The Sun. — London, England, 1849-07-07 00:00:00

Chat being the case, the manufacturers are now crying out for more foreign wool, and the more foreign wool they obtain, the more home-grown wool they consume, and the more ma nufactures flourish.—(Cheers.) A letter from Nottiughamis in these terms : " Nottingham, June 11. `"Both in th e h os i ery trade at Leicester an d Nottingham an advance of wages has taken place, and a second advance is now demanded by the workmen ; and at the present time I should suppose that about one-fourth of the hands have now struck work in Nottingham for a second advance. In my experience I have never found workmen turning out for an advance of wages but in times when they were compara tively in tolerable or better circumstances, and they have bad full work now since May, 1848, and the prices of bread and meat as well as clothing so cheap, that for many years past the operatives have not been so well off. I have no mills working short time, but all fully employed. The silk facto ries who spin silk fur the lace trade cannot supply the pre sent demand ; the lace trade is much improved, particularly in black silk lace and black silk shawls." The letter from Dundee said : "In re to state P to your letter of the 9th inst., a Dued l ee h , e J g une 11. that at no period for several years past have the mills in my district been s o actively- or fully employed as at preent. I good have every rea son t o b e li eve that trade flourishi ng; an d i t i s the general opinion that ishealthy th ere ts a r prospect o f a cont i nuance of this state of matters for some time to come. Th ere i s , consequently, great demand for la bour, not on l y i n t h e m ill s but in all the occupations con nected with our manufactures. Provisions and all other potatoes and butchers' meat necessaries are extremely cheap,.excepted little the latter comparatively . the former of which articles is always scarce at this season of the year, and used by our working classes. t h the condition of our labour population and of the manufacturing districts generally is at present very satisfactory.' I have read these thelettersfOrmay have been a reducti on i n t h e purpose of encouragi ng th e hope that, althoughthat there manufactures exported, it does not neces eerily followthe condition of the m anu f acturers is worse than it was.-(Hear, hear.) I thi n k t h at t h ose letters furnish conclusive proof that the of the labouri ng condition population in three large towns, separated from each o th er by great intervals, and the seats of different branches of manufucture, is better than it has been for many preceding years.-(Loud cheers.) These are the main grounds on which the Honourable Member impeached the commercial policy • which has been adopted of late years, and I submit to the House th a t th e c h arges which he brought against that comme rc i a l po li cy h ave not been sustainedunder a rigid examinati o n o f the grounds on which the based. The H ouse mus t b e aware of the deep ywere interest I naturally take in this question.-(Loud cheers.)taeeithout the I cannot forget--although I allude to the circumstance slightest feeling of asperity- th a t I have been exposed to a good deal of misrepresentation and obloquy.-(Chee r s re newed.) I bear not the slightest ill-will . to any account; I merely wi s h t o p u t in my claim to vindicate the policy w hi c h I b e li eve to have mainly contributed to preserve thi s coun t ry from great cheering.) The H onoura bl e Member disasters.-(Prolonged said on Monday night that the doctrine which he had repeated en former occasions ; namely, that we cannot fight host i l e t ariffa by free imports, had never been contested. I am goingto contest it now, and I utterly deny the assumption. If I refrained from disputing the proposition on Honourable any Members's ability or previous occasion, it was atom no disrespect to the station, but because it was brought forward at the close of a debate, when I had no opportunity of entering into an argument of a not very inviting nature. I now conic to the Honourable Gentleman's argument about the poor-law, and I am going to draw, from the facts which he referred to, a conclusion ex ac tly opposite , to that at which he arrived. Th e H on . M em b er sa i d, " See how the poor rate has increased-look at the charge per head for maintain ing paupers-see how many more able-bodied labourers are paupers in 1848 than there were in 184 ti ; and, with those results before you, can you refuse to join in condemning the policy which has produced them ?" Now, with respect to the argument derived from the poor -rate. The Honourable Member adopted, and I am not at all surprised at it, the paper I hold in my hand, which is a return contained in the report of the Poor-law Commissieners, giving the cost of maintaining the poor for seven years when the price of wheat was lowest, and the cost of maintaining them for seven years when the price of wheat was highest. The Hon. Member drew from this return the inference that whets wheat was low poor-rates were high, and that when wheat was high poor -rates were low. I cannot blame the Hon. Member for making use of this bad return, but I am surprised that public officers like the Poor-law Commissioners should ever have ma d e such a return. It is really the most foolish re turn ever drawn up. Every one would suppose, of course, that t years in he Poor -law Commi ssioners had se l ecte d seven conse v each case, an d although the Hon. Member did not state that they were consecutive years, I naturally imagined that they were, and I confess I was startled when I heard him state that in seven years of a low price of wheat the cost of maintaining the poor was greater than during seven years when the price of wheat was high. I looked at the return, and I found that this is the order in which the Commissioners have taken their seven years of low prices -1839, 1840, 1841, 1848. 1842, 1847, and 1838.--(Hear, hear, and laughter.) Having made this extraordinary see lection, the Poor -law Commissioners state the conclusion at which they arrived was this -that when wheat was lowest, the whilst it cost of maintai n i ng the poor, per head, was 6s. 3d., was only 6 s . lid . when wheat was highest. It is absurd to attempt to dra w any conclusion from yearsselected in such a manner. Co u ld i t b e supposed that the influence of the high price of w h eat i n 1801, when it rose to 106 s. a quarter was not f e lt i n t h e succeeding year?-(Cheers.) What usef u l purpose could be served by taking a parcel of years in this way, and making no allowance for the effect have ch two b a d or two good harvests in success ion must cn the industry of the country? Take the very P%-: An whi c h this return of the Poor-law Commissioners l do not like -to state in plain t erms what 1 think o f i t -(A l aug h) -an d t h ere appears a list of prices year by ear from 1834 to 188. Des tht justify the conclusion, that when the price of 3 wheat o is low the cost of maintaining the poor is enhanced? By th e way , I w ill here refer t o one of the Hon. Member's arguments which has just occurred to me. I was surprised to hear him state, on the authority of Sir. Jones, that when the farmers' in come was 100,000,000/_ they spent it all in manufactures, ojand that when it was reduced by 25 per cent., their power e encouraging our m anufacturing industry was abridged in h same proportion. According to that theory it would be a_gpod th ing to have corn at 100 s. a quarter.-(Hear, hear.) Only make it apparent that the well-being and comfort of the manufacturing population is dependent on a high Rrice of wheat, and it would be the most _gentco argument m favour of high prices ever adduced. (Hear, and laughter.) Taking the average of the years 1834, 1835, 1836, and 1837, the price of wheat was 475. There had been a cycle of good years, and at the end the country was left in a state of com parative ease and was 51s. Ild. prosperity. In 1834 the price of wheat ; in 1835, 44 5. 2d. , in 1836, 395. sd. •• in 1837, 52s 6 • d. At the commencement.of the period, in 1834, the sum expended in the relief of the poor was 6,317,000/. The beneficial influence of low prices during four years re duced th e sum expended in the relief of the poor to 4,044,000/. in 1837.-(Cheers.) The er was from Bs. 9d. i n 1834, to ss. sd. in rate 18p 37.-(Cheer head ing reduced repeated.) I will not attribute the whole of this reduction to the cheapness of corn, because some portion is, doubtless, refer able to the improved administration of the poor-laws. What was the case under the high cycle? In 1838 there was no material change ; the total sum expended was 4,123,0001. ; the rate per head, 55. asad. Four years of high prices suc ceed ; in 1839 the price is 695. 4d.; in 1840, 68s. 6d.; in 1841, 655. 3d.; in 1842, 645.; the average price being 665. 9d. The average price, which at the end of 1837 was 475., rose in the four years from 1839 to 1 1 t2 Ol l . 1. 18 63.93; wasdln 1843 the poor-rate, which had been 4 0 5,208,000/. ; the rate per head, which in 1837 was ss. 5d., was in 1843 6s. 50. The next three formed a cycle of g oo d years -1844-45-46. In 1844 the price. , of wheat was 51s. sd. ; in 1 845, 495. 2d. ; in 1846, 535. 3d. the average being 50s. 9d. There was a corresponding effect on the poor-rates and on the rate per head. The total sum , The rate per from 5,208,000/. in 1843, to 4, • expended was reduced 954 000 . in 1846. head was reduced from 6s. 5, 1 2 d. in 1843, to ss. 10d. in 1846. But in 1848 there is a difference. There is a vast .n the increase is a great increase i in the a ggregate poor -rate. There rate per h ea d at w hi ch the poor are maintained. What in ference do 'you draw from th a t-f rom a comparison of 1848 with 1846? Y ou h ad the price of wheat in 1847 sometimes at 925-(Hear, hear)-you had it varying from 67s to 755. and rising to 88s. and 925. • in 1848 yon had distress, you had an increase of the nurn ' ber of able-bodied poor, you had the workhouses full, you had the poor-rates increased. Why, is not the obvious inference that dearness of provisions is 1 a 84 great misfortune ?-(Cheers.) How can you argue from 8 unless you draw that conclusion? In 1848 there was severe distress. In 1847 such was the pressure of scarcity that you repealed the navigation-laws, you sent ships to col lect corn from every quarter of the globe. Your whole con. dition was abnormal. In three years you expended 51,000,000/. sterling in the purchase of food. In 1846-47- 48 you e xpended 51.000,000/. It was a sudden demand, ob serve. Of course it is natural to suppose that there might not be a corresponding amount of export of manufactured goods when the demand was so suddenly made. But always remember that not only had you suffering at home from scarcity, but every country of continental Europe was suffer 9eging at the same time, not equally, but to a very considerable re been are you surprised that your foreign trade should Itiave depressed, when the demand for your manufac ure had diminished. and when every country was com pelled to purchase food at extravagant prices? You had a home pressure with a pressure to nearly a corresponding degree i ' n foreign countries which used to be customers for Your goods. Yon must, of course, expect diminished trade ; you must expect diminished demand ; and can you say of thattt distress, which you were suffering in 1848, that free as the cause of it ? The high price of provisions and the continental nwtinental convulsionswere the real cause-(Cheers), and by the free import of provisions it was softened, and not in creased . -f T k,oud increa • ch eers.) The argument drawn front the se ot poor-rates is not conclusive. I draw exactly the 9pposite deduction, that if low prices continued for any num- Per .o!years for which the trial can be fairly made, the pro bability is that •ou would have an increased demand for labour; in th 3 higher, and note manufacturing districts you would have . condition t lower wages ; you would have an improved o the people- (Cheers)-and the argument of the R en. Membe price of provisio Member, that ;tour poor -rates will increase when the solid foundation._ fa --s 3 , is an argument which rests on no mercial policy of(Cheers.) The impeachment of the coin now come to co the d last five years has entirely failed. I n on. member nsi er the merits of the proposition which the now by far th 'would. substitute. 1 believe we are discussing milted to the he mo.st important question that can be sub cipies wilieb acronsideration of P arliament-I mean the prin ster rnay are govern your commercial legislation. A but an error in the .blunder, and that may be corrected; (eLseour likely to egig atioo i 8 an principles which direct your commercial series of years. be perpetuated for a long in one sense avesare all che I am glad to hear that We have all the settellobE.t Lie but let us clear the ground. our domestic industry. ja w --the encouragement of who dissent from me with aaresfirruir believe as any of those object is to t f attained, that litecl. to the mode in which the country. Unless our domestic s t ' question for the cannot expect peace, contentment, industry lie encouraged, we fair question for us calmly and dispa e s r si Pr t relitY. That is a (Cheers.) What can we do most eflecetuaall Y to consider.- industry ?-(Cheers.) We should greatly tairritT promote that portance of the question if we supposed thaetrlate the only the the accumulation of material wealth. It it concerned which affects the comforts of the people, which i s social progress -by which I mean their progress i affects their 19 the enjoyment of life, in refinement of taste and nci'n''ll:al; mimes lion concerns all those at least as much as it d accumulation of wealth. The doc • oes the II u trine propounded by tl s • Gentleman is supported by a powerful artyof 10 whatever causes of dissension may have ari s en I ' which' n, never will speak without sincere respect ; and I have never said anything but ' this, that their be, is produ error, as I believe it to actuated b c a ed by no interested motives, that they are the Workingy ssincere a desire to promote the interest of dissent Butthe as classes as any of those from whose opinions they views to Pounded by the head of the which I refer have been pro- Mistake I shall give th • party ; and that there may be no entertained and supported their proposal in their own words. It is 'who are prens d pported by men of great ability, by men I ,„_ ez eto have their doctrines practically carried into ecut if the Noble 149 rd and hie Monde are die- THIt placed, and the Hon. Gentleman and his friends should suc ceed. I take the doctrine as first propounded by Lord Stanley. He said, on the let of February last : not favourable that it am itis necessary to give to our amount of protection which is necessary to t counterbalance nce any disadvantages that may arise from 41e admissionof t se believe to be foreign produce. We must return to the principle of protec tion. Foremost among the measures which v essential to the prosperity of this great country is the recogni tion of this great principle, that legisl a tive encouragement ought to be given to every branch of domestic propounded by the Hon. industry. (Cheers.) The same doctrine, as p " Member for Buckinghamshire, is— " That we have established a new commercial system, which mistakes the principles upon which a profitable ex. change can take place between nations; that we can only encounter the hostile tariffs of foreign countries by counter vailing duties; that such a system occasions, not scarcity and dearness, but cheapness and abundance. Hitherto, in enforcing! the principles upon which the theory of reci procity in commerce depends, I have laboured under the dis advantage of appealing only to abstract reasoning; now, however, we have practical results before us in the sufferings of our people and in the decline of our wealth." That I utterly deny. But I come now to the merits of the ctrine itself.— (Cheers.) I boldly maintain that the prin ciple of protection to domestic industry, meaning thereby legislative encouragement for the purposes of protection, not of revenue, is a vicious principle. I deny the Hon. Gentle man's assumption that you cannot fight hostile tariffs by free imports. I so totally differ on that point that I maintain your true policy is to compete with hostile tariffs by free im ports.-- (Loud cheers.) I deny that you ought to return to protection as a principle, and I say that the wider you extend vcur principle of protection, the greater injury you will in flict on the national wealth and on the interests of the people. —(Cheers.) Surely the capital of the country is a fund from which the industry of the country must be maintained. Surely the industry of the country must be promoted in proportion to the capital which can be employed in its ma nufactures. Surely the augmentation of capital, as our popu lation increases, must depend on the saving of annual re venue,—(Cheers.) If you choose to give for certain arti cles produced at home more than you can purchase those articles for if it is to be brought from abroad, is it not a dimi nution of your annual revenue?—(Cheers.) If you say "No, but protection will be extended over all," I can only say that in proportion as you extent protection so are you in proportion diminishing annual revenue—so are you diminishing the fund from which the capital of the country can alone be augmented; so are you diminishing the means by which the industry of the country can be em ployed; and all this protection, all this giving of high prices for that which you can purchase at lower prices, so far from encouraging domestic industry, is first an interference by do mestic legislation with capital; in the next place it is a di minution of annual income by giving more for a thing than it is worth.—(Cheers.) My belief is that the laws which regulate the intercourse of nations in the accumulation of wealth are precisely the same laws which regulate the deal ings of individuals—(Cheers)—that as the law which regu lates the planetary movements is the same as that which accounts for the earthquake, so the law which regulates the dealings of individuals is in principle the law which regu lates the commercial intercourse of powerful communities; and we mystify the subject, and make it unintelligible, by not considering the principle which regulates the dealings of men of common sense. Dr. Adam Smith illustrates the great truths of political economy by the case of individuals. He says the tailor does not make his own shoes, but &ids it more convenient to buy them from a man who can make them better and cheaper than he. Nor does the shoe maker make his own clothes, but he takes them from the tailor. Let us take two individuals living in the same town. Take a tailor and a shoemaker. Supposing the shoemaker determines to levy from the tailor a certain amount of goo,ts which is represented by 10s. What are the 10s.? They merely represent hours of labour. Instead of 10s. call them hours of labour. The l a b our o f an h our i s worth Is. The tailor can make goods which are worth 10s. ; the shoemaker can make certain goods which are worth 10s. But each of them could buy the same goods in a neighbouring town for 7s. You say they live in the same town, and they are to deal together. If the shoemaker pays 10s. for that which he might obtain for 75., and if the tailor pays 10s. for that which be might obtain for 75., is there not positively a loss of 6s. by that transaction ?—(Cheers.) If the shillings represented hours, is there not a loss of six hours' labour ?—(Cheers.) Would it rot be manifestly for the interest of the parties to appropriate seven hours of labour to buy from the stranger that for which they are giving 10s., or 10 hours' labour ; and would they not do it? Suppose they argued thus— house-rent is higher in this town than in the other. Would that be a reason why they should pay 3s. more for their boots? Suppose they said, 'the coat of provisions was higher in this than in the neighbouring town ; I should like to ask whether it would conduce to the interest and wealth of the community if, instead of dealing with the neighbouring town for goods which they can purchase for 75., they gave 10s. to their own? There is a loss of 3s. to each party, or of 6s. in all by the transaction; but taking the money to represent la bour, each loses three hours' labour. But it isaid that under a system which is not protective all the currency of the country would be taken away. Don't you believe that the town will retain all the currency which answers to its purpose, that no inconvenient abstraction of currency is ne cessary, but that the interest of each party will be promoted by purchasing in the cheapest market—(Hear, hear)—the articles far which they have a demand? I use the words " purchasing in the cheapest market." You say that it is a very low and unworthy principle ; that it is a doctrine of the Manchester school; that it is also the doctrine of some speculative political philosophers; and that it is to be discarded.—(Laughter.) The doctrine of purchasing in the cheapest market is not a doctrine of speculative philo sophers. It is not a doctrine introduced by modern econo mists. It is certainly a doctirne sanctioned expressly and directly by the authority of Adam Smith. It is the doctrine also of Say and of Hume. It was opposed to a doctrine which was fashioned about eighty years since ; it was brought to bear against the doctrine promulgated by Mon tesquieu and Voltaire; but Smith, and Say, and Ilume showed what were the true principles which regulate com mercial transactions. There were others, however, who , adopted those doctrines. When this country was suffering from a great depression of trade, certain practical men, mer chants and bankers of London, in the year 1820, presented a petition under the sanction of the honoured name of Alex ander Baring; and those merchants and bankers suffering in their trade propounded this doctrine, that the maxim of buying in the cheapest market and selling in the dearest, which regulates every merchant in his individual dealings, is strictly applicable as the best rule for the trade of the whole world.—(Cheers.) They maintained also this doctrine, that although it might be possible to answer your purpose by imposing countervailing duties and subjecting imports from another country to prohibitive or restrictive duties, with the view of inducing that country to admit your goods, yet, when the hope of making that alter ation successfully failed, it was then manifestly a loss and injury to yourselves to impose on the produce of another country restrictions with the intent of encouraging your own domestic manufactures. They laid down that doctrine ex pressly and clearly "That, although as a matter of mere diplomacy it may sometimes answer to hold but the removal of particular pro hibitions or high duties, as depending upon corresponding concessions by other states in our favour, it does not follow that we should maintain our restrictions in cases where the desired concessions on their part cannot be obtained ; our restrictions would not be the less prejudicial to our own capital and industry because other Governments persisted in preserving impolitic regulations." Mr. NE WDEGATE—What is the year? ee l gfi B ta 2 t o fe . r oamm T i h ad e spt e H tgu o rse n t . l t olfa Gentleman uitgh( htearnad w hdg i 1 c l th d he e ee r rv i s v o) e : . m e S a e i t r t p it o r , c ca . E N E I 'b — nd That petition was presented by Lord Ashburton when Mr. Alexander Baring, and enforced by him with the greatest earnestness.— (Cheers.) Mr. NEWDEGATE—The petition was presented the year after you r A ct of 1819.-- (" Hear, h ear ," from Mr. Spooner.) Sir B. PEEL—The Hon. Member says the petition was presented within a year of 1819. We will discuss that ques tion whenever he pleases; but, in the meantime, he will not deny that, whatever were the causes of the distress existing in 1820, the merchants and bankers of London declared to the House of Commons that free trade was the proper re medy.—(Loud cheers.) It is said, we cannot fight hostile tariffs with free imports. That is an epigrammatic way of stating the case. But the Hon. Gentleman the Member for Buckinghamshire says also, that the only way we can encoun ter hostile tariffs is by countervailing duties. Let me dispas sionately and closely examine this position. If it applies to this country, it may apply to Russia, France, and the United States as well. Take the United States. The United States imposes duties on our manufactures —say 20 per cent. on our cotton goods; and, admitting that we maintain a not very successful competition in the markets of the United States, what course are we to take ? We must, it is said, have coun tervailing duties on America. Would it be wise to have a high duty on raw cotton ?—(Cheers.) What good should we gain? The complaint is on the part of the English cot ton manufacturer. He says, "I meet the United States manufacturer in neutral markets; I meet him in his own market; but in the neutral markets I maintain my ground. 1 i What is the course I should take ? Impose.:countervailing duties on the produce of America"—that is, chiefly on raw materials, and no doubt cotton will be among the foremost. Will you tell me how you favour the manufacturer by im posing a duty upon his cotton ? Will you tell me what other class you would favour by that exception ? We are not now talking of imposing these duties for the purpose of extorting from America some concessions—we are testing the great commercial principle, whether countries having a hostile tariff are to be fought by imposing countervailing duties. I contend against that doctrine. I say you will more suc cessfully combat the disadvantages under which you labour by buying your raw materials in the cheapest market; and never was there such a mistake as to suppose that by im posing duties upon cotton or raw materials—that is counter vailing duties upon the produce of countries hostile to you— you give any compensation to the manufacturer of any one particular article, or do anything but diminish capital and l v) e ue s i trshe stimulated.atrrhadenwe means a Lres r b o ueytl ourdwu hws cotton te c oa h ithmt e y o pn o : u . gr r ao o ho w cd e n s d o Fu n oa e wn s t c i e c shoN i ov n nui esnrtNorvNtyve wines d s aeeks t a to e ld Treaty in your l eg i s l at i on ; by thee If so, you a re go i ng to embodv s t e h a heavy duty e r c u i e p n l e T o r f e a t t h 3 e , v‘ ll ,i l t e h t h p u o e r n . WO, because that co un t ry undertook to admit our woollen goods, you admitted her port wines on a better footing t r h e a a n t yy had u a d t o b o e k e n t h p e r i n c e a s l ly o f France. abrogat e d t t h h thought that that t unanimousthe persons of exp er i ence on t h e we reduced th e d uty on foreign subject.goodw i l and However, in of all brandy; it was 225. 6d., and we reduced it to 15s. What has been the consequence? Have we suffered from that course ?—(Hear.) Has the advantage bees an advantage to France alone? If, instead of reducing th e duty from 225. 6d. to 15s. we had maintained it, we should have had to pay a dearer price for our brandy, and certainly sh ou ld have gained nothing in revenue. You reduced the duty on brandy without asking for any equivalent conces sion. You reduced it from 225. 6d. to 15s. You got good brandy, by a good legal trade, at a less price—l suppose the price of brandy has fallen.—(Hear, hear.) Has the revenue fallen by that reduction ?—(Hear, hear.) In 1845, the reve nue from brandy was 1,208,000'., the duty was then 22a. 6d. ; you reduced it to 155.. and, in 1848, the revenue was 1,207,0001. There was little or no reduction of duty, there was an increase of importation, a reduction of price to the consumer, a reduction of smuggling—every advantage and no corresponding disadvantage. How should we have visited France? What should we have gained by fighting a hostile tariff with countervailing duties? No. We reduced the duty notwithstanding her hostile tariff, and nothing but advan tage has been gained. We are dissatisfied with Russia. We think the Russian is a restrictive tariff. Would it be any advantage to lay a heavy duty on the raw produce of Russia —upon her tallow, upon articles we use in our own manu factures? I admit it would be for the interest of free trade --for the interest of those countries, to reduce their tariff; and nothing but the interest of powerful individuals induces the Governments of those countries, to the manifest injury of the g reat b o d y of the people, to keep up those restrictive duti es. (Hear, hear) I admit that if they would reduce them it would be for the benefit of our commerce. But, if I cannot get that, I utterly deny thst we should gain any advantage by countervailing duties upon articles of raw materials imported from those countries which are unwilling tO take our manufactured goods ; and, therefore, I lab wow, Lownom a ithout the slightest compromise, that the doctrine of Lord Stanley, that we must return to protection as a principle, is an erroneous doctrine—(Hear)—that, when he says we must extend legislative encouragement to every branch of domestic industry, you may redress the injury you do to the particular class you favour with protection, but you are widening the circle by the damage you inflict on the consumer of those articles, and are extending the in jury to the revenue, and the consequent augmentation of capital. I deny thellon. Gentleman's policy of meeting hos tile tariffs by countervailing duties. I believe a return to reciprocity is more difficult than the maintenance of those duties—that the reversal of the system upon which you have been acting would be accompanied by difficulties that would make it impossible for you to succeed, and that you have no alternative but to maintain that which you have acquired from free trade, and gradually to extend the prin ciple so far as your revenue will allowlit. These are the grounds upon which I join issue with the Hon. Gentleman, and upon which I deprecate altogether the success of a mo tion which would displace the Noble Lord and the advocates of commercial freedom, for the purpose of placing in their situation those who would contend for countervailing duties, which they call protection to domestic industry, but which, I believe, would be nothing but a discouragement and detri ment to that industry.— (Hear.) Feeling most grateful to the House for their attention—(Hear, hear)—l now proceed to the last topic to which I shall advert—that which formed a principal part of the argument of the Noble Lord who spoke last—namely, the agricultural condition of the country. I can say with truth, I view the depression of that great in terest with deep concern. I deeply regret the suffering that prevails among the agriculturists. So far as personal inte rest is concerned all my personal interest is in the interest of agriculture, and if that consideration could bias fora moment the views of a public man, I should feel as much as any one could the depression that exists.—(Loud cheers.) I apprehend the real meaning of this motion is—at least it is one of its meanings; and, indeed, after the notice given to-night there cannot be a doubt of it—that one of the con sequences of the success of this motion would be the resto ration of the protection of agriculture—that is, the re-impo sition of the duties on the food of the people.—(Hear.) I can with truth say, as an agricultnrist, that any more fatal boon could not be offered to the agriculturists than any such protection as that which you profess to give.—(Hear. ) I intreat the agriculturists to consider the real value of this protection. The Noble Lord said, that in 1836 the agricul turists had very low prices; but then they had abundant produce, and that there were no complaints. I totally differ from the Noble Lord. They had low prices in consequence of the abundant home produce, because there were no means of exporting that domestic produce; but the Noble Lord is entirely in error in supposing that at that period there were no complaints.—(Hear, hear.) I myself sat with others on a Committee which inquired into the condition of agriculture, and attempted to suggest a remedy. Ido intreat the Noble Lord's attentive consideration, if he be here. This was the amount of protection to agriculture at the time of which I speak. In 1833, 1834, and 1836, the duty on foreign wheat, when the price was less than 635. was 11. 4s. Bd. ; when it was less than 675., IL Bd.; when it was under 625., - , 11. ss. Bd.; abundant protection, so far as law could give protection. Meat and fresh meat were absolutely prohibited—animals of all kinds serving fur subsistence were prohibited. Let us take the price of wheat. In 1835 the average price was 525. 11d. ; the lowest price was 495. 2d. In 1834 the average price was 465. 2d. ; the lowest price was 40s. Ed. In 1835 the average price was 395. 4d.—it having at one time fallen so low as 363.—with protection carried to an extravagant degree.—(llear.) Was it owing to the importation of foreign corn? Foreign corn was absolutely practically prohibited by the amount of duty. In 1833 the whole amount of wheat imported was 82,000 quarters; in 1834, 64,000 quarters; and in 1835, 28,000 quarters. The Noble Lord says there were no com plaints. Ido assure the Noble Lord that there are no com plaints now made with regard to the state of agriculture at the present period which at all correspond with the com plaints made at that time.—(Hear, hear.) Although you had extravagant protection it would not secure you from the consequence of very low prices. The Committee was ap pointed in 1836; very intelligent and respectable men were sent to represent the interests of agriculture upon that Com mittee. I look at the evidence they gave. If you take the evidence of all, without exception, it will correspond in its character. I thought it would be fair to take the evi • dente of the six first witnesses who were chosen on the part of the agriculturists to represent their condition. Recollect, you had abundant harvests, the exclusion of foreign corn, and extravagant protection. What was the state of agri culture? Iwill take any number of the witnesses; but I take the first six because, perhaps, they are the most prominent agriculturists : The first witness, John Buckwell, says, "he farmed 700 acres near Leekhampstead, Buckinghamshire. This winter had sold wheat at 4s. 6d. per bushel. The lowest price at which we can grow wheat is 565. a quarter. Now we have not above 40s. Within twenty years there has been a con siderable change of tenantry. 'When new ones have come they have gone within a few years. He was asked • Why?' and his answer was, Because they could not stand any longer.' What has become of them?'—' They have gone to the workhouse.' Have they been men of prudence and character ?'--' Yes, in general.' John Houghton, the next witness, farmed, on his own account, in Berkshire, Middle sex, Northampton, Sussex, and Buckinghamshire. Received rents in those counties, and also Lincoln, Surrey, and Suffolk. Wheat ruinously low on clay lands. Rent paid out of capi tal. Mr. Cayley asked him, 'At what period did this distress you speak of commence?' His answer was, From 1828 and 1829. Up to the present period we have been gradually get- ting worse.' Mr. John Rolfe was the next witness : —he says, There has been no amelioration in the condition of the farmer since 1833. The very reverse, continued de pression, loss of capital and ruin to the farmers.' You do not speak of improvident men?' No. I know several farmers that are on the brink of ruin. They are penny less. They are really hard-working, industrious men, and deserve every encouragement. They are sinking in con-- sequence of the fall of prices.' Mr. John Curtis, the next witness, thinks the capital of the farmer has con siderably diminished. Sees an alteration for the worse in the farmers. Last year paid his landlord's rent one half out of his capital. At the present price of pro duce could not afford to pay any rent whatever; and that is the case generally with the farmers in his neighbour hood. Mr. John Kemp says he farms 500 acres in Essex, of good quality ; very little clay. 'As a farmer you are in distress?'—` Undoubtedly so.' That distress has been increasing gradually ? '—‘ For the last eight years we were in a deplorable condition. The capital of the farmers has very much diminished. We were in that state in 1831. But for the good crops of 1832 half the farmers in our county would have been obliged to stop.' Mr. William Thurnall, Cambridgeshire, a farmer, miller, maltster, oil crusher, and general corn merchant, farms 400 acres. Lost the whole rent of his farm last year, and 3001. the year before.' Mr. Cayley—' What is the condition of the tenantry generally in your neighbourhood ? ' I think verging on insolvency generally—in the most desperate state that men can possibly be. My book debts with the farmers are not worth lbs. in the pound. I dare scarcely open a letter, knowing the state of the farmers, fear ing it may contain notice of some bad debt.' Are these men, verging on insolvency, men of prudent character and industrious habits? I am speaking only of that class of men. I would not trouble the Committee with any others.' And yet they are on the verge of ruin? Yes ; not only in Cambridge, but, generally speaking, great part of Norfolk, Suffolk, and Essex.'" That is the evidence of the first six witnesses examined by the Agricultural Committee, and I now ask the Noble Lord (Lord March) whether he is not wrong in supposing that in 1e36 the abundance of produce compensated the farmer for low prices- (Cheers)-and that there were no complaints from the farmers in 1836 and 1837 ? I trusted that in 1842, when the duties were removed, and when the prohibition was taken off foreign cattle, that their condition would be im proved, and I-not denying the depression which exists, but deeply lamenting it-still trust that there is undue apprehen sion and depression on the part of the farmer. I entreat them to consider if it is not possible that the imports of foreign corn have been governed by other considerations than those which influence the usual course of trade entreat them to reflect if we have not imported more corn ia a n we t should otherwise have wanted-it there has not been the import of corn, and whether we may not hoptrtelLtolro on e corn has been unduly depreciated in consequence of circum stances unconnected with free trade.-(Cheers.) That is my impression. I earnestly hope the apprehensions they enter tain, and have entertained for some time back, may be exag gerated ; but I entreat them also to consider this, that you never could, in the present state of public opinion, have maintained a law which would have given you a gua rantee for high prices under unfavourable circumstances. (Loud cheers.) In the south and west of Ireland your harvest was deficient-the quality was inferior- probably the greater part of the corn grown was not worth 40s. a quarter. It might have been possible, I admit, to have devised a law to get the price up to aos. or even to (Os. per quarter. There would, in that case, have been some temporary compensation, but it would have been at the risk of creating disaffection and discontent which woula have greatly outweighed the ad vantage of the high prices gained by legislative intervention. -(Loud cheers.) In the concluding part of his speech, the Hon. Gentleman (Mr. Disraeli) alluded to the condition of the labouring classes. He said he thought the tendency of recent legislation had been to lower the condition of our people; and he described them as members of a powerful hierarchy, the greatest in the world. That is rather a ro mantic and poetical view of the condition of the labouring classes.-(Cheers and laughter.) Let me indulge in mere prose and in a practical view of the real condition in which a member of this great hierarchy actually was in the year 1842. Let me take the position of a mechanic at Paisley, or of a labourer in Dorset, or one of the southern counties. Let me suppose that in 1842 each of them was in receipt of 10s. a week, or, more nearly, let us say 12s. a week for the mechanic and Bs. for the labourer. You may from this judge what deductions you ought to make from this 125. and Bs. a week for house rent for clothes and medical attendance. Suppose, too, that he had a family of three or five children to support, and then will you just let me call your recollection to the state of the taxation which affected his subsistence in 1842 ? Will you, in the first place, consider, when you contend that what has been done by the House has had a tendency to lower the condition and to interfere with the comforts of that man, what he was likely to require for the consumption of his family? Take him as paying Is. 6d. a week for lodging and clothing, and ask how much he was to pay for his wheat. Turn over in your mind everything he is likely to consume. Well, this was the state of taxation I found when I became the First Lord of the Treasury in 1842. " In 1842 :-all animals-oxen, sheep, calves, swine, pro hibite.l; beef, fresh or slightly salted, prohibited; pork, fresh, prohibited ; salted beef, 12s. per cwt. ; pork, ditto ; bacon, 28s. per cwt. ; potatoes, 2s. per cwt. ; lard, Bs. per cwt.; hams, of all kind, 28s. per cwt.; cheese. 102. 6d. per cwt.; butter, 20s. per cwt. ; tallow candles, 31.35. i4d. per cwt. Wheat, price 655, per quarter; duty, 11. 6s. Bd.; oats, price 255. per quarter; duty, 9s. 3d. ; barley, price 335. per quarter; duty 12s. 4d. ; Indian corn, the same." Indian corn-mark-the great resource of the Irish people during the famine in 1842, had a duty attached to it of 12s. 4d., depending on the price of barley.-(Cheers.) But, Sir, it pleased the House to reduce those duties. My belief is that a wiser decision than that to which you then came, to subject property to direct taxation within certain limits to remove the prohibition from foreign cattle-to permit swine and oxen to be imported-to reduce the duty on corn, on sugar, on lard, on butter, and on cheese-you never made. -(Loud cheers.) My belief is, not only that it was a wise one, but that you ,have been amply repaid for any loss you may have s us t a ined by that reduction.- (Cheers.) My belief is that you have by so doing gained the confidence and g ood will of powerhil classes in this country-(Cheers)-by parting with that which was thought to be directly for the benefit of the landed interest of the country.-(Cheers.) I think it was that confidence in the generosity and justice of Parliament which in no small degree enabled you to pass triumphantly through that storm which convulsed other nations during the year 1848.-(Cheers.) I think that if in 1842 you had not made those reductions, and had not sub jected property to direct taxation, or relieved the labouring classes from the manifold impositions to which their subsis tence was liable, that the strength of your institutions is such you might have rode through the storm, but that you would not have rode through it with the satisfaction of knowing you had the cordial support, the confidence and goodwill, in your hour of peril, of those who depend for their subsistence on the wages of labour.-(Loud cheering.) Your metropolis did indeed present a majestic spectacle, E V Rtf I N' C 4-1 when 160,000 men, of the middle classes, were ranged in her streets in the support of authority—not of disaffection—and with the determination, without reference to party conse quences, to preserve the peace of the country, and to put down the threats and menaces of the disaffected.—(Cheers.) But my belief alto is, that this metropolis exhibited an in complete and is perfect example of the advantages you de rived from the measures you have adopted—you must go elsewhere to look for it in its highest effect; you must go to the great resorts of manufacture; you mile go to the mines—to the collieries—to those places not subject to those influences which tell in favour of submission to the authori ties and the maintenance of order in the metropolis. You must look to Stockport, Paisley, Manchester, and see if order was preserved there in February, 1848. See, again, when the manufacturing interests were deeply suffering—when there was loss of employment, and when there were great pri vations among the people—see the patience and resignation with which their sufferings were borne. Why? Because it was felt that human legislation was not responsible for the evils under which they laboured.—( Cheers.) I shall not take London as an example of the order and determination to maintain the Constitution which then pervaded the country. I want to see how the West Riding of Yorkshire—how Lan cashire and Manchester, which I remember to have been moved from their foundations in 1818 and 1819 and at various intervening periods, to have been subject. to the acts of the seditious and disaffected, so as with difficulty to have resisted at times the privations to which they were subject and the temptations held out to them—l want to see how, with the example of Irish disaffection —of convulsion in France—of thrones on the Continent shaking to their foun dation, and of anarchy prevailing where before there had been peace—the inhabitants of these districts acted; and I read this account of the date of April 19, 1849, from the police-officer of Manchester, of their conduct— " In presenting these returns, it is impossible to avoid re ferring with pride and satisfaction to the state of this borough during that period of excitement and anxiety which occurred early in the past year. Slight disturbances did certainly take place, but when all circumstances are con sidered, it will he, I think, generally felt that it is scarcely possible to have stronger or more satisfactory evidence of the general intelligence, and loyal and peaceable character of the population around us, than was afforded by the events which occurred during the period referred to. Whilst gratefully acknowledging (as one having some degree of official responsibility in the maintenance of order) the firm ness, vigilance, and watchful care manifested for the pre servation of the peace by the mayor and magistrates, the active organization of districts by the committees of the council, and the liberality of that body in granting efficient assistance to the ordinary police, as also the invaluable co operation and assistance so readily afforded by the . owners of warehouses, shops, and property, and by those in their em ploy, I venture to suggest that this borough was indebted to a still larger extent to the working classes and the mill ope ratives, for the maintenance of order ; to that important class, for their expressive disapproval of, and absence of sym pathy with, the proceedings of the few disorderly and disaf fected individuals who sought to create disturbance ; for their determination to continue at their ordinary employment, and to resist any attempt at interference ; and for the prompti tude with which they at once agreed to be associated for the protection of the property of their employers, we are un questionably indebted more than to any other source for the success which happily crowned the efforts of the authorities to preserve the peace, and protect the property within this borough, during a period of almostunprecedented excitement and alarm, and of great privation and distress." —(Cheers.) Well, surely, these are significant facts— (Loud cheers) —surely these are decisive proofs that the policy you adopted in removing the duty on articles of necessity was a wise policy.—(Cries of " Hear, hear," and loud cheers.) But, Sir, it was no act of a sagaci ous Minister. The great and coming crisis was not fore seen by any statesman. It was not a lucky accident. illy belief is that it pleased Almighty God to listen to your prayers to turn scarcity and dearth into cheapness and plenty—(Cheers)—and so to direct and prosper your con sultations on the brink of a great precipice and on the com ing of a tremendous calamity, that you " established peace and happiness" and the foundations of "truth and jus tice."— (Enthusiastic cheering.) You have reaped the reward of that policy. You have passed unscathed through the sternest trials to which the institutions of any nation were ever subjected. You stood erect amid the convulsions of Europe.—(Great cheering.) And now you are to have a proposal made to you of some paltry fixed duty.--(Cheers and counter cheers.) Take then your ss. duty, and consider what it is. If it be 55., it will give you ss. on wheat, it will give you 2s. 6d. on barley, 2s. on oats; that is, Is. 6d. more on barley, and is. more on oats than yoil have at present —an equivocal advantage at the best.—(Cheers.) But (continued the Right Hon. Baronet, in a voice of great solemnity), by every consideration which can influence consistent and rational Legislators—(lronical cheering from the Protectionists, and counter cheers from the rest of the House)—by the highest suggestions of a ge nerous policy ; by the boldest calculations of the lowest and most selfish prudence—(Cheers and counter cheers) —I im plore you to reject this proffered boon.—(Renewed cheers.) I implore you not to sacrifice, not to barter, the glorious heritage yon have obtained by your sagacious and most timely policy—(Cheers and counter cheers)—for the smallest and most worthless policy fur which the greatest of ad vantages was ever surrendered since the days of him who sold his birthright for a mess of pottage.—(The Right Hon. Gentleman resumed his seat amid loud and general cheering, except from the Protectionist benches, from which came ironical laughter.) The Marquis of GRANBY hoped the House would be kind enough to give him its indulgence for a short time, seeing the great disadvantage under which he rose to answer his Right Hon. Friend at that late hour of the night. His Right Hon. Friend had made a very able and a very lengthy speech ; he had begun by saying that the question to be decided by the House was, whether her Majesty's Govern ment were to, be retained in office, or whether it should reverse the commercial policy of the country. If that was really what was at issue, with all respect for her Majesty's Government, be should have no hesitation in deciding in favour of what he believed to be the true, the essential, and the material interest of the country.—(Cheers.) For he could not agree with his Right Hon. Friend, that the heritage derived from the measures under consideration was one which was either glorious or which the House should en deavour to retain. His Right Hon. Friend began by thank ing his Hon. Friend the Member for Buckinghamshire for the admission made at the commencement of his speech— namely, that there was great prosperity in this country in the year 1846. His Hon. Friend the Member for Bucking hamshire did certainly make that admission, but then that prosperity was before the tariff of that year, and its conse quence the Corn-law Bill of 1849. His Right Hon. Friend said that the principle of both measures was identical, and that the one was only carried out further than the other. But that was the course he (the Marquis of Granby) ob jected to ; that was the charge his party had against his Right Hon. Friend. There was no doubt that to increase the existing traiff would have been wrong; but, on the other hand, to reduce it below a moderate amount was, he argued, to produce what he complained of—injury to the welfare of the country; and what, under the circumstances, might be expected—the distress of the agricultural community. The Hon. Member for Sheffield, on a former night, made the statement which had been repeated by his Right Hon. Friend on the present occasion—namely, that if Parliament had not passed these measures—the tariff and the Corn-law Bill, the country would have been in danger in 1848, when the whole continent was co avulsed, and thrones and domi nations were toppling down. He (the Marquis of Granby) presumed that his Right Houourable Friend, or the Honourable Gentleman, did not mean to argue that the alteration of the law of 1842, followed by the repeal of the corn-law in 1846, was the cause of the safety of the country in 1818. The Bill of 1846 imposed a higher duty on corn than had previously existed. Did the Right Hon. Gentleman and the lion. Member for Sheffield mean to argue that the country was saved from a revolution in 1848 by the total repeal of the corn-law in 1849 ? But it might be said that such was not the argument. If it was not so, why, when the universal distress of the country was attributed to the tariff of 1848, were those who attributed it to that cause told that free trade had not had a fair trial, and that consequently no one had any right to impute these disasters to its a genc y? O n th e one h an d th e Right Hon. Gentleman and his friends maintained that the peace and prospe r ity o f t h e country i n 1 848 was owing to a Bill which did not come into operation until twelve months afterwards; while on the other hand they as serted that free trade had not yet had a fair trial. His (the Marquis of Granby's) Noble Friend the Member for Sussex had sate?, when the agricultural interest was distressed on a former occasion, that it was owing to the abundance of corn in the country, which pro duced a low price, which made a material difference in the nature of the distress felt as well as in its remedy. His Noble Friend was right. But the Right lion. Gentleman who spoke last in the debate said that, notwithstanding the abundance of the crop, the farmer in 1836 made a louder cry of distress than he did at this moment, and that he was actually in greater distress. There was a very wide dis. tinction, however, between the case of the farmer then and the case of the farmer now. The farmer might be distressed in 1836, but it was from an accidental circumstance over which Parliament had no control. But now they were told that a law had been passed to perpetuate that distress—a law avowedly to produce low prices—and that nothing could or would be done to relieve them. The farmer in 1836 knew his distress would be only temporary; and the Right Honourable Gentleman on that occasioa did what he could to alleviate it, and ameliorate the farmers' condition— he did not, as at present, say he would do nothing. That was the difference ; hope now existed no longer. The farmer had confidence at that time in the honour of Parlia ment; now he had none whatever; and consequently he either sunk, unrepining, or emigrated to the colonies. A great deal had been said of the effect these proceedings bad upon the agricultural labourer. He (the Marquis of Granby) had stated on a former occasion that in the county of Lincoln the agricultural labourer was worse off now than in the time of high wages. The labourer who received formerly 12s. a week, and was now only paid 10s., admitting him to pay less for necessaries, was still a loser to the amount of 9d. a week. His Right Hon .Frient had read a letter from Nottingham— he presumed it was from a master manufacturer.— (Cheers.) Now he, too, had a letter from Nottingham ; but it was from the secretary of the operatives ofNottingham—(Cheers)— and it was but fair that the House should hear both sides of the question.—(Cheers.) lie had been called on some time ago by the operatives of Nottingham for assistance, and he then learned what was the amount of the wages these operatives received, and what was the amount of wages for which they struck. lie learned that the wages they received weekly was but ss. 6d., and they struck for a rise of Is. 6d., or seven shillings a week.—(Hear, hear.) These were important facts—they were such as to call for and demand the attention of the House. They should, lie said, endeavour to inquire into these things, and therefore did he call upon them to vote for the motion of his Hon. Friend.—(Hear, hear.) The letter he now had to read for them was from Mr. Emerson. The writer stated that the operatives now began to see the folly of the free-trade prin ciples, and that the free-traders were found to be the greatest enemies to the working classes—that one of these free traders and one of their great manufacturers told a deputa tion who waited upon him to ask for an increase of wages, that he was astonished at their impudence in asking for an advance when they could get bread and provisions so cheap. Thus when the poor operatives asked the master manufac turer for a rise in their wages, he told them, who had but ss. 6d., that he was astonished at their impudence. He would not be at all astonished to find that the master manu facturer who said so was the person who had written the letter to the Right Hon. Baronet.—(Hear, and laughter.) The writer, however, continued by saying that " the time had arrived when the working classes would be no longer deluded by these persons, for they invariably found them to be the greatest enemies to the working classes."—(Cheers.) But if the House would allow him he would come nearer to this question by showing what degree of benefit the working classes had derived from these changes. He had there a return of the reduction of wages in every species of manu facture in Manchester since the year 1845. The Hon. Mem ber for Manchester was not then in his place, but if he were, he would be able to tell them whether the returns he was now about to read were correct or not. First of all then he bad to show what was the rate of wages in and near Man chester in the years 1846 and 1849. In 1846 the price paid for the making of 75 handkerchiefs was 4s. 6d. ; in 1849, and for the same amount of work, it was 3s. Bd.—(Hear, hear.) The Chancellor of the Exchequer, the other eTena ing, said that of courts there mutt be a reduction in the SA.I97RDAY JUL Y 11149, I wages, comparing 1845 with 1849, because between those two periods the Ten Hours' Bill had been introduced ; and that it was not to be expected that men would be paid the same wages for ten hours that they had received for six teen hours. Here there had been a reduction of wages, not on account of time, for the same number of handkerchiefs had to e be made. Well, then, what was the result? In 1845, for a piece of work of 65 yards, there was paid 3s. 6d.; in 1849, and for the same work, the price was 2s. 7d. In 1845-46, for 64 yards of plaid, 4s. 6d; in 1849, fur 65 yards, there was paid 3s. In 1847, there was paid for 44 yards of check, 4s. 7d.; in 1849, for 68 yards, there was paid 3s. 3d. The same species of reduction took place with re gard to all the various articles made in Manchester; they all showed an excess of sums received in 1845 and 1846, as compared with 1849. He was, sorry that the late ness of the hour prevented him from going into the details of this subject because they really were of very great importance. But then it was said that there had been a reduction of expenditure on the prices paid for several articles. He would now show to what it amounted. There was a saving en various articles of wear ing apparel and bread, such as on shoes of 3s. 9d. ; stock ings, 10d. ; on handkerchiefs, Is. ; and on the price of bread, 2s:. sd. This was for a man with a wife and two children. Then the whole gain on the various articles was 6/. 19s. 141 This was the gain on the purchase of 1849, as compared with the prices paid in 1845. The wages of the operative in 1848 was Sc, a week less in 1849, as compared with 1845-46. It was less per annum by 13e, so that the man with a wife and child suffered a total loss of 6 . and a fraction of a penny. lie did not say that these statements were to be relied on implicitly.—(Hear ' hear.) But when his Right lion. Friend rea d a letter, he felt that he was justified in reading a lett er i n a different tone—(Hear)--and it was but fair to give the account of the poor operatives themselves.— (Cheers.) The question was one to be decided by facts—in granting a Committee, they would have the means of inves tigating facts, and they might then know which party was right, and which wrong.— (Hear, hear.) The Right Hon the Chancellor o f th e E xchequer, in answer to his Hon. . Friend, had said that employment was the one thing wanted —that it was to want of employment they were to attribute the increase of poor -rates and the filling of their gaols—and then he added that he had great hopes that employment would improve, and that it would not be much longer wanted hi the country; and he said that he hoped and trusted in the energy of their farmers as well as in their skill and capital. One fact, however, would show the distress of the agricultural counties—it would do so much more than if he were talking for hours together. In Lincolnshire, one of the most respectable agricultural instrument makers informed him that the weekly wages paid by him in June, 1847, was 1301 165., and in June, 1849, it was 62/. 14s. The number of men employed at the former period was 120, and at the • latter period 70. This was entirely owing to the low price of agricultural produce, as the farmers did not buy those implements, as they thought that, perhaps, they would not be able to pay for them. He asked the Right Hon. Gentleman, then, what chance had those persons of being employed when the number of imple ments were reduced, because the farmers had not the capital wherewith to buy them? His Right Hon. Friend (Sir R. Peel) had stated there had been a diminution in our exports of the value of nearly 7,000,0001. since the year 1845-6, and that on considering that reduction they must bear in mind the reduction in the price of the raw material, in the price of provisions, and in the rate of wages. Now, what had been the reduction of price of the raw material as compared with the reduction in the exports? According to " Burn's Statis tics" the value of the manufactures exported in 1845 was 22,419,9881., while in 1848 it was 18,791,4141., bei,pg a falling off of 22 per cent. The Custom-house returns showed a diminution of ten per cent. But as the raw mate rial formed a third part of the quantity of manufactures, it followed that the net value of the manufactures, exclusive of the raw material, in the year 1848 amounted to 12,527,6101., and the depreciation of tee per cent. amounted to 1,252,761/. With regard to the increase of exports in the last four months, it was mainly owing to the reduction of the quantity consumed in the home market; and if the time should come when the agricultural interest would be again in a prosperous condition, the exports would again fall off. But there was another reason for the increase. A great part of the exports had been sent to America in anticipation of the high tariff which America -was likely to pass. The continental disturb ances had been assigned as a reason for decline of trade. Had not he (the Marquis of Granby) and his friends warned the advocates of free trade of the consequences of giving up the home market, which they had under their own control, and relying instead upon the markets of the Continent? But their warning was unheeded, and yet now they attributed their present disstress to the failure in the exports to the Continent. But they exaggerated that cause. The reduction attributed to the continental dis turbances was much less than they imagined. The mass of the consumers of their goods lived in the agricultural districts, while the disturbances were principally confined to the towns, where the manufacturing workman - lived, where, while on the barricades, they were unable to work, but still the consumption went on, though the working stopped, and consequently the falling- off in the consumption of English manufacture was less than was supposed. In the report of the proprietors of factories it was shown that during the last three or four years there were disturbing causes affecting the consumption of textile fabrics, which were independent of political disturbances on the continent, which did not exist at that period. Before sitting down, he must refer to what had fallen from the Chancellor of the Ex chequer, when he taunted the country gentlemen of England with a desire to increase their rents to pay off their mort gages and their family settlements, at the expense of the labouring classes. If that statement had been made by a hired delegate of the Anti-Corn-law League—( Hear, hear) — instead of by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the British House of Commons, he (the Marquis of Granby), if his voice were sufficient to make him be heard, would not let it pass in silence.—(Hear, hear.) In the year 1846, when the coun try gentlemen of England were deserted by their natural friends, and were derided by their opponents, if they did not play false to their opinions in the hour of trial, it was because they were convinced by reason and by argument that in maintaining protection they were not doing so simply for their own benefit, but were maintaining a system which in their consciences they believed was for the best interest of all classes.—( Hear, hear.) It was that which prevented their changing their opinions and their principles.—(Hear.) It was that which supported them in their trial—it was that which supported them against the leading men, the most talented men, of both sides of the House; and now, in the year 1849, when those principles had received the sanction of time and experience, they were not likely to abandon them in consequence of any taunt that might come from any quarter uhatever ; but they would rather read in that fact the knowledge that the Right Hon. Gentleman had of the weakness of the cause he was endeavouring to support, and that the prophecies which his Hon. Friend made at the close of his most eloquent speech would very shortly be ful filled.—(Loud cheers.) Lord JOHN RUSSELL—Sir, I should be wanting in respect to the honourable Gentleman who has made this motion, and to his supporters, if I were not to state some at least of the grounds upon which I think myself justified in resisting this motion. I should say however, that so far as the conduct of the Government is concerned in the present state of affairs, I should other wise have rested satisfied with the speech of my Right Hon. Friend the Chancellor of Exchequer.—(Hear.) I must say. also, that with regard to the general principles of the com mercial policy of the last seven years, it would be the height of presumption in me to enter into a consideration of those topics, or to attempt to defend those principles after the able, and, as I think, unanswerable speech of my Right lion. Friend.--(Cheers.) But, Sir, we have before us the Hon. Gentleman's motion, asking that the present Ministry should be displaced, and that a new Ministry should be formed on the ground of the restoration of protection. The lion. Gentleman quoted at the end of his speech an eloquent passage from Cicero, in which that orator declares that he saw no end to concession except in the death of the re public. The Hon. Gentleman seems to have thought, how ever, that Cicero was wanting in resources, and that, if he had thought of a motion on the state of the nation— (Laughter)—some remedy might have been found for such a state of disease; because the Hon. Gentleman, after an Iliad of woes—after telling us of the unfortunate state of every class of Englishmen—after telling us that, as far as lie could learn, the state of the country was one of suffering, without hope; as dreadful a state almost as that which ' Dante describes as the state of the condemned spirits—the Hon. Gentleman proposed this motion on the state of the nation, saying that it would displace the Government, but hardly giving us a hint of what those measures--were by which at length this hope, which does not now exist, was suddenly to be revived.—(Hear, hear.) However, we have got some further light upon it to-night ; for the Right Hon. Gentleman near him, the future Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Herries)—(A laugh)—rushing rather precipitately, and with juvenile ardour, into the question, before he has accepted the seals of office, and before he is entitled to bring forward the measures of his Government, has already given notice that he means to propose a moderate fixed duty upon corn.—(Hear, hear, and laughter.) We have, then, the statement of what it is the lion. Gentleman proposes, and what is to be the result it this motion is carried.—( Hear.) Now, Sir, I must take notice of one or two statements of the Hon. Gentleman. lie produced an official return with respect to the increase of poor-rates, and lie said that that return alone would justify him in asking the House, to agree to Isis motion. I must say tha t, I think, he conics rather late with that convincing rea son for his motion. That return is a return of the expenses under the poor-law, ending Lady-day, 1848 ; and, therefore, comprising three quarters of the year 1847, and only one quarter of the year 1848.—(Hear, hear.) Well, in a year which was unfortunately distinguished by the calamity of a great famine in Ireland; by a very great want of food in this country; by a commercial convulsion, and by other disastrous circumstances, I think that, in a year like that, these things might well account for the great increase of poor-rates which took place in that year. But! should hardly have thought that the lion. Gentleman would have selected that as peculiarly the year of calamity, because:his argument on that is, that a high price of corn is almost synonymous with a happy condition of the agricultural labourer, and the year 1847 was distinguished from almost every year for the last twenty or five-and-twenty years as being remarkable for the very high price of corn which pre vailed in that year. The very instance he quotes, instead of being an argument in favour of, is almost a conclusive argu ment against his motion, because it shows the calamities which are attendant on a high price of food.— (Hear, hear.) And then he says, if you will go with me into a Committee on the state of the nation, I will show you how to add to the price of food, and how to get high prices again ! A more complete fallacy in the argument, even in his own sense, can hardly be conceived. But with respect to some later intelli gence, which is founded upon official returns, and which I happen to have received from my Hon. Friend the Poor law Commissioner, I beg to inform the House that the state of the country since that return to Lady-day, 1848, was made, has shown an improvement in the condition of those classes who are either maintained in the poor houses or obtain out-door relief from poor-law guardians. Now those returns are not sent until they have been audited ; and, therefore, this number of returns relates only to 106 unions, of which it appears that there has been a decreased expenditure in eighty-seven,and an increase in only nineteen, and of these nineteen about twelve only are purely agricul tural unions. So that, as far as those returns go, we have every reason to think that there is an improvement, and not a falling off in_ the condition of the agricultural labourer. Then, with respect to the expenditure. The expenditure of these unions up to Lady-day 1848, was 860,8701., and up to Lady-day, 1849, it was 799,151/., thus showing a diminution in these 106 unions of 63,9691.—(11ear, hear.) So that by taking somewhat later intelligence than that of the lion. Gentleman, I am able in some respect to throw a more cheer ing light:upon those circumstances which lie appears e to think so so very dark and desponding. With reg ard to the have stated the general numbers; b ut with respect those well a i n s of the agricultural counties , I will read the m which the returns from the unions silo decreaseanato some es of s a an increase; and those coun ties are Bedford, Bucks, Devon Dorset,Essex, Lincoln, Gl ouces ter, Huntingdon , Norfolk, Northampton, Somerset, Southampton, Suffolk, Sussex, and Wilts, a l mo st all of them being a g ri c u ltural counties, and any of them remarkable for being those counties in which poor relief has been carried to the greatest extent. But I will take the unions in one county only, and, gi v i ng a return which is still later than those I have already quoted, I will state to the House, with regard to six lawns in the county of Bedford, what le the nun - Sher 'or 'pinions ie. ceiving in-eoor relief, and what is the expense of out door relief. In the midsummer quarter of 18-18 the number of persons receiving in-door relief in those six unions was 1,007, whilst in the corresponding quarter of 1849 it was 901. The expense of out door relief for the same quarter in 1318 was 532/., and iu 1849, 543/, so that, so far from the state of the country having become worse, as the Hon. Gentleman supposes, it has, according to the latest official returns that we have received, been improved.— (Hear, hear.) Now, I do not mean by this to say that there is not very considerable distress in some agricultural counties.— (Hear, hear.) I do not deny that that is the fact ; but I think those who beard the speech of the Hon. Gentleman, and whose memories carry them back to that period, will;remember that in the year 1836, to which he refers, and in various other years, we have been asked to appoint agricultural Committees.—( Hear, hear)—in con sequence of the number of petitions relating to agricultural distress • and that those petitions were constantly founded upon the very low prices of corn, and the statement that, with those prices for corn, it was utterly impossible for the farmer to remunerate himself for his outlay. So that it cannot be said that the present distress is the consequence of the introduction of free trade by the abolition of the corn-law.—( Hear, hear.) But, Sir, I can easily understand that there may be a period at which it is advisable to im pose a moderate duty upon foreign corn.—(Hear, hear, from the Opposition benches.) And, e ir, I have no hesi tation in saying that I think that, proved as the principles of free trade—undoubted as are the principles laid down by Adam Smith—yet that when a nation has been for some time living under laws which induce men to expect a higher price than articles will naturally fetch, it may then be wise to make a change gradually, to depart from your high and excessive protection, and to give a moderate fixed duty upon corn, as a means of at once enabling the people of this country to obtain their corn cheaper, and at the same time making the transition less abrupt for the agricultural interest than it would otherwise be. (Hear, hear, from the Opposition.) But was no such proposition ever made ?—(Cheers from the Ministerial benches.) Is the proposal of a moderate fixed duty thought of by the Right lion. Gentleman the Member for Stamford for the first time ?—( Hear, hear.) And in what way was that proposition received ?—(Hear, hear.) Why, when it would have been a wise proposition—when the people of this country were asking for a change in the corn-law, and would have conceded a fixed duty generously priceand s p o o f n t f a o n o e dr g s a l ne ouy— ra w l the wouldpe people once e n f have ha lowered country, andth e - a , n to it would have enabled the agriculturists to forth ose further further changes which the laws of economical science would finally have required—l say, when it might have been, and, as I believe, would have b een a w i se change, then the most violent, the most clamorous, and the most pertinacious opposition was raised.—( Hear, hear.) But now, when the corn-laws have been utterly abolished—when the people of this country have the satisfaction of knowing that no law in terposes in the way of their obtaining the articles of their sus. tenance at the cheapest price at which commerce, and trade, and agriculture can produce them—when they are contented with the Legislature, because the Legislature has conferred upon them that benefit, and removed all the trammels to that trade—when it would be utterly unwise—when it would be almost madness to attempt the imposition of a duty upon corn—(Cheers from the Ministerial benches)—that is the time at which the Right Hon. Gentleman brings forward a proposition which was treated with scorn at a former period. —(Hears hear.) But I think it is a singular thing that, having asked the two great interests, the agricultural inte rest and the West Indian colonial interest, to agree to a duty of Bs. upon corn and 12s. upon foreign sugar, and that proposal not having been accepted on the part of those who pride themselves on being Protectionists in this House, who wish to restore protection, I do think it singular that I should have heard in the year 1843 a proposition fur a temporary duty of 10s. per cwt. upon sugar, and in the year 1849 have seen a petition presented, and a notice given of a motion for a moderate fixed duty upon corn.—(Cheers.) Although they have adopted propositions very much resembling those which I made in former days, in my opinion they have not exactly suited those propositions to the circumstances of the case.—(Hear, hear.) They knew perfectly well that at the former period these propositions would have been re ceived and carried into effect if they had consented to them, by a great majority, nay, almost unanimously. But nothing would induce them then to listen to those propositions. Now, I must say I think there is scarcely a chance of their suc cess. And when their success would, as I believe, be far more fatal to their political influence than the utter rejection of their proposition, that is the time and that is the period in which they think it wise and statesmanlike to make this proposition to the House.—(Hear, hear.) Sir, I have stated that, with regard to the agricultural interest, and especially with regard to that return on which the Hon. Gentleman relies, there are well-founded reasons, supported by returns of a later date, fcr believing that better prospects are opening for the labouring classes. Now, with respect to the manu facturing interests. The Hon. Gentleman quoted some returns for the first five months of the year. Since that time there have been presented to the House an account of the exports for the five months ending in June of the present year, including the cotton manufactures, the linen manufactures, the silk manufactures, and the woollen manu factures; and these are the results :—The export of cotton manufactures and yarn for the first five months of 1848 amounted, in round numbers, to 8,766,0e0/.; in 1849, to 10,113,0001.—(Hear, hear.) The export of linen manufac tures and yarn, in 1848, amounted to 1,373,0001., and in 1849, to 1,583,0001. The export of silk manufactures, in 1848, was 184,0001., and in 1849, notwithstanding the cir cumstances which have been adverted to, it amounted to 232,0001. The export of woollen manufactures and yarn, which, in 1848, was 2,274,0001., in the year 1849 was 2,695,000/. ; showing a very considerable increase in each of those great articles of our manufactures.—(Loud cheers.) The Noble Lord opposite accounts for any increase that may have taken place by stating that the demand at home has fallen off so much that the manufactures have nothing to do but to send their goods abroad.—(Laughter.) Certainly, the explanation is convenient. But I think it would hardly be just, year after year, to be lamenting over the increase of our export of manufactures, and saying "Here is an increase of 3,000,0001. or 4,000,00)/.; how dreadfully bad the home market must be !”—(Loughter.) if there is a considerable increase in the export of our manufactures it shows that those manufactures are in a better state than they were in at the commencement of the year 1818, and that some progress has been made towards a more flourishing condition ; and that improvement, as I believe, is confirmed by all private accounts received from the various parts of the country, and by the official letters of the various persons employed in the different branches of the administration in the chief seats of our manufactures.--(Hear.) It appears, then, with regard to the agricultural interest—although certain portions of that interest are depressed—that a reduction has taken place in the number of persons seeking relief from the poor-rates; and the accounts relative to the manufacturing interest show a considerable revival of demand, and an increased activity in the main branches of that manufacture.—( Hear, hear.) So that I think we are not justified in holding that desponding tone in which the Honourable Gentleman thought proper to indulge on this most important subject.— (Hear, hear.) Sir, there is another point to which I wish to call the attention f the House (although at this late hour I do not wish to go into detail), and that is the very great increase of consumption that has taken place in some of the main articles used by the people of this country. Between the years 1842 and 1848 there was an increase in the con sumption of coffee of 30 per cent., of sugar 60 per cent., of tea 24 per cent., of cocoa 30 per cent., of currants 93 per cent., of raisins 22 per cent., and of cotton 35 per cent. So that we have a consumption of those articles which are in general use among all classes of the people of this country far exceeding any increase in the amount of population.—( Hear.) Sir, there is another point to which I wish to direct attention, because I think it applies not only to the motion of the Hon. G. ntleman who takes such a gloomy view of affairs, but like wise to the language of the Hon. Member for Montrose, which would lead to the conclusion that the condition of the people is continually becoming worse, and that the necessaries of life are more and more difficult to attain. The point to which I allude has reference to the great change which has taken place in the price of various articles of consumption. In the year 1818 the price of wheat was 935., in 1828 it was 605., in 1338 it was 645. 7d., and in le4B it was 50s. 6d. I will now mention the prices of some of those colonial articles to which I have just averted, of course taking into account the diminution of duty which has been applied to many of those articles. In the year 1818 the price of coffee was 12/. ; in 1828, sia 7e. ; in 1838, 71. 6s. ; in 1848, 5/. 17s. In 1818 the price of tea was 6s. ; in 1828, ss. ; in 1838, 4s. 3d. ; and in 1848, 3s. lt,4d. In 1818 the price of rice was 535.; in IS2B, 365. ; in 1838, 345.; in 1848, 16s. I will now take the raw ma terials of our manufactures. The price of cotton wool in 1811 was le. 6d. ; in 1828, 7d. ; in 1838, 7d.; and in 1848, 4 1 4 d. Flax, 70s. to 325:, and Spanish wool from 6s. 6d. to Is. 10d. Similar reductions had taken place of late years in the price of leather. It will hardly be said that there could be these great reductions in the price of the chief articles of consumption without there being an increase in the comforts of the people.—;Hear.) And when the Hon. Gentleman and others say that there is a smaller amount in taxation, I, for one, consider that that which the House would naturally look to would be whether the people had the o r o jzm os eg an f articles of general consumption in greater as sugar, you g they had before. Now, taking s uch an ar ticle may iind that the duty has not been recovering to the same but'f you findpeople cart obtain ; the n d egr ee after its obtain now 300,000 tons of sugar for the same sum which they formerly paid for 200,000 tons, then that is a proof that they have greater means of enjoyment. The revenue in such a case may suffer, but the people would have greater means of enjoyment. After the speech of my Right Honourable Friend, I do not like, especially at this late hour, to go into details. There were, however, one or two questions referred to by the Hon. Gentleman opposite upon which my Right Hon. Friend did not touch, and which did not come within the scope of his observations. Generally speaking, with re gard to the Ministry of which I am the - head, I may say that whatever faults may be found with our way of meeting the difficulties we have had to encounter, that these difficulties have been very great, and that we have not flinched from meeting them with the best remedies which we cauld apply. With regard to some of them it has been acknowledged that we were not mistaken in our remedies. Take, for instance, the year 1847—a year of great commercial convulsions, and when great doubts were entertained whether our currency would stand the shock .to which it was then exposed. We took measures on our own responsibility which were almost unanimously approved of, and which were not attended with the evil consequences predicted by the Right Hon. Gentleman opposite. I remember the Right Hon. Gentleman accompanying a deputation to me on the subject, and, when I mentioned to him as a matter of consolation that gold was coming into the bank, rebuking me for my presumption, and telling me that if I imagined the gold would remain in the bank, I was mistaken, for that it would all go out of the country in a few days. We, nevertheless, adhered to our measure ; and I am happy to say that the measure was successful; and that, too, without any da nge r to tire to the currency, and in a period of great di fficult y commercial classes. I remember some merchants of London despondency were rather surprised when I told themalt feltnothetime either to in the crisis—that I had no grounds at I believed that the feel or express any despondencyr.ehants of London would en terprise and capital of the me d the measures we thought' We apple carry them through. best—we saw no reason for despondency, and WQ declared we lied none. — (He ar.) Again, Sir, in the course of last year, s hortly after thought it the convulsions on the Continent, we i t n ecessary to take means o f preserving the peace of the metropolis, • threatened as it was by some evil-disposed men incited by hopes of plunder. We did so, relying on the great body of tire inhabitants of the metropolis. We believed them firmly attached to the Constitution under which we live and to the Sovereign whose subjects they are.—(Hear, hear.) We were not deceived in that confidence, • • and it will always be a matter of pride to me that I was one of the Government on that occasion.—(llear, hear.) Another subject to which the lion. Gentleman adverted was the domestic famine in Ireland. I am far from saying that the treasures we took stopped or averted the famine. I believe it would have been impossible to do so, and that any system of public workasuch as that suggest e d would have been utterly unavailing. But I do not think it is a just reproach on the Government for natives of Ireland, or representatives of the people of Ireland, to accuse them of having been lavish in their exhortations to this House to exert its energies and to grant its means to alleviate the disasters of their country.—(Hear, hear.) With respect to the other dangers in Ireland, they were met by I the Lord-Lieutenant, when energy saved Ireland (rem a very great ealarnlty.—(lear, hear.) Now 0114 the dateeet is past, some may be disposed to laugh at it, but it was a very extensive conspiracy, and if it had not been at once checked, it might have seriously endangered the peace of the country. There was another considerable danger during the three years of our government, and which I trust we have shown no want of courage in meeting. The Honour able Gentleman in bringing forward his motion made some observations with respect to the foreign policy of the coun try. On that subject the Honourable Gentleman, instead of stating, far less proving, any crime or negligence en our part, did but repeat the common, and rather vulgar, ac ctuation made against my Noble Friend, that we had everywhere been stirring up insurrection and favouring revolutions. It is utterly baseless and unfounded.—(Hear, hear, and cheers.) There is no ground whatever for such an accusation.—(Hear, hear.) But the Governments of the Continent, not attending, I suppose, to the feelings of the people about them—not having provided by due measures— by due provision for concession of rights to their subjects_. were astonished at the revolutions which broke out last year, and not conceiving how they could otherwise happen, sup posed some foreign intrigue at the root of them all. There can be nothing more unfounded. Ido not wish to conceal my g n e o n ,s cr l a o l ng b political een“ Civil and thi es religions an d wishes. herty all M y oS n 'e 'a r x t i h m lies e world."—(Hear, hear.) Su c h is my opinion; but I know at the same time that we should not have been justified in in terfering without some overwhelming necessity, and there fore, our course has been during the whole period to keep aloof from the greater part of these transactions—to pre serve tranquillity and quiet at home—ready to use our in fluence and to tender tee language of advice to foreign countries, but without otherwise interfering in the contests that have taken place among them.—(llear, hear.) There is another part of our policy which has beeen attacked. It is said, that after the change of Government in France, we have thought it right to preserve the most friendly relations with that country. I must say, that I believe the preservation of these friendly relations has enabled the various Governments of France to maintain a tone of mo deration which they would have found it difficult to do if they had suspected that England was at all hostile to them. —( Hear, hear.) I believe I have often said that the inti mate and friendly union of France and England tends to the peace, not only of Europe,but of the world.— (Cheering.) Although we have not concurred in every step taken by the French Government, I have no reason to suppose their inten tions to be otherwise than honourable and pacific towards this country. And I can perceive no symptoms of aggres sion on their part or any desire to violate the treaties by which the peace of Europe is preserved.—(Hear, hear.) With respect to the motion of the Hon. Gentleman, he has the apparent advantage of saying that if we look back for three years we would not now find the same peace abroad that then existed—that we have some important interests suffering at home—and that we have had a great famine, from which numbers in Ireland are suffering even at this moment extreme distress. But when the Hon. Gentleman proceeds without any reason to attribute blame on these points to the Government, I must claim the indulgence of the House while I state why I cannot agree with him, To lay the blame upon the Government for a great calamity which, by the visitation of Divine Providence, has fallen upon this empire, would be a great injustice, but a calamity which he trusted and hoped was but the commencement of a better time, as the ancient poet had described it-- " Jupiter have dixit, tempestatesque serenro Riserunt omnes visu Joyis omnipotentis." That scourge had been sent upon us to work out, perhaps, an ultimate object. We ought by no means to despair, but continue to support that system of policy which was a wise and a good one; if we continued to afford that good example which we had hitherto done, he hoped the blessing of the Almighty would rest on our labours; and what ever might be our measures he trusted our piety, our ener gies, and our virtues would meet their reward. (The Noble Lord, who was not distinctly heard at the conclusion in the gallery, sat down amid the cheering of the House.) Mr. MUNTZ wished to say, with reference to what the Right Iloncurable Baronet had said in allusion to his speech, that he had only read a certain letter from one of his consti tuents, which had been subsequently corroborated by facts. What he had quoted also from a paper was no puff, as he afterwards learned, and he had since received a further con firmation of the truth of the statement he had made. The Right Hon. Baronet should go to Birmingham to see the state of the labourers there.—(Hear, hear.) His opinion was that the state of the working classes was considerably re duced, their wages were lowered, and the prices of manufac tured goods much less than formerly. He regretted that he could not congratulate the Chancellor of the Exchequer either on the Budget that he had brought forward, or the present state of the revenue. —(Bear from the Opposition.) Mr. DISRAELI rose to reply, and said when he brought that motion under the notice of the House, he had that which might be called the economical portion of it upon the best and most authentic returns furnished by the officers of Government. The Noble Lord who had just spoken had said that the documents which he had quoted were not of a very recent date. He would ask, then, who could have supposed that reports of the Poor-law Commis sioners only laid on the table of that House sixteen months ago by the Government would be considered as such ? (Hear, hear.) That was the best and the only perfect evidence to which he could refer. The Right Hon. Gentleman had appealed to the example of the savings banks as a test of the condition of the people; but it would have been more candid had he given the House a general statement of their condition drawn from the official sources at his disposal, than by citing a single instance or a single town.—(llear, hear.) lie found the same unsatisfac tory result in the reference of the Right Hon. Gentleman to the manufacturing distress. They ought to have had some information also as to the agricultural unions. He had been expecting that the President of the Poor-law Board would have taken some part in the debate. He would have been a most valuable ally to the Government—a double barrelled gun—(Hear and laughter)—for besides enlighten ing them on the state of pauperism, he could have given them some information as to the state of Hull.—(Hear.) But instead of this, after an interval of two days, unferta nately not occupied in discussing this questton, the First Minister of the Crown came forward in a statistical cha racter—one in which he shone to much less advantage than in many others which he illustrated by the splendour of his genius—and showed that of sixteen agricultural unions, only twelve were in a state of increased depression. He presumed the Noble Lord recollected that there were 652 unions in England. When the Right Hon. Chancellor of the Exchequer commenced this reply to his (Mr. Disraeli's) speech, themachinery of the debate appeared not to move rightly. He rose, after an interval, and appeared to be look ing for an antagonist—(A laugh )—At last he fixed his eyes on him, and said, " Now I shall proceed to answer the speeches”—made when ? at Drury-lane—(Hear, hear, and laughter). Now, if the Right Hon. Gentleman wished to answer speeches made at Drury-lane, he should himself ap pear on those boards. Very distinguished characters on both sides of the Ho use had done so, and he believed that a Chancellor of the Exchequer if properly advertised, would draw.—( A laugh.) The Right Hon. Gentleman then addressed himself to business, and proceeded to prove that this country was more prosperous in 1848 than 1847. Well, he admitted that even at this moment we were in a better position than in 1847. But 1847 bad nothing to do with the argument. He had taken 1845 as the test of the conditiou of the country before the changes, and contrasted that with their present state. He had not alluded to 1847, and the Right Hon. Gentleman ought to be the last man to complain. Every man had his disagreeable subjects, which his Mende would be unwilling to obtrude upon him unnecessarily.— (Hear, and laughter.) Why, the Right Mon. Gentleman should expect him to do anything so gratuitously un charitable as to recall attention to the time when the Cabi net of which he was a member acting under his advice, ruined most of the principal bankers, merchants, and traders of the city of London, he was at a loss to conjecture. --(Hear, hear.) He had certainly omitted that year, but he certainly did not think that the Government then, any more than now, had any great claim to public con fidence and approbation.—( Hear, hear.) The Chancellor of the Exchequer had proceeded to notice some argu ments of his as to exports, and after a great many desul tory observations he wound up his criticism by honestly and candidly stating that he really could not understand it —(Hear, hear)—although the Right Hon. Baronet the Blember for Tamworth had told them that the thing was old and familiar enough, and that he (Mr. Disraeli), in fact, had done nothing more than invoke the manes of Alderman Waithman. Finally, the Right Hon. Gentleman delivered himself of:a quantity of statistics—(Laughter)—though what point they were intended to place before the House, or in what way they bore on the question under discussion, he had been unable to ascertain. He could only compare the to a process conjuror te No whatul would foras seen three sometimes at together hours mouth a quantity of red tare.—(Great laughter.) He now h h e e r ru d r r a a l w fairs,out of f h h e i n s observa tions which lie had made. The Right II Baro net, he had alluded, said he was going tointro ducecame to a speech which dealt considerably with on the to whose speech Members to follow—namely, to apply mended other Hon. him self in the most dispassionate and frank manner, and without a new sys . tern ro o ra f t d men ba t t o e, t :v e hi p ch osi h ti e on pa t r a t k ic e u n la u rl p y recom mended the slightest e x ag g eration a uthor of the motion. But what did he do ? He, too, went intoinm e a d n i a a t r . e g l m t o e n ll t r a u g r. a ei n l satn the hle'll'eate abstract.— —(Laughter.) principlesaugh ter .) of protected ec t went ed trade, and at last arrived at the glove trade.—(Laughter.) He then ventured to remind the Right Hon. Baronet of his (Mr. Disraeli's) existence, not from any arrogance, but be cause he feared that those mysterious influences which circu lated what took place in that House, might convey the im pression that this process of ratiocination had been addressed to him. Ile then proceeded to deal with the Honourable Member for Birmingham, who had just vindicated him self. Again he reminded the Right Honourable Baronet of the difficult position in 'which he should be placed, unless the Right Honourable Baronet deigned to notice him, and he then fulfilled his promise, and' attacked in detail his (Mr. Disraeli's) heresies respecting ex ports, and told him that if he had enjoyed the advan tage of mixing in public life at the time Alderman Waith man lived, lie would have found that his (Mr. Disraeli's) was no new theory. Now, he had a great respect for the memory of the alderman, who he believed was e a distin guished instance, at at the amounts of the official exports, for _ liberal. His position was very simple.. H down, for 130,000,000 e, and saw the declared value set the depreciation instance, at 50,000,0001., and lie measured abour,by the difference. not the think 10)ked in value as the reward of Engli s h a b sur d, probably, never was Anything more mean denied, more absurd, that it had any affinity t m le s ra elL an H a e s d t id e promulgated. He den Commissioners need heed much the that the Poor-law prices of wheat, &c. Then with re criticism of the I which he had dwelt • years on in reference to with the system z p i r g o b p t od l n i dd n. by Ge h n i their sta t ementto Professor Jones's opinion, ference what he (Mr. Dis raeli) had stated was that if the farmer imported 25 per cent., it must lead to an equivalent diminution in his produce. The Right Honourable Gentleman and the consecutive of Noble Lord had each been extremely eloquent on the notice of motion w hi c h had been given - een given by his Right Honourable Friend Mr. llerries), as if that questionhad any bearing on the present subject. The Hon. Gentleman concluded a long address by reflecting on the course which had been adopted by the Right Honourable Baronet the Member for Tamworth, and calling upon the House to sup port his motion. The House then divided, when there appeared— For the motion ... 156 Against it ... ... 296 Majority in favour of the Government —l4O The other orders of the day were then disposed of, and the House adjourned at Three o'clock. [ADVERTISEMENT.]—A Dangerous Case of Ery sipelas, attended with Swelling and Inflammation, cured by Holloway's Pills and Ointment.—Extract of a letter, d at ed East Kiel, Spilsby, Lincolnshire, October 8, 1845 :—" eg to announce to You a most wond er ful cure wrought upon my self by your pills and ointment. I bad a very severe attack of erysipelas in my right foot and ankle, with swelling and in flammation to an alarming e xtent. 1 was unable to move without the assistance of crutches. I consulted an eminent physician, to no purpose. However, in less than two weeks, by the use of your ointment and pills, I Was cured, to the sur prise of all who knew me. Signed, Joseph Gildon, a fanner." Sold by all druggists, and at Professor Holloway's Esta blishment, 244, Strand, London. Dispatches were sent off yesterday evening from the Co ioniAi-odiee for the Governors of the North 4werican Colonies I