The Sun.
London, England, 1849-07-07 00:00:00

THIt

placed, and the Hon. Gentleman and his friends should suc-
ceed. I take the doctrine as first propounded by Lord
Stanley. He said, on the let of February last :
not favourable
that it am
itis
necessary
to give to our
amount of protection which is necessary tot counterbalance
nce
any disadvantages that may arise from 41e admissionoft
se believe to be
foreign produce. We must return to the principle of protec-
tion. Foremost among the measures which v
essential to the prosperity of this great country is the recogni-
tion of this great principle, that legislative encouragement
ought to be given to every branch of domestic
propounded by the Hon.
industry.
(Cheers.) The same doctrine, as p "
Member for Buckinghamshire, is—
" That we have established a new commercial system,
which mistakes the principles upon which a profitable ex.
change can take place between nations; that we can only
encounter the hostile tariffs of foreign countries by counter-
vailing duties; that such a system occasions, not scarcity
and dearness, but cheapness and abundance. Hitherto, in
enforcing! the principles upon which the theory of reci-
procity
in commerce depends, I have laboured under the dis-
advantage of appealing only to abstract reasoning; now,
however, we have practical results before us in the sufferings
of our people and in the decline of our wealth."
That I utterly deny. But I come now to the merits of the
ctrine itself.— (Cheers.) I boldly maintain that the prin-
ciple of protection to domestic industry, meaning thereby
legislative encouragement for the purposes of protection, not
of revenue, is a vicious principle. I deny the Hon. Gentle-
man's assumption that you cannot fight hostile tariffs by free
imports. I so totally differ on that point that I maintain
your true policy is to compete with hostile tariffs by free im-
ports.-- (Loud cheers.) I deny that you ought to return to
protection as a principle, and I say that the wider you extend
vcur principle of protection, the greater injury you will in-
flict on the national wealth and on the interests of the people.
—(Cheers.) Surely the capital of the country is a fund from
which the industry of the country must be maintained.
Surely the industry of the country must be promoted in
proportion to the capital which can be employed in its ma-
nufactures. Surely the augmentation of capital, as our popu-
lation increases, must depend on the saving of annual re-
venue,—(Cheers.) If you choose to give for certain arti-
cles produced at home more than you can purchase those
articles for if it is to be brought from abroad, is it not a dimi-
nution of your annual revenue?—(Cheers.) If you say
"No, but protection will be extended over all," I can
only say that in proportion as you extent protection so
are you in proportion diminishing annual revenue—so are
you diminishing the fund from which the capital of the
country can alone be augmented; so are you diminishing the
means by which the industry of the country can be em-
ployed; and all this protection, all this giving of high prices
for that which you can purchase at lower prices, so far from
encouraging domestic industry, is first an interference by do-
mestic legislation with capital; in the next place it is a di-
minution of annual income by giving more for a thing
than it is worth.—(Cheers.) My belief is that the laws which
regulate the intercourse of nations in the accumulation of
wealth are precisely the same laws which regulate the deal-
ings of individuals—(Cheers)—that as the law which regu-
lates the planetary movements is the same as that which
accounts for the earthquake, so the law which regulates the
dealings of individuals is in principle the law which regu-
lates the commercial intercourse of powerful communities;
and we mystify the subject, and make it unintelligible, by
not considering the principle which regulates the dealings of
men of common sense. Dr. Adam Smith illustrates the
great truths of political economy by the case of individuals.
He says the tailor does not make his own shoes, but &ids it
more convenient to buy them from a man who can make
them better and cheaper than he. Nor does the shoe-
maker make his own clothes, but he takes them from the
tailor. Let us take two individuals living in the same town.
Take a tailor and a shoemaker. Supposing the shoemaker
determines to levy from the tailor a certain amount of goo,ts
which is represented by 10s. What are the 10s.? They
merely represent hours of labour. Instead of 10s. call them
hours of labour. The labour of an hour is worth Is. The
tailor can make goods which are worth 10s. ; the shoemaker
can make certain goods which are worth 10s. But each of
them could buy the same goods in a neighbouring town for
7s. You say they live in the same town, and they are to
deal together. If the shoemaker pays 10s. for that which he
might obtain for 75., and if the tailor pays 10s. for that which
be might obtain for 75., is there not positively a loss of 6s.
by that transaction ?—(Cheers.) If the shillings represented
hours, is there not a loss of six hours' labour ?—(Cheers.)
Would it rot be manifestly for the interest of the parties to
appropriate seven hours of labour to buy from the stranger
that for which they are giving 10s., or 10 hours' labour ;
and would they not do it? Suppose they argued thus—
house-rent is higher in this town than in the other. Would
that be a reason why they should pay 3s. more for their boots?
Suppose they said, 'the coat of provisions was higher in this
than in the neighbouring town ; I should like to ask whether
it would conduce to the interest and wealth of the community
if, instead of dealing with the neighbouring town for goods
which they can purchase for 75., they gave 10s. to their
own? There is a loss of 3s. to each party, or of 6s. in all
by the transaction; but taking the money to represent la-
bour, each loses three hours' labour. But it isaid that
under a system which is not protective all the currency of
the country would be taken away. Don't you believe that
the town will retain all the currency which answers to its
purpose, that no inconvenient abstraction of currency is ne-
cessary, but that the interest of each party will be promoted
by purchasing in the cheapest market—(Hear, hear)—the
articles far which they have a demand? I use the words
" purchasing in the cheapest market." You say that it is a
very low and unworthy principle ; that it is a doctrine of the
Manchester school; that it is also the doctrine of some
speculative political philosophers; and that it is to be
discarded.—(Laughter.) The doctrine of purchasing in
the cheapest market is not a doctrine of speculative philo-
sophers. It is not a doctrine introduced by modern econo-
mists. It is certainly a doctirne sanctioned expressly and
directly by the authority of Adam Smith. It is the doctrine
also of Say and of Hume. It was opposed to a doctrine
which was fashioned about eighty years since ; it was
brought to bear against the doctrine promulgated by Mon-
tesquieu and Voltaire; but Smith, and Say, and Ilume
showed what were the true principles which regulate com-
mercial transactions. There were others, however, who ,
adopted those doctrines. When this country was suffering
from a great depression of trade, certain practical men, mer-
chants and bankers of London, in the year 1820, presented
a petition under the sanction of the honoured name of Alex-
ander Baring; and those merchants and bankers suffering
in their trade propounded this doctrine, that the maxim of
buying in the cheapest market and selling in the dearest,
which regulates every merchant in his individual
dealings, is strictly applicable as the best rule for the
trade of the whole world.—(Cheers.) They maintained
also this doctrine, that although it might be possible to
answer your purpose by imposing countervailing duties and
subjecting imports from another country to prohibitive or
restrictive duties, with the view of inducing that country to
admit your goods, yet, when the hope of making that alter-
ation successfully failed, it was then manifestly a loss and
injury to yourselves to impose on the produce of another
country restrictions with the intent of encouraging your own
domestic manufactures. They laid down that doctrine ex-
pressly and clearly
"That, although as a matter of mere diplomacy it may
sometimes answer to hold but the removal of particular pro-
hibitions or high duties, as depending upon corresponding
concessions by other states in our favour, it does not follow
that we should maintain our restrictions in cases where the
desired concessions on their part cannot be obtained ; our
restrictions would not be the less prejudicial to our own
capital and industry because other Governments persisted in
preserving impolitic regulations."
Mr. NE WDEGATE—What is the year?
eelgfiBta2tofe.r
oammTihadespt
eHtguorsent.l t
olfa Gentlemanuitgh( htearnad whdgi 1
cl
thdheeeerrvi
svo)e: .meSaei tr
tpitor
,c ca. E
NEI 'b
—nd
That petition was presented by Lord Ashburton when Mr.
Alexander Baring, and enforced by him with the greatest
earnestness.— (Cheers.)
Mr. NEWDEGATE—The petition was presented the
year after your Act of 1819.-- (" Hear, hear," from Mr.
Spooner.)
Sir B. PEEL—The Hon. Member says the petition was
presented within a year of 1819. We will discuss that ques-
tion whenever he pleases; but, in the meantime, he will not
deny that, whatever were the causes of the distress existing
in 1820, the merchants and bankers of London declared to
the House of Commons that free trade was the proper re-
medy.—(Loud cheers.) It is said, we cannot fight hostile
tariffs with free imports. That is an epigrammatic way of
stating the case. But the Hon. Gentleman the Member for
Buckinghamshire says also, that the only way we can encoun-
ter hostile tariffs is by countervailing duties. Let me dispas-
sionately and closely examine this position. If it applies to
this country, it may apply to Russia, France, and the United
States as well. Take the United States. The United States
imposes duties on our manufactures—say 20 per cent. on our
cotton goods; and, admitting that we maintain a not very
successful competition in the markets of the United States,
what course are we to take ? We must, it is said, have coun-
tervailing duties on America. Would it be wise to have a
high duty on raw cotton ?—(Cheers.) What good should
we gain? The complaint is on the part of the English cot-
ton manufacturer. He says, "I meet the United States
manufacturer in neutral markets; I meet him in his own
market; but in the neutral markets I maintain my ground. 1i
What is the course I should take ? Impose.:countervailing
duties on the produce of America"—that is, chiefly on raw
materials, and no doubt cotton will be among the foremost.
Will you tell me how you favour the manufacturer by im-
posing a duty upon his cotton ? Will you tell me what other
class you would favour by that exception ? We are not now
talking of imposing these duties for the purpose of extorting
from America some concessions—we are testing the great
commercial principle, whether countries having a hostile
tariff are to be fought by imposing countervailing duties. I
contend against that doctrine. I say you will more suc-
cessfully combat the disadvantages under which you labour
by buying your raw materials in the cheapest market; and
never was there such a mistake as to suppose that by im-
posing duties upon cotton or raw materials—that is counter-
vailing duties upon the produce of countries hostile to you—
you give any compensation to the manufacturer of any one
particular article, or do anything but diminish capital and
lv)euesi
trshe
stimulated.atrrhadenwe meansa Lres rbo
ueytl
ourdwu hws
cotton
tecoahithmt
eyo
pno:u.
grr
aoohowcd
ens d oFun
oae
wns t
ci
ecshoNiovnnui
esnrtNorvNtyve
wines
dsaeeksta toe
ld
Treaty in your legislation ; by thee
If so, you are going to embodvsteha heavy duty
er cui
epnl eTorfe at
th3e,
v‘ll,ilteht hpuoern.
WO, because that country undertook to admit our woollen
goods, you admitted her port wines on a better footing
trheaant
yy
had
ua
dt oboeke
nt hper
inceasl
lyo f France.
abrogated
tthh thought that that t
unanimousthe
persons of experience on the
we reduced the duty on foreign
subject.goodw i l and
However,
in of all
brandy; it was 225. 6d., and we reduced it to 15s. What
has been the consequence? Have we suffered from that
course ?—(Hear.) Has the advantage bees an advantage to
France alone? If, instead of reducing the duty from
225. 6d. to 15s. we had maintained it, we should have had
to pay a dearer price for our brandy, and certainly should
have gained nothing in revenue. You reduced the
duty on brandy without asking for any equivalent conces-
sion. You reduced it from 225. 6d. to 15s. You got good
brandy, by a good legal trade, at a less price—l suppose the
price of brandy has fallen.—(Hear, hear.) Has the revenue
fallen by that reduction ?—(Hear, hear.) In 1845, the reve-
nue from brandy was 1,208,000'., the duty was then 22a. 6d. ;
you reduced it to 155.. and, in 1848, the revenue was
1,207,0001. There was little or no reduction of duty, there
was an increase of importation, a reduction of price to the
consumer, a reduction of smuggling—every advantage and
no corresponding disadvantage. How should we have visited
France? What should we have gained by fighting a hostile
tariff with countervailing duties? No. We reduced the duty
notwithstanding her hostile tariff, and nothing but advan-
tage has been gained. We are dissatisfied with Russia. We
think the Russian is a restrictive tariff. Would it be any
advantage to lay a heavy duty on the raw produce of Russia
—upon her tallow, upon articles we use in our own manu-
factures? I admit it would be for the interest of free trade
--for the interest of those countries, to reduce their tariff;
and nothing but the interest of powerful individuals induces
the Governments of those countries, to the manifest injury
of the great body of the people, to keep up those restrictive
duties. (Hear, hear) I admit that if they would reduce
them it would be for the benefit of our commerce. But, if
I cannot get that, I utterly deny thst we should gain any
advantage by countervailing duties upon articles of raw
materials imported from those countries which are unwilling
tO take our manufactured goods ; and, therefore, I lab

wow, Lownom

a ithout the slightest compromise, that the doctrine of Lord
Stanley, that we must return to protection as a principle,
is an erroneous doctrine—(Hear)—that, when he says
we must extend legislative encouragement to every
branch of domestic industry, you may redress the injury
you do to the particular class you favour with protection,
but you are widening the circle by the damage you inflict on
the consumer of those articles, and are extending the in-
jury to the revenue, and the consequent augmentation of
capital. I deny thellon. Gentleman's policy of meeting hos-
tile tariffs by countervailing duties. I believe a return to
reciprocity is more difficult than the maintenance of those
duties—that the reversal of the system upon which you
have been acting would be accompanied by difficulties that
would make it impossible for you to succeed, and that you
have no alternative but to maintain that which you have
acquired from free trade, and gradually to extend the prin-
ciple so far as your revenue will allowlit. These are the
grounds upon which I join issue with the Hon. Gentleman,
and upon which I deprecate altogether the success of a mo-
tion which would displace the Noble Lord and the advocates
of commercial freedom, for the purpose of placing in their
situation those who would contend for countervailing duties,
which they call protection to domestic industry, but which,
I believe, would be nothing but a discouragement and detri-
ment to that industry.— (Hear.) Feeling most grateful to the
House for their attention—(Hear, hear)—l now proceed to
the last topic to which I shall advert—that which formed a
principal part of the argument of the Noble Lord who spoke
last—namely, the agricultural condition of the country. I
can say with truth, I view the depression of that great in-
terest with deep concern. I deeply regret the suffering that
prevails among the agriculturists. So far as personal inte-
rest is concerned all my personal interest is in the interest of
agriculture, and if that consideration could bias fora moment
the views of a public man, I should feel as much as any
one could the depression that exists.—(Loud cheers.) I
apprehend the real meaning of this motion is—at least it
is one of its meanings; and, indeed, after the notice given
to-night there cannot be a doubt of it—that one of the con-
sequences of the success of this motion would be the resto-
ration of the protection of agriculture—that is, the re-impo-
sition of the duties on the food of the people.—(Hear.) I
can with truth say, as an agricultnrist, that any more fatal
boon could not be offered to the agriculturists than any
such protection as that which you profess to give.—(Hear. )
I intreat the agriculturists to consider the real value of this
protection. The Noble Lord said, that in 1836 the agricul-
turists had very low prices; but then they had abundant
produce, and that there were no complaints. I totally differ
from the Noble Lord. They had low prices in consequence
of the abundant home produce, because there were no means
of exporting that domestic produce; but the Noble Lord is
entirely in error in supposing that at that period there were
no complaints.—(Hear, hear.) I myself sat with others on a
Committee which inquired into the condition of agriculture,
and attempted to suggest a remedy. Ido intreat the
Noble Lord's attentive consideration, if he be here. This
was the amount of protection to agriculture at the
time of which I speak. In 1833, 1834, and 1836, the
duty on foreign wheat, when the price was less than 635.
was 11. 4s. Bd. ; when it was less than 675., IL Bd.; when it
was under 625.,-, 11. ss. Bd.; abundant protection, so
far as law could give protection. Meat and fresh meat were
absolutely prohibited—animals of all kinds serving fur
subsistence were prohibited. Let us take the price of wheat.
In 1835 the average price was 525. 11d. ; the lowest price
was 495. 2d. In 1834 the average price was 465. 2d. ; the
lowest price was 40s. Ed. In 1835 the average price was
395. 4d.—it having at one time fallen so low as 363.—with
protection carried to an extravagant degree.—(llear.) Was
it owing to the importation of foreign corn? Foreign
corn was absolutely practically prohibited by the amount
of duty. In 1833 the whole amount of wheat imported
was 82,000 quarters; in 1834, 64,000 quarters; and in 1835,
28,000 quarters. The Noble Lord says there were no com-
plaints. Ido assure the Noble Lord that there are no com-
plaints now made with regard to the state of agriculture at
the present period which at all correspond with the com-
plaints made at that time.—(Hear, hear.) Although you
had extravagant protection it would not secure you from
the consequence of very low prices. The Committee was ap-
pointed in 1836; very intelligent and respectable men were
sent to represent the interests of agriculture upon that Com-
mittee. I look at the evidence they gave. If you take
the evidence of all, without exception, it will correspond in
its character. I thought it would be fair to take the evi •
dente of the six first witnesses who were chosen on the part
of the agriculturists to represent their condition. Recollect,
you had abundant harvests, the exclusion of foreign corn,
and extravagant protection. What was the state of agri-
culture? Iwill take any number of the witnesses; but I take
the first six because, perhaps, they are the most prominent
agriculturists :
The first witness, John Buckwell, says, "he farmed 700
acres near Leekhampstead, Buckinghamshire. This winter
had sold wheat at 4s. 6d. per bushel. The lowest price at
which we can grow wheat is 565. a quarter. Now we have
not above 40s. Within twenty years there has been a con-
siderable change of tenantry. 'When new ones have come
they have gone within a few years. He was asked • Why?'
and his answer was, Because they could not stand any
longer.' What has become of them?'—' They have gone
to the workhouse.' Have they been men of prudence and
character ?'--' Yes, in general.' John Houghton, the next
witness, farmed, on his own account, in Berkshire, Middle-
sex, Northampton, Sussex, and Buckinghamshire. Received
rents in those counties, and also Lincoln, Surrey, and Suffolk.
Wheat ruinously low on clay lands. Rent paid out of capi-
tal. Mr. Cayley asked him, 'At what period did this distress
you speak of commence?' His answer was, From 1828 and
1829. Up to the present period we have been gradually get-
ting worse.' Mr. John Rolfe was the next witness : —he
says, There has been no amelioration in the condition of
the farmer since 1833. The very reverse, continued de-
pression, loss of capital and ruin to the farmers.' You do
not speak of improvident men?' No. I know several
farmers that are on the brink of ruin. They are penny-
less. They are really hard-working, industrious men, and
deserve every encouragement. They are sinking in con--
sequence of the fall of prices.' Mr. John Curtis, the
next witness, thinks the capital of the farmer has con-
siderably diminished. Sees an alteration for the worse
in the farmers. Last year paid his landlord's rent one-
half out of his capital. At the present price of pro-
duce could not afford to pay any rent whatever; and that
is the case generally with the farmers in his neighbour-
hood. Mr. John Kemp says he farms 500 acres in Essex,
of good quality ; very little clay. 'As a farmer you are
in distress?'—` Undoubtedly so.' That distress has been
increasing gradually ? '—‘ For the last eight years we were
in a deplorable condition. The capital of the farmers has
very much diminished. We were in that state in 1831.
But for the good crops of 1832 half the farmers in our
county would have been obliged to stop.' Mr. William
Thurnall, Cambridgeshire, a farmer, miller, maltster, oil
crusher, and general corn merchant, farms 400 acres.
Lost the whole rent of his farm last year, and 3001. the
year before.' Mr. Cayley—' What is the condition
of the tenantry generally in your neighbourhood ? '
I think verging on insolvency generally—in the most
desperate state that men can possibly be. My book debts
with the farmers are not worth lbs. in the pound. I dare
scarcely open a letter, knowing the state of the farmers, fear-
ing it may contain notice of some bad debt.' Are these
men, verging on insolvency, men of prudent character and
industrious habits? I am speaking only of that class of
men. I would not trouble the Committee with any others.'
And yet they are on the verge of ruin? Yes ; not only
in Cambridge, but, generally speaking, great part of Norfolk,
Suffolk, and Essex.'"

That is the evidence of the first six witnesses examined by
the Agricultural Committee, and I now ask the Noble Lord
(Lord March) whether he is not wrong in supposing that in
1e36 the abundance of produce compensated the farmer for
low prices- (Cheers)-and that there were no complaints
from the farmers in 1836 and 1837 ? I trusted that in 1842,
when the duties were removed, and when the prohibition was
taken off foreign cattle, that their condition would be im-
proved, and I-not denying the depression which exists, but
deeply lamenting it-still trust that there is undue apprehen-
sion and depression on the part of the farmer. I entreat them
to consider if it is not possible that the imports of foreign
corn have been governed by other considerations than those
which influence the usual course of trade entreat them to
reflect if we have not imported more corn iaan wet should
otherwise have wanted-it there has not been
the import of corn, and whether we may not hoptrtelLtolro one
corn has been unduly depreciated in consequence of circum-
stances unconnected with free trade.-(Cheers.) That is my
impression. I earnestly hope the apprehensions they enter-
tain, and have entertained for some time back, may be exag-
gerated ; but I entreat them also to consider this, that you
never could, in the present state of public opinion, have
maintained a law which would have given you a gua-
rantee for high prices under unfavourable circumstances.
(Loud cheers.) In the south and west of Ireland your harvest
was deficient-the quality was inferior- probably the greater
part of the corn grown was not worth 40s. a quarter. It
might have been possible, I admit, to have devised a law to
get the price up to aos. or even to (Os. per quarter. There
would, in that case, have been some temporary compensation,
but it would have been at the risk of creating disaffection and
discontent which woula have greatly outweighed the ad-
vantage of the high prices gained by legislative intervention.
-(Loud cheers.) In the concluding part of his speech, the
Hon. Gentleman (Mr. Disraeli) alluded to the condition of
the labouring classes. He said he thought the tendency of
recent legislation had been to lower the condition of our
people; and he described them as members of a powerful
hierarchy, the greatest in the world. That is rather a ro-
mantic and poetical view of the condition of the labouring
classes.-(Cheers and laughter.) Let me indulge in mere
prose and in a practical view of the real condition in which
a member of this great hierarchy actually was in the year
1842. Let me take the position of a mechanic at Paisley,
or of a labourer in Dorset, or one of the southern counties.
Let me suppose that in 1842 each of them was in receipt
of 10s. a week, or, more nearly, let us say 12s. a week
for the mechanic and Bs. for the labourer. You may
from this judge what deductions you ought to
make from this 125. and Bs. a week for house
rent for clothes and medical attendance. Suppose, too, that
he had a family of three or five children to support, and then
will you just let me call your recollection to the state of the
taxation which affected his subsistence in 1842 ? Will you,
in the first place, consider, when you contend that what has
been done by the House has had a tendency to lower the
condition and to interfere with the comforts of that man,
what he was likely to require for the consumption of his
family? Take him as paying Is. 6d. a week for lodging and
clothing, and ask how much he was to pay for his wheat.
Turn over in your mind everything he is likely to consume.
Well, this was the state of taxation I found when I became
the First Lord of the Treasury in 1842.
" In 1842 :-all animals-oxen, sheep, calves, swine, pro-
hibite.l; beef, fresh or slightly salted, prohibited; pork, fresh,
prohibited ; salted beef, 12s. per cwt. ; pork, ditto ; bacon,
28s. per cwt. ; potatoes, 2s. per cwt. ; lard, Bs. per cwt.; hams,
of all kind, 28s. per cwt.; cheese. 102. 6d. per cwt.; butter,
20s. per cwt. ; tallow candles, 31.35. i4d. per cwt. Wheat,
price 655, per quarter; duty, 11. 6s. Bd.; oats, price 255. per
quarter; duty, 9s. 3d. ; barley, price 335. per quarter; duty
12s. 4d. ; Indian corn, the same."
Indian corn-mark-the great resource of the Irish people
during the famine in 1842, had a duty attached to it of
12s. 4d., depending on the price of barley.-(Cheers.) But,
Sir, it pleased the House to reduce those duties. My belief
is that a wiser decision than that to which you then came,
to subject property to direct taxation within certain limits-
to remove the prohibition from foreign cattle-to permit
swine and oxen to be imported-to reduce the duty on corn,
on sugar, on lard, on butter, and on cheese-you never made.
-(Loud cheers.) My belief is, not only that it was a wise
one, but that you ,have been amply repaid for any
loss you
may have sustained by that reduction.- (Cheers.) My
belief is that you have by so doing gained the confidence and
goodwill of powerhil classes in this country-(Cheers)-by
parting with that which was thought to be directly for the
benefit of the landed interest of the country.-(Cheers.) I
think it was that confidence in the generosity and justice of
Parliament which in no small degree enabled you to pass
triumphantly through that storm which convulsed other
nations during the year 1848.-(Cheers.) I think that if in
1842 you had not made those reductions, and had not sub-
jected property to direct taxation, or relieved the labouring
classes from the manifold impositions to which their subsis-
tence was liable, that the strength of your institutions is such
you might have rode through the storm, but that you would
not have rode through it with the satisfaction of knowing
you had the cordial support, the confidence and goodwill,
in your hour of peril, of those who depend for their
subsistence on the wages of labour.-(Loud cheering.)
Your metropolis did indeed present a majestic spectacle,