The Sun.
London, England, 1846-02-10 00:00:00

INDIAN CORN.

Mr. F. FRENCH asked the Chancellor of the Ex-
chequer at what port in Ireland it was intended to dis-
embark the Indian corn, which he understood the Go-
vernment had in their possession? He would also ask the
Secretary of State whether there was any truth in
the reports which had been circulated in
some of the Irish newspapers, to the effect
that the Poor-law Commissioners had taken
upon themselves to exercise a power vested in them, and
had dismissed the guardians of two poor•law unions in
Ireland. .

Sir J. GRAHAM had not had an opportunity o
making the proper inquiry upon the subject.
PUBLIC WORKS.

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER, in
answer to a question put to him by an Hon. Member,
stated that the amount applicable to the purposes
of public works was 300,0001. for Great Britain.
Upon this sum a demand might be made
in aid of the public works in Ireland. But,
independent of that sum, there was placed under
the management of the Board of Works (Ireland) a fur-
ther sum of 60,000/. There was also the sum•of 57,000/.
remaining in hand, applicable to public works in Ireland.
THE TARIFFS OF THE BRITISH COLONIES.
Mr. HUME moved that an humble address be pre-
sented to her Majesty, that she will be pleased to direct
copies of the existing tariffs and commercial regulations
of each of the British colonies and possessions to be laid
before this House, in the same manner as the tariffs and
commercial regulations of Europe and America have
been laid before the House. That there be laid before
this House copies of the existing tariffs and com-
mercial regulations of British India and the depen-
dencies thereof, on exports and imports, in the same
meaner as those laid qefore the House of the European
and American States. It was highly important that the
House should be in possession of this information in
order that they might perceive how great a burden the
colonies were to this country, and that they might take
measures to relieve themselves of much of the expense.
Dr. BOWRING seconded the motion, but he could
not do so without bearing his testimony to the great
talent which these returns evinced in their compiler,
who he believed was Mr. M‘Greggor, of the Board of
Trade.
Lord SEYMOUR was understood to differ from the
Hon. Member for Bolton. The returns in his opinion
were dull romances, and full of inaccuracies.
Sir G. CLERK could only say that if the Noble Lord
would point out the inaccuracies, ho would take care to
have them corrected.
Mr. HUME denied that the returns were dull ro-
mances, and declared that they were of great service to
the country.
Lord SEMOUR as we understood) expressed his dis-
sent from the Hon. Member for Montrose.
Mr. HUME rose to explain. He said that it would
be very unfair to reject ten or twelve documents because
there might be an error in one of them.
Mr. AGLIONBY concurred with this remark. He
thought it was hard to attack the documents in that man-
ner. If there were any serious doubts as to their correctness
they ought to be referred to a Select Committee. He
felt great pleasure in finding this motion More the
House, and in finding that it had been seconded. He
was glad to see Hon. Members turning their attention to
the affairs of our colonies, ►which had beon too lung neg-
lected. Government had not turn©d sufficient attention
to their commercial interest, and that was the reason
why they had always been a burthen to the mother-
country.—(Hear.) He was convinced that if a proper
course were adopted with regard to our colonies, they
would become an assistance instead of a burden.
Sir G GREY said that if these documents contained
valuable information, he thought that the members had
not sufficient access to them; and he would, therefore,
propose that they should be referred to the consideration
of the Printing Committee, with a view to their grater
dissemination.
After a few remarks from Sir R. 11. INGLIS,
COURT OF APPEAL IN CRIMINAL CASES.
Mr. EWART wished to put a question to the Solici-
tor-General or the Secretary for the Home Department.
On a former occasionn the Hon. and Learned Solicitor •
General had brought in a Bill to give a court of appeal
in criminal cases in this country. He begged to ask
whether it was the intention of the Government to
remedy the defect at present existing with respect to the
want of a Court of Appeal in criminal cases.
Sir JAMES GRAHAM was understood to say that
it was the intention of the Government to bring in a
Bill to give a power of appeal in certain criminal cases.
INDIA. . .

Mr. HUME rose to move for certain returns con-
nected with the affairs of India. Ho thought that the
necessity for giving that information was sufficiently ap-
parent, and he would therefore throw out the suggestion
that those reports ought to be printed. During the last
ten years he had always entertained that opinion, and
he trusted that the Government would adopt that sug-
gestion, as it was likely to conduce to the general benefit.
He would therefore suggest the propriety of printing
those reports which bad any concern with Indian
affairs.

THE CORN-LAWS.
Lord EBRINGTON and Mr. lIINDLEY presented
petitions against the repe'al of the corn-laws..
On the montion being pnt for the resumption of the
adjourned debate,
Mr. S. O'BRIEN said, that in resuming this debate,
he could not help feeling that, in the consideration of
this subject there had been a great disregard of the
interests of the commonalty, and that before the
repeal of the corn-laws, the Ministers ought
to have consulted the farmers respecting the
mannner in which that repeal was likely to affect them.
Whether such may be the general opinion he did not
take on himself to say, neither would he express any
opinion of his own on the subject. However, in refe-
rence to the question he should say that, whatever
might be urged against the Right Hon. Baronet at the
hew o her Majesty's Goyeranient, he (Ur. O'Brien>

had nothing to retract or explain.—(Hear.) He had
not changed his opinion and what he stated before he
was then prepared to state again.—(" Hear,
hear," from the Ministerial benches.) A Noble
Lord who spoke last night had not only felt
it his duty to announce an alteration in his
opinions, in reference to the present great ques-
tion, but also to deliver himself of a sentence, upon
which, as it is formed the salient point of the Noble
Lord's speech, he hoped to be permitted to comment.
The purport of the sentence was, that the law of 1815
was the greatest error ever committed.—(Hear, hear.)
That might be the case ; but he turned to that side of
the House, and begged to ask who the parties were that
urged the landed interest of the country not to explain
or retract, but to persevere in and maintain an oppo-
sition to that law ?—(Cries of " Hear, hear.") The
Right Hon. Baronet at the head of the Government
says he has given an opportunity to Hon. Members to
retract their opinions as regarded that measure. He
felt much obliged to the Right Hoe. Gentleman ; but he
should say that opportunities were not wanted, as the
Hon. Member for Wolverhampton had given ample
opportunity year after year.—(Hear, and a laugh.)
That brought him to another part of the question. His
Right Hon, Friend (the Premier) had said, that "if
he had changed his opinions and not declared such,
he should be ashamed of himself." Now he
(Mr. O'Brien) should be ashamed of him also.
But he wished to know on what principle parties in this
country country could in future be kept together ?
It might be said that that was an old
story, and that they were attacking the Pre-
mier and making speeches in a had cause.
He found that this country had hitherto been governed
party; and it might be considered to be absolute preju-
dice, but he was not ashamed to own himself a party
man.—(Hear, hear.) It had hitherto been the custom
of this country to believe that a discussion of ques-
tions upon party principles was advisable. That a
rigid adherence to those principles was on the
whole, with all its imperfections and all its anomalies,
the better way of eliciting the truth, and conduced to a
sound legislation.—(Hear, hear.) But he might observe
that not only had this Government changed its princi•
pies since it came into office—(hear, hear), but it had
practically declared that it would be bound by no strict
principles whatever.—(Hear, hear.) He (Mr. S. O'Brien)
was not in the House before the present Government
came into office ; the first vote which he ever gave was
to place them in their present position. Bnt he could
only say say, that having laboured in behalf of his
country, he could undertake to say, that if ever an op-
position was conducted upon party principles, that oppo-
sition was that which was marshalled, headed, and led

by the Right lion. Baronet at the head of the Govern-
ment.—(Hear, hear, and laughter.) The disappoint-
ment was too bitter.—(llear. hear.) The subject of his
conduct was one which was far too annoying, or else he
would enter into it willingness. But he did not wish to
giee personal offence to his friends the officers of
the Government, otherwise he would subject the mu-
pants of the cabinet to the reprobation of the House.—
(biear, hear.) The Right lion. Gentleman had said—
and that he thought was the sum and substsnce of his
speech—that inasmuch as the law had failed
in the year 1842, he should, therefore, entirely aban-
don those principles on which he had come tato office.
The Right Honourable Gentleman said that the law had
failed in 1842, and the word " failure" might be under-
stood in two ways. He would wish to call to the recol-
lection of his Right Hon. Friend what he said to the
farmers of Wiltshire, in February, 1845,—(Hear, hear,)
—when he made the announcement that he had become
a convert of free trade. He would wish to ask whether,
if the law failed in 1842, the Sidney Herbert of that year
would have corresponded with the Sidney Herbert of
this ?—(Hear, hear, and laughter.) He would also wish
to ask him, if it was possible for any ingenuity in
human nature to concoct a law which would
answer both those gentlemen ?—(Great laughter.) His
Right Hon. Friend in 1845 would find that law failed
for the letting in of corn freely—his Right Hon. Friend
in 1846 would find that the corn law tailed in the re-
striction of the free importation of corn—therefore,
highly as he thought of the legislative powers of his
chief, and sincerely as he might. believe that he was
capable of effecting anything (and certainly the House had
seen that he was capable of effecting great things.) Still
that Right Hon. Gentleman asked of him too much, if
he expected that the law of 1842 could succeed in
pleasing gentlemen of both sides of the House. But the
question of averages was all that disappointed the ex-
pectations of his Right Hon. Friend, Fre could not see
the cause of that. His Right Hon. Friend might re-
member, that even if he were obliged by this
failure to give up the question of the sliding-
scale, there was a fixed duty for him to fall back
upon.—(Laughter.) He conceived that the argum nt
of the Right Honourable Baronet, viz., that be-
cause the sliding scale, had failed in one Act of
three years, was not a good one; it was not in his opinion
a sufficient reason to induce him to give up, not only his
favourite-measure, but even the principles of all his life.
His Right Hon. Friend (Mr. Sidney Herbert) had said
that this was not a question of delegation. He (Mr. S.
O'Brien) should say it was not a question of delegation,
but the Members of that House were the representatives
of the people, and when they voted against the interests
constituents, then they betaayed those interests, and
were unfit either to be delegates or representatives. It
was not merely a question of impost which seut this
House before tee country, and it was not merely a ques-
tion of impost which placed the Right Hon. Gentleman
on the Treasury benches. He would not attempt to
treat this question as a trifling one. He would not
treat this question in that light manner that the Right
Hon. Gentleman who had spoken last had attempted to
treat it. It was a question of the greatest importance
to the agricultural interests of this country. The Right
' Hon. Baronet at the head of her Majesty's Government
had said said that the great potato fairure in Ireland had
almost led him to throw open the ports. He (Mr. Stafford
O'Brien) did not underrate those evils, he knew they
did exist, and he was glad to find that the Hon. and
Learned Member for Cork, intended to bring forward
the evils pending that failure in Ireland the following
day. But ,he thought her Majesty's Ministers would
have done better by throwing open the ports
temporarily for a temporary relief, than to adopt
the present measure. How had the free trade
question been received in Ireland. The gentleman who
stood next to Mr. O'Connell in that country had re-
probated the measure; he said plainly that a re-
peal of the corn-laws would work great evil to
the farmers of that country, and would but
add to the distress which now threatened her.
He was in England when ho was called back again by
the dreadful accounts which he received of the progress
of the potato° disease, and he would tell the House that
those accounts were so far correct, that if the
disease bad progressed as it had commenced,
there would not have been a single vegetable in Ireland
at the present moment. On my return, I found the dis-
ease rather mending, but it has again commenced,
either from the late wet weather or some other
mysterious arrangement of Providence. Ho assured
them that there never was a country which
called for more urgent measures than Ireland,
and he firmly believed, there never was a Government
more anxious than the present for the welfare of that
country. But he should tell the Right Honourable
Member for Oxford, that the famine in Ireland re-
quired more more immediate for its alleviation,
and he did not see how, if he would pass his Bill,
Ireland would be benefited by it one single quarter of
wheat.—(Cheers.) My Hon. Friend observed that when
he looked round Wiltshire, he was surprised how the
poor people could exist there. All he could say was,
the he generally found that the poverty of the agricultu-
ral districts was greatly to bs attributed to the landlords.
When they found wretched cottages, and women and
children half-clothed, they were naturally led to inquire
the name of the owner of the soil.—(Hear, hear.) He
had conversed with some Wiltshire farmers that morn-
ing, who bore him out in the statements he had made,
and he would do him the justice to say they believed him
to be conscientious in his opinions. But he (Mr. S. Herbert)
had totally failed in the case which he had brought fie-
ward to show the necessity of a repeal of the corn-laws
in order to remedy the evils under which the country
was labouring, which was simply only saying that em-
ployment and the wages of employment tended to the
happiness of the labourer, but if he had followed up
his argument, and really show that a repeal of the corn-
laws, and an extensive cultivation of poor soil would
effect all this, he would have made his arguments com-
plete. He would have given an argument in favor of the
repeal of the corn-laws, which had never yet been argued.
—Cheers.)—But if the Hon. Gentleman had visited
Northamptonshire, the county which he (Mr. S.
O'Brien) had the honour to represent, where the la-
bourers received wages amounting to 13s. or 148. a
week, he would find that the people were
not in the abject state be had represented.
If he would go and visit that part of the
county with which he was connected, he should be able
to show him well built cottages and a state of comfort
which would satisfy him that a repeal of the corn-laws
was not so much required. He should, in the course of
their ramble together, be able to show him cold clay
lands of such a nature as even to affect the
intellects ofithose engaged in their cultivation—(Hear)
and, ho might add, that the Noble Lord the Member for
the City of London, in his address, looked to the
Member for Northamptonshire when he talked of the
advantages which the landed proprietors of that
county would derive from a relaxation of the duties on
corn and other articles of commerce. The address laid
down three propositions for meeting the wants of the
country at the present moment, the long and short of
which was, that British industry required no pro-
tection ; and in the latter part of his speech he said
that protection was neither wanted by the agriculturist
or by the manufacturer, and would leave their protection
to the energies of the country. It was not treating him
improperly if he (Mr. S. O'Brien) assumed that this
principle had been publicly —enunciated. The Noble
Lord assumed that these propositions were true, because
all political economists were of the same opinion.
Notwithstanding the charge of their having old-fash-
ioned
prejudices and clay intellects, he for one dis-
sented from those propositions, and he said, that even
if allpolitical economists were agreed in this manner,
there would still be higher considerations on the settle-
ment of the question. Honourable Members on the
other side of the House were very apt to confound
the science of .political economy with the
science oflegislation. His own notion of political economy
was, that it was science which treated of the amassing
and distribution of wealth, and if the science of legis-
lation consisted of the amassing and distribution of
wealth, then he should say that both political economy
and legislation were synonimous terms.—(Hear, hear.)
He, however, took a higher standing ; he said
that the distribution and accumulation of wealth
was only one element in the science of legis-
lation,
but even if both the science of le-
gislation and political economy consisted only of the
accumulstion and distribution of wealth, it was not
sufficient to prove the case-'of' the Right Hon. Baronet.

--(Cheers.). The Noble Lord the Member for the
City of London had sneeringly declared that agricul-
tural protection societies were established solely fur the
purpose of opposing the Anti-Corn-law League.
Now, he denied that these agricultural societies
had been recently formed, and so far from their object
being the overthrow of the Anti-Corn-law League, he
believed they were established for the promotion and
improvement of agriculture.—(Hear, hear.) Honour-
able Members were too much accustomed to throwing
out taunts in reference to these protection societies,
but on a future occasion he might find it eonvpnient
to enter into their history, and he would
say now that there was nothing in them
he was ashamed of.—(llear, hear.) It was said that
labour was the property- of the poor man, he did not
know whether it was right to call things by their wrong
names, but the Noble Lord the Member for Lancashire
called the agriculturist a manufacturer, and upon the
same principle labour was called the property of the
poor man, and this definition of one of the Right Hon,
Baronet's dogmas went forth to the world. But they
ought not to stop there. It would not do for them to
meet six months every year fur the protection of their
own property, and at the same time to tell the poor man
that labour was his property, bqt his property was not
to be protected. The poor man would not understand
such a system ; the poor man would say that they met
to protect their own property, and the conclusion
he would come to was, that the property of the
poor man must be left to take care of itself.
The question of protection was a very unfortunate one
to emanate from a legislation who some years ago
boasted of the extent to vi hich they could avail them-
selves of the labcur of children. That legislation now
found the labour of the poor a difficult thing to deal
with. They had resorted to the most discreditable
methods to protect property. Treatise upon treatise
had been written on the subject, and the decision they
came to at leap th was that they should let it
alone. He did not speak of the shop-
keeper, but of the man who had amassed
money, and who, the moment he found himself in pos-
session of it, found it his interest to be a convert to the
system of buying in the cheapest market and selling in
the dearest one. He would take the case of the duties
lately spoken of by the Right Hon. Baronet at the head
of the Government, because they would serve as au il-
lustration, and because they were fresher in the memo-
ries of the Members of that House. Supposing that he
had been in the cheapest market, he could furnish his
house with splendid French paper or silk
hanging, and could ride abroad in a foreign
carriage. He could look out of the window
of his smart house, and drive abroad in his foreign car
riage, and he would see a number of-labourers standing
idle. Me might ask them what they were, and the reply
would be, that they were perhaps English paper-stainers,
hardware-manufacturers from Birmingham, and coach-
makers. He might then say—" My good fellows, I
have done my best to make you idle, but not from any
selfish motive, for on the 27th of January, 1846, the
Government proposed the withdrawal of the pro-
tective duties, and that proposition was received
with cheers by all political economists, in order
that their doctrines might have fair play."—(Hear, hear.)
Would any man say that the feeling in the hearts of the
people would be one of reverence or attachment to our
institutions in such a case they had that prctanto, for
the feeling would be decidedly against the Government.
When they took into consideration the number of
persons so employed, whose employment would be taken
away by the want of protection, they must consider
how much their ancestors had laboured to give them
that protection ; they would see that the way to benefit
the poor was to protect them against foreign competi-
tion, and against the madness cf themselves. In this
House they were all rich men—(Great laughter)—at
least he assumed the fact, and such Hon. Members as
were not, might laugh at the notion.—(Laughter.) But
one thing was quite certain, and that was that they all had
had a breakfast that morning, and they all expected
to have a dinner that evening—(Laughter)—and they
might rest assured that such is the position in which
they would be held by their poorer fellow-creatures ;
and, therefore, he was right when he asserted that they
in this House were rich, while the classes he al-*
luded to outside were poor. Well, now it
would go forth to-night to those classes, that in this
House the question propounded was not corn against cot-
ton, but the question of buying in the cheapest market
and selling in the dearest, and therefore he would ask
them why they taxed the poor ? He was net now argu-
ing against the poor-law, but he was contending against
this House attempting to propound a harsh and imprac-
ticable dogma, which would look odious in the eyes of
the poor.—(Cries of " Hear, hear.") He had never
stood up in this House as the 'champion of exces-
sive duties, or to contend that no alteration should
be made in the corn-laws, but he 'was contend-
ing that the Government was enunciating a dogma
which the poor people could not understand. There was
another reason why he objected that this dogma should
be promulgated here, and that was that this assembly
was no longer the representatives of the poor man, for
that had been done away with by the passing of the Reform
Bill. Adam Smith had made two exceptions where other
considerations might enter besides political economy.
But there were so many other exceptions in addition,
that it would be extremely unwise and unsound
to propound such a rule, and extremely dangerous to
act upon it. Ho thought that one of those cases was
agriculture.—(Hear, hear.) He would not then go into
the question of the corn-laws, as he had so frequently
expressed his opinions on them; but he considered, that
if there was a calling which, more than another, had
peculiar claims on protection—which contributed to the
health, longevity, and morals of the community—that
calling was agriculture.—(Loud cheers.) He protested
against any change being made under such a complex
state of things which existed in this country. He must
say that he had been engaged in studying the state of the
question during the last four years in all its bearings,
and he could not find anything to materially alter the
opinions which he had formed on the subject. One
change, however, had come over his mind ; he
began by believing it a landlord question,
and he was of opinion that the effect of a
sudden repeal would be to throw large quantities of land
into the market, and consequently the priceiwould be
greatly deteriorated.—(Hear, hear.) From all that he
had read and seen he could not but consider that this
question was a question of the small landed proprietors,
not of the large landed proprietors, they are able to weather
the storm.—(Hear, hear.) It is a question of the small
landed proprietors, who, upon the faith of previous legis-
lation, have burdened their estates to nearly the full
value for the sake of effecting improfements on their
lands.—(Hear.) He believed the present was essentially
a farmers' question, and it was upon this ground that be
took his stand; and because he thus considered it a far-
mers' question he refused to consent to any changes which
would bring in their train nothing but distress and
misery.—(Hear, hear.) Now suppose the case of a
tenant farmer, and he would give an illustration, because
he considered that would have more might than mere
abstract arguments. Suppose, then, in this case, the
prices to be rather low, arising from a large importation
of grain or some other cause. The tenant Farmer comes
to the landlord, he says to him, " I hope you will allow
some abatement in the rent. I have expended large.
sums in draining and fencing, my family have held
under you for several generations, we have weathered
together many hard, difficult, and stormy seasons. I have
worn your colours, and I should be sorry to leave
the spot where I and my family have lived
so long to seek a home elsewhere."—(Hear, hear.)
The landlord says to him, " My good fellow I am sorry
for you, you have invested your money in drains and
fences, you invested that money on the faith of my as-
surances, and I have made those assurances, and invested
my capital on the faith of the legislature.—(Hear, hear.)
We are now told that we are to buy in the cheapest, and
sell in the dearest markets.—(Hear, hear.) There is a
gentleman, a manufacturer in this district, ready
to invest his capital in your farm. I must
now look to• my lean family arrangements, I am
sorry I can do nothing for you.—(Hear, hear.) You look
back at the feudal times, those times we are now told
are old and exploded notions—(llear, hear)—and as for
colours God bless you, my good fellow, there is no
such thing as true blue now."—(Prolonged cheering.)
The tenant farmer then goes away from his land, the
manufacturer with his immense capital comes in, and by
the application of that capital, the land, which before
yielded but three-quarters then, yields six quarters, and
the great increase of the produce will then be used as a
set off to the injurious effects of a large importation of
foreign corn.—(Hear, hear.) A few months ago a
farmer mentioned a circumstance to him, the relation
of which would help to explain this question
better than anything be could say. A farmer
went to his landlord and stated that be had
just had a large fortune left him ; his landlord
advised him to leave the cold, clayey ground
which he then held, and invest his capital
in some good ground, and make bis fortune.
He said " the graves of four generations—of my father,
grandfather, great grandfather, and great great grand-
father are in,this neighbourhoon ; and I have worked
that farm, and I will stick to it."--(Hear, bear.)
There were hundreds of thousands of men like that man,
who had not fortunes in their pockets, but who had the
same hearts in their bosoms, whom now they were driv-
ing forth by their legislation with broken hearts, and
whose bitterest recollection—whose bitterest association,
would be with the name of Cobden.—(Hear, hear.)
We, continued the Honourable Gentleman, will
not aid you, Sir, in your triumph over these poor nun.
We do not envy a triumph in which we do not parti-
cipate, and though we are small in number, and may
be uuinfluential in debate, we will raise our voices
against the injustice that is proposed. You are now
preparing a triumph against a body of men who are
petitioning that table in vain ; and who see ruin staring
them in the face ; who hate been moderate in prosperity
and patient in adversity ; whose virtue and whose mis-
fortune is, that they are poor, and, as I said before,
whose fatal fault was, having trusted you.—(Cheers.)
You are prepared to triumph over them, for I will give
it no more milder term—s ou are prepared to triumph
over them by a strange coalition with men who, true to
their principles—(Loud cheers)—can neither welcome
you as friends, nor respect you as opponents.—(Voci-
ferous cheering.) Of whom, I may say in conclusion,
that the b: st and most patriotic amongst them will least
rejoice in the ruin and the down fal of a great constitu-
tional par y, and will most deplore the loss of public con-
fidence in public men.—(The Hon. Gentleman sat down
amidst the most boisterous cheering from his own party.)
Mr. SHARMAN CRAWFORD rose to address the
House, but was some time inaudible oh account of Mem-
bers leaving. He said that the whole argument of the
Honourable Gentleman who had just sat down was
that the Right Honourable Baronet at the head of
the Government was a traitor. The Honourable
Gentleman professed great regard for the working
classes, for whom he professed protection was required.
He (Mr. Sharman Crawford) eould not understand the
Hon. Member asking the House to continue protection
w 1419 they refused cheap food to the working olasses.

Cheap food was the foundation o' national prosperity and
protectionwasinjurious,because it enhanced the price of the
necessaries of life. He thought the arguments heretofore
used in the debate tended to confuse the question, the
main points of which were exceedingly simple. The
agricultural body demanded that the nation should pur-
chase its food at their market price, but would
they consent to proffer to the working classes
wages equivalent to the prices they sought
to obtain. They had never yet done so. Were
they prepared to do so now? Yet this seemed an es-
sential element in the case. Could they engage that all
the working classes should have their wages made com-
mensurate to the price they wished to keep agricultural
produce at? By the old poor-law wages were raised in
proportion to the price of food, but the new peer law
had done away with that. It was not so now. In the
election of 1841, two points were raised, in order
to return a majority to that House. One was the per-
petuation.of protection to the agricultural interest, and
the other the restoration of the old poor-law; the latter
especially was much dwelt on as an electioneering cry
against the Whigs, who were charged with the odium of
that measure. Had the pledge then given been fulfilled?
No; they had kept up prices by the corn-laws, and yet had
done nothing to mitigate the evils- of the new poor-law
He was more particularly anxious to address the !louse
on that occasion, on account of the question of Ireland
having been raised. It was raised by the Hon. Member
who spoke last and many other Hon. Members
who preceded him. He must acknowledge tat
he disagreed with the great majority of Irish
landlords on this question, and so far from his thinking
that agricultural protection was a benefit to Ireland, it
hail, in his opinion, proved a curse to that country.--
(Hear, hear.) It was used as an argument in favour of
the continuance of the corn-laws in England, that England
had been in a prosperous state ever since their exist
ence ; but this argument could not, at, all events, be
applied to Ireland, for ever since the corn-laws
had been extended to that unfortunate count*:
nothing but misery had prevailed there.—(Hear, hears)
He thought that this measure was a matter of deep cell;
cern to the whole of the Irish community. He had had
great hopes of the results which might arise from
the Commission under the Earl of Devon. But
he was disappointed, for he found that that Cour
mission had a reference only to the interests
of the landlords, and had no reference whatever to the
condition of the tenantry of Ireland. It was evident
from the report of that Commission that the condition
of the tenantry was wretched in the extreme. Now, by
A
an inquiry into the relations between landlord and
tenant, he found that there was a decided advantage on
the side of the proprietor of the soil—a remarkable advsr
tage, for he gave a singular evidence of the relation between
landlord and tenant, and of the advantages which were
likely to arise to both in consequence of their several
positions. By that return it appeared that the
whole of the benefit derived from the soil of 'Molds
was not more than 14s. 2d. per acre, and that
the gross revenue of the country from that
source was not more than 6,000,000 L per annute,
whereas it was known that although the soil of BIT
land was not more than that of Ireland, that at least
40,000,0001. per annum were realised. There was a
part of Ireland in which the protection of agriculture
was not considered to be of any benefit to those COw
cerned in agriculture—he meant Ennisfail. Agriculture
and manufactures were then in a perfect union, and the
people were prosperous and happy—every class of society
was in the enjoyment of the comforts of life. For his
own part, he dreaded not the repeal of the corn-lag'
he dreaded not the lowering of the price of food. • J"'
did not believe that the repeal of the corn-lswei
would damage the iuterests of the agriculturists. 111
fact, he was perfectly convinced that the lowering of thie
price of food would increase the profits of the
turist, and that that increase would be followed by We
creased emphsyment; and the general prosperity of we
people of this kingdom would follow in such a
manner as could not be created by the main-
tenance of protection to agriculture. He wished to
see Ireland cease to be a land in which agriculture
was peotected, and he wished to see Ireland depending
on her agricultural produce as well as her manufacture
It was said that the corn-laws opened a market for b"'
agricultural produce in England and other countries ,5
but of what benefit were such markets to the agriccil
turists of Irelandl?—(Hear, hear.) He admitted Oa
agricu
vast quantities of food were sent from Ireland to flg'
land, the purchase of which cost the English millions
of money. But did Ireland benefit by such oleo ~
The exports of the provisions from Ireiscer
instead of having conduced to her wealth, had led to her
0
wretche .ness and misery. Those exports were not
exportcof her superfluitios; they were the exports of s.
means of existence ; they were the exports of the,
things which the people should have to support r;
istence and a comfortable life ; they were taken from le
comforts, and they did not therefore benefit the POP,
of Ireland. The poor in that country were at the P7O
sent moment suffering under privations which no iced,
could at all conceive, and that fact, he subn3itt
of
was a proof of the justice and correctness ;„
his position. It was found that the number of serail:
England were not sufficient for the relief of her inhse'
tants, and yet from Ireland, the acres of which were P2e„h
portionately far less, they annually exported most !'".e
rnense quantities ofi provisions. They were thetherer
exporting the life and blood and substance of .lo
people of Ireland. The injury done to the Prnrch
of Ireland by this means was incalculable. Ps'aro
a system produced the most barbarous
ey
and assassinations in various parts of Ireland. •-""t
fell into those horrid crimes because they were with°,l
employment, and deprived of the means of eseefeel—
Such were some of the effects of agricultural protectiot
When they go to Ireland, what do they find? Ths„e•l
find the people, except where those murders 01,:ef
agrarian nature took place, obedient to the laws- f:.00
find the landlords living among their tenantry in F—the
and in security; and if the landlords of Ireland gave 100
system of agricultural protection, and turned
thoughts and energies on the development of the coutio4
those crimes which he alluded to would be heard of me
more. Nothing would promote the happiness and °he
fort of thepeople so much as cheap corn, and, therefore,
was most anxious to see the tax on that necessary
article of human food totally abolished. There was o
io
other great fault committed by the rulers of Rebate, tp
not doing something to enable the people re
get a better description of food. TheY tee
,
now compelled to subsist on the potato, which is of
one of the lowest articles amongst all descriptions by
vegetable diet. But if they once made corn cheap 10
removing all restrictions on that article, the s_s
would be enabled to procure it, and thus sector
for themselves a proper description of food,oe
they could then command the corn die -0
The potato was an article of food liable, from visrlos•
causes, to pericdical injury, and he was therefore:
ious that a subszitate should be provided for ivies.
the abolition of the corn-laws. If the landlords of
land, by a repeal of the corn-laws, were forced to si.a.
other means for increasing t' eir incomes than that "
land afforded, it would be better both for themselvesilsk
for their tenantry.—(Hear.) They could also, by c.ler,
vating and; improving their land, increase to a 0)051 the
able extent their present incomes.--(Hear.) In sae
greater part of Iceland land at present is not more t
half cultivated, and he was certain if the tells()
ere induc; d to improve the farms, the pro it
might be double that which it at present sr
He (Mr. Sharman Crawford) would not refer to Poi
ticular cases, but would address himself to the gee no
condition of the people of Ireland. There wasosie
period or season of the year at which a greet sr so
Lion of the poorer class of the people wet" tie
reduced as not to be able to procure food.
ea to
did not mean to say that they were actually stall bad'
death ; but there the insufficiency of food, and the 000
ness of its quality was such, as to produce the Cie
alarming consequences. Knowing such to be the
amongst a large body of the poorer Cl!jeoes,
he could not reconcile it to his eonsci
indeed he would hold himself accountable for the re s rho
if he did not protest against any mode of raising the
price of food.—(Hear, hoar.) He considered 10
bounden duty of every landed proprietor to da ~eOl
best exertions to procure cheap food for the ities
plc, and to counteract the many grievous 01°100
that were consequent on a scarcity of food-0...A to
amongst which was not typhus fever. With re'r,„,, be
the scarcity of food, he should say, that that very 'lO
had received a communication from districts the
which he was connected, informing him that efici
potatoes—the staple food of the poor--seel,lig,
tirely destroyed, and that the people were ail ;JO'
to have recourse to oatmeal. Therefore, seeing
he could not be indifferent to the great benefit n, ee;
certain to be derived from the measure then in it
by the Government ; and he should, therefore, fee3oo
duty to give his most cordial support to the Gove'
proposition.—(Hear, hear.) Ore
Mr. IBAILLIE' (whose opening observatioesm 001?
wholly inaudible in the gallery) was understootto'doet;
that the Noble Lord the Memberifor the City of eked tso
in his address to the House last night, see*" trs"
assume and to take it for granted that freestiocei
must prove nsost beneficial under any drool° esotilif
If that was the opinion of the Noble Lord,
he reconcile it with the fact that foreign nati,'o,lr;
well enough the value of protection to their narC:he
t
duction, ? Foreign nations were well aware 0' tot
advantages which England possessed for ma° 1130 1r
This country had large manufactures and eyelid eferij
for production. We had rivers, and ships, sese, ;
means of carrying out our trade at a cheap o
we also could produce articles of manufeettehreoe 3
very fine quality which would compete with ereell,
was for that reason that foreign countries 0101_„
barriers in the shape of protection for t 'ary/ se Pei;
factures ; and if that was the case, how wastages ft
sible for this country to have all those ad
ranee Pof
free trade that they were led to expect- ufsetoreeste
manufactures of her own, and if the diatiecontreh it
this country were introduced into that. r, the
should
id
trade. be
their 0 le
Ic on
Imnpdei
at i nwge ‘hvaitdhinthtreomducteodthoeurtsi%tiofacbtetis%i
of cotton goods, and that did away with aeoP. • a
r- este
tiful fhbrics, to the great injury oft doe'hhe
that country.—(Hear, hear.) Ever since the
00b the
of' England in India, there was more injuqf by alvoilicie
introduction of our manufactures there tc3' s in
soCre- stsp.-
blood which had been she lor all the th,i,
foot
had taken place. By doing sweet the
t.
productihn, we bad thrown out „ star lore,
thousands of the peole, who suffered ,oucJuene to
This was the result ofd our free trade
_hertdeahearrode,
And having failed therefore, in, all ow: free
ar
induce foreign nations to
upon do
oecour
,crwes r
i of of
urrenc vieeed air
Ts hallhey whea
dt r onlythe et xo perreifme
re n
to t
the
last few Sears in order to. b_ne beetweeeees need
the intimate connexion which exist'_llt,. Tel!eic.olleFi;
agricultural and co:neaercial prosPhsh in the r
ntrY 3,
CO a 5.
ties
look kf
e farther tyh eorn be a
whatck t h ewnels Bt4hBe.
• the de pest
nant 5 their manufacturers in stsittteweis,the
that year. Their trade and eorauglircessaPP •