The Sun.
London, England, 1844-03-13 00:00:00

THE SUN, LON:DON, WEDNESDAY EVENING, MARCH 13, 1844.

suits. What he proposed was, that any party who had
the misfortune to be entangled in a suit in the Ecclesias-
tical Courts should, if he thought fit, have the right of
coming there in the first instance, whether he were plain-
tiff or defendant. He did not ask the Right Hon. Ba-
ronet (Sir J. Graham) to allow the Bill to proceed fur-
ther than the second reading until the House had seen
the Bill of the Government, which had been introduced
into the House of Lards.
Sir J. GRAHAM said he was sure the spirit of ac-
commodation shown by the Hon. and Learned Member,
would lead him to suspend the progress of the Bill.
The principle of the Hon. and Learned Member's mea-
sure, so far from b ing identified with the Bill before the
Upper House, was directly at variance with it.
Mr. ELPHINSTONE withdrew his motion, and the
second reading of the Bill was postponed for a fortnight.
COMMONS INCLOSURE ACT.
On the motion for the second reading of this Bill,
Mr. SHARMAN CRAWFORD rose to move that
the Bill be read a second time that day six months, He
considered that the right of the people of England to
enjoy the privileges and rights of common, were of the
deepest importance to them. They were rights enjoyed
from the earliest times of their Saxon ancestors, and
ought to be particularly held inviolable in any new
laws they might pass. Knowing the sufferings the poor
tenants in Ireland suffered for the want of these rights
of common, he more particularly thought it his duty to
preserve these rights to the poor of England.
'They were held by rights as sacred as
those by which the landlords hold their
estates, and in taking them away they were en-
dangering their own right's. He objected to the
leading principle of this Bill, which was, that the
present possessors of these common rights had the
power of alienating them from their successors.
He thought that in the granting of the right of voting
under this Bill was fraught with much injustice, because
two-thirds of the value of the holding being required,
and all persons having leases at will, or for only 14
years, were not entitled to the right of voting.
—,(Hear, hear.) The tithe commissioners were those
only who would be benefited by this measure.
Although those Commissioners might be done away,
yet they were empowered to appoint others in
the place of those now acting, and also that
those persons would have a salary, although it
was true that they might have previous appointments.
It was quite plain that whatever Commissioners should
be appointed, it would be their interest to promote in-
closures. But it was one of the most important duties
of the House to provide the working classes
with land to occupy them in their leisure hours.
He hoped the Government would take up the subject of
allotments. The Government ought to take care that
they applied the waste lands of this country in such a
manner as to be most beneficial to the people.
The House and the Government must recollect that they
were already charged with class-legislation, and they
should be careffil not to give additional ground for belief
in such assertion. If they wished to prove to the world
their intention to sanction and support monopoly
the would pass this Bill which was to give
to the already rich the waste land of the
kingdom. He objected to the Bill on the several
grounds he had stated, and more particularly
because the present occupiers had no right to decide on
the appropriation of property which belonged to their
successors as well as to themselves. They had no just de
feece for this attempted vio!ation of the right of the exist-
ing and of the future poor of the country; nor could he see
on what principle they desired to fasten upon the coun-
try at large the payment of the expenses attendant upon
such violation. For these reasons he moved " that the
Bill be read a second time that day six months."
Colonel SIBTHORP must support the amendment,
because in the Bill of the Noble Lord (Worsley) he could
see nothing but a great wrong to the poor, a vast pro-
posed expense for secretaries, clerks, attorneys, and 140
clauses which it was most difficult clearly to understand.
He saw that money was to be borrowed from the
Consolidated Fund. He did not know what the Chan

cellor of the Exchequer would say to this. He should
be happy to hear that the Consolidated Fund was in a
sufficiently prosperous state to make those advances to
be repaid. They were to be repaid out of the taxes
levied on the country. They were to be repaid out of
the poor-rates. He thought the property of the land-
owners was already sufficiently burdened without having
an undefined amount of money drawn from their pockets
under the provisions of this Inclosure Bill. He objected to
the powers proposed to be given to the lords of the manor.
He, as a lordof the manor, might profit by them, but he
would scorn to accept a bonus upon such terms. The Noble
Lord had stated that there were 1,358,419 acres of land
in England, and 501,815 acre in Wales, of uninclosed
land, but he had not stated how many of those
acres could be profitably cultivated. He had looked at
the records of the House, and he found that from 1801
to 1835 no less than 1,919 enclosure Bills had passed the
House, and when he looked at the number of enclosure
Bills which had been passed during the last eight years
he found that no less than 2,015 enclosure Bills had
passed the House since the commencement of the century.
Another objection which he entertained towards the
Bill was, that it encroached on the rights of the poor,
who had no power of defending themselves. The Bill
gave the aristocracy an unfair power, and he was sur-
prised that Gentleman opposite sanctioned the 140 clauses
which composed the Bill. He objected that obstacles
were thrown in the way of the enjoyments and the re-
creations of the poor by this Bill. The Noble Lord said
that the Bill would give employment to the poor, as it
would cause lands which were now uncultivated to be
brought under cultivation, but it at the same time inter-
fered with the rights of the poor. He objected to the Bill
in tote. He objected to the manner in which it was hur-
ried through the House—to the expenses which it would
entail--and to the oppression of the poor, which would be
the consequence of it. On these grounds he opposed the
Bill,and would support the amendment of the Hon. Member
for Rochdale. if it passed the second reading, he would
feel bound to divide the House on each of the 149 clauses

of the Bill.—( Laughter.)
The question having been put,
Mr. CURTEIS said he would support the second
reading of the Bill ; but he thought the Noble Lord
showed too much tenderness for the rights of the Lords
of Manors. He was of opinion that all manorial rights
should be abolished upon compensation being made.
Mr. DARBY said it had been alleged that this
Bill would be injurious to the poor. He doubted
very much whether the rights of common were
of such great advantage to the poor as they
were represented to be. As far as his own
experience went, he must say that the persons
who lived on the edges of commons were
in the most wretched condition. He would vote for the
second reading, in order to give an opportunity of
having the details of the measure fully discussed.
Mr. COWPER supported the second reading of the
Bill. He said he thought the present mode of legis-
lating with reference to inclosures was a most faulty
and injurious one, and on that ground he approved
of the principle of this measure. It appeared from Mr.
Porter's estimates that there were eight millions of acres
of uncultivated land in this country of which four millions
were capable of being brought into cultivation. Popula-
tion was rapidly increasing. Some persons looked to
emigration as the only remedy for distress ; he thought
they should look to the cultivation of waste land.
The advantage of being able to feed a pig or a goose—
(Hear, hear, from Colonel S:bthorp)—was very great.
(LEFT SITTING.)

structive conspiracy," so are the hitter ; and the voice
of even-handed injustice demand that the corn-law
repealers, as well as the union relsealers, should be sub-
jected to the same process as that which Mr. O'Connell
and his fellow-sufferers have lately had to go through.
Viewing the matter in this light, it is no marvel
if the people of England should accord to Mr.
O'Connell the enthusiastic reception with which he
everywhere meets. We are glad that he not only
appreciates the cordiality with which he is every-
where received, but that he at length sees, and can-
didly acknowledges, the great injustice he has so
long done to Englishmen, by identifying.them with the
acts of the Government. Mr. O'Connell is at length con-
vinced—he ought to have been so years ago—that
the people of England have all along as decidedly
disapproved of, and denounced, the injustice
done to Ireland, as he himself, or any one
else, could have done. Late as is the period at
which this conviction has been forced upon him, we
rejoice that he now feels it in all its force, and that
for the time to come, he will not confound the
people cf England with their Tory rulers. Know-
ing that English sympathy is with himself and his
country, he will never again soil his lips oy apply-
ing to us the epithet of Saxons, but that the dis-
tinctions of Saxons and Celts shall hereafter be
buried in the dust, and " England, Scotland, and
Ireland " be the motto of all. Let Mr. O'Con-
nell abstain from the use of offensive epithets when
speaking of England, and he will prove himself
a 'patriot indeed. With the three countries cordially
united and cordially co-operating together in a common
cause, a Tory Government will be powerless for evil.
With England and Scotland enlisted in her favour,
justice must and shall be done to Ireland.—Advertiser.

THE FIGHT AT MAHARAJPOOR.
The following spirited description of the attack is ex-
tracted from a letter written by a Lieutenant of her
Majesty's 40th Regiment, who commanded the light com-
pany:—

" Camp near Gwalior, Jan. 17.
" Our orders the night previous were to ad-
vance and take up our position to the left of the
village Mungawlie, my company (the light) firm-
ing the advanced guard. We had no sooner
reached our position than they began to play at long
bowls with us, and the precision with which they fired
was beautiful. We immediately deployed into line, and
some of the Company's artillery came on our right,
fired a few ill-directed shots, and limbered up. 'We
continued steadily advancing in line, under a very
heavy fire, across a perfect plain, expecting to
receive assistance from cavalry, it not being the
duty of infantry to take guns in that position. How-
ever, no cavalry coming, of course the sooner we got to
the guns the less fire we should receive, and the order
to charge was given and nobly executed, the 40th rush-
ing to the guns and bayonetting the enemy, who fell
fighting, sword in hand, with the greatest coolness
and determination. Stopford was hit here by a
matchlock ball at the head of the regiment, and fell
by my side. However, the fellow who wounded him
was bayonetted by a sergeant instantly. We then
charged after the retreating infantry, who took cover
in a piece of cotton. From this place they were soon
dislodged, after a smart tussle with the light company.
We were no sooner clear of the left of the village
than we were again within the range of another battery,
and on our getting near the guns, we received repeated dis-
charges of grape and chain shot, which committed dread-
ful havock in our ranks ; but ' forward' was the word, and
with a loud cheer the men rushed on. We now found our-
selves opposed to a very strong position, which the enemy
had taken up at a well ; this well being surrounded by a
wall affOrded good cover, and besides this, they had taken
possession of a traveller's resting-house and made holes
in the walls to fire through. Here they fought like
devils : the loss on both sides was very severe ;
amongst the number poor Codrington was cut down by
a sabre, and Nelson shot in the arm. We marched
into the thick of it, and drove them out with the bayo
net; scarcely a man escaped, but presently we found
that some trees near the well were occupied by the
enemy ; these, however, came falling out pretty fast
under our fire, when we discovered where they were.
We now began to feel the fatigue very much, having
been engaged for about two hours, under a very
hot sun, and having charged over nearly four
miles of cultivated country, besides the march to
Mungawlie, a distance of seven miles ; however, we
saw before us a third battery, and advanced to take it ;
we were received with a most severe round of grape, and
the loss in the ranks was very great, particularly in the
light company. Here Thomas, Huey, Dawson, and
Eager, received their hits. Nothing could exceed the
coolness of the enemy, and had it not been for the British
bayonet, the result would, I think, have been very different.
It, however, maintained its deserved reputation as an effi-
cient weapon, and soon settled the matter. This was the
last we saw of the enemy, and I assure you we were all tired
and not sorry to get into camp, which we did at about
11 o'clock—having been engaged since $. I then
volunteered to go out with a party to bring in our
killed and wounded, which I did, and I feel the
satisfaction that I saved many a poor fellow's life.
When out on this excursion, I saw the last six guns left
unprotected on the field, with several waggons of ammu-
nition ; this I reported to the General, and I was ordered
to take a company and get some bullocks to bring
them in, and at about seven o'clock in the evening I had
the satisfaction of parking the guns in front of our
quarter-guard. The 40th alone took twelve guns. . .
All our Officers who were hit are recovering rapidly,
but we have lost a great many men. We buried the
next morning twenty-two poor fellows in one grave,
and many have since died from the effects of their
wounds. We have about twenty-five who are to go
home immediately. .
is now settled, and we are in possestion of the fort, with
our whole force encamped about four miles from it. At
first we expected another brush with the enemy, but they
have now all acceded to our terms,and have enlisted in the
Maharajah's service, or else dispersed and given up their
arms. We are to return to Meerut, when lam not certain,
but I fancy it will not be long first. It has been altogether
a pretty warm affair, as you may judge when I tell you
that in my company alone we had thirty-six killed
and wounded. . . • . . I went yesterday all over
the fort of Gwalior ; it :certainly deserves its name
of the Gibraltar of India, as it is an ex-
tremely strong place ; there are a great many very
large, but old guns, in the fort, and there certainly
would have been many broken heads if we had had to
besiege it ; in the interior of the fort there are severa
old temples and buildings, very hansome and curious
and altogether I was much delighted with my trip."

NAVAL INTELLIGENCE.
PRIZE-MONEY FOR CAPTURES OF SLAVERS.
THE ACORN AND GRECIAN SLOOPS.-Prize-money,
amounting to 13821. 35.,4d.,. is announced to be paid to
the flag-officer of the station and commanders and late
crews of these sloops. It arises from the proceeds and
tonnage bounties of two slavers captured by the two
sloops in company, one, name unknown, on the 29th of.
May, 1842, and the other called " Oito de Decembro,"
on the 7th July of that year.
It The flag-officer and Captain Adams and crew of the
Acorn will be paid their shares on and after Wednes-
day, the 27th inst., at Woodhead's, 1, James-street,
Adelphi, as follows :-For the slaver, name unknown,
flag, 44/. 15s. 10d. ; commanders, 411. 19s. 10d. ; first
class, 16/. 18s. ld. ; second, 10/. 2s. 10d. ; third, 51. ls.
sd. ; fourth, 3/. 7s. 7d. ; fifth, 1/. 13s. 9d. ; sixth, 1/. 2s.
6(1.; seventh, l ls. 3d. For the Oite de Decembro-flag,
41/. 11x. 10d. ; commander, 38/. 19s. 10d. ; first class,
14/. 7s. 10d. ; second, 81. 12s. Bd.'; third, 41. 6s. 4d.;
fourth, 2/. 17s. 6d. ; fifth, 11. Bs. 9d. ; sixth, 19s. 2d. ;
seventh, 9s. 7d.

Captain Smith, and the crew of the Acorn receive their
proportions on and after the 28th instant, at Stilwell and
Sons, 22, Arundel-street, Strand. For the clever, name
unknown :—Commander, 411. 19s. 10d.; first class,
171 4s. Id.; second, 10/. Gs. 5d.; third, Si. 3s. 2d.; fourth,
3/. Bs. 9d.; fifth, 11. 14s. 2d.; sixth, 1/. 2s. 11J.; seventh,
11 s. sd.

For the OitodeDecembro:—Commander,36l.l9s.lod;
first class, 171. 12s. I Id.; second, 10/. I Is. 9d.; third,
51. ss. 10d.; fourth, 3/. 10s. 7d.; fifth, 11. 15s. 3d.; sixth,
IL 3s. 6d.; seventh, l Is. 9d.

THE DOLPHIN BRIGANTINE..—The proceeds of hull,
stores, and tonnage bounties of the Portuguese slave
brig Minerva, captured by this brigantine, on the 29th
of May, 1842, when under the command of Lieutenant
Octavious Cumberland, will shortly be announced fof
distribution.

THE FAWN (Bnic.)—The prize money arising from
the tonnage bounty and bounty on -slaves captured in
the Portuguese brigantine Boa Harmonia, by the officers
and crew of the Fawn, on the 18th of March, 1842, will
be also shortly announced for distribution.

ASSIZE INTELLIGENCE.
NORFOLK ClRCUlT.—Aylesbury, March 11.
CROWN COURT.—(Before Lord AansuEa.)
EXTRAORDINARY CASE.
The Rev. John Day, clerk, aged 36, was Indicted for having felo-
niously and maliciously wounded seven sheep, the property of one
William Weedon, on the 19th of July last.
Mr. Birch prosecuted, and Mr. Prendergast ,and Mr. Sanders
defended the prisoner.

This singular case excited very general interest in the neighbour.
hood of Aylesbury, and the Court was thronged to hear the details
of the trial. The prisoner is a clergyman, and rector of the parish
of Hawridge, near this town, and at the time to which the evi-
dence related he lodged in the house of a farmer named Glenister.
Mr. Glenister held some land as tenant to the prisoner, and adjoin-
ing that land was a pasture belonging to Mr. Weedon, the prose.
cutor. On the 19th of last July the prisoner and Mr. Weedon
met in the high road at Hawridge, and the prisoner told Mr.
Weedon that seven of his sheep had been trespassing in his close,
and he bad impounded them. Weedon replied, it was all nonsense,
for that the fences over which they had strayed, if they had tres-
passed at all, were Mr. Day's, and he alone was in fault. The
prisoner upon this said, " Then I'll go and prosecute the sheep,"
and he and Weedon parted. It appeared that the prisoner went
directly to his stable, in which the seven sheep were impounded,
and having called one of Glenister's labourers, desired him to hold
them while he han strung them. He took out his knife, and
having driven the poor animals into a corner in the stable, he
stabbed them all in the right flank to the depth of about six
inches, after which he turned them out of the stable, and drove
them in the direction of their own pasture. It happened that at
this time Mr. Weedon was going by, and seeing his sheep bleeding
and lame, and in a most pitiable condition, he accused the prisoner
of having cut them, an accusation which the latter denied, telling
the prosecutor he was a liar, for none of the sheep had been on his
premises. The prosecutor replied that was all nonsense, for it was
plain how the matter stood, to which the prisoner rejoined, there
was no great deal of harm done after all, and the parties then
separated. Mr. Weedon then went and procured the attendance
of a couple of butchers, who examined the sheep, and certified that
the damage done was 41. ; this was reported to the prisoner, who
refused to pay that sum, but offered 21., and said he hoped he had
not injured them any great deal. They were, however, very
severely injured, and on the following day the butchers recom-
mended their owner to have them dispatched outfight and put out
of their misery, and it was done. The prosecutor after this took
no steps to bring the prisoner to justice, and would not have taken
any notice of the matter, had not a neighbouring justice told him
it ought to be followed up, and that he, the prosecutor, as the con.
stable of the parish, ought, of all men, to be aware how wrong it
was to let so serious a matter pass. He, therefore, laid an ln-

formation, and the prisoner :was apprehended and committed to
prison. In his cross-examination the prosecutor said there was
no ill.feeling betwixt him and the prisoner, but that on the con.
trary he had been bail for the latter upon some other charge at
the sessions.

The defence set up was, that the prisoner had no malice or
grudge against Mr. Weedon, and that therefore he could not have
done the act in question from any wish or desire to injure him by
destroying his property; and that the real truth was, that the pri.
soner thought that he had a right to kill or wound the animals
which had committed the trespass in respect of which they were
impounded. If he sincerely believed this, he was entitled to an
acquittal, as such belief negatived all notion of malice on his part,
which was a necessary ingredient in the evidence for the prosecu-
tion in support of such an indictment.

The jury took this view of the case, and acquitted the prisoner.
The Loan CHIRP BARON, addressing the prisoner, advised him
to be very circumspect in future. and endeavour to govern his
temper. It was really most lamentable to see such an ignorance of
the first rules and principles of law in a man occupying the sta.
tion and filling the office which the prisoner occupied and filled ;
and he most seriously advised him to profit by the grace and the
mercy which had been shown to him, by applying some portion of
his time in acquiring a knowledge of the laws of his country and
the rights of his neighbour.
The prisoner was then dischargel.

- - -----
Colonel Gore Langton was prevented dividing in
favour of Mr. Cobden's motion, on Tuesday night, in conse-
quence of an attack of influenza.
ROCHDALE FLANNEL MARKET, MARCH 11.—There
has been another quiet market to-day ; much similar to that
of the preceeding week. Prices are low, and the demand
more limited than it was two or three weeks ago. In the
wool market there is very little change, prices firm, and sales
.
rather limited.
STATE OF TRADE AT MANCHESTER.—There was
another quiet market yesterday ; the demand for nearly all
ordinary counts of yarn, and for all descriptions of goods
(with the exception of 40-inch shirting, in which a large
business was done at improved rates), being still limited.
Prices, however, were generally firm ; and the market on the
whole bore a healthier appearance than at any time during
the previous fortnight.—Manchester Guardian.
NOVEL METHOD OF EXTRACTING A TOOTH.—A
few days ago a tailor, residing at Lound, near Retford, of the name
of George Grant, was dreadfully afflicted with the toothache.
Well, Mr. Snip, being nigh at his wit's end with pain, and there
being no village amateur capable of extracting the troublesome
customer, he set his wits to work to get rid of it with the least
possible trouble, and a the earliest opportunity. At length he
hit upon the following expedient :—He tied a • piece of strong
packthread round his naughty masticator, and proceeded determi-
nately up stairs, with his goose in his hand ; having tied the other
end of the string to the goose's neck, he threw the latter with some
vengeance out of the chamber window, the jerk at once extracted
the tooth, which quickly followed she goose into the street; and
the delighted tailor, pleased with the novel invention of his own
brain, soon gathered up He weightiest implement used in his pro-
fession, and put it to the fire, but left the luckless tooth to "perish
and decay," unpitied and uncared for, in " the desert air."—Don..
caster Chronicle.
PUBLIC PETITIONS.—The following is a list of the
total number of petitions on various important subjects now before
the Lower House of Parliament, viz.:—Against the proposed
union of the dioceses of Bangor and St. Asap!), 27 petitions,
signed by 2,309 persons; against a repeal of the corn-laws, 216
petitions, signed by 18,277,—the number of petitioners having in-
creased during the last week by about 5,000 ; for a reduction of
the tobacco duties, 65 petitions, signed by 8,300 persons; against
the Factories Bill now before Parliament, 4 petitions, signed by
389 persons; for an alteration of the Poor.law Amendment Act,
35 petitions, signed by 1,746 persons,—the number having in-
creased by 645 during the last week; for a free competition in the
carriage of goods, &c., 6 petitions, signed by 3,112 persons ; and
for withholding the supplies until the grievances of the people are
redressed, 41 petitions, signed by 34,373 persons.
EXTRAORDINARY LONGEVITY.—" The centenarians
are falling off," says a letter from Konigsberg, published in the
Presse; "we have just buried in this town a veteran of the seven
years' war, named Siehring, aged 108 years. He was born at
Messein, in 1736, and joined the army of Frederick the Great,
after the battle of Torgau, in 1760. He was the last surviving
veteran of the war of seven years who resided at Konigsberg,
wkere a perfect recollection exists of Sergeant-Major Condratowitz,
who died in 1838, at the age of 105, and who assisted as a sim-
ple hussar, under the command of Seydlitz, at the celebrated battle
of Rossbach, which was gained by Frederick the Great, against the
French and Austrians united."

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.
HOUSE OF LORDS, March 12.
GWALIOR.
The Earl of RIPON laid on the table of the House certain
papers relating to Gwalior.
CORN-LAWS.
Petitions in favour of protection for agriculture were pre-
sented by the Duke of Richmond from Yorkshire, and the
Earl of Rosebery from Linlithgow. The Noble Earl inti-
mated that he did not agree with the prayer of the petitions.
MAYNOOTH COLLEGE.
Lord MONTEAGLE rose to put a question to the Noble
Lord opposite, respecting the College of Maynooth, and in doing
so, he did not mean to make the slightest allusion to a state
provision for the Roman Catholic clergy. During the existence
of the penal laws, Catholic clergymen were compelled to seek
in foreign countries for their education, and it was not until
subsequent to 1795 that any grant was made to the Catholic
College. He knew that many of the men who were educated
as Catholic clergymen abroad before the French Revolution,
were men of very highly educated and enlightened minds,
but at the same time he thought, as a matter of policy,
it would be better if the Irish Roman Catholic clergy
were not compelled to receive a foreign education.
He now came to the condition in which the College of May-
nooth was at present placed. It was asked why should this
college not be enlarged, and why should it be kept exclusively
for Catholic ecclesiastics? Why, at the time of the endowment
of this college a petition was
_presented to the Irish House
of Commons, praying that Protestant students might be
admitted to the college. This prayer was not granted.
On the contrary, a provision was introduced into the Bill
which endowed the college, by which no person professing the
Protestant religion could be admitted into the college. It was
therefore unfair to complain of this prohibition, considering
that that prohibition had been created by our own laws.
In the year 1808 an application was made to Parliament
for an increased grant to the College of Maynooth In answer
to that application the Noble Duke opposite ( Wellington), then
Sir Arthur Wellesley, wrote to the authorities of the college
to state what ground they had for making their application.
Upen the answers which were then furnished to the
Noble Duke, he (Lord Monteagle) had founded the
motion with which he intended to conclude. Although
he knew there was no intention on the part of those in autho-
rity to withdraw it, yet he feared that from ignorance of the
facts many persons in this country were averse to the
only available means by which it could be made
useful, namely, by increasing the grant. There were
500 students altogether, 250 of whom were supported
out of the funds of the college, yet the amount of the
grant was only 9,0001. ; and the cost for each of these persons
was only 23/. a head. lie thought this very wrong in
the ease of men who were to exercise a vast influence
in the country in after life. The labour they were ready to un-
dergo, and the virtue which they displayed in all cases, was
most admirable. As an instance, he would state that, accord-
ing to the Government returns, in one week no less than
ten Catholic clergymen were carried off by typhus fever
in the county of Kerry, and he could name many other cases
in othercounties. At present the College of ltlaynooth was in
a state of great dilapidation from the want of proper funds to
repair it. Surely that was not a fit state of things for
such an establishment.—( Hear, hear.) He believed that
the Government, by taking an enlarged and liberal view of
this matter, would be doing far more for the benefit and tran-
quilisation of Ireland than by any other measure. The more
sensible people of Ireland were in favour of their clergy receiv-
ing that liberal education which would place them upon a level
with the Protestant clergyman and the country gentleman.
By doing so the Government would also show to the people of
that country that they were anxious to promote their temporal
welfare and spiritual happiness. How could Noble Lords ex-
pect that children who were reared in happy and comfortable
homes would join such an establishment ? There were no fel-
lowships or scholarships attached at present to this college ;
but still he thought that there ought to be some small
endowments for the benefit of the more deserving stu-
dents. The Government, even if they did not take the
general support of the establishment upon themselves, yet
ought to place the building itself under the superintendence
of the Board of Works, and guarantee that it should be
kept in proper repair. As a matter of policy they
ought to get the hearts and feelings of the Roman
Catholic clergy with them, and they would be their
best coadjutors in maintaining peace and good order. It was a
mistake to apply the term, " agitating priests" to the Catholic
clergy of Ireland, because the greater Lumber of these
priests were against all system of political agitation. The
Noble Lord concluded by moving for certain returns
with respect to the Roman Catholic College of Maynooth.
The Duke of WELLINGTON said he would have no ob-
jection to lay before the House the returns moved for by the
Noble Lord. He was glad that the Noble Lord had
brought the matter before the House. At the
present moment, he, (the Duke of Wellington),
was not prepared to state that there would be any alteration in
the present grant to the College of Maynooth ; but if there
were any intention of that kind, a declaration to that
effect ss ould be made in the other House, from whence
the grant emanated. He should afford the Noble Lord
all the information of which her Majesty's Government were
in possession.
The Marquis of LANSDOWNE thought it essential that
the Catholic clergy should be men of high education, in order
that they might properly discharge their religious functions;
but how, he would ask, could this, be done, when the
grant was so paltry ? One of the great benefits which was
attributed to the system of the English Universities was that
it brought the clergy and upper classes of the laity into nitre
intimate intercourse, pied he thought it most desirable that the
same should be the case with respect to the Catholic clergy
and the upper classes of the Roman Catholic laity in Ireland.
The fullest information was already before the House with re-
spect to this subject, and he called upon her Majesty's Govern..
meat to act upen it, for upon them lay the whole responsibility
of this truly important matter.
After a few words from Lord MONTEAGLE in reply, the
returns were ordered to be laid on the table.
Their Lordships then adjourned at Half-past Seven.

HOUSE OF COMMONS, March 12.
DUTIES ON IMPORTS.

every
Mr. COBDEN (in continuation from our Third Edition)
said—As regards cheese, I am likewise prepared to prove
goes
to
toalandlord. This,
that more than one-half of that which
the landlord in the shape of rent. For every sd. paid for
cheese, 2d. goes to the landlord; and in the same way in the
gwroarztihn godf i
bs terei
fc t st,
hsautc
ihs as
os thosed
.o fg No
eosr tthoa mt
hpet on, formarket, t
, goes t o
d.
is a point the public need not be concerned about for the
farmer. Ido not put it forward on that ground. I never
told you that you raised the rent of your land by the corn-laws.
1 never believed it. Bet if you come to this House
and enact apparently for the benefit of the farmer,
and say that free trade ruins the agriculturist,
then I must put
forward the real state of the case. I shall now touch upon
another and more important branch of this question, I mean
the interests of the farm labourer. W. e are told that he is be-
nefited by a system of restriction which makes the first ele-
ment of existence scarce. Do you think posterity will believe
it? They will look back upon this doctrine, in less than twenty
years, with as much amazement as we do now
upon the conduct of our forefathers when they burnt
old women for witchcraft. Yet in the face of the plainest
evidence you go on maintaining a law which makes food, scarce,
in order to benefit the agriculturist. We have had a volume
presented to us on the condition of the agricultural population,
which ought to be before the House long before this time.
A Commission was appointed last year to inquire into the em-
ployment of women and children in husbandry, and I wish to
state the manner in which that Commission had been appointed.
I was a party to having that Commission named; as
a motion was made by an Honourable Friend near
me for the purpose of having a Committee then
sitting on the employment of women and children
in manufactures extended to the agricultural labourers.
The Committee had been sitting for two years in a particular
form, and was afterwards engaged, I believe, for four years in
inquiring into the condition of labourers in other trades and
manufactures. What my Hon. Friend and myselfwished was, that

a similar inquiry to that then carried on before that Committee
should be instituted into the condition of the agricultural poor.
--(Hear, hear.) An application was made for the purpose to
a member of the Cabinet, but he refused to consent to the ap-
pointment of a Committee, and would only agree to allow a
Commissioner under the poor-law to take evidence on the sub-
ject. He also refused to allow the Commissioner more than
thirty days to carry on the inquiry, notwithstanding the
length of time that the Committee to which I have alluded had
taken for a similar inquiry.—( Hear, hear.) Having under
the law only thirty days to complete the inquiry, Mr. Austin
set forward sin his task, and lost two days in his journey. He
had thus only twenty -eight days to inquire into the condition
of the agricultural labourers in four counties in the south of Eng-
land. —( Hear.) We have, however, some facts elicited on
that inquiry, which ought to have drawn forward remarks from
Honourable Gentlemen opposite as to the wretched condition
of their own constituents.—( Hear.) Before I allude to the
condition of the agricultural labourers, I wish to state that
whatever may have been the animus which influenced others in
invading the manufacturing districts, I have no hostile feel-
ing whatever towards the agriculturists ; for, bear in mind,
that my conduct has been throughout marked by consistency
towards them.—( Hear.) I brought forward the case of the
manufacturers, and I have throughout maintained their
interests. We first knocked at the door of this House
in 1839. We have since then continued to do so,
without intermission. We have knocked at the doors of
Ministers and Prime Ministers, until they complained of
intrusiveness on our part. We stated the entire of the
distress to which the manufacturers were exposed. We
did more. We prescribed a remedy for that distress.—
(Hear, hear.) .Ind here I may state my solemn belief that
one of the principal reasons why the last four years of such
fearful suffering and destitution among the manufac-
turers of Lancashire, and Yorkshire, and a part of
Scotland, has passed over without any consider-
able destruction of property, or the loss of a single life,
was because they knew that a great body was actively
and incessantly at work to make known their suffer-
ings, and to find a remedy for their distress.— ( Hear,
hear.) I also state as the result of nay conviction,
that the labouring poor would not have taken the diabolical and
insane course of burning property in order to make known
their sufferings, if any party devoted to their interest had come
forward in this House and in the country to make suggestions for
their relief.—( Hear.) If it were known that the sympathies of
the country were aroused in their behalf, the fact would have
produced such a humanising effect upon them, that they would
never have had the blindness to destroy the very property that
ought to give them employment and support. ( Hear,
hear.) I have looked through this volume, which is the
result of Mr. Austin's twenty-eight days' travels through the
agricultural districts, and 1 find that during that period he
visited Somerset:hire, Devonshire, Wiltshire, and Dorset-
shire. He has given the testimony of various re-
spectable gentlemen in these several localities, as to
the condition of the agricyltural labourers. Some of these ac-
counts are highly important. The first that I shall refer to is
the evidence of the Rev. J. Guthrie, who states that he could
never make out how the poor labourers lived and supported
their families on the wages which they received. The next is
the evidence of Dr. Greenock. (The Honourable Gentleman
then read extracts from the evidence alluded to, in which
the witness stated that in the union to which he be-
longed the support of each pauper cost, on an average,
Is. 6d. for food alone, though the guardians, by purchas-
ing provisions wholesale, were able to procure,them 10 percent.
cheaper than the public generally ; and that he could not con-
ceive how an agricultural labourer, earning 6s. a week, could
possibly support his wife and four or five children,
and at toe same time pay rent and procure
clothing. Another witness, a medical gentleman in the
same district, stated that the women and boys who la-
boured in the fields suffered materially in their health, not
from the extent of work which they performed, but from the
want of a sufficient supply of food. He also read a passage
from the evidence of Robert Boland, a farmer, stating that in
the great majority of eases, a family, consisting of a man and
his wife, with four or five children, were obliged to subsist on
eight shillings or nine shillings a week, and passages from the
evidence of the wives of two agricultural labourers, describing
the inferior uature of the food which they made use of, and stating
that their children were always anxious to get more food when
they rose from their:meals.) The Hon. Gentleman then continued.
That is a just specimen collected in the south of England, in
the purely agricultural districts, by Mr. Austin. I have my-
self had the opportunity of making considerable observations
in the agricultural districts, and 1 have come to this result,
that the further you travel from that much maligned region of
tall chimneys and smoke, the less you find the wages
of labourers to be ; the more I leave behind me
Lancashire and the northern parts of England, the worse
is the condition of the labourers, and the less is the quantity of
food they have. Does not this, I will ask, answer the argu-
ment that the agricultural labourer derives no protection ?
( Hear, hear.) Now what I wish to bring out before the Com-
mittee is this—that even during your casual high prices, caused
by scarcity, the agricultural labourers always suffer.—( Hear. )
Pauperism increases as the price of food rises—( Hear)—and
in short, the price of the loaf is in a direct ratio proof of the
increase of pauperism.—( Cries of " No, no.") An
Honourable Gentleman says, " No, no." I hope
I shall have him on the Committee, and if he will only hear
me out, I am sure I shall persuade him to vote for the Com-
mittee. 'With regard to the condition of the agricultu-
ral labourer, I have taken some pains to ascertain what has
been the progress of wages in agricultural districts. I
know that it is a very sore point indeed for Hon. Members
opposite but I must tell them that in those very distsicts of
Wilts and Dorset the wages of labour now are about on a par
with wages 60 years ago, while the rent on land has increased
from two-and-a-half to threefold.—( Hear, hear.) Now, I
consider that to be a very sufficient answer to the statements
that have been made of the increase of gages. When you have
a law that produces scarcity, while it increases rents,
you must not be surprised if you are called upon to look at how
the system works upon those you profess to say it was made
to improve the condition of.—(Hear.) Now, the following
is, I believe, a correct statement of the price of wages. In
Devon they are from 6s. to 7s. 6d. a week. In Wiltshire
from Gs. to 7s. In Somersetshire from 7s. to 9s. In Dorset
from 6s. to 75., wheat being at the time his. a bushel, and
in Gloucestershire from 6s. to 75., while the rents have in-
creased three-fold. Now, you have chosen to take
this course in an illegitimate way.—( Hear, hear.)
You cannot therefore wonder when I call upon this House to
consider how these laws have acted upon you, and upon those
whom you profess to serve. I was down in Gloucester a little
while ago, and had a good deal of conversation with a Mr. Hand-
ford, an experienced land agent, who stated that he had lately
sold property which had belonged to his great grandfather, and
which brought him ten times the price his ancestor had giver,
for it. I have lately been reading a work published by Judge
Hale, somewhere about the time I am referring to—somewhere
about 1683—and in it he states that the then wages of the
labourers averaged 10s. per w eek ; and he remarks, unless a fa-
ther, mother, and four children, have this amount per week,
how are they to get on but by stealing. Now, in the
present day, wheat is forty per cent. higher, and
wages have dropped pretty generally to only seven
shillings per week. It is an actual fact that I found,
on the journey that I am referring to, that the labouring
poor out of doors are actually compelled to live on less than
what is allowed in the workhouse. ( Hear, hear.)
A gentleman of the name of Hunt, a guardian of
the poor in that district, told me, that on consult-
ing with the medical officer as to the diet, he found
it on a scale much higher than those who were working hard
out of doors were enabled to get.—(Hear, hear.) Now I have
spoken of the food of these people, anti when I do that I imply
also lodging, clothing, morality, education—aye, and religion
also.—( Cheers. ) There is a point in the volume of evidence
which I have already referred to, which more especially
calls for the attention of this House. I mean the subject of
lodgings for the agricultural poor.— (Hear, hear.) In this
question, more almost than in any other, is the character of the
landlords concerned. Mr. Austin states an instance of a fa-
mily at Stourbridge of eleven persons in one room
and three beds. In the first bed was the father and
mother, a little boy, and a little girl; in the second bed were
three daughters, two of them twins, twenty years old; and in
the third four sons, fifteen years old, seventeen years old, and
the like._. (Loud cries of " Hear, hear.") There were no cur-
tains to the beds, nor anything else to assist in observing the
decencies of life.—k Hear, hear.) Mr. Phelps, agent for the
Marquis of Lansdowne, has given an instance which occurred
at Studeley, where twenty-nine ersons were living under one
roof—the married people and the young persons being
all huddled together in one small tenement.—( Hear, hear. )
Mr. Austin further says, that a married woman told him the
room in which she was being confined was shared with
thirteen other persons, in three beds; and that it was neces-
sary to lay her on the middle of the floor, in order that proper
attention should be given to her, and she declared this to
be the most painful part of her illness.—( Hear, hear.)
Another clergyman of Dorsetshire stated that he resided in
the neighbourhood of a Noble Duke—whose name he
(Mr. Cobden) would not mention, although the Noble
Duke was not himself very fastidious as to the terms in
whirls he spoke of the members of the League—the
labourers were as badly off as they could be. Nothing could
exceed their immorality, even between brother and sister.—
( Great sensation.) In some cases, in order to prevent this, the
males of two families were taken to sleep in the one house,
and the females in the other.—( Cries of " Hear, hear.")
Mr. Austin declares that he could see no regard to chastity
in the females, and no respect to that sex in the
men.—( Hear.) Sir, I should not do justice to my feelings if
I did not express my indignation at the conduct of the owners
of land, however they may be described.—(" Hear," from Lord
Ashley.) I am glad to hear that cheer from the Noble Lord.
However you may remark upon the ownersj of mills and
factories, and upon the evils of town populations, I think you
must acknowledge that these cannot come under the cog-
nisance of particular individuals, and certainly not
of any particular proprietor ; but if you go into the villages
under the control of the landlord, you will find them living in
a state worse than in the wigwams of the Indians. It was
well said by the late lamented Mr. Drummond, that " property
had its duties as well as its rights," and I say that the landlords
neglect their duty when they allow their tenants to live in pig-
sties, and ;worse than pigsties. I never saw the Rev. Adol-
phus Osborne ; I think if we met, we should differ upon many
points ; but I cannot but admire the moral courage with which
he exposed the state of the population in Dorsetshire.—
(Cheers.) He says that "in the neighbourhood of Bradford,
from one year's end to the other, the people live in the
greatest destitution. They had nothing but bread and pota-
toes, with sometimes a little bacon of an inferior kind, and,
from what he knew of the quality of the bread, he was not sur-
prised at the diseases with which the children are afflicted."
Another clergyman gave evidence to the same effect,
from which I shall trouble the House with an
extract. (The Honourable Gentleman then read a
passage from Mr. Austin's Report, in which the
witness alluded to states that he had on one occasion four
blankets given to him for the most destitute persons of his
parish. Endeavouring to discover the fittest objects of the
bounty, he found that amongst eighty-four individuals there
were but thirty-five blankets—of these ten were tolerably
good, as they had been in use only four years,
but twenty-five were completely worn out.) Thus you
see that this is not a sudden case of distress, but the
constant and permanent condition of the agricultural labourer.
( Hear, hear.) The periods of manufacturing distress are, after
all, remote—certainly not permanent—and we charge them
upon your bad legislation.—( Hear, hear) ( The Hon. Gen-
tleman then read further extracts to show the crowded
state of the cabins in Dorsetshire, and the frightful immorality
of their inmates.) You talk of the immorality of our manu-
fa, turiug towns—what can you show us to equal this ? Your
villages are normal schools for vice and prostitution.—( Hear. )
You cannot blame us for the vices of our towns, if you rear the
people thus and send them into our towns.—(Hear, hear.) I
say emphatically 1 do not attack individuals, but a system.
Although I hold the proprietor to be resposible for the state of
lodging on his own land, I do not hold him responsible for the
price of wages. I never held the farmers responsible for the
price of wages, although it has been foolishly said
of me that 1 did so. I challenge the Argus-fled
opponent I have to deal with, to show that I
have ever done so.—( Great cheering.) What does
Mr. Austin say of clothing—you have heard what he said
of food and lodging? He says, that to have a change of
clothing was all nonsense. If a woman came home with wet
clothes from her work, she must put them on in the morning
as wet as when she came home. —( Hear.) And yet you tell us
that these are our great home customers. —( Cheers and laughter. )
Lincolnshire is an exception.—(Hear, hear, from Col. Sib-
thorp. ) It is an exception both with regard to the condition
of the farmer and the labourer.—(The Hen. Gentleman then
adverted to the wretched condition of the farmers and farm
labourers in Scotland and Wales, and quoted the description of

the state of the population of the latter country
given by the reporter of the Times.) I need
hardly' re er to the condition of the population
of the sister country across the Channel. It is acknow-
ledged that there are 2,500,000 destitute persons in that
country. They are frequently on the point of famine ;
and yet, at this moment there is a duty of 18s. 3d. a quar-
ter on the corn imported into that country.—( Hear, hear. )
( The lion. Gentleman then quoted from the Report of Dr.
Southwood Smith, respecting the state of the fever hospitals,
in which there were 1,462 patients, being 418 more than in
preceding years, and consisting chiefly of persons coming from
the agricultural districtelseeking for labour.—(Hear, hear.)
I have now given a description of the state of the agricultural
population ; and I ask of the Members of Counties, whether
they are not put out of court ? There is no class of the country
benefited by these laws, and all I ask is, that we should have
a Select Committee to inquire into the facts.—( Hear, hear. )
Yon don't want an Act of Parliament to protect the farmer;
you want a fresh bargain with him. You want leases upon
fresh terms. The men I should bring to be examined before
the Committee would tell you how they could employ more
labourers. They would tell you that they could do so by
breaking up some of that old land which is lying not under
grass, but under moss, and has been lying in that way for,
perhaps, a hundred years, in order to please some landlord who
prefars seeing in that state to seeing corn growing there or the
plough passing over it. All such coxcombry as that would
disappear before such a practical farmer as my Lord Ducie,
who would he ready to come and tell you what to do.
You would derive immense advantage from the examination
that would be gone into in such a Committee as that which
I propose. Men would be examined who look upon land as
we look on our raw material in our manufactures, as that
which is to give employment to the people. We have
now advantages presented to us for holding this Com-
mittee that we have never had before. Recollect,
that hitherto you have not heard two sides of the question be-
fore your Agricultural Committees. Now I wish to impress
this to on the Right lion. Gentleman opposite (Sir R. Peel)
—I strut gly appeal to him to allow me to have this Committee.
There have never yet been two sides of the question stated in
Committees of this House. The witnesses that have
been examined were all in favour of protection.
You have never had any enlightened agriculturist
brought forward to state both sides of the question. In the
evidendu taken in 1836, great doubt was expressed as to the
value of an intervention by Act of Parliament. No direct
evidence, however, was brought forward as to whether it
would nut be better to get rid of the old system altogether,
and adopt a system of perfect free trade. Now it is on that
ground that 1 especially appeal to Hon. Gentlemen opposite.
Ido not want men examined who are farmers only. Let them
he landowners if you choose. I would respectfully ask Lord
Ducie and Earl Spencer first. I presume that the Duke of
Buckingham and the Duke of Richmond would be chosen by
r gentlemen opposite.—(Laughter.) There is nothing that I
should more wish to see than four noblemen brought before the
Committee, and subjected to a cross-examination. We would
take your Noblemen and you should take ours.—(Laughter.)
This is what I should wish to see. But, however, you have
Hon. Gentlemen on your own side of the House who make out
my case altogether. There is the lion. Member for Berk-
shire who well knows what the land is capable of, who
knows what is wanting, and who knows that those
districts where there is the most pauperism and distress are
the very places in which farming is most neglected. Ile says,
" I wish to sec more drains cut, and more lime used, and more
mime procured ; and I should like to see their cattle fat-
tened up, which have hitherto been starved." Here is testi-
mony, you see, from your own side, that nothing is right. Now
suppose )ou could read a book upon manufactures, in which
you could show that every thing was wrong that we 'manufac-
turers were doing. Suppose a theorist could come to me in
my business, which is the manufacture of garments—things
almost as necessary in a civilised land and cold climate as
corn—(Laughter)—now, suppose this theorist were to
come to me in my manufactory and say, " You must
bring your indigo from India, your madder from
France, your gum from Africa, your cotton from Ame-
rica, and compound all these together, and you can then make
a peasant's gown for two shillings." Why, this is all done.
They are doing this daily in my manufactory. It does not require
a theorist to tell us to do it. If we did not do it we could not
carry on our competition with each other and with other countries.
This, however, can be said to you.—" You have materials moul-
dering at your own door. You have only to get over a hedge
—to dig under the surface—to improve the condition of your
people." We should make great advances in agriculture if
this Committee were to be appointed. I know that
you would have a majority of protectionists on that
Committee. I am perfectly willing that you should
have it. I know that—l understand at least that there is a sort
of etiquette in tl.is House by which the mover of a Committee
is appointed Chairman of that Committee. Now I waive
all pretension to that office. I will sit as a humble
individual in the minority; all I ask is to be
there. What possible objection can you raise to it?
I cannot understand what objection there can be. Are you
afraid that it will increase the agitation ? I ask the Hon. Ba-
ronet, the Member for Essex, whether he thinks the agitation
is going down in his part of the country ? I understand they
have lately raised a large sum of money in Essex. Now do
you think that the appointment of a dozen gentlemen, to act in
a room foe the purpose of taking evidence, would add anything to
the excitement out of doors on this subject ? Why, by the ap-
pointment of this Committee you would draw me away.__
( Laughter.) I tell you what will cause excitement. Excite-
merit will be caused if you refuse this Committee, and allow
me to go down to the counties with your votes in my hand, and
say, " I only asked for inquiry. I offered them a majority of
their own party, and offered to go into the Committee merely as
a member of the Committee, and not as the Chairman. I
offered them every possible advantage in the Committee, and
they would not, or they dare not, grant me that Committee of
Inquiry." Now, I desire to have no advantage of that
sort. If you let us have the Committee, let us set
to work with a desire, if possible, to elicit
a fund of information which shall be beneficial to the country.
( H,ar, hear.) I feel that much good would be done by this
Committee. Ido believe that the system at present pursued,
instead of being a protection to agriculture is the destruc-
tion of agriculture. Let us see if our Committee cannot
counteract some of the effects of the foolishness—l will not use
a harder name—which, under the pretence of protecting native
industry, has been allowed to go forth, by which the farmers
have been induced to depend upon an Act of Parliament for
prosperity, rather than upon their own energies. Let us
conduct the Committee as though we wished to elicit facts
—as though we wished to counteract the mischiefs of
that system, than which I cannot imagine any-
thieg more demoralising—for such a system deserves
no better title than a system of demoralisation. What
is it that you tell the farmers? You get them to feel that
they cannot compete with other men. You bring long lists of
figures and delusive accounts, showing that the culti-
vation of an acre must cost 6/. or 81., and then you
tell them to compare that with the cost in Russia.
You put every impediment in the way of their doing that which
they ought to do. Do you think that is the way to make men
succeed in anything ? How should we do ? We who are ma-
nufacturers. If we get a pattern of some rival manufacture
abroad, should we call our men together, and say, " It
is quite clear we cannot compete with the foreigner ; it is
quite useless to compete with Germany or America ?"
IVe don't do that, but what do wo do? Why, we call our men
together, and we say " Such and such a thing is being done else-
where ; now we are Englishmen, and whether these things are
done by Russians or Germans, we will do it."—(Cheers. ) I
believe that the present system is demoralizing the people. The
Noble Lord, the Member for North Lancashire, had no right
to go down to the agricultural meeting at Liverpool and tell
the farmers that they ought not to do as their grandfathers had
done before them, merely content themselves by putting one
foot before the other. He had no right to talk to them in that
way. What is it makes them do so? Why, every
man who comes here or who goes to Lancashire and talks
about our " invasion of corn" from a place in Russia which
shall be nameless—(Cheers and laughter)—the men who
come here and tell us to look to protection instead
of looking to our own energies—these are the men
who rause the farmers to put their hands behind their backs,
and it is that which prevents them from being equal, if not
superior, farmers to any on the face of the earth. I be-
lieve that much good will result from such a Com-
mittee as that which I proposed, because I believe
that the present system is as injurious to agriculture as it is to
manufactures. It is because I believe that it robs the earth of
its fertility—robs the labourer of his hire—cheats the
people of their subsistence, and robs the farmer of
his independence,— it is because I believe all this
that I hope you will accede to the motion which I now
make—" That a Select Committee be appointed to inquire
into the effects of protective duties on imports upon the in-
terests of the tenant-farmers and farm-labourers of this
country."—(Loud cheers.)
Mr. GLADSTONE could not but acknowledge the general
moderation arid tone of the language of the speech which the
Hon. Gentleman had just addressed to the House. He hoped
the Horn Gentleman would allow him to congratulate him
upon the manner in which that speech had been delivered.
The Hon. Gentleman had commenced his speech by ad-
verting to a certain case which had occurred in Dorsetshire,
the particulars of which he (Mr. Gladstone) was not ac-
quainted with. The Hon. Gentleman said that it appeared
from inquiries which had been made by the public authorities
that a number of human beings were living together in a
wretched hovel, under circumstances the most degrading
to them, and most diegracesul to those who were
placed over them. lie (Mr. Gladstone) felt sure
that the sorrow which had been expressed by the Honour-
able Gentleman with respect to this case, was shared by both
sides of the House. But although this case had been referred
to by the lion. Gentleman, it could not be supposed that that
was a specimen of the state of the:rural districts throughout the
country. If the Hon. Gentleman could show to the House that
such was the state, of the rural districts, then he (Mr. G) would
acknowledge that he had removed one of the most powerful
impediments which stood in the way of the proposal which the
Hon. Gentleman had recommended. Now with regard to the
motion which had been made by the Hon. Gentleman. He
(Mr. Gladstone) confessed that he did not think that the
speech of the Hon. Gentleman corresponded much with the
terms of his motion. The motion of the Hon. Gentleman was
for a Select Committee to inquire into the operation of pro-
tective duties on imports upon the interests of the tenant-
farmers and farm labourers of this country. He_(lllr. Gladstone)
confessed, in following the speeeh of the Right Hon. Gentleman,
that it was difficult to discover what really was the object
which was sought to be obtained by this Committee. Many por-
tions of the speech of the lion. Gentleman had applied to sub-
jects which the Select Committee, for which the Hon. Gen-
tlemen bad moved, could certainly not entertain. The Hon.
Gentleman had bestowed a considerable portion of his speech
on describing the rural population in particular districts. He
had alluded to the population of certain districts in four coun-
ties. Now he (Mr. Gladstone) would not agree to the pro •
position that this was a true specimen of the state of those four
counties, but he thought it would be particularly unreasonable
to suppose that those counties represented the whole of the
rural districts of England. A large part of the speech of the
Hon. Gentleman appeared to him (Mr. Gladstone) to point
to some proposition for a Committee to inquire into the
state of the agricultural labouring population. If such
was the lion. Gentleman's object, he (Mr. Gladstone) ap-
prehended that the proposition now before the House would
not meet it. If such a subject as the condition of the agri-
cultural population of this country were to be considered in
such a Committee as that which had been moved for by the
Hon. Gentleman, it would materially be mixed up with such
a number of different questions of political economy, that no
beneficial results would ensue. He believed if the Committee
were to be appointed under such circumstances that the Hun.
Gentleman must sacrifice all hope of conferring any advantage
upon agriculture. The Hon. Gentleman said that it was ne-
cessary to have a Committee in order to establish the fact, that
the House had not the power of fixing the price of
agricultural commodities. Now before he (Mr. Glad-
stone) assented to the appointment of such a Com-
mittee, he would like to know whether it had been proved
that any lion. Gentleman in that House had maintained that
it was in their power to fix that price.—( Hear, hear.) Now
this Committee, if it were intended for anything, was for the
purpose of converting the majority of that House to the
opinions entertained by the Hen. Gentleman. The lion.
Gentleman had said that thedepreciation in the price of cattle
was not attributable to the operation of the tariff, but was to be
asctibed to the impoverishment of the consumer. In this
opitlien he (Mr. Gladstone) coincided, but he doubted whether
the Committee for which the Hon. Gentleman had moved
could legitimately investigate that subject. The Hon. Gen-
tlemen iad addressed himself to the subject of the
proporticn of rent to the expenses of a farm. He
had read a statement, from which the expenses of

some farms had reached 790/., while the rent was 800/. Now
he (Mr. Gladstone) had no means of denying the accuracy of
that statement, but even supposing it to be correct, was that a
criterion to go by with respect to the whole country ? The
Hon. Gentleman had argued the question of protection in the
abstract—the question assumed a very different aspect when it
was considered with reference to a new commercial system, to
that which it did when considered in connection with a great
mass of the population whose labour had been influenced by a
system of protection. The Hon. Gentleman said he did not so
much complain of the corn-law on account of its enhancing the
price of wheat, as he did on account of the fluctuations which it
caused. Now he (Mr. Gladstone) very much doubted whe-
ther a Select Committee could inquire whether the fluctuations
in the price of corn were to be ascribed to the present corn-
law. That was a subject for debate by the whole' House.
The Hon. Gentleman contended that protection was injurious
to the tenant farmer and to the farmer's labourer, but there
were gentlemen in that House ready to argue in favour of the
other side of the question. The Hon. Member for Wiltshire
had argued with much ingenuity and truth, that the removal
,of protection would be injurious to both these classes. If the.
landlord was pressed upon by the Legislature, he might himself
become a farmer, and take the cultivation of these lands into
his own hands, or be might throw his lands into the hands of a
class, who would farm on a much more extensive and econo.
mical scale of management, and who would be possessed of far-
greater capital than the present occupiers. Cheaper produce
might then be obtained, but it did not follow that it would be
wise in the House to adopt a course which would lead to such
a violent disruption—( Hear, hear)—and which would be so
manifestly injurious to a csnsiderable hulk of the population.
Many were seriously of opinion that the danger of causing the
displacement of so much rural labour was in itself a good and
valid argument against a repeal of the corn-laws. Was it not
perfectly possible that in the change contemplated by the Hon.
Gentleman, the landlord might, of the three classes (landlords,
tenants, and labourers) suffer least ?—( Hear, hear.) The
land of Northamptonshire, it etas said, was best adapted to
grazing—the manufacturers declared there would be an in-
creased demand for meat if the corn-laws were repealed, so that
here, at least, the landlord would not be the loser. That might
be a good argument for the landlord, but how did it aly to
the labourer? Grazing farms occupied comparatively
feppw la-
bourers; what then would become of these poor people if
grazing became prevalent—those men who had been bred to
agricultural pursuits, and knew nothing else ? Why they would
b brought to ruin and destruction.—( Hear, hear.) The Hon.
Gentleman argued that machinery was not the cause of dis.
tress. Other Hon. Gentlemen were prepared to argue that
distress did not result from the corn-laws. He did not think -
it would be wise or prudent in Hon. Members to discuss at
large the question of the corn-laws.—( Ironical cries of " Hear,
hear" from the Opposition.) There were those who believed
the corn-laws were not the cause of the distress in the manu-
factoring districts, but the means of alleviating it; and he
thought those who built their theory of free trade on such pre-
mises, could not long support it. He could not think that the
Hon. Gentleman really contemplated a Select Committee as
the fittest tribunal for such complicated, abstract, and grave
questions to be dealt with ; he was rather of opinion that the
Hon. Member had other views in the motion. First,
it afforded him an opportunity of making a speech
upon the corn-laws ; secondly, it gave him the
power of refusing the Chairmanship of the pro-
posed Committee ; and lastly it would enable him
to
collect the different opinions of the Hon. Members of that
House. He (Mr. Gladstone) could not suppose how the
question of rent, for instance, which must necessarily enter
into the projected investigation, could be dealt with by such a
tribunal. It was a most abstract and difficult question of po-
litical economy that had engaged the undivided attention of
such men as Smith, Malthus, and Ricardo, and could not be
properly considered when mixed up with such heterogenous
and conflicting subjects. Now, what was a Select Committee ?
It was a body to which, whilst sitting, the House might be said
to have delegated its authority as related to the subject of its in-
quiry, and its objects should be to furnish the House with in-
formation on that subject. He could not assent to its nomina-
tion. One necessary condition of the concession of the motion
would be, that the question of the corn-laws should not be agi-
tated in that House during the sitting of the Committee. Were
lion. Members opposite prepared to submit to that condition?
Mr. BRIGHT—We have no objection.
Mr. GLADSTONE—Was the Hon. Member aware of the
time such a Committee must consume in its investigations ?
What were the subjects of inquiry ? The rates of freight from
foreign countries to this—the power of Parliament to regulate
the prices of corn—an examination into the doctrine of rent—
an inquiry into the condition of the agricultural population, not
only of England, but of Scotland and Ireland. Then there
were fifteen gentlemen with fifteen different pets of opinions,
who put fifteen kinds of questions to witnesses. It was clear
that the Anti. Corn-law League must adjourn its sittings sine die.
Mr. BRIGHT—I did not say the League, but this House.
Mr. GLA DSTONE—WeII, then,, he doubted if the Hon.
Gentleman's associates were prepared to submit to this pro-
traction of discussion, even in the House, for the labours of
this Committee (particularly as the greater number of it
would be probably composed of protectionists) might be pro-
longed from session to session.--( Cries of " No, no," from the
Opposition.) Even though its sitting might not be so long,
still he hardly thought the Hon. Member for Wolverhampton,
for instance, who had mentioned his intention of treating the
House to its regular annual discussion on the cern.laws, would
be satisfied at the postponement of the question.
Mr. MILNER GIBSON—No.
Mr. GLADSTONE—Nor the Hon. Member for Manches-
ter, he perceived. Well, then, it would stultify the House to
appoint a Select Committee, and yet discuss the subject of
its investigation during its sitting. If the Committee were
appointed they would unsettle the minds of the people, and
paralyse those departments of trade and revenue to which its
inquiries had reference. His argument was, that no-
thing could be done with a Select Committee which
could not be done without it. The House was
already in possession of all the information which
a Committee could be expected to obtain. The appointment of
the Committee would add to the agitation which at present
prevailed, and what was still worse would add to the appre-
hension.—( Hear, hear, from the Ministerial benches.)
Whether agitation was good or bad, this country, he believed,
could bear a larger quantity of it than any others without
suffering any detriment, as long at least as that agitation was
only on the surface. Ile had a strong impression that the
League, however active or able its members, under present
circumstances, as long as Providence gave the people the en-
joyment of plenty, as long as Parliament and the Govern-
ment regarded those pledges, expressed or implied, which they
had given the country—the League he said might not be
regarded with any serious apprehension, the ceremony at--
tending it was, perhaps, the most important part of its pro-
ceedings. —( Laughter.) The Right Hon. Baronet had already
explained the views of the Government, these views the Go-
vernment still held.—( Cheers from the Ministerial benches. )
The appointment of a Committee especially considering who the
mover for it was, would lead the people to think that there was
a foregone conclusion on the part of the House to disturb the
corn-laws—the Government would be justly reproached with
improper levity. Confidence in the Legislature would be
shaken; agricultural enterprise would be checked, and trade
would be embarrassed. For the sake of these things, and for
the good of the people, he would oppose the present motion.
Mr. n AWES said a more unsatisfactory or trivial speech
than that of the Right lion. Gentleman who had just sat down
he had never heard. It was absurd to say the qnestionof rent
must enter into the subject matter of inquiry of a Select Com-
mittee. When Agricultural Committees had been hitherto ape
pointed by this House, not for the purpose of lowering but of
raising protection, the question of rent was not considered then.
Why should it now, when protection was sought to be removed?
—( Hear, hear.) The Hon. Member for Stockport had clearly
shown that the greatest moral and physical degradation ex-
isted in the country, and even if the labours of a Committee
were extended over several sessions, it ought not to be refused
en that ground. If there was no evil in the system of protec-
tion, and if inquiry would not expose that evil, why shrink
from it ?—( Hear, hear.) They were questions of fact that
would come before the Committee. The Right Hen. Gentle-
man had talked of the plentiful harvest, but he (Mr. Hawes)
thought that policy was indeed unsafe which depended upon fa-
vourable moments of sunshine and the chance Of good weather..
—( Hear, hear.) They could not always expect such harvests
as those of 1835 and 1836, when corn was so low in price; they
were contrary to experience, and were exceptions to the rule ;
and yet by those exceptions the Right Hon. Gentleman wished
to legislate. Then with regard to pledges, bethought it did not
become Right Honourable Gentlemen opposite to talk of
pledges, who had pledged themselves to the old system
of corn-laws now for ever abandoned.--( Hear, hear.) ( The
lion. Gentleman then read an extract from the speech of
Lord Liverpool, in introducing the corn-law of 1815, to show
that the Noble Lord's object at that time was to mitigate the
evil that resulted from the fall in prices, and to prevent
the new adjustment or compromise which otherwise must
have taken place between the owners and the occupiers of
land. Ile then continued to ask if no such adjustment had
since taken place, and if they did not hear every day of rents
falling, and of abatements taking place in the landlord's de-
mands.) The law of 1815 was therefore, he would maintain,
intended not to produce greater regularity in prices, but to
meet a special case which had long since passed away ; and
those who would rely on the case made by Lord Liver-
pool to support the existing law, should consequently
be prepared to do away with a corn-law altoge-
ther.—( Hear, hear.) But the Right Hon. Gentleman
said if the Committee were granted that prices would stagnate,
and that men's minds would become unsettled on the question
of corn-laws. He thought a stronger argument than that was
he had never heard. They saw the mind of no man settled on
the question, and when public opinion out of doors became well
directed, as he thought it likely soon to be, under his Hon-
Friend the Member for Stockport, he would not be inclined to
attach much weight to the opposition of the Right Hon. Gen-
tleman.—( Hear, hear.) They were at this very moment about
to have a Committee on tobacco, and they had also Com-
mittees on the timber trade and on various other branches of
commerce, and he would ask were they the means of producing
any great fluctuation in trade?-_-( Hear.) It was not by the
appointment or the inquiries of Committees that trade in the
articles which the Committees were appointed to investigate
was affected, but it was by the course taken by the Government
respecting them. When the Government said " No" to the
popular demand, it was understood that no immediate alteration.
was likely to take place ; but nobody believed that by giving a
negative the Government intended to persevere in doing SCA
longer than circumstances rendered prudent or expedient,—
( Hear.) The Right Hon. Gentleman said that the Hon. Mem-
ber for Stockport had not traced the distress of the country to
the corn-laws ; but he (Mr. Hawes) thought otherwise. When
he had referred to the injury done by the corn-laws to the
working men, he had little expected to find a good anti apposite
proof of his allegation in the Report of one of the Commis--
sinners sent down by the Government to inquire into the state
of education in Norfolk. In the Report of that Commission for
1840 and 1841 it was stated that wages did net rise in proportion,
to the increase in the price of corn. The Hon. Gentleman
then read tome extracts from the Report, in which the cases of
two families of agricultural labourers were given. In one the
man earned 12s. a week, or 465. a month, and his son 4s. a
week, or 16s. a month, making in all 645. a month ; out
of which 535. were paid for a bag of flour for
their support, leaving only 9s. applicable to.
other purposes. In the other case, which occurred in 1841, the,
labourer earned I ls. a week and his son 3s a week, making in,
all 565. a month, while the cost of a bag of flour war 425..
leaving 14s. applicable to general purposes. He then continued
to say that there were other similar cases given in the Re-
port, all showing that a fluctuation in prices produced a fluctua-
tion in the miseries of the poor.—(Hear. ) He thought they
ought to take into consideration the class to whom the inquiry
would be confined if the Committee were appointed. The.
witnesses that it was proposed to examine would be landlords,
and farmers, who would be interested in the means by which
rent was to be paid. Now, if the payment of rent depended, as
he believed would be allowed, on the surplus of produce, and
on the capital and skill embarked in raising the produce, it
must necessarily follow that all those requisites were materially
affectedto the fa
bryme
r. whatever
But, would
asked,
ou ld
did h
give the greatest
t e
am
corn-lawso amount tof
ensuresecurity
that.
security? From 1815 to the present meant, every corn-law:
tthe
hatahgaricudblteteanisitns tirnodcuoneesdtanhtadingsercaudruiatyllyabnd rokdeonubsirif,(lllareaevil
He considered the speech of the Right Hon. Gentlemais. as
being in reality one in support of the motion of his lion. Prima,
for it had altogether failed in showing that the tenant-farmers
and labourers had any interest in the continuance of the corn-
laws; and by refusing the Committee, with such a speech, the
Right Hon. Gentleman merely invited them to go into the
subject again ; for instead of waiting for a repeal of the corn-
laws until the country was plunged into misery by bad harvests,.
when it was to be inferred they would have no difficulty in.
procuring it, they should rather endeavour to have.
the qucsticn settled while they were blessed with come