The Sun. — London, England, 1844-03-13 00:00:00

• .IMPERTAL PARLIAMENT. Pn 111 G March i 2. took his seat on the Woolsack at The Earl GWALIOR. Ne il r, of RIGSN laid on the table of the House certain atl ng h o P t i t - CtIRN-LAWS. te tt e 'lnns i n f a ttl . 1 „, ~ your of protection for agriculture were pre grilti by Duke of Richmond from Yorkshire, dint the kue4 th"atleber•rY from Linlithgow. The Noble Earl - le ettw,r e did not agree wi.h the prayer of the petitions. a The 4 11 ,,k' Tnestion from Lord CAMPBELL, "Ft,leti'."-! CHANCELLOR said he should proceed with ) I .atl eiZtti.e.al Courts Bill on Friday next. i 3 le tt i d ,"_ L PRELL wished also to put a question to the T , 4, ~._`•learried.Lord respecting a particular portion of that 111, ir that part relating to the granting of probates or cjttidtte..i.."4entad,otdiltdhiws i t s o h ap to piy know if his Noble and Learned in cases of 51. when a probate htql!jierl out bona fide. ZWlnt R D CHANCELLOR said this was a most im i,,sdopt Bill , ,and perhaps the best course for his Noble Friend "Ehoa ter • w eld be to allow the Bill to pass, and then he might I. d / 31 %ther Bill to extend its operation. lith e! U GHAM said h a h a d ma d e man y a tt e mpt s t o re .teilitt. a * (M this subject, but bad been frustrated by party te .ntm 4 E TROPOLITAN IMPROVEMENTS. !est w areei s of NORMANBY, seeing that th 3 Govern rt4eet_e_ about bringing in a Bill in the other House, ;hily,,, e V e U ti r , l l4 ll of regulating the different buildings and elided to La, In the metropolis, wished to ask whether they V o u l d 1 7 1. te i od this to the other parts of the . country. He 1 4 , 1 x, th aot in what state the improvements in the Victoria . let "ltig constructed in the east-end of the metropolis a te pr eient cli''• Ltok ' ' ' t ioli 4,. of lIUCCLEUCH could not answer the latter,. e s afth e d Noble Friend. It was not at present the inten '44 tuipOrernnaent to extend the provisions of the Metro- Oay 1 ` u ngs Act to other large towns in the Kingdom. h t 4i t .,a r e ge. town there were local Acts effecting buildings Pte r rticular towns, and it would, therefore, be impolitic s L eY ge P he "rat measure which might affect:those local Acts. tit sad t i e of NORMANBY would suggest to his Noble Rohd e gill p of at least applying some of the provisions 'tibi t i„ to large towns in the kingdom, for the purpose of w i l litl' e rs u , on' living in cellars. ith' Rill . ' 's of SALISBURY did not think the provisions t4Pltit.d.would remedy the evil of which the Noble Marquis stetd CO , r, DISSENTERS' PROPERTY. it l ,w l of I F.NHAM presented a petition from the Dis ,f,e 4 üblin, raying that the Bill lately laid on the table TtPtj t a l ' e nci i rteap.ecting the g property of Dissenters, consisting ~,. t LOR D round", might be extended to Ireland. " L' e tlti r ,eut t ,i7 . C HANCELLOR had no objection to the ap e a Cor,`-' O ,„ Inni ittee to consider the prayer of the . petition. ' Co t ,„' t.NHASI then moved for the appointment of i t - "ttee, which was agreed to. l 'iti ll „ .. ?*l(m / -,.! I •AYNOOTH COLLEGE. t s 'ilosh e '-c.AGLE rose to put a question to the Noble ) 'ie l ;• aid tl : t re sPecting the College of Illaynooth . , and in doing V tt iita f or L Mean to make the slightest allusion to a State 1 4! tp., t p,p ei t ,..'e Roman , Catholic clergy. During the existence 1 11i 4 , - 34 , '`tets Catholic clergymen were compelled to seek t v: 14, 1 Nntries for.their education, and it was not until it'!is. i t i ° 1 :9.i that any t was xiade to the Catholic , t tt' tl lsli ?new ' , hat many of the men who were educated at met of abroad before the French Revolution, I t st t s abe s tery highly , educated and enlightened minds, tte - ald ss' ar ne time he thought, as a matter of policy. ~,..* to t ''' better if the Irish Roman Catholic clergy la t i, v et t ,,,,, "inPelled to receive a foreign education. ~, .e t alli et wat itt condition in which the College of May- NC' kit h e Peesent placed. It was asked why should this V t44olie...PArged, and why should it be kept exclusively W„ eLs lies:elesiastics? Why, at the time of the endowment N." 4 i e 1 petiti w resented to the Irish House tlittstli , the re ' t tl o s pying un that as 1-rotestant students might be t a kii totp. College. This prayer was not granted. 1 1 - N 1 , 11 doo r : 1 qt a provision was introduced into the Bill Zi tt tilt bo . the college, by which no person professing the ,Nt ,?ls t„'",`tion could be admitted into the college. It was it4 lt - a o itt . r .to complain of this prohibition, considering si, t ay ter nibitien had been created by our own laws. Ik k tli tt l atre k , l l 4(lB d an application was made to Parliament ea a Ppli . grant to the College of Maynooth. In answer tl t k it 'i ll t .a , r•-w e ' L e t ° i n the Noble Duke opposite (Wellington), then Oti titt e lleY, wrote to the authorities of the college at e the gronnd they had for making their application. kiti tii N i tta°lWers which wer e then furnished to the Zit l 'j k L - ' be (Lord Monteagle) had founded the t a tt N th ere which ,he intended to conclude. Although a . aithe was no intention on the part of those in autho ' . 1 ) t a t laii ', s a w it, yet he feared that from ignorance of the kkl,‘Nlabf e eta cns in this country were averse to the , „ Ois e ," Means by which it could be made k it t illld N ' i li by increasing the grant. There were ~ve th e r altogether, 250 of whom were supported 41 1 41 1 11 oel y ` u 9 o ( l ‘,‘, s of the college, yet the amount of the k th i 23/: %Pu I. ; and the cost for each of these pers. , n . s it t ! t hs,, of - head. He thought this very wrong in e s,'"atit, !wen who were to exercise a vast influence et td i ltia 'natter life. The labour they were ready to un- to nlisem: virtue which they displayed in all cases, was e t „the c• As an instance, he would state that, accord s et `asli t e r e t . ernment returns, in one week no less than I Vh te e nt/ of VYMen were carried off by typhus fever * tanut. erry, and he could name many other cases q le a. A . t p resent I tA it, g r eat au the College of Maynooth was in It t It s ta. i arldation from the want of proper funds to f d ,G t , istia, l 4'y that was not a fit state of things for e ttt e . l l l . ls aett s t, T y elat t . l7. ( Hear, hear. ) d and d e li b b e e l r i a er I c , l iew tha o t f Si l l% 47nld be eloin in g B far an m e o i r i e ar L e the benefit and trans (titb. Pohl.eland than byany other measure. The more 'Il of I ls t , ti _ , reland were in favour of their c erg) , re ti e k t ro te ec lucation which would place them upon a level t tt Iso ,ant clergyman and the .country gentleman. kiVie a, Government would also show to the people of t si ld , that t h a 7 , .they were anxious to promote their temporal st ehi ritual happiness. How could Noble Lords ex -0011,111:en who were reared in happy and comfortable 0 lo t . join such an establishment ? There were no fel .ll to 4 larships attached at present to this college ; ~.\",,wstit thought that there ought to be some small , Th e for the benefit of the more deserving stu ta6Co4,-bGOvernment, even if they did not take the il t i lltlillac r i r, t _ of the . establishment upon themselves, yet ' 0 14,1 'at building itself under the superintendence ~ ti t t: pr op ' 4 Works, and guarantee that it should be % t get "„ repair. As a matter of policy they ,s d . tier. ,:ue hearts and feelings of the Roman SeN.latos," with th em , and they would be their .1)„,to 4 , I n maintaining peace and good order. It wat . a It' ,the term, .. agitating priests" to the Catholic tik s tZte 4 e w a l! because the greater number . of these e ..titsz e l l eo w at alt system of . political agitation. The i sL e tt t . ,ochaded by moving for certain r ' 0 )4 tie," RoMan Catholic College of Maynooth. I st 1 Ity I, - ,'''' ELLINGTON said he would have no ob ►t:ilit`ei'd, • e t ,.‘ w re the House the returns moved for by the ti t t the e was giad that the Noble Lord had 1, tot teo the 'natter before the House. At the Sttss r etl te t Par e r t i u be.. (the Duke of .Wellington), 4 4 k it . m. ktl . state that there would be any alteration in a 4 late 1 to the College of Maynooth ; but if there il t h atila b e t ion of that kind, a declaration to that tt 's i tl t t r s„ er, r aide in the other House, from whence iksiti„ °ll ntt - C o ate d. He should afford the Noble Lord W:. ' - 4 . of which her Majesty's Government were 4‘r l 4 l44l ' lVii °f L s le e'e r s ANSDOWNE thought it essential . that t Stt,, 4 * l , tai ,gil t Rd lbould be men of high education, in order ,at ye wr?Perly discharge their religious functions ; `stt l tt l i t.. so pli ttld ask, could this .be done, wh . en the P'e s tbe t „ t 'Y ? One of the great benefits which was k k i t s I i'l ei '''teto of the English Universities was that s`litlhotPee„erfil a snd upper classes of the laity into more I,,as t s'd h„ -- „ w rie, nd he thought it most desirable that the kaottSptki_r.eiZt,e.tae.. the respect to the Catholic clergy t i nthi t atos titt .7 of the Roman Catholic laity in Ireland.. ..i, s tt stia . ii t "oll Was already before the House with re -I,'l4t;ll4aPoteit ' and he called upon her alajesty s Govern- S t lif t nap.„ rt ' for upon them lay the whole responsibility ltistew word "'atter. 1, 4 Orde frOM Lord AIONTEAGLE in reply, the 1 , Nale i ,: e lto be laid on the table. . . i i :lt 4 1.t 0 t, , , 4 : t t__2......___ °en adj° rued at Half-past Seven. l 't k °P COMMON S. March 12. ) t , 011),z1',,took the Chair tsit ‘lb oia 'ut t. -- en at the usual hour. . kt stis t ,'Whi c h ur ought up the Pontop and South Shields k t N et tleri arta South ‘ d a first time.. V o li sti t. Pie t , Western Railway Bill, and . the I fs ti a tit he Ra ilway to . Bill, were read a second time, i , 4.t.,,kbeirnitted. 1 ih,N tor:•,Presented a petition from the inhabitants I'lllit :viola Pla ining that the Lambeth Water-Works ks, t , ( ,4 t ed the terms of their Act of Parliament, • t .i i lp, l ll' °l ,,," to inquire into the subject. (i'ill' l tist "ORTLEY presented a petition from k ii , ,,., Lit'utti,ttlj!lteration in the corn .laws. !)4. Petition against presented a petition against the poor 8* Purist the employment of young persons N,li t Nt •oNb • ,„ cejl oewl Presented a petition praying for the ,t i th e p C.TT courts in certain parts of the country. rolti:i I, olittooriPiesseinat.ed a petition against the short-time ,ti:i4 l 1 °1) I ,CES OF MOTION. ,1,. , 044 , Toned to Tuesday, 26th inst., the mo- V . r 11 11 4—n the Paper relative to the exemption of ktti t 'tlo t , l tl: ft °ln tot in th t a e W i th in Wales. . ' ,I P% 1 * Aix, with to give notice that in the Committee t t ta t tle,est tt i c ndment Bill he should move a resolu- N ,„- (1 141,:t,_ boards ofuardians be empowered to . ;',,ttio,' in - ,, 4 houses to out during the day for air and k i tltt l .l to ttiott e e r of that go resolution not being agreed to, Nt k i t , 4ll ow t to the effect that beards of guardians kOts j Ztit I to kr, Paupers in workhouses who were above )i . ‘t t e t tub , " `lot during the day for the enjoyment of kla' t ‘ ti l,h,toi,,),ect to such regulations as the guardians • • 1 4, e t VI J A l Tei 0, ' l , ',' l 4 - i i lli h,„ -18 gave notice that in Committee on , Ll'll6 e ,lit p ert - I l'ould move that the word " child" in Q.i tt st es nQra o ,7,' inder 15 years of age, and that the `0 4. 1, 1 " ~t Rev rw ein a person under -..1 years of age. liat e lta.°l th it t e notice that to-morrow he would ask N %11 44 1, 1) trt,„:2,waiges which had taken place in the ' I'' 4 it`i- eathe t 7, s `. of the public offices since the Repert i t4 l ni b abe,t , "aleet in the year 1t.22. '\N i t i % ta t b i t t ler, 4l l :o p u P t u t i h tuaut to the notice which he had ‘ s ti i t 't t i l tat o pp po e following question to the Right i t l,,,t,a t 7% * ) ,,ta kw :" - --131131eiy, . whether the Right Co' of ' Re ~.- ee of the fact that there were two 10'4 e ttit .fulyr u t wlent now in I 'evonport under arrest t 'll' ll sti ts p te e t a rres t s . now nearly eight months, and that 1 it '4 t ,qo t _ ste t I. ! , In consequence of a dispute in the . ‘ t L it qa Howes, e,"drther consequences, also whether or 1 01 ,.Wh tt ' 1 e.(a ut e A in December and January last by • \ l 'a ltl t t ' e th e "tie e -t ua in behalf of one of the officers, yt th lo ti e l th e R . ad been taken ? He wished also 'N, l 4ip t ° . l sof t e i Ho tte rt, /lon. Cientleman had any objec- Nt4t''lle:e4Dl twdtwn ty B tTe u . y na w s e e of no t t he reL o a n se ti dnuoredihdceir .t,4lll,l , tt .tte t i l l at ketr°ll3er trtbunal. La r stly, he is ished to know rq 'kil t Pitt ~, w _as not contrary to the articles of ti,..l i ala i, ° nicer should be detained longer in 01t5, 4 412 1 , °' until a court-martial could be as '/i,ila,'t ti,,,'NQ E se hA i 141. t wo ofse id ,. in reply to the first question, that ' a t'il , st ti c te ti . e ) , at under were so detained in arrest, and l s t tilttt Nv it eri l r i ll 0 :: arrest in consequence of further t diss applications Vittiqte l . P t i ,..to th e 4 ard to app to p d r e ev e e n nt behe r l h f e e r f Vht ki,, s slet ti t 4t tla t t 't(on amoristen to the a ' uthoritie e s r t e here. In reply, VA tl t4 l 'l t l l "tl i ," t° Whethe h t t , h ) i ly %t , it c ce ntinutd a r t e had any objections to crest, and whether the said_ W' t he m t he t e i„ r s . b e released . t a, r : 1 st ett n. m em , r or , tried, as the articles of ~. t i a 4 I% 1 0 ,, d to ot , airected, he (SrS, H Honourable Gentleman ‘ 11, 1) 1 11. h e r , that • h t he P. L. tt ltp - Le a 'US. ose officers were placed 'l lt ti, V P sie,: ee of : n : h ,if them, a junior offi , i. 1 O Pl s: Nci er i)te d' both 1 a lenge to a senior cfficer, I t, s a s t tea t ,edth es __ , axing thus violated their duty, t t . 4 ~,,r qe junior liable to arrest. After he a it e t l ati o ' p ihi e h' r w ° , ffi ter made the most triple apolo . 4 , ~ i s s h o . accepted by the other ffi . ' • Olt he tr wa x v o cer, e _ _ lea by _ y much in the wrong, 'snatt,t. Court Martial in conse -14 other, who waa not s° THE SUN, LONDON, WEDNESDAY MORNING, MARCH 18, 1844. much to blame, was also to be tried by reason of his vio lation of Jut). About that time measure was in contempla tion by the Commander-in-Chief to repress it, and it was de termined that those officers should be tried under the new arrangement, and as both violated their duty—one in a most unjustifiable mauner,—the Commander-in-Chief chose to punish them in a mannrr not uncommon in the army— that was arrest at large, without being allowed to join the mess, wear their swords or attend on parade. Under those cir cumstances, the Commander-in-Chief, as their arrest had continued so long, meant to release them immediately after a suitable admonition. Captain BERN AL asked was it not the case that, by the Articles of War, no officer could be kept under arrest more than eight days wiihout being brought under a court-martial? Sir HENRY HARDIN GE said an officer might be kept under arrest a longer time by his commanding officer or the Commander-in- Chief. _ . _ the protection we give to the farmers of this country.—( Hear. ) But I maybe answered, that the farmers of this country have 1 the cost of carriage to pay also, as, for instance, from Norfolk to Liverpool or London. But I beg to remind Hon. I Gentlemen of one thing which they overlook, namely, that a very small portion of corn is carried coastwise at all.—( Hear.) Accurate information upon this point might be got before a Select Committee of this House. Only 1,000,000 of quarters were carried coastwise at all, or 5 . per cent, of the whole growth of the country ; the rest was carried from the harm-door to the mill. This is an important consideration for those who say that there is no natural protection to the farmer, inasmuch as it gave the farmer here a constant protection of half-a.guinea. But Honourable Gentlemen ought bear this in mind, that the corn which was brought from Dantaic was not grown on the quays—( Hear, hear)---any more than it was grown on the quay of Liverpool. On the contrary, it is brought from a very long distance. I have seen a state ment made by an Hon. Member from Scotland, who said that the rafts on which the corn was brought into Dantzic paid the cost of transit.--(Laughter.) I have not been able to verify that statement in the course of my inquiries.—( Laughter.) Now I should like to have farmers themselves examined before a Com • mittee of the House as to their ability to compete with foreigners Hon. Gentlemen would do well to consider what happened in the case of wool.—( Hear, hear.) Every prediction that is now uttered, with regard to corn, was uttered by gentlemen opposite with regard to wool.—( Hear, hear.) If Hon. Gen tlemen ransacked the British Museum, and hunted in that Herculaneum for all the pamphlets which were written on the subject of wool, what arguments would they net find in the future tense, and what predictions of mai', might, could, would, should, ought, and shall.—( Laughter. But what was the result ?—( Hear, hear.) Did they lose all their sheep walks ?—( Hear, hear.) Had they no more mutton ? (Laughter.) Were there no more sheep cots ? I have an account of the importation of wool and the price of wool, and what I wish to impress on Gentlemen opposite is this, that the price of commodities springs from two causes—a temporary, fleeting, and retributive high price, produced by scarcity—the other, a high price produced by prosperity. With regard to wool, your had a high price springing from the ability of the consumers. The statement he had showed that the higher the price of wool the greater was the importation ; and the lower the price, the smaller the im portation. In 1827, the price of South Down wool was 10d. and the importation was 29,000,000 of lbs. In 18s9, it fell to 7d, and the importation was only 21,000,000 lbs. In 1836, the price rose to 18d lb., and the importation had risen to 64,000,000 of lbs. that is three times more than when the price was less by half. In 1841 the price of wool was 11d., and the importation 56,000,000 of lbs. ; in 1842 the price was 104., and the im portation had dropped to 45,000,000 of lbs. So that when you have had the highest price of wool, you have had the largest competition from foreign countries; and when you have had the lowest price you have had the least comvetieion. —( Near, bear.) Well, now, that is the principle which I wish to see applied iu viewing this much dreaded question of corn. You may have a high price of corn, through a prosperous community, and it may continue a high price : you may have a high, price through a scarcity, and it is impossible in the very nature of things that trade can prosper.—(Hear. ) Now put this test of wool in the case of cattle and other things that have : been imported since the passing of the tariff. I want this matter to be cleared np.—( Hear, hear, and cheers. ) 1 . 40 not want gentlemen to find fault with the Right Hon. Barenet for doing what he did not do. I do not believe that he caused, a redaction of one far-thin in the price of articles of consumption. And I meat.. say, with all deference to him, that I think he. himself is to blame for baying incurred that charge by f• the. arguments which-he brought forward in support of the tariff.. : It is said that the,tariff has caused a panic and distress among the farmers. 'Why don't believe there has been as much increase is the imports, as would make one good breakfast for all the people.—(Laughter.) Did it never enter into the minas of Hon. Gentlemen, s who are interested in the sale of cattle, that their= ,eustomers in large towns cannot be sinking into abject , poverty and distress without the evil alternately reaching themselves in the price of their produce. Why, I had. occasion a little time ago to look at the falling off in the town of Stockport. I cal culate the falling off in Stockport alone for three or four years at more than all the increase in the importation of foreign cattle. . It appears, therefore, that the - distress of that town alone has done as much to reduce prices as all the importation under the tariff. It has been estimated that in lanchester forty per cent. less of wages was paid in 1842 than had been paid formerly ; and it has also been estimated that the country was paying 7,000,000!. less in wages per annum in 1842 than in 1636. How could you then expect the same consumption ?—( Hear, hear.) If you would but look to your own interests as keenly and as wisely as manufacturers look to theirs, you would never fall into the error supposing that you can ruin your customers, and yet, at the same time, prosper in your pursuits.—(Cheers.) I re member hearing Lord Kinnaird, whose property is near Dundee, state that, in 1835 and 1836, the dealers used to come and bespeak his cattle three months in advance, but in 1842, when the linen trade shared the fate of all the manufactures he had to engage steam-boats three months in advance to bring his cattle to the London markets. Hon. Members, who lived in Sussex, and the southern counties, and who were in the habit of joking about Cheadle Mill, should recollect that they are as much de resident upon the prosperity of Cheadle and other mills, as those who live in their immediate neighbourhood.—( Hear, hear.) If graziers, on looking at the " Price Current," find they can get a better price for their cattle in London than in Manchester and Stockport will not send their cattle up to London, to compete with the southern graziers. • The point, therefore, which I wish to make out is, that the tariff has not caused the reduction in price. There is nothing which I re gret more, than that the corn-law or the tariff should ever have been touched. Without this, we should have bad prices lower . than they are ; our lesson would then have been complete, and the landlords and tenants would have been taught how dependent they are on their customers. Hon. Gentlemen must not content themselves with learning this lesson ; but they must reduce their rents —they must go down in sackcloth and ashes—(Great laughter)—instead of hallooing on the farmers against the Anti-Corn-law League as the cause of all their suf ferings.—( Hear, hear.) Now with regard to the low prices consequent on the change in the tariff, I de not know whether a Noble Lord happens to be present, who illustrated this very aptly. by stating that the farmers in the west of Scotland had been ruined by the reduction in the price of cheese.—( Laughter. ) There could be nothing mere unfortunate than that statement as there happens in that rest ect to have been no alteration, and Tet I believe cheese fell in price as much as any other article. he mistake of the Noble Lord who made that statement was quite natural ; for if he believed that the change in the tariff sause the reduction in the price of cattle, he was bound to believe that nothing else caused the reduction in the -prise of cheese. It is well known that whilst the price of cheese has fallen in the home market, the importation has been also considerably diminished.—(Hear, hear.) Now there is another point upon which 1 must entreat Hon. Members' forbearance, for it is an exceedingly tender point, and one which is always heard w ith sensitiveness in the House. I refer to the subject of rent. —( Hear, hear.) Now we have no tenant-farmer in this House—( Hear, hear)-1 wish we had, and I venture here to express a hope that the next dissolution rule sent up a bona fide tenant-farmer. I know nothing more likely than that to unravel the perplexity of our termonology— nothing more likely to put things on a right footing than to make us speak plainly on this subject. The landowners, I mean the political landowners, those who dress their servants and their cattle in blue ribbons ' and who treat thi s question entirely as a political one. They go to the tennant farmers, and they tell them that it would be quite impossible for them to compete with foreigners, for, if they had their land rent free, they could not sell their produce at the same price as they did. To bear out their statement they give a calculation of the cost per acre of growing wheat which they put down at 6!. Now the fallacy of that has been ex plained to me by an agriculturist in the Midland Counties. whom I should exceedingly like to see giving his evidence before , the Committee for which I am moving. He writes me in a letter which I have received to-day, " You will be met by an assertion that no alteration in rent can make up the difference to the tenant and the labourer of diminished prices. They will quote the expenses of a single crop of wheat, and say how small a proportion the Rent bears to the whole expense. But that is RCA the true way of putting it. Wheat is the farmers' remunerating crop, but the farmer cannot grow wheat more than one year in three." The writer stated that they should compare the ex penses of the whole farm with the price received of the land lord. ; have," said he, " for this purpose. analysed the ex penses of a farm of 400 acres, 230 arable; 170 pasture. parish and county-rates, 901. ; interest of capital, 150/. ; labour, 380/. ; tradesmen's bills, 80/. ; manure and lime, 70!.; wear and tear of horses, 20/. ; making altogether for expenses, 790!. the rent being 800!. 1 " So that in this farm, which is fairly cultivated, the rent is 8001., and the other expenses 1901. Now if it require 555. per quarter, on an average year, to enable the tenant former to pay the rent and make 150/. profit, it is. obvious that without any rent he would be able to pay labourers and tradesmen the same amount out of a price of 30s. per quarter. But I do not anticipate that wheat will ever fall below 455. per quarter. by means of free trade." Now that is a very important state ment of a very competent judge —(Cries of " Name.") It is Mr. Lagett, of Ruginton Grange, near Worthing. Allow me now to state to the House what is the best way to calculate what proportion rent bears to the expense of cultivating farms —what amount of produce the farmer sells in the market—and what amount of money he brings home from the mar ket, and what proportion of that money goes to the to the landlord for rent. That is the way to consider the sub ject. You have not to count the money laid out in seed, corn, and manure, because taxes were never paid out of these. I am prepared to prove before the Committee, by a witness who shall be deputed by the Lothian farmers, that one half of their produce goes to the landlord, out of every 525. per quarter of wheat 265. ; also that if they had but twenty-six shillings per quarter' for their wheat, and the land rent free, they would do as well, pay as much wages, and everybody about their establishment would be as well off as they can be now, when paying rent and receiving 525. per quarter. I believe Many Hon. Gentlemen opposite and on this side of - the House have never entered into calculations of what proportion of rent goes to the quarter of corn. The way to calculate is this—what quantity of corn do you sell every year of the - whole of your fauns if all their produce was turned into wheat? I will make that calculation I have often told you my own opinions, amid I have taken the opinions of men who have taken great pains in investigating the subject for months past, in their respective circles, and I have arrived at the conclusion that farmers, upon the average, don't have a sale per annum more than equivalent to 10 bushels of wheat for any acre they rent, so that in 500 acres there would not be more than 5,000 bushels, and yet half of the produce of the price of wheat goes in the shape of rent to the landlord. Ai regards cheese, I am likewise prepared to prove that more than one-half of that which goes te market, goes to the landlord in the shape of rent. I'or every sd. paid for cheese, lid. goes to the landlord ; and in the same way in the grazing districts, such as those of Northampton for every sd. worth of beef that is sold, ltd. goes to the -landlord. This is a point the public need not be concerned about for the farmer. I do not put it forward on that ground. 1 never told you that you raised the rent of your land by the corn-laws. 1 never believed it. Bat if you come to this House and enact apparently for the benefit of the farmer, and say that free trade ruins the agriculturist, then I must put forward the real state of the case. I shall now touch upon another and more important branch of this question, I mean the interests of the farm labourer. We are told that he is be nefited by a system of restriction which makes the first ele ment of existence scarce. Do you think posterity will believe it? They will look back upon this doctrine, in less than twenty years, with as much amazement as we do now upon the conduct of our forefathers when they burnt old women for witchcraft. Yet in the face of the plainest evidence you go on maintaining a law which makes food scarce, in order to benefit the agriculturist. We have had a volume presented to us on the condition of the agricultural population, which ought to be before the House long before this time. A Commission was appointed last year to inquire into the em ployment of women and children in husbandry, and I wish to state the manner in which that Commission had been appointed. I was a party to having that Commission named; as a motion was made by an Honourable Friend near me for the purpose of having a Committee then sitting on the employment of women and children in manufactures extended to the agricultural labourers. The Committee had been sitting for two years in a particular form, and was afterwards engaged, I believe, for four years in inquiring into the condition of labourers in other trades and manufactures. What my Hon. Friend and myself w ished was, that a similar inquiry to that then carried on before that Committee should be instituted into the condition of the agricultural poor. —( Hear, hear.) An application was made for the purpose to a member of the Cabinet, but he refused to consent to the ap pointment of a Committee, and would only agree to allow a Commissioner under the poor-law to take evidence on the sub ject. - He also refused to allow the Commissioner more than thirty days to carry on the inquiry, notwithstanding the length of time that the Committee to which I have alluded had taken for a similar inquiry.--( Hear, hear.) Having under the law only thirty days to complete the inquiry, Mr. Austen set forward on his task, and lost two days in his journey. He had thus only twenty-eight days to inquire into the condition of the agricultural labourers in four counties in the south of Eng land. —( Hear.) We have, however, some facts elicited on that inquiry, which ought to have drawn forward remarks from Honourable Gentlemen opposite as to the wretched condition of their own constituents.—( Hear.) Before I allude to the condition of the agricultural labourers, I wish to state that whatever may have been the animus which influenced others in invading the manufacturing districts, I have no hostile feel ing whatever towards the agriculturists ; fur, bear in mind, that my conduct has been throughout marked by consistency towards them.—( Hear.) I brought forward the case of the manufacturers, and I have throughout maintained their interests. We first knocked at the door of this House in 1839. We have since then continued to do so, without intermission. We have knocked at the doors of Ministers and Prime Ministers,_ until they complained of intrusiveness on our part. We stated the entire of the distress to which the manufacturers were exposed. We did more. We prescribed a remedy for that distress.— ( Hear, hear.) And here I may state my solemn belief that one of the principal reasons why the last four years of such fearful suffering and destitution among the manufac turers of Lancashire, and Yorkshire, and a part of Scotland, has passed over without any consider able destruction of property, or the loss of a single life, was because they knew that a great body was actively and incessantly at work to make known their suffer ings, and to find a remedy for their distress.—( Hear, hear.) I also state as the result o f m y conviction, that te labouring poor would not have taken the diabolical and insane course of burning property in order to make known their sufferings, if any party devoted to their interest had come forward in this House and in the country to make suggestions for their relief.—( Hear.) If it were known that the sympathies of the country were aroused in their behalf, the fact would have produced such a humanising effect upon them, that they would never have had the blindntss.to destroy the very property that ought to give them employment and support. ( Hear, hear.) I have looked through this volume, which is the result of Mr. Austin's twenty-eight days' travels through the agricultural districts, and I find that during that period he visited Somerskshire, Devonshire, Wiltshire, and Dorset.. shire. He has given the testimony of various re spectable gentlemen in these several localities, as to the condition of the agricultural labourers. • Some of these ac counts are highly important. The first that I shall refer to is the evidence of the Rev. J. Guthrie, who states that he could never make out how the poor labourers lived and supported their families on the wages which they received. The next is the evidence of Dr. Greenock. (The Honourable Gentleman then read extracts from the evidence alluded to, in which the witness stated that in the union to which he be longed the support of each pauper cost, on an average, Is. 6d. for food alone, though the guardians, by purchas ing provisions wholesale, were able to procure them 10 per cent. cheaper than the public generally ; and that he could not con ceive how an agricultural labourer, earning 6s. a week, could possibly support his wife and four or five children, and at the same time pay rent and procure :clothing. Another witness, a medical gentleman in the same-district, stated that the women and boys who la boured in the fields suffered materially in their health, not from the extent of work which they performed, but from the want of a sufficient supplysil fUod: . He also read a passage from the evidence of Robert Boland, 'a faimir, stating that in the great majority of cases, a family, consisting of a - man mid his wife, with four or five children, were obliged to subsist on eight shillings or nine shillings a week, and passages from the evidence of the wives of two agricultural labourers, describing the inferior nature of the food which they made use of, andstating that their children were always anxious to get more food when they rose from their meals.) The Hon. Gentleman then continued. That is a just specimen collected in the south of England, in the purely agricultural districts, by Mr. Austin. I have my self had the opportunity of making considerable observations in the agricultural districts, and 1 have come to this result, that the further yen travel from that much maligned region of tall chimney§ and smoke, the less you find the wages of labourers . ' to be . ; the more I leave behind me Lancashire and the' northern parts of England, the worse is the condition of the -labotesers, and the less is the quantity of food they have. Does not will ask, answer the argu ment that the agricultural labourer s tletsisees any protection?— (Hear, hear.) Now what I wish to bring - Out before the Com mittee is this—that even during your casualifiglt prices, caused by scarcity, the agricultural labourers always suffer:-»-(Hear.) Pauperism increases as the price of food rises--( Hear)—and in short,; the price of the loaf is in a direct ratio proof of the increase of pauperism. —( Cries of " No, no.") An Honourable Gentleman says, " No, no." I hope I shall have him on the Committee, and if he will only hear me out, I am sure I shall persuade him to vote for the Com mittee. With regard to the condition of the agricultu ral labourer, 1 have taken some pains to ascertain what has been the progress of wages in agricultural districts. I know that it is a very sore point indeed for Hoe. Members opposite, but I must tell them that in those very districts of Wilts and Dorset the wages of labour now are about on a par with wages 60 years ago, while the rent on land has increased from two-and-a-half to threefold.—( Hear, hear.) Now, I consider that to be a very sufficient answer to the statements that have been made of the increase of wages. When you have .a law that produces scarcity, while it increases rents, you must not be surprised if you are called upon to look at how the system works upon those you profess to say it was made to improve the condition of.—( Hear.) Now, the following is, I believe, a correct statement of the price of wages. In Devon they are from 6s. to 7s. 6d. a week. In Wiltshire from 6s. to 7s. In Somersetshire from 7s. to 9s. In Dorset from 6s. to 75., wheat being at the time ss. a bushel!, and in Gloucesteashire from Gs. to 75., while the rents have in creased three-fold. Now, you have chosen to take this course in an illegitimate way.—( Hear, hear. ) You cannot therefore wonder when I call upon this House to consider how these laws have acted upon you, and upon those whom you profess to serve. I was down in Gloucester a little while ago, and had agood deal of conversation with a Mr. 1-land lord, an experienced land agent, who stated that he had lately sold property which had belonged to his great grandfather, and which brought him ten times the price his ancestor had given for it. I have lately been reading a work published by Judge Hale, somewhere about the time I am referring to—somewhere about 1683—and in it he states that the then wages of the labourers averaged 10s. per week ; and he remarks, unless a fa ther, mother, and four children, have this amount per week, how are they to get on but by stealing. Now, in the present day, wheat is forty per cent. higher, and wages have dropped pretty generally to only seven shillings per week. It is an actual tact that I found, on the journey that I am referring to, that the labouring oor out of doors are actually compelled to live on less than w hat is allowed in the workhouse. ( Hear, hear. ) A gentleman of the name of Hunt, a guardian of the poor in that district, told me, that on consult ing with the medical officer as to the diet, he found it on a scale much higher than those who were working bard out of doors were enabled to get.--(Hear, h ear .) Now I have spoken of the food of these people, and when I do that I imply also lodging, clothing , morality , education—aye, and religion also.—( Cheers.) There is a point in the volume of evidence which I have already referred to, which more especially calls for the attention of this House. I mean the subject of lodgings for the agricultural poor.—(Hear, hear.) In this question, more almost than in any other, is the character of the landlords concerned. Mr. Austin states an instance of a fa mily at Stourbridge of eleven persons in one room and three beds. In the first bed wa s the father and mother, a little boy, and a little girl; in the s e cond bed were three daughters, two of them twins, twenty years old; and in the third four sons, fifteen years old, seventeen years old, and the like.—( Loud cries of " Hear, hear.") There were no cur tains to the beds, nor anything else to assist in observing the decencies of life.—( Hear, hear.) Mr. Phelps, agent for the Mart,uis of Lansdowne, has given an instance which occurred at Studeley, where twenty-nine persons were living under one roof—the married people and the young persons being all huddled together in one small tenem en t.—( Hear, hear.) Mr. Austin further says, that a married woman told him the room in which she was being confined was shared with thirteen other persons, in three beds; and that it was neces sary to lay her on the middle of the floor, in order that proper attention should he given to her, and she declared this t• be the most painful part of her illness.—( Hear, hear.) Another clergyman of Dorsetshire stated that he resided in the neighbourhood of a Noble Duke—whose name he (Mr. Cobden) would not mention, although the Noble Duke was not himself very fastidious as to the terms in which he spoke of the members of the League—the labourers were as badly off as they could he. Nothing could exceed their immorality, even between brother and sister.— ( Great sensation.) In some cases, in order to prevent this, the males of two families were taken to sleep in the one house, and the females in the other.—(Cries of " Hear, hear.") Mr. Austin declares that he could see no regard to chastity in the females, and no respect to that sex iu the men.—( Hear.) Sir, I should not do justice to my feelings if I did not express my indignation at the conduct of the owners of land, however they may be described.—(" Hear," from Lord Ashley.) I am glad to hear that cheer from the Noble Lord. However you may remark upon the owners:ld mills and factories, and upon the evils of town populations, I think you must acknowledge that ,these cannot come under the cog nisance of particular individuals, and certainly not of any particular proprietor ; but if you go into the villages under the control of the landlord, you will find them living in a state worse than in the wigwams of the Indians. It was well said by the late lamented Mr. Drummond, that " property had its duties as well as its rights," and I say that the landlords neglect their duty when they allow their tenants to live in pig sties, and/worse than pigsties. I never saw the Rev. Adol phus Osborne; I think if wo met, we should differ upon many points ; but I cannot but admire the moral courage with which he exposed the state of the population in Dorsetshire.— (Cheers. ) He says that " in the neighbourhood of Bradford, from one year's end to the other, the people live in the greatest destitution. They had nothing but bread and pota toes, with sometimes a little bacon of an inferior kind, and, from what :he knew of the quality of the bread, he was not sur prised at the diseases with which the children are afflicted." Another clergyman gave evidence to the same effect, from which I shall trouble the House with an extract. (The Honourable Gentleman then rea d a passage from Mr. Austin's Report, in which but the the witness alluded to states that he had on one occasion four blankets given to him for the most destitute persons of his parish. Endeavouring to discover the fittest obje,cithsuosf you bounty, he found that amongst eighty-four individuals there were but thirty-five blankets—of these ten were tolerably good, as they had been in use only four year s , see e t t h ath twenty-fivetis isnot a u were completely casee wornout.)f distress, constant and permanent condition of the agricultural labourer. (Hear, hear.) The periods of manufacturing distress are, after all, remote—certainly not permanent—and we charge th em upon your bad legislation.—( Hair, hear.) (The Um. Gen tleman then read further extracts to show the crowd e d manu stateothecabins You talk of the m in Dorsetshire,andithme frightful immorality of their inmates.) of our &during towns—what can you show us to equal this ? Y our villages are no rma l sc h oo l s for v i c e and prostiution.--(H ear . ) You cannot bl ame us f or th e v i ces of our towns, if you rear t h e people thus and sen d th em i n t o o ur towns.—(Hear, hea r .) I say emphatically 1 do not attack individuals , but a system. Although I hold the proprietor to be resposible for the st a t e o f lodging on his own land, 1 do not bold him responsible for the Price of wages. I never held the farmers responsible for the price of wages, although it has been foolishly said of me that I did so. I challenge the Argus.eyed opponent I have to deal with, to show that I have ever done so.—( Great cheering.) What does Mr. Austin say of clothing—you have heard what he said of food and lodging ? He saas, that to have a cha nge o f clothing was all nonsense. If a woman came home with wet clothes from her work, she must put them on in the morning as wet as when she came home.—( Hear.) And yet you tell 113 that these are our great home customers. —( Cheers and laughter. ) Lincolnshire is an exception.—(Hear, hear , from Cal. sib. thorp. ) It is an exception both with regard to the condition of the farmer and the labourer.—('l he Bon. Gentleman then adverted to the wretched condition of the farmers and farm labourers in Scotland and Wales, and- quoted . the description of the state of the population of the latter country given by the reporter of the Times.) I need hardly refer to the condition of the population of the sister country across the Channel. It :is acknow ledged that there, are 2,500,000 destitute persons in that country. They are frequently on the point of famine ; and yet, at this moment there is a duty of 18s. 3d. a quar ter on the corn imported into that ceuntry.—( Hear, hear. ) ( The Hon. Gentleman then quoted from the Report of Dr. Southwood Smith, respecting the state of the fevei hospitals, in which there were 1,462 patients, being 418 more than in preceding years, and consisting chiefly of persons coming from the agricultural districts seeking for labour.—Hear, hear. ) I have now given a description of the state of the agricultural population ; and I ask of the Members of Counties, whether they are not put out of court e ?:There is no class of the country benefited by these laws, an t i a ll I as k i s, that we should have a Select Committee to inquire into the facts.—( Hear, hear.) Yon don't want an Act of Parliament to protect the farmer; you want a fresh bargain with him. You want leases upon fresh terms. The men I should bring to be examined before the Committee would tell you how they could employ more labourers. They would tell you that they could do se by breaking up some of that old land which is lying not under grass, but under moss, and has been lying in that way for, perhaps, a hundred years, in order to please some landlord who prefers seeing in that state to seeing corn grossing there or the plough passing over it. All such coxcombry as that would disappear before such a practical farmer as my Lord Ducie, who would he ready to come and tell you what to do. You would derive immense advantage front the examination that would be gone into in such a Committee as that which I propose. Men would be examined who look upon land as we look on our raw material in our manufactures, as that which is to give employment to the people. We have now advantages presented to us for holding this Com mittee that we have never had before. Recollect that hitherto you have not heard two sides of the question, be fore your Agricultural Committees. Now I wish to impress this upon the Right Hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir R. Peel) I strongly appeal to him to allow me to have this Committee. There have never yet been two sides of the question stated in Committees of this House. The witnesses that have been examined were all in favour of protection. You have never had any enlightened agriculturist brought forward to state both sides of the question. In the evidence taken in 1836, great doubt was expressed as to the value of an intervention by Act of Parliament. No direct evidence, however, was brought forward as to whether it would not be better to get rid of the old system altogether, and adopt a system of perfect free trade. Now it is on that ground that 1 especially appeal to Hon. Gentlemen opposite. I do not want men examined who are farmers only. Let them be landowners if you choose. I would respectfully ask Lord Ducie and Earl Spencer first. 1 presume that the Duke of Buckingham and the Duke of Richmond would be chosen by gentlemen opposite.—(Laughter.) There is nothing that I should more wish to see them four noblemen brought before the Committee, and subjected to a cross-examination. We would take your Noblemen and you should take ours.—(Laughter.) This is what I should wish to see. But, however, you have Hon. Gentlemen on your own side of the House who make out my case altogether. There is the Hon. Member for Berk shire who well knows what the land is capable of, who knows what is wanting, and who knows that those districts where there is the most pauperism and distress are the very places in which farming is most neglected. He says, I wish to see more drains cut, and more lime used, and more manure procured ; and I should like to see their cattle fat tened up, which have hitherto been starved." Here is testi mony, you see, from your own side, that nothing is right. Now suppose you could read a book upon manufactures, in which you could show that every thing was wrong that we rnseufac turers were doing. Suppose a theorist could come to me in my business, which is the manufacture of garments—things almost as necessary in a civilised land and cold climate as corn—(Laughter) —now, suppose this theorist were., to, come to me in my manufactory and say, " Tiring your - indigo from India, ;- yew - . ,madder from France, your gum fi - bin r ` 'Aeriea, your cotton from Ame rica, and compound all these together, and you can then make a peasant's gown for two shillings." Why this is all done. They are doing this daily in my manufactory. It does not require a theorist to tell us to do it. If we did not do it we could not carry on our cempetition with each other and with other countries. This, however, can be said to you. "You have materials moul dering at your own door. You have only to get over a hedge —to dig under the surface—to improve the condition of your people." We should make great advances in agriculture if this Committee were to be appointed. I know that you would have a majority of protectionists on that Committee. I am perfectly willing th a t y ou s h ou ld have it. know that—l understand at least that there is a sort of ettiquette in tl.is House by which the mover of a Committee is appointed Chairman of that Committee. Now I waive all pretension to that office. I will sit as a humble individual in the minority ; all I ask is to le there. What possible objection can you raise to it? I cannot understand what objection there can be. Are you afraid that it will increase the agitation ? I ask the Hon. Ba ronet, the Member for Essex, whether he thinks the agitation is going down in his part of the country ? I understand they have lately raised a large sum of money in Essex. Now do you think that the appointment of a dozen gentlemen, to act in a room for the purpose of taking evidence, would add anything to the excitement out of doors on this subject ? 'Why, by the ap pointment of this Committee you would draw me away.— ( Laughter.) I tell you what will cause excitement. Excite. merit will be caused if you refuse this Committee, and allow me to go down to the counties with your votes in my hand, and say, " I only asked for inquiry. I offered them a majoteity of their own party, and offered to go into the Committee merely as a member of the Committee, and not as the Chairman. I offered them every possible advantage in the Committee, and they would not, or they dare not, grant me that Committee of Inquiry." Now, I desire to have no advantage of that sort. If you let us have the Committee, let us set to work with a desire, if possible, to elicit a fund of information which shall be beneficial to the country. (Hoar, hear.) I feel that much good would be done by this Committee. I do believe that the system at present pursued, instead of being a protection to agriculture is the destruc tion of agriculture. Let us see if our Committee cannot counteract some of the effects of the foolishness—l will not use a harder name—which, under the pretence:of protecting native industry, has been allowed to go forth, by which the farmers have been induced to depend upon an Act of Parliament for prosperity, rather than upon their own energies. Let us conduct the Committee as though we wished to elicit facts —as though we wished to counteract the mischiefs of that system, than which I cannot imagine any thing more demoralising—for such a system deserves no better title than a system of demoralisation. What is it that you tell the farmers? You get them to feel that they cannot compete with other men. You bring long lists of figures and delusive accounts, showing that the culti vation of an acre must cost 61. or 81., and then you tell them to compare that with the cost in Russia. You put every impediment in the way of their doing that which they ought to do. Do you think that is the way to mare mee succeed in anything? How should we do? We who are ma nufacturers. If we get a pattern of some rival manufacture abroad, should we call our men together, and say, " It ::s quite clear we cannot compete with the foreigner. It is quite useless to compete with Germany or America." We don't do that, but what do wo do? Why, we call our men together, and we say such and such a thing is being done else where, now we are Englishmen, and whether these things are done by Russians or Germans, we will do it."—(Cheeers.) I believe that the present system is demoralizing the people. The Notle Lord, the Member for North Lancashire, had no right to go down to the agricultural meeting at Liverpool and state the farmer that they ought not to do as their grandfathers had done before them, merely content themselves by putting one foot before the other. He had no right to talk to them in that way. What is it makes them do so? Why, every man who comes here ;er who goes to Lancashire and talks about our " invasion of corn" from a place in Russia which shall be nameless.—( Cheers and laughter.) The men who come here and tell us to look to protection instead of looking to our own energies—these are the men who caused the farmers to put their hands behind their back, and it is that which prevents them faom being equal, if not superior, farmers to any on the face of the earth. I be lieve that much good will result from such a Com mittee as that which I proposed, because I believe that the present system is as injurious to agriculture as it is to manufactures. It is becaese I believe that it robs the earth of its fertility —robs the labourer of his hire—cheats the people of their subsistence, and robs the farmer of his independence. It is because I believe all this that I hope you will accede to the motion which I now make—" That a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into the effects of protective duties on imports upon the in terests of the tenant-farmers and farm-labourers of this country."—( Loud cheers. ) Mr. GLADSTONE could not but acknowledge the general moderation and tone'of the language of the speech which the tl Hon. Gentleman had just addressed to the House. He hoped the Hon. Gentleman would allow him to congratulate him upon the manner in which that speech had been delivered. The Hon. Gentleman had commenced his speech by ad verting to a certain case which had occurred in Dorsetshire, the particulars of which he (Mr. Gladstone) was not ac quainted with. The Hon. Gentleman said that it appeared from inquiries which had been made by the public authorities that a number of human beings were living together in a wretched hovel, under circumstances the most degrading to them, and most disgraceful to those who were placed over them. He ( Mr. Gladstone) felt sure that the sorrow which had been expressed by the Honour able Gentleman with respect to this case, was shared by both sides of the House. But although this case had been referred to by the Hon. Gentleman, it could not be supposed that that was a specimen of the state of the:rural districts throughout the country. If the Hon. Gentleman could show to the House that such was the state; of the rural districts, then he (Mr. G) would acknowledge that he had removed one of the most powerful impediments which stood in the way of the proposal which the Hon. Gentleman had recommended. Now with regard to the motion which had been made by the Hon. Gentleman. He (Mr. Gladstone) confessed that he did not think that the speech of the Hon. Gentleman corresponded much with the terms of his motion. The motion of the Hon. Gentleman was for a Select Committee to inquire into the operation of pro tective duties on imports upon the interests of the tenant farmers and farm labourers of thiscountry. He (Mr. Gladstone) confessed, in following the speceh of the Right Hon. Gentleman, that it was difficult to discover what really was the object which was sought to be obtained by this Committee. Many por tions of the speech of the lion. Gentleman had applied to sub jects which the Select Committee, for which the Hon. Gen tlemen had moved, could certainly not entertain. The Hon. Gentleman had bestowed a considerable portion of his speech on describing the rural population in particular districts. He had alluded to the population of certain districts in four coun ties. Now he (Mr. Gladstone) would net agree to the pro• position that this was a true specimen of the state of those four counties, but he thought it would be particularly unreasonable to suppose that those counties represented the whole of the rural districts of England. A large part of the speech of the Hon. Gentleman appeared to him (Mr. Gladstone) to point to some proposition for a Committee to inquire into the state of the agriculturl labouring population. If such was the Hon. Gentleman's object, he (Mr. Gladstone) ap prehended that the proposition now before the House would not meet it. It such a subject as the condition of the agri- Hon. Gentleman, it would materially be mixed up with such s c u u c l t h u r a t l co population a s o f thatt this i w s h c i o c u h n t b ry ad w e b r e e en t o m b o e ve cons d f i o d r e rbeyd thine to establishsai d e i t fact, wasthat n e- a number of different questions of political economy, that no beneficial results would ensue. He believed if the Committee were to be appointed under such circumstances that the Hon. Gentleman must sacrifice all hope of conferring any advantage c u e p s o s n ary agriculture. ha vea Committee r the House had not the power of fixing the p r i ce o f agricultural commodities. Now before he (M r . Glad stone) assented to the appointment of such a Com mittee, be would like to know whether it h a d b een prove d ''The Honin Gentleman or o that any Hon. Gentleman in that House had maintained that it was in their power to fix that price. —( Hear, hear.) Now this Committee, if it were intended for anything, was for the purpose of converting the majority of that House to the opinions entertained by the Hon. Gentleman. The Hon. Gentleman had said that the depreciation in the price of cattle was not attributable to the operation of the tariff, but was to he ascribed to the impoverishment of the consumer. In this opinion he (Mr. Gladstone) coincided, but he doubted whether the Committee for which the Hon. Gentleman had moved could legitimately investigate that subject. The Hon. Gen tlemen had addressed himself to the subject of the proportion of rent to the expenses of a farm. He had read a statement, from which the expenses of some farms had reached 7901., while the rent was 8001. Now he (Mr. Gladstone) had no means of denying the accuracy of that statement, but even supposing it to be correct, was that a criterion to ge by with respect to the whole country? The Hon. Gentleman had argued the question of protection in the abstract—the question assumed a very different aspect when it was considered with reference to a new commercial system, to that es hich it did when considered in connection with a great mass of the population whose labour had been influenced by a system of protection. The Hon. Gentleman said he did not so much c mplain of the corn-law on account of its enhancing the price of wheat, as he did on account of the fluctuations whichit cowed. Now he (Mr. Gladstone) very much doubted whe ther a Select Committee could inquire whether the fluctuations in the price of corn were to be ascribed to the present corn law. That was a subject for debate by the whole House. The Hon. Gentleman contended that protection was injurious to the tenant farmer and to the farmer's labourer, but there were gentlemen in that House ready to argue in favour of the other side of the question. The Hon. Member for Wiltshire had argued with much ingenuity and truth, that the removal of protection would be injurious to both these classes. If the landlord was pressed upon by the Legislature, he might himself become a farmer, and take the cultivation of these lands into his own hands, or he might throw his lands into the hands of a class, who would farm on a much more extensive and econo mical scale of management, and who would be possessed of far greater capital than the present occupiers. Cheaper produce might then be obtained, but it did not follow that it would be wise in the House to adopt a course which would lead to such a silent disruption—( Hear, hear)—and which would be so manifestly injurious to a cansiderable bulk of the population. Many were seriously of opinion that the danger of causing the displacement of so mush rural labour was in itself a good and valid argument against a repeal of the corn-laws. Was it not perfectly possible that in the change contemplated by the Hon. Gentleman, the landlord might, of the three classes (landlords, tenants, and labourers) suffer least ?—( Hear, hear.) The land of Northamptonshire, it was said, was best adapted to grazing—the manufacturers declared there would be an in creased demand for meat if the corn-laws were repealed, so that here, at least, the landlord would not be the loser. That might be a good argument for the landlord, but how did it apply to the labourer ? Grazing farms occupied comparatively few la bourers; what then would become of these poor people if grazing became prevalent—those men who had been bred to agricultural pursuits, and knew nothing else? Why they would be brought to ruin and destruction.—( Hear, hear.) The lion. Gentleman argued that machinery was not the cause of dis tress. Other Hen. Gentlemen were prepared to argue that distress did not result from the corn-laws. He did not think it would be wise or prudent in Hon. Members to discuss at large the question of the corn-laws.—( Ironical cries of " Hear, hear" from the Opposition.) There were those who believed the corn-laws were not the cause of the distress in the manu facturing districts, but the means of alleviating it; and he thought those who built their theory of free trade on such pre mises, could not long support it. He could not think that the Hon. Gentleman really contemplated a Select Committee as the fittest tribunal for such complicated, abstract, and grave questions to be dealt with; he was rather of opinion that the Hon. Member had other views in the motion. First, it afforded him an opportunity of making a speech upon the corn-laws; secondly, it gave him the power of refusing the Chairmanship of the pro posed Committee ; and lastly it would enable him to collect the different opinions of the Hon. Members of that ' House. He (Mr. Gladstone) could not suppose how the question of rent, for instance, which must necessarily enter into the projected investigation, could be dealt with by such a tribunal. It was a most abstract and difficult question of po litical economy that had engaged the undivided attention of such men as Smiih, Malthus, and Ricardo, and could not be properly considered when mixed up with such heterogenous . and conflicting subjects. Now, what was a Select Committee ! It seas a body to which, whilst sitting, the House might be said to-have delegated its authority as related to the subject of its in quiry, and its objects should be to furnish the House with in tormatien on that subject. He could not assent to its nomina tion. (One necessary condition of the concession of the motion would be, that the question of the corn-laws should not be agi tated in that House during the sitting of the Committee. Were Hon. Members opposite prepared to submit to that condition? Mr. BRIGHT—We have no objection. Mr. GLADSTONE—Was the Hon. Member aware of the time such a Committee must consume in its investigations ? What were the subjects of inquiry ? The rates of freight from foreign countries to this—the power of Parliament to regulate the priers of corn—an examination into the doctrine of rent— an inquiry into the condition of the agricultural population, not only uT England, but of Scotland and Ireland. Then there were fifteen gentlemen with fifteen different sets of opinions, who put fifteen kinds of questions to witnesses. It was clear that the Anti- Corn-law League rnust adjourn its sittings sine die. Mr. BRIGHT—I did not say the League, but this House. Mr. GLADSTONE—WeII, then, he doubted if the Hon. Gentleman's associates were prepared to submit to this pro traction of discussion, even in the House, for the labours of this Committee (particularly as the greater number of it would he probably composed of protectionists) might be pro longed !I-0m session to session.—( Cries of " No, no," from the Opowit ion.) Even though its sitting might not be so long, still he hardly thought the Hon. Member for Wolverhampton, for iii'tance, who had mentioned his intention of treating the House to its regular annual discussion on the corn-laws, would be satisfied at the postponement of the question. Mr. MILNER GIBSON—No. Mr. GLADSTONE—Nor the Hon. Member for Manches ter, lie perceived. Well, hen, it would stultify the House to appoint a Select Committee, and yet di scuss th e su bj ect o f its investigation during its sitting. If the Committee were appointed they would unsettle the minds of the people, and psralyse those departments of trade and revenue to which its inquiries had reference. His argument was, that no thing could be done with a Select Committee which ; could not be done without. it. The House was already in possession of all the information which a Committee could be expected to obtain. The appointment of the Committee would add to the agitation which at present prevailed, and what was still worse would add to the appre hension.— (Hear, hear, from the Ministerial benches.) Whether agitation was good or bad, this country, he believed, could bear a larger quantity of it than any others without suffering any detriment, as long at least as that agitation was only on the surface. He had a strong impression that the League, however active or able its members, under present circumstances, as long as Providence gave the people the en joyment of plenty, as long as Parliament and the Govern ment regarded those pledges, expressed or implied, which they had given the country—the League he said might not be regarded with any serious apprehension, the ceremony at tending it was perhaps, the most important part of its pro ceedings. —(Laughter.) The Right Hon. Baronet had already explained the views of the Government, these views the Go vernment still held.—(Cheers from the Ministerial benches.) The appointment of a Committeee specially considering who the mover for it was, would lead the people to think that there was a foregone conclusion on the part of the House to disturb the corn-laws—the Government would be justly reproached with improper levity. Confidence in the Legislature would be shaken ; gricultural enterprise would be checked, and trade would be embarrassed. For the sake of these things, and for the goad of the people, he would oppose the present motion. Mr. HAWES said a more unsatisfactory or trivial speech than that of the Right Hon. Gentleman who had just sat down he had never heard. It was absurd to say the qnestion of rent must enter into the subject matter of inquiry of a Select Com mittee. When Agricultural Committees had been hitherto ap pointed by this House, not for the purpose of lowering but of raising protection, the question of rent was not considered then. Why should it now, when protection was sought to be removed? —( Hear, hear.) The Hon. Member for Stockport had clearly shown that the greatest moral and physical degradation ex isted in the country, and even if the labours of a Committee were extended over several sessions, it ought not to be refused en that ground. If th ere was no ev il i n the system of protec tion, and if inquiry would not expose that evil, why shrink from it ?—(Hear, hear.) They were questions of fact that would come before the Committee. The Right Hon. Gentle man had talked of the plentiful harvest, but he (Mr. Hawes) thought that policy was indeed unsafe which depended upon fa vourable moments of sunshine and the chance of good weather. —( Hear, hear.) They could not always expect such harvests as those of 1835 and 1836, when corn was so low in price ; they were contrary to experience, and were exceptions to the rule ; and yet by those exceptions the Right Hon. Gentleman wished to legislate. Then with regard to pledges, he thought it did not become Right Honourable Gentlemen opposite to talk of pledges, who had pledged themselves to the old system of corn-laws now for ever abandoned.—(Hear, hear.) (The Hon. Gentleman then read an extract from the speech o o Lord Liverpool, in introducing the corn-law of 1815, t o s h ow ' that the Noble Lord's object at that time was to mitigate the evil that resulted from the fall in prices, and to prevent the new adjustment or compromise which otherwise must have taken place between the owners and the occupiers of land. Ile then continued to ask if no such adjustment had since taken place, and if they did not hear every day of rents falling, and of abatements taking place in the landlord's de mands.) The law of 1815 was therefore, he would maintain, intended not to produce gre a t er regu l ar it y i n pr i ces , b ut t o meet a special case which had long since passed away ; and those who would rely on the case made by Lord Liver. pool to support the existing law, should consequently be prepared to do away with a corn-law altoge then—( Heer, hear.) But the Right Hon. Gentleman said if the Committee were granted that prices would stagnate, and that men's minds would become unsettled on the question of corn-laws. He thought a stronger argument than that was he had never heard. They saw the mind of no man settled on the question, and when public opinion out of doors became well directed, as he thought it likely soon to be, under his Hon. Friend the Member for Stockport, he would not be inclined to attach much weight to the opposition of the Right Hon. Gen tleman.—( Hear, hear.) They were at this very moment about to have a Committee on tobacco, and they had also Com mittees on the timber trade and on various other branches of commerce, and he would ask were they the means of producing any great fluctuation in trade 2—( Hear.) It was not by the appointment or the inquiries of Committees that trade in the articles which the Committees were appointed to investigate was affected, but it was by the course taken by the Government respecting them. When the Government said " No" to the popular demand, it was understood that no immediate alteration was likely to take place ; but nobody believed that by giving a negative the Government intended to persevere in doing so longer than circumstances rendered prudent or expedient.— ( Hear.) The Right Hon. Gentleman said that the Hon. Mem ber for Stockport had not traced the distress of the country to the coin-laws ; but he (Mr. Hawes) thought otherwise. When he had referred to the injury done by the corn-laws to the working men, he had little expected to find a good and apposite proof of his allegation in the Report of one of the Commis sioners sent clown by the Government to inquire into the state of education in Norfolk. In the Report of that C omm i ss i on for 1840 and 18-11 itwas stated that wages did net rise in p roport i on to the increase in the price of corn. The Hon. G entleman then read some extracts from the Report, in which the cases of two families of agricultural labourers were given. In one the man earned 12s. a week, or 48s. a month, and his son 4s. a week, or 16s. a month, ma ki ng i n all 645. a month • out of which 535. were pa id for a bag. of flour ' for their support, leaving only 9s, applicable to other purposes. In the other case, which occurred in 1841, the labourer earned Its. a week and his son 3s a week, making in all 565. a month, while the cost of a bag of flour was 425.. leaving 14s. applicable to general purposes. He then continued to say that there were other similar cases given in the Re port, all showi ng th at a fl uctuation in prices produced a fluctua tion in the miseries of tins poor.—(Bear.) He thought they ought to take into consideration the class to whom the inquiry would be confined if the Committee were appointed. The witnesses that it was proposed to examine would be landlords and farmers, who would be interested in the means by which rent was to be paid. Now, if the payment of rent depended, as he believed would be allowed, on the surplus of produce, and on the capital and skill embarked in raising the produce, it must necessarily follow that all those requisites were materially affected by whatever would give the greatest amount of security to the farmer. But, he asked, did the corn-laws ensure that security? From 1815 to the present moment, every corn-law that had been introduced had gradually' b ro k en down, leaving the agriculturists in constant insecurity and doubt.—( Hear.) He considered the speech of th e Ri g h t Hon. Gentleman as being in reality one in support of the mot i on of h i s Hon. Friend, for it had altogether failed in showi ng t h at t h e tenant-farmers and labourers had any interest in the continuance of the corn laws ; and by refusing the Committee, with such a speech, the Right lion. Gentleman mere l y invited them to go into, the subject again ; for instead of waiting for a repeal of the corn laws until the country was plunged into misery by bad harvests, when it was to be infe rre d th ey wou ld h ave no difficulty in procuring it, they should rather endeavour to have the question settled while they were blessed with own- COLLEGE OF PHYSICIANS. Sir VALENTINE BLAKE put the following questions (of which he had given notice) to the Right Hon. Secretary of the Home Department :- 1. Was it his intention to introduce a clause or clauses into his Bill for regulating the Medical Colleges and the Medical De grees of Universities, by which it will be enacted, that hence forth the College of Physicians in London will be enabled to prevent any physician from practising in any part of England unless he be possessed of the License of the College of Physi cians in London ? 2. If this power be given by the Bill to the College of Phy sicians, is it intended that medical graduates of Edinburgh and of Dublin Universities, et present practising in England, shall be admitted licentiates of the College in London without exa mination, on the payment of a small fee, say 51., the additional stamp duty being altogether remitted ? 3. Was it his intention to modify the charter lately granted to the College of Surgeons of London, so as to allow prescribing surgeons who practice midwifery to be eligible for the fellow ship; and also to allow a surgeon apothecary to become imme diately eligible on abandoning the bu , iness of an apothecary ? Sir JAMES GRAHAM said there might be an inconveni ence in going into details in answer to the Hon. Baronet's questions. The object of the measure he should introduce was not to impose new restrictions on medical prac titioners, but to relax the restrictions already existing. He hoped this would be a satisfactory answer to the two first q ue s tions. With _respect to the last question, a practitioner of midwifery was not , as such, eligible as a member of the College of Surgeons, and he had no intention of, in that respect, modi fying the charter of the, College. In answer to a question from an Hon. Member, • Sir JAMES GRAHAM said he should bring in the mea sure immediately before Easter, or directly afterwards. DUTIES ON IMPORTS. Mr. COBDEN then rose to bring forward his motion for a Select Committee to inquire into the effects of protective duties on imports on the interest of the tenant fanners and farm labourers of this country. He said—Sir, the motion I have to make is one which I believe is not ordinarily refused; it is one for a S'elect Committee to sit up stairs, to take evi dence of an important nature on a question that ex cites great controversy out of dsors, and which I believe is likely to excite considerable discussion in this House. It may be said that my motion might have been appropriately placed in other hands. lam of that opinion too. I think it might have been more appropriately brought forward by a gen tleman on the other side of the House, particularly by a gen tleman connected with the counties of Wiltshire or Dorsetshire. Though I am not yet acquainnted with the grounds on which I may be s opposed, I think it right to state that I intend my motion to be for the interests of the agricultural classes as much as any Honourable Gentleman opposite could pretend it to be, and that the principles which I advocate are calculated to do justice to them as much as to any other portion of the community. I wish to have it known that I take my stand this night as the especial advocate of the agriculturists; and in bringing forward this motion I submit, in the first place, that it is not usual for this House to refuse the appointment of Committees on important questions. We have instances of Committees being appointed to take evidence as to the importation of silk, the exportation of machinery, the navigation laws, and on all questions of similar importance. It must also be admitted that such Committees are also appointed without the parties more immediately concerned having in the first instance petitioned the House for their ap pointment, before the Committee were gianted. On the appointment of the Committee relative to the exportation of machinery the motion was granted. not at the instance of manufacturers who had a monopoly of ma chinery, but by parties whose interests were more particularly affected by the then existing laws. Ido not therefore antici pate that any just grounds can be stated why the Committee should be refused because petitions have not been presented de manding it. I shall now state what my opinions shall be on entering that Committee. I shall be prepared to bring impor tant evidence forward before that Committee sheeting the effects of the protection, as it is called to the agriculturists by the examination of farmers themselves. I will in fact not bring fora and a single witness before that Com mittee who will not be a tenant farmer or a landed proprietor.— ( Hear, hear.) The opinion which I shall hold on entering the Committee is, that the protection, as it is called, instead of being beneficial, is delusive and injurious to the tenant-farmers, and that opinion I shall be prepared to sustain by the evidence of tenant-farmers themselves. I wish it to be understood that I do not admit what is called protec tion to agriculturists has been ever any protection at all to them, but on the contrary, I hold that its only effect has been to mislead them.—(Bear, hear.) I have recently read over again the evidence taken before the first corn-law Committee of 1815, and I leave it to any man whether it was not con tended at that time that sufficient protection could not be given to the agriculturists unless they got 80s. a quarter for wheat.—( Hear, hear.) 1 wish to remind the Hon. Member for Wiltshire, whether it was net at that period thought that wheat could not be grown in this country, unh as the farmers got 965. a quarter or 12s. a bushel for it, while now the Ministry are only willing to give the farmers a rate of 565. a quarter. It is denied that this House has ever promised to guaran tee prices for their produce to the farmers. Now, what was the custom of the country from the passing of the corn-law in 1815? Why, 1 will bring old men before the committeewho will state, that farmers valued their farmer, from that time, by a computation of wheat being at eighty shillings a quarter. I can also prove that Agricultural Societies, that met in 1821, came to resolutions declaring that they were deceived by the Act of 1815, from which calculations were made at the rate of wheat being at 80s., while, in fact, it was only at 435. I can also prove that, in the Committee which was esta blished in 1b36, the witnesses stated that they had been deceived in the price of their corn ; and I will ask the Right Honourable Baronet at the head of the Government whether, at the present moment, rents were not fixed rather with reference to certain Acts that were passed, than any intrinsic worth of the farmers. I know that the pre sent is a subject which causes some little irritation ; but I will ask whether farms under the Corn-law Bill are not valued at corn being 801. a bushel. In consequence of the alteration that was made since the last Act, tenant farmers have been valued on the ground of corn being 565. a quarter. Now, I know an instance where a. party occupying his own land, was rated at a certain amount—viz., at the amount of the valuation of corn being 565. a quarter, while, in fact, it was selling at 475., and upon his asking why he had been so rated, he was told that the parties did not know, but they supposed it was in consequence of what the Prime Minister had stated was the price of corn. What I want to go into Committee for is to convince the far mers, once for all, that that House has not the power to regu late he price of their commodities. The Right Hon. Gentle mau stated to me that he could not regulate the wages of the labourer, or the profits of the manufacturers or traders; and a he could not guarantee any fixed profits, how could the House possibly fix the price of agricultural commodities? Now the first point to which I should wish to make this Cora - mittee instrumental will be in fixing in the minds of the farmers the fact that this House exaggerates its power to raise and enhance prices.--( Hear.) The prices of agricultural produce have never been, up to that point, legislated for and guaranteed by this House, and it is on that main point that I wish to have a settled and sound opinion given to the country. The farmer's interest is that of the whole community, and is not a partial interest—(Loud cheer;)—and you cannot touch him more sen sitively than when you injure the .manufacturers—his cus tomers.—(Cheers.) I do not deny that you may regulate prices for awhile—for awhile you have regulated• them by forcing an artificial scarcity ; but in so doing you have only sown the seed by which you destroyed. your own power and prosperity, for you carried on a war against nature.— ( Loud cheers.) You may produce by this means the ruin of trade, the bankruptcy of capitalists—but is this con.- istent with the interest of the farmer ? These are the fun damental principles which I wish to bring out, arid with this primary view it is that I ask for a Committee at your hands. —(Cheers.) Now with regard to other monstrous fallacies with which the farmers have been beset and latterly more so than ever, the Committee I ask for would elicit the truth upon them, aed also upon other most important questions. The farmer has been told that if there was a free trade in corn, corn will be so cheap that he will not be able to carry on. He is directed only to look at Dantzic, where corn is selling at 15s. lid. per quarter, and on this the Essex Protection Society put out their circu lars, stating that Dantzic wheat in England is but 15s. 11d. per quarter, and how would the British farmer contend against this .— (A laugh.) Now I maintain that these state ments are not very creditable to the parties who propagate such nonsense, nor to the understandings of the farmers who listen to and believe there.—(Laughter.) The truth, I suppose, is what all men desire to arrive at. Now the farmer will very easily be disabused on this and other points, if you will grant me the Committee I seek, for there we shall be governed in our statements by the tests of . experience, and not by the mere predictions of interested partisans. We know what the price has been in the. Channel islands when the trade is free. These islands send corn to this country, and they receive foreign corn duty free.—( Hear, hear.) Sir, I know of no better test of what the price of corn in this country would be in a state of free trade than the prices in the island of Jersey furnish, taken for a number of years, com prising a cycle of high and low prices in- that country. We know that the fluctuation of prices in that country embrace the fluctuations of the whole of Europe, and therefore I think we could have no better test of what the effect of free trade upon prices would be here. We have papers on the table showing what the prices of corn were in Jersey in the ten years, from 1832 to 1841, inclusive. The average price was in those ten years 48s. 4d. What do you think was the average price in your own markets, in those years ? It was 565. Bd.—(Hear, hear.) Now, I have taken some pains to ascertain the opinions of those who best understand this subject, and I find that the greater de mand for labour in this country would raise the price of corn here to three or four shillings above the price in Jersey with out the danger of throwing land out of 'cultivation..—(Oppo sition cheers, and Tory counter cheers.) What I would gentlemen say that the difference between 51s. and 565. Bd. would throw land out of cultivation, ruin the farmers. and pauperise the labourers ?—( Cheers.) But in years of high prices, the fumes sdo not receive the high prices for their corn. On the contrary, they sell their corn at the lowest prices, and the speculator sells his at the highest.—(Loud cheers.) A short time ago I met a miller from near Winchester, who said to me, " 1 think 1 can give you some practical information on this subject," and he took out his book and told me the prices which he paid away for the corn which he purchased before the harvest and after the harvest in five years. ghat he paid for the load of five quarters, in August, 1839, was 191. 10s. ; in November of that year it was 161. the load. In August, 1840, the price was IE4. the load ; in Octo ber, 141. 15s. In 1841, August, 19/. the load; October, 151. guineas the load; September, 12/. I n In n n 1 1 84 84 2 3 , , August, july, 1 17 7 guineas ; September, 121. 10s. I think this may show that the farmers do not gain by the increase of the price, but that they sell at the lowest price of.the market. Now, Sir, there is another point upon which as much misre presentation exists as the one I have just stated, namely, the price at which corn could be grown abroad. The price of wheat at Dantzic during those ten years to which I have referred was 405., and if 34,11 add to it the freight of Bs., it will corroborate the statement I have made with regard to the price at which wheat has been sold at Jersey. —(Hear, hear.) Another point upon which misrepresentation has gone abroad, relates to the different items of expenditure in bringing wheat to Mis country. We have had cost for freight at various periods, but we have not had full accounts of the other items of expenditure.—( Hear, hear.) It would be im portant to elicit as much information as possible upon this subject, and the best means of arriving at it would be to examine practical men from the City before a Select Com mittee of the House, as to the cost of transit.— ( Hear, hear.) As far as I could obtain information from the books of merchant., the cost of transit from Dantzic may be put down at half-a-guinea, including, in this freight, land ing loading; iniurance, and other items of every kind. This is --- I parative prosperity and ahurlance.—(Cries of " Hear, hear.") Ily leaving the question in doubt they were preventing the application to the land of that skill and capital which were ne cessary for the security of rent, and by thus repressing enter prise they (the landlords) were in reality inuring themselves. —( Hear.) Wh en it vas said by Hon. Gentlemen opposite , that free trade produced i nsecur i ty, and when they descri b ed it ! as something horrible and frightful to contemplate, he would I ask them to look back for the last 15 or 20 years of the cern mereial history of the country, a n d to po i nt out any instance 1 in which measures of relief, or approximation to the free trade principle, had not materially tended to produce wealth and con -1 fidence.—( Hear, hear. He would put th e quest i on at issue on that point alone, and he would abandon the argument if they could show him a single instanee in which an alteration in favour of the free trade principle diminished wealth or les sened the confidence of the classes more immediately affected by it.—( Hear) No doubt all alterations produced at the time some extent of mischief, but the evil was to be laid at the door of those who built up a house on a false foundation, on which it was impossible that it could have stood, and not to those w h o witnessed the fall. The Hon. Gentleman then read an extract from Cobbetes Weekly Register, stating that the corn-laws i were prejudicial to the farmers and agricultural labourers, and pointing out the cot:sequences of admitting foreign corn into the country. He then continued to say that it was impossible that a sufficient supply of corn could be produced in this country for all the manufacturing classes, and that when they were thus unable to give them a sufficient supply of bread, they ought not to prevent them from manufacturing goods for those who would give them food in return. He considered that corn ought to be regarded as being as much a portionln various o v f ar ßr u i- s Bri tish trade as any branch of their manufactures. years when foreign corn was admitted they found no conse quent distress attend the agricultural labourers, but directly the reverse.—( Hear.) He then read a passage from a pa per written by the Bight Hon. Gentleman, the President of the Board of Trade, de scribing the necessity of having the mantle facturers placed in a position to compete with the markets of the world, and then continued to say that he did not think they should have a Minister of the Crown putting forward such statements for his private interests out of that Mouse, and pur suing the course which they had witnessed that evening as a Member of the Government.—( Hear.) They had no right to increase trade at the expense of the manufacturers, as they had witnesses in many instances in the tariff of last year, while they, at the same time, refused to allow them the proper oppose tunities of procuring ford in return for their goods. He wee certain the speech of his Hoe. Friend, the Member for Stock port, would produce a very great effect upon the country, and he could tell Gentlemen in the lower part of the I-louse that if they had to go before their constituents in some great town in Nottinghamshire, they would find the question of the repeal i of the corn-laws one of much greater importance than they might at present be inclined to suppose.—( Hear and laugh i ter. He would give his most earnest, though humble, support to the motion of his Hon. Friend the Member for Stockport ; land he was certain that the question which that Hon. Gentle man so ably advocated would, before long, produce practical results of the greatest possible advantage to the country at t large,—(Bear, hear, and cheers.) Lord POLLINGTON opposed the motion. He said it was impossible to deny that the question before the House was one of very great importance. It was his belief that a people could enjoy no greater blessing than free trade ; but, in order to make it a blessing, it was necessary that it should be entirely free, and not consist of that kind of free trade which the late President of the Board of Trade so much admired —namely, the free admission into the country of the produce of ether coun tries that continued to impose heavy duties on English goods. —( Hear.) Ile trusted they would hereafter see the day when i all the great commercial nations of the world would awaken to their true interests, and open their respective harbours free to \all the world. lie did not consider the Right Hon. Baronet at the head of her Majesty's Government altogether opposed: to the principle of direct taxation, for, by resorting to it, he had already restored the equilibrium between the revenue anus' the expenditure of the empire. The Noble Lord concluded by 1 referring to a mistake made by the Morning Chronicle, in a leading article, in confounding the Chairman of the Tory Com mittee at Braiford with a Mr. Rain, who presided at a recent meeting of the Anti-Corn-law League. Mr. SCOTT slid it was not his intention to trespass Sett t? time of the House ; but as the Scotch Members Vsed been. alluded 'o, he did not think it right to remain altogether silent. He would feel obliged to oppose the motion of the Hon. Member for Stockport, because, though he believed him to be a sincere, advocate for the interests of the League, still he did not *regard hint as filling the like character towards the class "7 1 ,191/3 he at present professed to support. The Hon, A i Zmber said if the Committee were granted he would only examine b e f ore it lan dlords and tenant-farmers ; but !;b w o u ld as k, w h y s h ould the agricultural labourers be le`.l out?—( Hear.) The next matter. referred to by the I.llln. Gentleman was the corn-law of 181.5 s but if he understood the question at all he believed the corn laws to be in existence since the time of King Charles IL Why, then, did he not refer to the corn-laws which had been passed since that time ? All the corn-laws, in the meanwhile, bore as much upon his subject as the present, and they bad as. much relation to the corn-laws of 1815. He believed that that interests of the manufacturers and the agriculturists were really the same, and it was unjust and pernicious to attempt to raise a difference between them. The landlords wished for plenty in order to improve the condition of the labourers, and not for•! scarcity, in order to afflict them. The condition of the people , i was better now than it was sixy years ago, when we had only i one-half the population, and only one-third of the taxation. 1 The Hon. Gentleman ( Mr. Cobden) brought forward the ease of wool to show that when the duty was small the consumption was great. But he overlooked the fact that the wool imported was chiefly from the colonies, and therefore there was no parallel between the cases of wool and corn. The Hon. Gentleman had also done an injustice in comparing the amount of wages paid by landlords and mane ' facturers, fur he did not tell the House that the landlords de rived very small profits from large capital, and the manuface turers derived large profits from comparatively small capital. As to the statements made respecting Dorsetahire, he (Mr. Scott) had no doubt that Dorsetshire would defend itself. The statements (if true) were such as to make the heart bleed.— (Hear, hear,) But the Hon. Gentleman had the assurance to speak of Scotland.—( Laughter.) The Hon. Gentleman seemed to him to depart front accuracy just in proportion as he departed from the " t a ll c hi mneys " which he so much admired. \ —(Laughter and cheers.) The statements which the Hon. Gentleman had made respecting respecting Scotland were un founded in fact, notwithstanding the assurance of the Hon. Mem ber. The Hon. Gentleman stated that he was totally ignorant of the subject. The official returns, as to the duration of life in agriculture and manufactures, showed that the average dura tion of life in the agricultural districts was 32 years, whilst in the manufacturing it was no more than 16 or 17 years, or about one-half.—(llear, hear, and laughter.) 'I hen, as respected the advantages to be gained by free-trade, in conse quence of the supposed increase of tra'ie to ensue upon it, was it all clear that the corn-growing countries would take our manufactures in return for their produce? The utmost amount that capital invested in land produced was about 3 per cent., whereas 50 per cent. was frequently made by those who invested their capital in manufactures. The Hon. Mover had also accused the landlords of being the cause of pauperism, but he was satisfied that more pauperism was created by the manufac turers.—( Hear, hear.) Ihe Hon. Gentleman had also called upon the gentlemen connected with Scotland, to state what was the feeling of the farmers in that part of the empire ; and he (Mr. Scott), as the representative of a Scotch county, would answer, that the farmers in that country were entirely opposed to the Honourable Mover, and regarded the question as etas mhich concerned them, and not the landlords—(Bear. ) Lord WORSLEY had not intended to trespass on the House upon this question, because he thought that if the mo tion was carried it would lead to a renewal of the import du ties. But having heard the speech of the Hon. Member for Stockport he saw that it was part of the object that the Com mittee should inquire into the management of land. The Ho-. nourable i‘lember for Stockport had stated that the re munerating price of the present rates of the market was sufficient for the farmer if he paid only an adequate rent. But. he (Lord Worsley) had received a letter from a farmer is Lincolnshire, which stated in detail th e w h o l e o f t h e rece i pts for his produce in four years, which showed that the market price did not repay the expense of the labour alone. The Hon. Member for Stockport had excepted the county of Lin coln from the charge which he made against agriculturists for giving too low wages. He (Lord W.) must admit that the wages said to be given in the south were not such as could sustain life ; and he must also sa y th a t h e k new it wasthe fact, that although the wages in "Yorkshire and Lincoln were higher than those paid in the south, they were not sufficient ; but they had the effect of procuring the work to be better done, and the farmers found that their money was well laid out, and the labourers were more contented than he was afraid they were in those countries where wages were lower. He would also admit that the law was working better than the farmers had expected, but yet what they received was not enough to pay them. It had also been said that in the southern districts wages would not be raised • without the system of leases. But in answer to that he must say that in Lincolnshire leases were the exception. But then it was the practice in that country to allow land to be held in suc cession from father to son—( Bear).—and the result was to create confidence on the part of the farmers, and also on the part of the labourers.--( Cheers.) Last winter, wages were lower thaw usual, but they had not been lower than 9s.—(Hear, hear, from. Co). Sibtliorp. ) Yet the usual rate of wages was 12s. a-week, the whole year round.— ( Hear, hear.) The general custom: in that country was to pay by task-work, and he believed he was correct in saying, that the average earning in those cases was from 13s. 6d. to 16s. a-week.---( Hear, hear, from Cels sibthorp, and a laugh.) Although he did not agree in all subjects with the Hen. Member for Stockport, he thought that gentleman had done much good by drawing the attention of the landlords to a subject which he feared was too much ne glected, namely, the condition of the labourers.—(Cheers.'- He thought they should be impressed with the conviction, that: tee payment of adequate wages would be most advantageous, as well as most creditable to themselves—(Cheers)—and that they would find themselves repaid by the productivenet of their land and the increased content of the people.--(Cheers.) lie thought, if they went into Committee, there would be such a diversity of opinion as to the remedy to be applied to the state of affairs complained of by the Hon. Metnber who brought forward the present motion, that no good would be effected, and he must, therefore, refuse to give his support to the motion. Mr. B. COCHRANE begged to state that he had received, a letter from the Hon. Member who had- notice of an amend ment on this subject (Mr. Ferrand), stating that he was unable to bring it forward in consequence of his having been detained at the Yorkshire Assizes. Mr. CURTEIS said that, in the part of the country (Sussex) with which he was connected wages were equally high. He gave his own labourers, generally, 126. per week, and he gave them not more than his neighbours. The Hots. Member for Stockport had not convinced his (Mr. Curties's) mind, and tbough he was in favour of a fixed duty in prefer ence to a sliding scale, yet, if he were much pressed, he would go from a fixed duty to a sliding scale.—( A laugh.) lie emigre dered the agricultural interest the paramount interest of thee country, and that interest he was determined most cordially to support. He must give his opposition to the motion of the Hon. Member for Stockport. Mr. BROTHERTON said that the speech of the Hoc, Gentleman who spoke last showed him the truth of the adage, " Convince a man against his will, He's of the same opinion still." —(Laughter.) The question was, who was in the right, who in the erong?—whether protection to agriculture was for the benefit of the farmer and agricultural labourer, or not? As the question was controverted lie concurred with the Hon. Mem ber for Stockport, that the best way to ascertain which was, right was to investigate the subject thoroughly, whirl,; could be best done in the Committee for which the Hon. Mem ber had moved. The Hon. Gentleman who spoke last said he considered the agricultural interest the paramount interest. He (Mr. Brotherton) was at issue with the Hon. Member on that subject. He believed the agriculturul labourers, farmers, and graziers of the country formed not one -t en th p ar t o f th e population of the country. In the agricultural counties they were not one-third of the people employed. He had examined the condition of twenty-three counties, the principal part of which were agricultural; and he found that out of their popu lation, amounting to 6,038,833, there were employed in trade, and various other occupations, 1,559,612 persons; and in ages. culture, including farmers, graziers, yeomen, and agri cultural labourers in the whole of those twent-three counties, 585,104, making a total of 2 , 1 44,71b 5 a n d showing that all the classes of agriculturists together bore only the proportion of 27 per cent. to the whole number employed, while those engaged in trade and otherwise were 33 per cent. of the whole. In the agi icultural districts of Lancashire there were not more than 32 per cent. employed in proportion to the whole population. He contended, therefore, that the agri cultural interest was nut the paramount interest of the country, • and that they ought not to have a law for their own benefit at i~ It. ~bo pd i~II zr - dd ~a~ . 4A Y' el he :b sr 4, I