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

THE SUN, LONDON, WEDNESDAY MORNING, MARCH 18, 1844.

much to blame, was also to be tried by reason of his vio-
lation of Jut). About that time measure was in contempla-
tion by the Commander-in-Chief to repress it, and it was de-
termined that those officers should be tried under the new
arrangement, and as both violated their duty—one in a most
unjustifiable mauner,—the Commander-in-Chief chose
to punish them in a mannrr not uncommon in the army—
that was arrest at large, without being allowed to join the
mess, wear their swords or attend on parade. Under those cir-
cumstances, the Commander-in-Chief, as their arrest had
continued so long, meant to release them immediately after a
suitable admonition.

Captain BERN AL asked was it not the case that, by the
Articles of War, no officer could be kept under arrest more than
eight days wiihout being brought under a court-martial?
Sir HENRY HARDIN GE said an officer might be kept
under arrest a longer time by his commanding officer or the
Commander-in- Chief. _ . _

the protection we give to the farmers of this country.—( Hear. )
But I maybe answered, that the farmers of this country have 1
the cost of carriage to pay also, as, for instance, from
Norfolk to Liverpool or London. But I beg to remind Hon. I
Gentlemen of one thing which they overlook, namely, that a
very small portion of corn is carried coastwise at all.—( Hear.)
Accurate information upon this point might be got before a
Select Committee of this House. Only 1,000,000 of quarters
were carried coastwise at all, or 5
.per cent, of the whole growth
of the country ; the rest was carried from the harm-door to the
mill. This is an important consideration for those who say
that there is no natural protection to the farmer, inasmuch
as it gave the farmer here a constant protection
of half-a.guinea. But Honourable Gentlemen ought
bear this in mind, that the corn which was brought from
Dantaic was not grown on the quays—( Hear, hear)---any more
than it was grown on the quay of Liverpool. On the contrary,
it is brought from a very long distance. I have seen a state-
ment made by an Hon. Member from Scotland, who said that
the rafts on which the corn was brought into Dantzic paid the
cost of transit.--(Laughter.) I have not been able to verify
that statement in the course of my inquiries.—( Laughter.) Now
I should like to have farmers themselves examined before a Com •
mittee of the House as to their ability to compete with foreigners
Hon. Gentlemen would do well to consider what happened in
the case of wool.—( Hear, hear.) Every prediction that is
now uttered, with regard to corn, was uttered by gentlemen
opposite with regard to wool.—( Hear, hear.) If Hon. Gen-
tlemen ransacked the British Museum, and hunted in that
Herculaneum for all the pamphlets which were written on
the subject of wool, what arguments would they net find in the
future tense, and what predictions of mai', might, could, would,
should, ought, and shall.—( Laughter. But what was the
result ?—( Hear, hear.) Did they lose all their sheep
walks ?—( Hear, hear.) Had they no more mutton ?
(Laughter.) Were there no more sheep cots ? I have an
account of the importation of wool and the price of wool, and
what I wish to impress on Gentlemen opposite is this, that the
price of commodities springs from two causes—a temporary,
fleeting, and retributive high price, produced by scarcity—the
other, a high price produced by prosperity. With regard
to wool, your had a high price springing from
the ability of the consumers. The statement he
had showed that the higher the price of wool the greater was
the importation ; and the lower the price, the smaller the im-
portation. In 1827, the price of South Down wool was 10d.
and the importation was 29,000,000 of lbs. In 18s9, it fell
to 7d, and the importation was only 21,000,000 lbs. In 1836,
the price rose to 18d lb., and the importation had
risen to 64,000,000 of lbs. that is three times
more than when the price was less by half.
In 1841 the price of wool was 11d., and the importation
56,000,000 of lbs. ; in 1842 the price was 104., and the im-
portation had dropped to 45,000,000 of lbs. So that when
you have had the highest price of wool, you have had the
largest competition from foreign countries; and when you
have had the lowest price you have had the least comvetieion.
—( Near, bear.) Well, now, that is the principle which I wish
to see applied iu viewing this much dreaded question of corn.
You may have a high price of corn, through a prosperous
community, and it may continue a high price : you may have
a high, price through a scarcity, and it is impossible in the
very nature of things that trade can prosper.—(Hear. )
Now put this test of wool in the case of cattle and other
things that have:been imported since the passing of the tariff.
I want this matter to be cleared np.—( Hear, hear, and cheers. )
1.40 not want gentlemen to find fault with the Right Hon.
Barenet for doing what he did not do. I do not believe that he
caused, a redaction of one far-thin in the price of
articles of consumption. And I meat.. say, with all
deference to him, that I think he. himself is to
blame for baying incurred that charge by f• the.
arguments which-he brought forward in support of the tariff.. :
It is said that the,tariff has caused a panic and distress among
the farmers. 'Why don't believe there has been as much
increase is the imports, as would make one good breakfast for
all the people.—(Laughter.) Did it never enter into the
minas of Hon. Gentlemen, s who are interested in the
sale of cattle, that their=
,eustomers in large towns
cannot be sinking into abject , poverty and distress
without the evil alternately reaching themselves in
the price of their produce. Why, I had. occasion a little time
ago to look at the falling off in the town of Stockport. I cal-
culate the falling off in Stockport alone for three or four
years at more than all the increase in the importation of
foreign cattle. . It appears, therefore, that the -distress of
that town alone has done as much to reduce prices as all the
importation under the tariff. It has been estimated that in
lanchester forty per cent. less of wages was paid in 1842
than had been paid formerly ; and it has also been estimated
that the country was paying 7,000,000!. less in wages per
annum in 1842 than in 1636. How could you then expect the
same consumption ?—( Hear, hear.) If you would but look to
your own interests as keenly and as wisely as manufacturers
look to theirs, you would never fall into the
error supposing that you can ruin your customers, and yet, at
the same time, prosper in your pursuits.—(Cheers.) I re-
member hearing Lord Kinnaird, whose property is near
Dundee, state that, in 1835 and 1836, the dealers used to come
and bespeak his cattle three months in advance, but
in 1842, when the linen trade shared the fate of
all the manufactures he had to engage steam-boats
three months in advance to bring his cattle to the
London markets. Hon. Members, who lived in Sussex, and
the southern counties, and who were in the habit of joking
about Cheadle Mill, should recollect that they are as much de-
resident upon the prosperity of Cheadle and other mills, as
those who live in their immediate neighbourhood.—( Hear,
hear.) If graziers, on looking at the " Price Current," find
they can get a better price for their cattle in London than in
Manchester and Stockport will not send their cattle up to
London, to compete with the southern graziers. • The point,
therefore, which I wish to make out is, that the tariff has not
caused the reduction in price. There is nothing which I re-
gret more, than that the corn-law or the tariff should ever have
been touched. Without this, we should have bad prices lower .
than they are ; our lesson would then have been complete, and
the landlords and tenants would have been taught how
dependent they are on their customers. Hon. Gentlemen must
not content themselves with learning this lesson ; but they
must reduce their rents —they must go down in sackcloth and
ashes—(Great laughter)—instead of hallooing on the farmers
against the Anti-Corn-law League as the cause of all their suf-
ferings.—( Hear, hear.) Now with regard to the low prices
consequent on the change in the tariff, I de not know whether a
Noble Lord happens to be present, who illustrated this very aptly.
by stating that the farmers in the west of Scotland had been
ruined by the reduction in the price of cheese.—( Laughter. )
There could be nothing mere unfortunate than that statement
as there happens in that rest ect to have been no alteration, and
Tet I believe cheese fell in price as much as any other article.
he mistake of the Noble Lord who made that statement was
quite natural ; for if he believed that the change in the tariff
sause the reduction in the price of cattle, he was bound
to believe that nothing else caused the reduction
in the -prise of cheese. It is well known that
whilst the price of cheese has fallen in the home
market, the importation has been also considerably
diminished.—(Hear, hear.) Now there is another point upon
which 1 must entreat Hon. Members' forbearance, for it is an
exceedingly tender point, and one which is always heard w ith
sensitiveness in the House. I refer to the subject of rent.
—( Hear, hear.) Now we have no tenant-farmer in this
House—( Hear, hear)-1 wish we had, and I venture
here to express a hope that the next dissolution
rule sent up a bona fide tenant-farmer. I know nothing more
likely than that to unravel the perplexity of our termonology—
nothing more likely to put things on a right footing than to
make us speak plainly on this subject. The landowners, I
mean the political landowners, those who dress their servants
and their cattle in blue ribbons' and who treat this
question entirely as a political one. They go to
the tennant farmers, and they tell them that it would be quite
impossible for them to compete with foreigners, for, if they had
their land rent free, they could not sell their produce at the
same price as they did. To bear out their statement they
give a calculation of the cost per acre of growing wheat which
they put down at 6!. Now the fallacy of that has been ex-
plained to me by an agriculturist in the Midland Counties.
whom I should exceedingly like to see giving his
evidence before , the Committee for which I am
moving. He writes me in a letter which I have received
to-day, " You will be met by an assertion that no
alteration in rent can make up the difference to the tenant and
the labourer of diminished prices. They will quote the expenses
of a single crop of wheat, and say how small a proportion the
Rent bears to the whole expense. But that is RCA the true
way of putting it. Wheat is the farmers' remunerating crop,
but the farmer cannot grow wheat more than one year in
three." The writer stated that they should compare the ex-
penses of the whole farm with the price received of the land-
lord. ; have," said he, " for this purpose. analysed the ex-
penses of a farm of 400 acres, 230 arable; 170 pasture.
parish and county-rates, 901. ; interest of capital, 150/. ;
labour, 380/. ; tradesmen's bills, 80/. ; manure and lime,
70!.; wear and tear of horses, 20/. ; making altogether
for expenses, 790!. the rent being 800!. 1 "
So that in this farm, which is fairly cultivated, the rent is
8001., and the other expenses 1901. Now if it require 555. per
quarter, on an average year, to enable the tenant former to pay
the rent and make 150/. profit, it is. obvious that without any
rent he would be able to pay labourers and tradesmen the
same amount out of a price of 30s. per quarter. But I do not
anticipate that wheat will ever fall below 455. per quarter.
by means of free trade." Now that is a very important state-
ment of a very competent judge —(Cries of " Name.") It is
Mr. Lagett, of Ruginton Grange, near Worthing. Allow me
now to state to the House what is the best way to calculate
what proportion rent bears to the expense of cultivating farms
—what amount of produce the farmer sells in the market—and
what amount of money he brings home from the mar-
ket, and what proportion of that money goes to the
to the landlord for rent. That is the way to consider the sub-
ject. You have not to count the money laid out in seed, corn,
and manure, because taxes were never paid out of these. I
am prepared to prove before the Committee, by a witness who
shall be deputed by the Lothian farmers, that one half of their
produce goes to the landlord, out of every 525. per quarter of
wheat 265. ; also that if they had but twenty-six shillings
per quarter' for their wheat, and the land rent
free, they would do as well, pay as much wages,
and everybody about their establishment would be as well off
as they can be now, when paying rent and receiving 525. per
quarter. I believe Many Hon. Gentlemen opposite and on this
side of-the House have never entered into calculations of what
proportion of rent goes to the quarter of corn. The way to
calculate is this—what quantity of corn do you sell every year
of the -whole of your fauns if all their produce
was turned into wheat? I will make that calculation
I have often told you my own opinions, amid I have taken the
opinions of men who have taken great pains in investigating
the subject for months past, in their respective circles, and I
have arrived at the conclusion that farmers, upon the average,
don't have a sale per annum more than equivalent to 10 bushels
of wheat for any acre they rent, so that in 500 acres there
would not be more than 5,000 bushels, and yet half of the
produce of the price of wheat goes in the shape of rent to the
landlord. Ai regards cheese, I am likewise prepared to prove
that more than one-half of that which goes te market, goes to
the landlord in the shape of rent. I'or every sd. paid for
cheese, lid. goes to the landlord ; and in the same way in the
grazing districts, such as those of Northampton for every sd.
worth of beef that is sold, ltd. goes to the -landlord. This
is a point the public need not be concerned about for the
farmer. I do not put it forward on that ground. 1 never
told you that you raised the rent of your land by the corn-laws.
1 never believed it. Bat if you come to this House
and enact apparently for the benefit of the farmer,
and say that free trade ruins the agriculturist, then I must put
forward the real state of the case. I shall now touch upon
another and more important branch of this question, I mean
the interests of the farm labourer. We are told that he is be-
nefited by a system of restriction which makes the first ele-
ment of existence scarce. Do you think posterity will believe
it? They will look back upon this doctrine, in less than twenty
years, with as much amazement as we do now
upon the conduct of our forefathers when they burnt
old women for witchcraft. Yet in the face of the plainest
evidence you go on maintaining a law which makes food scarce,
in order to benefit the agriculturist. We have had a volume
presented to us on the condition of the agricultural population,
which ought to be before the House long before this time.
A Commission was appointed last year to inquire into the em-
ployment of women and children in husbandry, and I wish to
state the manner in which that Commission had been appointed.
I was a party to having that Commission named; as
a motion was made by an Honourable Friend near
me for the purpose of having a Committee then
sitting on the employment of women and children
in manufactures extended to the agricultural labourers.
The Committee had been sitting for two years in a particular
form, and was afterwards engaged, I believe, for four years in
inquiring into the condition of labourers in other trades and
manufactures. What my Hon. Friend and myself w ished was, that

a similar inquiry to that then carried on before that Committee
should be instituted into the condition of the agricultural poor.
—( Hear, hear.) An application was made for the purpose to
a member of the Cabinet, but he refused to consent to the ap-
pointment of a Committee, and would only agree to allow a
Commissioner under the poor-law to take evidence on the sub-
ject. -He also refused to allow the Commissioner more than
thirty days to carry on the inquiry, notwithstanding the
length of time that the Committee to which I have alluded had
taken for a similar inquiry.--( Hear, hear.) Having under
the law only thirty days to complete the inquiry, Mr. Austen
set forward on his task, and lost two days in his journey. He
had thus only twenty-eight days to inquire into the condition
of the agricultural labourers in four counties in the south of Eng-
land. —( Hear.) We have, however, some facts elicited on
that inquiry, which ought to have drawn forward remarks from
Honourable Gentlemen opposite as to the wretched condition
of their own constituents.—( Hear.) Before I allude to the
condition of the agricultural labourers, I wish to state that
whatever may have been the animus which influenced others in
invading the manufacturing districts, I have no hostile feel-
ing whatever towards the agriculturists ; fur, bear in mind,
that my conduct has been throughout marked by consistency
towards them.—( Hear.) I brought forward the case of the
manufacturers, and I have throughout maintained their
interests. We first knocked at the door of this House
in 1839. We have since then continued to do so,
without intermission. We have knocked at the doors of
Ministers and Prime Ministers,_ until they complained of
intrusiveness on our part. We stated the entire of the
distress to which the manufacturers were exposed. We
did more. We prescribed a remedy for that distress.—
( Hear, hear.) And here I may state my solemn belief that
one of the principal reasons why the last four years of such
fearful suffering and destitution among the manufac-
turers of Lancashire, and Yorkshire, and a part of
Scotland, has passed over without any consider-
able destruction of property, or the loss of a single life,
was because they knew that a great body was actively
and incessantly at work to make known their suffer-
ings, and to find a remedy for their distress.—( Hear,
hear.) I also state as the result of my conviction,
that te labouring poor would not have taken the diabolical and
insane course of burning property in order to make known
their sufferings, if any party devoted to their interest had come
forward in this House and in the country to make suggestions for
their relief.—( Hear.) If it were known that the sympathies of
the country were aroused in their behalf, the fact would have
produced such a humanising effect upon them, that they would
never have had the blindntss.to destroy the very property that
ought to give them employment and support. ( Hear,
hear.) I have looked through this volume, which is the
result of Mr. Austin's twenty-eight days' travels through the
agricultural districts, and I find that during that period he
visited Somerskshire, Devonshire, Wiltshire, and Dorset..
shire. He has given the testimony of various re-
spectable gentlemen in these several localities, as to
the condition of the agricultural labourers. • Some of these ac-
counts are highly important. The first that I shall refer to is
the evidence of the Rev. J. Guthrie, who states that he could
never make out how the poor labourers lived and supported
their families on the wages which they received. The next is
the evidence of Dr. Greenock. (The Honourable Gentleman
then read extracts from the evidence alluded to, in which
the witness stated that in the union to which he be-
longed the support of each pauper cost, on an average,
Is. 6d. for food alone, though the guardians, by purchas-
ing provisions wholesale, were able to procure them 10 per cent.
cheaper than the public generally ; and that he could not con-
ceive how an agricultural labourer, earning 6s. a week, could
possibly support his wife and four or five children,
and at the same time pay rent and procure
:clothing. Another witness, a medical gentleman in the
same-district, stated that the women and boys who la-
boured in the fields suffered materially in their health, not
from the extent of work which they performed, but from the
want of a sufficient supplysil fUod:. He also read a passage
from the evidence of Robert Boland, 'a faimir, stating that in
the great majority of cases, a family, consisting of a-man mid
his wife, with four or five children, were obliged to subsist on
eight shillings or nine shillings a week, and passages from the
evidence of the wives of two agricultural labourers, describing
the inferior nature of the food which they made use of, andstating
that their children were always anxious to get more food when
they rose from their meals.) The Hon. Gentleman then continued.
That is a just specimen collected in the south of England, in
the purely agricultural districts, by Mr. Austin. I have my-
self had the opportunity of making considerable observations
in the agricultural districts, and 1 have come to this result,
that the further yen travel from that much maligned region of
tall chimney§ and smoke, the less you find the wages
of labourers. ' to be.; the more I leave behind me
Lancashire and the' northern parts of England, the worse
is the condition of the -labotesers, and the less is the quantity of
food they have. Does not will ask, answer the argu-
ment that the agricultural labourer stletsisees any protection?—
(Hear, hear.) Now what I wish to bring-Out before the Com-
mittee is this—that even during your casualifiglt prices, caused
by scarcity, the agricultural labourers always suffer:-»-(Hear.)
Pauperism increases as the price of food rises--( Hear)—and
in short,; the price of the loaf is in a direct ratio proof of the
increase of pauperism.—( Cries of " No, no.") An
Honourable Gentleman says, " No, no." I hope
I shall have him on the Committee, and if he will only hear
me out, I am sure I shall persuade him to vote for the Com-
mittee. With regard to the condition of the agricultu-
ral labourer, 1 have taken some pains to ascertain what has
been the progress of wages in agricultural districts. I
know that it is a very sore point indeed for Hoe. Members
opposite, but I must tell them that in those very districts of
Wilts and Dorset the wages of labour now are about on a par
with wages 60 years ago, while the rent on land has increased
from two-and-a-half to threefold.—( Hear, hear.) Now, I
consider that to be a very sufficient answer to the statements
that have been made of the increase of wages. When you have
.a law that produces scarcity, while it increases rents,
you must not be surprised if you are called upon to look at how
the system works upon those you profess to say it was made
to improve the condition of.—( Hear.) Now, the following
is, I believe, a correct statement of the price of wages. In
Devon they are from 6s. to 7s. 6d. a week. In Wiltshire
from 6s. to 7s. In Somersetshire from 7s. to 9s. In Dorset
from 6s. to 75., wheat being at the time ss. a bushel!, and
in Gloucesteashire from Gs. to 75., while the rents have in-
creased three-fold. Now, you have chosen to take
this course in an illegitimate way.—( Hear, hear. )
You cannot therefore wonder when I call upon this House to
consider how these laws have acted upon you, and upon those
whom you profess to serve. I was down in Gloucester a little
while ago, and had agood deal of conversation with a Mr. 1-land-
lord, an experienced land agent, who stated that he had lately
sold property which had belonged to his great grandfather, and
which brought him ten times the price his ancestor had given
for it. I have lately been reading a work published by Judge
Hale, somewhere about the time I am referring to—somewhere
about 1683—and in it he states that the then wages of the
labourers averaged 10s. per week ; and he remarks, unless a fa-
ther, mother, and four children, have this amount per week,
how are they to get on but by stealing. Now, in the
present day, wheat is forty per cent. higher, and
wages have dropped pretty generally to only seven
shillings per week. It is an actual tact that I found,
on the journey that I am referring to, that the labouring
oor out of doors are actually compelled to live on less than
w hat is allowed in the workhouse. ( Hear, hear. )
A gentleman of the name of Hunt, a guardian of
the poor in that district, told me, that on consult-
ing with the medical officer as to the diet, he found
it on a scale much higher than those who were working bard
out of doors were enabled to get.--(Hear, hear.) Now I have
spoken of the food of these people, and when I do that I imply
also lodging, clothing, morality, education—aye, and religion
also.—( Cheers.) There is a point in the volume of evidence
which I have already referred to, which more especially
calls for the attention of this House. I mean the subject of
lodgings for the agricultural poor.—(Hear, hear.) In this
question, more almost than in any other, is the character of the
landlords concerned. Mr. Austin states an instance of a fa-
mily at Stourbridge of eleven persons in one room
and three beds. In the first bed was the father and
mother, a little boy, and a little girl; in the second bed were
three daughters, two of them twins, twenty years old; and in
the third four sons, fifteen years old, seventeen years old, and
the like.—( Loud cries of " Hear, hear.") There were no cur-
tains to the beds, nor anything else to assist in observing the
decencies of life.—( Hear, hear.) Mr. Phelps, agent for the
Mart,uis of Lansdowne, has given an instance which occurred
at Studeley, where twenty-nine persons were living under one
roof—the married people and the young persons being
all huddled together in one small tenement.—( Hear, hear.)
Mr. Austin further says, that a married woman told him the
room in which she was being confined was shared with
thirteen other persons, in three beds; and that it was neces-
sary to lay her on the middle of the floor, in order that proper
attention should he given to her, and she declared this t•
be the most painful part of her illness.—( Hear, hear.)
Another clergyman of Dorsetshire stated that he resided in
the neighbourhood of a Noble Duke—whose name he
(Mr. Cobden) would not mention, although the Noble
Duke was not himself very fastidious as to the terms in
which he spoke of the members of the League—the
labourers were as badly off as they could he. Nothing could
exceed their immorality, even between brother and sister.—
( Great sensation.) In some cases, in order to prevent this, the
males of two families were taken to sleep in the one house,
and the females in the other.—(Cries of " Hear, hear.")
Mr. Austin declares that he could see no regard to chastity
in the females, and no respect to that sex iu the
men.—( Hear.) Sir, I should not do justice to my feelings if
I did not express my indignation at the conduct of the owners
of land, however they may be described.—(" Hear," from Lord
Ashley.) I am glad to hear that cheer from the Noble Lord.
However you may remark upon the owners:ld mills and
factories, and upon the evils of town populations, I think you
must acknowledge that
,these cannot come under the cog-
nisance of particular individuals, and certainly not
of any particular proprietor ; but if you go into the villages
under the control of the landlord, you will find them living in
a state worse than in the wigwams of the Indians. It was
well said by the late lamented Mr. Drummond, that " property
had its duties as well as its rights," and I say that the landlords
neglect their duty when they allow their tenants to live in pig-
sties, and/worse than pigsties. I never saw the Rev. Adol-
phus Osborne; I think if wo met, we should differ upon many
points ; but I cannot but admire the moral courage with which
he exposed the state of the population in Dorsetshire.—
(Cheers. ) He says that " in the neighbourhood of Bradford,
from one year's end to the other, the people live in the
greatest destitution. They had nothing but bread and pota-
toes, with sometimes a little bacon of an inferior kind, and,
from what :he knew of the quality of the bread, he was not sur-
prised at the diseases with which the children are afflicted."
Another clergyman gave evidence to the same effect,
from which I shall trouble the House with an
extract. (The Honourable Gentleman then read a
passage from Mr. Austin's Report, in which
but the
the
witness alluded to states that he had on one occasion four
blankets given to him for the most destitute persons of his
parish. Endeavouring to discover the fittest obje,cithsuosf
you
bounty, he found that amongst eighty-four individuals there
were but thirty-five blankets—of these ten were tolerably
good, as they had been in use only four years,
see
et t
h ath
twenty-fivetis isnot a
u
were completely
casee
wornout.)f
distress,
constant and permanent condition of the agricultural labourer.
(Hear, hear.) The periods of manufacturing distress are, after
all, remote—certainly not permanent—and we charge them
upon your bad legislation.—( Hair, hear.) (The Um. Gen-
tleman then read further extracts to show the crowded
manu-
stateothecabins
You talk of the m
in Dorsetshire,andithme frightful immorality
of their inmates.) of
our
&during towns—what can you show us to equal this ? Your
villages are normal schools for vice and prostiution.--(Hear. )
You cannot blame us for the vices of our towns, if you rear the
people thus and send them into our towns.—(Hear, hear.) I
say emphatically 1 do not attack individuals, but a system.
Although I hold the proprietor to be resposible for the state of
lodging on his own land, 1 do not bold him responsible for the
Price of wages. I never held the farmers responsible for the
price of wages, although it has been foolishly said
of me that I did so. I challenge the Argus.eyed
opponent I have to deal with, to show that I
have ever done so.—( Great cheering.) What does
Mr. Austin say of clothing—you have heard what he said
of food and lodging ? He saas, that to have a change of
clothing was all nonsense. If a woman came home with wet
clothes from her work, she must put them on in the morning
as wet as when she came home.—( Hear.) And yet you tell 113
that these are our great home customers. —( Cheers and laughter. )
Lincolnshire is an exception.—(Hear, hear, from Cal. sib.
thorp. ) It is an exception both with regard to the condition
of the farmer and the labourer.—('l he Bon. Gentleman then
adverted to the wretched condition of the farmers and farm
labourers in Scotland and Wales, and- quoted. the description of

the state of the population of the latter country
given by the reporter of the Times.) I need
hardly 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 ceuntry.—( Hear, hear. )
( The Hon. Gentleman then quoted from the Report of Dr.
Southwood Smith, respecting the state of the fevei hospitals,
in which there were 1,462 patients, being 418 more than in
preceding years, and consisting chiefly of persons coming from
the agricultural districts seeking 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 courte?:There is no class of the country
benefited by these laws, anti all I ask is, that we should have
a Select Committee to inquire into the facts.—( Hear, hear.)
Yon don't want an Act of Parliament to protect the farmer;
you want a fresh bargain with him. You want leases upon
fresh terms. The men I should bring to be examined before
the Committee would tell you how they could employ more
labourers. They would tell you that they could do se by
breaking up some of that old land which is lying not under
grass, but under moss, and has been lying in that way for,
perhaps, a hundred years, in order to please some landlord who
prefers seeing in that state to seeing corn grossing there or the
plough passing over it. All such coxcombry as that would
disappear before such a practical farmer as my Lord Ducie,
who would he ready to come and tell you what to do.
You would derive immense advantage front the examination
that would be gone into in such a Committee as that which
I propose. Men would be examined who look upon land as
we look on our raw material in our manufactures, as that
which is to give employment to the people. We have
now advantages presented to us for holding this Com-
mittee that we have never had before. Recollect
that hitherto you have not heard two sides of the question, be-
fore your Agricultural Committees. Now I wish to impress
this 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 1 especially appeal to Hon. Gentlemen opposite.
I do 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. 1 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 them 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 I should like to see their cattle fat-
tened up, which have hitherto been starved." Here is testi-
mony, you see, from your own side, that nothing is right. Now
suppose you could read a book upon manufactures, in which
you could show that every thing was wrong that we rnseufac-
turers were doing. Suppose a theorist could come to me in
my business, which is the manufacture of garments—things
almost as necessary in a civilised land and cold climate as
corn—(Laughter)—now, suppose this theorist were., to,
come to me in my manufactory and say, "
Tiring your- indigo from India, ;- yew- . ,madder from
France, your gum fi-binr` 'Aeriea, 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 cempetition 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. know that—l understand at least that there is a sort
of ettiquette 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 le
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.
merit will be caused if you refuse this Committee, and allow
me to go down to the counties with your votes in my hand, and
say, " I only asked for inquiry. I offered them a majoteity of
their own party, and offered to go into the Committee merely as
a member of the Committee, and not as the Chairman. I
offered them every possible advantage in the Committee, and
they would not, or they dare not, grant me that Committee of
Inquiry." Now, I desire to have no advantage of that
sort. If you let us have the Committee, let us set
to work with a desire, if possible, to elicit
a fund of information which shall be beneficial to the country.
(Hoar, hear.) I feel that much good would be done by this
Committee. I do 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 title than a system of demoralisation. What
is it that you tell the farmers? You get them to feel that
they cannot compete with other men. You bring long lists of
figures and delusive accounts, showing that the culti-
vation of an acre must cost 61. or 81., and then you
tell them to compare that with the cost in Russia.
You put every impediment in the way of their doing that which
they ought to do. Do you think that is the way to mare mee
succeed in anything? How should we do? We who are ma-
nufacturers. If we get a pattern of some rival manufacture
abroad, should we call our men together, and say, " It
::s 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 are Englishmen, and whether these things are
done by Russians or Germans, we will do it."—(Cheeers.) I
believe that the present system is demoralizing the people. The
Notle Lord, the Member for North Lancashire, had no right
to go down to the agricultural meeting at Liverpool and state
the farmer that they ought not to do as their grandfathers had
done before them, merely content themselves by putting one
foot before the other. He had no right to talk to them in that
way. What is it makes them do so? Why, every
man who comes here ;er who goes to Lancashire and talks
about our " invasion of corn" from a place in Russia which
shall be nameless.—( Cheers and laughter.) The men who
come here and tell us to look to protection instead
of looking to our own energies—these are the men
who caused the farmers to put their hands behind their back,
and it is that which prevents them faom being equal, if not
superior, farmers to any on the face of the earth. I be-
lieve that much good will result from such a Com-
mittee as that which I proposed, because I believe
that the present system is as injurious to agriculture as it is to
manufactures. It is becaese I believe that it robs the earth of
its fertility—robs the labourer of his hire—cheats the
people of their subsistence, and robs the farmer of
his independence. It is because I believe all this
that I hope you will accede to the motion which I now
make—" That a Select Committee be appointed to inquire
into the effects of protective duties on imports upon the in-
terests of the tenant-farmers and farm-labourers of this
country."—( Loud cheers. )
Mr. GLADSTONE could not but acknowledge the general
moderation and tone'of the language of the speech which the tl
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. He ( 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 state; of the rural districts, then he (Mr. G) would
acknowledge that he had removed one of the most powerful
impediments which stood in the way of the proposal which the
Hon. Gentleman had recommended. Now with regard to the
motion which had been made by the Hon. Gentleman. He
(Mr. Gladstone) confessed that he did not think that the
speech of the Hon. Gentleman corresponded much with the
terms of his motion. The motion of the Hon. Gentleman was
for a Select Committee to inquire into the operation of pro-
tective duties on imports upon the interests of the tenant
farmers and farm labourers of thiscountry. He (Mr. Gladstone)
confessed, in following the speceh of the Right Hon. Gentleman,
that it was difficult to discover what really was the object
which was sought to be obtained by this Committee. Many por-
tions of the speech of the lion. Gentleman had applied to sub-
jects which the Select Committee, for which the Hon. Gen-
tlemen had moved, could certainly not entertain. The Hon.
Gentleman had bestowed a considerable portion of his speech
on describing the rural population in particular districts. He
had alluded to the population of certain districts in four coun-
ties. Now he (Mr. Gladstone) would net agree to the pro•
position that this was a true specimen of the state of those four
counties, but he thought it would be particularly unreasonable
to suppose that those counties represented the whole of the
rural districts of England. A large part of the speech of the
Hon. Gentleman appeared to him (Mr. Gladstone) to point
to some proposition for a Committee to inquire into the
state of the agriculturl 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. It such a subject as the condition of the agri-
Hon. Gentleman, it would materially be mixed up with such
scuucl thu rat lcopopulation a
so f
thatt this i
ws
hciocuhn tbryadw ebreeent o
mboeve consd
fiodre rbeyd
thine
to
establishsai d
e i t
fact, wasthat n
e-
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
cuepsosnary agriculture.
ha vea Committee
r
the House had not the power of fixing the price of
agricultural commodities. Now before he (Mr. Glad-
stone) assented to the appointment of such a Com-
mittee, be would like to know whether it had been proved
''The
Honin Gentleman
or o
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 he
ascribed to the impoverishment of the consumer. In this
opinion he (Mr. Gladstone) coincided, but he doubted whether
the Committee for which the Hon. Gentleman had moved
could legitimately investigate that subject. The Hon. Gen-
tlemen had addressed himself to the subject of the
proportion of rent to the expenses of a farm. He
had read a statement, from which the expenses of

some farms had reached 7901., while the rent was 8001. Now
he (Mr. Gladstone) had no means of denying the accuracy of
that statement, but even supposing it to be correct, was that a
criterion to ge by with respect to the whole country? The
Hon. Gentleman had argued the question of protection in the
abstract—the question assumed a very different aspect when it
was considered with reference to a new commercial system, to
that es hich it did when considered in connection with a great
mass of the population whose labour had been influenced by a
system of protection. The Hon. Gentleman said he did not so
much c mplain of the corn-law on account of its enhancing the
price of wheat, as he did on account of the fluctuations whichit
cowed. 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, who would farm on a much more extensive and econo-
mical scale of management, and who would be possessed of far
greater capital than the present occupiers. Cheaper produce
might then be obtained, but it did not follow that it would be
wise in the House to adopt a course which would lead to such
a silent disruption—( Hear, hear)—and which would be so
manifestly injurious to a cansiderable bulk of the population.
Many were seriously of opinion that the danger of causing the
displacement of so mush rural labour was in itself a good and
valid argument against a repeal of the corn-laws. Was it not
perfectly possible that in the change contemplated by the Hon.
Gentleman, the landlord might, of the three classes (landlords,
tenants, and labourers) suffer least ?—( Hear, hear.) The
land of Northamptonshire, it 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, and knew nothing else? Why they would
be brought to ruin and destruction.—( Hear, hear.) The lion.
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 wise or prudent in Hon. Members to discuss at
large the question of the corn-laws.—( Ironical cries of " Hear,
hear" from the Opposition.) There were those who believed
the corn-laws were not the cause of the distress in the manu-
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 tribunal for such complicated, abstract, and grave
questions to be dealt with; he was rather of opinion that the
Hon. Member had other views in the motion. First,
it afforded him an opportunity of making a speech
upon the corn-laws; secondly, it gave him the
power of refusing the Chairmanship of the pro-
posed
Committee ; and lastly it would enable him to
collect the different opinions of the Hon. Members of that '
House. He (Mr. Gladstone) could not suppose how the
question of rent, for instance, which must necessarily enter
into the projected investigation, could be dealt with by such a
tribunal. It was a most abstract and difficult question of po-
litical economy that had engaged the undivided attention of
such men as Smiih, 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 seas 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-
tormatien on that subject. He could not assent to its nomina-
tion. (One necessary condition of the concession of the motion
would be, that the question of the corn-laws should not be agi-
tated in that House during the sitting of the Committee. Were
Hon. 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 priers of corn—an examination into the doctrine of rent—
an inquiry into the condition of the agricultural population, not
only uT 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 rnust adjourn its sittings sine die.
Mr. BRIGHT—I did not say the League, but this House.
Mr. GLADSTONE—WeII, then, he doubted if the Hon.
Gentleman's associates were prepared to submit to this pro-
traction of discussion, even in the House, for the labours of
this Committee (particularly as the greater number of it
would he probably composed of protectionists) might be pro-
longed !I-0m session to session.—( Cries of " No, no," from the
Opowit ion.) Even though its sitting might not be so long,
still he hardly thought the Hon. Member for Wolverhampton,
for iii'tance, 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, lie perceived. Well, hen, 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
psralyse 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 part of its pro-
ceedings. —(Laughter.) The Right Hon. Baronet had already
explained the views of the Government, these views the Go-
vernment still held.—(Cheers from the Ministerial benches.)
The appointment of a Committeee specially considering who the
mover for it was, would lead the people to think that there was
a foregone conclusion on the part of the House to disturb the
corn-laws—the Government would be justly reproached with
improper levity. Confidence in the Legislature would be
shaken ; gricultural enterprise would be checked, and trade
would be embarrassed. For the sake of these things, and for
the goad of the people, he would oppose the present motion. Mr. 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 House, not for the purpose of lowering but of
raising protection, the question of rent was not considered then.
Why should it now, when protection was sought to be removed?
—( Hear, hear.) The Hon. Member for Stockport had clearly
shown that the greatest moral and physical degradation ex-
isted in the country, and even if the labours of a Committee
were extended over several sessions, it ought not to be refused
en that ground. If there was no evil in the system of protec-
tion, and if inquiry would not expose that evil, why shrink
from it ?—(Hear, hear.) They were questions of fact that
would come before the Committee. The Right Hon. Gentle-
man had talked of the plentiful harvest, but he (Mr. Hawes)
thought that policy was indeed unsafe which depended upon fa-
vourable moments of sunshine and the chance of good weather.
—( Hear, hear.) They could not always expect such harvests
as those of 1835 and 1836, when corn was so low in price ; they
were contrary to experience, and were exceptions to the rule ;
and yet by those exceptions the Right Hon. Gentleman wished
to legislate. Then with regard to pledges, he thought 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 oo
Lord Liverpool, in introducing the corn-law of 1815, to show'
that the Noble Lord's object at that time was to mitigate the
evil that resulted from the fall in prices, and to prevent
the new adjustment or compromise which otherwise must
have taken place between the owners and the occupiers of
land. Ile then continued to ask if no such adjustment had
since taken place, and if they did not hear every day of rents
falling, and of abatements taking place in the landlord's de-
mands.) The law of 1815 was therefore, he would maintain,
intended not to produce greater regularity in prices, but to
meet a special case which had long since passed away ; and
those who would rely on the case made by Lord Liver.
pool to support the existing law, should consequently
be prepared to do away with a corn-law altoge-
then—( Heer, hear.) But the Right Hon. Gentleman
said if the Committee were granted that prices would stagnate,
and that men's minds would become unsettled on the question
of corn-laws. He thought a stronger argument than that was
he had never heard. They saw the mind of no man settled on
the question, and when public opinion out of doors became well
directed, as he thought it likely soon to be, under his Hon.
Friend the Member for Stockport, he would not be inclined to
attach much weight to the opposition of the Right Hon. Gen-
tleman.—( Hear, hear.) They were at this very moment about
to have a Committee on tobacco, and they had also Com-
mittees on the timber trade and on various other branches of
commerce, and he would ask were they the means of producing
any great fluctuation in trade 2—( Hear.) It was not by the
appointment or the inquiries of Committees that trade in the
articles which the Committees were appointed to investigate
was affected, but it was by the course taken by the Government
respecting them. When the Government said " No" to the
popular demand, it was understood that no immediate alteration
was likely to take place ; but nobody believed that by giving a
negative the Government intended to persevere in doing so
longer than circumstances rendered prudent or expedient.—
( Hear.) The Right Hon. Gentleman said that the Hon. Mem-
ber for Stockport had not traced the distress of the country to
the coin-laws ; but he (Mr. Hawes) thought otherwise. When
he had referred to the injury done by the corn-laws to the
working men, he had little expected to find a good and apposite
proof of his allegation in the Report of one of the Commis-
sioners sent clown by the Government to inquire into the state
of education in Norfolk. In the Report of that Commission for
1840 and 18-11 itwas 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 12s. a week, or 48s. a month, and his son 4s. a
week, or 16s. a month, making in all 645. a month • out
of which 535. were paid for a bag. of flour' for
their support, leaving only 9s, applicable to
other purposes. In the other case, which occurred in 1841, the
labourer earned Its. a week and his son 3s a week, making in
all 565. a month, while the cost of a bag of flour was 425..
leaving 14s. applicable to general purposes. He then continued
to say that there were other similar cases given in the Re-
port, all showing that a fluctuation in prices produced a fluctua-
tion in the miseries of tins poor.—(Bear.) 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 1815 to the present moment, every corn-law
that had been introduced had gradually' broken down, leaving
the agriculturists in constant insecurity and doubt.—( Hear.)
He considered the speech of the Right Hon. Gentleman as
being in reality one in support of the motion of his Hon. Friend,
for it had altogether failed in showing that the tenant-farmers
and labourers had any interest in the continuance of the corn-
laws ; and by refusing the Committee, with such a speech, the
Right lion. Gentleman merely invited them to go into, the
subject again ; for instead of waiting for a repeal of the corn-
laws until the country was plunged into misery by bad harvests,
when it was to be inferred they would have no difficulty in
procuring it, they should rather endeavour to have
the question settled while they were blessed with own-