The Sun.
London, England, 1846-02-28 00:00:00

THE STYN LONDON, SATURDAY E'VEN'I

against his personal honour to tamper with his constituents. It
was his personal honour to give up his time day and night to
study the interests of his electors and of the country. And to
give a modern instance, suppose a person came into
that House, who was comparatively ignorant
of the different questions of political economy.
It was his personal honour to make himself master of those ques-
times, in order to be able to know how to give his vote with
\ judgement. It was also his duty to throw over board any
Idegree of character for personal consistency, in order to obtain
a much higher degree of character, as an efficient servant of
the general interest; of the people. That was his idea of the
personal honour of a Member of that House. It had been
stated by the Hon. Gentleman, the Member for Dorsetshire,
that he had considered it almost impossible for any Government
Ito have formed so strange and sweeping &measure of commercial
policy as that which was now preposed to be adopted.
From the year 1842, when the Right Hon. Baronet at
head of the Treasury, and the late Vice-President of the
Board of Trade, made their speeches on the Corn Bill which
was introduced into the House, he (Mr. Eseott) not only
anticipated some such measure as the present, but he told every
man who thought proper to ask his opinion, that some such
measure must be the inevitable consequence of the Bill that
was then introduced. There were some persons of distin-
guished station, to whom he was under some obligations for
many acts of condescension, who had done him the honour to
consult him on matters of public affairs. He told those indi-
viduals, distinctly and freely, that the total repeal of
taxes on imports would be necessary in consequence
of the principles which had been laid down
by the Right Hon. Baronet and the late Vice-President of the
Board of Trade. The occurrences since 1842 had only ren-
dered it more apparent that some such change as the present
must be introduced. Year after year, up to the present time,
they had heard debates on the corn-laws, but he had never
heard during the whole of that time one single argument
brought forward in defence of the principle of the corn-laws
from that bench. (The Hon. Gentleman then pointed to the
Ministerial bench, and was interrupted with cries of " No, no.")
He had heard very clever speeches to avoid the question alto-
gether, bat certainly had not heard the principle ads
vocated. The Hon. Member for Somersetshire him-
self, without the aid of the Anti-Corn.law League, would
have upset any corn-law that might have been made.
His Hon. Friend the Member for Somersetshire had said, that
he never rose to speak of the corn-laws without the horror of
abundance before his eyes. Whatever was before hire horrible
in form and aspect was sure to have a cornucopia in his hand.
But while his Hon. Friend had such a horror of plenty, he
could tell him that the people in his own county, ix his own
immediate vicinity, were obliged to depend upon turnips for
their daily subsistence, and on the products which the mildneFs
of the season and the kindness of Providence had allowed to
come forth. It would not do to talk to him of speeches that
had been spoken five years ago. He had never given
a vote in that House, but in favour of relaxing protective
duties.—( Hear, hear.) He had seen his Hon. Friend the
Member for Somersetshire present 110 petitions against the
corn-laws, and every one of those petitions stated that the
corn-laws and the tariff were the destruction of agriculture.
He told the farmers that the very cern-law which last year
threatened their entire ruin, was this year the only thing that
would save them. Now, what must the farmers think ? They
were persons of as much intelligence as any of the middling
classes in this country, and could tell as well as roost persons
what faith to put in the representations of others. And the
most honest way of acting would be at once to tell them
that the existing corn-laws will shortly exist no longer.
He would now come to the great question of all, which was—
" What is to become of the land?" Now, the principal argu-
inent which he had heard repeated over and over again—and it
was stated first in order by the Hon. Member for the Univer-
sity of Oxford, and not more strongly by any Hon. Member
since, but it had been refuted a great number of times during
the debate—that argument was this, that such a measure as this
should not be carried, for if it should be, it would ruio the in-
stitutions of the country. He (Mr. Escott) owned that he
was perfectly astonished on hearing that argument used by
Hon. :Members ; for what were the institutions of the country ?
The Church ? The courts of law ? The Houses of Parlia-
ment? Did they mean to put the preservation of the institu-
tions of the country upon the maintenance of a restriction on
the importation of fool in the time of scarcity, or of appre-
hended scarcity? Because, if they did, lie woulditell them plainly '
that never were the institutions in any free country ever ,
defended by such an argument, and never could they be de-
fended by such an argument. What did Pitt say about appre-
hension of scarcity? Did he get up and talk about protection,
and the danger of injuring the institutions of the country? No;
he endeavoured to abolish every vestige of protection. He
said that the first duty of a Minister of the Crown was to take
care that the people should be fed.—( Cheers. ) He (Mr.
Escott) should like to know whether the Hon. Member fur the
University of Oxford would like to close the ports against the
importation of food ?—( Cheers.) He (Mr. Escott) did not see
the Hon. Member for Shrewsbury in his place, and he regretted
that he was not, because he spoke very eloquently on that
point. He said that the carrying of this measure would ruin
the valuable institutions of the country, and he said that the
party that had proposed this measure had ne right to do any
such thing. He ( Mr. Escott) remembered that Hon. Member
delivered a very able lecture in that House some time ago
on the political history of the country, and he remembered him
saying in very vigorous language to the Noble Lord( J. Russell)
and the Right Hon. Gentleman opposite, who constituted the
great Whig party, " You Whigs have no right to claim free
trade, whatever else may be your merits; it was Pitt that pro-
pagated the great doctrine oftfree trade." Pitt, the great Tory
Minister, he said, had done that. And yet the Hon. Member
for Shrewsbury had said to the Right Hon. Baronet at the head
of the Government, "You are a traitor to your party, for espous-
ing principles of this kind, whatever be the necessities of the
country, because your party should necessarily keep up a re-
strictive policy." He would notdetain the House much longer
upon this subject. Ile for his own part thought that
the institutions of the country could not be injured by any thing
so much as the restriction of the supply of the people's
food in times of scarcity. Honourable Gentlemen had said
that the present scarcity, or the apprehension of that scarcity,
had been greatly exaggerated. It was exaggerated, or it was
not. Now, the Right Honourable Gentleman the Recorder
of Dublin and the Member for the University of Dublin went
so far as to say that in the greater number of the counties in
Ireland, there was actually no necessity at all—that there was
an average supply of potatoes at the present time. Now, on
inquiry, he found persons corning from Ireland who stated to
him—he would say it with every respect for the statements of
the Right Hon. Gentleman—that there was no foundation
whatever in the Right Honourable Gentleman's statements.
The question then came to this—which was to be believed ?
Was he to believe the Right Hon. Gentleman the Reeoeder
for Dublin, or was he to believe the papers that were on the
table of the House, and which were the accounts of

Roman Catholic clergymen and clergymen of the Esta
hiished Church, and of all other excellent persons who were
sending to this country from day to day accounts of the dread
of the scarcity that was coming upon them in a very short
space of time.—( Hear, hear.) Was it then false that they
went to the potato-pits and found them one mass of rottenness?
He certainly would confess, that with all the respect due to the
statements of the Right Honourable Gentleman, he was
prepared to believe the statements of such a numerous body
rather than that of the Right Hon. Gent lerman, who he believed
was misinformed on the matter. But Hon. Members came to
that House for the purpose of stating the results of their own
experience. Ile would state what was going on in certain
parts of England where he resided. The people there found
that at least one-half of the potato crop had been destroyed,
and the potato, he was sorry to say, was the greater portion of
the subsistence of the people. The wheat crop was also very
deficient in that district, and it was very much to be feared that
the crops of the next summer would be deficient.—(Hear,
hear.) He would then ask them whether in order to pre-
serve the institutions of the country it was necessary to keep
up a restriction on the importation of food, when in Ireland
perhaps more than one-fourth, and when in England at least
one-fourth of the food of the people was destroyed ?
His Hon. Friend the Member for the University of Oxford
had used certain expressions lin his speech which he (Mr.
seott) wished he had not heard. Ile said," Do not disturb the
peaceable and prosperous state of things." (Protectionist
cheers.) Quieta non movere.—,,Haar, hear.) He believed
in his conscience that within three short months from this
time, around his own dwelling, the quiet which the Lion.
Member would not disturb would be a cry from the grave
complaining of the deficiency of the food of the people, and he
believed that in two-thirds of Ireland there would be a similar

cry. What did theilion. Member mean by saying Quiela non
tnovere? Did he mean to say that in order to support the
institutions of the country it was necessary to restrict
the food of the people? If he (Mr. Escott) would look back into
past times he would find that with the present corn-laws we
have had distress even in the agricultural districts ; and if he
would go further back he would find that even with the former
corn-law, we have had the most severe agricultural distress.
And yet, this was the state of things that Hon. Gentlemen
would protect. What he wanted to know was, whether in
maintaining the corn-laws Hon. Gentlemen wished to keep the
price of corn high or not ? If they did not mean to raise the
price of corn, how 'was protection good fur agri-
culturists. If they mean to raise the price of corn, then
they wished to keep this food of the people dear and scarce.
Last session he took the liberty of making a motion, which had
been alluded to by the Right lion. Baronet at the head of the
Government three times since the commencement of the pre •
sent debate, and that motion related to the introduction of
maize duty free. At that time he did think the introduction
of maize would be very beneficial to the agriculturists, as
well as the country at largo, for he thought that it would be
a means of accelerating the repeal of the corn-laws,
as, indeed, that object had, in this instance, been accelerated
by the failure of the potato and wheat crops. He did not
anticipate that failure; but he believed that the introduction
of maize, duty free, would enable farmers to feed their stock
without having recourse to the food of the people. But he
never for one moment imagined that the importation of maize
alone would make up for the deficiency of a bad harvest ; all
the object he had in view in making that motion was the ac-
celeration of the repeal of the corn-laws. If the farmers had
maize they would be enabled to feed more cattle, and we
should consequently have more butcher's meat At the
time that he gave notice of his motion, he made
inquiries from several farmers and cattle dealers, who
t,aversed a district of country twenty miles long and fifteen
wide, comprising all kinds of land and all species of reral occu-
pation. He asked one of the farmers of that district, whether
ne did not think that in the course of last winter he would have
saved a great deal of money had he been able to purchase
maize duty free; and his reply was, that he certainly would,
and that one out of every twenty of his cattle died from sheer
starvation. Now it so happened that in that very district an
enterprising man lived, who had an immense quantity of maize,
which he had imported from the United States, but which, in
consequence of the high duty upon it no one could purchase it;
so that the present system of protection, instead of bring bene-
cial, was injurious to the farmers.—( Hear.) It was said that
this measure would ruin the small farmers. Now he lived in a
' county abounding with small farmers, and he was on intimate
terms with many of them, and he was informed by them that
they would be much benefited if they could purchase maize
and other such articles free of duty. One of those small farmers
had told him that he had lost at least 101. in the shape of duty
paid on maize. He (Mr. Escott) did not believe that the pass-
ing of this measure would cause so much ruin, or, on the other
hand, so much happiness to this country, as appeared to be
anticipated. Did Honourable Gentlemen who had spoken
think that they could govern the country with the
Duke of Richmond as their leader ? He believed that even
the Duke of Buckingham would fill the office of Prime Mi-
nister better. The Duke of Richmond had an affection for
two sayings—one was his prophecy about wool, which they all
knew to be entirely fallacious ; and the other was his saying to
the effect, that in Sussex they did net grow glass, but timber.
He did not believe that the country could be governed by
a Government of which that Noble Duke was a member.
'They wished to find some leader in whom they could repose,
and who would stand between them and their opponents, and
lead them to a successful victory. About five years ago they
found such a man ; and now, when he refuses to lead them to
battle against the interests of the people, they were determined
to dismiss him from his command.
Mr. CHRISTOPHER—No, no.
Mr. B. ESCOTT— rhe Hon. Member for Lincolnshire
dissents from that. He (Mr. Escott) however believed that
it was not the interest of the leader of a great party to lead
that party against the people. They (the protectionists) had
had such a leader and they had now discarded him. Now he
supposed that they meant to do the battle of protection on
their own account.—(" Hear, hear," and cheers from the
Protectionists.) He hoped, in order to avoid deceiving the
farmer, that they would at once tell him what they thought
would be the probable issue of this struggle, and whether it
would cod is victory or dokst.—(Bear, kw.) If they

thought—as ha thought they must—that the issue would be
defeat, had they not better give up the contest at once, and
submit to the fate which they could not avoid —(" Hear,
hear," and " No, ne")—when they consider that the people
are already in great want—(" No, no," from Mr. Miles and
the protectionists.) The Hon. Member for Somersetshire says
that the people are not in want.—( Hear, hear.) He wished
the Hon. Member had been in the House when he stated the
condition of the people in the county of which he (Mr. Miles)
was Member. If the Hon. Member would read the returns
which had been laid on the table of the House, they
would tell him whether the people were in want or
not. He said, "they were not in want." Ho was the
first person he had heard who had the hardihood
to deny that there was any want ?—(Hear, hear.) He would
like to know whether he thought that—in the case of a parish in
his (Mr. Miles's) county, where the people are kept alive by
subscription, where peas and pulse are sent up to keep them
alive—that was an indication of pro'perity.—( Hear, hear. )
Mr. MILES did not know that stitch a state existed in any
parish in his county.
Mr. B. ESCOTT—The Hon. Member says he does net
know it. He (Mr. Escott) was aware of that; he know that
he did not—if he did, he would not have expressed such an
horror of the coming m .untain of corn.--( Hear, hear.) Ha
would not have made such a speech as he did a few nights since,
had he been aware of those facts ; he was possessed of too good,
too intelligent, and too generous a mind.—( Hear, hear.)
Mr. MILES was not aware that he had ever expressed any
feeling of horror upon the subject of the importation of corn.
Mr. B. ESCOTT had never heard the Hon. Member make
a speech without it. It was his staple artiele. --(Hear, hear.)
He aiway dreaded the overflow of foreign corn. He was al-
ways dolorous upon the subject, and he had helped them to
the position which they now occupied, more than any other
Hon. Member connected with that Houle, or even with the
League, by greasing the wheels of the cart ; although he
(Mr. Miles) would not allow the grease to be imported, until
he was assured by the Government that tar should be mixed
with the grease, to prevent its being sold for butter.—(Hear,
hear.) He (Mr. Escett) believed that no person would be
more anxious few the success of the present measure, if he
thought it conducive to the interests of the people, than would
the Hon. Member for Somersetshire.

Cap'ain OLADSTON E should briefly state the reasons
which induced him to give his rote in favour of the Hon.
Member for Somersetshire's amendment. He considered it a
painful duty to oppose the Government on the present question,
but he trusted that, upon a future occasion, he should be able
to afford him his wonted support. He would have been quite
ready to support Ministers on the present measure, provided
those measure had been proposes upon the same principle as
they had previously acted—namely, a gradual reduction of the
duty on raw materials. He considered that when protection
to agriculture was removed, all rotection must cease.—( Hear. )
The An'i-Corn-law League seemed aware of this fact, and
it was for this reason they attacked the corn question first—
they knew that they would then have an easy victory over the
other interests.—(" Hear, hear," from the protectionista.)
It had heeen said, however, that they were only following up
the tariff of 1842. If so, where then was the necessity for
the declaration on the part of the Government that they had
changed their opinion.—( Protectionist cheers.) It was not the
failure of the potato crop alone which gave rise to these measures.
The Right Hon. Baronet at the head of her Majesty's Go.
verment had admitted that his experience of the last three
years had tended to impress upon his mini the policy of a
still greater reduction. He (Captain Gladstone) did not
held ultra views on the subject of protection, but ho must
confess that he was an advocate of a moderate protection.—
( Hear, hear.) The different interests of this country had
been protected. Under this protection the country had flou-
rished ; and the most able writers on the subject of political
economy had given it as their opinion that protection to
agriculture should not be suddenly withdrawn. He did not
think that the present measure accorded with the principles
laid down by those writers. He did not think it a gradual
reduction to protection. The cotton manufacturers of this
country hail grown up to their present proud position
under
.a system of protection against the cotton manufacturers
of India.—( Hear, hear.) The Gallant Member then re-
ferred to the speech of the Hon. Member for Sunderland
( Mr. Hudson.) He (Mr. Hudson) had stated in his speech,
that the removal of protection to agriculture would not
affect the large landed proprietors so much as the
tenant farmers, and that this question was emphatically
a tenant-farmer question. The occupiers of small farms would.
no doubt, under the influence of competition, ultimately cease
to exist. Such were the opinions of the Honourable Mem-
ber for Sunderland. Now, he ( Captain Gladstone) believed
that four-fifths of the farmers of England were small farmers,
and in Ireland there was a much larger proportion. If, then,
the Noble Member should be ;correct in his statements,
of the effects of the abolishment of protection, what a fearful
result would it produce upon this class?—( Hear, hear.) lle
had made many inquiries upon the subject of the distress in
Ireland, and he should be glad if the present measures would
he likely to afford them any relief. The Hon. Member for
Wolverhampton (Mr. Villiers) had made an admission to the
effect that if the ports were immediately to be thrown open
there was no corn to come in. Of what conse-
quence, then, could it be to the poor of Ireland
to open the ports if there was no corn ? It
would not in the least alleviate their distresses.
Previous to 1842 trade was in a very depressed state. Since
then they have had not alone good, but abundant harvests, and
the great revival of trade in the United States caused in his
opinion the prosperity of the country, and not the changes
which had taken place in the commercial policy of the country.
—(Cheers.) There was another important circumstance also,
which was not, he believed, noticed during the discussion of
that question ; it was the abundant supply of cotton in America,
and the low price of that article here.—(Cheers.) But even
if it could be proved that the prosperous state of the country
was owing to the commercial changes which had taken place,
that he (Mr. Gladstone) considered was no good reason
why they should sweep away altogether the duties on
raw material—it was no proof, because a reduction
had taken place with good effect, that a total abolition would
have a similar tendency.—( Cheers.) He considered that if the
measure was to be proposed by any Minister of her Majesty's
Government, it should not be by one who came into office on
protectionist principles, and if they were to have free trade, let
the measure be proposed by the paily who always advocated
it. —( Cheers from protectionists.) It was said that that was
to be a settlement of the question, but hOw could it be ex-
pected that it would be a settlement when they were aware that
Parliament would be-shoi tly dissolved; and he considered that
there was much more danger in setting one class against
another than there would be if the measure was not agitated.
But he feared it would have another effect, of a snore
lasting nature ; it would shako the confidence that
people would have in public men.—( Loud cheers
from the protectionists.) He might be wrong in that opinion,
but he thought that if there was any mind among the agricul
tural classes, it would have that effect ; and if the House looked
to the result of the elections in agricultural districts, it would
appear that such a feeling was entertained. The Hon. Gen
tleman concluded by thanking the House for the very kind and
fair manner in which they had listened to him, and said, should it
be their wish to go into Committee on the question, he consi-
dered it important that the public should know as early as pos-
sible what was to be their fate on that important subject.
Mr. COBDEN (who was Imdly cheered on rising)—l can
assure the House that it is impossible for me under present cir-
cumstances to speak as I should wish, and I will not in conse-
quence detain the House for any great length of time.—
Cheers.) I have not been able to attend to the present debate,
but I have had the merit of reading every word of it, and al-
though I have had occasion to complain on very many former
occasions of the way in which Honourable Gentlemen
spoke on every subject but the one under discussion,
moth as I have had to complain, I do think that on
the present occasion every person went far more into
extraneous matter than I had ever known before. It appeared
to me, that the question was not the abrogation or continuance
of the corn-laws, but the conduct of the Minister, the First
Lord of the Treasury. Now, Sir, there may be grounds, and
I will not say but there are just grounds, for the Honourable
Gentlemen opposite to complain of the Ministry for the course
they have pursued ; but, Sir, the country will not sympathise
with them, for, on former occasions, they the (protectionists)
did everything in their power to evade the question. When
this measure was introduced by the Whigs in the year 1841,
you opposed the measure then that is now advauced by your
own leader. But, I must say, when the corn-law measure
was introduced into the House first, we were as much the
objects of vituperation as we are now, and I will not for one
sympathise with you. if Hon. Gentlemen have any fear
that their present leader contemplates, not only repealing
the corn-laws, but going much further (and I think they
ought), I beg to assure them that they are taking the most
effectual means of arming the Minister with power to do so,
for the more you attack him, the more the country will
sympathise with him out of doors.—(Cheers.) Why, you are
making the present Prime Minister the most popular man in
the country, and should he go down into any of the manufac-
turing districts the Right Hon. Baronet's journey would be
one continued triumph. The Right Hon. Baronet, the Se-
cretary for Home Affairs, in advocating this measure, has also
won much for himself on this occasion; the magnificent contri-
bution which he has given in his able statement, and still more
in the martyrdom in which you are inflicting on him, has
made him so popular, that in any of the towns in the north of
England, say Manchester or Liverpool, he would receive more

. -
respect and honour than the greatest merchant.—(Cheers and
laughter.) I do not think the Hon. Gentlemen who are op-
posed to this measure are pursuingia wise party scheme.
That is the first great fact that I will allege; the second topic
to which I will call your attention is one of more importance.
If I understand your position rightly, you consider that this
House is the proper place where the question of free trade is
to be decided, without knowing what is the decision
of the country. I tell you, if you believe in the justice
of such principles, you are unworthy of the advocacy of them
on I begt this House,
thatse,
laBn4yls,ulcli
metgrounds.you with a Why,
iu
the corn-law should be only changed? No; but I stated 1
o• ,
would never cease my exertions until I abrogated that law, and
mjo whenrity ofl9lc.am Dideinto
you should also, if you are honest anti consistent, use the
some language, if vou believe they are essential to the prosperity
of the country. Vou should say, if we are thrown to the
ground, we will be ready to spring up again. This should be
your course, if you are conscientiously of opinion that the cause
is good which you are advocating. Assuming now, that
you can carry out your purpose—and this is a point which
I wish to draw your attention—for it is most important to the
public in other places— what do youexpect to gain? Now, where
there are no middle classes, where there are no merchants
—no manufacturers—no farmers, probably what I say, may
be read. You want a dissolution— you want the opinion
of the country Have you ever considered what
the opinion of the country is? Do you want to
know what the country thinks of your opinions? You say you
will be able to get, by a dissolution, a numerical majority in
this House, but I tell you that if you consider for a moment,
you will not have that majority if you dissolve the Par-
liament. I think I am some authority on the registration of
this country.—(Cheers.) Well, then, I tell you that a
change has taken place, and that you will not
gain by such a dissolution. I would not have said
se three months ago, but, on the contrary, I would
have agreed with you; but now your party is broken up.
(Cries of " No, no.") It shows that you have not weighed
there subjects as you ought. Do not be led away by these men
shouting around you, like the manner in which schoolboys
whistle in a churchyard to keep up their courage.—(Cheers
and laughter.) Examine these facts because your former
leaders have done so, and you have none amongst you deserv-
ing to be your leaders unless they well consider them. You
cannot rank a town numbering '25,000 inhabitants on which
you could depend for the return of a protectionist.—( Hear,
hear, and cries of " No, no.") Well, then, you have your
pocket boroughs and your nomination counties, and I will as-
sume that you have a majority of pocket boroughs, and I will
allow that that majority may possibly amount to twenty or
thirty, what would be your position then? You would have
on this side of the House the Members for London, Lancaster,
Yorkshire, Cheshire, and every member of every town in
Scotland.—(( heers.) Why, you would shrink aghast at your
position, and there would be more defections in yoar Camp,
arid more adhesions to our ranks than ever.—( Hear, hear. )
In spite of all pledges, nay, if you were steeped to the lilts in
pledges, you would come across this floor, for there would be
no safety without it, and the very men who came here to vote for
protection, would vote otherwise when they found that the
country was determined to have the corn-laws repealed.—
( Hear, hear.) Now, is not that public opinion? Why, we
have a sufficient amount of public opinion to do anything in
this country. The dynasty of the Stuarts would be now sitting
upon the throne, had they the same amount of public opinion
expressed in their favour as was now declared for a repeal el
the corn-laws.—(Einar, hear.) That amount of public opinion
is sultoient to damp flan feral of Government, and antking

it was determined to do it could effect. But you will probably
tell ins that although we have this power, that we have not the
mass of the people with us—rather democratic that. You never
heard me advocate the superior claims of the working classes—
ho tv ever, whilt aro the evidences that the great body of the people
are not with us? You say that our petitions are not honestly signed.
I cannot disprove that assertion; let us corns, therefore, to some
other test—let us take the old Saxon mode of testing opinion,
by calling public meetings. Now, if you really are desirous of
fostering democratic influence, this is the way to elevate them—
bring them into public assembling, let them elect their own
chairman, let them pass their resolutions, and there can be
nothing found superior to such a course for laying the founda-
tions of public liberty.—( Hear, hear, and cheers.) Call then
sour public meetings to support the corn-laws. Call one—l
challenge you to call one anywhere. It is not surely in the
manufacturing districts you can call them. Since the
first of November last there have been public meetings held in
every large town—not the meetings of any class, but meetings
for the purpose of deciding whether the town should petition
fir free trade or not. I received a complaint from a gen-
tleman, that the protectionists called a meeting at
Epswarth, to which only protectionists were admitted,
and canaNuently the free traders had no power to interfere.
At a meeting in Haddington they fled from the room, and the
room was full without them.—(Cheers.) Were not these
evidences of public opinion ?—( Cries of " Na, no.") Then
what will teach you public opinion? Must you be tossed in a
blanket? Must you be swept out of this house into tha Thames?

-_(Cheers and laughter). Why it would be giving
them over to destruction if the public opinion was
not to be tested
by the course which I have pointed out.
Yes, your political power is based on the 150,000 tenantry of
the country. Let it, then, come to the worst ; carry on this
opposition for three or four years more, and the plan that is
now in operation—which plan is much maligned—(" Hear,
hear," from the Opposition)—and still muck more maligned in
a certain place, because where the shoe pinches there the
party will wince the more—( Cheers from the Opposition side
of the House)-1 say the plan that is now in operation will
compel you to yield.—(" Hear, hear," and cheers.) We are
calling into existence the true old mode of exercising the
English constitutional franchise.—( Cheers and cries of
Oh 1 oh !") We are calling that principle of 500
years' antiquity into existence by which we hope to countervail
all your new fangled innovations.—( Renewed cheers, and
" Oh, oh.") You look on this as something revolutionary
and novel.--(Hear, hear.) I tell you you are the revolutionists
and the innovator:.—(Cheers.) However, I believe it is
perfectly understood by the longest heads of your party that we
hate the power, acid that we will exercise it.—(Renewed
cheering. If, therefore, you prolong this contest for four
years, which you cannot, let the worst come, we have the
means, we have the power, we have the money subscribed—
( A laugh)— and we are prepared to meet and overcome every
difficulty.—(Loud cheers.) You may think there is some-
thing exceedingly repulsive to your notions of supremacy in all
this; but I say that the man, whether the small shopkeeper or
farmer, who has the prudence to save a little money, and lay it
out in the purchase of land that will bring him forty shillings a
year freeehold—l say, that is the man to whom I would wish to
give the franchise.—( Hear, hear, and cheering.) Let it be
understood that these matters are not of my introduction, for
no gentleman can complain of my even being guilty of intro-
ducing irrelevant matter into the discussion of this question.
( Hear, hear.) You have chosen now to say that you will not
settle this question by fair and upright argument, by an appeal
to facts, or by taking the sense of the House. No ; you will,
forsooth, appeal to the country.—(Loud cheers from the pro-
tectionists.)sl have given you some idea of your prospects in the
country, and I ask you how the mischief will be averted?
Look over the registration returns—count the number
of persons in possession of the franchise, and then come down
and admit candidly whether public opinion is with you or
against you.—( Cheers and counter cheers.) So much ergu-
raent has been applied to the investigation of extraneous
questions, that I shall not pursue this line of observation
further, though, indeed, the little argument adduced on the
opposite side has been so fully answered—(oh, oh) —that I
need scarcely apply myself to that branch of the question.—
(Renewed cries of Oh, oh," and " Hear, hear.") I tell
you what my thoughts were during the last ten or eleven
days, whilst confined to my home, and reading over your
speeches. in which I found many antiquated fallacies that I
thought I had knocked on the head seven years ago—
( Laughter)—wky I thought that all the country was laughing
at you. —( Hear and cheers.) You Cry, " Are we to depend
on foreigners?"—( Hear, hear.) Now, who would think that
so palid a ghost would have been raised up to terrify the free-
traders?—(l-}ear, hear, and a laugh.) Another clap-trap is
that an advance in wages will lessen the means of pro-
curing bread.—(A laugh.) That the land will be
thrown out of cultivation, and tkat corn will be sold for '2ss.
per quarter.—(Great laughter.) Wh. y, you forget that the
working classes take a very different .view of the question alto-
gether.—( Hear, heir.) The working classes formerly be-
lieved that wages rose and fell with the price of wheat; and
though the leaders of the protectionist party may accuse us of
clap-trap," yet the epithet will not apply to the
Ministers who introduced the present measure, for
they could have no clap-trap motive in doing so.—( Hear,
hear.) Now, if you attended less to the gossip
of your clubs, where you congratulate each other on the smart-
ness of your speeches, in which you assail the Ministerial policy.
If you, I say, attended less to these matters, and applied your-
selves to the proper study of the question, you would not have
been making the speeches you were for the last twelve nights.
( Hear, hear, and cheers.) With regard to the farmers, lam
not denying that many—l will admit a large portion of them are
with you—(Protectionists' cheers) —because you have told them
that they would walk headlong down some precipice, or that
some fogy would run off with them.—(A laugh.) That is what
you have been telling them.—( Hear, hear, and " Oh, oh.")
But although they have not the strictest faith in you, they have
the prudence to know, that if they go against their landlords
they will not get a fair adjustment from then afterwards.—
( Hear, hear, and cries of " Oh, oh.") If the landed proprie-
tary said to the farmers that the question was
a tenant one, and they would bear the farmers
harmless, no matter what their views on the question,
I strongly doubt if they would not decide in favour of free
trade.—(Cheers.) But you have given them some hints to
the contrary.—(Cries of " Oh, oh," from the protectionists.)
I do not think that, generally speaking, the farmers agree in
all that you have been telling them. I believe rents are as
'sigh now as ever they were.—(No, no.) There is something
remarkable in all this. I have been remarking since the
Right Hon. Baronet proposed this measure, and I have
directed my attention to the point. I have inquired of
landed proprietors, lawyers, and land agents, if
land has suffered any depression in value in consequence of the
introduction of the measure, and I cannot learn that it has.
It is a very remarkable fact that silks have been rendered un-
saleable, while the land is actually letting or selling at a higher
price.—(No, no.) The lion. Member for Somersetshire
made an offer to sixty farmers to take the land off their fiends
on adequate terms, and yesterday, being the last day for ac-
cepting the offer, he thought some of them would come
in to take it up. Now, what is the consequence? Why,
that not one of them came in.—(Hear, hear, and cheers.)
Now this followed immediately after the farmers had been told
that the land was so reduced that it would not produce sufficient
to allow of rent being paid at all. Now if these farmers, after
having been so lately told that all the evils w ,uld f.,110w which
had been trumpeted by the protectionists, were not inclined to
part with their farms, what did it tend to prove, but that there
is no danger to be apprehended from the repeal of these laws.—
( Hear, hear.) Now, the opinion of a gentleman who was a
large land agent, said that farmers had applied to him, offering
to take the land in which he was interested, and offered
15 per cent. for the land, besides guaranteeing to make such
improvemements as would materially improve the value
of the land. Now this gentleman was a protectionist and a
supporter of Sir John Tyrrell, and is net his evidence in
favour of that lion. Gentleman's measure ? Now I should
like to know if the gentlemen, who have estates to let, are
willing to let them at one-third less than they have had for them
up to the passing of this measure, notwithstanding the
great impoverishment of their land by the repeal
of the protective laws. I am sure they are not
willing to part with them for even one-fourth less tkan
they were twelve months ago. This, then, is the proof
that no such injury can take place as is said to be the result of
a repeal of the corn-laws. There is not a more monstrous case
than that of saying, that the farmers are about to be ruined,
when it cannot be said that they are willing to part with their
farms, or even asking for a reduction of their rents. I wish
to settle this question with the gentlemen who are opposed to
it in the most amicable manner. Let them come to the Free-
trade wall at Manchester, and hold a public meeting, and
then let them say, upon the arguments, which is
the best measure for the people, protection or free-
trade. Now I am going to read you an authority that will
astonish you. I am going to read to you an extract from a
speech of the Duke of
.Wellington in the House of Lords on
the 17th of April, 1832 ; it is his opinion on taxation :—" 14.
thought taxes were imposed oaly for the service of the state. If
they were necessary for the service of the state, in God's name
let them be paid, but if they were not necessary they ought not
to be paid, and the Legislature ought not to impose them."
Now there that Noble Duke, without having had time to
study Adam Smith or Ricardo, by that native sagacity
which is characteristic of his mind, came at once to the
marrow of
,this question.—( Hear, hear.) We must not tax
another for the benefit of one another. Oh, then, divest
the future Prime Minister of this country of that odious
task of having to reconcile rival interests ; divest the office,
if ever you would have a sagacious MO in power as Prime
tlinister, divest it of the responsibility of having to find
food for the people ! May you never find a Prime Minister
again to undertake that awful responsibility ! That re-
sponsibility belongs to the law of nature; as Burke
said, it belongs to God alone to regulate the supply
of the food of nations. When you shall have seen
in three years that the abolition of these laws is
inevitable, you will be obliged then to meet the wishes of
the farmer, and dissolve the League, as in good faith it will be
dissolved.—( Loud cries of " Hear, hear," from the pro-
tection benches.) I say that when you find it to be in-
evitable, as inevitable it is, you will come forward and join
with the free-traders—(Cheers and laughter)—for if you do
not, you will have the farmers coming, forward and agitating
in conjunction with the League.—( (sheers. ) You are in a
position to gain honour in future ; you are in a position,
day
be more. and more diverging
'especially the young Members among you who have the
material for you to get
capacity to learn the truth of this question—they are in a
on at present your position is a Wsa
egoniusel.as
tyloyonsfeaolrrveesatni
,I:.,sdti.eu)estiosnos
.gaotfhetrhaht
honourkindthiseve
em
greatwrongd
hear.)right
and fame where thee are to be. gaint. andY. belong to the
aristo-
cracy, I don't mean that, but the aristocracy of improvement
Itihoeutextlaiemwplheeolef
changes.—(
position to be Cheersalet tod help counter-cheers.)
thetr c:eerek
ll
ages ; we have given them the rapfssesntative system. Why, the
very rules andiregalations of this House have been taken as the
aanridstcoievrialicayationfn.thewheumhaavna kind—nneoxtuntlh!lee
m
, and every institution
that belongs to freedom and eiviliz.etion, we are now about
civilizeds) del fo r
worldvery ; representative
having
besides s sem
givenbly t throughout
giving a still greater example : ne are going to set the ex-
ample of making industry
free—(Cheers)--lo set the example
of giving the whole world every advantage of clime, and lati-
tudea free press and civil and religious. freettnin
and situation ; relying ourselves on the freedom of
our industry. Yes, we are going to teach the world that
other lesson. Don't think there is anything selfish in this,
or anything at all discordant with Christian princip:es. I
can prove that we advocate nothing but what is agreeable
to the highest behests of Christianity. To buy in the
cheapest market, and sell in the dearest. What is the mean-
ing of the maxim? It means that you take the article which
you have in the greatest abundance, and obtain from others
that of which they have the most to spare, so giving to man-
kind the means of enjoying the fullest abundance of earth's
goods, and in doing so carrying out to the fullest extent the
Christian doctrine of " Doing to all men as ye would they
should do unto you."—(Loud and prolonged cheering.)
Mr. SPOONER said that the Hon. Member for Stockport
had spoken upon this subject in terms which would lead any
stranger entering the House to the belief that those who had a
right now to the extended franchise haft not the pleasure of
enjoying it.—( Hear, hear.) It was not the habit of the tenant
to ask the assistance or advice of his landlord, though he
ought to tie so, but at the same time it was as much the duty
of the manulactureis to give advice to their workemn. The
Hon. Member then went on to quote passages from speeches
of the Honourable Member fur Stockport, in order to show
the inconsistency of the lieu. Member, and to illustrate the
fact that his *pinions open the corn-laws had changed very re-