Sitting of 24 May 1841

MINUTES.
Bills. Read a first time:—Militia Ballots Suspensions Clerks of the Peace; Lancaster Compensation; Houses of Industry (Ireland).—Read a second time:—Parish Constables.—Read a third time:—Vaccination.
Petitions presented. By Mr. Leader, Mr. Wilbraham, Mr. Warburton, Mr. Easthope, and other hon. Members, from Westminster, Loughborough, Sutton, Bridgewater, West Hackney, and a great many other places, for a Repeal of the Corn-Laws.—By Mr. Easthope, from a great many places, for the substitution of Affirmations, and against Church Extension By Lord Worsley, Lord Henniker, Colonel Verner, and others, from Lincolnshire, Woodbridge, and other places, against Alteration of the Corn-laws.—By Mr. Thornely, and Mr. Brotherton, from Staffordshire, and Salford, for the Release of Mr. Baines, and the Abolition of Church Rates.—By Mr. Elliot, Mr. Ewart, Mr. Wrightson, and others, from Southwark, Galashiels, Warrington, and other places, in favour of the proposed Alteration in the Import Duties—By Mr. Gil-Ion, from Greenock, against any Alteration in the present system of Banking in Scotland.

CONFIDENCE IN THE MINISTRY.
Sir R. Peelsaid, I rise to give notice that I shall on Thursday next move a resolution to the following effect:—
" That her Majesty's Ministers do not sufficiently possess the confidence of the House of Commons to enable them to carry through that House measures which they deem of essential importance to the public welfare, and that their continuance in office, under such circumstances, is at variance with the spirit of the constitution."

FOREIGN AFFAIRS—THE RIO PLATA —PERSIA.
Viscount Sandonsaid, that the House and the country were aware of the inconvenience to which British trade had been subjected by the blockade which the French continued so long on the Rio Plata; but, perhaps, they were not aware that similar inconvenience, to almost as great an extent, existed in that region at the present moment, in consequence of a war which was being carried on between the republics of Buenos Ayres and Monte Video. He wished to know from the noble Secretary for Foreign Affairs whether there was any truth in the report which had appeared in the public papers, that an arrangement had been entered into between the British Government and that of France, in consequence of which the intervention of one of those two Governments would be interposed for the purpose of settling the disputes existing between Buenos Ayres and Monte Video, and restoring peace in that quarter?
Viscount Palmerstonsaid, that no arrangement had been entered into between the British and French Governments of the nature of that to which the noble Lord had referred; but a short time back (about two or three months ago) the British Government received a communication from the government of Monte Video, requesting our good offices for the purpose of bringing about peace between Monte Video and Buenos Ayres. To that communication an answer had been returned, stating, that it would be exceedingly agreeable to her Majesty's Government to be able to restore amicable relations between the two republics, and instructions had been sent to the British Minister at Buenos Ayres, directing him to offer the good offices of England to the government of that state; and if they should be accepted by both parties, to take immediate steps to carry that object into effect. He (Lord Palmerston)

707
hoped that the confidence which the government of Buenos Ayres showed in the British Government by accepting our good offices, when employed for the purpose of reconciling the differences which had exhibited themselves between that republic and France—on which occasion the efforts of our Government were greatly conducive to the good results which ultimately ensued—would now induce them to accept the offer made to them by us in the same conciliatory spirit as before. If such should be the case, he trusted that the two republics would come to a satisfactory arrangement, seeing that, in point of fact, there was not any material question between them —the dispute turning more upon a personal difference than any point of national interest.
Mr. Macleanwished to know something respecting our present relations with Persia. Our amicable relations with the Persian government had now been interrupted for three years. He wished to know whether we had received from the Persian government ample satisfaction for the insult which had been offered to our Ambassador, and whether the misunderstanding which had so long prevailed between this country and Persia was at at end? He wished further to know whether relations hostile to British interests did not at present subsist between (as we understood) the courts of Teheran and Herat?
Viscount Palmerstonsaid, that the existing state of our relations with Persia were pretty nearly explained by the papers which he had some time ago laid upon the Table of the House. One point in dispute only remained between the two governments, and that was respecting the evacuation of the fortress of Gourian by the Persian forces. Since the date of the papers upon the Table, intelligence had been received that the Persian government had consented to evacuate the fortress, and a gentleman had been sent from the British mission, with orders to witness with his own eyes the evacuation of the fortress, and to report the fact to his government. The last advices, however, which had been received at the Foreign Office, stated, that some pause— some hesitation, had taken place on the part of the Persian government, with respect to the evacuation of the fortress, founded on a notion that government had chosen to take up, that the British Government was no longer anxious for the
708
evacuation of Gourian, in consequence of some difference which had arisen between the British resident there and the Governor. Instructions, however, had recently been sent to Colonel Shiel, directing him to inform the Persian government that that incident made no change in the policy of England, and that we still required the evacuation of the fortress. With respect to the latter point to which the lion. Member had adverted, nothing had taken place which involved the consequences to which he had adverted.
Mr. Macleanwished to know whether, if the fortress should be evacuated, that would be considered a sufficient compensation for the insults which Persia had offered to our ambassador?
Viscount Palmerstonsaid, that we demanded from Persia, for the affront put upon our ambassador, a written apology. That apology had been received and laid before the House, and with it, he thought, we ought to be satisfied. Totally unconnected with that was the evacuation of the fortress of Gourian, which he held that Persia had no right to retain, and we had informed that Government that the British mission would not return to Teheran until the evacuation had taken place.

POOR LAW COMMISSION AND AMENDMENT ACT.
Captain Polhillsaid, he observed that there were upon the paper thirty-seven orders of the day, one of which was for the further consideration of the report of the Poor-law Amendment Bill. He wished to know whether the noble Lord the Secretary for the Colonies, intended to proceed with that order that evening.
Lord J. Russellsaid, he would state his intentions on the subject when the House came to dispose of the orders of the day.
Mr. Waltersaid, he had not distinctly heard the noble Lord's answer. He hoped the noble Lord would be good enough to state on what day he meant to proceed with the Poor-law Amendment Bill.
Lord John Russellsaid, it was not his intention to proceed with that bill during the present Session of Parliament.
Poor-law Amendment Bill put off for three months.

CASE OF MR. M'LEOD.
Lord John Russellsaid, that he had, on a former night, in answer to a question put by the right hon. Baronet the Member for Tam-

709
worth, stated that the case of Mr. M'Leod had been removed into the Federal Court. Upon that point he was mistaken. The case had been removed, not into the Federal Court, but into the Supreme Court of the State of New York, upon a writ of habeas corpus.

REGISTRATION OF VOTERS, (ENGLAND.)
Mr. H. Hindasked, whether the Government intended to proceed with the Registration of Voters Bill (England?)
Lord J. Russell said, they did not.
Bill put off for three months.

BRIBERY.
Sir R. Peelbegged to ask the noble Lord whether he intended to bring in a bill for the prevention of bribery.
Lord J. Russellsaid, it was his intention to give notice of the introduction of a bill on that subject, and he hoped to have the support of the right lion. Baronet and the Gentlemen around him in carrying it through the House.
Sir R. Peelsaid, he had long since promised the noble Lord to support any measure having for its object the prevention of bribery.

SUGAR DUTIES—WAYS AND MEANS.
On the motion of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the House resolved itself into a committee of Ways and Means, Mr. Bernal in the chair.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer moved the following resolution—
"That toward making good the Supply granted to her Majesty, the several duties on sugar and molasses now payable, or to be imposed by any act to be passed in the present Session of Parliament shall be further continued."
Sir R. Peelsaid, that he would second that motion. On Wednesday last the House came to a resolution declaring, "that this House is not prepared (especially with the present prospects of the supply of sugar from British possessions) to adopt the measure proposed by her Majesty's. Government for the reduction of the duty on foreign sugars." The Chancellor of the Exchequer's present motion was in exact conformity with the resolution which the House had already agreed to, and he (Sir R. Peel) would certainly give it his entire support. If any person could suppose that, in consequence of what had recently passed, he entertained any desire to obstruct the public service
710
by throwing difficulties in the way of measures of this kind, he begged leave to state that no such considerations would influence him. The motion now submitted to the House by the Chancellor of the Exchequer was in conformity with his opinions, and with those of the majority of the House of Commons; but, even if it were not so, he would infinitely rather take the sense of the House on a plain and direct motion of want of confidence, than upon a question connected with the public service, the adoption of which latter course might create doubts and hesitation amongst the commercial interests. He would therefore, not only support the right hon. Gentleman's proposition, but would abstain from submitting any motion for limitting the period for which the continuance of the sugar-duties were required.
Mr. Humesaid, that the right hon. Baronet had thought proper to read the resolution to which the House had agreed last week. [Lord J. Russell—No, he did not.] Well, he read part of it, which declared that the House was unwilling to make any reduction in the sugar duties. He hoped the country would understand by that, the effect of the passage which the right hon. Baronet had read with so much good will, whilst he was triumphantly supported by the other side of the House, was to make every man in the country pay two-pence more a pound for his sugar than he ought to do. It was all very well for the noble Lord, the Member for North Lancashire, to publish to the country that the effect of the alteration of the sugar-duties proposed by the Government, would be only to reduce the price of sugar the centesimal part of a farthing, whereas the effect of existing duties during last year was to make the consumer pay three pence a pound more than he ought to have paid for every pound of sugar. He was sorry to say, that from all he had heard, the price was not likely to be much reduced this year. If anything was calculated to make the people understand the benefit they were likely to derive from the right hon. Baronet's interference, it was the course which he had pursued with reference to this question. It was a matter which came home to the pockets of every man. Every man would have to thank the right hon. Baronet for making him pay 2d. or 3d. more than was necessary for his pound of sugar, in order that the difference

711
might go into the pockets of the West-India proprietors. He had not expected that the right hon. Baronet would have prided himself as he had done on the victory which he had gained. The right hon. Baronet supposed, that his victory was obtained over Ministers, but it was a victory against the public. It was a victory over the people of England. The right, hon. Baronet said, in effect, to the people of this country, "I see you are distressed—I am aware of your unfortunate condition, but I will not consent to let you have cheap sugar." He hoped, that the right hon. Baronet would recommend his friends to read the paragraph which he himself had read to the House from the hustings at the approaching election. That would be saying to the people, "We feel for your wants, but we are determined to keep up the sugar monopoly. We are sorry for you, but this is a fit and proper opportunity for obtaining a temporary advantage over Ministers at your expense. Do not mind, however: we will do some good by-and-by, if you will only give us the opportunity." He hoped the people of England would have more common sense than to trust them. If the right hon. Baronet's conduct on this question was to be taken as an earnest of what he would do hereafter, it was clear, that he was opposed to all measures calculated to afford relief to the people. He really was surprised to see the right hon. Baronet in such good humour, and priding himself in reminding Members on his (Mr. Hume's) side of the House of the words of the resolution which he and his supporters had carried in spite of all the Ministerial forces which could be mustered. He admitted the fact, and he hoped the people of this country would be able to appreciate the part which the right hon. Baronet had acted upon that occasion—a part against the people at large.
Sir H. Peelsaid, this was his reward for supporting Ministers. Why the hon. Member for Kilkenny should feel it necessary to quarrel with him because he was in good humour he could by no means understand. Every one must see, that it would have been perfectly consistent with the views which he (Sir R. Peel) entertained, to oppose the motion which the Chancellor of the Exchequer had placed in the hands of the Chairman. He had already explained his reasons for not offering any
712
opposition to that motion—an opposition which would have been called factious. As the hon. Member had referred to the hustings he would put him in possession of the speech which he (Sir R. Peel) would read from them. It was a speech delivered in the House of Commons on the 9th of July, 1840. The right hon. Baronet then read the following extract:—
"SUGAR DUTIES.—Mr. Hume: I wish to know whether the right hon. President of the Board of Trade is aware that it is reported, that a quantity of sugar, the produce of slave-labour, has been imported into this country for home consumption, paying an enormous differential duty. It appears to me that, if this practice be allowed to prevail, the efforts of the House to exclude slave-grown sugar from this country will be tendered abortive.
" Mr. Labouchere: I believe it is correct that a small portion of foreign sugar has been admitted on the payment of the usual duty charged on that article. I cannot say whether the sugar was the produce of slave-labour or not."
Mr. Hume: I have no objection to the importation of sugar.
Sir R. Peel: Stop a minute.—
" But (the hon. Member continued) if we want any addition to the stock of sugar for home-consumption, I think we ought to take that in preference which is the produce of free labour."
Mr. Humedid not think that the right hon. Baronet could have been in the House on that occasion to which the extract he had read referred. The right hon. Gentleman should bear in mind, that a motion had been made in the House to admit foreign sugar at a reduced duty, for which he voted. The House rejected that motion; he was against the House, and on putting It is question on the occasion referred to by the right hon. Baronet, he alluded to the opinion of the House as being against the introduction of sugar, and he said, that if the House continued of the same opinion, such and such consequences would ensue, sugar would be brought up to such a price that he would admit every kind and any kind of sugar that could be got. It was against the calamity which threatened and which did overtake the people of England that he was protesting. The right hon. Baronet thought he had obtained a triumph over him, whereas his allusion was to the House having voted against the very object he had in view, which was to admit sugar. He had no hesitation in saying, that hav-

713
ing joined the hon. Member for Wigan, in his unsuccessful motion, he was right in wishing to obtain all that could be got by taking foreign sugar, giving the preference, however, to free labour produce. There was no inconsistency, then, in his conduct. He was willing to admit all kinds of sugar in furtherance of the object which he had unsuccessfully attempted to attain. But he believed, that if that question had been attended to on that occasion, the people of England would have been saved a tax of upwards of 4,000,000 l. sterling. He believed he had himself brought forward the question of East-Indian sugar at four different times, and he had always voted in support of the introduction of sugar at one common duty from every part of the world. His object was to cheapen every necessary of life against the particular protection of class interests to the taxation of the people, and he should be obliged if the right hon. Baronet could find a single exception to that general rule of his conduct.
Sir De Lacy Evanssaid, that as he understood it, the resolution before the House was for the continuance of the West-India monopoly; that being the case, the right hon. Baronet was not only entitled to second it, but he would be justified in telling the people from the hustings, that he had, or ought to have been, its proposer. The right hon. Baronet was at the head of a formidable body of supporters—of confederated monopolists—and he hoped, that the right hon. Baronet would, at the hustings, have the candour to inform the people, that the continuance of the sugar monopoly was chiefly owing to him.
Lord J. Russellsaid, he had contradicted the hon. Member for Kilkenny, when he stated, that the right hon. Baronet had read the resolution proposed on a former night by the noble Lord, the Member for Liverpool. His reason for offering that contradiction was, that the right hon. Baronet, in referring to the resolution, entirely left out the humanity part of it. Everybody knew, while the discussion was going on, that that part of the resolution was a mere pretext. Nobody but his right hon. and learned Friend, the Member for the Tower Hamlets, believed, that anything serious was meant by it. The right hon. Baronet, therefore, in referring to the resolution, naturally enough, read only the essential part of it; namely, that
714
which was connected with the position of the Ministry, and left out all that was merely intended to catch the feeling against slavery; which, although it succeeded in the case of his right hon. and learned Friend, the Member for the Tower Hamlets, had totally failed throughout the country. With respect to the present motion, it was as the hon. Gentleman had just said, a motion for the continuance of the sugar duties for the present year, including, of course, the prohibition, for he could call it nothing else, against the admission of foreign sugar. He could not avoid adverting for a moment to what he considered was a misrepresentation of what he had stated on the subject on a former occasion. What he had said was, that if the West-India planters could bring their sugar into this country, so that it could be sold at 61s., they would be no sufferers by the proposition. But he had also said, that if they should fail in their promise—and it was mere matter of calculation and assertion—then the people of this country would be taxed without the hope of a remedy. Those who quoted his speech had quoted the former part of his argument faithfully, but had left out the latter. If the calculation should turn out to be erroneous, there would be a tax of 2d. or 3d. a lb. on the price of sugar. What he desired, let the price of sugar be what it might, was to secure the people against the effects of monopoly.
Lord Stanley: It appeared extraordinary, during the whole of the eight nights' debate, that the noble Lord should never have thought fit to make the explanation just given. He must say, however, that the noble Lord did not appear to be quite so accurate in his recollection of what took place on that occasion as he usually was. The noble Lord was not answering any speech or argument when he made the statement alluded to. It was at the commencement of the debate when opening the plan of the Government, that the noble Lord, in stating what he apprehended would be the result of the Government measure, informed the House, that the average prices of Brazilian sugar had been from 21 s. to 22 s., and that the addition of the duty would raise it to 57 s. or 58 s.; to which must be added 5 per cent, for the rise consequent upon the increased demand created by the reduction of duty, making the whole price about 60 s. to 61 s. Therefore, said the noble Lord (Lord John

715
Russell), after all, you have not so much to apprehend from the proposal, for it is not probable, that the price of sugar would fall below 60 s. The noble Lord then went on to speak of the distress in Bolton, and assumed the relief, that would be afforded by the reduction of the sugar duties, bringing the article within the reach of those who were now unable to consume it. In answer to the noble Lord he put the noble Lord in this dilemma. If they were to believe the statement of the noble Lord, the Minister of the Crown, who had brought forward the proposition—and he recollected the circumstance, because he had said at the time, to his right lion. Friend, the Member for Pembroke, that the noble Lord was going through the same statement, and using the same figures, that were in his possession—if they were to believe the statement of the noble Lord, then, upon the noble Lord's own showing, the reduction held out was nothing at all, and that it would not amount to six-tenths of a farthing in the pound. That was the dilemma in which the noble Lord had placed himself; and it was not in answer to any statement made on that (the Opposition) side of the House.
Lord J. Russell: The noble Lord knows well that if I had attempted to speak again in the debate, it would—
Lord Stanley: You did speak in reply.
Lord J. Russell: After the amendment. The noble Lord said, that I was making my own calculation. I was proceeding on a statement that had been made in a petition or memorial, a petition upon which the House was called upon to act, and in that petition it was stated that the price was 61 s.
Mr. Wakleysaid, the right hon. Baronet had taken great credit to himself for supporting her Majesty's Government, and seemed surprised that he had not received a larger amount of gratitude from (the Ministerial) side of the House. The right hon. Baronet said, that he had afforded to the Government his powerful support. Yes, he had a painful recollection that on a variety of occasions the right hon. Gentleman had done so, and that fact caused him to ask the plain and simple question, of what use it would be to this country that the resolution of which the right hon. Gentleman had given notice for Thursday should be carried—if the right hon. Gentleman was prepared
716
to pursue the same policy as the Government, with the single exception of that good part of it which they had lately developed. Under those circumstances, of what advantage to the country would it be, that the right hon. Baronet and his supporters should sit on (the Ministerial) side of the House? That question would be asked out of doors. John Bull, after all, was a sensible person, and he would naturally ask, of what use would it be to him that the right hon. Gentleman should sit on that side, if his measures were to be identical with the measures of the present administration? He considered that at last—and the present was a proper time to mention it— that at last a very serious conflict was commencing in the country. There never was a time when public opinion was more feverish and apprehensive with respect to results, than at the present moment. He for one was free to confess, that the present administration, in a number of instances, had not given satisfaction to the people, and that many of their measures had been objectionable in a public point of view. But why had that been so? Because they had assumed too much of a Tory character. That was the reason that the present administration had become so unpopular. And he would say, that until within the last few days, their unpopularity had been rapidly increasing. But now that they were proposing measures which, if carried, would produce a great amount of public good, what was the first effect? A violent, strenuous, and organised opposition from that party who were exclaiming—" Give us the reins of Government." He thought the party soliciting power had already taken a false step, and placed themselves in a false position, which they would rue in a short space of time. That was his prediction; it might not perhaps be verified, but he conscientiously believed it would. In that House, he scarcely knew whether there was or was not a Radical party; if there were such a party, it had no recognised leader—at least he knew not where to look for the person. If there had been, he thought that her Majesty might receive support from that not powerful but honest party. But there must be a change between the organised factions of Whig and Tory, and he trusted the good sense of the people of England would advance to the rescue. He had been told that the vote of the other night

717
was a vote of want of confidence in the Ministry; but lie could not regard it in that light, and he conceived the construction to be an unfair one. He, for one, had looked at the measure simply with reference to its character, and the effect it was likely to produce upon the public; and he had supported it, because he believed it would be conducive to much public benefit. While he occupied a seat in that House he would take every resolution and motion upon its merits, and vote accordingly. It had been said, that the proposition was made to turn out the present Ministers. But for what purpose was that, if, in so doing, they were to help those who would support the same scheme of policy that the Government had advocated? It had been exclaimed, "Turn out the Poor-law Ministers!" Aye; but where were they to get Anti-poor-law Ministers? The noble Lord had said that night, that he did not intend to go on with the Poor-law Amendment Bill. He was delighted to hear it, and that declaration would be hailed with delight by hundreds and thousands of his fellow countrymen. Would the right lion. Baronet opposite bring forward a Poor-law Amendment Bill? He thought not: lie hoped not. Still the right lion. Baronet had advocated that measure. The right lion. Baronet had said, that when in office he would take a careful review of the circumstances of the country, but was there anything to prevent the right lion. Baronet from doing that while out of office? The right hon. Baronet, while unencumbered by deputations, and business of every kind, would have a better opportunity than after he had accepted the seals of office. However, when the motion for Thursday came on, he really hoped that something tangible and explicit would be brought forward; for it was extraordinary, and without a parallel, that the party which the right hon. Gentleman led with go much ability, should expect to enter into power unpledged to any one measure for the public good—to any one measure in which the public felt an interest—to any one promise upon which the public could turn round and say, "You have not fulfilled your engagements." The right hon. Gentleman, it must be admitted, possessed great capacity, and was at the head of a great party in that House: the right hon. Gentleman commanded powers which caused him to be in the highest degree
718
capable of rendering services to this kingdom, and he would, therefore, entreat the right hon. Gentleman to take that careful review of which he had spoken, between that evening and next Thursday; and then let them know boldly and distinctly what it was they were to expect from him and his supporters, if they should come over to that side of the House. He could tell the right hon. Gentleman, that if he would promise more than the present Ministry, he, for one, would vote for him, and no one would give him a more cordial and hearty support. He was there to serve his constituents, and not himself, but nothing was more unsatisfactory than uncertainty. There was a little nursery verse, "Open your mouth and shut your eyes, and see what luck will send you." But that blindfold state would not do for the people. He was dissatisfied with the time when the proposal was brought forward, and he had expressed his feelings on the subject. He then thought that the great cause was perilled by the time the proposal was made. If, however, the Ministers were sincere, he was satisfied they would be upheld by the public, and they would be, and must be, triumphant. Belonging to the small section in that House, called Radicals, he would entreat the right hon. Baronet to exercise his enlarged faculties between that evening and Thursday, and try if he could not hold out something to the people more liberal than the proposal of her Majesty's Government. The right hon. Baronet shook his head, but if he could come forward with a comprehensive scheme of government, showing the expenditure of the country decreased, while its revenue would be increased, without adding to the burdens of the people, the right hon. Baronet would receive from the representatives of the people that support he would be entitled to receive —they sitting in that House, not the advocates of any party, but the great party of the people.
Lord John Russellsaid, it might seem rather out of order on his part, to answer any observations with regard to the postponement of the Poor-law Bill. He would however say, that in the present state of affairs in the House, while the questions relating to the budget, and other topics to which great interest was attached, were pending, he conceived, in the first place, that to have proceeded with that bill would have occasioned protracted discus-

719
sion, without producing a final result. In the next place, with the expectation that every Gentleman seemed to entertain, that he would have to account for his conduct on the hustings, there would have been many motions made, and many speeches delivered, which would have had reference rather to the hustings than to the bill before the House. If, however, the hon. Gentleman imagined that, in consequence of the postponement of that measure, he had at all altered his views with respect to the Poor-law, or with respect to any opinions he had given, in regard to particular parts of it, it would be better at once to state, that no such change had taken place. In postponing that bill, whether those on this side of the House form the Government, or whether other Gentlemen occupy these seats, he must say, the principles of the Poor-law Act were sound, and must recommend themselves to any Parliament of this country; and he believed that they would remain the principles upon which Poor-laws in this country would ever continue to be administered.
Mr. Slaneysaid, he believed the measures which were proposed by her Majesty's Government were necessary—Gentlemen should bear in mind the great changes which had taken place in the relative position of the agricultural and commercial population of the country. He thought that this alone was a reason why there should be a revision of the commercial code of the country. It was absolutely necessary for the welfare of the people, that the general principles of free trade should be cautiously examined, and carefully admitted. He took this opportunity of stating these opinions, as no opportunity was afforded him during the recent debate.
Sir C. Greysaid, it was evident that the right lion. Baronet, by the motion he had announced, wished, if he could, to divert the public attention from principles to persons. He charged the right hon. Baronet with design to prevent the discussion of the great measures of public benefit which had been brought forward, and to hinder them from being so fully argued in that House, as that the people would be well informed on the merits of them before the appeal was made to their judgment in the usual form. He could construe in no other way the notice which the right hon. Baronet had interposed, so as to preclude the discussion on the most
720
important of the three measures, if his motion should be carried in the interval. Seeing that they were placed in this situation, he was desirous of recalling the views on which he had acted in this emergency, which he predicted the right hon. Baronet would find, before he escaped from it, to have been the most important that had arisen in the present century. He considered that the gauntlet had been thrown down by his side of the House on the principle of removing prohibitory duties on articles of foreign produce, and the right hon. Baronet if he had any pretensions to fill the highest place in the councils of the country, ought to have taken it up manfully. With respect to the grand measure of a modification of the Corn-laws, he up to the time when the plan of Ministers was announced had always opposed any motion for a change of those laws. He should have been opposed to it still, if brought forward as an insulated measure; he should always have opposed any party which offered a revocation of those laws, unless they had consented at the same time to act on the great principle of a remission of prohibitory duties on imports. He should then have considered the measure as an act of legislation directed against a particular class, which had a tendency to bring that class into distress; but the moment that he understood the principle of a general alleviation of duties on imports to be introduced, while care was taken, in abolishing prohibition, not at once to do away with protection, thus preventing that distress which might otherwise ensue from a too sudden change, he voted for acting on the same principle with respect to the Corn-laws. It was not his intention at present to enter further into the subject, except to advert to the line taken by the noble Lord the Member for North Lancashire and some others in the late debate. They had discussed the matter as if the reduction of price on imported commodities were the sole advantage to be derived from the measures introduced by Government. He considered that as the least of the advantages that might fairly be expected from the adoption of the Ministerial scheme. The first and greatest benefit that would be derived from the abolition of prohibitory duties on imports from foreign countries—which, stated in other terms, was the opening of the great market of the United. Kingdom

721
to the productions of the whole world, instead of confining it to those of our own colonies—was the calling into employment the whole mass of our unemployed manufacturing population. The increase of imports would tend to an increased demand for exports; it would prevent those distresses which the Poor-laws were framed to prevent; it would guard against the exigencies arising from the fluctuations in the manufacturing districts, in which thousands were reduced to idleness by a single stroke. The next reason he had for giving his cordial support to Ministers was, that he saw a fair prospect that by the simple reduction of duty, a certain increase of revenue, to the extent of 1,700,000 l. might be calculated upon. He challenged the right hon. Baronet opposite to point out any less objectionable way in which the present deficiency could be made up. He trusted the right hon. Baronet had not given his notice of motion without making up his mind as to the proper mode of supplying the deficiency. He called on the House not to permit the subject to be brought to a close without taking care to place fully before the people of the country the benefits of opening their markets to foreign produce, and to discuss these important questions in all their bearings.
The resolution agreed to, and ordered to be reported.
House resumed.

ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE.
On the Order of the Day for bringing up the report on the Administration of Justice bill (No. 1) being read,
Sir E. Sugdensaid, he had understood the noble Lord the Secretary for the Colonies to have promised that he would prepare a clause in the present bill to meet certain objections which he had in view. The clause in question did not go to the extent which he wished, and to which he understood the noble Lord gave his consent. The right hon. and learned Gentleman referred to the various acts of Parliament relating to the office of accountant-general, the business assigned to that officer, and the salary allotted to him, which had increased from a much lower sum to 4,000 l. in the last year. By the bill now before the House, the business of the court would be increased, and it was impossible to foresee how far the income of the Accountant-general might be aug-
722
mented, unless limited to proper restraints. He saw nothing to prevent it from amount-into to 7,000 l. a-year, while he thought the present amount an ample remuneration for an officer whose business was no more arduous or responsible than the Accountant-general. The person holding that office, gave no security and was expressly exempted by Act of Parliament from pecuniary liability, and therefore no claim for a large remuneration could be based upon that ground. The proposition of the Government was, to let the Accountant-general take as much as he could get. He proposed, to add a proviso to the bill, that the Accountant-general should in each year, pay over to the suitors' fund any balance which might be received over 4.000 l. The right hon. and learned Gentleman concluded by moving a proviso to the effect he had stated.
Mr. Humetook the opportunity of stating, that he thought the proposition of the right hon. and learned Gentleman (Sir E. Sugden) of too liberal a character. He saw no reason why the Accountant-general should receive a larger amount of remuneration than the Masters in Chancery. The Masters in Chancery received a salary of 2,500 l. a year; the Accountant-General ought not to receive more.
Report brought up, and Amendments agreed to.
Sir E. Sugdensaid, that the bill, as amended in Committee, had never been seen by him. The amendments were not yet printed. Owing to his necessary absence from the House during the time the bill was in Committee—an absence for which he would not apologise—he did not know what those amendments were. He therefore proposed that the noble Lord should forthwith reprint his bill, with the amendments made in the Committee.
The Attorney-Generalrose to offer a few words to the House, when
Sir E. Sugdenmoved, that the debate be adjourned.
The Attorney-Generalthought that an adjournment was quite unnecessary; and in reply to what the right hon. Baronet had said with regard to the want of responsibility on the part of the Accountant-general, he said it was true that that officer would not be bound by recognizance; but if there were any defalcation in the property under his control, there was no doubt of his liability to make it good.
Mr. Goulburnsaid, the best thing the House could do, under all the circumstances, was to postpone the discussion till a future day. It was desirable they should have the clauses before them in order to form a proper judgment upon them.
Lord J. Russellcould not consent to the reduction proposed by the right hon. Gentleman, in the emoluments of the Accountant-general. He had no objection to the postponement of the discussion, if it could lend to any useful purpose; but he would remind the House that this functionary held his office for life, and could not be removed without some gross dereliction of duty on his part. They could not, therefore, propose, whatever the amount of his duties or responsibilities was, to make any large reduction in the sum he had hitherto received.
Mr. Humewas of opinion that if the noble Lord would not agree to limit the salary of the Accountant-general to 4,000 l. a-year, the bill ought to be withdrawn. He could not agree to the Accountant-general receiving more than a Master in Chancery.
Mr. Lynchbore testimony to the qualifications necessary to fill the office of Accountant-general. He would not say that 4,000 l. a-year was not sufficient, but if the business of the Court of Chancery was to be increased, he asked what right had the right hon. Gentleman to seek to curtail the emoluments of the office? They could not interfere with the vested rights of the possessor, without giving him some compensation; but when there was an increase of business, what better compensation could be given than an increased premium? No one could be more fitted to fill the office than the Gentleman now in possession of it.
Mr. Richardsbore testimony to the laborious duties of the Accountant-general's office, even in the Exchequer, where the investments were only 3,000,000 l., whilst in the Court of Chancery, they amounted to 40,000,000 l.
Mr. Aglionbythought that there should be some limit to the salary, but it was well worthy of consideration whether the present holder would not be entitled to compensation.
Further consideration of the bill postponed, and the amendments ordered to be printed.

VICTORIA PARK.
On the motion of Mr. E. J. Stanley, the report on the Victoria Park bill was brought up,
Mr. Humeexpressed his satisfaction that Government had attended to the petitions addressed to them on this subject. They had acted liberally towards the north and east part of the metropolis, and he was now anxious that they should consider the situation of the south. Unless an opportunity were soon taken of securing some open place, such as that in the neighbourhood of Bethlehem Hospital, they would in a short time find it difficult to get any eligible spot.
Sir E. Knatchbullagreed in the observations of the hon. Member for Kilkenny, and was pleased with what had been already done with the consent of both sides of the House towards providing open places in the metropolis.
Mr. J. Frenchobserved that all advances were made to England, and very few to Ireland.
Mr. E. J. Stanleyreferred, in answer to the Dublin Wide streets bill, as a proof that, in the present Session, attention had been paid to the wants of Ireland.
Mr. Wakleydid not wish to oppose a vote for the accommodation of the public; but it seemed to him irrational to lay out so much money on the eastern part of the metropolis, when there was so much land on the north of the city to which the people had a right, and to which they were still refused access. He wished the Secretary of the Treasury would state when the 288 acres closed up in the Regent's-park would be thrown open? He was quite sure that, while the public were kept out from so much ground to which they had a right, great dissatisfaction would be created by the outlay in the present instance. He was happy to hear the hon. Baronet opposite (Sir E. Knatchbull) make the declaration which had just fallen from him. The hon. Baronet was willing to give the people fresh air, and he reminded him that fresh air increased the appetite—and he hoped the hon. Baronet would recollect that on a future occasion—the people wanted bread.
Report received.
Bill to be read a third time on the following day.

COPYHOLD.
The report on the Copyhold and Customary Tenure bill was brought up,
Sir E. Sugdenmoved that the bill be re-committed.
Mr. Stewartopposed the motion.
Sir E. Sugdenwould not persist in his motion for the re-committal of the bill, but begged to move that the eighth clause, which threw the expense of the commutations on the Consolidated Fund, be left out of the bill.
The Attorney-generalsupported the clause.
Mr. Wakleywould vote with the right lion, and learned Gentleman, the Member for Ripon, for the omission of the eighth clause. He thought the expenses of the commutations ought not to be borne by the Consolidated Fund.
Sir E. Sugdenwould not divide the House on his motion at present, but would reserve to himself the right of bringing forward his objections on the third reading of the bill.
Bill to be read a third time on the following Thursday.

BOROUGHS IMPROVEMENT BILL.
Mr. Fox Maulesaid, that the three bills—the Boroughs Improvement bill, the Drainage of Towns bill, and the Building Regulations bill had hitherto passed sub silentio, and he now moved the committal of the Boroughs Improvement bill pro formâ, for the introduction of the necessary money clauses. He did so on the understanding that it would be competent for any hon. Member to move on a future occasion for the re-committal of the bill, for the purpose of its provisions being discussed.
Bill went through Committee pro formâ. Report to be received.

DRAINAGE OF TOWNS.
On the order of the day for the second reading of the Drainage of Towns bill being read,
The Speakersaid, that he had to inform the House that the effect of the bill would be to give to the commissioners of sewers additional powers to tax the people, and, that, therefore, it was not a bill which could properly originate with the House of Lords.
Mr. Fox Maulesaid, in that case he begged to give notice that he would tomorrow move for leave to bring in a bill of a similar character, and in the mean time he would move, that the present bill be read that day three months.
Agreed to.
The Buildings Regulation bill was also committed pro forma.

ARMS (IRELAND).
The Lords' amendments to the Arms (Ireland) bill were considered, and not being agreed to, on the motion of Mr. Pigot a conference was directed to be requested.
Adjourned.

MINUTES.
Petitions presented. By the Duke of Wellington, Lord Willoughby D'Eresby, Lord Yarmouth, Lord Roden, and other noble Lords, from Bridgewater, Lothian, Lincolnshire, Nottinghamshire, Huntingdonshire, Kent, Wigan, Hereford, Essex, and other places, against Alteration of the Corn-laws.—By Lord Melbourne, and the Marquess of Westminster, from Dundee, Paisley, and other places, for Free Trade.—By Earl Fitzwilliam, from Bridgewater, Lothian, Farringdon Ward, and a great many other places, for the Repeal of the Corn-laws.

CORN-LAW PETITIONS — LINCOLNSHIRE MEETING.
Lord Willoughby D'Eresbypresented many petitions from places in Lincolnshire against any alteration of the Corn-laws. The noble Lord made a few observations the purport of which was understood to be to deprecate discussions on presenting petitions, and to express a hope that his noble Friend (Earl Fitzwilliam) would keep his word, and not detain their Lordships by remarks on the present occasion.
Earl Fitzwilliamsaid, he had undoubtedly told his noble Friend, that he should not raise any discussion on this subject on the presentation of petitions; but as his noble Friend had presented a great number of petitions, from parts of the country with which both the noble Lord and himself were much connected, he knew not of any more favourable or convenient opportunity for directing attention to one or two points of recent occurrence, touching upon this important question. Fie knew how very offensive he made himself to their Lordships by such discourses, but he felt obliged to trespass upon their attention at the present moment, in consequence of a letter which had appeared in a newspaper published in the county with which he was connected. He alluded to the letter addressed to the chairman of a meeting recently held in that county by a noble Lord who now sat on the cross-benches (Lord Willoughby D'Eresby). With respect to this letter he must say, that if the apprehensions expressed by the noble Lord in his letter be true, undoubtedly the measure proposed by her Majesty's Government on the subject of the Corn-laws would inflict great evils upon the country. But he would beg of their Lordships to consider whether there were any the slightest grounds for such apprehensions. So far from believing that there were, he (Earl Fitzwilliam) thought that to entertain

685
such apprehensions evidenced such a prostration of understanding as he had never before witnessed. The noble Lord in the letter to which he alluded, stated, that the introduction of foreign corn at a fixed duty of 8s. per quarter would have the effect of sweeping away one-third of the rentals of the country. He (Earl Fitzwilliam) believed that it would have no such effect; but if any of their Lordships thought it would have such effect, he thought that that circumstance would disentitle him to the reproof which he received the other evening for having accused some parts of the Legislature of acting from interested motives on this question; for undoubtedly if this apprehension were correct, that the proposed measure would sweep away one-third of the rentals of the country, it would follow that the reason of many of the opponents of that measure was to keep up their own rentals. Then what other ground could they have to support these laws? [The Earl of Winchilsea: The employment of the labourers.] The employment of the labourers! Why, now, did the noble Earl really believe that the effect of this measure would be to throw out of cultivation one-third of the land of this country? If so the noble Earl could really have no knowledge either of agriculture or commerce? In what part of the country was this to happen? [The Earl of Winchilsea: In the county of Lincolnshire itself to a great extent.] The noble Earl certainly knew more of the county of Lincoln than he did himself; but, at the same time, he had been a good deal in that part of the country, and he defied any one to point out a thousand acres in that county which would be thrown out of cultivation by this measure. Would it be in the fens, or the rich lands of the north, or on Lincoln Heath? He happened to be the owner and cultivator of some lands of the very description which were upon Lincoln Heath, and he was bound to say, that upon these lands this measure would not have the effect predicted. It might lead to a trifling reduction of rents there, but it was altogether monstrous and extravagant to say, that it would throw those lands out of cultivation. But here again he would refer to the noble Lord's letter; the noble Lord said, that the deficiency of the tenant would be made up by a reduction of rent on the part of the landlord.
686
This made out what he had always maintained, that this was a landlord's question and not a tenant's. But the noble Lord went on to say, that one-third of the agricultural capital would be lost. Why, what did the noble Lord mean by this? Did he mean that the farmers would lose every third waggon, or every third plough, or every third pair of harrows. No; he could not mean that. Did he mean, then, that the farmers stock would be of less value? If so, the only result would be, that men of less capital would be able to cultivate land than at present; and that, he thought would be no evil to the people of England, but rather the reverse. He did not, however, admit the accuracy of the noble Lord's statement; but, even admitting it to be true, still its tendency would be as he had said. With respect to wages also, it was equally extravagant to suppose that one-third of the wages would be lost to the labourer. The average price of wheat for the years 1839 and 1840 was about 70 s. per quarter. The average price of the eighteen preceding years—namely, from 1821 to 1838, was 56 s. 8d. Now, ho did not think that any one in the possession of reason would pretend to say, that a reduction of the average price of com from 70 s. to 56 s. 8d. would lead to a reduction of one-third in wages or anything like it. The fact was, that wages did not vary with the prices of provisions. It was quite a mistake to suppose they did. Mr. Burke did not fail into this mistake, but on the contrary, on one occasion remarked, that the Norfolk squires, who had stated, that wages varied with the prices of provisions, "must have dined when they said so." For his part, he believed the fact to be rather the other way; and that a temporary rise in the prices of provisions, by causing an increased pressure and urgency to seek employment amongst the working classes, must lead to a depreciation of wages. He knew that the temporary distress of labourers in times of urgency was often met and provided for by the kindness and consideration of individuals; but this was not a sufficient means to counteract the effect of a bad state of the law. He would beg to read to their Lordships some statements bearing upon this point, made by an assistant Poor-law commissioner acting in the counties of Oxford, Berkshire, and part of Buckinghamshire, This gentleman stated

687
that, during the late high prices in 1839 and 1840, wages, in some places, rose from 8s. to 10 s. a week; in others, they increased Is. a week; but that no increase took place in the district bordering on Buckinghamshire. So much with respect to agricultural districts. In the manufacturing districts the fact was too well ascertained, that a rise in the price of provisions produced a fall rather than an increase in wages. He must now beg to refer to a speech which was made at the meeting which he had already mentioned, by a Gentleman who was once a most respectable Member of the other House of Parliament. This gentleman said—
" What could the farmer hope to do against foreign competition, when he learned that foreign corn was now arriving here at 26 s. a quarter, and that it was proposed to introduce it at a duty of 8s. per quarter, making a total of 34 s. per quarter in the English market?"
Such were the delusions which men in high stations sometimes sought to practise upon their dependents. The same gentleman in the speech he was quoting then went on to say what was very true, that the average price of corn at Hamburg was 36 s. 6d. a quarter, and that the prices at Dantzic were from 35 s. 9d. to 41 s., and yet in the face of these statements, the same gentleman made the extraordinary assertion that corn could be introduced at 34 s. per quarter, after paying a duty of 8s. Why, there never was a more monstrous proposition propounded before an assembled multitude. With respect to what would be the effect of the Ministerial proposition, he certainly hoped it would lead to a reduction in the average of prices to something like what it was in the eighteen years preceding the late high prices; but that it would bring prices lower than that, was a proposition which he was confident no man would be able to make out. He thought it his duty to make these observations when he saw statements going abroad so calculated, in his opinion, to deceive, though doubtless unintentionally so, the labouring classes of this country.
Lord Willoughby D'Eresbythought that the noble Earl might have spared his remarks until the presentation of the petition agreed to at the meeting to which he had so pointedly alluded. It was not his intention at that moment, to enter into the question of the Corn-laws. He might, however, state, as wages had been alluded
688
to, that the rise had been more general than the noble Earl seemed to suppose. He must moreover remark, that the labourers themselves in his neighbourhood were consulted as to the scale of remuneration that would satisfy them. Fie employed 180 agricultural labourers himself, and he must therefore, know their habits and feelings. It had been said, that what he had brought forward did not bear on the question; but what he had brought forward he could substantiate. The letter which he had written was sent as an apology for his non-attendance at the meeting, and he had never for a moment thought that it would be brought before the attention of their Lordships; but every position laid down in that letter he was prepared to defend at the proper time.
Earl Fitzwilliamsaid, that what he had always said was that he believed the consideration of the farmers and the good nature of individuals had met the necessities of the case; but the fact was, that the good nature of individuals was not the rule which governed the rate of wages.
Lord Willoughby D'Eresbysaid, that the rate of wages which he gave was the rate of wages of the whole county of Lincoln, and not merely of his neighbourhood.
The Earl of Winchilseasaid, that though he agreed in the opinion which he believed was entertained by a majority of their Lordships, that it was exceedingly inconvenient to bring under discussion this most important question—not only as affecting the agricultural interests of this country, but every other interest—on a mere petition, yet he could not on the present occasion, refrain from offering a few observations to the attention of their Lordships, though he had not hitherto done so on presenting the numerous petitions which he had had the honour of laying on their Lordships' Table. In the first place, he did think that the noble Earl, acquainted, as he must have been, with the character of the respected country gentleman to whom he had alluded, and who once had the honour of representing the county of Lincoln, might have treated him with more courtesy. He had stood by his side at a meeting on Friday last, in another part of the country, and he must say, that of all the public meetings he (the Earl of Winchilsea) had ever attended, he had never seen such a devoted feeling of attachment towards any

689
man as was shown towards that gentleman; and when the noble Earl came forward and accused that gentleman of false statements to his peasantry, he, as a neighbour of that gentleman, rejected the charge with indignation. [Earl Fitzwilliam.—I never made it.] The charge is false; he never did any such thing. He would go with him to this extent in opinion, that if foreign corn could be bonded at 26 s. a quarter, it would come out, at a fixed duty of 8s., at 34 s. a quarter, which was a price against which no English farmer could compete. He held the opinion, that the present system of Corn-laws was the best that ever was proposed, and, that on an average of years it had worked well. The labouring population with the present Corn-law had had their corn at a fair price; but with a fixed duty it would be double the price in a few years. If they depended on foreign supply, English capital would go to aid it; for English capital would always flow where there was the greatest remuneration; and if this free trade in corn were opened, thousands of acres would be immediately brought into cultivation, and the produce of those countries whence corn was supplied would be a thousand times more than it at present was, which must tend still further to reduce the price at which foreign corn could be introduced. The noble Earl had stated, that the price of wages did not depend on the price of corn. He himself was a practical agriculturist. He was not possessed of the princely fortune of the noble Earl, but he had sufficient estates to enable him to form a practical opinion on the matter. He was his own steward on his property. He had no intermediate man between him and his tenants. He let his own land and made his own agreements, and he was, practically, as well acquainted with all the bearings of the agricultural interest as any landholder in that House. He had estates in Kent, in Sussex, in Lincolnshire, and in Hampshire, and in all those counties he found the rate of wages invariably affected by the price of corn. The rate of wages during the winter months in each of those districts had been from 13 s. 6d. to 15 s. a week. When corn was low, the present corn-law was no protection at all to the agricultural interests of this country; and when it was high from scarcity, the landed interest ought to be protected and have a fair remuneration. In the manufacturing district, wages were not affected in an
690
equal degree by prices; but he would say this, that they (the agricultural landowners) had a fair share of the burdens of the country to bear with the labourers, and they made those advances which prices would afford to the labourers to enable them to live as well as themselves. If the manufacturers would do the same, he firmly believed, that there would not be that distress amongst the manufacturing population which at present existed, and the factory system would not cause so much evil as it did. But now, when manufacturing labourers got to the age of thirty or forty, they were thrown out of employment, in order that women and children might be employed at lower rates of wages; and, debilitated, crippled, and demoralized, they were unfit to fall back on any agricultural employment, and were driven to live on the miserable pittance they could earn by the hand-looms, from which they could not derive more than from 4s. to 6s., and at the very most, 6s. 8d. per week. He hoped, that some mode would be devised to prevent this growing and increasing evil. The noble Earl had said, that no lands would go out of cultivation in Lincolnshire. Now, there were tracts of land in Lincolnshire not worth more than 2s. 6d. an acre, which were kept in cultivation by artificial means, by laying on quantities of bone-dust and oil-cake, and if corn came down to the price at which foreign corn might be admitted with the proposed fixed duty, these tracts must immediately be thrown out of cultivation. There were similar tracts of land in Norfolk and other places; and in Kent, he knew land where the landlords offered it free of rent if the tenants would keep it in cultivation, and it depended much on a good seed time whether that land would pay or not. The great national burdens were thrown on the land, and why should there be this outcry against the landed interest? They would not allow cheap shoes or cheap hats, or cheap silks to come into the market, and he thought, that the landed interest ought at least to be protected. This proposed fixed duty was a mere delusion. This country, as far as possible, should be independent of a foreign supply of corn. If ever the day came when England was dependent on a foreign supply, and corn was made an article of revenue, did they not think, that other countries would follow our example, and say, "If you take 8s. a quarter on

691
our corn for revenue, we will take 20 s.?" They would then have thousands of acres thrown out of cultivation, and, with a starving population, have the corn they must, at whatever price. They might depend upon it, that the manufacturing population would be as deeply affected by the change as the agricultural, for in 1832, when corn was low, they were starving, and praying for higher wages.
Earl Fitzwilliamsaid the noble Earl had said, that he had made a false charge, which was rather a serious statement to make. He had not made a false charge. He had as great a respect for Mr. Chaplin as the noble Earl himself: but he believed Mr. Chaplin misunderstood this subject. He had never used any other term, and the noble Earl opposite was under as great a misapprehension.
Lord Redesdalesaid, what the noble Earl had said was—he quoted his words —" This is the manner in which Gentlemen in high station seek to practise delusions on the people on this subject." This he (Lord Redesdale) did consider to be a charge against Mr. Chaplin, and, like much of the rest of the noble Earl's speech, he could not admire either the argument or the taste of it. The noble Earl did not treat this subject as affecting a great interest, and the agricultural interest was the greatest in England. He did not conceive that the proposed measure would do much hurt, because a farmer might stock his farm for one-third less money than he now could in consequence. The noble Earl did not think there would be such a reduction, but he saw no great harm if there was. According to the same mode of argument the noble Earl did not see any great harm if any great manufacturer could come into the market and buy for 100,000 l. an estate which was worth 150,000 l. He believed, that the manufacturers would be glad to do it. Their object was, where they had mortgages on estates, to get them into their possession at less than their value. If the noble Earl argued the question on these grounds be would find, that the agricultural interests were all identified, and that the landowner, the farmer, and the labourer, would, all alike, feel the reduction.
Earl Fitzwilliamunderstood the noble Baron to say that "the object of the wealthy manufacturers in calling for the repeal of the Corn-laws was, that they might obtain landed estates on which they
692
might have mortgages." The noble Baron had made some observations on the "taste" of his speech; he should be very sorry to make the same observation on the noble Lord's speech which the noble Lord had made on his.
The Earl of Hardwickedid not concur in what had been said about the manufacturer. But from what did such an observation arise? From the noble Earl's persevering in arraying the manufacturer against the agriculturist. He raised men's feelings and passions on a subject of vital interest, and then he was astonished that they could in any degree seem to be violent in expression. Nobody could deplore it more than he did. Did the noble Lord do nothing of the sort? Did he not come into that House and tell them that rents were too high 1 Did he forget, that that House was the smallest portion of the agricultural interest, and that, although in ancient times the land had generally been held by Peers, the Commons of England, the poor and small freeholder now held the greatest portion of it? And him they were called on now to protect. But the noble Lord talked of their rents, as if they were the only persons that held lands. They did not think more of their rents, than they thought of the rents of other smaller landholders. The noble Lord talked to them as if they wished to pander to the appetites and pleasures of the landowners. But was not the agricultural interest the staple of the nation? If they were in distress, whom were they to tax? If they were invaded, whom were they to look to, to fight the battle of the country, but to the landed interest? It had always borne the brunt, and it was ready to do it again. Let them tax them, but not destroy them, They were ready to be taxed, if necessary, and to bear large burdens for the support of the country at large; but let them not destroy that interest which was to bear them. The noble Lord was always talking to the people outside. Why did he not give them notice of a day for a general debate? He had given them a notice the other day, but he had flinched from it; he had been choked off; he had been slopped. Now, he came forward with incidental statements, on which he was prepared before he came to that House, and which statements were made merely for the reporters of the newspapers, and did not tend in any manner to illustrate

693
the subject as a matter of serious and important debate. He was quite sure, that it was impossible for their Lordships to look at the state of this country as it now was in its peaceful and flourishing condition, without being satisfied, that the laws of this country must not only be wise in themselves, but ably executed; but there was not any law equal to that which regulated the mode in which food was supplied. Neighbouring nations were astonished, that the civil magistrate and the constable with nothing but his staff, could keep this great country in order without having to resort to the military force. We knew nothing of a standing army in this country. We were not obliged to call out 50,000 soldiers because a public meeting was got up in this city. But that might be seen in other countries, where freedom of trade was much talked of. They were not, therefore, to be frightened out of their senses by statements, and clap-trap statements, too, made for the purpose of exciting the poor—, but he would not use the term; he had almost given utterance to a word which, in the excitement of debate, might be, perhaps, used again. But the effect of these statements was to excite, out of doors, violent and passionate feelings amongst a class of people who were not deeply informed on these subjects.
The Earl of Radnordenied, that he and his Friends had caused any excitement on the subject. The noble Lords opposite complained of introducing the question of the Corn-laws this year in incidental discussions; but last year, when it came on in a regular debate, they grew tired, and began to cry out, "question." He, however, thought, that the discussion of this question, even incidentally, would be of great service, for it must repeatedly attract the attention of persons in, and of the people out of the House to the subject. When the noble Earl opposite, spoke of this as not being exclusively regarded by them as a question of rent, he (the Earl of Radnor) asked, were not all the arguments they had heard, brought forward in support of rent, and nothing else? Why that very evening, the noble Earl who spoke last, interrupted his (Earl Radnor's) noble Friend, and said, that the object of the landed proprietors in supporting the Corn-laws, was to prevent lands from being thrown out of cultivation—that meant, poor lands being thrown
694
out of cultivation, and what was that but an argument to keep up rents. [Laughter.] Noble Lords might laugh, but if they would reflect upon this subject, they would find that the amount of rent for each description of land was determined by the expense of cultivating the poorest soil—therefore the main desire of some of the noble Lords who were so anxious in support of the corn-laws, was not to keep poor lands in cultivation, but to keep up a higher standard of rent for every other kind. But they supported this object, not by arguments alone—they had brought in the statute-book to maintain their rents, as would be found on reference to the bounty they gave on grass lands, in addition to the protection to cultivated lands. Why, was there not a duty on the importation of horses? and was there not a duty on the importation of asses into this country. The acts of Parliament prohibited the importation of bulls, cows, horses, sheep, and swine; and what was that for if not for the encouragement of grass lands? They had a prohibition also on dead meat as well as live flesh, all for the encouragement of grass lands. What else was it for then? He next found the act of Parliament extending its prohibitions to turkeys, fowls, ducks, geese, and chickens. Now, what were all those taxes for, but to make grass, as well as arable lands, put money into the pockets of the landlords? Surely it was not, so far as grass lands were concerned, to keep up the amount of the wages of the labourer. Why no kind of food could be imported duty free. He would go farther, and say, that not only the produce of the land, but even the produce of the sea, was taxed for the landlords. There was not a kind of foreign fish that was not prohibited. He might be told, that the object of the duties on fish was, to protect our fishermen, and secure good seamen for the country. This was the origin of those duties no doubt; but why did we tax foreign salmon? This was a fish, at least, that did not require hardy and adventurous fishermen to catch it. The fact was, the salmon was taxed for the sole purpose of putting money into the pockets of the landlords— one of whom he knew to be realising an income of 4,000 l. or 5,000 l. a year by his monopoly as a salmon proprietor. Every kind of fish was taxed except one. Now you would suppose that this one was excepted for the sake of the poor man,

695
Not at all. This was a fish that had never been seen on a poor man's table since the world began, but which, however, was often seen on their Lordships' table—it was a turbot. He must indeed admit that there was one more fish which was also exempted—that was the lobster, for the sake of lobster sauce for the turbot. This was most true; and he thought it was also most discreditable to their Lordships, that thousands and tens of thousands of our fellow-countrymen were at this moment starving, principally through being compelled to submit to taxation, to raise the rent of noble Lords. He did not wish to address himself to the people out of doors, but he wished to address himself to the noble Earl who had just sat down, and to remind him and the whole of their Lordships, that while these duties were levied upon the necessaries of life, as they came into this country, thousands upon thousands of industrious persons were at this moment in the utmost distress from the want of food, so that the pawnbrokers of Manchester and Birmingham were not able to comply with the demands for loans that were made upon them, by persons pressing for farther advances upon deposits. While this was the condition of so many thousands of our countrymen, was it not dreadful that every animal that walked the earth—nay, even that every fish that swam, and every bird that was fit for food, must be taxed, lest it should come in cheap for our starving population? This was most discreditable to their Lordships, he repeated, whether as legislators or as landlords. He believed that but very few of their Lordships had gone into the details he now brought before them —but having now heard them, they ought not to receive them with laughter and contempt. But these facts would be made known to the people of this country, who would regard them as quite the reverse of subjects of joke and laughter. We now heard again the old story put forward, that wages depended on the prices of food. Almost every word spoken by the noble Lord on the cross bench (Winchilsea) was in support of this doctrine; yet his observations would go to prove that this was not the case. For the noble Lord said he was the chairman of a board of guardians, and that when a pauper came before them for relief, they first asked him whether he had been in receipt of full wages. Now, if the wages were depending on the price
696
of corn, was it not evident that this question need not be asked? In fact, while the price of corn and bread was almost uniform throughout the country, the amount of wages differed very much—in Lincolnshire, it was 10 s. a week; in Kent, it was 12 s.; in the south of England, the wages averaged 9s.; in Dorsetshire, it was 7s.; in Devonshire, 6s.; in Somersetshire, 7s. These facts proved that the prices of labour did not depend on the price of bread or corn. In fact, labour, like everything else, was paid according to the proportion the supply bore to the demand; and wages were no more influenced by the price of corn than was the coat on the noble Earl's back. High prices for corn did not certainly produce high prices for labour. The fact was the other way, for as his noble Friend had stated, when corn was cheap, labour rose in consequence of the ease of the people. But he (Earl Radnor) would refer to an authority on this head, which their Lordships must respect as well as he did—the authority of the late Lord Mansfield. In the year 1814, the year before the present Corn Law Act passed, there was a committee of their Lordships' House, which minutely inquired into the relation between wages and prices of corn. Lord Mansfield, a member of the committee, who was connected with Scotland, sent dowu to that country for some evidence which was of great importance, because Scotland was not under the influence of the Poor-laws. Lord Mansfield sent down to his factor, a man in whom every confidence might be placed, for a return of the times when the wages of manufacturing labour were highest and lowest, and the times also when the prices of wheat were highest and lowest. The factor sent up a return, of which the following was an abstract:—*
In 1805, the price of weaving a piece of calico was 9s.; in 1811, it was 3s.— Fiar's prices. This evidence, from Scot land, a country not influenced by the Poor-laws, be it remembered, proved that the prices of food did not regulate the wages of manufacturing labour, nor those of the agricultural labourer. The fact was, the wages were often highest when the prices of food were lowest, and lowest when the former were highest. He was not sure whether these were the prices of quarters or of bolls of corn, but they
* See Table next page.

697
would show equally well the relation between the prices of food and of labour. He hoped this table would induce noble Lords to examine the details of this most important question a little more carefully in future. He would now come to the repetition of the old story of making this country independent of foreign countries as regarded supplies of corn. Now if that was the object of the present act, was it not proved that that measure had entirely failed? Let us look at the returns of the last few years:—In 1838, 1839, and 1840, there were imported of foreign corn, for home consumption, no less than 6,235,000 quarters of wheat, which was equal to 1–6th of our whole consumption for that period. He trusted he had now shown their Lordships that this measure had been as fallacious in making us independent of foreign countries for supplies of corn, as it had been deceptive in every other point of view.
Lord Ashburtonstrongly condemned the time that had been chosen by the Government, supported by the noble Lords opposite, for stirring up the different classes of society in this country to regard each other as enemies, in consequence of the existence of the present corn and other protective laws. Whatever noble Lords opposite might think of such a state of things, he could assure them that it was a most dangerous one for the welfare of this country, considering what feelings had been excited in the West-India interests, the East-India interests, the shipping interests, and every other class of the community, by the measures her Majesty's Ministers had of late propounded. Nothing but the most urgent necessity could justify any Government for exciting the masses in such a perilous degree. The axiom of a great Whig Minister of the old time— probably the first

YEAR.

WHEAT.

OATS.

OATMEAL.

MANUFACTURING LABOUR.

s.

d.

s.

d.

s.

d.

1805

29

10

17

6

19

10

Highest.

1811

41

3

21

3

24

3

Lowest.

1814*

34

5

20

0

21

0

Medium.

1800

57

3

35

6

43

10

Wages of ploughman, 12 l. to 13 l.; of labourer, 1s. 6d. a day in summer; 1s. in winter.

1802

23

6

13

9

16

1

Wages of ploughman, 16 l.; of labourer, 2s. in summer; 1s. 6d. in winter.

* Fiar's prices.

of his country and period for wisdom, and to whom history had done but tardy justice—Sir Robert Walpole—the axiom of that great statesman was ne quieta movere —but the reverse of this safe principle would seem to be acted upon by the noble Viscount at the head of the Government of the present day. The noble Viscount's object was to excite the greatest possible flame in the country. He (Lord Ashburton) would not impute the organisation of this perilous commotion that now raged in the public mind, to a desire on the part of her Majesty's Ministers to recover their lost position in both Houses of Parliament—that would not be fair in debate—but he would say, that a more mischievous course than the present had not been pursued by any former Government. He would now successively call the attention of the House to the points that had been dwelt upon by the noble Earl opposite. In the first place, the noble Earl mooted one of the most disputed points that had engaged the attention of political economists—that was, whether the prices of food did or did not act on the wages of labour, and if so, to what extent? He contended, that this was exactly one of those questions upon which the greatest anxiety now prevailed; and it was one which was made the subject of lectures and after-dinner discussions. But those persons who advocated the principle contended for by the noble Earls opposite, maintained that the price of food had no effect whatever on the prices of labour, or on the prices of manufactures; but the fact was quite the contrary. In what manner did the manufacturers of this country express themselves? They said, "we cannot compete, we cannot work in competition with foreign manufacturers, because they can work so cheap." But if the noble Earl was right, the ma-

699
nufacturer in this country ought not to be affected by these changes. But he would ask, when was it—when was the period at which the prices of food had nothing to do with the price of labour? It would be a waste of their Lordships' time to argue this part of the case. Every person knew, who lived in the country, that the price of food had to do with the price of labour; and in truth that was the real theory to proceed upon. At the same time he did not deny that the price of labour was, as stated by the noble Earl, influenced by the demand and supply. They now saw this state of things produced in the West-India colonies, where the free labourer, for the pay he obtained for one day's work, was enabled to maintain himself for the remaining six days of the week. Such was the case, too, in the United States of America, and in Australia. But when a country became thickly populated, whether in agricultural or manufacturing districts, then the price of labour came down to that rate at which the poor labourer can be fed; the feeding of such poor labourers being determined by the proceedings of those who were entrusted with the management of union poor houses, and by the dietary system therein pursued. And let it be recollected that the manufacturers were running down the rate of wages as low as they could; they were advertising for people in all parts of the country, and the manufacturers could immediately bring in a mass of paupers for the purpose of working at the rate of wages prescribed. This was done every day ruthlessly, and without the slightest feeling for the condition of the poor and labouring classes. But the farmers, on the contrary, looked greatly to the good of the labourers, to the comfort of their own dwellings; and moreover they lived amongst the labouring people, for whom they entertained a regard and affection, without running down the scale of wages. He recollected that Mr. Huskisson had shown them cases of manufacturers advertising for workmen, and what was the consequence? Why, the moment the demand for the particular branch of manufacture ceased, or fell of, these same persons were thrown upon the agriculturists, and a large mass of Irish children were thrown upon the county, and subsequently thrown back on the shores of Ireland. He was far from wishing to impute any culpable intentions to noble Lords in
700
that House with respect to the arguments they held, but he must say, that most undoubtedly the language which had been held in reference to this subject was of a most inflammatory character. The most inflammatory language had been used abroad by those who universally took a one-sided view, in one way or other; they spoke always as they felt towards the manufacturers or the agriculturists. Now what was really the way to do good to the poor man? Why it was to foster and encourage all branches of industry; and the most desirable thing for the country was, to have all those branches in reasonable proportion the one to the other. Of this he was sure, that if those persons could obtain their object, who thought that good would result by throwing out of cultivation a large portion of lands, and throwing out of employment the cultivators of the soil, and thus raising a large mass of manufacturing population, this country would then be plunged into such an abyss of distress as no Government could comprehend, or effectually allay. But while on this subject, he would beg to quote from a work, written in the form of an essay, by Lord John Russell. He could assure their Lordships that it was a work which did the greatest credit to the understanding and character of that noble Lord. The publication contained sketches of life and character, and an essay on political economy (notwithstanding this subject had been so often and so well discussed), and the noble Lord came to this point, that the greatest distrust must be entertained of the champions of political economy from the fact that no man agreed on this most important subject, especially as to whether the price of food did not affect the price of labour. The noble Lord in this essay went on to say,—
" But the frequent occurrence of war, the complication of political interests, the existence of ancient treaties, and, above all, the establishments of capital and of people which have taken place on the faith of the continuance of old arrangements, often render a question of political economy much more difficult to solve than almost any problem in the range of mathematics. For instance, it is very easy to say that the trade in corn ought to be free, like any other trade, and that if your farmers cannot grow corn so cheap as the foreign farmers, they ought to let it alone. But when you are requested to consider that every other trade is restricted by duties, amounting in some cases to a prohibition—when you are told that millions of capital have been laid out

701
and many hundred thousands of people bred up and employed, on the presumption that the growth of corn would continue to be protected by law—when it is stated to you that the taxes are so heavy in this country and so light in other countries, that the effect of a free importation of corn would be the ruin of all the farmers, the conversion of the people entirely into manufacturers, and the consequent dependence of the whole nation on the commercial laws and even the caprices of foreign nations, you must own you have a knotty question to decide; and, besides all this, the question may be of such urgency, that I have seen several thousands of farmers utterly ruined, the manufacturers suffering for want of the internal trade, 200 banks broken, and money change its value, solely because a year was given to consider of the arguments of the political economists."
The noble Lord also said,
" It is very true that England would sell more cotton, if her manufacturers got cheap corn from Poland. But a Statesman is bound to think whether it would be better to have a million more people in the manufacturing towns, at the certainty of losing half a million of farmers and labourers; and he must place before his eyes the picture of that half-million starved out of existence, dragging along with them, for a time, the people employed in every branch of industry which depends upon their demand, clamourous for a pittance, which the inflexible spirit of science denies; shaking, perhaps, the pillars of the state, and menacing the whole order of society, before they suffer themselves to be extirpated by famine."
It was impossible for him (Lord Ashburton) to state more clearly and strongly the opinion he entertained of the consequences of great changes, than in the terms used by the noble Lord in his valuable essay. But another question which had been started by the noble Earl opposite was, whether any effect would be produced in respect to lands going out of cultivation; and the noble Earl denied, that any would be likely to go out of cultivation. Now, he had always understood the whole argument rested upon the unproductiveness of the soil of this country, by reason of the ungratefulness or uncongeniality of the soil for the culture of corn. There was a speculation that the land abroad was better worth cultivation, and, that under such a system, we should have the command of the foreign markets for our manufacturing produce. In the first place, it would be found, that parties abroad would not take our manufacturing produce. But we, in this case, put ourselves in this predicament, of putting out of cultivation all the
702
inferior soils, and of very largely decreasing the high state of culture of the remainder of the land. The landed proprietors must give up the expense of draining extensively, a system which had been going on for a long period; because it was quite clear, that the amount of expense could not keep pace with, or possibly stand in competition with the cheaper articles imported from countries abroad. Let them inquire into the state of those countries where the price of labour was half what it was here. If the prices of labour were not affected by the prices of food—if whether 8s., or 10 s., or 12 s. a week were the average rate of wages here, or the rate of wages where the people cultivated the soil in other countries was only 4d. a day, as in the case of Mecklenburg and North Germany—how was it possible that the farmer could cultivate the ground on equal terms? They must, then, come to some terms, to some arrangement with those countries; for the English Gentlemen of Nottingham, Sheffield, and all the great towns who did not like the dietaries of the poor-houses, must see that the farmers could not stand, unless they could find labourers on the low prices of foreign countries, at 4d. or 5d. a day. That was the state of things abroad. In point of fact, it was very much the custom here, and he was happy it was so, and hoped it would continue, for the country to be extremely anxious about the condition of the labouring classes; and, under the present law, they were in greater comfort than similar classes in any country on the Continent. In illustration of this fact, he might refer to the authority of Mr. Jacob, who was a political writer, and a gentleman who had been sent abroad by the Government for the purpose of examining into the price of corn, the state of agriculture, and the condition of the people of foreign countries. This gentleman declared, that he never saw white bread to the eastward of the Rhine, the bread was all black and sour, and made of rye. It might be said, that sour black bread was as good as white bread, but he believed, that noble Lords would have very great difficulty in persuading the unfortunate inmates of poor-houses, that black bread was as good as white. There was, too, the valuable report of Mr. Senior, on the hand-loom weavers, which contained much information. He knew, that during the short time he was a the Board of Trade, he made particular

703
inquiry into the condition and feeding of the crews of Russian and Prussian ships; and he found, that their food was of the lowest description. They were allowed hardly any meat of any kind. Then he said the people of this country must choose upon this subject. If they were so besotted and deluded, as to believe, that the removal of the Corn-laws would relieve them; if they were of opinion, that they should throw their markets open to competition and consumption abroad, they mnst live as the labourers abroad lived. He trusted, it might not be supposed, that he wished any such thing—far from it; for he believed, that notwithstanding all the difficulties which this country was said to be labouring under, and which never failed to exist in any country, she was going on prosperously, compared with other parts of the world. As a proof of that, he would state one or two facts in regard to the consumption in this country of articles something beyond the mere necessaries of life. He would take the article of sugar—an article very unfavourable, as it was taxed enormously, and, moreover, from the condition of the West Indies, was at a very extravagant price. Now, it was stated by Dr. Bowring, a free trader, that the consumption of sugar in France was only on the average 4lb. per head, and in Germany only 3lb. per head; whilst in this country it was 17lb. He knew no circumstances, that more fully proved the general comfort of the great mass of people of this country than facts of that description. There was also another circumstance that might be considered as affording a still stronger proof. In a report laid before the French Chambers the other day by the French Minister of Commerce, M. Cunin Gridaine, it was stated, that the consumption of butcher's meat in France was only 46lb. per head, of which, indeed, only 28lb. was really butcher's meat, and the other 18lb. was pork, whilst in England the consumption was 134lb. per head. If then they found such a proportion in different countries as compared with this, and which as legislators they were bound to look at, they could not come to the conclusion that there was anything so radically wrong in the system and the law as to make it worth their while to overturn the condition of the country for the purpose of making some addition to the revenue. On the subject of meat, the French Minister also
704
stated another very remarkable fact, which was, that the ox in France weighed only from 4 to 6 cwt., but in England the same animal weighed 8 cwt., and he stated it as a lamentable circumstance as connected with the condition of the agricultural interests in France, and said it behoved them to see whether that could not be remedied. He said, also, that he believed one of the reasons why they did not roast and boil so much in that country was, that the meat would not enable them to do it. The noble Earl opposite said, that this was a landowner's case, and that the fanner had nothing to do with it. But in what did the prosperity of the farmer consist? in his stock; and he feared, that the farmer had not much more capital generally than his stock, and yet the noble Earl told them, that the stock of 1,500 l. would come down to one of 1,000 l.
Earl Fitzwilliam: I did not say that exactly; what I said was this —that if any person could stock for 1,000 l. a farm which he now stocks for 1,500 l., I did not think there would be any harm in it.
Lord Ashburtoncontinued.—But it was quite clear they must give up the present high state of cultivation, and that portions of land not fit for cultivation must be thrown out of cultivation. And when they talked of that, their Lordships should be aware, that when they went into any measure of that description they must begin with a change in other matters, as, for instance, the Tithe Commutation Act. He ventured to say, that land about him would not be cultivated to-morrow if such a measure were brought in, and, that when tithes remained in perpetuity they would have to avoid leases and be obliged to come at last to what used to be called an equitable adjustment (as we understood). Of that he was quite sure; but he objected to any measure that materially reduced the value of the produce of land. And the objection he had to that which was at present propounded, namely, a duty of 8s., was, that it would be most oppressive on the poor man at certain periods, and would, at the same time, completely destroy the farmer in that on which he relied whenever corn was at any moderate price. The noble Earl opposite was fond of quoting the period when corn was at 39 s., which it was for a short period within the last six years; but the produce of the year was almost universally used within the year, so that, as a

705
question of rich and poor, the poor would have their bread heavily taxed when the price was high, and would get relief which they did not want when the price was low. There was not one of the high authorities on political subjects who had not uttered grave warnings as to the danger of adopting too hastily the abstract theories of political economy. They did not say, that those theories were always to be rejected and avoided; but one of the propositions for which they contended was, that though they were not at all times to be followed, yet they were entitled to this degree of respect—that those who departed from them ought to be called on to show the grounds of their departure. The authority of Mr. Huskisson had frequently been referred to upon occasions of this nature, and one observation of his appeared to be well worthy of the serious consideration of the House. Mr. Huskisson said:—
" First principles bad been alluded to, but first principles, as well as other principles, must depend on positive circumstances and relative situations for the mode in which they were to be applied. If this were an untaxed country, if we had no poor-rates, if a perfect freedom of trade existed in every branch of commerce, the arguments of hon. Gentlemen would be irresistible."
Those were the opinions of that eminent person, and when his authority was referred to, the House should not forget the passage to which he had just called their attention.
Petitions laid on the Table.