The Sun. — London, England, 1845-06-11 00:00:00

worth and station, to the fact, that %hen food was dear and high, - - the causes assigned fur it were of a somewhat different chaiacter. It was alleged; Is the causes of the evil, that ma chittery had increased so Inah—(Hear, hear)—that the mis- OM was owing to the prAedings of the grinding capitalists; that ovni4Opuiation was at Ahe bottom of it ; that joint-stock banks were the originating source ; that the field of employ ment was itiOitnited for the people—any and all of these rea sons were assit(tied as the causes of dear bread and low wages. In 1841 and `11332 these were the explanations given of national distress, while himself, and those who acted with him, and had done so from the beginning, were sneered at for bringin g for ward the old story about the corn-laws and free trade. Now, what was the state they were in in 1845, only three years since those opinions had been stated. Since then machinery hid greatly extended, the people had increased 1,500,000; joint stock banks were more prolific than ever, and there never was a time money was so plentiful. It could not, therefore,be said that these were the causes of dear bread and low wages. Yet the Hon. Gentlemen on the other side the House were bound to give an account of the improvement. The Ministry were bound to give an explanation of it. The account which the Right Hon. Baronet at the head of her Majesty's Govern ment had already given was—first, that the improvement had arisen from the reduction in the price of food ; and secondly, reduction in the amount of protective duties. He said there was no other way of accounting for it. He denied that the seasons had been the sole cause, and took credit that the im provement was due, in a great measure, to what the Govern ment had done in relaxing the protective principle. This was the especial doctrine from whence all the vast blessings were alleged to have flowed. The Hon. Gentlemen on the other side of the House ought to complain of the policy of the Government, if they think that high pric es are a bl ess i ng , while they on his (Mr. Villiers's) side of the House, had a right to complain of the Government stopping short. The advocates of protection, if they were true to their own princi ples, had a right to complain of the Government going too far ; while the advocates of total repeal had an equal right to com plain of their not going far enough.—( Loud cheers.) It was the tendency of society—and the Right Hon. Baronet (Sir R. Peel) had admitted as touch—to pay less attention to agri cultural pursuits, and more to manufacturing operations—to ' leave the cultivation of the soil, for the production of other articles of wealth. This, at the present moment, was the tendency of all progressive countries. For merly the greater proportion of the people of thin country were engaged in agriculture ; now there was only one-third engaged in agriculture, while there were two-thirds employed ' in manufactures. Now, what would be the effect of reducing the supply of food to this population by the restrictive system ? Why, that those who had gone into manufacturing pursuits must either return back to their original employments on the land to raise food, or else return burdens to their respective parishes and become paupers. There being two-thirds of the people engaged in manufactures and commerce, it was quite evi ent that when food was scarce that prices must rise, and all other branches of trade suffer.—( Hear, hear.) Their means being exhausted in the purchase of food, they would cease pay ing for manufactured goods; and all who were employed in the production of such articles would thus be made to suffer from the want of a market.—( Hear.) The consequence of such a system was a general deficiency of employment, a reduction of wages.—( Hear, hear.) This was the true explanation why low wages were found to accompany dear food. The effect of throwing so many people out of employment was to produce an enormous amount of evil—( Hear, hear )—not only in the suffering inflicted on those thus deprived of a market for their labour, but in the waste of capital in the shape of parish relief, and the demoralisation that accompanied it. The law that now existed was of no use, unless it was for the purposes of restric tion, and what was the true character of restriction he had just shown.—( Hear, hear.) He would now show the revolting and disgusting effects that followed the limited supply of food under this restrictive system. He would not read the reports of 1842, respecting the state of the popula tion, so as to harrow up the feelings of the House, but would merely call their attention to the facts ccntained in them in order to illustrate his case. They fulls justified what hart been stated by the Noble Lord r ehe Secretary fire Foreign Affairi;that "'scarcity was the greatest curse in flicted by Providence on the country." Though he (Mr. Villiers) agreed with the Noble Lord, in his estimate of the evils of scarcity, he differed with him in considerin g it a vi sitation from Providence. Art eloquent gentleman had said that they should examine a little ere they committed blas phemy, by ascribing that to the Deity which arose from their own erceneuus proceedings.—( Hear, hear.) Scarcity was a curse, yet, at the time of great scarcity in this coun try, at that period to which he had referred, a pestilence had broke out in a transatlantic city, produced by a store of provisions that could not command a market.—(Loud cries of " Hear, hear.") The people of England were complain ing of scarcity, and the people of another country, within ten days' sail of them, were suffering from a pestilence, be cause they could not get rid of their provisions.—(Hear. ) They should be cautious how they charged the Deity with causing scarcity, when those things were taking place. The Hon. Gentlemen opposite who were such great advo cates for protection—the Hon. Member for Essex, and the Hon. Member for Lincoln—knew very well of these evils, and he asked them how they could reconcile themselves to pass them over, without giving it due consideration—( Hear, hear) —how they could oppose a thorough revision of the whole question ?—( Hear, hear.) The Ministry, and those who sup ported the Ministry, had considered it right to enlarge the field of industry, to relieve raw material from the duty which pressed upon it, and to make other modifications and ameliora tions of their commercial code ; but up to that moment they had not dealt w ith the article of corn.—( Hear, hear.) True, an alleviation had been made in the English corn-law scale, and there ha.l horn a Canadian Corn Bill ; and in both cases the Rtght Hon. Baronet had made the alterations not to in crease the quantity of corn so as to remove distress, but for something else. The former corn-law, it was said, had not answered the purpose for which it was passed, and the present one was introduced to remedy its deficiencies ; but that neither it, or the Canada Bill, were ever intended as free-trade mea sures, but rather to meet the particular exigencies of the times. The Right Hon. Gentleman the Secretary for the Home De partment had stated that the departure from the Corn Bill of 1815, and the Canada Bill, were neither of them intended to increase food, but to remove defects in the working of previous taws. It was not long since 111 (Mr. Villiers) heard that same Right Hon. Gentleman speak of the great increase of population—of its increasing yearly at the rate of 380,000 per runs, while, according to the same authority, there were 1,500,000 paupers in Eegland.—(Loud cries of " Hear, hear.") To meet this state of things he (Mr. Villiers) contended there Must be a change in the system of protection—an alteration in the corn-laws.—( Hear, hear.) They had the fact of a yearly increase of 380.000 in the population, and 1,500,000 pauper, or one-tenth of the whole population in the richest country in the world; and yet, in the face of these facts, a protective corn.law was maintained.—( Hear, hear.) Go throughout the world and they would find allusion continually made to English pauperism and English corn-laws.—(Cheers. ) The two were invariably mentioned together. They were the scandal of England throughout Europe—pauperism, and the corn-laws as the cause of pauperism. He said, upob these considerations, he had a good right to call for another settle ment of this question. He had strong grounds for saying that up to that time that relaxation of protection, as a measure of relief to the people, had not been conceded. The law, though . modified in its machinery, still remained the same in prin-o ciple, and, in his opinion, was as little calculated to meet the wants and circumstances of the people as the law of 1815. Precisely the same evils were felt in Holland and in Belgium as in this country, from the same sort of tarn pertne with the corn-laws. This country could no longer rely for a supply of corn on those countries, neither could they rely upon France, for the restrictive system existed in that country too. The agriculturists of this country gave no encourage ment to increase their supply, and he had seen letters from per sons engaged in the Baltic trade, which stated that the Ca nada Corn Bill had created still greater uncertainty than before. The change which had been made in the banking system, though it might be beneficial to them, he thought would be attended with ruinous consequences to the manufacturers, for bullion must be sent out for corn. People must, at all events, have food, and the revulsion would be sudden and severe. H e dill not expect that any member of the Government would put forward that wretched argument, " local taxation," as a r e a s on for not dealing with this measure. If local taxation was a valid reason for refusing change, the responsibility would be shifted from the landowners to the gentlemen, who could deal with it as they pleased ; but it was idle nonsense to talk of local taxation as an argument. He denied that the land had greater burdens than it should have, and if the land holders were saddled with greater burdens, why did they al ways refuse inquiry ?—( Hear, hear.) No, he did not believe there were any such peculiar burdens, and, what was more, he believed the landowners themselves were not sincere in the opinion that there were such burdens.—( Hear, hear. ) But if they existed, let them at once be shifted. Let the landed interest bring in their account, and he would venture to say that the advocates of free trade would deal with it in a spirit of fairness and candour. Let the landowners, he repeated, be indemnified, but not by making the food of the people scarce. The Right Hon. Gentleman had, on a previous evening, said that in years of plenty capital punishments were less. 'there was no doubt but disease, sickness, and misery followed, as a consequence of dear food. The House seemed willing to consult the advantage of the public on any measure but this. They took care to have proper railway communication throueh the country, and when a railway project was submitted the Legislature took care that good security should be given for carrying it out, so that the public might not in any way suffer from high fares or inconvenient and dangerous conveyance.—( Hear.) Why was not the same sort of security exacted from those who undertook to supply the country with food ?—( Hear, hear.) In the case of rail ways free and open competition was allowed and monopoly dis couraged; in corn, competition was prevented and monopoly en couraged and fostered.—( Hear, hear.) The Secretary at War said, let the landed interest alone. Why, they were let alone from 1834 to 1838, and they all recollected what the con sequence was—starvation and crime in abundance. In March, 18314, he brought forward a motion on the corn-laws, but he was then told by two or three embryo Dukes (Cleveland and Buckingham), then Lords Chandos and Darlington, that his interference was unseasonable—in four months after there was the most appilling scarcity. What security had the Government taken against the recurrence of such a state of things ? None. Yet the people of England were in a bad condition. The Report of Lord Devon's Commission showed that thousands of the people of Ireland were starving, and the people of Scot land were in so destitute a condition that the Govern ment felt it necessary to introduce a poor-law for that coun try......( Hear, hear.) In short, no argument had been adduced, grounded onyrinciple against the repeal of these laws. They could never; show that the people of England were not en titled to hats free access to the means of subsistence. No en couragement:had bee n s h own even t o a m i t i ga ti on o f the pre sent system: His Nobl e F r i en d t h e M em b er f or L on d on had brought forward a most moderate proposal, but it met with ,ato support f rom t h e other side. They had even refused to r4geive food from one of their own colonies, though it se ea. , distant as the autip o d es .—( Th e H on . M em b er allu ' to th e t Australian corn measure s . 6 ) s. T l h t e wa ß s i o g n h l t y 4 H 5 0 5 n . . ; Bare expoioed that co rn wou ld he at and t consequence was that 10,000,000/. o f money were saved to the p eop l e o f this country. He thought the present moment, when prices were low, the most favourable mome n t for an abolition o f th ese laws, for? change. th e shock wou ld not b e f e l t by those who mo s t dreaded he any appeal to those Ho e . Gentlemen who He would no t ma k e tL en wer t e l supposed to be p interested in the contin uance o f the r thing that could he said h ai l been said. Their I ib E er v alt r t Y y - , invoked. i, justice, honesty, and honour, h a d b een frequently They hail been besought on b e h a lf o f t h e working e for she sake of the peace and general pro s p er i ty of the country —and by everything which could move them as men of sense and feeling. He would only say, that if they did not now consent to the motion, he should more deeply regret it than ever he had done before, because he had considered the present a mote fitting opportunity fir abolishing the law than had hitherto been presented. The Hon. Member concluded, amid cheers, by moving " That this House resolve itself into a Com mittee of the whole House, for the purpose of considering the following resolutions : " That the corn-law restricts the supply of food, and pre vents the free exchange of the products of labour. " That it is therefore prejudicial to th e welfare of thecoun try, especially to that of the working classes, and has proved delusive to those for whose benefit the law was designed. _ . That it is expedient that all restrictions o n corn should be now abolished." Mr. OSWALD said that he had great pleasure in seconding the motion, and was glad that, under the circumstances, he should have but little to say to induce the House to listen to the arguments of his Hon. Friend who had just sat down, for he felt that every point of the question had been answered by the remarks which had jut been made. In 18.15 they had refused to admit American corn into this country, but at that time there were no manufactures in America, and now those manufactures formed a great staple produce of that country. He need not, however, dilate en that point, for his Hon. Friend had gone so fully and completely into that part of the subject, that it was unnecessary for him to say anything, for he had fur nished a complete set of data to the Government. The Hon. Member for Wolverhampton had said that since the introduce ion of the poor-law no person in this country had been starved. But in Scotland there were many places in the agricultural districts among the Highlands, especially where there were many per sons who, chiefly from their inability to get work, were unable to employ their natural energies, and never earned more than 23. or 3s. a week in the course of a year, hut were supported almost entirely by their neighbours, and were, in fact, neither more nor less than actual paupers. This he believed was to be chiefly ascribed to the operation of the corn-laws. In Scotland the greatest portion of the land was let upon lease, and the farmer had therefore some oppor tunity of reaping the reward of his exertions. The conse quence was that land was nowhere more improved than it was in that country ; indeed, the improvement had been carried to a much greater extent than it was in England. In his opinion this was not a farmer's question at all, for it was simply a matter of consideration as to how the improvement could be effected. All that was wanted was increase in the quantity supplied to the public. This improvement, whether speaking► commercially or agriculturally, was sure to be a slow matter. Land had been let at its highest value, and when crops fell 6s. or Bs. a load, all the farmers had to do was to pay as long as they Gould, and when they ceased paying the evil would quickly rectify itself. The landlords were the parties chiefly interested, and he believed that they desired an alteration, and the sooner that alteration was made, in his opinion, the better. The Right Hon. Baronet at the head of the Government was evidently a free trader in the proper sense of the word. He rejoiced at it ; and he only wished that he would come out to the fullest extent, and grant the country all it had a right to expect from him. The Noble Lord the Member for London ( Lord J. Russell) was an out-and-out free-trader in language and expression, but when he came to acts all his free trading seemed to evaporate. But he would tell. the Noble Lord that when he expressed his opinion, and said that protec tion was the bane of agriculture, the country would expect something more than mere words of him, if he desired to con tinue the leader of the Liberal party. With these few words, he should, with great pleasure, second the motion of his Hon. Friend. whatever to do with the question.—( Hear, hear.) And now he would ask, was it right, or reasonable, or sensible, that. Hon. Members should hold back in this sort of way, when they might have the merit of voting for it now, in compliance with common sense, instead of yielding to force or menace, and at a time too when the whole change might be effected with the greatest possible ease and safety.—( Hear, hear. ) Mr. BUCK said he was not present at the meeting alluded to by the Hon. Member for Wolverhampton, and therefore knew nothing of the speeches that had been made; but this he knew, that the resolutions passed at that meeting were to this effect, that they unanimously agreed to cal upon the landlords to give every opposition in their power to this measure ; and he begged to assure the Hon. Member that he (Mr. Buck) and his consti tuents fully concurred in this respect. He could also assure the House that nothing could be more injurious to the agri cultural interest of the country than this constant agitation of this question.—(Laughter, and ironical cheers.) And he should add, that a more feeble argument from so enlightened a Member he had never heard than his speech upon this occa sion.—( Laughter.) He felt great pleasure in now stating that it was his own conviction, as well as that of his con stituents, that the country was greatly indebted to the Noble Lord the Member for London for the resolutions he had brought forward upon the subject of the condition of the la bouring classes ; for the discussion on that occasion elicited the real state of the landed interest of the country. By that discussion it had been made quite apparent that from the year 1841 to the present time, the landlords had sacrificed nearly one-third of their income during that period, from various circumstances. The Hon. Member for Wolverhampton had said that the present Government had expressed their ap proval of this measure ; but he (Mr. Buck) believed that a member of the Administration had said, that no man in his senses could recommend such a measure.—(Laughter.) He had spoken of the effects of this agitation, and now let him ask, ought it to be kept up, after the alterations that had already taken place? They had not only placed upon the landlords the consequences of the tariff, but they bad also the income-tax, and very many other indirect taxes. The Hon. Member opposite had spoken of the comparative state of the farmers and the manufacturers ; but he (Mr. Buck) would contend for it that no comparison could be made between them. He would ask what was to become of the agricultural labourer if he could not get employment, while the manu facturing labourer had full work? Was he to go to the work house, or to emigrate to the colonies, where, it was suggested, that land should be purchased for his occupation? He (Mr. Buck) would contend for it that it would be more judicious and more beneficial to this country to devise some plan for the employment of their labourers at home than to send them to a foreign country ; and he had no doubt that a plan could be easily devised by which this country could be made to produce sufficient to supply not only all the wants of the population, but also sufficient to give employment to the whole of the idle agricultural labourers. As to the low rate of wages, no person could regret that more than he did, but it was owing to the large amount of the population, and the smallness of the capital. But he did think that measures could very easily be proposed whereby capital could be raised to be invested in projects for cultivating the land, and thus giving extensive employment. Those were his reasons for opposing this measure, to which he had always given a decided negative, and he felt convinced he would best consult the inte rests of his constituents by doing so. Mr. M. PHILIPS begged to assure the House that the Honourable Member who had just sat down had taken most erroneous views as to the manner in which the trade of this country was conducted. The manufacturers were com pletely tied down to their manufactories, and if they were not, or if they suspended them, they would lose their connexion, which they would not find it so easy to renew again as a farmer might his crops.—( Hear, hear.) That agriculture had been lagging behind in its progress, as compared with manufactures, was easily accounted for by the fact that landlords were too much given to the practice of delegating their business to their stewards, instead of looking after their properties themselves, And this often accounted for the state of embartastruerit theY were placed in by outliving their means. The Honourable Member concluded by calling upon the House to adopt this mea-ure, which he looked upon as one of the moat important that had ever been introduced to the Leg;slature. Mr. CHRISTOPHER, in rising to oppose the motion of the Hon. Member opposite, was glad to observe that it was brought forward with better taste and with less of vituperation than it was last year or in former years. The tone, he sup posed, had been modified in the hope that he was more likely to succeed with that side of the House, but he trusted that the House would not accede to the proposal. When the system of import duties was first introduced into this country, the same restriction had been put on corn as on all other articles, and no other. In the present state of prosperity, and after the abundant harvests which we had lately enjoyed, all the artic'es of food could be supplied to the consumer on reasonable terms. The profits of the masters in the manufacturing districts had for some time past been exceedingly good, and he hoped to hear from some of the Gentlemen who professed, like the Hon. Member who introduced this motion, to be great friends of the working population, he hoped to hear them say that the wages of the workmen had been equally improved, and they would ~tot then, he was sure, ever think of complaining of the corn law. The House had not had numerous petitions, com plaining of the high price of food, and he be lieved that if the industrial classes were delioerately asked their opinions they would say, that they would rather that things remained as they were. One of the objects of the Right Hon. Baronet at the Head of the Government, in introducing the Corn Bill, had been to provide that when, in consequence of good harvests, there was abundance of food in the country, the producer should obtain a reasonable remuneration for his exertions and capital; and when, from other causes, there was a scarcity, to permit, corn to come into,,the country at `auch.a prteeitirwou'l'd enable the lower classes to obtain a suffi ciency at a moderate rate. Another object had been to pre vent fluctuations in price ; and certainly the fluctuations had never been so little under any other Corn Bill. The present corn-law was passed in 1842, but it could scarcely be said to come into operation in the following year, for so great had been the alarm about it, that it had entirely failed of its influ ence. But in the following year it did come into operation, and on the 17th of August, 1543, which was the time when the field operations were actively followed, and which was always a dear time for agricultural produce, the price of wheat was 61s. 2d. a quarter, while in the week ending on the 15th of April in the same year, it was 455. 2d. In 1814, corn was at the highest in March, and was 565. 3d., and at the lowest in December, when it was 455. Id. The highest price during tie present year was 435. 3d., and the lowest 455., so that the fluctuation had been most moderate. The Honour able Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. Villiers) had ex pressed an opinion that the abrogation of the corn-laws would not affect wages. But when he (Mr. Christopher) saw that there were something like 20,000,000 of quarters required for this country,and reflected that half that quantity might be intro duced from foreign countries, he could not but believe that it would displace half the labour of this country, and as the demand for labour was, in most cases, the rule of its payment, the price of it must evidently be reduced. Great complaint had been made that in Wilts, and other parts of the country, the wages of the agricultural labourer were no more than 7s. or Bs. a week, but the wages in the great corn countries was only from 24. 6d. to 3s. a week. He had travelled through those countries, in order to make himself personally acquainted with them, arid he could testify to the fact; and he could not therefore but believe that either the wages of the English labourer would be reduced to 2s. or 3s. a week. or as was more probable he would be displaced altogether. The labourer would be brought into competition with the labourer of another country, and he must suffer for it. He had heard a great deal of free trade as an abstract principle, and he believed that, if it could be established, free trade would be a very rood thing—if there could be a perfect reciprocity between the different countries—it would be most desirable, and the tariff had been made out in order, so far as it could be met, to meet the case of the manufacturers, but it had proved a failure, as all such attempts would prove, for it had invariably happened that no sooner was any relaxation made in the duties on goods im ported into this country than it was met by some restriction on the introduction of our manufactures into foreign ports. The Hon. Gentleman who had introduced the question stated that under any circumstances a corn-law could be introduced which would at once settle the country. But the House would remember that the price of corn would depend upon the supply of that article.—( Hear.) When they had abundant harveds, then prices were low, and it was in fact the same way with everything else. It was admitted by the Members of the Legislature, and indeed by the greater proportion of the manufacturers (although it was true enough that the Hon. Members for Durham and Stockport thought otherwise) of the country, that considering their relations with foreign countries it was but reasonable that the agriculturists should have some protection given them, which they (the manufacturers) had not, or at least that the protection given them should be placed on a higher footing than that accorded to the mannfacturers. The latter had the remedy in their own hands, for if they found "a glut" in the market they had nothing to do but to shut up their cotton-mills, and at once to throw their unemployed hands upon the agriculturists.—( Hear, hear, and ironical cheering from the Oppos:tten. ) Uoder those circumstances he con tended that protection to these two classes must differ very widely, if not in character, at least in degree. He (Mr. Christopher) could promise, on the part of the landlords of England, that whenever they or the agricultural labourers were convinced that the worth of the Honourable Gentleman who introduced the subject were correct, and that this was really what he stated it, a landlord's question—whenever he could convince them of that, then he could assure that Hon. Member no further opposition would be offered on their part to this measure. But he would a-k the Hon. Gentleman, if there had been any indications that the people of this country were not as anxious that agriculture should be protected, as the landlords themselves? Certainly no such indications had been exhibited. Much stress had been laid on the fact, that certain parts of England were unleased, and therefore badly cultivated. Now, he resided in a part of the country where no leases was the rule, and leases were the exception ; and he could assure the House, that as much, and in many instances more, had been taken from those lands, than from those which had the benefit of leases. But the Hon. Gentleman had also said that the present corn-laws were apt to make the farmers careless and idle. It was true, that the industry of the manu facturers in England had been in most instances blessed with a competence. But let the House conceive a yeoman of Lan cashire giving each of his family 4,0001., and one of them in vesting his portion in some of the speculations of Lanca shire, and it turning out a fortunate investment, could it be denied that as much industry might be evinced by other members of that family, who had applied themselves solely to agriculture without ar•• riving at the same result? He thought they coula not come to the conclusion that the present corn-laws gave a monopoly into the hands of the landowners ; on the contrary, he thought that it was but fair that they should enjoy such a degree of pro tection as would place them in an equally advantageous position as the snanuracturing classes. On these grounds he felt himself called on to reject the motion of the Hon. Member. Gentlemen opposite spoke of class legislation. He did not see that the present corn-law deserved the name, and he could not help thinking that it was the duty of the Government and of the House to apply their minds to this subject for the benefit of all classes ; and he trusted that they would not entertain this motion, for he could not h 1p believing that if they altered the present law they would inflict an injury upon all classes of the community which it might not be in their power afterwards to remedy. Sir JAMES GRAHAM said that allusion had been made to him so frequently and so pointedly by the Hon. Member for Wolverhampton, that, however reluctant he might be to tres pass on the House, he could not forbear doing so, as he felt it his duty to offer a few observations on what had fallen from the Hon. Member. In the course of tho many years during which he had had the honour of occupying a seat in the House, he had never felt it his duty to speak upon a subject which he felt was so totally devoid of any new argument or illustration as this. He was anxious that this most important subject (and a more important one could not come before the House) should have the fullest and fairest consideration. He agreed with the Hon. Member in his most earnest desire that their decision should be guided by the most solemn wish to promote the interest of the community at large. He would not shrink on the present occasion from again repeating all those principles which he had on a former occasion avowed. It was decidedly his opinion that the prosperity of agriculture must always depend on the prosperity of native industry in this country, and that the public prosperity was on the whole for warded by giving a free and incorrupt current to the natural flow of industry. It was his opinion that, as a safe and cau tions measure, it was expedient to bring forward laws with re- ference to trade in a manner relative - to the sound principles which guided their commercial policy with respect to other branches. It was perfectly clear that the landlord's prosperity would depend on the wealth and comfort of the people. Hav ing made that declaration, he was bound to state that it was his opinion that suddenly, and at once, to pass a measure to reduce the protection in this country was utterly inconsistent with the well-being of the community, and would give a great shock to the agricultural interest.—( Hear.) In the first place he wished to advert to an observation which was made by the Hon. Member for Wolverhampton, in which he said two thirds of the people of this country were otherwise employed thau in raising food. He begged to differ from that observa tion. In considering this question, he always observed that one-third of the community was never carried into calculation by Hon. Gentlemen, when they contrasted the manufacturing with the agricultural interest. The sole produce of Ireland, with a population of eight millions, was food ; and their only means of subsistence depended upon the demand upon that produce. When the Hon. Gentleman said that two-thirds of the population of the United Kingdom were employed in in dustry other than agricultural industry, it was a misappre hension on his part arising from the mis-statements of others. He wished also to correct another error into which he fell, it was fresh in his recollection. He stated on a former oc casion what he would not now hesitate to repeat—that, without dislinction of party, for the last twenty years the object of succeeding Governments had been to substitute protective for prohibitory duties, and when a protective duty could be imposed, to remove the prohibitory duty. The protection given to agricultural produce was not an exception to the general rule. —( dear, hear.) The Hon. Member for Wolverhampton stated that it was not the object of the Government to di minish the extent of protection. They had adopted a prin ciple which had actuated not only this Government hut former Governments, which was aproof that it was a safe principle ; and it was riot only the principle, but the key-stone of the policy of his Right Hon. Friend at the head of her Majesty's Govern ment. With respect to the corn-laws, and the alteration made in them in 1842, there was no exception to the policy which he referred to. That alteration was not made for the purpose of diminishing the protection of the agricultural interest. He would now read to the House the words of his Right Hon. Friend in 1842, when he introduced to the notice of the House that measure which was now law, giving that protection which they were now discussing. He (Sir R. Peel) said that it was impossible to deny, in comparing the duty which he proposed with that which then existed, that it would cause a very con sid]rable decrease in the protection which that duty af forded to the home grower. That, however, would be made consistent with justice, for he would be adequately protected, not withst anding the reduction which was considerable. He felt bound to say that he thought that the agricultural in terest of this country could afford to part with a portion of the protection which it now received, and it was only fit that that protection should be diminished. He might quote further from the speech of his Rt. Hon. Friend, but he had read as much as would show that the corn-laws were modified in 1842, and Mr. MITCHELL said that he conceived the alarm ex pressed by the Hon. Member who had spoken last altogether uncalled for. He himself represented a manufacturing bo rough (Bridport) in the midst of an agricultural county, and he could assure the Hon. Member that labour in that borough was better paid than in any other part of that county. There could be no question that some alteration in the state of the law as regarded the importation of corn was required, for it was a well-known and sufficiently-proved fact that, according to the present population of the country, the country could not grow half the quantity of wheat required for its consumption. (here were other reasons why wheat should be imported from foreign countries —reasons which, in his opinion, had not been sufficiently attended to. He meant the fact that the crops had been deteriorated, and they all knew the miseries which arose from hat] were called backward crops.—( Hear, hear) Then they had to consider that even where the crop did, at the beginning of a season, promise well, it was liable to be blighted by many unforeseen circumstances. He could remember well that in the year 1841 the crops had, after promising extremely well, been almost wholly destroyed by heavy rains, and the price, in consequence of the quantity, rose at least 14s. per quarter. He did not think that protection was an advantage to any interest, for the flax trade of Ireland furnished a proof to the contrary; and if they could cope with Russia in flax, why not in corn? They could not bring wheat into that country from foreign countries under a cost of 14s. or 15s. per quarter (he meant that sum as including all contingent expenses),. and that, he thought, was a sufficient protection to the agricul turists of England. Corn was but a manufacture, like every thing else, and the sole reason why the agriculturists had hitherto required protection was, that they had not known ilow to grow it. And how was this? Simply because they did not apply to business.—(Laughter.) He (Mr. Mitchell) had attended his counting-house for some seven or eight hours a day since he had been eighteen years of age, and he had done so because he tried to make himself master of his busi ness, for he knew that, if he neglected it, his business would very soon neglect him.—(Great laughter.) Now, what was the case with the landlords ? They sent their sons to Eton until they were sixteen ; then they remained at Oxford till fre quentmwanet y : fit n h, ee o n wg i r t h e ae r nnd trnahnetde a was returned n h nr e z p de r s e s s at e re n i i t y twenty-one ; then (he was glad to say it was more L e o c a . oiydn)osnuthey ( t i l in learning the Polka —(Lau accomplishments.—( Continue n g d d r )- laughter).and shuacdh made necessary his the b ou u l s d in d e o ss he thought that the landed in terest also. But he dutyteres Members opposite, and those on thess(:lu would now put . it to Hon. whe ther they did not at that moment benches fl behind them, themselves that this was a measure whiChait acknowledge to other be passed, but that the best course theys o n u o l u d l t d ine day or at pursue, was to oppose it as long as they could, an d to .eresent when they saw that opposition would no longer be o r an d y only Hear and laughter). He could tell them that if they" use. did not now yield this measure with a good grace, the time would come when they would be compelled to do so, as they had been compelled to yield the Reform Bill and the Maynooth Bill— ( Laughter)—the latter of which inwas introduced by the Right Hohourable Baronet opposite the shape of a threat about a war in the West, which he conceived had nothing it was not for the purpose of diminishing protection. The Hon. Member for Wolverhampton had traced the origin of the pro tection. He said that it appeared that lt dated from the ac cession of William 111. At that time this country was not an importing country, but the policy of great men in those days was to give encouragement to native industry, and to make this country as independent of foreign supply as possible. That kind of protection continued up to 1716, when the circum stances of the country began to alter, and the population began to increase. It was then the introduction of fo reign corn commenced. He must say that he would not wish to rely so much in matters of this kind on the greatest man of past times, freely admitting that experience and new sources of knowledge would throw light on matters of this description, but yet he must state, that the highest authorities throughout the last century and a half had concurred in maintaining this policy as one of paramount importance. The Right Hon. Ba ronet then alluded to the observations of Mr. Burke and Adam Smith, in which they stated, that the protection of agricultural interests was most conducive to the national wealth, and to the comfort of the community at large. A policy maintained by the greatest authorities, was a policy not likely to be soon laid aside. He thought that it was truly stated by the Hon. Gentleman, the Member for Bridport, that corn had very little to do in any particular year with the rate of wages. He entirely agreed with the doctrine that, on the whole, under the system of protection, an immense agricul tural improvement had not taken place, but he would say, that notwithstanding the population of this country had been nearly _ _ . . doubled within - the last half century, the supply of food at this moment was more easily ob'ained for double the population than it was previous to that period. He (Sir James Graham) alor.e could speak, from his own personal knowledge, of the county and neighbourhood in which he resided. That county, thirty years ago, did not produce sufficient food for the main tenance of its inhabitants, but by inclosure, improvement, and successful industry, it was now a county which exported largely. The Right Hon. Baronet then alluded to a common which came under his own personal knowledge, which was covered with heath sixteen years ago, and over which he him self had hunted. It consisted of two thousand acres, and, in consequence of an outlay of 6,000/., one hundred and twenty people were enabled to live on it with ease and comfort, and it added to this country a capital which might be represented by 30,0001., whereas it was totally uncultivated twenty years ago. An Hon. Gentleman referred to the doctrine that protection was necessary on account of local burdens. When that sub jeet was mentioned it was received with derision by Gentle men on the opposite side. He was glad to see the Noble Lord the Member for London in his place, be cause he knew that he would not support that doctrine of local burdens —he was still an advocate for a fixed duty. The Hon. Member for Wolverhampton had said, and very truly, that abundance of food was essentially necessary for the population. If the Honourable Gentleman would show him that free trade would produce such an effect, it would at once make him a convert; but he did not think that it would have such an effect. He considered that a 4s. duty would be good for nothing,. The question was, whether they would adopt free trade or not. He thought they ought to proceed in the matter with great caution ; they ought to take care how they altered clay land from growing wheat into grass land.—( Hear, hear. ) He was sure that if the motion of the Honourable Member for Wolverhampton was carried, it would create the greatest dis trust, destitution, pauperism, and despair in the country.— ( Hear, hear.) He thought the better cultivation of land would produce a better supply than any alteration in the corn laws. He maintained that a low duty was nn protection whatever. He believed that the proposition of the Hon. Member for Wolverhampton would, if carried, be most disastrous in its consequences—disastrous as much to the population engaged in manufactures as to those engaged in agriculture. On these grounds he should oppose the motion of the Hon. Member for Wolverhampton. Mr. VILLIERS explained. Mr. BRIGHT next addressed the House. He commenced by saying that from what he had heard both in and out of that House during the last few month, there was a very great dif ference of opinion on the question of protection amongst sensi ble men. To much of the speech of the Right Hon. Baronet he gave his assent, but he was at a loss to know whether the speech n,i of the Right Hon. Gentleman was intended as hope to those on the Opposition aide of the House, or as consolation to those .l on the other.—( L aag ht er . ) It seeme d th a t th e Right Gentleman had b een s t u di ous l y en d eavour i ng t o say one Gentle at t o a n n e h t i a m a e , c o a m n d in t e o n unsay hy it a s t ta a t n i w o g th e t r h . at T th h e e y ß w ig e h re t H g o ra n : dually coming to a free trade in co rn . Af ter t h at t h e Ri g ht H on . Baronetsaid that an c h ange in futu re mus t b e a c h ange to a tota l repeal. The Right Hon. Gentleman then successfully demon- SUN, LONDON, WEDNESDAY EVENING, .TUNE 11, 1945. strafed that the proposition of the Noble Lent the Hon. Mem ber for London for a fixed euty was altogether untenable. The Right Hon. Gentleman showe 1 that there was no argument in favour of a fixed dill. Now how the Right Hon. Gen tleman could reconcile this s ith the latter part of his speech, he ( Mr. Bright) could not imagine. He had been surprised to hear the Right Hun. Gentleman using the same arguments as Hon. Gentl. men on the other side of the House who sat below him. This was very extraordinary, coming as it did from a member of a GoVernment which had staked its character on its free trade measures. The Right Hon. Baronet told his protection friends that these free trade measures eould not be brought on suddenly. He (Mr. Bright) recollected seeing in Punch a letter written by an aunt to her niece on the best means of ruling a husband, and the advice or the aunt was for the niece to cultivate her nerves. This was the advice given by the Right Hon. Gentleman to those on his own side. He said—" If you cultivate your nerves, and become extremely sensitive, we will make your sensitiveness an argu ment against repeal." The Right Hon. Baronet asked if free trade would give the people more food ? Did the Right Hon. Baronet want proof upon this? Could the Right Hon. Ba ronet look around, and not find ample proof? In the street in which he (Mr. Bright) lived, there was a lark which sang as sweetly as though he; was at liberty. Every morning a boy came with a piece of green turf to supply the comforts of that lark. And this was the principle upon which the Queen's palace was supplied, and by which the whole community was supplied with their necessaries. The Right Hon. Gentleman contended that a repeal of the corn-laws would cause a larger importation of foreign corn than had been estimated. Now it was an extraordinary thing that so little was thought about the risk of the country being reduced to a scarcity. In articles that the unhallowed fingers of monopoly had never touched there was always a supply sufficient for the consump tion of two years. How came it that at the present time there was six months' stock of cotton in Liverpool, although the whole of that cotton came from the United States of America. The Right Hon. Baronet spoke of a panic attend ing a repeal of the corn-laws. He said that an importation of two millions of quarters of corn would displace two mil lions of quarters grown at home. Did the Right Hon. 13a ronet know that during the times of scarcity, as many people as were employed in the cultivation of two millions of quarters of wheat were thrown out of employment in one town. The Right Hon. Baronet had said we might have a sufficient supply of food by improving the cultivation of land ; but what had been done to cause that improvement in land ? Was that improvement going on ? If it was not, when the next ten or twenty years had expired the population would be no better off than at present. It was a notorious fact that at the present moment a vast number of the people of England and Ireland did not possess the means of procuring bread. The Right Hon. Baronet must have experienced very great difficulty in speaking of the corn-laws, holding as he did free trade opi nions. He had spoken in defence of the corn-laws, and had rested his defence on the fact that the price of corn had been exceedingly steady under that law. The parties for whom that law was specially intended had been disappointed that the price had been so steady. In the years 1e33 and 1834 the price of wheat had been more steady, and for a longer period than it had under the operation of the present law. The Right Hon. Baronet admitted there was no proof that the law had not failed, because it had not met with that awkward con tingency of a bad harvest, therefore the argument adduced by the Right Hon. Gentleman would be of no use. When the discussion commenced that evening he expected to find the members of the Government approve the motion of his Hon. Friend the member for:Wolverhampton, on the ground that it would not be expedient to do all that it required at once, but by degrees, in order to assimilate with the increasing wants of the people. He thought they would have said a great deal to their supporters at the lower part of the House to endeavour to break the fall, but as they had not done that he would offer a few observations to those Hon. Members who defended the agri cultural interest. It appeared to him, notwithstanding the speech of the Right Hon. Gentleman, that the arguments for the corn-law had entirely disappeared; and why they were un- Willing to come at once to the repeal of that law was, that there were certain fears lingering in their minds about land lords and farmers. He found those Hon. Members express ing their fears, and rather willing to hear arguments that their fears had been well grounded. He would ask, was not wheat precisely the same as any other article of commerce; and whether the laws that regulate tobacco and other articles of commerce would not equally apply to wheat? He found the Right Hon. Gentleman had, from time to time, admitted various articles connected with general commerce, and no harm had arisen in consequence. He would take the article of bark, and he found that within the last ten years more than 7,000,000 cwt. had been admitted, and yet no gentleman who possessed timber had found any diffi• tufty in disposing of it at a profit. During the last ten years more than 4,000,000 cwt. of hides had come in, but no baicher had experienced any obstacle in getting rid of the hides that covered the animals they slaughtered. Suppose those hides had not been imported, how would the country have been supplied? They might be independent of foreigners for the supply, and they might just as well be inde pendent of boots and shoes.—(Cheers.) Tallow had been introduced within the last ten years to the extent of 12,000,000 cwt., and yet it had not had the slightest effect in damaging the agricultural interest. The Hon. Member for Bridport had alluded to the subject of flax,—why, within 10 years, 400,000,0001b5. had been brought in, and yet the price of wool had been undiminished. He would mention the articles of silk avid cotton together, as they were mere likely to come into competition with wool. He showed that the article of cotton had increased within the last 30 years to 700,000,0001b5., and the consumption in the country was likely to be doubled and quadrupled. The article of rice would best contrast with corn and grain. A rice pudding and a bread pudding were very similar when placed on the table. Of rice there have been 170,000,000 cwt. imported wiihin the last ten years, and of rice, in the hu-k, about 140,000,000 cwt. within the same period. Of clover, 100,000 qrs. had been brought in. Rye, 200,000 qrs.—beans and peas, 200,000 qrs.—barley, the same. Oats, 250,000 quarters ; of wheat, 12,000,000, and of flour 5,500,000, making a total of grain of of all kinds brought in of 19,000,000 quarters within the last ten years. The quantity of butter that had been consumed was 2,000,000 cwt. and the same quantity of cheese. From the consideration of these items it appeared to him that if the principle of protection was right the claim of these articles to protectioh was desirable. It was not right to allow these articles to come into competition with our own articles of consumption. It was not cus tomary for either House of Legislature to know much of what was termed famine pr:ces ; but there had been a famine price under the operation of our laws, and the Right Hon. Baronet had admitted it; and when they had been relaxed to such a degree of tenuity that they would be weakened they would suddenly break. To the poor the price of corn was a famine price, and a starvation price as much as if the Almighty had permitted the land to be devastated with a famine ; but it was not a famine from Heaven, but a famine promoted by that House—by men who were pretending to legis late for the public good. It was time that that extraordinary misgovernment should come to an end. Thousands of people had been made poor by this fallacious system ; and so long as the system prevailed so long there will be a constant state of irritation in the country—a constant jarring with the Legis lature, and a desire to have the law repealed. He had men tioned various facts fur the purpose of arguing that there was no reason to be afraid that evil consequences would result from the importation of wheat any more than would arise from the importation of the articles he had enumerated. Another mistake the Hon. Members for the agricultural interest. had fallen into was, that as a very large quantity of grain would be brought from abroad, the cultivation of the land would be ren dered unprofitable, and would be relinquished. It would be recollected, that from 11338 to 1842, the price of wheat averaged 645. per quarter ; during that period it appeared that foreigners could only introduce 2,225,000 quarters, and he would contend, that as the price now was only 455. per quarter, that it would be impossible far foreigners to bring in their grain now at a remunerating profit, when, at the time the price was highest, they only brought in 2,2.25,000 quarters. In the country there had been a strong feeling that the aristo cracy of England had for a moment stooped from their true position of defending protection. From the opening sentence of the Right Hon. Baronet's speech, it would have appeared that he had concluded that the question was entirely a ques tion of time, and that he wasiwilling to secure for all the benefits to be derived from free trade—and that free trade was the principal or key-stone on which his Right Hon. Friend at the Head of the Government founded all his Legislative enactments. The Right lion. Baronet was every day doing something to break down the protective system, and there was a party out of the House, who were endeavouring all they could to support every measure, which any Ministry might bring forward, for relieving the distresses of the country. He would just refer to the history of the agitation that had been carried on out of doors on this subject for the last seven years. Seven years ago they commenced, and their receipts from the public had been 5,000/., 7,0001., 10,0001. 50,0001., and the last year it was 110,000/. They had entered many of their friends as freeholders in Yorkshire and Lincolnshire, and he would ask the Hon. Member for South Lancashire what prospect he had of being returned at the next general election? They intended to extend their operations into other counties where the same course of proceeding would be tried.—( Hear, hear, and cheers.) They had held a bazaar e few weeks ago. He did not pretend to describe it; but there were many Honourable Gentlemen en the other side of the House who had attended that bazaar, and if one of them would describe it, it would make a very excellent anti-corn-law speech. The receipts of that bazaar had been upwards of 20,0001. The free subscriptions had amounted to between 4,0001. or 5,0001.: and with the ma terial yet left unsold they would make up 30,0001. Many of the Hon. Gentlemen on the other side had been parties to the getting-up of bazaars, but there never had been a bazaar one tenth the extent of what that had been. Yet that bazaar had been got up by the middle classes of this country, who had taken a deep interest in this question, who viewed it as a re ligious question.—(Loud ironical cheers.) He would tell lion. Gentlemen who cheered in that manner that there was a passage in the Koran which stated that one day of good works was better than seventy days of prayer. The passing of a law to rai-e the price of bread—(lronical cheers)—was what the Gentlemen on the other side of the House had done ; and the middle classes who protested against that law were actuated by a strong religious feeling in their opposition. It was easy to sneer at those who opposed that law, but he was sure the Right Hon. Baronet at the head • of her hlajesty's Govern ment would be the last to sneer at the great middle classes from which he himself had sprung. Coming from the country, where this great movement had originated, he knew the wants, the feelings, and the energy of its people, and would be the last to sneer at the sentiments by which they were influenced in seeking the abolition of the law. Another Gentleman, on the same side of the House, had written a work, in which he represented society divided into two great empires —the rich and the poor. The corn-laws were at the foundation of that division. The wants of the people required a more honest and equitable system of distribution, and this could only be done by acting upon the great and im mutable principles for the regulation of trade, which he (Mr. Bright) advocated. They had seen good principles advanced, and bad ones recede before the light of knowledge, and this gave hope and assurance of the success of their principles. Unless they chained down the great legacy left them by Caxton, unless they could restrict the circulation of Chambers's cheap literature ; unless they could put an end to the eublication of Knight's Weekly Volume, and the myriads of cheap publications issuing from the press ; unless they could stop the progress of the locomotive engines, and the wonderful improvements in science that had taken place—unless they could accomplish these things, it was vain for them to attempt arresting the pro gress of this principle, which was sure, eventually, to triumph. Mr. S. O'BRIEN said the Hon. Gentleman had made refe rence to the bazaar, and had asked Hon. Gentleman on that side of the House to give a description of it. Though he would not attempt to answer to the call of the Hon. Gentleman, still he (Mr. O'Brien) must confess that he had seen the produc tions of that bazaar, and, apart from all party feelings or pre dilections, ho felt a just sense of pride at what his countrymen had done. He was prepared to the fullest extent to do justice to the industry of those by whom that great collection was made, but when he heard all the evils of the country ascribed to the corn-laws, and all imaginable good represented to flow from the opposite policy, he must object to, the doctrine alto gether. He was willing to let legislation do its best to im prove the condition of the country, but, in his opinion, no legislation on free trade could remove the evils of a great and complicated empire like this.—( Hear, hear.) He had heard nothing to induce him to change his opinion on the subject, and he would accordingly vote a g ainst the motion o f the l ion. Member for Wolverhampton. He thought the present law might be considerably modified, but he would not conssnt to the principle advocated by that Hon. Member. The mu tual interests of the country would, in his opinion, be best served by a system of mutual concession.—( Mean ) Dr. BOWRINa rose amidst cries of " Divide." lie said the Hon. Gentleman who had just sat down had not. given a reason, or a shadow of a reason, why he intended to vote against the motion. He had not slated any new at gument with respect to the peculiar burdens on land, or why the baneful system of protection should continuo. The Hon. Gentleman referred to the state of wage; paid to labourers on the Conti nent, and asked why the peasantry of this country were not better paid than those with whom they came into cumpeti • tion, and compared the earnings of each. In Hungary and in other countries of Europe corn was produced under the feudal system, the labourers receiving no wages for their labour. The Hon. Member for Lincolnshire (Mr. Christopher) taunted the free traders with seeking pro tection for themselves, to the exclusion of similar advantages to others. He ought to have done them the justice to say that they had again declared that they sought for no concession which they would not equally extend to all—that they were convinced that the protection to manufactures was injurious, instead of being a blessing. The restrictive tariffs of Eng land were pointed to by other countries as opposed to the principles and freedom of commerce. If they were to take the manufactures of other countries they would compel them to take an equal quantity of theirs. He regretted to see two great nations, whose interests were identical, continuing in a hostile course towards each other instead of adopting mea sures by which they might act in unison for the common benefit of both. Now that something had been done for the ruling few, it was time that something should be done for the many— that the food of the people should find its way into the coun try unimpeded, and that the productions of the whole world should be open to it, and that theirs should Ise open to the whole world. Whatever might now be the amount of resistance, the time was not far distant when the emancipation of com merce would ensue, and when the people of this country would derive what was due to their growing intelligence and in dustry. Mr. CAVENDISH said he should give his vote in favour of the motion of the Hon. Member for Wolverhampton, although he differed with him as to the period when a total abolition ought to take place, but in doing so he should not be precluded from supporting any amendment when such a proposition was before the House. He was of opinion that protection had not afforded any benefit to the landed interest, and had prevented farmers from relying on their own efforts. He was opposed to the dividing of large plots of land into small compartments. He would vole with the Hon. Member for going into Committee with the Hon. Member for Wolverhampton. Lord EBRINGTON said as the choice lay between the present monstrous auomaly of a corn-law and going Into Com mittee to inquire into its operation, he should certainly vote for the motion of his Hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton. Mr. COBDEN said that after what had been said he would not detain the House by any lengthened observations, but he would wish to call back the attention of the House to the sub ject before them, and to remind them that the motion of his Hon. Friend, so far from being met, had been systematically avoided. The question as to comparing this or that corn-law had nothing to do with manufacturing or agricultural pros perity or depression—the question was whether they could with justice continue a law which restricted the present sup ply of rood? That question had net been answered, and could not be met here or elsewhere. It seemed to have been for gotten, though the country had not forgotten it, that the plea for protection on account of exclusive burdens involved the logical deduction that the price of corn must be raised in consequence of a limited supply. But that House had clearly shown the country that that question should not be met. It might be asked what proof was there that there was an insufficiency of food? Would any one from the agricultural districts tell him that labourer's families had a sufficiency of food? Would the Hon. Member for Wiltshire, the Hon. Member for Dorsetshire, or the Hon. Member for Somersetshire, say that the 'labourers had a sufficiency of food? The condition of the unskilled and labouring class was disgraceful to the House. The reports on the table of that House, both from Scotland and Ireland, showed that the people of both countries were in a dreadful state of desti tution. Some spoke of Ireland as if it were not a portion of 'the United Empire. He had heard it said in private con versation, " Oh, if you come to Ireland, what is Ireland ?" when he remarked that 5,000,000 of the people had not eaten wheaten bread. He asked them did not the corn-law apply to Ireland as well as to England? The Scotch were almost as bad off as the Irish, as appeared by the report laid upon their table. In the midland counties thou sands of people have been dependent upon framework-knitting —a trade which was now shown, by competent evidence, to be in a most depressed condition. He would ask, was that state of things satisfactory ? He considered it disgraceful to the people of this country.—( Hear, hear.) And it was not the consequence of political economy, but in consequence of the system of protection which they had introduced They could not benefit the people of this country unless by the introduc tion of a greater quantity of food. He would not talk of price. He would be glad if the word price was never mentioned, but if the quantity of wheat were not augmented, all the plans hey would adopt—all the expedients they would resort to—would not permanently increase the prosperity of the inhabitants of this country.—( Hear, hear.) If they did not import a larger quantity of food, all other resources would fail. How, then, would this increased supply come? They said it would come in consequence of increased protection. But that had failed. They must admit it had tailed. Then, he would ask, them to try his elan. The argument of the Hon. Baronet the Home Secretary was an argument in the future sense. It was built upon prophecies and predictions. Let the two millions of quarters of wheat come and he would take his chance. Let them not talk to him of panic or fears. Those alarms were not owing to them, they were owing to Honourable Gentlemen on the Opposition benches. The old story was continually trumped up. Pass free trade, and you will throw the soil out of culti vation. Throw the soil out of cultivation I throw the poor sandy soils out of cultivation.—( Hear, hear.) He had no hesitation in saying that the land would be better cultivated. He had the highest authority for saying so. The most eminent agriculturists had given their opinion that it would benefit agriculture. For his own part he would prefer the authority of Lord Spencer, Lord Ducie, and the Earl of Leicester, to that of the Home Secretary. Another panic, too, may be sought to be raised by the effect whick free trade would have on mort gages on land. Ile believed that every mortgage would be better discharged if free trade were careied than at present. He would not be put off by such prophecies. Talk of a panic ! If they abolished the corn-laws to-night, and if the newspapers took no notice of it, the farmers would never know anything of the change, unless, perhaps, a few years hence they might come to discover it in their im proved condition.—( Hear. hear). The Right Hon. Baronet talked of their rashness. He made use of the argument the last time the subject was under discussion. It appeared a stock argument. But he would ask were not they rather the rash men? Were not they the rash men who were in vesting them, the free traders, with a moral power which - they would afterwards be jealous of ? The times of distress and commercial depression might come again. Another revulsion might again disturb the country. Who would then be the rash man? The Right Hon. Baronet had admitted that the question was merely one of time. They had it on the authority of a gen tleman who could be depended on, that there were at present ;loo.ooa quarters of wheat in bond. Ncw, was not that a pretty stock ? Was it ever known that such madness could exist— that in a great country like this, where there was a population of 27,000,000, such a state of things could continue ? Were there to be no provisions for the future? They might as well have laid up the store of corn. But what had they done ?-- they had refused to make any future provision for the time to come, and were rashly neglecting all the means which they ought to employ for the advantage of the country. This had always been the case, and when opportunities were occurring on every hand they were obstinately refusing to avail themselves of the magic stores of science, which should bind people to people, and country to country, which should unite nation to nation, and destroy the boun daries which had hitherto been barriers to the interchange of good-will and the promotion of the general benefit. Let them not, then, be behindhand in legislation. He would not suffer the Right Hon. Baronet, with his customary caution, to de prive his Hon. Friend the Member for Wolvorhampton (Mr. Villiers) of the credit for deep caution and long foresight which, in this period of calmness, could make provision for what shall hereafter occur—for that revulsion which would as suredly come. He was the man of caution and of foresight. The country would see this, and would inevitably force the Right Hon. Baronet to the end which his Hon. Friend desired, and he warned him not to suffer those to lead who ought to be followers. Air. G. BAN KES said he would reply to the observations of the Hon. Member for Stockport, as it laid in his power to correct some mistakes with respect to historical facts into which that Hon. Member, and the Hon. Member for Wolverhamp ton, had fallen. The former Hon. Member had spoken as if the corn-laws had only been in existence during the last thirty years; but the former had 'gone fu ther back, even to the period of 1688, for the time when, according to a work of fiction attributed to the Hon. Member for Shrewsbury, whether truly or not it was not for him to say, the corn-laws had been first instituted. But it was not William of the pious, glorious, and immortal memory, who had founded the corn-laws. It way true that at that time a considerable alteration had been made, and it was not only the time for the memory of the tern-laws, but of the national debt, and of the standing army also. But the .corn-laws had not been founded by William; the/ had only been altered. He had imposed a duty on exports, and it was from that time that the free trade in corn had been destroyed ; and he would go beyond that, to the time of James 1., when there was a free trade in corn, for the condition of the labourer. In 1621, when there was freedom of trade in corn in England, the state of the labuuring population was most deplorable, and wages were never known to be so low. And what were the prices in that day ? They had been told a good deal about the tremendous fluctuation in prices, owing to a check upon trade in corn, and he would now point out to them what the fluctuations were at a time when freedom of trade was in existence. In 1621 the price of corn in England was 30s. 4d. per quarter, and now for the fluctuations. In the very next year, 1622, the price of corn was 525. Now, take a period of ten years. He had already stated that in 1621 the price of corn was 30s. 4d. In 1631, a period of ten years, the price was 68s. Now, these were the fluctuations at a time when there was freedom of trade. In 1648 wheat was 855., having been two years before only 48s. These returns he took from the accounts kept at Eton College, which ran as far back as the reign of Elizabeth. The corn-law was altered in the reign of King William, but the alteration was no alteration as regarded imports; the alteration was merely a bounty upon the exports. At that time exporting corn was considered as an experiment ; but it was one that entirely succeeded ; and, to prove this assertion, he could give them the authority of a person writing 70 years after it was made. That bounty continued up to the reign of George 11., and they would find that during a considerable period of that reign wheat was a lower price than at any other period, and England was at the same time a largely exporting country, for from 1697 to 1765 the exports exceeded the imports by fourteen million quarters. He was told that this system of exporting was an experiment commenced within the last thirty years, but so far from this being the case it was an experiment ex tending over the last century and a half. Whether it was successful or not he admitted was a question of argument, but whether the system was a novel or an old one was a matter of fact. Upon that fact he met the Hon. Member for Wol verhampton, and was prepared to discuss with him whether the experiment was new or old. For his own part, he was confi dent it was an old experiment, and had long ago been proved to be a successful one. A large portion of those exports were conveyed to France ; in fact, in the year 1748, the whole of the south of French was supplied from England with wheat; and he found, in a book written by a traveller in Smyrna, that 300 ships, laden with wheat, left England, and arrived in that country, from England, in one day. Very shortly after an alteration took place in the corn-laws, and soon after that fol lowed the revolution. Mind, he did not say that the state of the law produced ; the French revolution, but it certainly did not prevent it.—( Laughter.) On those grounds, then, he would say that history afforded no evidence by which to prove that the corn-laws had led to this discontent. He admitted thiy were the cause of the na tional debt and the standing arrny;lut these were burdens that the country was happy to bear.—(Laughter, and ironical cheers.) Hnn. Members might laugh, but let them recollect that the great proportions of those burdens were borne by the landowners. He believed that the Right Hon. Baronet at the head of her Majesty's Government was somewhat mistaken, when he thought that the state of the labouring classes was in an improving condition. He (Mr. Bankes) was afraid that it was not the case. The Right Hon. Gentleman referred to the returns of last year, not the present. He was induced to think that, as far as related to that portion of the kingdom, the returns this year A ould present a very different feature. I here was immense suffering last winter, and the greatest energy was exercised for the prevention of that suffering. There was great suffering from want of fuel. He believed that that difficulty was made away with by subscriptions of benevolent people, who deserved great credit. With respect to criminal offences, the town which he represented had a heavier calendar than it had for many years, so that they were not in a very healthful position. He would beg for one moment to observe, with regard to the diminetion of the poor-law charges this year, when the wheat was lower in price than usual, the poor-law charges were higher. In 1839, when wheat was at 695. 4d. the pour-law charges were lower than they are now. They could draw no inference from that, but if they were to do so, the result would differ from that come to by the Right Hon. Baronet. The Hon. Member sat down, stating that it was his intention to give a decided negative to the resolutions. Lord J. RUSSELL then rose. He would not follow the Hon. Member through his historic illusions.—( Hear, hear. ) He had talked to them of the times of James 1., and had told them that they had then free trade. He had also told them that a change in the corn-laws would have prevented the French Revolution. The Hon. Gentleman, instead of showing that the agricultural labourers had been benefited by the course that had been pursued, had shown that they were injured He thought free employment ought to be given to all. He be lieved that if the land of this country was properly cultivated they would have much more corn.—( Hear.) The Right Hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government had told them that he entirely agreed that protection was in itself an evil. The Right Hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State stated that the system of Government was gradually to relax protection with as little injury to existing interests as possible. That was an intelligible system, but it was quite at variance with all the Right Hon. Gentleman had stated that night, of the advantages per se of the system by which the supply of corn was restricted. With regard to thq two first resolutions of his Hon. Friend, they embodied opinions entirely in accordanee with those which 1.. e had put before the House on a former evening. He was quite prepared to go into Committee, to consider these restrictions, and as to the third resolution, that all restrictions on corn should be abolished, he felt himself at liberty to vote for going into Committee with him, and at liberty, if the House should go into Committee. to say what relaxation of the corn-laws should be made. He would nut now discuss the opinion he had stated on a former occasion, and which he still held. His Hon. Friend the Member for Stockport had stated with great power the advantage of making an immediate alteration. On the other hand, there were a (great many who were in favour of a gradual change. Whether the opinion of the other was the better he did not think it necessary to discuss on that night. He thought the question might be well reserved until some practical measure was resolved upon. They had gone on now since the year 1842 with a corn-law whilst' was considered entirely vicious in its principle—(Cheers.) In the year 1791 there was only a protection of 50s. After 505., 2s. 6d. per quarter was imposed up to 545. That was a law far less restrictive than the present one. But there had been a great change since 1791. As to competition, let the House consider the wages which English labourers were obtaining on the French railways. They were obtaining one third more than any other labourers. He could not, therefore, consider that competition would affect the English labourer. The effect of the present law was clearly to add to the income of those who were the legislators. It was the duty of those legislators, at the same time, to provide that in the increase of their incomes the poor, from whom they derived their additional incomes, should participate. He would conclude by advising them to be wise in time. Sir R. PEEL said he could not, on the present occasion, allow the present debate to be finished in silence en his part. The Hon. Member for Wolverhampton had made a motion precisely similar to the motion he had brought forward last year. The Hon. Gentleman had said last year that the corn laws restricted the supply of food, and that all restrictions ought to be abolished. The Right Hon. Baronet then read the motion that was brought forward by Mr. Villiers last year, and continued to say that he had voted against the motion of the Hon. Member last year, and should also on the present occasion. It was not his intention to deal out tnthe Noble Lord the measure of injustice which had sometimes been meted out" to him. The Noble Lord was not enabled to give his support last year to the present motion, but he ( Sir R.Peel) should not throw out any taunt, because he thought it proper this year to give his support to the motion. He not only gave his support to the two first motions of the Hon. Gentleman, but he cordially concurred in them. When the Noble Lord reminded those gentlemen that the effect of the law was to in crease their own income, by its increasing the rents on land, that objection applied equally as strongly to his own proposal. The Noble Lord bad said that the estimate of the fixed duty had been greatly exaggerated. He could not concur, although he should vote against the motion before the House, in some of the opinions which had been expressed by those Members on his side of the House. He thought that ex perience had proved that a high rate of corn was not connected with a high rate of interest, and it was impossible to say that the rate of wages was altered with the price of corn. He must also differ from his Honourable Friend, who spoke on this head, as to the condition of the labour ing classes, and who expressed the opinion that whatever might have been their opinion two months ago it hail subsequently in some degree altered, and that at present they were not in so comfortable a state as they had been. He did not believe there was any distinction in the condition of the working classes at the present time, compared with what it was two months ago. A great increase had taken place in the consump tion of exciseable articles. There had been an increase in the consumption of coffee, in tea, and in other articles of a similar character, during the last two years. The Hon. Member for Stockport had made certain predictions respecting the effects of the corn-laws, which, did he believe them to he founded in truth, ought to be some reason for a re peal of the corn-laws. But he did nut believe in the truth of that Hon. Gentleman's predictions. He had greatly overrated the question. He had pointed out the evils of the country, exhibiting extensive wealth co-existent with extensive misery. He referred to the fact of there being 1,560,000 paupers ; which, in connexion with the other evils - referred to, were ad duced as reasons for proceeding to the immediate repeal of the corn-laws. It was his (Sir Robert Peel's) opinion that esta blish what laws they pleased, they must expect such a classifi tion of society to exist—they must expect to find extremes of wealth and poverty in the country. Such a division of wealth and poverty existed in every country in the world. As all legislation must fail to reconcile those great differences in con dition, they (the Government) had proceeded to other mea sures. They were wishful to settle the question, as far as it was practicable for legislation to do so. There had been a corn-law price in 1688, the period of the Revolution, until now. Since the time of King William 111. there had been protection conceded to agriculture. Hence it was necessary for them to proceed with caution and deliberation in the steps which they took to alter the law which afforded that protection. The fullest consideration was required before they altered a law that had existed for 150 years, and which involved so many important interests and considerations. The course which the Government had taken since 1842 was in pursuance of that wise and careful policy. In 1842, the corn-law which was in operation imposed a duty of 255. per quarter; now it was but 12s. This was said to be but a nominal difference ; but under it grain that was formerly excluded, was now allowed to come in. In 1842, cattle could not be admitted, but now they were received at a moderate duty.—( Hear, hear.) They had, in addition to those :altera tions and improvements, gradually reduced the duty on other articles of consumption. He might refer to bark, to timber, on which the duty had been remitted to a great extent by the tariff of 1842. The duty on Baltic timber had been much re duced, while the duty on Canada timber had been reduced to merely a nominal duty. He gave these as proofs that the mea sures of the Government had been attended with great improve ment and advantage in those several departments of trade. That law passed, he was bound to say, with the general con currence of the agricultural interest. Questions did arise with respect to particular articles, but it was generally con sidered that the resolutions proposed would be for the general benefit of the country. But what were the prophecies which were made with respect to its operation? They were then told that its extension would ~be incompatible with the im provement of commerce—that prediction had not been proved. They had seen an extension of commerce and of manu'acturing industry, which they hardly thought would occur concurrently with the new law. The Hon. Member for Sheffield(Mr. Ward) thought that the manufacturing prosperity of the country might be much greater than it was. It might be carried further. But he ( Sir R. Peel) said that they had arrived at a position which, in 1842, was hardly predicted, and which some thought inconsistent with the passing of the new corn-law. It was said that it would not give any steadiness of price, but sinee it passed, there had been a greater steadiness of price than be fore. During September last, and he believed, during every week since, the price of wheat had hardly varied less than 455. 5d., or more than 465. 11d. The lowest price of wheat during the present year had been 455. 2d., and the highest, 465. sd. He must say that there had been less fluctuation of price, than at any former period. Then it was said that that was caused by the favourable harvest. He denied that. The harvest was good for wheat, but very defective for barley, and he doubted whether the oat crop would be abundant, so that the law had been exposed to defective har vests. Yet there had been almost as regular a trade in barley and oats, as could have been anticipated under any system of trade. It was said that agricultural prosperity could not exist with the present corn-laws. He doubted very meet' Whether, (luring any period of the past history of this country, there bad been a more rapid pro gress in agricultural produce than during the last few years. The existence of the present corn-laws was not incompatible with the demands of the commerce and manufactures of the country, nor with steadiness of price; and he could show that, during their operation, no greater fluctuation had occurred, than would have occurred under any other system. It appeared to him that they could not take any precautions as to the fluc tuation in any article of this kind, and speculations would no doubt be conducted with reference to the state of the har vests. He did not think that the existing corn laws were liable to the objections which had been urged against them, or that the predictions as to their failure had been verified. He was not prepared to adopt either the proposition of the Noble Lord (Lord J. Rus sell) or that of the Hon. Member for Wolverhampton; neither did he defend the present corn-law on the ground that it was for the special advantage of any particular interest—( Hear, hear) —for it would be impossible to maintain any law which had for its object to increase the rents of the landowners. Looking to the condition of the agricultural interest, the changes contemplated would be productive of great injury to them. He thought that such a change in the law as that contem plated would be injurious to the landed proprietors, and to those who were dependent upon them. Bet he thought it was impossible to overlook their moral and social relations. He thought that those relations should not be merely depend ent upou pecuniary considerations. The landlord did not look upon the land as a mere commercial speculation.—( Hear, hear.) According to the principle for which Hon. Gentle men opposite contended, the land was to be regarded as a mere commercial speculation—he was not prepared to say that the land was regarded by the landowners of this country in any such light. He was not prepared to say that the landowner looked upon the tenants as entitled to no conside ration, and that they should be looked upon in a mere pecuniary light.—( Hear, hear.) He did not mean to say that agri culture should be wholly exempted from the applica tion of those principles which were applied to commerce, but what he meant to say was that the landlords should have a due regard for their tenantry. Neither did he say that they should rely upon internal resources, for he thought that a supply from other countries was often necessary—he would he very glad that they could rely entirely upon internal resources, but such at present could not be the case. During three or four years the Government had in every measure it brought forward advocated principles which tended to discourage protection ; but they could not evince such a disregard to existing interests as to comply with the motion of the Hon. Member for Wolverhampton.—( Hear, hear. ) If the doctrine be good for corn it must be good for every thing else. A proposition of the kind applied to everything. It applied to everything else as well as articles of agricultural produce, and though it might be accompanied by a fall in price he did not believe that it would tend to the general prosperity of the country. On these grounds, therefore, he believed that it would not promote the welfare of the country. Believing that it would materially interfere with the interests of Ireland, aud having no confidence whatever in the beneficial tendency of the resolutions, he should give his decided vote against the proposition of the Honourable Member for Wolverhampton. Lord HOWICIC, rote amid loud cries of "Divide," "divide." He only wished to draw the attention of the House to one fact. In the speech of the Right Honourable Baronet, and in that of the Right Honourable Baronet the Home Secretary of State, not one word was attempted to be said in contradiction of the first resolution of the Honourable Member for Wolverhampton. If the last resolution had been to abolish the duties on the corn laws gradually, the speech of the Right Honourable Member would be unanswerable.—( Loud cries of " Divide.") He would not detain the Howe any longer, but he hoped that as Honou, able Members could not deny e' meet the ease which had been brought forward on tha side of the House, they would not shrink f+ orn agreeing to the abolition of those duties, which, in their conscience, believe to be opposed to the truth and the interests of the country. Mr. VILLIERS said that he would only occupy t he at ' en ; tier, of the House for one or too minty es ; but as there had a misrepresentation of what he had said, or at least a apprehension, he he would beg to correct it. There °LS not, in all the speeches of the Right Honourable Geode t hey must men at the head of the Government and of the Honte Department, one word about relieving the distres s of the, country, and yet it was to this that all his observations Ilse been directed. The Canada Corn Bill had been passed t nothing more than to relieve the trade of that country fromv the distress under which it lay, and not with any iew to the general interests of the country. The Right Honourable Baronet at the head of the Home Department had eel' tainly been placed in a positio n very anomalous: and of a y disagreeable kind. He had been oblige to answer the arguments of hi s own supporters, and atne consequence was, that the Members f or Lincolnshire ea Yorkshire were in a dilemma. They had asserted, that bl the introduction of 2,000,000 of quarters of corn, 8 °t„ ), „ people would be thrown out of employment. The ' cm ' . Me/Lber for Devonshire had asserted, that by the whilst duct ion of foreign corn wages would tall ; wo uld not the Right Hon. Baronet asserted directly that such be the case. The Hon. Member for Dorsetsbire had gob to the east of the Mediterranean, to Smyrna, and all over Jae world but to Dorsetshire • and the fact that he had el cited was, that there was a' arid at increaseany of crime in Dorse t ' shire. All had combined to make him assured of ultimate suce. cess. At present he knew he must be in a l u ll s rity; but with this he would not quarrel ; fo r , 1 , 19 b a d Honourable Friend the Member for Stockport been said, minorities in that House bad very often turned into majorities, and under the apprehension of a _ jority against the motion, he felt grateful for the Wen; with which they had listened to his observations on this./ portant subject. (The Hon. Gentleman sat down amidst to cheers.) The House then divided, when there appeared, For the motion ........................ ..... I. =" Against it ................................ 25 02 Majority against the motion.. • d t he The Banking (Scotland) Bill Report was received, and third reading was ordered for Thursday next. The House then adjourned at Half-past Two o'clock. ------ PARLIAMEN TAR Y 1)1 V ISI.ONS. --4. nf Corms . ) , (From the Votes and Proceedings of the Hou se TUESDAY, JUNE 10. CORN IMPORTATION. lve i tself , 0 reso . .......„,„ Motion made, and Question put, " That this the ~_,in g M... into a Committee, for the purpose of considering the M U ' • {WU' the lutions : a nd Pr e " That the Corn-law restricts the supply of food, free exchange of the products of labour ~,,.. of th e C S I Ve t T That it is therefore prejudicial to the I'veL."'"„ e d dclu'' especially to that of the working classes, and has Pr"' 1 1 09 those for whose benefit the Law was designed ; gioui. " That it is expedient that all restrictions 00 Ce',,',, abolished." The House divided : MINORITY—AYES, 122. Aglionby, H. A. Ellice, Edward Osborn e ' o li r d al A Pl ! Aldam, William Ellis, Wynn r 3 g et ' "' job" Baine, Walter Elphinstone, 11. ra ker, Tam es Pattisola, ~ Bannerman, A. Etwall, Ralph 0.11. Barclay, David Ewart, William Philips, ,_.l, 1,1 lips 3 1 .3 0t.5h i Barnard, E. G. Fielden, John Berkeley, Captain Ferguson, Colonel Berkeley, H. F. Fitzroy, Lord C. Igsollr9lY e o ld r'' L ig l e'C i • ) ; . s rd . k p—othr' Bernal, Ralph Forster, Matthew .., r , Blewitt, R. J. Gibson, T. Rito , R M. i, Bonverie, E. r.. Gore, Robert . itl ea t?l4: 4 ..) ' Bowring, Dr.' '" 'r ''Gr'anger, T. C. - Bright, John , • —. '' - ' Gre9;gir fe - Orger'" - '- 80W.% , ‘ „d p.:. • -ROSA ',i Brotherton, Joseph Guest, Sir J. Q ott I t°De ' Buller, Edward Hastie, Archibald .- , c - 'O. 1. Busfeild, William liawes, Benjamin scroP e r pr., Byng, G. S. Hayter, W. G. Seiln° 'e, f' ,4l' C. She lb ld, If' g, Cavendish, C. C. Ilindley, Charles Cavendish G. H. Holland, Robert Stale tic i A rd j . Chapman, B. Howard, C. W. Stua rt ' .sy. i r • 6. Christie, W. D. Howard, J. K. Stuar l 'd 5 1 !„, stric.vcil. i :, Cobden, Richard Howard, E. G. tt, 'a' v. Colborne, W. R. Howick, Viscount stru J, i 3• S. Colebrooke, Sir T. Hume, Joseph Tao c ;; 0 0 °Lir E. Collett, John Hutt, William T rel4 Dridgor ' Y Collins, William Johnson, General Tro u e o, fieol Cowper, W. P. Langston, J. H. V itij i er, q 1 0 rs Craig, W. G. Lascelles, W. S. DO 0 , J. eisifi . T. _ : „A Crawford, W. S. Listowel, Earl ' . wle) , uielu.l,4 Dalmeny, Lord Macaulay, T. B. IN ,„,r, +~ flew , 110,„ - r too, , Dennistoun, J. Marjoribanks, S. wr , A. tt., D'Evncourt, C. T. Martin, John i'vad, '',, t r. P' Duff, James Matheson, James alb I•i Mit% J. e * Duncan, Viscount Manic, Fox 1 8 0c.. , ~ V • D, Duncan, George Mitcalfe, Henry Willi 4rn it 1/f ' Duncannon, Viscount Mitche, T. A. ~...,,jo_o Duneombe, Thomas Moriso ll n, General 1, ''',, , ri. oric' Dundas, Frederick Muntz, G. F. 1 , 0 . Dundas, David Murray, Alexander .0 . 1 0 ,e,g Easthope, Sir J. Napier, Sir C. Differs, Cllole4 Ebrington, Viscount O'Connell, M. J. Villia'' Ellice, Rt. Hon. E. Ord, William MAJORITY—NOES, 2 54 ' 0 J. 1 %41 Acland, Sir T. D. Egerton, W. T. 31 0We ii ' Ca t : JO Acland, T. D. m e rles r 0 . ~. Egerton, Sir P. A'Court, Captain Einlyn, Viscount 0 01110. w. S. , Colonel 1100, r o pal tott Ent wise, William . pcX Adore Acto n, Viscount Escott, l Bickham Milc% ,„. go . Adderley, C. B. ilne-, P . • sit j Farnham, E. B. Alford, Viscount Ajorda ull' ' FeHowes, Edward - i O. Allis, J. P. Aforga l '. 31. Filmer, Sir E. Autrobus, Edmund Fitzroy, Henry 3lttudi,joopli Arhuthuott, H. eed, . 0 Flower, Sir James cold, Jon ~S Archdall, Captain Fox, S. L. ..., .. vdeg ate, •••' Arkwright, George Fremantle, Sir T. ~ 'c : ~ John Ashley, Lord Fuller, A. E. Nidioit, , to Astell, William NorreYs, bni';igo Gardner, John Dunn Northland, ' Austen, Colonel Gaskell, J. 31. ,s. O'Brien, .. Bagot, William (Byline, Sir S. Ogle , S• cv Bailey, J., jun. Gordon, Captain Packe, C. .04 Balfour, J. M. Gore, Montag ue Palm er, 11° de Bankes, George Gore, W. O. ..,„ Barkly, Henry Goulburn, il e !"' 1 1 ' ' ' a lin fatten, J• Barrington, Viscount Graham, Sir v • Peel, Sir Ro_b_t Baskerville, T. B. Granby, Margni 9 ree l, Jonal%. ei Beckett, William Greunall, Peter Bell, Matthew Pennant, ;1,. .. t Greene, ThornaS PluinP tre ' ViS ennr Beresford, Major Grimsditch, T. ,„,..,,ton, , Bernard, Viscount Grimston, V.scount r°'",Thir. '.' jar Blackstone, W. S. Hale, It. B. Prae", , AleSA n Bodkin, W. H. Raiford, Sir 11. le, ~ W. Hamilton, C. J. B. Itasl'le,,go-.; T. • 4 ' Bolder°, H. G. Borthwick, Peter Hamilton, J. 11. jtedin , . joho itotrield, Iteriah juia, .s tr o. W..4 Hamilton, G. A. Bowes, John Hamilton, W. J. Hamilton, Lord C. Itel" n ' Colo n Bowles, Admiral Itellesten, , Boyd, John Hampden, Rena . P' Brainston, T. W. Mourner, Sir J. Brisco, M. Harcourt, G. G. Broadlcy, H. Harris, Captaia Broadwood, Henry Hayes, Sir Edmund Bli-SStla;:dlidsie:ce:riliCll.j:ll:lCD.l:-3 Bruce, Lord E. Ileatlicote, G. J. S'.cott, Friif ia se yniotlr , o 9 7 o •6 Bruce, C. L. C. Heiteage, G. H. Sheridan, cololl Bruges, W. H. L. Iteneage, Edward , r p, Buck, L. W. Henley, J. W. Sibtlio ..A Buller, Sir J. Y. Henniker, Lord Srnith,"„ll.C, Bunbury, Thomas Hepburn, Sir T. smith, Sir 11. _der Burrell, Sir C. Herbert, Sidney Smyth,7.o,_i sno otier - oc ilaP* Burroughs, H. N. Ilervey, Lord A. Campbell, J. H. Hogg, James W. SPeoli'riS. Ti na Cardwell, Edward Holmes, W. A'Court Spl',, a t, J , Carew, W. 11. P. Hope, Charles te‘‘‘, ar/ • Chelsea, Viscount Hope, G. W. swan, „ i. g. _ Chetwode, Sir J. Horribv John Sutton, !.drd. Taylor, 3. A: Christopher, It. A. llowat : ii, Philip 11. Clayton, It. H. Hughes, W. B. Taylor, 1 . 1.0 Clements, Viscount Hussey, Ambrose Tho iger , i tider Clerk, Sir George Hussey, Thomas Clifton, J. T. Ingestrie, Viscount ro lit , Je , -., Clive, Viscount Jertnyn, Earl Tho _ o w, to e Cliv e, C c o o ( c i l r i i b i i u ll g t r t . l . l l , , l l S: Sir rGW. W. Tollent ,0.10. of. Jocelyn, Viscount To wer, t ' s ir t • Johnstone, Johnstone, Hope T ,: r , le ut il l r i .j u eoo c o P r i t i : : t°: : :: ; . l r il e °1 ,. . 1: Trench' 0 1 4 ' , Cole, 11. A. Jones, Captain TrolleP e 'johl , oisr Colvile, C. It. Kemble, Henry Tr otter , c hris o l . Compton, H. C. Kirk, Peter Connolly, Colonel Knight, F. W. Tyrr ~ a d A Coote, Sir C. Knightley, Sir C. vole' , " 101 - Corry, Henry Lawson, Andrew' Courtenay, Lord Lefroy, Anthony I, l , ' , e g l i o e t r i , Vi 11. 0 Cripps, William Legh, G. C. Vill!e r ''./. t/j, 0. Curteis, 11. B. Lemon, Sir C. VivO' i gton , 0, Darner, Colonel Liddell, 11. T . Wiu ld , j , i sir .../' Darby, George Lincoln, Earl of W a lsh, 0. ro, C. Davies, 1). A. S. Lockhart, W. welq , „ I,ine, Dawnay, W. 11. Loftus, Viscount w e lleSl e, ' T. Deedes, William Lopes, Sir It. ~,0 r e,,.. y. , Denison, W. J. Lowther, Sir 3. `Whitt o, l ' 31r ' d Brin i3n ,,ton , •Ao o Denison, E. B. Lygon, General ,11 -- Yi n ,' h tle'„ e l Dick. Quintin Mackenzie, 'l'. 1 1 Vooe -° O,lO•_,A Dickinson, F. H. Douglas, Sir 11. Mackenzie, W. F. Woo d, . vi- eit 5, 31`Geachy, F. A. wage,' Jo 9, Douglas, Sir C. 31`Neill, Duncan w att john Douglas, J. D. S. Mahon, Visc ount wo rtleY, Dowdeswell, W. Manners, Lor d C. S. V . 1.1 .01. Drummond, H. 11. March, Earl - l ot Du Pre, C. G. Martin, C. IV. y 'Yea/ onog' East, J. B. Martin, T. B. Ba ia ' Eaton, It. J. Maunsel __.— H YD ROPHODAEA'sreoftbiriti TO THE EDITOR OF T „t cO.OO O a re, , Sr a,—Observing in the papers two reeeLf t 0 . 1, 1 0 _ . 004 t phobia treated with no success, or ratherb.Ttyoythelefs.! merit, on account of the supposed imp to t o w o os, beg the use of your valuable columns, ...ah Cae set' A the r• 0 ifiC S it attention of the medical practitioners an , . __ . „,,,s ~,e Atb , that Belladonna Ryoscyamus piper Strar d te l , l , 6 ar'dgell &e., properly administered, have been f°.,anontitnevea in the treatment of rabid animals on the ''' ac tii k r oullY , sr , Belladonna and Cantharis are the proPhP, re p t' F . st. against the hydrophobia.—l am, Sir, r ut 0 , .to bliOr 10,Chadwell-street, Myddletcu.square, June 10, 1845. ,1014 00 ° BIRTH-as. lady of ' l ' s' 010 0 On the 20th ult., at Madeira, the „ 3 1°. th e Ross, Esq., M.D., of a son. IA , On the sth inst., at Arncliffe I r ie arag' ~g.p ~ip id o. Boyd, of a son. Relen t iv; On the Bth inst., at Portland-terrace!, he ir. the lady of Frederick Sang, Esq., of a son„a'u o gto af On the Bth inst , at the Rectory, III"' 0 the Rev. W. C. Berkeley, of a sea. of ~e gbh by t' of 11/A.Rii/ED:,,h inst., , oo llo? e ltle e i At Alverstoke, on Saturday. th e !..` iv. g• gar.'o,, as Rey. the Dean of Westminster, 1% 10 :1 ° ' Louis a lc Royal Military College, Sandhurst, c`,.,,etbilta, toop4 daughter of Rea... Admiral Sir Edward ii" lkf r ' K.C.H. of Horton Lodge, Hants. T o o gte a i dorg 4 On the ' 3d inst., at St. Mary...'s, .4 0, odes 0, of Wontner Smith, of Finsbury, to LYuderihll• est.oDet, of Lee yOll t,ll 0 the late Mr. Stephen Munday , !l ows, o to o f 1 51 On the 3d inst., at Southgate, , i. t com et Esq o _ , William King, Esq., of Wandswonr ,n ,l ' ine ider , ' bird Mary, youngest daughter of Joh '-' , E 6(1. ; th r- ,t ,b s i,,, /0 3.., 40 .- ver-hall. J a mes ' i s iirta w be P On the sth inst., at DaventrY,,av airy, to v., o f t Company's 10th Bengal Light Cha rted( Cho o t p lag e t . iter of the late Charles (RattrAY, N'' Ne s O rill 'et h WED , gacg t he ot e a Yesterday, at the house house-square, Donald 31 Do f all, E s q' s q,.,'' °f in i tile es tee lP ~,ore itenh ar.: a nt, _ C ,,, Of Shiner and M'Dougall, of , . reg , : etted ti,in.nd, „or year o f hi s age, deeN r e „,,. his Op scoto' s i l l .i: . t tie by all who had the pleasur v. north ° tto w ° Pop; M‘Dougall was a native of ther ,.ted jo o n s y v ertr 6 ' C pt ;ell was well known and much resP" l land, ast anniversary trave dinnerlle d o o ti f t t h h e e ~ 1 ° ,r ..a.% ;) „ 1 .. . r iTi o s ti ' ti l l ra f e s i i t' it h e ' e g : r i d i t t l i n , e ll e i rt g o h i l man Marshall, in proposiw, 1,4[ P r him a well-deserved trsiebvte:e spirit, exemplary per. . , ...,I"osiasirg'edrseplonrialielliv ti°ncibert:;co, nod ( ' ~ 61°' Gree- a ny character, the truth of which i', acclamations of the Society. . time 4 '''' ..,u-rs°l6::::l3p'te4:o2l.,r:riadr_S' one t f naL,l• - .heu f On the 2d inst., at his streeti,o rie, ,eo r , ...., d 7„. s ob t,' co" D. t S e i r n .. c p l i a a ir c , e, E u sq r . e , e o n f iv t b u , ld n . i s e g rc u il . a r. n_t_ C, On the 3d inst., of rapla. c_Ti re, li, w u j a ci:s t " no, ,r J . Cues. odes beloved wife of Mr. N , • o f gr. J o f at ,_ y ea g ot garden, and grand daughter place, Covent-garden. 0 n tli e 4t h i n in f a o t rd W:a r i e t i b i c a r ,S,tf7t, rileeisipil . e -i c t iej t e e d BC74 : P e 'i s tL i i.tcli 'e'll or.:t 0 ° 0 f : 1 11 age, Mrs. Ann i ars a high ! ) ga.. Milford, and many ye Britain, of h Ann's, LinlellOUSe. re Sort ---;456f, 4, n the 2d inst._,_ at Ban. , -- ---- irOv IJ P i --- DO :4 0 ' of James Ogilvie, C.B. ____-- -- igUlt foe, osti Lo s nd o t . 0 t Co .111:12e,rinSt7a4nd41.16P.I.riuntb°7'1,19:::er$av50.71, 1./2 Pe Strand. in WtheeduPersedcainye,tjowile' l b 184 w• It lot5"11, , ht ir 44 11 E EbNE, 44; k ke., Nit: *%4.z qte I 'l tl 'ai 14 ke t Ite: Po t44"' tteNtrift ttl, t 44 44 " t 14 IL T } -1 4'} l T} j}.