The Sun.
London, England, 1844-06-26 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON WEDNVSDAY EVENING, JUNE 26, 1844.

he promised the farmers a certain price for cora.
He believed his Right Hon. Friend made no promise of
the kind, but he said it would be desirable if the price
could be kept within the limits of 543. and 58s. How
had the law worked to re dise this price? The price
bstweea April, 1812, and December, 1842 ? The ave-
rage price was 555. 10d., which was within the limit.
In 1843 the average price was but 505., which was be-
tas the limit, but this was a very abundant year. In
1841 the average price was 545. 6.1. • So that in two out
of three yeas, the average price had been within the
limit to which his Right Hon. Friend made allusion.
Another objection to the old lam was, that it deranged
the currency, for the cora which was imp ,rted to supply
the sudden scarcity produced in this country must be
paid in bullion and not in goods. Was that true of the
present corn-law, though large quantities of corn were
imported under it ? In 1842 there was a greater quan-
tity of wheat and wheat flour iutroduced than in any
former year, and yet no derangement had been produced
in the currency. The Hon: Member for Wolverhamp-
ton himself admitted that night, that they had now a
trade on the Continent in elm, which was carried on
regularly and paid for in goods.—(No, no.) He (Mr.
Gladstone) wis referring to the lion. Gentleman, the
Member for Wolverhampton, and the Hon. Member for
Stockport denied- the statement for him.-(Hear, hear,
and laughter.) He understood the Hon. Gentleman, the
Member for Wolverhampton, to make such a st atement, but
its correctness depended on higher authority even than
his, for there were introduced under the present law, in
the present year, 160,0000euarters of wheat. That was
a large quantity.—(lronical cheers:) Did Hon. Gentle-
men suppose that the same quantity was to be intro-.
&Iced every year into the country without reference to
the abundance or scarcity of the harvest at home?
( Hear, hear.) The average price of wheat in the present
year, was 565., and yet, with the price at this amount,
160,000 quarters had been introduced under the present
law. In the five first months in the present year,
although the price had not reached 575., 150,000 quarters
of foreign corn had ben imported into this country.—
(Hear, hear.) He asked whether Hon. Gentlemen
opposite .would make the charge' of unsteadiness of price
against the present corn-law which he admitted they
had, with some reason, urged against the former law ?
Neither could the charges ,of deranging the currency,
which had been brought against the former law, be
reasonably advanced against this. The present
law had been productive of considerable revenue.
In 1842, there was. a large revenue derived
from the impartation of corn. In that year
a revenue of 1,300,000/. had been derived from the
importation of foreign corn, although the duty di,' not
exceed 9s:. -a quarter. In 1834 809,000, or 900,000
quarters of corn had been imported, which paid 14s. duty.
Now it might be said that 14s. was a high rate of duty,
but it should be recollected that under the old corn-law,
when only ss. claty was raised, it was argued that the
very lowness of the duty was a proof of the evil of the
law, for said its opponents foreign corn could not be ad-
mittel at that duty, unless ' the price of corn in this
country had reached a height that showed its scarcity.
Under the present system abundance of foreign corn
entered the market at a comparative low rate of duty,
before the price reached 60s. a quarter. Those who op-
posed the present protective system were bound to prove
two things before they asked. for its abolition—that the
present corn-law was bad, and that it was bad from its
protective tendency. The Hon. Gentleman who nude
the motion had not attempted to, show that by
the adoption of it those connected with the
soil would not be very material.), injured by
the abolition of protection ; he had, indeed, said, he
(Mr. Gladstone) knew not upon what authority, that the
ap,Ticultur 1 population formed but a seventh of the whole
people of the kingdom. Surely the Hon. Gentleman
must have overlooked Ireland. If the agricultural popu-
lation, with those immediately dependent on them, such
as tradesmen in the rural districts, were considered, they
would, he thought, amount to nearly one-half of the
whole population of Great Britain and Ireland. The
Hon. Gentleman had assumed that the condition of the
agricultural population was bad, but had not attempted
to prove that it was connected with the corn-laws, or in
any wise attributable to them. Yet, on grounds so
slight, he asked the House to revoke a solemn decision
so deliberately arrived at. He (Mr. Gladstone)
could not doubt for a moment as to the course
which the Government and Parliament would
take ; he could not for a moment doubt that
they would give no encouragement to an agitation which
was productive of mischievous effects, and which was
calculated to shake the confidence of the people in the
stability of the present law—a law which had been
made as an adjustment of conflicting interests, and
which it was the bounden duty of the Legislature to
uphold, unless it could be shown that it had failed in
the purpose for which it had been framed to effectuate.
—(Cheers from the Ministerial bencheti.)
Lord J. RUSSELL said he found himself in a posi-
tion nearly similar to that in which the Right Hon.
Baronet opposite had declared the Government was
placed in a few nights ago—a very unenviable one.
Th 3 Honourable Member for Wolverhampton had
asked the House not 'to go into a Committee
on. the corn-laws, but to go into a Com-
mittee for the purpose of voting certain resolutions
which would at once destroy every sort of corn-law; he
asked the House to pledge itself against the application
of all protective duties in all cases whatever. On the
other side the Right lion. Gentleman asked the House
to 'vote against the motion 'on the ground that 'they
ought to stand by and maintain the present corn. laws.
He was not prepared to vote with his Hon. Friend, '
neither was he prepared to support the maintenance of
the present corn-law. The Right lion. Gentleman
seemed to dispute what his Hon. Prienti (Mr. Villiers)
had, he thought, taken too much pains to prove—that
cheapness and plenty were great blessings. They were
taugl.t to pray for them in their prayer books, yet the
Right lion. Gentleman seemed to doubt the accuracy of
these assertions. The Right Hon. Gentleman went on
to say that the present law should be supported
on principle, and on account of the stability of price
it afforded. Well he thought that both the
Right Hon. Gentleman and the Right Hon. Baronet at
the heal of the Government tied, from time to time, and
particularly at the proposal of the new tariff, given
utterance to principles the very reverse of those which
the present corn-law rested upon. And he further
thought the experience of the present corn-law was too
slight to allow the warmest advocates of it to make any
very favourable predictions concerning it. There had
been two harvests since the accession of the present
Ministry—the most favourable harvests—and yet upon
this incomplete experience, the Right lion. Gentleman
would have the House to assume that the present corn-
law ensured steadiness of price. He thought the Right
Hon. Gentleman would not be prepared to say that the
present law would stand one bad harvest. tie would net
discuss the question as to whether the present Ministry
had more wisdom than their predecessors, but they cer-
tainly had better weather,—(Hest', heat, and laughter.)
The `Right lion,. Gentleman said, that nothing had been
done in the present year, to break down the protective
system. He said the alteration of the law respecting the
duty oeksteehi-eves no diminution of protedtioti, because
it was injurious to the wool-grower,, as it prevented the
eonsnrAption Of lititish Vrodh Ile (Lord John Russell)
entirely agreed with the Right lion. Gentleman in his
statement, for he thought the duty on wool was injurious
and mischievous to the wool-growers in this country. He
thought this Was the present state of the dorri.laWs. He
beliteed that there Woilld be a far greater consumption
of wheat if they had a better corn-law, and therefore he
said that the present corn-law was injurious to the agri-
cultural interest theniselves. If there should be a pros-
pett df a bad harvest, but a good harvest should actually
occur; the merchant, under the present law, would be
ndticed,to make a &JnSidefable initioftdeidn Upon which
lie Would inevitably sustain a loss. If, on the contrary.
they should have a bad harvest, and that bad harvest
should occur suddenly, then a sudden importation would
take lace, and the farmer would be the party to suffer.
The gull. Cletitlemitn, thd Meniber fof Wolverhampton,
asked the House to g 0 into Committee for the papose of
voting this resolution. The Hon. Gentleman, in the
latter part of his speech quoted what he considered-pre-
cedents for a sudden abolition of duty. He (Lord J. Rus-
sell) 'nest say that he did not think that bis lion. friend
Was able to produce . precedente which at all bore him
out in his. assertion. The precedents his Hon. Friend
had taken Were the abolition of the beer-tax and the
slave-trades He (Lord John Russell) thought these
were no precedents at all, The first consequence they
might ejtpect from such a sudden change as the lion.
dentleillan proposed would be a great panic among all
persons concerned in agriculture. Thelandowner and
the farmer would be doubtful how:to employ their capital
with profit, The consequence of that would be diminu-
tion of employment
.of labour. A sudden change would
induce the merchant to make a much larger importation
than would be consistent with the demand in this coun-
try. Such a change would produce great expectations.
A large importation would immediately take place, and
this Would produce not cheapness, but a glut in the
market, thereby creating great distress amongst the
agricultural portion of the cemmunity. Stich was the
donseqttences Which they had to expect from so sudden
a change to a state of perfect freedom. Let the House
look to the authority of those who had given opinions
upon this subject. Adam Smith and Mr. Ricardo as
Writees, and Lord Grenville and Mr. Huskisson as.
statesmen, had all expressed opinions upon this sub-.
sect. Adant Smith said that a change. from prohi-,
bition td freedom ought to he made with caution 4
Mr. Ricardo, in writing on this. subject, said that thee
duty ought first to be reduced to 205., and then '
gradually reduced to 10s. Mr. Ricardo stated that even
it duty of 10s. wthild be more than reasonable, but at the
Same time he considered that it would be better to make
a gradual reduction than to adopt a sudden change.
Then what were the opinions of Lord Grenville. Lord
Grenville speaking of the protective system in 1815, said
that any change in the protective system should be made
with caution, and not suddenly. Mr. Huskisson had also
proceeded upon the same principle. With respect to
Cotton and wool, there was no very great danger, because
they were manufactured and sent to a third market,
where they competed with all the markets of the world.
There was no great danger, therefore, in complete free-
dom there. Yet, with respect 'to cotton, Mr. Huskisson,
roduced the duty from 60 per cent. to 10 per cent., and
he reduced wool to 15 per cent. With regard to other
articles, he did not go quite so far as in the case of silk,
in which the duty was 30 per cent, and in some cases
40 per cent. In all such cases be proposed a gradual
and cautious change, and not a sudden and abrupt one.
He (Lord J. Russell) found himself unable to take part
in the vote of that night. He heartily wished that some
compromise could be adopted with respect to this question
He did not expect that any vote of that House, however
large the majority might be, would put an end to agita-
tion on the subject. He did not think that it was likely
that any settlement could be come to, until those inter-
ested in the land were disposed to, consider the existing
law as really not favourable to the interests of the coun-
try, and therefore, not being favourable to the interests
of the country, was unfavourable to them as a clasS. If
manufactures and commerce were made to flourish, the
landed int9rest no9d-not fear that they would be kept

said no one collie be found boll enough to controvert,
that there was invariably discontent in the agricultural
districts when the price of bread was high, an I content
when the price of breed was low. He would net under-
take to say that he regarded a high price of bread as
good.—(Opposition cheers.) He admitted that a high
price of bread was a misfortune; but tee Hon. Gentle-
man had dared any one to deny the accuracy of the
assertion which he had made. Now, in the years 1839,
1840, and 1841, there was no incendiarism; while in
the years 1813 and 1844, when the price of bread was
moderate and low in comparison with the former years,
there was incendiarism. Therefore the Hon. Gentleman
who had challenged them to produce an instance of dis-
content among the agricultural labourers when bread
was at aelow price, and of content when it was at a high
price, need not go further than the last three
years to see the fal!acy of his assertion. The
honourable Gentleman said that this discontent
and incendiarism was occasioned by want of em-
ployment. Now, he would ask the Hon. Gentlemen
net if he had not encoeraged this feeling—he did not
insinuate for a moment that he had done so—it would
be an insult to ask the question—but he would ask him
if he did not think it postible that this persevering and
sedulous.agitation which he had carried on, no doubt,
because he thought it calculated to produce great public
advantage—if that agitation might not have suggested
to the landlords the idea that their interests were not
quite safe, anal might not have produced a pernicious
effect by inducing them to withhold the application of
their capital to the cultivation of the soil, which would
not have been withheld if their confidence had not been
shaken by this agitation—(Hear, hear)—and if the
withholding of this capital had not occasioned a want of
employment among the agricultural labourers, and so
led to these incendiary tires 2—(Cheers.) If so, he called
udon the Hon. Gentlemae to recognise with him the
soundness and the wisdom, so long as Parliament
determined to maintain those corn laws, of
disregarding that agitation of winch he was
the leader in that House, and of setting their faces
firmly against motions such as that which had be .n sub-
mitted to them by the lion. Gentleman.—(Cheers.) The
Hon. Gentleman had referred to an argument which he
had used on a former occasion, and had stated that he
(Mr. Gladstone) had urged the displacement of rural
labour as an objection to the repeal of the corn-laws.
Now, the Hon. Gentleman had answered that objection,
as if he had contended that the corn-laws would displace
labour only by throwing land out of cultivation, and had
stated that he was at a loss to conceive how it could go
out of cultivation, although it might be incapable of pro-
ducing rent. The Hon. Gentlemen had professed
to be sceptical as to the possibility of such a state of
things arising as any land being thrown out of cultiva-
tion as long as it could be cultivated by anybody on their
own account. But that did not affect his (Mr. Glad-
stone's) argument. His argument was, that granting
that there would be a great mere ise in the trade in the
manufacturing productions of the country, covitequent
upon a repeal of the corn laws, yet still the increased
demand fur foreign corn could not but be followed
by the infliction of injury tog the agricultural labourer.
Might it not be possible that this state of things would
arise: that a great quantity of land
.ntev employed as
arable land, might be laid down as pasture land—a
method of cultivation which would be mist profitable to
the landlord. but wouel be most dis'resaing to the
labourer.—(Hear, hear.) Such a mode of cultivation
would not lower the rent of the land, in fact it would
be highly profitable to the landlord, and to the farmer,
who would get a good price for the butter, cheese, and
meat which would be produced from pasture land, while
the demand for rural labour would be greatly dimin-
ished, and thus the agricultural labourer would suffer
greatly, while the lan there Would not suffer at all. The
Hon Gentleman had stated that if the repeal of the
corn-laws, by increasing the supply of corn, would dis-
place agricultural labour, every improvement in agricul-
ture might be opposed for the same reason. Now, even if
he were disposed to admit that improved methods of cul-
tivation, by increasing produce, would displace rural
labour, yet that diminution of the demand for rural
labour would be gradual. It would not come with that
rapidity and suddenness which must be the result of any
such proposition as that contained in the motion of the
Hon. Gentleman. But he demurred to the proposition
of the Hon. Gentleman upon that point. Certain agri-
cultural improvements must lead to a diminution of the
demand for rural labour ; but in most cases agricultural
improvements would lead to a general increase of that
demand. If they looked to the improvement consequent
upon the general inclosing of waste lands, or upon the
establishment of an extensive system of drainage, the
Hon. Gentleman could hardly deny but that those im-
provements, so far from leading to a diminution, would
give a stimulus to the demand for rural labour, and would
raise wages more perhaps than any other means that
could be devised. It was doubtless true that every agri-
cultural improvement would diminish the. demand for
labour. Everything that tended to diminish the quan-
tity of labour necessary to rase one quarter of wheat,
would diminish the demand for labour so far as that
quarter of wheit was concerned ; but if by the introduc-
tion of improvements the produce of the land could be
increased by many quarters of wheat, the demand for
rural labour, as a whole, would be proportionably in-
creased.—(Hear, hear.) The Honourable Gentle-
man had said that thosehwho had originally proposed the
law had intended to produce scarcity. Now he repu-
diated that charge.—(Hear, hear.) It was not for him
to say whether the, expectations of those who had framed
the laW of 1815 had been realised or not, the Parliament
of 1844 was not called upon to pass judgment on that
subject—they might have been right, or they might have
been wrong. Lord Grenville, and those who acted with
him, might have greater credit given to them by the
Hen. Member for sag:city than the framers of the law.
'But it was only doing justice to his Noble Friend (Lord
Ripon) who had originally proposed that law, to say
that the reason which he had given for its proposal was
that by giving encouragement to domestic agriculture
we should insure a more certain and abundant supply .of '
corn than by any other means. He did not expect that
the Hon. Gentleman would concur in that argument, but
it was but just to the original proposers of that
law to state that such was the argument which
they hsd used, and it was not right to as-
cribe to them motives so offensive in the public
mind as those which ascribed to them the intention of
producing scarcity. The Hon. Gentleman said that the
corn-laws limited the quantity of food ; and, conse-
quently, produced scarcity and disease. He would not
(so into the abstract proposition. He would not ask the
House to consider what would be the effect of the repeal
of the corn-laws upon those classes who depended upon
agricultural labour for their maintainence. It might be
true that the law which imposed a tax upon the importa-
tion. of any commodity limited' its consumption
That was a question on which he was not then called
upon to enter. The Hon. Gentlemen had made a speech
which was opposed to the whole protective system.—
(Opposition cheers.) The Hon. Gentleman could hardly
expect him to go into the argument as to the grounds
on which the protective system had originally been
adopted; and what encouragement did the Hon. Gentle-
man hold out to those who might be inclined to modify
that system? None whatever. He would accept of no
measure short of total repeal.—(Opposition cheers.)
The Hon. Gentleman did not argue that the ecru-laws
afforded too much protection, or that they afforded pro-
tection to the agricultural interest different from that
which was afforded to every other interest ; and it was
competent for him to contend, in opposition to the Hon.
Gentleman, that as the principle of protection Wa4.6e,
knowledged by our law, it was only a practical exem-
plification of that law, to give protection to the agricul-
tural interest. He objected to this 'notion, be:
cause a confidence in the stability Of a law
-was of the utmost importance=--(Cheers:) The
Noble Lord cheered that. If eonfideoct ill the sta-
bility of a law was to be uricletneined by agitation, what
hope was there that he would restore confidence by a
fixed duty ?—(Cheers.) It was 'clear the Noble Lord
would find himself in the same position as the defer dere
of the present lam, for the arguments of the Heen. Mem-
ber for Wolverhampton *child equally apply to his pro-
position. The One° of Parliament had been already pros
nouateed with regard to the present corn-lax, and he
trusted they woud give the law that stability *Melt
arose from the exhibition, on their part, of giving a fair
trial to a law of which they had not as yet a iloalprehert-
sive experienee ; but all the etiptelence they had of it
realised the most sanguine expectations that had been
formed Of lt.—(Cheers.) The Hon. 'Gentleman the
Member for Wolverhampton end himself *ete both foe
stability. But the Hon Geritlenkin weld I deprive at One
blow the landlords and farriers of the protection which
they had for centuries, and he_ referred to a statement
made by hint (Mr. Gladstone), that when a commercial
change was to be made, the more rapidly it W. 1.8 done the
better. But the Hon. Gentleinan begged the question in
supposing they were going to make any thane, In 1842
Parliament had bettoteed a great portion of the public
time in discussing the principle and the particulars of the
lie believed eighteen nights of that session
had been passed in discussing the eOrn-laws. 'They could
not renew that every yeah—(beet,. hear.) It Was int=
possible they could do so, mid if Parliaident doiiiented
to keep a questicln of spelt nittetnitticle in perpetual
azitation, it Weald not only be injurious to those whose
interests Wete more immediately concerned, but to the
Character of Parliament iteelf. Ile claimed tiertiethitig
like stability for the deeilione of Peeilantent.—(" Hear,
heir," frora Lord the Noble Lord *as
quicker than he (Mr. Gladetteto) tvae; add he attadhed
raeatilegs to his *tette *Ma he never intended they
should bear= &at if Hon. Gentlemen opposite were
Willing tts accede to that proposition, he called on them
to vote against the motion of the Hon. Member foeWol-
verha:npton.—(Cheers,) The Huge Gentlerilin bleb flo
corh-law—his arguments were
charge against the
directed inthillst protection of every kind, and he called
till them to abolish protection to agriculture as they
abolished protection to wool. He denied that wool had
any protection. The ditty cf a peony a pound tee at
operated as a tat On llritish prodltee. It depressed the
price of fleitiele Wool by disethleaging the consumption of
articles with which British wool was mixed. Then in-
stead of abolishing all protection, they awarded protec-
tion that very year to the growers of cofreeaiidsueatrh.:
night and his stieeeliet for riser occasions. The pre-
tt
(Ironical °been.) lie had observed a marked distinc-
' Lion between the sp,eeeh of the Hon, Gentleman
sent lei had now been in operation twoyears, and they were
l ros e-
ect of the harvest
'years by no means favourable to the working of the law,
for in the beginning of 1842 the p
was very bad, and it turned out to be an abundant one ;
and, on the contrary, the first five months of 1343 gave
the highest prospect of an abundant crop, but the her-
vweosit.
kfeeldl
?
oiv had theto h
law
old law was that it occasioned rapid fluctuations
in price. Now no person could say that in
greatest objections H
those two years, daring which the present law
was in operation there had been any unsteadiness of
price, and during the present year, in which there was
no great change expected, the price of corn had been re-
markably steady.—(Hear, hear.) The averages kept
moving from week to week in scarcely a perceptible de-
gree, is night lion. Friendi had stated of him that

lagging behind ; the landed interest was sure to derive
advantage from any law in favoUr of commerce and
manufactures. Before he sat down he must say,
although the argument of his Hon. Friend was against
the whet: protective system-Of the country, he (Lord
J. Russell) did lament, when this question was brought
fi.rward, that the whole of the case was net stated.—
(Hear.) He thought it would be fairer for the country
to go through the whole of their system of protection,
as it existed both with regard to corn and agricultu-
ral produce, and the prelim of manufactures; to take
every kind of protection as it exis ed, and show that it
was all unsound and injurious, for the purpose of abro-
gating it altogether.—(Hear, hear.) He thought that
would be a fairer course in bringing this question for-
ward than continuing to harangue on the question of the
corn-laws, mixed up, as they frequently were, out of that
House, with attacks on the landholders of the country.—
(Cheers from the Ministerialists.) Those attacks could
conduce nothing to the settlement of this coestion.—
(Lend cheers from the Conservative benches.) He be-
lieved th it these attacks on the agricultural interest in
general had done much to indispose the landholders—he
believed it had dme much to indispose the farmers to
any settlement of the question..—(Cheers.) He believed
tivat the ilon. President of the Board of Trade had touch
foundation for his assertion that the farmers were more
indisposed to any change in the law than the land-
owners —(Hear, hear.) The landholder; were un-
doubtedly much averse to any change, because they be-
lieved, like the merchants and manufacturers of former
times, that the protective system was the most
beeescial to their own interests. But the farmers were still
more indisposed to a change than they were, believing
that the efforts made with so much pas ion to procure
that change were made by men whose zeal blinded them
to the true merits of the case. In the present state of
sffairs they could not expect a settlement of the question,
and he regretted that the agitation should be prolonged
from year to year, as the Government was determined
for the present to continue the law. Still he believed
that a time would come, when those principles which
were held to be sound on every other subject, would
finally be held to be sound with regard to the article of
corn.—(Hear, hear.)
Mr. W. MILES said he did commisserate the present con-
dition of the Noble Lord—(Cheers and laughter)—but he
trusted that many gentlemen opposite would 'folow his ex-
ample, and not vote at ail, rather than, while advocating a fixed
duty, countenance the ab dition of the whole protective system.
The Noble Lord hat expressed a wish that there should be a
eampromise on this question; but he called on the Govern-
ment, and on the gentlemen of the landed interest, to submit
to no compromise. —( Loud cheers.) He felt truly happy
at having heard the speech that night delivered
by the Right Hon. President of the Board of Trade.
( Cheers.) A more holiest speech in defence of that protection
to agriculture given by the Bill of 1842, he had never heard.—
(Cheers.) It completely bore out what had been elicited from
the Right Hon. Baronet at the head of the GoVernment, that
he was determined to stand by the arrangement of last year.
—( An Hon. Member—" But this year.") The Hon. Mem-
ber said this year; but he (Mr. Miles) had a confidence in
words as they were stated.—(Cheers.) He did not agree
with the Hon. Member for Manchester, nor did he believe

oftohworn,olw?sa—ke(dsciffiht:emealrotsi.ettisl?tin—,aztchihteeeirusw.s)taLwHoaesf the importation of
wished itwhiese cofuolrd bring
bsfore them, as strongly as the subject required, the conditio t
of the productive classes. It was a sacred duty, acknowledged
by both sides of the Mouse, to do the utmost to improve the
condition of the working classes.—( Cheers.) Their condition
was most wretched ; they had only to look around them to
satisfy themselves that such was the cave. The state of the
capitalists exhibited a thousand symptoms of the unhappy con-
sequences of this state of things.--(Cheers.) The higher the
profits were the smaller amount of capital was required to en •
able the tradesman to get a living. On the other hand, a low
rate of profit necessarily threw all the trade of the country into
few hands, to the utter ruin of persons of humble means.
This gave rise to those overgrown establishments which ruined
the smaller traders, and occasioned that marked division of
society into a few rich and many poor, which the Right Hon.
Baronet had, when he introduced the property-tax, deplored as
one of the greatest of social evils. Hence originated the diffi-
culties under which the middle classes were suffering; hence
the over-crowding of professions. The state of the labouring
classes was worse. They had heard of the miserable state of
the labourers in the agricultural districts.—(`r No, no;'
from Colonel Sibthorp.) The Gallant Member for Lincoln,
like himself, came from a part of the country which was
comparatively prosperous, and Lincolnshire was a proof of the
truth of his argument ; for Lincolnshire owed its prosperity to
the fact that, within the last century, a considerable quantity of
additional land had been brought into cultivation. In the north
of England the agricultural labourer ties comparatively well
off; but it must be admitted with regard to the agricultural
labourers in the south of Englan I, that nothing c-uld be more
deplorable than their condition. In Dorsetshire, Suffolk, and
Wiltshire, the greatest distress prevailed. The case of the
sempstresses of London was a symptom of the same evil—of the
pressure of a crowded population upon the means of subsis-
tence, which forced them to offer their labour for the lowest
amount of remuneration. Some persons proposed emigration
as a remedy ;_but her Majesty's Government did not concur in
this view. He agreed in the views entertained on this subject
by the Hon. Member for Liskeard, but in his opinion that
would not be a cure to the present evil. If they did not re-
move the evil, they ought at least to forbear to aggravate the
evils of the poor of this country. That was all the poor aske),
and they had a right to ask it. They wanted a fair day's wages
for a fair day's labour.—( Hear, hear.) It was but an act of
justice to relieve the poor from the pressure of artificial restraints.
All other remedies would prave ineffectual. The poor-laws
were alleged by some to be the cause of the evil. He admit ted
that in cases of sickness and icjury the poor had a right to be
relieved, but general charity, besides being a degradation,
would only aggravate the present evil. Others said it was
owing to greedy masters who ground down the poor. Now,
he did not believe that the manufacturers or the farmers were
to be blamii for the lowness of wages, but wages were
„eovertrd by causes over which neither had any contrel,
being regulated by the quantity which the supply bore
to the demand for labour.—(Hear, hear.) They had the
power, if they chose to exercise it, of giving the poor relief
by taking off those restrictions which every man knew in his
conscience to be inconsistent with those principles
which Right Hon. Gentlemen opposite maintained, in what
they called the abstralt.—( Hear, hear.) He to'd them to be-
ware how they persevered in such a system. This wis a ques-
tion of rents, and nothing els s. —( Hear, hear.) He wished
well to land and the landed interest, because his interest was
involved with theirs, and he was firmly persuaded, if they looked
well into the matter, they would find it for their own advantege
not to persevere in a course of legislation which was injurious
to all the other classes of the community. The history of re-
striction for the last thirty years furnished abundant instances
of agricultural distress. It was their bounden duty to consider
what was the condition of the humbler classes. This duty they
should not neglect. A melediction bad been pronounced by
divine authority against those who withheld from the la-
bourer his hire, and he thought the malediction would equally
apply to those legislators who perseveredin maintaining a law,
the evils of which were fully as great as depriving the
labourer of his hire. In that guilt he (Lord Howick) could
not take his share. They should beware how they trifled
with the feelings of the people. All experience proved that
justice had been too long withheld from the people ; but justice
would be in the end extorted, and, he feared, something more
than justice. There were symptoms which showed that they
were not far distant from that end. He knew that in the
present constitution of that House, no danger might be anti-
cipated from any sudden political change. But what he appre-
hended was, that a commotion would ensue without doors,
having for its object a very different distribution of political
power than that which at present existed. The people were
under the impression that political power was at present ex-
ercised by the few for the benefit of that few, and the oppres-
sion of the many. The people of the country were, he feared,
being impressed with the conviction that, under the present
system they could not obtain justice. There was, he feared, a
bitter dislike of existing institutions becoming prevalent
amongst them, and when once the persuasion that these insti-
tutions were adverse to their welfare got possession of the peo-
ple, that moment the days of the existence of these institutions
were numbered.
Col. SIBTHORP—There was no such dislike.
Lord HOWICK feared the symptoms of it were too manifest.
How else could the universal prevalence of Chartism in the ma-
nufacturing districts be accounted for ? It had been asked why
the League did not hold meetings in the north of England—in
the manufacturing diatricts. The question was thus solved.
It was not because the Chartists were favourable to the existing
corn-laws, but because they expected that by uniting themselves
with the middle classes, they would ultimately overthrow both
the corn-laws and the institutions of this country. It was
what these men termed a knife and fork question—it was a
question of food. They believed the cause of the dearness and
scarcity of food was class-legislation. They must be mistaken
in the remedies which they proposed. but he (Lord H. )firmly be-
lieved that class legislation was the chief cause of their miserable
condition. He would further say that he did believe that God had
so constituted the world that, with fair legislation, honest in-
dustry could not but obtain just remuneration. If they
wished to obliterate those impressions from the minds of the
working classes, they must improve their condition. If they
wished to take away from them the desire for a new distribution
of political power they must give them cheap road.
Reference had already been made in the course of that debate
to the existence of incendierism. The Right. Hon. Gentle-
man the President of the Board of Trade, said he was net pre-
pared to deny that distress was one great cause of the pre-
valence of that crime. He (Lord Howick) was persuaded
that this was the cause. The discontent which prevailed had
arisen from the pressure of distress. Some very interesting
letters had lately appeared in the Times en this subject. The
writer of those letters attributed the distress existing
in Suffolk to a perverson of the new poor-
law, and to the re-establishment of some of those
abuses which existed under the old law. It appeared
that the agricultural labourers were not paid according to the
value of their labour, but according to what the overseer con-
ceived to be their wants. The wages of single men were con-
sequently much reduced. He (Lord Howick) thought this
was a matter which the Poor-law Commissioners ought
to inquire into and check.— ( Hear, hear.) But he
thought the whole matter was to be traced to the existence of
the corn-laws. If the corn-laws were not in existence there
would not be that competition for land which at present ex-
isted, whereby the farmer was prevented from giving his
labourers a fair remuneration for their labour. He (Lord
Howick) believed that the corn-law was an obstacle to agr -
cultural improvement. It was one cause of the indisposition
which existed to take leases. It was a distrust in the stability
of the existing law which prevented improvement. So long
as there was a fear of foreign competition so long
would there be a want of agricultural improvement.
lie would ask the Noble Lord the Member for Dorsetshire,
not to show himself ready to undertake a great experiment
for the sake of ameliorating the condition of the working
classes only with respect to those with whom his own interests
were not affected. He asked him not to shrink from the same
experiment with the same noble object, where his own class
and his own party were affected.—( Hear, hear.) If no
other means could prevail, he asked him to join them„ against
those measures of restriction which no one dared to defend on
principle, which the very President of the Board of Trade
had shrunk from defending on any sound principle of com-
merce ; when that Noble Lord saw the unhappy state of the
population in conjunction with these laws, that some-
thing must be wrong, that there must be impedi-
ments in the way of that system which Providence evidently
meant to be the system of the world, by which the abun•
dance of one nation was sought to supply the scarcity of another.
Seeing this, he asked the Noble Lord to join them in refusing
any longer to tolerate protection, while the great body of the
people were oppressed by the excessive competition of the
means of life, that system of laws, the object and effect of
which was acknowledged to be the restriction of the facilities
for introducing into the country the supply of food for the
maintenance of the people.—(Cheers.)
On the motion of Colonel RUSHBROOKE, the debate
was then adjourned.
WELSH TURNPIKES.
Sir J. GRAHAM moved for leave to bring in aßill to
solidate and amend the laws relating to the turnpike trusts in
Wales. The Right Hon. Baronet stated the purpose of his
measure, which is to send down a Commission to inquire into
the value of the trusts, to report upon the same, and, the secu-
rity of the tolls being given, to empower the Exchequer Loan
Commission to advance money to the trusts, the whole of
which are gradually to be placed under the management of
county instead of local boards. The county boards were to ad-
minister the roads throughout each county : the roads were to
be vested in them, and by the Act provision was made gene-
rally for reducing the present amount of tolls. Provision was
also made for the appointment of a superintendent with a resi-
dence in South Wales.
Leave was then givCenOUNT Y to brin
RgATES
in the Bill.
Sir J. Y. BULLER obtained leave to bring in a Bill for
amending the law respecting the assessment and levying of
county rates.
SALE OF BU ['TER AND CHEESE.
On the motion of Mr. CRIPPS, the House went into Com-
mittee on the Acts relating to the sale of butter and cheese,
and in Committee.
Mr. CRIPPS obtained leave to bring in a Bill to amend
those Acts.
DISSENTERS' CHAPELS BILL.
The third reading of this Bill was adj?urneel to Friday next

the country agreed with hiin ; but he believed the country did
agree with the determination of the Government, to give a full
trill to their own Bill. As to the Protection Societies that had
been alluded to, it was said that they were losing ground, while
the League was gaining power. But it should be remembered
that.the Protective Societies were only defensive, while the
League was an attacking body. The League interfered in
electrons, but what had its interference done for it ?—( Loud
cheers.) Look at all the elections of the present year. There
was one Hon. Member, indeed, whom he was glad to see in that
House—the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Bouverie); but look
at all the other elections, those for Wiltshire, Salisbury, and
every.plica they haJ contested; what had these contests won
for tnern? Look at South Lancashire !—( Loud cheers.)

What was the result there? One Hon. GentL,rnan was sent
to that House, as he said himself, to be the advocate of pro-
tection. —(Cheecs. ) But he must say that the League al-
ways saw eves ything in the most favourable light ; wherever
they were totally defeated, they were sure to claim a great
moral victory! —(Cheers and laughter.) The Hon. Member
for Stockport had described the voters of the rural districts of
Lancashire as mere bipeds driven to the poll by their landlords.
—( Hear, hear.) But let them look at the votes given at
Manchester and Liverpool, even in these great manufacturing
towns the votes were very equally divided, and he believed
that the wealth and intelligence of these places were in favour
of protection. And what was the result of their vast efforts in
other parts of the kingdom—had they taken anything by it ?
On the contrary—had they not raised up against themselves a
vast moral force, which they would find a great difficulty. in
putting d)wn ?—(Hear, hear.) Had they not arrayed avant
them, in self defence, the whole of the farmers of
England ?—( Loud cheers.) It should be recollected that
the landlords were the last to move in this question.
They were told that this law was now completely condemned
by public opinion. Though he did not approve of his motion,
he thought the Honourable Member for Knaresborough had
very fairly stated the case regarding the manufacturing popu-
lation. If the question were completely settled in the manu•
facturing districts, why did they not hold their meetings there,
as they had done in many cases in the agricultural districts?
lie believed it was because they dared not.—(Cheers.) It
was suspected in the manufacturing districts that their object
in cheapening bread was to cheapen labour.—(Hear, hear.)
To the agricultural population they declaimed on the advan-
tage of having—a large loaf at a cheap rate. This was a most
delightful theme, and one exceedingly likely to catch the at-
, tention of the audience, for he had no hesitation in saying that in
some parts of the agricultural districts, wages were much too
low.—( Hear, hear.) But, at the same time, having read
their papers and pamphlets, he must say that they entirely
failed to show how this loaf was to be obtained. It had fre-
quently been stated that the present corn-laws inflicted scarcity
on the people, but he theue,hf that point had been satisfactorily
disposed of by his Right lion. Friend. He maintained that
the people had their bread at a reasonable price, and that there
was no stoppage in the transactions of commerce, whilst he
saw nothing but ruin staring the farmer and labourer in
the face if the corn-laws were repealed. The
Honourable Member then referred to a statement of Lord
°neje to the effect that even with free trade wheat grown on the
Cotswold Hills would yield to the cultivator a profit of twelve
per sent. ; and cited the authority of three farmers in the
neighbourhood, stating that in that case the poorer portion of
the lands would be thrown out of cultivation. He thanked
the House for having heard him so long at that late hour—
( Hear, hear)—and he only asked the House to consider the
position in which the agriculturists were placed. In the agita-
tion of this question the farmers had nobly done their duty.
—( Cheers and !au/aen) Throughout the length and breadth
of the land they had declared that they would have no less than
the present protection, and after what had been said by his
Right Hon. Friend the First Lord of the Treasury, he had no
doubt that the protection would not be diminishel If agricul-
ture were allowed to perish, the best interests of the land would
perish with it.—(Cheers and laughter.)
Lord HO WICK, who rose amidst loud cries of " Adjourn,

said—that at this late hour, when an adjournment was wished
for by the House, he was reluctant to occupy any time. But
as it was also to be wished that the debate should close to-mor-
row night—(Cries of " Now, now," and " Go on, go on ")
he would take that opportunity of making the few observa-
tions which he had to make upon the question. He agreed
with his Noble Friend ( Lord J. Russell) that the form in
which the subject tsar now brought forward was inconvenient,
and that it would have been better if his Hon. Friend the
Member for Wolverhampton had rn ,ved for a Committee of the
whole House; he would have more willingly supported it.
With all that ineoneenience, he would support the motion.—
( Hear, hear.) The question was now between the existing
law and total repeal.—( Hear, heir.) It wee the Government
that had brought the question to this etate.( Hear, hear.)
The Hetise seat dfieen to determine between two extreme pro-
positions, and he for one, stolid prefer the vote for the total
repeal of the law. They had just ben told by a Member for
a large agricultural county, that the wages of the agricultural
labourer were much too low, and it had been shown that in
manufacturing districts the wages were too low. The Right
Hon. Vardriet at the head of the Government had stated that
wages and profits were so low, that he could not risk a reduction
of the hours of labour.—( Hear.) Having these admissions, that
both agriculture and manufactures were suffering in the same
wily, hew meld there be a more important inquiry, than was
propeieci by this rtiotim, into the cause of such a state of
things?—( Hear.) On that ground he was prepared to give
his support to this motion. There was a low and
the inadea-
uete reard of labour and a low r f prfits, which were
ttributaoler dritirely ttt corn-lawsate (Cheers.) Ile would
confine the few observations he hid to make to that one point.
The Hen. Member for Knaresboroueh had niotted an amend-
ment, that it was a calamity to the pourer classes that their
clothes and other Matters should be made with greater rapidity
than tefmerlyt He %tendered that he did not propose to go
back to the aboriginal liystetit.-e( Het', hear.) In manufac-
tures there had been a great inereerie Of productive power, and
so there had been in agriculture, bat not t ) the sexed extent.
Each individual labourer in agriculture produced more of
human food than the labourer of the last century, and they
produced two or three times as much food as in the time of
Elizabeth the labourers did. Well then, if labourers were
so successful in producing food and clothing at the present day,
how was it that they had less remuneration than in ancient days?
The Hon. Gentleman who had just sat down, had admitted
the labourers were in a bad condition in the west of England ;
but why was it that the men had bad wages, and their masters
bad profits? Taxation did not affect it, because, during the
last 25 years taxes to a large amount had been taken off, but
the condition of the labourers and capitalists had not been im-
proved by it. If taxes did not afford any explanation what did?
Why, the monopoly of land in England. That he was right
in this view of the subject was proved by the fact, that wher-
ever land was abundant the wages of labour were high.
This was the case in Canada, and in South Australia. The
Canadian labourer, with less facilities for labour, was
paid better than the English labourer, and had better
food and habitations. The reason of this was, that
there was a large field for employment, whereas the field was
extremely limited in this country. Monopoly and restriction
must diminish wages and reduce profits. This must always be
the effect of a restrictive system. It was a monstrous injustice
to prevent the poor man from making the most of his labour. It
was a peculiar injustice on the part of the Right Hon. Baronet
opposite, who, during the late debates on the Factory Bill, had
enlarged so much on the sacred right of every man to the pro-
duce of his own labour, and that it was an injustice to interfere HOUSE OF LORDS, June 25.
by law with his right to dispose of it. Did they not now inter- The LORD CHANCELLOR took his seat on the Wool-
fere ?—( Loud cheers.) If the labourer could exchange the sack at Five o'clock.
produce of his labour for thirty quarters of foreign corn, and Messengers from the Commons brought up the Salmon
they prevented him from from doing so, and compelled him to Fisheries (Scotland) Bill, and the Brighton and Chiches-
exchange it for British corn, of which he could only procure ter Railway Bill.
twenty qaarters in exchange for the same amount of labour, OPENING LETTERS AT THE POST-OFFICE.
were they not robbing him of one-third of the fruits of his The Earl of RADNOR rose for the purpose of roe
labour.—(Cheers.) He did not assume that those were the newing the motion which he had made the other even-
proportions ; but whatever were the proportions, in those •
mg on the subject of opatinT, letters at the Post-office ;
proportions they deprived him of the fruits of his bon-
They and he really. thought that, consistently with the argu-
est industry and gave it to another.—(Cheers.)
took from that man that to which he was fairly entitled.— ments which he had used the other evening, the Noble
(Loud cheers.) This was not taxation for the benefit of the Duke ought to consent to the motion. The principal
state.—( Cheers.) All classes were equally interested in main- argument used against the motion was, that there was
taining the necessary machinery of Government. But this no allegation that the power vested in the Secretary of
taxation was not for the purpose of raising money. Right Hon. State of issuing warrants for opening letters at the Post-
Gentlemen opposite repudiated the idea of continuing these office had been abused. Now their Lordships could not
laws for the sake of revenue.—(Cheers.) They continued them but be aware, from what had occurred in another place,
for the purpose of protection—for the purpose of agricultural that accusations had been made that the power had been
protection, which was depriving every other class of the corn-
used for purposes for which it was not necessary, and
munity of the power of exchanging the produce of their labour
no attempt had been made to disprove those accusations ;
with those who would give them the most for it.—(Cheers.)
and ho felt that it was necessary that something should
It was shutting them out from the cheapest market, and com-
pelling the weavers, Cutlers, and other labourers of this country be dine to retrieve the character of the country.—(Hear.)
to go to the dearest market for the purchase of their food.— He would not eni;er into any argument as to the pro-
( Cheers.) That was the real meaning of agricultural protec- priety or impropriety of the existence of this power in the
tion.—(Cheers.) It was a gross injustice to the other classes. hands of the Secretary of State of stopping letters, al-
-(Cheers.) In all fully peopled countries there was a ten- though he thought that it ought not to exist, nor as to
dency is profits and wages to fall—that tendency was in some the propriety of extending the power of these warrants
degree checked by that machinery of which the Member for to the opening of more than one letter. He thought the
Knaresborough entertained so ill an opinion,butif they allowed ,aw required
food to be freely imported from abroad, although it would not J. that a separate warrant should be
issued for 'the opening of one letter. He believed that
stop that tendency, yet it would so check it that it would not
the law intended to confine that power to matters re-
he felt as an evil by the great body of the community.—
Cheers.) It was the means which had been appointed by lating to internal policy only. lie did not believe that
Providence to make the resources of thinly inhabited countries I that law was intended to give the Secretary of State the
available to older peopled countries.—(Cheers.) Was it, right power of stopping letters at the Post-office, except in
to interfere with that process ? and not for the purposes of cases where the personal safety of her Majesty, or the
revenue, but for the benefit of a particular class to , well-being of the realm, was at stake. Now, no one

FIELD G ARDEN&
Mr. COWPER brotight in a Bill to enable parishes to
make further provision for the increase of field gardens for the
labouring poor.
The other orders of the day were then disposed of, and the
House adjourned at Half-past One.