The Sun. — London, England, 1839-03-19 00:00:00

____ try in the man "Itag atle 1 111 0 the whol! to be bi® the Com m„ and 0, in the ign rcla- man will ER con 'arliament ease laP°n ) Govern. accessary ose a sots that there Prop ose d ration' he )ursued by ' men h. • could on of the sent ques - a tte! l ' was tb u/ e rinciple 0' Crown'''. in sens e °I a ny other Cheerg.] Id )er vo3u , con d " it into nge )1r ho• lot i o n. itself into )te for the ,elieve) . Pportuoitial - he te°ll on acc°'''' e had sa p i d - weight' mel lt ,gagc • vote Ay FieerJ fi which ' 1 .: ( 1 slops, of the t ftrY b of he EVEN ING EDITION. Right Hen. Baronet ( Sir R. Peel) to which he wished to call the attention of the Heuse, lest it should produce the Sr pression that he agreed with the Right Hon. Baronet it, the statement which be had made with regard to the export of manufactured goods from this country. The Right [lon. Bart. expressed his hope that gentlemen on this s;cle of the House would take into their hands the printed table to which he called their attention. That statement he (Mr. Wood) now had in his hand. It was a rta-ement of the export of the principal articles of British produce and manufacture for the two years—•lB3B and 1837, and he drew the comparison of the two years, first in the aggregate and then in detail, and from that comparison, he deduced a higher state of prosperity than had been before experienced. He told the House with evident satisfaction that that table exhibited an increase of no less than seven millions in the amount of exports, in comparison with the preceding year. He did not quarrel with the figures, the exception h e t oo k was t hi s, t h at the Right Hon. Bart. concealed from the House this impor tant circumstance, that 1837 was a year of great commer cial embarrassment—( Hear, hear)--of entire derangement of the industry of the country—of the stoppage of a large portion of the trade of the country, and of the diversion of other portions into other channels. He must have been well aware that our commerce with the United States in that year was entirely annihilated.—( Hear, hear.) In order to have afforded the House an opportunity of Judging fairly of this comparative prosperity he ought to have stated what were the circunntances of 1e37. He (Mr. Wood) would endeavour to supply the deficiency, al though the ye ir 1838 exhibited an increase over the year 1837 of about 7,000,0001. in these exp or t s . Th e year 183 7 exhibited a decrease of no less th an 10,000, 000 1 . I over the preccding—( Hear, hear)—and the increase of 1838 was a diminution of 3,000,000/ from the year 1836. The Right lion. Baronet then proceeded to attack what he stated to be the second ground of the petitioners, that there had been an increase in the export of our manufactures ; it was alleged by the manufacturers them selves to be net an increase id the export of manufactured products, but in the raw material, or in commodities only partially wrought out ; and though he did not go into de tails as he had done in the former branch, still it was evident that he intended the House to infer that he had demolished the arguments of the petitioners. Now in the statements which he (Mr. Wood) made oa the first day of the Session he took what he thought a fair view of the question. He did not compare the commerce of 1838 with any One year, but with the four preceding years. In consequence of his not having shown this distinction between manufactured goods and partially wrought fabrics, and raw materials, he was assailed for having made state ments calculated to encourage delusive opinions —He therefore, afterwards took occasion to supply the omission, and classed the commodities, and gave the result, fully bearin g out the statement of the petitioners. To that the Right Hon. Bart. made no allusion, and therefore the House would excuse hi m ( M r. Wood) refreshing his recollection on this subject. ( Hear, hear.) The average of 1838, its compared with that of the four years to which.he had alluded of the exports of woollens, cotton, linen, and silk cloths. increased from 25,757,000/. to 26,09 00001., or an increase of 1 to 7-10ths, while the increase of cotton•varn, linen and woollen-yarn, in creased from 659 , 900/ . to 1 ,832,000 / ., being an increase of 28 per cent. Hardware, earthenware, and glass, gave an actual decrease of 111 per cent. ; whilst upon the export of the raw materials—the metals there was an increase of 24 per cent., and refined sugar, which was a manu factured commodity, though but very little labour was employed upon it—there was a falling•off of 55 per cent., whilst upon the purely raw materials, viz. sheep's wool and coal, there was an actual increase of 53 per cent lie contended that the whole case of the petitioners was made out by these documents. He left it for gentlemen to draw their own conclusions; he had stated facts and he considered them to be most important ones. The Right Hon. Baronet had attempted to show the improved condition of the working classes by the increase of deposits in Savings' Banks, but the statements did not afford a satisfactory conclusion, because it was open to the same substantive objection as the other. It was a comparison between 1838 and 1837, which was a year of distress. The increase of our exports in 1838, as compared with 1837, was made use of by the Right Hon. Baronet with the view to another illustration. It was stated that in 1837 our exports were only 36,000,000/. at the time when cern was cheap ; and that in 1838, when Fern was dear, our exports amounted to 43,000,000/. The inference intended to be drawn was, that with a high price of corn there was a large exportation. Here again the sa me objection applied, it was a comparison between 1837 and 153 8. He had no desire to enter into the general q u estion, but he had been looking at the question for so many Years, he could assure the House he thought the present a most favourable opportunity of entering into the whole question, with the prospect of settling it to the satisfac tion and benefit of all parties.—( Hear, hear.) They had legislation ogicsliaaTiour abroad—they were left free to enter into the Osier to a'elleasu tßnuirgehst wHero:. inßaronet cpaolnmlay and deliberately, as they could hope q s u a e i s d t , io t ri ba o t f if su h c o h s i a m w po o r n ta r ne m e. anu T fa l n ie . lawsi duce.ment to a hi state of decay, it would be a strong --n1 to take the question of the Corn lawslnto consideration. If they waited till the decay ?ecanle so palpable, then the opportunity would be lost of ever retrievin g ourselves. He was quite sure that the question could no longer remain in the state it now is. —(Hear, hear.) He was prepared, not only t o a l ter the existing-law, but to face the dreaded c hange of its entire repeal. He believed that the country Wo uld be bett er un d er t h e c h ange, t h at i t would benefit all el . aS teS—all interests— an d none more so t h an t h e ngricul 'lir interest ,al itself. He did not d es p a i r o f fi n di ng t h e nigh t Hon. . _ Baronet a lli e d w i t h t h em on a f uture occasion, and seekin g for a total repeal; there was nothing inlhis s peech which indicated any great affection for the present system. M. BEN ETT felt himself called upon, as the repre selltative of a l arge agr i cu l tura l coun ty, t o a de ress th e Hou se, even after the debate had been so long protracted. --e contended that the manufacturing interests had not Yet Met with any of the evils complained of ; they only . L alt tahnettDated them—ever since the peace, that interest ac been told that it was impossible, while pew continued th the_ bad could maintain the manufacturing superiority, and the'Y bad often been told the old proverb, 'h make hay while t l sun shines." They said their property ad declined, but i r '' e fact was their capital had been drawn into a number of manufacturers and it was a natural consequence that the small thanufacturers must sink. By their own showing this year tilaejaehtuardendo case whatever. They nosy came to that House ringing they wanted to import corn and to pay for it by ma goods, but their former assertion was that unless 4 w ages of this country were reduced, they could not main hn their footing in the foreign markets. They said no set: 'g CO W about wages—they even came and said their 1.1 e rne --their entire object was to raise wages. That t h ° , ll se knew, and the labourers of this country knew— : altoboieci)r intention was to reduce wages.—( Hear.) It was uponof wages alone. They boasted that there were persons engaged in the cotton trade dependent t s l) ,3` toe crops in America. In order to bolster up their p me were they to run the risk of starving those 150,000 li e ti r e t n s ? That might be consistent with the views of po eee -1 e conomists, but it was not with hi=. The political wolettliet legislated for w ea lth, and wealth alone—he mass t lid legi s l ate for the happiness and comfort of the great °I . the pe o pl e ; an d h e was o blig e d t o r eco ll ec t th a t he labourers, or operatives, call them by which name they e „ s ,ed, wer e the most important of that mass—it was them s a i d gave value to the land and to the machine. They , si d that the labourers who would be thrown out of cm rri°jrnent would be drafted away to the manufacturing dis that's; but look at the misery they must undergo before hand change took place, as was instanced in the case of the h on ' l ° o ra weavers. Let the manufactures provide for the forth 0 co nsumption —that was the legitimate consumption e to_, m anufactures of the country. While the agricul detat interest flourish e d, t h e manu f actures cou ld never b e fae l) t r e e e sse d• No man had a greater respect for the menu de factures tha n hi mse lf ; b ut he trusted they would not en tha"ur to monop o li se th e p ro fi ts o f f ore i gn countr i es an d or e profits of our own country by the destruction k ,, . a g s lculfure. —( Hear, hear, hear.) He should vote f or the present motion, because he thought it uncalled G t. ' because he was anxious to stop agitation, and because p:, w r as anxious the farmer should have some confidence in th' t 'utolent and in the laws of his country, and should have it ° Power of investing his capital with some sort of secu r Y,..---(Cheers ) O'CONNELL said it was quite clear that there 00 tlmost an irresistible temptation to make long speeches btont sea27eninlraews and to repeat a great deal of what had two thine s •--' ( Hear, hear.) He promised the House hear) e . fir st , to make a very short epeec'u—( Hear, been already next to repeat es little as possible of what had fallen said. He must, however, refer to what had ;I_ llo from the Hon. Baronet opposite, for he had called lls n him Personally and had said there was a speech of (M, 14a de t O'Connell's) reported in which he was si r o say that " Ireland would receive a Wa n g bloW from the repeal of the Corn-laws, but that he f ro content with it because it would draw the eye-teeth 1,0- eft}e landed aristocracy. He believed the Hon. Ba not 1 , ad read this report of his speech, but merely a t er , lt s graPb, and there was this difference between a repor- Iteo s report and a paragraph, that the Reporters reported to rten 4ra telY what was stated, while the paragraph writer dis tha,,, it as much as he pleased. Now be did not state 1 18 4 Lae Corn -laws would be a great blow to Ireland, but r egret sa id the reverse. —(Cheers.) He felt something like vt that the repeal of the Corn-laws would not be disad oftitiageous to Ireland, because he would have hada feeling cri l easure in asking for justice to Ireland, to make a sa e„ue° for justice to England.—( Hear, hear.) As to the t h e teeth, those symbols of wisdom, " leae he had never l am _ et notion o f extract i ng th em from the 4 secl arti stocracy.—( G r eat l aug hter.) He was for a ve . :l )4 l of the Corn -laws on principle. The Corn-laws l ands sou ght to b e supporte d to g i ve a pre f erence t h e u interest over the other classes of the community. bat. y 1:11" and cheers.) It was not candid to deny Th e y Cheers.) What did the landed aristocracy want ? el le , of outdo get rich at the expense of others.--( Loud Peopt e No, no," and Hear, ear.") They wanted the ...._ tnti to Pay more for their rent t'haa they otherwise wonld r nak _ Yet they affected to deny it was not a struggle to oasi e e the landed aristocracy rich at the expense of other Wo u l d (Cheers.) If they had not that object in view s ;. , ,airlat "i_ey com e d own i n such strong phalanxes, battling ban t or uie House ' going into C omm i ttee. It was a rem tosi, no th e feudal system—(Laught er an d c h eers) — that d4.til of only the revenue but actual power. The wis good subeequent generations had taken away a Itai...t. ,deal of the power, some of which still re niai; o ; it Was thought the revenue' ought to re -5c so riLif i: , ,aasrltdh c yth only l gave y the preference to landed property, fact ll 'aere was more safety in that than in the other. The wanted to extort higher prices for their W t wag o s ut of the other classes of the community—( No, ne ) „, w idle to attempt to deny it.—(Cheers.) They o v' a a,o y ted to prevent the poor person who could now obtain aii ' es one slice of bread for a penny, from getting two aged mi l :l t his penny.—( Hear, hear.) They were high, ni.. l b Y, and dignified, and yet they were struggling, i s , le after night to et fr ti wre'ehed, the miserable pJrTohesrern. ainder of get fro m the wretched, thu miserable r ntor of the sentence waslost amidst the up i.ea6,l u a erie s of Hear, hear, on the Conservative benches, eeie by loud Ca, ers from the :lout;. Corn-law p'rtY.) yeas for if the Corn-laws did not produce them money, ""'"••••.....—__ what would they be strti,eeeling for.—(Cheers.) If the Corn-laws were of any value, it was te) make their estate.; more valuable. It %N cold he the idlest thing in the word to place themselves in the situation of exe,rtioners, without gaining anything by it.—( Cries of Oh, oh and cheers.) The principle on which the Corn-laws were founded, that of getting more money fur the landed proprietors out of the woi king classes of the community, was a principle he repudiated, and was of itself sufficient to enable him to de cide in favour of voting for the repeal. But there was another principle involved, the principle of free trade— (Hear, hear)—for it had baen shown that the class who came forward and called for a rep-al, was ready to give up the protection on other articles of commerce. The Delegates had passed a unanimous resolution, calling on the House not only to repeal the Corn-laws, but to re peal every other law that could be called a protection for any article—( Hear, hear)—and he for one would not be their advocate, if they were not ready to do so.—( Hear, hear.) The painciple he advocated was a principle of free trade in everything—letting every man buy as cheap as he could--letting every man in the community procure at as reasonable a rate as he could, the products of this and every other country.—( Hear.) Wee he to be told that that plan would destroy their manufactures? lie did not believe it. —( Hear.) Point out to him any country that had a free trade, and that was the worse for it.—( Hear, hear.) He would defy them to do it. Fortunately a report had been laid upon the table within the last four weeks that illustrated this doctrine completely. He maintained that the element of prosperity was perfect free trade, and that the principle of monopoly was a vicious principle. The spirit of our ancestors was a monopolising spirit, robbing each other to make the nation rich. --( Hear, and a laugh.) How many folio volumes, and hundreds of folio volumes, had been put together to prove the benefit of the monopoly to the East Indies, yet they had repealed that monopely. (Hear.) How many sagacious speeches had been made in that House to show the benefit of the monopolies in the time of James the First and Charles the First. The good sense of the public had trod the most of those monopolies under foot.—(Cries of " Hear.") The monopoly of corn and every other article would soon fol low, and those who praised and supported those monopolies would be laughed at, as any man would now be for be lieving in witchcraft.—(Hear, hear.) But had they not in the report that had been laid before them within the last few weeks demonstrative proof of the value of getting rid of that monopoly. Ile would take two States, and if they would give him leave, he would take the Papal State first.—( Hear, hear, and a laugh) A Government more anxiously disposed to act kindly towards its subjects could not exist. They were about three millions, and it was impossible for the reigning Prince to have any other in terest than that of the people at large. In that State more money was expended in charitable works, hospitals, attending the sick, and feeding the poor than in any other country three times its size in any part of Europe, including even the benevo lence of this most benevolent nation. But what had been their conduct ? They had been protecting their manufac tures, they had been paying money out of the public trea sury to assist their manufactures ; they had given protec tive duties, and had created prohibitions, and yet what was the result of all that ? The report stated that "on the whole the report furnished by the Roman Governor pre sents a melancholy picture of that part of Italy, notwith standing the enormous sacrifices made by the Papal Go vernment. The protection, the prohibition, the premium given for what is called native industry, in Rome and else where, the measures taken to increase manufacturing com merce, have been the main cause of its decline and decay." That was the result of a Government of protection and pro hibition—that was the bcau ideal of the protective and prohibitive system. But then the State of Tuscany offered a different picture. There the principle of free trade had been acted upon for twenty five years, and what had been the result? According to the Report, "twenty years of free trade had led to a vast extension of cultivation ; to a great increase of building, both in town and country ; to the establishment of new manufactories ; to an increasing consumption of the luxu ries of life, a general rise of wages, and a universal senti ment of growing prosperity." There was a perfect free trade in corn, and in everything. Behold the result—see that glowing picture of national prosperity.— ( Hear, hear.) It went on to say—" Property has become of more value, and the revenue has increased." There they had the effect of free trade and the effects of prohibition. During this debate Ireland had had many a professing friend. He believed the Hon. Baronet, the Member for Essex, had talked of being a friend to Ireland, but certainly he had the oddest way of showing his friend ship.—(Loud laughter.) Ireland had many a friend in this debate, but it reminded him of the story of the blessing which was given because it cost nothing.— (Laughter.) When Ireland wanted political rights, and sought to be placed in the same situation as England she had no friend, but when a monopoly was sought to be sup • ported she was overwhelmed with them.--(Hear, hear, and laughter.) Could any man be more attached to the interests of the Irish than himself.—( Ironical cheers on the Conservative benches, met by counter cheers from the Ministerial.) Why he was the only man in existence who was paid by a nation.—(Continued cheering on both sides of the House.) Governments paid men, but he was not paid by a Government. If any man living was anxious for the prosperity of Ireland ought not he to be so—nay. more, if he was even disposed to quote the prejudices of the Irish people agairst his conscience and judgment, ought not he to become, in pretence at least, what his friend the Member for Limerick (Mr. O'Brien) conscientiously, but not consistently, was the advocate of some kind of Corn law. He had stood against combinations before in his native city, when he thought they were likely to be injurious to manufactures. When the people of Ireland were wrong before, be exposed their errors. He would do the same now. But they had said that the repeal of the Corn-laws, would be a heavy blow to Ireland. Now t , he would ask, what could Ireland lose by it? The Horrourable Member for Wilts had said, that the effect of a repeal of the Corn laws, would be to lower wages in Ireland, He would ask, how could they lower the wages in Ireland? Ireland had had the benefit of the Corn-laws for many years, and the labourers of that country had enjoyed the splendid wages of sixpence a-day when they could get em ployment; that was, they were paid at the rate of a half. penny an hour, when they could get work !—( Hear, hear.) But let them look farther into the immense benefits which Ireland had derived under the Corn-laws. The Report of the Poor-law Commissioners said that there were 2,300,000 persons destitute the greater part of the year in Ireland, and 600,000 who had great difficulty in getting occasional employment. The Hon. Member for Limerick came out and said that a repeal of the Corn-laws would throw 200,000 persons out of employment, but there were 600,000 already who could not get work. But the Irish labourers had suffered under another evil. The Agricul tural Report showed that while the English labourers had recovered the injury which had been inflicted on them by the change of the currency—that most extraordinary beneficial measure matured by the Right Hon. Bart., the Member for Tamworth—the Irish labourerers were still sinking under it. He would refer to the Report of Mr. Nichols, on which they had legislated. He said the aspect of Ireland had somewhat improved—still it was impossible adequately to describe the miseries of the people. Now what could the 2,300,000 wretches lose by a repeal of the Corn-laws ?—( Hear, hear.) The Hon. Gentleman opposite had boasted much of their great sym pathy for Ireland—yet when they were not able to raise 2,500,0001. to commence those railways, which promised to diffuse so much permanent benefit through the country, they refused to allow the Irish to borrow the money on the credit of England—while at the same time they were actually exporting capital to the United States. The Hon. and Learned Gentlemen then quoted again from the report of Mr. Nichols—referring to the contrast be tween the state of England and Ireland. That gentleman said, the soil of this country teemed with the wealth of accumulated industry—mills were at work in every direc tion—navigation was busy on every river, and forests of masts crowded every port—in the other, Ireland, the soil, though naturally fertile, was but scantily cultivated—the sound of industry was heard but in a few favoured spots, and its capacious rivers displayed a so litary sail at remote intervals. Now look at the one picture and on the other, and let them tell him what Ireland had to apprehend from a change in the pre sent system. He wished that the aristocracy should be made to give an additional stimulus to manufactures, and to increase the market for them in foreign countries by our admitting their corn into this. The influence of this ex tended demand would gradually advance to the capital of the manufacturers in Ireland, arid labourers, instead of only getting occasional work at 63, a-day, would be em ployed at good wages from week to week. He would refer to a meeting that had taken place not long since at Roscommon, to petition against a repeal of the Corn laws. That meeting had been attended by those who on other occasions were not very cordial to the Irish people, as well as many others who were most deeply interested in their welfare. However they agreed on a petition to Parliament, and one paragraph of the petition contained the following remarkable passage :—" And your petitioners further show, that our manufactures are destroyed, and commerce has been ruined." Here were petitioners in favour of the Corn• laws, telling Parliament, that the manufactures anti commerce of Ireland had been destroyed—then they went on to say that " The greater portion of our produce goes into the pockets of absentee proprietors residing in Eng land. By that the capital of England was increased while that of Ireland was diminished—in short, agriculture is the only cause of our national prosperity." Beautiful pros perity indeed, they have to boast of, when they had stated that their commerce was destroyed, and their manufac tures ruined. They clung to the fragment of be nefit which the Corn-laws gave them, forgetting what a stimulus industry would receive if the corn of foreign countries were once admitted in ex change for goods in this—as long as the agriculturists of the Continent were prevented from selling their corn to us, they would be disabled from buying our manufactures. He (Mr. O'C.) was really at a loss to see of what permanent or extensive advantage the Corn-laws were, either to the Irish farmer or labourer. The Hon. Member for Limerick had said, that clearances were already going on in [rebind. Yes, they were. Where, then, were the resources which agriculture furnished to Ireland ? Let the 2,360,000 des titute persons, as mentioned in the. Report of the Puor-law Commissioners, answer. But he ( Mr. O'C.) could tell where the Irish labourers found a resource—they found a resource in the manufactures of England—there was notone English manufacturing town, which did not support twenty, thirty, forty, sixty, aye 80,000 Irish labourers. Further, to show the state of agriculture in Ireland, he would remind them that within the last six years half the land had come under the operation of Stanley's Act, by which the land was let from year to year, and whenever the landlord did not think his bargain advantageous, he gave the tenant notice to quit. Now nothing except the stimulus of manufacturing industry would place the agricul tural and the general population in Ireland in that state of permanent social happiness which it was his chief desire to sea her i n th e possess i on Ironical cheers from the Oppositio n , f o ll o W e d b y c h eers f rom t h e Lib e ral side of the H ouse.) resources oflerelawnedul He cared not what foul in sinuations were thrown out against him for party purposes. He hisnly developed conviction by the that would o u r l e d p b eat e o dif fusion or' manufactures. He would call upon the House, by a timely act, to avert the consequences which must THE SUN, LONDON, TUESDAY, MARCH 19, 1839. ensue both to England and Ireland. If the Corn-laws were to be continued and foreign manufactures aided by our capital and workmen leaving cur shores in in ci easing numbers as they now did, he was sure the results were not as yet fairly apprehended. The supporters of the Corn-laws were now only protected by the Chartists—by the torch and dagger-men—who prevented the feelings of the rational part of the community from being expressed. —( Cries of " Hear, hear," and " Oh, oh.") Rational men were now disgusted by those foolish persons who would not, however, much longer intervene between the supporters of the Corn-laws and public opinion. The Chartists, however, did not want to pay court to the Mem. bers of that House—they called them usurpers—they called themselves the virtuous Representatives of the people— as Choy spoke for 23,000,000—while those he (Mr. O'Connell) now addressed represented 700,000 —they were against all power—let only those opposite come into power, and see how the Chartists would shout against them. But no w a ll c l tsses were b eg i nn i ng to see t h e necessity of stimulating manufacturing industry; even in Ireland the farmers were becoming completely enlightened on the subject, and were beginning to denounce the existence of the Corn-laws, as injurious to the best interests of them selves, and the English people.—( Contradictory cheers from both sides of the House. ) Lord SANDON remarked that the Honourable and Learned Member for Dublin had resorted to his usual cry of both the widow and the orphan, and hed endeavoured to rai a the poor above the rich, outside the House. The lion. and Learned G en tl eman h a d asserte d t h at agr i cu l tura l pro tection was of no value, but many of the most enlightened nations in the world had experienced its value and still continued it. In the United States and in France, even in Holland, in Belgium, in fact, in almost every country throughout the world, there was protection to agri culture. How then could the llonourable and Learned Gentleman ascribe the support of the Corn-laws in this country to the avaricious ty ranny of the British landlords. But it seemed that while the opponents of the Corn-laws cried out fur their annihilation, they were still determined not to surrender the protection which manufactures now received. This feeling was implied by one of their authorities in Manches ter, who lately said in one of his works, " If manufac tures could stand without protection, as well as any other branch, I should rejoice," thereby leaving it to be under stood that he still thought protection indispensable to ma nufactures.—( Hear.) The Hon. Gentleman said that Ire land would not suffer by a repeal of the Corn-laws, and yet he urged that Poland, Russia, Prussia, Germany, and other nations would derive great benefit by being permit ted to export their corn to England. Now, he ( Lord S.) begged leave to ask, why was it that Ireland should not derive benefit from exporting corn to England as well as to those countries ?—( Hear.) The Noble Lord was under steed to enter into some of the statements of the manufac turers for the purpose of disproving them.. What his ar guments were the great noise which prevailed in the House, atom the buzz of conversation, and the very indistinct ut terance of the Noble Lord, rendered it utterly impossible to guess. We only caught the conclusion—that, in his Opinion, the Corn-laws had not injured the manufacturing interests. Mr. HARVEY said—Sir, upon the many speeches that have been made during this protracted debate, it is no dis paragement to the many able treatises and essays on political economy, which have been delivered—it is no dis paragement of those powers of memory, by which some Hon. Members have been able to commit to their minds, entire pamphlets of statistics, which might be purchased at any waste shop for the small sum of eighteenpence— (Great laughter)—it is in no disparagement of all these cis cumstanct s, that I am free to say, that at the close of the fifth night's discussion, I feel and find this subject more con fused than it was at first.—( Hear, and much laughter). Sir, there are so many statements which may be assumed as facts, and which are advanced with all the bold ness of facts, and there are so inany true infer ences from them, if the statements were not false— ( A laugh)—but there is scarcely any position either in favour of the Corn-laws or against them—either in favour of their being relaxed or being made more stringent, which I will venture to say any Hon. Gent. in this House will not be able amply to demonstrate.—( Hear, and cheers. ) With this impression therefore, strong in my mind, and feeling the force of that truth so frequently uttered, and as we approach the termination of the discussion, more properly ent r rdoneoupstnl intend ge li r ee l d ) nn , s cti u ti oehrr shrink e dfk d edt 0 , that frhrueeosn ms t nothing new can he said, that I should House, riyt ma i f k ( i l n i g eed:i. a der t ,n l r fo a eot p ar p fret eL el l the ttf t ihei o aawtt mtt kindnesslioeemrreee niis sts sa agnraie whichdi class in this country whose interests have been only very slightly and incidentally touched upon—and it is to me a gratification to find the industrious community, the great source of our national power, and the origin of nu national wealth, whether it is thrown into the soil, or whether it resides in the hands that move the manufactur ing power—it is to me a gratification to find them assuming their appropriate position, not by their being present in their own persons, or having any direct representatives in this House, but by the course of policy adopted either by the influence of feelings, honestly entertained, or hypocri tically feigned, that the labouring community have become essentially involved in the question under our consideration. —(Hear, hear, hear.) Sir, I take leave to say, however, notwithstanding the partial and gleaming allusions in va rious forms to their interests, that if any of them had been present, and that the debate had been stiffered to close where it now stands, they would justly impute to that por tion of the representation of the people that they suffered their plramount interests to pass by without being duly noticed. It is then, Sir, not for the purpose which would not belong to me of discussing this grave subject in all its bearings, as was so ably sad dexterously done by the Right Hon. Baronet the Member for Tarnworth, but merely humbly to solicit the House while I make a very few remarks, having almost ex clusive relation to this particular class of persons, that I now venture to address it.—( Hear, hear.) At the same time, while I do identify myself with them—while I ac knowledge myself to have sprung from them, and to be of their number—in discussing this question I wish not to treat it as if I was exclusively the representative of the wet king classes. Sir, I not only listened to the speech of the Right Hon. Baronet with that attention which his sta tion and his great prdtensions justify, but I have done that which perhaps even his most ardent admirers cannot say_ I have read it word for word—( Hear, and a laugh)---and . - I can say, with great truth, that it would have been ex tremely unjust to those gentlemen in whom this discussion is said to have originated, had the debate closed on Friday night--( Hear)—because that speech called to my mind the speech of another lion, and distinguished Member on the slave trade, which made at the time such an astounding effect that even soup Hun. Members who were, in some degree, prepared for it, were staggered by the statements it contained; and I can easily believe that many Hon. Gentlemen, who were the auditors of the speech of the Right Hon. Gentleman on Friday night, especially that powerful party by whom he is surrounded), went away with the impression that it was one of the most unanswerable and overwhelming that was oven ever made by himself— ( Loud cheers from the Tory benches)—and in one par ticular, I own, it was, for he certainly did shiver to pieces his opponents.—( Renewed cheering.) He raked the economists without any frugality—he bombarded the Go vernment with great success—he hurled at them the whole weight of the fifty- pounders, and the whole agricultural in terest of the kingdom, who were delighted and almost reeled with intoxication under his influence.—(Great laughter and cheering.) But, although it was a power ful speech, the Right Hon. Bart. will pardon me for stating that it was not the speech of a Statesman.—(Cheers.) All that he stated might be perfectly true, and yet it was beside the question.—( Hear, hear.) What though it might be true—and certainly it appeared to be so—that the Hon. Member for the City of London admitted the difference between the average importation of corn under restriction, and that which would flow into this country in the absence of all restriction, would only amount to some thing like 400,000 or 500,000 quarters? Supposing he had made, and no doubt he did make the statement, I do not apprehend the Honourable Member for the City of London is the Corn-meter of the country.—(Laughter. tie may have his calculations and his speculations, but they do not alter the question.—( Hear, hear.) Then again the Right Hon. Baronet seemed to think he had demo lished the case of the petitioners, who were the owners of the great manufacturing establishments ; he stated that they wished us to infer that the commerce of the country was decaying, and that their circumstances were of a most alarming description • but be says " there is no truth in the statement, as I will show, because when I come to com pare the amount of expenditure in 1837 and 1838 I find the latter exceeded the former by many millions." If that were true, if the amount of exportations in 1838 were greater than in the year 1837, but if it was also greater than it had been in the preceding years, I at once own, as far as they are concerned, he would have success fully shaken their claim.—( Cries of " Hear, hear.") Though I do not appear here as the advocate of of the master manufacturers, having had no communication with them whatever, craving no personal partiality to to them, but having, if possible, a prejudice in favour of rural life, I only view this statement as one sitting here anxious and desirous of coming to a sound and deliberate judgment, free from all considerations of a personal cha racter.—( Hear, hear.) Sir, I hear these statements are challenged. I have heard from the Chairman of the Chamber of Commmerce at Manchester, that they are not true.—( Hear, hear.) Nut that they are not really true, but that if the Hon. Baronet the Member for Tamworth had only condescended impartially to balance facts— ( Hear, hear)—l hear it said that if he had only conde scended to compare the year 1838 with the year 1836, that the difference would have been substantial on the other side.—( Hear, hear.) Sir, the commerce of this country, whether you seek to establish its prosperity or its declining condition, is not to be determined by the compari son of two years.—( Great cheering.) There may be cir cumstances to account for a small exportation in one year and a surplus in another, but it is with reference to a se ries of years, and all the circumstances connected with commerce by which, and by which alone the great point is to be established.—( Ironical cheering.) Leaving, I was about to say, this important branch to be carried out, as no doubt it will be by the Hon. Gentleman whose privilege it is to reply to this debate, who has an immediate communication with the petitioners, who has a far greater knowledge than I have of the details on this subject—leav ing this branch to be handled by him, I now proceed to another point. The Right Hon. Baronet has, with many of those who have spoken on this subject, been, for obvious reasons, for intelligible reasons, anxious to connect him self with the interest of the condition of the working classes; he has gone into a series of figures for the pur pose of establishing their improving condition in reference to the Sayings' Banks.—( Hear, hear). Now I admit, if it could be shown that the depositors in Savings' Banks throughout the country—if it were capa ble of proof, that those who may be considered as the labouring classes, whether in agriculture, or in menu ' factures, were the real depositors in those banks, and if it could be shown that their numbers were increasing, and that the amount of their capital was increasing also, then I should believe that the Right Hon. Gentleman has gone a great way in shaking the case of the petitioners. But is this to? The Right Honourable Bart. instanced the returns for many places, from Liverpool, from Lei cester, from Nottingham, from Birmingham, from Manchester, and also from Glasgow.—( Hear, hear.) But the number of those depositors is comparatively so few when contrasted with the millions coming under the denomination of the labouring classes, and the amount when it comes to be divided among those who form those classes, that it furnishes very little evidence of the fact which the Right Hon. Gentleman wished to establish. All that the Right Hon. Gentleman established was this, that the improved amount of each depositor, during the period over which his calculations extended, was 2s. 7d. each individual.—( Laughter.) I take that not only from the words used by the Right Hon. Gentleman at the time, as I took them down, but also from the statement in his reported speech. In that speech he stated the average amount of each deposit was 5/. 7s. lid., and that during the late war it was it 51. 163. 6d. Sir R. PEEL—Only Glasgow. Mr. D. W. HARVEY—Yes—that was the only in stance when the Right Hon. Baronet came to what I might call demonstrative detail.—(Great cheering.) He has therefore advanced this proposition at Glasgow, that the improved condition of the depositors in the Bank are equal to the sum of 2s. 7d. in the year,—(Laug - hter.) There are some important considerations connected with that statement. It was delightful to hear that they could even save that, because it shows how thoy are approaching to the character of capitalists.—(o Hear" and great cheer. ing.) However much the Right lion. B tronet and his party object to repealing taxes, when it serves their purpose to show that the condition of the labourer is improved, 2s. 7d. is no slight sum in their financial account.—(Bear, hear.) The Right Hon Baronet has discovered another improve ment in the condition of the people of Glasgow, and that is with respect to coal—he stated that the number of tons of coal at one year, contrasted with a later period, was something more than double, and from that he inferred that they were in a very warm and improving eon dition.—( Hear, hear, and laughter.) But he also made this admission that the increase of population in Glasgow was in a much greater ratio.--( Hear, hear). There is, there fore, nothing remarkable when the population is doubted, in finding that the consumption is doubled also.—( Hear, hear.) Sir, I merely mede these remarks, as they presented themselves to my mind, on the speech of the Right Hon. Gentleman, and it w ill not f a il t o s t r ik e the House, as it will the country, with fearful importance I understand the Right Hon. Gentleman to advance this proposition:—He says a great revolution is going on in the manufacture of the country ; it has been stated and not denied that the numbers of your manufactures is increasing, that they are presenting their hideous forms in our manu facturing districts and towns—( Hear, hear)—and he also states, from the information of his Hon. Friend near him, that at Preston at least they arc in active employment; and he says the little manufacturers must be prepared to be swallowed up in those greater and more powerful manufactories which capitalists are in every district raising —they must learn a lesson from the melancholy case of the hand-loom weaver. Why, Sir, does not this suggest in quiry ? and does it not raise the fears and apprehensions of that class of persons whose capital is small, and whose machinery is defective, and who are thus little able to compete with the great leviathan of capital which is springing up ?—( Hear, hear.) Sir, it is one of the mighty evils bearing down the industry of the country, and annihilating the small and industrious ma. nufacturer, that they are day after day falling beneath the powerful strokes of others.—( Hear, hear.) It is the same thing with our farmers : the race of little farmers, who were the pride of the country, and who inherited their property for many centuries from their forefathers —what has become of them ? They hale been swal lowed up by cur great capitalists and loan•mongers, who have thrown the small farms into large farms, and by the power of capital are turning the yeomen of the country into labourers and into paupers—(Cheers)—and the comfort which is now held out to the men of small capital, embarked in manufactures, is, that they must be prepared to meet the doom and destiny of the hand-loom weavers ; and yet, when such is their condition, we are to be told that all this is another instance of the growing prosperity of the commercial community. (Hear, hear.) Sir, the Right Hon. Baronet the Member for Pembroke also delivered his sentiments upon the sub ject, and he sought, with great skill too, enlist the sympa thies and feelings of the agricultural community, by con trasting the happy lot of him who is engaged in tilling the soil, with the wretched and melancholy condition of him who is immured in our crowded cities, intoxicated with tee poisonous fumigations and feverish drafts around him.— Sir, it was delightful to listen to that poetical description —( Cheers and laughter)—in which he called your atten tion to the lowly home of the cottager upon the hill side. He would fain had you to believe that all our agricultural labourers are in a state of enviable prosperity—( Hear)—that they are to be seen musing at evening, putting up with their little inconveniences, that they may receive their children upon their knees, who are at home waiting their sires' return. Hear.) If he had been allowed to read Gray's Elegy, it would not have been more touching.—(Cheers and laughter.) Sir, is this true? Can an Honourable Mem ber who sat so incessantly on the Poor-law Committee, have so completely shut out from his mind the evidence that he heard there ? And, is there not in this House, an endeavour to beguile us by the display of his fascinating eloquence, and the witchery of his fancy.—( Cheers.) He has advccated the doctrine before all men that the la bouring man must be thrown ou his own resources—that the standard of the value of his labour must be, that which he can receive in the workhouse.—( Cheers.) Why, Sir, is it to be said and go forth to the country, as an insult to the working community, especially among the agricultural classes, that their condition is at the present moment improving ? and with the hypocrisy with which it originates it is impossible not to feel a deep disgust. Because, Sir, to say that the agricultural labourer receives wages which arc commensurate with the rise in the price of his food, is a statement which will be denied by every workman in England, in every, county in England.— (Cheers.) But, Sir, there is as much of deception as there is of fallacy in the statement. The Hon. Gentle. man knows well, and so does the formidable party about him, that they cannot sustain the Corn-laws for another hour, unless they can strengthen themselves by causing it to be believed that this is only in a subordinate sense a landlord's question, but that it is in a direct sense the tenant's question, and above all this, it is the question of the labouring community.--(Cheers.) Now, Sir, I am prepared to contend that it is primarily a landlord's ques tion—( Hear, hear)—that to a considerable degree, as it affects a certain class, it is a tenant's question—and it is indeed a deep question, as it affects the labouring community, but just in the converse sense entertained by Hon. Gentle men opposite.—( Loud cheers). It is obvious, and Ido not at all agree with my Right lion. Friend, the Member for Wolvorhampton, who, in what he said, justified the in ferences from it, that the landlords and cultivators of the soil, are men of little education, and unacquainted with business and attached to localities—(Laughter)—quite the reverse. They are a very able and dexterous class of men—they have lived too long and been too closely con nected with the landlords not to know their own interest— (Cheers and laughter). And therefore I understand the motive which led the Right Hon. Baronet to enforce that point so eagerly, that he might enlist on his side that powerful party, the tenants, throughout the land, and that they might read that powerful and eloquent vindication which they received at the hands of the great leader of that great party—that he stepped in and vindicated them —said they were scholars, they were men of businesl, and that they were fond of their homes, though they never failed to leave them when there was anything to be got by it.—( Cheers and laughter.) I agree with him they are men not indifferent to or ignorant of their own interests. But, Sir, as it regards the first proposition—and it is im portant this should be dwelt upon, that this is not a land lord's question—and yet they are extremely anxious to call our attention to the pressure of what they Gall taxation, and its bearing upon the landlords ; now, at least to that extent, it is a landlord's question; but, as was said over and over again, so fir from the landlords being taxed more than any other class of the community, they are not only exempted from all taxation, but they positively benefit by everything around them. If we were to go into an ac count, and I should like to go into a committee of ac count—a debt and credit account to be taken on the one hand between the proud aristocracy of the land, the essential part of our Constitution, forming not only its boast, but its strength, which may be considered as the most beautiful parts in the great edifice, and which must be sustained there at every expense—l should like to have an account taken bat Keen the landlord as to what he actually pays in direct taxation and what he actually receives, because I never heard it mentioned in the course of this debate. The amount of our revenue—to say nothing of the cost of its collection, nor of the accumula tion arising from the charges which those who have to pay make on the consumer—not to go into that—it may be taken in round numbers at 50,000,000/. a year. It would not be difficult to show,and it is important that the labouring community should usierstand it,that out of thatso,ooo,ooo/., if you were to go into Committee to ascertain the fact, I will venture to say that upwards of 30,000,000/. of that money falls directly upon the labouring community.—( Hear, bear.) And of the remaining 20,000,0001. I will challenge the Right lion. Baronet to show anything approaching to 5,000,0001., even conceding to them the items which they won enumera te, are exclusively bo rne b y the landlord. I - der whether they ever went over the various items of our expenditure. There is a return made to thi s H ouse which may be taken as a sam p le of the great Prosperi ty o f the land, a return no t made very remo i lei y, in whi c h the places held by every Gen tleman in thishouse are s e t f orth with the salaries and advantages they rec e i ve. Now when I consider how many Members of this H ouse are in the Navy, how many in the Army, how many in civil appointments, and then travel through their dependants, and take a walk through all our great establishments, financial establishmat3—lock over the list of clerks— the Custom-house —the Excise-office —the Stamp -office. An HoN MENinEa on the Opposition—The Hackney coach Office.—( L au ghter. ) Mr. H A RYE Y—The Hon. Gentleman says, with ex ., the Hackney-coach Offi ce. taste, quisite (Cheers and laughter.) All these offices—they only strengthen my argument. It wi ll be found that those who are imme diately the land, and contend that diately connected they are ion t entitled to exemption from taxat hey are receivinrr back a great deal more than they pay from the general ex penses of the country. This I "Y---they have a direct interest in supporting the establishment, because while they pay with one hand they are abundantly remune rated in the other. But, Sir, without enumerating (Loud cries of " Oh, oh," and " Order, order.") The moment the House expresses a wish that I should sit down I will at once do so.—( Cheers.) Without enumerating, or still less attempting to enumerate the claims of these Gentlemen to exemption from taxation, which they say presses hard upon the land, such as the malt-tax, the land-tax, Church-rates, an d payments of that description without fatiguing the House with arguments about these claims, believing, as I do, that the only item of the whole which comes from the land is the land -tax—yet I wish to call the attention of the House for a moment to the manner in which you put forward this claim for exemption. The lion. Member for the North Riding of Yorkshire (Mr. Cayley), among other things which pressed hard:upon the land,enurnerated Church -rates; I,e said th e y we re one of the expenses of the so il. H as the Hon. Gentleman, or the House forgot that when an ef fort waA made to secure the Dissenters from the payment of the Church -rate, the whole of the Gentlemen opposite were up in arms to oppose it, not only Church grounds, but did they not impute to us who supported the measure, and to those who brought it in, that, while we were bringing it forward and supporting it under the pretence of re lieving our consciences we were attempting to relieve our estates ?—( Hear, hear.) I have not heard it re peated in the present debate. You said, " Did you not purchase your lands subject to Church -rates, and are you, with religious hypocrisy, to come into this House, and re quire to be relieved from a payment on conscientious grounds. Did you not purchase your land subject to that demand." I, Sir, perfectly concurred in that view of the question, and I now apply it to the land-tax. You must recollect that It is not one of your modern taxes which has lately been imposed, and therefore is not one which you will talk of dying in the ditch for—this is one which has existed for more than a century and a lflf. There fore any one who inherits, or any one who purchases an estate, must have inherited it subject to that demand; and he must have purchased it either free of the land-tax, and therefore paid more money for it, or purchased it subject to the land-tax, and paid less. Upon what principle, then, is it that the landlords can claim any protection from the Corn Ales? It is remarkable, that no one person during the debate has endeavoured to vindicate any Corn-law, upon any other ground than because protection is called for, because of the high state of taxation and artificial state. Whether you are lightly taxed, or whether you are heavily taxed, the two points wia equally apply. Th4one is this-- and it is one well calculated to rouse the fears of the country—it is, that no country, and especially this country, ought: to be dependent for a supply of corn upon a foreign country.—( Hear, hear.) That is one proposition you advance. The other is, that a Corn-law is necessary to protect you from the influence of climate. Now if either or both of these grounds arc so irresistible as you who have advanced them say, you who urge them contend for what, under all possible circumstances, could be available. But these points have been so successfully answered that I will not detain the House with any answer, as I would merely be travelling over the same ground which has been so often travelled before. I will then only express my surprise that gentlemen should contend that it was right or possible to: limit the supply from the place of its pro duction at home. The more you limit the sphere of your supply, the more you increase the chances of failure.— ( Hear.) The Hoe. Member for North Yorkshire, and he wis joined by the Right Hon. Baronet opposite, said all the corn-growing countries lie pretty much in the same latitude—are liable to the same vicissitudes of climate— and are liable to the same chance of failure. By this they are attempting to show the House that you would be in as bad a condition as ever, even were the laws repealed. (Cries of " Hear, hear.") But surely every one who now hears me must allow that the more you spread your ground, even if it were national, the less likely are you to have a failure:—( Cheers.) Look at the corn districts of this country—if there is a failure in Essex, then it is boasted that there is a fine average crop in some other county, and so you might run through the whole of the counties. Take a case even from the last season. In Hereford there was a very bad show for a crop of hops-- the bine did not look healthy, but this was immediately compensated by the statement that if there was a failure in Hereford, there was the sure prospect of a larger supply in Sussex. Now, Sir, if this applied to this country, surely it applied still more strongly to the Continent.— ( Cheers.) As to the other argument, that you are en titled to protection because you are exposed to the vicissi. tudes of the seasons, that was the most mad of all the schemes he had ever heard propounded. Surely none are so visionary as to attempt to controul the seasons, or to meet such exigencies by law. The seasons move on under the guidance of that system which it may be as well for us to imitate, but it does not belong to human beings to attempt to controul. It is then the more incumbent on us to go back and inquire whether this was a landlord's question. I would only state in a few words what I con sider it to be. lam always anxious to legislate for particular purposes, add would gladly concur in any legis lation which is likely to be beneficial for all classes. lam not ready to believe that there is no other way of dis solving the difficulty but by resorting to an extreme mea sure of a total abolition of the Corn-laws. Such a measure must necessarily entail great mischief on a nume rous portion of the community.—(Cheers.) Look at it with regard to the tenants who are under covenants. In what condition would you place them were yot to rep sal those laws to-morrow ? Are you prepared to compensate them ? lam not prepared to say, we will. I attempt to soothe the landlords with the assurance that free trade will not affect them. It would affect them most deeply, and so it ought.—( fkar,_ hear.) They have had a l o ng reign o f advantages, and the time is at hand when they must be prepared to forego many of them. But as it regards their tenants, they are not free agents. The . number of applicants for farms had so greatly outrun the num ber of farms to be had, that a fearful competition has been excited, of which the landlords have had the benefit; and, therefore, to bring about the system of free trade, by which the fortunes of men cast into the soil are to be deeply and instantly affected, is a state of things that I am not prepared all at once to be a party to. Nor do the observations I am attempting to make less apply to tenants-at-will, because, when we consider that a farmer has generally embarked his all in the soil, and the various implements of industry, what do you fancy would be the value of his cultivation and of the manure he has thrown into the land, and of all the implements with which lie farms it, if he was instantly to be exposed to the free trade system. I therefore think, and said at the com mencement, that I trusted the Right Hon. Baronet ( Sir R Peel) would excuse me for considering that he had not worked with him as a Statesman, though he has dealt in that with triumphant success, as the leader of a powerful party.—(Hear, hear, hear.) But then he said they might not be disinclined to enter into the Committee, and to consider any suggestion for a per manent protective duty on corn, but that they were de terred from doing so, because the Members of her Majesty's Government had not had the courage to say what they in tended. Why, this is all very well for a party leader— (Cheers)—who finds it very dtfficult to keep that crowd of adherence in order. It is all very well for him to say that, but I should have liked to have seen their counte nances, and I should have liked to have heard them exult in common-place, if the Government had said we are pre pared to go into Cordmittee to propose any specific mea sure.—( Hear, hear.) You would not have liked it. You would not have said what is the value of this, because when corn rises, you will be compelled by the force of clamour to issue an Order in Council to revoke it, and when it falls where is the protection.—( Hear, hear.) Well, then, what chance would there have been for success ?—(Cheers.) Look at the party on that side of the House. Look at what will be the majority, and then call to mind what has passed in another place. —(Cheers and laughter.) But then it is said to the Government " Still you ought to come forward as a Cabinet, and take on yourselves the responsibility of your own proposition and take upon you what all Cabinets ought to do when they are beat by their opponents—change hands—let us take your place."—( Laughter.) It is in this respect that I think Hon. Gentlemen opposite make a great mistake. It is one thing for Government to carry out the obvious de sire of the people. It is another thing to run before a course of public opinion. No one laments more than I do the backward policy of the Government in bringing forward measures on which many friends of improved Go vernment are agreed. I have no hesitation in saying what I think, that their hesitative policy has impeded greatly the march of useful reform ; but as I said before, it is one thing for them to adopt and carry into legislation the obvious sense of their friends. It was another for them to endeavour to legislate and subdue the prejudices of the many, and at the present moment there can be no doubt that the great constituent body of this country is di rectly opposed to any important change in 'the Corn.law. —(Great cheering.) I have said that I have been anxious to address myself to the House as the poor man's friend, and as one of their organs. We have had many statements on the other side- not more than we ought to have, be cause if we were to sit to this day week we should not sit too long if the subject is not sufficiently understood. Now, I will only allude to two documents, and that very briefly. It has been contended with great earnestness that when the price of corn is low wages are low, and that when corn advances there is, a corresponding advance in the wages of the labourer. Why if this were really true there would be no advantage in protection whatever. If you give decisively to the labourer that protection which you claim for yourselves, that is an equivalent for the taxa tion to which they are imposed, you would have to intro duce a very diferent system of policy, because what is the amount of taxation on the labouring community. I have referred the Right Hon. Bart. to the Poor-law Commit tee, a Committee into which, for the first time, what was called a poor man ever was allowed to enter. Though you have had master manufacturers to support their cause and be examined before Committees—though you have had landlords and their agents, and the farmers, one after the other examined before Agricultural Committees, yet it was reserved to the Poor-law Committee to bring before it the humble class of the agricultural labourer— and, Sir, when they were before us, and the Right lion. Baronet will not forget, nor will any member of that Committee forget, the exemplary manner in which they conducted themselves—so straightforward and simple was their conduct and their statements that the Chairmau of that Committee was authorised to communicate to those humble men the pleasure and the satisfaction which their conduct and demeanour had given to the Committee. Sir, we went into an analysis of the application of the poor man's wages, and without quarrelling as to the actual amount of the week's wages he received—whether it was Bs., or whether it was 10s., what did. the men state who came before him ? Why that out of their wages, after paying for their - bread, they had Is. 20. wherewith to pay for all the other items of their domestic economy.—( Hear, hear.) Now, Sir, as I am pleading for a class who have no direct representation in this House, I shall be pardoned, for a few moments, if I allude more particularly to this subject. It gives me the greatest delight to see, and I wish I could say it to the assembled thousands and millions of labourers throughout 'the country—that while I am advocating their cause the Senate of England was quiet, attentive, and kind.. They ought to know this and feel very grateful for Hear.) Before this Committee a poor man was examined, whose venerable appearance excited our senti ments of respect both for his conduct and years. His name was James Marshall. He said, if I live to the 6th of June, I shall be 91 years of age." Hare was an old man who had survived all his family to tell the story of nearly a century. He was asked what had been the condition of the labouring population during the greater period of his life. He said, " When I first married, a bushel of malt was 2s. 6d., and every poor person had a bar rel of beer to drink instead of water. It continued so for some time, and then got up to 3s. 6d. It is important to know who puts this question—it is a gentleman connected with a county, and whose property is in the soil. Mr. Rogers asked this question, Did the labouring man in former times used to brew es a general thing ? Yes. How long have they left off brewing?—Ever since the malt got such a price—they could not buy it then. Do you know any poor man who brews his own beer ? Ans. Not one. Do you recollect the rate of wages at the time of the American war? Yes, about 16d. a day, or Se. a week." He was asked would not the labouring men be able to do much more work if they lived betterl the answer was, to be sure, they would. They cannot do half a day's work. Some of them, poor creatures, will drop down when they have a little hard work.—( Cries of "Oh 1 oh r' and Hear, hear, hear). Another person was called, who was only thirty-eight years of age and a question was put to him by a gentleman who, how ever much we may differ with him in politics, must be allowed to have at least some ac quaintance with his profession (Mr. \Vakley) The question was, " Do you feel in performing your work that you have the strength which a man ought to have."—( Cries of " Oh, oh.") The answer was, " No, nor yet half the strength, I am not so strong as I was." Now what is the character of that evidence? The state of the labouring population of whom you seem to be such ardent sympathisers—whose cause you have identified with your own as being interested in the same degree of con servatism—at whose meetings Peers preside, while paupers do the duty of stewards—( Cheers and laughter)-.-whose sentiments now persuade the hereditary Nobles of the land—one of whose maxims has just been quoted by a Noble Duke elsewhere (and in that respect he was cer tainly right, for the quotation was quite as good as if he had made an original remark)—(Laughter and cheers) — that those industrious classes you represent as having so deep a stake in the prosperity of the country—whose com forts are of so manifold a character—whose cottages are crowded with all the emblems of the most felicitous do mestic economy_that all these arc alarmed at the bare idea of a revolution.--( Great laughter and cheers.) This is the inference you would have us draw from this evi dence I Great credit is no doubt now due to these men, who no longer, as in the year 1815, crowd about your doors, menacing Members, and bodily seizing them, and extorting promises from them. We do not now live in such times as those, when, as stated in the " Life of Wil berforce," that venerable gentleman was obliged to gar rison his own house with a body of the military of the country. But that is not because the condition cf the labourers is better than it was then, but because they have become capable of thinking and of judging better.— ( Cheers and laughter from the other side.) The labourers are now able to understand their real interests—( Cheers) —and I rejoice to find that it is so.—( Cheers.) I trust also that when they make an appeal for admission into this House they will be admitted in order that they may have an opportunity of voting for their Conservative friends, and perhaps of giving them more counties than they have already got.—( Laughter and cheers ) I hope that you will not turn round on them then and say that they are uninstructed and ignorant of their duties, and not fit to be trusted with such high political responsibility.— ( Cheers and laughter.) You have already confessed their fitness for those duties—you have associated with them on equal terms—you have become their fellow-mem bers in clubs and associations—their sayings have become your precedents—( Laughter and cheers).—and have become the suj ec t s o f eu l og y. Y ou have praised them for their industry, their intellect, and their moral qualifications—l hope, therefope, if they should present themselves at your bar, praying to b 3 admitted within the pale of the constitution, you will not show these worthy labourers any difference between what you say and what you are prepared to do.—(Laughter and cheers.) I will trouble the House with only one quotation more. I regret that I have troubled the House to such an extent— ( Chesrs)—but the few remaining remarks I have to make will I promise be brought as speedily as possible to a close. It has been said in the course of the debate that the mass of the labouring classes rise with the price of corn and fallas the prices of that commodity fall. Now, I ask, is this an ac curate statement of facts? I hold in my hand a series of addresses to the landowners of England, by one of the largest and most distinguished and most:disinterested land owners of the country, I refer to Earl Fitzwilliam.—( Hear, hear.) No man I think will deny that he is entitled to the credit of disinterestedness, and I only wish that it were consistent with the character of the proceedings of the House to be g in and end one discussion by having the pro ductions of the two Noble Lords whom I have now mentioned read from the Chair.—( Laughter. ) I say Lords, for I take it for granted that they know more of the matter than any one else; that they will have the credit of disinterestedness, and that their production being combinations of much literary taste, cannot but in terest the House. You ought always to have before you the three addresses of Earl Fitz william for an alteration of the Corn-laws, and the three editions, if there be three, of Lord Worsley for the maintenance of the present sys tem. But it seems to have been ordered otherwise, and perhaps it may be all the better. I have now before tne a table of Earl Fitzwilliam's showing the difference between the wages and the food of labourers for several years. In 1801, the wages of the agricultural labourers were lOs 6d a week, the prices of food, allowing two-thirds of a bushel of flour to be the quantity consumed by his family, was 9s 10d, being a surplus of twopence.—(Laughter.) These are important statements, for great reliance has been laid upon this part of the argument by the Hon. Gentle man opposite. My object is to show that the condition of the labourer is best when be can have the greatest quality of flour in proportion to his wages. In 1810, the wages of the labourer was 10s. a week, the price of flour was Bs. leaving a surplus of 2s. In 1814 the wages were 145., the price of flour only 6s. Id., leaving a surplus of 71. 11d. —( Hear, hear). In 1820 the wages were 125., the price of flour was 33. Bd., leaving a surplus of Os. 4d. In 1829 the wages were 1 ls., the flour ss. 6d., the surplus Sc. 6d. These facts have been all stated by Earl Fitzwilliarn, in his three addresses ; but where they were exemplified he has not stated. —( Laughter and cheers from the other side). I presume, however, his Lordship would not impose upon the public statements which were not based upon authentic data. I do indeed think it would be irreverent in you to doubt an author of hereditary dignity. Now the evidence says, when corn is cheap labour is higher than wages—and thus that there is a larger surplus to provide comforts for the poor. Now there seems to be a great fallacy on the minds of several Hon. Gentleman respecting wages. The question is not, what is the amount of wages to a labourer receiving, but what he can purchase for those wages. (Hear, bear)—for his wages may be as high as 100 s. a week, and yet he may be able to purchase less of the comforts of life ; or his wages may be 95., and his comforts may be still more. The whole point turns upon what he can purchase of the commodities and necessaries of life for his money. Now I will r e f er t o anot h er valuable authorit • on this . point. That aut h or i ty i s a letter which I this morning 3 re ceived from an intelligent gentleman in the county of Essex, who i s we ll acqua i nted with agriculture and with the condition of the labouring classes. (The Honourable Member then proceeded to read the letter which stated that, se e i ng t h at a ll c l asses savo the agri cultural labourer had fully p ar ti c i pate d i n the protracted debate, he was anxious that due consideration should be given to their grievances —Further, the Poor-law Amendment Act, on one side, and tho high price of bread on the other, the labourers were jammed into a most oppressive predicament, and he (the the writer) supposed that other counties were not worse off than his. The boasting promises of the Poor-law Amend ment Act, namely, that the wages of labour would be en hanced, thereby turned out to be all delusion. The wages had not advanced beyond 9s. a-week but formerly the labourer had 12s. a-week besides a house, Etc. In some instances labour had advanced 10 or 20 per cent., but bread had advanced from fifty to seventy per cent. These facts are no doubt very dry—perhaps they are very uninteresting, but as great stress has been laid during the debate that this is not so much a landlord's, or a tenant's, as a labourer's question. I have been anxious to lay before the House the real circumstances, and the actual condition of the labourers. Sir, I regret the terms of this motion. It is much too narrow for its object. We ought not to have been engaged at the present time, and especially for such a length of time in considering a mere class interest—for such this is— it is the interest of a powerful party, both in Parliament and out of it,—the master manufacturers.—(Hear, hear). We should have been asked for a much wider measure. I should have boen pleased if the motion had been that this House resolve itself into a Committee of the whole House to consider of the state of the nation. For that is really the question,—say what you will.—( Hear, hear, hear). And I tell those Gentlemen, at who s e instance thi s dis cussion originates, that they will not get the advantages they contemplate, unless they direct their attention to what by common assent, it appears that they and the landlords are extremely anxious to conceal ; and that is the state of our taxation.—( Hear, hear, hear). For if you were to have a free trade in corn to-morrow, my belief is, that it would be little or any advantage to the labourers, either in manufacture or agriculture.—( Loud cheers). I know the candour of this declaration will be unpleasant to some.—( Hear, hear, hear.) But I state what I be lieve to be true,—and I am perfectly indifferent who it pleases, or who it displeases—( Cheers)—l say it is a de lusion.— ( Cheers. ) It is fostering ungenerous, and per nicious expectations to suppose it will enable you to compete with those countries with whom you are anxious to run still stronger and longer the race of competition —while there is such an erroneous and frightful inequa lity in your financial relations.—(Hear, hear.) An Hon. Member in the course of this debate stated the annual expenditure in the different countries of Europe, and when we call to mind that our taxation, compared with that of other countries, is as 50,000,0001. to 8,000,0001. in the highest case,—l would ask in what way can any person fancy we can struggle successfully against the rival efforts which are now making by the young life and blood of the States which are coming promptly, and hourly into full vigour, in ,their manufacturing efforts?— (Hear, hear.) If you had free trade to-morrow, my belief is that the condition of the manufacturing poor would be even worse than now ; for it would be found that the only resource you had was to fall back upon the wages of labour, and that thus, instead of their condition being improved, it would be aggravated.— ( Hear.) Sir, these are facts which perhaps would not answer the purpose of the petitioners ; but the time is not far distant when they will either de tect the delusion or admit its existence—when they will bo prepared to come to this House in co-operation with the labourers, who hope there will be a time when it shall be found that you have not a class interest to pro mote, but that your deep and sincere anxiety is to ad vance the prosperity and uphold the greatness, and above all things to improve the condition, by increasing the happiness, of the labouring orders of the community.— ( Loud cheers.) Sir R. PEEL wished to correct two mis-statements of facts, which the Honourable Member had doubtless,uninten tionally made. The Honourable Member bad represented him, as having stated that in Glasgow the increase of po pulation from 1812 to 1837 was from 107,000 to 262,000, and that the increase of consumption of coals for the same period was from 500,000 tons to 1,200,000 whereas he ( Sir Robert Peel) had stated that the population from 1812 to 1838, bad more than doubled, but that from 1831 to 1838, the consumption of coal hail increased from 500,000 tons to 1,200,000.—( Hear, hear.) The second was a most curious mistake of the Hon. Member's. The Hon. Member had stated that he ( Sir Robert Peel) had said that the total increase of deposits in the savings' banks of Glasgow for one year was 2s. 7d. a-head. Now suppose in 1837 there were 1,000 contributors of 11. each, and that in 1831 there were 2,000 contributors of 11., and 2,000 of 10s. The average amount of contributions would in each individual case lse 15s. only, instead of 1/., as in the first case, and the Hen. Member would represent the con dition of the working classes as worse by ss.—( Loud cheers from the Opposition.) Mr. 111 NDL E Y rose amidst loud cries of " Question." He would endeavour to amuse the House.—( Hear hear.) EVENING E Something had been said about th lion. Member for Kendal (Mr. been treated—the reasoa wa: ran through Manchester. —(Loud The real question was whether this commercial superiority over other countries.—(The Hon. Member here paused, and took out an orange, and the composed gravity of the action caused con siderable laughter, and renewed calls for division.) After essaying several times to continue his address, the Hon. Member exclaimed—" In such a House I shall say no more," and resumed hisseat. Mr. DENISTOUN rose amid loud cries of " Divide," " Villiers," and much uproar. He said he was either prepared to go on now, if the House intended to divide, or to move the adjournment, if the House would not hear him.--(Cries of " Go on," " Divide," and " Chair.") The SPEAKER had distinctly asked if any Hon. Member seconded the motion for an adjournment of the debate, and certainly no Hon. Member had seconded the motion. Mr. HINDLEY and Mr. DENISTOUN rose together amidst great laughter and cheering. Neither Hon. Member being inclined to give way, The SPEAKER rose and said that the Hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne had sat down on the former oc casion, evidently because he thought the House wos not inclined to hear him.—( Hear, hear.) Mr. HINDLEY wou ld not o b trude upon the House if it were not inclined to hear him. He was anxious to repel a very unjust imputation thrown cut by the Hon. Member for Lincolnshire, and acquiesced in, to a certain extent, by the Right Hon. Baronet, the Member for Tam worth—that the manufacturers were working short hours to create an impression on the country. All his (Mr. Hindley's) constituents were in favour of the immediate and total repeal of the Corn-laws; but he would tell the House conscientiously that, if he were asked whether be would vote for a total, immediate, and unconditional repeal of the Corn-laws, he would rather surrender his seat than do so.—(Loud cheers.) If he was sent to Parliament to do injustice to any portion of the community, he was not the person to do it. He would not go into Committee to destroy the interests of the agricultural classes, but to pro mote the interests of all ; and it was with these views he would vote for the motion.—( Cries of " Divide.") Several members rose to address the House amidst loud cries of " Mr. Villiers," and " Divide, divide." Mr. DE NNISTOUN, having caught the Speaker's eye, addressed the House. As he had presented the largest number of petitions on this important subject, and as he represented the largest manufacturing and commer cial constituency in the empire--(Hear, hear)--be trusted the House would bear with him for a few minutes. He had never heard a more fallacious statement than that which had been made by the Right Hoe. Bart. the Member for Tamworth.—( C r i es o f "Oh! o h 1 " ). He bad never heard a speech less worthy of a man, who aspired to the name of a statesman.__ (Hear, hear). Hon. 1114 mbers on the other side of the House might mystify it as they pleased, they might speechify till Doom's-day, but they never could get rid of the damning fact that the result of the present Corn-laws, was to raise the rents of the land lords, and to keep the people of the country starvi,ig in the midst of plenty.—(Hear, hear). It was said that the repeal of the Corn Laws would throw the land of, the country out of cultivation, and place England at the mercy of foreign nations.—(Hear, hear). Did not the country depend greatly upon foreign nations for cotton, and if it depended upon them for one thing, why should it not for another ?—( Hear, hear). One word with respect to the result of the present debate, and be had done. If the people out of doors found that they had nothing to expect from that House, they would look with a most scrutinizing eye into its constitu tion.—( Hear.) He would venture to predict, if the pre sent motion was refused, the time was not far distant when such a union would take place as would ensure a search ins, and sweeping ref orm in i ts const i tution.—( Hear. ) 'Mr. SANFORD rose amid loud cries of " Divide." He would trespass but very shortly on the time of the House; but there was one portion of the debatesto which he wished to advert. Much observation had been made by lien. Members on both sides of the House relative to the declaration made by the Noble Lord the Secretary of State for the Home Department, that he was inclined to support a moderate fixed duty, if the House went into a Committee. He wished to ask that Noble Lord what he meant by a moderate fixed duty ?—( Hear)— and in put ting that question, he begged to state that the answer would not influence his vote, as he had already made up his mind to give his decided opposition to the motion of the lion. Member for Wolverhampton. Mr. VILLIERS trusted the Noble Lord would not answer the question.--(Order, order.) Lord JOHN RUSSELL said that after be bad declared himself in favour of a moderate duty, the Hon. Member might think himself justified in asking the question, but be must beg the Hon. Member to refer to the question before the House. Tho lion. Member for Wolverhampton had made a motion to refer to a Committee of the whole Ilriuse the Acts regulating the importation of corn. That could bind no one to concur with hint in the repeal of all duties. Hear, hear.) In stating that he was for a moderate fixed duty, it would be competent for him to go into detad e but if he did so he should feel it necessary to state his re , :- sons for coming to the conclusion. If he were to do so, however, he should raise a debate between those who were in favour of repeal and those who were in favour of a mo derate duty, and he conceived this to be a matter for dis cussion in Committee.--(Hear, hear.) Mr. JAMES rose amidst loud cries of " Oh, oh." He said gentlemen would save themselves a great deal of trouble, if they would only hear bim patiently for a few moments.—( Hear, hear.) He was anxious that his views on this question should not be misconstrued by the large independent agricultural constituency that he had the honour of representing.—( Hear, hear.) He thought the value of the landed property of this country ought not to be materially altered, except upon grounds of over ruling necessity ; but he did not thi n k t h e f ree admis sion of fat eign corn, at a moderate fixed duty, would make the difference in the value of land which some gentlemen imagined. He believed that under an im proved system there might be fair and steady prices, which would be more advantageous to the farmer than high prices at one time and ruinously low prices at an other. But he was not prepared to go into Committee to get rid of these Corn-laws at one fell swoop. He therefore moved that the following words be added to the motion With the view, not to a total repeal of that law, but of ascertaining whether any and what im provement of it can be effected for the benefit of the agricultural as well as all other classes of the community." —(Loud laughter.) Mr. VILLIERS then rose to reply. It was his pur pose, in bringing forward tho motion, to keep as far as possible from dividing those who were of opinion that the Corn-laws were not fitted for the present state of the country. Ile had received very little encouragement for foregoing his own opinion—he had not introduced his own opinions into the motion, because he wished that all those who wished for a change of the Corn-laws should be enabled to vote with him. He wished that other Members had followed the same course, but throughout he had been met with various propositions, which were only fitted for the Committee, and at the very last he was met with an amendment which if carried would at once de feat his motion ; but as that amendment had not met with a a seconder, of course his motion would be that which would be put from the Chair. It was now some years since the question had been fairly discussed, he therefore wished to know the grounds upon which the present laws were to be supported ; his purpose bad, therefore, been in a great measure answered, by the discussion which had taken place. He had not been met fairly on this occasion—the question had not been discussed-, it bad been made with personalities, and with dry refer.. ences to statistical details ; if they had gone into Committee he would have suggested his reasons for thinking that the i h g a l t t h b e e y c o h n a n h g i s e d sid b e ot o h f w th is e e H ly o m us d e were not a l g t r w ee a d s s o y bj st e e e m ted m t as to the proposition which was to be made in Committee. Had they been agreed, where would have been the use of going into Committee. The Hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets had made a proposal for going into Committee, with the view of putting on a fixed duty; that was objected to because it was said that many agriculturists would prefer a total repeal of the law. He (Mr. V.) then brought for ward a proposition for the total repeal of the Corn-laws, and he was then told that this proposition was tea strong a a one. He had then brought forward the present motion, and now objections were found to it in the same spirit. He would consider that the division of that night would show those ;who were opposed to all change; and on the other side it would show those who were not pleased with the present state of things. The Honourable Baronet, the Member for Kent, had not dealt fairly by him. He had stated \ that ha (Mr. V.) had stated that there were three great incumbrances in this country—the Aristocray—the National Debt—and the Church Establishment; and that until they wereHe would done away with the country would never 'be pe ha py t have cared nothing for it bad he not seen that e th o at unt it ry with was t el up by some parties, and it went into the authority of the Member for K il en t e h , es t e ha that be,esta the mover of that motion, wished to upset alishments. Never was there (hear, gross misrepresentation._. Hear, hear, of f hear.) Then again it was charged that the manufacturers, for the purpose distressing their a more and the Noble L or d been put forth—oven in that H some of his own pa-- had closed their mills—a more unfounded charge had neve r who made that statement should ask 6:ens and he would havefoumnden,bad closed their mill s. that even they, not f or t h e purpose of distressing their No answer bad been given to one part of the case h e h a d broughtforward, in consequence of th e Corn namely that laws, the manufacturers found difficulty in the exchanges with other countries which theyformerly had not done— t h e.t in some cases they had been excluded from the markets, w hile in others they could not successfully comp ete with them. That part of the case remained unanswered.— (Hear. ) He now came to another argument, which was a most important one; and he really would wish to have it explained a little further, namely, that they were to sup_ port the present Corn-laws, independent of the injur they might inflict on the community—(Hear, hear) because they tended to keep a certain number' el persons in employ. In that principle was involved the whole principle of protection, and be wished t o k now whether if it was acted on in this case they were prepared to act upon it in every other? At the time the existing laws were introduced, a Nobleman, for whom he believed Gentlemen on the opposite side entertained the greatest respect, Lord Grenville , opposed it. In mod ern t i mes, aperson for whom they had a great deal of respect, Dr. moral tai taint the t o breaththe ai r of we B e r l* it e l a sh tile so dl Chalmers, opposed them , an d that learned indi v id ual said they ositiv an t at no c i e ty so much as the abolition of the Corn-laws,— ggawveou a would m sweeten a (Hear.) iaptehlyin The landowners of England resembled, in their exclusive protection, the Pacba of Egypt. What had the people of England done to be subjected to such impositions. — Hear, hear.) " I wish (concluded the Hon. Member) to deliver them from this oppression ; and unles s th e L o rd harden your hearts as h e did Pharaoh's—l shall attain ray object."—(Hear, hear, and loud calls for a division.) The House then divided, when the numbers were— For the Motion Against it Majority against the Motion -147 S II N t., - AWL I- --. -,iika-,. ~:.; .*. ... 04. 4 ... iVNIf :-.....`---taf r 4 " I ) .' .- faitlliV hb -,•i: gm .' 44 is la d-c 1 s WiNAtli country should retain', its