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

=?

was a capital start, and they were scull and scull for
some time, when Mr. Bunipstead gradually drew away frOßL____
__—
his opponent, Mr. Peacock, who had. before gained a slight
lead, and won by five or six lengths.

THIRD HEAT.
Mr. A. A. Julius (the Leander Club) Green 1
Mr. J. Imes Pocock (oxford Aquatic Club).. Purple 2
It was a very hollow race. Mr. Julius drew a head and
kept it, winning

rourrni HEAT.
Mr. Morgan (Christchurch, Oxford)
Mr. A. Ire (Dreadnought Club, Henley).....Green 2
Won with the most perfect ease.
COAT AND BADGE.
First Heat—J. Bamfield beat Rogerson and Clark.
Second Heat—W. Stone beat J. Noel.
Third Heat—A. Herbert beat G. Wilson.
Fourth Heat—J. Wheeler beat J. Marlowe.

The interest created by these heats was so trifling that we
do not consider them worth any further remark.
The Steward's Challenge Cup, open to gentlemen's crews
established at least a twelvemonth previous to the time of
entry. ---
The Royal Academy boat, which had been entered for this,
was withdrawn. The St. George's Boat Club, who are the
holders, of course did not contend in the trial beat..
OXFORD UNIVERSITY BOAT OXFORD SUBSCRIPTION ROOMS
CLUB (PURPLE). LONDON ( WII at:).
F. E. Tuke, stroke. H. LaMbert, stroke.
3. Wilson. 3. G. Meynell.
2. Dry. 2. J. Welch.
1. W. S. Lewis, coxswain. 1. M. H. Churchill, coxswain
The University boat was the favourite at good odds, and
the race was anxiously looked for. They made a very excel-
lent start, and were oar and oar for a few seconds, when the
University boat gradually shot away, and althouglh their op-
ponents rowed in a very plucky manner, they were unable to
overtake them. The University won by three lengths.
This concluded the very indifferent sport, the principal
races being reserved for competition to-day.

MONEY MARKET and CITY NEWS.

FROM THE MORNING PAPERS OF THIS DAY.
. CITY, TUESDAY EVENING.
TIMES.—The modification of the original plan of the
new Bank Bill, which has been acceded to by t.ir Robert
Peel, -so far us regards the substitution of the average of
the last three months for that of the last tvto years, to
regulate the is:ales of the country bankers, will occasion
an increase in the amount of country notes of about
690,0001., the average of the two years being about
7,960,0001., while that of the last three months is about
8,650,000/ The increase will, however, be chiefly bene-
ficial to the joint-stock banks, the addition in their case
formed by the alteration of the averages being about
520,000/., while that to the notes of the private banks
will not exceed 170,0001. ; where as if the extension of
the country circulation had been based on the plan of
taking the averages for a greater number of years, as at
first proposed by the private bankers, their banks would
have obtained the greater part of the advantage. It is
doubtless for this reason that the applications made to
the Government by the two descriptions of bankers re-
commended principles diametrically cppesite.
Although it is no,, mentioned in the Act, it is to be
presumed that besides the return of each bank, the
Gazette will contain the return of the total circulation of
the private and of the joint-stock banks separately, mat
present. It is essential that this should be clearly
enacted, since otherwise the-long details of single banks
will be of little utility to the readers of the Gazette. And
while on the subject of returns we may also say that an
effort should be made berore it is too late to cause a-di-
vision in the returns of the private securities of the Bank
of England, so as to publish an account of the amount of
bills under discount,
The declaration of the Premier that his own " bias"
was on the side of Mr. Hume's suggestion for repealing
the " legal tender clause" has given much satisfaction,
and leads to the hope that the doctrine to which it refers
may at some future time be carried into effect, and that
the country banks may accordingly be compelled to keep
a portion ofgold to answer their own notes.
The premium on gold at Paris is 13 per mine,
which, at the English Mint price of 3/. 17s. 10i(1. per
ounce for standard gold, gives an exchange of 25
48 ; and the exchange at Paris on London at short
being 25 50, it follows that gold is 0.08 per cent.
dearer in London than in Paris.

By advises from Hamburgh the price of gold is 433
per mark, which, at the English Mint price of 3/. 17s. 10p.
per ounce for standard gold, gives an exchange of 13 10 ;
and the exchange at Hamburgh on London at short
being 13 91, it follows that gold is 0.40 per cents
dearer in Hamburgh than in London.

SUN.—Consols-left off at 98i to 1, being the same
as in the morning. The market, although dull, did not
appear weak. Exchequer Bills were rather cheaper also
to-day, but India Bonds remained at the full rates of
94 to 96 premium.
Spanish Steck was steady, and with a moderate de-
mand; Mexican rallied again to 341 to I; Colombian
advanced to 13i to 14; and Brazilian New to 791 to 1.
The general range therefore was better, but Belgian
were fiat at 103.

The additional transactions in Railway Shares have
been these :—Birmingham and Derby were 35i dis-
count. Eastern Counties, New, s*; Dublin and Cashel,
2i; Croydon, 4i; Midland Counties, Quarter, fii; New-
castle and Darlington, 17 to 1; South Eastern, New, q;
Orleans, Tours, and Bordeaux, to i; and Paris and
Rouen, 181 to premium. London Joint-stock Bask
z..-bares were 4+ premium.
The quotations for bills of exchange on Paris was not
quite so good as last post-day, but Antwerp was steady,
and llamburgh rather more in our favour.

The folloWing is the official return of the exports of
tke precious metals for the week ending Thursday last :
Bullion to Hamburgh
" Rotterdam
Gold Bars to Hamburgh
and 3,700 L
Silver Coin to Rotterdam • 55,000 oz.
and 2,7501.
" to Macao and Canton lB,OOO oz.
" Bars to Rotterdam 58,000 oz.
COURSE OF EXCHANGE.—(YESTERDAY.)
Amsterdam CF. 12 6 Gibraltar
Ditto, at sight l2 4 Leghorn 3O 45
Rotterdam 2U. 12 si Genoa 25 90
Antwerp 25 90 Milan —
Hamburgh M.B. 13 13 Venice ....... ........... 47
Altona l3 14 Naples 39
Paris, 3 days' sight... 25 60 Palermo, per oz 1174
Ditto, 3 months 25 80 Lisbon • 54
Marseilles 25 85 Oporto 5.31'
Bourdeaux 25 85 Rio Janeiro 23
Frankfort on Maine.. 1211 Bahia

Petersburgh, 3Us 37
Berlin

Buenos Ayres —
NewYork,2ldyssight

Vienna, effect £1.3 M 953
Trieste, ditto
Madrid 37

Cadiz
Bilbao 36
Barcelona 36

Seville -

' SPIRIT of the PUBLIC JOURNALS.
FROM THE EVENING PAPERS OF YESTERDAY.
GLOBE.—We have received the following note, which
%.,9;ives us occasion to revert to the much vexed sugar
Aiuestion:—

"TO THE EDITOR OF TIE GLOBE

" SM,-In your - leading. comments of Saturday and
yester day,: upon the debate on the sugar duties, you
have, conveyed the impression that, whilst Lord John
ThrSsell and his party were opposed to the exclusion of
-lsteve-labour sugar, the free-traders who voted with the
eflovernment were supporters of that absurd discrimina-
usion. I trust you will, in fairness, permit me to inform your
readers that Mr. Miles's amendmenti and the Government
plan both excluded slave-grown sugar. So far from the
free-traders having sanctioned the ptinciple of distinguish-
ing between free and slave labour produce, you will find that
they recorded their votes upon Mr. Ewart's motion in favour
of the equalisation of the duties upon all foreign and colonial
sugars.—l am, Sir, your obedient servant,
" A. W. PAULTON."
We have given no support to Mr. Allies's amendment,
and we have conveyed no impression with regard to the
conduct of those gentlemen who put forth " Free-Trade"
as their only symbol or political union, except such as
we directly derived from the defence of their own ablest
organ. That impression we may briefly reproduce as
follows :—Those gentlemen 'say. that their " only ac-
knowledgment of party compact is strictly bound
,up in
the advancement of" the single principle of free trade.
They assume the right, therefore, to ask no other
question with regard to this Government measure than
—whether the scale of ditties proposed by Government
or their opponents approach nearest to free trade. That
right we should admit unreservedly, were no other
considerations involved in this question. Were it a
mere question of figures between two scales—were it
merely a question whether Sir It then Peel's figures,
or Mr. Miles's, should be preferred, we should not dis-
pute their preference. Indeed, as matters stand, we
should • hardly have thought it necessary to criticise
their choice, if it were not put forward, with some coir-
fidence, for "the approbation and imitation of others:"
This is a tone and style which challenges animadver-
sion. We dispute altogether that a single commercial
principle should guide all public action. We say
that the higher principles of national atinduct are
to:be at all risks, and on all occasions, and by every
individual- vote, vindicated ; and that, if those prin-
ciples are invaded by this Sugar Bill -of • the
Government, no risk of inconvenience, from the
possible event of delay in substituting something better
for it, should have swayed the vote of a single man, who
preferred his character as Englishman to any immediate
interest as -trader or consumer. If this language is
strange to gentlemen, whose " only acknowledgment of
party -compact" is a principle of trade, we can only say
we are sorry for it. Our idea of conduct in national
matters embraces trade certainly—but something more.
Our-idea of the duty of all men in all their votes
upon this Sugar Bill is—that they should first ask
theinselves—not whether this or that figure of any scale
is eligible for the present year—but whether this or
that principle of national legislation is to confront the
world as English. It is this which legislators have
first to lay to heart, even before next year's
consuniption. A new principle is propounded
to r€gulate our dealings with friendly nations. Is it
sound or vicious—calculated to maintain or lower our
national etaracter—calculated to simplify or embarrass
our relations with the great family of mankind ?
We have not hesitated to say that any conceivable
inconvenience of the moment is escaped too dearly by
setting up a wrong principle in the face of ail nations,
simply to cover the retreat of the ruling party here from
a false position. Even regarded in a solely commercial
point of view, the adoption of such a principle
is stated by the able free-trade organ above
alluded to,- as calculated to give " just cause
of offence' and estrangement," and provoke mea-
sures-1- of retaliation. Even, therefore, with sole re-
ference to immediate commercial interests, we deem
this a good reason for resisting such a mea-
sun; at every stage. But, we repeat, there are higher
than Immsdiate commercial interests, important as
these are. There are higher than commercial reasons
for giving no urn " just cause of offence and es-
trangement." We contend that, neither in this nor in
any. case, involving national equity -and fair dealing, is
it the part of independent men to calculate whether
'their vote may be followed by this or that consequence
of an inferior order to the considerations on which that
vote is given. It is the duty of legislators to assert, by
their every-vote, the great principles of legislation. If
those principles are infringed by this measure, that in-
fringement is the " great fact" which should swallow up
lesser facts in the minds of those who are called upon to
represent England to the world.
. . .

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

HOUSE OF COMMONS, June 25.

The SPEAKER took the Chair at Four o'Clock.

A Message from the Lords was brought up, whiCh
stated that their Lordships had agreed to the following
Bills:—Canterbury Pavement Bill ; Lakenheath and
Brannon Drainge Bill ; Edinburgh and Glasgow Rail-
way Bill ; European Life Insurance and Annuity Com-
pany Bill, without amendment ; Liverpool Fire Preven-
tion Bill ; South-Eastern Railway Bill ; Manchester
Stipendiary Magistrate Bill ; Slamannan Junction Rail-
way Bill ; Preston and Wyre Dock, &c., Bill, with
amendments. That they have passed, a Bill, intituled,
" An Act to enable Sir James John Randoll Mackenzie,
of Scatwell, Baronet, to add certain lands and estates
belonging to him in fee simple to his entailed estate,
Upon certain terms and conditions ; and to borrow cer-
tain sums of money, upon the security of his entailed
estate, for repayment of certain claims for money laid
out, and to be laid out, in improvements upon the said
estate." Also a Bill, intituled, "An Act for vesting in
trustees certain parts of the entailed estate of Seaforth,
to be sold, and the price applied in payment of the en=
tailer's debts, and the surplus to be laid out in the pur-
chase of other lands ; for enabling the heiress in pos-
session to borrow a sum of money on the credit of the
said entailed estates ;- and for other purposes connected
therewith." .
PROTECTION TO AGRICULTURE.

Mr. LAWSON presented a petition from Yorkshire
in favour of protection to agriculture.
Mr. IV. I'ATTEN presented petitions from Lanca-
shire to the same effect.

An Ho N. ME3IDER, on the Ministerial benches pre-
sented petitions from every parish in Huntingdon against
any alteration in the corn-laws.
Mr. MILES presented petitions from Somersetshire
in favour of protection to agriculture.
Mr. CHRISTOPHER presented a number of petitions
from Lincolnshire to the same effect.

Lord MARSHAM presented similar petitions from
Kent.

Lord GRIMSTONE also presented petitions from

lertford.

Sir J. TROLLOPE presented petitions from Northum-
berland, Rutland, and Huntingdon, in favour of agricul-
tural protection.
Mr. BOUVERIE presented a petition, signed by agri-
cultural labourers of Dorsetshire, praying for the re-
moval of all restrictive duties on articles of food. _

Mr. STAFFORD O'BRIEN presented petitions from
Northumberland, Huntingdon, Cambridge, and other
places, in favour of agricultural protection.
Mr. BECKETT presented similar petitions.
Mr. B. ESCOTT presented similar petitions from
Winchester and its neighbourhood.
Mr. H. PALMER presented petitions to the same
effect from Berkshire.

Lord GRANVILLE SOMERSET presented. .140
petitions from the county of Monmouth, in favout of
protection to agriculture.
Lord STANLEY presented several petitions to the
same effect from North Lancashire, signed by sixteen
or seventeen thousand persons. The Noble Lord was
proceeding to explain to the House the manner in which
the petition had been got up, when
Mr. WAKLEY rose to order. It was against the
rules of the House to speak on the merits of a petition
on its presentation. He had often tried it himself, and
he had ale ays been met by being told that he could not
make any statement on the presentation of a petition.
Lord STANLEY conceived that his experience in
these matters was quite as great as the Hoe. Member's.
The rule of the House was, that a Member could not
discuss the merits of a petition, but must confine himself
strictly to a statement of the object of the petition, and,
on the present occasion, he was merely stating the par-
ties from whom the petition proceeded. The petition
was in favour of agricultural protection, and came from
landowners and others in Lancashire. Amongst them
were 23, out of 47, of the principal manufacturers of
Preston, employing 1,588 horse power out of 3,522.
Tt was also signed by 25 of the principal employers of
hand-loom weavers in Blackburn and its neighbourhood.
—(Cheers )
Mr. WAKLEY wished to ask the Noble Lord if
that statement were embodied in the petition?
Lord STANLEY said it was not, but he held in h:s
hand a list of the parties to whom he had referred,
which the Hon. Gentleman might see if he wished.
Mr. WAKLEY wished to ask the Speaker if the
Noble Lord had been in order in the statement he had
made ? _ _

The SPEAKER conceived the Noble Lord to be in
order. If he had not done so, he should have felt it his
duty to have interrupted him.
Mr. WILSON PATTEN said he had been applied to
by the petitioners to have the statement, which the
Noble Lord had made, presented to the House.
Mr. WAKLEY said he shotild on a future occasion
take adyanteg..... of the opinion which had been expressed
by the Speaker.
Tbinetition was then ordered to lie on the table.
31r. WAKLEY said as this had been laid down from
the chair to be strictly in order, he should take care not
to forget it on -a future occasion.—(Hear, hear.)
Sir G. HEA.THCOTE presented 57 petitions from the
county of Rutland, in favour-of agricultural protection.
Lord INGESTRE presented several petitions to the
same effect.

-ST ANDARD,In the Committee of the House of
Lord; upon the Bill for suppressing brothels Earl Fitz-
hard nge, in the indulgence of that peculiar taste of
which he has given more than one proof, redewed his
attack i upon the Dean and Chapter of Westminster,
charging that venerable body with connivance at the
abuse to immoral purposes of several miserable tene-
ments held by lease under them. The Bishop of
Gloucester again very clearly demonstrated that the
Dean and Chapter were in the matter guiltless even of
neglect, inasmuch as they had uniformly refused to
renew leases to those who had so infamously perverted
their property to the service of vice, and bought in the
outstanding leases wherever they hag the opportunity.
That the Dean and Chapter had not waited for this
recent rebuke in Parliament, the Right Rev. Lord proved
by a reference to the letter of Mr. Hunt, their surveyor.
Whether it is Earl Fitzhardinge's purpose, in the course
he takes, to protest brothels, or to asperse the clergy of the
Established Church, we are unable to conjecture. But
whatever may be the design of the Noble Earl,
we think it possible that he may have been doing
good uuconsciously. Among other of his Lordship's
invidious remarks, he stated that several noblemen
and gentlemen had caused to be inserted in building
leases a penal clause, providing that the application of
any house to be built upon the premises leased shall
;work a forfeiture of the lease. These penal clauses are,
we know, now very commonly inserted in 'building
leases, but they are altogether a novelty ; there is pro-
bably net ono lease in existence, forty years
old, containing such a clause, and of course even
were the present Chapter of Westminster to be held
responsible..for the acts of their predecessors forty
years ago, they can hardly be blamed for not
having thought of a measure of precaution that at the
time had never occurred to any one else. The intro-
duction of these clauses is curious, and it is to be ex-
plained byiwo causes. First, and most gratifying, the
general' improvement in morals, manners, and tastes.
Secondly, the change that has taken place in the
system of building, which has g:ven effect to
the moral" improvement in this manner. For-
e aerly houses were. built singly ; recently they are
bt lilt by streets,• and even by collections of streets.
Now the builder of a. single house, if morally indiffe-
rent, had no care whatever for his neighbours, but with
the. builder of a street or a collection of streets. it is dif-
fer •ent—t he respectability of the neighbourhood which he
is (. Teatilng is a matter of great pecuniary importance to
him.. The presence of one or two disreputable houses
in It.. street is known prodigiously to depreciate the
vale a of all the other houses in that street, and. thus the
mos t-proiligately regardless of public morals still feels
the :necessity of protecting his property from taint by
tiusPpenal clauses of which ue have spoken. In the case
ot old leases, however, a landlord, whether of one or
snore houses in a neighbourhood, is wholly without
remedy, though his moral feeling may be outraged,
and his pecuniary - interest, too, injuriously affected
by the abuse of his property. This we believe to be
precisely the condition of the Dean and -Chapter of
Westminster. Now the unconscious good for which we
(rive Earl Fitzhardinge credit, is the placing the import-
ant subject of the Bishop of Exeter, Bill in this new
and practically useful light. Whatever the Noble Earl
and others like him may think of the obligation of the
Legislature to guard the morals of the people, all
will admit the duty of Parliament .to protect
property ; but property is, as we have intimated,
enormously depreciated by the proximity of those
infamous houses which the Bill of the Bishop of
Exeter would suppres.s. Might not the Legislature
wisely and justly interpose to protect property from such
sdepreciation by giving the authority of a general law
tc the principle of the penal clauses, of which mention
has been made ? What objection, for example, could
there be to a provision added to the Bishop of
Exeter's Bill, to the effect, that a conviction of
the tenant of any house for using such house as, &c.,
should operate as a forfeiture of his lease to his
immediate lessor, and so upwards. This would be one
of that best kind of laws, laws that execute themselves ;
fOr the itiMbitants of any neighbourhood disgraced and
impoverished by. one of these abominable nuisances would
lose no time in effectually relieving themselves from it,
after the law— had supplied them with the means.
We have not seen the Bill—it may, for anything we
know, contain such a provision •, but if it does not, that
provision certainly ought to be added.
____

admirable singer, who retired
mot the stage in 1815, could never restrain the anxiety he
felt -when the turn for his benefit at Covent-Garden came
scaot.l: Every morning for more tilt n a week previous he
Would, go to the.box-book-keeper's er's office, to see how many
-aces Tere taken ; and a weekt-ifore his last benefit, observ-
ing. the.DRITIES to be kw besides those d his own private
-friends, he said to Brandon, " D-0 it, Jein; if the nobility
4len't.enme'forward as usual, I shall cut but a poor figurethis
C 0 Don't be afrai(f, said Brandon, " I. dare say we
"
shall do a great deal for you to•day."—
" Well l" replied In-
. etedon "I hope you will ; and as 1 go home to diniter I Will
:-10k in again." Incledon, who was not very familiar with
Debrett's Peerage, returning at four o'clock in the aft&Tko„,,
hastened to the boa, and read aloud the following fictitious
down during his
names,-which Brandon, as a joke, had put •
ibsence •---‘4 The Marquis of Piccadilly,"--" The Duke of
Windsor."—" Ali !" said he, " that must be one of the Royal
Family !"—" Lord llighgate,"—and " The Bishop of Graves-
end!' —" Well !" said he to Brandon, quite delighted, " if we
get on as Well to marrow as we have done to-day, I shall
have a numberof distinguished titles present !" The Maestro.
FIRE AT STISTED.—On Saturday afternoon, about
three o'clock, a fire broke out at Jenkins Farm, two miles from
Braintree, in the occupation of Mr. Newton King, who was
at the time at Bardfield fair, and who, on his return home,
between five and six o'clock, found his premises in flames.
The tire commenced in the interior of a thatched barn, at the
lower end of the farm-yard, and rapidly communicated to a
large double barn' which extended nearly the whole of the
eastern side of the farm-yard, almost to the back of the dwel-
ling- house; Both barns with their contents were in a short

li& consumed; fortunately there was but little wind at the
time, the slight breeze that prevailed lay in a direction fa-
vourable to the preservation of the dwelling and the rest of
the extensive raw% of farming buildings and stock, there
being several stacks on the other side. A boy employed on
the fikrul ilitifit custody on suspicion of having wilfully set the
1.:-.\ ";ith'ilalVegts re.—Essex Herald.
- -
~....----Weireason to believe that the Irish Liberal
------ Marebeo hafe,come to a resolution to retire from the House
%i..- " of Conwhons,hen the debate on Mr. Villiers' motion for the
~.. ,- _ . immediate an otal repeal cf the corn-laws comes to a close.
~"..,-;-,A4. 1 The reason las Red for the Irish Members not voting in
„-.11,,,,A,-4-favour of MY:- 'Biers' motion, is their deep dissatisfaction
)
`'"ith Mr. Coffin and the other Members of the League, for
V7t, 11,,, aving voted in favour of Ministers on the Sugar Duties Bill.
- ,elelverti6er.

THE SUN, LONDON,_ WEDNESDAY EVENING, JUNE 26, 1544.

the President of the Board of Trade did not
like the arguments which were used by his supporters.
The Right Hon. Gentleman had thrown out doubts as to
whether the importation of foreign corn would not dis-
place a portion of the agricultural labour of the country.
But the Right Hon. Gentleman had never told them in
what manner that displacement was to take place. Had he
done so, that would have implied some knowledge of agri-
cultural subjects ; and, as well as he recolected, the agri-
tural knowledge of the Right Hon. Gentleman was not held
in very high esteem by the agriculturists of the country.
The lion. Member for Sussex had imputed to the Right
Hon. Gentleman such a want of knowledge in agricultu-
ral matters, that he said the' Right lion. Gentleman
could not distinguish -an ox from a plough.—(Loud
laughter, and cries of " No," from the Ministerial
benches.) He stood corrected. The expression was,
" that the Right Hon. Gentleman could not distinguish
au ox from a donkey."—(Renewed laughter, and Opposi-
tion cheers.) The Right Hon. Gentleman had assumed
that there would be a displacement of agricultural pro-
duce consequent upon the importation of foreign corn,
which would lead to a displacement of agricultural
labour, but the Right Hon. Gentleman had given no
data—he had merely jumped to a conclusion—but in
order to come to that conclusion, it was necessary to go
through a certain series of operation.. He did not tell
them the price at which labour would be displaced. He
supposed that labour could only be displaced by land
being thrown out of cultivation. He had not
stated the price which would render cultivation so
unprofitable as to throw land out of cultivation.
He had given them no data whatever on the
subject. Ile could not understand by what means land
was to be thrown out of cultivation. It was a delusion
to suppose that if a little spirit, a little science, and a
little economy, were exhibited in the cultivition of the
land, that cultivation could not be made profitable. If
the Right Hon. Gentleman had paid a little attention to
the experiments of Earl Ducie on the subject, he would
have seen his error. That Noble Lord had stated it as
the result of his experiments that the apprehension that
the importation of corn from foreign countries would
throw land out of cultivation, was unrounded, because he
found that by carefully cultivating land himself without
paying rent, he could produce corn at a lower price than
it could be produced in foreign countries. Of course
rent made a difference.—(Derisive laughter from the
Ministerial benches, met by cheers from the Opposition.)
Gentlemen opposite were amused, and he heel no doubt
every one of them would make a speech on the subject,
but they should recollect that his argument was now
merely directed to the assertion of the Right Hon. Gen-
teman, that the importation of foreign corn would throw
land out of cultivation. Now before land was thrown
out of cultivation, they would have no rent, and before
they could assume that it would displace labour, they
must show that land could not be cultivated profitably
by allotments' to The labourer. Now there were many
instances in which land had been profitably occupied in
allotments, which could not be profitably occupied in
any other manner. He did not expect that the Right
lion. Gentleman would repeat that argument ' • but a
more wonderful argument still had been shadowed forth
by the Right Hon. Gentleman about the beginning of'
the session. He said they should be careful how they
meddled in this matter, lest the owners of land should
become the - occupiers. He was actually alarmed lest
the landowners of the country should oust the farmers,
and take upon themselves to become industrious.—
(Cheers and laughter.) He did net think there was
much fear of the owners of the land becoming
industrious. The farmer's life was a hard one. He
had to be up early in the morning. Now there
was no fear that the landowners would cease to lead a
life of idleness, but none of these were arguments to
show that labour would be displaced by a repeal
of the corn-laws. On the contrary, he believed that by
a repeal of the corn-laws manufactures would be en-
couraged, and the demand for labour increased. The
agricultural labourer, even now, went to the manufac
turing districts for employment. Mr. Porter stated
that upwards of three hundred and sixty thousand
labourers had gone from the agricultural to the manu-
facturing districts, and if it had not been for manufac-
tures, every one of these labourers would have been com-
peting with the agricultural labourers in the rural districts.
Did not the Right Hon. Gentleman think that if those
improvements in agriculture were to take place, of which
sninuch had been said, they would not have the same
effect as the importation of foreign corn ? It was now
said that the time had come when the greatest quantity
should be obtained for the lowest prices. In his (Mr.
Villiers's) opinion, the Right Hon. Gentleman should
argue as much against improvements as importation.
Another curious document had appeared—it had been
said the agricultural classes bore a greater proportion to
the population than any other classes. Now, what was
the fact ? Why, , that this class was only one-
seventh of the • population, according to the
publications that had taken place. The fact
was that these pretences could no longer exist.
and then they were brought back to the question in-
volved in this law, and that was, whether the community
were to have a full supply of food at the cheapest
rate or not ?—(Hear, hear.) Did not this law, he would
ask, tend to produce the defective supply that existed at
present. He stood there to assert the rights of the
people to have as much food as possible at the cheapest
rate. That was the right of the people. ' Ho threw
upon the supporters of the corn-laws the onus of proving
that the present corn-laws admitted of an abundant and
steady supply of corn in the home market, that they
made food more accessible to the poor man. That was
the point they were called upon to discuss—(Hear)—that
was what they had to prove ; they must _convince the
House that there was no injustice in the present system
'before they could call upon the House to sup-
pert it. He agreed with Lord Grenville, who, when
this law was about being imposed, declared in his place
in the House of Lords that nothing could justify them
in tampering with the subsistence of the people but the
most imperative necessity. Ho maintained that the
present law forbade an abundant supply of food when
most needed,.and thwarted the designs of Divine Provi-
dence, who made different seasons and different climates,
and so ordered that no nation might be wholly de-
pendent on itself.—(Hear, hear.) Food was power, and
those who supplied the food might be said, to a great ex-
tent, to make the people dependent on them, and have
them under their control., Why should any body of
men be permitted to. have control over any other class
in this country? but so it was. Those who supported
the present.corn-laws should at all events show some
great and solid advantages from them to
counter-balance the numerous evils which they
entailed. This was just the time for the
House to enter into the consideration of this all-impor-
tant question. Some time ago great sympathy had been
manifested for the condition of the working classes; and
Hon. Members affected the greatest horror at the means
which many of them were obliged to resort to for the
Means of obtaining a livelihood. Now, he invited
those Hon. Members to investigate into the causes of.
this distress. • Hon. Members, en the occasion referred
to, complained that the people were obliged to work too
long and too hard—that they were without the means of
educating their children—that they were compelled to
neglect the domestic duties of life, and that they had
sunk lower in the scale of civilisation than the inhabi
tants of other countries. He (Mr. Villiers) now asked
them to enter into the inquiry whether this excessive
competition had not been induced by the want of. food?
—(Hear, hear.) How earnestly and how heartily the
landowners wished •for a plentiful harvest. Welt, in
that wish the whole community concurred with them;
but he believed that the wish on the part of the agricultu-
rists was not unaccompanied with other associations—
such, fur instance, as that in a cheap year there would be
plenty of work—that the necessities of the labouring
classes would not be so pressing, whilst in bad years
there were associations of an opposite character. An
inquiry into the physical condition of the people had
been proposed. He admitted that the destitution was
great and extensive, but thought it could be in a great
meacure traced to the corn-laws. Suppose London were
barricaded with a sliding scale, and that, to more corn
would be allowed for the consumption of the citizens but
that which was grown within its precincts—that Gros-
venor-square and all the other squares were turned into
cultivation—as a consequence of this state of things the
condition of the poor would be daily growing worse—
competition for employment would be increasing, and
wages decreasing. Now, in such a condition, would
it not be accounted the greatest hypocrisy if
the proprietors of these squares—the advocates
of protection and exclusion—complained of the
destitute state of the poor, and yet refused to re-
move the barricade of the scliding-scale, the main
cause of that distress ?—(Hear, hear.) The question of
the repeal of the corn-laws did not merely affect the
mill owners, or the manufacturers, but the whole com-
munity. He said before that they had had all the ad-
vantages that experience could give them. It was so ;
they had within the last ten years four years of
scarcity and four of plenty. From 1832 to 1836 corn
was abundant. From 1838 to 1842 corn was scarce and
dear. During the four years of plenty the average cost
of wheat was 465. a quarter; during the four years of
scarcity the average price was 665. a quarter. • It ap-
peared from the calculations. of Mr. M'Culloch that
during the cheap years the people consumed more and
paid less by one-tenth than during the dear years.
It was found that, during the cheap years, the people
consumed seventeen millions of quarters, and,
during the dear years, fourteen millions. In the
cheap years, the people paid 164,000,060/. for
17,000,000 of quarters ; in the dear years, 194,000 0001.
fir 14,000,000 of quarters. Mr. M'Culloch calculated
the agricultural produce of this country at 194,000,000/.
a year. Thus, it should be recollected that great sacri-
fices were made in sending the bullion out of the
country to purchase foreign corn, a practice which had
seriously endangered public credit, disarranged the
monetary affairs of this country, and the ultimate effect
of these embarrassments was increase of poor-rates,
increase of taxes, increase of crime, and increase of
destitution. In 1840, the Queen, in her speech from the
Throne,deplorecl the miseries of the people and the distress
so great and prevalent in 1841 ; the Minister of the day
came down to that House declaring that he saw no other
remedy for the alleviation of this distress than the re-
mission of the taxes upon food, and on the prime neces-
saries of life. For this declaration the Whigs were
turned out of office by those who had an interest in mo-
nopoly. The Archbishop of Canterbury, through his
clergy, solicited alms for the relief of this distress, and
finally Sir Robert Peel came down to the House with his
Bill for the amendment of the corn-laws and of the tariff,
and declared that the taxes upon the necessaries of life
had reached the maximum, and that if they would main-
tain public credit they must reduce the price of food.
The harvest of 1842 proved to be good. The supply from
abroad was abundant, and the people had enough of
bread. Under the existing system pauperism must in-
crease. In the year 1637 the amount expended for the
relief of the poor was four millions. In 1843 the amount
was 5,200,000/. The number of paupers in the country
when the distress commenced was one million. At the
commencement of the present year the number amounted
to 1,500,000. What was the amount of at .bodied
paupers who were unable to find employment in conse.

session to pass without abandoning some portion of
the ground on which the opposite system was based.—
(Hear, hear, and cheers.) He did not say this from
• any idle wish to make mischief between the two sections
of the opposite party. It seemed to him that they were
deriving all the advantage from discussion which, with
a cause based on truth and justice, they were likely to
do. They were gradually gaining ground, whilst those
who were opposed to them were gradually losing
ground.—(Hear, hear.) Public opinion had fortunately
great influence with this country ; and it was on this
ground, that that important body which was opposed
to monopoly were entitled to the gratitude of mankind.
Hon. Gentlemen opposite were now unable to defend this
law on its real merits ; they assigned any ground but
the true one. Such deference was now necessary to
be paid to public opinion, that any law or insti-
tution which was assailed, must be defended on
public grounds. It was the difficulty of the opposite
party that they could not defend the common
law upon any material, general, or public grounds,
and that the people felt themselves aggrieved by it.
It was opposed by a vigilant, active, and intelligent body,
who had, in every way, examined, criticised, and tested
every ground on which the law was maintained, and they
found that every ground on which it now stood was un-
tenable. He asked them on what ground the suppor-
ters of the law now rested their defence ? There was
no one ground which he had heard, since he came into
that House, that had not been thoroughly examined,
and completely exposed. —(Hear, hear.) He was
anxious, therefore, to hear what fresh ground
was to be assumed. The ground *Leon which
it was placed when first introduced was the most plausi-
ble, before it was tested by experience, when it proved
to be the most foolish on which it could stand—that was,
that it was dangerous for this country to be dependent
for its supply of food on other countries, and that there-
fore every thing should be done to encourage and pro-
tect English agriculture. Plausible as it seemed at first,
experience proved that argument to be most foolish.
It was assumed that we might depend upon other
countries for our revenue, and for the means of employ-
m nit to millions of our people, whereby they should
obtain bread, but not dependent for the bread
itself.—(Cries of " Hear, hear.") That was the plan
for the first enactment of the law—a plan which at
the time all thinking men derided, and now all dis-
interested men denounced and ridiculed. The returns
laid before the House during the last twenty years showed
that since the law was passed we had been dependent on
other countries for large supplies of corn, and in the last
five years to the amount of 17,000,000 quarters of corn
—(Hear, hear.)—and that, too, a supply not raised with
a view to this country, but obtained under circum-
stances the most disadvantageous to us.—(Hear, hear.)
During the thirteen years of the duration of the law
passed in 1815, there was actually imported from
foreign countries no less than thirty millions' worth of
corn for the consumption of the people of this country.
Therefore he did not expect that the advocates for
monopoly in the home market, would allege a sufficiency
of home supply as an excuse—at least, he would not
expect such an excuse from any man having a re-
gard for truth and reputation. Whether this soil
could or could not produce enough to support the peo-
ple of Great Britain, he could not pretend to say ; but
the fact stood upon record, that it had not
produced enough, and that they had been obliged to
import more corn from foreign countries during the
last thirty years than they had everdone before. He had
considered what were the other excuses urged in support
of this law, and having listened with attention to them
all, he must say that they had been every one shown to
be futile and totally insufficient. He had heard
from Honourable Gentlemen oppposite, on pre-
vious occasions, when this subject was discussed,
that those connected with the ownership of lands
had no interest in their continuance, but they
supported the corn-laws because those dependent
on them (the landowners) had a direct interest
in their maintenance. It was now, however, ascertained
beyond a doubt, that neither the farmer, noe'the farmer's
labourer, nor any other class in the community, derived
any benefit from these laws, except the landowners them-
selves.—(Hear, hear, from the Opposition.) No Member
of any agricultural county would now, he thought, ven-
ture for a moment to urge this flimsy pretext, so pal-
pably absurd, as any reason for the continuance
of the corn-laws ; no Hon. Member would now stand
up and say the farmers or their labourers had any in-
terest whatever in it.—(Cries of " Hear, hear.") The
interest of these classes in these laws, had been
fully and fairly inquired into by an active body,
and it was ascertained upon the most searching
investigation that so far from the corn-laws
being of any service to them, there was no-
thing would benefit the farmer and the agricultural
labourer more than their total and immediate repeal. Tho
claims of no class had been more prominently or more
frequently protruded upon the public than those of the
farmers. But if there was any doubt that corn-lairs
were injurious to the farmer he (Mr. Villiers) would
undertake to. bring before the bar of that House, or
before a Committee, such a body of evidence as would
leave no doubt on the subject. For the last 30 years the
farmers had b en, of all men, the most embarrassed.
But what had these corn-laws given to these classes ?
Why it was notorious that they had derived no benefit
from it.—(Hear, hear.) There was such competition
that it excluded the farmer from the slightest advan-
tage from the corn-laws. The farmer had been
duped, and deceived by the premises of the corn-
laws.—(llear, hear.) The landlords had told them
that they would insure him a certain price for his
corn; and what had been the result ? Why,
that he had been deluded and deceived. As to the
exemptions that had been procured for the farmer in
the payment of taxes, there was not a land-
lord in the House who did not know that
they contributed to swell the ' rent of the land-
owner.—(Hear, hear.) The Members of that House
dare not call a single farmer before them and ask him
whether what they had done in that House as they said
for him had been at all to his benefit. Whatever relief
they had procured for the farmer through Parliament,
only swelled the rent of the landowner.—(Hear, hear.)
The farmers held their land not for the in-
terest of themselves or the community but the
landlords. He would venture to say, from the informa-
tion he had received, that net a Member in that
House would dare to get up and say the
corn-law was for the benefit of the farmers,
and that it existed for their interests. He defied.
Honourable Members to say that the law was conti-
nued for such' purposes. But then it was said it was for the
labourer's interests that the price of food should be high.
There was a volume before them produced by the la-
bours of a Committee of that House, which effec-
tually disproved that assertion. No man in the face
of that volume could dare to rise and say that
these laws were for the advantage of the labourer.
Their mouths were all stopped—they were closed by
the evidence of their own Committee. This was
an authority which they did not dare dispute.
That evidence prove .1 that no one could be lower in the
scale ofcivilisation than the agricultural labourer; so much
so indeed that he had become so depraved as to be almost
placed out of the pale of c:vilization. Scarcely a day
passed that they did not read in the leading journals of
the country discussions as to the cause of thoir dis-
affection. The papers were full of what were called
their crimes, but which, in reality, were caused by their
distressss.:He said:again, that no man would dare to rise
and plead the advantage of the labourer as the excuse of
the corn-laws. I-Es Hon. Friend the Member for Stock-
port, by his motion at the beginning of the session, had
prevented them from using that argument. Did they
dare assent to that motion; did they dare run the risk
of calling a single farmer or labourer to support what
they asserted? That motion was a fair one, and to the
point, and they were afraid to call their own tenants
before them to meet it. Was there ever such an instance
of men shrinking from inquiry, simply because they
dared not meet it? He did not expect then that either
the farmer or the labourer would be brought forward
again as the ground of maintaining the corn-laws.
They had read to-day in the leading journal of the
country a statement, that wherever the old practice of
allowing the peasant to buy his corn cheap was pursued
in Suffolk, there property was safe; wherever, in fact, the
corn-law was virtually repealed, there property was
safe. The Hon. Gentleman (Mr. Ferranti) who, he un-
derstood was going to move an amendment to his resolu-
tion, meant to prove, probably, that the high price of
food was a benefit to the people. He would ask the
Honourable Gentleman how it was that the agricultural
labourer was always contented when food was low, and
discontented when corn was dear. There was no an-
swer t ) that.—(Hear.) He defied them to answer. He
sa'd that when the price of food was low the
labourers were contented—when the price was high they
were discontented, and the peace of the country was en-
dangered.—(Cheers.) He asked the gentleman who had
thought it decent to give notice of an amendment upon
his (Mr. V.'s) motion—(oh, oh, and Hear, bear)—to re-
ply to that statement.—(Cheers.) He would read the
Hon. Gentleman a letter. ,
Mr. FERRAND—And I will read you another. ,

Mr. VI LLIERS would read a ietier:froni a magistrate
of an agricultural county, Buckinghamshire, who was no
supporter of his (Mr. Villiers') views, nor a member of
the Anti-Corn-law League. What was the account that
magistrate, who was a Conservative, gave of the pea-
santry of his county. His letter was addressed to the
farmers of Buckinghamshire.—(The Hon. Gentleman
read the letter, which was to the effect that he saw with
pain the condition of the labourers, their damp, un-
wholesome, crowded cottages. He saw men who tra-
versed the whole day from farmer to farmer in search of
employment, returned broken-hearted end desponding,
without the means of procuring food for their famishing
wives and children. It was only the charity of the
farmers and their wives, or of the poor who had but
t',eir last dish of potatoss to share, that such families
were kept alive unt 1 they could obtain a ticket of ad-
mission to the workhouse.)
Mr. FERRAND—What does he say of the poor-law?
Mr. VILLIERS—That was the letter of a magis-
trate of Buckinghamshire, a purely agricultural
county ; that was the state of the peasantry after
thirty years of protection.—(Cheers.) Did they think
that there WaS no other county in the same state ? He
had a letter from a farmer in another county, who said
that he could bear testimony to the wretched condition
of the labourers, but the farmers could pay no more
wages ; and in his own parish there were hundreds of
labourers with families, who received only 7s. a week.
The Hon. Gentleman (Mr. Ferrand) had put a question
to him respecting the poor-law, but did he know that
the cost of supporting a man and woman, with a family
of three children, cost 17s. a week in the workhouse.
The farmer proceeded to state that the labourers were
far worse off than the people in the workhouse, but the
farmers could give them no higher wages, owing to the
high rents. All the exemptions that the farmers enjoyed
were only intended to benefit the landlords.—(Cheers.)
He (Mr. Villiers) would ask the gentleman who was to
move the amendment (Mr. Ferrand) to avow himself at
once as the friend of the landlord, not of the labourer,
and as a truckler to the dominant party in the country.
—(Cheers.) The Right 'Honourable Gentleman

quence of the distress arising from had harvests ? In
1842 the number was 407,570, while in 1836 the number
was only 300,000. In the large towns during the years of
dear prices the increase in the amount of poor-rates was
very great. In four years-the increase was 134 per cent.
in Manchester, 52 per cent.. in Belton, 30 per cent. in
Oldham, and 159 per cent. in Sheffield. lion. Gentlemen
might attribute this distress to over-speculation or over-
production, but, unfortunately, that distress was uni-
versal. The increase in the amount of pauperism was
hardly less in the agricultural districts than it was in the
manufacturing. He held in his hand returns of the in-
crease of the pauperism in the agricultural districts, and
it would be found that in fifteen of the chief agricultural
counties the increase of pauperism had been 21 per cent.
Such a state of things must nece,sarily affect the revenue.
It would appear, from the Parliamentary returns made
in 1842, that one of the Excise taxes. which was ex
pected to yield 78,4001., only yielded 58,0001. In Oc-
tober, 1842, the revenue obtained from the Excise was
733,4001. less than in 1841. There was no part of this
subject which deserved more of the attention of that
House than the effect which these taxes on food bed
upon crime. In 1836 the committals had fallen to 20,000,
having been 22,000 in 1834. What had ben the increase
in those years which had been under the influence of dear
prices ? In 1836 the committals were 20,000, while in
1842 they had risen to 31,000. Actually an increase of
11,000 in the dear years over the cheap ones. Then,
with respect to emigration. The average amount of
• emigration during the. cheap years was 70,000, but in
1841 it was 116,000, and in 1842 it had reached 128,000.
He said there was no instance in which it could be shown
that the working classes were not well off during the
continuance of cheap prices of food. He would refer
the House to the opinion of the late Lord Liverpool,
expressed in the year 1822, when the agricultural body
complained to Parliament of the existence of great
distress amongst them. Lord Liverpool on that occasion,
in the House of Lords, said that lowness of price was
sure to benefit the working classes. The existing low
prices, he said, had produced great benefit in the large
towns, by causing a f4ll in the poor-rates. That opinion
was expressed in the year 1822, at a time when it AY.IS
said that unparalleled distress existed in the agricultural
districts. He (Mr. Villiers) would ask then the Hon.
Member for Knaresborough how he could hope to
benefit the working classes by increasing the price of
food? He (Mr.Villiers)would refer the House to a report
which had been made by a Committee of that House,
appointed to inquire into the state of the agricultural
districts. It was a report which the Right Honourable
Baronet, the Secretary for the Home Department, had
himself drawn up. In that report it was stated that the
evidence which had been adduced before the Committee
established beyond doubt the fact that great improve-
ment had taken place in the condition of the agricul-
tural labourer. This was in the year of low prices.
He (Mr. Villiers) was ready to take the authorities
which had been so often quoted by Hon. Gentlemen op-
posite in the discussions on the Factory Bill. He was
ready to take those authorities to show bow beneficial
low prices were to the health and morals of the working
population. The Noble Lord (Ashley) in his speeches
on the Factory Bill had frequently referred to the
writings of Dr. Hawkins, and Monsieur Bellamie, and he
(Mr. Villiers) was ready to quote from those authorities
to show how detrimental scarcity and dearness were to
the physical and moral condition of the people. Both
these authorities declared it to be their opinion, that
wherever scarcity of food existed, there also would be a
prevalence of typhus fever. In fact, this was the opinion
of almost every person who had written on the subject,
who was capable of judging. In the Manchester In-
firmary, during the dear years, 196 more inmates died
than in the cheap years. From returns which he had
obtained from sick clubs, it appeared that 25 per cent.
more died during dear years than cheap ones.—(The
lion. Gentleman then read from pamphlets, which had
been published by Dr. Mimi, of Edinburgh, and Dr.
Fitzgerald, of Clonmel, to show the pernicious
effects of scarcity and dearness of price. In
the opinion of these writers, years of scarcity
were always accompanied by a corresponding amount
of typhus fever` He had written to Dr. Hun-
ter, of Bloomsbury, for his opinion on the subject,
and he stated that he had had an extensive practice for
nearly twenty years, and had seen the disease of typhus
fever in all its degrees of malignity. There were nume-
rous predisposing causes, such as want of cleanliness
and pure air, but nothing could equal that great predis-
posing agent—a scarcity of nutritious food. This alone
carried off tens of thousands in a year. AI henever food
was scarce there typhus fever prevailed. Dr. Hunter
went on to say that he had known a family of nine per-
sons who resided in a pure country district, and these
persons were all attacked with typhus feeer, which
arose entirely from a want of proper nutritious focd.
This was the opinion of Dr. Hunter. It might be asked,
what had that to do with the question, as it was not the
object of the corn-law to produce this scarcity. He
wanted, then, to know what was the object of the corn-
law.—( Hear, hear.) If it was not intended to
produce scarcity, he wished • to know why the
opposite intention had never been avowed ? It
was precisely at the moment when the people were
well fed by the abundant home supply, that the agricul-
turists always beset that House with their complaints.
How was it that in all their inquiries the question was,
how can we raise the price ? They were frequently
found attempting to diminish the quantity by lessening
the breadth of land sown ; and in 1836, when corn was
cheap, the people well fed and contented, the rates di-
minishing, and employment abundant, the agriculturists
were complaining, and asking how they were to remedy
this state of things.—(clear, hear.) He said then
that the tendency of the corn-laws was to produce
scarcity, and scarcity was the cause, as he had shown, of
want, disease, death, and crime.—(licar, hear.) How
was it that the most distinguished of the persons why'
opposed the law when it was passed, charged it on the
advocates of the law that they wanted to produce scar-
city ? How was it that Lord Grenville, whose language
he had used in his resolutions, said that such was the
purpose of the law, and that he therefore opposed it ?
It was denounced on the same grounds by others. The
respected fattier of the present Prime Minister denounced
the law as oppressive on the people, and declared his be-
lief that it was only enacted in order to keep up the
prices that prevailed during the war—that it was, in fact,
a low for perpetuating what was in itself a great misfor
tune. He foretold that the agriculturists would even-
tually suffer the most from it, and he verily believed that
the late Sir Robert Peel's prediction had been amply ful-
filled. What were the riots ?—and at the time it was
passed, did the working people believe then that the
law was passed for their benefit ? Why did not the
Government meet them with arguments instead of artil-
lery ?—(Hear.) Instead of doing so, they Lore down
upon them with cannon. Was the state of opinion
better now ? Only two years ago, the lion. Member for
Somersetshire objected to the Right lion. Gentleman's
tariff, which was brought in in the midst of great dis-
tress, and with the intention of relieving it. That Hon.
Member objected to the tariff, on the ground that it
would diminish the price of food from the increased sup-
ply it would admit from the United States and else-
where. He had read all the speeches at the meetings of
the protection societies that had been lately held, and.he
could not discover that they had any other object than
that ofincreasing the price of food. Indeed, at a meeting
held in the county of Surrey, one gentleman, of greater
courage than the rest, stated distinctly what all the
others meant. He said they were assembled there for
the purpose of advancing their own interest ; it was
theiriaterest to make food dear and scarce, and they
wore.met there for that purpose. What other object
could these laws have, when they were told of settlements
and mortgages, and capital that had been infested in
land, as reasons for preserving them, except for the pur-
pose of obtaining a price for the produce that should
enable the landlord to meet these obligations ? This was
what he wanted to prove to the House and to the
country. Yet, with all this protection, the state of agri-
culture was but a low one ; in what condition was it after
thirty, years of protection ? They had it on the autho-
rity of more than one Member of that House, that the
state of agriculture was shamefully low. Then there
were the two Right Hon. Gentlemen, the head of her
Majesty's Government, and the Noble Lord the Secre-
tary of the Colonies, they had both read a sort of lecture
on agriculture to the persons in aeir neighbourhood.
The Right Hon. Baronet said at the dinner at Tamworth

great improvement, and that the- circumstances urd
which land was now held was not' avourable to its
provement. Ile had part?culariy referred to this pelt°
the subject, because he had anticipated that the study ,
organic, chemistry, and the lectures now bring giYFAe
were likely to supply the deficiency of past times.
had pointed to those necessities simply for the purpoLe
se
of showing that great sacrifices were required on the
part of the landlords, in order to enable
the tenant to effect the necessary improvements.
feared that those sacrifices were nut likely to be made'
If the repeal of these laws took place, instead of al'
peering at the hustings as the serf of the landlord, 11l
tenant wnuld appear there to exercise his independetia
judgment in the choice of a representative. lie belie
the custom of granting leases had diMinished since tu
passing of the Reform Bill, and there was not the less
likelihood of the custom increasing. Such was the COIF
petition for land that the landlord was comparatively
safe. He was sure of obtaining the highest pessid
price for his land, and his rent was safe, because he ha , •
priority of claim over other creditors. Further, the lang,
lords of this country were, generally speaking, on'y tento'ts
for life, and they had but little motive therefore to lay
capital in the improvement of their land. He believe
e
that landlords would never make the necessary sacrifie
until they saw that their interest consisted in their lan:i
raising the greatest amount of produce at the lowei'd
price. If protection laws were revealed, they eouof
have the landlords competitee for tenants, instead
tenants competing for landlords ; they would see te.t,
looking for men of skill and capital to cultivate tael,,,
land. He was bound to admit that the farmers in tu'il„"t
parts of the country were no less reluctant to seeek
leases than landlords were to grant them, but it was on
because there was such uncertainty in the Presel,:t
system.—(Hear, hear.) He ventured to .ay th
there was no intelligent farmer in the country
who would not sooner take free trade, acceinP
nied by a lease, than continue a tenant at will with pro)
mises of protection which were never realised.—alebase
They were now, therefore, in this position.
started with a promise to depend on this country
TheYfor
supply of food, and they were bound to admit that theyt
had not succeeded. He wanted to know then, be
ground there was for mistrusting the system which ot
advocated—the system of having the supply depenutis
upon, competition ? Why the Right Honours •
Gentleman at the head of the Government solaeew
times went out of his way to prove IP in
entirely they might rely upon that le illeirehol
every case except that of the issue, of money. it
mos
been said, indeed, that the effect of the system o."'af
he proposed would be to drain the country
all its bullion, but the experience of the last five Yelsi
showed. that the exports of manufactures to continent,
corn•growing countries had increased, whilst exports.
other countries had diminished. He could not avoid'.e t
ferring to the objection that his measure was too vi"legoi
He wanted to know who it was that said so. Did not
the majority in that House say that they would stick ea
the law as it at present stood ? Would he then have ",,g,
any chance of conciliating them by proposing a s`D:h-
moderate fixed duty?—(Hear, hear.) Would ne,,,re
same objections be made to both proposals? at
were many gentlemen in that Hon •e who said that w,.st
they objected to was a regular trade in corn • and if the
were the case there could be no hope of inda;';',.
them to agree to a moderate fixed ctis
Whenever, they could bring themselves to ant
that t!:ey were not justified in restricting the supee,-..
food, they might be expected to be as anxious for_,trbt
trade in corn as any other class of society. The 114 a,
Hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Tri;el
had observed, the other day, that if they wished toee.,;
any change in commerce they should do it effectuantio
and he agreed with the Right Hon. Gentleman as wo.
evils arising from uncertainty. The Right lion.
lithe
amen had triumphantly referred to the fact that to
consequence of repealing the duty on wool had Fee
outs
improved price in the market ; yet all the argeniehstl
which were used against free trade in corn
any
been urged against free trade in wool.
„316eiil
other measures exhibited a similar result. 'niece
cot know any instance in which more capital ha",,t, of
invested, on the faith of an existing law, than in t"„,
the beer duties. No consideration whatever was ~ -
for those vested interests. Nor did he see any re-b°o
why all should not be prepared to make sacrifices w
the great public welfare required it. He did not
that the change in that case bad been attended bad
evil,. although, perhaps, at first some pers ons dei
suffered from it. Again, in respect to the exner,tshoe
of machinery. When it was proposed to repeal tnewele
for preventing that exportation, many of those avh° the
engaged in manufactures opposed the repeal '34 for
ground that they had invested their capital in 1 eff
factures in the faith of the law, and that, if maell for
were exported, they would lose the foreign delvan
their manufactures. A bee°
Mr. BORTHWICK—But that measure had
eighteen years in progress.---(Hear, and a laugh.) irty
Mr. VILLIERS—But the corn-law had been tdis.
years in progress.—(Hear, hear.) The people were Of
contented with the law for permitting the exportan hiss
machinery, and there had been great complaints 43 hie
it, but he did not think diet it had done any oil' al of
thought thrt everything which promoted the freeclo
or)
exchange of products must be beneficial.—(Hear, heeoie
When the abolition of the turnpike trusts was under °n!
sideration, it was alleged that a great number of Pe oroi.
ith
had invested their property in these trusts upon the
of the Acts of Parliament. But the change was °eel
dered necessary for the public advantage, and it lid
made. There was another change to which he °me.
the attention of the House. That was the old poorly
—(Hear, hear, from Mr. Ferrand and other.) old
thought that was a case in point. He bell, ved the.not
poor-law was prejudicial to the people themselves.
evo.
they did not think so.—(Hear, hear.) Their exPceete
lions rested upon it—their habits and characters triteit
formed by it. But the change was made againtiritr •
feelings—(Hear, hear)—a sudden and somew'hat', the
gent change, utterly disregarding the feelings '9'esr.)
people who were the most concerned in it.—(Hear' h
oof'
The Houseiought never to have passed the new
law without having first repeal, d the corielatiit'•be
(Cheers.) But in respect to this motion, he weeoest
told again that there were vested interests whichcor
be respected. Had they respected what the peoP,"ifear,
sidered their vested rights in the le or-lawa?-"Lf the
hear.) Had they regarded the vested rights ;°,,„ th°
people when they
_passed the corn-law to ra'—ricili
price of bread in order to raise the fortunes of the era
(Cheers.) Had they done anything to enable the P, fro,
to meet the change in the poor-law?—(Hear, bea.ni
said the Hon. Gentleman, "but you " (addressingort-
Ferrand) " are going to conciliate the rich by suPl in
y
ing the present corn-laws, for there is no otheil7, this
which you can gain their favour then. by
law and assailing those who propose to repeal trade'
(Ikar, hear.) There was another law, the slave „'se
against the abolition of which the same oppositto
node
made and upon the same grounds as was 007:,„1 that
against the abolition of the corn-law. He avaag
be was able in this case to cite the authority 0' 3 -led by
man whose political conduct was not often restSeebet
e cnsiderations of mere humanity. (The Hem in ,0
then read an extract from a speech of Mr. rite which
debate upon the abolition of the slave trade, ind the,
Mr. Pitt declared that he " could not understanwea
principle on which a few individuals should hetabe live
to set up their interests against the rights ai'd, cipless,
of millions. He did not understand such a Pr'ilteal,,!,
a plea for upholding so wicked so infamous ti SYhetild
why, for the sake of a few planters, thousands 5 Ile 5";
doomed to perpetual and intolerable misery 00°
horred the odious system, and he called upon a. 0. O 0
a
c render'
to rise with-one voice and demand its aholitTe cold
admitted that he spoke with warmth, and if
otherwise he would detest himself for his orb
Iron.") That declaration of Mr. Pitt might be
ae
to the present case.—(Hear, hear.) When "ef that'
sidered the enormous mischief done to hundred: ~,eteo3,,'
sands, aye of millions, by the operation of thi
eon- or
he asked the House would it for the sake of &pies
the interests of a few great men, abandon Prin aeate"
the greatest advantage and refuse to redeem the g
wrong?—(Cheers.) t of
Mr. HAWES seconded the resolution. mail
Mr. FERRAND rose to move the Gillen" lieees
which he bad given notice. He said it would% eite!n
sible for the Hon. Gentleman (Mr. Villiers)
el rees e
the working classes think that he had their int to
th
view. The working classes had opened their etf;t
projects of the Anti. Corn-law League, and
ed not whe
was so despised and detested, that they dar ,cts, •eee
one public meeting in the manufacturing distil
0,4,0_0
Working classes' themselves were diametricallY i-„ted
to a repeal of the corn-laws. Why did not tbho'lcity
.ell 4
go into the manufacturing districts,_ th,,y o°lo
broadly put the question ? If they did so, rtinF,ioa
ca'l upon the House to listen to their asse' ir only
Manchester those who attempted to express the
_Jo ,
t shaa' boa
which
wrrhose
in the presence of the League were most ton he
treated. The Hon. Member for Wolverhangte of
read a letter from a landed proprietor on theos_ld reach
agricultural poor, but he (Mr. Ferrand) w
n"_„t 011'4,
letter from a working man, stating the treati salT'3t
he had received from the Anti-Corn-law Leal:es of
was disgraceful to them and to the inagistrtet.cooo:i,
vv
town. On the 14th of February the Alio, 31 ',a
143014 3,10
League' held a meeting in the Free-TraL
Chester, which. the Hon. Member for Sr, to be open
Colonel Thompson declared in their speeo e,_se oft.
_jog
to the public. On the 20th of February
and
one hale.
rand received a letter from a working man'othe trn'at
made(A
laugh)—ofever inquiry
the Coul- read-
be denied. The Honourablehseta then alas
a letter signed by six persons, ,04,001,_„it.
he net give affirming that a working_on,":, the et.0:11,0
rose in the meeting and put the (vest%
seizieilper.'
teeemael dn
ts, vouch
ivine.
man—" Is this a public meeting ?' ,sat a the
policemen, who " rushed upon him like ?c:ts t._
—Laughter)—dragged him over the wherecoet
floor, and conve3ed him to the station-t_oalereed
was detained four hours, and then disci, •Ija'tt his jr,Q
CO to
aFne3r•raacncdu,ss)ationbeingtold
recommendationmade a;t4baeilismc ara.l'Pliiiiemti that be.
police had acted quite rightly, ye
__._s flaw
coming a stipendiary magistrate, wLe"1101;„
jallb'ote
public money for public services?
ericultursi hi'
for Wolverhampton said that if the
went 5 t
ja
free-trade in corn, they would find temp was faajleati
rers were deprived of employment iannioag,
wages in manufactures. The experiment
Ferrand)ooss°
1836 and 1837, and since that he (eel% ,
in that.
the Hon. Member for Stockport state_
__soa, in
_tee
that there were hundreds of thousands 01..Pe_l wee,
~h
manufacturing districts living on Is. 3tl
ns,_,ees
the tow
steit r,
having no other covering at night but_ deo
they wore in the day. Was that the
et
were invited' _ th
which the agricultural labourers heard lowere
hear.) The manufacturers had been they _tO
House, for they were many, anu_u„ht also goo
wealthy, but the working. men " bt,,
be heard.—(Hear.) Those men whom . with
o,h,
would not dare to face, and whom they trestaT tio ft.'
tality when they opened their mouths to speak ttb
These men had, for years petitioned the House
riculturecaor

hat they had met not for the protection, but the promo-
ion of agriculture—that was the distinction—(Hear,
hear, and a laugh)—and that he regretted the practice
of the country was not that of granting leases ; he said
at the same time that if any tenant of his should call on
him to grant one, he should hesitate a long time before
he refused his request.—(Laughter.) He also alluded to
another source of mischief to the farmer, that arising
from the extensive preservation of game, and stated that
he had no hesitation in saying, if any tenant complained
on this ground, he would give directions for the destruc-
tion of hares and rabbits to the extent that should pre-
vent his experiencing any loss. All this was very laudable;
he read it for the purpose of showing the admission it
contained ; but, he vi mild ask, had this example been
followed in any one instance throughout Staffordshire ?
He had very great doubts of it. At the same dinner at
which this was stated by the Right Hon. Baronet, Pro-
fessor Buckland was present, and he declared that the
agriculture of that district was very bad; that he had
seen more thistles in a single field there than were to be
found in all Lincolnshire, and advised them to run down
and have a look at the model farm of Earl Ducie, near
Bristol. At another dinner the Noble Lord (Stanley)
said that the farmers were only beginning to bestir
themselves, and mentioned the advantages to be derived
from tile draining, but said he should probably be told
that this was an expensive operation, and that a tenant
could not undertake it. To this the meeting was said to
have vociferously responded with "Hear, hear."--
(Laughter.) He alluded to long leases, and the passage
was received with marked applause, the meeting being
in hopes to get something more out of the Noble Lord
OR the subject of leases. But the Noble Lord
said there were many other topics—(A laugh)
—on which he had to address then.—(Laughter.)
At these meetings there always seemed to be some prac-
tical man present who generally commented on these
speeches from Noble Lords and Gentlemen. On
this occasion a practical agriculturist named Neilson was
present, and he spoke strongly in favour of leases, and
against the conditions to which tenants were generally
bound with respect to cultivating the estates. On the
same subject they had also the authority of Sir B.
Varney, and the Hon. Member for Bridgewater. These
speakers at agricultural dinners seemed all to agree in
one particular, namely, that there were certain circum-
stances which utterly precluded improvement. The
Hon. Member then read an extract from a speech of
Colonel Powell, stating that one thing alone was neces-
sary for agriculture, namely, fresh rents, corn rents, and
long leases: He also read an extract from the
speech of Sir Robert P;gott, President of the Worcester.
shire Agricultural Society, to the effect that if:the tenant
had a fixed tenure in land it would be an advantage both
to tenant and landlord. There were no other means of
accounting for the prosperity of the SeOteh farmer. He•
would not weary the House with any further extracts.
It would not ho disputed, that agriculture was capable of