condition of the working classes, greater discontent, because greater misery, would ensue. The time was gone by, when national benefit was to be attained by consulting exclusive interests; larger and purer motives must animate our deliberations. The only sure and lasting method of upholding our national greatness, whether we regarded our agricultural or commercial interests, was
850
by well-considered measures far advancing the social comfort, the moral improvement, and thus permanently to increase the happiness of the industrious population.
Sir Robert Peeldesired to say a few words in explanation, upon a matter of fact alone, upon which he was sure the hon. Member had unintentionally misrepresented what he had said. The first point was, as to the amount of coal consumed in Glasgow. The hon. Member had stated, that he had said, that the increase in the population of that city, from the year 1812 to 1833, was from 103,000 to 262,000, and that the increase in the quantity of coal consumed, was from 500,000 tons to 1,200,000. The hon. Member had, however, mistaken the statement which he had made to the House. He had said, that the population had increased from the year 1812 to 1838 by more than double, but that from 1831 to 1838, being the period in which the Corn-laws were in operation, the quantity of coals consumed had increased from 500,000 to 1,200,000. That was the first point. The hon. Gentleman had also made a curious error in respect to the savings' bank at Glasgow. The hon. Gentleman had stated, that he had said, that the total increase of the profit to contributors in one year, between 1837 and 1838, was 2s. 7d. a-head. Now, in 1837, supposing there were 1,000 contributors, and 1l. each the average amount of contributions, and then, supposing that in 1838 there were 2,000 contributors of 2l. each, and 2,000 of 10 s. each, the average amount of contributions would be only 15 s., and the hon. Member would infer that the condition of the labouring classes would be worse by 5s.
Mr. Hindleyrose amidst loud cries of "question!" and "divide!" After some time he obtained a partial hearing, and was understood to say, he only rose to repel the imputations cast upon the manufacturing classes by the hon. Member for Lincolnshire, and the right hon. Baronet, the Member for Tamworth, and he was sure, that if those hon. Members were as well acquainted with the manufacturing districts as he was, they would be aware, that there were no grounds for them. As to the House going into committee, he thought that they should at once accede to the proposition which was made, in order that a fixed duty might be deter-

851
mined upon. All his constituents were urging him to support a measure for the total repeal of the existing laws, but if he were asked that night to give such a vote, he had no hesitation in saying, that he would rather lose his seat than give such a vote. He desired that the question should be considered, not with a view of destroying the agricultural interests, but to secure justice to the people, and he was confident, that no time could arrive which would be more favourable to the discussion of the subject than the present.
Mr. Dennistoun,as the representative of one of the largest commercial and manufacturing towns in the empire, craved for a few minutes the indulgence of the House. He had listened with great attention to the speeches which had been delivered on both sides of the question, and especially to the speech of the right hon. Baronet (Sir Robert Peel), and one more elaborately full of fallacies he had never heard either in or out of that House. He would pass over the part relating to the noble Lord and his colleagues, which they were quite able to answer—he would not notice the references to the political economists, and would touch only upon that which occupied a material portion of the address—the statement that our exports were increasing. Certainly they had increased, and they were increasing, but admitting that this were the fact—admitting that the ocean was covered with our ships, and that there was no nation which our merchants did not reach—yet these were no reasons why the people of this country should be limited to the food produced within our borders. Hon. Members might mystify as much as they would, they might speechify till downs-day, but they could never get over the fact, that they resisted the repeal of these laws for the purpose of raising the rent of the land, and of stinting the people of this country in the quantity of their food when plenty was offered them. One argument had been used which seemed to him to be an extraordinary one, it was said, that if they injured the agriculturists, they would take away the manufacturers best customers, but he would ask, what kind of customers they must be, who first taxed the manufacturers for means to buy of them? If the advocates of the Corn-laws blinded themselves so, that they could not sec this, at least they must admit, that so far from being independent
852
of foreign nations, we were at the present moment materially dependent upon them. Let them take, for instance, the cotton trade. Did hon. Gentlemen not know that the annual quantity of cotton required in England was 1,200,000 bags, and that 200,000 bags were alone grown in our own colonies, leaving a million bags to be supplied by foreigners? Was the House aware that there was not above three months' consumption in the country? And he would ask, what state our manufacturers would be in if for six long months they were deprived of the supply they depended on from abroad? Yet there had been no danger, and there was no fear of danger in the cotton trade—why then should they fear for a supply of corn? If the majority of that House would not entertain the question, and if the people should find that they had nothing to expect at their hands, they would look with a scrutinizing eye upon the constitution of that House. He therefore, for one, went to a division with little fear and with much hope. If, on the one hand, the House should agree to the motion, they would achieve a great present good; but if, on the other hand, they should refuse the committee, the time would not be far distant when there would be such a thorough searching and perfect reform of the House, that its Members would become the real representatives of the people, and the day would soon arrive when the laws would be passed for the benefit of every order of the State, and to secure the happiness and prosperity of all classes.
Mr. A. Sanford,after the conclusion of the speech of the hon. Member for Southwark, in which be entirely concurred, would not make one observation more upon that part of the subject; there was, however, another portion of the debate to which he must allude, on which he felt deeply, and on which he was extremely reluctant to address the House. Much observation had been made on both sides as to the declaration of the noble Lord the Secretary of State for the Home Department; and when the noble Lord talked of a fixed duty, he wished to ask him. what that duty was intended; not that the noble Lord's answer would have any effect upon his (Mr. Sanford's) vote, as he had fully made up his mind to give a decided negative to the motion; but he was induced to ask the question, because he had given a firm and, he trusted, independent sup-

853
port to her Majesty's Government, and in consequence of the opinion expressed in another place by the noble Lord at the head of the Government. If he thought that the opinion of the noble Lord entirely coincided with a majority of the Cabinet, he would not have put the question; but he was inclined to think that a different opinion was entertained by a majority of the Cabinet, he had thought it a duty which he owed to his constituents, though a painful one to himself, to ask what the noble Lord intended by a fixed duty, and he entreated the noble Lord to answer the question.
Lord John Russell,had stated in his former speech that he was in favour of a moderate fixed duty, and he believed that he was right; but having reference to the specific motion of the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, which was one for the House resolving itself into a Committee of the whole House, for the purpose of considering the Act of 9 George 4th, regulating the importation of corn, it was clear that the motion bound neither himself, nor any one who voted for it, to concur in a total repeal. In stating, then, that he was in favour of a moderate fixed duty, he had not felt that under the terms of the present motion it was competent for him to go further; he could do so, but it would take some time, and require the detail of many calculations; and if he had stated any reasons for the amount of duty he would recommend, he should have entered upon a question differing from the proposition which had been made, and would merely have caused a debate relative to any alteration by a total repeal, and to the substitution of a fixed duty. He conceived that the proper place for a discussion of that kind was in a Committee of the House; and if he had now urged it, he would only have interposed a new question between those who were in favour of the present law as it stood, and those who wished to alter it.
Mr. W. James,was anxious to state his views upon this important question, that there might not be any misconstruction put on the course he should take by the large and independent agricultural constituency which he had the honour to represent. He would preface the few remarks he meant to make by saying, that the value of landed property in this country, of which settlements had been made, on which mortgages had been granted, and
854
on which annuities had grown up, ought not to be materially altered, except on strong grounds, or from overwhelming necessity. If persons got 3 per cent. from land they thought themselves very fortunate, as the greater portion only paid 2½ per cent. Still he did not think that a free admission of foreign corn, at a moderate fixed duty, would make that alteration in the value of land which hon. Gentlemen dreaded. He had never thought that an alteration of the Corn-laws, for the purpose of imposing such a fixed duty, would be injurious to the agriculturists. He believed, that such an alteration would lead to an improved and better system: for it would procure steady prices which were far preferable to a law which caused almost a famine and enormously high prices at one time, and made them ruinously low at another. He was not prepared to say, that the Corn-laws should be got rid of at one fell swoop, but they ought to have such a constant importation of corn at a moderate duty as would cause a fair and steady price, whilst it did not interfere with the culture of our own soil. We were not, and could not be, independent of foreign countries, nor was it our interests to be entirely independent; for if we were independent, we should have no trade and no commerce, and where would the greatness and glory of England be, if she had no trade and no commerce? The truth was, that we were no more independent of foreign countries than they were of us. Experience further proved that an uniform steady custom and demand regulated the supply, whilst a system of fluctuating duties greatly injured us; for it was absurd to suppose that foreigners would keep a large stock of wheat constantly on hand on the chance of our having a scanty harvest. The great mischief of the labourers and to the country at the present time, and what caused the famine prices—for wheat 70 s. or 80 s. now, was equal to wheat 100 s. or 120 s, a few years ago—was not so much a deficiency in the late harvest as that there was not abroad a sufficient supply for our demands, owing to our bad Corn-laws. They were told, indeed, that with a low price of bread wages would come down; bet he did not want to see a low price of corn; he wished to see all danger of famine dismissed; by opening the trade they would, moreover, raise the price of corn on the continent, and the value of labour would rise. Did

855
any one believe that, with a flourishing state of trade, agricultural wages would not rise? He maintained distinctly that a flourishing state of trade and a depressed state of agriculture could not co-exist. He knew that these arguments were not new—he had used them himself ten years ago, when he seconded a motion for a total repeal of the Corn-laws, but he had become wiser since that time. If the workmen were better paid they would be stronger and would do more work, and the natural consequence would be that there would be more farming produce of all kinds produced and consumed; whereas, if the manufactures failed, a large number of persons would be thrown out of employ and would come upon the land for support. It was therefore dearly the interest of the farmers to have steady prices and a fixed duty. He would conclude by moving an amendment, or rather an addition, to the motion of the hon. Member for Wolverhampton. At the end of the motion he proposed to add the following words:—"With the view not to a total repeal of that law, but of ascertaining whether any and what improvement of it can be effected for the benefit of the agricultural as well as all other classes of the community." The amendment was not seconded.
Mr. Villiersthen rose to reply. It was his purpose, in bringing forward the motion, to keep as far as possible from dividing those who were of opinion that the Corn-laws were not fitted for the present state of the country. He had received very little encouragement for foregoing his own opinion—he had not introduced his own opinions into the motion, because he wished that all those who wished for a change of the Corn-laws should be enabled to vote with him. He wished that other Members had followed the same course, but throughout he had been met with various propositions, which were only fitted for the committee, and at the very last he was met with an amendment which, if carried, would at once defeat his motion; but as that amendment had not met with a seconder, of course his motion would be that which would be put from the Chair. It was now some years since the question had been fairly discussed; he, therefore, wished to know the grounds upon which the present laws were to be supported; his purpose had, therefore, been in a great measure answered, by the discussion which
856
had taken place. He had not been met fairly on this occasion—the question had not been discussed; it had been made with personalities, and with dry references to statistical details; if they had gone into committee, he would have suggested his reasons for thinking that the system might be changed both wisely and safely. It was objected, that they on his side of the House were not agreed as to the proposition which was to be made in committee. Had they been agreed, where would have been the use of going into committee? The hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets had made a proposal for going into committee, with a view of putting on a fixed duty; that was objected to, because it was said, that many agriculturists would prefer a total repeal of the law. He then brought forward a proposition for the total repeal of the Corn-laws, and he was then told, that this proposition was too strong a one. He had then brought forward the present motion, and now objections were found to it in the same spirit. He would consider that the division of that night would show those who were opposed to all change; and on the other side it would show those who were not pleased with the present state of things. The noble Lord, the Member for Shropshire, had declared it as his opinion, that the agitation against the Corn-laws was produced by a set of desperate men—that it had originated in the vanity and conceit of a set of political economists. The noble Lord was, no doubt, sincere in this declaration, but it was much to be lamented that the most influential class in the kingdom, and those who were called upon to decide the question, should be, by their very station, so far removed from the actual business of the country, and have so little means of forming an accurate judgment on public opinion, as to suppose that the feeling upon this question was the mere result of a set of political economists. The right hon. Baronet opposite (Sir Robert Peel) also had astonished him by the course of his arguments on the present question. The right hon. Baronet's opposition to his (Mr. Villiers's) motion on a former occasion, was, if he rightly remembered, based on his having brought it forward on too narrow a ground. On the present occasion, however, when the larger field was opened to him, the right hon. Baronet confined himself to that narrow ground

857
which he had formerly deprecated. He had solely applied himself to the consideration of the effect of these laws on the manufacturing interest. He could not help thinking that it was a pretext for not going into committee, and that those who voted with the right hon. Baronet would have done better to have candidly avowed that, under any circumstances, they were determined to vote in favour of the law as it was. He would have advised the right hon. Member for Kent (Sir E. Knatchbull) to have said so at once, rather than seeking to impute things to him that he had never said. The right hon. Baronet had charged him, in seeking for a repeal of the Corn-laws, with the ulterior objects of getting rid of the national debt, of sweep-away the aristocracy, and of destroying the Church establishment. Now he denied altogether having any such views, or that he had said anything which furnished the slightest or remotest ground to the right hon. Baronet for making such a charge against him. The hon. Gentleman opposite complained of the proposition for repeal, on the ground that the repeal of the Corn-laws would throw so many farmers and labourers out of occupation. If the whole argument for these laws was, that they kept a large number of farmers in occupation, and of labourers in employment, in what did this differ from any other law affording public employment in which change was proposed? If the stoppage of improvement was not a consequence of superseding occupation in other cases, why should it be so in this? The argument would be equally strong in opposition to all propositions for changes in things as they exist, yet the Legislature was not in the habit of fettering itself in its course of improvement by such considerations. He would not now repeat what had been well done by the Member for Kendal, in showing:, in what way the right hon. Baronet, the Member for Tamworth, had made a fallacious use of the official documents on which he had laid such stress, and in which it had been shown that the hon. Baronet had compared the years 1837 and 1838, in order to show that the manufacturers were in a flourishing state; and to prove that manufacturers had grossly exaggerated their case. He had shown that the hon. Baronet had only compared the year 1837 and 1838—a year of depression with a year of re-action—whereas, the year 1836, had it been
858
referred to, would have shown that the exports were greater than in 1838. Moreover, the hon. Baronet had not correctly represented the case of the manufacturers, nor had he offered any answer to their case. They alleged that it was the effect of the Corn-laws to prevent them from effecting exchanges with certain countries in Europe which had nothing but their raw products to offer, and that they had in consequence lost the markets of those countries, that food had been rendered artificially low in those countries, and had been rendered artificially high in this country, and thus they had been tempted to manufacture for themselves, and also had in many cases become our rivals in other countries. To this the hon. Baronet had not offered any answer, and the case against the Corn-law in preventing us from exchanging our manufactures with those countries remains as it was stated. The hon. Baronet had also assured the House that there was little occasion to alter these laws, since the people in the manufacturing districts were well off, and he inferred this from the deposits in the savings' banks. Why, he might have quoted the returns which the hon. Baronet had used for his purpose with better effect, to show that the people were better able to save in cheap years than in dear years. The hon. Baronet had compared the years 1828, 1829, 1830, 1831, with 1835, 1836, 1837, and 1838, and he showed there was more farming during the last years than the former ones. Now, the last had been cheaper years than the former ones, but he had forborne to use such facts, knowing them to be extremely fallacious. But he asked what answer had been given to the simple question, why the community were to have a heavy tax laid on its food, which tax yielded nothing to the State, and was for the advantage of a particular class? No public ground had been stated for this, and until the defence of these laws was rested on such ground, or until some national good could be shown to be had in view, he was satisfied the question would never be settled. There was not even any great authority which could be pointed to in support of these laws. Was there any great, or learned, or distinguished person who had ever written in their support?—and, on the contrary, how many could be referred to who had denounced them as bad and unjust? For instance, the most eminent public man of his day

859
was the first to deprecate the law when it was first passed—he alluded to Lord Grenville, a landlord, statesman, Christian, and patriot. He denounced these laws as an offence to God, as an injury to the country, and not a benefit to those who passed it. In what did he farther predict of its consequences that has not occurred? Again, there was one at this day who was devoting his whole mind and talents to the Conservative cause, and desired to maintain the institutions of the country—Dr. Chalmers had said, that the Corn-laws tainted the moral air of this country, that there was no such topic of burning discontent, and that nothing would sweeten the air of British society more than to abolish them. Lastly, let him refer to that great and influential journal that was now the mainstay of the Conservative party, and who desired to restore them to power. Why, that journal said that there was nothing in the East so despotic and cruel as these laws. He wanted to know what the people of England had done that they should be subjected to this frightful burthen. It was out of this Egyptian bondage that he wished to lead the people, and unless their hearts were harder than Pharaoh's they would vote for the motion.
The House divided: —Ayes 195; Noes 342: Majority 147.

List of the AYES.

Abercromby, hn. G. R.

Bulwer, Sir L.

Adam, Admiral

Busfield, W.

Aglionby, H. A.

Byng, rt. hon. G. S.

Ainsworth, P.

Callaghan, D.

Anson, hon. Colonel

Campbell, Sir J.

Anson, Sir G.

Clay, W.

Attwood, T.

Clive, E. B.

Bainbridge, E. T.

Codrington, Admiral

Baines, E.

Collier, J.

Bannerman, A.

Collins, W.

Baring, F. T.

Cowper, hon. W. F.

Barnard, E. G.

Craig, W. G.

Beamish, F. B.

Crawford, W.

Bellew, R. M.

Crawley, S.

Berkeley, hon. H.

Currie, R.

Berkeley, hon. C.

Curry, W.

Bernal, R.

Dalmeny, Lord

Bewes, T.

Dashwood, G. H.

Blackett, C.

Dennistoun, J,

Blake, W. J.

D'Eyncourt, rt. hon. C. T.

Blunt, Sir C.

Briscoe, J. J.

Divett, E.

Brocklehurst, J.

Donkin, Sir R. S.

Brotherton, J.

Duke, Sir J.

Brown, R. D.

Duncan, Lord

Buller, C.

Duncombe, T.

Buller, E.

Dundas, C. W. D.

860

Dundas, F.

Muskett, G. A.

Easthope, J.

Nagle, Sir R.

Elliot, hon. J. E.

O'Connell, D.

Ellice, Capt. A.

O'Connell, M. J.

Ellice, rt. hon. E.

O'Connell, M.

Ellice, E.

O'Ferrall, R. M.

Etwall, R.

Ord, W.

Evans, Sir De L.

Paget, Lord A.

Evans, W.

Palmerston, Viscount

Feilden, W.

Parker, J.

Fielden, J.

Parker, R. T.

Fenton, J.

Parnell, rt. hn. Sir H.

Ferguson, Sir R.

Parrott, J.

Ferguson, R.

Pattison, J.

Finch, F.

Pechell, Captain

Fitzroy, Lord C.

Philips, M.

Fleetwood, Sir P. H.

Philips, G. R.

Fort, J.

Phillipotts, J.

Gibson, T. M.

Pigot, D. R.

Gillon, W. D.

Protheroe, E.

Grey, rt. hon. Sir C.

Pryme, G.

Grey, Sir G.

Ramsbottom, J.

Grote, G.

Rice, E. R.

Guest, Sir J.

Rice, rt. hon. T. S.

Hall, Sir B.

Rich, H.

Harvey, D. W.

Rippon, C.

Hastie, A.

Roche, E. B.

Hawes, B.

Roche, W.

Hawkins, J. H.

Rolfe, Sir R. M.

Hayter, W. G.

Rundle, J.

Heathcoat, J.

Russell, Lord J.

Hector, C. J.

Russell, Lord

Hill, Lord A. M. C.

Salwey, Colonel

Hindley, C.

Scholefield, J.

Hobhouse, rt. hon. Sir J.

Scrope, G. P.

Hobhouse, T. B.

Seale, Sir J. H.

Hollond, R.

Seymour, Lord

Horsman, E.

Sharpe, General

Howard, F. J.

Shelburne, Earl

Howard, P. H.

Slaney, R. A.

Howick, Visct.

Smith, J. A

Humphery, J.

Smith, B.

Hutt, W.

Smith, R. V.

Hutton, R.

Standish, C.

Jervis, S.

Stanley, E. J.

Johnson, General

Stansfield, W. R. C.

Kinnaird, hon. A. F.

Staunton, Sir G. T.

Labouchere, rt. hn. H.

Steuart, R.

Lambton, H.

Stewart, J.

Langdale, hon. C.

Stuart, Lord J.

Langton, W. G.

Stuart, V.

Leader, J. T.

Stock, Dr.

Loch, J.

Strickland, Sir G.

Lushington, C.

Strutt, E.

Lushington, rt. hn. S.

Style, Sir C.

Lynch, A. H.

Tancred, H. W.

Macleod, R.

Thorneley, T.

M'Taggart, J.

Troubridge, Sir E. T.

Marshall, W.

Turner, E.

Marsland, H.

Vigors, N. A.

Martin, J.

Vivian, J. H.

Maule, hon. F.

Wakley, T.

Melgund, Lord

Walker, R.

Milton, Viscount

Wallace, R.

Morpeth Viscount

Warburton, H.

Murray, A.

Ward, H. G.

Murray, rt. hn. J. A.

Wemyss, J. E.

861

White, A.

Wood, G. W.

Wild, Sergeant

Yates, J. A.

Williams, W.

Wilshere, W.

TELLERS.

Wood, C.

Villiers, C. P.

Wood, Sir M.

Hume, J.

List of the NOES.

Acheson, Viscount

Cavendish, hon. C.

Acland, Sir T. D.

Cavendish, hon. G. H.

Acland, T. D.

Cayley, E. S.

A'Court, Captain

Chapman, A.

Adare, Viscount

Chetwynd, Major

Aglionby, Major

Chichester, J. P. B.

Alexander, Viscount

Christopher, R. A.

Alford, Lord

Chute, W. L. W.

Alsager, Captain

Clayton, Sir W. R.

Alston, R.

Clerk, Sir G.

Arbuthnott, hon. H.

Clive, Lord Viscount

Archbold, R.

Clive, hon. R. H.

Archdall, M.

Cole, hon. A. H.

Ashley, Lord

Cole, Viscount

Attwood, W.

Compton, H. C.

Attwood, M.

Copeland, Alderman

Bagge, W.

Corry, hon. H.

Bagot, hon. W.

Courtenay, P.

Bailey, J.

Cripps, J.

Bailey, J. jun.

Crompton, Sir S.

Baillie, Colonel

Darby, G.

Baker, E.

Darlington, Earl

Bating, hon. W. B.

Denison, W. J.

Barrington, Viscount

De Horsey, S. H.

Barry, G. S.

Dick, Q.

Bell, M.

D'Israeli, B.

Benett, J.

Dottin, A. R.

Bentinck, Lord G.

Douglas, Sir C. E.

Berkeley, hon. G.

Douro, Marquis

Bethell, R.

Duff, James

Blackburne, I.

Duff, J.

Blackstone, W. S.

Duffield, T.

Blair, J.

Dugdale, W. S.

Blake, M. J.

Dunbar, G.

Blakemore, R.

Duncombe, hon. W.

Blandford, Mar. of

Duncombe, hon. A.

Blennerhassett, A.

Du Pre, G.

Bodkin, J. J.

East, J. B.

Boldero, H. G.

Eastnor, Lord

Bowes, J.

Eaton, R. J.

Bradshaw, J.

Egerton, W. T.

Bramston, T. W.

Egerton, Sir P.

Broadley, H.

Eliot, Lord

Broadwood, H.

Ellis, J.

Brodie, W. B.

Estcourt, T.

Brownrigg, S.

Estcourt, T.

Bruce, Lord E.

Evans, G.

Bruen, F.

Farnham, E. B.

Bruges, W. H. L.

Farrand, R.

Buller, Sir J. Y.

Fector, J. M.

Burr, H.

Fellows, E.

Burrell, Sir C.

Filmer, Sir E.

Burroughes, H. N.

Fitzalan, Lord

Byng, G.

Fitzgibbon, hon. Col.

Calcraft, J. H.

Fitzroy, hon. H.

Campbell, Sir H.

Fitzsimon, N.

Canning, rt. hon. Sir S.

Fleming, J.

Cantilupe, Lord

Foley, E. T.

Castlereagh, Viscount

Forester, hon. G.

862

Fox, G. L.

Kemble, H.

French, F.

Ker, D.

Freshfield, J. W.

Kirk, P.

Gaskell, J. M.

Knatchbull, hon. Sir E.

Gladstone, W. E.

Knight, H. G.

Glynne, Sir S. R.

Knightley, Sir C.

Goddard, A.

Knox, hon. T.

Gordon, R.

Lascelles, hon. W. S.

Gordon, Captain

Law, hon. C. E.

Gore, O. W.

Lefevre, C. S.

Gore, J. R.

Lefroy, rt. hon. T.

Goring, H. D.

Lemon, Sir C.

Goulburn, rt. hon. H.

Lennox, Lord G.

Graham, rt. hn. Sir J.

Lennox, Lord A.

Granby, Marquess

Liddell, hon. H. T.

Grant, hon. Colonel

Lincoln, Earl of

Grant, F. W.

Lockhart, A. M.

Grattan, J.

Long, W.

Greene, T.

Lowther, hon. Colonel

Greenaway, C.

Lowther, J. H.

Grimsditch, T.

Lucas, E.

Grimston, Viscount

Lygon, hon. General

Grimston, hon. E. H.

Mackenzie, T.

Halford, H.

Mackenzie, W. F.

Handley, H.

Mackinnon, W. A.

Harcourt, G. S.

Macnamara, Major

Hardinge, right hon. Sir H.

Maher, J.

Mahon, Viscount

Harland, W. C.

Maidstone, Viscount

Hawkes, T.

Manners, Lord C.

Heathcote, Sir G.

Marsland, T.

Heathcote, Sir W.

Marton, G.

Heathcote, J.

Master, T. W. C.

Heneage, G. W.

Maunsell, T. P.

Heneage, E.

Maxwell, hon. S. R.

Henniker, Lord

Meynell, Captain

Hepburn, Sir T. B.

Miles, W.

Herbert, hon. S.

Miles, P. W. S.

Herries, rt. hon. J. C.

Miller, W. H.

Hill, Sir R.

Milnes, R. M.

Hillsborough, Earl

Monypenny, T. G.

Hinde, J. H.

Mordaunt, Sir J.

Hodges, T. L.

Moreton, hon. A. H.

Hodgson, F.

Morgan, C. M. R.

Hodgson, R.

Neeld, J.

Hogg, J. W.

Neeld, J.

Holmes, hn. W. A.

Nicholl, J.

Holmes, W.

Noel, W. M.

Hope, hon. C.

Norreys, Lord

Hope, H. T.

O'Brien, C.

Hope, G. W.

O'Brien, W. S.

Hoskins, K.

O'Conor, Don

Hotham, Lord

O'Neil, hon. J. B. R.

Houldsworth, T.

Ossulston, Lord

Houstoun, G.

Owen, Sir J.

Howard, Sir R.

Packe, C. W.

Howard, hon. W.

Paget, F.

Hurst, R. H.

Pakington, J. S.

Hurt, F.

Palmer, C. F.

Ingestrie, Visct.

Palmer, R.

Irton, S.

Palmer, G.

Irving, J.

Parker, M.

James, Sir W. C.

Parker, T. A. W.

Jenkins, Sir R.

Patten, J. W.

Johnstone, H.

Pease, J.

Jones, J.

Peel, rt. hon. Sir R.

Jones, Captain

Peel, J.

863

Pemberton, T.

Stanley, Lord

Pendarves, E. W. W.

Stanley, M.

Perceval, Colonel

Stanley, W. O.

Perceval, hon. G. J.

Stormont, Visct.

Philipps, Sir R.

Strangways, hon. J.

Pigot, R.

Sturt, H. C.

Pinney, W.

Surrey, Earl of

Planta, rt. hon. J.

Teignmouth, Lord

Plumptre, J. P.

Tennent, J. E.

Polhill, F.

Thomas, Colonel H.

Pollen, Sir J. W.

Thompson, Alderman

Pollock, Sir F.

Thornhill, G.

Powell, Colonel

Tollemache, F. J.

Power, J.

Townley, R. G.

Power, J.

Trench, Sir F.

Powerscourt, Visct.

Tyrrell, Sir J. T.

Praed, W. M.

Vere, Sir C. B.

Praed, W. T.

Verner, Colonel

Price, Sir R.

Vernon, G. H.

Price, R.

Villiers, Lord

Pringle, A.

Vivian, J. E.

Pryse, P.

Waddington, H. S.

Pusey, P.

Wall, C. B.

Rae, rt. hon. Sir W.

Walsh, Sir J.

Reid, Sir J. R.

Welby, G. E.

Richards, R.

Westenra, hon. H. R.

Rickford, W.

Westenra, hon. J. C.

Rolleston, L.

Whitmore, T. C.

Round, C. G.

Wilbraham, G.

Round, J.

Wilkins, W.

Rushbrooke, Colonel

Williams, R.

Russell, Lord C.

Williams, T. P.

St. Paul, H.

Williams, W. A.

Sanderson, R.

Wilmot, Sir J. E.

Sandon, Visct.

Winnington, T. E.

Sanford, E. A.

Winnington, H. J.

Scarlett, hon. J. Y.

Wodehouse, E.

Shaw, rt. hon. F.

Wood, Colonel T.

Sheil, R. L.

Wood, T.

Sheppard, T.

Worsley, Lord

Shirley, E. J.

Wyndham, W.

Sibthorp, Colonel

Yorke, hon. E. T.

Sinclair, Sir G.

Young, J.

Smith, A.

Young, Sir W.

Smyth, Sir G. H.

TELLERS.

Somerset, Lord G.

Baring, H.

Spry, Sir S. T.

Fremantle, Sir T.

Stanley, E.

Paired off.

Ashley, hon. H.

Childers, J. W.

Barneby, J.

Blewitt, R. J.

Bateson, Sir R.

Roche, Sir D.

Cartwright, W. R.

Colquhoun, J. C.

Codrington, C. W.

Conyngham, Lord A.

Cooper, J. E.

White, L.

Coote, Sir C.

Brabazon, Lord

Cresswell, C.

Erle, W.

Crewe, Sir G.

Edwards, Sir J.

Dalrymple, Sir A.

Vivian, rt. hon. Sir H.

Damer, hon. G. D.

Grosvenor, Lord R.

Davenport, J.

Molesworth, Sir W.

Dungannon, Viscount

Wyse, T.

Hale, R. B.

O'Callaghan, hon. C.

Hayes, Sir E.

O'Connell, M.

Inglis, Sir R. H.

Lister, E. C.

Jackson, Sergeant

Jervis, J.

864

Jermyn, Lord

Chester, H.

Jones, W.

Walker, C. A.

Lowther, Lord

Bentinck, Lord W.

Maclean, D.

Talfourd, Serjeant

Mathew, Captain

Verney, Sir H.

Rose, rt. hon. Sir G.

Talbot, J. H.

Stewart, J.

Hallyburton, Lord D.

Trevor, hon. G. R.

Colquhoun, Sir J.

Wilbraham, hon. B.

Bridgeman, H.

Wynn, rt. hon. C. W.

Buller, hon. P.

Wynn, Sir W.

Thomson, rt. hn. C.P.

Ferguson, Sir R.

Somerville, Sir W.

Grattan, H.

Norreys, Sir D.

Mildway, P. St. John

Ponsonby, hon. J.

Smith, G.

Rumbold, C. E.

Absent.

Andover, Lord

Speirs, A.

Barron, W.

Spencer, hon. Captain

Brabazon, Sir W.

Talbot, C. R. M.

Bryan, Captain

Turner, W. (ill)

Campbell, W. F.

Vivian, Major

Cave, R. O.

White, S.

Chalmers, P.

White, H.

Chapman, Sir M. L.

Wrightson, W. B.

Clements, Lord

Baring, hon. F.

Davies, Colonel

Bolling, W.

Dundas, hon. J.

Burdett, Sir F. (ill)

Dunlop, Sir J. (ill)

Dowdeswell, W.

Euston, Lord

Conolly, Colonel

Ewart, W.

Egerton, Lord F. (ill)

Fazakerly, N.

Follett, Sir W. (ill)

Fitzpatrick, J. W.

Godson, R. (circuit)

Heron, Sir R.

Harcourt, G. G. V.

James, W.

(abroad)

Leveson, Lord

Hughes, B.

Martin, J. B.

Ingham, R. (circuit)

Morris, D.

Kelly, F. (circuit)

O'Connell, J.

Kerrison, Sir E. (ill)

Ponsonby, hon. C.

Litton, E.

Redington, T. N.

Rushout, G. (ill)

Somers, J. P.

Sugden, Sir E. (ill)

Analysis of the Division.

For the motion (tellers included)

197

Against (tellers included)

344

Pairs (32)

64

Ministerialists absent

33

Conservatives absent

16

Vacant—Richmond, Devonshire, Leicester

3

Speaker

1

658

THE DUKE OF WELLINGTON'S ANNUITY ACT.
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid, that the bill which he wished to introduce was almost of a formal nature, and was brought forward with the consent of the noble Duke to whom it referred, and he had no doubt would meet with the unanimous consent of the House. The object of the bill was of a very simple description. Under the Acts granting certain annuities to Field-marshal the Duke of

865
Wellington, provision was made authorising the Duke to make, on the marriage of his daughters, if he should have any, certain charges on the estate, and also an annuity to the Duchess to the amount of 2,000 l. per annum. No such provision, however, was necessary at present, and the object of the present bill was to enable the noble Duke to charge a jointure on the estate on the marriage of his eldest son and heir apparent, for which by some oversight no provision was made. The bill also contained a provision by which the objects of value presented to him by foreign Powers were made heir looms and settled with the title in the same manner that the English rewards had been settled. He begged to move for leave to bring in the bill.
Leave given. Bill brought in and read a first time.

MINUTES.
Petitions presented. By the Duke of RICHMOND, the Earls of MOUNTCASHEL, STANHOPE, SHAFRESBURY, and HADDINGTON, Viscount STRANGFORD, and Lord REDESDALE, from a number of places, against the Repeal of the Corn-laws.—By the Earl of ROSEBERY, from Ross, against Church Extension in Scotland.—By the Marquess of ANGLESEY, from Amlwch, against the appropriation of any of the Revenues arising out of the Union of the Bishoprics of Bangor and St. Asaph's for Amending Bishoprics in England.—By the Duke of CLEVELAND, from a Poor-law Union in the North, and by Viscount GAGE, from another Union in Oxfordshire, for an Alteration in the Bastardy Clauses of the New Poor-laws.—By Lord BROUGHAM, from Glasgow, against

787
Church Extension in Scotland.—By the Duke of ARGYLE, Earls of ERROL, and HADDINGTON, and the Marquess of BUTE, from several places, in favour of Church Extension in Scotland,—By the Earl of FALMOUTH, from Cornwall, against the Beer-laws.

CORN-LAWS.—GLASGOW PETITION.
Lord Brougham,in presenting a Petition from Congleton, in favour of the total repeal of the Corn-laws, said, that he had carefully read it for the purpose of not falling into any error in stating its contents.* He had heard that some gallant officer did not like a French general who was opposed to him, because he would never allow him to sleep even with one eye, and he was in the same situation with regard to his noble Friend (the Duke of Richmond), who was unfortunately his opponent on the subject of the Corn-laws; still, however, he ought to apologise to their Lordships for a misstatement of facts which occurred the other evening, and which the acuteness of his noble Friend had discovered. But in truth his noble Friend was unconsciously the cause of the error; for his noble Friend presented the other evening a numerously signed petition from Glasgow, and had described it as proceeding from a respectable body there in favour of the Corn-laws, which looked considerably against his statement. In consequence, however, of what had fallen from his noble Friend, he was waited upon the next day by Mr. Sturge, Mr. Walmesley, and by two gentlemen from Glasgow, who stated, to show that there was no ground for supposing that the opinion of Glasgow was unfavourable to the repeal, there was a petition signed by 43,000 inhabitants in its favour. When he came down to the House at five o'clock, one of the officers put into his hands a petition from Glasgow; he immediately put the two things together, and having no idea that Glasgow, great and important as it was, was so prolific of petitions with more than 40,000 signatures, as to send two on different subjects, signed by so numerous a body, he concluded that this was the petition referred to, instead of being, as it really turned out, a petition against Church Extension in Scotland. Still he owed the
* The noble Lord by mistake on the previous Friday, presented a petition from Glasgow, describing it to be against the Corn-laws, which, when examined by the Duke of Richmond, turned out to be a petition for Church Extension (Scotland).
788
apology he now made to their Lordships for the mistake.
The Duke of Richmondwas most happy in having detected the noble and learned Lord's error.
Earl Stanhopecould not help remarking that after the error that had so recently occurred it might so happen that out of the many petitions presented by the noble and learned Lord against negro slavery, there might have been some against white slavery, or perchance, some against the new Poor-law Bill.
Lord Broughamwould not have the noble Earl lay the flattering unction to his soul that any of the petitions had been against the Poor-law Bill. It was impossible that he could have made a mistake, for he had never, except in the last instance, presented a petition which he had not examined, of which the substance had not been extracted, and the subject matter marked on the back, generally by himself. So that the petition was first examined to make the abstract, secondly it was read by him to the House, and thirdly it was read by the clerk at the table, who would have returned it if he had made any mistake. And, so far from the noble Earl's supposition being correct, he had, on the contrary, presented many petitions in favour of the Poor-law Act, from many highly respectable persons, and men of sound judgment.

CHURCH EXTENSION.
Lord Broughamhad now read the petition from Glasgow to which he had before referred, and he found that it was a petition on a most important subject. No wonder that he had thought it was signed by 42,000, for so he would have judged by the bulk, and on a reference to its contents he found that it had actually 40,587 names appended to it.
The Duke of Richmond: If the noble Lord had read the outside of the petition he would have seen that it related to Church Extension.
Lord Broughamdid not like superficial knowledge. If he read at all he liked to open the book itself. The petition urged their Lordships strongly not to give any further grant or endowment to the Scotch church, and they played also for a separation between Church and State; it was agreed to at a public meeting held at the Grey Friars' church in Glasgow, on the 12th February, 1839, In presenting this

789
petition he must express his satisfaction at the declaration lately made by the noble Viscount at the head of her Majesty's Government upon this point.
The Earl of Aberdeencould not conceive that the declaration attributed to the head of her Majesty's Government—that they would not propose any grant during the present Session, and after the termination of the labours of the commission appointed by themselves—could be correct, or that no pledge had been given to do so; for unless the noble Lord held different language in that House and out of it, nay more, unless he held different language sitting from what he did standing, there was a pledge that funds to a certain amount, the noble Lord knew to what he alluded, should be applied.
Viscount Melbournesaid, that the Government had not at present come to the determination of making any proposition on the subject.

PARDONS IN IRELAND.
The Marquess of Westmeathwished to call the attention of the noble Marquess opposite to the fact, that on the last occasion on which he drew the attention of the House to Irish affairs, he stated that the noble Marquess had liberated a criminal from the gaol of Westmeath without requiring bail from him, and that the noble Marquess had on that occasion roundly contradicted him. He had since written to Ireland under an impression, that his original information was true, requesting to be furnished with the best information on the subject, and he now had received confirmatory evidence, namely, a copy of the letter of Mr. Drummond, secretary to the noble Marquess, dated Dublin Castle, December 11, 1837, in which he communicated his Excellency's commands to the gaoler, that Thomas Cook, confined in the gaol of Mullingar, should be discharged from custody; and he was discharged without bail. He could not now help expressing his astonishment at the noble Marquess's contradiction, and at the same time of stating, that in his opinion such a course of proceeding was not calculated to facilitate public business.
The Marquess of Normanbysaid, he did not see anything so extraordinary in the step he had been taking. On the occasion to which the noble Marquess referred, he spoke from a minute in his own handwriting, which he then held in his
790
hand, expressive both of his intention and of what he did, which was, that if the man should behave himself well for two months, he should then he discharged on giving security. He did behave well, and in a petition presented to him at the expiration of that period, he stated that he was prepared to give security, himself in 20 l. and two others in 10 l. each. He had made a minute from which he spoke, in his own handwriting, that the man should be discharged on giving security. Whether any inadvertence had subsequently taken place in making the ultimate order, he could not say, but he had never known an instance in which such an order to take security had not been attended to, although, as the noble Marquess seemed so certain, that there had been an omission here, he could not take upon himself to say there really had not been. He had however, given orders, that his sureties should be taken, and his opinion was, that his order had been complied with.

WEST INDIA LABOURERS.
Lord Seafordwished to ask the noble Marquess, another question, on a different subject, whether her Majesty's Government had received any communications from Sir Lionel Smith, relative to the working of the free labourers in Jamaica, besides those already on the Table? He put the question at the request of a very numerous meeting which had been convened on the subject, conceiving that the House ought to be in possession of the fullest information from all parties. He trusted, that his noble Friend, if he had received any more communications, would make no objection to their production. He wished also to know whether the noble Marquess had any objection to produce any communications he had received from the agent of Jamaica.
The Marquess of Normanbyreplied, that there was every intention on the part of the Colonial office to give as full information as they were competent to afford relative to the working of the free system in Jamaica. Whether Sir Lionel Smith had received any information other than that which had been laid on the Table, he (the Marquess of Normanby) could not tell, but if he had he had not communicated it to the Colonial office, and should the office receive any further communications from the stipendiary magistrates or other persons, they should be

791
laid on the Table of the House. He had no objection to put the House in possession of every information relating to the House; he could not, however, have included the statement of the agent for Jamaica in the papers already produced; but if the noble Lord would move for it, he had not the slightest reason for opposing the motion.
Earl St. Vincentsaid, that if they were to consider this subject, it was most important that the true state of the island should be known? The statement laid on the Table could not be confided in; it was made ex parte, and if the Colonial office gave credit to it they would be led into error. When the subject came before them, then it would require the exercise of their utmost wisdom and discretion.
The communication from the agent of Jamaica ordered to be laid on the Table.

WAR IN THE EAST.
The Earl of Aberdeenwas anxious to ask the noble Lord at the head of her Majesty's Government whether, when the papers were presented and printed, the noble Viscount would make any statement explanatory of the war we were engaged in in the East, or whether there was any other information to be presented to the House?
Viscount Melbournereplied, that there was considerable additional information to lay on the Table of the House on the subject, but that he would not make any statement until the whole information was before their Lordships.
Lord Ellenboroughinquired whether the noble Viscount would make any motion on the production of the papers?
Viscount Melbourne: No. He had not stated that he would make any motion, but he would make a statement when the whole of the papers were before the House.

GLASGOW COTTON SPINNERS.
Lord Broughampresented a petition from the cotton spinners who were convicted a year and a-half ago of an illegal combination. It would be recollected that owing, not to his learned friend, the Lord Advocate, but to the blundering of some other persons, the parties had been kept in prison a long time before trial. They had now been nearly two years in prison, and the last year was in the hulks, and they complained of the hardships they had suffered. If the men had been convicted a
792
few miles south of Glasgow, and under the laws of England, they would have only been liable to three months' imprisonment, and they prayed their Lordships, as the highest court of judicature, to interfere in their behalf. If mercy were extended to them they would acknowledge that they owed their release to the clemency of the executive; and he would take upon himself to say, that he was satisfied, from the anxious inquiries of persons who had seen and conversed with the convicts, that if they were released, nothing whatever would be done by their friends or advocates to make unseemly or unbefitting expressions; and nothing but gratitude for the mercy that had been bestowed.
Petition laid on the table.

POOR-LAWS.
Earl Stanhopewas desirous of calling the attention of their Lordships to a petition which he held in his hand, which was one of great importance and worthy of their Lordships' attention, as it offered another example, although it might be considered superfluous, of the tender mercies dispensed by the three dictators at Somerset-house, under the New Poor-law Act. It was the petition of John Berry, a labourer, of the Union of Worksop, but residing in the Union of Ecclesall, Bierlow. The petitioner was a native of the parish of St. John, now in the Union of Worksop, and had long resided in the county of Nottingham. He was born in the year 1748, so that his life was already extended beyond the usual period of human existence; and, therefore, he (Earl Stanhope) would ask, upon that statement alone, if no legal provision had ever existed in this country for the relief of the poor, and if the statute of Elizabeth had never been passed, whether a person who during a considerable number of years had maintained himself and family, and shared in the public burdens, had not an undoubted right to demand assistance and support from this country? It appeared that for nearly fifty years the petitioner had been a housekeeper, and that he had regularly paid poor-rates, and never had been chargeable to the parish until of late years. So that not only by a natural right, but by a positive statute, he was entitled to claim relief, of which he and others, in similar circumstances, had been violently dispossessed. Yes, he would

793
say violently dispossessed, without the opportunity and advantage of being heard in their own defence, of that relief by what was falsely called an assembly of the representatives of the people. The petitioner had now attained the age of 91 years, and of course it could not be expected, even by the Poor-Law Commissioners themselves, that he was able to earn his living by his own labour; nor could any flaw be found in his character as to industry and sobriety. It appeared that from the time he had become chargeable to the parish until the enactment of that most monstrous measure of iniquity and oppression, the new Poor-law, he received the small stipend of 4s. per week for the support of himself and wife, 2s. of which they had to pay every week for rent; so that all this poor couple had to subsist upon was just no more than 1s. each per week. But even this miserable pittance, insignificant as it was, appeared too large to the guardians of the union, who, he supposed, found themselves obliged to act under the arbitrary commands of the three dictators of Somerset-house. The result was, that 2s. were withdrawn from the weekly allowance of this aged couple, and having to pay rent to that amount, they had nothing left for subsistence. When they ventured to remonstrate with the guardians against this reduction, their claim for a restoration of the former allowance was refused, and they were told that any further application would render them altogether destitute of relief, for the whole should be withheld. What was the consequence? The goods of this unfortunate and venerable man were seized for rent, and would have been wrested from him, had it not been for a benevolent friend, who interposed and rendered him the necessary assistance. Looking to the moral and religious character and conduct of the petitioner, considering that he had spent a long life in industry, and had proved himself a useful and valuable member of society, he would ask, whether he should not be relieved from penury in his old age, and allowed to spend the remainder of his days in his own home? He would read to their Lordships two or three passages from the petition itself. It stated, "That your petitioner, though very infirm, is very grateful for the many mercies he has received." In speaking of "mercies" their Lordships would understand that the
794
petitioner meant the mercies of Providence, and not the mercies of the New Poor-law. But the petitioner "hopes that he and his aged wife may be permitted to remain and die where now all that they are attached to in this world are resident. He had always understood, that having paid poor-rates during full fifty years, he would be entitled to a maintenance in his old age; that coarser food than bread and water," alluding, he supposed, to the diet, which had been praised in that House by a noble Earl—"that coarser food than bread and water would not be his portion; that, being a free born Englishman, unaccused of any crime, he should not be cast into prison; that being a Christian"—and he begged the attention of their Lordships to this part of the petition—"accustomed regularly to worship God on the Sabbath-day in his holy temple, he should not be debarred from so doing while he had strength and inclination so to do; that after having lived so long happily and affectionately with his wife, he never looked forward to the time when, in violation of the commands of God, they might, unaccused, be put asunder in different prisons, while at their death their bodies might be given to surgeons to be dissected; that your petitioner, understanding that these and many other (as he conceives) unjust hardships, and even some worse, may be inflicted on him and others in similar situations by officers till now unknown in this country, while the long enjoyed right of appeal to neighbouring magistrates against the oppression is taken away from them, most humbly solicits your right hon. House that the good, well-understood, poor-laws may be restored to this his long-loved, long-enjoyed, native country, and your petitioner, for the very short period now remaining of a long life, will, as in duty bound, gratefully pray.—JOHN BERRY."
Lord Ellenboroughsaid, he could not help thinking that there was a great deal of misunderstanding respecting the case adverted to by his noble Friend. Upon one point, undoubtedly, there was a decided mistake. The relief of individual cases was not under the direction of the Board of Commissioners at Somerset-house; it depended entirely on the local boards of guardians; and therefore, whatever errors might he committed, it rested entirely with the board of guardians. He apprehended that inquiry would throw a

795
very different light on this case. There could be no doubt that if this petitioner and his wife had nothing but what they received from the board of guardians, it was not enough. But he could not help thinking that it would be found they had relatives somewhere who were able to support them, and that what was given by the hoard of guardians was given in aid of such support. He had no doubt that a case like the present would receive every consideration from any board of guardians, because he trusted that feelings of humanity were prevalent among those gentlemen of which they were generally composed. He wished the noble Earl would make a little more inquiry into the matter.
Earl Stanhopesaid, if he had read the petition at length, the noble Baron would have found that this needy person had no relatives whatever, although he might receive casual aid from benevolent individuals. He was so entirely ignorant of the Poor-laws as not to know that the Commissioners were not immediately engaged in dispensing relief; but he knew that the boards of guardians were compelled to act in conformity with the general directions which were issued from Somerset-house.
Lord Broughamhoped the noble Earl would have no objection to have the petition copied, and a copy sent to the three dictators at Somerset-house, as the noble Earl called them. It was but fair that they should know the contents of the petition. He would say for those three most worthy, honourable, and respectable individuals, who had a most painful, laborious, and difficult duty to exercise, that he never heard one case brought forward in which they did not anxiously court inquiry. In fact, they had even gone out of their way, notwithstanding the amount of their ordinary business, to prosecute inquiry themselves.
Earl Stanhopesaid, those three worthy, hon. and most respectable persons, as the noble and learned Lord had called them, seemed to work like moles in the dark, for the newspapers were filled with cases that excited horror and indignation in the public mind, but they never condescended to say, whether they inquired into them, or what was the result of any inquiry they made. They could not be unacquainted with the case of the petitioner.
Lord Broughamrecommended the noble
796
Earl to give notice of a motion for bringing forward all the cases he pleased, with the names, and he would then undertake to meet the noble Earl as he met him last year. It did so happen, that having met him last year, he did not find him so ready to come on this year. He could not tell the reason of that.
Earl Stanhopesaid, he could assure the noble and learned Lord, that if he wished him to produce individual cases, he should be ready to do so; but he feared that the House would not be so ready to go into them. He thought there were cases enough to occupy a whole week in merely stating their respective facts. Perhaps his better course would be to move, if the noble Lord opposite had no objection, for a return of any correspondence which had taken place with respect to cases A, B, C, and so on, naming the cases.
Lord Brougham.—If you name the cases I have no objection.
Earl Stanhopesaid, he would do so, if he could be certain of a full and fair inquiry. There had already been an inquiry into some cases before a committee. But what he wanted to see was an inquiry conducted as a case was conducted before a jury in a court of law, which would insure a fair decision. What had happened in the committee of last year? According to the opinion of the committee on four of the papers which came under the investigation, nothing was wrong; but he had given his reasons for dissenting altogether from that opinion. Then with regard to the Bridgewater case, that had not been investigated; the inquiry had commenced, but was "broken off in the middle, like the story of the bear and fiddle." The Suffolk cases were every one of them most clearly proved. No doubt could be entertained of the truth of those cases. But the investigation was conducted in a manner that could not by possibility give satisfaction to this country. He could not with propriety decline serving on that committee, inasmuch as he was one of the defendants, having produced one of the cases which was the subject of inquiry. What was the manner of conducting that investigation? The moment any witness expressed an opinion which was unfavourable to the New Poor Law, he was assailed on all sides; some questions were put to him to confound him, others to confute him; and others hail not for their object the investigation of truth, not to discover

797
whether the fact was true or false, but neither more nor less than to make the witness believe, that he was greatly mistaken in his opinion. He wished the investigation had been conducted as inquiries were in a court of law; then the whole of the cases, not excepting the Bridgewater case, would have been proved. If the course which had been pursued was intended to gain time, or to cast oil on the troubled waves, it might have succeeded, but that was all it had accomplished, or could accomplish.
Lord Wharncliffemust complain of the manner in which the noble Earl had spoken of the committee, because, although the Bridgewater case was not finished, the other four cases were entirely heard. It did so happen that the length of the evidence on the Bridgewater case drove them so far into the Session that the committee found they could not get through it. He thought he had a right to ask what his noble Friend meant by stating that attempts were made to confute, or confound witnesses. It was the duty of witnesses to state facts, and in order to get at facts witnesses must undergo an operation which was not very pleasant, but they underwent the same in the courts of law—they must be cross-examined. In courts of law witnesses were very closely examined and cross-examined, and he was bound to say that his noble Friend had no right to complain of the conduct of the committee. Indeed, he was quite sure, that if the witnesses who gave information, or really had information to give, were asked the question they would not say, that they were not treated fairly by that committee. With respect to the petition, which happened to come from a place not far from his own residence, he was quite sure, from his knowledge of the union to which the man appeared to belong, that it was impossible he could be treated with injustice. The Chairman of the union was the Duke of Portland. Any man who knew that noble Duke must be ready to admit that he was the last man likely to do anything unjust or partial in any degree to any individual. But the truth was, that there was a considerable departure at times from the rule, that no relief should be given out of the union workhouses. It appeared, however, that the union had refused to relieve this man. But there must be some particular reason for that refusal, and he thought it would have been courteous if
798
the noble Earl had communicated with the Duke of Portland. It appeared from the petition, that, after the man had applied to the union, a neighbouring gentleman wrote to the Duke of Portland on the subject, and that the letter was laid before the board, who passed a resolution—"That the case should not be taken into consideration." Now, there must have been some reason for taking that course; and, as his noble Friend had made this charge against the Worksop Union, it would have been only courteous and just to have made the noble Chairman acquainted with his intentions.
Earl Stanhopehad not condemned the investigation of the committee on his own authority. He rested on the evidence itself. Notwithstanding what had been stated, he would maintain, that during the investigation it was attempted to confute the witnesses rather than elicit truth, and he must say, that the examinations were the most pettifogging he could conceive.
The Duke of Richmondhad seen nothing during the examinations which was not strictly correct. Committees of the House of Lords ought, however, he thought, to object to witnesses saying, "Somebody told me this or that." The way was to bring that somebody before the committee, and not record mere hearsay evidence. In regard to the case which had been brought forward by the noble Earl, it ought to be recollected that under the old system it was not competent for the overseers to order relief out of the parishes, while under the new system relief might be ordered out of the parish, provided the locality was within the union. Under the old system, therefore, matters as regarded the petitioner would have been worse than under the New Poor-law.
Petition laid on the Table.

CORN-LAWS (IRELAND).
The Earl of Mountcashellpresented a petition from the County of Cork against any alteration of the Corn-laws. As he had not had an opportunity of expressing his sentiments on this important subject on a former evening, he trusted their Lordships would permit him to make a few observations in regard to the effects which he conceived a repeal of the Corn-laws would produce as respected Ireland. Ireland would, in his opinion, be the greatest sufferer by a repeal of the Corn-laws, because Ireland was not a manufacturing country,

799
and was dependent almost entirely upon agriculture. If sufficient remuneration were not afforded to the growers of corn in Ireland, a great number of farms would be laid down in grass, and the people would, in consequence, suffer severely, as they would not be able to export such a quantity of agricultural produce as they had hitherto done. But a large portion of land would inevitably be thrown out of cultivation altogether, and the effect of such a step would be to throw a large number of labourers out of employment, and in Ireland the difficulty of obtaining work was very great. The land, too, being turned into pasture, the price of potatoes would increase, and as potatoes were the chief means of subsistence of the poor, the labourer, while he had less employment, would also be less able to provide for himself and family, because of the increase in the price of provisions. But that was not all, for if a number of labourers were thrown out of employment, the price of labour would be reduced by the competition which would take place, so that while there was little employment, and while provisions were at a high price, their means of obtaining the necessaries of life would at the same time be greatly diminished. He had little hesitation in saying, that the effect of a repeal of the Corn-laws would be to reduce the already low price of labour in Ireland by 3d. or 4d. per day. Their Lordships were aware of the advantages which the poor in Ireland derived from the rearing of pigs, but if the quantity of potatoes raised was diminished on account of the number of farms turned into grass, and if the price of all other kinds of agricultural produce were increased,—and such would be the effects of a repeal of the system of Corn-laws,—it would be no longer possible for the poor to rear the same quantity of pigs as before, and they would suffer very severely in consequence. It was, however, argued, that the landlords must reduce their rents; but those who knew anything of Ireland must be well aware of the difficulties in the way of such a step. A great number of the Irish estates were heavily encumbered, and the landlords had to maintain their families, to pay the interest of mortgages and debts, so that in many cases a reduction of rents would be attended with very great hardship. In his opinion a repeal of the Corn-laws would, cause some degree of suffering to
800
the landlords; but the farmers would suffer still more, and the labourers and poor most of all. Such, in his opinion, would be the effects of the repeal as regarded Ireland. With respect to England, he thought the manufacturers themselves would ultimately suffer more from a repeal of the Corn-laws than the landlords or farmers. It was allowed that the home market was by far the most valuable for the manufacturers, and who were the purchasers in the home market? In the home-market the landlords, farmers, and labourers, were the chief consumers, and if the income of the landlords, farmers, and labourers were diminished, it would be impossible they could continue to consume the same quantity of manufactures as they did at present. It was impossible they could do so; and it was clear, that in proportion as their means were diminished, the less would they consume of the manufacturing produce of the country. It was plain, therefore, that although the agriculturists would suffer in the first place, the manufacturers would ultimately suffer, and more severely. A repeal of the Corn-laws would, he was persuaded, be ruinous to the country. It was calculated that the landed property of the United Kingdom was worth 3,258,000,000 l., and if the Corn-laws were repealed, and the rents diminished but one third, what would be the effect as regarded property? In such a case the value of the whole landed property would be reduced one-third,—that is, the value of the land would be reduced by upwards of 1,000,000,0001 l., or 200,000,000 l., more than the amount of the national debt. He begged their Lordships to consider what the effect of such a reduction would be on the national debt. A great number of foreigners had invested their capital in the English funds, and if the value of the land were diminished to such an extent, would not a question arise with those foreigners whether their security was not so greatly decreased as to make it prudent for them to sell out? And what would be the effect of such a step? The inevitable consequence would be a large fall in the price of stock, so that the English capitalists would suffer severely. But there was another point of view in which the question ought to be considered. A repeal of the Corn-laws would diminish the consumption of all articles on which Customs and Excise

801
were levied, and the consequence would be a falling-off in the national revenue, and Ministers would have nothing to pay off the interest of the debt, and support the various institutions of the State. For these reasons he could not but think, that the repeal of the Corn-laws would be a measure equally impolitic and ill-advised. If there was not enough of corn raised in this country, he wished they would give some encouragement to our American colonies; and if the duty were considerably reduced, and colonial corn admitted, such a course would be of the greatest advantage to Canada.
Petition lard on the Table.