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

144.

the state of the population of the latter country
given by the reporter of the Times.) I need
hardly refer 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 Hon. 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 clistricts3seeking 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 f 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 l)ing in that way for,
perhaps, a hundred years, in order to please some landlord aho
prefsrs seeing in that state to seeing corn groping there or the
plough passing over it. All such coxeombry 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. Alen 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 upon the Right Hon. Gentleman opposite ( Sir R. Peel)
—I strongly 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
evidence 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 not 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 I especially appeal to Hon. Gentlemen opposite.
Ido not want men examined who are farmers only. Let them
be 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
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 Hon. 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. He says,
" I wish to see more drains cut, and more lime used, and more
manure procured ; and 1 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 you 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 anti 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 for 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-
ment 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 offeredio 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.
(Hear, 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-
thing more demoralising—for such a system deserves
no better tide 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 arid delusive accounts, showing that the eultis
vation of an acre must cost 61. or 51., 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? flow should we do? We who are ma-
nufacturers. If we get a pattern of some rival manufacture
abroad, should we call our men together, anti say, tt It
is quite clear we cannot compete with the foreigner; it is
quite useless to compete with Germany or America ?"
We 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 arc Englishmen, and whether these things arc
done by Russians or Germans, we will do it. "—(Cheers. ) 1
believe that the present system is demoralizing the people. The
Nolle Lord, the Member for North Lancashire, had no right
to go down to the agricultural meeting at Liverpool anti 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. lie had no right to talk to them in that
way. What is it makes them do so? Why, every
man who conies here or who goes to Lancashire and talks
abaut. 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 cause 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 1 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 nosy
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. )
Air. GLADSTONE could not but acknowledge the general
moderation and tone of the language of the speech which the
Hon. Gentleman had just addressed to the House. He hoped
the Hon. 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 disgraceful to those who were
placed over them. Ile (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 Hon. 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 statelof the rural districts,. hen 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 (Mr. Gladstone)
confessed, in following the speech 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 Hon. Gentleman had applied to sub-
jects which the Select Committee, for which the Hon.
Gen-
tlemen had moved, could certainly not entertain. The
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 thosesfour
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 Hon. 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
lion. 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 Hon.
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
aericultural commodities. Now before he (Mr. Glad-
static) assented to the appointment of such a Com-
mittee, he would like to know whether it had been proved
that any Hon. 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 Hon. Gentleman. The Hon.
Gentleman had said that the depreciation in the price of cattle
was not attributable to the operation of the tariff, but was to be
ascribed to the impoverishment of the consumer. In ibis
opinion he (Mr. Gladstone) coincided, but he doubted whether
the Committee for which the Hon. Gentleman had moved
could legitimately investigate that subject. The lion. Gen-
tlemen had addressed himself t• the subject of the
proportion of rent to the expenses of a farm. He
had read a statement, from which the expenses of •

11
- -....,
some farms had reached 7901., while the rent was 80f2... -------, ,Neese;'
he (Mr. Gladstone) had no means of denying the ecclttel4 'of ': s Lre..--ter. ' e that statement, but even supposing it to be correct, pas that a 7
et
criterion to go by with respect to the whole countiyi The --?.tae. ',last.* '...-4 . ... Hon. Gentleman had argued the question of protectipze inekhe '"j-'2.-',7:11-',G .pf. ' abstract—the question assumed a very different asP4\fsheri it .' e..e -.. --8
'
was considered with reference to a new comn.ercialear -erct, to / ---.-
_F', that which it did when considered in connection wit - tt-'7---: r---r-
-mass of the population whose labour had been influen
system of protection. The lion. Gentleman said he did hatitiV.asAski
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
cawed. 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 he might throw his lands into the hands of a
class, ylio would farm un a much more extensive and econo-
mical scale of management, and who would be possessed of far
greaterigh t then
b
capital
eobtained,than
butpresentheit did
occupiers.otfollow
i t it w
Cheaper
oud b
producei
m
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 considerable bulk 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. W as it not
perfectly possible that in the change contemplated by the lion.
Gentleman, the landlord might, of the three classes (landlords,
tenants, and labourers) suffer least ?—(Hear, hear.) The
land of Northamptonshire, it was 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 apply to
the labourer ? Grazing farms occupied comparatively few la-
bourers; what then would become of these poor people if
grazing became prevalent—those men who had been bred to
agricultural pursuits, nod knew nothing else ? Why they would
be brought to ruin and destruction.—(Hear, hear.) The Hon.
Gentleman argued that machinery was not the cause of dis-
tress. Other Hen. Gentlemen were prepared to argue that
distress did not result from the corn-laws. He did not think
it would be vise or prudent in Hon. Members to discuss at
large the question of the corn-laws.--(lronical cries of " Hear,
hear" from the Oppositien. ) There were those who believed
the corn-laws were not the cause of the distress in the manu-
facturing 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 tribune' for such complicated, abstract, and grave
questions to be dealt with; he was rather of opinion that the
Hun. 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 tho 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-
tormation on that subject. lie could rot 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 pries 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 sets of opinions,
who put fifteen kinds of questions to witnesses. It was clear
that the Anti-Corn-law League must adjourn its sittings sine dic.
Mr. BRIGHT—I did not say the League, but this House.
Mr. GLADSTONE—WeII, then, lie doubted if the lion.
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 corn-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. He 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 Fart 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 seas, 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 cater-prise 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 rresent motion.
illr. HAWES said a more unsatisfactory or trivial speech
than that of the Right Hon. Gentleman who had just sat down
he had never heard. It was absurd to say the qnestion of rent
must enter into the subject matter of inquiry of a Select Com-
mittee. When Agricultural Committees had been hitherto ap-
pointed by this !louse, 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.) 'I he Hon. Member fur 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
on 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 lion. Gentle-
man had talked of the plentiful harvest, but he (Mr. Hawes)
thought that policy was indeed unsafe which depended upon fa•
vourabic 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
Hon. 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. He 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- 1
tleman.—( Hear, hear.) They were at this very moment about
to have a Committee on tobacco, and they had also Corn..
mittecs 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
aleswra
st i ca ff e c
twed id
,i c
bhu tt hiiettl,slCvyaaohsmseubnmny
tidtht teheerees
tsccoowoouerrsee
taapkpeoni appointed dt h
etoG investigateover
nm en t
dvetrhnamt ennotinslarnided'ilitNeoall't
etroattihone l
'
pr eosppuel catri ndge
demand
haenmd :
was likely to take place ; but nobody believed that by giving a
negative the Government intended to persevere in doing so
longer than circumstances rendered prudent or expedient.—
~
(Hear.) The Right Hon. Gentleman said that the Hon. Mem- t
ber for Stockport had not traced the distress of the country, to
the corn-laws ; but he (Mr. Hawes) thought otherwise. When 1
he had referred to the injury done by the corn-laws to the
working men, he had little expected to find a good and apposite
proof of his allegation in the Report of one of the Commis-
sioners 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 some extracts from the Report, in which the cases of
two families of agricultural labourers were given. In one the
man earned Its. a week, or 4es. 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
her
ur6r purposes.ser npoh, on trt' ea
9s. applicable to
other In the other
only
il
case, which occurred in 1841, the
ablie, a week and his son 3s a week, making in
al
while the cost of a bag of flour was 425.,
l t
l labourer
.saearnednpi
leaving 14s. applicable to general purposes. He then continued
to say that there were other similar casca 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
affected by whatever would give the greatest amount of security
to the farmer. But, he asked, did the corn-laws ensure that
security ? From 1515 to the present moment, every corn-law
that had been introduced had gradually broken down, leaving
the agriculturists in constant hasecurity and doubt.—( Hear. )
He considered the speech of the Right Hon: Gentleman as
being in reality one in support of the motion of his lion. Friend,
for it had altogether failed in shoe big 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 fur 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 question settled while they were blessed with corn-