Sitting of 24 February 1842

MINUTES.
BILLS. Public—1o Marriages (Ireland). Private.—1o Gt. North of England Railway; Weston-super-Mare Improvement; Duke of Bedford's Estate; St. Pancras Improvement; Boston Harbour. 2o. Severn Navigation.
PETITIONS PRESENTED. By Sir R. Bateson, from Keady, and Strabane, Mr. Ffolliot, from Sligo, Lord Acheson, from Moira, and Lord Claude Hamilton, from Temple Patrick, for Legalizing Marriages by Dissenters. —By Mr. Brotherton, from Salford, Mr. Busfeild, from Bradford, Mr. Duncan, from Dundee, Mr. Oswald, from Glasgow, and several other hon. Members, from various places, for the Repeal of the Corn-laws.—By Mr. Divett, from Exeter, against the Municipal Corporations Act Amendment Bill.—By Sir R. Inglis, from Societies at Glasgow, for Assistance to Emigrate.—By Mr. Borth. wick, from Pimlico, and Mr. Broadwood, from St-George's, Hanover-square, and other Districts of the Metropolis, for the Redemption of the Tolls on the Metropolitan Bridges.—By Mr. Greenall, from Wigan, for Extending the Provisions of the Metropolitan Police Act to the Rural Districts.—From Lord Mayor, &c. of London, complaining of Smoke from Factories.—From James Naughton, against raising Revenue from Spirits.—From Carlisle, for Enquiry into Distress there.

RIOT IN JAMAICA.
Mr.O'Connellwould take that opportunity to ask a question of the noble Lord opposite on the subject to which he had yesterday evening called the noble Lord's attention. It appeared that an unfortunate occurrence, in which several lives were lost, had taken place in Jamaica on Christmas-eve, or on the night of Christmas day last. He begged, therefore, to know from the noble Lord, whether he had received from Jamaica the particulars of that occurrence, and, it he had, whether he had any objection to lay the information so obtained on the Table.
Lord Stanleysaid, it was proper that he should state to the House that information had been received by her Majesty's Government on the subject referred to, and he would explain to the House what the nature of that information was. It was quite true, that during the Christmas holydays, the event alluded to had occurred in Kingston, and unfortunately some lives were lost. The House were aware that the common practice had been for the negroes to have a sort of saturnalia at Christmas, in all the great towns in the

1003
West Indies. The planters approved of these amusements, and liked to see the negroes thus employed, because, while they were occupied in this manner, they were not likely to combine for improper purposes. These celebrations were, however, very noisy, and some of the inhabitants therefore objected to them. He here spoke of a period when slavery existed. Since slavery had ceased, however, it had been the earnest desire of the white inhabitants, and of the more respectable negroes themselves, to put a stop gradually to these noisy and troublesome demonstrations. In the year before last the mayor of Kingston, exercising his own discretion, without the consent of the rest of the corporation, and contrary to the advice of the Government, took strong measures to put an end to these proceedings. A disturbance broke out at last, and the rioters having overpowered the authorities, the district was kept in a state of disturbance for the space of three weeks. In the course of last year the mayor of Kingston, in spite of the remonstrances of the Government availing himself of a clause in an Act of Parliament (the construction of which was doubtful"), determined under the authority which he supposed that clause conferred on him, to put down those proceedings at Kingston by main force. The consequence was that a riot took place, the police were resisted in endeavouring to carry into effect those orders which they were bound to obey, and much confusion and alarm ensued. The mayor was struck on the face with a stone, he was knocked down and treated with very great violence. The riot at length reached so great a height, that the police, feeling themselves to be in the most imminent danger, fired on the people. Two individuals were killed on the spot, two had died since, and a considerable number were wounded. It then became necessary to call out the troops, of whom a considerable body occupied the town during several days. Considerable excitement prevailed, the guards were doubled, and every precaution adopted necessary to the preservation of the peace. He was happy to be able to add that nothing could be better or more moderate and forbearing than had been the conduct of every description of troops. It was a circumstance worthy of remark that the few troops engaged were exclusively blacks, and that nothing could be
1004
better than their conduct. Indeed, the military of all colours had acted with the greatest zeal and readiness, and at the same time with the greatest forbearance. Not a single shot was fired nor a single life lost after the first unfortunate firing took place. He had that morning seen Sir W. Gomm, who had stated to him that the governor Sir C. Metcalfe, in order to allay the excitement, had ordered that there should be an investigation before three magistrates, which investigation had commenced before Sir W. Gomm left, and further, that tranquillity had since been entirely restored. He hoped by the next packet to receive a full account of the inquiry that took place at that public investigation, and until he received that report he thought it would be much better for him not to lay any papers of a partial nature before the House. When he received the report he should be prepared to communicate its contents to the fullest extent.
Mr. O'Connellunder those circumstances would not, of course, press the noble Lord. He had understood the noble Lord to say, that the governor had been adverse on both occasions to the proceedings which took place; and he understood him also to say, that the persons conducting the inquiry had been appointed by the governor.
Lord Stanleysaid, that the imprudence and indiscretion of the mayor had been disapproved of by the governor, and that the question of his independence of the authority of the governor had been, or was about to be, brought under the consideration of the legislature of the island.
Subject at an end.

EXCHEQUER-BILLS.
The Chancellor of the Exchequerrose to move for certain papers relative to Exchequer-bills. The right hon. Gentleman said that as the returns he moved for contained an account of the number of Exchequer-bills signed by the Comptroller-general and his assistant, they would no doubt render unnecessary the motion of which the hon. Member for Lincoln had given notice.
Colonel Sibthorpsaid, until he knew what the papers were he could not withdraw his notice, which he thought was a i necessary one, in order that they might get at the truth; for it appeared by the report of the commissioners, that the Exchequer-bills had, contrary to the provi-

1005
sions of the act of Parliament, been signed in places other than the Exchequer-bill office. They had a right to inquire into the truth of this statement, and to have so important a matter brought fully before the public, because it might happen that condemnation would fall upon really guilty persons, who had now escaped.
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid, that in laying the papers on the Table of the House, he must express his opinion that they would contain all the information the hon. and gallant Gentleman wished. He believed that those papers would contain everything essential to the consideration of the subject. He had not the least wish to withhold anything from the House in this matter, and if the hon. and gallant Member's motion had come on, and he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) had thought it his duty to resist it, he should have been acting in direct opposition to the wish of the Comptroller-general himself. He hoped the hon. and gallant Colonel would first look at the papers, when laid on the Table, and, when he had seen them, if he did not feel satisfied, he could give notice of a motion on a future day.
Lord J. Russellsaid, the hon. Member had made a statement to which considerable importance would attach, had it been made in a shape demanding attention. Undoubtedly, if it could be proved that Exchequer-bills had been signed in places other than the Exchequer-office, a direct violation of the act of Parliament would be shown to have been committed; but he (Lord J. Russell) did not think the hon. Gentleman would be able in any way to prove his statement.
Colonel Sibthorphad made the statement on the authority of the Comptroller-general of the Exchequer himself.

WEST INDIES.
Mr. Grantley Berkeleyrose to put questions to the noble Lord the Secretary for the Colonies; first, if the Government had received despatches containing the news of a general strike in Demerara of the negroes, because the proprietors had endeavoured to substitute a fair average of wages, in place of the present exorbitant demand? He begged the noble Lord to observe that he confined his question to the strike of the negroes, because he had been informed that the Portuguese emigrants remained steady and contented—a fact speaking highly in favour of
1006
the importation system. Also, he was anxious to know if the Government had received a memorial from the West India body in London, praying to have an inquiry by committee into the present depressed state of colonial property, and if the memorial to which he referred included British Guiana as well as the West India colonies?
Lord Stanleysaid, that the Government had received no information of the nature referred to by the hon. Gentleman. The latest accounts from Demerara were dated the 5th January, and had been received the 16th of the present month. They contained no accounts of the nature referred to. With respect to the second question the Government had received the memorial to which the hon. Gentleman referred, and it did include the colony of Demerara. He had not had an opportunity of seeing the gentleman from whom it came, but hoped to be able to do so in a day or two.

CORN AVERAGES.
Mr. W. S. O'Brienwished to know whether the right hon. Baronet at the head of the Government had any objection to state, for the information of the corn trade, whether, on the passing of his bill, the averages of the six weeks immediately preceding would be made use of, or whether the operation of the bill was to be deferred until averages had been taken in the new manner for six weeks.
Sir R. Peelbegged to postpone answering the question until the details of his bill were before the House.

DISSENTERS' MARRIAGES (IRELAND).
Lord Eliotrose to move for leave to bring in a bill to confirm certain marriages in Ireland, and he apprehended that it would not be necessary for him to use much argument to induce the House to consent to a measure to relieve a large number of her Majesty's subjects who had contracted matrimonial engagements in perfect good faith, and according to what they believed to be the law of the land. For the last two centuries it had been usual for Presbyterian ministers to solemnize marriages where the one party was a Presbyterian and the other a member of the Church of England; and he need not describe the dismay of those persons who were so situated when they found, from circumstances that had recently happened, that their marriages were illegal. A short

1007
statement of these circumstances might assist those hon. Members not already acquainted with them in deciding upon the measure he was about to propose. At the last summer assizes at Armagh, a person named Smith was indicted for bigamy. It appeared that in the year 1830, being then a member of the Church of England, he had been married to a Presbyterian by a Presbyterian minister. They lived together as man and wife nine years, and in 1839 he remarried according to the rites of the Church of England, in a parish church in Dublin, a member of the Established Church. He was tried for bigamy, and his counsel contended that his client was entitled to an acquittal, he being a member of the Established Church, and the marriage having been celebrated by a Presbyterian minister. Counsel for the Crown contended that the marriage was valid, and that it was not necessary that the person celebrating it should be in holy orders, neither counsel contending that within the meaning of the act a Presbyterian minister was a person in holy orders. The objection of the prisoner's counsel was overruled, hut the learned judge reserved the point of law for the consideration of the judges. On the first day of Hilary Term there was a meeting of the judges, before whom the case was elaborately argued, and the decision come to by a majority of eight to two, there being ten judges present, was, that the conviction was bad, as the former marriage was invalid. It would be presumptuous in him to offer any opinion on the subject, but this he might be permitted to say, that until the opinion of the judges was overruled by the decision of the supreme tribunal, before which there was no means of bringing it, it being a criminal case, they were bound to regard the decision of the judges as the law of the land. There was no doubt that the law of marriages in Ireland rested upon a bad and unsatisfactory footing. Marriages by Presbyterian ministers between persons of their own communion were done in a very irregular manner. There were none of those checks which distinguish marriages between members of the Church of England; no notice was required; neither a particular time nor place was necessary; there was no limit as to the persons; and the ceremony was not unfrequently celebrated by degraded ministers. It was, therefore, absolutely necessary that the
1008
whole subject should undergo consideration. He course proposed by her Majesty's Government seemed to be the only one open to them to pursue, namely, to bring in a measure such as he was about to lay upon the Table, for the purpose of giving relief to those parties who were affected by the decision of the judges, and subsequently, in the present Session, to give to the whole subject the most serious consideration with the view to some final and satisfactory settlement. The noble Lord moved for leave to bring in a "Bill to legalize Marriages which have been solemnized in Ireland by Presbyterian Ministers between Presbyterians and members of the Church of England."
Mr. Littonhad received numerous communications from the Presbyterians of Ireland, since the intention of Government to bring in this bill had been announced, expressive of their anxiety on the subject, and their gratitude to the Government for so earnest a consideration of a question of such importance to their Interests. They also felt especially grateful for the promise which had been given of a retrospective measure. In the north of Ireland, in particular, such a measure would prove most useful and satisfactory.
Mr. O'Connellsaid, there could be no doubt that the class of persons to be affected by the bill of the noble Lord had the strongest possible claim for relief. They married with the full conviction that the marriage was legal, and so far from its having been suspected not to have been so previous to the recent decision, that he would not have hesitated giving it as his opinion that they were perfectly valid. He said this to show that those parties were exculpated from any intention to violate the law by contracting those marriages. He hoped the noble Lord would endeavour to have this bill passed as speedily as possible, because until it was passed it would he open to any of those for whose benefit it was intended to contract, if they were so inclined, a second marriage, and thus morally, though not legally, be guilty of bigamy. He was sure, therefore, that no obstacle whatever would be thrown in the way of the noble Lord's proceeding as speedily as possible with this measure. While on the subject, he must caution the noble Lord against interfering with the law of marriage in Ireland beyond what was absolutely necessary. In England the Marriage-law was

1009
exceedingly strict; in Ireland it was partially strict and partially not so; in Scotland there was great latitude; and the House having already, on a former occasion, discussed the question as regarded another class of her Majesty's subjects in Ireland, he hoped the noble Lord would approach the subject with great caution.
Colonel Rawdonstated, that on the 26th of last January a woman, with four children, applied for admission into the workhouse of Armagh, alleging that her husband, who had lived with her for fourteen years, had deserted her in consequence of the decision of the judges alluded to by the noble Lord, and that having married a female in another quarter, her children had since then been designated bastards. This circumstance having taken place on the 26th of January, he could not join with the hon. Member for Coleraine in expressions of gratitude to the Government, for he conceived that they had been very tardy in taking that course which common sense as well as humanity dictated. He thought it was the duty of her Majesty's Government to have laid this bill on the Table of the House the very first day of the Session.
Mr. Serjeant Jacksonsaid, the Government had introduced this measure upon the very first opportunity, consistently with a due consideration of the subject. It was but a short time since the Parliament had assembled, and some little time was required for deliberation. The very fact mentioned by the hon. and gallant Colonel proved and showed the necessity of having the present measure one only of a retrospective nature; for, if it were made prospective, the man who he said had abandoned his wife, and married again, would necessarily be made guilty of bigamy.
Mr F. Maulethought that the Government had been remiss in not bringing this question forward at the opening of the Session. The time since might open in short, but nevertheless many such instances as that mentioned by the hon. and gallant Officer might, in that short period, have taken place. As connected with the Presbyterians of Scotland, he was glad the Government had taken up the question; and While he regretted they had not done so sooner, he hoped they would lose no time with the present bill, but proceed with it de die in diem.
Leave given.—Bill brought in and read a first time.

STRANGERS IN THE GALLERY.
Mr. Muntzmoved, "That at future divisions of this House, neither the strangers in the Gallery nor the reporters shall be required to withdraw, except by special motion for for that purpose."
The Speaker,before putting the question, begged to observe to the hon. Member, that he could hardly put the motion without the standing order relative to strangers being rescinded. If the hon. Member wished, he might move that the standing order be rescinded before putting the motion.
Mr. Muntzstated, that he would avail himself of the suggestion of the Speaker.
The standing orders were then read by the Clerk as follows:—
" Ordered, that the Sergeant-at-arms attending this House do, from time to time, take into his custody any stranger or strangers that he shall see, or be informed of, to be in the House or Gallery, While the House, or any committee of the whole House, is sitting; and that no person so taken into custody be discharged out of custody without the special order of the House.
"Ordered, That no Member of this House do presume to bring any stranger or strangers into the House or gallery thereof, While the House is sitting."
Mr. Muntzmoved that these orders be rescinded.
Sir R. Peelstated that his vote on this occasion would be determined by a sense of the public convenience. They ought not, in his opinion, to vary lightly that which was an old practice and established usage of the House. There ought to be some strong case of public inconvenience established to induce them to depart from that which had been established. Of late years there was even less reason than formerly for strangers remaining in the gallery; for now, whatever were the votes given by the Members, the surest plan had been adopted by the House of notifying them to the public. By the publication of the name of each Member, and how he had voted, the fact material to the public to know was ascertained. If they were to lay down a rule on this subject, it ought to be an uniform one, and declare that strangers had a right to be there during the debates as well as during the divisions. If they did do so, great inconvenience might be occasioned to the House, for it frequently happened that the places allotted to strangers were required for the Members themselves, and he believed that if the pro-

1011
posed change took place, the division lists could not be so satisfactorily made out as at present. If strangers were to remain during the divisions, the confidence now felt in the accuracy of their returns as to divisions would be much shaken. He could not conceive any good reason for making the alteration, and he therefore trusted that the House would adhere to the ancient practice.
Mr. Aglionbyasked the right hon. Baronet whether it were not extremely absurd to retain on their standing orders that which was so contrary to the truth? It was said that Members should not bring strangers, and every day Members brought them in. While, too, these standing orders said that strangers were to be excluded, a part of the House was fitted up for strangers.
Mr. Wallacesuggested that strangers might be allowed to remain in the gallery during divisions, and then, if any inconvenience were felt from the practice, they might return to the present system.
Dr. Bowringwas sure no hon. Member could have heard the Standing Order read without blushing at the absurdity and mendacity of it; and he really thought it due to the character of the House to expunge it.
Mr. Muntzwished to observe, in reply, that the right hon. Baronet had misunderstood his motion. He had not said anything with regard to the strangers in the lower part of the House. There might be, he was quite aware, great difficulties attending a division if they were suffered to remain, but his motion merely referred to the occupants of the galleries, who could not in any way interfere with a division.
The House divided on the question that the said orders be rescinded— Ayes 51; Noes 187: Majority 136.

List of the AYES.

Adam, W.

Evans, W.

Blake, Sir V.

Fitzroy, Lord C.

Blewitt, R. J.

Gibson, T. M.

Bowes, J.

Hill, Lord M.

Bowring, Dr.

Humphery, Mr. Ald.

Bridgeman, H.

Hutt, W.

Brotherton, J.

Jardine, W.

Cobden, R.

Johnson, Gen.

Denistoun, J.

Layard, Captain

Duke, Sir J.

Leader, J. T.

Duncan, G.

Mangles, R. D.

Duncombe, T.

Marsland, H.

Dundas, A.D.

Martin, J.

Elphinstone, H. H.

Morris, D.

1012

Murphy, F. S.

Turner, E.

Murray, A.

Wallace, R.

O'Brien, W. S.

Wason, R.

O'Connell, D.

Wawn, J. T.

Pechell, Captain

White, S.

Pinney, W.

Williams, W.

Plumridge, Captain

Wilson, M.

Powell, C.

Wood, B.

Ramsbottom, J.

Wood, Sir M.

Redington, T. N.

Worsley, Lord

Rice, E. R.

TELLERS.

Somerville, Sir W. M.

Muntz, G. F.

Tancred, H. W.

Aglionby, H.

List of the Noes.

Acton, Col.

Douglas, Sir H.

Adderley, C. B.

Douglas, Sir C. E.

Ainsworth, P.

Drummond, H. H.

Allix, J. P.

Duffield, T.

Antrobus, E.

Duncombe, hon. O.

Arkwright, G.

Du Pre, C. G.

Bailey, J.

Eaton, R. J.

Bailey, J. jun.

Egerton, W. T.

Baillie, H. J.

Eliot, Lord

Baldwin, C. B.

Escott, B.

Balfour, J. M.

Estcourt, T. G. B.

Baring, rt. hon. F. T.

Farnham, E. B.

Barnard, E. G.

Fellowes, E.

Barneby, J.

Feilden, W.

Barrington, Visct.

Ferrand, W. B.

Beckett, W.

Filmer, Sir E.

Bell, M.

Fitzroy, Captain

Beresford, Major

Fleming, J. W.

Bernard, Visct.

Follett, Sir W. W.

Blackstone, W. S.

Ffolliott, J.

Bodkin, W. H.

Forester, hon. G.C.W.

Boldero, H. G.

French, F.

Borthwick, P.

Gladstone, rt. hn. W. E.

Botfield, B.

Gore, W. R. O.

Bradshaw, J.

Goring, C.

Bramston, T. W.

Goulburn, rt. hon. H.

Broadwood, H.

Graham, rt. hon. Sir J.

Brownrigg, J. S.

Granby, Marquess of

Bruce, Lord E.

Greenall, P.

Bruce, C. L. C.

Grey, rt. hon. Sir G.

Buckley, E.

Grimsditch, T.

Burdett, Sir F.

Grogan, E.

Burrell, Sir C. M.

Hale, R. B.

Burroughes, H. N

Halford, H.

Campbell, A.

Hamilton, W. J.

Carnegie, hn. Capt.

Hamilton, Lord C.

Chapman, A.

Hastie, A.

Chelsea, Vscount

Hawes, B.

Clerk, Sir G.

Hawkes, T.

Clive, hon. R. H.

Heneage, G. H. W.

Cochrane, A.

Heneage, E.

Codrington, C. W.

Henley, J. W.

Colebrooke, Sir T. E.

Hepburn, Sir T. B.

Colville, C. R.

Hodgson, F.

Compton, H. C.

Hodgson, R.

Copeland, Mr. Ald.

Houldsworth, T.

Corry, right hon. H.

Holmes, hn. W. A'Ct.

Cresswell, B.

Hope, A.

Darby, G.

Howard, hon. G.

Denison, E. B.

Hughes, W. B.

Dick, Q.

Irton, S.

Divett, E.

Irving, J.

1013

Jackson, J. D.

Rolleston, Col.

Johnson, W. G.

Rose, rt. hon. Sir G.

Johnston, A.

Round, C. G.

Johnstone, H.

Rushbrooke, Col.

Kelburne, Visct.

Russell, Lord J.

Kemble, H.

Ryder, hon. G. D.

Labouchere, rt. hn. H

Sanderson, R.

Lambton, H.

Sandon, Visct.

Legh, G. C.

Scott, hon. F.

Lincoln, Earl of

Seymour, Sir H. B.

Lindsay, H. H.

Sheppard, T.

Litton, E.

Shirley, E. J.

Loch, J.

Shirley, E. P.

Long, W.

Sibthorp, Col.

Lowther, J. H.

Smythe, hon. G.

Lowther, hon Col.

Smollett, A.

Lygon, hon. General

Somerset, Lord G.

MacGeachy, F. A.

Stanley, E.

Manners, Lord J.

Stansfield, W. R. C.

March, Earl of

Stuart, Lord J.

Martin, C. W.

Stuart, W. V.

Martyn, C. C.

Strickland, Sir G.

Masterman, J.

Strutt, E.

Meynell, Colonel

Sturt, H. C.

Morgan, O.

Sutton, hon. H. M.

Mostyn, hn. E. M. L.

Tennent, J. E.

Mundy, E. M.

Thompson, Mr. Ald.

Neville, R.

Trotter, J.

O'Brien, A. S.

Tuite, H. M.

Ossulston, Lord

Vane, Lord H.

Packe, C. W.

Vere, Sir C. B.

Palmer, G.

Waddington, H. S.

Palmerston, Visct.

Welby, G. E.

Peel, rt. hon. Sir R.

Whitmore, T. C.

Plumptre, J. P.

Winnington, Sir T. E.

Pollock, Sir F.

Wodehouse, E.

Praed, W. T.

Wood, C.

Pringle, A.

Wortley, hon. J. S.

Protheroe, E.

Wyndham, Col.

Pusey, P.

Young, J.

Rae, rt. hon. Sir W.

TELLERS.

Reid, Sir J. R.

Fremantle, Sir T.

Richards, R.

Baring, H.

COMPTROLLERSHIP OF THE EXCHEQUER.
Colonel Sibthorprose to move for the following returns: —
" A return of the number of days on which Lord Monteagle, as Comptroller of the Exchequer, attended at the office of the Receipt of Exchequer, from the date of his appointment, the 9th of September, 1839, to the 5th day of January, 1842; also for a return of the number and the amount of the several Exchequer-bills signed and issued by Lord Monteagle himself, and the periods and places at which such bills have been severally signed and issued by him during the above period."
The hon. Member said, that when these returns were referred to in the earlier part of the evening, he certainly heard, with some surprise, the proposal made to him by the right hon. Gentleman, the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He had felt it due to that right hon. Gentleman to sub-
1014
mit this motion to him before bringing it before the House, and it was only yesterday morning that he laid it under his consideration. He then heard no expression of dissent, indeed he had received a suggestion on the subject of it from a Member of the Government—not from the Chancellor of the Exchequer certainly, but from the hon. Baronet, one of the Secretaries of the Treasury. Now, he must say, that he considered this question was one which ought not to be trifled with. He was partial to the present Government. He placed implicit confidence in the integrity, the manliness, and the talents of the right hon. Baronet, the First Lord of the Treasury; but still, partial as he was to this Government, he begged to say, that he was bound to no Government. He was an independent Member of that House. He had entered it—pledged to the constituents, who returned him, to preserve his independence inviolate, and independent he would remain whilst they continued to return him, whosoever might occupy the Ministerial benches. In the course he was now taking, he considered he was only doing his duty to the country. He felt, that the public ought to be satisfied on this matter. It was due to Lord Monteagle that they should be satisfied—it was due to the country—to the House—and he would add, to himself. To show that he was not trifling with the House, by making a frivolous motion, he would refer to the act which regulated the issue of Exchequer-bills. That act, among other provisions, laid it down that no bill should be signed. out of the Exchequer-office. Now, he wanted to know how far that and other regulations had been complied with. If it were asked, what grounds he had for supposing they had been violated, he would refer to the source from which most information was gleaned—namely, the public papers. He would read to the House a passage in a paper of high repute, in which he had no interest either directly or indirectly, but which he looked to with great respect as an organ of public opinion, anti a vehicle of correct information. He had heard of the Morning Chronicle, he had heard of the Morning Post, but the paper he looked to for correct reports of public proceedings was The Times—a paper of which he would say, that it gave more copious, elaborate, and correct details of the events of the day than any print that came under his notice. He would read to them an extract from the report in that

1015
paper, of the trial before Lord Abinger, in the Court of Exchequer, on the 18th of February, in the case of "the Bank of England v. Tomkins." Coming from such authority, the accuracy of the report was unquestionable, and the part of the report he should read would be an extract from Lord Monteagle's evidence in the course of his cross-examination by Mr. Erle. The report in The Times was as follows:—
" Formerly, the seal and the screw-press used to be kept together, but they are separated now. The senior clerk numbers the blank bills, and the junior the counterfoil, unless one be absent, when both are numbered by one only. They ought certainly to be numbered by two separate clerks, and if not, it is a violation of the rules of the office. The junior clerk generally cuts the hills off but it is immaterial, I should say, who did it. The bills are almost. uniformly signed at the office in my room, but there are exceptions. It is not essential that they should be signed there. According to antecedent usage, the bills were sometimes signed in the country, often in various parts of London."
He believed that to be a violation of the act of Parliament. He hoped, that no objection would be made to let the public know how the affairs of the office were managed, what documents were signed, by whom they were signed, and in what place. Far be it from him to draw any unpleasant inference from the account he had read, or to surmise that they were signed in any improper place. Upon these grounds, he trusted that the House would not refuse the return. He thought, that his right hon. Friend, if it was not too much to expect from one so high in office towards an humble individual like himself, might have shown him the return for which he intended to move. If his right hon. Friend had done that, and if it had been possible for him in the discharge of his duty to give way, he was one of the last men in the House to have put the Government to any trouble, and he would willingly have yielded. He should bow to the opinion of the House, and had no wish whatever to put them to the trouble of a division. What he had done, arose solely from an anxious wish to discharge his duty to the public and his constituents. He begged, in conclusion, to submit to the House the motion he announced at the outset.
The Chancellor of the Exchequercheerfully admitted, that his hon. Friend always acted in the House with a desire to do his duty, and if he had the misfortune to dif-
1016
fer from those with whom he usually acted in public life, lie did it from an honourable and upright motive. He was sure, his hon. Friend would feel, that if he had not agreed with him in any part of the course he had pursued, he was only acting in the same manner for which his hon. Friend claimed credit, in taking an independent part, and pursuing his own course, without any reflection on his hon. Friend, for the course he thought proper to follow. When he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) presented a return on the subject a short time since, he had suggested to his hon. Friend, that it might be better first to see the return laid on the Table, and then consider whether a motion of this kind was necessary. His hon. Friend had not thought fit to acquiesce in that recómmendation. He had formerly stated to the House that objections might fairly be raised to the production of the accounts, and subsequently, he 'had thought it his duty to consult the Comptroller-general of the Exchequer on the power he had of giving the return, and the view he took of the propriety of giving it. The noble Lord who filled that office, distinctly stated to him, that as far as he was concerned, he was most anxious to give the return, and was desirous, that no impediment should be thrown in the way of granting any information which the hon. Gentleman wished to obtain. Balancing, then, these considerations, his own doubts whether the return could answer any useful purpose, and the desire of the noble Lord, that it should be presented to the House, he had come to the conclusion, that, on the whole, it would be better to give way to the wishes of the noble Lord. If he were to pursue a different course, it would lead to the impression, that there was something to be concealed, and under those circumstances, he should waive his intention to oppose the motion. He could never admit, however, that mere attendance at an office, was any test of the manner in which its duties were discharged, or that the number of hours during which a person sat in a particular room was a proof of zeal. On that ground, he should have been desirous of refusing the return, had it not been for the wishes of the noble Lord; but, under these circumstances, he should offer no opposition to the return moved for by his hon. Friend. It might be a matter of some difficulty to state the particular

1017
days on which the bills had been signed, but the noble Lord said, he was wilting to take that trouble also, rather than afford any ground for the imputation of attempt at concealment. He wished his hon. Friend had merely moved for the return without offering any observations. The House was well aware, that the whole of the subject must come fully before it, when it would be discussed, and the case would be made perfectly known, but till that period arrived, whether Gentlemen took one view of the transaction or another, he thought it but fair, that those who by any means might be implicated in anything that had taken place, should be exempted from attacks, which might be made in ignorance of the real circumstances of the case. He, therefore, wished his hon. Friend had not accompanied his motion with the observations by which he had prefaced it, and he begged it to be believed, if he did not enter into details on the topic suggested by his hon. Friend, it was not from any desire of shrinking, on his own part, or on that of the noble Lord concerned, but from a wish not to take up the time of the House by entering prematurely on a subject which must soon come before it. With these observations he would express his assent to the motion.
Mr. F. T. Baringcould not allow the motion to pass without expressing his sincere satisfaction that the right hon. Gentleman had felt it to be consistent with his public duty to agree to the motion. He felt this on general grounds, for he thought that in all these cases the more frank the communications made the more satisfactory was it to all parties. He felt it the more because there had been with reference to this matter a degree of mystery observed which appeared to him to be most unfortunate, both for the public and for individuals. He felt it still more from the sincere attachment and respect he had long cherished on both political and personal grounds to the noble Lord who was at the head of the office, and who he was sine would be glad to lay before the House any information that was required. He should endeavour to follow the example of the right hon. Gentleman in refraining from making any observations on this subject. He perfectly concurred with the right hon. Gentleman that the hon. Member would have clone better not on this occasion to allude to any point of law to
1018
which he might think it necessary to call the attention of the House, and which could be discussed when the whole subject was considered. At the same time he was but doing justice to his noble Friend when he mentioned a fact of which the hon. Member who had read an extract from the report of the trial must be perfectly well aware—that his noble Friend, so far from having attempted to conceal anything relating to the transaction, had stated in his evidence that he never signed those bills at any other place than the Comptroller's office. Whatever opinions the hon. Gentleman might have as to the legality of the practice of signing bills at some the place, it was one which had before pre vailed in the Exchequer, and under Lord Grenville and Mr. Bedford it was the constant habit to sign at other places than the office. He spoke only as to the legality of the practice; he went no further. He would conclude with saying, that he thought it but fair that his noble Friend, as well as all others concerned, should be clear from any imputation or suspicion that there had been an attempt on his part to conceal anything, or to withhold any evidence that could throw light on the affair.
Colonel Sibthorpthought he had a right to state that he had made no charge whatever, direct or indirect, against Lord Monteagle. No one word had fallen from him which could possibly be considered as casting the slightest imputation on that Nobleman. With respect to the opinion expressed by his right hon. Friend, that he should have moved for the return without making any comments, if he had known that his right hon. Friend entertained that desire he would have been happy to consult his wishes.
Motion agreed to.

CORN-LAWS—MR. VILLIERS'S MOTION—TOTAL REPEAL—ADJOURNED DEBATE—(FIFTH DAY).
Order of the Day read, and House in committee upon the Corn-laws.
Mr. Johnstonsaid, that when he had read her Majesty's Speech, he conceived that the system of class legislation was to be at once and for ever abandoned by the Government, and that a measure would have been brought forward which would have had a tendency to promote the general prosperity of the country, and he consequently felt the more regret that a

1019
measure should have been introduced which went so far to support the system of class legislation as that which had been presented to the House—a proposition, as he believed, which would please no class of persons except the landowners. He appealed to the past to prove, that the interests of the merchants had been sacrificed to the Corn laws—that the interests of the bankers had sustained great losses from the derangements in the monetary system consequent upon the operation of the Cornlaws—that the manufacturers had been obliged to lessen the number of those in their employment, and that the working classes had been deprived of employment, and obliged at the same time to pay double for their food—all in consequence of the Corn-laws. He regretted the mode in which hon. Members on the other side of the House had sometimes chosen to address hon. Members on the side which he occupied. They seemed to wish to excite one class against another, and to set different interests in opposition to each other, with the view to curb the progress of the extension of political rights. The manufacturers had been accused of being oppressors, and of having designs of reducing as much as possible the amount of wages which they paid. He denied the charge. He maintained, that it was the interest of the manufacturers to pay high wages. Their profits were never so high as when they were obliged to pay high wages; and if they had the choice of the manner in which to conduct their business, they would prefer paying high to paying low wages; for the former was always a clear proof of high profits, and low wages of the reverse. When wages were low, the state of the manufacturer was never prosperous. They were told, too, that manufacturers were protected, and that therefore agriculturists should be protected too. But he denied, that the manufacturers were in reality protected. It was true, that there was a duty upon the importation of cotton goods; but did any one think that, by that means, cotton manufactures were raised in value to the extent of the duty? How could manufactures be protected by a duty on imports, when the articles in question were exported? If the Prussian government were to impose a duty of 10s. per quarter on the import of wheat into Dantzic, did any one think that the value of wheat would be raised in Dantzic to the extent of 10s, a quarter? All would see that the affirmative of such
1020
a proposition was a gross fallacy—and that the idea of protection to the cotton manufacturer was just as complete a mistake; the manufacturers did not want protection, they only wanted justice, and that they were determined to have. They would take no protection from, and give no protection to, the landowners. He meant to vote for a total and immediate repeal of the Corn-laws. He would do so because he thought, that the agriculturists required no protection. The Scotch farmers required no protection. In the evidence taken before the agricultural committee of the House in 1836, many intelligent Scotch farmers said, that then no distress existed in the rural parts of their country, that the Corn-laws were not needed, and that low prices for grain were beneficial to the farmer, by compelling the landlord to assist with his capital in draining and improving land, in order to keep up his rents. It was calculated by some of the witnesses examined before the committee alluded to, that 48s. per quarter, by others that 50s. per quarter, and by others that 56s. per quarter, as the price of corn, would be remunerating prices. He was satisfied from the various returns made to the House, that wheat could not be imported under a charge of 50s. per quarter. He presumed now, this was a price which the Scotch farmers considered a remunerating one, and he would ask, why should not the English agriculturist be of the same opinion? Why did not the English agriculturist adopt the Scotch system of farming? Why should they continue a system under which they paid lower rents for a more fertile soil? He believed, that the Scotch farmers were correct in stating that low prices were the best improvers of the land. He had no hesitation in saying, if the same system of farming was adopted in England as that pursued in Scotland, that the same outlay of capital would raise a third greater extent of produce. The prosperity of the years 1835 and 1836 had, as the Member for Dorchester remarked on a former occasion, induced the manufacturers greatly to increase the extent of their works. From the appearance of things at the time, they thought that they were justified in making these extensions; but the operation of the Corn-laws, combined with other causes, had since produced that distress for which he had hoped the Government had intended to apply a remedy. He had hoped that Ministers a could have gone deeply into the subject of the commercial laws—that they

1021
would have perceived that restrictive duties and monopoly were stifling the energies of the country. Why was not their foreign trade extended? The world was wide, and were there not millions who were not half clothed, While they were not half fed? Why were they prevented from exchanging the productions of different countries, to the mutual benefit of those countries? The monopolists prevented it. He had hoped that Government would have taken a more enlightened view of the subject. He fully believed that the country would benefit by a free-trade in corn, and under that impression, he would vote for a total and immediate repeal of the laws which prevented it.
Mr. Villiers Stuartwould vote for the motion of the hon. Member for Wolverhampton. It seemed to be generally admitted that the Corn-laws were the cause of an increased price of food. It seemed then to him, that in giving a vote for the continuation of these laws, the deepest responsibility must be felt, and that nothing but a clear proof of positiveé advantages springing from them could justify such a step. He had been in his place during the discussion which had taken place upon the subject; he had considered the arguments of the hon. Gentlemen who had defended the Corn-laws; and it seemed to him that the point which they sought to gain was the maintenance of the cultivation of the soil—a point they seemed to fear they would not possess in all its extent were the Corn-laws abolished. They thought the consequences of such a measure would be the relapse of the soil into its pristine state of uncultivated sterility, and that those who then laboured upon it and subsisted upon its produce would become, instead of wealthy, burdens upon the State. If he thought so, he would support them. He had turned his mind to that point, and he had also considered the manner in which the Corn-laws were framed, with the view of ascertaining whether the machinery of these laws did not apply its power in a manner beyond what was necessary for the achievement of the point which its supporters seemed to have in view. According to the ideas of these Gentlemen, it should be the object of the State to bribe those to cultivate the soil who would not, under other circumstances, do so; and, according to the proposition of the right hon. Baronet at the head of her Majesty's Government,
1022
the amount of this bribe was to be the difference in price of corn on the continent, and corn admitted to this country under the restrictive duties. Now there were two parties who were especially interested in the soil—the landlord and the farmer. The Corn laws must, therefore, apply to one or both; and though there might be doubts as to the interest of the farmer in them, there could be none as to the interest of the landowner, as his whole property arose from the fertility of the soil. Now, if he could find that the working of the machinery of the Corn-laws, instead of being applied to the party who might require external influence, only. touched him who needed no such stimulus to proceed with the cultivation of the soil, the existence of such a state of matters went evidently to prove, that although the Corn-laws were to be abolished, cultivation would still proceed. The landowner might, indeed, say he received a part of the bribe in question, but without it he would have difficulty in finding a tenant. He could conceive this plea to be valid, if it were attempted to be tried on the part of the landowner to obtain his present high rents after the duty on corn had been reduced or abolished; but when rents were reduced, as in consequence of such a measure they of course must be, the difficulty, he apprehended, would vanish. He had drawn his best argument against the idea of land going out of cultivation by a change in the Corn-laws, from the speech of the hon. Member for Kent maintaining the reverse of the proposition. The argument he alluded to was, that the soil would not go out of cultivation from a change in the protective duties in grain, were it only on account of the immense produce of the country, and the immense consumption of the country. It was impossible not to see that if the people were properly fed, they would not require a larger quantity of corn than that now consumed. The hon. Baronet the Member for Wiltshire made use of an argument to prove that the price of food had nothing to do with the condition of the labourer, which was on the face of it fallacious. He referred to one of the years of the war, when corn was 6l. 10s. a quarter, and said that no complaint was heard in our streets, and ever' man was comfortable and happy. Why, we were then at war, and we were manufacturers for the world. The consequence

1023
was that our army and navy were on an immense scale, and gave every man who cultivated the soil, or was engaged in manufactures, full employment. But even then the poor man was robbed by the high price of food of a certain surplus which would have gone to purchase some of the comforts of life. Nothing but a conscientious belief, founded on the grounds he had stated, could have induced him to vote for the motion of the hon. Member for Wolverhampton. One word as to the effect of the motion on Ireland. If, as was argued, the total repeal of these laws would bring ruin on that unfortunate country, he should be the last man to vote for it. But when wages were already so low in that country, surely an abundance of food must have the effect of bettering the condition of the people. To them there was no pretext for applying the fallacy, that a high price of corn brought with it high wages. If there were special burdens proved to exist with regard to the land, he should say adjust them more equally. But his present belief was, that the landlords had not injured themselves in the bargain which they struck with the rest of the community on the score of taxation. At any rate, his answer to their appeal at present was, "You can afford to be generous, and you will have, if it should be shown that you have injured yourselves, to place the question on a more equitable footing."
Mr. Aglionby:There were many hon. Members who had taken part in that debate, who had avowed themselves the advocates of free-trade, yet expressed their unwillingness, some to vote for the present motion, and others went the length of declaring they should vote against it. He participated in the difficulty which prompted them to make their speeches at variance with their votes. He did not altogether approve of the motion, especially the word "now" included in it; and though he never before supported such a proposition, he felt bound to give his assent to this. The reason which he conceived, justified him in taking this course, and which he trusted would be looked on as a sufficient inducement by others, was the enormous amount of suffering and distress which existed, for which he looked in vain for any remedy except an alteration in the Corn-laws. Had a moderate fixed duty been proposed by the Government, many would have left the ranks of the hon. Member for
1024
Wolverhampton to have supported such a measure. It would benefit commerce—at the same time that it would not create such alarm amongst the agriculturists. The distress had, in his opinion, penetrated the whole mass of the community. He was surprised to hear the hon. Baronet, the Member for Wiltshire say, that the operatives were most comfortable—at least, that those Conservative operatives by whom he had been invited to his northern circuit were so. He knew not how those dinners to which the hon. Baronet alluded were got up, but he could only say, that if those operatives were well off, and if they were in the habit of sitting down to good comfortable dinners, their condition was far different from that of the operatives in the county with which he was connected. He held in his hand a report from the committee of the operatives of Carlisle, which was not too highly coloured, or which was inaccurate only in very immaterial points; and they asserted, that their distress was extreme—that they had neither fire in their hearths, nor clothes to cover themselves, and they added this astounding fact, that one-fourth of the population, or about 6,000 persons, earned 1s.1¾d. per week for subsistence, and that, excluding the children under twelve years, and those persons who could not obtain employment, the remainder only earned ls. 9d. per week. The charitable committee formed in that town, composed of all shades of politics—Radicals, Whigs, and Tories; and of every profession, trade, and occupation, having no interest in the matter but to tell the truth, and thus induce charitable contributions—confirmed the statement which he had read. They divided the persons employed at different trades and various occupations, and showed, that there were 1,661 families, which, giving four to a family, would produce the result of a fourth of the whole population living on 1s. 2d. per head for each week. This was a state of things which must somehow or other be remedied. The right hon. Baronet assuredly meant that his measure should alleviate the distresses of the community, or lie never would have introduced it. But in his opinion, it would prove no relief to the consumer, and tend very little to the alleviation of the distress throughout the country. Again, his vote was decided, by his belief that a sliding scale would prove injurious, equally to the farmer and manufacturer. It would disappoint the one by

1025
destroying all certainty in the markets, and do no benefit to the latter, because it would not act as a prohibition on the proper importation of corn. The public, again, looked with jealousy and suspicion on those for whom the hon. Member for Wiltshire declared he had a great affection, when they saw they made laws fatal to the general interests, and which only subserved their own. He had not the good fortune to have had any one of his family connected with the commercial interest. His property, small as it was, was derived from land. He, like the hon. Baronet, had a great affection for those similarly circumstanced; he loved the land; but he did not feel justified in keeping up a vast monopoly to the injury of the other classes of the community. They were told, however, that this body had a vested interest in their property. He recollected how much they had paid for vested interests, touched by the measure introduced by the noble Secretary for the Colonies. But he did not see the force of this cry at the present time. These laws were a question constantly mooted from year to year. The farmers might have made due provision for any change in their leases which they took during the period from '32 to the present lime. But as they were not a very provident class, he was sure that their interests would not be disregarded by the mover of the motion. He should support this motion, as it was a system which was fraught with evil, both to the consumer and the farmer.
Mr. G. Heneageconceived, that those hon. Members who accused the agricultural interest of enjoying a monopoly, took no account of the middling and lower classes of the agricultural body. Though their holdings might be small, they were animated by a spirit of independence which rendered them so valuable to this country. Nothing but their independent spirit enabled them to hold up their heads under the many difficulties they had to contend against; and he believed, that the pauper would prefer his union fare to the scanty repasts of some of these small agriculturists. Attacks were made against the landowners, because they were supposed to be wealthy; but he had yet to learn, that the rich were to be pronounced guilty, merely because they were rich, as, in the time of the French revolution, it was sufficient to put any man out of the pale of society to call him an aristocrat. He remembered, some years ago, that the fundholders, like the landlords now, were
1026
the objects of attack, and the sponge at that time was the favourite remedy for the evils of the country. The fundholders were represented as few in number, and living on taxes, wrung from the hard earnings of the people; but it turned out, on the publication of official documents, that the number of fundholders exceeded 270,000. So it would appear, on investigation, that the number of landed proprietors was little short of that amount. Mr. M'Culloch observed, that there were a few individuals who possessed a large interest in land, but he estimated the total number of landed proprietors in England and Wales, at 200,000; and their gross annual income at 30,000,000 l., giving an average annual income to each individual of 150 l. But as a few had much more than that amount, so many had much less, and were in consequence obliged to live a laborious life; and Mr. M'Culloch stated, there was not a greater mistake than to suppose that the landholders were an extremely opulent and indolent body. He would now conclude, by stating, that as he had voted against a fixed duty on the importation of corn, so he should oppose the present monstrous proposition of the hon. Member for Wolverhampton. He should have had great pleasure in supporting the right hon. Baronet, but he thought his scale not sufficiently high to protect the farmer; and he felt convinced, that the ruin which would come upon the land, though it might be delayed, was certain.
Mr. Horsmansaid, my hon. Friend who has just sat down rested his speech on his own statement, and for which he adduced no grounds, that the proposition of my Friend, the Member for Wolverhampton, was to bring poverty and ruin on the agriculturists. One would have thought from what fell from him that we were about to deprive them of their title-deeds, and their estates. That my hon. Friend really entertains these apprehensions, and that his expression of them is sincere, I have no doubt, but the House will feel that it is an assumption without an attempt at proof. Did he touch the point adverted to by the hon. Member for Waterford?-that the Corn-laws raised the price of bread; he neither denied the fact, nor attempted its justification. I am anxious to explain the grounds of my vote to-night, because, though ever since I have been a Member of this House, and even before I had that honour, I have ever held and acted up to the opinion that our whole system of Corn-

1027
laws was impolitic and unjust—unjust in its principle, and injurious in its effects—I still feel that the amendment of my hon. Friend is so unfortunately, and, in my opinion, injudiciously worded, that even those who agree most with him cannot vote with him without an explanation. I think it is hard on many of the Members of this House who agree with the principle contained in the amendment, that such difficulties should have been thrown in the way of their supporting their opinions by their vote. My hon. Friend would have been quite right in not ceding one iota of his principle, but the phraseology in which it was embodied should have been a secondary consideration, and should not have been so framed as to shut the door against those who were ready to have assisted him in advancing the principle he fought for. The ground on which I give him my vote is this—I consider that the existing law is based on the principle of protection, and I vote for totally abolishing the law which is based on that false foundation, and therefore ought not to stand. The right hon. Baronet at the head of the Government has himself now abandoned that principle. If he, then, and the House affirm the resolution of my hon. Friend, that this law be now abolished, I am ready then to enter with him on a consideration of those peculiar claims to compensation which the agriculturists can put forward, and with a determination on my part, which I am sure will be shared by all on this side of the House, to do that full justice to the landed interest which we ask the landed interest to do to the community at large. Sir, the longer this debate has lasted, the more do we see confirmed what was said at the commencement of it by the noble Lord, the late Secretary for the Colonies, that the proposal of the Government had disturbed everything and settled nothing. Speaker after Speaker had risen on that side of the House—all supporting the measure of the right hon. Baronet by their votes—all finding some fault with it in their speeches. The hon. Member for Pontefract told us they all approved of the measure, and, by way of showing his approval of it, he said in the next sentence that he wished the scale had been more liberally constructed, and that he looked on it as a step towards free-trade. The hon. Member for Canterbury, in his very able speech, hailed it as an instalment of justice to the same great principle; the Member for Norfolk, representing the county Members, also supported
1028
it, but thought it full of danger to the agriculturists; so do the other representatives of that interest. They tell you they have full confidence in the Member for Tamworth, but that confidence is the parent of sore misgivings; they entirely concur with all he proposes, yet they tremble at the price that concurrence may cost them. Sir, I find fault with the measure of the Government, but on account of the measure itself, and the mode of its introduction. If the right hon. Gentleman had at once proposed this measure as what it really is—a maintaining of the old law, with an alteration in some of its details, with a view to making it more effective and complete, his plan would not have been without its merit, and its improvements could not have been denied; but when it was preceded by such mystery and importance —when such pains were taken to raise large expectations only to create the greater disappointment—I think the course of the right hon. Gentleman was injudicious as regarded himself, and vexatious and unjust as regarded the public. The right hon. Gentleman took five months for deliberation, and the whole result of those five months has been to convince him of what every one else was convinced before, that there is very great and general distress in the manufacturing districts. That fact is attested by all parties now, and freely, and feelingly, and unreservedly acknowledged by the right hon. Baronet. Well, then, what duty does this acknowledgment impose on the Minister who makes it? Alas! he tells us none of it at all. He gives us no hope of even attempted alleviation, but says he shall leave it to the operation! of natural causes. And this is the doctrine of a great Minister to a suffering country. What the natural causes are, to whose operation he looks for remedy, we shall probably learn when the Chancellor of the Exchequer brings forward his budget, and we shall then probably hear that the new mode of alleviating the distresses of a people are by augmenting their burdens. If this was to be the only fruit of the deliberations of the right hon. Baronet, it would have been as well for him at once to have adopted the policy announced by the present Chancellor of the Exchequer to which he is now so reconciled. "The right hon. Gentleman asks me," said he, in a burst of virtuous indignation, "what I would do to relieve the difficulties of the country; I answer him, I would do nothing at all." This was the enlightened policy

1029
announced last Session in opposition by the proximate Minister of Finance; and it is that which time for reflection and increasing distress has determined the Government to adopt. But though the right hon. Baronet agrees so well with one of his colleagues, he does not concur so entirely with another; the question is asked, "What is your justification of this Corn-law?" The right hon. Baronet very manfully repudiates protection to class interests, but what says the Paymaster of the Forces? He justifies the law on two grounds—first, that it may secure the landed proprietors in their estates; and, secondly, that it may enable them to maintain their station in society. These are plain, intelligible doctrines, coining from an eminent leader of the agriculturists, they are very valuable; but, coming from a Member of the Cabinet also, the authority is very high. Now, I will not meet them by any reference to selfish or unworthy objects. I cannot impute any such to any body of gentlemen, and I cannot believe that they deserve to be accused of having intentionally and wilfully promoted their own interests in the Legislature at the expense of the community, and at all times I am disposed to deprecate the attempt to advance a party cause by disparaging the character of opponents. I will not, therefore, say, that your legislation has proceeded from bad motives, but I do say, that it has had bad results; those results, in appearance and character, have been a taxing of the poor man's bread to increase the rich man's luxury—depriving the poor man of the necessaries of life, and securing to the rich an increase of its abundance. You forget that to you, with your means and your station, the cost of subsistence forms but a small item in your expenditure; but every penny that you add to the poor man's loaf deprives his children of a meal. The right hon. Member for Tamworth puts it on another ground. He is too accomplished a tactician to advance anything so untenable, and so he has recourse to the old plea of patriotism, and the fear of dependence on foreign nations. I think that plea was well disposed of by the noble Lord, the late Secretary for the Colonies, when he adverted to the fact, that we were a great commercial nation, and an unrivalled maritime power; that we had the most extensive commerce in the world, and the most powerful armaments to protect it. But what, after all, is this danger of dependence to be apprehended? Is it a greater
1030
evil than the dependence we now suffer? What says the committee of 1833? The right hon. Gentleman, the Member for Dorchester, was a member of that committee; and Mr. Jacobs's evidence on this head was so valuable and so startling, that it was extracted from the body of the evidence, and introduced into the report itself. Mr. Jacobs, after speaking of the produce of this country in average years, is then asked of a scarce year this question:—
" Supposing the harvest of 1816 was to come over again, whence do you contemplate a supply?"
He answered,—
" We could not be supplied from all the world. If that harvest were to come over again, and the next harvest were deficient by one-tenth, we should have such a deficiency as all the world could not supply at any price."
This, then, is your state of dependence and risk now, under your present narrow and injudicious system. You cannot grow enough for your own subsistence, but you take care that others shall not have the means of supplying you when you most want it, for you discourage their growing more than they require themselves; and thus, when your hour of need arrives—when hunger and famine are stalking in your streets, you spurn the hand that might be stretched out to save you, and perish in your folly without aid, without sympathy, from your neighbours. But supposing we do become dependent on foreigners, what, after all, is the evil? We must be dependent on some one, and, amid the vicissitudes of climate and seasons, of which the right hon. Baronet told us, it is better to be dependent on the world at large than on one small island—better to depend on the foreign producer, who will sell us bread cheap, then on the home producer, who will only sell it dear. Talk to me of the evils of dependence; the certain and inevitable evils which we daily and hourly experience from being at the mercy of our home monopolists outweigh a thousand times all the imaginary ones which sophistry or selfishness can conjure up to frighten us with. The plan of the Government, being in my view merely a reconsideration of the old law, is only a revival of the former discussions in this House; but some admissions have been made by the right hon. Baronet at the head of it which place the opponents of monopoly on much stronger grounds. In the first place, we have the

1031
admission, that the existing protection which we have so often assailed, but which the right hon. Gentleman and his Friends so obstinately defended, is a great deal too high, and ought not to be retained. This is a concession, though to be sure one that is robbed of all its grace by the recommendation of the right hon. Leader to his friends to part with it, only because it does them no good. And so the right hon. Baronet recommends his plan to his Friends by saying,—" You have now a great superfluous protection, and vast unnecessary odium. My plan is one by which the odium will be diminished, but the protection in reality untouched." The second admission of the right hon. Gentleman is, that the agriculturists as a class are not entitled to any legislative protection whatever. That is a doctrine broadly and unequivocally laid down, and cannot be departed from in future. The whole defence of the Corn-law, then, is narrowed to that miserable, and shallow, and untenable doctrine of non-dependence on other countries—a doctrine so narrow and so ignorant, so replete with misery, and starvation, and self-destruction, that it may be called the doctrine of insanity: for what is it but insanity to say, that your millions shall be stinted upon home produce rather than well fed upon the productions of another nation? Is there any other country in the world in which such shocking and disgraceful occurrences could take place as occurred here in 1837? Under the operation of these laws you had distress in the Highlands-a distress unprecedented -thousands perishing for want of bread. At the very moment when representations of this distress were crowding upon the Government, some merchants in London, who had a quantity of wheat in bond, and who found that its being kept in warehouse was an accumulating loss to them, asked permission of the Government to take it out of bond and to destroy it. The permission was given; the wheat was sunk in the Thames under the inspection of the Custom-house officers, and that occurred at one end of the kingdom of which a portion of the subjects were starving at another. What a commentary is this upon your Corn-law! If it had not been for the care of our landlords to make these people independent of foreigners, this corn would have saved many a poor family from starvation. The more I consider this question, and the position of the right hon. Gentleman towards it, the more I wonder
1032
at the proposition he has thought it worth while to submit to the House. The right hon. Gentleman had before an unbroken army of champions of the existing law—some may have wished for some modification of that law, but undoubtedly the majority would have preferred the old law to the new one. The right hon. Vice-President was at pains to read to us the options of adverse parties, and to show that the right hon. Gentleman had dissatisfied all. There were some of his party anxious to keep the law as it was; from them he can receive no gratitude. There were others ready to agree to some change, to effect an adjustment of the question, and put an end to agitation: has he pleased them?—just the reverse; he has increased excitement and perpetuated agitation. Was it to check frauds that he interfered?—he denied, or at least made light of their existence. Has he relieved the community by diminishing protection?—he has only touched the scale where it never operated. Has he unfettered commerce and admitted corn as a commodity of trade?-Mr. Meek shows you that your duty is prohibitory. Has he aimed at alleviating distress?—he tells us he does not attempt it. Then, once more, was it worth while to meddle, when meddling unsettled everything, and settled nothing at all? The object I cannot tell, but the result is easily seen. The repeal of these laws has been advanced by their friend far more in one week than it could have been advanced by their opponents in years. You have made the first breach in the works; the first outwork has been carried, and after so obstinate a defence as to betray the weakness of the citadel within, you have sanctioned by your authority the verdict which the public had already passed upon that law. You have exercised the power which you possessed of condemning the old law; you have not the power to perpetuate one like it in its place. But your efforts are not without advantage. Look to the history of this country, and you will see that all the greatest changes in our institutions have been precipitated by an injudicious clinging unto abuses that the public had condemned. The right hon. Gentleman's own career might remind him of this wholesome truth. Fighting the battles of monopoly to the last; he has been inadvertently one of the best Reformers of the age, and, as it has been with him before, so will it be now. These laws are doomed—and doomed, in spite of the majority in which the right hon. Gentle-

1033
man finds strength. That majority is powerful—but not so powerful as truth. Can a majority turn back the truth? Can it sanctify monopoly? Can it force prosperity from restriction? You may plume yourself on your strength—you may glory in your anticipated majority, but the right hon. Baronet has found before this, that a minority battling for the right is more formidable than a majority committed to error; and the longer he perpetuates that contest, in which he must be defeated at last, the more calamitous will that defeat be found in the loss of something to his followers more valuable than the law on which "their station in society" depends.
Mr. Cowperthought, that the immediate repeal of the Corn-laws would produce misery amongst the agricultural classes, and consequently could not support it. But in voting against the motion of the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, he was far from approving of the proposition of the Government. He, at the same time, confessed that that proposition was an improvement of the present law; but the fundamental evil of the sliding scale still remained, and whilst that remained some change must be necessary. By that principle the currency was disturbed. A supply from the United States altogether prevented—a supply from Europe and Asia diminished and impeded—and consequent distress caused to the people of England.
Sir R. Batesonfelt himself called upon, as an Irish landlord, to notice some of the observations which had fallen from the hon. Member for Waterford. The hon. Member had accused the Irish landlords of causing the distress of the people of that country by exacting high rents. No man could reprobate such a course of proceeding more than he (Sir R. Bateson) did. His principle had always been to live and let live. He would, however, remind the hon. Member for Waterford, that it did not altogether depend upon the will of the landlords whether rents should be reduced in Ireland. In that country estates were held on long leases for three lives or sixty years. They were frequently also under the control of Chancery, or trustees who had no power to reduce rents. He was greatly astonished to hear the hon. Member for Waterford, or any Irish Member, avow that he would vote for the repeal of the Corn-laws. One of the great sources of discontent among the people of Ireland
1034
was the want of employment. There were no manufactures in that country to afford occupation to the population, and if cultivation were abandoned many counties would present the appearance of deserts The price of wheat did not affect the great mass of the Irish population, for the chief article of their food was the potatoe and oatmeal. Cheap bread would be of no use to them, because they could not afford to buy it. Oats was the important crop for Ireland, and he regretted that the right hon. Baronet's plan did not afford greater protection to that article. The manufacturers had no right to taunt hon. Members on his side of the House with being actuated by selfish motives. Those who lived in glass houses ought not to be the first to throw stones. The House and the country remembered the opposition which the manufacturers offered to the bill for limiting the hours of infants in factories to eight hours a day. Would any one work his horse more than ten hours a day? And yet, to his grief and horror, be had heard Gentlemen in that House advocate the system under which children were worked more than horses. When the manufacturers talked of the men who had made their own fortunes starving at their doors, why did they not work the children only half the usual time, and give the others some employment?
Mr. E. Protheroesaid, he had the good fortune to be the representative of a manufacturing borough which had not been visited by distress, and he attributed that circumstance to the great variety of the branches of trade in which his constituents were occupied. Notwithstanding this, however, he, representing the opinion of his constituents, was prepared to vote for the total repeal of the Corn-laws. He was not alarmed at the word "now," and was ready to give his adhesion to the resolution which the hon. Member for Wolverhampton had proposed. If it could be proved that the agriculturists would sustain any injury from the measure, he had no doubt that the nation which had given twenty millions to the West-India slave-owners would fully compensate them. It appeared to him that it was a proper description of the Corn-laws to say that they enacted starvation. It was easy to prove, that the rate of wages had increased in proportion as food had been more abundant. About the close of the 17th and the beginning of the 18th century, wages rose 10 per cent.,

1035
and the average price of corn declined 10 per cent. The importance of the home market had been much dwelt on, but those who insisted so strongly on the value of that market, seemed to forget that the manufacturers formed an important class among those on whom the home market depended. It was kind on the part of the agriculturists to show so much solicitude for the manufacturers, but the manufacturers, were quite able to take care of themselves, and had sufficient ingenuity to find the best market, if they were only left to themselves. He did not believe that to provide the people with corn would at all tend to menace the independence of the country; on the contrary, it would be all the better able to contend with its enemies in case of a war.
Sir Howard Douglassaid, at the period of his election, being aware that measures of vast national moment would be brought under the early notice of Parliament, he had determined that on none of those questions should aught of doubt or suspicion rest on the accordance of his views with those of his constituents. He, therefore, had taken care to explain fully his principles and opinions on all matters, relating whether to the agricultural, the commercial, or the manufacturing interests; he had declared explicitly that he was, and should continue, a firm supporter of the "protective" system; but had ever declared his willingness to revise and modify the degrees of protection to each interest severally, for the general advantage of all. He had gone into the commercial history of every country in the world for the purpose of showing that in no country were the free-trade principles thoroughly carried out; thence deducing the certainty of great and dangerous evils arising from the abolition, as to agriculture, as well as other interests, of protection. With these declarations he had offered himself a candidate for Liverpool, and had experienced the honour—he might call it the singular good fortune of being elected without opposition. He had a right, therefore, to conclude that the opinions on which he was prepared in that House to act were agreeable to his constituents. He begged it to be distinctly understood, that he considered himself there, not as the representative of any particular "class," or "interest," but as one bound to consider the general interests of the community. The hon. Gentleman opposite, the Member for Wolverhampton,
1036
had called the attention of the House to the geographical position of these islands as placed between two great continents—the old world and the new; and then the hon. Member represented us as refusing to both, a supply of our manufactures, by shutting out their productions. "Continents" was a term of wide signification, and, perhaps, it would be hardly necessary that he should trouble the House by examining very minutely into the systems on which the several nations of the continent of Europe conducted their commercial relations. He should not then waste the time of the House by recapitulating the heads of the Russian, Prussian, and Danish tariffs; but he should observe that the consumption of the British manufactures by the populations of those countries varied between 3½d. and 5½d. for each individual per annum. It was not necessary, for his present purpose, to occupy the time of the House by any detailed investigation of our commercial intercourse with those countries; he should rather come at once to the position in which we stood with respect to France. It had been said in the course of the present discussions, as well as on former occasions, that we shut our doors against French produce — shut our doors! Had we not twice altered the duties which we charged upon French wines? Had we not opened the ports of our East Indian possessions, and had we not facilitated to the French people the exportation of coals, iron, machinery, and tools? But to us they made no return—no diminution of duty. The fact was, that articles of British manufacture were positively or virtually prohibited, with the exception only of those required for the improvement of arts and manufactures. Eleven pence per annum for each individual composing the French nation, was about the average value of the manufactured goods imported by France from this country. Pass we then to the United States of America; and here he paused for a moment, to refer to the sentiments of the noble Lord the Member for London, previous to doing which, however, he wished to express his regret that that noble Lord was not in his place, entertaining, as he did, the greatest respect for that noble Lord. He respected his abilities and his character, and remembering the relation in which they recently stood towards each other, he could not refrain from expressing his strong sense of the kind and generous manner in which he had been supported by the noble Lord. Though he

1037
was the nominee of a different Ministry, yet the noble Lord had, with the weight which belonged to his office, sustained him in his administration of the government of the Ionian Islands—an administration which he rejoiced to think had proved satisfactory to the Government at home, beneficial to the Ionian people, and not discreditable to himself. The noble Lord had said that the manufactures of this country, were shut out from the United States of America, because we refused to take the staple productions of those States. He desired to learn upon what foundation such a statement rested. The facts known to the public, and of which he in common with the rest of the world possessed evidence, could leave not a shadow of doubt upon the mind of any man that this was a statement resting upon no solid basis. What were the facts? In the year 1840, there were imported into the emporium which he had the honour to represent, 1,160,000 bales of cotton; nearly the whole of the cotton used for manufactures in this country came from the United States of America. Under such a state of things it was absurd beyond measure to say that we shut out the produce of America. It could hardly fail to be in the recollection of every Gentleman who heard him, that we had lowered the duty on American cotton to please the merchants and manufacturers of Manchester; that was received as a boon, and in the next breath the Government were told that they were shutting out the produce of the United States. In the course of these discussions, and on many similar occasions, free-trade had been in the mouth of almost every speaker; but he confessed himself one of those who thought that what people called free-trade was a sheer absurdity. It was the opinion of all men who exercised common sense upon political subjects, that a new country exporting raw material to a highly civilized and manufacturing nation, ought in return to take back some portion of its own productions, when converted into manufactured goods. Now, be begged of the House to look at the position in which we stood towards the United States of America. We took their raw material, but they refused to take our manufactured goods. Considerable importance had been attached to a judicious observation made by an American President, when he said, that no country ought to permit itself to depend upon foreign supply for the necessary articles of life, and least of all, for the food of the people. Such
1038
was the language now held—such were the principles upon which the government of America was now carried on, but they were not contrary to the principles adopted in the earlier days of Republicanism. The system was unchanged; it was the protective system, and whatever alteration of circumstances might arise, it was the fixed resolution of every successive government in America neither to abolish nor relax their protective system. To support this opinion, he had made brief extracts from the annual message of every President since the days of Washington downwards, and, with the permission of the House he would read them. The first, of course, was from a message of Washington's: it was his eighth annual message, and bore date the 7th of December, 1796. It was in these words:—
" Congress have repeatedly directed their attention to the encouragement of manufactures. The object is of too much consequence, not to insure a continuance of their efforts, in every way which shall appear eligible."
The next extract which he should read to the House was from the eighth annual address of Mr. Jefferson, dated November the 8th, 1808, and was in the following terms:—
" The extent of this conversion is daily increasing,—(viz., the application of industry and capital to internal manufactures), and little doubt remains that the establishments formed, and forming will, under the auspices of cheaper material and subsistence, the freedom of labour from taxation with us, and of protecting duties and prohibitions, become permanent."
Such was the language of President Jefferson. Now, let the House listen to the words of Mr. Madison, in his seventh annual message, dated December 6th, 1815. These were his words:—
"However wise the theory may be, which leaves to the sagacity and interest of individuals, the application of their industry and resources, there are in this, as in other cases, exceptions to the general rule. Besides the condition which the theory itself implies, of a reciprocal adoption by other nations, experience teaches that so many circumstances must occur in introducing manufacturing establishments, that a country may remain long without them, although sufficiently advanced, and in some respects very peculiarly fitted, for carrying them on with success. Under these circumstances, giving a powerful impulse to manufacturing industry, it has made among us a progress, and exhibited an efficiency which justify the belief that, with a protection not more than is due to the enterprizing citizens,

1039
whose interests are now at stake, it will become at an early day, not only safe against occasional competitors from abroad, but a source of domestic wealth, and even of external commerce,"
He now came to President Monroe, who on the 5th of March, 1817, addressed Congress as follows:—
" Our manufactures find a generous encouragement by the policy which patronizes domestic industry; and the surplus of our produce a steady and profitable market by local wants in less favoured parts at home."
In a previous message, (his first annual message) on the 2nd December, 1817, he says,—
" Our manufactories will require the continued attention of Congress. The capital employed in them is considerable, and the knowledge required in the machinery and fabric of all the most useful manufactures is of great value. Their preservation, which depends on due encouragement, is connected with high interests of the nation."
The same President, on the 3rd of December, 1821, proceeds, in a similar spirit, to say, that—
" Possessing, as we do, the raw materials in such vast amount, with a capacity to augment them to an indefinite extent, raising within the country, aliment of every kind to an amount far exceeding the demand for home consumption, even in the most unfavourable years, and to be obtained always at a very moderate price; skilled also, as our people are, in the mechanic arts, and in every improvement calculated to lessen the demand for, and the price of labour, it is manifest, that their success in every branch of domestic industry may and will be carried, under the encouragement given by the present duties, to an extent, to meet any demand which, under a fair competition, may be made on it."
Again, we find him saying:—
" It cannot be doubted, that the more complete our internal resources, and the less dependent we are on foreign powers for every national, as well as domestic purpose, the greater and more stable will be the public felicity. By the increase of domestic manufactures, will the demand for the rude materials at home be increased, and thus will the dependence of the several parts of our union on each other, and the strength of the union itself, be proportionably augmented."
He would next, with the permission of the House, read an extract from the first annual message of President Jackson, which was addressed to Congress on the 8th of December, 1829:—
" The general rule to be applied in gradua-
1040
ting duties upon articles of foreign growth or manufacture, is that which will place our own in fair competition with those of other countries; and the inducements to advance even a step beyond this point, are controlling in regard to those articles which are of primary necessity in time of war."
From the year 1816 to the year 1832, the protective system of the United States was carried to its utmost limit; in fact, protection was overdone, and without abandoning the principle upon which they had always acted, the American Government relaxed the degree of its severity per annum. They reduced by one-tenth per annum a duty which had been (as we understood) 50 per cent. By this act, the compromise act of 1833, the then excessive duties, were reduced gradually until, in June 1842, they should come to 20 per cent. and then be permanent. On the 4th December, 1832, we find President Jackson using this language in his address to Congress:—
" That manufactures adequate to the supply of our domestic consumption would, in the abstract, be beneficial to our country, there is no reason to doubt; and to effect their establishment, there is, perhaps, no American citizen who would not, for a While, be willing to pay a higher price for them."
He hoped the extracts which he had read to the House, were quite sufficient to show that the Americans proceeded upon the protective system, and carried it to as high a point as existing circumstances permitted. Whatever had been done or might be done by us, the United States would not abandon their protective system. Revenue necessities would oblige them to re-augment those duties. For himself, he must be allowed to say that he admired their lofty policy which would not sacrifice independence and power to any considerations of speculative wealth, and he admired the disposition of the French people to adopt that principle likewise. They, too, had their doctrinaires who endeavoured to teach them that it was wise to buy only where they could buy the cheapest; but neither the French nor the United States would listen to such theories. It might be a doctrine of political economy to buy at the cheapest market; but political economy was not always political wisdom; it sometimes became political prodigality. At the late election he told his friends not to inscribe on his banners "free-trade;" that which he wanted was "fair trade." He did not understand that one-sided policy which, under the name of free-trade, pro-

1041
duced unfair trade. But fair trade, he confidently hoped, would be promoted by the present Government. He did not undervalue or underrate our trade with the United States. He trusted that the mission of a noble and eminent person would succeed in settling all differences, and in maintaining friendly relations with the United States; that mission would at least show, that her Majesty's Government were determined to attempt this by every means consistent with the dignity of the Crown, and the safety, happiness, and welfare of the people. He now wished to say a few words about the pleasing dream in which the noble Lord opposite (Lord Palmerston) had indulged; of removing all barriers between nations and nations, and resolving all mankind into one family. If the noble Lord, said the hon. Member, had been an unsophisticated country Gentleman, educated under the care of some old maiden aunt, by some tutor of Dominie Sampson-like simplicity, brought up in some sequestered part of the Hebrides, or in some happy valley' of the Principality—well skilled in all the lore of the philosophy which assumes the perfect-ability of human nature; unversed in the wiles of politics, and ignorant of the tales and lessons which diplomacy unfolds, I might have believed him to be the dupe of his own visions; but I marvel that his experience, as a Minister, and, particularly, as a Foreign Secretary, had not awakened him from his dreams. Let the noble Lord be warned by the present political aspect of the world; for national rivalry was never more stirring; national ambition never more wide awake; propensities to war never stronger than at present. It did surprise him to find the noble Lord say, he desired to see the word "protection" erased from our commercial code. He challenged the noble Lord to go along with him, in a comparison, point by point, country by country, and class by class, in connection with this question, and he would engage to prove, that, if all protection were abolished, that the noble Lord could no more raise a revenue to pay the national debt, and the current expenses of the country, than he could fly to the moon. He would ask the noble Lord what would be the situation of the home market, if protection were withdrawn from agriculture? What would become of the colonial trade, if protection were withdrawn from it? He did not hesistate to say, that if, in the present artificial state of the country, loaded as it was with debt, the noble Lord were
1042
to erase the word "protection," by any process whatever, he would find it necessary to perform a corresponding operation with the spunge—that of wiping out the national debt, and thereupon blotting out majestic, imperial Britain, from that high station in the rank of nations, to which she had attained by the protective system. An hon. Member had made a declaration in that House, by which it would be seen that he was perfectly aware that the majestic greatness of this nation had not been attained by carrying into effect those doctrines of political economy which were professed and lauded by the hon. Member for Bolton, whom he greatly respected, and whose talents, notwithstanding that he dissented from his political opinions, he admired. In spite, however, of those principles, he would tell the hon. Gentleman, that the little islands which composed the United Kingdom, bounded in space, and limited as they were by stormy seas, but inhabited by a hardy, enterprising, and industrious race, had been expanded into such an empire as the world never saw, by commercial enterprises duly protected. May we ever maintain that great empire in that vast ascendancy to which she has thus attained (exclaimed the hon. Gentleman), in spite of the principles and predictions of those who say that we have pursued a wrong course. I have been reluctantly called upon to take a part in this discussion, and I shall finish by thanking the House for its attention, and by assuring hon. Gentlemen that I shall not often trespass upon their patience. I shall never speak, but when I have something to say. [Ironical Cheers.] I repeat, I shall never speak but when I have something to say, and I shall finish when I have done.
Mr. Cobdensaid, the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down, (Sir Howard Douglas) would have given still greater satisfaction to the House if he had assured us that he would, when he spoke, always keep strictly to the subject matter under discussion. I must be allowed to say, that my hon. Friend, the Member for Wolverhampton, has very just ground for complaining, that in all this discussion, to which I have been listening for seven nights, While there has been much talk of our trade with China, and of the war with Syria, While there has been much contest between parties and partisans, there has been little said upon the question really in hand. I may safely say, that on the other

1043
side, not one speaker has grappled with the question so ably laid down by my hon. Friend. That question simply is, how far it is just, honest, and expedient, that any tax whatever should be laid upon the food of the people. This is the question we have to decide; and when I heard the right hon. Baronet, Sir Robert Peel, so often express the deep sympathy he felt for the working classes, I did expect that he would not have finished his last speech without giving some little consideration to the case of the working man in connection with this question. I will venture to call the attention of the committee to the question of the bread tax as connected with the labouring classes, as it bears upon the wages of labour; and I call upon you all to meet me upon neutral ground While we discuss the interests of those working people who have no representatives in this House. As I hear from the other side so many and so strong expressions of sympathy, I call upon them to give practical proof of the existence of that sympathy with the hard labouring population, and not to delay until they are reduced to that state when they can only receive the benefits of your legislation in the abject condition of pauperism. Sir, in reading, which I have done with great attention, the reports of the debates which took place in 1815, prior to the passing of the Corn Bill of that year, I have been struck with the observation, that all who took part in that discussion agreed on one point of the subject, namely, that the price of food regulated the rate of wages. That principle was not only laid down by one side of the House, but it met with the concurrence of both. Men the most opposite in political opinions I find agreeing upon that principle. Mr. Horner, Mr. Baring, Mr. Frankland Lewis, Mr. Philips, Mr. Western, these who opposed the Corn-law, and those who strenuously advocated its principle, all alike agreed upon the single point, that the price of food regulated the price of labour. So completely did they agree, that one speaker laid down the principle mathematically, and framed a computation in figures to show the relative proportions in which the principle would work, and to what extent the payment of labour would rise or fall in ratio to the rise or fall of the price of food. The same delusion existed amongst the capitalists out of doors. There was a petition presented in 1815, signed by the most intelligent merchants
1044
and manufacturers in Manchester, praying that the Corn-law should not pass, because it would so raise the rate of wages that the British manufacturers would no longer be able to compete with those abroad, who had to pay wages so much less in amount. That delusion certainly did then exist; but I have been struck with the deepest sorrow to observe that the minds of many men who bear their part in the discussion now should still be labouring under the same erroneous impression. The great body of those who legislated in 1815 passed their bill in the honest delusion that the operation of the law would be such as I have described. I believe that if the fact, if the true state of the case had been then known, if they had known what now we know, that law would never have been passed in 1815. Every party in the House, and many out of doors, were deceived; but there was one party which was not deluded—the party most interested in the question—namely, the working classes. They were not deluded, for they saw with instinctive sagacity, without the aids of learning and education, without the pretence of political wisdom, what would be the operation of the law upon the rate of wages. Therefore it was, that when that law was passed your House was surrounded by the excited populace of London, and you were compelled to keep back an enraged people from your doors by the point of the bayonet. When that law passed murder ensued. Yes, I call it murder, for the coroner's jury returned a verdict of wilful murder against the soldiers. The disturbances were not confined to London; but throughout the North of England, from 1815 to 1819, when the great meeting took place on Peter's-field, there never was a meeting in the North of England in which banners were not displayed with inscriptions of "No Corn-laws." There was no mistake in the minds of the multitudes upon this question. It was always understood by them. Do not let hon. Gentlemen suppose that there is any mistake in the minds of the working classes upon this topic. There never was, and there is not now. They may not indeed cry out exclusively for the repeal of the Corn-laws; they have looked beyond the question, and they have seen, at the same time, other evils greater than this which they are now calling upon you to remedy; and when they raise the cry of universal suffrage and the people's char-

1045
ter, do not let hon. Gentlemen opposite suppose, because the Anti-Corn-law League may, perchance, have run into collision with the masses upon some points, that the people are consequently favourable to the existence of the Corn-laws. What has surprised me more than anything, is, to find that in this House, where lecturers are, of all men, so much decried, there exists on the other side such an ignorance upon this subject. [" Oh, oh."] Yes, I say an ignorance upon this subject that I never saw equalled in any body of working men in the North of England. [" Oh, oh."] Do you think that the fallacy of 1815, which, to my astonishment, I heard put forth in the House last week, namely, that wages rise and fall with the price of food, can prevail with the minds of the working men after the experience of the last three years? Have you not had bread higher during that time than during any three years during the last twenty years? Yes. Yet during those three years the wages of labour in every branch of industry have suffered a greater decline than in any three years before. Still hon. Gentlemen opposite, with their reports of committees before them, which, if they would take the trouble to consult them, would prove the decline of wages within those three years, are persisting in maintaining the doctrine that the price of food regulates the rate of wages under the belief that this new law will keep up the price of labour. Then I am told that the price of labour in this country is so much higher than the wages abroad, that the Corn-laws must be kept up in order to keep up labour to the proper level. Sir, I deny that labour in this country is higher paid than on the continent. On the contrary, I am prepared to prove, from documents on the Table of your own House, that the price of labour is cheaper here than in any part of the globe. I hear an expression of dissent on the other side, but I say to hon. Gentlemen, when they measure the labour of an Englishman against the labour of the foreigner, they measure a day's labour indeed with a day's labour, but they forget the relative quality of the labour. I maintain that if quality is to be the test, the labour of England is the cheapest in the world. The committee which sat on machinery in the last Session but one, demonstrated by their report that labour on the continent is dearer than in
1046
England. You have proof of it. Were it not so, do you think you would find in Germany, France, or Belgium, so many English workmen? Go into any city from Calais to Vienna, containing a population of more than 10,000 inhabitants, and will you not find numbers of English artisans working side by side with the natives of the place, and earning twice as much as they do, or even more? Yet the masters who employ them declare, notwithstanding the pay is higher, that the English labour is cheaper to them than the native labour. Yet we are told that the object of the manufacturers in repealing the Corn-laws is to lower wages to the level of the continent. It was justly said by the hon. Member for Kilmarnock that the manufacturers did not require to lower the rate of wages in order to gain high profits. If you want proof of the prosperity of manufactures, you will find it when wages are high, but when wages drop, the profits of the manufacturer drop also. I think manufacturers take too intelligent and enlightened a view of their own position and interest to suppose that the impoverishment of the multitudes they employ can promote or increase manufacturing prosperity. Sir, by deteriorating such a vast population as that employed in manufactures, you run the risk of spoiling not the animal man only, but the intellectual creature also. It is not from the wretched that great things can emanate; it is not a potatoe-fed population that ever led the world in arts or arms, in manufactures or commerce. If you want your people to be virtuous or happy, you must take care that they are well fed. Upon this assumption, then, that the manufacturers want to reduce wages, and upon the assumption that the Corn-laws keep up the price of labour, we are going to pass a law to tax the food of the hard-working, deserving population. What must be the result? You have heard, from the right hon. Baronet, Sir R. Peel, an answer to the fallacy about our competing with foreign manufacturers. He has told you we export forty or fifty millions. We do then already compete with foreigners. You tax the bones cud muscles of your people. You put a double weight upon their shoulders, and then you turn round upon them and tell them to run a race with Germany and France. I would ask, with Mr. Deacon Hume, who has been before quoted in this House, "To whom do the

1047
energies of the British people belong? Are they theirs, or are they yours? Think you that these energies were given to the English people that they might struggle for a bare existence, whilst you take from them half of what they earn? Is this doing justice to the "high-mettled racer?" Why you don't treat your horses so. You give your cattle food and rest in proportion to their toil, but men in England are now actually treated worse. Yes, tens of thousands of them were last winter treated worse than your dogs and your horses. What is the pretence upon which you tax the people's food? We have been told by the right hon. Baronet that the object of the law is to fix a certain price for corn. Since I have been listening to this debate, in which I heard it proposed by a Prime Minister to fix the price of corn, I doubted whether or not we had gone back to the days of our Edwards again, and whether we had or not travelled back some three or four centuries, when they used to fix the price of a tablecloth or a pair of shoes. What an avocation for a legislator! To fix the price of corn! Why that should be done in the open market by the dealers. You don't fix the price of cotton, or silk, or iron, or tin. But how are you to fix this price of corn? Going back some ten years, the right hon. Baronet finds the average price of corn is 56s. 10d.; and, therefore says he, I propose to keep up the price of wheat from 54s. to 58s. The right hon. Baronet's plan means that or nothing. I have heard something about the prices which it has been proposed by legislation to affix to wheat. I remember that Lord Willoughby D'Eresby said the minimum price ought to be 58s., and I see by the newspapers that the Duke of Buckingham has just announced his opinion that 60s. ought to be the lowest. There is one hon. Gentleman in this House who, I hope, will speak on this subject (for I have seen him endeavouring to catch the Speaker's eye), and who has gone a little more into particulars respecting the market price he intends to procure for commodities by act of Parliament. I see in a useful little book called the "Parliamentary Pocket Companion," in which there are some nice little descriptions given of ourselves, under the head "Cayley," that that gentleman is described as being the advocate of "such a course of legislation with regard to agriculture as will keep wheat at 64s. a quarter, new
1048
milk cheese at from 52s. to 60s. per cwt., wool and butter at 1s. per lb. each, and other produce in proportion. Now it might be very amusing that there were to be found some Gentlemen still at large, who advocated the principle of the interposition of Parliament to fix the price at which articles should be sold; but when we find a Prime Minister coming down to Parliament to avow such principles, it really becomes anything but amusing. I ask the right hon. Baronet, and I pause for a reply, is he prepared to carry out that principle in the articles of cotton and wool?
Sir R. Peelsaid, it was impossible to fix the price of food by legislation.
Mr. Cobden:Then on what are we legislating? I thank the right hon. Baronet For his avowal. Perhaps, then, he will oblige us by not trying to do so. Supposing, however, that he will make the attempt, I ask the right hon. Gentleman, and again I pause for a reply,—will he try to legislate so as to keep up the price of cotton, silk, and wool? No reply. Then we have come to this conclusion—that we are not legislating for the universal people. We are openly avowing that we are met here to legislate for a class against the people. When I consider this I don't marvel, although I have seen it with the deepest regret, and I may add, indignation, that we have been surrounded during the course of the debates of the last week by an immense body of police.["Oh, oh, and laughter from the Ministerial side."] I will not let this subject drop, even though I may be greeted with laughter. It is no laughing matter to those who have got no wheat to sell, nor money to purchase it from those who have. If the agriculturists are to have the benefit of a law founded on the calculation of ten year's average, to keep up their price at that average, I ask, are the manufacturers to have it too? Take the manufacturers of the midland counties, the manufacturers of the very articles the agriculturists consume. Their goods have depreciated 30 per cent, in the last ten years. Are they to continue to exchange their commodities for the corn of the landlord, who has the benefit of a law keeping up his price on a calculation of a ten year's average, without the iron manufacturer having the benefit of the same consideration? I have great doubts whether this is legislation at all. I deny that

1049
it is honest legislation. It is no answer for the right hon. Baronet to say that he cannot, even if he wished, pass a law to keep up the price of manufactures. It is no satisfaction for being injured by a Prime Minister, to be told that he has not the power, even if he has the will, to make atonement. I only ask him to abstain from doing that for which he cannot make atonement, and surely there is nothing unreasonable in that request. I have but touched upon the skirts of this subject. I ask the right hon. Baronet whether While he fixes his scale of prices to secure to the landowners 56s. a quarter, he has got also a sliding scale for wages? I know but of one class of labourers in this country whose interests are well secured by the sliding scale of corn duties, and that class is the clergy of the Established Church, whose tithes are calculated upon the averages. But I want to know what you will do with the hard-working classes of the community, the labouring artizans, if the price of bread is to be kept up by Act of Parliament. Will you give them a law to keep up the rate of their wages? You will say that you cannot keep up the rate of wages; but that is no reason you should pass a law to mulct the working man one third of the loaf he earns. I know well the way in which the petitions of the hand-loom weavers were received in this House. "Poor, ignorant men," you said, "they know not what they ask, they are not political economists, they do not know that the price of labour, like other commodities, finds its own level by the ordinary law of supply and demand. We can do nothing for them." But I ask, then, why do you pass a law to keep up the price of corn, and at the same time say you cannot pass a law to keep up the price of the poor man's labour? This is the point of view in which the country are approaching this question; and the flimsy veil of sophistry you are throwing over the question, and the combination of figures put together and dovetailed to answer a particular purpose, will not satisfy the people of England, till you show them that you are legislating impartially for the advantage of all classes, and not for the exclusive benefit of one. What are the pretexts upon which this corn tax is justified? We have heard in the first place, that there are exclusive burthens borne by the agriculturists. I heard one explanation given of
1050
those burthens by a facetious gentleman who sits near me. He said that the only exclusive burthens upon the land which he knew of were mortgages. I think the country has a right to know, and indeed I think it would have been no more than what was due to this House if those burthens of which we have heard so much had been named and enumerated. The answer I heard from the right hon. Gentleman, (Sir R. Peel) opposite was, that there was a great variety of opinions on the subject of these burthens. That I could myself have told the right hon. Baronet. As a law is to be framed, founded expressly upon these alleged burthens, it would have been but fair at least to tell us what they are. I shall not enter upon the subject now; but this I will tell the right hon. Gentleman, that for every particular burthen he can show me as pressing upon the land. I will show him ten exemptions. Yes, ten for his one. There is one burthen that was referred to by the hon. Member for Renfrewshire, which is the land tax. I am surprised we have not yet got the returns moved for many months since relative to the land tax of other countries. What are our ambassadors and diplomatists about, that we cannot have the returns of the revenue and expenditure of foreign countries? Our own bureaux must be badly kept, or we ought to have this information already here in London. Being without official information, however, I will not run the risk of making a general statement, lest I should fall into error. I have, however, one document which is authentic, as it is on the authority of M. Humann, the finance minister of France; and he states that the land tax in that country is 40 per cent. on the whole revenue, and twenty five per cent. on the revenue of the proprietors of the soil, so that in France the landowner pays 5s. in the pound, While, in this country you have a land tax of 1,900,000 l. not 5 per cent. of the income, and you call for a fresh tax upon the poor man's loaf to compensate you for the heavy burthen you bear. I will tell the Prime Minister that, in laying on this tax without first stating his views on this point, he is not treating the House and the country with proper respect. I have seen, with some satisfaction, that admissions have been made, (and, indeed, it has not been denied,) that the profits of the bread tax go to the landowners. Now

1051
in all the old committees on agricultura concerns, it was alleged that it was a farmer's question, an agricultural labourer's question; and never till lately did I hear it admitted that the bread tax did contribute to the benefit of the landowners, on account of those exclusive burthens that are set up as a pretence for its continuance. Ought we not to know what these burthens were when this Corn-law was passed? Having patiently waited for twenty-five years, I think we are entitled at last to a clear explanation of the pretext upon which you tax the food of the people for the acknowledged benefit of the landowners. The right hon. Baronet tells us we must not be dependent upon foreigners for our supply, or that that dependence must be supplementary, that certain years produce enough of corn for the demand, and that we must legislate for the introduction of corn only when it is wanted. Granted. On that point the right hon. Baronet and I are perfectly agreed. Let us only legislate, if you please, for the introduction of corn, when it is wanted. Exclude it as much as you please when it is not wanted. But all I supplicate for on the part of the starving people is, that they and not you, shall be the judges of when corn is wanted. By what right do they pretend to guage the appetites and admeasure the wants of millions of people? Why, there is no despotism that ever dreamed of doing any thing so monstrous as this; yet you sit here, and presume to judge when people want food, dole out your supply when you condescend to think they want it, and stop it When you choose to consider that they have had enough. Are you in a position to judge of the wants of artisans, of hand-loom weavers? you, who never knew the want of a meal in your lives, do you presume to know when the people want bread? Why, in the course of the present debate the right hon. Baronet opposite said, that from 1832 to 1836 sufficient corn was produced at home for the population; and yet, in his last speech, he told us that there were 800,000 hand-loom weavers who in 1836 were unable to supply themselves with the commonest wants and necessaries of existence, even though they worked sixteen and eighteen hours a day. Was it not also of that period that Mr. Inglis, the traveller in Ireland, wrote, when he wound up his account of that country by the emphatic and startling declaration,
1052
that one-third part of the population perished prematurely from diseases brought on by the want of the necessaries of life? yet, in that state of things, the right hon. Baronet gravely comes forward and tells us that the country produces a sufficiency of food. I have heard other admissions too; one in particular by the right hon. Paymaster of the Forces, who said the landlords were entitled to the Corn-law to enable them to maintain a high station in the land. [Sir E. Knatchbull: To enable them to maintain their present station in society.] A noble Lord also (Lord Stanley) admitted that the price of food did keep up the rent of land, but did not raise wages. What does that mean, but that the rent of land is kept up at the expense of the working-classes, who are unrepresented in this House? I say that the right hon. Paymaster of the Forces, and the noble Lord, do not deal fairly with the people, for they are giving themselves an out-door relief which they deny to the poor in the union workhouses. It is not merely an extension of the pension list to the landed proprietors, as was said by the Times some years ago, when that paper stigmatised the Corn-laws as an extension of the pension list to the whole of the landed aristocracy; it is the worst kind of pauperism; it is the aristocracy submitting to be fed at the expense of the poorest of the poor. If this is to be so, if we are to bow our necks to a landed oligarchy, let things be as they were in ancient Venice; let the nobles inscribe their names in a golden book, and draw their money direct from the Exchequer. It would be better for the people than to suffer the aristocracy to circumscribe our trade, destroy our manufactures, and draw the money from the pockets of the poor by indirect and insidious means. Such a course would be more easy for us, and more honest for you. But have the hon. Gentlemen who maintain a system like this, considered that the people of this country are beginning to understand it a little better than they did I And do they think that the people, with a better understanding of the subject, will allow one class not only to tax the rest of the community for their own exclusive advantage, but to be living in a state of splendour upon means obtained by indirect taxation from the pockets of the poor? The right hon. Baronet (Sir R. Peel) I apprehend knows more of the state of the

1053
country than most of his followers; and I would exhort him to bear in mind that there is a wide-spread feeling extending into every part of the country, that upon him, and him alone, will rest the responsibility of the manner in which he shall legislate upon this subject. He has now been in the possession of a great power for many months; he had due warning when be took office, of the course it would be necessary for him to pursue. He knows the existing state of commerce and manufactures. He has had ample opportunities of acquainting himself with the actual condition of the people. He is not legislating in the dark, and this I will venture to tell him, that bad as he finds trade now, he will live (if he follows out the course in which he purposes to embark, to find it much worse. I hope, sincerely hope, that he is prepared for the consequence. He has undertaken to propose a law, which, I am convinced he must be conscious is not calculated to give any extension to our trade or commerce. We have never heard of an honest English merchant coming forward to say that this law would give him a trade in corn. The corn traders alone have been appealed to. The right hon. Baronet tells us that we must force forward this dicussion, that we must proceed at once to the settlement of this question, because, forsooth, he has heard from many corn traders that it is very important that the matter should remain no longer in abeyance. If the trade in corn is still to be left in the hands of a peculiar class of dealers, in the hands of a class who are habitual gamblers, will that be an alteration of the law calculated to amend the situation of those who are engaged in the general trade and commerce of the country? Why should there be corn merchants any more than tea merchants or sugar merchants? Why should not the general merchant be enabled to bring back corn in exchange for his exports, as well as cotton, tea, or sugar? Until you pass a law enabling the merchant to make a direct exchange for corn, as well as for other commodities of foreign production, you will give no substantial relief to commerce. Nor is your law calculated to lower the price of food. You will have people amongst you maintaining the same wolfish competition to raise the price of bread, and you will have capitalists day by day struggling against bankruptcy.
1054
For this state of things the right hon. Baronet, Sir R. Peel, will be responsible. I own, indeed, that I heard in the right hon. Baronet's second speech something like an apologetic tone of reasoning; something deprecatory as to his present position, not being able to do all that he would do. That tone would be very well if the right hon. Baronet had been forced into his present position by the people, or summoned there by the Queen, then, with some shadow of fairness, he might resort to the plea that his position was a difficult one, and that he would do more if his party would permit him. But let me remind the right hon. Baronet that he sought the position he now fills, and, though I am no friend, no political partisan of the noble Lord the Member for London, (Lord J. Russell), though I have no desire to see him again in power, governed by his old opinions, this I must say, that the measure which the noble Lord proposed upon the Corn-law, though in itself not good, was still infinitely better than that of the right hon. Baronet. And I beg to call to the right hon. Baronet's mind, that if he is now placed in a situation of difficulty, that difficulty was sought by himself, and, consequently, cannot now be pleaded in extenuation of his present measure. He told us at Tarn-worth, that, for years and years, aye, even from the passing of the Reform Bill, he had been engaged in reconstructing "his party. I presume he knew of what materials that party was composed. I presume he was not ignorant of the fact that it consisted of monopolists of every kind; monopolists of religion, monopolists of the franchise, monopolists of sugar, monopolists of corn, monopolists of timber, monopolists of coffee. These were the parties that gathered around him, and out of which he was to construct his new Parliament. They were fully alive to the occasion. They set to work to revive the old system of corruption. They bribed and they bought. Yes, they bribed, they bought, and they intimidated, until they found themselves in office, and the right hon. Baronet at their head, as their leader and champion. Did he expect that this party had expended their funds and their labour in the registration courts-for there, as the right hon. Baronet himself has stated, I believe the battle of the constitution will henceforth be fought-did he think that they had expended this labour and

1055
this money in order that they might come into office and assist him to take away their monopolies? The right hon. Baronet must have known the party he had to deal with, for he had a very old connection with them; and, therefore, I presume he was not disappointed when he came into office, having thrust out men who, with all their faults, were still far better than those who succeeded them. Having thrown those men out of office, and being unable to carry the measures which they proposed, and were ready to carry into effect, I say that he has now no right to set up the difficulty of his position as a bar to the universal condemnation which his proposition must receive in the estimation of every just politician in the country. He is the cause, yes, I say he is the cause of our present position, and upon his shoulders will the people rest the whole of the responsibility. I will now say a word to the Gentlemen on this side of the House who have such great difficulties, such bogglings and starlings at the danger of giving their assent to the motion of my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton. I will say a word or two to the noble Lord the Member for London (Lord J. Russell), and to my noble and right hon. neighbours, as to the difficulties of conscience which they appear to entertain about a total and immediate repeal of the Corn-laws. I hear on this side of the House, in almost all directions, an acknowledgement of the principle for which 4 and others contend, that is, the principle of perfect freedom in the trade in corn. But there are some of my noble and right hon. neighbours who think that there should be a duty on corn for the purposes of revenue. How can there be a duty for revenue unless it be a duty for protection? I ask my noble and right hon. neighbours who entertain that view of the subject to reconsider it before they go to a division. With that word of advice to those who sit near me, I proceed to make a remark in reference to the little word "now," about which many Gentlemen on this side of the House seem also to feel a considerable difficulty. There are Gentlemen here who think that the Corn-laws ought to be repealed, but they cannot reconcile themselves to the immediate repeal of them. They do not like to repeal them "now." "We admit," say they, "the injustice which these laws inflict upon upwards of 25,000,000 of the people for the advan-
1056
tage of a select few; but inasmuch as some thousands of persons have a beneficial interest in this wrong inflicted upon the millions, we cannot suddenly deprive them of the advantage they possess." Now, with all due deference to Gentlemen who use that argument, I must be permitted to say that I think they are showing a very great sympathy for the few who are gaining, and vastly little sympathy indeed for the many who are suffering from the operation of these laws. I would put it to those Gentlemen, whether if it had been in their power, immediately after the passing of the Corn-law in 1815, to repeal that law, they would have given any compensation to the landed interest in the shape of an eight or ten years' diminishing duty upon the importation of foreign grain? No; they would have repealed theta at once. Then, I ask, do they think that twenty-seven years' possession of the wrong—twenty seven years of exclusive advantage—twenty-seven years of injustice to the rest of the community, entitles this interested and selfish party to increase its demand in the shape of compensation? I give the hon. Gentlemen who are near me credit for being quite sincere in their scruples. I have heard such scruples very often expressed before; but I once heard them met at a public meeting of electors, in what appeared to me to be a very satisfactory manner. There was great difficulty on the platform among the Whig gentlemen who were assembled there about the repeal of the Corn-laws, and they were arguing about the danger and hardship of an immediate repeal of them. They were at length interrupted by a sturdy labouring man in a fustian coat, who called out, "Whoi, mun! where's the trouble of taking them off? you put them on all of a ruck;" meaning, that they had been put on all of a sudden. And so they were. The law was passed without notice in 1815, notwithstanding the remonstrances of the people. Then, I say, let us abolish this law, and the sooner the better. I will not trespass further upon the patience of the House. I consider that this question is now drawn within such narrow limits as to depend upon these two points; "Are you, the landed interest, able to show that you are subjected to exclusive burdens? If so, then the way to relieve you is not to put taxes on the rest of the community, but to remove your burdens, Secondly,

1057
are you prepared to carry out even-handed justice to the people? If not, your law will not stand; nay, your House itself, if based upon injustice, will not stand."
Mr. Ferrandspoke as follows:*—Sir, it would be folly, as well as ingratitude, on my part, if I were to attempt to take advantage of the kind indulgence I have already received at the hands of this House. I hope, however, that hon. Gentlemen will bear with me for a short time, when they recollect that during the last ten days I have been made the target at which all the Gentlemen opposite have aimed their pointless darts. I have even been constrained to exclaim when attacked by an hon. Member on this side of the House, "tu quoque Brute;" but folded in the mantle of truth, I have come out of the conflict unscathed. It is true that the hon. Gentleman, the Member for the Tower Hamlets (Sir W. Clay), came down the night after I had addressed the House, and said that if he possessed the ability of replying to me he would not do so, as it might injure his support of the party behind him; lie left me, he said, in the hands of the right hon. Baronet, (Sir Robert Peel), and he wished him joy of of me. The right hon. Baronet shall never have my support, unless I think it my duty to give it; and I shall seek no other reward than an approving conscience. But great, indeed, must have been the services of the hon. Baronet, when the late disinterested, patriotic, self-denying, no patronage Government, did not hesitate to confer on him the same badge of honour, which a gallant officer (Sir H. Hardinge) sitting on the Treasury bench, had only obtained after the loss of limb and blood, and after fighting his way in every battle field, from the fruitless victory of Corunna to the crowning and triumphant one of Waterloo. Next among my assailants came the hon. Member for Sheffield (Mr. Ward) with all the blushing modesty for which he is so much distinguished—with all that tone of positive authority, by which he has become so notorious; he declared that my speech was one of scandalous levity. Fortunately for me, the hon. and gallant Member for Wycombe (Mr. Bernal) came forward and personally contradicted him, and told the House that it was bombastic declamation. That being the case, I shall leave those
*From a corrected report.
1058
two hon. Members to settle the matter in dispute; and only offer up a fervent prayer that it may be amicably arranged. I now come to the hon. Member for Salford (Mr. Brotherton), and I do ask the kind indulgence of the House, whilst I vindicate myself from as despicable a quibble as ever man was guilty of. The hon. Member said that "if he were to judge of my speech and the correctness of it by what he knew to be untrue, he certainly should not value it very highly. He knew that some parts of it were utterly destitute of foundation. He heard me make the assertion that the hon. Member for Stockport, (Mr. Cobden) worked his mills night and day, and that he had made a large fortune by such abominable cruelty; he heard the hon. Member make that statement; and for the hon. Member's information, he begged to tell him that the hon. Member for Stockport never had a mill in his life." Now, I instantly gave the hon. Member my authority for the statement I had made. [" No, no."] I placed my authority in the hands of the House, and said, if the name were demanded, I would instantly give it, but I was met by loud cries of no "by the Gentlemen on this side of the House, which was most generously responsed to from yours. Scarcely had five minutes elapsed before the hon. Member for Salford left the House. I followed him, and said," Now, then, in private, I will give you the name of my authority, the date of his letter, and the place of his abode." I did so. I read to him in private what I had stated publicly in the House. He laughingly turned away, and said, "Ah, but we call them print-works in Lancashire and not mills." In justice to my authority I hope the House will allow rue to read only four lines from a letter which he has written to me since. He says, "I notice in the papers this evening that the rev. Mr. Brotherton contradicted your statement of Mr. Cobden's having worked his mills night and day; but I know he will not deny that he worked his print-works at Chorley night and day." I now come to the hon. Member for Westminster (Mr. Leader). He declared that I had made an incendiary speech in this House. What! this from the hon. Member for Westminster, the champion of the liberties of the people! —the Gentleman who asserts that all our legislation here is class legislation, and that the working classes are not repre-

1059
sented! Is it in this way that I am to be met by such a man, when I come here and deliver a message from the working classes, and assert in their names in the presence of the assembled House of Commons, that the Corn-laws are not the cause of their distress, but that it is caused by the persecution and oppression of their masters? But what said the hon. Member for Westminster? Why, that if what I had asserted was true, it was my duty to call for a committee. Sir, this House has been in committee many days. I brought my charge before those Gentlemen who state themselves to be the representatives of the Anti-Corn-law League, and which of them has ventured to deny the accuracy of my statements? It is true that the hon. Member for Salford did, but I have shewn in what way; and he was the only one. And what, let me ask, are the people, the working-people of England, to say to this silence? Has it not caused a sensation throughout the length and breadth of the land—a sensation which has destroyed the Anti-Corn-law League, and compelled the leaguers to coalesce with the Chartists? Yes, you feel that the only means of retaining your existence—the only means of agitating the question of Corn-law repeal, is to coalesce with a party who hate you in their hearts, to coalesce with a party who—if you do urge them on to open rebellion, as you are striving to do, I warn you, and you know it is true—will first bury their bayonets in the bosoms of those whom they know to be their oppressors. Let me tell you that there is force and strength sufficient in this country to make you quail before it. I would call the hon. Member for Westminster's attention to a letter which I have received from a poor working man—one of the right sort—a man who gives me his name, and tells me to use it; and perhaps the House will oblige me by allowing me to read a few lines from it [" Read all."] I shall do so with pleasure. My correspondent says,
" Sir, I hope when you have read this you will pardon the liberty I have taken in addressing it to you. The speech which you delivered on Monday has caused more sensation than any that was made during the whole debate." [" Laughter"]
Let not hon. Members opposite imagine that I claim for myself the credit of this sensation—that I arrogate to myself the possession of talents like those which rest upon the Treasury Bench: no—it is not
1060
my speech, but it is the truths I have uttered, the facts I have stated in that speech have caused this sensation.
"Because (says this working man) we all have witnessed similar transactions to those you then related, and many working men have experienced worse treatment than you have described. Nobody has ventured here to deny your assertions. The 'Leaguers' are raging at their exposure. But I should not have troubled you had not Mr. Bernal doubted your statements respecting the Anti-Corn-law petitions. Why, in Leeds, on several occasions, the Leaguers have been defeated by the Chartists at public meetings. The very number of signatures to the petitions prove them to be forgeries. In the township of Leeds, which contains about 7,000 inhabitants, it is said that no less than 43,000 signatures have been obtained, and in the whole borough, (including the women's petition, 23,000) no less than 66,000 signatures or nearly the half of the population of all ages. Besides this fact (I have a rather extended circle of acquaintance) I meet with numbers who are indifferent to, numbers who are positively opposed to the Whig scheme—numbers who are favourable to the repeal, who will not sign any petition whatever. The petitions have been hawked round the machine shops and factories. They have been placed in all parts of the town; men have been engaged to go from house to house with cheap bread petitions. One young man, by name Robert Whitehead, who came to work in the same room as myself the day after the petitions were closed, informed me that from Monday morning to Tuesday noon he procured 850 names, for which he was paid 8s. 6d., at the rate of 1s. per 100. In one yard, which the printed statistics of the borough states to contain thirty-four houses, this man says he obtained near 300 names. This man is a repealer, and a pretty fair informed man, and no doubt could tell how hundreds of sham signatures were obtained. I could fill sheets with incidents which have been related to me, but I forbear, merely assuring these are facts which I can prove."
Sir, I have another letter from another correspondent. [" Name."] No, I will not give the name now, but I will give it to any hon. Member who will apply to me when the House has adjourned. He says—
" In all parts of the manufacturing districts in which I have been, I have heard the working classes declare that it is the truth you have told them in the House, and that if you wanted any to corroborate what you have said, you might have hundreds of thousands to affirm it. I will now put you in possession of a fact in the way and manner in which the Anti-Corn-law League manufacture their petitions. The other day I called upon one manufacturer to ask him to sign the petition in favour of the Ten Hours'

1061
Bill. He was in a room filled with power-looms, and he heard me say ' petition;' he instantly said ' Yes,' and went across the yard into his counting-house, and lifted up the lid of his desk, took out a petition, and said, Now you see, I think I have done it pretty well. I have varied my hand as much as possible, and I have put them all down, for I have taken them out of the wage-book.'"
Now, what think you of the manner in which your petitions are got up? When detailing the other night the misery, the oppression, the plunder, and robbery, committed on the poor by the Anti-Corn-law League manufacturers. I brought under the notice of the House the evils of the truck system. I have since received some further information upon that subject. But before I read to the House a statement which will make it stand aghast. [" Laughter."] Yes, it will have that effect upon any hon. Member who has a heart to feel for the sufferings of the poor. I wish once more to assert, in the presence of this House, that I never did charge these crimes upon the whole manufacturers of England, but I distinctly charge them upon those manufacturers who are members of the Anti-Corn-law League. I have been told by many manufacturers in my own neighbourhood—as honourable men as ever lived, and of whose society I am proud,— I have been told by them, time after time, that they cannot compete with the AntiCorn-law League manufacturers, because it is their practice to pay their mens' wages in money, and not in goods. I will now give a sketch of some cases of the most flagitious nature which are now occurring in an isolated part of Lancashire. "Messrs. Blank and Son "—[" Name."] I again tell hon. Members, that I am prepared to prove every thing which I assert. If any hon. Member will move for a committee, I pledge myself to summon witnesses to prove every word of what I am going to read: but I trust that, under present circumstances, the House will agree with me, that it will not be fair to give to the world the names of the parties—
" Messrs. — and Son, —, three mills. There is a shop in the immediate vicinity of each of these mills, and each shop is kept by a son-in-law for his own advantage. The work-people are also supplied with coals by the same firm.—Mr. —, two mills The work-people are obliged to procure both food and clothing at a shop in the neighbourhood of the mills, which is kept by his brother for his own benefit,—Mr. —, one mill, close to
1062
which is a shop, over the door of which his son's name is placed, who is a minor residing with his father.—Messrs. — and Co. one mill. They have a shop which is kept for their own benefit.—Mr. —, one mill, near which a shop is kept by his son-in-law, for his own benefit, who is also manager of the mill. There are five more mills in this very neighbourhood which have cottages attached to them, and belonging to the owners, and which are occupied by their work-people."
[Loud cries of" Name"]I do not wonder at these interruptions, for "the flesh will quiver when the pincers tear." In order to make Members aware of the manner in which these manufacturers evaded the penalties of the law, I will state how they arrange matters. On Saturday, the people go into a room to receive their wages. They are paid at the time in money, but instead of retiring by the door through which they enter, they have to pass into another room, in which sits a person who keeps the books of the truck-shop, and to whom the workmen have to pay every farthing that they have expended during the previous week in goods and clothing; and if it is proved that any one of the men has purchased one single farthing's worth of goods from any other shop than that which belongs to his master, he is without one word of explanation discharged. Now this is taxing the food of the poor—this is taxing their provisions, and their clothing—this is your Free-Trade system. It is a notorious fact, that the master manufacturers clear 25 per cent. by the goods they sell to their workmen, and 10 per cent. above the usual rent, by the cottages in which these workmen are compelled to reside. A key is placed in the hands of each man who applies for and obtains work at any of these mills, and it is well understood that that is the key of a cottage built by his master, who will not let it. to him under 10 per cent. above the usual rent, nor give him employment unless he takes it. This then is the glorious system of free trade, under which the Anti- Corn - law League manufacturers stand up in the House of Commons, and exclaim, "before us the landed interest shall fall!" I now come to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Edinburgh (Mr. Macaulay). That right hon. Gentleman said that the Anti-Corn-law League had never used such violent language out of doors as I had used within the walls of Parliament. I will read a few passages which I have extracted from some of the

1063
speeches of the Anti-Corn-law League orators, and then leave the House to judge which has been most violent, they or I. The right hon. Member will perhaps permit me to call his attention to the language uttered by an individual at a meeting of the Anti-Corn-law Delegates, in allusion to the right hon. Baronet at the head of her Majesty's Government. I am convinced that, however hon. Members opposite may differ from the right hon. Baronet in political opinions, they will, with a generous and a manly spirit, bear record that he does not deserve the slander I am about to read to the House. Mr. G. Thompson says, alluding to the Corn Law:—
" Cursed law, doubling the primeval curse, turning the warm sweat of industry into the chill damp of starvation. He denounced that law. It was an impious law. But this wicked man (Sir It. Peel), the law-maker, the landed aristocrat, had virtually monopolized the universal bounty of God, and we starve in consequence of it."
Colonel Thompson says,
" He should himself conscientiously and with integrity advocate the taking a large retribution on the landlords; how many would follow him depended on them, not on himself."
My opinion is, that if the people wait till the hon. and gallant Colonel attempts to "take" this retribution, they will have to wait a considerable time. I will now read to the House a speech delivered at a meeting of the Anti-Corn-law League by the hon. Member who has just sat down, and I wish the right hon. Gentleman the member for Edinburgh (Mr. Macaulay) had been present, that he might hear this language. When 100,000 men threatened to come down from Birmingham to this metropolis—for which they received the thanks of the Noble Lord, the Member for London, (Lord J.Russell)—Lord Grey said to the House of Lords, "Set your House in order, for the people are coming down upon you." I think I may also say to the hon. Members of this House, "Set your House in order, for the hon. Member is coming down upon you." The hon. Member for Stockport (Mr. Cobden) thus appeals to the passions of the people:—
" Their metal would be tried in a fortnight or three weeks. He had told them that the aristocracy must be frightened. Were they prepared to make sacrifices and to undergo suffering to carry this question? The time
1064
was not far off when they might be called upon to make sacrifices, and to undergo sufferings. The time might soon come when they might be called upon to inquire, as Christian men, whether an oligarchy which has usurped the Government—placed its foot on the Crown, and trampled down the people—how far such an oligarchial usurpation was deserving of their moral and religious support. If they were prepared for suffering they would soon have an opportunity of suffering. When the proper time should come, he would be prepared to set them an example of suffering, to suffer with them."
Sir,—when I read that speech I trembled from head to foot. I will detain the House but for a few minutes, in order that I may tell them in what way the Anti-Corn-law League themselves enhance the price of corn. Are hon. Gentlemen aware that, by a calculation, it has been found that no lest than 100,000 quarters of wheat are annually used by these men. [" How?"] How? by daubing their calicoes with flour paste. The country ought to know how these men defraud the people, and they ought to be made aware that it is by tricks like those that they have lost the foreign market, I could undertake to prove to the House, by the testimony of manufacturers of the highest standing in the country, that a system of robbery and plunder was carried on against the people, such as had never before been heard of. It was only the other day that a poor man was sentenced to be transported for seven years, for sending to the noble Lord the Secretary for the Colonies a quantity of bricks, pretending that the package contained a chandelier. This was a fraud on a private individual; but if the House will grant me a committee, I will undertake to prove far greater frauds practised against the public. I have received the following statement from an individual who, as well as others, is ready to give evidence on the subject before a committee of this House, if required to do so:—
"Immense quantities of flour are used in the cotton trade, to give a false appearance to the calico." [" Oh!"]
I assure the House it is true. I assert the fact, and I ask hon. Gentlemen opposite, who are acquainted with the cotton trade, whether it is not true. My informant proceeds—
"Some manufacturers use from 2,000 to 3,000 sacks per annum. The calicoes are passed through a machine by which they are stretched in length and breadth: The inter-

1065
stices occasioned by stretching are filled up by paste, which is applied by a brush. Afterwards the calico is passed between two rollers, which press or calender it. It then comes out apparently a beautiful fine stout piece of calico. Its real quality is discovered in washing, after both the purchase money and the expense of making it into wearing-apparel has proved it to be a dead loss to the confiding purchaser."
I will now, with the permission of the House, read an extract from a letter written by an English merchant, exposing a process which is adopted by certain manufacturers, of buying up all the old rags they can obtain, which are torn into pieces by a machine, thus converted into a kind of dust, and are then mixed with wool, which is eventually manufactured into cloth. This dust, from its nauseous nature, and from its engendering numerous diseases, has been christened by the manufacturers and workpeople of Yorkshire the "Devil's dust." The Gentleman to whom I refer, writes:—
"Things are worse and worse in Huddersfield; and it seems that all is over without any hope. The trade is leaving this country most rapidly. S— is paying off nearly 200 of his weavers, because the foreigners are sending the same sorts of goods over at very little more than half the price that he has been selling them at. I wish you could get a full account of this shoddy trade; it is monstrous. They now put scarcely any wool into their yarn, only just as much as will keep the devil's dust together. The rags, as you know, are collected from the most filthy holes in London and Dublin, and are brought from the most unhealthy regions, infected by the plague and every epidemic, and of course, they are full of deadly poison. B— S— has had a boat-load of this rubbish, and also buys a good deal of the Dewsbury people. When his goods are made up, the first time they are worn they split up, and then the game begins. Mr. — informs me that B —S— has sent out a large quantity of doeskins,' charged 5s. 9d. per yard, which have proved to be not worth one farthing—not worth tailor's wages. They will all be sent back from America to the manufacturer, with a charge of 5s. 8d. a yard upon them for duty, carriage, freight, commission, &c.; and this, of course, besides the loss of the goods, they' being worthless. If this won't cure him, I cannot tell what will. Mr. — has been on the continent recently, and there he saw a small manufactory of 'doeskins,' all made of wool, no devil's dust in them. The man, before this season, he believes, had never made eighteen pieces of goods in one year. He had then in hand an order for 1,800 pieces, considerably below the price of English devil's
1066
dust goods, pretending to be of the same quality. Thus the manufacture is leaving us as fast as it can—thanks to the knavery of our avaricious, covetous, cheating, canting selves. Nothing can show our baseness and deceit more than this. These things prove clearly that our ruin is deservedly brought upon us by our own villany. It is well known that the Sheffielders passed cast-iron cutlery upon the foreigners for steel, until they would not have it given; and they have had to find new countries to send it to, and their former customers have been obliged to manufacture for themselves. Thus our canting, professing Christians, are ruining their own country, and cheating the poor pagans, and all the While blubbering about trusting in Providence,' and are trying to make Parliament believe that they care for the poor!"
I will only detain the House a few moments longer (the hon. Gentleman continued), While I call their attention to a meeting of manufacturers which was held sonic years ago in New York. The proceedings were reported at the time in all the American papers, and I will, with the permission of the House, give a slight account of it as described by an eye-witness. He says:—
" It was my good luck to attend a meeting of merchants and manufacturers convened in the Town-hall, for the purpose of considering the best means of protecting the manufacturers of the United States.' The meeting was composed of manufacturers of all grades, and very numerously attended; and a spirit of unanimity pervaded the assembly. Specimens of cloth of John Bull's manufacture were held up to the gaze of the meeting all in tatters, and moth-eaten by the paste. These were compared with their own honest domestic manufacture, and the following resolution was agreed to:— 'That it is the opinion of this meeting that it is the duty of Congress to protect the manufactures of the United States by an augmentation of the present tariff, to prohibit, as far as possible, the importation of foreign manufactures.'"
I will now, Sir, in conclusion, call the attention of the right hon. Baronet, the First Lord of the Treasury, to a fact which has not been brought before the notice of the House, yet a most important fact. It is this; if the Corn-laws were to be repealed there would be an immense body of industrious farmers and labourers in the North of England not only thrown out of employment, but entirely ruined. That ruin would result from this cause:—It has been for many years the custom of the chief landed proprietors in the North to let pieces of waste land to small farmers

1067
and labourers on leases of fourteen, twenty-one, or thirty years, at a small rent, on condition that they shall break up the land, and repay themselves by the sale of the corn which they may produce from it. Now, if the Corn-laws were to be repealed, all these men must be ruined; yet they have as much right to protection from the country as hon. Members opposite have, and they look to the Government to protect them, in order that they may reap some slight reward for their labour. They never dream that they can possess such wealth as those Gentlemen opposite; they say, "Live and let live;" that is all they aspire to. Then why refuse them such an offer? They say" We have let you live—we would scorn to rob you of your own, and it is unjust, cruel, unmanly, nay, dishonourable, and unworthy of the name of Englishmen, to come forward and advocate a measure, the object of which is to plunder the poor." The hon. Member for Manchester, who spoke the night before last, offered his advice to the farmers of England. If the farmers of England look to the political consistency of the hon. Member for Manchester (Mr. Gibson), they will not place much confidence in that advice; but the farmers of England look to the laws of their country for protection; and when they lose that protection, depend upon it, if they fall, you will fall with them.
Mr. Brothertonsaid, in explanation, that every one who knew him would believe hint when he said that he did not use the expression attributed to him in any ambiguous sense. When he stated that he believed the hon. Member for Stockport never had a mill in his life, he meant to use the word in its common acceptation. In speaking of mills the word was generally understood as meaning cotton or woollen mills. He had no wish to deceive the House. Had he made use of any word calculated to convey a wrong idea to the House, he would never hesitate to retract or to explain it; but, in the present case, he could assure them that he made use of the word in the above sense in perfect good faith, and in the full belief that what he stated was true. He had no doubt, if the hon. Member for Knaresborough would give the House the name of his correspondent, that he would be found to be one of his (Mr. Brotherton's) political opponents. He would not return Tailing for railing, and, though he had
1068
seen two letters regarding the hon. Member's character in his own neighbourhood, yet he would never deign to make any use of them. He begged again to state, that in making the statement he had done, he had no intention to deceive the House, and with that declaration he left the matter in their hands.
Mr. Cobdenrose, amid cries of "explain." He said that he might state once for all that he did not think that his mission to that House was for the purpose of indulging in gross personalities. He assured those hon. Gentlemen who so ingeniously devised a partisan warfare of so very clever a kind that he would never be driven into personal altercation with any hon. Member, for he felt that to do so would be disrespectful to those that sent him there. He trembled for the dignity of the House when he found language used such as that which they had been listening to. He did consider the dignity of the House in some danger when he found language such as that they had been listening to for the last half hour received with so much complacency by hon. Gentlemen on the front bench opposite, and with such cheers by the party behind them.
Mr. Hindleyfelt some difficulty in addressing the House after the very spicy speech of the hon. Member for. Knaresborough, because lie knew that hon. Members were not much inclined after the excitement of a personal attack to listen with patience to the dry discussion of the question before them. He would not notice the assertions of the hon. Member for Knaresborough, but since the hon. Member had proclaimed himself to be the advocate of the working classes, he hoped that in future lie would show more judgment in their behalf; otherwise lie would betray their cause. In entering on the question of the Corn-laws, he did not mean to treat it as a party question. It was not his intention to attack the agricultural interest as a more selfish portion of the community than any other; nor did he wish to argue that the Corn-laws ought to be repealed because of the existing distress. He considered that the arguments for or against the Corn-law were irrespective, either of the prosperity or adversity of the country; and he thought that the agricultural interest might just as well make use of the prosperity of the country as a proof of the benefits of the Corn-law, as the manufacturing interest might make use of adver-

1069
sity as a proof of the evils of it. The right hon. Baronet, the Member for Tam-worth, had not, he thought, looked to all the effects of the existing Corn-law, more particularly to its effects on the condition of the labourer. As illustrative of the evil effects of a rise in the price of corn, he begged to refer the right hon. Baronet to a calculation made by Mr. Nield, the mayor of Manchester, relative to the condition of the family of the working man at Manchester, showing the income and expenditure of twelve of the best paid families and artisans in Manchester, and seven in Dukinfield, in 1836 and in 1841:—
"The total income of the twelve families in Manchester was the same in the two years, viz. 221. 4s. 2d. a week. Their weekly household expenditure, in 1836, was 14l. 15s. 11d., leaving a surplus of 71. 8s. 3d. for education, saving, and the purchase of manufactured articles. In 1841, their weekly expenditure was 17l. 9s. 8d., leaving only 4l. 14s. 6d. for education, saving, and the purchase of manufactured articles, In the former year, food formed 54 per cent. of their expenditure; in the latter, 70 per cent. The total weekly income of the seven families in Dukinfield was, in 1836, 81. Their household expenditure was 51. 12s. 3d.; leaving a surplus of 21 7s. 9d. for education, saving, and clothing. Li 1841, their aggregate income was reduced to 51. 6s. 8d., While their necessary expenditure increased to 61. 8s. 1d.; leaving not only no surplus for clothing, but a heavy debt instead. In the former year, food formed 46 per cent. of their expenditure; in the latter year, 89 per cent."
Now, supposing that a like reduction took place generally, he thought that this would account in a very great degree for the distress in the manufacturing districts. The Corn-law being the cause of the high price of wheat, had of course great influence in producing the distress. He believed the Corn-law to be unjust in principle, and contrary to the laws of God and nature. He contended that the Legislature had no right to act contrary to those laws, and in support of this doctrine lie quoted the opinion of Chief Justice Holt and other authorities. Blackstone said, that on the two foundations of the law of nature and revelation must depend all human law. This was the ground taken by the ministers of religion in opposing the Corn-laws. They considered them opposed to the laws of nature, and therefore believed themselves justified in denouncing them. It was doubling the primeval curse, to deny the labourer the power of obtaining the best return for his labour, To do so was
1070
contrary to common sense and justice, and to persevere in this denial would infallibly tend to weaken the fabric of the constitution. He had been much struck with an observation of the rev. Dr. Chalmers in reference to the causes and to the evils attendant on the question remaining unsettled. That rev. Gentleman stated, that he knew of no topic better calculated to create clamour and discontent, and that nothing could be a greater blessing to the labourer than its repeal. He felt surprised that the Vice-President of the Board of Trade did not allude to the effect of the sliding scale in draining this country of bullion during a deficient harvest, because, in his opinion, this part of the question deserved their deepest consideration. Hon. Gentlemen opposite had endeavoured to impress on the working people that low prices would bring low wages. He did not altogether agree with them in this respect, yet he would admit that in all thickly-populated countries the wages of the lowest class of labourers must depend on the price of the means of subsistence? but whose fault was it that this country was over populated? Why could not the labouring population avail themselves of the rich lands of America? He was also opposed to the Corn-law in consequence of the artificial increase which it gave to machinery, and to the improvement of machinery. He never heard of machinery being introduced except for the purpose of superseding human labour, and the manufacturers had almost been driven to favour the introduction of machinery, in consequence of its relative cheapness to human labour. He thought that the Corn-laws had given a great stimulus to the employment of machinery, and from the introduction of it sprung all the distress of the hand-loom weavers—of those 800,000 individuals to whose hard case the right hon. Baronet the Secretary for the Home Department had referred. In the year 1835, at the time the right hon. Baronet opposite was in power, the hon. Member for Oldham (Mr. Fielden) bad called his attention to the condition of these 800,000 individuals, and Mr. Muggeridge was sent down to Manchester to inquire into their condition. On that occasion the right hon. Gentleman did not speak; but he voted against the motion, and his hon. Friend and himself divided in a minority of 3 against 150, and the House thus refused to take into consideration the condition of 800,000 hand-loom weavers. If the motion

1071
of his hon. Friend had been agreed to, much mischief would have been avoided; for soon after that time great numbers of persons, previously engaged in agricultural pursuit, were brought from distant parts to supply the demand for labour in the manufacturing districts, while the condition of the hand-loom weavers was passed over; and yet hon. Gentlemen opposite at the present day fruitlessly complained of the condition of that body of persons. He was satisfied that if there had been no mills this country might have continued to have grown corn, and exported it in consequence of the lowness of prices, and it was clear that the agriculturists never could have obtained the high prices which they now did. He had presented a petition a few days ago from a labouring man, who stated in it that he could only now obtain for six days' labour what he formerly procured for one day's work. Was not this equivalent to a deprivation of this man's property? What would a landowner say, who had an estate which brought him in a rental of 30,000 l. in 1815, only giving him an income of 5,000 1. a year at the present time, and this being occasioned by the vicious system of legislation which obtained in the country? He did not find fault with the adoption of machinery, as he believed that it had conferred very great benefits on the community when properly regulated. If, however, the use of it was allowed in manufactures, why not carry out the principle? Suppose, for instance, there was a machine invented for growing corn for the whole kingdom—and this was not more improbable than the invention of the Daguerrotype would have appeared to be ten years ago—if it came into operation last August, would not the right hon. Baronet have been called upon to provide a remedy? The landed interest would not allow the use of a machine which would be in the slightest degree prejudicial to themselves; for that was the case when they prevented the importation of foreign corn. If we could in this country provide goods by machinery, which we could exchange for corn in a foreign market, what was the difference from making corn from a machine? The landed interest said that the adoption of an open trade in corn with foreign countries would be injurious to the labourers and capitalists engaged in agricultural pursuits; they thus, as it were, prevented the working of a machine when employed against themselves, but they never thought of interrupting machinery which interfered so materially
1072
with the interests of 800,000 hand-loom weavers. It was said that the agriculturists were exposed to peculiar burdens, which did not fall upon any other class of the community. He entertained that opinion himself three years ago, and was prepared to agree that they should have protection to an equivalent amount, and he had offended, some of his constituents by saying so He had since then more closely looked into the matter, and he confessed that he had great difficulty in finding what they could be. The right hon. Baronet said the other evening, that political economists could not agree as to what were the burdens which fell peculiarly upon land; but he (Mr. Hindley) contended that when the House was called upon to legislate upon a question like the present, it should previously determine what those burdens were. Mr. Macintosh, who was quoted as a great authority on this subject, said that land paid certain taxes which fell upon it, which might amount at the very utmost to about 5s. a quarter. Mr. Tooke, who investigated the subject with great minuteness, said that those taxes could not amount to more than 1s a quarter in the price of corn. Now he was quite sure that the Corn-law league would willingly make the landed interest a present of 1s a quarter upon all corn to get rid of the restrictive system. He really believed that the amount was not equal to this, for the malt tax, and other charges which had been specified, fell upon the consumer, and the only charge which he could find which might be said to fall upon them was the land-tax, which was not more than 1,400,000 l.a year; but on the other side there was the probate and legacy duty, amounting to 2,900,000 l which surely might be considered as a set-off. Therefore he said that the balance was on the other side. If an article of necessity was scarce, the consumption of it did not so much depend on the price as on the means of the purchasers. If there was a free trade in corn in this country, the price would only become very high when there was an universal scarcity, for the consumers of corn in England were richer than they were in any other country. He felt that a fixed duty was much less odious and oppressive than a fluctuating duty; but carrying the name of duty, which was equivalent to that of a tax, created a feeling against it. Who, he should like to know, could calculate on the effect of a fluctuating duty in the price of bread to a labouring

1073
man, for it prevented the article which he manufactured from being sent to the continent to be exchanged for food? He had always entertained a respect and regard for the aristocracy of England, and he wished to see them maintained in all their social relations, and to lead the battle for the liberties and happiness of mankind; and miserable would that day be when the great body of them exercised the power they possessed against the welfare of the country. The inevitable effect of their misconduct must be, that they would be crushed. He hoped that they would pause before they persisted in a course which must be attended with injury to all classes, and he trusted that they would so act for the honour and safety of the country that they would secure by their wise legislation the peace, the happiness, and the welfare of all classes of the community.
Mr. Gillthought that a total repeal of the Corn-laws would be not only unjust to the landed interest, but injurious to the community at large. He was indisposed to aid in the total abolition of protecting duties upon the importation of foreign grain, because he had reason to believe that all the duty below 5s. per quarter found its way into the pocket of the speculator and the foreign merchant. His reasons for dissenting from the proposition of the right hon. Baronet were—first, because of the immense absorption of capital in this country by the continued high prices of corn for and during the greater part of the latter ten years, which in his opinion was sufficient to account for the want of adequate enterprise and speculation in other branches of our national industry, and consequently for the distress which had been so generally felt in the manufacturing classes of society during that period; and, secondly, because he felt the public would be better supplied with corn under a fixed duty, which would tend to establish a steady trade in corn, and a constant supply in our own ports of corn ready to make up all deficiencies in the crops of home-grown corn. He was bound at the same time to confess he should have preferred a 10 s. duty per quarter for the first year, declining a shilling per annum until it reached 5s., when it should become a permanent duty. This he should prefer, he acknowledged, to either the plan of the noble Lord, or that of the right hon. Baronet. He was almost afraid to trust himself to say any
***1074
thing further at that late hour, and he would sit down by expressing a hope that at least we should have a modification of the measure which had been introduced by the right hon. Baronet.
Mr. Fieldenwas understood to say that, notwithstanding all he had heard in the course of this debate, he was not one of those who were of opinion that it was better for England to rely upon foreign countries for its supply of corn than upon its own native industry. There was no doubt that at present we did not grow enough corn for the home consumption; though there was an abundance of land and an abundance of labour, which he believed were the only requisites necessary to raise a sufficiency of corn for the people. The agricultural interest had asked protection, and they had had it for the last twenty-six years, the protection they claimed being necessary, as was said, to enable them to grow the corn that was required. But they had not produced a sufficiency. Could they then any longer be considered entitled to protection, now that the question was raised whether they ought to have protection or not? He said they were not so entitled. It was urged that the manufacturers had produced too much, but certainly that was not an argument which could be used against the agriculturists. The manufacturers had produced too much, and that was a fault; but the agriculturists were more in error than they, for they had been producing too little. The Corn-law was so framed that the people could not be supplied with enough of food, and he believed it was the intention of the framers of that law, and the object of those who supported it, to prevent the growth of a sufficient quantity of home produce for the wants of the people. If it were necessary the agricultural interest should have protection, he would have been willing to grant it, even from the year 1815, provided they had given him the assurance that they would grow enough corn; but that assurance was not given then, nor had it been since given. They would not grow enough food themselves, nor would they allow other countries to supply the deficiency in exchange for our manufactures. He asked was it not a disgrace to the Legislature that at this moment there should be located in one spot in this country upwards of 17,000 people who were starving? These people were poor, and therefore

1075
neglected and despised; and when employed, what were they engaged in fabricating? Why the articles which were used to ornament the persons of the wives and daughters of the landed interest. Whilst these 17,000 persons on one spot were starving for want of the necessaries of life, what was the conduct of the Ministers of the Crown? Why, the right hon. Baronet came down to the House and told them that he held out no hope for the relief of the distresses of the people, and that if such a hope were encouraged, the expectations of the people would be disappointed. He (Mr. Fielden) contended that the working classes of this country had not been dealt fairly by. In 1834,abill was introduced to this House, the object of which was to throw every working man in England upon his own resources. [Much noise.] He begged to remind the House that this was the first time he had risen to take part in the debates on this subject, and he thought it was only fair that, as the representative of a manufacturing district, he should be heard. In 1834, then, they passed an act to throw every working man on his own resources, and virtually repealed that Poor-law upon which the poor had built their hopes for ages. Was it fair dealing with the poor man, then, after having repealed that law, to enact another law to limit his resources and prevent his obtaining bread? Were they treating him fairly, when they restricted his means of subsistence, and then required that he should pay double the price for his bread that was paid in foreign countries? He considered that he should be doing wrong if he voted for the continuance of the protection at present enjoyed by the landholders, and he should, therefore give his support to the motion of the hon. Member for Wolverhampton; and his principal reason for doing so was, because the landed aristocracy, having thrown the poor man upon his own resources, had totally deprived themselves of all right to a continuance of the protection which they at present enjoyed.
General Johnsonwould vote for the motion of the hon. Member for Wolverhampton on the principle that the food of man was not a fit subject for taxation, and he voted in this instance completely against his own interest, as his sole dependence was upon land. He would only trouble the House with one further observation, and that related to what had
1076
been said last evening by the hon. and gallant Member for Donegal, who had warned the House to beware of taking away the protection now afforded to agriculture, as the consequence would be to injure the Irish peasantry very seriously. He begged to ask the hon. and gallant Member whether he really was of opinion that it was in the power of the House, by any effort of human ingenuity, to invent a law by which the condition of the working classes in Ireland could be rendered worse than it now was?
Mr. Villiersrose to reply. He said the House might be assured, after so much discussion, he would not abuse the right which he believed belonged to him to make some reply to the observations which had been made upon his motion. If the length of the discussion and the hour of the night did not prevent it, it would still be utterly impossible, in the state of the House, since the delivery of the speech by the hon. Member for Knaresborough, to enter calmly and deliberately into the question. It was a speech for which he could hardly blame the Speaker; for it was clear that it was one that precisely suited the taste of the House. The House was convulsed with delight at it. It was a speech which cast the bitterest reflections on the manufacturers of this country—nay, more, it brought against them the strongest charges which could be brought against any class of men—a speech which certainly misrepresented most grossly the objects and motives of those who brought forward this question, and so far as it concerned him and his friends; but it was a speech which appealed to all the prejudices of the upper classes—of the landed classes—against the trade and manufactures of this country, and it was received with a degree of satisfaction which he (Mr. Villiers) had never witnessed in the House before. He was of opinion that the striking effect of that speech gave a decided character to the question now before the House, and he must almost think that the division about to take place would rather mark the difference between the views of those who agreed with the hon. Member for Knaresborough, and those who advocated opposite doctrines than the difference which existed on the question immediately before the House. If that speech had been received in silence, or if there had been any indication of dissent or disapprobation of the principles which the hon. Member proclaimed, it might have passed without notice; but he defied any one who witnessed the manner in which

1077
that speech was received, not to identify every Member who cheered and encouraged it, with the sentiments it contained. Therefore, he could not but think those who might constitute the majority against his motion, and vote with the hon. Member for Knaresborough, would strictly identify themselves with the sentiments and views of that Member. He was not able to judge of the correctness of all that Member's statements, but he could of some of them. He must say most decidedly and unequivocally, that at least two of those statements were wholly unfounded in fact. One of these was, he (Mr. Villiers) had taken the words down, and the hon. Member must either acknowledge them to be erroneous, or explain them away—that every petition presented to that House against the Corn-law had been paid for. [" No, no."] The hon. Gentleman might deny it, but he had taken the hon. Member's words down. The hon. Member for Knaresborough said, that all petitions presented to that House against the Corn-laws had been procured by means of money. [" No, no."] He said distinctly that the petitions against the Corn-laws had been paid for. These were the words uttered by him. [Mr. Ferrand intimated dissent.] The hon. Member denied that they were. [An hon. Member: " Some of the petitions."] The hon. Member did not say "some:" he said all of the petitions. However, the hon. Member disclaimed that statement. Another statement was, that the working classes were not against the Corn-laws. He knew for a fact that many of the working classes were as strongly opposed to them as the sternest enemy could be. The hon. Gentleman made the statement—he was not warranted in doing so. He had not been mooting this question for some years, without knowing what the feelings and opinions of the people were. He could certainly answer for his own constituents, and he knew that a large proportion of the working classes felt as intensely on this subject of the Corn-laws, as the sincerest opponent could do. It was a foul calumny upon them to say, that they were not opposed to the Corn-laws. He could only judge of the hon. Member's other statements by those which came within his own knowledge, and they were certainly not founded in fact. With respect to the charges made specifically and unequivocally against the manufacturers of this country —of plunder, robbery, and fraud—he presumed the hon. Member was prepared to
1078
prove them. He presumed he was in a situation to prove fraud and robbery against the manufacturers of England. [" No, no."] He understood the hon. Member limited his charges to the manufacturers who had subscribed to the association which he had styled the Anti-Corn-law League. He thought it must be obvious to the House and to the country, that such charges could not stop there. There was a distinct imputation, a direct and unqualified charge, by a Member of the House of Commons against certain persons engaged in the manufactures of this country, every one of whose names could be stated, whose circumstances could be ascertained, and the case against them investigated. The hon. Member had made those charges against the manufacturers, and they had been received with acclamation. He could hardly name the Member on the other side who did cheer them. He trusted, in justice to those manufacturers, that the Members who cheered the charges would insist on having them established. Notwithstanding what the hon. Member had said with respect to the motives of those who brought forward and supported this motion, he (Mr. Villiers) felt that he was justified in bringing it forward by the acknowledgment on all hands of the evils which the present law produced, and the sense which the people entertained of those evils. He was justified further by the concession made to this feeling by the Government itself. He received the concession of the Government as an encouragement to those who advocated a total repeal of the law. He accepted it as a sign that the people had established their case against the law, a sign that if they continued to agitate they would eventually succeed in obtaining what they had a right to ask. That alone would be a justification of his motion, and of the length to which this debate had been carried. He was further justified by the manner in which his motion had been met. In answer to the charges against the law, had a single new argument been uttered? [" Oh, oh!"] He should like to hear the original thought, that had been put forth in defence of the Corn-law. What had they had but the old stale argument that less was better than more. That was what hon. Gentlemen relied on most. They had had several candid and benevolent admissions from hon. Gentlemen opposite as to their readiness to abandon the law. One hon. Gentleman said, if he could be convinced that the

1079
working classes would be benefited by the change—that was to say, by abundance of food, he would consent to repeal the law. If the hon. Member for the West Riding of Yorkshire could be satisfied, that cheap food, or, in other words, plenty of food, would be good for the people, he would vote for repeal, and this was uttered gravely. Another favourite argument was, that we must guard against dependence on foreign countries. Why, they had heard this fifty times, and he believed there was hardly a charity boy in the country who would venture to employ it as against the benefit of abundance which would arise from regular commerce. But it was thought by some, who agreed with him in general principles—that vested interests were in question, and that his motion showed a disregard of such interests. He was not so ignorant or so dishonest as not to well consider the regard due to vested interests, or to show a disregard of the rights of property. But he wanted to know where this ground for upholding the Corn-law on the ground of vested interests was to end? When they had once begun to change, every argument from that source against total repeal was just as applicable to the Government modification. Exactly in proportion as a fixed duty, or the present Government plan did any good by cheapening food, in just the same proportion would it tend to withdraw protection, and throw poor land out of cultivation. If bad land is kept in cultivation by the present law, and that soils are of different fertility, it is clear that a very small change may have the effect of throwing the bad laud out of cultivation, which is the worst thing apprehended by individual proprietors from the total repeal. But there were Gentlemen on his side of the House, who spoke with virtuous indignation of his motion for total repeal, and talked in a fine Conservative strain about the vastness of the capital embarked, and the great social interests that depended upon property in land, and of the tenderness required in dealing with such property, and then talked of an 8s. fixed duty, or a duty that should be more moderate than that which they would support. Why would that have no effect in disturbing capital, and the interest in agriculture, created under the law? Why, what good would it do, if it did no cheapen food by increasing the quantity and is it not that the mode by which it was expected that agricultural capital would be effected? On
1080
what land has the largest amount of capital been invested in proportion to the return? Why, the last cultivated or the worst land to be sure; and what capital then would be the first to be effected by a moderate fixed duty, but this very capital which had been invested with most risk. What consolation is it to the man whose land has sunk in value, owing to a low fixed duty; but his neighbour who had a better soil is not affected by the operation of that duty. But if there was a total repeal, the owners of bad land would soon feel the effects of the stimulus that would be given to commerce and manufacture. He agreed with the noble Duke who had left the Cabinet, and had just declared, that either the landed interest had a right to protection, or the people had a right to a total repeal. If the land was to be protected, he said, do not alter the law; if the land is not to be protected, do not attempt it, and do not let there be more agitation on the subject, and repeal the law. That was a manly and straightforward statement, and however much he differed with the noble Duke, he admired the consistency which seemed to prompt him in his course on this question. He could understand those who took up one position or the other. He agreed with the noble Duke that there was no resting place between protection and repeal. Some of the Gentlemen who had argued on this side he did not understand; they denounced the law in the strongest terms, did all they could to excite the people against the law, persuaded them that it was unjust and injurious; yet when a proposition is made to abolish a law so described, they stop short and discover that it is unjust to repeal such a law. He was sorry to hear his noble Friend last night (Lord J. Russell) say, that he could not vote with him, he could only explain his difficulty by supposing, that having undertaken to arbitrate between the parties in conflict, and having offered a compromise of less than the people had a right to demand, did not yet despair of carrying his object. He believed, however, that his noble Friend would, before another year, find himself completely mistaken. He would find the same unreasonableness on the part of those who benefited by the Corn-laws, which opposed equally its repeal and every substantial modification of it; and he would, ere long, see the justice of the people's claim, and the reasonableness of acceding to it. He must say, in vindication of his motion,

1081
that he thought it was not an unreasonable one. The argument which had been brought forward with regard to vested interests, was one which might have been urged upon other occasions as well as now; there were many measures to which he might refer, to which the same argument, if it ought to prevail at all, would equally apply. He might mention the case of the throwing open of the trade between this country and Ireland. There was not an argument which had been adduced upon this question which would not have applied to that proposition, and all such arguments was used at the time, have been since found to be fallacious; the measure having been attended with unqualified advantage to both countries. There was another measure which the right hon. Baronet had received much blame for passing—he meant the restoration of the currency to its proper basis. If ever there was a measure which required much time for it to be brought into operation it was that. [An hon. Member. It was gradual]. The Bank Restriction Act, no doubt, was passed but for a year at first, but it was re-enacted so often, that it was looked upon eventually as a permanent act, and he should like to know whether, in repealing that act, many vested interests were not disturbed, and whether existing contracts were regarded? [Sir Robert Peel: That was not a sudden measure.] At all events, the public were very little prepared for it when it was passed, and the currency was very much depreciated at the time. At that time existing interests were not regarded—the relative engagements of debtor and creditor were not protected. Whence this tenderness then for interests so much more questionable. The Reform Bill might have been resisted on the same ground. He said that the Corn-law was a bad law, and he did not deny that interests had grown up under it; but interests had grown up under the old system of representation. They had beard of boroughs being the subjects of settlement, and vet the feelings of the owners of these boroughs, or of the proprietors of these interests bad never been heeded for one moment. He would take another case. He asked what regard had been shown to the vested interests which had accrued under the old Poor-law, when the Poor-law Amendment Act had been passed. What was the answer which was made to the argument raised when those interests were spoken of, and some consideration was claimed, and expectations
1082
raised, under the old law. It was said" They are more injurious than beneficial to the poor, and it will be beneficial to them to abolish them." The discussion of that law did not last three months, and he ventured to say that law had made greater change in the vested interests of the poor, however much for their benefit, than any other which had ever been passed. These, then, were cases of vested interests, and he urged them now in defence of the motion which he proposed, and which was said to be unreasonable. He was only sorry for his motion on one ground, which was, that there would be a very large majority against it. He was sorry for it, because there could not be a doubt that all those interested in commerce—in the manufactures of this country—that the great mass of the people did most earnestly desire this law to be repealed; and, because the impression which would be left on every man's mind was, that what would promote all the great interests of the country was opposed by the House of Commons. He would only, in conclusion, give his own interpretation to the motion which he had laid before the House. The right hon. Baronet seemed to desire to fix upon him the opinion that nothing but instantaneous repeal would satisfy him. He did not deny that he apprehended nothing but good from their instant repeal; but by his motion, he meant chiefly to convey that the time was now fully arrived, when Corn-laws should no longer exist in this country; and he now invited the House to join him in that declaration. What he proposed was, a resolution, on which if carried, a bill might be founded, in which any provision might be introduced to prevent any immediate mischief or injustice. But what he wanted to pledge the House to, was to abolish the duties that obstruct the trade in food.
The House divided, on the question that all duties payable on the importation of corn, grain, meat, or flour, do now cease and determine.—Ayes 90, Noes 393; Majority 303.

List of the AYES.

Aglionby, H. A.

Bridgeman, H.

Ainsworth, P.

Brotherton, J.

Aldam, W.

Bryan, G.

Bannerman, A.

Busfeild, W.

Berkeley, hon. Capt.

Byng, rt. hon. G. S.

Berkeley, hon. H. F.

Collins, W.

Blake, M

Crawford, W. S.

Blake, Sir V.

Currie, R.

Blewitt, R. J.

Dennistoun, J.

Bowring, Dr.

Duncan, Visct.

1083

Duncan, G.

Oswald, J.

Duncombe, T.

Parker, J.

Dundas, A. D.

Philips, G. R.

Easthope, Sir J.

Philips, M.

Ellis, W.

Phillpotts, J.

Elphinstone, H.

Plumridge, Capt.

Ewart, W.

Protheroe, E.

Ferguson, Col.

Ricardo, J. L,

Fielden, J.

Rundle, J.

Fitzroy, Lord C.

Scholefield, J.

Gibson, T. M.

Smith, B.

Hall, Sir B.

Somers, J. P.

Harford, S.

Stansfield, W. R. C.

Harris, J. Q.

Stewart, P. M.

Hastie, A.

Stuart, Lord J.

Hawes, B.

Stuart, W. V.

Hay, Sir A. L.

Strickland, Sir G.

Heron, Sir R.

Strutt, E.

Hindley, C.

Tancred, H. W.

Horsman, E.

Thornely, T.

Humphery, Ald.

Villiers, F.

Johnson, Gen.

Wakley, T.

Johnston, A.

Walker, R.

Langton, W. G.

Wallace, R.

Larpent, Sir G. de H.

Ward, H. G.

Leader, J. T.

Wawn, J. T.

Marjoribanks, S.

Wilde, Sir T.

Marshall, W.

Williams, W.

Marsland, H.

Wilson, M.

Martin, J.

Wood, B.

Morison, W.

Wood, G. W.

Muntz, G. F.

Wood, Sir M.

Murphy, F. S.

Yorke, H. R.

Napier, Sir C.

O'Connell, D.

TELLERS.

O'Connell, M. J.

Cobden, R.

Ord, W.

Villiers, hon. C. P.

List of the NOES.

Acheson, Visct.

Baskerville, T. B. M.

Acland, Sir T. D.

Bateson, Sir R.

Acland, T. D.

Beckett, W.

Ackers, J.

Bell, M.

Acton, Col.

Benett, J.

Adare, Visct.

Bentinck, Lord G.

Adderley, C. B.

Beresford, Capt.

Alexander, N.

Beresford, Major

Allix, J. P.

Berkeley, hon. G. F.

Antrobus, E.

Bernard, Visct.

Archdall, M.

Blackburne, J. I.

Arkwright, G.

Blackstone, W. S.

Ashley, Lord

Blake, M. J.

Astell, W.

Blakemore, R.

Attwood, J.

Bodkin, W. H.

Bagge, W.

Bodkin, J. J.

Bagot, hon. W.

Boldero, H. G.

Bailey, J.

Borthwick, P.

Bailey, J., jun.

Botfield, B.

Baillie, Col.

Bowes, J.

Baillie, H. J.

Bradshaw, J.

Baldwin, C. B.

Bramston, T. W.

Balfour, J. M.

Broadley, H.

Bankes, G.

Broadwood, H.

Baring, hon. W. B.

Brodie, W. B.

Baring, rt. hon. F. T.

Browne, hon. W.

Barneby, J.

Brownrigg, J. S.

Barrington, Visct.

Bruce, Lord E.

1084

Bruce, C. L. C.

Ebrington, Visct.

Bruen, Col.

Egerton, W. T.

Buck, L. W.

Egerton, Sir P.

Buckley, E.

Eliot, Lord

Buller, C.

Emlyn, Visct.

Buller, Sir J. Y.

Escott, B.

Bunbury, T.

Esmonde, Sir T.

Burrell, Sir C. M.

Estcourt, T. G. B.

Burroughes, H. N.

Evans, W.

Campbell, Sir H.

Farnham, E. B.

Campbell, A.

Fellowes, E.

Carnegie, hon. Capt.

Ferguson, Sir R. A,

Cayley, E. S.

Feilden, W.

Chapman, A.

Ferrand, W. B.

Chapman, B.

Filmer, Sir E.

Charteris, hon. F.

Fitzalan, Lord

Chelsea, Visct.

Fitzroy, Capt.

Chetwode, Sir J.

Fleming, J. W.

Childers, J. W.

Follett, Sir W. W.

Cholmondeley, hn. H.

Ffolliott, J.

Christmas, W.

Forbes, W.

Christopher, R. A.

Forester, hn. G. C. W.

Chute, W. L. W.

French, F.

Clayton, Sir W. R.

Fuller, A. E.

Clayton, R. R.

Gaskell, J. Milnes

Clerk, Sir G.

Gill, T.

Clive, hon. R. H.

Gladstone, rt. hn. W. E.

Cochrane, A.

Godson, R.

Cockburn, rt. hn. Sir G.

Gordon, hon. Capt.

Codrington, C. W.

Gordon, Lord F.

Colborne, hn. W. N. R.

Gore, M.

Colebrooke, Sir T. E.

Gore, W. O.

Cole, hon. A. H.

Gore, W. R. O.

Collett, W. R.

Goring, C.

Colville, C. R.

Goulburn, rt. hon.

Compton, H. C.

Graham, rt. hn. Sir J.

Coote, Sir C. H.

Granby, Marq. of

Copeland, Ald.

Grant, Sir A. C.

Corry, rt. hon. H.

Greenall, P.

Courtenay, Visct.

Greenaway, C.

Cowper, hon. W. F.

Gregory, W. H.

Cresswell, B.

Grey, rt. hon. Sir G.

Cripps, W.

Grimsditch, T.

Crosse, T. B.

Grimston, Visct.

Curteis, H. B.

Grogan, E.

Damer, hon. Col.

Hale, R. B.

Darby, G.

Halford, H.

Dawnay, hon. W. H.

Hamilton, C. J. B.

Denison, E. B.

Hamilton, W. J-

Dick, Q.

Hamilton, Lord C.

Dickinson, F. H.

Hanmer, Sir J.

D'Israeli, B.

Harcourt, G. G.

Dodd, G.

Hardinge, rt. hn. Sir H.

Douglas, Sir H.

Hardy, J.

Douglas, Sir C. E.

Hatton, Capt. V.

Douglas, J. D. S.

Hawkes, T.

Douro, Marq. of

Hayes, Sir E.

Dowdeswell, W.

Heathcote, G. J,

Drummond, H. H.

Heathcote, Sir W.

Duff, J.

Heneage, G. H. W.

Duffield, T.

Heneage, E.

Duke, Sir J.

Henley, J. W.

Duncombe, hon. A.

Hepburn, Sir T. B.

Duncombe, hon. O.

Herbert, hon. S.

Du Pre, C. G.

Hill, Sir R.

East, J. B.

Hinde, J. H.

Eaton, R. J.

Hodgson, F.

1085

Hodgson, R.

Maunsell, T. P.

Hogg, J. W.

Meynell, Capt.

Holmes, hon. W. A'C.

Miles, P. W. S.

Houldsworth, T.

Miles, W.

Hope, hon. C.

Milnes, R. M.

Hope, A.

Mitcalfe, H,

Hope, G. W.

Mitchell, T. A.

Hornby, J.

Mordaunt, Sir J.

Howard, hn. C. W. G.

Morgan, O.

Howard, Lord

Mostyn, hon. E. M. L.

Howard, hn. E. G. G.

Mundy, E. M.

Howard, hon. H.

Murray, C. R. S.

Howard, Sir R.

Neeld, J.

Hughes, W. B.

Neeld, J.

Ingestrie, Visct.

Neville, R.

Inglis, Sir R. H.

Newry, Visct.

Irton, S.

Nicholl, rt. hon. J.

Jackson, J. D.

Norreys, Lord

James, Sir W. C.

Northland, Visct.

Jermyn, Earl

O'Brien, A. S.

Johnson, W. G.

O'Brien, W. S.

Johnstone, Sir J.

O'Conor, Don

Johnstone, H.

Ogle, S. C. H.

Jolliffe, Sir W. G. H.

Ossulston, Lord

Jones, Capt.

Owen, Sir J.

Kelburne, Visct.

Packe, C. W.

Kemble, H.

Paget, Lord W.

Kirk, P.

Pakington, J. S.

Knatchbull, rt. hon.

Palmer, R.

Sir E.

Palmer, G.

Knight, H. G.

Palmerston, Visct.

Knight, F. W.

Patten, J. W.

Knightley, Sir C.

Peel, rt. hn. Sir R.

Labouchere, rt. hn, H.

Peel, J.

Langston, J. H.

Pemberton, T.

Law, hon. C. E.

Pendarves, E. W. W.

Lawson, A.

Plumptre, J. P.

Legh, G, C.

Polhill, P.

Leicester, Earl of

Pollock, Sir F.

Lemon, Sir C.

Powell, Col.

Lennox, Lord A.

Power, J.

Liddell, hon. H. T.

Praed, W. T.

Lincoln, Earl of

Price, R.

Lindsay, H. H.

Pringle, A.

Litton, E.

Pusey, P.

Lockhart, W.

Rae, rt. hn. Sir W.

Long, W.

Rashleigh, W.

Lowther, J. H.

Reade, W. M.

Lowther, hon. Col.

Redington, T. N.

Lyall, G.

Reid, Sir J. R.

Lygon, hon. Gen.

Repton, G. W. J.

Mackenzie, T.

Rice, E. R.

Mackenzie, W. F.

Richards, R.

Mackinnon, W. A.

Rolleston, Col.

Maclean, D.

Rose, rt. hon. Sir G.

MacGeachy, F. A.

Round, C. G.

Mahon, Visct.

Round, J.

Mainwaring, T.

Rous, hon. Capt.

Manners, Lord C. S.

Rushbrooke, Col.

Manners, Lord J,

Russell, Lord J.

March, Earl of

Russell, C.

Marsham, Visct.

Russell, J. D. W.

Martin, C. W.

Ryder, hon. G. D.

Martyn, C. C.

Sanderson, R.

Marton, G.

Sandon, Visct.

Master, T. W. C.

Scarlett, hon. R. C.

Masterman, J.

Scott, hon. F.

1086

Seymour, Sir H. B.

Turner, E.

Sheppard, T.

Turnor, C.

Shirley, E. J.

Tyrell, Sir J. T.

Shirley, E. P.

Vane, Lord H.

Sibthorp, Col.

Vere, Sir C. B.

Smith, A.

Verner, Col.

Smith, J. A

Vernon, G. H.

Smyth, Sir H.

Villiers, Visct.

Smythe, hon. G.

Vivian, J. E.

Smollett, A.

Vyvyan, Sir R. R.

Somerset, Lord G.

Waddington, H. S.

Somerton, Visct.

Walsh, Sir J. B.

Sotheron, T. H. S.

Wason, R.

Stanley, Lord

Watson, W. H.

Stanley, E.

Welby, G. E.

Stanley, hon. W. O.

Westenra, hon. H. R.

Stanton, W. H.

Whitmore, T. C.

Staunton, Sir G. T.

Wilbraham, hn. R. B.

Stewart, J.

Wilmot, Sir J. E.

Stuart, H.

Wilshere, W.

Sturt, H. C.

Winnington, Sir T. E.

Sutton, hon. H. M.

Wodehouse, E.

Taylor, T. E.

Wood, C.

Taylor, J. A.

Wood, Col. T.

Tennent, J. E.

Worsley, Lord

Thesiger, F.

Wortley, hon. J. S.

Thompson, Ald.

Wrightson, W. B.

Thornhill, G.

Wyndham, Col.

Tollemache, hn. F. J.

Wyndham, W.

Tollemache, J.

Wynn, rt. hn. C. W. W.

Tomline, G.

Yorke, hon. E. T.

Towneley, J.

Young, J.

Traill, G.

Young, Sir W.

Trevor, hon. G. R.

Trollope, Sir J.

TELLERS.

Trotter, J.

Fremantle, Sir T.

Tuite, H. M.

Baring, H.

Not Official.
Paired off.

NOES.

AYES.

Ashley, hon. H.

Westenra, hon. J.

Brooke, Sir A.

Butler, hon. Col.

Burdett, Sir F.

Sombre, D.

Castlereagh, Lord

Fleetwood, Sir H.

Clements, Col.

Clements, Lord

Conolly, Col.

Heathcoat, J.

Dugdale, W. S.

O'Ferrall, R. M.

Eastnor, Visct.

Ellice, E.

Forman, T. S.

Vivian, Major

Hamilton, J. H.

Browne, D.

Henniker, Lord

Seymour, Lord

Irving, J.

White, L.

Jocelyn, Lord

White, Col.

Kerr, D.

Listowel, Lord

Lopes, Sir R.

O'Connell, M.

Pennant, Hon. G. D.

Leveson, Lord

Planta, W. H. J.

Pigot, D. R.

Vesey, hon. T.

Shelburne, Lord

Absent.
MINISTERIALISTS.

A'Court, Capt. E. H.

Baird, W.

Alford, Lord

Cartwright, W. R.

Arbuthnott, hn. Gen.

Egerton, Lord F.

Attwood, M.

Hillsborough, Lord

1087

Hotham, Lord

Ramsay, W. R.

Jones, J.

Shaw, J.

Kerrison, Sir E.

Trench, Sir F.

Morgan, C.

Williams, J. P.

Pigot, Sir R.

Wood, Col.

Pollington, Visct.

Wynn, Sir W. W.

OPPOSITIONISTS.

Anson, hon. G.

James, W.

Archbold, H.

Jardine, W.

Armstrong, Sir A.

Jervis, J.

Barclay, D.

Lambton, H.

Barnard, E. G.

Layard, Capt.

Bell, J.

Loch, J.

Bellew, R. M.

Macaulay, T. B.

Berkeley, hon. C.

Macnamara, Major

Bernal, R.

M'Taggart, Sir J.

Brocklehurst, J.

Maher, V.

Bulkeley, Sir R. W.

Mangles, R. D.

Buller, E.

Martin, J. B.

Byng, G.

Maule, rt. hon. F.

Callaghan, D.

Morris, D.

Carew, hon. R. S.

Morrison, J.

Cave, R. O.

Murray, A.

Cavendish, hon. G.

Norreys, Sir J. D.

Cavendish, hon. C.

O'Brien, J.

Chalmers, P.

O'Brien, C.

Clay, Sir W.

O'Connell, J.

Clive, E. B.

Paget, Lord A.

Craig, W, G.

Paget, Col. J.

Dalmeny, Lord

Pechell, Capt.

Dalrymple, J.

Philipps, Sir R. B.

Dashwood, G.

Pinney, W.

Dawson, hon. V.

Ponsonby, hon. J.

D'Eyncourt, C. T.

Ponsonby, hon. C.

Denison, W. J.

Powell, C.

Denison, J. E.

Pulsford, N.

Divett, E.

Ramsbottom, J.

Drax, W. E.

Rawdon, Col.

Dundas, D.

Rennie, G.

Dundas, F.

Roche, Sir D.

Dundas, hon. J.

Roche, E. B.

Ellice, rt. hon. E.

Roebuck, J. A.

Etwall, R.

Rambold, C. E.

Fitzwilliam, hn. G. W.

Russell, Lord E.

Forster, M.

Rutherford, A.

Fox, Col.

Scott, R.

Gore, hon. Capt.

Scrope, G. P.

Granger, T. C.

Seale, Sir J.

Grattan, H.

Shiel, R. L.

Grosvenor, Lord H.

Smith, R. V.

Guest, Sir J. J.

Somerville, Sir W.

Hayter, W. G.

Stock, Serj.

Hill, Lord M.

Talbot, C. R. M.

Hobhouse, Sir J. C.

Trowbridge, Sir T.

Holdsworth, J.

Tufnell, H.

Hollond, R.

Vivian, J. H.

Hoskins, K.

Vivian, Capt.

Howard, P. H.

Wall, C. B.

Howard, hon. J.

Wemyss, J.

Howick, Lord

White, S.

Hutt, W.

Wigney, J. N.

Summary.

Noes, including Tellers

395

Ayes, including Tellers

92

Paired

36

1088

ABSENT.

Conservatives (Ministerialists)

20

Oppositionists

108

Speaker and Chairman of Committee.

2

SEATS VACANT, DOUBLE RETURNS, ETC.

Cardigan, Meath, Shropshire, Southampton, Thetford

5

658

Adjourned.

Preamble
Minutes.] Bill. 1a Witt's Estate.
Petitions presented. By the Earl of Radnor, from Banff, and various other places, Lord Brougham, from Perth, Whitechapel, and other places, and the Earl of Carlisle, from Carlisle, for the Repeal of the Corn-laws.—By Lord Brougham, from Congregations of An-

973
trim, Dromore, Downpatrick, and other places, for Legalizing Marriages by Dissenters.—By Lord Feversham, from Confectioners of York, and Dunstable, against the Importation of Confectionery from the Channel Islands. From Bathgate, for Revision of System of Taxation.—From Carlisle, complaining of Distress.—From George Fanner, for Inquiry into Deaths of two Paupers at Crediton.

EXCHEQUER - BILL - FRAUD.
Lord Wharncliffe,seeing the noble Lord the Controller of the Exchequer in his place, wished to know whether he had any objection to postpone to Thursday the motion of his relating to the late Exchequer-bill fraud, which now stood for Monday next? As his noble Friend the noble Duke could not attend in his place on Monday, it would be a convenience to have the noble Lord's motion postponed to another day.
Lord Monteaglehad already postponed this motion several times in deference to the suggestion of the noble Duke, and would again consent to another postponement from the same motive; but let it be borne in mind that these postponements did not come from him, but were made to suit the convenience of noble Lords opposite.
Lord Wharncliffeadmitted that fact, but added that the absence of the noble Duke arose from the discharge of what he considered part of his public duties elsewhere.
Motion postponed.

CORN-LAWS. PETITIONS.
Lord Kinnairdhad to present several petitions for the repeal of the Corn-laws, which had been transmitted to him from various parts of Scotland. Amongst these were thirty-four petitions from the workmen of several factories in Dundee. Some of the petitions were signed by those engaged in the linen trade in the east of Scotland, and they prayed that, along with the tax on the import of corn, might also be removed any protecting duties on their own particular trade. They wished to have trade wholly free. Some of those petitions had been agreed to before the Government plan of a change in the Corn-laws had been agreed to, but from several of the parties he had received letters, which showed the general feeling in those parts of Scotland to which they belonged to be decidedly hostile to the Government plan. One letter, from which he would read an extract, expressed the deep regret of the writer at the plan proposed by Government, and stated that a similar feeling was prevalent throughout that part of the country. The writer ex-
974
pressed his fears that the tale of woe describing the distresses of the people would be met by insult; and this was evident from what he had read of what occurred in another place. ["Order."] He was not reading a petition, but an extract of a letter which had been forwarded to him, and of which he could produce hundreds, all to the same effect.
The Duke of Richmondsaid, that he could produce thousands of letters all the other way.
Lord Kinnairdwent on to read the extract, which said, that unless some means were adopted to relieve the distresses of the people, they would be driven to proceedings which would not be so easily quieted, and that if they did not oppose such measures as the Corn-laws by every means in their power, they would be untrue to themselves and to their country. To show the effect of the Corn-laws on the industry of a large class of the poor fishermen in Scotland, he would read an extract from another letter which he had received from a gentleman who had taken pains to encourage the fisheries in the Shetland Isles. The noble Lord the President of the Board of Trade had, upon the occasion of the dinner after the laying of the first stone of the Royal Exchange, taken occasion to make use of these words:—
" I must say, that it is a circumstance of pride and gratification to me to feel that we are assembled here in celebration of such an event, in the face of this distinguished company—the concentrated representative of the wealth, the honour, the honesty, and therefore the power of the commercial interests of this great empire.
" O weel may the boatie row,
And better may she speed;
O weel may the boatie row
That gains the bairns' bread.'"
In the face of that expression of feeling, the noble Earl was a member of a Government at that time about to bring forward a measure, the effect of which would be to prevent the "boatie" from earning one half bread enough for the "bairns." But he would refer to the instance to which he had alluded. His correspondent had written to inform him that he had some time ago determined to establish a fishery in one of the small islands of the Shetland district, that he had done so, and with the best result, the fishery being carried on with the highest degree of success. An offer had then been made by a Spanish merchant to take fish, to the amount

975
of 15,000 l., in exchange for which floor was to have been given, but owing to the heavy amount of duty payable on the importation of foreign corn into this country, it was found impossible to accept the offer. The fishermen were thus, the writer added, robbed of one-half of their daily bread. He did hope that some of his noble Friends near him would move for an inquiry into the distress which revailed, with the view to see how far it might be remedied.
The Earl of Riponsaid, that the noble Lord was perfectly welcome to take any advantage that he could of a supposed inconsistency in quoting the verse of the song on the occasion alluded to. And he begged to say that he had no idea when he quoted it that it had any reference whatever to the Corn-laws, otherwise he certainly should not have made use of it. As regarded another point of the noble Lord's remarks, namely, that which related to the exchange of salt fish for Spanish flour, he wished the noble Lord would inform him whether the Spanish Government had a Corn-law or not? and what duty the Spanish Government imposed upon our salt fish imported there? There was no article, he begged to say, so heavily taxed in Spain as salt fish imported there. It was quite clear, therefore, that if the Spanish Government would not accept of our salt fish but with a high duty, almost indeed amounting to a prohibition, there was not much chance of the correspondent of the noble Lord receiving Spanish flour in exchange, particularly as there was a Corn-law in Spain.
Lord Kinnairdthought there was a connexion between the Corn-laws, at all events, and those lines of the song which said,
"O weel the boatie rows,
Which gives the bairns bread."
Surely between bread and the Corn-laws there must be an affinity.
Petitions laid upon the Table.

DISSENTERS' MARRIAGES (IRELAND.
Lord Broughamhad also to present several petitions from Presbyterian congregations in the counties of Antrim, Down, and Tyrone, and in several other places in Ireland, praying for some legislative enactment for legalizing the marriages of Dissenters with members of the Established Church. The whole of these petitioners expressed the greatest anxiety at the recent decision of the learned judges in Ireland against the legality of those marriages, and it was very natural
976
that such anxiety should be felt on the subject. He had seen what he believed to be a correct note of the grounds of the decision to which the judges had unfortunately come on this question, and though he feared to express any opinion which might be held adverse to the decision, yet it was no departure from that courtesy which he sincerely desired to observe towards those learned persons, he said, that those reasons had faHed to satisfy him. The feeling which he entertained on the question was not confined to himself alone. It was shared by others who had duly considered the subject. The decision, he must say, was the more to be lamented, as the question was raised in a shape which made a revision of it by any other tribunal impossible.
The Marquess of Clanricardesaid, that the late decision of the Irish judges was directly opposed to the opinions given on the same question in 1816. On that occasion the late Sir S. Romilly referred to the case of a gentleman who was convicted of bigamy about that time, one of the marriages having been celebrated by a Presbyterian clergyman, and between a Presbyterian and a member of the Church of England. The case was then submitted for the opinion of the law officers of the Crown, Sir William Garrow and Sir Samuel Shepherd, and they were decidedly of opinion that the marriage was perfectly valid. In that opinion Lord Eldon was known to have fully concurred, and the sentence of the court, of transportation, was carried into execution on the convicted party.
Lord Campbellwas desirous of again calling the attention of his noble and learned Friend on the woolsack to the subject to which the petitions which had just been presented to the House referred. His noble and learned Friend was aware of the intense anxiety which was felt by a large class of persons upon the subject. He had lately received several communications relative to the painful situation of parties affected by the decision of the Irish judges. No doubt had existed for many years but that marriages contracted under the circumstances in question were perfectly valid. He would express a hope not only that the Government might at the earliest opportunity introduce a bill to remedy the evil, but that his noble and learned Friend on the woolsack would introduce the bill into that House in the first

977
instance. It appeared that the House of Commons was engaged, night after night, with subjects of great public importance, which prevented them from turning their attention to the subject; and be was of opinion that it would be found much more convenient to introduce the bill immediately into that House, and he earnestly hoped that his noble and learned Friend would adopt that course.
Lord Broughamsaid, he most strongly concurred in recommending to his noble and learned Friend on the woolsack to bring the measure forward in that House rather than in the House of Commons. He would beg to remind his noble and learned Friend that he had on a former occasion concurred with him in complaining that their Lordships were left in the early part of the Session for many weeks with scarcely anything to occupy their attention, and that towards its close a heap of business was thrown upon them, a great part of which was thrown over to the next Session for want of time in which to give it that due consideration to which it was entitled. In the state in which business was now before the House, their Lordships could give full attention to the measure, if his noble and learned Friend should introduce it there.
The Lord Chancellorsaid, it was not his intention at that moment to say a single word as to the law of this question. He would only observe that the Irish judicial bench was never filled by lawyers possessed of more legal knowledge than at the present moment. The question as to those mixed marriages had been ably argued before it, and full time had been given for its due consideration before its decision was pronounced. With respect to the question put to him by his noble and learned Friend (Lord Campbell), he would say, that a bill on the subject referred to had been prepared, and was at present before the law officers of the Crown, as it related to a very delicate subject. Whether the measure to be introduced should be brought in first in that House or in the House of Commons was a matter not yet decided; but if it should be decided to have it brought in the first instance before their Lordships, as little delay should be allowed to intervene as possible.
Petitions laid on the Table.

THE POOR-LAW COMMISSIONERS.
The Bishop of Exeterrose to present the petition of which he had given notice on a former evening. It was of such length that he would not take up their Lordships' time by having it read at the Table; but he would, as he proceeded, give a correct abstract of its contents. It contained very grave charges against the Poor-law commissioners of England and Wales, and, as it did, he had taken care that before laying it on their Lordships' Table, copies of it should be placed in the hands of the parties to whose conduct it related. Those parties were now in full possession of all the facts which were charged against them, and he had the satisfaction of knowing that the case of the commissioners would be stated to their Lordships by a noble Lord high in office, whose zeal and ability would leave nothing untold which in his opinion made for their justification. To this he had no objection whatever. On the contrary, lie thought it but fair and just that the Government should protect its public officers where they acted fairly in the discharge of their public duty. He would, however say, that unless a great part of the facts alleged in the petition were fully contradicted, much of grave charge would remain, for which they would remain responsible. He would now proceed, and though he would endeavour to make his narrative as brief as the case would admit, still he feared his trespass on the time of their Lordships would not be very short. In the month of January, 1840, two paupers died in the workhouse of Crediton, in Devon, under circumstances which excited a very strong and general feeling in that town and its vicinity. Rumours went abroad as to the case, and the names of the guardians were mentioned. In consequence of those rumours, a highly respectable individual, an attorney at Crediton, felt it his duty to make some inquiries on the subject. He at first disbelieved the rumours which had reached him, but as he went on with his inquiry the proofs came so thick upon him that he could no longer doubt that the rumours were well founded. In this feeling he addressed a letter to James Wentworth Buller, Esq., the chairman of the board of guardians. In mentioning the name of this gentleman he must say, that a more respectable or honourable man did not exist. As he took a great interest in the condition of the poor, it was natural that Mr. Tanner, the attorney to whom he had alluded, should address him on such a subject, and the more particularly as he was

979
then chairman of the hoard of guardians. On the 30th of April, 1840, Mr. Tanner addressed the following letter to Mr. Buller:—
"Crediton, April 30, 1840.
"Sir—a very serious report having for some time past been in circulation, relative to the death of a late pauper of Sandford, called William Lock, who, it is alleged, perished or expired in the month of January last in a cold dark shed or outhouse belonging to the Crediton Union Workhouse, where he had been improperly, and for several days before, placed, whilst labouring under a most severe and dangerous illness, I have, in conjunction with a friend of mine, taken some pains to investigate the matter, and it grieves me to say, that I fear there is too much reason to believe that such a report is true, and that its accuracy can be substantiated by incontrovertible evidence." (It then proceeded to request an open and impartial inquiry.) "I have, &c.,
"G. TANNER.
" To James W. Buller, Esq., Chairman of the Crediton Poor-law Union.
This letter was read at the board of guardians at their next meeting, but the board took no notice of it. At least no acknowledgment was sent of its receipt, and so far from complying with the request for investigation, the guardians did not accord to the writer even the civility of an answer. In consequence of this Mr. Tanner felt it his duty to address the Poor-law commissioners in London, and, accordingly on the 6th of May, in the same year, he sent them the following letter:—
"Crediton, Devon, May 6, 1840.
"Gentlemen—I take the liberty of transmitting for your immediate and serious consideration, a letter, which I felt it my duty to address to the Crediton board of guardians at their last board day, and as no reply has been given to it, nor any steps, which I have heard of, taken in the matter, I am thus compelled, respectfully but earnestly, to beg that you will require a prompt and public investigation of the subject of it. As the public press has alluded to this deplorable case, and as the report of it, with the usual exaggerations and embellishments, no doubt, has been circulated far and wide, I do submit, that the most open inquiry should be instituted, at which, if permitted, I think I shall be prepared to substantiate, by indisputable testimony, more than the lamentable facts stated, and more than one such case. In addressing you as public functionaries, in whom the Legislature of this country has thought fit to repose such unlimited and awful powers, I am convinced I need not point out the duty which you owe that Legislature and your country, to cause every well-founded charge to be thoroughly and im-
980
partially sifted. In this instance common justice to all persons and parties, as well as humanity, imperatively demand it, and I feel assured you will not forget the maxim 'Judex damnatur cum nocens absolvitur.'
"I have, &c.
"G. TANNER.
"To the Poor-law Commissioners for England and Wales."
This was on the 6th of May; and on the 9th of May Mr. Tanner received a letter from the Poor-law commissioners, stating that the matter should receive their immediate attention. Mr. Tanner naturally relied upon this assurance, and three days afterwards he wrote a letter to them, to an extract from which letter he the (Bishop of Exeter) should have occasion presently to call the attention of their Lordships. But, to his utter astonishment, he had found, that though on the 12th of May he had written to say he was then ready to proceed, and that having heard from a private source that the investigation was to take place on the following Saturday, the 16th, he requested permission to call before the assistant commissioner the persons with whom the rumour had originated, and from whom he had received his information, the inquiry had closed. This course followed by Mr. Tanner was that which every fair man, eager to bring his witnesses before the tribunal appointed for the inquiry, would have adopted. On the 14th, however, he received an answer from the Poor-law commissioners, which he (the Bishop of Exeter) would now read. It was as follows:—
" That they (the commissioners) had received from Mr. Gilbert, the assistant-commissioner, depositions so conclusive, negativing the purport of his general statement, that they were of opinion they should not be justified in causing further investigation into those cases; but that if he would communicate any further specific facts, they would take into consideration the propriety of further inquiry."
Now, he (the Bishop of Exeter) thought the extracts he had read contained specific facts—they included the death of the pauper, William Lock, in a cold dark shed or outhouse, to which he had been confined for some days While labouring under severe and dangerous illness. It was a little hard to require anything more specific as to the terms of the complaint on its very outset. Undoubtedly, the commissioners were right in calling upon Mr. Tanner to produce his witnesses to prove the grounds of his charge. It appeared, however, that on the 9th of May—the very day on which Mr.

981
Tanner received the letter from the commissioners containing the assurance that they would give the matter their immediate attentionߞit turned out that on that very day, without any communication being made to him—without any communication with the relations of the deceased pauper, Mr. Tanner stated that he had been informed, and believed, the assistant-commissioner (Mr. Gilbert) proceeded to the inquiry, and particularly requested that all which passed on that investigation should be kept a profound secret. That request seemed to have been strictly complied with, for nothing whatever transpired as to such an inquiry having taken place. Mr. Tanner having received, on the 14th of May, that communication from the commissioners, still offering, as he (the Bishop of Exeter) had already stated, to go into any other specific facts he might be prepared to adduce, wrote to them this letter:—
" Crediton, May 20, 1840.
" Gentlemen—I have been honoured with your letter of the 14th instant, and deeply regret that you are of opinion that you would not be justified in causing further investigation to be made into this case, because I fear that the depositions taken on one side only will not generally be considered as satisfactory, or tend to allay the feeling which the report had excited previously to my first addressing you. You will be pleased to bear in mind that not a single witness has been examined by your assistant-commissioner, nor a tittle of evidence heard by him, that I am aware of, in support of the statement made. How then do you know whether such statement can or cannot be substantiated? How can you decide that the depositions taken cannot be answered? I sincerely hope and trust, that even on a public investigation, the evidence will most irresistibly disprove the statement of Lock and his wife; but surely they, as well as any other witnesses, ought to be heard. I have to thank you for the opportunity which you have granted me of stating any other specific facts; but I must beg respectfully to decline interfering further in the matter, unless an open inquiry be permitted."
Such was the state of things up to the 20th of May, and this might be taken and considered to be the close of the first stage of these proceedings, or he should rather say, of these non-proceedings. The next stage was somewhat more startling. It appeared that Mr. Tanner, in consequence of the Board of Guardians not having taken any notice of his complaint, communicated with the editor, or he should say the proprietor, of a most respectable newspaper—a gentleman who was a most re-
982
spectable inhabitant of the city of Exeter —a gentleman who had filled the office of mayor, he believed, more than once, but certainly once—and who bad been distinguished among his fellow-citizens by being recommended by his political opponents in the town-council to the Secretary of State for the office of magistrate of the city of Exeter. He (the Bishop of Exeter) mentioned these facts as a proof of the respectability of Mr. Woolmer, the gentleman to whom he now alluded. Mr. Tanner communicated the information he had received to Mr. Woolmer, and Mr. Woolmer thought the case was one which ought to be inserted in his newspaper. He, however, took care with respect to the publication of the facts. He (the Bishop of Exeter) had himself read the article which put the case hypothetically. It made no gratuitous assertions, but stated the facts as resting entirely upon rumours; and it declared the readiness of the publishers to insert any contradiction which might be sent them, willing as they were to believe that the statements could not be true. For this article so put forth to the world upon the petitioner's information to this gentleman in consequence of the refusal of the guardians to inquire, legal proceedings of the most grave and serious nature were commenced. Mr. Tanner in his petition stated, that these legal proceedings had been instituted at the instigation of the assistant-commissioner, Mr. Gilbert; and this fact was important when the conduct of the Poor-law commissioners came to be considered. He would not criticise the conduct of a private individual seeking redress and reparation to his character in a court of law, but when it appeared that a public officer had been eager to bring down the vengeance of the law upon an individual who had stated calmly, but strongly, the complaint made against a public body —to him it seemed strange that a public officer, under such circumstances, should permit such vindictive proceedings; and still more was he surprised that such a course should have been pursued, when he remembered that those public officers had been intrusted by the Legislature of the country with powers almost unprecedented; and with such powers conferred upon them it was absolutely necessary for the good of the country, and especially for the interests of the poor, that their proceedings should be nicely watched. [The Earl of Radnor: who were the prosecutors?] Mr. Tanner in his petition stated he had been informed,

983
and believed, that the Board of Guardians of the Crediton Union had commenced the prosecution in question at the instigation of the assistant-commissioner. He did not mean himself to say that such was the case; he only proceeded upon the averments of the petitioner, and those averments distinctly stated the prosecution to have been got up at the instigation of the assistant-commissioner. But when the proceedings were instituted, and the case was heard in the Court of Queen's Bench, the defendant had prepared a whole body, nay, a string of affidavits, to show the truth of the facts alleged in the statement published in his newspaper. It so happened, however, that the attorney to whom had been intrusted the getting up and preparing the prosecution made some unfortunate blunder. He said "unfortunate," because if a full inquiry had taken place before the Court of Queen's Bench, a great deal of subsequent mischief would have been prevented, and their Lordships would have been spared hearing the details set forth in this petition. Unfortunately, however, there had been committed by the parties employed for the prosecution a legal mistake, upon which the counsel for the defendant declared, that though it was his client's wish that the case should be gone into on the merits, he, as his advocate, could not do otherwise than insist on the technical point which insured the dismissal of the rule. This was on the 16th of June, but in the course of the same month, Le believed a further communication took place between Mr. Tanner and the commissioners in London, and also on the part of Mr. Woolmer. On the 2nd of July Mr. Woolmer took that course which he (the Bishop of Exeter) must say afforded a striking proof of the perfect fairness of that gentleman's views, and which exhibited one of the most candid proceedings of which he had ever heard. Mr. Woolmer addressed the cornrnissioners in London in this way:—Their Lordships would remember, that the gentleman at the time was smarting under the recent infliction of the costly proceedings of the Court of Queen's Bench. However, on the 2nd of July, 1840, he wrote to the Poor-law commissioners in London as follows:—
" Gentlemen, I have had the honour to receive your letter of the 27th, and as you state your readiness to receive any further information relative to the paupers Lock and Dart, and as I am desirous of putting you in possession of the plain facts, as detailed by the different affidavits, without any comments of
984
my own, I have borrowed of my attorney one of the briefs delivered to counsel on the occasion, which I now beg to transmit for your attentive consideration. Of course it must be distinctly understood that I forward it you merely as a loan, and without prejudice to myself, partner, attorney, or indeed any other person. The original affidavits, as well as other evidence, shall be forthcoming before your assistant-commissioner, whenever you may be pleased to direct an open inquiry into the lamentable facts they disclose; and I beg most earnestly to implore you, for the sake of justice, for the sake of the parties concerned, and for the sake of the poor, to cause a fair and public investigation to be immediately made into the matter."
To this letter Mr. Woolmer received the following answer from the Poor-law Commissioners on the 7th of July:ߞ
"The Poor-law Commissioners acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 2nd instant, together with the documents therewith transmitted, relating to the case of the paupers Lock and Dart, who died in the workhouse of the Crediton Union, and the commissioners desire to state that the subject shall receive the immediate attention of the Commissioners."
What further communication by correspondence took place he did not know; but it seemed that on the 5th of August Mr. Gilbert, the assistant-commissioner, addressed this letter to Mr. Tanner, the petitioner:—
" Sir,—I beg to acquaint you that I shall sit at the board-room of the Crediton Union workhouse on the 14th day of this month, at 9 o'clock in the forenoon, to hear evidence on the subject of the several charges preferred to the Poor-law Commissioners by Mr. Woolmer and yourself respectively against the administration of the law in the Crediton Union. Summonses have been issued for the appearance of the several persons on whose statements the charges have been made, and they will be examined as to all the essential particulars. Solicitors or counsel will be allowed to attend, either on the part of the complainants, or on the part of any person affected by the charges, to watch the proceedings on their behalf, and to suggest such questions as they may think proper, and also to speak on the subject-matter of the inquiry and on the evidence."
Now, this letter decidedly recognised the petitioner, Mr. Tanner, and his friend, Mr. Woolmer, as the complainants, and the petitioner being not only one of the complainants, but also a solicitor, determined to attend the inquiry himself—to plead his own cause, to act as his own advocate in the matter. He therefore attended on the day

985
appointed—viz., the 14th, but either on that day, or immediately before it, Mr. Gilbert, the assistant-commissioner, determined to do—what? Why, to summon Mr. Tanner, who had thus been previously made a complainant, and who was to have attended in his own person, the conduct of the case, as a witness. Mr. Tanner had been obliged to obey, and had submitted to an examination which lasted the whole of that and a great part of the following day. His examination had been of the strictest kind. He had been cross-examined in a most stringent manner, not that it was pretended or imagined that he had any knowledge of his own as to the facts complained of, but because he, forsooth! had made an affidavit on behalf of Mr. Woolmer in the Court of Queen's Bench. On these grounds he had been converted into a witness—his mouth was thus shut, and lie was not permitted to take any part in the conduct of the proceedings. This seemed to be must unaccountable. He hoped the noble Lord behind him (Lord Wharncliffe) would be able to give some explanation of the proceeding. The case demanded an answer. The affidavit which Mr. Tanner had made stated his reason for coming forward was to show that Mr. Woolmer, by introducing the article in question into his newspaper, had not been influenced by any hostHe feelings towards the guardians, but on the facts which he had investigated. Such was the case, however, that Mr. Tanner had been subjected to a most vexatious examination and cross-examination, which had occupied a day and a half, and had not been permitted to appear in person to support his complaint. He had, however, said to the assistant-commissioner, "Give me time to procure an advocate to appear for me according to the terms set forth in the letter," which he had read. The reply of the assistant-commissioner was, "Certainly;" and in accordance with that intimation he broke up his inquiry on the second day's sitting, on the distinct promise that when they met again an advocate should appear to do justice to Mr. Tanner's cause. On the 15th of August the adjournment of the investigation on these grounds took place, and on the 25th Mr. Tanner received an intimation from Mr. Gilbert, the assistant-commissioner, that the inquiry would be renewed on the 27th. This announcement necessarily astonished Mr. Tanner, and he therefore addressed a letter to Mr. Gilbert, a portion of which (all that was material) he (the Bishop of Exeter) would read:—
986
" You cannot forget that it was ten days since that the inquiry was adjourned sine die, under the uncertainty, expressed by yourself, whether the Poor-law Commissioners would or would not order its renewal; and that only one clear day is given me to provide an advocate, and prepare him for the inquiry. I beg to enclose a list of witnesses which it will be necessary should be called on my part, and in the order in which they stand on the list; and I have respectfully to request that those witnesses may be duly summoned. I cannot proceed with the inquiry satisfactorily unless those witnesses are called seriatim as their names are inserted on the list; and, as the Poor-law Commissioners have thought fit to make me a complainant, surely it is not unreasonable in me to expect that I should be allowed to call my own witnesses in my own order. This is the invariable practice of the courts of law; and if a different rule prevailed, the greatest injustice would be the consequence, and so it will be in this case."
This was on the 25th of August, and on the 27th the inquiry was resumed, and then, to the surprise, but not complaint of the petitioner, he found that Mr. Gilbert was to be assisted by Mr. Parker, another assistant Poor-law Commissioner. On that occasion Mr. Tanner had engaged as his advocate a most respectable solicitor of the city of Exeter, Mr. Furlong. When Mr. Furlong presented himself before the assistant-commissioners, Mr. Parker exclaimed, "Oh! we want no advocate here,"—notwithstanding the adjournment of the inquiry from the preceding day had been made expressly to afford Mr. Tanner an opportunity of procuring an advocate; and yet, when he had found one, on the faith of the promise made to him, he was told that there was to be no advocates admitted. This decision was not only extraordinary to Mr. Tanner, but to the assembled multitude, who expressed loudly their feelings and excited indignation on the occasion. Nor was the indignation confined to these parties. Mr. Buller, the chairman of the board of guardians for the union, and another gentleman, a magistrate, of equal respectability, Mr. Sillifant, the deputy-chairman of the board,—both these gentlemen strongly expressed their indignation and astonishment at the course pursued by the assistant-commissioners. It must not be forgotten that the complaint had been originally made against the board of guardians; but when those gentlemen saw that justice was refused to those who made the complaint against them, they took a course which did them infinite honour. They said, "We will not receive a dishonourable acquittal—we will resign our posts

987
as guardians, because justice has been insulted, and the party complaining has not been permitted to make out his case." This virtually was what these gentlemen had said by their formal act of resignation. In that step nothing could be more temperate or clear than the conduct of those gentlemen. On the 29th of August, two days after the transaction, the board of guardians held a meeting, at which certain resolutions were come to, and a letter directed to be addressed to the Poor-law Commissioners in London. At that meeting, speaking of the case of the paupers Lock and Dart, the chairman and vice-chairman stated, thatߞ
"From the mode in which the inquiry directed by the Poor-law Commissioners is being conducted, wholly at variance as it is with the mode prescribed at its commencement, as well as with the usual course pursued in the public courts, public opinion will not be satisfied, whatever may be the result; neither will the proceedings of the Board of Guardians retain that confidence and respect in the union which is essential to the support of their orders, the welfare of the poor, and their own comfort. The chairman and vice-chairman find it necessary, therefore, to decline the responsibilities of the offices which they have hitherto held in this union, and resign the office of chairman and vice-chairman respectively. Resolved unanimously, that the board approve of the reasons assigned by the chairman and the vice-chairman, and that they feel it impossible themselves to continue any longer members of the board, and resign accordingly."
A long letter from the Poor-law Commissioners, approving of the course taken by the assistant-commissioners, having been read by the clerk to the meeting, the following resolution was moved by Mr. John Sillifant, jun., seconded by Mr. French, and adopted unanimously:—
" That the board cannot concur in the reasons expressed by the Poor-law Commissioners in justification of the mode of inquiry which has been instituted into the case of Dart and Lack, and into the general management of the Creditor, Union workhouse."
After this interference on the part of the chairman and vice-chairman of the board of guardians, and the indignation of the public present loudly expressed, the assistant-commissioner said he would not sit in a public room, but retired to a private room, with the master and surgeon of the workhouse—two officers whose treatment of the paupers had been subject matter of specific complaint. They also admitted reporters for the public papers, but they would not admit either the complainants or any person
988
to act on their behalf; consequently, there was no person who knew what the nature of the complaint was, or by what evidence it was to be substantiated. In consequence the second resolution was passed, to this effect:—
"That the withdrawal of the assistant-commissioners from the public room was not rendered necessary by the conduct of the persons present, which was peaceable and orderly; that the interruption arose from the refusal of the assistant-commissioners to pursue that course of inquiry which had been laid down by the assistant-commissioner at the commencement of the proceedings, according to which it had been conducted until the adjournment, and to carry out which was the understood and declared object of the adjournment."
The third was—
" That, unwilling as the board is to make any further remarks on the present inquiry in its advanced stage,"—
That was some time after the 29th—
"yet must they express their decided conviction, that whether an inquiry be instituted solely for the information of the Poor-law Commissioners and her Majesty's Government, or for the public satisfaction, no mode can be less expedient than that of limited publicity, and the result in the present instance cannot be satisfactory."
Fourth,—
" That the board is not disposed to reverse its former resolution to resign, unless the Poor-law Commissioners shall indicate some course by which, in their future proceedings, that good understanding may be restored and maintained between the central and local boards which is so essential to the well-working of the system, and which it has been the anxious care of the Crediton Board of Guardians to preserve."
Now, an inquiry took place in a private room, conducted as he had mentioned; Mr. Parker, Mr. Gilbert, the master of the workhouse, and the surgeon, were present. They examined and cross-examined all the witnesses who were produced—it was said that they did this in an unequal manner; whether that was the case or no he could not say; but at any rate the parties against whom the complaint was made cross-examined all the witnesses. On the other hand, there was no opportunity afforded to the complainants to examine any witnesses. But this was not all. The commissioner, who was to examine the witnesses, did not know what the examination was about; he knew nothing of what a particular witness was brought to prove.

989
It was true, he was guided, with respect to a small portion, by the affidavits; but as to the rest, he took his chance as to the matter, and he (the Bishop of Exeter) had been assured that a witness was told, when he was about to relate his own story, "You are only to answer the questions put to you." Whilst he gave credit to the gentlemen for a desire to do justice, he believed them to be men of unblemished character and honour, and who did not mean to act unjustly or hastily, yet, whatever they might have meant, injustice had been practically committed. But he had not got to the full extent of the injury which had been perpetrated. A little consideration should have led these gentlemen, as men of sense and understanding, men, like Mr. Parker and Mr. Gilbert, of the legal profession, that the course they were pursuing was a most outrageous violation of decent fairness. Mr. Woolmer lent to the commissioners a paper brief, which one of his counsel had used in the Court of Queen's Bench, which had been given to see from the statement of his own case by himself on asking advice, whether or not there was sufficient ground for inquiry. This brief contained in the margin written confidential notes and instructions from Mr. Woolmer to his counsel; and yet this brief was permitted to be copied, and was placed in the hands of the party against whom the complaint was made, along with the notes and confidential instructions, and they had been used, he did not say hostHely, but they were used freely, against the complaining party, notwithstanding the protest of Mr. Tanner, and although it had been expressly stipulated that the brief was not to be used to the prejudice of Mr. Woolmer, Mr. Tanner, or anybody else. That an inquiry so conducted should have ended in the acquittal of the parties complained against, was not to be wondered at. After all this, the only class of the evidence he should advert to was the evidence of' the physician and surgeon, who examined the room, and as to its fitness, he should venture to read some of their statements. On the 6th of June, four of these gentlemen had been called upon to make affidavits. Dr. Granger, a physician at Exeter, said he called the place in which the paupers died a cell; he should not dignify it with the name of a room. He says,—
" I observed there were means provided of heating it, but they appeared very inadequate; there was a remarkably small stove outside;
990
in my opinion, these means were not sufficient to warm the room. I think the stove was too distant and too small. I should say 65 or 70 degrees should be the temperature."
Mr. Luscombe, a surgeon, said,
" I think the plate would produce an injurious kind of heat."
The place was not warmed by a fire-place, but by a plate, heated by a stove,—
" But not sufficient warmth for the room. Privies are attached to the cell, although not under the same roof. This was one of our strong objections. The locality of the room was bad; its smallness was objectionable. I think it is degrading Hanwell to mention this unwholesome place with it. The drain in the corner of the room was shocking; I do not consider the drains were perfect, as the smell was most offensive."
Mr. Tucker, also, a surgeon of Exeter, said,
" It was calculated for idiots in good health with the exception of the offensive smell; there was a most offensive smell when I first visited it (June 6): there is no such smell in the room now; the place was not fit for more than one or two idiots; it was not commonly air-tight. I thought there was too much ventilation for the winter season of the year, or an inclement season. The four holes in the wall are quite open, without shutters, having bars of iron across; I think these holes admitted too much air for that season of the year. I believe the offensive smell emanated from the privies. (There were some things here which he spared their Lordships' ears) I think the room a very improper. place for persons suffering under diarrhœa. I think it very unfit for such persons to sleep in—I mean the room in June."
Mr. Harris, also, a surgeon, considered the means insufficient for heating the room.
In the depth of winter I do not think that was a proper room for persons labouring under diarrhœa; it was placed between two sets of privies, and this, I think, a very bad situation for persons in that state to be placed in. I should not like to keep any one there."
This was the room in which two persons were kept for several days, and in which they died. On the part of the guardians, two eminent medical men had been called to speak in favour of the fitness of the room. He would give a specimen of the evidence of those gentlemen. Mr. Samuel Barnes, a surgeon, a man of eminent character and talents, said there was no offensive smell in the room—this was in September.

991
" I thought the room a very cheerless one—cheerless is the best term I could use; but if kept clean and dry, and warm, well calculated for the persons designed—for the reception of such persons, in a state of health, to be used as a sleeping apartment"
Not for such paupers to live and die in.
" not so well suited for protracted sickness, because, if sick persons, one or more, were confined in it night and day, it would, in my opinion, be close and unwholesome. The place may be large enough, but it is too low."
This was the testimony of a gentleman called to prove the fitness of the place. Dr. Miller thought it was not too small for an establishment of this kind, and the mode of heating judicious and effective. Now, however, came the pinch to Dr. Miller:—
" Should it be in winter, and the external air at thirty-three degrees, it would be very desirable that the internal air should be kept up at least to fifty degrees, and for patients such as Lock and Dart to a higher temperature."
Now, at this period, he (the Bishop of Exeter) had a statement of the temperature at this time from an institution at Exeter where a register was kept; whence it appeared that one day it was from twenty to twenty-five degrees; another day from twenty-eight to thirty-four degrees; another from twenty-nine to thirty-three degrees. This was the medical testimony, a class of evidence by itself. This protracted inquiry was brought to a close after no less than fifteen days of sitting—not consecutive days, but days of actual sitting; and when it came to a close many witnesses had not been examined. He was not surprised that the patience of the commissioners had been exhausted, but many of the witnesses who could speak to the facts had not been summoned, and it was a mere excuse to say that there was so many witnesses for the complainants that the inquiry would be endless, as more witnesses were heard for the defence than for the complaint. The inquiry closed on the 17th, and then there came a report from the commissioners, in which they gave a most entire acquittal to all the parties concerned. They said:—
" The Poor-law Commissioners having most carefully examined the evidence taken on the recent inquiry at Crediton, and the information communicated by the assistant-commissioners, are entirely satisfied that, as respects the treatment of the deceased paupers, Lock and Dart, there is not the slightest ground for complaint, direct or indirect, against the board
992
of guardians; but that, on the contrary, the arrangements made for the care and management of those patients are creditable proofs of the attention and solicitude of the guardians with respect to them; and that, as regards the master of the workhouse, he has performed the extremely difficult and anxious task of taking care of those patients with discretion and humanity." "The commissioners have to add, that they are on the eve of completing a document containing a detailed expression of their opinions on the various charges which formed the subjects of the inquiry, which they propose to transmit to the guardians, and to which the commissioners will, if the guardians deem it advisable, give the fullest publicity."
In answer to this, the board of guardians stated that they felt it to be advisable that the utmost publicity should be given to this detailed statement, and a letter from Mr. Chadwick, the secretary to the Poor-law commissioners, said that there was no objection to the publication of the detailed documents relative to the different subjects, and to giving the utmost publicity to them, which the board of guardians stated to be the best course. Now, after what be had said, what he was about to mention would appear to their Lordships more surprising. Whether there had been any vexatious proceeding on the part of Mr. Tanner or not, he (the right rev. Prelate) did not know whether there had been or not, at least there had been a voluntary offer on the part of the commissioners to give this detailed statement to the guardians, and to allow it to be printed for the satisfaction of the public. Would their Lordships believe it,—although the document was sent to the board of guardians,—notwithstanding that it was the wish of the guardians that it should be made public, when the document came, it was, at the express desire of the board of commissioners in London, returned to them; there was no publication, and not even a copy was permitted to be taken. Whilst he acquitted those gentlemen of any deliberate intention to do an act of injustice, still he thought that the power intrusted to their hands was too great to be confided to the commissioners; and that their conduct, the too sure result of placing unlimited power in the hands of any men, showed that such an extent of power ought to be withdrawn from them. If their Lordships should reject, as inconvenient, the proposal of an inquiry by a committee up stairs into all these particulars,—if they should be unwilling to select parts of the case for inquiry, still he hoped their Lordships would

993
not concur in the renewal of an act which placed such an unlimited, and, until this example, such an unprecedented extent of power in the hands of the commissioners.
Lord Wharnclifewas sure, that their Lordships would give her Majesty's Government credit for not wishing to resist any case which affected the interests of the public or the character of the Poor-law Commissioners, if they thought a case could be made against them. He was very far from saying, that there were not in this case some circumstances which ought not to have occurred, and he should not spare those persons to whom this remark applied. But before he entered upon the defence of the Poor-law Commissioners, he must say, that called upon as they were to perform a most invidious and odious duty, one which often ran counter to the feelings of humanity, there was great danger of imputing to them unjustly blame which was not borne out by the facts. In all cases of accusation against any party, one of the first subjects of inquiry, was the circumstances under which the accusation was made; the next, the conduct of the party who made the accusation; whether his own hands were clean, and there was any evidence of contrivance to support a case; whether it were made from a desire to see justice done, or from a wish to render himself notorious. The conduct of Mr. Tanner satisfied him, that one of that gentleman's objects, whatever might be the merits of the case, was to gain notoriety. In the first place, the transaction itself, be the merits what they might, occurred two years ago, and, notwithstanding there had been two inquiries into it, ending in September, 1840, this had been the first time that anything had been said of it, either in that or the other House of Parliament. If the conduct of the commissioners had been such as was represented, the House of Commons was open to the gentleman, where he might have had the subject investigated; but it so happened that, until now, when it was likely that a New Poor-law Bill would be introduced, he had not brought forward this case, in order (he did not say it was improper on his part) to show that things were done by the commissioners which ought to make their Lordships (as the rev. Prelate had said) cautious how they granted to them extensive powers. He had said, that this gentleman had slept upon this matter from September, 1840, up to the present time. But that was not
994
all. On the 2nd of May, 1840, he wrote a letter to the chairman of the board of guardians. That letter, was deliverd to the board when the chairman was not present. He (Lord Wharncliffe) was not surprised that the board, receiving such a letter directed to their chairman, postponed its consideration till the chairman was present. He agreed with the right rev. Prelate, that it would have been more courteous if the board had replied to it, merely acknowledging the receipt of the letter, and stating that the chairman's notice would be called to it. On the other hand, the letter being written on the 2nd, and although the writer knew that the chairman was not present on that day, before any other meeting of the guardians took place, he wrote another letter to the Poor-law Commissioners in London. No answer to this letter could possibly be received before the 8th, and on the 9th he published, in the Exeter newspaper, an article which became the subject of a prosecution for libel. Was this the conduct of a man anxious for a real inquiry into the case? He had waited from the 31st of January to the 8th of April; why could he not wait till the next board-day? If not, why should he, before it was possible that he could receive an answer from the commissioners, why should he have written an inflammatory article in a newspaper which subjected it to a prosecution? It was singular that neither in his statement in the newspaper, nor in his own petition, nor in his letter to the commissioners, did he state an important fact in the case—namely, what these poor men were—one an idiot, the other subject to epHeptic fits, and that both of them were insensible to the calls of nature. But he talked of the place as a mere outhouse, and as if no attention was paid to it. Why, the evidence of the medical gentlemen do not treat it so; they speak of it as the "idiot ward," and as proper for such persons, and not as it was represented in the newspaper. He must say, that, under the circumstances, supposing a statement of this had been transmitted to the commissioners, and they sent down an assistant-commissioner (as they did forthwith), and he found there was no truth in the statement, he could not understand how it could be said, that there had not been immediate inquiry. What took place afterwards? The guardians were not satisfied with the examination, and determined to prosecute the editor of the newspaper for a libel, and

995
they moved for a rule for a criminal information in the Court of Queen's Bench. The editor showed cause, and employed Mr. Tanner as his attorney, and the first thing done by his counsel (who must have consulted Mr. Tanner) was to take a technical objection, which upset the whole proceeding. If he wanted an inquiry, why should he have done that? He might have had a fair inquiry, and before a jury. But, no; that would not suit Mr. Tanner. After that, Mr. Woolmer conveyed to the commissioners his brief, and with the brief the affidavits which Mr. Tanner had prepared for showing cause against the rule. The moment the commissioners saw the brief and affidavits, they felt that further inquiry was necessary, and they sent down assistant-commissioners to make the inquiry. A great deal had been said about this inquiry, and it had been said, that this could not be an impartial inquiry; but it was never meant to be an impartial inquiry. The Act of Parliament gave power to the commissioners to swear witnesses; but that was only, he apprehended, to satisfy them whether a criminal offence had really been committed; and if so, under the sanction of the Government, it would be the duty of the commissioners to prosecute. The inquiry of the commissioners was in order to get information, not to convict of crime. It had been said, and it was perfectly true, that it would be better if such inquiry could be conducted in the way of a trial before a jury, and he hoped that in the bill which would come before their Lordships, some means might be devised of giving to the commissioners the means of substantial inquiry. But the right rev. Prelate had complained of the conduct of Mr. Gilbert, in calling upon Mr. Tanner to give evidence merely on the ground of his having made the affidavit. Now, if Mr. Tanner had thought fit to go Out of his way to make an affidavit, it was proper that he should be called upon to give evidence before the court, and be cross-examined on the points. If the commissioners had thought it right to do this, and if Mr. Tanner had said, "I wish to conduct the case, but you shut my mouth by making me give evidence," he thought they did not exercise a wise discretion in not allowing him to do so. But this was a mere preliminary examination. Now as to Mr. Parker; he had instructions, by which it was intended to admit evidence on both sides. First of all what happened? They met, and when they met (their Lord-
996
ships would find) there were two statements of what took place, and very different statements they were. Mr. Tanner stated, that his advocate, Mr. Furlong, was prevented from making his speech. The commissioners said, that Mr. Furlong abused the Poor-law Commissioners, and excited the people, and that when they called the first witness he applied very strong terms, both to the Poor-law Commissioners and the assistant-commissioners and pronounced the whole to be a farce. Now he, (Lord Wharncliffe) well knew, from experience, that persons placed on a bench of justice had great need to keep their temper, and learn patience, otherwise they got themselves into most undignified positions. He confessed, he believed, that these commissioners did not sufficiently preserve their patience and temper; and under the influence of their feelings they said, "We will not sit in public any longer, but will retire to another room." He must say, however, that Mr. Tanner and Mr. Furlong had no right to call the examination a farce; in fact, they began by calling it a farce. They ought to have waited to see its real character. Then they demanded a public examination, although they had refused to go into a public examination before the Queen's Bench, and had run off upon a technical objection. Now, it was very easy to irritate by means of demands of this kind. Perhaps their object was to irritate. However, the commissioners refused to conduct the examination in public, and went into a private room. The board of guardians like very honest men, wishing the whole of their conduct laid before the world, were anxious that the investigation should be taken in public; finding this refused, they resigned. Now, he was free to say that, according to his opinion, and contrary to the opinion of the assistant-commissioners, this very expression of opinion on the part of a respectable body should have prevailed with them to revise their decision; that they should have returned into the public room, and let Mr. Tanner and Mr. Furlong attack them and abuse them, and call the whole proceedings a farce, as much as they liked. The right rev. Prelate had stated a part only of the evidence —in this using his own discretion—the evidence, namely, of the medical officers; and he must observe, that the evidence of the medical persons showed that the statements in the newspapers, and the original statement in the Exeter paper, were not

997
the truth. In them it was stated, that the room was an outhouse, that it was cold, and that the air was impure, and that the two paupers died of neglect. Now, it was clear that this was not the truth. The room was not an outhouse; it was no such thing; it was a room prepared for lunatic patients, nearly in the condition of these persons. The statements to which he referred admitted, however, that there had been a scheme for warming the place, and it was quite clear, by the evidence and by the test of experience, that the room was sufficiently warm, and that the mode of warming it was an exceedingly good one. Then the newspaper accounts talked of the impurity of the place. Now, he thought that it was not very wonderful that when the friends of these parties went in to see them, lying in the state they were in, the air should be impure. They were in that condition that the air must of necessity have been impure, and he had no doubt that at that time the air was impure; but, subsequently, when these persons were not in the place, the air of the place was not impure. That appeared on the evidence. Now with respect to the ceiling and the cold, and the assertion that there were too many apertures and that it was too cold, he could only say, that all this was not the fact, but that the place was just such a place as is used for persons in that state in which those persons were, and that considerable pains had been taken to make it so. There were other exaggerations in the statement. It was said, that these persons were locked in, and that the place was a detached outhouse; but the fact was not so, there was no locking in; and, moreover, the room was connected with the rest of the building by a passage and outer room. Then there was also a story about an offensive smell from the privy. Now, he would say at once that on the evidence with respect to the situation of the one place and the other he could not believe it. It was not credible that the impurity of the air could have arisen from them. But passing from this, he must observe, that in glancing over that part of the petition of Mr. Tanner in which he spoke of the prosecution in the Queen's Bench, it struck him, as very curious that that Gentleman insinuated that the other side had made a technical fault on purpose, in order that it might be taken up by him. What, then, did their Lordships think that persons would go to the trouble and expense of bringing up witnesses and pre-
998
paring evidence, and then make technical faults, in order that all this expense might be rendered of no avail? The circumstance did, he confessed he felt, cast upon Mr. Tanner's petition something of a nature to take away credit from his statements. The right rev. Prelate had quoted a passage from a letter of the commissioners addressed to the guardians to the effect that they would publish the evidence. Now, since the right rev. Prelate spoke, he (Lord Wharncliffe) had had the advantage of learning, by inquiry, that the commissioners wished to publish the evidence, and sent down to the guardians to say so, but the guardians refused to consent to make it public for reasons best known to themselves, and would not be at the expense of it. But there was another allegation of a circumstance which, if it had occurred, would he admitted, have furnished a most pregnant and irresistible proof of the partiality of the commissioners. The petitioners stated, that the witnesses for the defence and for the charge, had been paid for their expenses in different ratios. Now, he had before him a list of the payments made to all witnesses according to their respective grades and occupations, by which it appeared that there was one rate allowed for lawyers and another for labourers, and so on; that labourers had 2s. a day as compensation for their loss of time, and women had ls. 8d. a day. Such was the scale of compensation uniformly observed, and this statement, therefore, was wholly false. Now, he said that this tainted the petition and destroyed its credit, and that although there were parts of the proceedings in which he certainly did not concur in the judgment of the commissioners, he thought that the case had been got up by Mr. Tanner from motives which he (Lord Wharncliffe) did not wish to particularise; and that with respect to the commissioners although they had made what he considered to be mistakes, yet that they had not shown any disposition to screen any one in any part of the case.
Lord Campbellcould assure the right rev. Prelate that Mr. Tanner had enjoyed the most ample opportunity for having the whole facts of this case gone into in public in the Court of Queen's Bench. The petion stated, that the defendant "intentionally or unintentionally" made a flaw in the proceedings. Now, he could assure the right rev. Prelate and the House, that the case was not so. The rule was granted on

999
reading the affidavits and the newspaper which was annexed to them. In copying the officer omitted the words "on reading the affidavits and newspaper" owing to a blot, or something of that sort, and on the objection being taken, as it appeared to the court that the rule without these words was defective, such rules being always drawn up with them inserted, they felt bound to discharge the rule. Now, the objection, let it be remembered, was taken voluntarily on the part of Mr. Tanner; he (Lord Campbell) knew not whether Mr. Tanner was in court at the time or not; but the objection could not have been taken without his consent and sanction. It was taken, and the court was bound to act upon it. It was, therefore, most improper for Mr. Tanner now to come forward, and to say that this technical flaw bad been made on purpose. Had the case come on, the court would have heard the affidavits on both sides, and on the whole they would have given the case a much more satisfactory investigation than could be had for it elsewhere.
The Bishop of Exeterwould frankly say, that he was a little surprised that the noble Lord, whose wish it must have been, and whose duty it was, as he said to defend the commissioners, had deserted this case, and that he principally dwelt on a point which he (the Bishop of Exeter) thought of very little importance—the demerits namely, of Mr. Tanner. Now, he (the Bishop of Exeter) said nothing about the merits or demerits of Mr. Tanner; be they demerits or merits, they did not weigh with him. The Poor-law commissioners had departed from their duty—grossly departed—and shown themselves thereby to be unfit to be intrusted with the enormous power with which it had pleased Parliament to invest them. The noble Lord said, that the deaths of these parties took place two years ago; and he asked, how it was they had never heard of the case before. He (the Bishop of Exeter) would tell their Lordships. In the year 1840 no proceedings could be taken before either Houses of Parliament, because the investigation before the commissioners was not brought to a close within that year. That was the case in 1840. Then with respect to 1841. He could answer for Mr. Tanner that he was most anxious that this case should be brought before Parliament about the time that they were called upon to give the commissioners a prolongation of their power for another period of five years, and
1000
he had no hesitation in saying that he had advised Mr. Tanner to put off presenting his petition until the time when Parliament would have to consider whether this much-abused (as Mr. Tanner believed) power should be continued. As to the Queen's Bench, he (the Bishop of Exeter) cared not whether Mr. Tanner might have had his rule or not, and he cared not what were his motives, or whether they were or were not as base and insiduous as the noble Lord supposed; but he believed Mr. Tanner to be a man of honour, who was incapable of having any such motives as had been so plentifully attributed to him. But to what object were inquiries under these commissioners ostensibly directed?— what was it intended they were to do? Why, to find out whether there was a case for animadversion or other interference on the part of commissioners above, who ought to interfere in all cases in order to prevent any violation of the law. But what did the commissioners do? Did they think it enough to inquire? No, they gave a judicial character entirely to the proceedings. They stated that, with respect to the death of Lock and Dart, there was not the slightest imputation on the board of guardians, and that as for the master of the workhouse, he had discharged the arduous duty of taking due care and attention of these persons with credit to himself. Now, he (the Bishop of Exeter) asked what decision could partake more of a judicial character; or how could there be a more formal judgment? But did the matter end here? No. The commissioners gave authority for the publication of the correspondence, in order, apparently, to irritate the public mind still more. He said, therefore, that the commissioners, whatever Parliament might have intended, had, in this case, assumed judicial power, and they were bound, therefore, to exercise it with all the calmness and impartiality that properly belonged to judicial power. He had heard part of the speech of the noble Lord (Lord Wharncliffe), he must confess, with pain. The right hon. Baronet at the head of the Government had last year humanely declared that the commissioners ought to stand between the poor and the guardians, in order to see justice done them, considering at the same time, how the guardians were brought into contact with them. If that was the case, then the commissioners were in the right to judge and to pronounce judgment; but then they were bound to proceed in a just

1001
and judicial manner. He would not then go into the question of the treatment of the paupers, or the character of the House, or other particulars, although he might he allowed to say, that part of the noble Lord's citation of evidence, which went to show that everything about the room in which these persons were confined was in a proper state, had been contradicted; indeed, it was chiefly owing to these contradictions, which had been made so confidently, that he had not quoted any part of the evidence but the medical evidence. When the noble Lord said that no experiment had been made to ascertain the state of the atmosphere in the room, he had not made a correct statement. There had been an experiment made, and that by Mr. Tucker, who said,
"I am now trying an experiment on it,"
That was the stove in this room,
" I introduced a thermometer into the room about one o'clock in the day; which then stood at sixty-six degrees Fahrenheit; and at four o'clock it was raised to seventy-four degrees Fahrenheit."
[" Lord Wharneliffe, hear."] The. noble Lord cried "hear," but he (the Bishop of Exeter) begged the noble Lord to hear him to the end. Mr. Tucker went on to say that,
" During the interval between one and four o'clock, the stove had been made red hot; however, the alteration of the atmosphere was not in fact attributable to this, as at the Exeter Institution, where there was no fire, the thermometer, at the same time stood at seventy-eight degrees."
That was only seven miles from Crediton; he thought the noble Lord was presuming too much when he attributed the increased heat of the atmosphere from sixty-six to seventy-four degrees to the operation of this stove. But it was positively sworn to, in the course of the evidence, that no fire was in the stove during the day when these poor wretches died. That evidence stood, if not uncontradicted yet unshaken. Every charge of disingenuousness against Mr. Tanner, sank into nothing before the monstrous disingenuousness of the board of guardians at Crediton, in concealing from the public the opinion of the Poor-law commissioners on the various charges against them. He felt himself bound to defend Mr. Tanner in bringing this case before their Lordships; but if their Lordships were of opinion that Mr. Tanner had misconducted himself, that imputation rested on him. The more in-
1002
genuity the noble Lord had shown in defending the Poor-law commissioners, the more plainly he (the Bishop of Exeter) was convinced that no real answer had been given or could be given to the complaint made in the petition.
Petition to lie on the Table.
House adjourned.