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

THE SUN, LONDON, TUESDAY, MARCH 19, 1839.

ensue both to England and Ireland. If the Corn-laws
were to be continued and foreign manufactures aided by
our capital and workmen leaving cur shores in in-
ci easing numbers as they now did, he was sure the results
were not as yet fairly apprehended. The supporters of the
Corn-laws were now only protected by the Chartists—by
the torch and dagger-men—who prevented the feelings of
the rational part of the community from being expressed.
—( Cries of " Hear, hear," and " Oh, oh.") Rational
men were now disgusted by those foolish persons who
would not, however, much longer intervene between
the supporters of the Corn-laws and public opinion. The
Chartists, however, did not want to pay court to the Mem.
bers of that House—they called them usurpers—they called
themselves the virtuous Representatives of the people—
as Choy spoke for 23,000,000—while those he (Mr.
O'Connell) now addressed represented 700,000—they
were against all power—let only those opposite come into
power, and see how the Chartists would shout against them.
But now all cltsses were beginning to see the necessity of
stimulating manufacturing industry; even in Ireland
the farmers were becoming completely enlightened on
the subject, and were beginning to denounce the existence
of the Corn-laws, as injurious to the best interests of them-
selves, and the English people.—( Contradictory cheers
from both sides of the House. )
Lord SANDON remarked that the Honourable and
Learned Member for Dublin had resorted to his usual cry
of both the widow and the orphan, and hed endeavoured to
rai a the poor above the rich, outside the House. The lion.
and Learned Gentleman had asserted that agricultural pro-
tection was of no value, but many of the most enlightened
nations in the world had experienced its value and still
continued it. In the United States and in France,
even in Holland, in Belgium, in fact, in almost every
country throughout the world, there was protection to agri-
culture. How then could the llonourable and
Learned Gentleman ascribe the support of the
Corn-laws in this country to the avaricious ty-
ranny of the British landlords. But it seemed that
while the opponents of the Corn-laws cried out fur their
annihilation, they were still determined not to surrender
the protection which manufactures now received. This
feeling was implied by one of their authorities in Manches-
ter, who lately said in one of his works, " If manufac-
tures could stand without protection, as well as any other
branch, I should rejoice," thereby leaving it to be under-
stood that he still thought protection indispensable to ma-
nufactures.—( Hear.) The Hon. Gentleman said that Ire-
land would not suffer by a repeal of the Corn-laws, and
yet he urged that Poland, Russia, Prussia, Germany, and
other nations would derive great benefit by being permit-
ted to export their corn to England. Now, he ( Lord S.)
begged leave to ask, why was it that Ireland should not
derive benefit from exporting corn to England as well as to
those countries ?—( Hear.) The Noble Lord was under-
steed to enter into some of the statements of the manufac-
turers for the purpose of disproving them.. What his ar-
guments were the great noise which prevailed in the House,
atom the buzz of conversation, and the very indistinct ut-
terance of the Noble Lord, rendered it utterly impossible
to guess. We only caught the conclusion—that, in his
Opinion, the Corn-laws had not injured the manufacturing
interests.

Mr. HARVEY said—Sir, upon the many speeches that
have been made during this protracted debate, it is no dis-
paragement to the many able treatises and essays on
political economy, which have been delivered—it is no dis-
paragement of those powers of memory, by which some
Hon. Members have been able to commit to their minds,

entire pamphlets of statistics, which might be purchased
at any waste shop for the small sum of eighteenpence—
(Great laughter)—it is in no disparagement of all these
cis cumstanct s, that I am free to say, that at the close of the
fifth night's discussion, I feel and find this subject more con-
fused than it was at first.—( Hear, and much laughter).
Sir, there are so many statements which may be assumed as
facts, and which are advanced with all the bold-
ness of facts, and there are so inany true infer-
ences from them, if the statements were not false—
( A laugh)—but there is scarcely any position either in
favour of the Corn-laws or against them—either in favour
of their being relaxed or being made more stringent,
which I will venture to say any Hon. Gent. in this House
will not be able amply to demonstrate.—( Hear, and cheers. )
With this impression therefore, strong in my mind, and
feeling the force of that truth so frequently uttered, and
as we approach the termination of the discussion, more
properly
entr
rdoneoupstnl
intend
ge
lir
eel
d)nn, s
ctiuti
oehrr
shrink
edfkdedt
0, thatfrhrueeosn
ms t nothing new can he said, that I should
House,riytmai
fk(ilnigeed:i.adert,nl r
foaeotparpfreteLell thettftiheioaawtt mtt kindnesslioeemrreee niis
sts
sa agnraie whichdi
class in this country whose interests have been only very
slightly and incidentally touched upon—and it is to me a
gratification to find the industrious community, the
great source of our national power, and the origin of
nu national wealth, whether it is thrown into the soil, or
whether it resides in the hands that move the manufactur-
ing power—it is to me a gratification to find them assuming
their appropriate position, not by their being present in
their own persons, or having any direct representatives in
this House, but by the course of policy adopted either by
the influence of feelings, honestly entertained, or hypocri-
tically feigned, that the labouring community have become
essentially involved in the question under our consideration.
—(Hear, hear, hear.) Sir, I take leave to say, however,
notwithstanding the partial and gleaming allusions in va-
rious forms to their interests, that if any of them had been
present, and that the debate had been stiffered to close
where it now stands, they would justly impute to that por-
tion of the representation of the people that they suffered
their plramount interests to pass by without being duly
noticed. It is then, Sir, not for the purpose which
would not belong to me of discussing this grave
subject in all its bearings, as was so ably sad
dexterously done by the Right Hon. Baronet the Member
for Tarnworth, but merely humbly to solicit the House
while I make a very few remarks, having almost ex-
clusive relation to this particular class of persons, that I
now venture to address it.—( Hear, hear.) At the same
time, while I do identify myself with them—while I ac-
knowledge myself to have sprung from them, and to be of
their number—in discussing this question I wish not to
treat it as if I was exclusively the representative of the
wet king classes. Sir, I not only listened to the speech of
the Right Hon. Baronet with that attention which his sta-
tion and his great prdtensions justify, but I have done that
which perhaps even his most ardent admirers cannot say_
I have read it word for word—( Hear, and a laugh)---and

. -
I can say, with great truth, that it would have been ex-
tremely unjust to those gentlemen in whom this discussion
is said to have originated, had the debate closed on Friday
night--( Hear)—because that speech called to my mind
the speech of another lion, and distinguished Member on
the slave trade, which made at the time such an astounding
effect that even soup Hun. Members who were, in some
degree, prepared for it, were staggered by the statements
it contained; and I can easily believe that many Hon.
Gentlemen, who were the auditors of the speech of the
Right Hon. Gentleman on Friday night, especially that
powerful party by whom he is surrounded), went away with
the impression that it was one of the most unanswerable
and overwhelming that was oven ever made by himself—
( Loud cheers from the Tory benches)—and in one par-
ticular, I own, it was, for he certainly did shiver to pieces
his opponents.—( Renewed cheering.) He raked the
economists without any frugality—he bombarded the Go-
vernment with great success—he hurled at them the whole
weight of the fifty- pounders, and the whole agricultural in-
terest of the kingdom, who were delighted and almost
reeled with intoxication under his influence.—(Great
laughter and cheering.) But, although it was a power-
ful speech, the Right Hon. Bart. will pardon me for stating
that it was not the speech of a Statesman.—(Cheers.)
All that he stated might be perfectly true, and yet it was
beside the question.—( Hear, hear.) What though it
might be true—and certainly it appeared to be so—that
the Hon. Member for the City of London admitted the
difference between the average importation of corn under
restriction, and that which would flow into this country in
the absence of all restriction, would only amount to some-
thing like 400,000 or 500,000 quarters? Supposing he had
made, and no doubt he did make the statement, I
do not apprehend the Honourable Member for the City
of London is the Corn-meter of the country.—(Laughter.
tie may have his calculations and his speculations, but they
do not alter the question.—( Hear, hear.) Then again
the Right Hon. Baronet seemed to think he had demo-
lished the case of the petitioners, who were the owners of
the great manufacturing establishments ; he stated that
they wished us to infer that the commerce of the country
was decaying, and that their circumstances were of a most
alarming description • but be says " there is no truth in the
statement, as I will show, because when I come to com-
pare the amount of expenditure in 1837 and 1838
I find the latter exceeded the former by many millions."
If that were true, if the amount of exportations in 1838
were greater than in the year 1837, but if it was also
greater than it had been in the preceding years, I at once
own, as far as they are concerned, he would have success-
fully shaken their claim.—( Cries of " Hear, hear.")
Though I do not appear here as the advocate of
of the master manufacturers, having had no communication
with them whatever, craving no personal partiality to
to them, but having, if possible, a prejudice in favour of
rural life, I only view this statement as one sitting here
anxious and desirous of coming to a sound and deliberate
judgment, free from all considerations of a personal cha-
racter.—( Hear, hear.) Sir, I hear these statements are
challenged. I have heard from the Chairman of the
Chamber of Commmerce at Manchester, that they are not
true.—( Hear, hear.) Nut that they are not really true,
but that if the Hon. Baronet the Member for Tamworth
had only condescended impartially to balance facts—
( Hear, hear)—l hear it said that if he had only conde-
scended to compare the year 1838 with the year
1836, that the difference would have been substantial on
the other side.—( Hear, hear.) Sir, the commerce of this
country, whether you seek to establish its prosperity or its
declining condition, is not to be determined by the compari-
son of two years.—( Great cheering.) There may be cir-
cumstances to account for a small exportation in one year
and a surplus in another, but it is with reference to a se-
ries of years, and all the circumstances connected with
commerce by which, and by which alone the great point is
to be established.—( Ironical cheering.) Leaving, I was
about to say, this important branch to be carried out, as no
doubt it will be by the Hon. Gentleman whose privilege
it is to reply to this debate, who has an immediate
communication with the petitioners, who has a far greater
knowledge than I have of the details on this subject—leav-
ing this branch to be handled by him, I now proceed to
another point. The Right Hon. Baronet has, with many
of those who have spoken on this subject, been, for obvious
reasons, for intelligible reasons, anxious to connect him-
self with the interest of the condition of the working
classes; he has gone into a series of figures for the pur-
pose of establishing their improving condition in reference
to the Sayings' Banks.—( Hear, hear). Now I admit, if
it could be shown that the depositors in Savings'
Banks throughout the country—if it were capa-
ble of proof, that those who may be considered as
the labouring classes, whether in agriculture, or in menu-
' factures, were the real depositors in those banks, and if it
could be shown that their numbers were increasing, and
that the amount of their capital was increasing also, then
I should believe that the Right Hon. Gentleman has gone
a great way in shaking the case of the petitioners. But
is this to? The Right Honourable Bart. instanced the
returns for many places, from Liverpool, from Lei-
cester, from Nottingham, from Birmingham, from

Manchester, and also from Glasgow.—( Hear, hear.)
But the number of those depositors is comparatively
so few when contrasted with the millions coming under the
denomination of the labouring classes, and the amount
when it comes to be divided among those who form those
classes, that it furnishes very little evidence of the fact
which the Right Hon. Gentleman wished to establish.
All that the Right Hon. Gentleman established was this,
that the improved amount of each depositor, during the
period over which his calculations extended, was 2s. 7d.
each individual.—( Laughter.) I take that not only from
the words used by the Right Hon. Gentleman at the time,
as I took them down, but also from the statement in his
reported speech. In that speech he stated the average
amount of each deposit was 5/. 7s. lid., and that during
the late war it was it 51. 163. 6d.
Sir R. PEEL—Only Glasgow.
Mr. D. W. HARVEY—Yes—that was the only in-
stance when the Right Hon. Baronet came to what I might
call demonstrative detail.—(Great cheering.) He has
therefore advanced this proposition at Glasgow, that the
improved condition of the depositors in the Bank are equal
to the sum of 2s. 7d. in the year,—(Laug-hter.) There
are some important considerations connected with that
statement. It was delightful to hear that they could even
save that, because it shows how thoy are approaching to
the character of capitalists.—(o Hear" and great cheer.
ing.) However much the Right lion. B tronet and his party
object to repealing taxes, when it serves their purpose to
show that the condition of the labourer is improved, 2s. 7d.
is no slight sum in their financial account.—(Bear, hear.)
The Right Hon Baronet has discovered another improve-
ment in the condition of the people of Glasgow, and that
is with respect to coal—he stated that the number of tons
of coal at one year, contrasted with a later period, was
something more than double, and from that he inferred
that they were in a very warm and improving eon-
dition.—( Hear, hear, and laughter.) But he also made this
admission that the increase of population in Glasgow was
in a much greater ratio.--( Hear, hear). There is, there-
fore, nothing remarkable when the population is doubted,
in finding that the consumption is doubled also.—( Hear,
hear.) Sir, I merely mede these remarks, as they presented
themselves to my mind, on the speech of the Right
Hon. Gentleman, and it will not fail to strike the
House, as it will the country, with fearful importance
I understand the Right Hon. Gentleman to advance this
proposition:—He says a great revolution is going on in the
manufacture of the country ; it has been stated and not
denied that the numbers of your manufactures is increasing,
that they are presenting their hideous forms in our manu-
facturing districts and towns—( Hear, hear)—and he also
states, from the information of his Hon. Friend near him,
that at Preston at least they arc in active employment;
and he says the little manufacturers must be prepared to be
swallowed up in those greater and more powerful
manufactories which capitalists are in every district raising
—they must learn a lesson from the melancholy case of the
hand-loom weaver. Why, Sir, does not this suggest in-
quiry ? and does it not raise the fears and apprehensions of
that class of persons whose capital is small, and whose
machinery is defective, and who are thus little
able to compete with the great leviathan of capital
which is springing up ?—( Hear, hear.) Sir, it is one
of the mighty evils bearing down the industry of the
country, and annihilating the small and industrious ma.
nufacturer, that they are day after day falling beneath
the powerful strokes of others.—( Hear, hear.) It is the
same thing with our farmers : the race of little farmers,
who were the pride of the country, and who inherited
their property for many centuries from their forefathers
—what has become of them ? They hale been swal-
lowed up by cur great capitalists and loan•mongers, who
have thrown the small farms into large farms, and by
the power of capital are turning the yeomen of the
country into labourers and into paupers—(Cheers)—and
the comfort which is now held out to the men of small
capital, embarked in manufactures, is, that they must be
prepared to meet the doom and destiny of the hand-loom
weavers ; and yet, when such is their condition, we
are to be told that all this is another instance of
the growing prosperity of the commercial community.
(Hear, hear.) Sir, the Right Hon. Baronet the Member
for Pembroke also delivered his sentiments upon the sub-
ject, and he sought, with great skill too, enlist the sympa-
thies and feelings of the agricultural community, by con-
trasting the happy lot of him who is engaged in tilling the
soil, with the wretched and melancholy condition of him
who is immured in our crowded cities, intoxicated with tee
poisonous fumigations and feverish drafts around him.—
Sir, it was delightful to listen to that poetical description
—( Cheers and laughter)—in which he called your atten-
tion to the lowly home of the cottager upon the hill side.
He would fain had you to believe that all our agricultural
labourers are in a state of enviable prosperity—( Hear)—that
they are to be seen musing at evening, putting up with their
little inconveniences, that they may receive their children
upon their knees, who are at home waiting their sires' return.
Hear.) If he had been allowed to read Gray's Elegy,
it would not have been more touching.—(Cheers and
laughter.) Sir, is this true? Can an Honourable Mem-
ber who sat so incessantly on the Poor-law Committee,
have so completely shut out from his mind the evidence
that he heard there ? And, is there not in this House,
an endeavour to beguile us by the display of his fascinating
eloquence, and the witchery of his fancy.—( Cheers.)
He has advccated the doctrine before all men that the la-
bouring man must be thrown ou his own resources—that
the standard of the value of his labour must be, that
which he can receive in the workhouse.—( Cheers.)
Why, Sir, is it to be said and go forth to the country, as
an insult to the working community, especially among the
agricultural classes, that their condition is at the present
moment improving ? and with the hypocrisy with which it
originates it is impossible not to feel a deep disgust.
Because, Sir, to say that the agricultural labourer receives
wages which arc commensurate with the rise in the price
of his food, is a statement which will be denied by every
workman in England, in every, county in England.—
(Cheers.) But, Sir, there is as much of deception as
there is of fallacy in the statement. The Hon. Gentle.
man knows well, and so does the formidable party about
him, that they cannot sustain the Corn-laws for another
hour, unless they can strengthen themselves by causing it
to be believed that this is only in a subordinate sense a
landlord's question, but that it is in a direct sense the
tenant's question, and above all this, it is the question of
the labouring community.--(Cheers.) Now, Sir, I am
prepared to contend that it is primarily a landlord's ques-
tion—( Hear, hear)—that to a considerable degree, as it
affects a certain class, it is a tenant's question—and it is
indeed a deep question, as it affects the labouring community,

but just in the converse sense entertained by Hon. Gentle-
men opposite.—( Loud cheers). It is obvious, and Ido
not at all agree with my Right lion. Friend, the Member
for Wolvorhampton, who, in what he said, justified the in-
ferences from it, that the landlords and cultivators of the

soil, are men of little education, and unacquainted with
business and attached to localities—(Laughter)—quite
the reverse. They are a very able and dexterous class of

men—they have lived too long and been too closely con-
nected with the landlords not to know their own interest—

(Cheers and laughter). And therefore I understand the
motive which led the Right Hon. Baronet to enforce that
point so eagerly, that he might enlist on his side that
powerful party, the tenants, throughout the land, and that
they might read that powerful and eloquent vindication
which they received at the hands of the great leader of
that great party—that he stepped in and vindicated them
—said they were scholars, they were men of businesl, and
that they were fond of their homes, though they never
failed to leave them when there was anything to be got by
it.—( Cheers and laughter.) I agree with him they are
men not indifferent to or ignorant of their own interests.
But, Sir, as it regards the first proposition—and it is im-
portant this should be dwelt upon, that this is not a land-
lord's question—and yet they are extremely anxious to call
our attention to the pressure of what they Gall taxation, and
its bearing upon the landlords ; now, at least to that
extent, it is a landlord's question; but, as was said over and
over again, so fir from the landlords being taxed more
than any other class of the community, they are not only
exempted from all taxation, but they positively benefit by
everything around them. If we were to go into an ac-
count, and I should like to go into a committee of ac-
count—a debt and credit account to be taken on the
one hand between the proud aristocracy of the
land, the essential part of our Constitution, forming not
only its boast, but its strength, which may be considered as
the most beautiful parts in the great edifice, and which
must be sustained there at every expense—l should like
to have an account taken bat Keen the landlord as to what
he actually pays in direct taxation and what he actually
receives, because I never heard it mentioned in the course

of this debate. The amount of our revenue—to say
nothing of the cost of its collection, nor of the accumula-
tion arising from the charges
which those who have to pay
make on the consumer—not to go into that—it may be
taken in round numbers at 50,000,000/. a year. It would
not be difficult to show,and it is important that the labouring
community should usierstand it,that out of thatso,ooo,ooo/.,
if you were to go into Committee to ascertain the fact, I will
venture to say that upwards of 30,000,000/. of that money
falls directly upon the labouring community.—( Hear,
bear.) And of the remaining 20,000,0001. I will challenge
the Right lion. Baronet to show anything approaching to
5,000,0001., even conceding to them the items which they
won
enumerate, are exclusively borne by the landlord. I -
der whether they ever went over the various items of our
expenditure. There is a return made to this House which
may be taken as a sample of the great Prosperity of
the
land, a return not made very remoilei y, in which the places
held by every Gentleman in thishouse are set forth with
the salaries and advantages they receive. Now
when I
consider how many Members of this House are in the Navy,
how many in the Army, how many in civil appointments,
and then travel through their dependants, and
take a walk through all our great establishments,
financial establishmat3—lock over the list of clerks—
the Custom-house—the Excise-office—the Stamp-office.
An HoN MENinEa on the Opposition—The Hackney-
coach Office.—( Laughter. )
Mr. H A RYE Y—The Hon. Gentleman says, with ex-
., the Hackney-coach Office.
taste, quisite (Cheers
and laughter.) All these offices—they
only strengthen
my argument. It will be found that those who are imme-
diately the land, and contend that diately connected they are
ion t
entitled to exemption from taxat hey are receivinrr
back a great deal more than they pay from the general ex-
penses of the country. This I "Y---they have a direct
interest in supporting the establishment, because
while they pay with one hand they are abundantly remune-
rated in the other. But, Sir, without enumerating
(Loud cries of " Oh, oh," and " Order, order.") The
moment the House expresses a wish that I should sit down
I will at once do so.—( Cheers.) Without enumerating,
or still less attempting to enumerate the claims of these
Gentlemen to exemption from taxation, which they
say presses hard upon the land, such as the malt-tax, the
land-tax, Church-rates, and payments of that description
without fatiguing the House with arguments about these
claims, believing, as I do, that the only item of
the whole which comes from the land is the
land-tax—yet I wish to call the attention of the House
for a moment to the manner in which you put forward this
claim for exemption. The lion. Member for the North
Riding of Yorkshire (Mr. Cayley), among other things
which pressed hard:upon the land,enurnerated Church-rates;
I,e said they were one of the expenses of the soil. Has
the Hon. Gentleman, or the House forgot that when an ef-
fort waA made to secure the Dissenters from the payment
of the Church-rate, the whole of the Gentlemen opposite

were up in arms to oppose it, not only Church grounds, but
did they not impute to us who supported the measure,
and to those who brought it in, that, while we were bringing
it forward and supporting it under the pretence of re-
lieving our consciences we were attempting to relieve
our estates ?—( Hear, hear.) I have not heard it re-
peated in the present debate. You said, " Did you not
purchase your lands subject to Church-rates, and are you,
with religious hypocrisy, to come into this House, and re-
quire to be relieved from a payment on conscientious
grounds. Did you not purchase your land subject to that
demand." I, Sir, perfectly concurred in that view of the
question, and I now apply it to the land-tax. You must
recollect that It is not one of your modern taxes which
has lately been imposed, and therefore is not one which
you will talk of dying in the ditch for—this is one which
has existed for more than a century and a lflf. There-
fore any one who inherits, or any one who purchases an
estate, must have inherited it subject to that demand; and
he must have purchased it either free of the land-tax, and
therefore paid more money for it, or purchased it subject
to the land-tax, and paid less. Upon what principle, then,
is it that the landlords can claim any protection from the
Corn Ales? It is remarkable, that no one person during
the debate has endeavoured to vindicate any Corn-law,
upon any other ground than because protection is called
for, because of the high state of taxation and artificial state.
Whether you are lightly taxed, or whether you are heavily
taxed, the two points wia equally apply. Th4one is this--
and it is one well calculated to rouse the fears of the
country—it is, that no country, and especially this country,
ought: to be dependent for a supply of corn upon a
foreign country.—( Hear, hear.) That is one proposition
you advance. The other is, that a Corn-law is necessary to
protect you from the influence of climate. Now if either
or both of these grounds arc so irresistible as you who
have advanced them say, you who urge them contend for
what, under all possible circumstances, could be available.
But these points have been so successfully answered that I
will not detain the House with any answer, as I would
merely be travelling over the same ground which has been
so often travelled before. I will then only express my
surprise that gentlemen should contend that it was right or
possible to: limit the supply from the place of its pro-
duction at home. The more you limit the sphere of your
supply, the more you increase the chances of failure.—
( Hear.) The Hoe. Member for North Yorkshire, and he
wis joined by the Right Hon. Baronet opposite, said all
the corn-growing countries lie pretty much in the same
latitude—are liable to the same vicissitudes of climate—
and are liable to the same chance of failure. By this
they are attempting to show the House that you would be
in as bad a condition as ever, even were the laws
repealed. (Cries of " Hear, hear.") But surely
every one who now hears me must allow that the
more you spread your ground, even if it were national, the
less likely are you to have a failure:—( Cheers.) Look at
the corn districts of this country—if there is a failure in
Essex, then it is boasted that there is a fine average crop in
some other county, and so you might run through the whole
of the counties. Take a case even from the last season.
In Hereford there was a very bad show for a crop of hops--
the bine did not look healthy, but this was immediately
compensated by the statement that if there was a failure
in Hereford, there was the sure prospect of a larger supply
in Sussex. Now, Sir, if this applied to this country,
surely it applied still more strongly to the Continent.—
( Cheers.) As to the other argument, that you are en-
titled to protection because you are exposed to the vicissi.
tudes of the seasons, that was the most mad of all
the schemes he had ever heard propounded. Surely none
are so visionary as to attempt to controul the seasons, or
to meet such exigencies by law. The seasons move on
under the guidance of that system which it may be as well
for us to imitate, but it does not belong to human beings
to attempt to controul. It is then the more incumbent
on us to go back and inquire whether this was a landlord's
question. I would only state in a few words what I con-
sider it to be. lam always anxious to legislate for
particular purposes, add would gladly concur in any legis-
lation which is likely to be beneficial for all classes. lam
not ready to believe that there is no other way of dis-
solving the difficulty but by resorting to an extreme mea-
sure of a total abolition of the Corn-laws. Such a
measure must necessarily entail great mischief on a nume-
rous portion of the community.—(Cheers.) Look at it
with regard to the tenants who are under covenants. In
what condition would you place them were yot to rep sal those
laws to-morrow ? Are you prepared to compensate them ?
lam not prepared to say, we will. I attempt to soothe
the landlords with the assurance that free trade will not
affect them. It would affect them most deeply, and so it
ought.—( fkar,_ hear.) They have had a long reign of
advantages, and the time is at hand when they must be
prepared to forego many of them. But as it regards their
tenants, they are not free agents. The. number of
applicants for farms had so greatly outrun the num-
ber of farms to be had, that a fearful competition has
been excited, of which the landlords have had the
benefit; and, therefore, to bring about the system
of free trade, by which the fortunes of men cast into the
soil are to be deeply and instantly affected, is a state of
things that I am not prepared all at once to be a party to.
Nor do the observations I am attempting to make less
apply to tenants-at-will, because, when we consider that a
farmer has generally embarked his all in the soil, and the
various implements of industry, what do you fancy would
be the value of his cultivation and of the manure he has
thrown into the land, and of all the implements with which
lie farms it, if he was instantly to be exposed to the free
trade system. I therefore think, and said at the com-
mencement, that I trusted the Right Hon. Baronet ( Sir
R Peel) would excuse me for considering that he
had not worked with him as a Statesman, though
he has dealt in that with triumphant success, as
the leader of a powerful party.—(Hear, hear, hear.)
But then he said they might not be disinclined to enter into
the Committee, and to consider any suggestion for a per-
manent protective duty on corn, but that they were de-
terred from doing so, because the Members of her Majesty's
Government had not had the courage to say what they in-
tended. Why, this is all very well for a party leader—
(Cheers)—who finds it very dtfficult to keep that crowd
of adherence in order. It is all very well for him to say
that, but I should have liked to have seen their counte-
nances, and I should have liked to have heard them exult
in common-place, if the Government had said we are pre-
pared to go into Cordmittee to propose any specific mea-
sure.—( Hear, hear.) You would not have liked it. You
would not have said what is the value of this, because when
corn rises, you will be compelled by the force of clamour
to issue an Order in Council to revoke it, and when
it falls where is the protection.—( Hear, hear.)
Well, then, what chance would there have been for
success ?—(Cheers.) Look at the party on that side of
the House. Look at what will be the majority, and then
call to mind what has passed in another place. —(Cheers
and laughter.) But then it is said to the Government
" Still you ought to come forward as a Cabinet, and take
on yourselves the responsibility of your own proposition
and take upon you what all Cabinets ought to do when
they are beat by their opponents—change hands—let us
take your place."—( Laughter.) It is in this respect that
I think Hon. Gentlemen opposite make a great mistake.
It is one thing for Government to carry out the obvious de-
sire of the people. It is another thing to run before a
course of public opinion. No one laments more than I
do the backward policy of the Government in bringing
forward measures on which many friends of improved Go-
vernment are agreed. I have no hesitation in saying what
I think, that their hesitative policy has impeded greatly
the march of useful reform ; but as I said before, it is one
thing for them to adopt and carry into legislation
the obvious sense of their friends. It was another for
them to endeavour to legislate and subdue the prejudices
of the many, and at the present moment there can be no
doubt that the great constituent body of this country is di-
rectly opposed to any important change in 'the Corn.law.
—(Great cheering.) I have said that I have been anxious
to address myself to the House as the poor man's friend,
and as one of their organs. We have had many statements
on the other side- not more than we ought to have, be-
cause if we were to sit to this day week we should not sit
too long if the subject is not sufficiently understood. Now,
I will only allude to two documents, and that very
briefly. It has been contended with great earnestness
that when the price of corn is low wages are low, and that
when corn advances there is, a corresponding advance in
the wages of the labourer. Why if this were really true
there would be no advantage in protection whatever. If
you give decisively to the labourer that protection which
you claim for yourselves, that is an equivalent for the taxa-
tion to which they are imposed, you would have to intro-
duce a very diferent system of policy, because what is the
amount of taxation on the labouring community. I have
referred the Right Hon. Bart. to the Poor-law Commit-
tee, a Committee into which, for the first time, what was
called a poor man ever was allowed to enter. Though
you have had master manufacturers to support their cause
and be examined before Committees—though you have
had landlords and their agents, and the farmers, one after
the other examined before Agricultural Committees, yet
it was reserved to the Poor-law Committee to bring
before it the humble class of the agricultural labourer—
and, Sir, when they were before us, and the
Right lion. Baronet will not forget, nor will any member
of that Committee forget, the exemplary manner in which
they conducted themselves—so straightforward and simple
was their conduct and their statements that the Chairmau
of that Committee was authorised to communicate to those
humble men the pleasure and the satisfaction which
their conduct and demeanour had given to the Committee.
Sir, we went into an analysis of the application of the
poor man's wages, and without quarrelling as to the actual
amount of the week's wages he received—whether
it was Bs., or whether it was 10s., what did. the men
state who came before him ? Why that out of their
wages, after paying for their -bread, they had
Is. 20. wherewith to pay for all the other
items of their domestic economy.—( Hear, hear.)
Now, Sir, as I am pleading for a class who have no direct
representation in this House, I shall be pardoned, for a
few moments, if I allude more particularly to this subject.
It gives me the greatest delight to see, and I wish I could say
it to the assembled thousands and millions of labourers
throughout 'the country—that while I am advocating their
cause the Senate of England was quiet, attentive, and
kind.. They ought to know this and feel very grateful
for Hear.) Before this Committee a poor man was
examined, whose venerable appearance excited our senti-
ments of respect both for his conduct and years. His name
was James Marshall. He said, if I live to the 6th of June,

I shall be 91 years of age." Hare was an old man who
had survived all his family to tell the story
of nearly a century. He was asked what had been the
condition of the labouring population during the greater
period of his life. He said, " When I first married, a
bushel of malt was 2s. 6d., and every poor person had a bar-
rel of beer to drink instead of water. It continued so for
some time, and then got up to 3s. 6d. It is important to
know who puts this question—it is a gentleman connected
with a county, and whose property is in the soil. Mr.
Rogers asked this question, Did the labouring man
in former times used to brew es a general thing ? Yes.
How long have they left off brewing?—Ever since the
malt got such a price—they could not buy it then. Do you
know any poor man who brews his own beer ? Ans. Not one.
Do you recollect the rate of wages at the time of the
American war? Yes, about 16d. a day, or Se. a week."
He was asked would not the labouring men be able
to do much more work if they lived betterl
the answer was, to be sure, they would. They cannot do

half a day's work. Some of them, poor creatures, will
drop down when they have a little hard work.—( Cries of
"Oh 1 oh r' and Hear, hear, hear). Another person
was called, who was only thirty-eight years of age
and a question was put to him by a gentleman who, how-
ever much we may differ with him in politics,
must be allowed to have at least some ac-
quaintance with his profession (Mr. \Vakley)
The question was, " Do you feel in performing your
work that you have the strength which a man ought
to have."—( Cries of " Oh, oh.") The answer was, " No,
nor yet half the strength, I am not so strong as I was."
Now what is the character of that evidence? The state
of the labouring population of whom you seem to be such
ardent sympathisers—whose cause you have identified with
your own as being interested in the same degree of con-
servatism—at whose meetings Peers preside, while paupers
do the duty of stewards—( Cheers and laughter)-.-whose
sentiments now persuade the hereditary Nobles of the
land—one of whose maxims has just been quoted by a
Noble Duke elsewhere (and in that respect he was cer-
tainly right, for the quotation was quite as good as if he
had made an original remark)—(Laughter and cheers)—
that those industrious classes you represent as having so
deep a stake in the prosperity of the country—whose com-
forts are of so manifold a character—whose cottages are
crowded with all the emblems of the most felicitous do-
mestic economy_that all these arc alarmed at the bare
idea of a revolution.--( Great laughter and cheers.) This
is the inference you would have us draw from this evi-
dence I Great credit is no doubt now due to these men,
who no longer, as in the year 1815, crowd about your
doors, menacing Members, and bodily seizing them, and
extorting promises from them. We do not now live in
such times as those, when, as stated in the " Life of Wil-
berforce," that venerable gentleman was obliged to gar-
rison his own house with a body of the military of the
country. But that is not because the condition cf the
labourers is better than it was then, but because they
have become capable of thinking and of judging better.—
( Cheers and laughter from the other side.) The labourers
are now able to understand their real interests—( Cheers)
—and I rejoice to find that it is so.—( Cheers.) I trust
also that when they make an appeal for admission into
this House they will be admitted in order that they may
have an opportunity of voting for their Conservative
friends, and perhaps of giving them more counties than
they have already got.—( Laughter and cheers ) I hope
that you will not turn round on them then and say that they
are uninstructed and ignorant of their duties, and not fit to
be trusted with such high political responsibility.—
( Cheers and laughter.) You have already confessed their
fitness for those duties—you have associated with them on
equal terms—you have become their fellow-mem-
bers in clubs and associations—their sayings have
become your precedents—( Laughter and cheers).—and
have become the sujects of eulogy. You have praised
them for their industry, their intellect, and their moral
qualifications—l hope, therefope, if they should present
themselves at your bar, praying to b 3 admitted within the
pale of the constitution, you will not show these worthy
labourers any difference between what you say and what
you are prepared to do.—(Laughter and cheers.) I will
trouble the House with only one quotation more. I regret
that I have troubled the House to such an extent—
( Chesrs)—but the few remaining remarks I have to make
will I promise be brought as speedily as possible to a close.
It has been said in the course of the debate that the mass of
the labouring classes rise with the price of corn and fallas the
prices of that commodity fall. Now, I ask, is this an ac-
curate statement of facts? I hold in my hand a series of
addresses to the landowners of England, by one of the
largest and most distinguished and most:disinterested land-
owners of the country, I refer to Earl Fitzwilliam.—( Hear,
hear.) No man I think will deny that he is entitled to
the credit of disinterestedness, and I only wish that it were
consistent with the character of the proceedings of the
House to begin and end one discussion by having the pro-
ductions of the two Noble Lords whom I have
now mentioned read from the Chair.—( Laughter. ) I
say Lords, for I take it for granted that they know
more of the matter than any one else; that they will have
the credit of disinterestedness, and that their production
being combinations of much literary taste, cannot but in-
terest the House. You ought always to have before you
the three addresses of Earl Fitz william for an alteration
of the Corn-laws, and the three editions, if there be three,
of Lord Worsley for the maintenance of the present sys-
tem. But it seems to have been ordered otherwise, and
perhaps it may be all the better. I have now before tne a
table of Earl Fitzwilliam's showing the difference between
the wages and the food of labourers for several years. In
1801, the wages of the agricultural labourers were lOs 6d
a week, the prices of food, allowing two-thirds of a bushel
of flour to be the quantity consumed by his family,
was 9s 10d, being a surplus of twopence.—(Laughter.)
These are important statements, for great reliance has been
laid upon this part of the argument by the Hon. Gentle-
man opposite. My object is to show that the condition of
the labourer is best when be can have the greatest quality
of flour in proportion to his wages. In 1810, the wages
of the labourer was 10s. a week, the price of flour was
Bs. leaving a surplus of 2s. In 1814 the wages were 145.,
the price of flour only 6s. Id., leaving a surplus of 71. 11d.
—( Hear, hear). In 1820 the wages were 125., the price
of flour was 33. Bd., leaving a surplus of Os. 4d. In 1829
the wages were 1 ls., the flour ss. 6d., the surplus Sc. 6d.
These facts have been all stated by Earl Fitzwilliarn, in his
three addresses ; but where they were exemplified he has
not stated. —( Laughter and cheers from the other
side). I presume, however, his Lordship would not
impose upon the public statements which were
not based upon authentic data. I do indeed think
it would be irreverent in you to doubt an author of
hereditary dignity. Now the evidence says, when corn is
cheap labour is higher than wages—and thus that there
is a larger surplus to provide comforts for the poor.
Now there seems to be a great fallacy on the
minds of several Hon. Gentleman respecting wages. The
question is not, what is the amount of wages to a labourer
receiving, but what he can purchase for those wages.
(Hear, bear)—for his wages may be as high as 100 s. a-
week, and yet he may be able to purchase less of the comforts
of life ; or his wages may be 95., and his comforts may be
still more. The whole point turns upon what he can purchase
of the commodities and necessaries of life for his money.
Now I will refer to another valuable authorit • on this.
point. That authority is a letter which I this morning 3 re-
ceived from an intelligent gentleman in the county of
Essex, who is well acquainted with agriculture
and
with the condition of the labouring classes. (The
Honourable Member then proceeded to read the letter
which stated that, seeing that all classes savo the agri-
cultural labourer had fully participated in the protracted
debate, he was anxious that due consideration should
be given to their grievances—Further, the Poor-law
Amendment Act, on one side, and tho high
price of bread on the other, the labourers were
jammed into a most oppressive predicament, and he (the
the writer) supposed that other counties were not worse off
than his. The boasting promises of the Poor-law Amend-
ment Act, namely, that the wages of labour would be en-
hanced, thereby turned out to be all delusion. The wages had
not advanced beyond 9s. a-week but formerly the labourer had
12s. a-week besides a house, Etc. In some instances labour
had advanced 10 or 20 per cent., but bread had advanced
from fifty to seventy per cent. These facts are no doubt
very dry—perhaps they are very uninteresting, but as
great stress has been laid during the debate that this is not
so much a landlord's, or a tenant's, as a labourer's question.
I have been anxious to lay before the House the real
circumstances, and the actual condition of the labourers.
Sir, I regret the terms of this motion. It is much too
narrow for its object. We ought not to have been engaged
at the present time, and especially for such a length of
time in considering a mere class interest—for such this is—
it is the interest of a powerful party, both in Parliament
and out of it,—the master manufacturers.—(Hear, hear).
We should have been asked for a much wider measure. I
should have boen pleased if the motion had been that this
House resolve itself into a Committee of the whole House
to consider of the state of the nation. For that is really
the question,—say what you will.—( Hear, hear, hear).
And I tell those Gentlemen, at whose instance this dis-
cussion originates, that they will not get the advantages
they contemplate, unless they direct their attention to what
by common assent, it appears that they and the landlords
are extremely anxious to conceal ; and that is the state of
our taxation.—( Hear, hear, hear). For if you were to
have a free trade in corn to-morrow, my belief is,
that it would be little or any advantage to the labourers,
either in manufacture or agriculture.—( Loud cheers).
I know the candour of this declaration will be unpleasant
to some.—( Hear, hear, hear.) But I state what I be-
lieve to be true,—and I am perfectly indifferent who it
pleases, or who it displeases—( Cheers)—l say it is a de-
lusion.— ( Cheers. ) It is fostering ungenerous, and per-
nicious expectations to suppose it will enable you to
compete with those countries with whom you are anxious
to run still stronger and longer the race of competition
—while there is such an erroneous and frightful inequa-
lity in your financial relations.—(Hear, hear.) An Hon.
Member in the course of this debate stated the annual
expenditure in the different countries of Europe, and
when we call to mind that our taxation, compared with
that of other countries, is as 50,000,0001. to 8,000,0001.
in the highest case,—l would ask in what way can
any person fancy we can struggle successfully against
the rival efforts which are now making by the young
life and blood of the States which are coming promptly, and
hourly into full vigour, in ,their manufacturing efforts?—
(Hear, hear.) If you had free trade to-morrow, my belief
is that the condition of the manufacturing poor would be
even worse than now ; for it would be found that the only
resource you had was to fall back upon the wages of labour,
and that thus, instead of their condition being improved,
it would be aggravated.— ( Hear.) Sir, these are facts which
perhaps would not answer the purpose of the petitioners ;
but the time is not far distant when they will either de-
tect the delusion or admit its existence—when they will
bo prepared to come to this House in co-operation with
the labourers, who hope there will be a time when it
shall be found that you have not a class interest to pro-
mote, but that your deep and sincere anxiety is to ad-
vance the prosperity and uphold the greatness, and above
all things to improve the condition, by increasing the
happiness, of the labouring orders of the community.—
( Loud cheers.)
Sir R. PEEL wished to correct two mis-statements of
facts, which the Honourable Member had doubtless,uninten-
tionally made. The Honourable Member bad represented
him, as having stated that in Glasgow the increase of po-
pulation from 1812 to 1837 was from 107,000 to 262,000,
and that the increase of consumption of coals for the same
period was from 500,000 tons to 1,200,000 whereas he
( Sir Robert Peel) had stated that the population from
1812 to 1838, bad more than doubled, but that from 1831
to 1838, the consumption of coal hail increased from
500,000 tons to 1,200,000.—( Hear, hear.) The second
was a most curious mistake of the Hon. Member's. The
Hon. Member had stated that he ( Sir Robert Peel) had
said that the total increase of deposits in the savings'
banks of Glasgow for one year was 2s. 7d. a-head. Now
suppose in 1837 there were 1,000 contributors of 11. each,
and that in 1831 there were 2,000 contributors of 11., and
2,000 of 10s. The average amount of contributions would
in each individual case lse 15s. only, instead of 1/., as in the
first case, and the Hen. Member would represent the con-
dition of the working classes as worse by ss.—( Loud
cheers from the Opposition.)
Mr. 111 NDL E Y rose amidst loud cries of " Question."
He would endeavour to amuse the House.—( Hear hear.)

EVENING E

Something had been said about th
lion. Member for Kendal (Mr.
been treated—the reasoa wa:
ran through Manchester. —(Loud
The real question was whether this
commercial superiority over other countries.—(The Hon.
Member here paused, and took out an orange, and
the composed gravity of the action caused con-
siderable laughter, and renewed calls for division.)
After essaying several times to continue his address, the
Hon. Member exclaimed—" In such a House I shall say
no more," and resumed hisseat.
Mr. DENISTOUN rose amid loud cries of
" Divide," " Villiers," and much uproar. He said he
was either prepared to go on now, if the House intended
to divide, or to move the adjournment, if the House would
not hear him.--(Cries of " Go on," " Divide," and
" Chair.")
The SPEAKER had distinctly asked if any Hon.
Member seconded the motion for an adjournment of the
debate, and certainly no Hon. Member had seconded the
motion.
Mr. HINDLEY and Mr. DENISTOUN rose together amidst
great laughter and cheering. Neither Hon. Member being
inclined to give way,
The SPEAKER rose and said that the Hon. Member
for Ashton-under-Lyne had sat down on the former oc-
casion, evidently because he thought the House wos not
inclined to hear him.—( Hear, hear.)
Mr. HINDLEY would not obtrude upon the House
if it were not inclined to hear him. He was anxious to
repel a very unjust imputation thrown cut by the Hon.
Member for Lincolnshire, and acquiesced in, to a certain
extent, by the Right Hon. Baronet, the Member for Tam-
worth—that the manufacturers were working short hours to
create an impression on the country. All his (Mr.
Hindley's) constituents were in favour of the immediate
and total repeal of the Corn-laws; but he would tell the
House conscientiously that, if he were asked whether be
would vote for a total, immediate, and unconditional repeal
of the Corn-laws, he would rather surrender his seat than
do so.—(Loud cheers.) If he was sent to Parliament to
do injustice to any portion of the community, he was not
the person to do it. He would not go into Committee to
destroy the interests of the agricultural classes, but to pro-
mote the interests of all ; and it was with these views he
would vote for the motion.—( Cries of " Divide.")
Several members rose to address the House amidst
loud cries of " Mr. Villiers," and " Divide, divide."
Mr. DE NNISTOUN, having caught the Speaker's eye,
addressed the House. As he had presented the largest
number of petitions on this important subject, and as he
represented the largest manufacturing and commer-
cial constituency in the empire--(Hear, hear)--be
trusted the House would bear with him for a few minutes.
He had never heard a more fallacious statement than that
which had been made by the Right Hoe. Bart. the
Member for Tamworth.—( Cries of "Oh! oh 1"). He bad
never heard a speech less worthy of a man, who aspired to
the name of a statesman.__ (Hear, hear). Hon. 1114 mbers
on the other side of the House might mystify it as they
pleased, they might speechify till Doom's-day, but they
never could get rid of the damning fact that the result of
the present Corn-laws, was to raise the rents of the land-
lords, and to keep the people of the country starvi,ig in
the midst of plenty.—(Hear, hear). It was said that the
repeal of the Corn Laws would throw the land of, the
country out of cultivation, and place England at the mercy
of foreign nations.—(Hear, hear). Did not the country
depend greatly upon foreign nations for cotton, and if it
depended upon them for one thing, why should it not for
another ?—( Hear, hear). One word with respect
to the result of the present debate, and be
had done. If the people out of doors found
that they had nothing to expect from that House, they
would look with a most scrutinizing eye into its constitu-
tion.—( Hear.) He would venture to predict, if the pre-
sent motion was refused, the time was not far distant when
such a union would take place as would ensure a search-
ins, and sweeping reform in its constitution.—( Hear. )
'Mr. SANFORD rose amid loud cries of " Divide."
He would trespass but very shortly on the time of the
House; but there was one portion of the debatesto which
he wished to advert. Much observation had been made by
lien. Members on both sides of the House relative to the
declaration made by the Noble Lord the Secretary of
State for the Home Department, that he was inclined to
support a moderate fixed duty, if the House went into a
Committee. He wished to ask that Noble Lord what
he meant by a moderate fixed duty ?—( Hear)— and in put-
ting that question, he begged to state that the answer
would not influence his vote, as he had already made up
his mind to give his decided opposition to the motion of
the lion. Member for Wolverhampton.
Mr. VILLIERS trusted the Noble Lord would not
answer the question.--(Order, order.)
Lord JOHN RUSSELL said that after be bad declared
himself in favour of a moderate duty, the Hon. Member
might think himself justified in asking the question, but be
must beg the Hon. Member to refer to the question before
the House. Tho lion. Member for Wolverhampton had
made a motion to refer to a Committee of the whole Ilriuse
the Acts regulating the importation of corn. That could
bind no one to concur with hint in the repeal of all duties.
Hear, hear.) In stating that he was for a moderate
fixed duty, it would be competent for him to go into detade
but if he did so he should feel it necessary to state his re,:-
sons for coming to the conclusion. If he were to do so,
however, he should raise a debate between those who were
in favour of repeal and those who were in favour of a mo-
derate duty, and he conceived this to be a matter for dis-
cussion in Committee.--(Hear, hear.)
Mr. JAMES rose amidst loud cries of " Oh, oh." He
said gentlemen would save themselves a great deal of
trouble, if they would only hear bim patiently for a few
moments.—( Hear, hear.) He was anxious that his views
on this question should not be misconstrued by the large
independent agricultural constituency that he had the
honour of representing.—( Hear, hear.) He thought the
value of the landed property of this country ought not
to be materially altered, except upon grounds of over-
ruling necessity ;
but he did not think the free admis-
sion of fat eign corn, at a moderate fixed duty, would
make the difference in the value of land which some
gentlemen imagined. He believed that under an im-
proved system there might be fair and steady prices,
which would be more advantageous to the farmer than
high prices at one time and ruinously low prices at an-
other. But he was not prepared to go into Committee
to get rid of these Corn-laws at one fell swoop. He
therefore moved that the following words be added to
the motion With the view, not to a total repeal of
that law, but of ascertaining whether any and what im-
provement of it can be effected for the benefit of the
agricultural as well as all other classes of the community."
—(Loud laughter.)
Mr. VILLIERS then rose to reply. It was his pur-
pose, in bringing forward tho motion, to keep as far as
possible from dividing those who were of opinion that
the Corn-laws were not fitted for the present state of
the country. Ile had received very little encouragement
for foregoing his own opinion—he had not introduced his
own opinions into the motion, because he wished that all
those who wished for a change of the Corn-laws should be
enabled to vote with him. He wished that other Members
had followed the same course, but throughout he had been
met with various propositions, which were only fitted for
the Committee, and at the very last he was met
with an amendment which if carried would at once de-
feat his motion ; but as that amendment had not
met with a a seconder, of course his motion would be that
which would be put from the Chair. It was now some
years since the question had been fairly discussed, he
therefore wished to know the grounds upon which the present
laws were to be supported ; his purpose bad, therefore,
been in a great measure answered, by the discussion
which had taken place. He had not been met fairly
on this occasion—the question had not been discussed-,
it bad been made with personalities, and with dry refer.. ences to statistical details ; if they had gone into Committee
he would have suggested his reasons for thinking that the
ihgal tt
hbeey cohna nhgi
se dsidbeotohf
wthiseeHlyomusde were not algt rweeads
soybjsteeemtedmt
as to the proposition which was to be made in Committee.
Had they been agreed, where would have been the use of
going into Committee. The Hon. Member for the Tower
Hamlets had made a proposal for going into Committee,
with the view of putting on a fixed duty; that was objected to
because it was said that many agriculturists would prefer
a total repeal of the law. He (Mr. V.) then brought for-
ward a proposition for the total repeal of the Corn-laws,
and he was then told that this proposition was tea strong a
a one. He had then brought forward the present motion,
and now objections were found to it in the same spirit.
He would consider that the division of that night would
show those ;who were opposed to all change; and on the
other side it would show those who were not pleased
with the present state of things. The Honourable
Baronet, the Member for Kent, had not dealt
fairly by him. He had stated \that ha (Mr. V.) had
stated that there were three great incumbrances in this
country—the Aristocray—the National Debt—and the
Church Establishment; and that until they
wereHe would
done
away with the country would never 'be pe ha py
t
have cared nothing for it bad he not seen that
ethoatuntitry with was t
el
up by some parties, and it went into
the authority of the Member for Kilenteh,esteha
that be,esta the mover
of that motion, wished to upset alishments.
Never was there
(hear, gross misrepresentation._.
Hear, hear,
of
f
hear.) Then again it was charged that
the manufacturers, for the purpose distressing their
a more
and the Noble Lord
been put forth—oven in that H
some of his own pa--
had closed their mills—a more unfounded charge had never
who made that statement should ask
6:ens and he would havefoumnden,bad closed their mills.
that even they, not for the
purpose of distressing their
No answer bad been given to one part of the case he had
broughtforward, in consequence of the Corn-
namely that
laws, the manufacturers found difficulty in the exchanges
with other countries which theyformerly had not done—the.t
in some cases they had been excluded from the markets,
while in others they could not successfully compete with
them. That part of the case remained unanswered.—
(Hear. ) He now came to another argument, which was
a most important one; and he really would wish to have it
explained a little further, namely, that they were to sup_
port the present Corn-laws, independent of the injur-
they might inflict on the community—(Hear, hear)
because they tended to keep a certain number' el
persons in employ. In that principle was involved the
whole principle of protection, and be wished to know
whether if it was acted on in this case they were prepared
to act upon it in every other? At the time the existing
laws were introduced, a Nobleman, for whom he believed
Gentlemen on the opposite side entertained the greatest
respect, Lord Grenville, opposed it. In modern times,
aperson for whom they had a great deal of respect, Dr.
moral tai taint
the t o
breaththe ai r
of we
Berl*itelashtile so-
dl
Chalmers, opposed them, and that learned individual said
they ositiv
an t at no
ciety so much as the abolition of the Corn-laws,—ggawveou a
would m sweeten
a (Hear.)
iaptehlyin
The landowners of England resembled, in their exclusive
protection, the Pacba of Egypt. What had the people of
England done to be subjected to such impositions.—
Hear, hear.) " I wish (concluded the Hon. Member)
to deliver them from this oppression ; and unless the Lord
harden your hearts as he did Pharaoh's—l shall attain ray
object."—(Hear, hear, and loud calls for a division.)
The House then divided, when the numbers were—
For the Motion
Against it
Majority against the Motion -147

S II N
t., -AWL
I- --. -,iika-,.
~:.;
.*. ... 04. 4 ...
iVNIf :-.....`---taf r 4 " I).' .-
faitlliVhb-,•i: gm
.' 44
is la
d-c 1 s WiNAtli
country should retain', its

The result of the Division was received with loud cheers. I but it must not be left to the Presr. Now is the time for Anti- I
The House then went into Committee on the Tithes Corn-law Associations to multiply their numbers and extend
(Ireland) Composition Arrears Bill. their operations. They must exert themselves to strengthen
After a few words from Col. PE RCE VAL, Lord the light of knowledge.till its blaze become intolerable to
MORPETH, and Mr. SHAW, the several clauses were creatures that prey in the dark. Let them circulate
agreed to. brief and plain statemen' s of facts, illustrating the real
interests of the artizan the farmer, and the labourer.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER moved Let them send forth' competent lecturers to render
fur leave to bring in a Bill to amend the Acts whereby the essentials of this universal question obvious to the inmates
certain annuities have been granted to his Grace the of the factory and the inhabitants of the village. The agita-
Duke of Wellington.—The Bill was read a first time. tion of instruction :must be beneficial. It will aid the many
The other Orders of the Day were then disposed of better to comprehend their private interests and public duties.
and the House adjourned at a Quarter past Two o'Clock. Let all constituencies look to their representatives. An in-
delible brand should be affixed on those who repay themselves
for the beer-bribe by the bread-tax. In all directions, the
only thing wanted is the exposition of facts. The nefarious
policy, that tends first to blot out the great towns and cities of
the kingdom, tends next to reduce the farmer and labourer to
the condition of beggarly serfdom. The infatuation that
makes this a class question, must, as it is understood,
bring down on the infatuated class, war and vengeance from
other classes. Nor is it possible that the decision of
the House of Commons should not re-act upon the House
of Commons itself, and affect the general opinion of its con-
'position and constitution. After the vote of last night, who
will dare to contend that further constitutional reforms are not
necessary ? Who will limit those reforms within the boun-
daries that might have seemed ample, hut for such an
exuibi-
tlon ? The division is a solemn condemnation of the present
system. Representation demands a freer suffrage and a broader
basis to make it approximate towards realty. It is absurd to
talk of represen':ation as identified with the predominance of a
class that has neither the sagacity to discover its own interests,
the just; ce to recognize the rights of others, nor the decency to
treat with due regard the desires of a large portion of the com-
munity, and the interests of the entire community.—Morning
Chronicle.

SPIRIT of the PUBLIC JOURNALS.

Seven days of debating the Corn-law subject (both Houses
of Parliament included) would be quite enough for the public
patience, even had the debate been bona fide directed to the
principles of that important question, and to the consideration
of those general truths and maxims of policy which ought to
determine Parliament in legislating, or abstaining to legislate,
thereon. But, treated as the question has been, it is too much
fer human patience to tolerate. Long ago it was manifest to
the whole world with what unworthy and despicable motives
the Queen's Ministers lent themselves, and engaged their political
tools and dependents, to stir the popular feeling upon this vast
sahject. It was aped and righteous cause, had it been honestly vin-
dicated. But it was not. We charged the Ministess in our
fir-.t article on this great question Svith having used it as a
cat's paw for their own selfish and factious ends ; and they
themselves, and the subject which they ha"e so diseracefely
perverted, fare accordingly. Fresh accumulations of contempt
and ridicule have been their portion, and as for any immediate
improvement of, or relief from, the Corn-law, it is
lest; while in the place of it we have an organized
power which threatens all law with defiance, and seeks
redress of injury by unhallowed force—the result of a
conviction, universal amongst all classes, that the offi-
ciel pretendere to Liberal policy, and self-constituted guar-
dians of the poor man's rights, are no better than so many hy-
poerh heal traffickers and hucksters of rabble delusion, who never
approach a great national interest but to make it subservient to
s me ignominious end—who never assume a principle, but to
hire it out for some sordid project—nor invoke the people, but
to abandon and betray them, leaving their minds disturbed by
chimerical hopes, inflamed by evil passions, and disaffected towards
the peace of society. The party questions en which the
ilhilbeurne Cabinet had mounted into office having all succes-
sively dropped from under them, nothing remained bat to sup-
ply their place by wresting other questions, no matter how un-
suitable in their 'nature, to the same discreditable and corrupt
u:es. It was necessary that the measure thus doomed to be
first disgraced and then sacrificed should be one so much in
favour with the multitude, that a sharp and loud agitation
might be raised upon it, the excitement turned exclusively
aeainst the landed proprietors, and, if found sufficiently formid-
able, be employed as a cheval de &Italie for the Whig Min's-
try against their Conservative opponents. The scheme was
promising, but faired in the execution, the commersial interest
soon discovering that all the overtures, professions, and under-
hand machinations of the Ministers were no better than a
till) to the whale—an unprincipled sham, a low-priced
snare for a credulous democracy, and a hollow make-believe
assurance on the part of the Whigs that they would obtain
fsom Parliament an unfettered importation of corn, in return
for which they were entitled to demand a more ample share of
confidence, and a mere implicit obedience from the representa-
tives of the Liberal interest in this country, than had ever be-
fore been conceded to them. It failed—the whole manmuvre.
It failed, as low-blooded knavery always does, when it comes
into conflict with earnestness and reso:sitien, however mis-
gu'led. The want of good faith in the Whigs was exposed to
the country by a thousand circurnstanee.;. The people saw
that the Ministers had sold them, and the agitation perished
for want of food. Then it was that the test was applied in
Parliament to the Cabinet whose creatures had gut up the
agitation, but which shrunk from the consequences of
its own proper work. The opposition to a repeal or amendment
of the Corn-law, narrow and mistaken as were the grounds for
such resistance, was more real and more resolute than the desire
for its reform professed by the subordinates of office. The Go-
vernment took fright. Instead of making a Corn-law Bill their
grand measure of " reform" fir the session 1839, they began to
despeir of carrying it through the House of Commons, and
dresded therefore the creation of a fresh heed of enemies in that
assembly, more numerous than the friends whom they might
propitiate. They devised the paltry expedient of leaving this, like
the Ballot, an open question—refusing to introduce it by a Mi-
nister; refusing the support. of it by any one of their own body asa
MinTster ; splitting their respective votes in each Houle of Parlia-
ment upon one and the same question, the Prime Minister
loftily maintaining the Corn-law system, and reprobating with
ail the solemnity of an appeal to his own tender conscience, the
" madness" of any of his Radical patrons who could now dream
of abolishing a law so indispensable, whilst one of the Noble
Viscount's Colleagues, by name Lord Lansdowne, delivered
himself in terms so happily illustrative of Talleyraml's saying,
that speech was given us the more effectually " to conceal our
thoughts," as to receive a high compliment from Lord Fitz-
william on the successful use to which the President of the
Ceuncil had applied his vocal faculty. It is said, moreover,
that in the division on Lord Fitzwilliam's motion, one of the
Cabinet Ministers voted against Lord Melbourne ; two
others skulking behind the Throne, and not daring to
commit themselves by a vote on either side of the question ;
while it appears from the reports that in the House of
Commons the Secretary for the Horne Department, the
sweet tempered Secretary at War, and the President of the
Beard of Trade, gave utterance, the first to a trimming, the
second an insufferable, and the third to all but an insurrectionary
- speech, in furtherance of the motion of Mr. Villiers, the ob-
ject of which was represented by the head of the Government
to be one which argued " nothing short of insanity" in those -
by whom it was supported! Now, we have all along, through-
out the few previous observations, abstained from going into
any argument upon the Corrnlaw question itself, the fate of
which, so far as Mr. Villiers' motion is concerned, we un-
feignedly and most deeply lament, and in no small degree for
the sake of the majority by which the motion of the Hon. Mem-
bes for Wolverhampton has been defeated. It would indeed be
gross affectation to attempt, within the limits of a single article,
the discussion of a subject which has already occupied the two
Ilou,aes of Parliament for an entire week, and we doubt whe-
ther our readers would thank us for a series of articles devoted
to the examination of assertions a thousand times refuted, and
of fallacies as frequently exposed. We shall, however, take an
early opportunity of noticing the speeches of the leaders of the
Corn-law party. In the mean time, the one topic which can
be more briefly and graphically touched, and which may be
looked upon as very closely connected (though not in a manner
the most reputable for those interested) with the commence-
ment, the course, and issue of the debate itself, is the light in
which her Majesty's Ministers have placed themselves—the
miserable destitution of all public principle, of all manly spirit,
of all views beyond the dirty precincts of Downing-s'reet—the
shabbiness, the cowardice, the crawling beggarliness, of their
whole Corn-law exhibition, The Government indeed has for
once, " out-shabbied" itself. It has been actuated by no feeling
but those of cupidity and terror. It has left the Corn-law more un-
settled than before. It has left its own tenants of office more unset-
' tied, for it has; lost friends and multiplied adversaries. It ha.,
p used that on no one national question, whereon any difference
of sentiment exists out of doors, will it dare to offer a decided
of.inion within doors. It has no one principle of cohesion more
binding than the chance-medley jurtaposirion of articles hud-
dled together in a pawnbroker's shop. It has made Whitehall
a filthy magazine of unredeemed pledges, and the customers
who support it are the refuse of political society, Though we
have the misfortune to differ with Sir R. Peel in his opinions
upon the economy of the Corn Question, and though we are
bound to admit that in hia speech on Friday night he did
not act fairly either to himself or to the question (as we shall
shortly take occasion to show), yet from the calm judgment
passed by the Right Hon. Baronet on the Government, to-
wards the close of that speech, we certainly cannot dissent.
" Though," says Sir Robert, " I might defer to the authority
of an united Ministry, yet when that Ministry offers to me,
not a declaration of principles—when, on the contrary, the
declarations of the Ministry in this House are at direct variance
with those of their colleagues in the other House; when they
offer to the attention of the Legislature conflicting principles,
colleagues dissenting, statements irreconcilable, arguments
contradictory, counsels at variance—then I refuse to defer to
the authority of that Ministry." And well any statesman
may ; for how, or from what sort of minds, such Ministers can
manage to possess any particle of authority, er even to enjoy
any shadow of endurance, " doth move our special wonder."—
Times.

Preparing for Publication, in 2 vols. Bvo.
DE TOCQUEVILLE'S NEW
WORK ON ENGLAND.

Richard Bentley, New Burlington-street,
Publisher in Ordinary to her Majesty.

THE CHILD'S LIBRARY,
A NEW VOLUME.
" The best editions of these works ever published."—Court
Gazette.
PHILIP QUARLL, with numerous illustrations, I vol.,
2s. Gd., cloth.
FAIRY TALES IN VERSE, with seventy illustrations,
1 vol., Gd.
ROBINSON CRUSOE, with numerous illustrations, by
George Cruickshank, 2 vols., 55.
THE CHILD'S FAIRY LIBRARY, with 600 illustra-
tions, 6 vols. 155., cr, 2s. 6d. each.
London : Joseph Thomas ; T. Tegg ; and Simpkin and Co.

HIS Majesty the EMPEROR of AUSTRIA,
his 'Majesty the EMPEROR of RUSSIA,
And His Majesty the KING of PRUSSIA,
having AUTHORISED and GUARANTEED several Dis-
iTibufions of Money, which (though they are NO LOT-
TERIES, offer a great many nossihilities of obtaining
LARGE FORTUNES,
HEINE BROTHERS at HAMBURGH, and
HEINE BROTHERS at LUBECK,
are NOW SELLING SHARES for any of the said DIS-
TRIBUTIONS of MONEY, at various prices. The Dis-
tributions contain various portions, from
NINE POUNDS TO TWENTY THOUSAND POUNDS
and upwards. Persons desirous to purchase may receive PRE-
VIOUS to giving any order, the Prosvectus and Perticulais,
upon addressing, WITHOUT DELAY, a line to

HEINE BROTHERS 'at lIAMBURGEL

P. S. TIIE NEXT AUSTRIAN DISTRIBUTION
CONTAINS PORTIONS OF 4,0001., 7,5001., and 30,000/.

THEATRE ROYAL, COVENT GARDEN.
THIS EVENING, MARCn 19,
Will be performed the Tragedy of
KING LEAR.
To conclude with
ROB ROY.
To-Morrow there will be no performance.

• ,

zfle a.un.

LONDON :
TUESDAY, MARCH 19, 1639.

The House decided last night, after five nights'
debate, against Mr. VILLIERS' motion, by a majo-
rity of 147, 195 having voted for it and 342
against it. So the House of Commons, by turning
a deaf ear to the voice of justice, has converted a
fiscal into a constitutional question, and to pre-
serve for the landed aristocracy and the Church a
little while longer their factitious superiority, has
exposed the community to the risk of a revolution.

The Peers began the evening by a little conversa-
tion on the agreeable subject of Mullingar Gaol.
The Marquises of WESTMEATH and NORMANBY were
the interlocutors, and the result was, that the man Cook
had actually, as the first named Noble Marquis had
averred, been discharged from goal without bail.
Lord SEAFORTH inquired whether any information
had been received from Jamaica relative to the free la-
bourers, but was answered No, though Lord Noassalizir
said he should be ready to lay any he received on the
, table.

In answer to questions, Lord MELBOURNE stated
that he did not mean to bring the wars in the East un-
der the notice of their Lordships till all the information
concerning them was laid before them.
Lord BROUGHAM explained the source of his mistake
concerning the Glasgow petition, which gave him an op-
portunity of enhancing the merit of the Glas-
gow Anti-Corn-law petitioners. The Noble Lord
fixed the second reading of the Beer Bill for Friday.
Through him the Glasgow Cotton-spinners presented
a petition to obtain a remission of their sentence, and
promised only gratitude were kindness shown them.
A little conversation took place about the Poor-
laws, on a petition presented by Earl STANHOPE.
from a man in Huddertfield, who complained of being
deprived in his old age of attending the worship of GOD
in His holy temple. The Noble Earl talked of white
slavery, but otherwise the conversation ended in nothing.
The Earl of MOUNTCASHEL, who has not figured
much in Parliament for several sessions, made a short
speech on the Corn-laws as applicable to Ireland, which
reminded us of the Noble Earl in olden times. He
said if the Corn-laws were repealed the labourers of Ire-
land would have their supply of potatoes reduced ; and
he was also dreadhilly alarmed lest Toreign fundholders
should make war on the English Stock-market, His
speech cannot, however, be abridged. Every sentence
is something to smile at. His eloquence could not
keep their Lordships from dinner, and they speedily
adjourned.
In the Commons, Lord PALMIRSTON explained that
Persia was to be watched by a Charge d'Affaires, in the
absence of Mr. 11PNEIL, who has returned to Eng-
land.

The documents connected with establishing a Board
of Education are to be laid before the House, said Lord
JOHN RUSSELL, immediately after Easter.
On the order of the day for going into a Committee

The House of Commons has at length, by a majority of 342
to 193, rejected the motion of Mr. Villiers. This decision
against going into Committee on the Corn-laws is one of those
events which, however confidently anticipated, yet affect the
mind with a certain degree of surprise, showing that, in spite
of all calculation, there was still a latent and lingering hope
of the prevalence of man's innate sense of justice over the
sordid dictates of a class interest. That hope has vanished.
The majority of an assembly on which the eyes of
the world are fixed, and whose deeds are history, is
content to exhibit itself in the hateful and contemptible
light of an oligarchical legislature, determinately sacri-
ficing the many to the few, the nation to a class, the
food of the people to the amount of rent, and the condi-
lion of the country's prosperity to the temporary conve-
nience of bankrupt landlords. The circumstances and man-
ner of this denial of justice are calculated to make the strongest
impression on every reflective and patriotic mind. There
have nut been the ordinary and decent forms of legislative par-
tiality. The debate has been characterised by outbreaks of per-
canal insolence not usual in civilized society. The question
has been treated, not as an appeal to be heard, but as an imper-
tinence to be put down. In the first instance, evidence was
refused on the ground that the majority was sufficiently in-
formed ; and then consideration was refused on the ground that
the majority had irrevocably decided. The triumphant orators
—triumphant only in the anticipated strength of unreasoning
numbers—seemed to think but one interest deserving of a thought,
the interest nominally of the industrious cultivators of the
soil—really, of the idle recipients of the produce. They
laid it enough to lecture the struggling industry of the
Country, the source of its prosperity and greatness, on the
vanity of human expecta'ions. They assumed that, in Great
Eritatn, humanity only exists to eat their corn, pay their im-
post, and submit to their rebukes. Never was the complaint
of a suffering people treated more cavalierly or dismissed more
rnmarily. The landlords have enacted the Van Amburgh of
the iiritish Lion, and administered kicks, cuffs, and wanton in-
s.lance sufficient to have sent the tamest spaniel to their
throats; cud all because we are not duly sensible of the honour
of being permitted •to eat their corn exclusively, paying
almost twice its continental price. Amongst the impudent
puerilities of the debate was the persevering reckoning
of the Malt Tax as a burden on ',the land, after having
resisted is removal because it was paid by the consumer ;
and the cool calculation of Mr.- Christopher, that while
the farmer's profit was ss. Pd. per acre, the landlord's
rent of one guinea was an unavoidable and unquestionable ex-
penditure. In fact, two assumptions were taken as comprising
the merits of the case ; first, it was assumed that something
was pocketed by means of the Corn-laws ; and secondly, that
semethingbeing pocketed, all revision, modification, or consi-
deration, was out of the question. The ignorant blunder of the
one assumption is meet companion for the lordly selfishness of
the other. The lowering of this great national question into
a class straggle, will sorely recoil on those whose little, dirty,
peddling views have effected the degradation. In itself, it is a
grave inquiry into the causes and impediments of national pros-
perity, The manufacturers started it, as was natural, they
ben most obviously and promptly the victims of a re-
strictive policy. But though started by them, no
man with' the slightest real pretensions to the cha-
racter of a Statesman could take it to be a question
simply of their interests, or of those interests as antagonistic to
the profits of the agriculturist. Such limitation argues a piti.
ful short-sightedness. The subject of a free trade in corn
appertains to the whole community. It is in fact the largest
branch from the great stock of the free trade principle. The
majority of the House of Commons has most unwisely made it
a etas; question—most unwisely, because in so doing they have
ticedlessly and falsely exhibited the landowners as having an
interest apart from the common interest; and most unwisely
also, however truly, exhibited them as reckless of injuring the
cuaimisre_ oun interest for the temporary advantage cf their class.
ea ced from the right path by this evil example, we
trust that as a common interest, this subject will be pursued
I..Xt:losewitli whom the present disscussion originated. We agree
with oar Itloi aiTing Cotemporary (from whom we have ss often to
differ), tlie Times, that it was a dereliction of the functions of
iZteironZenot,un, not take a decided course on so momentous a
Contemporary will not, we hope, be induced
by party eo_nection to neglect the duty which he lashes the
Ministry for avoiding: The Press is now most important to
the cause of cheap bread, free trade, and national' posperity ;

of Supply, Mr. T. ATTNVOOD wished to augment the
Navy Estimates ; but his motion on this subject was re-
ected as informal. He moved an instruction to the
ommittee, but was told he must proceed by an address,
only a Minister being competent to alter an estimate.
Mr. ATTWOOD insisted much on the danger arising
from Russia, who influences, if she does not bribe our
gentry. The House went into a Committee, and votes
were taken both for Army and Navy on account, and
then then the House resumed. _ _

The adjourned debate on the Corn-laws occupied
the remainder of the night. Mr. FIELDEN began it, but
unfortunately the Hon. Member, whose speech from the
little which could be heard of it, seemed full of curious
facts, was inaudible. _

Mr. W. SMITH O'BittEN thought the repeal of the
Corn-laws would throw many labourers out of employ-
ment, and though some alteration might be necessary,
he was convinced that no fixed duty lower than 12s.
would be advantageous.

Sir .JOHN TYRRELL, a kind of clown to the county of
Essex, endeavoured to create a laugh, but the subject
was too dull.

Mr. G. W. Woon defended his former statistical
statements, and refuted some of those of Sir ROBERT
PEEL. Mr. BENETT was in favour of the laws,
and dreadfully alarmed at the labourers wanting work.
If they had only food,we believe work will be abundant.
Mr. O'CONNELL put the question on its proper basis
as a remnant of the old feudal oppression, when the
landowners treated all the other classes, and particu-
larly the trading classes, as fit only to be plun-
dercd. He showed very clearly, that the 2,300,000
poor of Ireland could lose nothing by the abolition of
the Corn-laws.

Lord SANDON, though the representatvie of Liver-
pool—the towns being divided against themselves
thought the Corn-laws had not injured the manufac..
turers. He of course was to vote against Mr. VILLIEns'
motion.

Mr. HARVEY made a long, eloquent, and pow-
erful speech, in which good sense was pointed by
sarcasm, and sound argument enforced by wit. He
tore the falacies of Sir ROBERT PEEL to rags, and made
the House laugh at the weeping and false sentimentality
of Sir JAMES GRAHAM. He did something better ; he
made—we believe, at least, what he said was enough
to make—the Hon. Baronet ashamed of the monstrous
assertions he made with respect to the working
classes. His powerful speech will particularly re-
commend him to the working classes, whose interest on
this question he especially advocated. The lashing he
gave in their name to the pompous and specious heavy
Baronets, will not soon be forgotten by them nor the
by the House, who laughed most heartily at the Hon.
Member's wit.

After a reply from Mr. VILLIERS, who also exposed
in an able manner the sophistries of Sir ROBERT PEEL,
the impatient House divided, and then adjourned.

As yet the moral consequence of the Corn-laws
have undergone no discussion in Parliament. In
our journal of September 15th we pointed out their
connection with the great increase of crime which
has taken place since 1815. We then remarked
that the number of commitments for crime had very
nearly quadrupled since that year, and it was dou-
bled within four years after they were passed. Dur-

ing the twenty four years which have elapsed since
1815 the country has been at peace, and the undi-
vided attention of the Legislature, so far as it has
not been occupied with a factious struggle for office,
has been given to our internal policy. Improvements
in our institutions have been planned by all parties,
and carried with a unanimous voice into execution.
More churches have been built and more clergymen
provided. The police has been established, and
prison discipline much bettered. More fre-
quent courts have been holden, and the criminal law
has been more promptly administered. Goal de-
liveries have been more frequent, and our criminal
courts improved. There have been Acts fur
punishing juvenile offenders, and Acts for sepa-
rating the partly pure from the wholly contami-
nated. The legislation touching beer-houses and
public-houses, and the sale of intoxicating
liquors, has been incessant ; and fairs and sports
have been suppressed. Bull-fighting and boxing
have been put down. The Parliament has been
reformed, and sanguinary punishment very much
diminished. In short, during those twenty-four
years the Legislature has been engaged in one
unceasing attempt to improve our laws and the
morals of the people ; and what has been the
result ? We answer boldly, a great, a lamentable
increase of crime. A scoundrel disposition seems
to pervade the land, and, after the fashion
of the authors of the Corn-laws, all classes
seek to prey on each other, and are given up
to avarice and greediness. We do not rely on our
own assertion—we refer to the daily diatribes of
the 'Arsons out of Parliament, and the renewed ef-
forts of their friends in Parliament, to increase
restrictions on the people because of the rapid in-
crease of vice and crime. Now though we might
be warranted, after the example of some Corn-law
advocates in Parliament, at once to charge all the
evils which have afflicted the country since 1815,
on the Corn-laws—for they have co-existed—we
shall content ourselves with a more humble endea-
vour to show that much of this increase of crime
may be traced to them.

It is a fact that, in conjunction with all the im-
provements we have mentioned, the number of corn-
mitinews in England and Wales has nearly quad-
rupled in 24 years. Now the great majority of
offences punished in England are offences against
property. The tradesman finds he cannot live on.
his profits so well as the Corn-law making 'squire's
butler, or as the Bishop's chief cook, and he begins
by cheating ; next he takes to issuing bills, and
ends probably by committing forgery. The style of
living adopted by those who live on the produce of
the Poll-tax sets the fashion for all below them ;
and as the very law which they nass to increase
their opd.ence hampers trade and lowers profit, both
increasing the desire to live splendidly and depriv-
ing men of the means, it is the parent of many of
the crimes in the middle classes which the criminal
law punishes.
Again, it lessens trade in the manufacturing dis-
tricts, and prevents them offering a continual de-
mand for fresh hands. Stopping the growth and
prosperity of towns, it stops the drains which
erewhile carried off the surplus of the agricul-
tural population, and thus increases the compe-
tition amongst agricultural labourers, embitters their
fate, adds to their toils, augments their poverty,
and converts them into thieves. Those who know
anything of the rural distr.icts of the South of
England must have been amazingly amused, if not
perplexed, by Sir JAMES GRAHAM'S sentimental
allusions in the Corn-law debates to the village-
green and the " breezy call of incense-breathing
morn," for village greens at present are studded by
beer-shops-----the haunts of the lowest, raggedest,
meanest, dirtiest, and most pilfering of her MA-
JESTY'S subjects. As we remember the rural
districts of England in our boyish days, all the
cottagers had fowls and pigs, most of the farm-
servants lived in the farm-houses, master and
man were friends and helpers ; now the
majority of the cottagers have neither pigs nor
fowls, nor furniture, nor decent clothing ; the ser-
vants lodge where they can, and master and man
are more enemies than mutual helps and friends.
The masters getting stinted profits, and the servants ;
stinted wages, each regards the other as the source
of his distress, and they scowl on each other as
foes. Deprived of all property, and of the means
of acquiring any, the agricultural labourer too
often becomes hostile to those who have it, and
commits depredations on all around him.
For example, we know a rural district, far re.
moved from any sort of manufacture, in which,
when we were boys, people scarcely thought of
bolting their doors at night, where no property is
now safe. As to hedge-rows it is almost in vain to
keep them up. They are no sooner made than
they are pulled to pieces for firewood. The re-
spectable inhabitants patrole the place at night, but
their vigilance is no match for the cunning of the
thieves. A few months ago a friend of ours was
visited by the marauders, who took guns, fowls, and
fruit. A day or two ago we received the following
communication from the same quarter :
" On Sunday night last, or early on Monday morning,
the lock of the fowl-house was picked, and our remaining
fowls stolen. Last night some of the thatch of the boat
house was removed, an entry made, the lock forced off, and
the boat's sail taken away. Several of our neighbours have
suffered similar depredations."

That is the example, but we have no doubt that
similar scenes, and a similar deterioration to that
we remember in the moral character of the agricul-
tural population in that district, are common to all
the rural districts. Before Sir JAMES GRAHAM
again indulges in sentimentality about agricultural
labourers, which in him is like what an Edinburgh
Reviewer said of the German, " a fat butcher
weeping over a dead calf," it will become him
to look into this question, and ascertain how
much of the avowed increase of crime takes its
rise in the agricultural districts, and how much
of it has been caused by the Corn-laws. For our
parts we have not a doubt that those laws cause
more depredation, by increasing the splendour of
some and the poverty and want of others, and by
hampering all, and making all uneasy, than all the
punishment of the law can prevent or cure. We
need not add, that they cause diminished profit and
increased competition in towns as well as in rural
districts, and are consequently the parents of much
of the strife, hatred, and theft which take place in
towns as well as in villages and hamlets.

We have only done justice, in our summary, to
Mr. HARVEY'S eloquent and amusing speech, and
seeing in the lists of the division that his name is
on the right side, we can easily pardon him for
sporting, towards the end, some crotchets of his
own. He shares with so many persons the appre-
hension that free trade, under our present burdens,
would only add to our difficulties, that we ex-
cuse in him the honest prejudice, though we
differ from his opinion in toto. Whatever
may be the burdens imposed for the service of the
State, or in fulfilment of national obligations, they
are all, in our estimation, much increased by the
tax on bread, which makes competition with fo-
reigners, naturally difficult, hopeless, and impos-
sible. We do not totally disagree with Mr.
HARVEY'S concluding observations ; for the
whole tenor of our remarks must, we
hope, have satisfied our readers that we
have always considered the Corn-laws as an
imperial question, and that it has been narrowed,
not to say degraded, by having been chiefly argued
as a contest between the manufacturers and the
landowners. Differing from Mr. HARVEY as to
the effects of free trade on wages, and differing
from him as to the effects which totally repealing
the Corn-laws would have on the farmer, as we
find his vote on the right side, we will not suffer
ourselves to speak of the trifling errors at the close
of his speech, as the smallest drawback from its
general excellence and general effectiveness.

We were honoured, last night, by the particular
notice of Mr. F. O'CONNOR, at the dinner given
to Mr. FROST. Almost every other person makes
a similar complaint—he is not reported at sufficient
length. Several of the Members of Parliament
assert like FEARGus, that the newspapers treat them
scandalously. For our parte, we endeavour to do
justice to all parties, and particularly to the public,
by making it acquainted, as far as we can, with
everything, which necessarily precludes us from
filling our Paper exclusively either with the pro-
ceedings of the Convention or of the Parliament.
_ _

If, as —Mr. O'CONNOR complained, we give him
only a few lines of nonpareil, we are very often
obliged to mete out the same measure to a Peer
or a Minister. Turning, however, from him
to Mr. FROST, the hero of the feast, we learn that
he is still a Magistrate. The LORD CHANCELLOR
It appears, has not yet issued a new commission for
Newport, and Mr. FROST can still boast his corre-
spondence with the LORD CHANCELLOR and ,

Lord JOHN RUSSELL. Having no wish, we can
assure Mr. O'CoNNoR to hide the light of the
Convention, we have placed it on high in our
columns, and fearing, nevertheless, that it might
not be seen, we direct our readers' attention to the
mighty blaze.
Some of our Contemporaries are making; a
areat deal of the boastings of the physical-
force men at public meetings, and of the bra-
vado of an old man publicly selling pikes. We
hope that they have no sinister purpose to serve,
either of their own or of others, which will be far
more injurious to the community than all the boasting
of the Convention. The cunning and ambition
of Statesmen have in all ages done more mischief
to society than the frank violence of the Demo-
cracy.

We copy the following paragraph from the Pres,
ton Observer :

\Ve observe with the most profound regret that The
Sun, a Paper noted for its talent and liberality, has bcgua
to advocate the use of arms in the cause of Liberalism.
Yes as a means of advancing that holy cause of which it
has been so long the able and unflinching advocate, The
Sun advises that_the weapons of barbarism shall be uscd
those weapons which have never
.yet bezn wielded under
the pretence of advancing such a cause without leaving it
in a state of trier prostration—wounded, bleeding, and in
the very last gasp of existence. And no %Yonder! for we
might as well attempt to settle a disputed point in science
by a contest of bull-dogs as to establish the supremacy of
right by brutal force.
Our Contemporary, after quoting in a manner as
equally flattering to us as the above paragraph,
some observations of ours, proceeds to contend, at
considerable length, and with much eloquence, that
a moral triumph was never achieved by physical force.
We should regret still more than at present that
the great demands on our columns prevent us from
transferring to them the whole of our Contem-
porary's observations, had we the least inclination
to enter into any controversy with him. In the
main we agree with him, and notice the article
rather to set him right as to our opinions than to
dispute his doctrines. At the same time we can-
not agree with our Contemporary that no good
came of the employment of physical force by the
Dutch to throw off the yoke of Spain, by the
Commons of England to resist the despotism of
CHARLES 1., or by the inhabitants of the United
States to secure their independence. All those
events were great, and, as they were taken, necessary
steps in the progress of civilization, consecrating
and securing religious and civil liberty ; and we have
no reason to suppose that without than the present
state of society would have come into existence. At
the same time, imaginative persons may suppose,
that the progress of knowledge and the progress of
population would have insured religious and civil
liberty for the world, without the oppressed taking
up arms to resist ; but this supposition it must be
ever impossible to prove. It is safer to content our-
selves with noting what has happened, concluding
that every pre-existing event was the necessary pre-
cursor of the present condition of mankind.
Our principal purpose is to say that our Con-
temporary does us an injustice when he accuses us
"of beginning to advocate the use of., arms." We
did no such thing : but we said that we would not
go along with those Liberal Journals which con-
demned the people for talking of arming, and
sought to dissuade them from it. We gave no
advice either way. We stood neuter, or rather
dumb, and we disapproved of other Journals
for not following our example. We repudiated the
advice of the Chronicle, because that was inviting
oppression. The Government and the upper classes
have stimuli enough to play the part of tyrants,
without the Liberal Press heralding their way, by
assuring them that do what they will, the people
never can and never ought to resist them. These
who give that advice, have, we admit, a much
higher idea of the value and sanctity of the results
of the deliberations of Parliament, which are nicely
engrossed on parchment, than we have ; and till we
are convinced, both of the spotless virtue and in-
fallibility of legislators, we shall not believe that
the time has arrived when men should be advised to
submit, unquestioning, and unresisting, to their
decrees. Than the writer of these lines, there is
no greater enemy to violence—no greater friend to
peace, but he never can admit that one class in
society, or one set of opinions, is to have a mono-
poly of force. At present, in our humble judg-
ment, the armed physical force is arrayed on the
side of injustice ; and we cannot preach doctrines
which promise it impunity, and tempt it to con-
tinue its profligate career. GoD forbid that we
should advise our countrymen to arm themselves,
but neither will we counsel them to cast themselves
passively and unresistingly before the Juggernaut
of the Corn-laws, or sacrifice their wives and
children on the Moloch altars of the State
Church. We speak advisedly, because we have
before asserted, and now repeat, that the desire to
preserve the tithes, or the revenue of the State
Church, while rent is also preserved, makes the land-
lords of England disregard the affections, and court
the hatred of the people. To tell the Bishops who
voted for continuing the Corn-laws, and Sir J.
GRAHAM, who resisted Mr. VILLIERS' motion
because the Tithe Commutation Act imposed a
burden on the land, that, do what they will—that if
they increase the protecting duty to 100 s., and starve
still greater multitudes than at present out of
existence, those who remain must on no account
oppose their Army and their Yeomanry, is to make
ourselves parties to the continuance of injustice.
When men have recourse to the terrible alternative
of arms, they must do it on their own responsibility,
and shall from us have no advice on the subject.
We will venture to point out, indeed, how such a
horrible alternative may be surely avoided : Let
the Legislature set the people a good example.
Let it be honest and do justice. Let it abolish the
Corn-laws, and disband the Yeomanry. Let it
ttchynreeamrnc
itnronefi
rely
gt
nmtihlaekinites, cadoTein(cifii
stiltieanwnesi
fiannnoddt
cease to assume the character of the master and the
prituehrepflcoenr.nfitrcifeaenttcheii
never dream of - having recourse to arms, which it
will then, for the first time in its career, have set the
example of condemning.

We have no wish to make any remark at present on
dangerous,, and till nowp uens-si
E suhr
the late unfortunate occurrence near Hayes,r hurried by
out whichot
a fellow creature has been prematurely
the world ; yet we cannot refrain from ex
detestation of the den
habit which has lately sprung up in this country. Within
a few months three cases of assination have occurred,
two of which proved fatal, and the life of the third victim
was saved, almost by a miracle. Englishmen hitherto
had been in the habit of considering these crimes pecu-
liar to Italy and Spain. To their shame they must now
include England, and what adds to the ignominy is,
that the practice has made its appearance, not among
the ignorant and vulgar multitude, but among persons
of rank and education—a class who in this country have
long beer, considered incapable of anything like treachery
or foul play against an antagonist. A great outcry was
raised against the Commander-in-Chief for allowing sol-
diers to wear side-arms, but what was the bayonet com-
pared with the s,cret knife of the assassin ? The man
who quarrels with the soldier knows his danger, and by
strength, or skill, also might avert the strokes ; but
what can ingenuity, or skill, or strength do against a
weapon of a few inches long, which may be concealed
about the person, and drawn in a moment of passion
with fatal effect ? We would willingly impute some of
the late acts to madness, but we fear that those
are others than madmen, who arm themselves with
these dastardly and infamous weapons of defence. They
are openly exposed for sale, and so eommon, too, that
a foreigner, especially an Italian or Spaniard, writing
an account of the habits of Englishmen, might be ex-
cused for saying that every man was secretly armed with
a stilletto or dagger. If it is illegal to carry such
weapons, it ought to be illegal to expose them to sale ;
and we should rejoice to see those who hold out the
temptation the first punished.