The Sun.
London, England, 1846-05-12 00:00:00

THE IRISH COERCION BILL.

Mr. O'CONNELL presented; petition against this Bill.
RATING OF SMALL TENEMENTS.
Mr. J. BLACKBURN presented a petition from the guar-
dians of a poor-law union (the name of which we did not hear),
praying that the owners of small tenements should be rated

instead of the occupiers.
Mr. WALKER presented a numerously signed petition
praying the House to restrict the sale of spirituous liquors on
Sunday.
THE POLICE AND THEIR RELIGIOUS DUTIES.

The Earl of ARUNDEL and SURREY begged to put a
question to the Right Hon. Baronet the Secretary for the
Home Department, of which he had given him notice. He
wished to ask the Right Hon. Baronet what were the regula-
tions with respect to the attendance of the Metropolitan Police
force on their religious duties ?
Sir J. GRAHAM said the Noble Lord was probably aware
that in the admission of privates into the police force no
inquiry whatever was instituted with respect to their re-
ligious duties. The force was open to all denominations.
With the exception of those on actual duty on Sunday, the
members of the force were at liberty to attend any place of re-
ligious worship they thought fit. Those belonging to the Es-
tablished Church had seats provided for them in almost every

church in their respective districts ; and with regard to the
others, they were left at full liberty to go wherever they pleased.
BRIDPORT ELECTION.

Mr. G. BANKES said he had a petition to present of
rather a peculiar nature, and he trusted he should have the
indulgence of the House if he departed from the general
rule which had been laid down, that no Member should
address the House on presenting a petition. The
petition, however, which he had to present on this occasion
involved a matter of privilege, and a matter upon which the
House would have to decide. He believed he might at once
state that there was no precedent to be found similar to the case
he had now to lay before the House, and he had some doubt
whether it would be considered a question of privilege or not; at
all events, supposing this petition to be true, and he had no
reason to doubt that it was true, it deserved the serious at-
tention of the House. He would state the substance of it, in
order that the House might judge for itself Gf the degree of
importance to be attached to it. The petition was
signed by William Lockhart, an elector of the borough
of Bridport. The House was aware that the minutes
of the evidence of the Bridport Election Committee had been
printed. It would be seen from that report that the decision
of that Committee turned solely upon the question as to whe-
ther the vote of an elector—who was the Mr. Lockhart in
question—which gave the majority for the late sitting Member,
had been erroneously placed in the return. The Committee
found that it had, and the decision caused the sitting of the
Hon. Member who now sat in the House for Bridport.
The SPEAKER intimated to the Hon. Member that the
question involved no matter •f privilege, and it was
out of order to speak on the presentation of the petition.
Mr. BANKES—It would appear, then, by this petition that
there were grounds of objection to Mr. Baillie Cochrane's elec-
tion, but it was also certain that there were equal objections to
the election of Mr. Romilly ; but during the last year
the Right Hon. Baronet at the head of the Government had
declared the determination of the Committees should be
satisfactory.
The SPEAKER—The Hon. Member must give notice of
a breach of privilege before he can introduce the subject in this
manner.
Mr. BANKES—Then I must rest upon this position, that
the petitioner should be heard at the bar of the House.
The petition was ordered to lie on the table.
ORDERS OF THE DAY.
The Bill for the Northern and Southern Connecting Rail-
way was postponed.
HANTS POLICE CASE.
Mr. COLLETT wished to ask whether there was any
foundation for the statement that police-constable Hale still
remained in the police force of that county, and whether Sir
Charles Hay wood still remained in the magistracy?
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said, that
the question put by the Hon. Member, the House would see,
had been put upon an exparte statement.
Mr. COLLETT said that that statement was the founda-
tion of his question ; and he had every reason to believe it was
correct.
Sir JAMES GRAHAM hoped that some time longer than
four days would be given to make an inquiry such as that called
for by the Hon. Member into the character and conduct of a
gentleman of high character, and well known to them all.
Mr. O'CON NELL—Let the Hon. Member hand the state-
ment to the Right Hon. Baronet.
Mr. COLLETT said he would persevere in his notice to
ask the question, and begged to baud the statement to the
Right Hon. Gentleman.
THE CORN BILL.
Sir J. GRAHAM moved the order of the day for the third
reading of the Corn Bill.
The Marquis of GRANBY said, that in rising to address the
House upon this question, he trusted he would receive the in-
dulgence of the House for a abort time. He would oppose this
Bill, because upon it depended the fate of the poor man and the
labourer, and because it was a question of whether the Eng-
lishman was to be superior to the foreigner. Before he entered
on the question before the House, he wished to make a few ob-
servations on the manufactures of this country. The Noble
Lord near him (Lord G. Bentinck) the other night said, and
said truly, that they did not desire to see the manufactures of
this country decline.—( Hear, hear.) They did not wish to see
the stream of its prosperity conducted into worn-out and useless
channels. They wished to see it, like the noble river outside
those walls, flowing in a continued and full stream, and not
like a rushing torrent, that at one time inundated the
country, and at another dried up to an useless
he
:hey:
augmented
an
onceß sweepinga thatrco on
ne
considered
i o f
and unprofitable pool. They did not wish to see
the manufacturing interests decline, although they
knew the evils of the present system ; for when properly
conducted they were of benefit to the country. If any proof
of that fact were wanted, the Right Hon. Baronet theomlraeFpemitieeertnsreit:tt
Minister of the Crown, whom he did not then see in his place,
had given it to them the other night. The Right Hon. Gen-
tleman had said that those counties in the neighbourhood of the
manufacturing districts were more prosperous than those
counties further removed. The inference that should be drawn
from that was, that they should endeavour to draw the two in-
terests closer together. They should endeavour to
create a better circulation of the blood in their
own veins, and should not assist other counties which
did not require it. These were the principles
which should be applied, and he believed that these were the
principles which had long been entertained by many of the
manufacturers. He did hope that they would show the world
that her Majesty's Government were not bound by the Anti-
Corn-law League, by not giving up their present principles.
The object of the corn-laws was much misunderstood. They
(the anti-protectionists) said that they starved the people. He
denied it.—( Hear, hear.) He said that their object was to
supply food to the people at a constant and moderate price.—
( Hear, hear.) There were two great principles involved in
this question. The first principle was that by the continuance
of protection they would be able to feed the people from the
produce of their own soil. Employment would be given to the
employmentpe ople of t this i
us n
dc country—' it! nt
which,r y --- h
if
falmt ha yn y a
of
fd
thosem a nl yg
gentlemen
l pe lmo ye
nm eat—anwh 0
at
till a late hour in this heated and ill-ventilated apartment
would have recourse to, they would in a short time become
Much more vigorous, and capable to discharge their duties
thdeamooierneoyetfifocoakcypiaooTihne
trecosinipdpipyroini cytrichpiomlweemieerenrwetoinaswoatbfno,tl
produce
toceiff
and
they would be enabled to have from their colonies as much as
would meet that deficiency, and by this means the colonies
would be benefited; but if scarcity arose, and the corn-laws
ptiwereroon v eadb with abolished, lhi sa ht et dh their,e
colonial.f ore
capabilitiesig foreign
produce,produceof wt
htooi us
thelcdotuhndeetn:
—( Hear.) The Noble Lord near him (Lord G. Bentinck)
the demands of its increasing population ; for from theheeeot
rgeotaurrtnerosf tohfe
increase
es hoof
corn
oweads thatoorn compared
dre
with
hre
181432,000._
(, Hear, hear," from Lord George Bentinck). Another point
which, though not immediately connected with the corn-laws,
had yet an indirect reference to them, and was of very great
himephooritdang.
hisA shitanwdashmeuc‘hvoboeldttetraksetattehde i4a book which
roefad Aair.pasAllison
she'w‘
e speculators and bonded till sheaving
nerty of
woapulation."
ntrchkonsidered diminished the supplymianykoeutr.
the foreign corn had
read-
ingt'
smfcohaao errnke NobleiScarcity.
toyst.:fromghw t
'thisoi
ul
pa d
period of
vndheaerdaesdiunrpfeoorl
politic,
siecd, that
wtheer
were
beforeonblouse
He would advise the House to pause and consider well
what effect such a system had upon the scarcity of corn, and,
therefore, whether it would not be better to reform such' an
unjust. Looking at the amount of taxation in this country, and '
abuse,t
theha that
House.t h tel is
ea than a towT laws which
powah Rightssi
eshu chhHe
at the amount of capital which had been s
pent on the faith
of those laws in improving land, he could only say thatthey
were not unjust, but highly politic and
state of the country.—(4. Hear, hear," from Lord G. Bentinck )
But he went en to state that there was great distress . -
He feared that might under the
present corn-law.
cases, but he thought that the farmer who threw off his good
warns great coat on a winter's day because it was cold would
act just as wisely as the farmer who threw off pro-
tection because some distress existed.—(Cheers.) They
were also told that protection was the bane of ag ri.
culture, and that it wanted competition to excite it. He
denied that protection was such ; but if it was, must it net
also be the bane of manufactures ? It was not likely that
it should be bane of the one and not of the other.
Why, what a' great injustice—the Hon. Baronet was fond of
the word—to protect the one and leave the other defenceless.
of cow, the answer would be that prcittetiou was glowed to

the former for the purposes of revenue ; and be would ask, had
not agriculture the same claim upon them. He had, he considered,
a plan which he could recommend to the Right Hon. Baronet.
it was a great commercial plan, and one which would answer
all purposes. They might read in the first pages of almost
all political economists, that moderate taxation did considerably

stimulate industry.— (Hear, hear.) Why, this then was
the very thing which they wanted. Let him adopt this
plan and he would do away with the injustice and double
the revenue.—( Hear, hear.) But, in truth, protection was a
benefit in one case as much as the other. He held in his hand
a letter, written by a Noble ancestor of his more than two cen-
turies ago, and he considered that the cause of protection could
be stated by few in that House in a clearer manner. The no-
bleman to whom he referred was Lord Franc's Roos.
The letter was addressed to Mr. Carey. In this letter the writer
said that an importation of corn was an exportation of money, and
that even in a case of necessity it was a hurt to the common-
wealth.% If the importation of corn was unlimited, the effect of it
would be to destroy husbandry, and therefore the poor would
starve for the want of work, as tillage laud would be thrown into
sheep pasturage. What, asked the writer, was the use of corn
being cheap if the poor man had no money to purchase it with?
This was the opinion entertained in 1610 on *his subject. He
now came to the most important point in the argument. It
was the relation of the rate of wages to the price of fwd.—
( Hear, hear.) The Right Hon. Baronet, the Member for
Tamworth, said that he could no longer sup; ort the corn-laws
because the price of corn did not affect the rate of wages. The
Right Hon. Baronet dismissed the manufacturing labourers at
once from his consideration. To that he (the Noble Marquis)
would say he had heard it stated, by more than one Member
on the opposite aide of the House, that the principal argument
why the corn-laws should be repealed was, that by the reduced
wages paid the labourers they could better compete with
foreigners.—( Hear.) This was a point, however, in his (the
Marquis of Granby s) opinion that should not be determined in
such a summary manner. But he would proceed with the
argument as it related to the agricultural labourers.
The Right Hon. Baronet said that during the year
1837 the price of corn varied 38s. Between 1837 and
1841 the variation of the price was 38s; whereas,
during the same period, the rate of wages varied but Is.,
varying from 10s. to Ils. per week. Now, he (the Marquis of
Granby) must say, had this been the case, there would have
been some show of reason for not maintaining the corn-laws ;
but he submitted, the Right Hon. Baronet had been mistaken,
in the argument. If the Right Hon. Baronet would go down
to Thetford, he would find it otherwise than he had repre-
sented, and that though the money rates of wages might not
have much varied, the actual wages received in other modes
than by money had greatly altered. He (the Noble Marquis)
relied on certain returns furnished to the House of Lords by a
Noble Relative of his, and these returns showed what had been
the variation in the rate of wages in the neighbourhood of Bel-

voir. In 1838 he collected the average gages cf forty-two
labourers near Belvoir, by going throughout the different
cottages of the labourers. The price of corn in 1838, was
60s. a quarter ; in 1839, it was 525. ; the wages of the labourer
in 184'2, were lls. 2d. a week; in 1839, according to the

return which has been made to the House of Commons, they

had risen from 12s. to 13s. a week, so that the difference
between the rate of wages in 1838 and 1839, was ls. a week.
although the difference in the price of corn was not more than
a fifth of that amount. It appears by the same returns, during
the year 1838, the labourer consumed on an average, during
the week, 3lbs. 1 loz. of meat, while in the year 1839 the
_ . . .

consumption was 3lbs. 6Aoz. So that the labourers abso-
lutely consumed as much as 421bs. of meat less in
the cheap year than they did in the dear year. If they were
to take this calculation as the basis of their consideration, it
would he conceived be quite satisfactory. If such
were to be taken they might very well set the ques-
tion at rest, but if they were to have recourse to a
further test, namely, that of the proportion of the labourer,
they would find that those wages varied from 40s. to 50s.
per cent., and that the lower price prevailed during the years
when there was a cheaper price for corn. This principle held
throughout the returns which had been furnished by the corn
markets, and as shown in the reports from the various towns in
which the corn markets were held ; so that no doubt could pos-
sibly exist upon the subject, where the competition of the labour
market came into contrast with those of the prices of the corn
market. If the Hon. Members on the Treasury benches
wished to convince him that the poor man would be better off
for having the price of corn lessened, he would say to them,
let them give up their salaries for one year—(Laughter)—and
then tell him they found bread cheaper, and he would believe
them.—( Hear, hear.) Even if they did that, still they could
not feel any effects from it, for they would have something to
fall back upon, while the labourer had nothing but his employ-
ment ; and deprive him of that, and you deprive him of every-
thing.—( Hear, hear.) He would now make a few
observations, and only a few, upon the Irish part
of the question. He believed that all parties
in that House would agree that a great deal
of distress did prevail in that country. But he could not see
why that should be made the foundation fora repeal of the corn-
laws. It had been said that if the ports had been thrown open
to relieve that distress, it would be impossible ever to close
them again ; but he could not for the life of him understand
that argument ; and he believed the Government were now be-
ginning themselves to see that that was a bad argument.—
( Hear, hear.) They also argued that it would be better to
relieve the distress in Ireland by repealing the corn-law than
to call upon this country to subscribe money every year, for a
number of years, for that purpose. Now he should say that he
regretted very much that the Government had introduced, with
the Coercion Bill, no better measure for the relief of the distress
in Ireland.—( Hear, ksar. ) He would refer to the observation
made by the Hon. Member for Lynn, who had said that by this
measure they would throw out of employment 500,000 families,
and add to the two millions of destitute already in that country
three millions more. He had not heard that observation con-
tradicted. They would have to ask the people of this country
to feed twice the number that they would otherwise have to
feed, and at the same time diminish their powers of going to
the relief of the Irish people, although they would be still as
anxious as ever to do so.—(Hear,f hear.) Ile now came to the
arguments held out to them to induce them to
consent to the repeal of the corn-laws, and here he was met by
a head-sea—a sea which, in nautical language, was called a
confused sea. He no sooner recovered from the shock he re-
ceived on one side, than he recoiled from a shock on the other.
lie had been told by some that the advantage of the repeal
would be the cheapness of the bread, and immediately after he
was told by others, and in some instances by the same people—
( Hear, hear)—that the people were not born, and the country
not discovered from which this great supply of corn was to
come. In his confusion and distress he naturally turned to the
prime mover of all these great measures, in the hope that he
should find some consolation, and derive some enlightment from
him.—( Hear, hear.) Alas, it was going from the shades of
evening into the depths and darkness of night—(Cheers and
laughter)—it was confusion worse confounded.—( Cheers )
The Right Hon. Gentleman would tell them nothing, because
be said that he could not.—(Laughter.) When he asked him
and the House if it was about to vote for a great social altera-
tion like the present on such a fatal error—which would rend
asunder the ties and associations now existing—which would
increase the evil of the present day, instead of alleviating it, and
unite the manufacturer with the foreign agriculturist, instead
of rivetting those ties which ought to exist between him and
their native brothers and friends—he received no answer.
He was not sufficiently acquainted with the subject himself to
be able to bring forward facts in proof of his position, but he
learnt from those friends around him that in the event of the
abolition of the corn-laws the price of corn would range from
335. to 40s.—(Hear, hear.) If so, the statement which had
been made at one of the late agricultural meetings was per-
fectly correct. (The Noble Lord then read an estimate of a
Mr. Everett as to the effect on the produce of 300 acres of land
by the abolition of those laws.) The price, at present, of certain
produce of this farm was 1,964/., by the proposed alteration it
' would be 1,3471. 10s. The Noble Lord could state that there
was a farm which now brought in 1,8411. 55., which would
only produce 1,3001. ss. after they repealed those laws.
—(Hear, hear.) He had endeavoured to prove to
the House that the repeal of the corn-laws was most impo-
litic and unjust, and he would go further and say that
if there really had arrived a necessity for the settlement of
them, there could be no permanent arrangement under the
present Government.—(" Hear, hear," from the protection
benches.) The Right Hon. Baronet had come into power by
the support of the agricultural body, and he would read to the
House an extract from the Quarterly Review to prove that the
Right Hon. Gentleman had defeated the Whig Ministry upon
this question in 1842. The reviewer took the lan-
guage of the Right Honourable Baronet, and then
commented upon it ; and what said that Hon. Baronet?
He held the same language now as he did then, and he upheld
the principle of a graduated duty, but, if they asked him to
what amount, or the exact details, he could not pledge himself.
Well, then, he considered, by accepting these conditions, the
Right Hon. Baronet did pledge himself to maintain a corn-
law ; " and this remarkable and bold declaration," says the Re-
viewer, " strongly enforced by lucid arguments, was fol-
lowed by a celebrated division, in which 362 Conservative
Members accepted the proposition of the Right Hon. Baronet,
and called him to power by an unexpected majority of ninety-
one. Sir R. Peel declared boldly on what terms he would
accept power. Those conditions were accepted; support was
given with unexampled enthusiasm." But what was the pre-
sent conduct of the Right Hon. Gentleman ? Before those
measures could come into operation, the Parliament should be
dissolved, and he did ask the Righti Hon. Baronet, supposing
the corn-law should be repealed in another Parliament, would
it be a permanent measure ?—( Hear.) Well, they had been
told that they should have discovered that at an earlier period,
but had not Lord Grey discovered it, who was a
bitter but an honest opponent.—( Cries of " Hear.")
He could not presume to say what the effect of the proceedings
to which he had alluded might be, but this he would presume
to say, that it did behove the several Members who supported
the Right Hon. Baronet to consider what he might say next,
and to consider whether he might not ask whether the point
which be had propounded might not be discovered sooner?
He would not say this of the minority of this House, but he
would appeal to the great 240 by whom that Right Hon. Ba-
roner's opinions had been approved. He did not wish to depart
from the facts before the House, but he could not help re-
minding the Members of that House, that they were asserting
the principles which the Prime Minister chose to dictate.—
( Cheers.) He and the friends around him had supported the
corn-laws because they thought them to be right, and they
refused to negative them because they did not conceive them
to be wrong.—(Cheers.) He thought that what was right for
the benefit of one class could not be contrary to the interests
of another.—(Cheers from the Opposition benches.) He was
anxious to support the present corn-laws, because they took
care of the interests of the tenant as well as the landlord, of
the labourer as well as of those of his employer.—( Cheers.)
He would entreat them to believe that they could not injure
the roots of the tree without at the same time doing a detri-
ment to its branches ; and he would still further entreat those
Hon. Members who usually and most energetically supported
the Government, to recollect that they could not injure the
interests of any other class without affecting their own, and
that they could not now interfere with the rights of those
classes without at the same time allowing that there was
an equal claim to interfere with their own rights also.
But even if the Right Hon. Baronet was right, and the
landed interest would not be injured, he thought it would be
but poor recompense for the loss of the yeomanry of England.
—( Loud cheers.) He did not believe the Legislature would
sanction the present measure; but, if they did, he hoped the
anticipated evil would prove incorrect.—( Hear, hear.) He
hoped the explanations of the Right Hon. Baronet, however
vacant, would be verified. The Right Hon. Baronet said he
would not retain the helm of state unless that helm was al-
lowed to traverse freely. He (the Marquis of Granby) feared
that, if the Right Hon. Baronet succeeded in altering the
course of the vessel of state from its direct and tried course
to the port of posterity, he would meet the fate of many a
mariner that had gone before him.—( Hear, hear.) He would
be drawn aside by tides and currents, until at last, tossed
about by the winds and waves, his vessel would become a
wreck on the barren and inhospitable shores of free trade.—
(Loud cheers.) If that should happen, then he had no doubt
the Noble Lord the Member for Lynn, with his crew, would
come to the assistance, and do what they could to get the
Right Hon. Baronet off.—( Hear, hear.) But his fear was,
that then relief would come too late.—(Hear, hear.) He
thanked the House for the attention it had paid him, and he
would now sit down, by moving that the Bill be read a third
time that day six months. (The Noble Marquis resumed his
seat amidst loud cheers from the protection benches.)
Mr. GASKELL said he rose to second the amendment,
and in doing so he felt it to be no small disadvantage to follow
the admirable speech of the Noble Lord who had just sat down;
however it was a duty from which he could not shrink, when
he considered, the auspices and other circumstances under
which this measure had been introduced, and he thought that
04 was the time when Hon. Members were called upon to

state before the House and the country the reasons why their
opinions still remained unchanged upon the mea ure.
Had the intervals that had elapsed between the different stages
of the discussion upon it admitted, he would have called upon
his constituents to express their opinion upon it, and if they
differed from him, he would then have requested of them to
find some other gentleman in whom to repose the trust con-
fided to him.—( Hear, hear.) He should confess he was at a
loss to see the validity of the argument that if the Forts had
been thrown open it would be impossible to close them again.
If the ports had been thrown open, then the question as to
closing them should be legitimately tested.—( Hear, hear. )
At that period it was expected that the arrangemen• s then ex-
isting would never have been disturbed. He could not conceive
how the experience of three years justified the sweeping
changes which were contemplated by the Government. He
believed that the free importation of foreign grain would have
the effect of throwing the land out of cultivation, and the
labourer oat of employ. He would tell the operatives that corn
could not be introduced into this country at a lower rate than
at present. Mr. M'Culloch had stated that it was impossible
for foreign corn to be told in this country under 525. per qr.
They bad been told that the withdrawal of protection would be
the dissolution of the constitution. They had been told that

the proceedings of the League were intended as an attack on
the landed interest. He knew that a section of the party oppo
site had acquired great influence out of doors and in that
House. If those measures were to be successful either in the

pb
er e
as et
tnetndParliamentedwith
itb t
b eo rbei in
eafintys ttieth e
ther, hpe
eterpul set ewd that they
the would
Gentle-
men
would
do pbpeosai s
tai tgi csi
aptaitsefade.
ti
nW
thna
ttbe ve entr
thatmightb
ebye
btaldi e
nreets ugl
eint
up a system founded on settled principles for a new-fangled
doctrine. They (the protectionists) had this satisfaction that
they hadnever abandoned or betrayed the trust which had been
committed to them.
Mr. SHERIDAN wished to take the present opportunity of
speaking on a matter of a personal nature, which was indi-
rectly connected with the business before the House. The
Hon. Member for Dorsetshire, in bringing forward the report
on the Corn Importation Bill, had thought proper to cast some
imputation on the veracity of the statements which he (Mr.
Sheridan) had made. He trusted that he might be allowed on
the present occasion, as it was a matter that affected his char-
acter, to occupy the attention of the House, while he endea-
bvoeeunre
ec tonpar o
bt
sc
ehriameai et l f
bfyr orb
et hHenunn. j
is
et
Ina Tee; sf orn
Ds
nwrhs
ei which
hihraed.
He thought that that Hoyn. Gentleman would be better employ-
ing
his time if he were to look into the condition of his own poor
in Dorsetshire than occupying himself with comparing
the amount of destitution in Ireland with other parts of th;
country. The Hon. Gentleman had asserted that the quota-
tions which the Noble Lord the Secretary for Ireland had
made use of on a recent occasion were in direct variance with
the truth. He would not go into any detailed statements with
respect to these accounts. They were made public on his au-
thority, and he was responsible for their truth. He was satis-

fled as to the correctness of his statements. Since last Friday
he had addressed various letters to persons in the country, and
in reply had received letters from clergymen which stated that
the rate of wages in their county averaged 7s. per week. The
Hon. Gentleman then read a letter from the Rev. Sidney

-
Osborne, with respect to the labourers of the Blandford Union.
It was a document dated 1843 ; but the Rev. Gentleman was
well persuaded that the description contained in it with
respect to the labourers of the Blandford Union was equally
applicable to the present year. The labourers were divided
into two classes ; the first class received wages averaging from
Bs. to 9s. per week ; out of which they had to pay house-rent,
the other class received wages averaging from Bs. to
9s. per week, and these accounts tallied exactly with
the information he had derived from his own inquiries
The Hon. Member for Dorsetshire had stated that he did not
know of a case in which wages were so low as 7s. per week ;
it did appear to him a strange circumstance, that a gentleman,
holding so high a position in the country, and so highly re-
spected as the Hon. Member, and who was chairman of the
beard of guardians, should come forward and coolly state in
his place in Parliament that he did not know of a single
instance in which the wages in his county were so low as 7s.
per week, when day after day, month after month,
and year after year, he was in: the habit of
affixing his name to the reports in which
those very cases occurred. He had written to the relieving
officer of the Dorsetshire Union, and in reply he received a
letter, dated the 10th of May, 1846. That letter contained an
account of the wages of the able-bodied risen, who had applied
for relief at the union. it stated the average rate of wages in
the district did not exceed 7s. or 7s. 6d. per week. He had
asked the relieving officer, and he would ask his Hon. Friend,
whether he could state a case in the county of Dorset where
a man, who is paid by the day, received more that Sc. per week.
The relieving officer of the Dorsetshire Union, in answer to his
question, had said that he did not know of a single instance of
a man working by the day receiving more than Bs. per week;
neither did he believe that there was an instance in that county.
Se much, then, for the statements of the Hon. Alember with
respect to his veracity with respect to wages in Dorsetshire. He
thought he was justified in saying that his Hon. Friend had
done him great injustice when he stated that his ( Mr. Sheri-
dan's) assertions were not in accordance svith the statements
that had appeared in the public prints. The Hon. Member
had said that it might be true that in some places the agricul-
tural labourers received a very trifling sum per week ; but to
explain the cause of his smallness of remuneration was, that he
" was not up to his work." Why, how was it possible for a man
that was compelled to feed upon horse-beans and turnip-tops to
be "up to his work ?"—( Hear, hear.) The agricultural wages
were scandal )usly low.—( Hear, hear.) He hoped the House
would consider that he had fully answered the statements of
his Hon. Friend. He firmly believed that the withdrawal of
of all protection would not have the effect of improving the
condition of the agriculturists. Wages did not vary with the
price of corn. The Hon. Member having read the letter of
an agricultural labourer, which has appeared in the morning
papers, to show that the wages of that class were stationary
and fixed, proceeded to say, that as long as the poor-law
was administered in its present state, so long
would those poor people remain in their present degraded
condition.—( Hear, hear.) The Poor-law Commissioners,
when applied to for relief by an agricultural labourer who had
a family, refused to admit him into the workhouses if he were
able-bodied, and only gave him a few loaves, or something of
that sort ; he was consequently to return to his customary
labour for any sort of remuneration. Notwithstanding the
present flourishing state of the country, there had not been
the slightest increase in the wages of the agricultural labourer,
during the last year, in Dorsetshire or the other argricultural
counties adjoining—( Hear, hear)—and he therefore believed
that the adoption of free trade would not benefit the agricul-
tural labourer.

Mr. FLOYER then explained some statements which he
had made on a previous evening. The Noble Lord the Secre-
tary for Ireland had stated, on the authority of his Hon. Friend
Mr. Sheridan, that the average rate of wages of agricultural
labourers in the county of Dorset was 7s. per week. But if
the public believed that statement they would be labouring
under an erroneous impression, the average rate being 93. per
week. In his (Mr. Floyer's) own neighbourhood he believed
that the common rate of wages was 7s. per week, but it must
be recollected that they were allowed a certain quantity of
fuel (perhaps not as much as they were entitled to), a house
rent-free,', and some potato ground, which would make
their wages equal to 9s. per week at the least.
He did appeal to that House, whether he was not entitled to
stand up and make some remark when he heard the Dorset.
shire peasant compared with the poor Irish labourer.—( Hear,
hear.) He had risen to address the House unprepared, and
he trusted that some allowance would be made to him if he
spoke in a stronger method than he intended. The words he
used upon the occasion referred to were, that the rate of wages
in •Dorsetshire were from seven to eight shillings a week, but
the Noble Lord mis-interpreted the expression that the state-
ments made by him (the Noble Lord) led to an impression
which was wholly at variance with the truth. He (the Noble
Lord) considered that he (Mr. Floyer) said that his statements
were wholly at variance with the truth. Now he never said
any such thing—he never meant to make such a charge upon
his Noble Friend, who always weighed his words carefully, and
spoke them with consideration. And now with regard to the
present state of the Dorsetshire labourer. He believed that
he had already stated, that it was quite as good and even better
than it was at almost any period. He employed a great num-
ber of them during the winter at certain task-work, and the
earnings of these men varied from ten to eleven shillings a
week. The present winter he had employed men
in the same manner, and gave them the same work
to do, and of precisely the same quality; but some
of them, from the demand for labour prevailing,
left off working and went to other employments, and he ad-
duced that as one of the reasons which caused him to say
that the present state of the Dorsetshire labourer was better
than usual. As to the condition of the poor-house, it de-
pended, as Hon. Gentlemen were aware, upon very different
circumstances, and on matters which had very little reference
to the state of wages. But he was able to state that very few
able-bodied labourers, not above four or five at the most,
speaking usually, were inmates of the house over which he
had the honour to preside as chairman. But he was sure the
House would agree with him that the poor-house was not a
safe criterion to go by, in judging of the condition of the la-
bouring poor. And with regard to potatoes, they were selling,
as he believed, at from seven to eight shillings a bushel.
—( Hear, hear.) The stack was by no means what is termed
" over," nor had it deteriorated since it was first stored ; in
fine he might state in conclusion, that he believed the condition
of the labouring peasant was as good as he had known it at any
period since he had known anything about such matters; and
before he would sit down, he wished to state that be had no in-
tention to address the ouse that evening, but he had been
called up by the remthaartksthoef
ratheteHofonl.aboGeenrtlieem
Dorsetshire
eentsohrihreadwhaes
any desire to sal,
hsueffit etiheenrte,
wasindee
areiedt
ewasoffparayfirong thmwehm etratthhecowuegs,ldewish it to be;
which had
been adopted in many instances, and which he considered liable
to a great deal of unfairness.—( Hear, hear.) That mode was
by paying so much corn per week—whiches
twtawrAhtaeaeenmsasdtcae ee
wasrttitea ofni
whatne hwlf
tytehae gnseci
eovtr
nhmea
lunt
jes
muchHno
eeAyu sb epartu bushel
onenlf
when etoyhf
atpolf
taken
iaewnneraedgi dneoutsf
into
were
:ere,
account
ahene—at
paid per fortnight,dmobweryeitrtpohetehimrste:week, at a rate of about five shillings
the bushel, and the remainder of the wages was given in the
shape of money. He considered that he had a right to place
these facts within the knowledge of Hon. Gentlemen,
and he hoped his Hon. Friend would forgive him
for exercising that right.—( Hear, hear.) He was happy that
he was able to agree with him in the latter part of his speech,
for he did not see how an alteration in the duty on corn could
better the condition of the labouring poor. In considering this
question, they should consider to what extent the people of that
country could consume corn ; and with regard to this, he
would allude to a return quoted by his Noble Friend below
him (Lord G. Beutinck), by which it appeared that in the
year 1835, which was a year of remarkable agricultural pros-
perity, that there were seventeen millions of quarters passed
through the markets of this country ; bread was at that time
accessible to the poorest man—not one that had a
shilling to pay but could get sufficient.—( Hear, hear. )
The people had as much as they wanted ; indeed,
corn was se profuse that it was given to cattle. They
had in hand at the present moment one million and-a-half of
quarters of wheat, and before the close of the year they would
have it amount to two millions. Now, could any person con-
sider that corn could be introduced profitably to the agricultu-
rist at a rate below the present rate of duty ? or did any person
consider that if they repealed the corn-laws, that the importa-
tion would be limited to the amount he had already men-
tioned? No, surely not. All other nations, finding here a free
market, would pour in their surplus corn in their most
abundant seasons. The consequence would be to throw an im-
mense quantity of land out of (salivation, and instead of seven
teen or eighteen millions of quarters of wheat they would have
some hundreds. In conclusion he would say that he wou!d
oppose to his utmost the principle of the Government measure
as destructive to the best interests of the country.—(Hear.)
Sir JOHN EASTHOPE said, so far the wretchedness had
been allowed, and they should not be much longer detained to
inquire whether those poor creatures were existing onosfotmhee
seven shillings per week, and they were told by
the life of them, how an importation of corn.,
representatives of this country, that they cannot understand
hrom some
keepingf for
But if they
down the pr;ces, can benefit these poor creatures
earnestly hoped
could not understand, he humbly and most
epoloorthcreawtuornelsdtahneamseerlytehse,
he
they
ymatter of now at hnadt
itfhteni
they
y ha
had luminaries
enoughwoluilfde gl
left
tto i
in them
creatures living on seven
whole family, and that
question satisfactorily.
con-
sequence to have bread .
shillings per week, to f saidrf po ro
rat
be cheap or dear, it was all the same to them. They
let bread cheap
wished to be sent to the country on the question. He thanked
p Theyr
ovi d e
God it would go to the country, and their advocacy of the
people would be properly understood. He availed himself of
the opportunity of expressing the obligations of those

labourers, who were not reduced
and their unbounded gratitude for
less of all consequences, in which
come forward, and confer upon the
benefits which the country had ev,
the Hon. Gentlemen would di

let them be sure that the ig pool
that they were in error ; they knew that it was not
the fact that the price of bread did not materially alect
them, and it would be a common waste of time—it would
be an insult to the common sense of the country, to cons .der
the question further. He did not intend to go into the tletate,
for he considered that the question had been worn threadhtre--
( Hear, hear)—and he would conclude by once more off, ring
his warm acknowledgments to the Minister for the manly and.
noble course which he had so generously adopted and so I tar.
lessly pursued.
Mr. W. MILES would challenge all aho conceived they
knew more of agriculture than those who cultivated the la ads,
to go with him into the question of the effects of these coot em-
plated changes, and he would prove to their satisfaction that
they would be injurious, not only to the landowners but tc the
farmers and labourers. He would in the first place refer tc the
law as it was in 1828. He would then glance at the present state
of the law, and thirdly, to the effect of the proposed alterati
The Hon. Gentleman, after detailing atleonsiderable 7,th„
and with as much gusto as if that were the first night of the de-
bate, what in his opinion the law of 1828 conferred uporr the
country, proceeded to say that the law of 1842, as compared with
that of 1628, was good for the consumer as well as the producer,
and was equally beneficial to the state. During the law of 182 ,the
quantity of wheat imported into this country for the thirteen
years which followed was 13,626,315 quarters. This was im-
ported on an average at 14s. per quarter, and was productive of
a yearly revenue during this period of 255,493/. Since the
law of 1842 came into operation, the quantity of foreign corn
imported amounted to 4,944, 762 quarters. The average
price per quarter at which this was imported was and it
brought to the revenue the sum of 690,368/. Thus it ap-
peared that by the law of 1842, as compared with that of 1828,
the price of corn was lower to the consumer while there was
in a
larger amount of revenue to the State. The inference deduci-
ble from this comparison was clearly favour of the law of
1842. He would now allude to the state of

things which migkt be expected in the event of
the alterations which he had proposed being car-
ried into effect. His Noble Friend near hint (Marquis of
Granby) had with great perspicuity stated what would,
be the effect with regard to two farms, the statistics of which
he gave. But as these estimates referred to farms cultivated=
the three course system, he (Mr. Miles) would show that th
same injurious consequences would take place to the agricultur-
ists. The Hon. Gentleman, after illustrating his argument, by
o farms by
fo ther
the newEo
that a t tiwt w
detailing the anticipated prices which, according
ofto his calculation, would be paid for the produce
English
lit3ahr tariff proceeded i
colt
oristto
contend
',ntend
olsai
with the foreigner. What, he
,Inrc‘could ask, were the pricest
a
Odessa in February last ')
ebruary, 1829, the ?rice was
from 16s. to 17s. On the 14th June, 1845, the price was from
; 21s. to 255. so that the fluctuation
4s. Now if the freight be addedtdhuering that period was only
245. 9d. to 28s. 9d., as the freight could
e owootulld
be ran
afeuifated
rom
higher than 7s. 9d. per quarter. At Stettin and Holstein,cthe
prices ranged from 255. to 265., while the freight was only
from 3s. to 45.; nor did it appear, from any of the
retu
rns
which he held in his hand, and which were carefully and accu-
rately prepared, that the average price of foreign wheat was
more than 345. 9d. from any place it might be expected. He
found that when the price of wheat in England was at 335. 6d.,
it was selling at Odessa for 265. Oid. ; and this would show the
effect of the importation of foreign corn on the markets of this
country. He should prove to the House how land
would be depreciated by free trade. He would take a
farm in Nottinghamshire and show how much it would.
suffer under a free-trade system. The Hon. Member here
read several documents, to prove that when wheat was selling
in this country at 38s. and at 455. the quarter, it was to be
had at Odessa for 275. The Hon. Member then stated that,
with reference to a farm in Nottinghamshire, it at present pro-
duced 2,355/., and under a free trade it would only bring.
under the most improved system of culture, a sum of 1,323/.
10s., making a reduction of about 11. Is. 10d. per acre.
Was not that a consideration ? If they were to carry cultiva-
tion from the lowest valley to the top of the highest hillsothey
could not snake up the deficiency which would be caused by a
free-trade law. He would advise the House to pause before
they meddled with the agricultural interest. It was pr wed,
that if it required 100/. per acre for the purposes of a farm,
they would be interfering with two hundred and fifty million:
of agricultural capital. He would read statements
to the House which were on most undoubted authority.
Those statements, he would contend, for they were confirmed
by the accounts which had been received from the northern
dig: ricts . He found by some returns he held in his hand, that
the relative prices of labour and corn for the forty years from
1804 to 1840 ranged at about 6a. sd. and 10s. qd.
for labour. But in the year 1815, when prices were at an un-
usual price, the rate of labour was 155., while the price of
wheat went so high as 120 s. He had thus endeavoured to
show, in corroboration of the statements of his Noble Friend
who had spoken to-night, that in some comities in England the
prices of labour did not rise and fall with the price of wheat.
He now only wished he was able to show the differences of
prices of those articles between this country and other coun-
tries; but he would at least show the difference between this
country and other coun!ries in regard to the amount of taxa-.
tion. He would ask the House to look at the amount of the
taxes per head in this country and in America. It
appeared that in the United States of America the land taxation.
amounted to about 6s. 2d. per head, and what was called the
state taxes amounted to about ss. 9d. per head : while the
taxes in England amounted to about I/. 7s. 9d. per head..
Again, in America the payment of those taxes was made, and
the revenue raised by the sale of land, which was general,' at
the rate of about ss. per acre, or at the enormous rate, on thirty
years' purchase, of 2d. per acre. Then they had, in England
the fact that the sale of land brought 11. per acre ; and they
had bogs amounting to about 1/. lls. per acre; so that with.
these facts before them, he would ask how could this country
come into competition with America? He would not now
dwell upon Russia, for he was aware that he wearied the
House when he last addressed it upon this question ; but this
he would say, that if that country were regarded with attention,
he did think that just cause would be found for alarm, be, ause
it would be found from statistical works that had been pub-
lished upon the subjects, that there were parts of Russia so
fertile, that that country would in time undersell all the world,
in agricultural produce ; for even now, after R lasi..
had exported supplies to all countries, she still had
twenty-eight millions of quarters in store. He had
now endeavoured to call the attention of the House to the pas
sition in which this measure would place the landlord, the far
suer, and the labourer ; and with regard to the latter, he
would say that the rights of the agricultural labourer had as
good a sight to be respected as those of the manufacturer.
There was one point, however, which he bad not heard al:oder:I
to, and that was the effect which this measure would have upon
clerical tithes. It would be recollected that the Tithe Com-
mutation Act was passed in the year 1835, when corn was se
low as 395., and it was upon an average then taken that the
commutation was struck. But the effect of this measure on the
clerical tithes would be to reduce the income of a clerg, man.
having 3001. a year one-fifth. He would next ask the House
to consider their colonies. What reward would they give their
colonies who had stuck to them with so much fidelity? Were
they to be cast off in favour of hostile countries? He would
just show the House the state of the exports from this country
to America for a few years past. The Honourable Member
then read a long statement, showing the number of 3 ards
of calico exported to America for the last five years.,
If they would cultivate our American colonies, which took so
much larger a quantity of our produce than any other cows.
tries-if they would use those colonies, they would do snore
good to the agricultural population, than they could effect by
throwing open a free trade with countries in the face of hos..
tile tariffs. If they were mad enough to throw themselves on
the mercy of foreign nations they would endanger the sifety
and prosperity of all the mercantile classes. Th'ey bad been.
told of compensation ' • he wished that word had never been
used in the House of Commons. It was an insult to every
class of farmers which possessed sufficient knowledge of arith-
metic to do a common sum. He would refer to the compen..
sation to be given in the county of Essex alone. He would.
take that county as a fair sample of all the rest, and by re..
ferring to figures which he held in his hand, he could show
that the proposed compensation was utterly inadequate. He
would show, that the actual loss to the farmer in Northam's-.
tonshire was 1/. Is. 10d. per acre, and in Lincolrshire
1/. 10s. He would refer to the opinions of the Hon. Alder.
man the Member for Stoke-upon-Trent, (Alderman Cope-.
land), as lately published in a letter to his constituents, and
which letter at once indicated the course which the
Government ought to pursue with reference to this change..
He would also refer to the pamphlet of Messrs.
Morton and Trimmer, in which the evils of the present course
were distinctly pointed out. He had also come across a state-
moot of the opinions of America on free trade; and if be had
laboured fur an hour, he could not sum up those opinions more
.
effectually than they had been summed up in hunts' p t.
taakf the
ne
in 1832. With the permission of the
the work.
e
wouldlt stated that
liberty of reading a short extract fromm
ofh the
protective system.
the opinions of America were in favourt
of the country ingeneral
because it would promote the interes
.policy in
the
people there was no question of national
It. state
people had so deep an interest, as to promote the manufacturing
te ,and save the capital of 300,000,000 of dollars, which
'wnereressot usefully employed in it. They were in favour of pro.
tection, because it promoted the interest of the labourer ; the
interest requiring most protection. If the times were hard, the
money of the rich men became more valuable to them, and
allowed them to 'indulge in greater luxuries than they before
attained. But to the labourer prostration of work was a ruin,
and the protective policy would reward him, and give him his
rightful inheritance. He (Mr. Miles) agreed with him that it
was a labourer's question. It would injure those classes who.
have only interest on their side, and not capital, and who acted
as a medium to raise the labourer to a higher condition. It
was for these many reasons that he took the strong ground be
did, and stated at once he eould give what opposition he could
to the passing of this Bill. He thanked the House for the at:
tention they had shown to him, on every point he had thought
it necessary to adduce. He thought that when they considered
the situation in which that question was, they had held out 0
good moral lesson to those who had succeeded them inthisS
House. When deserted by their natural leaders they had sea
flinched from the colours they first hoisted-they bad shown sus
self-interest in condemning the alteration of the system of out
commercial policy-they had evinced a willing desire to defend
the manufacturing interest, and had striven for the agrienl...,
tural interest. They were yet undaunted in their defences in
that House, and they were yet unshaken amidst the wreck et
principles and party. It had been said that they had delayed
this measure, but he should like to know when s
subject of such high and immense importance ha&
ever been brought forward to the House of Commons-.e
when an entire change in our commercial policy was deter.
•
mined, and against that commercial system under which
they had so long existed. They were going to new and
theoretical principles, brought forward by one whom they Ma
all admire. The talent he had universally displayed weary,*
to 1 im to want the political firmness and constancy. which,. vo:e!! •
the attributes of every great statesman. He milb told
that in this world difficulties and changes occurred which
but,
dered it impossible to carry out those political principles,
occurred to induce
he should like to know what difficulties
hadturn his br.ek on his
the Right Hon. Baronet ti us to
hd alver.s been ready
old friends ? Difficulties they a
to meet with
him. They could hear no_
more
about Inc land
every remedy the Rig
ht on. Baronet had brought forward
sent t
they had been ready
.to assent to, and therefore Ireland could
not
in their faces. He was stillunchanged, at be
d
not be thrown
conceived that when sitting with those 150 Gentlemen who
backed
the Right Hon. Baronet in 1834, when he advocated
principles which he admired and defended, he felt hiiaself
placed in that situation which, deserted by their leaders, all
the arguments in support of the cause were to fall on persons
who had taken little part in it. There was another co deaf
through which the Bill n,ust pass, before it became the h w of
the land-( Hear, hear)-and he hoped that when the prof able
effects of the Bill were calculated, and the letter of the wc rthy
Alderman widely known and considered, that the persons to
whom this Bill be entrusted would, unaned by popular clamour
and unswayed by party feelings, justly decide upon.
its merits, and would judge between the people and a Minister
who now held office nearly at the will of his former political
opponents.
Sir J. GRAHAM-I have longed for the opportunity of
expressing myself on this important question, which now,
for nearly three months, has been the subject of discussion in
this House ; and having on several occasions before addressed
the House on this subject, I am most g,
unwillin needlessly, to
occupy the attention of the House; but, at the same time, I
should be unwilling to appear wanting in respect to the Ii ebl

lU-
a V -
t•'/: '
-- j,*
t_ . --•‘` `,"
I s 13 Ii a „a•-e-i-Rm7abillOnt
th 4,044 er,sretardy
► th Mir ca ta • •
cm e _
ver4l 144ec1,,
liscover the talatitfa at
e labouring poor 1.-w w

it. .:,...,„

:u Pt,

,11

Lord and the Hen. Member who have addressed the House
on the motion for the third reading of this Bill, in speeches of
great talent and acuteness. My Noble Friend, who has just
sat down, has observed that firmness and constancy are the
great qualities to be possessed by a Minister, and avoiding
the terms of vituperation, in which other Hon. Members have
indulged, has censured the Prime Minister for tergiversa-
tion, as he cal's it, on this important measure.—( Hear. )
I must, in answer to that, say, that charged as we were at an
extraordinary time of public difficulty and danger, we should
not have acted in consistency with the public interests, had we
hesitated to give effect to the opinions we entertained om this
great question—( Hear, hear)—which now engages your atten-
tion. The Hon. Member, who has just sat down, has stated
that he believes this question, on which we are at issue, will not
pass into a law on account of the opposition it will encounter in
another House.—( Hear, hear.) I will not venture to prophecy
like the Hen. Member, but I will venture this opinion, that
whatever may be done elsewhere on this question, both in
Parliament as well as out of Parliament, in my opinion, it is
virtually settled—e Loud cheers)—and there i 3 every prospect
that in a short time it must become the law of the land.—
( Renewed cheers.) Entertaining this opinion, and having
great interest in agriculture, and desirous of the success of the
landed interest, I must say that I altogether differ from the
Noble Lord (Lord G. Bentinck) in the views he has expressed
as to the effect of the measure on the landowners and far-
mers of the country.—( Hear, hear.) I cannot think that either
the farmers or landlords are interested in the continuance of the
protective system. He has objected in the course of the
debates on the present question that the measure will
prove most injurious to the farming as well as to the
landed interests—(Hear, hear)—and he has referred
to the stock in wheat that is ready to be let loose on the market
as soon as the Bill is passed. We are told that the stock
belief
in
hand is 1,500,000 quarters of foreign wheat. It is my
that the evils apprehended by this large stock, have
by the delay created by the opposition of the been causedl'aloble Lord and
his friends, and the longer the delay the greater the evil to be
apprehended. If this wheat had been admitted into the home
market in January or February last, the effect on the markets
would have been gradual and unfelt. Four months have gone
since this accumulation has been going on, and still have
kept baek that steady influx into the market which, had this
law been passed, would have been going forward. During this
period, no new market has been opened for this accumulation
of grain; and, in my opinion, if you protract still longer the
settlement of this question—if you still hesitate referring to
public opinion, the effect will be too sudden, and, as in times
past, under similar proceedings of this kind, throw into the
market a large stock of grain, which will operate injuriously
on prices, and on the interest of those who are holders of
stock.—( Hear, hear.) With this incidental reference to the
Noble Lord, I will refer to the other topics involved in this
question ; but before doing so, I wish to glance at the ground
taken by the Hon. Member who last addressed the House. He
says that the preseat corn-law is a good financial measure.—
( Cries of " Hear, hear.") I will not charge him with
inconsistency in advancing that opinion, but with reference
to this point, I submit that my experience has led me to a
different conclusion. It has been my unvarying opinion that
it is not good or expedient as a fiscal measure, and is not to
be supported on such grounds. I neither think that a duty on
corn is defensible as a fiscal measure, or that it is beneficial to
the landed interest. The Hon. Gentleman then went on to
say that the producers were satisfied with the existing corn-
laws.—(" Hear, hear," from the protection benches.) To
that I will say, I do not believe the farmers have any reason to
be satisfied with the working of the measure.—( Hear, hear.)
But you must not consider it as a measure for the farmers or
the landowners alone. You must consider the measure with
reference to the great body of the consumers, whose interests it
is importatit should be duly and fairly consulted.—(Hear.)
The Hon. Gentleman says that the gentlemen on his side of
the House have adhered with firmness to this question, and
have continued their opposition against great difficulties. That
they have maintained their opinions with great ability and un-
varying courage I admit, and that you (the protectionists)
have consistently fought the battle ; but I recollect, that during
the debates that took place the last three or four sessions upon
this question, we had not the benefit of that ability and
courage in the sup; art of the protective principle. I
must say, that till the present session, we have not
had the benefit of their advocacy. ( Hear, hear. )
With respect to myself I have been placed in the position of
arguing this question fur many years, and from that I can state
as the result of my experience, that I have seen during the
course and development of public opinion, arguments as-
sumed some years ago in support of a corn-law that are now
entirely abandoned as no longer tenable. I have often heard
arguments about the interests of farmers and landlords in rela-
tion to this law, which are now abandoned as unavailing. No
Member is found now to urge them in the House.—( Cheers.) I
am glad that the issue of the measure is now reduced to a small
point of debate. A point that was most clearly and explicitly
put, I believe, on Friday last, by the Hon. _Member for
Shrewsbury (Mr. Disraeli). That Hon. Member said that
the question—the real question they had to consider was, the
effect of the measure on the interests of the people generally,
He said if the measure did not tend to displace the labourer
and operate as a scheme of political destruction, then it was
good, and they ought not to oppose it. It was, therefore, net
the intention to treat it as a landlords' question. Such was
the way in which it was put by the Hon. Member for Shrews-
bury, and responded to this night by the Hon. Member for So-
mersetshire. They rest the question of the corn-laws now on
the emend that they are conducive to the happiness, the
benefit, and the welfare of the labouring classes. This is the
whole question now, iuvolving a conclusion which I cannot
concede. The Hon. Gentleman who last spoke has referred
to a pamphlet, written by Messrs. Mort on and Trimmer, on the
operation of these laws, making reference to the great number of
farms in Lincolnshire and Northamptonshire with regard to
the value of land and the price of wheat. He stated that,
under the operation of the law of 1842, the average price of
wheat had been 525., and that under the proposed law it
would be 40s. Why, I must inform the Hon. Gentleman,
that frequently under the restrictive law the price of wheat
has often been as low as 395. throughout a whole year.—
( Hear, hear.) The grounds upon which he has come to this
opinion he has not stated, and in their absence I can only deal
with his inferences. I must confess, however, that I can
scarcely understand the argument, as put by him. The Hon.
Gentleman not only prophecies about the effect of this Bill, but
he gives his results of a most fanciful character to support his
views. He says that Russia annually accumulates 28,000,000
quarters of grain over and above the consumption
of the Russian people. —( Hear, hear.) To this, Tamboff is
but a joke. 28,000,000, year by year, not only beyond
the consumption, but beyond the present exports of that
country, and available for exportation when this measure shall
become the law of the land. But this is not all. The Hon.
Gentleman, along with this, tells us of wheat which is culti-
vated in land in America that requires no manure. He says
that there is land in Virginia which has been year by year
under cultivation for wheat during the last century, without
the application of manure.—(Hear, hear.) If these facts are
true—if Russia has 28,000,000 quarters of grain, or America
has land that for a century has grown wheat without manure,
all I can say is that all restrictive laws that we may devise
must fail. it will be impossible for them to stand
against snch facilities as those for the rapid and abundant sup-
ply of food.—(Loud cheers.) The Hon. Member then re-
ferred to the question of tithes. I will endeavour shortly to
reply to his objection on this head. In my opinion, so far from
thinking the change will be injurious to:the tithe receiver, it
will be otherwise. Under the Tithe Commutation Act it has
been regulated that he cannot suffer from land being thrown out
of cultivation. if it is thrown out of cultivation he is protected
by the commutation-laws, and he can only suffer, if he suffers
at all, in the variation of the price. Before the passing of the
commutation-laws, he was liable to all fluctuations, but
now it is arranged and so altered that he can but suffer
in a very limited degree. I must say it is my
decided opinion, as far as it relates to the
tithe owner, that if this measure passes it will involve no injus-
tice whatever, nor will he run the slightest risk.—( Hear, hear. )
Now with respect to the colonist?, my Humble Friend has re-
ferred to the Cariadas. It will be remembered that he was an
eager opponent last year of placing the Canadas in the same
position as an integral portion of the Bsitish Empire. Ii hen
the Honourable Member for Gateshead brought forward his
motion for placing the Canadas on the same footing as the other
portions of the empire, the Honourable Member and those
who now act with him voted against that proposition. This was
the course of proceeding, notwithstanding his profession of sym-
pathy for the Canadas, that he thought fit to take when the ques-
tion wasplaced before him by the Hon. Member for Gateshead.
Now, Sir, I have just one other topic that I would wish to refer
to, I mean compensation to the landed interest.—( Hear, hear. )
On the part of the Government, I absolutely disclaim that
term " compensatioo."—(Cheers.) I say, if it be necessary
for the public good that this measure shall be carried, it would
be unworthy and disgraceful on the part of the Government to
propose, as it would on the part of the landowners to accept,
compensation for doing an act of justice. —( Loud cheerio-% )
A measure is propounded by Government which, in their
judgment, conduces to the public good, at the same time that
it affects not injuriously a smaller section of the people. Are
the greater to be sacrificed to that lesser portion?—( Cheers. )
Sir, I will now take leave very shortly in passing to advert to
another portico of this extensive subject. 1 allude to what was
said by the Noble Lord the Member for Lynn, on the subject
of information relative to the social state of Ireland, and the
distress which at present prevails in that country. The Noble
Lord, the Member for Lynn, stated that her Majesty's
Government were mistaken on the subject of Ireland ;
he stated also that they, for the purpose of
substantiating the facts as stated by themselves,
kept back such information as told against them from the
House.—(Hear, hear.) He stated that information had been
received from the Commander of the Forces which had been
withheld ; he stated also that information had been received
from the Poor-law Commissioners, and thatl
have that information
made_g u
a every
rquarter,
had been denied to the House. Now,' Sir,
inquiry—l have made every inquiry in the
with respect to any information received from l properesd
! Noble
Lord. no information of the character described by the
Lord. 1 hays made inquiries at the Horse Guards as to anyle
information from the Commander of the Forces in Ireland, and
I am in a condition to give a positive contradiction to any as-
sertion of the kind made by the Noble Lord.—(Hear, hear, and
cheer'.) With reference to the Poor-law Commission. I
felt it my duty, in the month of November last, to recommend
to her Majesty to appoint a superior officer to preside over the
Commission in Dublin, and since that month I have been hi
constant communication with that superior officer, who is also
a member of the Scarcity Commission, from which weekly re-
ports are received by the Government. He signs each of
these weekly reports. I have laid on the table of the House
four of them, extending throughout the month of March, and
bringing up the information to the latest period, with the excep-
tion of two more reports which I hove since received, and
these latter reports also confirm the statements already so re•
peatedly made by her Majesty's Ministers with respect to the
scarcity which prevails in Ireland —( Hear, hear.) The Noble
Lord the Member fur Lynn referred to trials made by the
Poor-law Commissioners in the months of October and Septem-
ber, with the view of ascertaining the extent of this distress.
I can affirm that these investigations referred to a perfectly
different matter, and the information received had
therefore no official bearing upon this subject. The
superior officer I have already referred to left Ire-
land in November, and other visits referred to by the Noble
Lord took place in the months of November and October. I
do not know what the Inspectors of Prisons, in Ireland, did
with reference to this distress. I have never received any
information from them with respect to their inquiries in the
state of Mayo, bnt as soon as I do receive an answer to the
inquiry I have instituted, I shall not fail to communicate that
answer to the Noble Lord. The Noble Lord has said
that we have misrepresented the extent of the distress
which at present prevails in Ireland. I have never
said that distress extended over the whole of Ire-
land. I have never said that the distress in Ireland
was universal. I have said that there was a wide-spread
scarcity throughout almost every locality in Ireland, and that
the greatest difficulty would arise from its continuance.—
( Hear.) Now, to that statement I still adhere in the most
decided manner.—(Hear.) I know not whether the Hon
Member for Armagh is in his place.-01r. Bernard here.
caught the eye of the Right Hon. Baronet.) The Hon.
Member is here. I hold a letter signed by the Hon. Member.,
dated not very long ago, in which he states, toe distress in his
own neighbourhood, in the most glowing colours, and con-
cluded, by making an application to glowing
for pecu-
niary assistance. To this letter lie signs his name. He de-
amities the distress in Ireland as of such a character as to im-
peratively demand the immediate consideration and attention
of two Government. The letter is addressed to the Lord
Lieutenant, and is dated, November, 184.5. It states, " We,
the undersigned inhabitants of the town of Loughrea, and its
neighbourhood, from the frightful calamity with which this
ifereatencd from the failure of the potato crop, feel it

our incumbent duty to address your Excellency. We con-
sider, that in an emergency like the present, when the great
body of the Irish people were threatened with the
frightful evils which follow in the train of the scanty
of food, that we are justified in suggesting to
the Government, that to provide good employment for the
labouring classes will be the very best means of averting these
calamities. We subm t, therefore, that a grant from Govern-
ment of 14,000/. would tend to improve the district, and give
employment to the labouring classes, whose condition without
it it is fearful to contemplate, unless some measure of this kind
be adopted." This letter is signed by the Lord Primate, by
Archbishop Crolly, Lord Hertford, Lord Charleville, Lord Gos-
port, and by William Bernard, Esq., M.P. But, Sir, although
I am afraid that the Irish case is a case of such depression as
will force itself more painfully on the attentions
aot whichf
this
s measure
I shallillouse
day by day, yet I have never rested my y
upon the Irish case alone. I am speaking
be always ready to rethpeeat,
netheaetssitythe
ofurgerne-ceyonosifderthinagt
case did precipitate
the law which regulated and ordered the importa-
tion of corn into this country. But from
the moment that that recommendation was rendered necessary,
views of general policy and a knowledge of the general con-
dition of the peace of this country proved to the Government
beyond a doubt that the repeal of the existing restrictive laws
had become indispensably necessary. I wish not unnecessarily
to trespass on your attention, but I repeat the arguments which
brought me to that =elusion. Something was said by the
Hon. Member for Shrewsbury on a former evening, with
reference to the injurious effect which he anticipated
from the exportation of precious metals consequent on a
large importation of corn from the north.—(Hear, hear.)
Among other reasons why I advocate this change is one, the
very converse of that which the Hon. Member brought before
the House. I consider, in the present state of oar monetary
system that any large importation of the precious metals would
be very injurious to the commercial interests of England ; but
my own belief is, that if the ports are kept open for a steady
importation of corn from abroad, that so far from any im-
portation of the precious metals taking place, it will be pre-
vented by the measure which the Government propose shall
be now adopted. When our trade in corn with
foreign countries is fully established, there will be
an interchange of commodities, which will extend
the commercial relations of the several countries, and thus any
injurious exportations of the precious metals will be effectually
avoided. Well, Sir, I am also anxious to state my opinion
with reference to the effect produced upon foreign trade by the
measure now under discussion. I consider the question of
foreign and home trade so intimately connected that
they may be considered one and the same interest.
I find that the foreign and home trade are
in a series of years most materially and indissolubly connected.
The high price of provisions in the first instance consumed,
prevents a consumption of home manufactures ; the home mar-
ket is consequently paralysed, and the manufacturer is com-
pelled to have recourse to a forced exportation to foreign mar-
kets. The foreign market is glutted—foreign interests are
injured—and the home market, from its intimate connexion
with the foreign trade, is seriously injured. Then comes the
question, what is the effect of this importation into the foreign
market ? Now, Sir, I perceive that wheat in this country
is more universally consumed than in any country in the
world. And whatever may be the price, and whatever the
scarcity of that article, the consumption is very little if any
less, and the price scarcely suffers the slightest variation ; for
the labourer, who will not be prohibited its use, will rather
forego everything else, not absolutely necessary, than be with-
out wheat and bread. At any sacrifice of wages, wheat is
still purchased ; but the surplus remaining of his wages, as it
is in exact ratio with the price of that food, is so much less
expended in home manufactures. If this be true with refer
ence to this part of the argument, the price of wheat has a
great influence on the manufac' urea of this country, because
the enormous sacrifice, on the whole amount of the labourer's
wages, incapacitate him from the purchase of other articles.
What is the effect of these laws on the condition of the la-
bourers ? It has been said that the high price of the wages of
the labourer are not dependent on the price of provisions. I
admit the number of the agricultural labourers. I admit their
importance—l will not say paramount importance—but the
great importance of this class must be obvious to all. But
having given my most anxious consideration to this measure,
I have come to the conclusion that it is not high prices, with
reference to the labourer, whether manufacturing or agricul-
tural, will benefit or injure both classes equally. An Hon.
Member has said that, under no circumstances, do the labourers
of Dorsetshire receive more than 6s. or 7s. per week. From
that sum they had to deduct one or two shillings for the house-
rent, making the net earnings of the Dorsetshire labourers,
somewhat between se. and 63. per week. The same Hon.
Member stated that, prices did not vary with the price
of provision ; if corn rose, wages did not rise—their condi-
tion was literally hopeless. I say that it is anything but
hopeless.---( Hear, hear.) Try one experiment—you cannot
alter the price of wages—reduce the price of wheat.—( Cheers. )
Possibly the farmers and the landowners may suffer, but I
defy you to show that the condition of the labourers would
suffer.--(Loud cheers.) I understood the Hon. Member also
to say that was net only the present condition of the agricul-
tural labourers in Dorsetshire, but for thirty years they had been
in the same state. I would advise you for once to try, as you
cannot raise the price of wages, to lower the price of food.—
( Loud cheers.) 'Tis our duty to contemplate the state of
things as they now exist. This country was now a commercial
and manufacturing, and not a purely agricultural country ; and
if you attempt to legislate for the country as for fi purely agri-
cultural one, your error will become palpable and injurious.—
(Hear, hear.) The country has become, for good or for woe, a
manufacturing or commercial country, and you must legislate
for it as such..—( Hear, hear.) Admit this end the connexion
between commerce, manufactures, and land, is evident and
palpable. Seasons of commercial and manufacturing pros-
perity have their re-action upon the labourers in the agricul-
tural districts. Already we have railways, docks, canals ;
labour of every description is the means of giving employment
to the labourers in the rural districts. When these persons see
the great wealth in the manufacturing districts, even in the
most distant rural districts, the consequence is, when prices are
lose and manufactures flourish, wages rise ; and this is the
natural cause for the great demand for labour. Now what was
the real question at issue ? Let us be sincere in this matter.—
(Loud cheering and laughter.) I appeal to the consciences
of those gentlemen who sit below the gangway. I say if they
be really sincere in their desire to legislate for the good of the
labouring classes, whether agricultural or manufacturing. Now
let us inquire as to what are the natural effects of low prices,
high wages, and full employment. In seasons of plenty an
oscillation takes place, which leads to low prices in previsions ;
this leads to manufacturing prosperity, and the natural result,the
increased demand for labour. An oscillation again takes placa
—the quantity of provisions fail—low prices come, and wages,
in consequence, fall. Then again comes low prices of wages,
from diminished quantity of food; again comes high prices of
food, in consequence of your ports being closed against the ad-
mission of foreign grain—manufactures languish—the home
markets are dull—trade is stagnated—and a considerable export
of the precious metals is required to buy foreign corn to meet
the deficiency at home, and, as the inevitable result, the wages
of the labourer fall. Then what is the condition of the
labouring man, whether manufacturing or agricultural ? He is
worse than before. He had full employment, high wages, and
low prices of provisions ; now he is subject to the converse of
all this. He has deficient employment, low wages, and high
prices of provisions.—(Hear, hear.) I am quite satisfied that
this measure is conducive to the interests of the labouring
classes, be they manufacturing or agricultural. I must say
that no sophistry, ingenuity, or argument, will satisfy the
people of this country that it is conducive to their
interests that the prices of food should be high and the price
of wages low. I feel convinced that no sophistry will satisfy
the people of this country, that any such arrangement of our
legislation is calculated to promote the interests of the people
of this country, however generous our intentions may be, or
however unequivocal our declarations. Now I will refer to
another part of the question. Is it for the interest of the
working farmer that these laws should continue? In the
Committee, Sir, over which you presided in the year 1836,
several witnesses gave evidence as to that point. I will merely
call the attention of the House to two of them. They bear so
directly upon the point that the House will excuse me, if I
read a portion of their evidence. I will not detain it king.
The name of the witness examined was Mr. Ellie, a tenant-
farmer. Oc.e of the questions that was put to him, was—
" It is for your advantage to raise prices, is it not ?—I don't
think so. I am not at all of that opinion. I do not see the
great advantage of having hige prices. What do you consider
moat advantageous to the interest of the farmer ?—Steady
prices. The farmer when he goes to take land should look
to some steady prices, and not to adventitous cir-
cumstances to help him out of his difficulty. Do
you think the present scale (referring to the sliding
scale of 1830 has prevented any alteration of prices?—
That is a question which I cannot answer, not having been
in the corn trade, but I am certain of one thing, that the corn-
laws have raised a delusive hope in the minds of the people.
(Mr. Clay, the Member for the Tower Hamlets, asked him this
question)—l3 it, in your opinion, that steadiness of prices is
roost important to the farmer?—My opinion is not in accord-
ance with that of most people with reference to the interest of
the landlord and tenant. Up to a certain point I hold they
7.,e together. It is the interest of the tenant to keep
the land in good condition, as it is, undoubtedly,
the interest of the landlord that he should do so.
It is for the interest of the landowner to have high prices in
order to enable him to pay high rents. It makes very little
difference to me if I pay a high price or a low one. I think the
country thrives better if prices are moderate. It is better for
me not to have a low price, provided, however, my expenses are
proportionate. The next question put to him was—Do you
think you can do without protection ? Hit answer was—Not
in the present state of things ; we must come to that ultimately.
I have no doubt but we must come to it by slow and gradual
steps. Now, :his is precisely the course proposed by the Go-
vernment. The duty on corn during the next three years will
orsetsbirecease.
farmers,
grailual'y be reduced, until in 1849 the protection duties wjll
altogether
—Cheers.) Now, that is the opinion of
u
deuce of a tenant-farmer I will
nowL chalalinsa.ttenltiboenliets% thleieisevnio-
longer living, hut I had the pleasure of his acquaintance, and I
know he was a most ei
chiseltuwriasst
askedin tbhayt
the llonouiranbeleedMeamnd.ue.
trsf uflereenn:h.uel hadislaogrrtih-
seat of English farming- Well,
Riding of Yorkshire this question :
k out in 1820, would you have been better than youy are now so'ld"
The House will see that 1820 was the period when the protec-
tion was put on. Well, what is his answer ? Why, he said,
r " I do not know that nay case can be taken as a general
case, because I set out poor in life, and after a hard struggle
improved my condition. I am, however, the only remaining
• farmer in the parish alive where I was brought up. Excepting
myself there is not a farmer remaining in the parish." Now,
this is explained still more by the answer to another question
from the Hon. Member for the North Riding. He is asked
" What is the reason of their having all gone away?" and he re-
plies, "The money rents that were exacted from them." They
all conceived that wheat would be 80s. per quarter, and
their calculations were made accordingly. It soon
appeared that this price could not be realised.
but they were riot convinced of this till their ruin was the con-
sequence.—( Hear, hear.) So you see it was calculated by
the landlord and the tenant, and in fact settled, that the price
of wheat would be SW., and land was taken upon that assump-
tion. The tenants were, however, now disappointed; but the
landlords still felt justified in assuming that 803. would be the
I know that they did so, because of their confidence in
price. whowtheereeflipeerafcictolyf
wellthe
to tit?,
fusersrom honourable ohuarvai bn
bmen,een
They were con-
nectedper-
fectly with them almost from my youth.
featly convinced that the price would be 8,)5., and the conse.
quence was they postponed too long, indeed till the fall of their
tenants was the consequence.—( Hear.) Now there you have
the statement of a tenant farmer of the effect of the law upon
the body to which he belonged. I have shown you what
effect the law has upon the labourers, and I have read to you
evidence detailing its effect upon the tenant. Need I say there
is evidence to show that it has in no way been beneficial to the
landlord ? Have I not clearly shown already that they were
w thiswould
convictionpr odu ce
yi mop; eas sfiexcle
dw
ai tnhdaaconviction
eethat
dthe
al at
afi rsmtelayd
resulted in the ruin or the extincintisotnthe
of the tenant
systemnivant'. Can?
there be a stronger argument against
iw
tthheout
gangway,
In my opinion I own it is conclusive?
intend-
ing any offence to Honourable Members
I must say they erroneously assume to themselves that they
monopolise the land of the country.—(Cheers.) They
Now,bel
state themselves to be the representatives of the whole of the
landed interests, but let us see if they really
do represent the whole of the landlords of
the kingdom.—(
landowners of the fertile districts, but the representation is by
Hear, hear.) I admit that they represent the
no means general, while they represent but few landlords whose
property lies in any of the manufacturing districts.—(Hear)

hear.) Just let me prove this by eliciting the attention of the
House to the manufacturing district of Lancashire, where the
cotton trade nourishes most. Who is the principal landed pro-
prietor of the district? The Earl of Derby. And what are the
opinions of the Earl of Derby? Is he against freedom of trade,
and in favour of agricultural protection ? No, he is decidedly
opposed to the latter, and favourable to the former. But
perhaps you will say, he holds this opinion because his property
is in immediate proximity with manufactures that are
likely to be considerably improved and extended
under free trade. Let us tale another part of the
country. There is Lord Burlington, who is an
extensive agriculturist residing in this part of the country, is
he opposed to the corn-laws? Ne, he decidedly is not ; and
here, then, we have their Lords Derby and Burlington, two
large landed proprietors, who are opposed to agricultural pro-
tection.—( Cheers ) Then there is Lord Francis Egerton,
who certainly is connected more or less with the commercial
interest of the country, but still he possesses considerable
landed property, and he is opposed to the continuance of the
corn-laws.—( Hear, hear.) Let us go now to the West Riding
of Yorkshire, the seat of our woollen manufactures. The
Earl of Fereilliam is an extensive landowner there, but he is
not opposed to this movement. Pass now over to Scotland,
which, perhaps, is not so much dependent upon the commer-
cial prosperity of the country as the district I hare already
mentioned. Let us go to Lanarkshire.—( Hear, hear.) What
is the opinion of the Duke of Hamilton? Why, he is reso-
lutely opposed to the existing protective system.—(Cheers. )
You must not say, then, that you represent the whole
of the landed interest of the country, or you will
be assuming that which I am sure the majority of the
House will agree with me you have no right to.—( Hear,
hear.) The Hon. Gentleman the Member for Somerset has
mentioned an extraordinary fact, which, in my opinion, is most
conclusive, in favour of the change which we now propose. He
says the price of wheat, since 1809, has averaged from 92e. to
455. per quarter, but within the last three years the price had
been exceedingly steady. Nothing can be more conclusive
than this ; and here I may observe that I do not think this
measure will produce any great change in the price of better
years, but I am satisfied it will give the people the
advantage of always having a constant and regular
supply of food, and protect them against the sudden
rising of prices in times of temporary scarcity
at home.—(Cheers.) I have not arrived at this conclusios
until recently, but I arrived at it after a very careful considera-
tion of the subject, and a minute and searching examination of
the authorities upon it.--(Hear, hear.) No one can deny that
the corn-laws are a monopoly, and I for one, agree
witth Lord Granville, when he says, " Monopoly is
the parent of scarcity and dearness."—(Loud cheers.)
Now, Sir, I am certain, therefore, entertaining these opinions.
and most anxious that this measure which we are now discuss-
ing, should pass unmutilated and intact—(Hear, hear',—l
hays a strong conviction that if it become the law of this land
it will protect the labourer against dearness of price in an
article which is necessary for his subsistence. I believe it will
give security to the farmer in his speculations and in his
profits, and, more than all, I believe that this measure, and this
measure only, can reconcile the prosperity of the landlord with
the interests and food of the country at large.—(Cheers.) I
believe that it will extend our commerce—l believe that it will
secure the prosperity of our manufactures. lam quite sure that
it will place our foreign relations upon the surest and most
stable foundations of amity.—(Cheers.) It is my conscientious
belief that it will be memorable in our history—(Cheers)—me-
morable for this that it has secured the prosperity, the content-
ment, the peace and happiness of the great body of the people
—(Cheers)--without reference to the exclusive interests of
any particular class.—( Loud and continued cheering. )
Mr. CALEY then proceeded to address the House in so low
a tone as scarcely to be heard in the reporters' gallery. We
understood him to say that the Right Hon. Baronet had
just misrepresented the opinions of Lord Granville, who while
he described monopoly as the parent of scarcity, did not intend
to describe the present corn-law.—( Hear, hear.) That law
was protective, but not prohibitory—( Hear.) It was called
protective not because it starved the people, but because it pro-
tected the employment of labourers in the cultivation of the
land. When the Right Hon. Baronet had stated that there
were several large landowners who were in favour of the pre •
sent measures, he should have recollected that such individuals
could never be affected by any change in the commercial legis-
lation of the country.—(oh, oh.) They had no proof that
low prices reduced the prosperity of the country; these
periods of action and reaction were unavoidably
He held the opinion now which he always held, and that was,
that this was a dangerous experiment. It would injure land-
lords, farmers, and labourers, and involve the whole agricul-
ural community in one common ruin. The Right Hon.
Baronet said, that if the people of this country were in favour
of free-trade principles, it was their duty to submit to the
general feeling on this subject. For his part, however repug-
nant he might feel t: alterations of such a pernicious tendency,
he would bow to public opinion if fairly and generally expressed
with regard to them. But he denied that such was the
case.—( Hear, hear.) He denied that public opinion
was in favour of these measures, ( Hear, hear. )
How was this public tested? The history of the Anti-Corn-
law League was that they had made a great number of speeches,
and that the result was, that the impression made by gentlemen
of talent, who generally addressed such assemblies, had gained
the opinion of two-thirds of the middle classes in favour of the
Right Hon. Baronet's measure. But he believed, however,
that if they were to canvass the opinions of the working classes,
they would find that two-thirds of them were against the
measure. Had they ever called meetings at Manchester ?
An Honourable MEMBER—We have : several.
- _ . ___ -

Mr. CA LEY—If they had, he diTriOt-callthem pubiic
meetings. They were got up in that manner, there was no ex-
pression of the working classes taken, for they were meetings
got up not for discussion, but for the purpose of making
speeches for a repeal of the corn-laws. It would be very
natural for the working-classes to oppose this measure, for,
whatever philosophers might think, it was not yet in the
minds of the working classes that competition was for their
general good. Competition might be carried out to too great
a length.—( Hear, bear.) There was one competition that
might be favourable, he meant the competition of reciprocity.
He believed that there was no sacrifice that the landowners
were not prepared to make for the public good, were it shown
to them that such a sacrifice was necessary.—( Hear, hear. )
The Right Hon. Gentleman said that a more or less degree of
protection was necessary ; but he thought it very hard on the
English farmer, that what remained of it was to be removed.
The Right Hon. Baronet stated that other countries would fol-
low the example of this measure ; but he doubted that very
much, unless the principle of free trade had been established in
this country for a number of years. If that had been so, then
it was probable M. Guizot would say to the French
Chambers, " See what England, the greatest country on the
face of the globe, has done—why not follow her example ?"
The Hon. Member, with a volubility of utterance, and in a
lowness of tone, that rendered him utterly unreportable, then
proceeded to review the factory system, in connexion with the
manufacturing districts, which the free trade advocates were
desirous of extending, contending, amidst the cheers of the
protection benches, that he could not support the present mea-
sure, on the ground that to do so would be
to extend a system that had been hitherto
productive of great misehie f, and likely under the preposed
measure to be much more so. These were much higher con-
siderations than profit or cheapness to he viewed in connexion
with the present question. They must view it in its physical,
moral, social, and religious influence on the nation generally,
but more especially on the working classes.—( Hear, hear.)
The Hon. Member implored the Hon. Baronet opposite to
pause before, by this measure, he destroyed the Church, the
constitution, and the colonies. The sentiment of loyalty in
the colonies might be at present very strong, but there were
other sentiments equally powerful ; and the House might rest
assured that, if this Bill were carried, they would render
themselves a scorn and a mockery to surrounding nations, and
they would sacrifice the freedom, the independence, and indus-
try of England's hardy labourers.—(Cheers.)
The HoN. MEMBER in conclusion and amidst the most pro-
found silence repeated, in a tone of the most profound solemnity,
the whole of that well known melody—
" Oh Woodman spare that tree."
At the conclusion a burst of the most vociferous cheering re-
warded the poetic effusion of the lion. Member.
On the motion of Mr. NEWDEGATE the debate was ad-
.

journed.
W. S. O'BRIEN—WARRANT OF COMMITTAL.

Mr. P. BUTLER moved for a copy of the warrant under
which Mr. W. S. O'Brien was committed to the custody of the
Serjeant-at-Arms.—Agreed to.
CALEDONIAN RAILWAYS.
Mr. BROTHERTON presented two petitions in favour of
this rail% ay.
The House adjourned at one o'clock.

REPRESENTATION OY OXFORD.—It is currently re-
ported that there is every probability that the Conservative Member
for this city, Donald Maclean, Esq., will, in the course of a few days,
accept the Chiltern Hundreds. We have not heard any reason as-
signed fur the lion. Matub,r's resignation, zur do we vouch for the
manracy cat the report—Oxford Iferced.

. . -. . . _.
THE GREAT LIVERPOOL.—A party of passengers by
the late Great Liverpool steamer dined together, on Friday last, at the
Mitre Tavern, Fleet-street, Captain Fearon in the chair, for the pur-
pose of presenting a silver breakfast service to Captain Bowen, late
of the ship Hindostan, as a testimony of the gratitude of his tellow•
passengers for his great exertions on the occasion of the wreck of the
Great Liverpool. After din .er, when the usual loyal toasts had been
given, the chairman rose and proposed the health of Captain Boweii,
stating the general feeling of the passengers that they were mainly
indebted to him for the preservation of their lives, and reading a
letter signed by the whole party, in which they tendered their
warmest thanks to Captain Bowen for his services, and requested
his acceptance of the above-named testimonial of their gratitude.
In returning thanks for the toast, which was received with all the
honours, Captain Bowen took the opportunity of hearing his
testimony to the able conduct of the late Captain Macleod,
and the rest of the officers and crew—without which (he said) his
own exertions would have been of little avail. Referring
to his long experience in naval affairs, he disclaimed the extraordi-
nary merit attributed ,to him, asserting that no one possessing the
same qualifications could have acted otherwise than lie had done.
Ile, however, returned his heartfelt thanks to the company for their
kindness, and expressed the pleasure which he should always feel in I
meeting any of those whom he must now always look upon as among
his most valued friends Captain Bowen's speech was received with
loud cheering. The principal other toasts were—" The health of the
Chairman," proposed by Captain Ilowen ; " Mr. Baker, her Britannic
Majesty's Consul at Corunna," and "Mr. Santos, Vice-Consul at Co-
runna," proposed by the Chairman ; "Mrs. Baker and the ladies of
Corunna, who kindly assisted the lady-passengers," proposed by Mr.
Ic,si.oouhctgrilletsio;
b"cair. Hamilton and the other surviving officers and crew of
the Great Liverpool," proposed by Mr. Fitzpatrick, said " The absent
passengers," proposed by Mr. Hampton. The dinner and wines were
provided by Mr. Poole, of the Mitre Tavern, and gave universal satis-
faction. The party did not separate till a late hour.
THE OLD STOCKS RESTORED.—The almost obsolete
custom of placing in the stocks was revived in this borough (Tewkes-
bury) a few days back, by an itinerant musician, named Davis, being
committed thereto for three hours, in default of payment of a fine of
ss. for drunkenness.—Worcester Chroniee.
THE SCOTTISH HOSPITAL.—On Saturday the spring
festival of this ancient and royal charity was celebrated at the Lon-
don Tavern, the Duke of Richmond, President of the Institution,
officiating as chairman of the day. The attendance was considerably
general proposed or:7l,3,oeanrsrre
.adpgpre‘..l
smaller than usual, but the dinner, dessert, wines, &c., were excel-
lent, sad creditable alike to the taste and liberality of Messrs. Bathe
and Breach. The Chairman was supported on the right by General
Monteith, Mr. Seymer, M.P., and Colonel W. N. Burns, son of the
poet; and on the left by Mr. R. A. Christopher, M.P., Mr. Lawson,
M.P., the Rev. Dr. Cumming (chaplain), Colonel Campbell, Major
Ileslop, Major Adair, Mr. .1. Leslie, Mr. Alexander Thompson, Mr.
:3o:I
sn.
ets.d,tStewart,"
.commending
yr th, t,,.
It toh i:edo Sift
abc
tuohytmetai
ors
luiho)runelkaili
eloo)s,bopi
observing
Hospital,"
Richmond,l,: r
v'
L. Mackinnon, &c. After the usual Introductory toasts, the Chair-
manhaving acknowledged the compliment, gave aeni,l°urginggtihs that
ntwg thiits
es
claims to the support of the charitable and humane. Mr. It. A.
" the Treasurer of the
regarded as ominous of defalcation in the accounts.waAs
absence of that functionary, though somewhat inconvenient,
iltnhi
underb egv,erhawrl
let i
h,which
cesubscription
ilie,,sr,eca,esti
nlO
,p.,
eia
ri
oyvwf
agreeably
irrt
ea.,
ien,:leb,
J011y,,1 uy,
e Irl csawe dpl
spent.
n.r were very
songsvTlriiye,
Mr.i
good.i n,,, u,ocile;r3asi
course
.to,
Nilsonutti
neaearrangements,vsatelensr.:
acquitted himself with his accustomed ability.
RAMSGATE, MAY 9.—(From a Correspondent).—The
beautiful steam-vessel the Queen of the French has just been placed
here by the:South-Eastern and Continental Company, to ruts between
Ramsgate and Ostend. This day she made her passage to this port
in four hours and three-quarters, bringing 26 passengers, among
whom were .Mr • Cunningh.sin and family, Major Askew, &c., with
Performed the voyage from hence
•t ever known, having p .
to
two carriages. A few days since this vessel made the quickest
transit
Ostend in to Ramsgate,
Railway has been opened the commu-
nication ,
increased daily, as passengers may reach
four hours and nine minutes only. Since the branch of the
nication with Belgium has
can take place at the pier
added to whit embarkation and I
necessity of having boats.
e than saenvdeinngliours after leaving London;
heretla t country uanut rtyh
hi nesli:Nt,
KING OF THE FRENCH.
g;iN THE
THE LATE ATTEMPT
late attempt at Fon-
• dons relative to the
—The preliminary examinations
and should no new incident inter-
tainbleau are nearly terminated,
ill be brought at May 20th
vene, it is probable that the matter w
iltehoniu°tlt.he nece
before the Commission of
It is said that the first Pre-
sident,functions of Chambre d'Accusation.
by the Chancellor
k Carre, has been designated.
1111111S111011..es
M. Fran
e of the eXtUalitu)g CV
to draw up the report in the Ilana
OciiiMfrii. the Court of Peers, which solo fulfil the