The Sun. — London, England, 1844-06-27 00:00:00

Mfflm." -- ~, f R. b e y yesterat Palace. ii. aecomp_itnird ken an °4t.- tended by nor ning. t°' se—t Hose. it y esterag, lirsitingo..- 141 open c o :he Quee r ' of prbasj also et"— ter Palace , Y,e s !lister hess of Argil Ila rhionesst; and C° oo Eraser Tlt k '' o f Foot 61/11".- riner. ;10UCeSter le ft 3ot Park. 1, ,mbridge fi° had 8° the ColoPe of Texas► :nova hi d ts P• t eo l4 the of Ea an d the m- an is t erri his te rd ay, awt !sterday pith NCE . &Y. cil ed, for tlf° J. Howes); , F.....udad, ........ . 1 I 2 0 added. 1 s (01 01er) $ .-- .......... 5 I nd 2 5 added ....(Lye). r • •~~•• ............ .. (Pram f , o'l ..... (sst) ; ............ ........ o ........ 'ajioWal3Ce' ri3ERI‘ )I7 reg ot tS r e d g ard (r )91 0 3 eligl P t' 09t Li t cu lated o.l n i t ioritY rTO bov ,, vent 5 rt. ~2164 th arl" dir rig ht be fr g t F i tt t nigu,ittloto ed a 3 `le d bu t '_d _ 4 umber Is/ al be ats g or a s the asiderate first : be r the 46 ,,e$ w ing; Ocof c . rard the f ° ,o ;he 0— r:rest the 1 ;61 Lon o°- • g 10 1/ Irrn o it in g rn orr , o f Oci urb the b" of thecig d 3 ta co esvi° rd !rve • er ? ly Sarir East,r fr, man, ritaf t h CO - .., C gale) ren tletu eli. pti foll° ll io rake A pi lean ,reel; 3 f o r ;C ull d i v ree ll arP le Old oPw. that 48 ere tiro ° fort 111' arel" . n j 1 . 8 061" e ir or. 01. •e in ntrit I re• , t ter. 140 i re ; g ale° .n o the cad' . to ot ! tter }de- ~. ti.. THE SUN, LONDON, THURSDAY MORNING, JUNE 27, 1844. munity by the corn laws ? The corn-laws were a direct interference with the freedom of trade—the freedom of industry ; and it was incumbent on those who main tained this interference to prove that the community was benefitted by restriction.—(Hear, hear.) The Hon. Gentleman had stated that the tenants themselves were the originators of the Pro-Corn-law Society. Coming from an agricultural county, he knew how easy it was to give a hint, through the steward, that the tenants were required to attend. on some particular day, on behalf of the interests of agriculture.—(Hear, hear.) He wanted to know who it was that represented the agricultural labourer in the Agricultural Societies. When the Pro- Corn-law Society was formed, no one appeared to repre sent him ; no one said, on his behalf, that it was for his advantage that security should be maintained. It was denied by the Hon. Member for Lincolnshire that the declarations of the Right Honourable Gentleman at the head of the Government had had any effect on the value of land, or on the bargains between landlords and tenants. Why he himself had seen in the London papers, the other day, an adver tisement of the sale of estates by Mr. George Robins, in which one of the grounds stated why agriculturists should come forward and give a large sum for them was, that the Right Hon. Gentleman had declared that the corn-law of 1841 was a final and irrevocable settlement of this great question. Did an eminent auctioneer want to get less for an estate than it was worth ? He regretted those statements which disparaged the authority of the Right Hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government. He regretted the disposition which was exhibited, to put forced interpretations on his declarations. As a friend to the English farmer—as one whose interest was bound up with that of the agricultural class, he complained of such an interpretation of the Right Hon. Gentleman's statements. For what must be the effect ? They were teaching them that the corn-law protection was to he permanent, while at the same time the Right Hon. Gentleman had never said that he con templated the permanence either of the present or of any other corn-law,—(Hear, hear.) His assertion was that at the present moment he did not contemplate a change, that he had no measure then to submit ; that was a very different Thing from saying that he contemplated the per manent maintenance of the protective principle. For gentlemen to put that interpretation on his words was to strengthen the fatal error into which the agricul tural tenantry had fallen, namely, that it was better to rely upon what Parliament could do for them than upon their own industry and enterprise. Gentlemen who did this were not acting as the true friends of the farmer ; they were not promoting the real and permanent inte rest even of the landed proprietors ; nor were they, in any way, advancing the true welfare of the community at large.—(Hear, hear.) Now the Hon. Member for Lin colnshire said he felt conscious that the incendiarism in Suffolk, arose from the deep-rooted discontent of the peo ple, and that that discontent arose from distress. He said that the farmers Must pay the labourers better wages, the very expressionshowing that he had taken an erro neous view of the whole question of wages. Why people could not pay what wages they pleased.—(Hear, hear.) It was not in the power of individuals to regu late wages. From the redundancy of population, and the pressure on the means of existence, men would work for the smallest possible amount of wages upon which they could live. Let them consider whether there were not some causes arising from their legislation which produced this discontent and distress in a country which apparently had within itself all the resources of happiness and prosperity. It was remark able that incendiarism should prevail in Norfolk, Suffolk, and Essex, where protection was supposed to confer the greatest benefit—counties which were, to a great extent, grain-growing counties, and in which there were all those means and appliances in the greatest abundance which they were frequently told were essential to the morality and good conduct of the popu lation. There were no counties in England in which the clergy so abounded. To such an extent did they abound, that if a gentleman's calling did not happen to be known, he was set down as a clergyman.— (Laughter.) Yet, notwithstanding these means and appliances for good, a system of the most awful crime prevailed ; for what system could be more appalling than incendiarism ?—(Hear, hear.) They had a right to ex pect that they should be allowed to live in their homes, without having their lives or property endangered. He denied the insinuation thrown out by the Right Hon. Gentleman, the President of the Board of Trade, that this incendiarism might be the result of agitation in fa vour of the corn-laws.—(Hear.) He contended that that insinuation was unworthy of the Right Hon. Gentleman. He defied him to produce the smallest atom of proof that any incitement to incendiarism had been thrown out by the opponents of protection. For one placard which had been circulated by the Anti-Corn-law League in the county of Suffolk, he ventured to say, that ten had been circulated by the Pro-Corn-law League.—(Hear, hear.) The Noble Lord had laid down the doctrine that the less corn there was in the country, the greater would be the share of the labourer. He ventured to say that they would then find that during cheap years the wages of the labourer had not given him a greater command over the comforts and necessaries of life than he had in dear years. They would find that in the cheap years the labourer had had, it was in his power to obtain a larger quantity of food than in the dear year.—(Hear, hear.) The Right Hon. Gentleman, the-Vice-President of the Board of Trade, seemed to think that his Hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton had no right to ask for an explanation of the grounds on which protection was based, those grounds being fully explained in Hansard's Debates. Now he confessed that although he had read nearly alb the speeches on this subject, he could not find one in which the advantages of protection were clearly set forth. The Right Hon. Gentleman said they were visionary theorists and schemers, and that without proof of the disadvantages of the corn law, they were not entitled to call upon the Government to explain why it was maintained. Now he took a completely different view of that question. He maintained that those who maintained the corn-laws were the visionary schemers ; for they interfered with the natural course of things, they came forward with a subtle and refined scheme of ascending and descending duties for regulating the importation of cora, for makng mankind happy, and trade and agriculture prosperous. He (Mr. M. Gibson) did not concur in these extreme opinions. He preferred trusting to plain common sense, the natural course of events, and the operation of men's interests upon their actions, rather than to that visionary scheme which was maintained b y the Government, but which he hoped would notlong bemain tained in this coun try The NoblelLord, the Member for the City of London, held extreme opinions in favour of a moderate fixed duty; believing that that was the device for making trade flourish, and for promoting the improvement of agriculture and the happiness of society. To both the devices he preferred that men should be allowed to buy in the cheapest and sell in the dearest market, believing that Providence had intended that as the means of securing general prosperity. He maintained that those were the visionary schemers who interfered with the natural freedom of industry. They had a right to call upon them to explain clearly and definitely what were the advantages which they conferred upon society by so subtle a scheme, and if they failed to prove those advan tages, they were entitled to ask for the total and imme diate repeal of the corn-law. Now he wished to know how the corn-law benefited that pf irticular class with whom he was connected namely the manu facturers ? When a buyer went from the town of Norwich to Manchester to purchase a fall of goods for the purpose of rotailing them in Nor folk, would he give any more for thorn than a buyer from America ? If he would not what was the advantage conferred on the manufacturers 'by the corn-law ? (Hear, hear.) But if he reversed the case he found that the manufacturer had to give a, great deal more for his wheat in Norfolk than he would have to give in New Yorke—(Hear, hear.) This appeared to him to be a very odd kind of reciprocity. He defied the Hon. Member for Dorsetshire to show that he had any pro perty in the raw material, the machinery, or the labour which was employed in the production of a particular fabric ; and how could he say, then, that he was entitled to special protection as a landlord ? Could it be said that the proprietors of the land had any property in the industry of other men ?—(Hear, hear.) Could it be said that by any right, h uman or divine, they were entitled to deny to the manufacturers the freedom of industry which they demanded '?—(Cheers.) They came to this House on the same grounds as the Dis senters had formerly come—to comp lain of disabilities.— They told the House that they . could. only live by the ex change of the products of their labclur. They said that their trade was legitimate and prope tr, and the only call ing which they had to follow. Butt :he Legislature—not for revenue—not for State necessiti'es—but for the in terests of a particular class—(Cheer :s)—prevented them from obtaining the advantages which Providence had placed within their reach.—(Hear, lit ear.) They did not refuse to the aristocracy the enjoyment of their estates — whether they were held by inherits .nce or by purchase. They asked no more than that the a ristocracy should be satisfied with their estates.—(Chee rs.) The landlords had bought, or had inherited their e states, but they had never bought or inherited any right aver the industry of other men.—(Cheers.) The landlor -els were entitled to the full value of their estates, but th ey were not entitled to take the largest slice from the low? of the poorest class of her Majesty s subjects. He cable don the Paymaster of the Forces, after his long experiem ee, to state what was the ground on which the landholders of the country had a matter of right to interfere w ith the industry of others. When he (Mr. Gibson) we is at Cambridge, he read the works of Paley, as part of I ns academic course. That great philosopher said that eve try restraint was, in itself, an evil, and that those who im, ?ose it should prove its advantages, and that it was not in cumbent upon those who suffered from the restraint to pro ye that it was an evil. —(Hear, hear.) On that ground, he (Mr. Gibson) demanded the immediate abolition of this great evil and cruel restraint. The total and hum tediate abolition of the corn-laws was the only mode of s ettling the question, for any other expedient will still lea ye uncertainty and doubt. And when they came to v ested interests, he must inquire what was the nature of the possession ? It was an adverse possession, and no time could give a title from an adverse possession.—( Hear, hear.) The law was passed by a Legislature of ! landlords.—(Tory cries of " Oh, oh !') Yes, it was a 1 Legislature of land lords, for no man could be a Meml ter of the House of Commons who did not swear tha t he was possessed of land of the value of 3001. a y ear.—(Hear, hear.) The large manufacturing towns were not at the time re presented, and the aristocracy had an especial monopoly of legislation by means of close boron ghs.—(Hear, hear.) At the time of the passing of the cor n-law, Lord Liver pool avowed that the object was to prevent the settle ment which would otherwise take place between landlord and tenant upon the restoration of 1 lease. But the de • mands and entreaties of those who of ?posed the measure were not attended to, and the law was passed against the expressed will of the country, fc r that object alone which Lord Liverpool avowed.--(l. tear, hear.) Were not the landlords aware, at the tin se, that the peace would induce the manufacturers of,oth ter countries to ex tend their works, and to come into, cc pmpetition with the manufacturers of this country. Regardless of any other I consideration, however, they adhered to rent—r e nt.— (Cheers.) The object of every change of the corn-law was to keep up rents.—(Hear, hear, and Oh, oh !) Gentlemen might laugh and cheer, but this was not the language of the League alone, it was the language of the wisest statesmen, the greatest poets, and the first phi losophers of the time. A poet, the first of modern time, who was himself a lord and a landlord, expressed the shme opinion in these words:— " The last to bid the cry of warfare cease, The first to make a malady of peace; For what were all these country patriots born ? To hunt, and vote, and raise the price of corn." (Cheers.) That was the language of one of the most eminent poets of this country, and he (Mr G.) would tell the House what the noble poet said of the conduct of the landed proprietors:— " Safe in their barn, the Sabine tillers sent Their brethren out to battle. Why?—for rent ! They roared, they dined, they drank, they swore they meant To die for England. Why then live?—For rent! The peace has made one general malcontent Of this " high market patriot"—WAß was RENT — Their love of country—millions all mis-spent. How reconciled ?—by reconciling rent. And will they not repay the treasures lent ? No ; down with every thing—but up with rent. Their good, ill, health, wealth, joy, and discontent, Being, end, aim, religion—Rent, r e nt, rent." —(Great cheering.) But the noble poet did not except the Church itself from its share of participation of mono poly in the corn-laws. He said:— "So Mother Church' while all religion writhes. Like Niobe, weeps o'er her offspring—TlTHES." —(Cheers and laughter.) He knew that many excel lent men thought the corn-laws were necessary, and he quoted those lines only to show that one of the landlords' own class was convinced of the evils of those laws; and he believed that the time was coming when the whole community would raise its voice against them. It had been said that manufactures were protected ; but the manufacturers, in their petitions, had called for the abolition of protection of every kind. The landlords, however, did not stand upon the same grounds with re spect to protection as other interests in the community. Protection did not increase the wages of labour or raise the rate of profits; the unlimited competition prevented that. But the landed aristocracy had all the benefit of their protection to themselves from the limited nature of their monopoly. It had been said that the trade of the country was very great—that our export of manufactures had largely in creased. But the manufacturers complained that these laws deprived them of a trade which they might now enjoy ; and the question between them and the land lords was, whether the latter had a right to deprive them of that trade. The Noble Lord, the Member for North Lancashire, had presented a petition in favour of agricultural protection, signed by 16,000 persons, who were represented to be manufacturers. Now, he would ask the Noble Lord (Lord Stanley) were one half of them manufacturers ? _ _ _ Lord STANLEY—Those from Preston and Blackburn were. Mr. M. GIBSON—But those from Preston and Black burn did not amount to one half.—(Hear, hear.) But the petitioners did not state what amount of protection they asked for. They did not say the fixed duty, or the rising and descending scale, or what other scale. As the Noble Lord was the representative of a manufacturing county, he wished to ask the Noble Lord, would he un dertake to rise in that House, and say that the corn laws conferred a benefit upon his constituents ? Lord STANLEY said he thought so. He was sup porting the manufacturing interests still. Mr. M. GIBSON wished the Noble Lord to give the grounds on which he thought so.—(Cheers and laughter.) They might laugh if they pleased, but the Noble Lord did state the grounds once, and what were those grounds ? Why, that they might be enabled to keep grooms and gardeners.—(Cheers.) They had heard ex tremely little, considering the position the Noble Lord held in that House, upon the subject of manufactures. It was true, that he did once threaten the agriculturist by the vision of Tamboff, but he had never satisfied the manufacturers that the keeping out of corn was for their benefit.—(Hear, hear.) He thought that they were treating this question in a way that amounted to little short of insult. Whenever gentlemen got up they never came to the question.—(Hear, hear.) The Noble Lord and the gentlemen on these benches—(Great laughter from the Ministerial side of the House, in consequence of the bench on which the Opposition leaders sit being entirely empty)—the Noble Lord and those who sit on these benches were not responsible for the law. Those who sat on the other side of the House were responsible, because they could alter the law. The Right Hon. Baronet was their ruler—he was their Minister, because they could not get a leader out of the Central Protec tion Society. The Right Hon. Baronet would not tell them that he would keep up protection permanently. He would tell them that the League was right in principle. —(Laughter.) It might be all very well for gentlemen to laugh and sneer, but he was dealing with facts as they were. The gentlemen opposite were responsible for the corn-law. They brought it in, and they kept it up, and, doing so, they ought to tell him what good they had done for the people by keeping up the law. The right of the people was to freedom of industry. Those who sat on the other side of the House kept it from them, and he, therefore, on the part of the people, had a right to call for a satisfactory explanation.—(Cheers.) Mr. BANKES then rose to address the House. He could assure the Hon. Gentleman who had just sat down that they, on that side of the House, were most willing to hear all the Hon. Member for Manchester had to state, and it was only in consequence of the Opposition bench being empty, that the laughter had taken place. He agreed with the Hon. Members for Manchester and Sheffield that it was desirable to keep as close to the question as possible. If, however, any side had departed from it, it was the Opposition rather than the Ministe rial. During the present session of Parliament number less petitions had been presented from agriculturists, complaining of the interference of the League. The ac count which they had had that night of the proceedings of the League was a summary of its life—it had existed six years, and he trusted that it would not live six months longer. lie had read many of the papers of the League, but he was not aware until that night that it owed its origin to the Honourable Member for Bolton (Dr. Bowring), and he trusted the Honourable Gentleman would live to write its epitaph.—(Laughter.) There had been in the course of the present debate some questions addressed to him which would have rendered it fit that he should have offered some observa tions to the House, even if he were indisposed to do so. It had been asked of him and others, why they had taken part in the Factory Bill, and how they could reconcile it to themselves to venture to interfere with the grand manufacturers unless they were disposed to show the same feeling towards the lower classes ; for his own part, he was sure that had he felt that the in terference would have affected one class and not another, he would not have consented to it. He must, in the strongest terms, deny the statements of the Hon. Member for Manchester, that they desired to main tain those laws for the purpose of crushing the manufacturers. He was surprised that the Hon. Member could for a moment have conceived that, in the vote on the Factory Bill, he fixed upon one portion of his fellow subjects and not upon another. Those who desired to keep up protection to agriculture had no such wish or object in view, and there was no such wish on the part of those who had voted in favour of the factory question. It had been asked whether those who voted were ready to get up in that House and state why they had done so ; he for one was ready to accept:the challenge. In the vote he had given he was not guided by the state ments which he had read in newspapers or pamphlets — he saw the men themselves, and it was not until after many interviews with them that he ventured to give that vote. If he was travelling from the question it was not his fault, because he had been taunted to give his opinion on the subject, which he was ready to do, and also to defend the conduct he had hitherto pursued. The Honourable Member for Wolverhampton, who had brought forward this motion, had:adopted a different tone to that which he usually did. Differing as he (Mr, Banks) did from that line of arguments adopted by the Hon. Member, yet still they had been conducted in such a gentlemanly manner, hitherto they had been expressed in such a proper tone and feeling that he could not but think them worthy of attention ; but upon the present occasion he had come forth in a new character. The speech was delivered in an almost uninterrupted tone of defiance. lie had asked whether they dared do this and they dared do that ? That might be all very well in another place—(Cheers)--that might do all very well in Covent-garden, It did so the other night, because there when an individual said " he dare" two policemen in stantly took him out. In that House, however, it should be remembered, they had no policemen, " I (exclaimed the Hon. Member) dare" tell the Hon. Member for Wolverhampton - that I desire to maintain protection for the good of the tenant-farmer, and the whole popu lation.—(Cries of " Oh, oh," and " the landords.") Yes, and the landlords. Nobody who argued this question omitted landlords.—(A laugh.) But there was one class that was omitted, and that was the tenant-farmers. Those individuals had come forward in a body and re pudiated the doctrines of the Members for Stockport and Bolton. He hoped there were some tenant-farmers in the House last night to hear the speech of the Noble Lord the Member for Sunderland. What said that Noble Lord? Why did they not do in this country as in Canadaj There there were no tenant-farmers, there was only the landlord and the labourer. But it must be remembered that that country was in a very different state to this; and here they ought to legislate for the whole —the tenant farmers as well as the labourers. The move that had been made on the part of the tenant farmers was spontaneous, and was not encouraged by any landlord ; but they were pleased to see that they were persons who would attend to their own interests. On his part there had been nothing to encourage them to rise as men against the bullying system of the Anti-Corn law League. They had risen as one man, and he be • lieved they would ultimately put it down. The Hon. Member for Manchester (Mr. Mark Philips) had asked him a question with respect to cotton. The Hon. Member had asked him what greater advan tage it was to the manufacturer to have him for a cus tomer, than to have as a customer an American residing in New York. He had asked if he supposed that he (Mr. Bankes) would have to pay him more for his cotton goods than his American customer. Why, if the manufacturer were an honest man, he certainly should not have to pay more, but the manufacturer would have this advantage in dealing with him—that as a home customer he could be more certainly relied on.—(A laugh.) Why, certainly, the home customer aught be more certainly relied on.—(Hear and laughter.) There might be a change in the American tariff, which might altogether prevent the sale of our manufactures in that country. Why, one of the persons who was at present a candidate for the Presidential chair of that empire, he supposed he might call it, went about with banners inscribed, " Protection to native industry."—(Hear, hear.) Now, suppose they should place a prohibitory duty on the importation of our manufactures, did not the Hon. Member for Manchester think that even he would be a better customer to the manufacturer than the inhabitant of New York ? It would be no difficult matter to adduce many reasons to prove to the Honourable Member for Manchester, the advan tages of the home trade. They were secure of that at all events, as long as they could assure them a sufficiency of money to purchase.—(Hear, hear.) The Noble Lord, the Member for Sunderland, who was not now in his place, had, last night, referred to the condition of the labourers in the county which he (Mr. Bankes) had the honour to represent. The Noble Lord had said that the Hon. Member for Stockport had stated more than once that their condition was worse than the condition of any other labourers, and that statement had not been contra dicted. It was true that the Hon. Member for Stock port had made the statement more than once. He was in the habit of making statements more than once ; but if those statements were contradicted, it was rather hard that those persons would not take the trouble to attend to the contradictions, but would continue to repeat them as if they never had been contradicted. He would now refer to the report of the Commissioners appointed to in quire into the condition of the women and children em ployed in agriculture, as a proof that the report which had been laid on the table at the close of last session, had been the foundation of much vituperation of the county which he represented, and of the other counties of the south of England. He believed that the true reason why the county of Dorset had been fixed on in this manner, was because it was represented by a Noble Lord who had taken up the cause of the factory women and children, and it was thought by Honourable Gentlemen opposite that it would be a fair retaliation to move for this Commission.—(Cries of " Oh, oh." Now, he would read a few extracts from the report of the Commissioners on the state of the agricultural labourers in the county of Dorset.—(The Hon. Member here read several extracts from the report alluded to, from which it appeared that the women themselves stated that out door work was beneficial both to their health and spirits, and that the medical men who were examined, stated that, in their opinion, such was the case. The Hon. Gentleman also read an extract, de scribing the clothing club at Blandford, which, last year, had expended 2,000/. in the purchase of articles of clothing for its members.) He begged to call the atten tion of the Hon. Member to the amount expended by this clothing club in a limited district, as a proof of the value of the home market.—(Hear, hear.) He now came to the subject of wages.--(Hear, hear.) The report stated that, in the district of Blandford, wages were by no means low, and, so far from placing the county of Dorset lower than others as to wages, it showed that it was not so low in this respect as Somcrsetshire and Wiltshire. He did not say but that, in many parts of the county, wages were lower than in the Blandford district, owing to the superabundance of the population. He wished the wages were everywhere as good as they were at Blandford ; but he was certain of this—that wages would not be made better by the repeal of the corn laws.—(Cheers.) That was the question before them, and he felt convinced that, however much manufactures might be extended by that measure, they could not be so extended as to give employment to all those who would be thrown out of employment in the agricultural districts in consequence of that measure.— (Hear.) Even if the exchange could be made, he was not satis fied that it would be for the advantage of the labouring class. He had never drawn any distinction between manufactures and agriculture—their interests were amalgamated; but if they looked to the comfort, the hap piness, and the morality of the labouring classes, he could not give the preference to the manufacturing over the agricultural districts.—(Hear.) Admitting that the agricultural labourer received less money, it must be remembered that money was not all that contributed to happiness. Admitting that wages were lower in the agricultural districts, still the labourer had more time to attend to his comforts ; and as to happiness, he should certainly give the preference to the labourer of the agricultural districts. The Noble Lord (Lord Howick) had very much exagge rated the distress which prevailed in the southern coun ties of England. He hoped, as the Noble Lord had read the accusations against the landowners there, he would read their vindication in the report. The Noble Lord had contrasted the condition of the people of Dorset shire with those in Northumberland. He (Mr. Bankes) acknowledged that in some parts of Dorsetshire their dwellings were bad ; but the report stated that in many parts of Northumberland they were still worse. The advocates of the repeal of the corn-law said the repeal would not throw a single acre out of cultivation. 'Well, he thought differently ; and he thought, moreover, that the condition of those labourers, who would be still em ployed in agriculture, would be much worse than it was at present. In those weekly displays at Covent-garden Theatre in which the Hon. Member for Manchester cut such a figure, great stress had been laid upon the de clarations of Lord Ducie, who, it appeared, had been present at some of their meetings ; but he thought his Lordship, however amiable and estimable his character might be, entertained wrong opinions on this sub ject, and arrived at wrong conclusions.—(Hear, hear.) He thought he might be termed rather a farmer among lords than a lord among farmers. Having detained the House so long, he would not trespass fur ther on their patience ; nor would he have taken up so much of their time had he not felt it necessary to rebut those calumnious assertions which had been put forth regarding the landowners in that part of the country with which he was so intimately acquainted. Mr. HUTT would be very brief. He would support the motion of the Hon. Member for Wolverhampton, but not for the reasons with which he had recom mended it to the favourable consideration of the House. He preferred the adoption of a low fixed duty to the abolition of all duty on corn under present cicumstances. A low fixed duty would not be paid for by the consumer, but by the foreign exporter ; and if he erred in his opinion, he erred in the company of most intelligent and independent men. The Hon. Member concluded by saying he would support the motion. Mr. COBDEN then rose, and said—lt is not my in tention, Sir, to follow the example of the Hon. Members for Northamptonshire and Dorsetshire, in making this a question of the character or conduct of the Anti-Corn law League, for to my apprehension we are met here to discuss the character of the corn-laws, and not that of the Anti-Corn-law League.—(Loud cries of " Hear, hear," from both sides of the House.) If it were not so very trite and familiar an anecdote, I would illustrate the conduct of these Hon. Gentlemen by that of the bar rister who, in complaisance with the wish of the defen dant to abuse the plaintiff or the plaintiff's attorney, lost his client's case.—(Laughter.) The corn-laws are now on their trial, and there is only one way by which they can be tried, and that is by their effects on the na tion at large.—(Hear, hear.) Whether the farmer or the farmer's labourer is a little better or a little worse, or whether the landlord is a little richer or a little poorer, dues not, to my mind, form anything like the whole of the question which we have to consider. Now, I never heard but two arguments, on national grounds, in favour of the corn-law. One is, that it is a part of a system of protection. This is one ground upon which the corn law is defended. Is that a good ground of argument ? The other national argument is, that without the corn laws you cannot meet the taxation or pay the interest on the heavy debt which has been incurred. Now, with re gard to the argument that it is a part of a system of pro tection of native industry in all its branches. Is it so ? If it be so—if you can show me that it does protect na tive industry, I will give up the corn-law. But have you done so ? Can you protect the exporting manufacturer of this country ?—(Hear, hear.) One Hon. Gentleman has referred to the case of a person who is a candidate fur the office of President of America, who had inscribed on his banners the motto, " Protection to native indus try." Why, there is a party in America in precisely the same situation as the manufactures here—l mean the exporters of cotton. They receive no protection from those parties who affect the cry of "Protection to native industry." There is precisely the same discord in Ame rica, and precisely the same kind of agitation as that in England. Everybody must recollect the course which was taken by the South Carolinists when they threat ened to pass an Act of nullification. This is the case in France. The wine-growers are the exporting producers, and they require no system of protection for native in dustry. This is the secret which is at the bottom of the opposition which now exists to the corn-law. How do you suppose you will put that opposition down ? By calling names ? No. Show me that the corn-law is a just law, and we will dissolve the Anti- Corn-law League; but, unless you can show that, do not deceive yourselves by supposing that such displays as those which have been indulged in to-night—such childish displays I may call them—can ever effect the dissolu tion of the League. You talk of protection to native industry in ail its branches. Now, I will bring that question home to you, and I will ask you to show me bow you protect the labourer of the country. I have told you before, and state it to you again, that you may depend upon it that these vague declara tions will not serve you in this house. I will have you declare, and show, how you protect labour in this coun try. I will meet you on the poor-law question. I will not avoid that discussion although an attempt has been made to avoid it by the Ministry. You shall not avoid it. It shall be brought before the country ; and the working classes of the country shall thoroughly under stand the gross imposture you put upon them. Now with regard to the revenue. It is said that without a protec tive duty on corn we cannot pay the taxation of the country. I heard a remark fall from an Hon. Gentle man sitting opposite to me, who spoke with as much gravity as if he believed what he was saying was un answerable—that unless we maintained the corn-law we could not pay the taxation of the country. Why ifwe are to be taxed to pay the taxes of the corn-grower,who is to be taxed to pay the taxes of the manufacturer ? I think it has been shown that you cannot protect the manufac turer; and the Hon. Member for Dorsetshire, with great candour, admitted that he does not pay more for manu factures than the foreign merchant pays for them, anti therefore there was no protection for the manufacturer either in the home or in the foreign market. I beard an Hon. Gentleman say that unless we have a high range of prices it is impossible fur us to meet the national taxation. Does anybody suppose that the corn-laws keep up anything but the price of corn? You would have high prices, yet have you not admitted that manu factures are sold cheaper here than in any other part of the globe? And I want to know why you cannot pay the taxes the same as the manufacturers? There is a great and fundamental fallacy lying under this argument —that protecting duties tend to the benefit of the country. Protecting duties on corn, as has been ex plained by the Noble, Lord the Member for Sun derland tend to lower both wages and profits; and how in the world, I ask, can it, therefore, tend to enable the country to bear the taxation? This is an argument, let me remind you, which applies not merely to the manufacturers as against the agriculturalists — that is not the application of my argument. I contend that you are losing sight of the great body of the people when you come to use this argument about protection. I want to know how it will affect that great, body of • people who are neither manufacturers, farmers, nor landowners. If you raise the price of corn how will that enable those people to pay their taxes ? They arc people with a fixed income. If you tax them for the purpose of paying your taxes, then you make there pay not only their own taxes but y ours t oo . Why, I real; believe that the proprietors of land have a confused no tion that the national debt only means private mort gages. I have one or two facts to show what are the consequences to the labourers of the country of high p_ ices of corn. I have in my hand a list of the prices of corn since the corn-law was established in 1815. It is a very remarkable fact, that the price of corn is a kind of barometer of the _ state of taxation. The revenue of the country alwaysdeclines just as the price of corn rises, and rises as the price of corn falls. It is so much so, that, as I said before, it is a perfect barometer of the state of the revenue. Now I will take ,the four years from 1817 to 1820, when the average price of corn was 84s. 4d. the quarter, and when the farmers and landowners were rejoicing at high prices. What was the effect to the reveuue ? Why there was an addition to the annual taxes of the country of 2,400,000/. imposed. I then take the six years up to 1825, when there was unparalleled agricultural distress. During those', years you had taxes repealed to the amount of 8,10,000/. Now I come to the next period of exceeding low prices of corn, viz., in the years 1833, 1834, 1835, and 1836, when the average price for the four years was 465. 9d. During those years there were taxes repealed to the extent of four or five millions per annum. I now come to the last dear years. During the years 1838 to 1842 the average price of wheat was 645. 7d. the quarter, being 20s. higher than the previous four years. During these five years, you had first of all five per cent. additional taxes, and ten per cent. additional assessed taxes; and then came the income-tax, amounting altogether to as much as 8,000,000/. sterling per annum. That was at a time when rent was rising, when the landowners were laying in extra rents, and when the farmers were in a state of prosperity. Now, I want to ask the Right Hon. Baronet, who, I presume, will favour the House with his opinion on this question—l want to ask him where is the difficulty of carrying out the principles of free trade , in everything? I wish to state, honestly and empha tically, that I am an advocate of free trade in every thing. If you go into Committee on the corn-law, and the rules of the House will permit me, I will move that every article that is protected be inserted in this resolu tion. Now, the Noble Lord the Member for the City of , London expressed some surprise that we did not bring forward a free trade motion. Why, the Right Hon. Baronet at the head of the Government told us that we ought to deal with corn in a very different manner to any other article. Unfortunately to our sorrow, we know that that is true, and we know that by abolishing I the corn-laws we shall abolish other monopolies. Now, lam for free trade in everything. And lest the Right • Hon. Baronet should think this a revolutionary proposal, I want to show that you can adopt free trade, and that there is no national obstacle to its being carried out immediately. I want to show you that, barring your own class interests and the interest of the landowners, and the farm labourers, there is no national impediment to your carrying free-trade to-mor row.—(" Hear, hear," ironically from Lord John Man ners.) lam glad to see the Noble Lord, because the Noble Lord professes an assumed benevolence. I am glad to see the Noble Lord laugh. because it is a laugh of incredulity. It shows that he votes for the corn-laws because he believes there are national grounds for his doing so. The Noble Lord cannot be sincere in his pro fessions of humanity in upholding the corn-law for class-interests. I want to show you that you can carry out free trade anywhere.—(Hear, hear.) What is carrying out free trade ? Not by removing all custom-houses. I have heard that an Hon. Gentleman, in writing to his constituents, has said that we wanted to abolish all custom-houses, and I have seen • a letter in the Times newspaper declaring that such is my doctrine. Free trade does not mean the abolition of customs' duties. It means taking off the duties which are levied for protection. How much was the amount of that ? The whole amount of duty paid last year for protective duties was 2,800,0001. ; that includes the duty on corn, on timber, on silk, and other items, in which there was a protective duty. Now lam an advocate for removing the whole of those protective duties. The whole duty paid on foreign manufactures does not amount to 300,0001. How much do you suppose was paid of duty for cotton and foreign manufactures last year ? For cotton there was paid 3,700/. ; for lace, 7,600/. ,• china and earthen ware, 3,600/.; linen, 12,0001. ; wool, 16,7001. ; silk manufactures, 240,6001.; the whole amounting to 284,000/. Now abolish all these duties, let there be no proteetion on manufactures ; we do not want them, for I began my address by saying we have no protection. The test of this is, that manufactures in this country are much cheaper than they are anywhere else. The protection on silk manufactures is generally on peculiar kinds, of which the fabrics are rich and the patterns peculiar, I say abolish the protective duties on silk and other manu factures, and if there is any one here who supposes that I am for a free trade in corn, and not in anything else. I repudiate his co-operation. I say you have no more right to put a protective duty on silk than on corn. Where we put out our proposal for subscription to the Anti-Corn-law League among:the manufacturers of the country, we distinctly stated that we did not ask a single shilling from anybody who was not willing to abolish all protective duties in connection with his own trade. This is the case. The amount you have to deal with would cause an apparent loss to the revenue of two millions and a half ; but you must recollect that by equalising the sugar duties you are voting away two millions per annum in protection to sugar. That is not enough for Hon. Gentlemen opposite, and they want a little more ; but if you equalise the duties on sugar, on coffee, and on other colonial products, you will make up every farthing of the revenue you aro going to lose by abolishing protective duties. You may abolish every protective duty, and yet if you equalise the colonial duties, the statesman will find himself without the loss of one shilling of revenue. The Right Hon. Baronet, when he wished to benefit by an opinion as to an exception from his general rule, quoted with great approbation the opinion of Mr. Deacon Hume with re gard to slave grown sugar- Now, I have reason to know that Mr. Hume's opinion on that point was the only part of his evidence before the Committee which he regretted having given. I was in correspondence with him at the • time of his death as to the publishing of that evidence with notes, and the qualification he had made with re spect to slave grown sugar, was the only part he re gretted ; and if he had lived he would have expunged it. What was the opinion of Mr. Deacon Hume with respect to protective duties ? He was asked by the Committee whether he thought the revenue would present any ob stacle to the simultaneous abolition of all protective duties. His answer was " Certainly nut ; my hesitation applies only to the interests affected by the change, not the revenue, which I have no doubt would be instantly increased by removing the protective duties." There appears to have been on the Committee some gentlemen who entertained an idea that it was not possible to pay the State taxes unless they continued the protective sys tem ; and it was in answer to the questions of these gentlemen that Mr. Deacon Hume made this statement. He says that a highly taxed people cannot afford protec tion. An individual, whose expences are great, cannot be generous. That the very circumstance of the people being taxed for the good of the State is a reason why they cannot be taxed between themselves. A people obliged to pay high public taxes are less able to pay pri vate ones. Now, upon Mr. Deacon Hume's opinion, and the facts I have stated, I take my stand against all protection. If protection cannot be given equally, it must be unjust to some portion of the community ; and, if it is unjust to any portion, if they have the spirit of Englishmen they ought never to submit quietly to such a system. If you can apply generally, it can be of no advantage to any one. Then, I say, abandon this system. It is unsound, and cannot be defended on any principle of sound policy. Therefore it is I ask you to give your decision against this principle. You may say "We are strong in power—we have the constituencies with us."—(lronical cheers.) Yes, but how long will you stand firmly on that pinnacle of power, if the foundations of your pedestal are placed in jeopardy ? You must show that you are on a just footing before you can hope to maintain your power. Now, I have never heard the question argued how protection benefits the farmer, the farm labourer, or any other class of the community. You tell me that you do this to benefit the farmer and the farm-labourer, but my Hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton has asked you to show how it does that. Do you do so? No, you immediately rise up and talk as you always do, in the future tense, and you tell us what effect the opposite system has in injuring the farmer and the farm-labourer, but you do not tell us how the present system benefits them. But I do ask the Right Hon. Baronet not to fly off into de tails—not I mean the mere expediency of this matter. The Hon. Member for Wolverhampton has brought the question fairly before the House. This is a question, I admit, which is not sanctioned by the leading men on this side of the House. But it is the sole question of controversy out of doors. The question ou's of doors is the principle of protection or no protection; and when a gentleman on this side of the House, possessing so large a share of the public confidence as my Hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, brings forward a pro position against protection, I say the Right lion. Baronet will not be treating him or the people of this country fairly, unless he fairly met the argument he brought forwar d on this occasion. The Right Hon. the President of the Board of Trade said that he would not argue the principle of protection, because it was recognised by the Legialature of this country. But we come here to contest that principle, and to call upon you to justify it. Is it not then sophistry, to say the least of it, to tell us that because the principle has been admitted we will not argue it, unless we make an excep tion to the mode in which the tax is laid on corn. But I say again, we reject the principle, and call upon the Hon. Baronet to show how that principle benefits the country at large. The Treasury Benches on the other side have shown a disposition to evade this question. The Noble Lord, the Member for South Lancaahire, (Lord Stanley), whose great talents for debating no body denied, was sent to this House to defend the corn laws. Now, I have never heard him open bis mouth on the subject of protection, and I challenge him to justify this principle. I challenge him to justify it to the ma nufacturers of Preston and Blackburn, not to the minority who had petitioned in favour of i.t, but to the majority who opposed it. I ask hinito show upon public grounds, the justice of this law. I do not ask him to engage in a personal skirmish in this House. I do not ask him to engage upon that which he is so well able to do—to engage in a slashing debate upon personal topics. I ask him:to show upon public grounds, the us. tice of the system of protection. If f,;he Right Hon. Baronet rises in his place in this Howse, to -defend the system, it will go forth to the country, and the people would see whether the argument of •the Hon. Member for Wolverhampton was founded in rmson and on facts, or whether the weight of argument by which they were going to vote is on our side. Ido appeal. to the House not to go the vote until some argumentbeen given to show the justice of your principle of 'protection. -~ - kietir*Eiti.AL PA 131.1A.14.6NT. t lls. 6d. wholly unaccounted for.—(Tory cheers and The tit )USE oiF COMMONS, June 26 1 laughter.) The Hon. Member having concluded the fl• iut , 6 PEAKEtt tools the Chair at the usual hour reading of the extra cts of the s p eeches of the members Ile ' ne " °"k), at a hich time there were exactly forty of the League on this subject, reierred to a paragraph i n T ., iers - ,- sect. the Quarterly Review, and then said he would now ad s'r!e, Lnts' Aetemlinents ti, the Maneheds r Potice vert to the lass. section, namely, the interference of the :re reed en d age ee' to. , Corn-law League in the elections of the countr y . The 11 ; 1 r is takes N a n o e li eat i on Bid was real a t hi r d t i me Hon. Member then proceeded to rea d extracts from ' Passed, speeches made by m-mbers of the League on the subject. Oa li s h, t he nsotien ef Lord INGESTRE, the Gall The League had offered a reward of 100/. at several of _ v timethe elections for the detection of bribery, but had not e., (41 ::3' asst Coal Mieing Coany Bill was read a and ordered to beeentnitted, after a few • succeed in establishing a single case.—(The Hon. Mem furr. ations fro! N: " 1 : 1 --1% ....0E131.7CK. and Mr GLADSTONE. : ber exhibited a placard offering the reward. He then read a letter from the Right Hon. Gentleman, the Mem •,egied 13 4IGHT presented a petition from Rochdale, ber for Edinburgh, to Mr. Maclaurin, a member of the te e , 13 3 . 6,000 persons, slimiest the formation of a League, declining to attend an Anti-Corn-law meeting.) le eo tlc e ` r * Yeeman r y in that town and district. The Hon. He (Mr. S. O'Brien) had learned that, in consequence of of t h e gave notice that, on reading the Orders this refusal, Mr. Maclaurin had determined to contest th _ ee Day to-tnerrow, he should call the attention of ...!.S cretary of State for the Hume Department to the the representation of Edinburgh with Mr. Macaulay; "set. 1 and he (Mr. O'Brien) hoped, if he did, that he would be ate sap well beaten.. The League had recently interfered in of tee tNISON presented a petition against the union ••e sees of - several elections, but had been successful in none—all N it _ . Bangor and St. Asaph. koper lII' THERFORD presented a petition from the ' the victories of the League came at first, all its reverses fur • B °f Leith, praying for the of the duty on repeal at last. The only borough that had returned a member egn stave •• 1 of the League, was that in which the League had not., kr. W. ' and would not, be permitted to interfere. The League t etthe. 'MILES presented petitions from Somerset t " against the agitation• ' d by the orielaw League , calm on Anti- . ' was very extravagant in its promises, but very scanty in , its performances. Notwithstanding that they had vast t/ n the , and in favour of protection. resources, and considerable ability, six months ago the k t , s motion of Mr. WYSE the following resolution ' League was in the height of its power and influence— tzi‘agreed to:—.That the Second Report from the Com ihe .puners appointed by his late Majesty King William what were they now ? and what had they accomplished? If he had desired an organised body, possessing all the to i t , uttb, and re-appointed by her Majesty the Queen, means and appliances for the destruction of our insti tatOutre into the manner in which railway communi- 1 tutions, he would have selected the Anti-Corn-law League. la i d , s can be most advantageously promoted in Ire- They had endeavoured to sow dissension among the It itie. sinned by T. Druummed, T. F. Burgoyne Peter 1 dpi y, w i , and Richard Griffith, dated the 13th 'day of different classes of the community ; in fact the League r possessed all the elements for sedition—they had de- Itts• ent 3B, and the appendixes annexed thereon, and Glared that this House did not represent the people, and Al i' c , ,ed to both Houses of Parliament by order of her ' had impudently attempted to tamper with and influence li s a t li e !LY, be referred to the Committee on the Great Dr and Western Railway (Ireland) Bill, ' the constituencies of the kingdom.—(Laughter.) If the proceedings of this body were not adverse to the law, bi ss • i IiCHOLL presented several petitions against the Lenters' Chapels Bill. 1 they certainly were abhorrent to the Constitution of this tarad'd INGESTRE presented petitions from Wolver- country. He would vote against the motion, because he did not wish to see .protection to British agriculture h e , r e t"n, :Milton, Brough, and other places, against the • hp s , or the corn-laws. abolished, and because he did not consider the present a air G OD IN CRIMINAL CASES. , fitting or a proper time to make the motion ; and, at the the . GOD for . Kelly, moved the O rder of selfish, unconstitutional policy of the Anti-Corn - law - same time, he would enter his protest against the narrow, e it i D ad' e for the second M re r adieg of the Appeal in Crimi- ' osat .',.;es Bill, for the purpose of postponing it until ' League. Captain LAYARD said another opportunity was now of te "ednesday, ahen Mr. Kelly would take the sense tee Rouse upon it. given to the House of taking under consideration,a law ai r , COURT OF ARCHES BILL. which, in his opinion, was opposed to the best interests I) ' IT• ELPHI \STONE moved that the Order of the of the people, and in direct opposition to the principles aY, fo ' of humanity and justice. And although there was no th e e r the adjourned debate on the second reading of . dctubt that the Ministers would, on this occasion, corn ferin;°°,lt of Arches Bill, be postponed until this day ,nt•— Agree d to mend an overwhelming majority, and that the Hon. lieeil •••`-'ES OF MOTIONS.—SECRET DEPART- Member for Wolverhampton's motion would be defeated, k r, MENT OF THE POST-OFFICE. yet he felt that the opinion of the people of this country that the interests of the many were sacrificed for Te e ,a T. DUNCOMBE gave notice that he would, on was , the benefit of the few; and that the tower of strength le to '', s Y next, move for a Select Committee to inquire 1 which the agriculturists prided themselves upon, not ts eoi t ne Department of the General Post-office, com being founded on the rock of justice, would finally be ' a l s Y called the Secret-office, the duties of the persons swept away by the tide of public opinion, which, for 14: ed therein, and the authority under which the ti es , . some time had been setting in against it, and by which • s of the said office are discharged.—(Hear.) IRISH AND SCOTCH BANKS. f os r OIsEHOUSE gave notice that, on the motion it was already undermined.—(Hear, hear.) It was not only the injustice of this law in itself, the depriving the • 1.% people of cheap food, the restriction it put upon mann eoure a n into Committee on the Bank Charter Bill, he factures, the feeling of distrust which the people felt the he rsk a question of the Right Hon. Gentleman at against those who acted upon such selfish as well as of thea Government either this sessiond of the t;overnment, hether it or next was the to extend intention ridiculous opinions, but the other bad consequences U 4 _Provisions of the Bank Charter Bill to the banks of which it entailed ;for it was for the sake of the corn-law eland and S co tl an d. that the House had been made to lower itself as it had 0 CORONERS (IRELAND) BILL. done upon the Factory Bill; and alas! which miserable I ko n the motion of Mr. GROGAN, the Coroners (Ire- example it had again followed on the sugar duties. We were apt to speak of the superiority of this country to co ,') till was rcad a second time, and ordered to be ,itlnltita e on ea, It eeday week. others in her laws and institutions; but for his (Captain Layard's) part, he thought that as long as this law was te e , '' ,Ippeals ion Criminal Cases Bill, the Lime Toll in operation we could not do so with justice. Some /l i ii , Ll Ptioe (Ss'ales) Bill, and the Juvenile Offenders w. years ago, when in China, ho was fortunate enough to re p o - t p ont d. CO s -LA IV S.—ADJOURNED DEBATE. become acquainted with one of the Hon g merchants, a 4, clever, intelligent person ; and they often used to con bate CORN -LA on t h e corn -l aws was t h en read. o Ore! er o f t h e D a y f o r resuming the adjourned verse on the different customs and manners of their re er ttl, i • t'TAFFORD O'BRIEN said, the Noble Lord spective countries. He (Captain Layard) told his Chinese friend how barbarous the practice was ac firstelad oeeupied the last hour of last night, and the counted which they (the Chinese) followed of bandaging Itl e "Our of tee meriting, had alluded to the agricultural up the feet of their children as soon as they wereborn, and e ir °Jers. of Dorsetshire, but he should leave the Hon all the small toes under the sole of the foot, and di0, 4410 Member for thet county to reply to his state- pressing he asked his friend if many of the children did not die fe 4t '• There was much, however, in the Noble rap s from such treatment, and what a s , ' statement. in which they must all agree. There barbarous custom? The reply was, the custom is a i tb , ' ll acknowledgment of n e extreme difficulty and cruel one. Hundreds die from mortification; but we T °l• tance of the subjectunder consideration, and there has 4. , . j a set of old women have . who live by it, and is a part of Ise 0 ," admission of the du they owed to the poor ; their trade, and we cannot break through it. Now, if • eh i k oere w as a ver feeling allusion to the great interval the Chinese merchant had asked him (Captain Layard) • Itl ere (l , now separated the poor from the rich. Hon. if it was true that we had a law by which the food of umbers oppesite often alluded to the extreme import our people was restricted, if he had said, true, our wo the"e Of providing a sufficient supply of necessaries for men take short steps, but yours are on short commons; 'kg it oeople. The question was one of great importance, (Hear.) ours die in infancy from mortification, but yours die at It was the question of cheap provisions.-- all ages, from disease and decline, brought on by insuffi . o e , es ,"a's pars of he! tactics of the members of the Anti ciency of food—what could he (Captain Lityard) have th t ; l 4 :ltitv League, when they met with an argument answered, not at that time having heard the celebrated ttr,d t hey couki not answer, to call it an exploded fallacy, e s t io talk a b ou t o ld l a di es a nd country squires, and speech of the Paymaster-General of the Forces, that this law must be enforced for the dower of young ladies e z 4h. they had raised a laugh under cover of that, to fall and the jointure of old ones? For his part, he thought to t , u Pon some argument ‘ ril , Te easily manageable, and our Legislature quite as barbarous as the Chinese. He ..4 4 4,1 that returning to the original question. The felt that some gratitude was due from the Right Hon. - led gun had a great advantage in haranguing multi- Baronet at the head of her Majesty's Government to the N es " On account of their violence and their extreme princi- League ;for the very man, who some time ago he had li e • They contended for total and immediate repeal, and is ea.. charged with wishing to have him assassinated, had . tood , . ‘e them a great pr sent advantage over more come to his assistance, and saved for a time his political li es T r4 te men ; but when they came to put their theo existence. The Right Hon. Baronet had certainly lost las e , d .' Practice, they would discover that they were im the great guns from his party; but as they had been shiest,'leable. One of their principles was to buy in the e i and to sell in the dearest market. Now, he pretty well used up, perhaps the Right Hon. Baronet le ;lever heard of any one that would object to that as did not think it of much consequence. He alluded to the Hon. Members for Knaresborough and Shrewsbury. ellesaostract proposition. But were lion. nientlemen op settite prepared to carry out that proposition without The Hon. Member for Knaresborough was at first con ' th e Promise ? (Hear, hear, from the Opposition.) Were sidered a great gun; indeed, he had been fired right and th,Yl 3 r-parcd to carry it out in private life ? Would left amongst the manufacturers ; the Hon. Member for e t ? e dismiss an old man, whom they had long employed Knaresborough having, as he thought, had enough of A m "- a week, because they could get a younger man to the manufacturers, took a shoot at his own party, le ,"srtake the Fame a ork for 10s. a neck ? If they car- when the Right Honourable Baronet the Secre tetart' Jut that principle strictly, there would be an end t , Home Department, calling Mr. , e e all neighbourly feeling and domestic charity, and if it Mott to his assistance, rushed in to stop the alls, re to be carried out without compromise in public discharge, but it had taken place, and in his (Captain ese t ! it would des'roy our honour, our defences, and our Layard's) opinion, had considerably damaged all who , 0 ti 1°44 .1 character. If any foreigner, acquainted with had anything to do with it. The Hon. Member for t .1t r.social state, were to be t" 4l Cult there were a set of Shrewsbury, he thought, might very fairly be compared . I tea to a clock which went pretty well for some time, but not '4, Rho were in favour of a total and immediate the of the corn-laws, he would say that having been oiled, at last began to go rather irregularly. , to muse be either too visionary to be listened The hands at one time were supposed—the clock hav ing gone three or four hours without stopping—upon t t .Or too dangerous to be trusted. The Pro tiaore, Its might as well raise a cry for a return to the foreign policy, to point to some diplomatic appointments abroad ; it had been hinted that the Shrewsbury clock, • he a r Prices, as the Anti-Corn-law League for total and • aC e etdate repeal. The League had done themselves though it had not yet aspired publicly to being the clock at the Horse-guards, and thus to regulate all the a l t r .) . by their violence. For one recruit that joined w e 'll, many h-ft them ; and those who were leaving them odher . clocks, bad certainly wished to be the clock at the Admiralty, where exact time was not of se muck conse- N i t ° the parties who supplied the sinews of war. AU (pence. The Right Hon. Baronet not thinking the tee,. the League consider, because of the violence of their Shrewsbury clock to be a chronometer, was perfectly re teeit"cals, that the Right Hon. Baronet was induced to attempts o f gardless of what way it went ;so at last it became quite ' th e 'e the declarations he had done ? The ta Lsatsue had been unworthy of them. Whatever irregular, attacked the Right Hon. Baronet for taking e i t , the liberty of talking about the gentleman who said he e a. conduct of the landowners had been, would squeeze himself into a quart .bottle, no doubt tr e very duff:Tent from that of the League. j 4, would now go into the history of the knowing . it was no very pleasant operation to try to squeeze into any place, however small, and not be able ttegue, and in doing so he must ask for -some consider •a•'Pati- •the Housebtdoing so he °l once from ; u before to effect it.—(Loud laughter.) " A fellow feeling makes one wondrous kind." e l . t ' i 'd advert to s,,me of the statements of the members But now the Right Hon. Baronet, and the Right Hon. I ' Lt -- " , 11 T H. n Member then referred to a t ee. , ,• „I . e 0 . . Gentleman the President Veil of Si:. Coliden's, a! d also to one made by the boldly come forward upon free trade principles, seeing fe o 7 l . Memeer ter 8..b0n. He also read several extracts how little power those gentlemen had, and having no 'Ph: n ,Sl l eches delivered by Mr. Ward and Mr. Blight. reason to fear the watch -word of the Hon. Member for h a i',_ 'Ton. Mem n, r for Dot i,am spoke of the aristocracy Reading, however powerfully exerted—" To your tents, , e, l t he enemies of the human race as locusts preying 0. Israel !"—(Laughter.) Nothing could be more as aeothe , womunit; , and said that the distresses of the tounding than to find the Hon. Members for Knaresbo. '4 Pie were laughed to scorn in the halls 01 the aristocracy. le s .' • lion. Member for atockport did not entirely confine rough and Shrewsbury against Ministers, and the Hon. Members for Stockport and Durham supporting them. 4 1 ; ' , erste eto the landed aristocracy. He said much But such had been the case. The Noble Lord, the Se ott'ater ecere was due to th se' mercantile men who be- But for the Colonies, had brought forward a fixed e5l 103 of the aristocraey. Ile must now beg the duty for Canada ; would he do so for this country? Why of te n 1 -e of all the House, except the Members .1 the Anti-Corn -law League. (The Honourable he had ,not done so , he (Captain Layard) could not h tell ; 'except that, following the example, instead of e 1 e e ' l e rt i speeches, ndser h ere untied a large bundle of quotations &c., made by these gentlemen ; the ap- learning from the history of Jeptha, and having made tl7 l 4•l'ce of h excited a general cry of " Oh, oh," from unwise p romises and rash vows at the end, it mi g ht be he "louse.) The first quit .flog read by the Hon. Mem- called the twilight, of one session of Parliament, he was 4 , ` l ls ene from a speech of the Hon. and Learned determined that the House should pay the sacrifice in teh.4l'eer for Bolton, at a dinner at that town in 1838 , in the next, which i t accordin g l y did. At an y ra te , he thought the Noble Lord ought not to object to an in teg'is he called on merchants and tradesmen to join the into the law as it at present stood.—(Cheers.) k e a is r ue. In another part of the speech the Hon. and Learned quirt' t c, nsber (Dr. Bowring) said that the "Anti-Corn-law Some short time ago he (Captain Layard), being at the le' e a r iNe would be the arbiter of political power."—(A Opera, had the pleasure of seeing the Right Hon. Ba sle and ironical cries of " Hear' upon the Opposition net there—(Laughter)—and he certainly thought that • fs„,S ) The next quotations read by the Honourable the beautiful ballet of Ondine—(Renewed laughter)— s ( Vletnan were from the "Anti-Corn-law League," the was a fair representation of what was going on in the Right Hon. Gentleman's mind. Cerito seems a fair and dace and other publications of the League, which lovely representation of free trade, flitting and dancing l e " instructions to Travellers and others as to the mode before the mind of the Right Hon. Baronet, and when d i ~: Whieh they were to distribute the papers, and the Ondine comes out of the shade and is startled at her h e ' t 7nlinete the doctrines of free-trade, and inculcate a e , l( iti of the " most infamous of human laws."—(Laugh- own shadow, how just a representation of what happened to the Right Hon. Baronet when he first broached free • te : 4 the Tory benches.) One of these instructions was Le cause copies of the " League Almanac" to be hung up trade principles !—(Cheers.) How he started back s toit ettib-r o se ms , public-houses, reading-rooms, black- (though the start wst, not quite so graceful as the one b e , . t 1 ,4 shops, Eac.—(Great laughter.) The Hon. Mem- made by the fair Cerito) when he saw, not indeed his shadow, but the shade which came over the mournful rs iee 'nen exaibited to the house a copy of the Almanac, countenances of the agricultural Members. But for his , li,nriitist renewed laughter. This Almanac gave the fi lt " of all the anti-corn-law saints— (Laughter)—the (Captain Layard's) part, he trusted the Right Hon. Ba la'nleof whom was the Hon. C. P. Villiers, M.P. for ronet vould . soon give up coquetry, after the manner of the fair Cerito, with the shadow,.. and that when he (o re 'eshanipte.n ) who was born in the year 1802 18 11 14 laughter)—John Bright first saw the light in opened his arms to embrace it, it might prove to be the reality and not the shadow of free trade. The Right ea se --- (Renewed laughter) and though great end urt re t" existed with regard to Homer Hon. Baronethad said he would not go back, "E'en not to retrograde is to advance, stab Shakespeare, they had great pleasure in t) rg' that Dr . Bowring was born on the 17th of And men must learn to walk before they dance." oton ee • For his part, he would rather have a small fixed duty, as ste , , 179...—(Great laughter.) He now came to n e e. e er part of the proceedings of the League, called the , thinking it a fair source of revenue to the country, but as tr a 4 4 p agitation. The Hen, Gentleman here read ex- 1 there seemed no hope of that, he should vote in favour o f se eto from the Anti- C orn -law Circular recommending a 1 the motion of the Hon. Member for Wolverhampton. T he m , of pulpit lectures on the subject of the corn-laws, Trusting that the time would come— apeecknon. Member, also, read extracts from the " When free as seas or wind, er , " L es of the Dissenting ministers assembled in the Unbounded Thames would flow for all mankind, ap ert e t. ','"ester conference. The Hon. Member for Stock- While nations enter with each swelling tide, rt had stated at the conference, that this was a middle i .sknd seas but join the regions they divide." u s , 3 gitation, and thst they bad had recourse to the !tone Colonel RUSHBROOKE, who spoke in so low a ne of voice as tige tt , thods adopted in carrying on middle classto be scarcely audible, read a statement to the H se etin l , °' l ; they had procured the co-operation of Dis- , _ouse, in reply to the letters which have recently te a e ministers, of ladies, and they had organised I appea!ed in the Times, respecting the state of Suffolk, ties p,arties. So that it appeared that the characteris- 1 and the cause of incendiarism in that county. He te ot a middlewere D . • t• • ' rs, l at . ] . class agitation issen ing minis- reretted that such letters had appeared in a journal so calculated th e 'es and teaerties.—(Hear, hear, and laughter.) , widely as the Times, as he thought they Ministerial bend ' the is He was sor not to see would do more harm than good. The • writer of those iglu teletters seemed to have a strong ore , on. Member fortne • , of Perth in his place, ing prejudice • against the sr to chim. my eid ei , , ongratulate on the most remarkable in- and superficial which he, a stranger, must have neees 1 inquiry The ~,i- or motfern times; for according . • of to the opinions sari y made could only have led him to a lame and impotent conclusion. ti tne - L s eague, the most remarkable incident of modern li e , was his decle ' h . 1• • ring trose t in favour of total and The Times reporter stated that the increase in the num °diate ' ber of prisoners in Suffolk, since the passing e e the repeal. That declaration had been looked upon of the as enl ,7 Precursor to a similar declaration from all the new poor-law, was very great. Now, he (Colonel Rush so °els of the late Whi ,, ' brooke) had ascertained that, in the seven years before le . -"lber sm. the passing of that Act, the number of prisoners was 1 , 11 ,. „ ~. Suncterlard was on the same side as the /n,',..e . loin Uentkinan the Member for Perth but be i t ': Lord the Member for City 4 100 Notwithstanding the representations of the , I , is Speech !, the of London had, • • R hb k )could Times reporter, he (Colonel us roo e say The L ea last night, injured the cause of repeal. of eve gne had not been neglectful of the sinews that in no part of the kingdom were the poor better th e g r, and this a-a- the taken care of than in Suffolk. f Te. (11, e manner in which they provided t "'ll th •e Hon. Gentleman then read several extracts 1 Lord RENDLESHAM believed that the tenant-far ee . e addresof mer and the poor man were as much interested in this ur It s i ea ,„ eses the League, and from the speeches Prot -ke n - 47 members, inculcating the necessity o f question as the landholder. The assertion that the te -1.(; „,,,. __ tficient funds to carry on the agitation.) nant-farmer would be benefited by the repeal of the 8s ed " , ' read an account of the expenditure or 2.4841. corn-laws, because his rent would be reduced, was un onle • w hich he said was the first, the last, and the founded; it seemed to be supposed that there was but . i s uee:d , tint they thed ever eiven although they had membered to the letting of a farm, but it should be re• 'led 159,000/ . 6 ' , us leaving a balance of 156,5151 . that the landlord, like every o ne else, Could. only get the market value of his land. If they were re duced to continental prices, would they not be compelled to adopt the continental system of the proprietors culti vating their own estates without the intervention of the tenant farmer ? Now, as to the poor man, for whom so much was said in that House, and so little was done— (Hear, hear)—he believed that he was better off with high prices and high wages, than low prices and low w,ges. He believed also that the object of the League was to reduce wages to the continental level, and quoted a passage from a speech of the Hon. Member for Wol verhampton to bear him out in the assertion.—(Mr. Vil liers denied the correctness of the report.) In that case he would retract it ; but the Hon. Member for Birming ham had made a declaration to the same effect. He did not think that the corn-laws could be said to be detri mental to trade and commerce, when it was stated by the free traders themselves, that in the last forty years the manufactures of the country had realised enough to purchase the fee-simple of the whole land of the king dom. Other nations, too, had seen the advantage of the protective system, and were more extensively adopting it. Mr. WARD said they ought to express their obliga tions to the Noble Lord for having brought back the debate to something like its proper object ; for as to spending two hours in reviewing all that had been said and done by the Anti-Corn-law League, he considered it a mere evasion of the main question, of how these laws bore upon the interest of the community. If the Hon. Member for North Lancashire had come forward a twelvemon!h ago, and charged the League with being a seditious body, it might have been open to him to have done so ; but for him to do so now, holding the position of the President of the Publishing Council of the Agricultural Protection Societies, which had used the same means as the League, with the ex ception of the great talent which that body brought to the question, he thought was rather out of place. 'those societies were now copying, though at a very humble distance, the efforts of the League. Now, as to the question itself, if he could believe, according to the Noble Lord, that there was a regular sliding-scale be tween the landlord and the tenant, and that the land- lord always reduced his rent in proportion to the prico of corn ,he would concede that to be just. But they never heard of anything but miserable abatements of five, six, or ten per cent. The tenant took the farm in the expectation of making a rent according to the price pro mised by the corn-laws, which those laws were not able to secure to him. The Right Hon. Baronet had not been able to secure to the farmers the minimum price of 565. promised by the sliding-scale.—(No, no.) He contended that if he did not make an actual promise, he did a virtual oue, and that promise had not been kept. The Noble Lord alluded to the interests of the poor man, about which so much was said in that House, and so little done. God knew that was true enough. But where were those who called themselves the friends of the poor to-night. They shrank from this discussion. Where were those who, when they were dealing with the interests of others, practised a cheap humanity at other people's expense.—(Hear, hear.) Where was the Noble Lord, the Member for Dorsetshire ? Where were all the " young England" party? They were all repre sented by the solitary gentleman (Mr. P. Borthwick) who had the peculiar distinction of being the only man in the House who could be found to second the amend- ment moved to the resolution before the House, and he must do the Hon. Member the justice to say that he never saw a man more unwillingly dragged into a dilemma. He thought too, it was to the credit of the House, that no allusion had been made throughout the debate, to that amendment, except by the Right Hon. President of the Board of Trade, who said that where it could be proved one man had been thrown out of work by machinery, he would show a hundred families main tained in comfort by it. But where were all those who, when they were dealing with other people's property, used such loud language about zeal and care for the poor man ? Had they all had time to get sober like the Hon. Member for Nottinghamshire? He could conceive nothing more contemptible than the position they would henceforth occupy in public opinion. He totally denied what had been stated by the Noble Lord as to prices and wages. A position more untenable, and more unfounded than that of wages being regulated by prices, he had never heard. In many parts of the country wages were lower than they were five years ago. The farmers were not responsible for this ; there were more persons pressing on them for employment, and consequently there was less money to be divided among them. And he would take this opportunity of alluding to a practice adopted in Suffolk, against which he, as an old supporter of the poor-law in that House, must strongly protest, that was the introduction of another test besides the workhouse test, before giving a man a right to relief. It was the intention of the law that the workhouse text should be the only one. That was generally understood in 1833, but it appeared that in the county of Suffolk a certificate was required that a man could not obtain work. The Noble Lord had said that commerce had flourished even when the corn- laws were more stringent than they were at present. It was a bold assertion that the corn-laws could in any way tend to promote commerce ; but the Noble Lord was one of a clique, and bold assertions of this kind were always received with favour by gentlemen opposite. Why, it was well known that every Goverment found it difficult to make commercial treaties with other countries in con- sequence of those laws. The correspondence which had taken place between the Noble Lord and the Secretary for Foreign Affairs with the Government of Prussia proved that.—(Hear, hear.) He should like to know what advantage it was to the Noble Lord to pay double for his sugar. But he supported the sugar duties in order that the corn-laws might be protected ; for there was an implicit contract that one interest was to support the other. The Right Hon. Gentleman the Pre sident of the Board of Trade was fond of abstract princi ples. He declared that he regarded dear bread as the greatest of public calamities, while in the same breath he said that the admission of 160,000 quarters of corn, at a duty of l7s. was a proof of the admirable working of the present law. The Right Hon. Gentleman, at the head of the Government also dealt in abstract assertions, of which, if he performed but the tithe, he, and the band of free-traders by whom he was surrounded, would most gladly follow him. He would prefer him ten times to his Noble Friend the Member for London, who was the type of the fixed duty. Should the Right Hon. Baronet have any further quarrels with his party, the free traders would most gladly accept of him for their leader.—(Laughter.) The Noble Lord upheld the principle of a fixed duty. The Right Ilon. Baronet ad hered to no principle at all. The Noble Lord hinted that when they came to a compromise, lion. Gentlemen men opposite would find him a most convenient person. No doubt a fixed duty would be preferable to a sliding scale, but if the Right Hon. Baronet could get rid of the drag chains by which he was encumbered, and work out a partion of that large theory which he put into such a comprehensive shape before the country, there was no person whom he (Mr. Ward) would like so well to follow, because the Right Hon. Baronet made a great deal of a bad cause, and if he only set himself seriously to carry out the principles which he knew to be right, his eloquence would carry everything before him; but when the Hon. Member for Somerset said he now depended on the Government, and when, after praising the manliness and straightforward ness of the speech of the Hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade, which he (Mr. Ward) never before heard were characteristics of that Right Hon. Gentleman's speeches—(A laugh)—he said he hoped they would engage in a new compact with the Govern ment, the Right Hon. Gentleman actually got excited on the subject, and put himself out of his ordinary calm course to cheer the appeal made to him. He had asked for a fair trial, and he believed the Right Hon. Gentle man intended to give the law a fair trial. What was a fair trial? Was it one, two, three, eve, or ten years ? He did not believe the Right Hon. Gentleman, the Pre sident of the Board of Trade, would have made the speech they had heard from him last night were it not for the rain which had fallen, and which had, in some degree, removed the fears for the harvest. Was the country to undergo all the misery and suffering of two or three bad harvests before they had—he would not say convinced the Right Hon. Baronet, because he was convinced, as he (Mr. Ward) was—but before he could, with as decent a regard for consistency as possible, re verse his mode of action? The Right Hon. Gentleman would then tell Hon. Gentlemen opposite that the time was come when it was impossible to resist any longer the general demand for the repeal of the corn-laws. He knew that at present the advocates for a repeal of the corn-laws were labouring under a disadvantage, because there was no scarcity of provisions, and there was no great deficiency of work. But that was a bad state of legislation which depended on the state of the weather. —(Hear.) This was a landlord, and not a tenant question. There was never anything so bolstered up as this Pro • Corn-law League. The first association was got up by a landlord, Mr. Tower of Essex. It was the landlords who raised the fund to support it. He did not believe that in a single county the tenants had originated any movement. It would be wiser—more honourable, and more profitable, for Hon. Gentlemen opposite to look at this question fairly and openly; instead of staving off the evil hour by a large majority of votes, without convincing any being that they had a single sound argu ment upon which to take their stand.—(Cheers.) Sir J. TROLLOPE said he did not intend to speak upon this motion, were it not that the Hon. Gentleman who spoke last asserted the Pro-Corn-law Society had copied the Anti-Corn-law League in everything but their talents. They did not copy it in interfering with the elections. One of the fundamental rules of the Society with which he was connected was not in anyway to interfere with the elective franchise, there fore that part of the statement of the Hon. Gentleman was not founded iu fact. He also denied the statement of the Hon. Gentleman that the Pro-Corn-law Asso ciation was repudiated by the tenants of the country. On the contrary, it was originated by the tenants them selves ; at least, that was the case in the county which he represented. The principle of the Anti-Corn-law League was an aggressive one—their's was a defensive one. They were not jealous of the Anti-Corn-law League ; they simply wished to stand on the protective system as regarded themselves.—(Hear, hear, from the Opposition.) One good result which followed from the Anti-Corn-law League was, that they taught the land lords to know their own strength, and they did not mean to lose it. The Hon. Gentleman then referred to the agricultural improvements which had taken place in the county of Lincoln, and said that if the poor in the county of Suffolk were employed, and their wages raised, they would hear no more of incendiary fires.— , (Hear, hear.) The lion. Member far Sussex recom mended capital punishments to put a stop to those in cendiaries. He (Sir J. Trollope) hoped that such a corn -laws would as t state te neverow of pasture, againrpeasrt repealed ee b ,a e l ea r dn e d s resorted e the t o it would oeul . la — dn d(aHa.eo mustar d r , b h me e t a :: r ne . ) t slc e tfoo n utr a hre n sede ce only t o s h ep h er d s, and the labouring classes would be ruined. theGr i B societySO N s f a o i r d n h a a i nt aiinin g the investigating co rn the s m a e n d d e in Mr M. the society for abolishing them had originated, they had been led away from the real question, which was, what was the benefit supposed to be conferred upon the coin-