Sitting of 1 February 1850

MINUTES.
NEW WRIT.—For Windsor, v. Lord John Hay, Steward of the Manor of Northstead.—For Colchester, v. Sir George Henry Smyth, baronet, Chiltern Hundreds.

TRANSPORTATION TO THE CAPE.
MR. ADDERLEYbogged to ask the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary for the Colonies, whether the Order in Council making the Cape a penal settlement had been revoked?
MR. HAWESreplied that the order had been revoked.
MR. ADDERLEYwished to inquire in the next place whether the Neptune convict ship had been removed from the Cape, and if so, what was its destination? He also wished to know if there was any truth in a rumour that Sir Harry Smith was to be removed in consequence of the late proceedings of the Government?
MR. HAWES, in reply, said, that orders had been given some time ago for the removal of the Neptune from the Cape, and that her destination was Van Diemen's
162
Land. There was no foundation for the rumour that Sir Harry Smith had been recalled.

SESSIONAL ORDERS—PUBLIC BUSINESS.
MR. HAYTERmoved that the Sessional Orders for the conduct of the business of the House be read and agreed to.
The Clerk at the table proceeded to read the Orders seriatim.
On Order 86,
Motion made, and Question proposed—
"That at the time fixed for the commencement of Public Business, on days on which Orders have precedence of Notices of Motions, and after the Notices of Motions have been disposed of on all other days, Mr. Speaker do direct the Clerk at the Table to read the Orders of the Day without any Question being put."
MR. HUMEsaid, that that Order was an alteration proposed by himself on the former practice of the House, under the impression that it would prove advantageous to the public service. But he found that great advantage had been taken of it to stop and impede the discussion of questions of the utmost importance, and many hon. Members had been deprived of the opportunity of bringing forward questions interesting to their constituents and important to the public at large. Another evil which had arisen from it was, that very great confusion in the transaction of public business prevailed at the end of the Session. After the two years' experience which they had had of this Order, he submitted to the House that it would be better to return to the old state of things, in which every Member had the opportunity of gaining the attention of the House. He should move, that the Order just read be deferred for a day or two, in order that the House might take his Motion into consideration.
MR. J. E. DENISONsaid, in the Committee which sat for the arrangement of public business, no decision had been come to on this point, because the Order had emanated in the first instance from the House, and was under its consideration at the time of its sitting. He did not agree with the hon. Member for Montrose, that any disadvantage or inconvenience had arisen to the public service from its introduction. Under the former Order, great confusion and inconvenience had arisen from hon. Members never being able to know beforehand what subject would be discussed in the course of the evening. To correct that evil this Order

163
was adopted, and the experience of two years had, in his opinion, fully proved its advantages. He trusted, therefore, that the House would abide by this Sessional Order.
MR. HENLEYsuggested that the hon. Member for Montrose should defer the matter until another occasion.
MR. HUME: That was his Motion. He wished merely to postpone the consideration of the Order.
LORD J. RUSSELLthought that the present arrangement had been productive of very great convenience. Under the former practice, any hon. Member, when the Order of the Day was read, had the power of introducing any Motion relating to any other subject. And it was quite true, as his hon. Friend the Member for Malton had stated, that it was utterly impossible for hon. Members to know beforehand what would be the subject for discussion in the course of the evening: for whatever was the Order of the Day, Motions might be brought on respecting Canada, Australia, or any other subject wholly different from that to which the Order of the Day referred. The House found the inconvenience arising from this practice to be so great, that it resolved to put an end to it, and they adopted this Sessional Order, under which the House had, during the last Session more particularly, got through a great deal of business in a satisfactory manner in a remarkably short space of time, without any impediment being placed in the way of hon. Members bringing forward Motions of public importance. With this experience of the benefit accruing from this Sessional Order, he thought that hon. Members would do well to maintain it.
MR. HERRIESthought the rule might be postponed for a few days for future consideration. He should support the Motion of the hon. Member for Montrose.
SIR R. H. INGLIShoped that no time would be wasted in the discussion of the Order. He thought it was perhaps rather early for the House to discuss its advantages or disadvantages. It was not a new measure which the House was called upon to adopt on the instant. It was a measure Which had worked well in the judgment of nine-tenths of the Members of the House who took an active part in the public business. He hoped that the question would be at once decided.
MR. HORSMANsaid, that he well recollected what took place when this subject was under discussion on a former occasion.
164
His hon. Friend the Member for Montrose proposed a series of resolutions, the effect of which that hon. Gentleman had not well understood beforehand. In fact their effect had taken the hon. Member completely by surprise. The hon. Member had proposed them as an experiment, and he now requested the House to consider whether they had worked well. With regard to what had fallen from the noble Lord at the head of the Government, he (Mr. Horsman) did not think that the business of the House had been conducted in a satisfactory manner; he considered that it had been most unsatisfactory.
MR. BROTHERTONthought that the experiment which had been tried during the last two years had worked very well, and to the advantage both of the public business and of hon. Members.
MR. HUMEwished before the House divided to say a few words in reply. His object had been not to thwart but to promote the public business of the country. He considered it was one of the chief duties of the House to give every facility to the people to make their complaints in that House. But he found that the withdrawal first of Thursday, then of Wednesday nights from the Members, for Motion nights, had placed the whole of the time of the House at the disposal of the Ministry, from whose neglect a great deal of business was required to be done at the latter end of the Session in a most hurried and therefore defective manner. He, therefore, wished to have an opportunity of laying before hon. Members in a more detailed manner the inconveniences which had resulted from the adoption of this order. The objection of which the noble Lord had made mention, of not knowing what subject would be discussed, he (Mr. Hume) was prepared to meet by a Motion that hon. Members should be required to give previous notice of their intention to move anything on the Order of the Day.
Motion made and Question put, "That the Debate be now adjourned."
The House divided:—Ayes 81; Noes 151: Majority 70.

List of the AYES.

Adderley, C. B.

Bremridge, R.

Anstey, T. C.

Bright, J.

Baillie, H. J.

Broadwood, H.

Baldock, E. H.

Bromley, R.

Banks, G.

Brooke, Lord

Bass, M. T.

Buller, Sir J. Y.

Berkeley, hon. G. F.

Burghley, Lord

Best, J.

Buxton, Sir E. N.

Blewitt, R. J.

Chatterton, Col.

165

Christopher, R. A.

Maunsell, T. P.

Clive, H. B.

Milnes, R. M.

Cobden, R.

Mowatt, F.

Codrington, Sir W.

Mullings, J. R.

Colvile, C. R.

Mundy, W.

Conolly, T.

Neeld; J.

Disraeli, B.

Newport, Visct.

Drummond, H.

Noel, hon. G. J.

Farnham, E. B.

O'Connor, F.

Fellowes, E.

Packe, C. W.

Fox, W J.

Portal, M.

Fuller, A. E.

Repton, G. W. J.

Galway, Visct.

Ricardo, J. L.

Gibson, rt. hon. T. M.

Salwey, Col.

Goddard, A. L.

Sidney, Ald.

Granby, Marq. of

Smith, J. B.

Granger, T. C.

Somerset, Capt.

Harris, hon. Capt.

Spooner, R.

Henley, J. W.

Stafford, A.

Henry, A.

Stanford, J. F.

Herries, rt. hon. J. C.

Stuart, J.

Hodgson, W. N.

Thompson, Col.

Hood, Sir A.

Thompson, Ald.

Jackson, W.

Tollemache, J.

Kershaw, J.

Trollope, Sir J.

King, hon. P. J. L.

Waddington, D.

Knox, Col.

Walmsley, Sir J.

Loveden, P.

Walsh, Sir J. B.

Lowther, hon. Col.

Williams, J.

Lushington, C.

Worcester, Marq. of

Mackenzie, W. F.

TELLERS.

Meagher, T.

Hume, J.

Manners, Lord G.

Horsman, E.

List of the NOES.

Adair, R. A. S.

Egerton, Sir P.

Alcock, T.

Ellice, rt. hon. E.

Arkwright, G.

Ellis, J.

Armstrong, Sir A.

Elliot, hon. J. E.

Bailey, J. jun.

Estcourt, J. B. B.

Baines, rt. hon. M. T.

Evans, W.

Barnard, E. G.

Fagan, W.

Barrington, Visct.

Farrer, J.

Berkeley, C. L. G.

Fitzroy, hon. H.

Bernal, R.

Foley, J. H. H.

Bernard, Visct.

Fordyce, A. D.

Blackall, S. W.

Forster, M.

Bouverie, hon. E. P.

French, F.

Boyle, hon. Col.

Frewen, C. H.

Bramston, T. W.

Glyn, G. C.

Brown, W.

Goulburn, rt. hon. H.

Cardwell, E.

Graham, rt. hon. Sir J.

Carew, W. H. P.

Greenall, G.

Childers, J. W.

Grenfell, C. P.

Clay, Sir W.

Grey, rt. hon. Sir G.

Clerk, rt. hon. Sir G.

Grey, R. W.

Clifford, H. M.

Gwyn, H.

Cocks, T. S.

Hallyburton, Ld. J. F. G.

Coke, hon. E. K.

Hamilton, J. H.

Colebrooke, Sir T. E.

Harris, R.

Cowan, C.

Hastie, A.

Cubitt, W.

Hawes, B.

Currie, H.

Hayes, Sir E.

Dalrymple, Capt.

Hayter, rt. hon. W. G.

Deeds, W.

Headlam, T. E.

Denison, E.

Heald, J.

Douglas, Sir C. E.

Heneage, G. H. W.

Drumlanrig, Visct.

Heyworth, L.

Duckworth, Sir J. T. B.

Hodges, T. L.

Duncan, Visct.

Hogg, Sir J. W.

Duncan, G.

Howard, Lord E.

Duncuft, J.

Howard, P. H.

Dundas, rt. hon. Sir D.

Humphery, Ald.

166

Inglis, Sir R. H.

Pennant, hon. Col.

Jermyn, Earl

Pigott, F.

Jervis, Sir J.

Pilkington, J.

Jocelyn, Visct.

Plumptre, J. P.

Kildare, Marq.

Power, Dr.

Labouchere, rt. hon. H.

Pugh, D.

Langston, J. H.

Ricardo, O.

Lascelles, hon. E.

Russell, Lord J.

Lascelles, hon. W. S.

Russell, F. C. H.

Legh, G. C.

Sandars, J.

Lewis, rt. hon. Sir T. F.

Scrope, G. P.

Lewis, G. C.

Shelburne, Earl of

Lindsay, hon. Col.

Sheridan, R. B.

Littleton, hon. E. R.

Smith, rt. hon. R. V.

Loch, J.

Smyth, J. G.

Lygon, hon. Gen.

Somerville, rt. hn. Sir W.

Mackinnon, W. A.

Sotheron, T. H. S.

Maitland, T.

Stansfield, W. R. C.

Mangles, R. D.

Staunton, Sir G. P.

Martin, J.

Strickland, Sir G.

Masterman, J.

Stuart, H.

Matheson, A.

Tenison, E. K.

Matheson, Col.

Thornely, T.

Maule, rt. hon. F.

Trelawny, J. S.

Milner, W. M. E.

Tufnell, H.

Milton, Visct.

Tynte, Col. C. J. K.

Molesworth, Sir W.

Vane, Lord H.

Monsell, W.

Vivian, J. H.

Mostyn, hon. E. M. L.

Walpole, S. H.

Naas, Lord

Walter, J.

Ord, W.

Welby, G. E.

Oswald, A.

Whitmore, T. C.

Pakington, Sir J.

Willyams, H.

Palmer, R.

Wortley, rt. hon. J. S.

Palmerston, Visct.

Wyville, M.

Peel, rt. hon. Sir R.

Young, Sir J.

Peel, Col.

TELLERS.

Pelham, hon. D. A.

Denison, J. E.

Pendarves, E. W. W.

Brotherton, J.

Original Question put, and agreed to.
MR. HUMEsaid, he was aware that there were many inconveniences attending the old system, and that under the present system the greatest possible opportunities were afforded for impeding public discussion; and the time would come, if they went on much longer as they were doing now, when none but Ministers would have the opportunity of claiming the attention of the House. At the present moment, if anything disagreeable to Ministers was coming on, they adopted the means of preventing a House being formed, and Gentlemen who had no communication with the Ministers had no opportunity of bringing forward their complaints. These were the reasons why he was anxious this Order should not pass; he would not be denominated factious by taking another division. He bowed to the decision of the House; he would fight again and again against such contraction of popular rights. He thought he had reason to know that the House was encroaching rapidly on the rights of the people of this country.
The remaining Sessional Orders were then agreed to.

ADDRESS IN ANSWER TO THE SPEECH—ADJOURNED DEBATE.
The MARQUESS of GRANBYsaid, in the observations which he should feel it his duty to make on the Motion and Amendment before the House, he should confine himself entirely to that paragraph in Her Majesty's gracious Speech to which the Amendment was directed. He thought it would be generally admitted by the House that it would be impossible for his hon. Friend the Member for South Lincolnshire, and those who entertained similar views, to agree to that paragraph in the Speech of Her Majesty without moving an amendment to it. That paragraph stated that Her Majesty had great satisfaction in congratulating the House on the improved condition of commerce and manufactures; and it went on to say, that Her Majesty regretted that complaints had proceeded from the owners and occupiers of land. Now, when it was remembered that these complaints did not proceed solely from the occupiers and owners of land, it did seem to him that there was some intention on the part of Her Majesty's Government to insult an important part of Her Majesty's subjects. He did not think the Mover of the Address would have assured the House that that language was not intentional, and that it was an oversight on the part of Her Majesty's Government, at least, though there might not be an intention among them to extend any measure of relief to the agricultural interest. But what had been the language of the hon. Mover of the Address. He said, adverting to that particular question, that he now came to that part of Her Majesty's Speech, in which she regretted to find complaints proceeding from the owners and occupiers of land, and the hon. Member repeated those words with a sneer; but he (the Marquess of Granby) could not think that sneer would be responded to in that House. He believed the distress of the owners and occupiers of land would receive the sympathy not only of that House, but of the country; because every thinking man must know that they could not be distressed without the labourers also suffering. That was admitted by the only Member of the Government who had yet spoken—the right hon. Baronet the Chancellor of the Exchequer—who stated that the labourers participated in the distress which prevailed; and that distress fell mainly upon the small tenant-farmers. Let the House remember that those farmers constituted a
168
very large class. According to Mr. Spackman's tables, the number, including the small tenant-farmers of Ireland, was equal to that of all the males, above 20 years of age, employed in the entire manufactures of the country. They were a class that had ever proved loyal to the Sovereign—ever ready to come forward to defend the constitution. They essentially belonged to the middle classes, to whom it was mainly due, under Providence, that we had been saved from those convulsions which had overthrown the constitutions of foreign countries. Upon them rested the stability of the empire. The distress was admitted to exist, and the reason now assigned for it was the abundance of the harvest. Could any man who reflected that above ten millions of quarters of grain had been imported within the year into this country, entertain a doubt as to the cause of the lowness of prices? No doubt there had been an abundant wheat crop last year, but then the crop of barley had been a deficient one, and it should be recollected that the value of barley amounted to two-thirds of that of wheat. Again, he should like to know how it happened that the distress this year was attributed to an abundant harvest, while last year the prevailing distress was alleged to have arisen from the deficiency of the crops. He would wish to know in what year and under what circumstances the agricultural interest might expect to be prosperous. There had been lately large meetings held throughout the country; and though some variety of opinion was exhibited at them, arising from the varied composition of the assemblies, it was at all of them clearly stated, that at present prices they could not cultivate their farms at a profit—that no mere reduction of rent would enable them so to do—and that they were unfairly placed in relation to untaxed nations with which they were required to compete, and that Parliament must either relieve them from the burdens which pressed upon them, or else afford them some protection against the foreign grower. He would say, therefore, that when such language was generally used, the House had a right to attend to it. They had been told also that the working classes had been greatly benefited by the adoption of the system of free trade, and the consequent reduction in the price of food:—
"That it is a source of sincere gratification to Her Majesty to witness the increased enjoyment of the necessaries and comforts of life, which

169
cheapness and plenty have bestowed upon the great body of Her people."
But what benefit was it to have food cheap if they at the same time deprived the people of the means of procuring it? They should recollect that the number of labourers engaged in agriculture was far greater than the number employed in manufactures, and that in consequence of their legislation the agricultural labourer was at this moment worse off than he was previous to the introduction of the system of free trade. Those who were employed received reduced wages, and the reduction of wages was in a far greater proportion than the reduction that had taken place in the cost of the necessaries of life; for it should be recollected that it was not the cost of bread alone, but the cost of clothing, and fuel, and house-rent, and other necessaries, that must be taken into account. But this was not all—the number of those employed was day by day decreasing, and labourers were constantly deprived of all means of earning any subsistence whatever. His right hon. Friend had quoted from a report of the Poor Law Commissioners, in order to show that a reduction had taken place in the amount of rates; but at a meeting of farmers, which he had attended the other day, in his own neighbourhood, it was stated that they had done all in their power to employ their labourers, but that they could do so no longer, as they had no money to pay them. But there was another circumstance to be taken into consideration. The whole reduction in the poor-rate was, after all, only 7 per cent. That was compared with 1848; but if his right hon. Friend had compared last year with 1845, he would see that the case was very different. What, then, became of the diminished burdens? There was another point upon which much ignorance prevailed. Of late years the fanners, instead of sending the unemployed labourers to the union workhouse, sent them to the roads, where they were paid by a parish rate. In estimating the actual amount of pauperism, that element was generally omitted, though it formed an important item in the whole. A great deal had been said of the prosperity of the lower orders; but he referred those who maintained the existence of that prosperity to the letters on the subject of "Labour and the Poor," which daily appeared in a morning journal, as well as to the comments of that journal upon those statements, to prove that the contrary was
170
the case. In those articles it was stated that many of both sexes commit petty offences in order to have a week, or even a longer term, of good feeding, pleasant society, warmth, rest, and idleness—which have only the name of a gaol, and the trifling drawback of confinement to qualify their attractiveness; while strong, stout, hale young men stand shivering about the streets, or creep into the Refuge, unable to earn their own livelihood.
"They are willing to work hard, but work is not to be had; and food, firing, and clothing cannot be obtained without labour, excepting under union-house discipline or prison disadvantages. This is an unhealthy state of things, which cannot possibly be permanent, for either we must find some means of controlling this formidable force of a pauperised population, or we must be swallowed up in its surging waves."
He agreed with every word of that paragraph. The great desideratum was the employment of the people; and if it was wished to benefit the lower orders, their labour should be effectually protected against the competition of foreigners. The state of Ireland had been adverted to; but what was the fact? Within fifteen months there had been 598 deaths from starvation in that country, so found by coroners' juries alone. He did not say that this was owing to free trade, or to any other legislative measures; but he did say that the normal distress of Ireland was greatly aggravated by free trade and the general course of legislation. The farmers were deprived of their market, and the labourers were robbed of their daily bread. What was then to counterbalance that state of things? It was said that commerce and manufactures had increased; but supposing that statement to be true, was that increase likely to last? It had been urged by the hon. Mover of the Address, and also by the hon. Member for the West Riding on a recent occasion at Sheffield, that the reason free trade had conferred such benefit on the country was the great increase of trade in the home market. What, however, was the fact? He would, with the permission of the House, read a letter from one of the principal manufacturers on that very subject. That letter was addressed to him (the Marquess of Granby), but it was perfectly applicable to the case in point:—
"Dear Sir—In reply to your letter, inquiring as to the present trade in Sheffield, and its future prospects, &c., now, and for three months preceding Christmas, the general trade of the town has been very good. I never remember the workpeople being so fully employed; but this is caused almost entirely from foreign demand, for the United

171
States, South America, and the East Indies. I do not find that the orders for the home trade have improved much, except from the great manufacturing districts in Lancashire and Yorkshire. I know of many parties exclusively engaged in the home trade who have travellers out continually, and they still complain that business is far from being good, very different to what it used to be; and as to the agricultural districts they say it is quite ruined.
"Being engaged myself both in a home and foreign trade, I find no improvement in the former; and judging from the circumstance of a good many retail shops in the principal business street of the town being unoccupied, and have been for more than twelve months, that there is a cause at work which produces this.
"However the great problem of free trade may be solved, whether as a benefit or otherwise in the aggregate to this country, there is no question but thousands will be ruined in working it out. These sudden and extreme changes in an old constituted country like this are always injurious. Changes ought to be slow and gradual in their operation, injuring none, but to work benefit for all. A moderate fixed duty, say 6s. to 8s. on corn, would never have been felt. This country has risen to its greatness by protection to its industry. Only let us look at America, profiting by the past experience of this country, its President recommending in his last speech an inquiry into the import duties, with the view of further protecting their own manufactures; this does not suit our free-traders. I have heard expressions from some who say it is the black spot of the speech.
"It is generally thought that this will be a good year of trade; some say a very great one; but this opinion is expressed by those exclusively engaged in foreign markets.
"But all this improvement may be ascribed to the natural working of events. We have had a long depression, and we have had repeatedly so before, but there has always followed years of prosperity, and why may not the present work from the same causes? The Continent, by its political convulsions, has been closed to us till lately, which prevented them not only being buyers but producers, and precluded them from competing with us in the various markets they used to send to—viz., North and South America and the East Indies; the consequence is that the markets in those quarters have been cleared of goods, which in itself will account for the present demand from those various places. An immense amount also of merchandise has been sent from this country to California; and not only what has gone from here, but the British goods that have been sent from the United States, from South America, our own colonies, and the Eastern Archipelago, have been very considerable, which has tended to clear the markets, and which is another cause for the impetus which has been given to our manufactures. It is to be feared, if carried too far, the reaction may be serious. I have written these few cursory remarks as they have occurred to me. Hoping you are well, I remain yours truly,
"Sheffield, Jan. 12, 1850.—."
After the statement made by the hon. Member for the West Riding, he (the Marquess of Granby) had written to the same gentleman, and, with the permission of the House, he would read his answer:—
172
"My Lord—In reply to your Lordship's letter of the 27th inst., inquiring whether there is any alteration in the circumstances of the home trade since I wrote my former remarks, I beg to state I find there is not; but as a satisfaction to myself, yesterday and to-day I have called upon several houses exclusively engaged in the home trade, as manufacturers, factors, &c., and none of them have participated in much improvement. One house I called upon, the principal of which told me he had been out for three months before Christmas, and he said every county he went into he found business as bad as it could be; many of his customers unable to meet their bills, from the depression existing; indeed, he observed that he thought matters worse since Christmas. I wished this house to state their views on paper, but in Sheffield they seem to have an objection to do so. This house is highly respectable and of old standing. Another establishment I called upon, who are largely engaged as manufacturers of fine stoves and fenders, entirely for the home trade; it is one of the principal houses in the kingdom; their opinions they have embodied in a note, which I enclose. The silver and plated manufacturers have also experienced a very long period of bad trade; it is rather better at present, arising from some large orders for a steam navigation company; but apart from that, they are doing nothing like the business they formerly did. This trade is now in fewer hands, and less people employed.
"I have no objection, my Lord, to my statements being read; but as I have always shunned politics, I should not like my name being used, and the houses whose opinions I have given, also object to their names being made public. I am aware this militates against the testimony, but your Lordship may rely on the credence of what I have stated.—I have the honour to remain, your Lordship's very obedient servant,—."
The communication referred to in that letter he would also take the opportunity of reading to the House:—
"Dear Sir—In reply to your inquiry of this morning, relative to the present state of trade in our business, we are just in a middling way—certainly not brisk. The country trade is not good—the large manufacturing towns, although improving, have not yet recovered from the shock of 1848, and the agricultural districts—say Norfolk, Sussex, Essex, and Cambridgeshire, which help us so considerably when they are lively, appear at present to he quite prostrate. We suppose them suffering from uncertainty and other causes consequent upon the present transition state of the laws governing the price of corn. Everybody appears to be expecting a good year of business is at hand; but we must confess ourselves at a loss to see where the trade is to come from, unless the orders from abroad be very considerable, which, of course, we should indirectly profit by.—We are, dear Sir, yours very truly,
"Sheffield, Jan. 29, 1850.—."
These documents showed no such great prosperity as had been predicated, at least, as regarded the home trade of the country; and, moreover, it was clear that as the agricultural interest went on towards a state of still more depression, the home trade would still further decline. To show the importance

173
of the home trade, in comparison with the foreign trade—that trade so much relied upon—he would trouble the House with a few statements. Taking the cotton

Years.

Total Value Produced.

Total Value Exported British Possessions included.

Exports to Foreign Parts, ex British Possessions.

Exports to British Possessions.

Consumed in Home Market.

Consumed in Home and Colonial Markets.

£.

£.

£.

£.

£.

£.

1820

51,532,354

16,517,768

13,191,951

3,325,797

35,014,630

38,340,633

1830

49,730,296

19,428,664

15,832,984

3,595,680

30,301,632

33,897,312

1840

61,387,077

24,668,618

17,376,460

7,292,158

36,718,459

44,010,617

1845

63,327,283

26,119,331

18,787,077

7,332,354

37,208,052

44,540,406

1846

60,440,623

25,599,826

18,580,411

7,019,515

34,840,052

41,860,310

1847

45,910,991

23,333,225

17,751,001

6,582,224

22,577,766

28,159.970

Totals

332,328,624

135,667,412

101,519,784

34,147,728

196,661,336

230,809,248

1848

52,778,319

22,719,846

18,015,056

4,704,790

30,058,473

34,763,263

1849

57,670,929

26,857,783

19,817,115

7,040,668

30,813,146

37,853,814

442,777,872

185,245,041

139,351,955

45,893,186

257,532,955

303,426,325

The importance of the home market to the cotton trade was not, therefore, capable of being exaggerated, it was so very great. It had been said that free trade was a benefit; but if so, why was it not extended to every article? The produce of the manufactures of Nottingham and Leicester were protected by a duty of 10 per cent. Why, therefore, refuse a similar protection to agricultural produce? Much had been said of the exports of this country, and they had been compared with 1849 to show their increase; but he apprehended that if they were compared with 1845 it would be found that they had dwindled down to nothing, though 1845 was only a year of ordinary commercial and manufacturing-prosperity. The foreign trade of England had been alluded to, but those who made the allusion were afraid to look at the message of the President of the United States on the case. The total amount of the foreign trade was as follows:—

Exports to Continent of Europe

£22,845,624

" United States

10,974,161

£33,819,785

The exports to the United States were, therefore, one-third of the whole foreign trade of the kingdom. But suppose the United States put her threats in execution, and placed a high protective duty on foreign cotton, or refused to allow her raw-cotton to be exported at all, what then would be their position, not only as to the export trade with America, but with all the countries of the world? He implored
174
trade or manufacture as the type of all the rest, the results would be seen by this general abstract;—
them, not only for the sake of the agriculturists, but for their own, to consider that all-important question. Let them not think they could evade it, or that, by throwing slight and contumely on the President of the United States, they could deter America from pursuing the course she thought best suited for her prosperity and independence. These were important matters, not only to the agricultural interest, but to every interest—to every Englishman. What those who opposed Her Majesty's Government said was this, that if free trade were to be the order of the day, let that principle of free trade be fully carried out; let it be fully, fairly, and impartially carried out into practical operation. If free trade must be the order of the day, let the principle of it be applied to such communities as Manchester, Derby, Leicester, and Nottingham; let them feel within themselves the benefits of free trade, and let them permit the owners and occupiers of land to cultivate that land in the manner which seemed to them the most advantageous. The landed interest complained that they were not allowed to cultivate tobacco—that they were not allowed to cultivate beetroot—that they were not allowed to cultivate barley freely for the purpose of making malt. They complained of all these lets and hindrances, and they had a right to tell the world that such injustice was no longer to be borne, and they had a right to demand upon those grounds, as upon every other, that they should meet with fair and impartial legislation. For these

175
reasons he should give to the Amendment his most hearty concurrence and support; and let him, at the same time, warn hon. Members that, in spite of the threats of the Anti-Corn-Law League—in spite of the indifference of the Government, the farmers of England would make themselves heard; and the landed interest generally being conscious of the integrity of their motives—being fully impressed with the justice, the humanity, the patriotism, and the nationality of their cause—were resolved to uphold that cause to the utmost of their power, in the full confidence that an enlightened public opinion would declare in their favour.
MR. J. E. DENISONsaid, that he was at all times unwilling to occupy the time of the House, and nothing should at that moment have induced him to trespass upon its indulgence, except a strong sense of the importance of the question which they would that night be called on to decide, to the landed interest itself, and the pressing necessity to all interests, but especially to the interests of the land, that a speedy settlement of the question should be arrived at. As an owner of land he was deeply interested in the present debate. He would ask, what was the subject before the House? It certainly was not a question as to the repeal of the corn laws, for those laws had been already repealed; but the question was, whether certain words should be introduced into the Address to the Crown—certain words as to the difficulties under which the agricultural interest laboured. If they were not, in consequence of the Amendment, to proceed to do anything, then it did appear to him inconvenient that such words should be introduced, as their only effect would be to increase and prolong uncertainty. The intention, however, of those words appeared to him sufficiently plain—their intention was not merely to pledge the House to a reconsideration of recent measures, but that they should return to that course of policy which they had so recently abandoned. He considered it very fortunate that an opportunity was at length afforded for a fair and calm discussion of the great question under dispute, for of late the public mind had been so excited upon these topics that there had been nothing like free or fair discussion. As an instance he might mention a county not far off, where great promise was held out of a full discussion by rival champions on either side, but it ended by one party insisting upon considering the
176
question by daylight, and the other by candlelight; so a great opportunity of enlightenment to the public bad been lost. Still he could not help thinking that a great many of the mists and cobwebs which hung before men's eyes had already been removed and swept away. They could scarcely have forgotten that a meeting held in Lincolnshire not long ago, had been summoned to discuss not only the agricultural difficulties of the country, but the distress which existed throughout the various great interests of the nation. The Colleague, however, of the hon. Gentleman, who presented the petition that emanated from that meeting, in moving the present Amendment, had congratulated the House on the commercial and manufacturing prosperity of the country. After that admission from the hon. Gentleman, it would not be easy for the people of Lincolnshire to deny that the commerce and manufactures of England were in a healthy condition. Then, although much had been said of the change made in the navigation laws, it appeared that that change had not by any means produced the effect which had been anticipated; and with that single remark, he should return to the question of land. Under what circumstances is this House called upon to change its policy? All the great industrial interests were in a thriving state. Land alone was under pressure. Surely it would have been well, if the landlords had, before this time, considered and taken measures on their own behalf to meet the difficulties by which they were at present surrounded. As owners of land, they should have seen how best they could improve the land. They should have taken measures to encourage their tenantry to find employment for labour. But had they been so engaged? On the contrary, the country had been excited, public meetings had been called, at which all troubles had been embittered by political acerbity, and not seldom by personal invective. Of the noble Lord who last addressed the House, he wished to speak with perfect respect; he lived in the neighbourhood of the noble Lord, and he should certainly say nothing derogatory to his high character; the personal character of the noble Lord was justly held in the highest esteem; but he could not help noticing the curious manner in which the noble Lord appeared to select his topics, and to suit them to his audience. Lately, when addressing large bodies of the tenant-farmers at public meetings, the noble Lord told

177
them that it was idle to think of occupying land, and that as to paying rent it was entirely out of the question; that the landlords and tenants were rowing in the same boat, and must all be ruined together. But the thing he complained of was this, that they would not row—they would neither take an oar themselves, nor encourage others to do so; the stream was strong, the cataract thundered below, but they told their crew that there was no use in disturbing their minds, no use whatever in struggling. The noble Lord opposite was a great master of the human mind: he knew that it was a common failing of his countrymen to like to be told how very ill they were off; the noble Lord told the farmers they would be ruined, and he was cheered; that they could pay no rents, and he sat down amid thunders of applause. But the noble Lord would to-morrow have to go back to the country, and to tell his hearers that the battle of protection had been fought and lost. Then they would ask what was to be done? It was not for him to answer that question. It was a very delicate question: it might be a very-difficult question to answer—it involved considerations between landlords and tenants, with which he would not have meddled, but these announcements of the noble Lord extended far beyond his own immediate sphere. He had begun by saying that he spoke there as one of the landed interest, and he was unfortunately an owner of bad land, therefore liable to suffer more than those who were owners of good land. Now, it happened that he had recently had a farm out of cultivation; a tenant-farmer came to look at it, but he observed, the Marquess of Granby had told them that they were to get back protection, and he would wait and see how events turned; and thus uncertainty, attended by all its evil consequences, aggravated our difficulties. Something was said in the Amendment about local burthens. Did the noble Lord act as a magistrate? The noble Lord said no. He wished the noble Lord would turn his attention to the management and reduction of county rates. These rates were self-imposed, they were under the control of the justices. They were of great importance, and nothing like that economy was observed in their administration which might be found in the management of public affairs. In his own county, on one occasion, he had found by instituting a strict examination, that out of 130 items charged in an account,
178
97 were illegal, and could not be supported by any existing law. As to the future prospects of agriculture, he could not doubt that the loss of the exclusive supply of the great markets of this country would for a time be prejudicial to the agricultural interest; but it was the duty of those who were connected with that interest, either as landlords or occupiers, to make the best arrangements in their power to meet the altered state of things, and not to assume beforehand that the difficulties were of that extreme nature which the advocates of protection asserted. Already there were indications of those qualities by which those difficulties were to be met by the farmers. There was a greater discrimination as to the value of different qualities of land than tenants were formerly in the habit of bestowing on that matter. Good land now found tenants readily, while bad land could scarcely be let at all. As he had said, he was not one of those landlords who were fortunate enough to own much good land; but if the result must be that some diminution of his income should take place, he should find consolation in the additional security of land, when it rested on its own firm basis, instead of being supported on the crutches of law—in belonging to a rich and prosperous community, instead of a poor and declining one. It was the commerce and manufactures of the country that had given the value to the land; to commerce and manufactures we must look to restore and to uphold its value. He had had a seat for many years in that House, but he had never given a vote with more confidence in its right, in its justice, and in its necessity, than he should that night give against the Amendment.
LORD NORREYScould have understood the necessity for an Amendment if no allusion had been made in Her Majesty's Speech to the depressed state of agriculture, and if no other opportunities would be afforded for the discussion of agricultural taxation during the present Session; but as there would be more than usual opportunities for discussing the question of taxation, from the fact of there being a surplus in the revenue, he saw no necessity for that part of the Amendment. Whenever the question of taxation came fairly before the House, he should consider it his duty, as the representative of an agricultural constituency, to endeavour to obtain such relief as was practicable for the landed interest. He had resisted the Motion of the hon. Member for Buckinghamshire last

179
year, because, there being then no surplus in the hands of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, he did not think it a very honest course to be voting one day for the maintenance of establishments, and then next day to be holding out to the agriculturists the possibility of reducing several millions of local taxation. He expressed a hope that some real and specific measures would be proposed, and not mere motions for committees, or vague resolutions, which he characterised as delusions on the agricultural body. He saw no advantage in that part of the Amendment which alluded to recent legislative measures. It evaded the question of any opinion on future legislation on protection, whilst it was, he thought, calculated to give an indirect encouragement to that agitation which had lately been carried on, and which he conceived was keeping up a panic prejudicial to the agriculturists, and raising false hopes and expectations amongst them. The agriculturists had been told in 1846 that they had only to stand out against any change whatever, and that they were certain of success. It had appeared to him that those who were holding that language were exciting hopes which would be disappointed. It was equally clear to him now, that those who in 1846 had raised expectations which were disappointed, and who were now holding out a moderate duty on corn, were a second time leading on the agricultural body to indulge in hopes and expectations which were again doomed to be cruelly disappointed. He thought the only prospect of relief for the land was such as could be obtained by a reduction of taxation, from a wise and prudent economy in the public expenditure; and as there would be various opportunities during the present Session for the consideration of that subject, he could see no advantage to be derived by departing from the usual course on these occasions by the introduction of an Amendment to the Address to the Throne.
CAPTAIN PELHAMsaid, as a new Member, he had some justification in taking up the time of the House, and he hoped he should be able to satisfy hon. Gentlemen that he had some reason for addressing them on a subject which, personally, was not agreeable to him. He had been long anxious to avoid the duties of public life; but having taken the step to come into Parliament for a most independent borough, he considered it his duty on the present occasion, in consequence of the turn the debate had taken, to refer for a moment to
180
the county of Lincoln. He was the only Member within that county who had been returned to that House on free-trade principles; and he admitted that the Amendment which had been proposed, coupled with the remarks made upon it by the hon. Mover, had placed Gentlemen like himself, who were connected closely and intimately with the agricultural interest, in some little difficulty with regard to the vote he should have the honour to give for the first time in Parliament. He would commence by saying that if he took, as he did, his place upon the Ministerial benches as a free-trade Member, he was not disposed to yield to the hon. Gentlemen on the Opposition side of the House the exclusive right of arrogating to themselves the title of being the farmers' friends. It had been assumed by these hon. Gentlemen that Her Majesty's Government and their supporters were indifferent to that distress which, there was no question, prevailed in the agricultural districts of the country. Now, if he supposed that that imputation was founded in justice, he should have no hesitation, from the respect he felt for that class of the subjects of the empire, the landowners and occupiers of land, to vote against Her Majesty's Ministers; but so far from that being the case, he believed that there was no disposition to turn a deaf ear to the statements of hon. Gentlemen opposite, made on the part of the agricultural interests of this country, and that Her Majesty's Government had exercised a wise discretion in not adopting such terms as were now proposed to be introduced into the Address. His hon. Friend the Member for South Lincolnshire had last night made some remarks, in many of which he (Captain Pelham) cordially concurred. That hon. Gentleman had addressed the House in a tone and manner which reflected credit; and, sharing as he (Captain Pelham) did in some respects the opinions then expressed, he felt it incumbent on him to state shortly why he was not prepared to vote for the Amendment. He could not forget, that on the opposite side of the House sat those who were in the habit, not of contenting themselves with saying that the agricultural interests were in distress, and that there ought to be alleviating measures passed to enable them to get through the difficulties of that distress, but that it was possible and desirable to return to a system of protection for the maintenance of those interests. Therefore, with every respect for hon. Gentlemen opposite, he

181
viewed with suspicion the wording of the Amendment. He believed, that if successful in defeating Her Majesty's Government on the present occasion, they would not content themselves with acting on the terms of that Amendment, but that they would endeavour to do that which they maintained was necessary for the prosperity of the landed interest and the interest of the country at large, namely, to go hack to that system of protection which had been abandoned by the general sense of the country. He conceived that the landed interest had great reason to complain of the manner in which, in some respects, they had been treated. He was not surprised that hon. Gentlemen should complain of the manner in which the corn laws had been repealed; but when they went back to the country, and said that the measure had been carried by stealth, he begged to remind them that since the right hon. Baronet the Member for Tamworth had proposed the repeal of the corn laws, there had been a general election, and that the public opinion of the country had then ratified the change. He believed that the prosperity of the landed interest did not depend on measures conceived in the spirit which had characterised all the corn laws that had passed that House from 1815 to 1846, but that it depended on the general prosperity of the country. He might, without presumption, profess to be conversant with the opinion of the agricultural interest; and in the views he should express he could not he accused of being indifferent to the success of the experiment of free trade. He thought, then, the conclusion had been hastily drawn that the experiment of free trade had totally failed. He would maintain that free trade was still an experiment, and he regarded the present distress with great confidence, as not being likely to be permanent. The present low prices had been, he thought, caused by the stimulus given to production abroad, and he did not believe that the importation in ordinary years would equal what it had been of late; but at the same time he was sufficiently acquainted with the agricultural interests, to feel that those interests, subjected as they were to competition, ought to be relieved from the burdens of taxation. He would not confine himself entirely to matters of local taxation; he had always looked forward as a consequence of free trade to the necessity which would arise and lead to a revision of the taxation of the country. There was one measure which would be of great service to the agricultural
182
interest—he alluded to an alteration of the law of settlement, which would greatly affect the condition of the agricultural labourer and occupier of land. He contended that the time had arrived when the total abolition of the law of settlement was demanded by the interests of the working classes, and more particularly by the employer of the agricultural labourer, in order to carry out that proper system of cultivation which ought to take place. He went further, and said that there were great difficulties in the way of landowners in this country in giving that encouragement, by the application of skill, industry, and capital, to the cultivation of land, which they were called upon to put in practice by the Ministerial side of the House. He believed that in a minor degree measures similar to those adopted to facilitate the transfer of property in Ireland would be necessary also in this country. But in giving his support to propositions intended for the relief of the agricultural interest, he never would be prepared to advocate any measure which, while benefiting one class, would do injustice to other classes. His objection to the corn law had been this, that it was unjust to other classes; and, that being unjust to other classes, it was eventually prejudicial to that interest for whose behoof it was more particularly enacted. If, then, he supported Her Majesty's Ministers on the present occasion, he by no means meant to preclude himself from exercising his judgment upon all those discussions of the Session, which hon. Gentlemen connected with the agricultural interest might feel disposed to originate. At the same time, let not these hon. Gentlemen expect him to take the step in a hurry which the hon. Member for West Gloucestershire seemed to have taken—to vote against Her Majesty's Ministers. There might indeed be occasions when he would sacrifice his own private opinions, in order to keep out of office those who, he believed, would not be content with such a moderate proposition as that now before the House, but who would wish to return to that vicious system of legislation which he, for one, though interested in the prosperity of agriculture, congratulated himself had been abandoned by the deliberate opinion of the country; and he must say upon this point that he considered it very unfortunate that the farmers of England should at this moment be bolstered up with the delusive prospects which were being continually held out to them by hon. Gentlemen on the other side

183
of the House. At the same time, although upon the present Motion, he should be found voting with the Members for large constituencies in the north of England, yet he could not approve of the language of opprobrium, reproach, and menace which some of those hon. Members had used towards the agricultural interest. If they thought it right to use such language before their constituents, he hoped they would not degrade the character of that House by treating with contumely the complaints and constitutional demands of the country interest, however mistaken they might think them. He had now stated the grounds upon which his vote would be recorded, and he had to thank the House for the kind and patient attention with which this, his first address, had been received.
MR. CHRISTOPHERwould have been more satisfied if his hon. and gallant Friend had followed in the wake of his noble relative (the Earl of Yarborough), with whom he (Mr. Christopher) had been so long associated in defending the cause of agricultural protection within the walls of that House. The hon. Member for Malton and other hon. Members had professed to congratulate themselves that this important issue would be determined by the vote of to-night. Now, he could tell them that they were most grievously mistaken. The present course taken by that (the protectionist) side had been forced upon them by the manner in which the agricultural interest had been mentioned in Her Majesty's Speech. Her Majesty's Ministers in that Speech did not sympathise with the agricultural interest; they did not even acknowledge that any distress existed; and in proposing the Amendment, they were not actuated by the slightest idea of showing disrespect to Her Majesty, for they treated the Speech as that of Her Ministers only. [Colonel SIBTHORP: Hear!] Her Majesty's Ministers did not even acknowledge the existence of any well-founded cause of complaint on the part of the agriculturists. They did not even acknowledge that any distress existed at all; and therefore it was that he, as an independent Member, having seen the distress that prevailed in his own county, came forward to oppose the Address. He had witnessed the deepest distress in his own neighbourhood; and he had lately seen his county (Lincolnshire) assemble in the most inclement weather for the purpose of declaring their distress, and calling for relief from the Legislature. That meeting, too,
184
was not called by the owners of land. No, they were, on the contrary, rather backward, and they were accused of being apathetic in consequence. But when they were spoken to upon the subject, they replied that the requisition should be first got up and the meeting organised by the tenant-farmers, and not by the landlords, and then they would follow. The tenant-farmers of Lincolnshire sent round the requisition of their own accord for signature, and then forwarded it to the high sheriff of the county, and he did not believe there was a single signature of a landlord affixed to it until the farmers had all signed. The result was a meeting of upwards of 15,000 people; and to show that the labourers fully agreed in the objects of their employers, he should state that they were gathered in crowds round the railway station, where they cheered loudly every train that arrived, bringing fresh numbers to the meeting. He could, therefore, deny the assertion made in the manufacturing districts, that this was regarded as a landlord's question, and not as a tenant's or labourer's question. He believed it would be found that the pauperism of the county of Lincoln had increased to a very alarming extent. They were told the remedy would be found in farming high, and in bringing sufficient capital to the cultivation of the soil. Now, if it were true that the poor-rates had enormously increased in that county, where the general system of management and of letting the farms was so good as to afford an example to the whole of England, what must be the ultimate effect upon the rest of the English counties? They were told by the hon. Gentleman who moved the Address, that the landed interest ought to act upon the mercantile system of buying in the cheapest and selling in the dearest market; but it was forgotten that in all the operations connected with the land, especially in those districts where the poorer soils had been brought into cultivation, the amount of rent to the farmer was a very small sum in the expenditure—so much so, that in the course of the ordinary fluctuations of the county market, the amount of a very few shillings a quarter in the price of wheat would absorb the whole rental of the farm. He would submit to the House some practical observations bearing upon the present condition of farming, for the truth of which he was able to vouch. They related to a farm in his own possession, situated in one of the poorer districts, and

185
composed of land which fifty years ago was not capable of producing anything like a quarter of wheat an acre, but which now produced four quarters an acre; and he wished it to be understood that he was not quoting a singular instance, but one which was equally applicable to thousands of acres in the county of Lincoln.
Comparative Statement of the Debtor and Creditor Accounts of a Farm before and after the Introduction of Free Trade; the Farm consisting of 300 acres of Wold Land on Chalk; 90 acres of Marsh Land on Clay; and 90 acres of Permanent Pasture, adapted to the breeding of Cattle and Sheep, and cultivated on the Four-field Rotation of Crops. Total 480 acres.

Case 1.—Wheat, 56 s. per quarter; Barley, 32 s.; Oats, 22 s.; Beans, 36 s.

DR.

£

s.

d.

Rent of farm, including tithes

650

0

0

Rates, taxes, drainage, and other parochial assessments

80

0

0

Interest of capital, 6l. 5s. per acre = 3,000 l., at 10 per cent

300

0

0

Interest on additional capital, 1,500 l., at 5 per cent

75

0

0

Interest of money expended in buildings at Orby, by the tenant, with a term of fifteen years to liquidate

30

0

0

Artificial manures, namely—

20 tons of cake, at 10 l.

£200

0

0

40 quarters of bones, at 20 s.

40

0

0

Sulphuric acid for do.

25

0

0

265

0

0

Manual labour

350

0

0

Servants' wages, namely—

Two foremen at 40 l. each

£80

0

0

Three waggoners, or ploughmen, at 10 l.

30

0

0

Shepherd and yardman, 35 l. each

70

0

0

Board of three ploughmen, at 6s. per week each

46

16

0

226

16

0

Tradesmen's bills, namely, blacksmith, carpenter, saddler, farrier, &c.

80

0

0

Grass seeds, insurance, &c.

40

0

0

Casual loss on live stock

50

0

0

2,146

16

0

Surplus to remunerate for capital, living expenses, and profit

297

14

0

2,444

10

0

210 acres of corn in all, namely—

Wheat, 100 acres (70 acres wold, 30 acres marsh) 3½ quarters per acre, after deducting for seed, 10 pecks per acre, 350 quarters, at 56 s.

980

0

0

60 acres of barley, 4½ quarters per acre, after deducting for seed, 270 quarters, at 32 s.

432

0

0

Carried forward

£1,412

0

0

N. B. The 90 acres of permanent pasture, and 110 acres of grass seeds, either depastured or mown, contribute to the rearing and maintenance of the live stock as well as 80 acres of turnips, the whole of which are consumed on the farm. (By the term "grass seeds," may be comprised tares mown for fodder.)

CR.

£

s.

d.

210 acres of corn, namely—

Wheat, 100 acres, at 3½ quarters per acre, after deducting for seed, 350 quarters, at 40 s.

700

0

0

Carried forward

700

0

0

£

s.

d.

Brought forward

700

0

0

Barley, 60 acres, at 4½ quarters per acre, after deducting for seed, 270 quarters, at 22 s.

297

0

0

Beans or oats, 50 acres, at 3½ quarters per acre of beans, and 6 quarters per acre of oats, after deducting for seed and horses

214

7

6

Profits on live stock, namely—

Sheep—120 he-hogs, at 30 s.

£180

0

0

60 drape ewes, at 30 s.

90

0

0

90 tods of wool, at 24 s.

108

0

0

378

0

0

Beasts—10 two-year-old steers, at 12 l.

120

0

0

8 drape cows, at 9l.

72

0

0

192

0

0

£1,781

7

6

Deficiency from meeting engagements, namely, rent, expenses of management, and interest of capital

213

12

6

£1,995

0

0

Deficiency as above

213

12

6

Now, what was the consolation held out to them by the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer? He told them that they had recovered from as great a depression as the agriculturists in 1835. The two cases, however, were very different. In 1835, there was great depression in consequence of the great abundance of the harvest; but now the evil arose from the admission of foreign corn, which was brought in at the rate of 1,000,000 quarters a month, and in a year of unusual abundance at home they were exposed to the competition of all this foreign grain. It might be said, this importation was beneficial to the country at large, and that the agriculturists were bound to remain silent; but he wished to know on what grounds those who held out the prospect of prosperity to the farmers based their statements. The Chancellor of the Exchequer held out to them the hope of prosperous times; but if they were not to obtain better prices for agricultural produce, he should like to know how that prosperity was to be realised. He ventured to say, that if the present policy was persevered in, instead of having the agricultural districts in a flourishing state, they would, in course of time, have the wretched scenes of misery and famine that had been witnessed in Kilrush enacted in every union in England. The reason why, on the present occasion, they had departed from the usual course of acquiescing in the sentiments of the Speech, was because they
188
had been compelled to take that course from the terms of the Speech itself. For himself, even if he had stood alone, he could not have expressed acquiescence in the statement that there were merely complaints from the agricultural districts—as if those complaints were a mere shadow, a delusion, and were made merely for the sake of keeping up the rents. He was willing to admit that, in times of comparative scarcity, corn should be admitted from all the markets of the world; but it did not follow that such should be the ordinary rule of procedure. They were told that duties should be levied only for purposes of revenue, and that this was so in all cases where they were now imposed. This might be all very well; but, whether they were for purposes of revenue or not, they operated as a protection in favour of the particular interest to which they related. Why did they keep up their present excise laws? The fact was, the agricultural was the least favoured interest in the country. If he were told that it was impossible to grow the tobacco plant at any profit in this country, he would only ask that they should give them a trial. He asked for free trade to that extent, and that the farmers should be allowed, when they found that they could not grow wheat on account of the competition of the foreigner, to grow something else. If they were told they could not grow tobacco, because there would be no profit, his answer was, that that was the farmers' affair only. This, however, he did know, that there were soils in this country and in Scotland which were better fitted for the growth of tobacco than any of the soils in Germany; this he was able to say, from having been made acquainted with the process of cultivating the plant when he was in Germany. In conclusion, he begged to express his ready concurrence in the Amendment, for which, accordingly, it was his intention to vote.
MR. TORRENS M'CULLAGH: I wish to disclaim on my own behalf, and on that of many who sit around me, the imputation which has been cast upon this side of the House, that in opposing the Amendment of the hon. Baronet, we deny the prevalence of agricultural distress, or desire to evade the acknowledgment of its intensity. For one, I can truly say that I would not support the Address if I conceived that it implied anything of the kind. But I believe that it was not so intended by those who framed it; and I am sure that it will not

189
be so understood by the country. We differ with you not as to the fact of distress, but as to the remedy, and as to the cause. The hon. Gentleman who has just sat down is probably much better acquainted than I am with the state of feeling on this important subject in England; but the Amendment contains the significant phrase, "especially in Ireland;" and I may be pardoned for saying that I think I know what are the sentiments of the people of that country, at least, as well as the hon. Gentleman. Were I as disposed to be hypercritical regarding terms as that hon. Gentleman, I might construe his account of the manner in which agricultural meetings have been got up in certain counties during the autumn as an unintentional admission of what has uncharitably been laid to your charge on more than one occasion, namely, that the tenant-farmers have been put forward in the front of the battle, and that the proprietors of land were anxious to commit those whom they could influence, to take part in this controversy, before they came forward themselves. But however this system of management may have been pursued, or however successful it may have been in England, it certainly did not seem to answer on the other side of the Channel. You have called upon the people of Ireland for sympathy and support upon the question of protection, and your call has been in vain. You asked the verdict of the towns of Ireland, and their verdict is against you. You appealed for judgment to the agricultural classes of Ireland, and their judgment has been given in condemnation of your policy, and in bar of all your propositions for a return to protection. From one end of the kingdom to the other, from Kerry to Down, and from Wexford to Mayo, the same response has been unmistakeably pronounced, that to the labourers and occupiers of land no benefit would accrue from a reversal of the policy of 1846 regarding free trade, or a reversal of the policy of 1847 regarding the poor-law. Bitter experience of the system, of which protective duties and no efficient poor-law formed essential parts, has taught the industrial classes in Ireland that they have nothing to gain by its resuscitation. At the last—the eleventh hour they have severed causes with you; and there is nothing which they less desire than to see restored again that unnatural system, under which they have not forgotten that they sank into a physical condition which was a disgrace to the empire, and a byword throughout the world. The
190
hon. Baronet the Member for Radnorshire (Sir J. Walsh), has told us, that until very recently Ireland "enjoyed" protection. Let me remind the House what sort of enjoyment that was, whose loss we are expected to deplore. I shall not advert to the year 1835, or any other year when the country was exposed to that terrible affliction, a superabundant harvest. I will not take for illustration a year of extraordinary depression of price, or adversity of the seasons. I will ask you to recur to the condition of things which existed in Ireland in 1834. I do so for two reasons—first, because its features are indelibly impressed upon my own memory; and, secondly, because the average price of wheat for the five preceding years having been above 60 s., nobody can say that it is not a fair period to take as an example. Such were the statements made to Parliament at that time of the state of the labouring population with respect to the want of employment, and such the condition of things regarding the occupancy of land, that this House, in an Address to the Crown, requested that a Commission of Inquiry should be appointed to investigate locally and minutely into the truth of the allegations made, and to report the result. I had the honour of being entrusted with a portion of that inquiry, and I can speak with confidence, therefore, of what we found. The hon. Baronet (Sir J. Trollope) alluded last night to what had been done in Lincolnshire under protection. I will tell the House what was done and left undone in Galway—a portion of the Queen's dominions not less in area or population—during the existence of the same legislative system. That county was one of those into the condition of which it became my duty to examine. And what did I find? That notwithstanding all the vaunted benefits of a high price for corn, agriculture was so backward and production so limited, that pasture was the rule, and tillage the exception; that want of agricultural employment was general and permanent, while remunerative wages for a day's work was comparatively rare. Nay, down to the latest days of protection the same features are observable, indicative of the want of agricultural improvement. Out of 742,805 arable acres, there were in 1847 not above 172,345 acres under tillage crops suitable for human food. For the purposes of the inquiry to which I have referred, I selected for specific investigation parishes dissimilar and remote from one another, in order that I might be enabled to form a fair

191
general estimate. Among them was the parish of Killimore, a secluded district, wholly agricultural, but having the advantages of a fertile soil, and of being situated about equidistant from the port of Galway, and the Shannon. It happened to form part of the only barony in the county which had been placed under the operation of the Coercion Act of 1833. That Act vested a discretionary power in the Lord Lieutenant to proclaim any district where disturbances prevailed; and Lord Wellesley had deemed it necessary to proclaim the locality in question. The Act had been passed upon the express ground that such was the popular distrust and discontent prevailing in many parts of Ireland, chiefly arising out of contentions about land, that extra-constitutional restraints were needful. I thought this was manifestly a district, therefore, into the social condition of which I ought to inquire. Persons of different classes and of different creeds were examined in each other's presence, and were invited to corroborate or to controvert, as they might be severally disposed, each other's testimony. I succeeded in obtaining from various witnesses an enumeration of the labourers in the parish, and the amount of work they could ordinarily obtain. The result was, that out of 800 labourers there was not employment, putting all the broken days' work together, for more than 100. I will give you some of the answers I received in the words of the witnesses themselves. One man said—"We grow the corn, but we don't know the taste of meal or flour." Another said—"We can rear the pig, but we cannot eat the bacon." Another said—"For fifty miles round everything that is reared or grown is sent off to foreign markets"—meaning thereby to Liverpool and other English ports. [Cheers from the Protectionists.] I understand that cheer; but let me tell hon. Gentlemen that nothing more foreign to the feelings or wishes of the Irish people can be conceived than the proposal which is made of surrendering them once more to the "enjoyment" of protection. A more unwise course could not be taken if the object be to obliterate mutual feelings of alienation between the people of the two countries, than to preach the doctrines recently promulgated in Ireland that the industrial classes there have interests at variance with those of the industrial classes here. There was, indeed, one trade which had enjoyed unparalleled prosperity during the continuance of protection—the trade in
192
mortgages. Those who wanted to borrow on the security of rent, had never found capital so cheap; and those who wanted good security for permanent investment, had never before found it so easy to derive four or five per cent from land, without incurring any of the responsibilities incident to its ownership. But how did these facilities and gains improve the physical or social condition of the country? While borrowers and lenders of money on land were enjoying protection, the mass of the population were daily sinking into poverty—a poverty, from participating in the alleviation of which these two favoured classes were, until the passing of the poor-law of 1847, legally free. And part of the retrogressive policy which Gentlemen opposite seem now disposed to recommend, is the practical repeal of that law. You would narrow the area of taxation—you would circumscribe the extent and nature of relief—you would in every way break down that fence so lately raised between the outcast peasantry and starvation. I am confident that this House will never be induced to retrace its steps in this respect. I fully admit that beyond a certain point distress cannot be remedied, though it may be mitigated, by a poor-law. But my belief is, that it is in the power of Parliament to do much towards reconstituting society in Ireland on a basis that will alike tend to the welfare of the occupiers and the owners of land. A good Landlord and Tenant Bill would do more to stimulate employment and improvement, to abate the pressure of rates, and to secure the ready and cheerful payment of reasonable rents, than any other expedient or device that can be named. There is one body of men in Ireland whose opinions on the urgent necessity of giving, by law, the tenant compensation for whatever improvements he may make on his farm, is entitled to peculiar regard—I allude to the clergy of the different denominations. Associating with the middle classes of the people, and bound up with them by sympathy and feeling, these men have hitherto been looked upon too frequently as the leaders of rival parties. But however they may still continue to differ on sectarian matters, they are unanimous on this subject. I think such unanimity is a pregnant sign of the times, not to be mistaken. Let any one who values the stability of his order, if that narrow ground must be taken, or who extends his view to the welfare of the nation at large, ask himself seriously whether it is wise to keep up a

193
dispute, which the terms of the Amendment do not indicate any means of settling, and which we have heard hon. Gentlemen boast during this debate they do not hope to set at rest for many a day to come—a dispute the most exciting that has recently been known in the annals of agitation? In Ireland it is no longer a question of Catholic or Protestant—but of Catholic and Protestant. The Presbyterian clergy of the north seem to have taken a lesson, or rather to have undertaken to give a lesson, to the Catholic priesthood of the south in the art of agitation. Most remarkable language has been held in that county of Ulster, which was supposed to be a perfect model of constitutional propriety, meekness, and endurance. The noble Lord (Viscount Castlereagh) who represented that county, has lately published a letter, to which I refer with the greater pleasure, because I am confident that it only expresses with peculiar felicity the sentiments of the wisest and best men throughout the kingdom. Everywhere the same conviction gathers strength—that a return to protection is undesirable, and that a sound law of tenant compensation ought no longer to be withheld. The people of the towns in Ireland do not believe that it would mend their condition to pay more for their bread; the people of the country do not believe it would serve their interest to pay more for their land. But the want of some established tenant-right is keenly felt by both. Under the present system of letting land in Ireland, those occupiers who have increased the production of the country, in thirty years, from eight to sixteen millions, do not feel any interest in the permanent improvement of the land; still less can they be brought to believe that it is for their interest that the high price of land is proposed to be kept up. Until legislation is so framed as to induce a change of feeling in the tenantry towards the landlords it is wholly impossible that permanent contentment should prevail in Ireland, or that there should be a subsidence of those angry passions which we must all deplore. The noble Lord opposite (the Marquess of Granby) seemed to be exceedingly uneasy as to the course likely to be taken towards this country by the United States. It is certainly something new to hear the Government of the United States held up as an authority, and praised by hon. Gentlemen opposite. I have no objection to this; but if there be one quality in which all would agree that
194
that Government was not deficient—it is their aptitude in taking good care of their own interests. The noble Lord seems greatly afraid of the threat thrown out by somebody—of a refusal to take some ten millions worth of our manufactures. It might be supposed from this, that it was a matter of pure beneficence, free choice or caprice, which led the people of the States to take so largely of our manufactures. But have they not, in return, a large market for their agricultural produce? We are not in the habit of giving away our manufactures any more than they would give away their grain. As to the article of raw cotton, I do not believe it is in the power of any Government of the United States, except by a total and fundamental change in the constitution of the republic, to impose any duty whatever on that article. Before that could be done, it would be necessary to change the opinion, not of a majority only, but of two thirds or three-fourths of the American people.
MR. ROBERT PALMERsaid, he was anxious, in the course of this debate, to offer a few observations on this important question, not so much because he hoped to offer anything new on the subject—for really when Gentlemen considered what had taken place in that House in the year 1846, on the general debate on the question of the repeal of the corn laws, every person who rose to address the House had a considerable difficulty to contend with; nevertheless, holding the position he did, as the representative of a purely agricultural county, he should feel himself wanting in duty to those who had done him the honour to place their interests in his charge, if he did not attempt, in some degree, to set forth their grievances when he had an opportunity of doing so. His hon. Friend the Member for Malton asked those who advocated protection what object they had in view in supporting this Amendment. He said that the question was not now whether the corn laws were to be repealed or not. That question his hon. Friend said had been settled long before, and that the question now only was, whether a few words should be added to the Address; but he (Mr. Palmer) thought the House would agree with him that those few words were of great importance. Her Majesty, in the Spcech from the Throne, had no doubt alluded to the complaints which had been made by the owners and occupiers of land in various parts of the country, and Her Majesty likewise

195
expressed Her regret that any portion of Her Majesty's subjects should be suffering under the pressure of distress. He was sure that none would for a moment suppose that any other feeling but that of kind sympathy would ever find place in Her Majesty's breast; but then when he looked to the language of the Speech, he found it did not go on to allude to that distress, but expressed Her Majesty's regret at what were called "the complaints which in many parts of the kingdom have proceeded from the owners and occupiers of land." He acquitted the noble Lord and those with whom he acted of any intention to cast a slight on the distress of the agricultural population; but he must be pardoned for saying that the words were so placed in the paragraph of the Speech that the people would not look at them as mere idle expressions. But it was for them to show how far they could justify to those whom they represented—especially after what had taken place in the country a short time since—the allowing this paragraph to pass without notice, and without expressing their opinion as to the extent of the distress, and the cause of it. Therefore he said these words which his hon. Friend the Member for Malton had merely alluded to as a few words to be added to the Address, and therefore of little or no importance whether added or not—it was for that reason they had become of more importance in his opinion. Because those words declared "that in many parts of the United Kingdom, and especially in Ireland, the various classes of Her Majesty's subjects connected with the cultivation of the soil are labouring under severe distress;" and the Amendment went on to say as to the cause of that distress that it was "mainly attributable, in our opinion, to recent legislative enactments, the operation of which is aggravated by the heavy pressure of local taxation." They contended that the existing distress was mainly attributable to the course of policy commonly called free trade, which that House had thought proper to adopt. Now, with respect to the general distress of the country in the agricultural districts, he would confine himself to that point, and he presumed that the fact of its existence was generally conceded; he spoke from his own personal knowledge, and from the opinions of those who were placed in this painful position. They complained that they were suffering under a degree of pressure which for many years past they had not experienced; and which they felt great apprehensions
196
they should not be able to overcome. From week to week the markets for produce were daily falling, and there appeared to be no chance of a rise in prices. The hon. Member for Malton asked what hon. Gentlemen on the opposite benches had been about in the different counties for the last two months; and he stated that they had been exerting themselves for the purpose of agitating and exciting the public mind on this question; and in some instances, it had been stated that under this system of free trade the tenant-farmers could never pay the rents to their landlords, and that the land must go out of cultivation, and it was believed that the landlords got up these meetings. He (Mr. Palmer) admitted that some gentlemen at those meetings might have argued this point rather strongly; but as far as his own county was concerned, he had the pleasure of attending a county meeting on this subject, and so far from the landlords having anything to do with the getting up of that meeting, his persuasion was that if it had not been for the tenant-farmers meeting together on market days, and complaining of the distress they were suffering, and being determined in every constitutional manner to express their opinions at county meetings, there would have been no meetings at all. So far from this being a landlord's question, or that the landlords had called those various meetings in Lincolnshire and elsewhere together, it had been purely a tenant's question, and they came forward to impress upon their representatives and upon their landlords the propriety of taking strong measures' to relieve their distress. What the tenants complain of most justly was, that they were hardly able to meet their engagements. Those who had leases would, as far as possible, pay their rent, but they were paying their rent out of their capital, and not out of the profits from their land. It happened in many parts of the country that there were a great number of respectable men—not men of capital—who had been living on the same properties from the time of their fathers, grandfathers, and possibly great-grandfathers in succession, and who lived almost from hand to mouth; and surely those deserving men should not be exposed to an unfair competition with the foreigner. Now, with respect to the cause of this distress, he should be prepared to contend that it did not require any great research to ascertain from what it had arisen. He was prepared

197
to say that it was undoubtedly the necessary consequence of the law which the Legislature had thought proper to adopt in the year 1846. It was doing away with all these duties, which operated, to a certain extent, to protect the interest of the British farmer. With respect to the cause of the depression, that question was disputed. It was stated that there was a variety of other causes which had produced this distress, but that it was by no means to be attributed to the importation of foreign corn. He would not go at any length into details, he would merely state what had appeared to have been imported in the year 1849, of wheat, barley, and flour. This was taken from what was considered the organ of the agricultural interest, the Mark Lane Express, showing the average of every week. He had taken the account a fortnight ago; at that time there had been imported of wheat 4,491,635 quarters, which, if the consumption was taken at 20,000,000 of quarters, as had been stated by the Mover of the Address, amounted to nearly one-fourth of the consumption; barley, 1,435,508, besides an addition of flour of 3,609,601 cwt. These imports were concurrent with an abundant harvest; and to this fact they might attribute the low prices of agricultural produce. Then, he contended, the effect of such a state of things must necessarily be most injurious to the farmers of England. How did this pressure operate on other parties? Why, it operated upon the shopkeepers and tradesmen in country towns, and upon the poor labourers. He would venture to say that there was no class of persons who would feel the distress of the agricultural body more quickly or severely than the retail tradesmen in country towns. He knew Several persons who, not long ago, were the advocates of free-trade principles, and wished to try the experiment, who had since found that their returns were falling off, and that the orders received from the farmers were now only one-half or one-fourth of what they used to be. He said it would be absurd to say that cheap bread must not, under ordinary circumstances, be most beneficial to all classes of the community; as a general principle, it must be a benefit to have provisions at that rate at which the people could afford to pay for them. But he contended it did not necessarily follow that the agricultural labourer—the individual who depended upon employment upon the soil (that employment
198
being found him by the farmer)—that that person should be in a better position because the price of bread was reduced to a very low amount. He might quote the opinion of an hon. Baronet, a friend of his, to prove that cheap bread, to be bought at a low price of corn, was not necessarily a great or important benefit. He regretted to say that the effect of the cheapness of agricultural produce was a depreciation of the wages of the agricultural labourer. In his own locality—it was a populous neighbourhood, full of gentlemen's seats, some of which were not connected with large properties, but of moderate extent—there were a great number of villas, all the inhabitants of which, of course, gave employment to the labourers to a greater extent than they would obtain if the land were merely farming land; and, therefore, in his neighbourhood the rate of wages had not been reduced beyond what they were last year. But when it was stated that wages had considerably decreased, he believed it would be found that on the borders of Wiltshire the wages were not more than 7s., and in some places less, per week. Then, he would ask the House, of what advantage was it to the labourer that bread should be so cheap, if he had not the means wherewith to procure it? He thought it would be better for men in that situation of life to have bread dearer, and wages not so low as they were. The right hon. Baronet the Member for Tamworth said, in the year 1846, that the question was not the price of bread, but what command the labourer had over that bread, and the other necessaries of life. It had been often said—and the protectionists were taunted with it when they talked of distress, and advocated a return to protection for the purpose of being placed on a fair level with other bodies—that they were not worse off than they had been in previous years when the prices were lower, as in 1832 and 1835. True it was that prices were lower in those years, but under totally different circumstances. In those years there was no importation of foreign corn; the low prices were caused by the abundance of our own produce. Persons might be distressed by a superfluity of produce; and of that, no one, he admitted, had a right to complain. But they did complain of low prices being caused by a superabundant importation of foreign grain. He was sure that there was not a

199
single Gentleman in that House who would not rejoice that the right hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer was able to give so flattering an account of so large a portion of the community; but the House would allow him to say that, concurrently with that state of prosperity, there was a great deal of distress among a large body of the people. The Chancellor of the Exchequer stated, that the best test of the employment of the labouring classes was the amount contributed for their relief; and, by figures which he (Mr. Palmer) would not dispute, the right hon. Gentleman went on to show a comparison between last year and 1848. In some counties there had appeared an increase, but there had been on the whole a decrease of relief to the poor; and the right hon. Gentleman argued from that, as a necessary consequence, that the labouring classes generally must be in a better position. He (Mr. Palmer) thought that argument might be carried too far. He did not think that it necessarily followed that the amount of relief afforded through the instrumentality of the boards of guardians was a just criterion of the state of the poverty of the people. He drew a distinction between pauperism and poverty. The pauper claimed relief as a right by law; poverty implied the position of a man who was not able to support himself or his family, out of the small amount of wages he was able to procure; and who would not appeal to the board of guardians till the last moment, because he did not wish to be placed in the union, and would rather starve himself than do so. Then as to poor-rates, he had seen an estimate taken in the course of a period of fourteen years. The amount of poor relief in seven of those years was greater when prices were at a lower rate, than in the other seven years when corn was selling at a higher price. But two remarkable periods might be taken more especially. The lowest price of corn during the same series of years was in 1836, the price being 39 s. 5d., but during that year the poor-rate amounted to 6,354,528 l.; whereas in 1839 the price, the highest price, of wheat was 69 s. 4d. per quarter, the poor-rate in that year being 5,613,999 l. In 1842 the right hon. Baronet the Member for Tamworth argued in favour of a continuation of protection to agriculture, which was entitled to it by reason of the peculiar burdens which pressed on the land; and a short time ago the right hon. Baronet had alluded
200
to the poor-rate as a peculiarly heavy burden to which the land was subject more than any other property. The hon. Mover of the Address laughed at the notion of land being subject to special burdens. But the right hon. Baronet the Member for Tamworth admitted himself, in 1842, that the poor-rate pressed with peculiar heaviness on land; and on looking back, as they sometimes did, to the debates of former periods, he was surprised to find a distinguished lawyer, now a Member of the other House of Parliament, coinciding in that view, for in a debate which took place in the year 1820 on the Motion of Mr. Home Sumner, he found Mr. H. Brougham thus expressing himself, according to the report in the Annual Register:—
"Mr. Brougham supported the Motion on general principles. Agriculture, he thought, was entitled to special protection, both because many public burdens pressed unequally upon it, and because much poor land had been brought into cultivation, which could not now be thrown back into its former state, without immense misery to individuals, as well as injury to the public. In illustrating these positions, he observed, that nothing was more common than to see a manufacturer erect a fine tall building, a matter of great ornament to the neighbourhood, no doubt, but certainly of great use to him. This building was erected on a comparatively small portion of land; and within its four walls were carried on the manufacture of two very important articles—cotton and paupers! And though his manufactory produced to its proprietor an income frequently of not less than 30,000 l. a year, yet he only paid poor-rates as for a property of 500 l.; while his poor neighbour, who rented land to that amount, paid the same proportion, though his income was not the fourth part of his rent."
He was glad to find so distinguished a Member supporting protection. They were told they might as well think of restoring the Heptarchy as to restore protection. But let it be remembered they never assented to free trade. In 1846 they endeavoured to fight as good a battle as they could, but they were beaten by majorities of that House; they were beaten by the separation from their ranks of many persons who had previously advocated protection; but he would ask the House whether any of those with whom he was acting had abandoned the question? The Mover of the Address said that this was a settled question; but he must confess he did not think so. He could see no reason why the agricultural portion of the community were not entitled to the same amount of protection as the manufacturing, or any other branch of national industry. Now what was the farming business? Many persons

201
considered corn a raw material; but he was not of that opinion. Land certainly was a raw material, and in many instances a very raw material indeed. He contended that corn was as much an article of manufacture as cotton. Besides, the trade of the farmer was liable to more risks than that of any manufacturer. His produce was subject to the vicissitudes of the seasons; and, after sowing his corn, he had to wait until Michaelmas before he could reap the produce of his labour. In some instances his crops might be destroyed by frosts or other accidents in the course of a few days. The manufacturer had none of these difficulties to contend with. On receiving orders from America, or any other country, he proceeded at once to work up his raw material; and, in the course of a short time, received payment for the articles supplied by him. The farmer, being subject to so many more risks than any other class, was therefore entitled to some protection. If the position of the farmer was such as he had endeavoured to describe—and he hoped he had not been guilty of any exaggeration in the statements which he had made—the question was, what ought to be done to afford him relief? It was stated in the free-trade journals that the farmers had nothing to do but to employ more capital, to grow more corn, to buy more expensive manures, to put their shoulders to the wheel, to become more skilful and industrious, and then they would be able to defy the world. That might be all very true if the farmers had their pockets full of money; but how did the case stand with respect to those who had no capital? Such assertions were something like adding insult to injury. It seemed to him that one of two courses must be pursued by Parliament. If they meant to leave the agricultural interest to chance, let them say so, and then the unfortunate sufferers must pocket the affront as well as they could; but they certainly would endeavour to impress on the House the importance and the duty of giving some relief to that most important and industrious class. One course would be for Parliament to retrace its steps, to restore protection in some degree—he did not say to any great amount—but the question of amount was not the subject to be debated on the present occasion. Parliament must either do that, or endeavour to reduce the taxes and burdens on land, so as to give relief in that way. If Parliament was prepared to follow up the
202
course which had been pursued for some time past, and turned a deaf ear to the complaints and distresses of that large and influential body of the community, that body must endeavour to take measures into their own hands and relieve themselves according to the best of their judgment. He should not be surprised to see a demand made for the reduction of taxation, to an extent which the Chancellor of the Exchequer either of the present or any other Government would find most inconvenient to comply with. But it would be enforced in such a manner, and by such arguments, as any Chancellor of the Exchequer would find it difficult to resist. The much wiser and safer course would be for the Government to look at the question of agricultural distress and difficulty in time, and to endeavour by one of the courses which he had suggested, to afford some relief to that suffering class. He was aware that it was useless to press these views on the present Government, or the present Parliament. The Government had taken their stand on the principle of free trade. They had carried it to the utmost extent in their power; and he believed they were prepared, if possible, to extend it still further. He did not expect to be able to persuade the Government to abandon those principles upon which they had hitherto acted. But it should be remembered that Governments are not permanent bodies—other Governments might at some time or other occupy the places of hon. Gentlemen opposite. Other Parliaments might be elected, and constituencies might return Members entertaining very different views from the majority of the present House on this question. He had no personal wish to gratify by any change of the present Government. But he must say this—that if they were determined to persevere in their present course—if they continued to carry out free-trade principles, notwithstanding the difficulties which surrounded a large portion of the industrial community—which difficulties, he was afraid, were lihely to continue—if they continued to adhere to those principles without any relaxation, he believed the time was not far distant when the opinion out of doors would be expressed in terms which could not be misunderstood, that for the sake of the agricultural as well as other interests, the sooner some change takes place in the constitution of the Government the better it will be for the nation at large.
MR. MUNTZsaid, that if he consulted

203
his own opinion as to the use of continuing the debate, he should have retained his seat; but as several statements had been made which he could not understand, he rose principally to ask for explanations. No one attempted to deny the existence of agricultural distress; that it was very great was allowed from both sides of the House, and every one hoped it would not continue. But admitting, for the sake of argument, that the Government were disposed to retrace their steps, he would ask hon. Gentlemen opposite if they believed they could do so? He defied the Government to retrace their steps, and he defied any other Government to retrace their steps. That was a settled question, and if relief was granted, it must be on another principle, and from another quarter. He wished to ask some hon. Gentlemen to explain certain remarks which had been made, and which he was unable to comprehend. Hopes were expressed in various quarters that agricultural produce would advance in price; now, he wished to ask why it should advance. Even the hon. Member for the West Riding (Mr. Cobden), at the close of last Session, had stated in that House, that wheat would not average a lower price than 46 s. per quarter; but he had lately been down to Leeds, and told the people there that the price of wheat was now 40 s., and would continue so; and that farmers must learn to grow it at that price. From what data the hon. Gentleman reckoned, he (Mr. Muntz) was at a loss to know, and he would have asked him at the time, had he not been on the opposite side of the House talking to his Friend the Member for North Warwickshire; and why he had lately changed from 46 s. to 40 s. he (Mr. Muntz) could as little comprehend. He had every reason to believe that it would be still lower; but he had searched in vain for a reason why it should advance. In 1846, when he voted for the repeal of the corn law, he expected that the operation of that measure would reduce the price of corn. Some hon. Members would, no doubt, recollect that he (Mr. Muntz), in the debate on the repeal of the corn law, in 1846, and in answer to those who said then that prices would not fall, had distinctly stated that his reason for voting in favour of the repeal was, that he was certain that prices must fall, and very considerably, otherwise he would not have voted with them; but he wanted all to row in the same boat, when, he was sure, they would together discover
204
means of relief. Many Gentlemen who advocated the repeal, contended it would not have that effect; but that was his only reason for the course which he then adopted. He was aware that it had not produced the results which were anticipated. The prosperity which now existed was one-sided. He admitted that an improvement had taken place in the condition of the working classes—but how? Had it arisen from the advance of wages, or an advance in the price of the articles which they produced? No such thing. The increased demand (and he admitted it to be considerable) had not produced one iota of advance in price. The reduction in prices which had taken place in the manufactures of the borough which he had the honour to represent, and which, during the last three years, had varied from five to fifty per cent, had not in any degree been restored by the increased demand. Then, how had the condition of the labouring classes been improved? By the reduction of the prices of the necessaries of life, which compensated for the reduction of wages. The workmen, generally speaking, were never much better off. With respect to the masters, he left them to answer for themselves; but he much doubted if they had participated in the improvement in his borough—he would say nothing as to the state of other towns. He asked the House, was this the sort of prosperity which England ought to enjoy—the single instance of a large number of people in one interest being in a state of comparative comfort? That was an important question. But was it the only one? Had not the West India interest been completely swamped? Had not the prosperity of Ireland been destroyed? And were they not going to destroy the agricultural interest of this country? He asserted that a still further reduction would take place, and had not the slightest doubt that the average price of corn would be from 30 s. to 40 s. per quarter. One important consideration had been lost sight of by the one-eyed repealers of the corn laws—namely, the difference between free trade and fettered trade. During the time of protection, when a foreigner could never know if he could send the corn which he grew in one year or in ten years, no price would pay him; but now that he could send it in at any time, he had only to calculate at what price he could grow it, and at what price he could sell it here; and, therefore, thousands of acres of corn would be cultivated

205
for this market. The hon. Gentleman who moved the Address stated that a national saving would be effected of 91,000,000 l. He believed what the hon. Gentleman called a national saving amounted to 100,000,000 l., instead of 91,000,000 l. But he (Mr. Muntz) wished to know who paid this? How did the nation gain by it? He contended that the amount had been taken out of the pockets of one interest, and given to another interest. But how did the nation gain by it? Suppose he had a 5l. note in each pocket, and transferred one of the notes from one pocket to the other, he certainly should not find himself any richer, although one of his pockets might be so. He was not now questioning whether this was right or wrong; but he must say, that so long as the landed interest had a onesided protection, they did not care for any other interest. They did not consider him when his property was injured or lost, or his workmen when they were starving for labour and bread. He wished to ask hon. Gentlemen opposite one question, which he trusted they would answer fairly. Suppose they obtained protection again, and had corn and meat as dear as formerly, how did they suppose any man in the export trade could exist? The export trade of the country amounted to fifty millions per annum. Now, he ventured to say that a return to the old system would cause a large portion of that trade to vanish altogether. And what would be the result? That the parties now employed in that foreign trade must fall on the home trade and destroy it. He considered it quite useless for hon. Gentlemen opposite to agitate for protection. In the first place, they would never obtain it; and in the next place, if they did, it must be through a sea of blood, which they would be sorry for. It was said that the manufacturers had protection. That was no doubt true, but they had no right to it when other classes were deprived of it. He could see no justice, now that protection was taken from the farmers, in making them pay a duty upon the silk gowns of their wives and daughters. There were also many other articles of manufacture still protected by the tariff of the right hon. Baronet opposite (Sir R. Peel), whom he (Mr. Muntz) had asked at the time to remove all protection; and it would have been much better if he had done so. The hon. Member for the West Riding considered this to be a landlord's question.
206
No doubt it would be a landlord's question in the end. But it was most decidedly a tenant's question in the beginning, and he did not see how the tenant could escape between the consumer and the landlord. No doubt the low prices would best suit the tenant when low prices were carried out, because less capital would suffice; but it was the transition from high to low prices which ruined him. The consumer would only give the lowest possible price for the article at which he could buy from other countries; and the landlord would get his rent so long as he could, and, therefore, the tenant must be the scapegoat. He was not at all surprised that the Chancellor of the Exchequer should have made a prosperity speech on the present occasion, seeing that he had done so when there was no prosperity. The right hon. Gentleman had shown the existence of prosperity by the amount of the exports. Now, he (Mr. Muntz) denied that any such prosperity could be so proved. He altogether objected to the right hon. Gentleman's deduction. In the first place, the exports constituted a small portion of our manufactures; and in the next place, a statement without quantity and price was no proof at all. The increase in the export of iron from 81,000 cwts. to 121,000 cwts. was given as an instance, when, if the Chancellor examined into the value of the two quantities, he (Mr. Muntz) believed that he would find but a small difference. An enormous quantity of imports was not properly stated in the returns. The quantity of zinc exported to India was stated to be increased 2,900 tons, but the quantity manufactured in all England did not exceed 900 tons, and, therefore, the difference must be accounted for by the imports having been exported. These returns were, therefore, not at all to be depended upon; and he would shortly move for a return of all imports and exports, specifying where each article was re-exported to. In the last Session he had moved for a similar return, but the Government had delayed it until after the Session had expired; this year, if it was not forthcoming, he should ask the House to assist him, for they little knew what was doing. The amount of bullion in the Bank had been adverted to, and it had been said, "did not everybody say, with the import of corn the export of gold must commence? but yet look at the bullion in the Bank." He (Mr. Muntz) never said the import of corn would cause the export of bullion. He said that no import

207
of corn would do so, unless the manufactured produce of the country was relatively dearer than the price of bullion. In 1847 the export of bullion was very great, and such was the ruin caused amongst all classes that a great reduction took place in the price of manufactured goods. Those goods were then sent out, which brought in the bullion, and since that time prices had been lower than they were ever known before; and they were now relatively lower with regard to bullion and silver than had ever been known in the memory of man. But what would be the result, if corn, as they all seemed now to wish, should obtain a high price? The natural consequence must be an increase in the rate of wages, and an increase in the price of manufacturing produce; and an increase of five per cent on the manufactured produce would cause an export of bullion. They were, therefore, placed upon the horns of a dilemma: either they must be content with the present low and unprofitable prices, or they must lose the gold by raising prices. The exports of this country, he was quite confident, would not bear the advance. The hon. Gentleman concluded by declaring that, with his views upon the subject, and for the reasons he had given, he considered it his duty to support Ministers.
MR. HERRIESsaid, that he did not rise for the purpose of replying to the observations of the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down, as he had answered so many of them himself; while many of the speakers on the other side followed each other in the assertion that the whole question on the subject of protection was absolutely settled and disposed of for ever. The hon. Member for Malton had, on the contrary, expressed a hope that it might, by this very debate, be settled. Now, the question neither was settled, as some maintained, nor so easily to be settled, as the Member for Malton supposed, and it would not be settled until justice had been done to the agricultural interest. Hon. Gentlemen talked as if protection were involved in the discussion of this night. The Motion, however, of the hon. Baronet the Member for South Lincolnshire would not bear that construction. Her Majesty had been advised in the Speech from the Throne to use language, which to those having the deepest interest in agriculture, appeared such as would not permit them to acquiesce in an Address being only an echo of that language, either with justice to themselves, or to the interests more immediately involved.
208
If it had been the intention of the Government to cast a slur and an insult on the agricultural interest, they could not have used language more fitted for the purpose. And considering also the disposition which the Government must be supposed to indicate by its choice of the hon. Gentleman who moved the Address, it would be unbecoming in those connected with the landed interest, who occupied that (the Opposition) side of the House, to allow the occasion to pass without moving an Amendment, for which better terms could not have been selected than those embodied in the Amendment now before them; nor could it have been introduced with more temper, judgment, and ability, than it had been by his hon. Friend. And therefore he rose to give his most cordial assent to that Amendment; but as the debate was approaching, he hoped, to something like a termination, and as the feeling last night was very much in favour of closing it tonight, he would advise his hon. Friends on his side of the House to remember that the present was not an occasion when it was indispensably necessary for them to put forward all the arguments and facts which he knew they were so well able to adduce at the fitting season. At the same time he could not altogether pass over in silence certain matters which, but for the undue and unwarranted use that had been made of them by Her Majesty's Ministers, he should have thought unworthy of occupying the attention of the House. With respect to the repeal of the navigation laws, from which he still apprehended so many calamities to ensue, had the Royal Speech only intimated that other countries had readily and joyfully accepted the vast boon which this measure conferred upon them, he would not have felt called on to offer any remarks, because every one was certain that these countries would cheerfully accept that boon. But when a certain statistical document had been used by the hon. Mover of the Address to make a boast of what had also been trumpeted forth in various newspapers as benefits that had already been produced even before the Act came into operation; namely, the alleged very unusual activity among the shipbuilders and shipwrights at the port of Sunderland from the repeal of the navigation laws, he must say he considered the facts assumed, even if they had been correct, which he would presently dispute, formed too narrow and paltry a basis on which to rest so weighty

209
and momentous a question. Now he happened to hold in his hand an account furnished him by a good authority, a gentleman intimately connected with the shipbuilding interest at Sunderland; and although it was perfectly true that ninety-ships had been built in 1849 at that port (as had been stated in behalf of the Government), and that twenty-four of them had been sold, yet why did not those who wished to make a boast of this fact in favour of the repeal of the navigation laws not tell the House the whole truth on this isolated case of Sunderland, if they considered it—what it could not be safely admitted to be—a fair test of the state of the whole shipbuilding of the entire kingdom in the year 1849, as contrasted with its condition in 1848. The real facts were these. At the port of Sunderland in 1848, only 87 ships were built, which was three less than were built in 1849. But how was it with respect to the sale of the ships. Why, in 1848, thirty-six of the eighty-seven were sold, while in 1849 only twenty-four of the ninety were sold. But further, of those built in 1849, only thirty-six were finished, twenty-four of those finished being sold; but in 1848 only seventeen were actually finished, and yet thirty-six were sold, or contracted to be sold. So that in reality, when the whole truth came out, the facts told quite the other way, there having been a greater disposition to buy ships in 1848 than in 1849, and the trade of shipbuilding was less prosperous last year than in the year preceding it. In the letter of the gentle man who was his authority on this subject, there was this passage:—
"I consider the shipbuilding trade here (Sunderland) not now remunerative, the recent sales having been effected at a reduction of 7½ per cent on the last year's prices."
There was another point which he must also notice. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said, the exports of 1849 greatly exceeded those of 1848, and inferred from the fact—which was perfectly true—that free trade had greatly improved the condition of the country. But why was the fact concealed that the year 1848 was not a fair year to take for the comparison? Why, 1848 was a miserably bad year—a year of great depression, and concerning which they were told, time after time, to recollect that there were circumstances on the Continent and at home all tending greatly to diminish the exports of that year. Well, then, where was the propriety of the Chancellor of the Exchequer saying, from a
210
comparison with such a year, "See the effects of free trade in the augmentation of our exports?" No such conclusion could be drawn. But there was more fallacy still in this argument. They ought to have been told what was the nature of the exports of 1849. The staple of them was cotton manufactures; and where were they sent? Of this augmentation by far the greater proportion were the exports to China and the East Indies. Were these to be called indications of the advantages of free trade? What had we with China in the shape of free trade? Why, the only great article of import from thence was tea; and on that we put a duty of 100 per cent; and was that to be called an example of free trade? But why not take some fairer year antecedent to free trade than 1848, to compare the exports of 1849 with? In 1845 the total value of our produce and manufactures exported was sixty millions. In 1849 they were less. To be sure only eleven months of 1849 could be included, and the remaining month might make up the deficiency; but whether it would or would not, what he maintained was, that this was too small a basis on which to argue a great question; and he thought they were too much in the habit of attempting to rest great principles on too contracted bases. Another subject which had been introduced as a matter of triumph with reference to the condition of the landed interests, was the state of the poor in 1849, as contrasted with the state of the poor in 1848. To that argument the hon. Member for Kerry, so far as Ireland was concerned, had given an unanswerable reply. It was on a comparison of 1849 with one of the heaviest of years, as regarded the pressure of the poor-law, that Ministers rested their congratulations as to the country having passed from a bad state to a better, attributing that result to their own policy. These indications, confined as they were to a comparison with a bad year only, established nothing in this sense, and failed entirely to prove the success of our recent legislation. He would allude to another subject—he meant the boast that had been made of the quantity of gold in the coffers of the Bank. This had surprised him greatly. It was as if the history of the last two years could already have been obliterated from the minds of men. Only two years ago the same condition of the Bank was exhibited within a very short interval antecedent to the greatest commercial

211
convulsion ever known to this kingdom. Just before that event the largest sum then ever known to be in the Bank of England remained in its coffers. Indeed, it was larger than the amount there at present, there being there now 15,700,000 l.; while at the time alluded to it had exceeded 16,000,000 l. And if it should happen that the amount of gold should diminish, we might again experience the crisis of 1847 by reason of the enactments of 1844. It was admitted on all hands that great distress now existed amongst the agricultural classes, and he wished to remind the House that Her Majesty's Government, before the new policy was yet established, used to express their conviction that the price of corn would remain very nearly where it was before the change, after the new measures had been enacted. Now, if free trade, falsifying their predictions, had produced the advantages of extreme cheapness, on which they now congratulated the country, this at least should be borne in mind, that this result had not been the work of either any wisdom or foresight of theirs. No man would deny that cheap food was an advantage to the consumer, but even that advantage might be purchased too dearly; and if obtained at the cost of the destruction of that which formed the foundation of all wealth—the cultivation of the soil—of what value, he asked, was an advantage thus bought? This was not the fitting time for going broadly into the general subject of protection to native industry. That question, he felt satisfied, would have to come before them, not as one confined within the limits of their vote that night, but as the great and paramount question of the day—the question whether it is wise, just, right, or politic, to persevere in this great change, by which the greatest, by far, of our internal interests—an interest not to be put in comparison for a moment with any other—was to be ruined and destroyed? The Mover of the Address had made a remark respecting 91,000,000 l. a year being saved to the country by the repeal of the corn laws; and a sufficient answer had already been given to it by a preceding speaker, by a very pertinent question he had put to the free-traders. It was very doubtful whether this supposed gain was not, after all, a loss to the country of 91,000,000 l.; and it would probably be too soon found out that the Government had been led by blind guides into making a fearfully fatal experiment.
212
What he (Mr. Herries), and the party with whom he acted, required, was justice, and only justice. They asked for no more; and he knew not how strong or courageous the Ministry might be; but when such a large and important portion of the community—the foundation of all wealth—demanded justice, they might rest assured that justice would ultimately be granted them. He would not deal in the language which had been employed by those at whose instigation these measures had unfortunately been passed. He would not deal in those minacious and dictatorial terms, being conscious that such conduct would never be imitated by those who had reason and argument on their side; but he was convinced that the great interest of this country would ultimately receive at the hands of the Government—not by means of violence, but from their own returning sense of justice, and their own better prudence, with time and argument and fact pressing on them—a concession of their just and undeniable rights. The Government were so circumstanced now that they could not do it—their allies forbade it; but if they would only venture to do that which would restore this country to its former state of peace and prosperity, they might reckon upon a support far superior to that which they might lose by adopting a contrary course. There was one other point only on which he would touch, and that but for a moment. The hon. Member who spoke last said, that if they were to attempt only to return to a system of protection, the exports of British manufactures would be ruined altogether. Was it not remarkable that only five years ago the export trade was more flourishing than at the present time; and yet, in 1845, that corn law was in existence which the hon. Member stated to be inconsistent with an abundant export trade? He should not further trespass upon the time of the House than to repeat that he should give his most cordial support to the Amendment, which afforded an indication of the feeling of his side of the House, and an assertion of their just claims.
MR. LABOUCHERE: Sir, I am well aware there is a general desire on the part of the House that this debate should terminate this night, and I can assure the House it is my intention to delay but for a very few moments the progress of the discussion, being also aware that the House will expect other Gentlemen of higher position to address

213
them in the course of the debate. At the same time one or two observations have been made by the right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down, which I am unwilling to pass altogether over. The right hon. Gentleman has stated it as his opinion that, so far as the effects of the alteration in the navigation laws have been as yet ascertained, we have no right to say that the apprehensions which were so confidently entertained by hon. Gentlemen on the opposite side of the House as to the effects that alteration would produce in paralysing the industry of shipowners and of the mercantile marine, have been unfounded. I admit that it would be premature for myself or anybody else who supported that alteration in the navigation laws to boast of its success; but on the other hand, when I am thus confidently challenged by the right hon. Gentleman, I appeal to the hon. Gentlemen in this House who have taken the subject into consideration—and, above all, I appeal to the representatives of our shipbuilding and shipowning ports—to say whether it is true that the alteration made in the law has had the effect of paralysing industry in the dockyards of this country? I appeal to them whether such an effect has been produced by the measure which the House passed last Session? This is a subject into which I feel bound to look with the deepest care (as I do into every subject in which I feel an interest), and I never made an assertion in this House with greater confidence than that which I am now about to make with respect to it. I challenge contradiction on the part of any mercantile man who thinks he is able to contradict me, when I make the assertion that the industry of shipbuilding and the confidence of the mercantile public in ship-owning, are in a state most satisfactory and most encouraging to those who did not believe we were paralysing that most important branch of industry by the measures we passed in the last Session of Parliament. The fact is, that as many ships have been building within the last year as in any year during the last ten years, and some important alterations have taken place in their construction. There are ships of a better class and quality, and of a large description, now being built, and the result has been as we predicted. The shipowners and shipbuilders, with the energy of Englishmen (although they were opposed to the passing of the Bill), have betaken themselves to see whether they might not by improvements prepare themselves
214
for the competition they saw was inevitable. I am unwilling at this hour to weary the House with statistics and returns which I have in my possession, and which, if necessary, I shall read, to prove the correctness of the statement I now make; but there is one statement so remarkable, when we consider the quarter from which it proceeds, that I cannot avoid calling the attention of the House to it. Those Gentlemen who have attended to this subject during the last Session, may have read in the Standard newspaper a letter written by a shipbuilder named Lindsay, a gentleman, I believe, of high respectability in his profession, but a great opponent to a change in the navigation laws. He wrote several letters in which he stated that nothing but ruin could arise to the shipbuilding interest from a change in the law. This Mr. Lindsay has published a circular, with respect to the prospects of the shipowning interest in this country, and there is one paragraph in it which is worthy of the attention of any hon. Gentlemen who are anxious for information on the subject. This passage is so remarkable that I cannot help reading it. Mr. Lindsay says—
"As the law now stands, we would say to those of our shipowning friends, and whose trade is to be shipowners, who held like opinions with our own as to the impolicy of the repeal, it is folly now to repine, and greater folly to stand with folded arms and allow others to monopolise our carrying trade without even an attempt at competition. They must suit themselves to the altered state of our maritime laws; have vessels with the greatest capacity to the least register tonnage consistent with safety and sailing properties; have them commanded by men who are not merely seamen and navigators, but something more—men of business, and, above all, by men of sobriety, steadiness, and exemplary moral character, and who by example and precept will instil good moral principles into those under them, both at sea, and, if possible, on shore. These points are of the most vital importance in our competition with foreign Powers, and, if attended to, will, combined with the acknowledged energy of the English character, overcome many difficulties."
This is exactly what I ventured to state would be the case. I said I believed that the evils which were really ruining our mercantile marine were the want of discipline, the want of proper qualifications in our commanders; and that they would disappear in a great degree when our ships were exposed to competition, because our shipowners would then earnestly betake themselves to place their ships in a position to compete with the mercantile marine of other countries. There is also another

215
paper which I would be glad to read if I had addressed the House at an earlier period of the evening. It is a communication received from a person of the highest authority in Norway, referring to the apprehensions entertained as to the result of a competition between Norwegian ships and our own. It is stated that many orders had been sent from this country and from Germany to take up Norwegian ships for the long voyage; but not one of those orders was taken, because it was found by Norwegian shipbuilders that when employed in the long voyage they could not afford to give their ships at so cheap a rate as the English. And it is further stated by the writer, that he is confident that, in future, every Norwegian ship intended for the long voyage will be under the necessity of coming to the ports of this country to be coppered and bolted, so much have we advanced in this country in that most important branch of shipbuilding. There has been another point raised in the course of the discussion, and which also had been adverted to at meetings in the country, by gentlemen connected with the agricultural interest, namely, the supposed favour which they say has been shown to the manufacturing interest in this country over the agricultural, in the vestiges of protection that remain on the Statute-book. There cannot be a greater error than to make such a statement. It is true that some vestiges of protection still remain applicable in some cases to manufactured articles, and in some other cases to agricultural articles in this country; but if any Gentleman will look and see the articles that protection applies to, I venture to say (without entering into the question whether it would be advisable to sweep those vestiges of protection away, a subject which we ought not to discuss at the present moment), that so far as the question is concerned of showing favour to the one or the other, there is no ground for saying it; and any Gentleman who looks to the facts will come to the same conclusion. What are the manufactured articles that still in some degree are protected? The great article that still remains protected is silk. There still remains a protection of 15 per cent on the import of foreign silk, producing a revenue of 274,000 l. There also remains a protection upon gloves, artificial flowers, embroidery, boots and shoes, and some other trifling articles. It will be observed that the great staple manufactures of this country, the woollen, cotton, and other great
216
staple manufactures, are all unprotected, and are upon the same footing as the principal articles of agricultural produce. With the single exception of silk, the protection still retained almost altogether applies not to the staple articles of manufacture, but to the industry of the artisan by making the manufactured goods in a secondary state, and, above all, to the industry of a class of persons for whom the public sympathy has been recently most powerfully and not unnaturally invoked—I allude to the female labourers. A protection of 25 per cent still remains in favour of the women employed in making artificial flowers, and there is a revenue of 12,500 l. derived from the import of the foreign articles. There is also a protection of 15 per cent, which operates in favour of a most distressed and suffering class of the community—the needleworkers. Now, has the produce of agriculture been altogether denuded of protection, and is it true that the producer has been unfairly and unequally dealt with as compared with the producer of manufactures? I shall read for the House the articles of agriculture that still enjoy protection. Butter, in the first place, enjoys a protection of 10 per cent, and the duty on the import of foreign butter produces a revenue of 140,186 l. Cheese enjoys a protection of 5s. per cwt., and 106,089 l. revenue is derived from the importation of it. Tallow also enjoys protection at a duty of 1s. 6d. per cwt., producing a revenue of 95,408 l. Clover, and other agricultural seeds, are protected, there being a duty on the importation of the foreign article amounting to 38,000 l. Eggs are not manufactured articles, yet they are protected by a duty of 10 d. per 120; and on the importation of foreign eggs there is a revenue derived of no less than 32,097 l.; and there are other articles of agricultural produce which are also protected. I have made out, as well as I could a list of the manufactured and agricultural articles now protected; and I find that the amount levied on the importation of foreign manufactured articles for the protection of corresponding articles of English produce is 430,000 l., and the amount levied on the importation of articles of foreign agricultural produce for the protection of corresponding articles of English produce, is in round numbers nearly 427,000 l. I thought it right to go into this statement when gentlemen through the country endeavour to persuade those they address that the Legislature continues

217
to protect manufactures, while they abandon protection altogether as applied to agriculture. Some Gentlemen make a great grievance of not being allowed to grow tobacco in this country; but are not those Gentlemen aware that if foreign tobacco were let in duty free into this country, any attempt to grow the plant of tobacco on the soil of the united kingdom would be utterly futile? The English tobacco unprotected from Virginian tobacco would go to the wall; it never could succeed as an article of cultivation in this country. I do not wish to detain the House longer; but I beg to deny, in the most emphatic manner, that it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to treat with the slightest disrespect the landed interest of this country, or to deny that in many parts of England there does exist very severe distress amongst the owners and occupiers of land. If that had been the intention the assertion would ill come from me, for my constituents are placed in the centre of a great agricultural county; and I know from my own knowledge, and from my connexion with that town, that there does exist great distress amongst the occupiers of land. I deplore that distress most sincerely—as sincerely as any Gentleman opposite; but it is my deep and conscientious conviction that you can do nothing more injurious to that interest than to hold out the expectation that this House, or any future House of Commons, will return to a system of protection. It will only divert their attention from the means in their power of improving their condition, and will be only an ignis fatuus to mislead them to despair. I do not oppose the Amendment because I do not admit that distress exists, but I oppose it because I think the means it points out would only lead to a delusion. To my mind it is inconceivable that a system which in this country promotes our commerce and agriculture, our manufactures, and the general interests of the community at large, must not in the long run promote that interest which I acknowledge as the basis of all prosperity—the proper cultivation of the soil. To say the fields of this country will become a desert, and he uncultivated, is, I think, the wildest phantasy; for I look forward with the utmost confidence to the future progress of the agricultural interest of this country. I admit that in parts of the country there has been great destitution, and that great individual distress may happen—I admit,
218
too, that if it were in the power of the Legislature, we should do what we could to mitigate those evils; but as to the ultimate result of those measures, and as to the ultimate prosperity of the agricultural as well as other classes of the country, I, for one, entertain no doubt, provided this House perseveres in the course of policy they have deliberately adopted—provided we don't introduce doubt and hesitation into the minds of all classes, and paralyse industry by giving the country reason to believe that we are wavering. Let us have courage to go on in the course we have adopted, and I, for one, see no reason to doubt that it will lead to the security and prosperity of all.
MR. DISRAELI: I rise, Sir, to support the Amendment of the hon. Member for Lincolnshire. I am sure the noble Lord at the head of the Government will not think it disrespectful on my part if I do not comment upon any other portion of the Address which has been offered for the consideration of the House. That Address refers to many subjects of great interest and importance, on several of which I would have ventured, under other circumstances, to request some information from Her Majesty's Ministers; but, considering the hour of the night [it was then nearly 11 o'clock]—considering the general tone of the debate, and the anxiety which is felt on both sides of the House to divide tonight, the noble Lord will pardon me if I confine my attention to the particular paragraph to which my hon. Friend has moved an Amendment. I believe there is no question in the House at present—whatever there may have been at the commencement of the discussion yesterday—that what is called agricultural distress does prevail. After some sceptical expressions, we have had several witnesses from both sides of the House of considerable influence and importance, who now admit the fact—the last witness being the right hon. the President of the Board of Trade. I think, then, that I may state, without exaggeration, that agricultural distress does at present prevail in England; that in Scotland there exists at least agricultural dismay; and I suppose I must leave for Ireland agricultural desolation. Undoubtedly, whatever may be supposed to be its cause—whatever difference of opinion may have existed as to the degree of distress—it has existed for a considerable period, has evinced itself in a variety of quarters, and has been expressed by persons

219
whose opinion, from their position and conduct, is certainly entitled to public respect. But I am entirely precluded from the necessity of entering on evidence upon that important and interesting point, because the evidence is before us. I want no better evidence for the existence or for the cause of the distress than that of the hon. Gentleman who moved the Address to Her Majesty. He has, with perfect frankness, informed us that he has no doubt that a sum almost equal to one-eighth of the national debt has been taken from the agricultural class within a brief period by the influence of legislative enactments. I am not speaking of the wisdom or folly of these enactments, or of the necessity or inexpediency of them. I am merely calling a witness forward who upon such a topic may surely be considered to be one of a first-rate character, and who tells us that one of the principal branches of our national industry has within a brief period been deprived of a receipt of about 90,000,000 l. or 100,000,000 l. sterling, which, according to his account, it has been in the habit of receiving; and that the want of this receipt has been occasioned by a recent and certainly an unexpected change of the law. Upon that evidence, therefore, it will be acknowledged as not surprising that there should be so severe and so general distress as that which at present prevails in England—that it should be acknowledged in Scotland—and that it should be overwhelming in Ireland. Let me under these circumstances—the House bearing in mind how wide and prevalent is the distress—how, according to the hon. Gentleman who moves the Address to the Throne, and who calls upon us to support him—remembering, I say, how great is the cause of that distress, and how accountable it is by the previous conduct of this House—allow me once more to recall to the House the language in which that distress is intimated in the Speech from the Throne. Unhappily there it is not even described as distress; the expressions of feeling on the part of the great class which has been submitted to the action of circumstances so vast as those acknowledged by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Wolverhampton are merely noticed as "complaints," the justice of which is studiously not acknowledged. It has been said by way of defence, that these words appear in a subsequent sentence:—
"Her Majesty greatly laments that any portion
220
of Her subjects should be suffering distress;"—
but I deny that that is an admission, or even a qualified admission, that the agricultural interest of the united kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland is suffering distress. It is a mere abstract observation, and bears no reference to the actual condition of any portion of the united kingdom. It merely says, as an abstract principle, that the Sovereign of these realms will sympathise with any class of Her subjects who are in a state of distress; but thus placing it as an abstract proposition is virtually denying that it practically exists; and the sentence which follows it is only one of philanthropic mockery. Well, now, is it surprising, is it unreasonable in the present state of affairs, after all that is past, and after all that is passing—seeing that Parliament has met again without virtually acknowledging the existence of the distress, which is not only recognised by the Mover of the Address, but even accounted for by him—is it surprising or unreasonable, I ask, that fresh from our constituents, who are the victims of the change of legislation, we should feel it our first duty to come forward and express our opinion of the cause of the distress, and our sympathy with those who are suffering? Let me beg the House carefully to consider the character of the Amendment which is offered to you. I say carefully to consider, because I beg to remind the House that it is upon that Amendment, and that Amendment alone, that the vote is about to be taken, and not upon an imaginary statement which it may be convenient for the Government to put forward, and especially by any Members of the Government who may have prepared a speech not at all adapted to the Amendment. That Amendment upon which you are now called upon to decide consists of two parts. Let me call your particular attention to the first. You are asked—
"Humbly to represent to Her Majesty, that in many parts of the United Kingdom, and especially in Ireland, the various classes of Her Majesty's subjects connected with the cultivation of the soil, are labouring under severe distress, mainly attributable, in our opinion, to recent legislative enactments."
Who denies that proposition? Not the Mover of the Address to Her Majesty. He adopts the fact, and accounts for it, and the Amendment is merely prophetic of the speech which he made last night. If it be unreasonable, at least nobody will maintain that it is untrue. But it is said that you

221
are called upon by this Amendment to declare that the protective system must be reconstructed in this country. It may or may not be politic—it may or may not be expedient—to call upon the House to take that step, but you may rely upon it that, if we think it our duty to do so—if we think it for the advantage of the country that that step should be taken, we will not hesitate to come forward frankly, completely, and candidly to express that opinion. I do not think that the Amendment upon the Address is the right occasion upon which to contest so great a principle, or to enter upon such an encounter; but, remembering what the state of the country is, believing it to be universally or most generally recognised, right or wrong, that the distress of a great portion of Her Majesty's subjects has been occasioned by recent legislative enactments, I say that nothing can be more legitimate, nothing on our part, and on the part of all who sympathise with the distresses of the land, can be more clearly and completely an act of duty, than to come forward when such an Address to the Throne is proposed, and express with temperance, but with firmness and precision, our belief in the existence of great calamities, and our conviction that those calamities have been occasioned by your recent legislative enactments. But is there anything unreasonable in this? What can be more natural than for the House of Parliament, which represents the commons of England, whatever the truth or falsehood, whatever the justice or injustice of certain economical principles, when it is flagrant and notorious that large bodies of the people are in a state of great depression and embarrassment—what more natural, I ask, than to come forward and state that fact dutifully and respectfully to the Sovereign, more especially when the facts we state are not unwarranted, wild, or extravagant, but are distinctly intimated and admitted by the very organ of the Government who proposes the Address? So far, indeed, from this being a violent course on our part, I believe it the most natural and the most probable; so probable that it was the general anticipation of the country that the Government would themselves have expressed some sympathy with the depression and distress of so large a portion of Her Majesty's subjects. The Government might have done this, without giving up any of the economical convictions to which they are such recent converts. It was, indeed, for some considerable time believed
222
—in the autumn there were very prevalent opinions—that the Government were really not ashamed of feeling some sympathy with the heavy distress of so large a portion of the community. There were certain rumours abroad then, to which I myself, I confess, gave small credit, but which imparted some hopes to those who were suffering so grievously. The right hon. Gentleman over the way shakes his head, and no doubt, in the possession as he is of Cabinet secrets, there is very good reason for so signifying his scepticism. There was even a rumour, at the time I speak of, that a person of considerable importance—one who figured in the highest class of the peerage—had committed that great sin in political economy—expression of sympathy with the sufferings of the country. I myself care nothing about the matter. I care nothing about a Duke's giving his adherence to the principles I advocate. I care not a jot if all the Dukes in the land reject them. It is the cause of labour for which we struggle—it is the cause of labour, or it is nothing. If it be not the interest of British labour that we advocate, all the patronage of all the Peers of the realm will not avail. Nothing but that conviction can sustain us. There was, after all, some apparent foundation for the popular belief; there were observed a great many Cabinet Councils, very frequent and very hurried; and the country, which had seen on former occasions similar frequent and hurried Cabinet Councils, and observed their results, naturally enough alternated between anxious hopes and fears. There is a story told of a gentleman, once a Member of this House, and who afterwards became Lord Protector of the Commonwealth of England; he, too, was holding one of his Cabinet Councils, when somebody came to disturb him. "Go tell him," said Cromwell, "that we are seeking the Lord;" and turning to his colleagues, he added, "That simpleton thinks we are seeking the Lord, when in truth we are only seeking the corkscrew." So, it would seem, when the people of England last autumn thought that Ministers were seeking the Lord in their repeated Cabinet Councils, they were in truth only seeking the corkscrew, for all that the Cabinet Councils brought about, so far as it appeared, was a Cabinet dinner. And now, instead of putting a bold front on the question, the only way in which the Ministers can get out of the scrape, according to their idea of Parliamentary tactics, is to ask the hon. Member for Wolverhampton

223
to come forward to their aid; and here we have the Address to the Throne moved by a late member of the Anti-Corn-Law League, and seconded by a member of the new Parliamentary Reform League. I will do this justice to the candour of the hon. Seconder, that he introduced into his discourse the topic to which he is of course devoted, though it does not appear in the Queen's Speech, expressing his hope that the Government would see the propriety of supporting those opinions to which he has so recently given in his adhesion at Freemasons' Hall. No Member of the Government, however, has as yet responded to his ingenuous appeal. Probably the result must be the same in this case as in another memorable instance, and if the mountain will not come to the Minister, the Minister must go to the mountain. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, in noticing the complaints which are made by the agricultural interest of the distress they are at this moment experiencing—complaints, I must say, in unison with the language of the Royal Speech and of the Address—thought it his duty to denounce the manner in which the agricultural bodies have thought fit to bring those complaints under the consideration of the House, of the Government, and of the country. It struck me as surprising that the right hon. Baronet, one of the heads of a liberal Government, especially at a moment when he tells us that all the other interests in the State are prospering, should think it becoming to come forward and say that another great branch of industry, which he acknowledges to be suffering, has acted in a manner unauthorised if not unconstitutional, because it has, in a tone perfectly consistent, as I say, with the spirit and with the machinery of the constitution, appealed openly and freely to the Throne and to Parliament for sympathy and for relief. The right hon. Gentleman says that very violent language has been used by the agriculturists at their meetings. I think this criticism might, with much judgment, have been omitted. It is rather unusual to carp at expressions which may be used, for example, at county meetings; but if the right hon. Gentleman is so critical, I should conceive he might better have formed his ideas of violent language, used at public meetings of the people, from some of the towns in the county in which he has been taking his summer recreation. I should have imagined that it was some tone, probably
224
from Leeds, which had reached him—some Jacobin jargon that had floated to his ear from the free-trade hall of the city of Manchester. When the right hon. Gentleman—a Gentleman of Yorkshire—complains of the tone and strong language used at agricultural meetings, I would remind him that there have been other meetings at which language much stronger has been used—language, I will venture to say, much more unconstitutional. I am sure that he never heard any one at a county meeting say that the English constitution existed only on sufferance. I am sure that he never heard any one at a county meeting say that the States of the realm were in future only to be considered as a body to legislate in deference to the passions, the caprice, the interests of any particular section of this country. I will not, on this occasion, go into the question which the right hon. Gentleman has raised in relation to the value of our exports. I am bound to say that, so far as time, and study, and observation assist me, I see no reason to relinquish the opinions I have repeatedly expressed on the subject. I believe—I think it can be proved—that the exchangeable value of the products of British industry has materially diminished within the past few years. The right hon. Gentleman quoted the Commercial Glance to prove that certain articles of manufacture were not diminished in value. But they were articles, if I caught them right, exported principally to India, our own possessions, and therefore not subject to the action of hostile tariffs. The right hon. Gentleman last year said he could not understand my argument that the manufacturers of England were content to manufacture at a loss. I will beg to remind him of another economical paper called the Economist, in which there has been a series of articles most elaborate in composition, and most ample in calculations, the whole object of which is to prove that for the last four years the manufacturers of Manchester have been manufacturing at a loss. Well, I recommend the right hon. Gentleman—I know not whether he has a personal acquaintance with the editor of the Economist or not—to take advantage of his first ten minutes' leisure, and enlighten himself upon that topic, and ascertain whether it be a fact that a Manchester manufacturer can manufacture at a loss, and even continue to manufacture at a loss. The right hon. Gentleman, as he thinks, has established

225
his case to prove the success of his system, the success or failure of which I do not at all consider to he the question tonight, or in any way connected with the Amendment; and the only reason for my referring to it is, because I would not seem to shrink from meeting his statements. He has adduced, as his test, the state of pauperism in the country. I accept that test, as far as it is valid, to try the efficiency and truth of his system; but I must say, that the data he has offered us have not, in my opinion, been fruitful of any very encouraging conclusion. He has established that there is a reduction of pauperism to the amount of something under 7 per cent, compared with last year—a year of unparalleled gloom, of unprecedented depression, which the right hon. Gentleman always told us during the last Session must never be taken as a precedent, because it was a year when the manufacturers of England, in every branch, were in a state of distress which probably had never been approached for many years. But the right hon. Gentleman now comes forward with this case, that the manufacturers of England are in a state of almost unparalleled prosperity, and he says that pauperism is reduced, compared with the last year of gloom, to the amount of nearly 7 per cent. If, then, the manufacturers of this country have been, and are, in such a flourishing position—if the manufacturing population are not only altogether employed, but there is even a demand for labour in the manufacturing districts—how are we to account for the fact that the rally has not been much more considerable? And how, when we are called upon to congratulate the Sovereign upon the general prosperity of the country, are we to couple that congratulation with the stern and dark fact, that, even now, your pauperism is very insensibly reduced? But the case is much less encouraging, when we remember the state of the rural districts. We always told the right hon. Gentleman and his friends that there was this great difference between the manufacturing and agricultural districts—that it was in the power of the manufacturers, at periods of depression, to free themselves in a great degree from those whom they employed; whereas, from circumstances which I need not now minutely detail, it was clearly impossible for those who lived in the agricultural districts, except at a long interval, by slow degrees, and with extreme difficulty, to reduce the labour they employed.
226
And I have no hesitation in saying that the employment of the rural population during the last twelve months has been, to a very great degree—to the amount, I believe, of not less than 20 per cent—a factitious employment—an employment honourable to those feelings which we have always cherished in this country, but which are totally opposed to those economical principles advocated by hon. Gentlemen opposite. No one imagines that the pressure of pauperism in the agricultural districts would be felt with the fatal and instantaneous consequences which are experienced in the great hives of manufacturing industry; but what we feel is, that though the result may be more slow, it will, under the most favourable circumstances, be more permanent. There is, however, another reason why, in the agricultural districts, pauperism will not immediately increase. You quite forget that you have in this country a social system which throws by law the employment of those who are not engaged in labour upon a machinery which is mainly sustained by the capital of the owners and occupiers of land. And this brings me to the second part of the Amendment we have suggested, in which we ask the House, in the first place, to acknowledge a distress, the existence of which the Government themselves acknowledged, and to allege that the cause of that distress is that which the organ of the Government has accepted; and, in the second place, to acknowledge that the operation of those legislative enactments to which I have referred, is aggravated by the burden of local taxation. Now, is there anybody in this House who will rise and say that agricultural distress is not aggravated by peculiar burdens? It has been said, indeed, that in the instance of the occupiers of land, the distress may not be aggravated by these burdens; but nobody will say that such burdens do not exist, and, if existing, that they do not press upon some one of the agricultural classes. Now I think, after the speech of the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, who was so ostentatiously brought forward to propose the Address, that we should have some clear conception of the nature of these burdens. That hon. Gentleman has derided the idea that a reduction of those burdens could afford any relief to the occupiers of land. I want hon. Gentlemen opposite to meet this question with some degree of fairness and candour. Night after night last year hon. Gentlemen rose on the other side, and told

227
us there was no difference between land and any other property; that land was nothing more than a raw material. Those opinions were cheered by the Gentlemen opposite, they have virtually been accepted by the Government, and are, in fact, a necessary part of their economical creed. Now what I ask these Gentlemen is—if land be only a raw material, why do you tax it? Why do you not extend to this raw material the same economical principles which you extend to all other raw materials? If land be, as you say, only a raw material, why is the manufacturer of corn to be subjected to other economical principles, and another economical system, than the manufacturer of cotton? That is the question you must meet and answer. It is useless for you to tell us that if you take off the burdens on land the owner will be benefited, but the occupier will not. The question is far beyond that. Why do you tax this raw material—this material which was described the other day, by a leader of your school, at a great meeting, as the first, the principal, raw material of a nation's industry? Some Gentlemen are apt to think that this is merely a question of poor-rates, of county rates, of church rates. I tell them it is a much more complicated and extensive question than they imagine. From the moment an Englishman is born, to the moment of his burial, the raw material is taxed under your present social system, in order to guard either his life or his death. If a pauper child is born, you send for the parish doctor, and tax the raw material to pay the doctor's fee. If the child be not that of a pauper—one of your own offspring—its birth must be registered, and you tax the raw material to pay the registrar. If the child become a pauper, you build an immense edifice to receive him, and you tax the raw material to pay for its erection. If he is a lunatic, you raise a vast structure, and tax the raw material to pay for that. If he is a criminal, another pile arises, and you tax the raw material to pay the architect's bill. If the child is vaccinated, you tax the raw material to pay the vaccination fee. The child of a millionaire, who has 40,000 l. a year in the funds, is as liable to this virulent disease as the child of the agriculturist—and why, then, should be not be subject to the impost? You cannot in this country exercise some of the most important duties of which an Englishman is proud, without taxing this raw material. If you are a juryman, the raw material is
228
taxed to prepare the jury list. Even if you wish to exercise the suffrage, the raw material is taxed to prepare the list of voters. Now, I ask the great economists, the professors of the Manchester school, and their pupils—cither the present or the late Government—how can they maintain such a state of things according to the principles upon which they have built their commercial system? We ask you, then, now that the agricultural interest is in a state of great, and, as I believe, unprecedented depression, to come forward and respectfully and humbly to express to the Crown your sympathy with that distress, and your belief that the cause of such distress is that which has been alleged by the organ of the Government on this occasion. Is that unreasonable? Is it factious? We ask you, in the second place, to acknowledge that that distress is aggravated by the burdens that are peculiarly pressing upon the agricultural industry of Great Britain and Ireland. Now that I have put this question fairly before you, I want to know what man can allege a rational reason why he should oppose these two propositions? I have no wish to conceal what are my ulterior views upon the great subject of the rival industries of this country. I think that the cultivator of the soil has a right to two things. I think, in the first place, that he has a right to be put upon the same footing as his fellow-subjects; and that, secondly, he has a right in his own market to be put upon a footing with the foreigner. If these are not just principles—if they are not founded upon those eternal sentiments of right which, in the long run, must govern nations, or nations must fall, then I admit that I am greatly mistaken. I am told that we are advocating the interests of a few. If I were to collect the sentiments of the Government, not so much from the declarations that have been rather forced from them during this debate, as from the language of the Speech from the Throne, I should suppose that this was an insignificant interest, that was so urgent in its distress as to ask for your sympathy, and so unreasonable in its suffering as to suggest the possibility of a remedy. We are told that they are only "the owners and occupiers of land." My noble Friend the Member for Stamford has ably touched upon that point; he has shown you that it is not a question merely of the owners and occupiers of land, whose fortunes to-night you are, in some measure, to decide upon. But

229
I shall take a much more narrow view of the question before I ask for your vote. Admit that it is only the owners and occupiers of land who now, thinking themselves aggrieved, and certainly by your own acknowledgment suffering, are coming forward and asking you to interfere in their favour, are they so innumerous a class—are they in number and in condition so insignificant, that it becomes statesmen and Parliaments to pass them by disregarded and unheeded? Why, there are, according to the best accounts, 250,000 proprietors of the soil in the united kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. It is the most numerous class—the most numerous separate class in this country, as regards property; if they are exceeded slightly by the proprietors in the funds, you must remember that many of the proprietors in the funds are foreigners. Are the occupiers of land so contemptible in number, in character, and in conduct? You have, according to the most moderate accounts, 700,000 farmers in the united kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. Why, take your owners, take your occupiers, with their immediate families, and this alone is an affair of millions. You acknowledge those millions are in a state of great distress—you acknowledge they are in a state of great distress, in consequence of your recent legislative enactments; and you counsel your Sovereign to treat their feelings with derision and mockery. Why, one would have supposed from the tone of this debate, that we had come forward to-night on the first assembly of this Session of Parliament, to ask you to repeal the laws that you have recently passed, to violate all the principles of political economy that you have enshrined; that you should come forward and declare that you have flagrantly erred, and that your only chance for national regeneration was to fall back upon the position which you have quitted. Is it so? There is not a Gentleman on this side who shrinks on the legitimate occasion from advocating, to the best of his ability, the principles upon which we think the industrial policy of this country ought to be established; but I deny that this is the occasion on which we are called to that controversy and that battle. All that we have asked of you is this—that it being apparent, it being a matter of national notoriety, that a great body of the nation is in a state of suffering—that it being a matter of Parliamentary acknowledgment even on the side of the Government, that that suffering has been occasioned
230
by our recent changes in the law, you should come forward, that you should think it decent to come forward, and express to the Sovereign your recognition of the cause of the suffering, and your sympathy with the distress. Instead of that being, as you have pretended it to be, in a manner not flattering to the candour of Parliamentary discussion, an outrageous attempt, on the first night of Parliament meeting, to call upon this House of Commons suddenly to abrogate the resolutions which the Parliament of England had arrived at, it rather (if it does anything) indicates a course wherein, guided by justice, by that high principle of public duty which must, in the long run, influence every Minister in this country, you may not only express sympathy with your suffering fellow-countrymen, but even find the sources for the remedy of their grievances. Do not suppose that it is possible for you to escape the settlement of this question. You may pride yourself upon your accidental majority; you may pride yourself upon the array of three parties, full of rival ambitions, and unanimous only in their hostility to a suffering community; but we have the happiness of living in an age when an appeal to truth is never unsuccessful, and when the eternal principles of justice must be the foundation of Parliamentary statutes. I call upon you, then, to-night, in the name of the Gentlemen who are sitting upon these benches—the representatives mainly of those suffering classes—I call upon you to accept either alternative: you shall not go out of this House and misrepresent our purposes. Either reconstruct your commercial system upon those principles favourable to British industry which we advocate; or carry the principles upon which you have established your new system to their legitimate consequences. Do not, under this system, oppress the land of England, with the pharisaical pretence that you are the advocates of a great politico-economical scheme that will not tolerate the taxation of a raw material, and suppose, at the same time, we will endure that the whole social existence of England should be founded on a system which, morning, noon, and night, in every duty of the life of an Englishman, taxes the most important raw material of a nation's industry. We ask you to-night, to recur to no abrogated laws; they were planned by one whose subsequent conduct certainly does not entitle those laws to our posthumous respect. But we do call upon

231
you to-night to do justice to the land of England—to the owners, to the occupiers, to the cultivators, to all the classes dependent upon the land, to those mightier considerations even than the industry of man. You can nolonger postpone the settlement of this question. Enshrine yourselves in your politico - economical scheme—we accept your principles, we call upon you to carry them to their legitimate consequences. Let this raw material of a nation's industry be as free as other raw materials. Admit in its fulness, with respect to the land, the principle which you are extending to all other raw materials, and do not permit, in the cultivation of the land, artificial restrictions to prevail when you have debarred it from the artificial privileges which have hitherto been some compensation for your legislation; or come forward and say frankly to the people of England, "We cannot afford to do that justice to the land which we are prepared to do to every other field of industry." Tell us fairly, at that box tonight [the red box on the table before the Treasury bench], whether the cotton of the American may come here free, and the earth of England is to be enthralled. Come forward to-night, and tell us "there is no branch of manufacture which we will not facilitate, which we will not stimulate, which we will not allow British industry to send forward to every clime, in exchange for the productions of foreign artisans; but we are resolved that this country shall only be the country of manufacturers and mechanics; and, therefore, while we have, according to our principles, emancipated every branch of industry, the land, and the land alone, shall be our slave and our victim." I call upon the noble Lord at the head of the Government to speak frankly on this subject. Don't let the noble Lord suppose that this is a party movement; nothing is more convenient for a Government than to pretend that the great principles of free trade are endangered, and that those who are embarrassing them with a Motion, have merely personal considerations at stake. I tell the noble Lord that the time has gone by for those antiquated quibbles; the question is too serious and too earnest. Let the noble Lord—a fitting man—come forward and do justice to the land, and he will find plentiful zealous and disinterested supporters. But if the noble Lord thinks that he is to rule this country by a heterogeneous and unnatural combination—that he is to
232
have a Jacobin free-trader on one side of him, and a Conservative Privy Councillor on the other, I tell the noble Lord that he may maintain the Ministry, but he will destroy the Throne. It is not the first time that I have attempted feebly to express these opinions to the House in the behalf of those who honour me with their support. I told the noble Lord last year that it was in the spirit of conciliation that we spoke. [Laughter.] Yes, in the spirit of conciliation. Do not imagine that it is not in the spirit of conciliation that we speak, because we may take the opportunity of showing that we are not afraid of those before whom others tremble. I will tell the hon. Gentleman at least this—that I do not use two languages, I am not afraid to say in this House what I say in other places. I am in the custom of hearing things said in other places which we do not hear in this House. It is not in this House that we are told that the English constitution exists only upon sufferance. If I were to express what I think exists only upon sufferance, it would be a great branch of native industry existing upon the raw material obtained from a rival and a foreigner. Now, we have been appealed to in the Speech from the Throne to cherish that constitution which has "combined liberty with order." I want to know what is that constitution which has combined order and liberty. Is it the constitution that we hear of at Manchester, which exists "only by sufferance"—the constitution that the noble Lord's allies permit only to endure? I have always thought it was the constitution that was planted broadly and deeply in the land of England—the territorial constitution, that did not permit the fortunes of this ancient monarchy to depend upon the caprice or passion of a great town. But I want to know how the noble Lord means to maintain this territorial constitution if he does not mean also to maintain a territorial population? I, for one, do not ask him to maintain that territorial population by peculiar privileges, by franchises which other class of the population do not share. I have that confidence in the land of England, that I feel at this moment all it requires is justice—but justice complete and sufficient. I opposed the change in the law which regulated your agricultural industry. I have never suggested for a moment that I approved of that change. I think a more perilous—and, as I believe, a more disastrous—experiment in politics never yet occurred. Such a disturbance

233
of industry, such a break-up of all the influences that govern the political life of this free empire, such a degradation of all the means by which Government was carried on, I believe the history of this country does not afford. But I have ever felt, and I take this opportunity of expressing my conviction, that there never was a mistake greater than supposing that the land of England did at any time depend for its fortune on any artificial law whatever. What the land required, and what it requires now is justice, but I never yet have found a political economist who was prepared to come forward and offer it. The moment that you proceed to speak of the burdens peculiar to the soil, he pretends that those burdens apply to a limited class of aristocratic possessors, forgetting that the most valuable, the most numerous, the most thrifty, and the most hard-working class are the proprietors of the soil of this country—forgetting that the patricians are too often prompt to leave the cause of which they are the native chiefs—forgetting those Lincolnshire copartners to whom my hon. Friend the Member for the county referred to-night—forgetting the statesmen of the north, and the yeomanry of the south. I say we have now brought this question to an intelligible point. [A laugh.] I can excuse that laugh; for I believe the question has been put in a point of view so intelligible that it will in future be found very difficult to withstand our demand for justice. If the Minister comes forward—as ultimately he will—and admits the justice of our claims, and that we ought not to be subject to taxation from which other classes are free—if he admits that our property should not be subject to restrictions to which no other property is subject, but says, as he will say, that the condition of the country requires them—he at once admits that in the government of the country the political must interfere with the commercial principle; and then I shall ask him to do us the justice we demand, or to reconstruct the commercial system of the country on principles favourable to the native industry of England.
LORD J. RUSSELL: Mr. Speaker, the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down has asked us not to misrepresent the purpose which he and his friends have in view. But, unwilling as I should be to misrepresent, I own that to form an accurate idea of that purpose, is a thing almost impossible. The hon. Gentleman who moved the Amendment, in a very temperate and
234
fair speech, told us very plainly his purpose was that we should reconsider our recent legislation; and I understand him to be, in a very Parliamentary manner, laying down grounds for such reconsideration, not with a view to adopt an altered state of the law, or to come to any binding resolution, but for a reconsideration of the recent legislation in this country in respect to commercial and agricultural affairs. Nothing could be more fair—nothing could be more decided, than that; and Her Majesty's Government being convinced that such recent legislation was sound, and being convinced that we should not be benefiting the country, but doing it the greatest injury, if we submitted that legislation again to be altered or reconsidered, we were prepared to oppose that Amendment. But then came the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Stamford, who complains that there is not sufficient sympathy expressed in the Speech from the Throne for the distress of the landed interest. On the other hand, the hon. Member for South Lincolnshire said explicitly, "Your pity and sympathy are not what I ask for; what I ask for is acts and measures." Then we have heard from a high authority in another place, who, indeed, goes beyond anything we have heard in this House, but only, however, in the way of a distant prospect, or for the future—and the object of that high authority is to place a new Government in the place of the present Government, and then to obtain a dissolution of the present House of Commons, and form a new House of Commons to ask for the restoration of protection. When I heard those hon. Gentlemen, I thought we should never be embarrassed any longer as to the question at issue, and that we should know what we were voting about—that we were voting either to restore protection or to maintain our present policy. But no—the hon. Gentleman the Member for Buckinghamshire came forward, and, asking us not to misrepresent his purpose, involved that purpose in such an ambiguity of language, in such tortuous expressions, and appeals to our sense of justice, that really it becomes again a matter of the utmost difficulty to know what this Amendment is to mean. Now, let me say to the hon. Gentleman, and to those who support him, that I think there are two courses on such a question, either of which may be constitutionally and properly followed. The one is for you, the independent Members of Parliament, to say, "We don't agree with all the expressions

235
of the Address. We think one part of it might be more warmly worded: in another part we think you express too much satisfaction. You exaggerate the prosperity that prevails in one place, and do not regret the distress which prevails with sufficient sympathy in another; but these are general phrases, and we mean to give our concurrence to the Address." Another course, which is equally Parliamentary and constitutional, is to say, "The state of the country is such, and the views of the Govepnment are so erroneous, that we cannot allow one day to pass, and we must at once express our opinion, and, whether in a minority or in a majority, call on the House of Commons to say, if a system injurious to the best interests of the country, should be persevered in, and ask for better legislation than it is in the power of the Government to yield." But the hon. Gentleman the Member for South Lincolnshire has taken a third course—that of having an unmeaning Amendment. And not being satisfied with the Address as proposed by Her Majesty's Ministers, he proposes to have an address, obscure and ambiguous in its phrases. ["No, no!"] That, I say, is the result of the hon. Gentleman's Amendment. ["No, no!"] What have we been told? [Cries of "Read, read!"] I will read it presently. The hon. Gentleman says we are not restoring protection by this proposition, and we are not preparing to revert to a course of policy that has been abandoned. Now, in referring to the Amendment, I must first observe as to what has been called the insult to the agricultural interest which has been offered by Her Majesty's advisers. I cannot but say, in the first instance, that nothing was further from our intention—that we have heard with great regret of the suffering and distress which exist in various parts of the country; and nothing would give us greater pleasure than to be able to say that by some manner of relief that suffering should be put an end to. The words of the Address are—
"The House sympathises with the regret with which Her Majesty has observed the complaints which in many parts of the kingdom have proceeded from the owners and occupiers of land, and beg to assure Her Majesty of the sympathy with which they hear that Her Majesty greatly laments that any portion of Her subjects should be suffering distress; while it is a source of sincere gratification to Her Majesty to witness the increased enjoyment of the necessaries and comforts of life which cheapness and plenty have bestowed upon the great body of Her people. "
236
Now, the Amendment proposed is as follows:—
"That we regret, however, to be compelled humbly to represent to Your Majesty that in many parts of the united kingdom, and especially in Ireland, the various classes of Your Majesty's subjects connected with the cultivation of the soil are labouring under severe distress, mainly applicable, in our opinion, to recent legislative enactments, aggravated by the pressure of local taxation."
Now, I own I do not see in those words, except as they relate to Ireland, any material difference from the words proposed in the Address. [" Read, read!"] I will not read the words again, but I have read those words which were said to be inserted with a view of insulting the agricultural interest. We say in the Address, that we sympathise with Her Majesty in greatly regretting that any portion of Her subjects should be suffering distress; and the Amendment says that there are certain classes suffering severe distress. But another question is raised in this matter. It appeared to us, much as we should have rejoiced in an opportunity of advising Her Majesty to declare the opinions we entertain with respect to the recent commercial policy, that the time was not a fit one to propose that that expression of opinion should fall from Her Majesty. It has always appeared to us, that—in conformity to recent custom with regard to matters of legislation, upon which Parliament may have to give an opinion in the course of the Session—it is better to reserve those questions upon the first night of the Session, and rather to give an opinion as to the actual state of the country, than to attribute that legislation to any acts of the Government. But the Amendment does not take that course. The Amendment goes on to say, that this distress is
—"mainly attributable in our opinion to recent legislative enactments, the operation of which is aggravated by the pressure of local taxation."
Now, I must say, if I had thought it right to advise Her Majesty to give any opinion with regard to recent legislation, I should have advised that, in saying "it is a source of sincere gratification to Her Majesty to witness the increased enjoyment of the necessaries and comforts of life which cheapness and plenty have bestowed upon the great body of Her people," I should have been disposed to add, that "having greater enjoyment of the necessaries had comforts of life was in a great degree owing to the recent legislation of Her Parliament." Nothing would have pleased me better than

237
to bring to the test at once the question of whether that legislation was calculated for the benefit of the people or not; but I did not think it respectful to those who advocate a different opinion. I was in hopes at least that we might be able by the Amendment to bring the question to the test; some have declared they were also; but the hon. Gentleman who has just spoken seems to entertain a different opinion. With regard to one subject upon which the hon. Gentleman has dilated at considerable length, I rather think he must have one apprehension which I should be glad entirely to remove. The hon. Gentleman speaks of the heavy taxation upon the raw material, meaning the land of this country. I am persuaded that the hon. Gentleman thinks that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer is about to propose an increase of the land tax. Now, it is not for me to inform the hon. Gentleman and the House of the nature of the Cabinet secrets; but with regard to those mysterious Cabinets to which he has alluded, and which mysterious Cabinets are generally held every autumn, I can assure him, without telling him any secret, that there did not issue out of any of those Cabinets a determination on the part of the Government, to increase by a single penny the present land tax. I dare say the hon. Gentleman was afraid that we might have adopted a certain plan which has been much discussed throughout the country, and has excited a great deal of attention, which proposes by a very large augmentation of the land tax to get an enormous sinking fund for the purpose of easing the landed interest, and at the same time I paying off a large portion of the national debt. The hon. Gentleman seems to apprehend that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer had resolved to get hold of the land for the purpose of taxation—an error from which he might easily be saved, by considerations of the most obvious kind. Now, Sir, with regard to the present state of the landed interest, we must consider—and at this late hour of the night I will endeavour not to do it at any great length—we must consider, I say, a little both what has passed, what is now present before us, and what is likely to be the future condition of land. Now, I considered ten years ago, that, with the great increase of our population, with the great rivalry there was in the various branches of manufacture, with the necessity for employing that great increase of
238
population, we might some day or other find the increase of population was out of proportion to the increase of the means of disposing of their industry; and I, therefore, entertained a strong disposition to effect a compromise on the question of the corn laws—a compromise by which protection might he somewhat reduced without admitting too large a quantity of foreign corn. Such a change I did believe would not have borne too hard upon the landed interest, because I had no intention that the change should be effected at once, but, on the contrary, that it should be gradually introduced. That proposition, as we all very well remember, did not find favour with the landed interest, but it did meet with favour from those who called for a total repeal of the corn laws, or who, up to that time at least, were loud in making that demand. Those, I say, who were for total abrogation would then have been content with the proposition which I at that time regarded as a fitting compromise on the question of the corn laws; and then that body which the hon. Gentleman opposite considered to be so formidable—I mean the Anti-Corn-Law League—would at once have dissolved itself. If our proposition had been agreed to, the League would have proceeded no further. However, the landed interest would not hear of it. At the end of the year 1845 we came to the conclusion, and the Government of the day came to the same conclusion about the same time, that it was no longer possible to make any compromise upon the subject, but that the corn laws ought to be altogether repealed, and that at no distant time. Parliament has done that. About a year ago the repeal actually took effect, and we are now paying a duty which gives a considerable sum to the revenue; but still it is not onerous to the consumer, and the people of this country have the benefit of procuring food upon the cheapest terms that it can be procured. That being the case, we have to consider, after a very short experience it is true, but still after a year's experience, what is the present state of the country with that entire freedom in the article which is the main subsistence of the people of this country. Why, if we look at the great interests of the country, we see that they have increased. If we look, first, to the condition of the main body of the people, as represented by returns from the poor-law, we find that of ablebodied poor there was no less a diminution than 30,000 on

239
the 1st of January, compared with the corresponding period of last year; if we look to the returns of our shipping, we find our shipping has much increased; if we look to the exports, we find an increase of 10,000,000 l. in 1849 over the year 1848; and if we look to various other sources of wealth, we find that upon many of them the accounts are exceedingly satisfactory. If we look to the returns from that great branch of the revenue the Excise, which is supposed to he an index to the state of comfort of the people, we find that revenue has increased and that it shows an improved condition of the population. I must say likewise that I hear from all parties, and I receive letters daily informing me of it, that the great body of the people are obtaining the advantages of cheapness and plenty, and that they are now in a better condition than they have been for many years before. If that is a true account of the state of the country, is this a moment when the Government ought to say, "We desire now to retrace our steps, and to alter the law upon which we had agreed?" I must say I always considered, that was a reason for wishing for a compromise, that there could hardly be a transition from a state of extreme restriction to complete freedom of commerce in the article of food, without very considerable suffering on the part of owners and occupiers of land. That suffering has come; but I must say it has not come in so aggravated a shape as I should have expected. ["Hear, hear!"] Well, now, with regard to price. Look back to the extremely uneasy and troubled period with regard to this subject, which has extended ever since your enactments in 1815. What were the complaints of the agricultural interest in 1822? Did we not hear then of farms being given up, of farmers being unable to live upon the produce of their farms? What did we hear in the year 1836? During 1835, the price of corn fell until, at the end of the year, it had fallen to 36 s. a quarter. That price, be it observed, is 4s. 6d. a quarter under the present price, with all the importations that have taken place. But then I see it has been repeated over and over again in the country, "Yes, but in 1835 there was no foreign importation; and, although the farmer got 36 s. a quarter, that was all for English wheat, because no foreign wheat was imported." If the case was that we have this year a very deficient harvest, I could understand the farmers saying that,
240
with a deficient harvest, and having only a small quantity of produce to dispose of, it is hard upon us to receive only 36 s.; but if the case is the contrary, if the harvest has been abundant, more nearly resembling that of 1835 than that of any recent year, I again say, "What does it matter to the farmer when he goes into the market and receives 40 s. a quarter for his corn, whether the person who sells another quarter of corn for 40 s., is a man from the next parish, the next county, or from a neighbouring kingdom, or one who brings his flour over the Atlantic from the United States?" What does it matter to the farmer with whom he competes if his price is equal to that which his competitors obtain? I have heard hon. Gentlemen, one after the other, lamenting that we have received 12,000,000 quarters of different kinds of corn, and that we have received upwards of 4,000,000 quarters of wheat in the course of last year. But they are obliged to add that nearly the whole has been consumed. I cannot, therefore, sympathise with that complaint. I say if the people of England have enjoyed a greater command of the great necessaries of life, if working men are able to purchase their loaf of bread cheap, if they have consumed a great quantity, and after all the price is higher than that which they paid in 1835, when protection existed, I own I cannot sympathise with complaints of great imports. Upon the contrary, I rejoice that the means of consumption have increased. But there is another consideration. It is one into which I certainly cannot go at length, and, therefore, I must leave it for hon. Gentlemen's consideration. I do not believe there has ever been one instance of a great trade being opened which had been previously restricted into which there was not immediately a great rush; where the abundant surplus capital of this country and its speculative spirit, were not directed immediately towards that trade; and where you have not found, in the first place, that there was a very great abundance of the articles supplied, and where, in the next place, many persons have been disappointed with their speculations, and the trade has afterwards gone on in a less profuse manner. That was the case with the opening of the markets of South America; it was the case with the opening of the China market when the East India Company's monopoly was done away with; it has been the case, I believe, to a great extent, with regard to the corn trade; and from all that

241
I hear, many of those persons who have introduced corn into this country have been losers and not gainers by their transactions. If that has been the case, I think it very probable—I will not say certain, for I do not like to predict in these matters—whatever may be the case for the next five or six months, that we shall have higher prices than we have had for the last six months. But there is another consideration, with reference to all the calculations that are made, with which one hon. Gentleman opposite, the Member for North Lincolnshire, favoured us to-night, namely, with regard to the balance of profit and loss. Supposing that the price of corn was to be permanently a good deal lower than that which it has been for the last ten years, it is obvious that upon the beginning of a change, every charge upon a farm, the fixed charges for live stock and wages, having been all calculated upon the previous average price of corn, there would be a very considerable outlay, and that outlay would not be repaid by the produce of the farm in the first year of the change. But supposing a farmer to begin after that change has permanently taken place, why then all those articles on which he is afterwards to count, on which a profit is afterwards to be gained, he obtains at that lower rate, and he is then to make a new calculation, first, as to the expenses of his farm, and then as to the remuneration he obtains, and the prices of his produce. Now that calculation has not yet been made; all the calculations we have heard, go on the supposition that his expenses are to be calculated on the average price of the last ten years, but that the sale of the produce is to be calculated on the average of the last six months. So far all these calculations are deficient in supposing prices to be permanently reduced, and we shall have to make fresh calculations as to the price of the produce. [Mr. CHRISTOPHER: I made allowance for that.] The hon. Gentleman made an allowance with respect to some articles, but with respect to others he did not. But looking at the present state of the question, I will ask the House to consider—because that, after all, is the real question—whether we are to take the first step to a return to protection. We have been told that it is impossible this country should flourish otherwise than with protection, and that we must sooner or later return to that system. I do not believe that the plans which have been framed for relief to
242
the agricultural interest, by taking off taxes which affect them—I do not believe that the hon. Gentleman who made a proposition of that kind, even if it were to be carried to the utmost extent they wish, would confer the benefit upon the farmers which they expect. The question then is, whether you could confer it by returning to protection. And let me ask the House to observe the position in which we are placed. The question is not as to keeping up a restriction which exists; its conditions have been totally changed since the corn laws were repealed. This question comes to that fundamental one—should you by Act of Parliament procure a price for one article of produce of sale different from that which the producer would otherwise obtain in the market? Now, Sir, that is a question, with respect to an article of this kind, of the utmost importance and of the utmost delicacy. If my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer were to say, I want more revenue from silk—supposing that revenue were wanted, and we had not means sufficient in the Exchequer—some might complain that the price of silk was raised; some might even say that it was a protection to the silk manufacturer of this country; but there would be a great body of persons who would be seriously affected by that dearness of the silk manufacture. But this is a question which does not concern merely the owners and occupiers of land, or even the farm labourers, if you suppose them to have an interest identical with the owners of the land; it is a question which concerns the whole body of the people. And I must say I wonder to see the limited view which some of those who have procured the convocation of public meetings in this country have taken of the subject. I saw that a noble Lord, in addressing a meeting in the county of Down, complained that he could not obtain a majority at the meeting he had called, because persons who had no stake in the country had intruded themselves on the lieges, and given an opinion on the question. Why, Sir, in this question every man has the right to give an opinion. There is not a man, woman, or child who has not an interest in the question; and if you were to put on a duty which you would say would raise the price of corn one shilling, or eighteenpence, or two shillings the bushel, every man would count the shilling, or eighteenpence, or two shillings of wheat which he would have to pay for the support of his family in addition to that which

243
he pays at the present day. Now, are you ready to face that question? Are you ready to face the discontent which you would presently awaken? And observe this, you would be considered responsible not only for the effect which your law might produce in raising the price of corn, but for every accidental rise which the course of the seasons, or the inadequacy of supply from foreign countries, might produce even in the present rates. Supposing you leave this law to its operation, if the price of corn rise from 40 s. to 45 s., or to 50 s., no man in the country will have a right to complain, and I believe no man in the country will complain. They will say, "Justice has been done us; we have the corn as cheap as it can be procured; and if the price of bread is dear this week, and we must consume less of it than usual, at least we have no fault to find with our Legislature for making it dear." But if you had a rise in price from 40 s. to 45 s. or 50 s., after you had passed a new law regulating the importation of food, depend upon it that the discontent will be deep and universal. Some hon. Gentlemen think that we sneer at the landed interest because they have made complaints. I acknowledge perfectly their right to make complaints. When any Englishman thinks he is suffering hardship, or has had injustice done to him, he is quite right to make his complaint, and to make it as loud as he thinks proper, that he may obtain redress from what he deems an injustice. Well, then, in the case I have been supposing, you will have complaints loud enough, and frequent enough, assailing Parliament for imposing an additional price to enhance the cost of the daily food of the people. Do not conceal that from yourselves.' You would be ready to face, no doubt, and I believe you would be enabled to overcome, any complaint of the institutions of the country, any attacks upon the House of Lords or the Crown, as institutions which were not useful to the country. But is it not much wiser not to put these matters into question—not to raise any discussion upon them? Review the situation in which we have stood during the last two years: have our institutions been assailed? Has there been anything beyond the lowest murmurs amongst the people in general with respect to the nature of our institutions? But have a general election upon this question of protection before the country—have it again agitated in Parliament—who can say what subjects may not be
244
mixed up with that discussion, and what institutions you may not be called upon to defend? Let me tell you it is far wiser not to put any of those matters into question. Defend them you can—defend them you will. I should be happy to be associated with you in their defence. But this, I say, is the course of prudence, to continue the policy that you have adopted, not to raise a complaint amongst the people by favouring a particular class. By establishing a legislative price for the necessaries of life, you would cause a doubt to be raised as to the sympathy of the Legislature with the great body of the people. Well, Sir, if that is the case, I beg you, the owners of land, to consider your present position. I do not know any higher or better position than that of a gentleman in England. I think it is Gibbon who says he thanks God because he was born an Englishman, but he thanks God again that he was born an English gentleman. An English gentleman, possessing an estate in the country, looked up to by his neighbours, able to do acts of beneficence and generosity to those about him, having sufficient business to employ his time, having sufficient leisure for recreation or for literature, called, if he is ambitious of a seat in the Legislature, to take a part in the most stirring political debates, and to influence the fortunes of his country—I say such a man, in such a position, is indeed fortunate. I say he would do most rashly if he were to risk that position for the purpose of giving to a particular class an advantage by legislation which other classes do not ask, and would not obtain. If that he so, then I ask the House to be contented with the present state of our legislation. We have made a great change—a great change which is accompanied by distress among a portion of the people of the united kingdom. Whatever may be considered by the hon. Gentleman opposite, or any other person, best for the relief of that distress, with fairness to all other classes, let that be proposed, let it be examined—accepted if useful, rejected if it would not be useful. But do not attempt, now that the question of protection has been decided by a Parliament, and those who in that Parliament gave that vote for the destruction of protection have been again submitted to the judgment of the country and returned to Parliament—do not attempt by a fresh vote to disturb that settlement, and to make it matter of doubt whether your deliberations

245
have that constancy, that firmness, and that regard to the interests of all Her Majesty's subjects, which it is your bounden duty to entertain. Let me add, likewise, that my belief is, that the course of policy begun by the Legislature in 1842, under the Administration of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Tamworth, whom I now see opposite, and continued in subsequent years both by his Administration and that which has succeeded him, is to open a great source of peace and of prosperity to this country and to the world. I believe that with reference to an Act which we passed last Session, for the repeal of the navigation laws, we have never sufficiently known what benefits that Act may procure for the country. That the nations of the world should be in haste to follow us, is what I never expected; that with respect to that Act in particular, they should show a disposition to follow us, is what I am happy to recognise. But if you say now that you doubt of your own decision, that you are about to go back on that decision, that you are about to resume that which they thought you had discarded as an erroneous theory and injurious practice—expect no more such benefits from the reciprocal goodwill of foreign nations—expect them to be confirmed in all their notions of the benefits of monopoly and restriction. I say, then, that by your decision to-night you will not only exercise great influence upon the welfare of the people of this country, and upon the fortunes of this great State; but you will likewise decide whether your example shall be beneficial or injurious to the world.
MR. COBDEN: Sir, I have not risen to make a speech, but to express my regret that there is not an occasion afforded for discussing the question which I thought was to be submitted to us on this occasion. I came into this House fully convinced that before forty-eight hours had elapsed, an opportunity would be afforded those who are supporters of protection, and those who are advocates of free trade, to discuss those two principles in this House. I must say that what has passed in the country has convinced me of the necessity of having that discussion instantly; for I cannot shut my eyes to the fact that a very largo and influential body of the community are under an impression that the question of protection and free trade is not settled in this House. Any one who has had his eyes open for the last three months will admit that there has been an amount of agitation
246
in this country sufficient to show that there is a very intense feeling on the part of the occupying tenants of this country, a large portion of the agricultural community—that the House is prepared to reconsider the question of the corn laws, and that an injustice has been done to a portion of the community which this House will remedy. It has been said that that movement has been a movement, not of the landowners, but of the farmers. It may be so; but, at all events, the farmers recognise, as their representatives and leaders in this House, the Gentlemen whom I see opposite, and I firmly believe that they are under an impression that a very large body of hon. Members opposite have come to this House on the present occasion prepared to vindicate the principles which they believed to be just, and which they expect to see carried out in the legislation of the country. I must say that, so far as the Government has been concerned, there has been no disposition to palter with this question, and not the slightest hesitation in meeting it on its merits at the very opening of the Session. For it has been a subject of complaint by hon. Gentlemen opposite, and the hon. Member for Buckinghamshire has himself alluded to it in no very kindly terms, that the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, formerly a leading member of the Anti-Corn-Law League, and who annually brought forward a Motion for the repeal of the corn laws, was put forward to move the Address to the Crown, thereby offering a distinct and unequivocal negative to the principles which hon. Gentlemen opposite espouse. I must also say that in an early part of this debate a considerable number of hon. Gentlemen opposite did take a fair and candid course on this question. They have not hesitated to say what their objects are; they have not dealt in mystification; they have not attempted to lead us away from the question before us; they have been peculiarly abstinent in personalities or attempts at sarcasm. They have broadly stated that protection to native industry is desirable and necessary for the agriculturists of this country, and they have fairly discussed the question. But what has fallen from the bon. Member for Buckinghamshire has altogether changed the character of the debate; he has totally altered the issue of our coming decision. For he has told us that the question before us is not the question of protection, or free trade—that we are not on this occasion going to decide whether the principle of protection to native industry is or is not to

247
be the principle of this House. He says that "it may or may not be" expedient, at some future time, to test the opinion of this House on the subject, but that, tonight, no hon. Gentleman who votes, commits himself at all upon the question. I must say that it is a very sorry beginning, after so loud a preparation as has been heard throughout the country. I do not know whether the farmers are able to comprehend the position in which they are placed by the movements of parties on the other side. If I found a body of gentlemen agreeing with their leader, I should know exactly what course they were going to take, what principle they adopted. When I find Gentlemen opposite disposed to take the course which every man of common sense would think they all intended to take from the terms of their Amendment—and when I find them followed by their leader, who distinctly repudiates everything which his followers have said before him, then, I think, the farmers of this country must have an acuteness which surpasses that of any one on this side of the House, at all events, if they can understand what course their friends in this House mean to take. I must say this is a very convenient plan by which the members of a party and their leader make up accounts together—the rank-and-file going one way, the leader another; and it is left to their confiding partisans out of doors to decide who is promoting their interest, and who best represents their principles. The hon. Member for Buckinghamshire frequently alluded to what has taken place out of this House. The hon. Gentleman out of this House sometimes makes statements of a personal character—sometimes indulges in little invectives and personalities which he does not always like when used by other parties. I remember that the hon. Gentleman, at a meeting at Marlow some time ago, stated that a county meeting was not a proper place, but that the House of Commons was the proper place, for discussing the question of free trade and protection. Well, here I am on the floor of this House, and not in Buckinghamshire, anxious to argue with him. The hon. Gentleman has talked of every subject except protection to native industry. I do not know whether it was not fifty times over that the hon. Gentleman referred to the raw material of land. I have some doubt whether the hon. Gentleman did not attribute that term to somebody on this side of the House; but, for my part, I saw that the term had been used at Great Marlow, and I certainly
248
adopted it, as I thought it a good definition, though I did not do so without acknowledging it. The hon. Gentleman said that land was the raw material; but he went further, and said that the raw material belonged to the landowner, and that no Act of Parliament could interfere with him in the disposing of it, but that that was a question solely between him and his tenant. He said further, that we should revise the taxation on that raw material. Now he professes to come here in order to serve the tenant-farmer; but how abolishing taxation on the raw material can have that effect, I am utterly at a loss to understand—that raw material being, as he told the meeting at Marlow, the legal and exclusive property of the landowner. What I understand the farmers to say is, that their capital is diminishing—that is, their floating stock on this raw material is daily lessening, and they want a law that will raise the price of their produce so as to save this floating capital from being entirely exhausted. The hon. Gentleman, instead of proposing a measure to that effect, gives us some hints of a proposition which will reduce the taxation on the landowner's raw material. Now I think that everybody in this House, whatever they may think of free trade, or protection, will admit that it is most desirable this question should be settled as soon as possible. I say it advisedly, that no honest man in this country can desire this question should be kept over longer than it can possibly be avoided. If there be any party or any individual in this House who wishes to make protection a stalking-horse to power, without any serious intention of ever attempting to restore it—who could have any such motive as that of hoping for a time—as it could only be for a time, when dealing with so much intelligence as that of the English population—by mystifying this question, and by pretending to advocate protection, when they did not dream of the possibility of ever returning to it—I say that such an individual would be one of the greatest enemies that the British farmer could have; and not merely that, but he would be the greatest enemy to the country at large, because we have all an interest, whether we are farmers or individuals connected with trade or manufactures, in the successful operations of agriculture. Now, I have the fullest confidence in my fellow-countrymen that they can accomplish anything that it is possible for human beings to accomplish, if you only let them know what it is they have to do. But if you tell men, who are sinking from

249
want of exertion, to wait with, their arms folded, until some other power does that for them which they can do for themselves, you paralyse their industry, and render the finest race in the world powerless and helpless. I cannot conceive any rational ground why any hon. Gentleman opposite who is a protectionist landlord should act as they have been acting lately—why they should be running about the country dissatisfying the farmers with their land, and disheartening them with their sole pursuit in life. Is it possible they can carry on their business with success, or escape ruin, while such a course is pursued? Were there ever dealers in raw material before who had acted so foolishly? There is an unsavoury simile which I must not use in this House, that can alone apply to such conduct, and those who wish to know it had better go to Billingsgate to find it. You are not only decrying the value of your own property, but you appear to be unconscious of the question before you. The question of free trade must be one day or other decided; and decided, as all rational men know it will be, by depriving of hope any man who expects by coming to this House to get the price of his produce raised; and should not hon. Gentlemen see that the very depreciation which they now seek to cast on their land will be returned on the audit day then with compound interest. Is there no sensible or rational-minded being, who can see two inches before his nose, to tell these unfortunate, misguided, and suicidal landlords, that they are going the best possible way to ruin themselves and their children after them? But not only are they ruining the land, but they seek to discredit every one who wishes to show that it can be cultivated more successfully than it has been. Does any rational and benevolent man step out from the walks of his profession—like Mr. Huxtable, but they seek to cry down his efforts at improvement: so also with a worthy man in Leadenhall street, who goes down to Essex to see what can be made out of barren heaths. It may be that he cannot show in his accounts a debtor and creditor statement to satisfy you that he is making money by his experiments; but I ask you what innovator or experimenter ever derived profits from first experiments? What manufacturer, I ask, ever derived profit from a first discovery? I cannot, I repeat, understand on what rational principle these hon. Gentlemen have proceeded. I ask, why the noble Marquess the Member
250
for Stamford should be allowed to go at large about the country telling the farmers that they cannot carry on their business, even if they pay no rent at all? I should like to hear some of the conversations that will take place at the rent-audit at Belvoir Castle next autumn. If I had been one of the territorial aristocracy, I should not like to have one near me preaching such destructive doctrines—I should expect to hear of their coming back to me in a very inconvenient way at the first audit day. I am not going to trespass on the time of the House at this late hour by entering into the general question; but what I want to know is, when we are to have this question discussed? I thought it was legitimately before us now; but the hon. Member for Buckinghamshire, who is your leader, has told us that the question is not to be discussed on this occasion. But this is not the first time that the hon. Gentlemon has avoided the question of protection. I was struck last Session with the systematic and cautious way in which he avoided any allusion to the question of protection; and I must say that it comes with very bad grace from the hon. Member that he should deal in any way but the most direct and intelligible with this question, because there is no one in this House who has played so constantly the part of censor upon others, whom he accused of having led a party while they were secretly convinced that that party had objects which could not be accomplished. Now, if the hon. Gentleman thinks that protection can only be settled in this House, that settlement can be effected, not by sarcasm, not by rhetoric, not by jesting, but by solid and serious argument. The hon. Member was fairly challenged to the discussion by the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton. There never was a speech which more fairly challenged to that discussion than the speech of my hon Friend. If the principle of protection was ever again to be established, it could only be by the same process by which the corn laws were repealed—by discussion of the question. There had been enough of discussion out of the House—there had been more county meetings held, and that in the depth of winter, too, than at any time since the passing of the Reform Bill. The subject was, therefore, ripe for discussion, and the hon. Member for Buckinghamshire was responsible for introducing it to this House; and I therefore call upon him to

251
do it at once—to give notice to-morrow of the time when he intends this question to be discussed. I have only one word more. I much admire the speech of the noble Lord who has just sat down. The noble Lord has taken a great and comprehensive view of the influences and effects of free trade, and more particularly with regard to the navigation laws. But the noble Lord dropped one remark in reference to what was now an historical fact—relative to the conduct of the Anti-Corn-Law League and the 8s. duty. The noble Lord said he knew that body were prepared to accept the compromise. Now, having myself been, during the time, a prominent member of that association, I think it is but just to those who were connected with me, as well as to myself, to say that they did not believe that proposition would effect a compromise or settlement of the question. I do not say that it would not have allayed the agitation for a time; but I believe that the principles of free trade had taken such deep hold on the public mind that it never would have been set at rest. And I would beg to call the noble Lord's attention to the fact, that whatever he might have done respecting a fixed duty in 1841, the time was not far distant, in 1846 and 1847, when any fixed duty must have been scattered to the winds; and therefore I believe that the repeal of the corn laws—though it was a measure which any man might have been emulous of achieving—was neither to be attributed to the noble Lord, nor to the Anti-Corn-Law League, nor to the statesman who was the author of the measure, so much as to that calamity which befell the country in 1846 and 1847. I have only to repeat my request, my solemn request to the hon. Member for Buckinghamshire, as he values the interests of the farmers of England, to lose no time in bringing the question of protection fairly before the House.
MR. DRUMMONDsaid, he was not going to make a speech at that advanced hour of the night, or rather morning. The hon. Gentleman who had just sat down declared that it was his intention to watch the conduct of those Gentlemen, Members of that House, who attended county meetings in the various provinces, with a view to see if they would come forward, and here in that House avow the sentiments they had enunciated from the platform. The hon. Gentleman had also called on the farmers of England to watch them to see if they would utter in that
252
House what they did not fear to speak out of it. Now, he begged to give that hon. Gentleman notice that he (Mr. Drummond) was then fully prepared, as he would be on any future occasion, to justify every word he had ever spoken, as well as to go into the broad question of protection and free trade with the hon. Gentleman. He would not insult the feelings of hon. Gentlemen on his side of the question by appealing to them to ascertain if they were not equally prepared to meet the question, for he believed there was not a single one of them that was not prepared and anxious to come forward and justify their principles. Therefore, that the hon. Gentleman the Member for the West Riding should understand the ground on which he rested the question, he would say he cared not comparatively for the welfare of the landlord class, but he accused that hon. Gentleman of wishing to sacrifice the English labourer for the benefit of the manufacturer and the foreigner. That was his assertion; and after that the hon. Gentleman could not be mistaken as to the nature of the question at issue between them.
COLONEL THOMPSONrose, amidst loud calls for a division. He said it was not at his option whether he addressed the House or not; but he should do it as briefly as the temper of the House appeared to counsel. He represented a constituency whose interests were directly destroyed by the principles advocated on the opposite side; and the speakers of that side had furnished him with his text. The protectionist speakers had made loud demands for justice. He would ask what would be thought of his side, if the people of Bradford had stated that they had mills and manufactories which only wanted one thing to make them go on, and that was a duty on home-grown corn? The hon. and gallant Member proceeded to say he would take the assistance of a piece of history, given by a clerical wit now deceased. He would assure the House it was a better joke than had been uttered by the best of the protectionist orators that night. A bishop was pressed by a set of hungry followers for food, and he cried, "Throw out to them the dinners of the Dean and Chapter." Now, the protectionist claim was to throw out the dinners of the people of Bradford, and he did not see why that should be agreed to without the stoutest possible opposition.

253
Appeal had been made to the rights of labour. Our trade is to make goods to be exchanged abroad for corn; and do we not labour? He would now go to the consequences which the protectionists had entailed on themselves by this effort to return to protection. They had laid open the sore place. Manchester with 14,000 constituents sent two Members, and the Tower Hamlets with 15,000, while places under the influence of the agriculturists sent two Members with 300. The protectionists had reiterated their assurances that they would never give over till they got back. Their chances of getting back were therefore dependent on their preserving an advantage of fifty to one in the representation. He wondered where the hon. Member for Nottingham was eclipsing himself; for if he could see him he would ask him whether this was not the opportunity to cry to those dogs of war he was reputed to have under his control, "Up, guards! and at 'em." All this would be carefully explained in those calmer assemblies which were the first workshops of all political combinations. He had always been opposed to that burning of the regimental books which had taken place in one powerful association, on the accidental success which the enlightened and conscientious conduct of the Member for Tamworth had given them; and he hoped they would now see the necessity of throwing all their force into the new line he had pointed out, of demanding the cessation of the fifty-fold majority of the agriculturists in the representation. He thanked those who had supported him in gaining the hearing he had had; and there were places at Bradford, and larger still elsewhere, where any defects in the explanations of his views could be amply supplied.
Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
The House divided:—Ayes 192; Noes 311: Majority 119.

List of the AYES.

Adderley, C. B.

Baring, hon. F.

Archdall, Capt. M.

Barrington, Visct.

Arkwright, G.

Barron, Sir H. W.

Bagge, W.

Bateson, T.

Bagot, hon. W.

Bell, M.

Bailey, J.

Bennet, P.

Bailey, J., jun.

Bentinck, Lord H.

Baillie, H. J.

Berkeley, hon. G. F.

Baldock, E. H.

Bernard, Visct.

Baldwin, C. B.

Best, J.

Bankes, G.

Blakemore, R.

Baring, T.

Blandford, Marq. of

254

Boldero, H. G.

Harcourt, G. G.

Bramston, T. W.

Harris, hon. Capt.

Bremridge, R.

Heathcote, G. J.

Brisco, M.

Henley, J. W.

Broadley, H.

Herbert, H. A.

Broadwood, H.

Herries, rt. hon. J. C.

Bromley, R.

Hildyard, R. C.

Brooke, Lord

Hildyard, T. B. T.

Bruce, C. L. C.

Hill, Lord E.

Bruen, Col.

Hodgson, W. N.

Buck, L. W.

Hood, Sir A.

Buller, Sir J. Y.

Hornby, J.

Bunbury, W. M.

Hotham, Lord

Burghley, Lord

Hudson, G.

Burroughes, H. N.

Inglis, Sir R. H.

Cabbell, B. B.

Jolliffe, Sir W. G. H.

Carew, W. H. P.

Jones, Capt.

Cayley, E. S.

Knight, F. W.

Chandos, Marq. of

Knightley, Sir C.

Chatterton, Col.

Knox, Col.

Cholmeley, Sir M.

Lascelles, hon. E.

Christopher, R. A.

Law, hon. C. E.

Clive, H. B.

Lennox, Lord H. G.

Cobbold, J. C.

Leslie, C. P.

Codrington, Sir W.

Long, W.

Cole, hon. H. A.

Lopes, Sir R.

Coles, H. B.

Lowther, hon. Col.

Colvile, C. R.

Lowther, H.

Compton, H. C.

Lygon, hon. Gen.

Conolly, T.

Mackenzie, W. F.

Cotton, hon. W. H. S.

Manners, Lord C. S.

Davies, D. A. S.

Manners, Lord G.

Deedes, W.

March, Earl of

Dick, Q.

Maunsell, T. P.

Dickson, S.

Maxwell, hon. J. P.

Disraeli, B.

Meux, Sir H.

Dod, J. W.

Miles, P. W. S.

Dodd, G.

Miles, W.

Drummond, H.

Moody, C. A.

Duckworth, Sir J. T. B.

Morgan, O.

Duncombe, hon. A.

Mullings, J. R.

Duncombe, hon. O.

Mundy, W.

Dunne, Col.

Naas, Lord

Du Pre, C. G.

Napier, J.

East, Sir J. B.

Neeld, J.

Egerton, Sir P.

Neeld, J.

Evelyn, W. J.

Newport, Visct.

Farnham, E. B.

Noel, hon. G. J.

Farrer, J.

Packe, C. W.

Fellowes, E.

Palmer, R.

Filmer, Sir E.

Plumptre, J. P.

Floyer, J.

Portal, M.

Forbes, W.

Powell, Col.

Forester, hon. G. C. W.

Powlett, Lord W.

Fox, S. W. L.

Prime, R.

Frewen, C. H.

Pusey, P.

Fuller, A. E.

Rendlesham, Lord

Galway, Visct.

Repton, G. W. J.

Gaskell, J. M.

Richards, R.

Goddard, A. L.

Rufford, F.

Gooch, E. S.

Rushout, Capt.

Gore, W. O.

Sadleir, J.

Granby, Marq. of

Scott, hon. F.

Grattan, H.

Seymer, H. K.

Grogan, E.

Sibthorp, Col.

Guernsey, Lord

Smyth, J. G.

Gwyn, H.

Somerset, Capt.

Hale, R. B.

Somerton, Visct.

Halford, Sir H.

Sotheron, T. H. S.

Halsey, T. P.

Spooner, R.

Hamilton, G. A.

Stafford, A.

Hamilton, J. H.

Stanford, J. F.

Hamilton, Lord C.

Stanley, E.

255

Stuart, J.

Walpole, S. H.

Shirt, H. G.

Walsh, Sir J. B.

Taylor, T. E.

Welby, G. E.

Thompson, Ald.

West, F. R.

Thornhill, G.

Williams, T. P.

Tollemache, J.

Willoughby, Sir H.

Trevor, hon. G. R.

Worcester, Marq. of

Trollope, Sir J.

Wynn, Sir W. W.

Verner, Sir W.

Yorke, hon. E. T.

Villiers, hon. F. W. C.

Vyse, R. H. R. H.

TELLERS.

Waddington, D.

Beresford, W.

Waddington, H. S.

Newdegate, C. N.

List of the NOES.

Abdy, T. N.

Copeland, Ald.

Acland, Sir T. D.

Cowan, C.

Adair, H. E.

Cowper, hon. W. F.

Adair, R. A. S.

Craig, W. G.

Aglionby, H. A.

Crowder, R. B.

Alcock, T.

Cubitt, W.

Anson, hon. Col.

Currie, H.

Armstrong, Sir A.

Currie, R.

Armstrong, R. B.

Dalrymple, Capt.

Arundel and Surrey, Earl of

Dashwood, Sir G. H.

Davie, Sir H. R. F.

Bagshaw, J.

Dawson, hon. T. V.

Baines, rt. hon. M. T.

Denison, E.

Baring, rt. hon. Sir F. T.

Denison, J. E.

Barnard, E. G.

Devereux, J. T.

Bass, M. T.

Divett, E.

Beckett, W.

Douglas, Sir C. E.

Bellew, R. M.

Douro, Marq. of

Berkeley, hon. Capt.

Drumlanrig, Visct.

Berkeley, hon. H. F.

Duke, Sir J.

Berkeley, C. L. G.

Duncan, Visct.

Bernal, R.

Duncan, G.

Birch, Sir T. B.

Duncombe, T.

Blackall, S. W.

Duncuft, J.

Blewitt, R. J.

Dundas, Adm.

Bouverie, hon. E. P.

Dundas, rt. hon. Sir D.

Boyle, hon. Col.

Ebrington, Visct.

Brand, T.

Ellice, rt. hon. E.

Bright, J.

Ellis, J.

Brocklehurst, J.

Elliot, hon. J. E.

Brockman, E. D.

Emlyn, Visct.

Brotherton, J.

Enfield, Visct.

Brown, W.

Estcourt, J. B. B.

Browne, R. D.

Evans, Sir D. L.

Busfeild, W.

Evans, J.

Buxton, Sir E. N.

Evans, W.

Cardwell, E.

Ewart, W.

Carter, J. B.

Fagan, W.

Castlereagh, Visct.

Fergus, J.

Caulfield, J. M.

Ferguson, Col.

Cavendish, hon. C. C.

Ferguson, Sir R. A.

Cavendish, hon. G. H.

Fitzroy, hon. H.

Cavendish, W. G.

Fitwilliam, hon. G. W.

Chaplin, W. J.

Foley, J. H. H.

Charteris, hon. F.

Fordyce, A. D.

Childers, J. W.

Forster, M.

Clay, J.

Fortescue, C.

Clay, Sir W.

Fortescue, hon. J. W.

Clements, hon. C. S.

Fox, R. M.

Clerk, rt. hon. Sir C.

Fox, W. J.

Clifford, H. M.

Freestun, Col.

Cobden, R.

Gibson, rt. hon. T. M.

Cockburn, A. J. E.

Gladstone, rt. hn. W. E.

Cocks, T. S.

Glyn, G. C.

Coke, hon. E. K.

Goulburn, rt. hon. H.

Colebrooke, Sir T. E.

Graham, rt. hon. Sir J.

Collins, W.

Granger, T. C.

256

Greenall, G.

Matheson, A.

Greene, J.

Matheson, J.

Grenfell, C. P.

Matheson, Col.

Grey, rt. hon. Sir G.

Maule, rt. hon. F.

Grey, R. W.

Melgund, Visct.

Grosvenor, Lord R.

Milner, W. M. E.

Guest, Sir J.

Milnes, R. M.

Hallyburton, Lord J. F.

Milton, Visct.

Hanmer, Sir J.

Mitchell, T. A.

Hardcastle, J. A.

Moffatt, G.

Harris, R.

Molesworth, Sir W.

Hastie, A.

Monsell, W.

Hawes, B.

Morison, Sir W.

Hayes, Sir E.

Mostyn, hon. E. M. L.

Hayter, rt. hon. W. G.

Mowatt, F.

Headlam, T. E.

Mulgrave, Earl of

Heald, J.

Muntz, G. F.

Heathcoat, J.

Mure, Col.

Heneage, G. H. W.

Norreys, Lord

Henry, A.

O'Connell, M.

Herbert, rt. hon. S.

O'Connell, M. J.

Hervey, Lord A.

Ogle, S. C. H.

Heywood, J.

Ord, W.

Heyworth, L.

Oswald, A.

Hobhouse, rt. hon. Sir J.

Owen, Sir J.

Hobhouse, T. B.

Paget, Lord A.

Hodges, T. L.

Paget, Lord C.

Hodges, T. T.

Paget, Lord G.

Hogg, Sir J. W.

Pakington, Sir J.

Hollond, R.

Palmer, R.

Horsman, E.

Palmerston, Visct.

Howard, Lord E.

Parker, J.

Howard, hon. C. W. G.

Pearson, C.

Howard, hon. J. K.

Pechell, Sir G. B.

Howard, hon. E. G. G.

Peel, rt. hon. Sir R.

Howard, P. H.

Peel, Col.

Hume, J.

Peel, F.

Humphery, Ald.

Pelham, hon. D. A.

Jackson, W.

Perfect, R.

Jermyn, Earl

Peto, S. M.

Jervis, Sir J.

Pigott, F.

Johnstone, Sir J.

Pilkington, J.

Keppel, hon. G. T.

Pinney, W.

Kershaw, J.

Plowden, W. H. C.

Kildare, Marq. of

Power, Dr.

King, hon. P. J. L.

Power, N.

Labouchere, rt. hon. H.

Price, Sir R.

Langston, J. H.

Pugh, D.

Lascelles, hon. W. S.

Rawdon, Col.

Legh, G. C.

Reid, Col.

Lemon, Sir C.

Ricardo, J. L.

Lewis, rt. hon. Sir T. F.

Ricardo, O.

Lewis, G. C.

Rice, E. R.

Lindsay, hon. Col.

Rich, H.

Littleton, hon. E. R.

Robartes, T. J. A.

Loch, J.

Roebuck, J. A.

Locke, J.

Romilly, Sir J.

Lockhart, A. E.

Rumbold, C. E.

Loveden, P.

Russell, Lord J.

Lushington, C.

Russell, hon. E. S.

Mackinnon, W. A.

Russell, F. C. H.

M'Cullagh, W. T.

Rutherfurd, A.

M'Gregor, J.

Salwey, Col.

M'Taggart, Sir J.

Sandars, G.

Mahon, Visct.

Sandars, J.

Maitland, T.

Scholefield, W.

Mangles, R. D.

Scrope, G. P.

Marshall, J. G.

Scully, F.

Marshall, W.

Seymour, Lord

Martin, J.

Shafto, R. D.

Martin, C. W.

Sheil, rt. hon. R. L.

Martin, S.

Shelburne, Earl of

Masterman, J.

Sheridan, R. B.

257

Simeon, J.

Verney, Sir H.

Slaney, R. A.

Villiers, Visct.

Smith, rt. hon. R. V.

Villiers, hon. C.

Smith, J. A.

Vivian, J. H.

Smith, J. B.

Wakley, T.

Smythe, hon. G.

Wall, C. B.

Somerville, rt. hn. Sir W.

Walmsley, Sir J.

Stansfield, W. R. C.

Walter, J.

Stanton, W. H.

Watkins, Col. L.

Staunton, Sir G. T.

Wellesley, Lord C.

Strickland, Sir G.

Westhead, J. P.

Stuart, Lord D.

Willcox, B. M.

Stuart, Lord J.

Williams, J.

Stuart, H.

Willyams, H.

Tancred, H. W.

Williamson, Sir H.

Tenison, E. K.

Wilson, J.

Tennent, R. J.

Wilson, M.

Thesiger, Sir F.

Wood, rt. hon. Sir C.

Thicknesse, R. A.

Wood, W. P.

Thompson, Col.

Wortley, rt. hon. J. S.

Thompson, G.

Wrightson, W. B.

Thornely, T.

Wyld, J.

Towneley, J.

Wyvill, M.

Townshend, Capt.

Young, Sir J.

Trelawny, J. S.

Turner, G. J.

TELLERS.

Tynte, Col. C. J. K.

Tufnell, H.

Vane, Lord H.

Hill, Lord M.

Main Question put and agreed to.
The House adjourned at Two o'clock till Monday next.