The Sun. — London, England, 1851-02-14 00:00:00

I . . . . . . . •• * " "*". . . ' : i 6 boula said b e „ in th e Bili con. to P° st• goy .ded ive: ber for Il e mbe t d 111' . ~ reps b, iED ri ) tbe Points.- in which I (Hear.) I trust also that in the manner . rshall argue this question I may omit what he has so entirely kelioided, using one word which mty be disagreeable to th nge of any gentleman who differs from me. The Hon einher who made the motion expressed a hope that there would be no outcry about rent upon . this occasion. Now, from me th e uch attack U Hon. Member can anticipate no s e l r ent; for upon rent depends all that the person who if Ix.: addresse.s the House has in the world.-(Hear, hear.) ~. nts are increased no one will be a greater gainer than I theresll (Hear no e ill:I:ar such T a h n ' increase ; and, if they . materially. fall, is no one on whom a greater injury will be inflict . ed.- there would been'noagaalt. ""Ped ' Leff ntrlckthseu Hon. Member said he ape I should be the most ungrateful of men now living it pon the English . f . a . rme .; it• a any occasion I allowed one word to escape my lips in titiQus to the character of the English farmer. .I have teown them long -I have associated with them in times . of ieretrsepeetrity and of difficulty. I can only speak with say of my own tenantry; but I must ay Englishthat, high B as has been my admiration of the three farmer at all times, that opinion within the last never seen Or , `. 4l r years has been greatly exalted-for I have ev.er aeen a body of men who have encountered difficulties, d 2,d_the extraordinary privations attendant upon those itli. :2111_lties, with equal firmness or equal patience.-(Cheers.) if;l d, therefore, be the most ungrateful man living, ,",1.,1 these i mpressions, I should fail to give utterance to theta at , e °,,erY fitting time and place, and particularly in the e kiel tl • a : °` ‘ -on imons.-(llear, hear.) , Then there are some weillbseions which, in order to argue the quession , may the Price made on both sides. I admit that the depression in . tie' ' e of corn has been somewhat greater than I had an t. the i r - , '''-Hear hear.) I also admit that the duration o it..ezleueperdestshioen has been longer than I anticipated.-(hear, kr' ) Oa the other hand, the Honourable Gentleman who . that to the motion made a very large admission, as it If I did not misunderstand bim, he admitted sell: excepting the landlords and the occupiers oft of thi. the general condition of the great body of the people tnte _. Noe. Collfltry was prosperous, happy, and cop e , d ... (ti e ; I conceive that this is an immense admissior . . • kit t i -r e ' vf lt ear.) But the Noble Marquis who has just ar gued n has somewhat retracted that admission ; for he general that the agricultural labourer had not partaken of the _ e i, Prosperity. Now, the question of the condition. myi Opi n i ft uourer lies at the root of the whole subject, in r the I'll-Wear.) I do not undervalue the importance ar o . in r andlord--I do not undervalue the iraeortance of the f thee Peace still, whether speaking numerically or as regards l cannot Ile ° and welfare of the community, I cannot overlook, and ti,,bit regard as paramount, the conditian, the we are, th e a ' l'lPPiness of the great body of the lading people'inc for Beckgrioaltural labourer.-(Cheers.) The Hon. Member With inghetnshire hoped that we should not be inundated_ ha thought statcal returns respecting the poor-law. _I d he d that e Portion of the subject had been nearly ex therefor " 'l' the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and I should, the e. n hi V erY Unwillingly have reverted to it to...nigh!, but klble'-re Marquis has re-introduced it, and it is Rouse e " to recall to his recollection, and to that ofthe ehi; , some points which have been established,by indisput the- 4nennlenta evidnce, by the Chancellor of the Ex butatter, shad' might go to any part of the United Kingdom, d enti i . first take Ireland. There is a remarkableonose mieee-nt which has been laid on the table of the I H nen., fe,B,_he commencement of this session, and which that un e far exceeded my most sanguine expectations, and Elsreturn t. e, ; re ers to Ireland. Will the House believe that ' 1848, 1,400000 ablebodied men were receiving Itee se Ze i. t within thewslls of the workhouse, but out of . the la g `met while, in 1819, the number was 1,210,000, in N e i . ..," `eat while , frightful and enormous amount of persons ....meatng relief out of the workhouse was reduced to 372,000? f ee, tor e e) With respect to Ireland, this is the most satis- Acne . ' lact which has been presented to my knowledge. Edin a ,with regard to England, it will be recollected that ac *it , to the doctrine of the Hon. Member for Buckingham the "teesef oor rate is the leading local burden which falls upon . pezdarnir and landowner. Well, the amount of money ex se ted for the maintenance and outdoor relief of the poor tep e n e g e l and in 1850 was a b out 400,0001. less than the sum e`fir :-4 tha n 1 e49, a n amount o f c h arge equal to 10 per cent. b ee la the most satisfactory circumstance, for the num ' 07 0 ef able the poor receiving relief in 1850 was reduced Ilea -4 6 Per cent. on the whole.-(Hear, hear.) The l though has referred to Scotland; and here also a a - t do te r A have no knowledge of the matter beyond h 110131:7,11tatY testimony affords, I cannot respectsigwmbe. 4 48 ; alarquis fell into a great error with to t . h o e t e ?ebbn°lPenperistu in Scotland; for I find that in 18 b o h ° , l casual poor so far diminished as to e less 4 , l neee_ 4l4 B been in any other year since the Poor- law 111 e_ of August, 1845, came into operation.- , t e sa r i hear' ) But, before I refer to this document, I beg as er / that I should not have been surprised to have Ow e i that there was some increase, because my teekeimPression has always been that a very scanty hewillear-re as dealt oat to the poor of Scotland.- a ve 1 1 1 e . ) I should not, therefore, have been sorry to etiti 1 ard that there had been some increase of relief.. tioeen whichhe greatest confidence in the Board of Commis kose - administers relief there. I know that they are e elaiii,4l4lous that strict justice should be done between th borne ," Pauperism on the one hand, and the expenses • kostr.„'ll Property on the other. I know that they are leet4",xtous that, on the one hand, every just claim pre -14:14 ti le s ° t hem should be met with mercy and kindness; kea t ,'e on the other, everything that is an enc.ourage lilloolti4c idlers other, and to indigence arising from idleness, to P . , u 8 w ithheld. Well, what are the facts . with regard etee e :Pe,tinne in Scotland ? So far from their being an in etoe into appears " that from 1845, when the recent Act that" operation, and for at least 10 years previous to eee4,te. the expenditure on account of relief to the poor, leere‘uve.of other charges, has exhibited a constant annual th ee ,e till the year ending May, 1850, when for the firs th e It has so far decreased as to be 22,6951. less than that ot , eti.Peceding Year, and 9,032/. less than that of the year i lina l g laY, 1848." (Hear, hear.) But that is not all. It iicars further thaT the . number of registered poor re• kcitreadyring the year ending May, 1849, was 106,000; e e,_. during the year ending May, 1850, 101,000, showing llnution of 5,000; that the number of poor who died, weecaased to 2 re ceive relief, in the year endi ng M a y, 1849, 23 4 0 0 0, and in the year ending May, 1850, nearly Of ~,r' auorfing a decrease of about 1,600; that th e num b er OR the register in May.lB4 an in Ma. 44149)000, sh ow i ng a deoreago 9, a 3 of ,000 ; 000 and d lhat th y e l ena " casual poor-one of the heaviest charges in Sfcotm xtel ' arising from the immense amount of immigration ntle from ettalinnde--the number of casual poor relieved durig endingl ?Thy, 18 41, g Mit Y. 1849, was 95,000, and in the , year hea t 53'000, showing a dimintation ..l ( f 42,000.-( Hear, thi t t ~' But the Noble Marquis said, with great truth, th e eo ` 'very large proportion he of la t r he e m in a d s i s rect taxation of es of the corn kttnie,UntrY was borne by t g thr ow '' But the moment he makes that admission it 4 for Blt light on the state of the revenue. I remember, on 81 ef'6e,,,‘t o ccasion I dwelt upon the remarkable fact that of i ti l , '-' O /- of our revenue were raised from the great body l'tirs: cerafnunity on the necessaries of life - on articles *f t 4114,, r 3. ttaportance such as wheat, and of such luxuries as b e a " e s. % e Ptrite, beer, the produce of malt, &c. What could tae o .‘"ete direct test of the general prosperity of t . he . corn a ta x ItY than when, notwithstanding the great remission of i ,tkeetivrhieh have recently taken place, the . Customs and th e are maintained almost without any ch . minu turns of the Exchequer meets Parhament io w . ith a als; tl °t . nearly 3,000,000/. ; and when, copscidentwith_ o th n e . ke rot e ,e of defalcation in taxation, it is admitted by the . H h ap,. er t and for Buckinghamshire that there is prosperity and kyrZess among the great body of the people?-(Cheers.) e e et ner rPrie e is very little diminished when I look to another "ha a t t i retu rn Which was also laid on the table yesterday. t cl sets ; the great cause of prosperity among the N e v m or plov g . L t neet and W hy, ample demand for workmen,. and bour e , DM. wages consequent p to obt;in t here '' 11l the history of this n eatgr commercial country th e pre aver Nv o a time when the value of exports . , which are they dicile..e..of industry, amounted to . anything tike the sum . . Direly erz'id'ear. That amount is almost fabulous-it is uhancellor e * Up to the let of January, 1851,. as the °llnd that , 00/oaftetrlilivnealeleolfeer informed you, 1 0,000 o at th e it ould be lilt° werall those matt --- 8 the not ecl wishtlie sum to go t (Hear, he . much in ar detail, but I will just run eifie, a Z few fante w hielst a a the question before us. .Fal th, at , °ll of proph ecies __.° (Cheers.) Why, Sir, I:have admitted 'bled ° e rne el. t he ex e . t tions I formed have not been rea they 'reincla PrepthheeciseesasPa:cenasa;lways very dangerous things when ea th e late to the prices'of a fluctuating commodity, dependpt . so ktof tall o f but let me here recall to mind L a ileal the ProPhecies which were made with respect to the a7, t ,:var ° ci f s . : a navigation laws. Is not the increase of tonnage e - ;''s if a n - T Proof of increased export of British commodities? ti "` Ilrita' will show you there has been an actual increase ""•41tit,-- „ ab iPPitig and British tonnage outwards. [Mr totina allenge leeiteta7- Outwards" " No, no," and a laugh.] Yes. Sot -I, A tilt et in g all the experience of my Right Hon. Friend, him to rove to the House that outward te4eltthrlot a test of export p of British commodities - the 4 What- Uritiall ingenuity and labour. [ Mr. HERMES ' I VISh e , , °1 tOnmage inwards?"] My Right Hon. Friend r n, itmei, '" me to tonnage inwards. Well, I think the di :kat:ll°f British tonnage inwards is not above 3,000 or r•oesr, "e;OSIr. IlEnarma (with solemnity).-" It is 330,000 ia s ter ahlf-aughter aud cheers.) My Right Hon. Friend is l e , ,_ , a teee e t' "retY accurate in these matters, and perhasa re `l4rne / the returns will set the matter at rest. 'The re this d refer to were put into the hands of Hon. Members b il ete aY ' The Right Hon. Baronet having glanced at the I,l oll l , l Pit which he held in his hand, proceeded-My Right ands riena : _ a s' , 3 correct and lam in en - or.-(Loud cheering qeisti:lghter from the ' Protectionists.) I can assure Hon. . tl r to Gentle below me it is not my wish to mar their triumph / heveinstatee I will come to the figures whic t h . Were ton the u rnretbefore me. As to the question of ou ald' Ri an k a ge t _ther e is a matter of dispute between . me and . rat of ighut Honourable Friend whether it is a fair ;lt, D...",e prosperity of the trade of the country or not; . 1111 , ria7" l s that by I will quote the figures of the retuyns Zips p l ' u lu• It aplieers, then, that the number of British "‘earea"eated outwards in 1850 was 17,169 ; the number th ews . out in 1851 was 17,648.-( Hear.) The tonnage of ' tlagemlPPing in 1850 amounted to 3,762,000 tons. The ton- It ntla iii 1851 was 3,960,000 tons ; showing an increase on st ew ge outwards for the latter year.- (Hear, hear.) We allip,rill to the tonnage outwards. The tonnage of British ' laeo',ng and British colonial shipping cleared outwards in 4,3 00 - 6". 7 2tated to 4 ,390,000 tons. The tonnage for 1851 was lia li ' l .° tons....(Cheers and laughter.) Now, I admit I ° lltsp er tt ee 'lrate., and that I thought the difference of tonnage l idtri n -8 rattell less, but I still repeat I am surprised, con 9(*fere g ail the circumstances of the last two years, that the iereweicle was not much greater. Why did you not suppose • Itnes kt ; 11,1 hea great increase of the United States' shipping ' sea w , When I look to the returns I see the American tSe cleared inwards in 1850, was 587,000 tons, while ' Theliet'l.rhage cleared inwards in 1851 was 595,000 tons. gara as' isconceive be, when I remember what I re eetn tle e t - u e Peculiar circumstance of large importations of ;t1 4 fah;, - `'ng the last two years, a fact which on the whole is co - 's: cat ion of the prophecies which have been made. But, intended4eve of the cheer of my Right, Hon. Friend, I 1 1 led further into this part of the sultject than I had t ic% bei. A nd now to return to the snore immediate ques eed _ ore 4 ,. / e _ well.h After all, Sir, the test of the real prosperity in e e 7eing of the great ody of the people is one which 41 Co't ra th i l I!on. Gentlemen sitting on . this side of the House 00e whi ch ten& 'with me a certain and infallible one ; but it is test 13 I put higher than any of the rest, and than all the latig2t.togeher. And what is it ? It is that of which the nrip,;;ltaTterest are accustomed to complain-the immense 'fqo an ' t ° ll of foreign wheat and flour.-(Cheers.) Millions , otte e b e e r , of wheat and flour have been. imported. They ii they " Paid for- they have been consumed. How have -Ive bee n e°nnat ned? Why I believe millions of mouths tlipot,n_ fed with wheaten ' bread which but for that nay, aVorn would have wanted it-(Cheers)--erid that,l tteaun_Laeall, ia retieth most conclusive evidence that can be thi s '7,.1_ o f the pperity and welfare of p . of Air. iziou,atrY.--(Cheers.) The Hon. Member forCarlisle Nighbou°?n) introduced the subject of the estates of my tro t , „, o rs In CUlnherland, and more particularly the condi eteittetCesti9n th e "q"re weavers in Carlisle. Now, I will first touch on of the weavers. Now, the Hon. Member °ruin rotinform the House what is the peculiar character vr....!"?' tuft it is a tell ._°,..T. i?. trade in Carlisle and its vicinity. He did not hopeless competition between handloom itZl and rallehitlery-(llear h pktuirg wily a ci rcuut , ear)-and I remember anCe which makes this competition P Ullfbrt11211 " t tla't """.....e . handloom 'lrwin, TIIE SUN, struggling thus, as I believe, in vain against machinery, is embarrassed by this peculiar difficulty—that it is the manufacture into which the largest quantity - of raw cotton enters. It is a heavy cotton containing the largest quantity of the raw material. It hap- pens most unfortunately that the price of raw cotton has greatly risen, and the employers of handloom weavers have been increasing their power of machinery to meet the difficulty-, and in order to encounter the high price of cotton are passing from handloom weaving to the greater use of power-looms. - (Hear, hear.) This is a peculiar circumstance of recent origin, but I am bound to say I have always felt and thongbt that the slays of handloom weaving were all but numbered, and that the struggle with the power.looms must end in defeat. But this is a question of the price of cotton, and, strange as it may be, it opens out a ray of hope even to the landed interest. Whence does this ray come ? Why, it comes from the quarter whence they least expected it : " Via prima salutis, " Quod minime reris, pandetur ab urbe." It is from the mills of Messrs. Bright and Co.—(Cheers and laughter.) It is from Rochdale that this light of hope opens on the landed interest.—(Cheers.) Hopes are entertained, confident hopes—that by a new management of flax stalk it may be used in large proportions with great advantage and diminution of cost in mixture with cotton wool, sheep's wool, and even with silk wool.—(Hear, hear.) And, Sir, for my part, I cannot conceive any di-pensetion of Providence more merciful than that science and skill should succeed in over- coming this difficulty, whereby we should be rendered in a great degree independent of foreign supply, while a great stimulus would be given to oar manufactures; and if, hap pily. this encouragement to the cultivation of flax here should succeed, I am very confident we shall hear no more of the distress of those handloom weavers, and that the cul tivation of land will be largely improved by the introduction of capital in growing this new plant, and that this plant will be of peculiar service to the agriculturists from its being peculiarly adapted to increase the fertility of the soil. I pass from the handloom weavers to the 'antlers and land lords of Cumberland. I know none of the cases to which the Hon. Member alluded of my own knowledge, but he ad verted to a farm which has been recently re-let in Cumber land at a considerable diminution of rent. The Noble Mar quis has spoken of his labourers. Perhaps I may here be permitted to say a few words of mine. I have already stated to you the infinite obligations I am placed under by the conduct of my tenantry, but I stand here this moment without an acre of land unlet which I wish to let.—(Cheers.) I have not for the las'. five years changed two ten :nts who pay me above 1001. a year, and 1 have not an arrear of 3001. on my whole rental.—(Cheers.) That is the state of my county, so far as lam concerned. But I look to the estate of my neighbour, of my colleague, and of my friend, as I am proud to call him—the Duke of Buccleuch ; one of the greatest proprietors in the south of Scotland, and one who differed from me as to the policy of free trade. He has not in Roxburghshire and Dumfries let land falling out of lease—and those leases are usually fI. nineteen years—at any diminution of rent. A case has been mentioned again of a farm in East Lothian, and I dare say some Hon. Member more conversant with the de tails of that propery than I am will speak upon that point; but, as I am informed, the farm in question had been pre viously in the hands of the owner, and had never been let before the last letting—that it was never calculated to be worth more than 1,8001. a year—that some speculative far . mer took it at 2,2001., that he made an imprudent and im provident bargain, and that a remission, therefure, has taken place, reducing the rent below 1,800/. a year, but not much. I have friends in East Lothian, and I have made it my bu.- siness to inquire into these matters, and I am told farms let freely as they fall out of lease without diminution of rent whatever—(Cheers)—and also I am informed that the value of the fee-simple, which is the real test among the shrewd and sagacious people of Scotland has increased since the repeal of the corn-laws.—( Hear.) I have said I have no farms to let; but I have perceived that since the repeal of the corn laws there has been a competition for land, aireing among a class of persons with whom there was for merly no desire to occupy land, while there was the uncer tainty which attended the operation of those laws.— (Cheers.) Shopkeepers retiring from business—(Laughter) —small merchants in country towns—(lronical Protectionist cheering)—these persons, attracted by the pleasure of an agricultural life—(Renewed ironical cheering and laughter from the Protectionists.) Yes, you laugh at that. --(Cheers.) But I thought country gentlemen would have been the last to laugh at that—(Cheers)—or to undervalue the attrac tions of securing health and fresh air for which those persons sought a country life.—(Cheers and laughter.) But I repeat it, that small traders of little capital in coun- try towns are now waiting the moment to make in vestments in farms; the competition for farms on the fall of the lease is unusually great, and I know of my own knowledge that on any change of the present occupiers I could find men with good capital to take them. So much with respect to the state of affairs in my own immediate neighbourhood. i ,ut now let us try another test. Are enclosures falling off?—(Hear, hear.) Is there any indisposition to bring land into cultivation in this coun try? Now, lam reminded of a melanch,ly event, because it relates to a Noble Lord with whom I once lived on terms of great intimacy, and though p,rtial differences may have estranged us before his lamented death, I will never cease to speak of him as a man of great talent, of ability, and integ• rity, of great perseverance in ;he pursuit of his objects, and of great sagacity in the selection of them. I speak of the late Lord George Bentinck. He was a great promoter of what has been called winning from the sea a new English county. —(" Hear, hear," from Lord J. Russell.) Before his death the enterprise was not completed. Has it been abandoned since ?—(Hear. ) I hear that it is going on as vigorously as ever, and that half of the Victoria county is to be gained— Lord H. BaNTISCK—" 600.000 acres"] -- that, as my Noble Friend the Member for Lynn says, 600,000 acres of land are about being recovered by sagacious men. who have formed themselves into a company for the purpose of reclaiming half an English county from the sea.—(Cheers.) The great dif ference of prices has also been touched on by the Ndble Member who has just spoken ; and here I cannot avoid men tioning it cursorily, that the cost of production in a long series of years must regulate the price of every commodity, but that the market price is constantly for short periods not regulated by that rule. There are disturbing causes, which make for short periods the market price infinitely below the cost of production. Now, the lion. Member for Bucking hamshire rather sneered at: the doctrine that the pre-ent prices are "exeeptional. Bit I should like those who sneer to answer a case of fact.—( Hear, hear.) There is a country under high protective duties on corn close to our shores. and yet disturbance of price has taken place in France even greater than here. lam informed that the price of wheat in the neighbourhood of Bordeaux not long ago was 28s. a quer ter,and that under a high protective duty. The market price being below the cost of production, the natural consequence necessarily follows, and capital is rapidly withdrawn from the cultivation of the soil. lam told that at the time of the revolution there were 200,000 fundholders in France. There are now 800,000 fundholders. What slr•ws still more the charater of political di , turbances, to prevent persons em barking their capital, there is in France at this moment a powerful disposition to hoard, as is evinced by the rate of exchange, and still more by the rise in the price of silk. It is true that in calculating the sources whence corn might be expected to be imported into this country any supply from France was not anticipated, and it now turns out that while those who were afraid of an over-abundance of bread in this country thought the imports from the United States would be overwhelming, they have been far less than were antici pated, while from France, which was excluded from these calculations, the largest import of any foreign country has been drawn. What do I infer from this? I ask this question—Have we always been very accurate in our calculations?—(Hear, hear.) Have we, for instance, always been very accurate with respect to the cost of production, and as to what is a remunerating price in this country ?—(Hear, hear.) lam unhappily grown old in these discussions. I remember in 1815 being told that 80s. was the minimum of remunerating prices. I may be told that was under a depreciated standard of currency. I lived, however, to see the discussion renewed in 1827, after the standard was restored, when the lowest remunerating price was declared to be 60s. I remember another discussion on the corn-laws in 1842, when the remunerating price of 60s. was abandoned, and 565. was declared to be the proper amount. And now, I believe, the landed interest, and I use that term in the meaning which has been given it in the debate, as signifying landlords and farmers, would be quite content to abandon 565., and would be most thankful and satisfied with a permanent price o. somewhere from 48s. to 465.—(Cheers.) I therefore cannot but observe that this matter of remunerating price is one which largely depends on the exercise of skill and labour. You talk of disturbiag causes, but there were no disturbing causes under your old corn-laws, and yet they were far more disastrous in their effects, and the low prices were more ruinous. The Noble Marquis, accustomed to the old rule o f reasoning on this subject, spoke of our natural produce being 24,000,000 quarters; but, grant that to be true, and what was the result? If in an abundant season there was an excess of 1,000,000 quarters and it was impossible to avoid such an occurrence iu the change of seasons—the effect on the market was more instantaneous and powerful than any which can now occur.. Why, I remember the year 1822, when Mr. Western moved for his Committee, when there had been some bad harvests, the result of which was to have a greater breadth of land sown than usual, that there was a good season, that there was a great redundancy of supply, and down went the prices at once to 441. a quar ter, and I believe for six weeks they were even under 40s. —( Hear ) But that case is not so strong as that which took place in 1835, when the average for the year was only 395. 2d., and for some weeks the price fell below any that had been yet reached. But, Si:, anxious as lam to admit any ground of complaint, I cannot, while I acknow ledge the distress which unhappily prevails, lose sight of the fact that the Channel Islands, in view of the English coast, did enjoy perfect freedom in the trade for corn, and from their vicinity to Eng land there was the greatest temptation held out to have as much corn stored up as was necessary for their own con sumption, and yet what was the price of wheat during the protective system? For a long series of years it was, as I remember, but 48s. Now, I will not venture to make any prediction with respect to the price of corn in future, but this, Sir, I say, that be the price what it may, the time has arrived when it must be left to its natural level, and that for any Government or for any Legislature artifi cially, and by power of law, to enhance it—l say the day is past.—(Cheers.) And why do I say so? I say there is not a ploughboy who treads the heaviest clay in England who does not feel practically his condition im proved within the last three years— and he knows the reason why.—(Cheers.) I tell you there is not a shepherd on the most distant and barren hill of Scotland who does not now have daily a cheaper and a larger mess of porridge than he ever had before—and he also knows the reason why.—(Re newed cheering.) I tell you again there is not a weaver in the humblest cottage in Lancashire who has nut fuller and cheaper meals, without any fall in his wages, than he had before —and he knows the reason why.—(Cheers.) Now I must tell you the whole truth. The time has arrived when the truth fully must be spoken.—(Cheers.) I will speak of another class still. There is not a soldier who returns to England from abroad that does not practically feel that his daily pay is augmented, that he has a cheaper, larger, and a better mess, and that he enjoys greater comforts —and he also knows the reason.—(Loud cheering.) Now, Sir, I en treat my Hon. Friends who sit below me to be on their guard. You may convulse the country —you may endanger property —you may shake our institutions to the founda tion—(" Heir, hear," from Lord J. Russell, and cheers from the Government benches) —but I am satisfied that there is no power in England which can permanently enhan ce b y force of law the price of bread.—(Renewed cheering.) Now, that is my honest and firm conviceion. The peace of this country, my own possessions, are as dear to me as to any Ilona Gentleman who sits on the benches below me; but I feel we have arrived at the period when it is necessary to speak the truth, and I have spoken it with out reservation.—(Loud cheering.) And now to look upon this question as one of taxation, as the Noble Marquis says it is. He put it in the fairest possible manner. He says the question we have to decide is in what way revenue can be raised wi h the least burdens on the great body of the community. I accept that definition. Nothing can be more fairly put. The Noble Marquis had observed on the fact that the labourer in„this country was heavily taxed; that he paid taxes on his tobacco, his sugar, his tea, his beer. Now, the question that naturally presents itself to me when I hear that is, what is the reason why he should pay a tax on his bread also?—(Cheers) The 1'1912113 iglircil" slaky, 149 W is the CleaCiellCY Of revue to be LONDON, made good if you remove the taxes on articles of primary necessity ; and I was astonished, considering his high posi tion, to hear him say that the question was not one for in hi or for any Hon. Member on his si to of ;he House to consider. Now, Sir, in my opinion, that is an important question, and there is not a Member in this House who is not affected by it. If the establishments of the country are to be maintained, the deficiency arising from taxation ought to be the primary consideration of every Hon. Member in the House.—(Cheers. ) Now, the question is short and simple. Will you tax It hour, or will you tax capital, to the relief of labour, beyond its present burdens? In other words, will you revise your financial system and reimpose on industry those burdens from which relsased capital asks to be reeved? That was the great question which was decijed in 1842 -and here let me observe that this discussion has not been unproductive. I am speaking in the presence of her Majesty's M nitters, and of the Right Hon. Gentleman at the head of the Home-office. In 1842 I warned the House of the danger of continuing that system of taxation. It has been changed, and the Right Honourable Gentleman, I think, will be able to tell us that there has been more social order and less seditious movement for the last three years than at any former time, and I attribute that fact to our fiscal policy and to the relief which you have given the people, without reference to their occupation.—(Cheers.) And now I am brought to the objections I entertain to this motion, which are, that it is in effect, though not avowedly, an approximation to the reversal of that policy. I feel those objections still more, because the words in which it is framed, though claiming to be plain. arc studiously elusive, and present. nothing t ingible.- (Cheers.) It was said by the Hon. Member who moved it, Ido not ask your votes in favour of any specific proposal. It is not my duty to bring it in." Well, then, I say it is my duty to refuse my consent to a motion the entire extent and tendency of which I can not urderstand.—(Cheers.) Now, there is a studious am biguity not only in the motion but in the very able speech in which that motion presented itself to us. Observe what that speech did. It presented to our consideration a great many things declared to be objectionable, but which the mover did net seek to remove, and a great many things which he indicated as remedies he refused to press. The Hon. Member referred to the prohibition of the growth of tobacco. Now, lam surprised that with all the astuteness of the Hon. Member it did not appear to the Hon. Member that, whether the extremely high duty upon tobacco were remitted or continued, one of two inevitable consequences would be produced. If the duty upon the importation of foreign tobacco were remitted it would be impossible for it to be grown in this country.--e Cheers.) It would come to us from all quarters of America and from many parts of Europe, where it could be produced at a much cheaper price, and we should make a great sacrifice of revenue with out conferring the smallest advantage upon the landed in terest.—(Hear, hear.) But, on the other hand, if you con tinue the present Ugh duty upon foreign tobacco, you will be introducing protection in one of its most flagrant, most ab surd, and most objectionable forms.—( Cheers.) You will be offering a premium to the growth of tobacco to the full ex tent of the duty, and you will besides offer irresistible temptation to frauds upon the revenue and smuggling.— (Hear, hear.) The same objection applies to the growth of beetroot for sugar. If you grow it subject to no duty, and continue the existing duties upon foreign and ea:tidal sugar there is protection. If you remit the duty on sugar you will sacrifice 10,0 tO,OOOl. of revenue, which must be supplied in some other way, while the British farmer would not derive the least benefit from the change, for he would be just as unable as he is now to compete with the grower of foreign sugar.- (Herds hear.) I now come to the malt-tax. I do not know what the Hon. Gentleman (Mr. Disraeli) may have said upon this subject in former years. I do not think, however, that he is in favour of its repeal, and I am sure that the leader of this party in the other House, Lord Stanley, is not, for that Noble Lord, in and out of office, has said that it would be inexpe dient to repeal that tax ; that it was paid, not by the pro ducer, but by the consumer, and that its repeal would carry with it no benefit to the land commensurate with the loss to the revenue. These are, then, the first class of difficulties with which the Hon. Gentle man said the agriculturists had to contend, but which he did not seek to remove. I now come to the second class of remedies, which the Hon. Gentleman indicated as de sirable, but which were not pressed by him. The first was the cultivation of land en commandite. Now, the Hon. Gen tleman the Member for Nottingham (Mr. F. O'Connor) has had some experience of the cultivation of land en commandite. —(Laughter.) He has tried the experiment. I do not know whether he is favourable to the plan, but I believe his partners were not.—(A laugh.) [Mr. O'Coswou—•"rhey would not pay their rents."] And I believe the only parties who derived any benefit from the scheme were the gentle men in Westminster Hall.—(A laugh.) At all events, the experience we have had on this subject would not induce me o look for relief to the agricultural interest in this direction. The law of settlement was next adverted to by the Hon. Gentleman. Now, I rejoice that the Right Hon. Gentle man at the head of the Poor-law Board. (Mr. .Baines), who is sow a part, of the Government, has expressed an in tention of dealing with the law on this subject. I have be fore expressed my opinion that the landed interest will gain extremely, by an alteration in the law of settlement, and gain in the most legitimate manner, because the labourer is, after all, the principal sufferer from the present state of the law. His labour is his only property, but by the force of the law you restrict the free employment of his labour within 1,500 narrow circles. But, by adopting a union set tlement in the place of a parish seetlement, you do a great deal to emancipate the labourer, for you widen the sphere of his rabour and enable him to seek employment within 600 circles. But I warn the Hon. Gentleman if he has not well considered this matter.—(Hear.) There are lions in his path.—(A laugh.) He wilt, if I mistake not, encounter the opposition of some distinguished representatives of the landed interest. The Hon. Member for Dorsetshire (Mr. Bankes), and, I believe, the Honourable Member for Oxfordshire (.Ir. Henley), will be against him, and I suspect that the landed interest will be found very much divided in opinion as to the benefits of such an arrangement, and whether it would be desirable to introduce a union settlement and a union rate. But that is not the plan of the Honourable Mem ber for Buckinghamshire. He opened to our view the much larger measure of a national rate.—( Hear, hear.) It is true he did not pledge himself to support it, and I for one know no course that the House of Corn mons could take more dangerous in every respect than a measure having such a decidedly Socialist diiection as insti tuting a claim to this national main enance.—(Cheers.) A national rate for the relief of the poor would, as I believe, ' hand over the property of this country and the industry of this country to the idlen ess an d th e poverty caused by indo lence. Such a measure would be Socialism, and Socialism in its most dangerous form.—(Cheers.) The Hon. Gentle man also adverted to the commutation of tithes. Well, now, I say that the less the landowners say on this subject the better.- (A. laugh.) I. as a l an d owner , am en ti re l y sat i s fi e d with the bargain we have made.--(Hear, hear.) We had before the Tithe C ommu t a ti on A ct passed Li ugly copartener d in us t t h r e y soil,— up (A al, l y au e g t h rd in nwe ho,coniti the ribu produce nnothingthouft of in dustry and the profits of that capital. That growing claim to the increasing value and produce of the soil was cut short and ousted by what was certainly a very stringent, and, as I thought, very politic measure. But what was the effect? I think that the poet's advice to the domestic chaplain— " Stick to thy pudding, friend, And hold thy tongue," —(A. laugh) —is applicable to us. The parson was not well pleased with the Act, but the country gentleman has every reason to be pleased with it. The parson in future shares in a fries t and immutable quantity, however much in creased the amount of produce may be. He gets no share in any increase in quantity, and yet he shares in the dimi nished value of that quantity through the fall in the price of wheat.—(Hear, hear.) My advice to the Honourable Gentleman is, then, to let the Tithe Act remain untouched. —( Hear, hear.) The Honourable Gentleman then came to the repeal of the Banking Act of 1844. Now, I would ask him when the supply of bullion in the coffers of the Bank has been more abundant than since the passing of that Act? I should like to know when the issees of paper, both by the Bank of England and the country banks, coincident with and justified by the amount of bullion in the Bank, have ever been more sound or more unrestricted? I should like to know when the rate of interest has ever been lower for commercial transactions or mortgages than during the last three years? -(Hear, hear.) And I tell the country g-ntlemen that if they seek to operate through the medium of the currency, they must go much further than the Bank Act of 1844.—(" Hear, hear," from Mr. Spooner) The Honourable Member (Mr. Disraeli) went on to say that the best course which he, as a leader of Opposi tion, could take was, to recommend that certain unenurne rated local burdens should be placed upon the consolidated fund. Now, if we look merely to the tactics of a leader of Opposition, that may be so; but if we look at the public welfare, and the interests of public economy, then no more dangerous course could be pursued by the Government— ( Hear, hear.) I have had some experience, and I have observed that all charges once placed upon the consolidated fund are seldom revised, seldom abated, and never removed. —(Cheers.) That is my experience, and lam therefore jealous of placing local charges upon the consolidated fund. But then I may innocently ask, what is really in tended by this motion? What does the Noble Marquis (Granby) ack the House to do? The Hon. Member who introduced this motion does not ask you to return to pro tection. But the Noble Marquis is better satisfied with frankly declaring that, in his opinion, it would be better to return to protection.—( Hear, hear.) Now, I say that if this motion does not mean that we are to return to protection, what in the name of common sense does it mean?—(Cheers. ) The Hon. Member in his prelminary observations had this remarkable object in view—he implored us to forget the past. Now, this struck me as very much like administering a dose of chloroform before a capital operation.—(Laughter.) It was not a soporific, certainly, but it lulled the senses very sweetly.—(Continued laughter.) However, I have since had time to analyze this invitation, and I have come to the con clusion that it is our duty to look to the past.- (Cheers.) The Hon. Member told us the other night that he adhered strictly, severely, and religiously to all that he had said on this subject in a former debate when he introduced the sub ject of agricultural burdens. I have compared the declara tion of last year with the declaration of this year—(Hear, hear)—anC I hope I shall net, say anything in the least displeasing to the Hon. Gentleman if I quote the important words used by him in the debate last year, and contrast them with some of the expressions used by him this year, because, in a case where we are not quite sure what is really intended, it is important to compare his words, and see what is meant. The Hon. Member last year, on bd....ging forward his motion relative to the burdens upon land, said On this side of the House we believe that this depression has been occasioned by recent legislative enactments ;—by the recent repeal of the laws which regulated the importa tion of foreign agricultural produce. We believe that the surest course, the most safe, the most efficacious, the course which, in the long run, would be most advantageous to the community, and most popular with the community, would be the re-establishment of laws regulating the importation of that foreign produce."—( Hear.) "Speaking for those gentlemen with whom I have the honour to act, I can say that we do not in any way shrink from an argument on this subject. We have seen nothing at all which in our opinion confutes the conclusions which, in good report and evil re port, we have attempted to advocate in this House with re gard to this great subject. We still believe that the princi ples on which you have constructed your commercial code are fallacious." These words are strong. but still they are not so strong as those which were quoted by me in the debate of the 21st of February, which were taken down by me when spoken, and not disclaimed by the Hon. Member (Mr. Disraeli) :—" Ido not bate one jot of what I have always declared. I adhere to every argument and every opinion on this question ; and I tell you I think it would be wiser and more politic to return to protection—no longer to cease to impose duties of revenue on articles from abroad, including corn, and thus indirectly to raise revenue having the effect of protection."—(Cheers.). Words more clear could not be used- (Hear, hear)—and they indicate a distinct policy, which is known to be advocated by the great body of the party of which the Hon. Gentleman is at the head. Now, what were the words used by him upon the present oecasion, the night before last? I have the words before me, rand I cannot find in them anything at variance with the, language used last wear. The Hon. Gen tleman told what t 8 ,' ,ll Tuesday night—" last year said now adhere Ur, severely, strictly, even religiously. I said wouldthen, that I • e would not in this Parli am ent make any at tenlPt to ;,ring back the abrogated 13y5tal Of Prowtiou." FRIDAY EVENING, FEBRUARY 14, 1851. (Loud cheers.) That he considered to be a most satis factory proof of the general result of their policy.— ( Hear, hear.) Besides this, the same return stated that during the past year the number of British ships entering the port of New York with full cargoes, including those just mentioned, was 691 ships, with a tonnage of 252,000 tons. One more instance of the satisfactory working of this measure. After the settlement of California was founded by the United States, there was a great demand for articles of British manufacture by the settlers, and, consequently, a great many British ships visited the settlement. For some time the Americans did not bring their navigation-laws into operation as regarded that settlement, but allowed ships of all nations to trade with it. After a time, however, in structions came from Washington to pat the American navi gation-laws into operation, and the greatest confusion was the result, every British ship, except from a port of the United Kingdom, and all French ships, being prevented from entering. In the course of a few days another order came from Washington, to the effect that as the British Government had altered their navigation-laws, that the restriction should be abandoned, so far as regarded all British vessels, and the trade of the settlement open to them. Those ships were accordingly admitted while the French vessels were kept out, and he mentioned the circumstance merely to show the advantages which were flowing; and would continue to flow from the releasing their shipping from the trammels of those laws which had so long curtailed their enterprise. There was one other branch of the subject which he could not help making a short allusion to. It was often said when they were ad vocating the repeal of those laws, that were they to do st , , the ship-building interest would be ruined ; but he affirmed, without fear of contradiction, that so far from that being the case, there never was a time when their principal building yards were better employed, and when there was a greater number of good ships building.—(Hear, hear.) The result of the change had been that encouragement had been given for the building of better ships than heretofore; and it was the fact, that vessels were now building in this coun try, which in every particular would compete with the best ships in the world.--( Loud cheers.) That was the most dis tinct and satisfactory proof of the success of the commer cial navy, because no one could suppose that those ships would be built unless there was a clear prospect of having them well employed.—(Hear, hear.) He did not hesitate to admit that there might be a class of ships not so well employed as before—he meant the small class of coasting vessels—but that was a necessary consequence of the change; bt,t certainly they were not called upon to refrain from taking this step in advance because those inferior class of vessels might for a time suffer from it. He had got a return of the number of vessels built in England during the last year, and comparing it with the number built during the three previous years, the result was most satisfactory. In 1847, the number of vessels built in England was 922, the tonnage being 145,000. The number built in 1848 was 847, of 122,000 tons. In 1849, 730 were built, of 120,017 tonnage. While in 1850, only 689 were built, but the tonnage had in creased to 133,000 tons. Now by that return it would be seen, that while last year the number of ships built had decreased as compared with former years, the amount of tonnage had considerably increased, and showed clearly that the class of vessels built were of a far superior de scription to those built in previous years. The House would no doubt recollect that Mr. Wigram, a partner of a well known and extensive ship-building firm in this country, while giving his evidence before a Committee of the House of Lords, stated that, so convinced was ~he that were the laws repealed ruin would overtake the ship-building interest, and that they could not build ships in competition with the Americans, he would establish a branch of his business at New York, and place his son in charge of it, in order to enable him to, in some degree, alleviate the evils which would be inflicted upon him. In the course of his inquiries into this matter he had, however, received a return from Southampton, and it was there stated that the number of ships building there was larger than usual ; that they were ships of a more extensive build; and that much of this ac tivity was caused by the enterprise of Messrs. Wigram and Co., who had a steamer in the course of building of 2,250 tons burden, and two sailing vessels, the one of 500 tons re gister and the other of 450.—(Hear, hear, and laughter.) That, therefore, showed that the evils so much dreaded by one of the members of that firm had not visited it. So much then he bad thought it necessary to say as regarded the na vigation-laws. He would not further enter upon the general question, but would rest the case entirely upon the able statements of the Right Hon. Baronet the Member for Ripon and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, considering, as he did, that the arguments adduced by them were a full and ample reply to the motion.—(Cheers. ) u( b H ur e d a e r, ns hea on hear.) land.—(Hear, lv d. as —( it H their h a e r i , r hear. ) f aul Mr. CAYLEY cou ld not see w h at t h e quest i on o f t h e na vigation-laws h a d to d o w i th t h e matter b efore the House. The questio n th ey h ad to consider was not the navigation laawss , i butjustice.—(Hear, the What justice was w the thing desired ? Why, w h a t th e H on . M em b er f or Buck inghamshire desired, and w h at b e seconded him in desiring, thatt and protection were convertible terms ?—(Hear, hear.) The Right Hon. Baronet had alluded to France, as showing that when there w as a system of protection, the' land wout of cultivation, an d agr i culture was in a deplorab i l s et go a ni t g but notwithstanding a ll th e revolutions they had had in i France of late, and the great evils which they had given rise to, yet the bullion in the Bank of France was at present twenty millions, while in the Bank of England the bullion was but fourteen millions, and at the same time was on the decrease. Besides the revenue of France had within the last three years considerably increased, while if they took the real revenue of teis country, arising from ordinary sources, there had in the course of that period been a considerable decrease. It was said that since 1847, when so much disaster was abroad, there had been an increase; but he denied that the revenue since that time had risen quicker, or even so quick, as it had risen - upon any occasion of a similar nature since 1820. After the colapse in 1822 there was an increase in the revenue, and notwithstanding that, from that to 1825 upwards of 4,000,000/. taxes had been repealed, the revenue had increased to the amount of 9,988,0001. Again, from 1834 to 1836 upwards of 3,000,0001. taxes bad been repealed, and vet the revenue had increased by 7,247,0001. Then again during 1844, 1843, and 1846, four millions of taxes had. been repealed, and yet there was an increase in the revenue of upwards of five millions. That, however, was not the case now, for, in reality, their income did not meet their expenditure. Then as to the poor-law. it was said the poor-rate had been diminished within the last three years; but the fact was, that while during the years 1844, 1845, and 1846, the average of the poor-rate was 4,989,000/, during the last three years it was 5,750,0001. So that there was a considerable increase in the poor-rate of the country. He supposed the Right Hon. Gentleman (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) would ad mit that the price of the raw material had something to do with the value of the manufactured article? Let them look at the article of cotton, one-fourth of which was said to be kept at home for consumption. The price of the raw material was in 1845 but 4d. a lb.; last year it was Bd. This gave a difference on the 0,00 0 ,(X)0/. of exports of 14,00,000/. Then, if three fourths of the cotton were sent abroad, must not the 8,000,000/. er 9,000,000/. of the increased price be deducted from the export., so there would be only 56,000,0)0/. of exports instead of 65,000,000/. At all periods of recovery from collapses, which were the effect of bad legislation, and which might be avoided were it not for their judicial blind ness—(Hear, hear)—the same thing had happened—the same increase in exports had taken place. There was great distress in 1821, was great prosperity in 1824, and the in crease in the exports that year over the previous years be bad mentioned was 1,777,000/. There was distress in 1834 ; 1836 was a prosperous year, and there was a difference in the exports of 4.150,000/. Again, in the year 1842, the exports were then 47,000,000/, and in 1845 they were 60,000,000/. Then what became of the boast of free-traders if their poor. rate had increased, if their revenue had fallen off, and their exports diminished ? Let them depend upon it a monetary pressure was at hand, and if he could place confidence on some mercantile authorities it was even now looming in the distance. If that monetary pressure came, and their exports were checked, then they would have to complain more bitterly than ever of the want of protection. It was not denied that the agricultural interest was in distress. Who had got the money but the foreigner? His objection to the present system of legisla tion was that they did not allow the farmer to recover the taxes he advanced to the revenue.—(Hear, hear.) The grocer advanced the duties on sugar, but he was repaid by the sale of the article. And now let them look to the way in which booksellers were treated. It was impossible to over-estimate the advantages of knowledge, but sup pose, after taxing the bookseller for his paper they would admit foreign books duty free, would that not be deemed an injustice to the booksellers? They dare not do this. They allowed a return to the booksellers as well as to the grocers for the taxes they advanced, but they did not thus treat the owners and occupiers of land. —(Hear, hear.) For the last 30 years they had been legislating to bring the prices within the gripe of taxation. Conceiv ing that their system of legislation was fatal to the best interests of the country, because they were draining the resources of the farmer, on which the prosperity of the labourer materially depended, he should support the motion of the Honourable Gentleman the Member for Buckingham shire.—( Hear, hear.) Mr. CARDWELL thought the Hon. Gentleman who had just sat down had most ably come to the support of an army labouring under all the pressure of a change of frontage.— (Hear, hear, and laughter.) The question of free trade had been consigned by the Hon. Gentleman, who had in a most workmanlike speech introduced this motion, to convenient oblivion, but the Hon. Gentleman (Mr. Cayley) had broken with a masterly force the opposite lines. In the Hon. Gen tleman's speech every sentence was an attack on that legis lation by which the pressure of extraordinary high prices had been mitigated, and by which the peace, loyalty, and safety of the country had been secured in times of no ordinary diffi culty.—(Hear.) He was not suprised tohear the Hon. Gen tleman say that "figures were troopsso strangely marshalled he almost began to doubt them altogether," for never was he so surprised as in listening to the Hon. Gentle man's own array of figures, adduced to prove that under years of protection the revenue had increased, that the exports had increased, and the profits and advantages of the working classes had been multiplied. IN could, however, find no instance in which, under the banner of protection, seven millions and a half of taxation had been taken, and the Government left the revenue larger than they had found it. (Cheers.) In 1841 the revenue was 48,000,000/. At the end of 1844 the Government had taken off 2,000,000/. of taxes, and having on coming into office found deficiency, had on the sth of April a large balance in the Exchequer. The effect of their legislation was, that they had reduced taxation by 7,500,0001., while the ordinary revenue of the last financial year exceeded the revenue for which the Go vernment were bound to provide, of any year preceding their taking office. The Hon. Gentleman (Mr. Cayley) was living in Arcadian retirement, where the removal of the duties en brick and sugar never entered his mind, and yet , he expected to find the revenue larger than ever.—(Hear.) The Honourable Gentleman had said, that in the days of protection he had got some record of an increase of 11,000,000/. on exports. There was one such case, and he would now refer to, it. Before free-trade measures came into operation, the greatest exports in any year was in 1841, when they were 53,000,000/. During the year which lister just expired, they had increased to 70,000,0001. Now let him ask the Hon. Gentleman, who had the profit on the goods so manufactured and exported? Let him ask him, how many houses had been gladdened? Let them look at the imports of articles of consumption among the wo; king classes, comparing the years 1841 and 1850. In 1841, there were imported 4,000,000 cwts. of sugar; in 1850, there were 6,000,000; of cocoa in 1841, there were imported 1,930,0 00 cwt.; in 1850 they had increased to 3,220,000. He would omit coffee, for every one knew the imports of this article had greatly increased. The brandy imported in 1841 was 1,165,000 gallons, in 1850 it had increased to 2, 1 a 7,000 The tea imported in 1841 was 36,681,0001b5., in 1850 it was 50,000,0001b5. The next article was toba,r_o_!.. s l . which there was imported in 1841, 22 . 30-, and in 1850, 27.68 4001bs.— (Hear, hear.) How the pockets had the profits on these articles gone int t o the profits on of the foreigner? If it were contended tha it must he exports went into the pockets of the forei g ner, into our own admitted that the profits on imports went that the maou pockets. The export of 70,0000 foreignoo!. provedprices. It was com faeturer must sell his goods _a.t.ntuiecompelled them to seil Pulsory on him to do so, t aT ( ' ` ,i ntlemen who des , rect protection, .she Ip. he woul.l ask b sts ?—(Hear, hear.) lie at what' prices they ;nos enthusiasts, that when corn ; would ask them-were they such Pelled to oell cliespih they vr Q uid onteral for the priyilege Observe, the lion. Gentleman says, " in this Parliament" — (Hear, hear.) "It would be most disastrous for the community that you should accord those claims which, in the spirit of severe justice, the agricultural interest has a right to prefer." Observe, this p..inte to compromise; what is that compromise? It has been proposed by Mr. 111Tulloch that the deficiency in the revenue might be sup plied by a fixed duty on corn. I say that we cannot admit that a fixed duty, or a countervailing duty, is an arrange ment in favour of the agricultural interest. It is an arraege ment which, as Members or as Ministers, we may think would, on a balance of circumstances, make what was called the best bargain for the community. lam not called on to say what might be the effect of imposing a 55., or an Bs, or a 10s. duty. They are propositions which may be considered, and they may be in the nature of a compromise, in which, like all persons receiving compensation, the land would not be likely to receive more than half its due."—(Hear, hear.) Reference then is made to the financial exercitation of the Right lion. Member for Stamford, with which we were treated in 1848, wherein he laboured to prove that a mode rate fixed duty fell on the foreign grower, and would not en hanc,3 the price to the consumer. Now, here is the difficulty. I am bound to put the best interpretation I can upon the mystical expressions used last year and this year, and, reading them by the aid of the glossary of the Duke of Richmond, I put an interpretation upon them last year, and to that I now adhere. Remembering that it is said that the Ministers would have a riglr, to impose a duty upon foreign corn, and that it is also said it would not be right to attempt to impose that duty in the present Par liament, I come to the conclusion that the object of the Hon. Gentleman and his party is to turn out the present Admi nistration—(Cheers)—to dismiss the Parliament, to return to Protection in the next Parliament,. and to re-impose a duty upon corn-- (Cheers.) That is the interpretation I put upon the Hon. Gentleman's speech last year, and that is the in terpretation which, upon the whole, I am disposed to put upon it now. Frankly avowed, there can be no more legi timate policy for a party. I know not what the result of that attempt might be. I think it would be a dangerous attempt, inconsistent with the preservation cf the peace of the country and with the safety of property. aid an attempt which I could not agree to see made.—(Cheers.) On the other hand, I see very plainly that we are co the eve of a great and a serious struggle.—(Hear, hear.) I see a party of gentlemen in this and the other House 'f Parliament, powerful in numbers, powerful in Ile respect in which they are held for their personal and hereditary vir tues, having great influence in the country and great posses sions. They are an interest which up to the tresent moment has commanded great influence with the Government, and with the main body of the community at their back, they exercise a power upon any question that is irresistible. This powerful party have in this House no insignificant leader. The Hon. Gentleman (Mr. Disraeli) is the accredited leader of that party. I may say that very early I appreciated the great talents of that Gentleman —c. Loud cheers) —and the time has now arrived when it is impossible to underrate or undervalue his great and commanding ability as a debater in this House.—(Cheers.) The leader of this party in the other House ( Lord Manley) is a Noble Lord, ever foremostlin the battle, of dauntless courage, of eminent ability, and of spotless character.— (Hear, hear.) I have sat beside him in the fray, and I know how formidable his vigorous attack is upon his enemies. I know also the breadth of his shield, ever stretched out to protect his friends --" expert() credite, quantus In clypeum assurgat, quo turbine torqueat hastam." We must gird up our loins. I know not that even now the words of " Up Guards and at them," have not been given. We must prepare for a serious conflict. We must stand on our arms and close our ranks, and prepare ourselves for a firm, manly, uncompromising resistance.—(Cheers.) There is a point on which I would wish to touch before I sit down, but my heart is so deeply grieved that my tongue refuses to utter what I feel. The author, the champion of that policy which I think it is the tendency of this motion to reverse, has been withdrawn from us. He has ceased from his labour—he is at rest, and takes no longer a share in these angry strifes and contentions.—(Hear, hear.) But although he is dead, he still speaks, and from his tomb, as it were, I hear the echo of his voice in this House. Well do I remember the me morable words—and do not you forget them—when he closed the peroration of that magnificent speech which he delivered upon the occasion of the discussion to which I have before referred. His words were these—" I still adhere to my opinion and belief, and earnestly I hope that I may may never live to see the day when the House of Commons will retrace its steps." He, indeed, is gone—but may the omen be averted that the House of Commons is about to re. trace its steps. His gigantic strength is wanting to us; my voice is feeble—my power insignificant—but my part is taken. I hold it to be my sacred duty and sacred trust to defend that policy to the best of my ability. As a proof of my sincerity, as an earnest of my zeal, I will give an hesitating vote against this proposition.—(Loud and con tinued cheering.) The Right Hon. Baronet seemed deeply moved when he alluded to the late Sir R. Peel. Mr. BOOKER (Herefordshire) said, that as he was the representative of a great agricultural county, and that his personal interests were connected with the manufacture of the land, he felt it to be his duty to take a part in the pre sent discussion. The Speech from the Throne had been read from the table, and to one portion of it only did the Hon. Gentleman (Mr. Disraeli) allude in a speech of the most transcendent ability. He would now beg the permission of the House while he particularly referred to the last para graph of that Speech. The Sovereign is made to say that— " Notwithstanding the large reduction of taxation which has been effected in late years, the receipts of the revenue have been satisfactory." Thus he considered that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was satisfied with a retro grade movement, if not with a falling off of the revenue. He held the accounts up to the sth of January, 1851, and he could not deduce from that document that the in come was more than the expenditure, the amount being 2,579,600'. 3s. 3d., as stated by the Chancellor of the Ex chequer. The Hon. Gentleman then entered into several statistics, arguing that, even though the details to which the Right Hon. Gentleman had adverted were founded on fact, vet the increase of the population was not taken into account. lie would now allude to the next paragraph in the Royal Speech, which states that "the state of the commerce and manufactures of the United Kingdom has been such as to afford general employment to the labouring classes." He admitted that the employment alluded to was partially true, but he denied that there was a sufficient opportunity for the safe outlay of capital, a matter which was equally worthy the consideration of the Government and of the Legislature; for in looking to the shipping interest it would be found that there was a decrease in outward tonnage in comparison to the inward tonnage of no less than 233,000 tons in 1851, and a proportionate decrease also in the number of vessels. He would neat allude en passant to the three staple trades of this country, and show the House that the woollen, the cotton, and the iron trade were very much deteriorated by the withdrawal of a just protection. He could not avoid ex pressing his astonishment that the Chancellor of the Ex chequer should assert that the woollen and the cotton trade ' were of late years prospering and increasing, while in reality the contrary was the case, for he could prove that there was a decrease of 0,526,7 001 b., and also that there was a decrease of over 5,000,0001 b. in the cotton trade. The iron trade waS one that he was well acquainted with, and he had no hesi tation in stating that it was falling off very much, even to the amount of 2,000,0001, both as to the employment of labour and capital, for there was a diminution of price, and consequently labour was suspended, and the outlay of capital was not risked owing to a diminution of 45 per cent. in the price of iron within the last year. All the landed interest wanted was fair play and justice at the hands of the Legisla ture, and all the lion. Member for Buckinghamshire re quired for them was a relief from their present difficulties. Ho then thanked the House for their kind attention to his first essay in that House, and pledged himself that he would never be found to advocate any cause but that of justice and fair play. Mr. LABOUCHERE said that he was aware that the House must be gratified with the speech of the Honourable Gentleman (Mr. Brooker) who had just sat down. The policy of reversing the present commercial system had been so combatted by the arguments of the Right Honourable Baronet the Member for Ripon (Sir J. Graham), and also by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that he would totally leave the motion of the Hon. Member for Buckinghamshire to their irrefragable proofs. There never was a period when the great hvanelies of industry were so well, so contented, arid so well employed as at present. It was generally known that the woollen and cotton trade were never so prosperous, and the falling off in the iron trade was not to be attributed to anything but the excessive speculation of persons at the head of such factories, for their outlay in the construction of furnaces for railway uses, which to tally disappointed their expectations. He contended that it was not from a failure in the export trade that the iron trade was deteriorated, for the exports in 1845 were 352,000 tons; in 1849, 70!,000 t u ns; and in 1850, 772,600 tons, showing an inc rease i n the expor t s i n th ose several years, but that the wh o l e disap pointrneut and de terioration was owing to an excessive speculation. So much for the iron trade. But there was another important branch which had been affected which had been alluded to by the Honourable Gentleman who had just sat down, and which it would be inexpedie n t t o a lt oge the r overlook, a revisio n of the ef f ect pro d uce d b y on the t ra d e o f th e coun try. He alludedw theirie n c t o h n it e o y mt : e ' re e c r ie e affl t e a pe k tos i l we g yh ich had d resulted from the change which had recently taken place in the navigation-laws on the shipping interests of the country; and he did not hesi tate to assert, that so far from the predictions of those who affirmed that the alterations of those laws would prove the ruin of the shipping and ship-building interests, any one who examined properly into the matter would find that the change had produced results altogether in the opposite di rection, and that instead of ruining the ship-building, and shipping interests, it had conduced to the prosperity of both. In the year 184 e the amount of tonnage, foreign and Bri tish vessels, entered inwa r ds and cleared outwards as re garded the ports of the United Kingdom, was 10,600,000 tons; tons, inD'A9itthuswas 11,501,000 tons, an d i n 1850, i t was 12,100,000 showing a considerable increase on last year.—(Hear, hear.) He admitted that if they came to analyse the list, it would be found that there was a small falling off in the number of British ships entered all nations, it was not to be supposed inwards, and a considerable increase of foreign, ships so en tered ; but that as a matter of course must be so, for when, by the repeal of the navigation-laws, they had opened the of the act. He was, however, prepared to prove that, so far from the result of 5 1 d a take whole, advantage being productive considered their most formidable opposite effect, bp the on rt tshteos change, enationse s taken ll ps'of all c tuc t t o ive its of in t t h e fortshhoi shipping, had i e n g ,u , n g i t t r r h e i e a a s t d l The shipping of erev t : te.ry diminish British rivals, bad increased but in a very trifling extent, and the only increase which had taken place was from other nations from whom they had least reason to expect any formidable rivalry. The Right Hon. Gentleman seemed, however, to greatly conduced been o n n u, think that the American tonnage entered inward and cleared outward in this country had much increased; but lie found that in 1848 the American tonnage entered inward was 598,000 tors, and cleared outward 549,000 tons. In 1849 the tonnage entered inward was 587,000 tons, and cleared out ward 6e0,000 tons; and in 1850 the tonnage entered inward was 585,000 tons, and cleared outward 77 • • 0 ,000 tons. So that the opinion of the Right Hon. Gentleman was not borne, out by facts to the extent he would infer. But, he would ask, had there been no new sources provided to strengthen the shipping interest in consequence of the additional channels of trade which the repeal of the navigation-laws had opened up. In that respect he must say that the result had been most satisfactory, in fact, beyond the most sanguine expec tations of the advocates of the repeal of those laws. He was not in a position to state, as he had not yet the correct returns. the number of voyages British shipping had made to foreign ports, from which they were, previous to the repeal of the navigation-laws, prohibited ; but from one most important port he had a statement whirls would give a specimen of the advantages which had resulted in this respect. He held in his hand a return which had been received from the British Consul at New York of the number of the voyages made by British shipping entering that port with full cargoes during the past year from ports which they were previously prohibited from entering. According to this return there had entered New York from Cuba and Hayti, 50 ships, B,gB'. tons; from other ports, 60 ships-16, 800 tons; from Brazils, 9 ships.-7.000 tons; from other ports in South America, 6 ships-1,946 tons; from china, 4 ships-1,e30 tons; from other ports, 11 ships-1,5`2 tons; making in all 14 , 1 British ships, with a tonnage of 30,29, tons, .which had entered the port ;of New York, with full 'cargoes, from pogo which they could not have trolled with boforet—.! of buying dearly?—(Hear, hear.) How could it be said that a foreign trade was carried en, end that the home trade was not commensurate with it. He would now refer to some documents relative to the import of cotton from the United States, in support of the propo sition for which he contended, viz., that they had laid the foundation for an entire revolution in, and reformation of, the social and economical system of the country, that they had strengthened the foundation of their own manufactures, and that they were in a situation to make encroachments on the manufactures of foreign countries. The first document was a trade circular which he had received from the north, and which stated that the imports of cotton from the United States were greater than there was any reason to expect, owing to the diminished consumption there, and the dispro portionate shipment to France and the continent of Europe. The prospects of the manufacture were of a satisfactory cha racter, there being nothing to check it unless it was an insuf ficient supply of the raw material. Means were within the reach of all, and they might look for a steady and improving home trade. That was what the first circular told them. The second was from a gentleman whose authority they would recognise immediately —Mr. Littledale, of Liverpool. —(Hear, hear.) He said that there had lately been a re markable revolution in heavy goods and low yarns, both for home use and export, the present stocks of which were inadequate to supply the demand. On the whole, perhaps, there was never a greater feeling of security. Another year of prosperity had closed, and the formidable losses of 1847 and 1848 might be considered as fairly cancelled by the gains of 1849 and 1850. —( Hear, hear.) Now. after reading those extracts, might they not say that the manufacturing classes had gone through as severe trials, or perhaps even severer ones, than their agricultural brethren? - (Hear, hear.) If, by virtue of their own strength and energy, and not by the aid of Parliament, they had been carried through their own crisis, might they not hope that the same happy issue was awaiting the agricultural interest. (Loud cries of " Hear, hear.") Our Exchequer was prosperous now, and its prosperity, notwithstanding the remission of duties, was one of the most extraordinary circumstances of the time. They were once told that when the railways were finished, the labourers would be thrown upon the rates who had worked upon them. Well, the railways were finished, and what had become of the thousands of labourers they had employed? Would any one tell him? There was no especial reference to them in official documents. He re ferred to the Poor-law Board for information, but it seemed that that was not a matter falling within their province. They themselves had given the answer when they said that these men had been employed' by the deter mination of the landed interest to keep them and the land. A stranger passing through the country would form no despairing idea of the prosperity of the landowners—for, he would ask, were there ever seen so many draining tiles, so many heaps of lime, and on the moor lands such large tracts in process of conversion? Well, now, Parliament laid aside a sum of money for the improvement of the land. Had there been any remissness in taking up that loan ? Had it not been greedily taken up? The rate of interest was 6i per cent., which was a high rate, and he should like to know in how many cases in Ireland and Scotland had the tenant agreed to take it up, and in how many cases to take up the largest portion ; and, also, whether landed gentlemen would borrow the money, and spend it in agri culture, if they considered that the landed interest was a ruined interest, and that there was no hope . or prospect for it? With those questions to be an swered, he could arrive at no other conclusion than that the agricultural interest, by dint of its own energy, would survive the difficulties that had threatened it ; and let them reflect on the tenure by which they held their possessions. On the 10th of April did they not thank God that a great cause of dissatisfaction did not prevail? Did they now think they could carry a Corn Bill, or if they carried it, did they think they could maintain it ?—(Hear.) Would they not rather think they were sitting upon a tornado, and that they could not invest their money in land with any feeling of security? Now, the Hon. Member for Yorkshire thought that protection was the remedy which Parliament ought to apply to the grievances of the landed interest. His views, perhaps, amounted to this, that when they had settled the question of malt and spirits, when they transferred the local burdens, when they had repealed the Bank Charter Aet, then, in the next Parliament, by the ad dition of a protection of 10s., some moderate compensation might be given. (Great laughter.). Now, what would be the effect of adding 10s. to the price of wheat ? A great authority on this point, Mr. Young, was good enough to send him a copy of his speech with reference to it. Mr. Young there estimated the total annual value of the produce of the country at 210,000,0001. Taking wheat as the standard, and that was sufficiently near for the purpose, and that its price was raised P.'s. per' quarter, that would give one fourth part of 220,000,0001., or 55 , 000,1t0e, to put into the pockets of the agricultural community. Now, that looked something like relief.—.(Laughter.) Considering that that was very nearly the whole revenue of the country, and that it in fact called upon them to impose upoa their constituents a tax nearly equal to the whole revenue of the country, which was not intended to go into the Exchequer, it be came them to be careful how they made any such rule the basis of practice. If they estimated the average wages of the hand-loom weavers at 10s. a week, as the report showed, the number of persons in a family, on the average, to be four, and the price of wheat to be 605 a quarter, then 55. a week, as one-half of the income over expenditure, must be expended iu bread. Now, if by a corn-law the price of corn were raised 20 per cent., it was obvious that such a measure, as against the hand-loom weavers, must operate as an income-tax to the extent of 10 per cent. Why should that be done? With regard to the question of the burdens on land, the Honourable Gentleman who preceded him had in fact established his own case, and, therefore, relieved him from the necessity of following him. But he might be permitted to remind him of this, that during the last five years, two Committees of the House of Lords had sat upon this very subject, had gone into it deeply, had pointed out all the burdens which they conceive injurious and injudicious, and the remedies which they were prepared to recommend. Neither in the report of 1846 nor in that of 1850, did he find any suggestion to adopt the course which, by the present measure, they were invited to pursue.—(Hear, hear.) He trusted that, under any cir cumstances, he should not prove a traitor to principles which he sincerely believed had enabled them to pass—not without suffering, but with mitigated suffering—through the greatest crisis of their history—principles, he believed, which had served them as a security, and not least to hailed property, which had been their healing portion, and which had strengthened the foundations of the Crown and Government. Colonel DTJNNE sail he had had some hope that the agricultural districts of the country would have obtained some measure of relief from the Government, and that Ire land might then have come in for her own share of it. The savings banks, which afforded a fair criterion of the social condition of the people, exhibited a melancholy picture. It appeared from the returns that the sums lodged in savings banks in Ireland had diminished from 2,920,0001. in 1845, to 1,810,0001. in the present year. The cereal crops were no• toriously becoming more insufficient to assist the population from the want of capital and skill. Under the Bill for the sale of encumbere i estates lan i in vast quantities was brought to the hammer and disposed of by persons who united the functions of judges and auctioneers. As an ex ample of the operation of this system, he had the return of the sale of an estate which, in 1845, could have been so ld f or 18i years' purchase, but which had been sold the other day for 25,0001., leaving a deficiency to creditors of 65,0001. If be looked tothe return from the Poor-law Board, there was the same dejected aspect of the condition of the country. The state of the returns showed that Ireland was going down. The land was getting into the hands of the lower class. He was prepared to show that tobacco could be grown in Ireland with profit. That would open up a much more profitable market for cultivation than flax, to which the Hon. Baronet (Sir James Graham) had adverted. The advances, many of which had been forced upon Ireland, had been misspent. The local taxation was much larger in Ireland than in this country. The poor-law was thrown upon the owners and occupiers of land, in addition to mortgages and other charges. He objected to centralization, he repudiated the bad Govern ment of the country, and should support the motion of the Hon. Member for Buckinghamshire, and be cared not whe ther he sac on that (the Ministerial) or the opposite side of the House.—( Hear, hear.) Lord JOCELYN said he would occupy the House but a very few moments. He was anxious to have followed the Hon. Member for Liverpool (Mr. Cardwell), because he bad said that he was a traitor t, the policy of 1845, it he voted for the motion before the House. The Hon. Member's speech did n. t seem to touch the question. It w nt to show the general prosperity of the country, in which he concurred. —( Hear.) He regretted to differ from his Right lion. Friend (Sir James Graham), whose speech went to prove most clearly the general state of prosperity of all interests except one.—(Hear.) He distinctly admitted the depression of one clasp—the agriculturists.—( Hear. hear ) Ile distinctly admitted the depression of that class. That was also adniftted in the speech of her olajesty from the Tnrone. Up to 1815 he supported the general policy of protection. Then a change came over the views of the country con cerning that policy, and when many of its ablest protectors had lett it, the support of its policy became hopeless. It was upon that view that he supported the Government, but he believed that it must naturally depress the agricultural interest. At the time he supported the change he was pre pared to do justice to their claims.-- (Cheers.) His comes then was not inconsistent with the course he was now about to take. The motion before the House called for Govern ment to come to a fair consi•leration of the claims of the agriculturists. He could not concur in the construction put upon the motion before the House by the Right Hon. Baronet (Sir James Graham), but would vote for it as he read it. Mr. B. COCHRANE would vote for this motion because her Majesty's Speech contained these facts—that the general prosperity in the country had been the consequence of the measure which he had supported, but at the same time there was also in consequence of that measure great distress to one class, and therefore they were the more bound to re lieve that distress. He should therefore most heartily and sincerely support the motion. Mr. GOBJEN said, that during the course of the debate much doubt had been expressed as to the nature of the mo tion before them. Some Hon. Members said that it was not for protection ; others, on the contrary, viewed it as a Pro tectionist motion. To the eye of common sense there could be no doubt, either in the House or out of it, as to the real object of the motion. Whether it was meant as a motion for a return to a duty on corn, or for compensation for loss sus tained by the repeal of the corn-laws, he apprehended the object gained by it would be protection.—(" No, no" from the Protectionists.) He should not, after the exhaustive speech of the Right Hon. Gentleman the Member for Ripon, have troubled the House with one remark, if it had not been that te the Hon. Member for Buckinghamshire, in introduc.iengvotbes motion, seemed to ground the whole of his claimn for the corn of his supporters on the assumption, that in laws it had been agreed that certain uoted the be obtained for corn. The Hon. Gentleraann the Treasury prices should thereafter speech of a Right Honourable Gentlemyßn_en who in the bench, and of some other Honourable G e nii M course of the discussion on the corn- , and subsequent to their repeal, had expressed a n had not been so opinionlaw that prices would range to a certain level, and be ecausie they a und ce e r r t s a ta in ndi c n o g mp h a a c d t , high as predicted, the Honours!) a Member for Buck inghamshire has assume: cetrhwatin had been broken—that and then came forward with a claim not been realised,A h e (Mr. Cobden) had some share in for compensation. the long and wearisome discussion on the corn-laws, he must enter bis protest against any such doctrine.—( Hear, hear.) He would w arn them from p roc eeding to grant coin pensation for the repeal of the corn-laws, on such an assumption, because he was prepared to assert that in the whole course of his arguments on the corn-law question he had never so much as offered an opinion as to what the price of corn would be.—(Cries of " Oh, oh.") It Hon. Gentlemen who cried " Oh, oh," would take the trouble to look through the iecord of their proceedings, he was sure they would not—indeed he challenged them to bring an instance of his ever saying what the price of corn would be.— (Hoar, hear.) He hag always argued the question on totally diffe rent principles. Again and again he feed stated that he d:d not care what prices w 're under free trode so long as they had corn at the natural price of the world's market.-- (Cheers.) They h‘id it now at that natural price, and he was content. The country was content—(tlear, luar)--and the clumsy would be content even if the natural price should be 50s. instead of 40s. It was quite possible that it would be nigh to 50s. by that time two years.—(Oh, oh.) It had b. en 89s. since the repeal of the com-laws.—(—Rear, hear.) He could grant no compensation, therefore, under that plea. klayieg poteated against each au agaumptial he aekectwha t prof had they that the two classes—landowners and tanners —had suffered such grievous losses in consequence of the repeal of the corn-laws? One large landed pro prietor in that House told them that he preferred no claim for compensation on that score. Would Honourable Gentlemen tell him that landlords had suffered great loss since the repeal of the corn-laws? Would any Hon. Gentleman tell hint that, taking the average of landlords. there had been a reduction of 10 per cent. on rents? (Hear, hear.) He had hed information obtruded upon him, which showed that in many instances there had been no reduction at all.--(Cries of "Name.") But sup posing the landlords had suffered a reduction of 10 percent. ot their rents, did they imagine that they were the only class in the community who hade buffered losses during the last four or five years? Had persons who bad invested their money in mines or in railroads, or even in the iron trade, suffered no losses? Even one branch of the cotton trade had not been so very prosperous during that time. Were the agriculturists, therefore, to be the only par ties who were to be compensated for their losses? The state of the farmer bad been different in different localities. In some cases, in heavy c l ay lands, he had ex perienced great difficulty and distre ss , b ut in li ghter soils which supplied potatoes, and other ki n d s of food for large, towns, farming had been no unprofit a bl e b usiness. —(Hear, hear.) But what was asked for now, was a gen era l compen sation to all farmers, and to all landowners.—(Hear, hear.) They were asked to ignore the sufferings of the shopkeepers, manufacturers, and professional persons, and to legislate merely for the interests of landowners and farmers.—(Hear, hear.) He objected to that attempt of the Hon. Member for Buckinghamshire on another ground. The Hon. Member had told them that he sought rather to transfer a certain amount of taxation from the landowners and farmers to the shoulders of the other classes in the country. He had not told them how that was to he done, and it was there that his speech was so defective. Did the Hon. Gentleman intend to increase the property-tax, or the tax on articles of consump tion ? Did the Hon. Gentleman propose that ? Nobody could say what Hon. Gentlemen opposite intended.—(Hear.) They were all mute. How were they going to take five millions or six millions of taxation from the shoulders of one class and transfer it to another? Let them be assured that nobody could bear an increase of taxation. If any one thing was more settled than another it was, that no Government could shift taxati on to any considerable amount.—(Hear, hear.) Last year the Chancellor of the Exchequer tried an ad valorem stamp duty; but the alteration was opposed, and no increase in the higher rate was obtained. If any one axiom was better known than another, it was, that no modification of a tax , could be obtained by merely transferring it from the shoulders of one class to those of another, for there was more resistance from those upon whom even au additional feather-weight of taxation was to be imposed, than there was help from those whom the transfer was intended to re lieve.— (Hear.) If this resolution were passed, it would be the merest chimera to say that it would relieve the farmer, when no one could tell upon whose shoulders was to be placed the burden of taxation intended to be relieved. The only way to mitigate taxation on the landowners and farmers was by large reductions in the expenditure. No Hon. Gentleman opposite had proposed any reduction in the expenditure of the Government. Not one word had the Hon. Member for Buekirghamshire said about that. He (Mr. Cobden) wished to renews landowners and farmers, but not them alone, by a general reduction of expenditure. Let them look at the cost of the colonies, and at the wasteful ex penditure, not useful even to the colonists themselves.— (Hear.) There was there an ample margin for reduction. The lion. Member for Buckinghamshire had cited numerous cases in which he proposed to benefit the landlords. He should not refer to them, because they had been ably dis posed of by the Right Hon. Baronet the Member for Ripon (Sir James Graham). There were a great many things to which the Hon. Gentleman had not referred, but which might benefit the landowners and farmers. He found fault with discussions like the present, because they pre vented landlords and tenants from understanding each other, and coming to some arrangement.—(Hear, hear.) Hon. Gentlemen opposite were again leading the farmers on a wrong scent. For three years they had deluded the farmers with hopes of protection, but now they said they did not seek protection.—(Hear, hear.) Even the Hon. Mem ber for Hereford, the last elected Protectionist, applauded the speech of the Hon. Member for Buckinghamshire, and instead of saying one word about protection, plunged into a boundless sea of statistics without a rudder or compass, but said not a word about protection. - (Hear, bear.) He he had stated he found fault with these discus ions, be cause they prevented landlords and tenants coming to an arrangement, Nine-tenths of their difficulties might be got over by the landlords and tenants themselves, without the interposition of the Parliament. At present the land lord told the farmer to wait, and he would get protection, and the farmer felt if protection failed him that that would give him a plea for compensation. But what was now pro fessed? Another plea to modify taxation--a vague, indefi nite, unfathomable proposal.—(Hear, hear.) He defied any farmer, if he did not fall asleep before he got through the seven columns of the speech of the Hon. Member for Bucks, to make out what the Hon. Member meant. He would have them leave landlords and tenants to adjust their difficulties themselves. He could point out something that would help them. Did they not think that leases might be advan tageously a , lopted?—(No, and laughter.) What would Scotcbmen say when the mention of leases as a necessary condition of good farming was received with a roar of laugh ter from the Protectionists?—(Renewed laughter, and cries of " No, no.") Could anything more complet e ly j ust if y what he had been saying, that they had not selected the proper means of remedying their difficulties? Did they not think that their condition would be improved by a diminution of the game ?—(Cries of " Oh," and laughter.) Ho did not think Hon. Gentlemen opposite understood the wants of the farmers after all, for they (the farmers) were laughed at when game was spoken of.—(Hear, hear.) It was stated in evidence before the Committee which sat on the subject of game, that on a farm on which game was preserves in the ordinary way, the cost of the game to the tenant was as much as the whole of his local and government rates.—( Laughter. ) He (Mr. Cobden) begged to say that it was so stated. There was another law which, in his opinion, was injurious to the farmers—he meant the law of distraint, which gave the landlord a preferable and a prior claim over the tenant's goods. He believed if that law were altered the tenant would be disposed to lay out a much greater amount of capital in the cultivation of the soil. Was there nothing which the landlord might not himself do to improve their condition? Would not a change in the law of transfer be beneficial? Would not facilities of transfer raise the value of estates, increase the number of proprietors call into existence more labour and diminish the poor rates?-- (Hear, hear.) All these were things necessary to be done; but could be done only by the landlords themselves. But none of these things would be done so long as the farmers' attention was kept fixed on motions like the present. The Hon. Gentleman had talked of the ten millions or twelve millions paid by the agricultural producers. It was well known that the tax on beer, tobacco, and gin was a tax paid by the consumers; but he believed there was not a coalheaver on the Thames who did not pay more malt duty than any farmer in the kingdom. It was the consumer, and not the producer of an article that paid the tax.—(Hear. hear.) He was surprised, at the present advanced period of economical knowledge, that anybody should have ventured so far on the credulity of the farmer as to put forth such a proposal as that which had emanated from the other side.—(Hear, hear.) Honourable Gentlemen opposite, as a party, were s t rong — num b ers of them were landlords representing a great many farmers, but they were bound in justice to a large portion of the community not so powerfully represented to pause before agreeing to the resolution before the House. They might, by carrying the resolution, reverse the policy of the last few years, or they might attempt to compensate themselves for the repeal of the corn-laws, but they might depend on it they were but leading the agriculturists into another difficulty—into another struggle with all the trades, occupations, and professions in the kingdom.—( Hear.) But they would be eaten again as before. They had now avowed that all which they bad been telling the House for the last ten years was unfounded.—(Cries of " No.") It was so, because their leader had admitted that the great mass of the people were in a state of comparative prosperity. The Hon. Gentleman told them that the case of the landowners and the farmers was an exceptional one, but that the prosperity of all other classes gave him a strong case for the present motion. [lad they well con , idered what the motion in volved? It iiivoive.l the consequence, that for the thirty year , during which the corn-laws were maintained, the landowners were doing great injustice to the masses of the people—tbat they were suffering privation and misery at the hands of the landlords. If it was adatitted that the re peal of the corn-laws benefited the masses, it was impossi ble to deny that the existence of those laws injured them.— (Hear, hear.) He advised them, therefore, not to say a word about compensation, or again to stir the question. He hoped the Hon. Members for Ireland would not follow the example ot tie lion. .:ember for l'ortarlington. He hved no temporary excitement against the Government on other questions would induce them to vote against the interests ot the masses in this country. Frey knew that the bulk of the taxation was raised from the consumers, those who are not represented, and surely they would pause before they would inilict such injustice on those who were not represented, by supporting the motion of the Hon. Gentleman. Mr. BIOORE said he should support the motion for two , reasons, both of them resting on a strictly Irish view of the question.- (Laughter and cheers.) This was the view which, either from extreme tact, or extreme ignorance, bad been excluded from the observations of the Right Hon. Gentleman, the Member for Ripon. The Hon. Gentleman who had just sat down had addressed reproaches to his friend the Member for Porterlington, for his picture of the state of Ireland. What was that state ? iTa l ethargy dismaler in the market, and there was no one to purchase it. The Why its land wit., A nominal letters of the land were either in the workhouse or t drafted off to foreign shores.—( Hear.) ; e n T t e h d e a nominal tenantry were waging wa r ag ain st fighting for nothing—for of despair and the rage of comp antithesis unparalleled in the history of the odd.-- no thik e i t wt n the p irs re (Cheers.) What ha d been the remedial meas ure presented f them was a Bi t Lord? One o o prevent the by the Noble Lo . as a means y __ 434 of Preventin g agrarian removal of crops to mi ss a specimen of the insufficient outrage. That w nature of measures. His second their remedia l reason for support ingotion was that the whole populationof the ''n • lreland determined to show the Noble Lord and werethe occupants of t h e Treasury bench, that they should not retain possession of them ex cept upon the principle on which the I y came . I nto religious Do wer, namely, as friends of ci v il and ' • ous liberty. For years the Irish Members had supported the present Cabinet, notwithstanding its many deficiencies. They had shut their eyes to its weakness • - and inco mpetency. — (Laughter (Laughter and cheers.) They had voted with the yd'o vernment on the Greek question, or rather on the larger question moved by the Honourable ' r on Member for Sheffield, who saved the Ministry on that occasion.—(Hear, hear.) There were many things is the policy of the Noble Lord at the head of the Foreign -office with which they did not agree, but they had supported him in order to show that their religion did not, as had been asserted, either enslave the intellect or degrade the soul. They had heretofore placed a staff in the hands of the Noble Lord, and he had only used it to smite them on the teeth.-(Hear, hear.) On the Treasury benches he was the supporter of a policy suited to the middle ages, on the opposite bench es, he religions liberty, ho again become the friend of civil and ho would again become the friend of Ireland, if the Irish Members would vote to put him out.- (Laugh . ter.) H e cheated atg iving a vote, i hoped that none of them would he ch . . which would show the people of Irelan d that they resented , a policy which was an insult to . their religion, and were ad ' verse to a Minister who had excited the rancour of the whole , 'nst it.-(Oh, oh.) N :es, the Noble people of England a gai nst Lord had brought in a mea sure which would bi t b y bit in- He tioduce a system of persecution. hoped the Irish Members would no longer; support a Illinister who for four years had made use of them for his own purposes, and who now on y waned to make me of them for more discreditable purposes --(Hear, hear. ) Lord J. RUSSELL—I can as-ure the House that if I were not persuaded that much more than the embarrassment or fate of the 'l . i't ..) in sry was involved in the discussion to .. _ ..... .._ .._ __ n ight, I should hardly think it neczssary t 0... trouble them at an y length upon this occasion. Indeed, had the House been as full as it now is when the Right Hon. Gentleman th% Member for Ripon delivered his addre - Ss, I should him. bees ready to dtcluo that I otild 04 wthin to the ,4 .