The Sun.
London, England, 1839-03-14 00:00:00

the veiw of alleviating the distress which existed, and
that Mr. Whitbread made a proposition to fix the
rate of wages by law. He would now, as a con-
trast to that period, call the attention of the House to
the period when the allowance system ended—when the
Poor-law Amendment Act passed. It was passed in
the year 1834, and it was in that year the price of
wheat was lower than for the last half-century ; and he
would appeal to any gentleman's recollection, whether
the price of wheat had the effect of diminishing the em-
ployment and of increasing the misery of the labouring
classes in 1835 ? In reports of the Poor-law Com-
missioners for that year and for 1836, it would be
found how materially their operations in first introducing
the Poor-law into this country were seconded and fa-
cilitated by the ample employment of the labouring
classes and by the low price of the necessaries of life.—
(Hear, hear.) He found this topic dwelt upon by
every person concerned in the administration of the
Poor-law, and not only those who were favourable to it,
but what were the arguments urged by the opponents of
the Poor-law ? They said you never could have
introduced a system so harsh and so full of pri-
vations to the labouring poor if you had
not been assisted by the most favourable
condition in that respect—by finding ample employment
and low price of provisions when the law came into
operation. Now, looking at the period when the allow-
ance system and the abuses of the Poor-law first took
rise, and contrasting it with the period when they were
put an end to, it was decidedly against those who main-
tained that the labouring classes have an interest, either
in the shape of employment or otherwise, in a high price
of wheat in preference to a low. If we looked at the
records of our population—if we consulted " Milnes on
Annuities," or Porter's book on " the Progress of the
Nation," what did they find ? They would see the com-
parative comforts of the labouring classes during a year
of low prices, and their discomfort during a year of
high prices. This was attested by a great diminution
in the number of marriages during a year of high-priced
wheat.--(Hear,) 4nd if Gentlemen would look at the
disastrous years of 1800 and 1801, they would find these
records bore out the position which he had stated. Of the
varioos reasons which had been given by Gentlemen
for maintaining what they called this protection to the
agriculturist, none of them appeared to him to be very
conclusive, Muoh had been said about local taxation
and general taxation. As to the general taxation of
the country, the heaviness of our debt, and the other
bordens, certainly left a memorable lesson for not im-
posing move privations than were necessary ; but he
could not admit this was any reason for protecting one
class of the community at the expense of anodier.—
(Hear.) What he complained of was, that the protec-
tion which the Corn-laws afforded was special and ex-
clusive—that they protected the seller of corn at the
expense of the buyer.—(Hear.) They might by giving
to thejseller of corn a protection, make him more able
to pay taxes than before, but it was only by taking so
much out of the pockets of the buyer ; so that the seller
and the buyer together were not a bit more able to pay
than before. The aggregate resources of the country were
in no way increased, but he maintained they were greatly
diminished, because this transfer from the pockets of
the seller to the pockets of the buyer, produced the
effect of distributing unnaturally and erroneously the
aggregate capital of the country.—( Hear, hear) Now,
to take the matter on a small scale, Hon. Gentlemen
would pot think that they increased the power of a
parish to pay rates, by saddling one proprietor at the
expense of the remainder, or encouraging one mode of
employing labour at the expense of others.—(Cheers.)
He was sure that doctrine would fiud no approbation
anywhere ; and it was only from mystifying the circum-
stance, that it could impose upon so many acute and
penetrating men, Then as to the local taxation of the
country. What had been said by Hon. Gentlemen he
could only understand to be an indirect censure on the
way in which our taxation was distributed. If they could
show that more than a fair and reasonable share was im-
posed on the agriculturists,let it be rectified. Agricultural
gentlemen would find no reluctance manifested to re-
lieve them from such burthens, if they could be proved
to exist, and be contended that that was the way to
treat the complaints.—(Hear, hear.) If be (Mr. G.)
were: assessed at a higher rate than others, he had a
right to have the assessment rectified ; but, assuredly,
no reasonable Judge would ever dream of maintaining
the original vice of the assessment without alteration,
and of giving him leave to reimburse himself at the
expense of his neighbour?--(Hear, hear,) Yet that was
involved in the argument of the agriculturists to pro.
tect themselves from the introduction of foreign corn—
the excess of their local taxation. Some Hon. Gent.
had said a great deal about the evil of being dependant
on foreign countries, and he admitted there was some-
thing terrific in the sound of the word dependence, of
which they made quite sufficient use. But would our
present Corn-laws emancipate us from that dependence.
—(Hear, hear.) Were we not dependent upon foreign
countries at this instant, and were we not likely to be
dependant upon them hereafter, and did not the agri-
cultural Committee of 1833 say that England did not in
ordinary years grow corn enough for her own consump-
tion ? But it was said we were only occasionally de-
pendent. So much the worse.—(Hear, hear.) For
no one was so likely to be disappointed in his
supply as the occasional buyer. Under our pre-
sent system of occasional dependence we did not
make it the interest of any country to supply us.
We therefore were regarded as nothing better than
unexpected intruders upon a stock provided without
reference to us.—(Hear.) It was not astonishing that fo-
reign powers should be reluctant to send their corn
just at the time we wanted it—when we declined to
take it when it could be of any advantage to them.—
(Hear.) If it were desired to remove the chance of
our being dependent for a supply, let there be a re-
gular trade, for it would be as much the interest of
foreign powers to supply us as it would be our interest
to buy corn of them. He was exceedingly happy to
hear last night the Hon. Member for Yorkshire speak
of the skill displayed in English agriculture--
(Hear, hear)— because he did expect rather to hear op-
posite language, seeing the side of the question which
the Hon. Member adopted. They were told that Po-
land and Russia had abundance of unexhausted land,
but that was their only advantage. To know whether
their low price of labour was an advantage to the capi-
talist, he must also know what was the amount of work
done by the labourer.—(Hear, hear.) And it had
been stated over and over again by land surveyors that
the work done by an English labourer in Middlesex at
2s. 6d. per day was cheaper than the work done by the
Irish labourer in Kerry at 6d. He did not despair that
the English agriculturist, if he made use of all the
means within his power, would be able to compete with
the foreigner so as to render the importation of foreign
corn exceedingly inconsiderable in point of quantity.—
(Hear, hear.) When he looked at the statements
made relative to the condition of English agriculture,
and of the extent of improvement yet to be resorted to
by the English growers, he was the more confirmed in
his position that the English agriculturists had not so
much to apprehend from foreign competition as they
imagined.—(Hear, hear.) He would appeal in confir-
mation of these views to a very valuable pamphlet pub-
lished in 1836, under the form of a letter to Earl Spen-
cer, upon the foundation of agricultdral associations, by
the Honourable Member for Lincolnshire (Mr. Hand-
ley), It was most valuable and instructive—it parti-
cularly pointed out the difficulties existing in our agri-
culture, and the degree in which agriculturists
might by their own means and exertions improve it.
The Hon. Gentleman was no partizan of the doctrine
of finality in agricultural management, which was very
popular on other topics on both sides of the House.
f-!e admonished them of the means within their reach to
obtain an improved system, and of the duty under which
they lay to provide themselves with those improvements.
The pamphlet of Mr. Handley continued to state that
it was impossible not to be disgusted with the bad state
of farming, and the ignorance of cultivation in this
country. In spite of the revolution which bone manure
had introduced into farming, its use was still unknown
in many dietricts. It was also clear from what the
pamphlet stated, that high prices such as those obtained
in war time, were not at all favourable to the develop-
ment of the science of agriculture. It stated that when
prices were ao high that half a crop would remunerate
the farmer, be he ever $o slovenly, the usual induce-
ments to industry and ingenuity were wanted ; and that
when wheat was from six to eight guineas a quarter the
only wonder was why the farmer did not exert himself
less. That was his (Mr. G.'s) opinion also—whether
as referred to war prices or to the high prices which
it was the object of the Corn-laws to give, but which
they could not maintain.—(Hear, hear.) But let us
only have free competition in the trade of corn,
and then, according to Mr. Handley, every species of
improvement in farming would follow, and the evils now
complained of would gradually be diminished. He
(Mr. G.) maintained that the agriculture of this
country would never be on its true and just basis but
on the principle of a free trade in corn—( Hear, hear)
—that so long as we persevered in the present system
of encouraging the farmer to make bargains to pay a
heavy rent, on the supposition of a protective duty, the
very time that this protection would be most wanted, it
would be found to fail—that if we encouraged the pre-
sent delusive course, nothing like a steady price would
be obtained, and the theory of agricultural prosperity
would turn out to be all a fiction.—(Hear, hear.) He
believed there were a great many erroneous notions
abroad respecting the prices of foreign wheat imported
into this country, if we had a free trade in corn estab-
lished. He had taken some pains to procure pre-
cise information on this point.—(Cries of " Hear.")
From the best information he had been enabled
to procure, he believed that when foreign corn should
be imported in considerable quantities into this country,
under the encouragement of free trade, the price
would not be less than 455. a quarter.—(Laughter,
and cries of " Hear, hear.") He would remind the
Hon. Gentlemen, that in reasoning on those points,
price and quantity must be taken together, for one de-
pended upon the other. Now, assuming that the
quantity of wheat imported would be one million
quarters, the price would not be less than 455. The agri-
culturists of England would then most cheerfully supply
the fourteen millions of quarters which would then be Fe-

quired. The whole struggle, then, turned between the
one million and the fourteen-fifteenths, as far as the
grower and consumer were coocerned. He would beg
Hon. Gentlemen not to deceive themselves by referring
to quotations of wheat at Dantzic. There was no encou-
ragement for importation at such times. The prices were
very low, but then they were only nominal. They were
not represented in anyreal transaction, for if there were Any
considerable demand fro:n a foreign country, those lox
prices would not exist a single day. Let them take the
prices of wheat at Dantzic during the time of a reel
demand, as in the years 1829, 1830, and 1831 ; they
would find that the average of prices was not less than
455. a quarter ; there was then nothing alarming in the
estimate he had made on the assumption that we should
import one million quarters, and yet that importation
would encourage cultivation abroad, and diffuse much
advantage at home. But if he could show that corn
would be imported here at 355. or even 255. a quarter,
that would only make his case stronger.— (Hear,
hear.) He was not disposed to exaggerate ; he was
most anxious that the question should be regarded in
its true point between the grower and the consumer,
though he would admit there had been a great
deal of exaggeration on either side.—(Hear, hear,
and cheers.) The Hon. Member who spoke last, and
the Hon. Member for Yorkshire who spoke last night in
addressing the House on behalf the English labourer,
asked whether he intended, by the importation of corn
from Poland he proposed, •to degrade the English la-
bourer to the level of the Polish labourer ? Nothing
could be further than such an idea from the wishes of
any gentleman on his side the question ; in fact, ho was
sure that there was in reality no connection between
what Hon. Gentlemen regarded as cause and effect in
this case. Had we not been importing wheat during
thirty years from Ireland, and yet had we in cons,-
quence degraded the English labourer to the level which
unhappily prevailed in Ireland.—( Hear, bear.) He
was sure that if such could be the effect, the English
Parliament would never consent to a free trade in corn
with Ireland, upon so unjust and unkind a principle ;
but in fact there was no connection between the two
points—the reward of labour in the two countries did
not depend on the price of corn they might
as well tell him that if we had a free trade in corn, that
when in consequence flour should be imported into this
country from America, that the condition of the English
labourer would be raised to that of the American—
but such would not be the case—(Hear, hear)—be-
cause there was not the least connection between the
two points. He dared to say that if we had a free
trade in corn, the condition of the Polish labourer
would be improved by capital and the diffusion of in-
dustry ; but there was not the least foundation to ap-
prehend that the English labourer would be degraded
to the condition of the Polish labourer.—(Cheers.)
Another point dwelt upon by the Hon. Member for
Yorkshire last night was, that if the free trade were per-
mitted, we should be inundated by foreign corn as if it
had been hoarded up for the purpose of pouring into
this country when the ports were opened. But there
was no quantity hoarded up on purpose, and if the
ports were opened and the free trade permitted,
we should have a gradual supply,lbut no inundation.
Now to remove all apprehensions on this point, to show
that no immense quantity of corn would be all at once
introduced, he would refer to Parliamentary returns,
showing the quantity of corn that had been imported
from Ireland, from the year 1800 to 1839. The free
trade in corn with Ireland was established in 1806. if
the argument of the Hon. Gentleman were sound, we
ought by this time to have been inundated with corn
from Ireland, and Ireland also was in the same rela-
tive condition with England as Poland would ba with
this country if there were a free trade in corn—in Ire-
land as in Poland there was an abundance of fertile
land, but a very low reward for labour ; now he would
not trouble the House by reading in detail the return
he had alluded to, in order to show how gradual
had been the increase of corn imported from Ireland
year after year, instead of there being a
great quantity brought over to this country at once.
The whole of quantity imported from Ireland now,.was
three millions of quarters. He was quite certain that
this question would never be at rest until they had sub-
stantially established a free trade in corn—( Hear, hear)
—until that protection which the Corn-laws now gave to
the seller at the expense of the buyer, should be substan-
tially at an end,—(Hear, hear.) The working of the
Corn-laws was most mischievous. They seemed to
have been framed with the worst possible intentions.
They were cruelly unjust in practice, because they im-
posed on the mass of the community the painful task of
purchasing their daily food at a higher price than they
need otherwise give. They impeded the circulation of ce-
pital, by checking the exportation of manufactures, and
above all, they had a mischievous tendency to
lead to a sudden and an absolute demand
for bullion, which might come on at the
most inconvenient possible time.--(Hear, hear.) Now
he would beg leave to ask Hon. Gentlemen what would
have been the condition of the commercial community
and the Bank of England if, in addition to the drains
which were made upon the Bank in 1825 there had
also been a bad harvest.—(Hear, hear.) He well re-
collected that calamitous period, and he was sure that,
if there had been a bad harvest, the condition of the
Bank would have been most painfully embarrassing.
If there bad been a bad harvest in 1830, and also a run
of bullion in addition, the position of the Bank and or
the commercial community would have been most pain-
ful and embarrassing.—( Hear, hear.) Hon. Members
ought to reflect now, for when such a time came it
would be too late. He contended that the calls for bul-
lion, occasionally produced by fluctuating duties en corn,
interdicted steady prices, and compelled us in seasons
of scarcity to pay extravagantly for food. In the time
of the French Revolution Robespierre compelled the
seller of corn to take a certain price for it, without
asking any more. This was of course unjust, but the
principle of all such systems was not less unjust, for we
protected the sellere against the buyers, though the
latter were immeasurably the larger class. They
might depend upon it that the feeling which was now
extending itself against the unjust system of the Corn-
laws, though it may be comparatively quiet in times of
abundance, would revive in times of scarcity in a tone
of clamour and violence that would :be inconsistent
with the peace of the country, and fatally sub-
versis e to the interests of the agriculturists.
If the Legislature was determined to persevere in the
support of a bad measure to keep one part of the
people at the expense of another, and that a much
larger one, they would be compelled to watch their
enactments with drawn swords in their hands.—('Hear,
hear.) Not only would clamour, indignation, and dis-
content be diffused against the agricultural interest,
but a series of consequences, highly dangerous to the
manufacturing and monetary interests would ensue.
He was quite satisfied both for the stability of our
agricultural interest and the safety of the capital in-
vested in land, and about to be invested in it, that it
would be for the interest, not alone of the consuming
community, but also of the farmers themselves, to con-
sent to this question being settled, on the only solid
and true basis, on the permanent centre of gravity—
he meant a trade in corn substantially free.
The Earl of DARLINGTON said that be very sel-
dom ventured to trouble the House with any remarks
of his, however being connected as a representative with
the agricultural interest, he would take the liberty of
saying a few words on the present important question.
He should be one of the last persons to undervalue
the importance of our manufacturing interests,
well knowing that they contributed most es-
sentially to the wealth, power, and prosperity of
the country, and such was his confidence in the enter-
prise and skill of British artisans that he was sure it
would ever be impossible for foreigners to compete with
them in quantity or quality ; but it seemed that the
Hon. Gentlemen who advocated the cause of the ma-
nufacturers were not satisfied with this pre-eminence,
they would have us, besides, manufacture for the whole
world, and would allow uo country to manufacture
even for itself. But the British manufacturers had no right
to do thin, and if they had they could not exercise it iu
the present state of Europa. He would contend it on
the ground of general policy. He did not see, moreover.
why the manufacturers should be benefited at the ex-
pense of the agriculturists. He was perfectly willing to
allow the manufacturers a full share of encouragement
and protection with the agriculturists, but he would not
allow the former to predominate. Setting aside the in-
terests of landlords, farmers, and labourers, he would
say that if this were to become altogether a manufac-
turing country, it would be injurious to our national
prosperity and wealth. The agricultural and manufac-
turing interests had been properly termed twins ; let
them, then, go hand in hand, and nothing would injure
them. Each one was as essential to the interest of the
other, as both were to the general prosperity of tke
State. Having said so much, he felt sorry to be
obliged to complain of the tone which the agriculturists
had been spoken of throughout several manufacturing dis-
tricts. The landed interest had acted differently—their
motto was " Live and let live." They would attack no
one ; but when they were attacked unfairly, unjustly, and
wantonly, they were fully prepared to defend them.
selves, but would act solely in self-defence. The
Speech of the Hon. Gentleman who had brought for-
ward this question last night had astonished him greatly.
He went at large into the manner in which he consi-
dered this question would affect the agricultural interest,
but dwelt but little upon the manner in which the manu-
facturing interest would be affected by it. He had
stated his conviction that this question would prove sub.
stantially a landlord's question ; that the farmers had
scarcely any interest in it, and that it would make
eventually but very little difference to them. Now,
would yield to
ascertaining
o the the
profits v i
Dwiathoinagltlond)uoto deferencesay,that
atiothotuhgeh
hHoonourable Gen-
tleman, he must allow bairn (the Earl of
ytbeet,kenoonwsilfieedrgioegofththeeopHpoonr.toGoietinetslewmhainoh he possessed of
ow ng
on other subjects,
ewansdofthefarm
lossesof farming,s n
he felt satisfied this subject—of
that he Knew what was for the interests of the farmers as
well as the Hon. Member for 'Wolverhampton. Before he
went into the statements laid before the House by the Hon.
Member for Wolverhampton last night, in bringing forward
this question, he would take nooee of one point in the
er o
k
§peeph of the Ifee. Member' for London, which appeared

to him to involve a contradiction. In the early part of his
speech he had said that the effect of the Corn-laws was, in
point of fact, to keep up the price of corn beyond the means
of the consumer to pay for it. In the latter part of his speech
be had said that if a free importation of corn were per-
mitted to take place into this country, corn could not be
imported at a less cost than 455. per quarter. Now, from
1833 to 1838, the average price of corn in England had
not been more than 48s. per quarter—only 3s. per quarter
more than the price that it would bear under a system of
free importation. Now, he would like to know how this
33. could make such a difference to the labourer as to
enable him. to increase his consumption to any considerable
extent. In fact the latter part of the Hon. Gentleman's
speech contradicted the former part of it. The Hon.
Mover of this question last night had begun by stating that
it was only now that this question had attracted that
degree of public attention to which its importance en-
titled it. Who were those, he would ask, from whom the
present movement came?-_( Hear.) Did it come from
the people. He was ready to admit that the present high
price of corn had been this year higher than it had been in
former years, and that this might have created some slight
sensation, but had the populace held any meetings on this
subject ? Had they expressed any feelings in relation to
it? No, but the Chamber of Commerce at Manchester
brought forward this question, and had endeavoured to
press it by every unjustifiable means in their power—
( Hear, hear)—by agitation.—( Hear, hear.) They had
even endeavoured to rouse the populace to arm.—( Cries
of " Ne, no," from the Ministerial benches, responded to
by cheers from the Opposition.) He would contend that
they had endeavoured to do so; it was true that they had
not succeeded, because they were defeated upon this as
they had been upon every other point. But he would
repeat that they had done so.—(Hear, hear, hear.) Had
these measures not been had recourse to this question would
not have been heard of more this year than it had been fur
some years previously, when it was never heard of except in
occasional speeches of Hon. Members in that House. As
a proof of this he would quote a few words from the speech
of the Hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets last year in
support of a motion on this subject. That Hon. Member
distinctly stated that he could look for no support out of
this House. He regretted the apathy that existed in the
public mind on this subject, but he was forced to admit that
this apathy did exist, and he regretted it the more because
he felt that a repeal of the Corn-laws never could be ob-
tained without the pressure from without. He agreed with
that Hon. Member that this apathy did exist, and although
every means had this year been resorted to, to create that
pressure from without on this subject, yetthose means had all
signally failed. The next objection brought forward by
the Hon. Member for Wolverhampton was that the high
price of corn cast a great number of labourers into the
market, and lowered the price of labour. He (Earl Dar-
lington) was at a loss to understand how the high price of
corn could cast the agricultural labourer upon the market.
The agricultural labourer was not a wanderer—he was
chiefly domesticated on the spot where he was born, and
in many circumstances might be considered as an heir-loom
to the estate, and unless unfortunately he should be
doomed hereafter to sell up and go into the workhouse,
he could not see how he could be forced to go from his
home. It was true when the farmer was poor he was not
induced to employ labour to the same extent ; and although
it would cost him as much in the end as if he had employed
the labour, because what he saved by the non-employment
of labour he would lose by a deficiency in his crops, and an
increase in his poor rates—although this might be appli-
cable to a small extent, yet he could not admit that this
would be such a loss of work as would produce the effect
stated by the Hon. Gentleman, nor could he understand
how the high price of corn could throw the agricultural
labourer into the market, because he was fixed to the spot.
The Hon. Gent. had also stated that the effect of the Corn-
laws was to keep the labourer out of employment. Did he
mean to say that if the Corn-laws were repealed, and the land
thrown out of cultivation that that would give the labourer
more employment. He could not understand what the
Hon. Gentleman meant by this, because he did not enter
into any details on this subject. He trusted the House
would not allow any lands to go out of cultivation. Ho
would relate to the House an anecdote on this subject of a
circumstance which fell under his own observation in the
Highlands of Scotland. In that part of the country the
valleys are in cultivation while the mountains are covered
with heath and rock, but the climate is so bad that the
crops almost constantly fail. In consequence of this
he had suggested to a resident gentleman there
whether it would not be advisable to give up the
cultivation of these valleys and lay the lands down in
grass. The gentleman answered that most undoubtedly
it would be his interest to do so, but he asked what was
to be done with the population ? They depended for
their entire subsistence on the tillage of these valleys, and
if they were laid down in grass instead of being devoted
to the cultivation of barley and potatoes, on which they
subsisted, the whole population would be driven out of the
country. This was a strong reason, on the ground of hu-
manity alone, for retaining the present Corn-laws. The
Hon. Gentleman had alluded to the number of 'labourers
who had been thrown out of employment on the first intro-
duction of the threshing machines, and had stated
0,114 when these machines were first brought into
use, there was a great outcry against them
as throwing the agricultural labourer oat of employ-
ment, but that now these machines were generally
employe I, the outcry on this subject no longer existed ;
and had argued that if a free importation of corn took place
and the land was thrown out of cultivation, the labourers
now employed in agriculture, wonld find employment in
various other ways, as they bad dune tin the introduction of
threshing machines,. With regard to these machines, al-
though a great number were employed, yet still a consider-
able quantity of corn continued to be threshed by the flail,
and therefore the introduction of these machines had not occa-
sioned such a difference as the Hon. gentleman imagined ; but
the improvements which had taken place iu agriculture
had led to the employment of more labourers than had
been employed before the introduction of these threshing-
machines. The Hon. Gentleman had gusted that all the
consumers of manufactures were not landlords. True,
but all landlords ware great consumers ; in fact, they con-
2umed the greater part of the manufactures. The gees-
tion was, which was the most desirable, thp home trade or
the foreign trade ? Because if, in consequence of repeal-
ing these laws yon extended the foreign trade, you must
diminish the home trade in a proportionate extent.—( Hear, )
Was it reasonable to suppose that when yon reduced the
interest of the landlord and farmer to a considerable ex-
tent, that they could be perehasers to the same extent as
they aro now ? He would ask, therefore, which was of the
greatest value to the manufacturer, the home market or
the foreign market ? The declared value of the total
manufactures of this kingdom was 150,000,0001., of these
48,000,0001. to 49,000,0001. were exported, leaving to the
home consumption upwards of 100,000,000/.—more then
double the quantity of the foreign exports. Now, suppose
that 50,000,000/. additional were exported, and the
home consumption decreased by 50,000,000/. in
consequence of a repeal of the Corn-laws, the
only effect produced would be that of erepleying
the labourers of foreign countries, instead of our
own. The Hon. Gentleman had asserted that the landed
interest was the only party opposing the repeal—according
to his (the Parl of Darlington's) view of the case, three-
fifths, if not four-fifths of the population at lease were op-
posed to the repeal. The opponents of this question in-
cluded the landowners, farmers, the labourers, all those
dependent on the landed interest—the shopkeepers—for
the retail shopkeepers of all country towns were de-
pendent on the farmers—( Hear, hear)—and even the
traders of this metropolis admitted that the landowners
were their best customers. Under these circumstances
how could it be said that all these persons must be in
favour of a repeal of the Corn-laws ? But this was far from
being merely a land-owner's question, for it was preposte-
rous to suppose the landholders and the farmers had sepa-
rate interests. It bad been attempted to be proved so,
but it had been perfectly ascertained that their interests
were so interwoven that it was impossible to disunite them,
and he never knew an instance of the landlord being in pros-
perity and the farmer in adversity. The Hon. Member for
Wolverhampton had stated that he had heard of agricultural
distress, but although the farmer had suffered privations, the
land-owners had not suffered—but if he had inquired on that
point he would have discovered that he was mistaken ; who
were the landowners? some of them were men of large
property, but the greater part were not so; but take the
case of a landowner of large property, say of 20,0001.
a-year—he was obliged to make a great reduction—he
had known a landed proprietor who had reduced the whole
of his rents from 8 to 20 per cent., according to
circumstances.—( Hear.) It might be said that he was a
very rich man this did not make any difference ;
true he would not be reduced tea state of poverty, but his
income being redtlecd 8,0001. a-year made a difference in
his estehlishlnent, he could not keep so many horses, or
dogs, or other comforts. But it might be said that if the
landlord reduced his rent it could make no, difference to
the farmer, who would be just as well off if corn were at a
low price as if it were el a high one. He would just
compare the amount of rent with the amount of
gross produce of farms in England. The amount
of rent was never more than one-fourth. He would
suppose the rent of the farm to be 2001., and the
am mit of gross produce to be 800/. The gross produce
was thus expended: one-fourth for rent, one-fourth for la.
hour and expenses, and one-fourth for rates and dues. Now
suppose the rent to be reduced from 2001. to 1001., and the
gross produce from 800/. to 4001., how could it
be said that the farmer was in as good cir-
cumstances as he had been before With re.
Bard to the present Corn-laws it had been asserted
by many Hon. Members that their original formation had
no other object than to force up the high price of grain
beyond its natural level. If that had been the object
,
doubt it had failed—( Hear, hear)—beceetts they elllknenwo
that since it had been in operation, now eleven years, they
had had all sorts of price; -- very low prices, averacr- '
prices, and last year and the present they certainly had
had had very high prices.--( Hear, heir.) ?Jut he maintained
that when the Act was frerned, far front its being carelessly
and negligently drawn up, there never was an Aet in which
the framers took more pains and evinced more
anxiety to
make such compromises as should be satisfactory, both to
the producers and the consumers. The vedette interests
likely to be affected by it had been been fully discussed,
and there was a large majority of the House in favour of
the measure. If the object had been to force up the price
of corn, it had undoubtedly failed—( Hear, hear, hear)—
but he denied that such was its object. The first
object was to secure to the consumer, under
all circumstances a supply of corn, and at such a price as
would eosure to the grower a fair remuneration for his
capital and labour, without making the consumer pay a
higher price than he ought to pay. If the farmer had not
on all occasions obtained a remunerating price, that was
owing to a superabundance of corn ; and if these laws had
not existed-..if the import of foreign corn had not been
restricted by these duties, the superabundance would have
been considerably increased. The object of the Corn-
laws was to encourage the horst° grower to provide such a
supply es would enable them to do without the importa-
taeon of foreign corn. He contended that by a good
mode of cultivation in ordinary harvests, as well as in abun-
dant years, more corn could be grown in that country than
could be ceesuraed ; but in the abundant seasons, teltat
remained over and' alma the consurAntioAl was per.
chased by speculaters, laid RR ill Tgr-Cit 'Oilles, and •
into market its meta e eeisistift IS see- - t
only in inadequate
_ _ _

seasons like the present that they were obliged to have re-
course to foreign corn. If they had enough to supply their
population with the gorn grown in that country, unless in
*deficient seasons, was it advisable that they should repeal
these laws (because they had not worked admirably
and had not in every respect realized the hopes and wishes
of the farmers), and have recourse to the experiment of de-
riving their supplies from abroad, which must always be
precarious ? The Right Hon. Gentleman the President
of the Board of Trade said, that even if these laws were re-
pealed, corn would not be much cheaper. Knowing how
the system had worked up to the present moment--having
observed how it protected the interests of the corn growers,
it did not seem to him wise or good policy to risk such an
experiment to suit the wishes of a few political theo-
rists. (The Noble Lord here turned round to re•
for to some documents, and it being supposed that he
had concluded his address, about a dozen Members rose to
address the House, which occasioned much laughter. )
It might be said that the labourers were interested in the
low price of corn, and no doubt, if they could be per-
suaded that they would have a loaf at half-price, with the
same income, they would be great gainers; but would
that be the ease? Was it to be supposed that the manu-
facture-a, who had created the present outcry against tha
Coy - laws, for no other reason than because their profits
were diminished, would continue to pay the same rate of
wages? Unless that were done the operative would not be
benefited, and in no case in which the question had been dis-
cussed by these parties had he heard it said that if corn
could be obtained at half its present price would they keep
the labourer's wages at the same rate. He contended,
therefore, that the operatives had no right to join he ma-
nufacturers in their present demand for the repeal of the
Corn-laws. With regard to the agricultural labourers
they were all aware that their condition depended upon the
condition of the farmers—the farmer depend° I upon the
landlord, and the agricultural labourer upon the former for
employment ; and when the farmer was in his best condi-
tion, he would employ labour to the greatest extent.
It was always found that the agricultural labourer
preferred high wages and dear bread, rather than
cheap bread and low wages. The labourer's wages
had always been increased in proportion to the price of
corn.--( Cries of "Oh I") He was only alluding to the
present year, because it was the first in which a deficiency
had occurred. What was the case this year ? Speaking
of Lincolnshire he found that the average wages of the
common labourer varied from 10s. to 12s. per week. In
the present winter they had been increased from 12s. to
155., being an average of 13s. 6d. per week, and that was
in consequence of the high price of corn.--( Cheers.) He
had given great attention to the subject for many years,
and had formed the best opinion he could ; and at the same
time he had no hesitation in saying that, although his
opinion was strongly in favour of the present Corn-laws
without any alteration, if be found the people of England
against him in that respect, although it would be contrary to
his own opinion, he would no longer support them.—( Hear. )
But convinced as he was that that was not the case—that
the great bulk of the population were in favour of the
present system—he should continue to hold the same
opinion he at present entertained, for he would never suc-
cumb to the views of faction, or the schemes of crafty spe-
culators.—( Cheers. )

Mr. CLAY said from the interest he had taken in the
present question the House would not be surprised that he
was not inclined to give a silent vote ; otherwise, seeing the
number of Gentlemen anxious to address the House, and
having had an opportunity on a former occasion, when he
brought forward, a few years since, a motion on the subject,
of stating his opinions upon the policy of the Corn-
laws, he felt that he could add nothing what-
ever to the general views he had the honour of submitting
to the House. He would content himself, therefore, on
the present occasion with commenting on the principal ar-
guments which had been advanced by the Hon. Gentle.
man who had preceded him in the debate. In doing so he
assured the House that he would endeavour to compress
his remarks into the smallest possible compass, and in order
to do so he would confine himself more etrietly than some
other gentlemen to the question before the House. What
was the question ? " That the House do resolve itself into
a Committee to consider of the laws regulating the im-
portation of grain." The subject, therefore, for consider-
ation was simply whether there was sufficient grounds for
supposing that any alteration in these laws was necessary ?
If sufficient arguments could be: advanced to indueo the
House to go into Committee, then, as it appeared to him,
would be the approprite time for discussing the subsidiary
question of the nature of the change to be proposed. He
therefore felt that his Right Hon. Friend, the President
of the Board of Trade, was perfectly justified last night,
although his epinion was met by somewhat taunting cheers
_else felt that his Right Hon. Friend was perfectly justified
in saying that Hon. Members, who disapproved of the pre-
sent laws, might, with perfect propriety, vote for going
into Committee ; because of those persons who asserted
that protect:oil was required by the English corn-grower,
there were many Hen. Members of that House who
thought that protection might ho vouch more usefully and
conveniently afforded in the shape of ' a direct fixed duty
than by the ascending and descending scale of duty. Hon.
Mernb,era so thinking might, with perfect propriety, go
into Committee; they might then state the amount of pro-
tection they thought advisable; their views might be
then more conveniently put forward, and with en
opportunity of better contrasting them with those
of the edvooates of a perfectly free trade. He confessed,
therefore, that he thought all those details into which the
Hon. Member for Lincolnshire entered, as to the degree
in which local taxation enhanced the cost of growing corn
in England—even the statements of his Hon. Friend the
Member for Loudon, as to the cost of bringing foreign corn
to England, and the details of the Hon. Member for the
West Riding of Yorkshire, as to the cost of producing
corn—all those details were, in his opinion, somewhat out
of place on the present occasion. The question for them
was this—bad the present Corn-laws so far answered their
purpose as to hold out future advantage to the country, or,
on the contrary, had they so completely failed in answer-
ing their object—did they threaten so much danger to the
best interests of the country, as to call imperatively for their
immediate repeal ?—(Cheers.) That was the simple
question before the House, and to that he would confine
himself. Before doing so he would advert to the
animadversions pronounced by the Noble Lord, the
Member for Salop, as to the agitation which had been
created, and he would certainly say that last year there
had been great apathy on the subject. The Right lion.
Gentleman, the 'Member for Kent, had reprehended his
Right Hon. Friend, the President of the Board of Trade,
for approving of the parties who got up the agitation for
the repeal of those laws. But he would ask the Right
Hon. Gentleman and the Noble Lord what species of at-
tention the question had received from that House be-
foee the agitation had commenced ?—(Cheers.) Was it
not met in the most contemptuous manner? Were not
benches empty of the leaders he now saw upon them ?
(Cries of " No, no.") But were there any of these distin-
guishod men to take a part in the question ? Was it not,
to use a familiar, but expressive phrase, pooh-poohed out
of the House ?—( Hear, and laughter.) Was it not well
known that the landed aristocracy never yielded up their
power—that they had never listened to the voice of argu-
ment—that they had never yielded but to pressure, nor had
they yielded until the cession lost all its grace and more
than half of its healing virtues ? He came now to the speech
of the Hon. Member, the mover of the amendment, and
he hoped he would not attribute to him any want of cour-
tesy if he said that it was not the course of his argument_
no, nor the pertinent nature of his facts, that induced him
now to direct himself to it, but because it was perfectly
clear that he was the selected advocate of those gentle-
men who especially represented the landed interest in that
House. That Hon. Gentleman had been induced to with-
draw his amendment; and he was satisfied that Hon. Gen-
tlemen opposite were far too wise in their generation to
permit the House to go to a division on that amend-
ment, because it much too truly stated the cause
of the utter failure of the measure, and carried in
its terms its own refutation. He was bound to say that
the Honourable Gentleman's amendment was far more
dangerous to his friends than formidable to his foes. The
Hon. Member had repea'ed all those fallacies that had
been a thousand times refuted and re-produced in that
House On every debate on the question. The Hon, Gen-
tleman said that they ought not to depend upon foreign
countries for their supply, but he (Mr. Clay) contended
that they should be as dependent as possible upon foreign
countries for their supply—( Hear and much laughter)—in
the perfect assurance that these countries must be equally
dependent upon Great Britain.—(Cries of " Oh, and
cheers.) He maintained that the beeeficial intercourse of
different nations which thet mutual dependence could
create would increase 'eiedly feelinge, would promote the
happiness of the hensan race, and render the
miset a• war of a less formidable amount.
Wile; was the next point of the Hon. Member's speech ?
Why, that they could riot get high taxation out of low
prices. He supposed his Right Hon. Friend, the Chancel-
lor of the Exchequer, always found the revenue better
when the price of corn was high. Nothing in his opinion
could be more preposterous than the supposition of the
Hon. Member, In private families did they find that a
man was better off because he paid highly for his baker's
sad butcher's bills ? Was it to be supposed that there we:,
any other surplus from which taxation could be t. per. than
the net profits of the community ? and Were not the net
profits of the commuttity larger with clear, food than dear ?
—( Hear, hear.) But ther.: was another answer to the
que;tion.,....let Hors. Members look back to the revenue for
the last twenty-three years, and they would find that with
the most extraordinary regularity and certainty, the prices
of corn and the revenue bore an inverse ratio.—(Hear,
hear.) When corn was dear the revenue fell, and when
it was cheap the revenue rose. So far, therefore,
from its being true that they got high taxation out
of the high price of corn, it was exactly the
reverse ; they had always a more flourishing state of the re-
venue when the price of corn was low than when it was
high. What was the next point to which the Hon. Mem.
bar had adverted ? Why, that if there was a free trade in
corn, foreign nations would not take the manufactures of
this country. Why, any schoolboy would be ashamed of
such an argument.—( Hear, hear.) The Hon. Gentle-
man had asked the House in that part of his speech in
which he talked of the time of the Edwards, the Henrys,
and Elizabeth, coming down to the time of Anne—the
Hon. Gentleman had asked, did the people of the country
iive so well then as now ? Had the Hon. Member forgot-
ten the works that had been written on the Corn-laws?
had he forgotten Smith's "Wealth of Nations ?" had he for-
gotten all that had been said ;when the people began to
live well ? Was it not when this country changed from
being an exporting to an importing nation—then it
was that they began to live better. The Ho-
nourable Gentlemen who advocated the existence
of the present laws had certainly dealt very fairly
and honestly by them—he had uot attempted to get out of
the real difficulties that surrounded them, he had stated
that they were nosee attended to sustain the price of corn,
and the Nclia Lord who was not now in his place, had
stetesi nearly the same thing; for ho said, that they were
only intended to guard the British farmer against foreign
competition. Now if that was not intended to sustain the
price of ewe, (Mr. C.) could not tell what else it
""t! • l':"1" of :le suppositions of the Honoeraiale
Membere—
,theastpwechiealnlyoothrnatw
aosf a the
wHaosn (3)161, rs.
able Member for .
- were grLaitnucitooluns,
it might be reduced to Me by a great abundance of corn

that there would be a large importation of fo
36 s.
being sent from foreign parts. Now, could
rietiten nsuznpo isneto
s
the country, when Its price was as low ad.3o
The Honourable Member for Lincoln, had to
candidly allowed that if the framers of the Corn
laws intended that they should kscp up the high prices,
stated
they hail ht i t
ad failedwaa
notorious in that
thatintention,
aimand
of
the
he
e hado
Corn-
ritaber
vr
thatwas tooh
jpercotd?uceTshiteca,Rlisi.gehist ofn price. Nor
Baronet Now htandethmeeymehfreer forc,ied
Pembroke had, upon a previous occasion, advocated the
Corn-laws because they had produced a steadiness of price
—would he advocate them on the same grounds now, when
it was notorious that there had been fluctuations in the
price of corn exceeding. 100 per cent. ? The Hon. Member
for Lincoln admitted that the present Corn-laws had failed
in their object—he admitted that they did not produce
steadiness of price, but he had said " Show us a betterld
points3' te
s(telnlir.;
lClay)etthe
there
',Tag
rte
et that d
ehe
in could
r
prices. If by preventing an influx of corn from other coatt-
ail(' theninn.u"t tahNfb.! reoet7l: system
be the best chance for steadiness of
tries, either be absolute prohibition, or by a duty so high
as to amount to prohibition, they raised the price of corn
above foreign countries, and forced extended
cultivation, it was certain that as much capital
would be employed in the production of land
as the rate of interest would allow. It was certain that
in ordinary years they would have corn enough grown
fur ordinary consump•ion, but the growth of other years
would be too much for an abundant year, and therefore
the result would be that the price of all the corn in
England would fall as much below the level of other
countries as it had been attempted to raise it above it.
What was the result? The farmers were either ruined or
discouraged—there was less bread than corn sold, and the
small grower, meeting with an unfavourable season, the
price of corn rose again. If an attempt was made to kee,
up the price of corn above the level of other countries
ruinous cultivation was produced. In countries that
always imported certain quantities the only fluctuation
that took place was in abundant years, union they
ceased to take the foreign supplies. If it was true
that the Corn-laws could not keep up the prices above
other countries, were they to consider them as useless; but
that they did no harm to the country? He wouid not now
go into the evils of the Corn- laws to the agricultural inte-
rests, because it was clear that the protection which the
Corn-laws pretended to afford to the farmer was com-
pletely delusory, and caused great dissatisfaction to the
agriculturists themselves. But, he would ask, did those
laws injuriously affect the commerce of the country? Very
much to his surprise those who had taken part in the pre-
sent debate had hardly touched upon that point, although
it had been so much discussed in other places, and among
the manufacturers themselves. He (Mr. C.) thought that
the statements of the manufacturers on this sub-
ject were entitled to very great attention. Whtt-
ever credit the House might be inclined to give to
the statements of the'manufacturers themselves there were
in his opinion considerations not grounded upon detail
or disputed evidence, but resting solely on the admission of
the advocates of the present Corn-law themselves, which
clearly showed the impropriety ni the maintenance of the
present laws. The Corn-lawes were it was said intended at
all times to limit the impertation of foreign corn,and at times
to stop it altogether, now that was as badas if it had been to
prevent Corn being grown in this country, for its own
use, Corn was not like sugar, spices, or other articles of
luxury—it was the principal article of human subsistence,
and the House ought therefore to consider what vatt be-
nefits they were throwing away by preventing foreign cora
from entering onr ports.__( Cries of Hear hear.) The
whole of North and central Europe was well fitted for
the production of corn, that vast region which was
watered by the Vistula and the Elbe, was well calculated
for the production of corn, but by the present Corn.law
its cultivation there was put a stop to, because it could not
import it when grown into this country. What sacrifices the
. manufacturers of the country underwent in consequence of the regulations of the Corn-law ! But for those regulations
the manufacturer would have a wider market for his manu-
factures. But for the restrictions of the present laws, the
plough might turn more furrows in Silicia, and the loom
would work more briskly in Scotland ; the Bohemian pea-
sant would wear better clothing, and the English and
Scotch artisan have cheaper bread.—(Hear, hear.) In
consequence of the restrictive Corn-law, the manufacturers
of this country could not compete with the Transatlantic
manufacturers; such were the statements of the manu-
facturers.—(Hear.) Now what was stated by the parties
who upheld the present laws? The manufacturers said
that corn was fifty per cent. cheaper on the Continent
than in this country. The advocates of the Corn-laws
admitted that food was cheaper on the Continent, but then
they said that the great capital and skill of this country
more than countervailed that. It was a remarkable cir-
cumstance that the supporters of the Corn-laws appropri-
ated to themselves what was not their's, viz., the advan-
tage of the superior skill of the manufacturer. It was a
most remarkable case of unjuft legislation that laws should
be passed and continued which the great bulk of the corn-
community considered hostile to their interests.---( Hear,
hear.) Up to this point, however, he (Mr. Clay) had only
considered the Corn-laws as unjust. Were they not also—as
was ever the case with injustice—really prejudicial to those
interests for whose advantage they had been designed ?-
-(Hear, bear.) Could any gentleman believe that those
advantages which now enabled our manufacturers to com-
pete even in spite of higher prices, by means of capital
and superior skill—to compete with the foreigner—that
those advantages would always remain?_-( Hear, hear.)
Those who were best able to judge averred that their ma-
nufacturing markets were already leaving them. But he
(Mr. Clay) needed no evidence to convince him that these
advantages our manufacturers could Not always retain.—
Capital would always flow towards that spot at which
there were highest profits. __(Hear.) Single workmen
would emigrate to the land in which their labour secured
the greatest enjoyment. __(Hear.) The great difficulty
there was in transferring manufactures, and the reluctance
to leave one's native land, might retard the process, but
the result ,was inevitable.—( Hear, hear.) He believed
that if, by maintaining the price of food in this country at
a much higher rate than it was in other countries, profits
were raised abroad—as compared with those realized in
England—sooner or later our manufactures must be trans-
ferred to foreign countries. _(Hear, hear.) He feared
thet he was wearying the House.—(" Hear," from the
Opposition. " Order," from the Ministerial Benches.)
He was about to observe that whereas in agriculture the
cost of the article, the produce of the soil, was regulated by
the highest cost—the price of manufactured articles was
regulated by the lowest cost.—( Hear, bear.) Wherever,
therefore, the cost of the article was cheapest, there would
be an influence on the manufacture of the article in
other countries, causing it to languish and to decay. (Cri.'s of " Hear, hear.") If, where food was lowest,
capital and skill were equal to our's, one of two things
must happen. Wages must fall here, or we must lose our
manufactures.—( Hear, hear.) He would now animad-
vert on a doctrine, which, to his great surprise, he heard
broached the other night by the Right Hon. Baronet the
Member for Tamworth—that the operatives, the labourers,
had no interest in the repeal of the Corn-laws ; that it was
a question only brought forward by the manufacturing
capitalists, with a view to lowering wages._(" Hear,
hear," from the Opposition.) He was glad to find from
that cheer that this doctrine was acknowledged by the
Gentlemen opposite. It proceeded upon the assumption
that the capitalist had some power over the wages of la-
bour. Nothing could be more absolutely certain than
that capitalists possessed no such power, for the rate
of wages was regulated by the supply and the
demand.—( Hear, hear.) If, where there is an advantage-
ous field for the employment of capital, capital abounded,
the consequence would be, that the master-manufac-
facturers would have many orders to execute, and each
would give wages as high as he could to obtain the ordi-
nary profits, If, on the other hand, there was a limited
field for the emrloyment of capital, and the master manu-
facturers had many orders to execute, the workmen would
bid against each other, whatever was the price of food,
down to the point of starvation.—( Hear, hear.) To say,
therefore, that to render corn cheaper, by allowing its int-,
portation, would be to lower wages, was to manifest tester
ignorance of the laws by which capital was regula:sed
( Hear.) It was not that wages would fall in tht because corn was cheaper, but because, in the etktr:.
dle with
foreign manufacturers, it would be impossi4slo teer our ma-
nufaeturers to pay higher wages, maineeinfee%
any profit.--
(Hear, hear.) To repeal the Csree-lay.:s would mitigate
the evils of that struggle to Viso ope:atives ; possibly, bY
eiving a healthy impulse and a 'right direction, to manu-
facturers here and abroad, might entirely avert that strug-
gle.---( Hear, hoar.) To continue the Corn-laws would,
antra
beyond all doubt, anticipate and'aggravate the evils of that
struggle.---( Hear, hoar.) Instead, therefore, of the repeal
of the Corn-laws having a tendency to lower wages, the
immediate tendency of the repeal would be to raise wages,
by producing a certain competition, among capitalists,
while the price of foul was lowered; but the
consequence Cl corolmuing the Corn-laws, would
be
het
to wer Wages, by reducing the competi-
ti.cei 'een the capitalists for la/,our, while
the 'price of food was raised.—(Hear, hear.) The
operative, therefore, was above all other classes interested
in the question.__( Hear, hear. ) Now, in conclusion—
(Hear, hear, from the Oppeelilon, with a call for Ques-
tion," and cries of " Order")—he would venture earnestly
to appeal to the distinguished leaders of the party oppo-
site, who were considered especially the representa-
tives of the landed interests. He would entreat them to ,
consider whether it was prudent, year after year, to refuse
to entertain this question._( Hear, hear.) He spoke obt
as their enemy—for he was now altogether uninterested
in the question, being unconnected either with -manufac-
tures or commerce. He would not at all deprecate the
importance of the landed interests ; ou the contrary, be
considered those interests most essential to the pre-
servation of our mixed Constitv',lon, to the maintenance
of that mild form of Government-_a limited Monarchy.-- which, above all others, he believed was but calculated for
the freedom of person and opinion, combined with the supre-
macy of the law, the sanctity of property, and the highest
degree of social happiness. __(Hear, hear.) But it was because he had this high sense of the great value of the
landed interests that he looked with alarm to the pertins-
eity with which they clung to the useless, the worse
than useless, the disgraceful system of the Coro-
lawg.—( Hear, hear, hear.) It would become them
to reflect whether they were not hazarding all these
advantages by maintaining the Corn-laws.
The groat
increase of the manufacturers, the wealth and the population of England, during the last three,
quarters of a century had been
without parallel. And I
by what class had the chief benefit of this increase bee",
reaped ? By the landed interests. Every extension of
commerce, every improvement in manufactures, every
amendment of the steam-engine, every improvement 0
the spinning Jennies, added to the value of their propertP,
(Hear, hear.) The Hon. Member for Yorkshire, v,no
moved the amendment, had said that there were
15,000,000/. invested in land.—(Cries of " cinestion"
and " Order.") But that amount, it cod?... not pre- 1
tended, bad been invested by time present
seal possessbrs of the
;it meant only that such was t'-,c value of the land--
produced by the wealth, the eeMmerce, and manufactures
best of the country. A hundred years
best land was hut Si- siu
- a•and at this moment in of thcoun-
tries less auspicious t-e,
*tllvi.eowners than England, rout was
itgo the rack.rent