The Sun.
London, England, 1842-07-02 00:00:00

TBE SUN, LONDON, SATURDAY MORNING, JULY 2, P 342.

Government must ultimately act. He litairted that the Go-
vernment had postponed the consideration of the remedies for
the existing distress, but he should leave to them the responsi-
bility of determining the time at which they should propose
thlie remedies. He would not, by any vote for a vague and
indefinite remedy, tend in any way to augment the national em-
barrassment. His vote, however, as he had said before, would
be given for any alteration in the existing Corn-laws. That
was a subject Upon which he had a clear and definite opinion)
and he should therefore be prepared to give a decided vote upon
it. tie could not, with equal satisfaction to himself, give a
vote in favour of the present motion ; and he should refuse to
concur in any course which would set aside the ordinary proceed-
ing by which the Government sought to obtain the supplies
necessary for the service of the year.—( Cheers. )
Sir R. PEEL rose and said, that however varior.s might be
the opinions of gentlemen on different sides of the House with
respect to the commercial policy of the Government, or the
reasons which ought to be adopted for the purpose of miti
gating that distress which all admitted to prevail, he still ap-
prehended that no Honourable Gentleman would be
inclined to give his vote without attending to the
propesal to which he was invited to give his a,sent.
He should, therefore, call the attention of tke House to the
practical proposition of the Member for Greenock. In much of
the first five resolutions, which spoke of the fortitude with
which the people had borne their sufferings, he entirely agreed.
But the sixth contained the proposal of the Hon. Member, and
it was, that a humble address be presented to her Majesty,
praying her Majesty not to prorogue the Parliament till a
searching inquiry had been instituted into the causes of the
present distress. Why, what a shabby way was this of meet-
ing the difficulty ?—( Hear, hear.) They had arrived at the
first of July, and no notice had hitherto been given of such an
intention. If such an inquiry was c .nsidered lively to have
useful practical resu'ts. Why was it not ;rope-ea at a much
earlier period? By what mode was it to be instituted? Was
it to be a Committee of Inquiry on evidence given at the bar
of the House into all the complicated causes of the distress of
the country, or was it to be by a Select Committee? Upon all
the practical parts of the question the lion. Gentleman had
evaded giving any opinion. But he said he &new if the inquiry
could be completed, still there would be no prorogation till
effectual means had been secured for providing for the suste-
nance of the unemployed poor and their destitute families.
Whv, what did that mean, but the same thing as the motion of
the Member for Knaresborough ? What Government could give
such an assurance as that it would take means to revive the in-

dustry and commerce of the country. To promise the peopl e
sustenance could not be doneunless they adopted the principle
of the resolution of the Member for Knaresborough, against
which the Honourable Member for Greenock himself voted.—
(Cheers.) He koped the House would not sanction such a pro-
position. He believed he had said enough to shew that
it would not be wise in the House to evade the pre-

sent difficulty and encourage expectations on the part of
the suffering people from an inquiry, the result of which could
not be otherwise than deceptive.—( Hear, hear.) Yet he un-
derstood the Hon. Yember for Whitehaven intended to vote for
the motion for inquiry ; he was surprised to hear him state that
intention when, with all his practical knowledge of commercial
affairs, he had sat tranquilly till the first of -July, and never
intimated that he had any such intention. He had never even
stated his opinion of the causes of the distress; yet, surely,
those who had been engaged all their lives in commerce were as
competent to form an opinion of it ; surely they could not
be simple enough to believe that there existed in cer-
tain official departments a remedy for the disorder that
existed. He was surprised, then, that his refusal to suggest a
remedy should be so intense, when he was just as competent as
her Majesty's Government to form an opinion of the kind of

remedy reciuired,
Mr. W. ATWOOD—I am not " the Doctor."—(Leud
laughter, and cheers from the Opposition.)
Sir It. PEEL—Then the Hon. Gentleman took exactly the
same course he had done himself—not being responsible, he
would not give a remedy ; but he (Sir R. Peel) had undertaken
that responsibility, and had offered a remedy—( Hear)---all that
the Hon. Gentleman had clone was to attend a consultation of
doctors, but he would offer no opinion of his own.—(Cheers. )
He totally dissented from the remedy proposed by the Govern-
ment, but he proposed no other. He said the Government were
wrong in making any relaxations of commerce they had done—
did he, then, propose to increase restriction ?—(No, ) It
appeared he did not ; then what were his opinions on our com-
mercial system? From the praise he had given the policy of
the United States, he seemed to think we ought to refuse to
purchase any produce of a foreign country which they were able
to raise.themselves. But the Hon. Gentleman would find him-
self defeated by high duties on such productions ; he would
find the revenue diminished, but domestic industry not pro-
tected. He had expected to hear him advocate the abolition of
the law which makes paper currency convertible into gold.
He disclaimed the intention of re-issuing the one-pound
notes ; he thought the repeal of the Corn-laws would aggravate
the distress; he apprehended, therefore, that he had no
other remedy to propose, but the resorting to what was called
the " little shilling," the making ninepence or tenpence, pass
for a shilling, or else the relieving the issuers of paper from the
obligation of converting it into gold. But let him get the Com-
mittee of Inquiry : what was the prospect from it, what time
would be consumed till they could come to the recommendation
of some practical measure ? He now came to the speech of the
Noble Lord, who took an entirely different view of
the subject, and who was prepared to adopt a tone much less
hostile to the Government. He said he thought the Govern-
ment had attached too much importance to their financial
difficulties; but, considering that the deficiency had existed 'for
five years, and amounted to ten millions, he believed the coun-
try would to a different opinion.—( Hear, hear.) He
said the people gave a great indication of their spirit by their
cheerful acquiescence with the Income-tax ; what stronger proof
could a people give of its confidence in a Government? What
must they have thought of the late Government? Was it not
probable that they had come to the conclusion that the time
had arrived when the revenue and the expenditure ought to be
equal'zed ; that delay and evasion were no longer practicable—
and that some vigorous and decisive measures were necessary ?
There had been a very prevalent impression, upon the proposal
of the Income-tax, that the members of the late Government
intended to give it their support. What circumstances had
induced them to change their view, he of course could not tell,
but that impresion prevailed; and the very circumstance that
they thought it necessary to take time to consider the measure
would naturally lead to the supposition that they thought there
were solid reasons for the proposal. Nor was it the Government
alone who took that view of the matter. Looking at the general
position of this country ; seeing that on the north-west frontier
of India there were hostilities of doubtful issue, whilst on the
other frontier of India, namely China, there was a war, the du-
ration of which it was difficult to forsee ; considering that our
differences with America had continued for several years, and
perceiving that, with respect to that country, an intimate sill-
' ante with which had formed one of our chief hopes, there had
grown up, from some cause or other, feelings of jealousy and
hostility greatly to be deprecated—combining all these consi-
derations together the people came to the opinion that it was
desirable to make a great effort to equalise the revenue and
the expenditure, and the burden should fall upon the property
of the country, and not upon those who were engaged in pro-
ductive industry. Now, with respect to the tariff. The Noble
Lord, by his general submissions, had gone far to show that her
Majesty's Government had pushed the principles upon which
the tariff was founded to as great an extent as was consistent
either with public feeling or due protection to existing inte-
rests. " See," said the Noble Lord, " what you have done;
you have reduced the duty on oil ; you have reduced the duty
on seed, on ore, and on timber ; you have affected a great many
interests. All I complain of is, that you have not carried your
principles much further." Now take the'case of cattle. °For
a long time the complaint had been that the provision laws im-
peded the commercial intercourse of this country; but up to
February, 1842, no Government had ever talked about 'cattle
—( Hear)--the subject was never mentioned. The late Go-
vernment said they would doubtless have made an alteration, for
it was conformable with their principles ; but he had never
heard the word mentioned in that House. He proposed duties
which were not objected to on the other side of the House—a
duty of 1/. per head upon cattle, and Id. per pound upon meat.
The Noble Lord said that a great panic had been produced
by the alteration. He said he knew cases in which farmers
hail bought cattle, had fed them, and had afterwards sold them
for a less sum than they cost. This showed that a relaxation of
monopolies was not unattended with practical evils—that they
were often productive of individual injustice. The farmer
who, in consequence of the panic, unwisely, but not unnatu-
rally, parted with his cattle, had a right to complain, per-
haps, of the proposition which he had made. The Noble Lord
said that he (Sir R. Peel) hal disregarded the panic, had
braved opposition, and was now rewarded by finding that the
panio was unfounded; but the Noble Lord oid not give him
much encouragement to proceed, for he told him that notwith-
standit g the r duction of duties he had done no good. Why.
what was the Noble Lord's argument ? He said, " adopt
the principle of an Bs. duty with respect to corn, and the same
consequences would follow as in the case of cattle. Why,
what, according to the Noble Lord, would those consequences
be ? That the panic would prove to be groundless, but he
would do no good whatever —( Hear, hear.) He a-ked the
House to judge of the position of the Government. One class
of gentlemen declared that all which had been done was in-
effectual, that nothing would avail but a repeal of the Corn-
laws. The Hon. Gentleman opposite, a man practically ac-
quainted with commerce, said that the Corn-laws were not in
the slightest degree chargeable with the present distress. and
that commercial prosperity had co-existed with them, and that
it would be absurd to expect any relief from their repeal. He
implied an opinion, in fact, that all commercial relaxations were
unwise, and that additional protection to domestic prodtt cc
ought to be at once afforded. The grand remedy now proposed was
a I,ommittee of Inquiry. Why, wbat was the practical course
which her Majesty's Government had pursued ? They had re-
duced the duties upon corn by one-half..—(Oh, oh.) At
that moment foreign corn was admitted at 95., whereas if the
old law had been in operation the duty would hive been
235. Bd. They proposed to relieve the country from financial
difficulties, and they staked the existence of the Government
upon the propo. al. They proposed to equalise the revenue
and the expenditure by direct taxation. Did they stop there?
Did they appropriate the whole of the proceeds of that taxa-
tion to the payment of the public establishments ?. On the
contrary, they applied a great part of it to the remission of du-
ties which impeded foreign commercial intercourse, and they
revised, almost without exception, the whole of the commercial
tariff of this country. In proposing, however, the revisal of the
tariff they did not think it desirable to disturb the employment
of capital by too sudden and precipitate changes.—( Hear, hear.)
His firm belief was that they adopted the proper course. They
were blamed by some for going too far, they were blamed by
others for not going far enough. He asked the House to esti-
mate all the difficulties with which they had had to contend,
and he could not help thinking that any impartial man would
come to the conclusion, that those difficulties had been fairly
and successfully encountered. He now came to the Corn-laws.
This proposal was not a proposal either for the repeal or for a
modification of those laws, and any gentleman who
was in favour of absolute repeal, would be perfectly justi-
fied in resisting a motion for indefinite inquiry. It was
perfectly open to such a person to propose the repeal of
the Corn-laws, but he earnestly hoped that no such propo-
sition would be made. Ho hoped that a fair trial would be
given to the law as it now stood. He retained the opinion
which lie had heretofore expressed on this subject. He did not
believe that any of the proposals which he had heard with re-
spect to the Corn-laws would have the effect of mitigating the
distress under which tlsis country was labouring, and he could
not help thinking that if they adopted any measure of that
kind, which involved the agricultural population of this country
in distress, they would only aggravate privations which the
commercial classes were now enduring. He found that the
commercial prosperity of this coentry had been consistent
with the laws which had till lately been in operation with
respect to the import of corn. It was stated, on the authority
of the Chamber of Commerce of Manchester, that
up to the year 1837, and for many years pre-
ceding, the manufacturers and commercial interests
of this country had been in a state of unexampled
prosperity. He know it would be said, that, during the four.
}ears preceding 1837, the price of provisions was very low ;
bus there had been no foreign corn imported during those years,
and consequently there had been no demand for the manufac-
tured cottons of this country. The Hon. Member for Stock-
port had said that cotton manufactures in this country required
no protection, that it was absurd to demand protection for
cotton manufactured in England. That was to say, that not-
withstanding the high vice of food in this country, yet
that still we had contrived to outstrip every other com-
asrlefarded the production of cotton. He ( Sir
could not deny that distress existed
com-
petitor,
Robertitor ,
pee
iu
many parts of th:s country—that it was most grievous in the
districts eo,cerned is cotton mauufactures. In many other
.1 s. ere -0., but they
in an especial degree in those districts connected with cotton
manufactures, It may be said that a great portien of the kill*

I in those districts had stopped work. That might be true, of
course, with respect to some districts, yet still it was a remark-
able thing (he did not state this for the purpose of denying the
existence at the distress—the indications were too manifest
to admit of denial)-01/ it was remarkable—it did suggest
some considerations to the mind, tthen they heard of this uni-
vet sal distress in the manufacturing districts, and the immense
extent to which the closing of mills had • taken place
...that the quantities of cotton taken out for borne
triatitifecture this year, as compared with last year,
had not decreased. From the Government returns,
up to the 24th of June, 1842, it appeared that in the first six
months of the year 1841 there were 464,000 bales of cotton
taken out for home consumption. From the statements of the
extent to which industry was paralysed in the cotton manufac-
ture in the present year as compared with last year, he had ex-
peeted to find a diminution in the quantity taken out. But that
was not the case. The quantity taken out the first six months
of last year was 464 500 bales. The quantity consumed up to
the '24th of June, 1842, was 538,000 bales. So that notwith-
standing the distress and the closing of the mills, yet the whole
quantity taken out for consumption in the first six months of
1842 exceeded that taken out in the first six months of 1841,
and he doubted whether it did cot almost equal that
taken out during the first six months of any preceding
year, with one or two exceptions: He knew that
that did not prove that the profits were great and that the
distress was diminished. Still the fact was remarkable.
He had taken, in one respect, a more desponding view of
the condition of this country than Honourable Gentlemen op-
posite. He firmly believed that if they repealed the Corn-
la s, and if that measure produced the effect they anticipated,
they would not give a guarantee against the recurrence of se-
vere
distress in certain localities. He was afraid, even if they
repealed the Coln. laws, they must look forward to occasional
severe local distress. At the present moment of severe distress
iinngcertain filled with improved machinery.
localities manufacturers of
there were in some parts of the country new mills in the
I t course
must oac andhappen
that bet
smaller ca;-ital should have imperfect machinery, yet still
employing a great mass of population not capable of easy re-
moval, who would find it difficult .to enter into
competition with those who could command capital, and
adopt the most approved machinery. To resist the progress of
those wonderful inventions was impossible, but though there
should be increased demand at present for manufactures, still
there must be simultaneously existing with that demand se-
vere distress on account of the sudden application of new ma-
chinery to the process. He could prove that to be the case,
but he would not dwell upon the matter. He could show that
the immediate application of improved machinery to manufac-
tures was the production of distress - a tendency to throw out
of employment adult males, and substitute for their labrur shat
of females and children ; and that the result was, that men of
twanty-five or thirty, who up to that age were employed in
cotton manufacture, found it difficult to turn their hands to any
other occupation. They sheuld not make the Corn-laws responsible
laws for this. He did not, however; make that an impeach-
ment of those inventions. Those invereions might cause em-
ployment in mechanical industry of another nature, but still
commercial prosperity might be great ; yet in certain districts,
from which it was difficult to remove men with large families,
distress would arise from this cause. Looking at this state of
things, he could not anticipate that absence of distress which
some Hon. Gentlemen calculated upon. They had applied
harsh terms to the measures which Government had taken to
alleviate the distress. They talked of " begging boxes" and
charitable relief," and said that such remedies were not
satisfactory. He admitted they were less satisfactory than any
mode of providing employment ; less satisfactory, in every re-
spect, in a social point of view, to the honest and independent
feeling of those who dreaded temporary assistance, and who pre-
fect ed that labour which enabled the poor man by the sweat of his
brow to gain an honest subsistence. But when pressure came
could any man say that even that unsatisfactory mode of relief
ought to be refused ? Was it wise to disparage that mode of re-
ceiving contributions, when they themselves must feel that no
immediate improvement, according to their own views, of com-
mercial policy, could result from their measures ? He gave
credit to the patience and forbearance with which the people
had borne their distress, and, he believed, if left to themselves,
they would continue to manifest that patience. He thought
them entitled to a higher degree of credit, in consequence of the
persevering efforts made to inflame their Illityls,by wicked per-
sons, who, he had conclusis e proof, attereiPted/o:indisfose them
to honest industry. While on one hand thin. Sidniiiatiou was raised
by the forbearance of the people, on thebtherthrshs indignation
must be excited against these who, by violent langitage,attempted
to urge the people to courses which, for the preservation of the
best interests of all, would give the present Government no
alternative but their firm repression, the repression of disobe-
dience to the law, and the maintenance of peace against any
efforts at disturbance.
Mr. MILNER GIBSON said that, notwithstanding the
regret expressed by the Right Hon. Gentleman at the opinion
to which he (Mr. Milner Gibson) gave utterance on a former
occasion, that subscriptions to the Anti-Corn-law League were
more humane subscriptions for the relief of charitable
objects than any other, yet he still adhered to
that opinion. With respect to what had been said,
in answer to the arguments of the Hon. Member for White-
haven (Mr. M. Attwood), he (Mr. Gibson) thought that
gentleman had expressed himself consistently, rationally, and
wisely, as he held that protection was a source of national pros-
perity. Because he was in favour of protection and opposed to
relaxation, he was consistent in voting for an inquiry. What
course was formerly pursued with agricultural distress? Why,
Committees of Inquiry were appointed. .There was the Pay-
master of the Forces locking with tranquil indifference at the
distress of the manufacturers, who seconded a motion in 1821
for an inquiry into agricultural distress.—( Hear, hear, hear.)
It was then said that mere sympathy was not enough—
that they wanted more from the priest than his blessing—
they wanted his pence. Such was the language used then,
and they were right, for though an inquiry might be productive
of no real good, it would show the people that they were ready
to inquire into their distress.—( Hear, hear.) It was upon the
same grounds that they now asked for inquiry. It was true
there were different opinions on the cause of that distress ; but
that was the very reason why an inquiry ought to be instituted.
—( Hear, hear.) He begged of the House to favour him
with its attention, while tie read some statements respecting
Manchester, the metropolis of the cotton manufacture. The
Hon. Gentleman then read a letter from the proprietor of the
Oxford-row cotton manufactory, in which the writer stated
that, in consequence of the state of the trade, 260 workmen had
been discharged, and that he was afraid he would be obliged to
turn a great number out of employment. The Hon. Gentle-
man then read a statement, signed by Mr. Herbert, the Dean
of Manchester, in which it was stated that 1,200 persons in
Manchester were dependent for their support on the soup
which they received from the charity fund; and that 7,500,
who were making small wages, were partially dependent
on it.—( Hear, hear.) The writer then went on to
detail particular instances of distress. One family were
without food for two days; a father of a family shed tears when
a ticket was given him; and another, with a wife and five
children, lived on a pound of bread for two days. Such facts,
ofwees
ko us
,p3,l7veoroe
qautar
tfirs,,tedreisgtriivbennt.ed , be ueht ,
wda
su r
thein
the writer continued, might easily be multiplied. 1,500 quarts
during s
aht ee
off o ut or lasteg s
in Manchester. The Right Hon. Baronet the Secretary for
the Home Department regretted that the Hon. Member for
Bolton had raised unnecessary alarm by stating that they were
likely to bate a de icient harvest. But if that were so, was it
not better to state the fact, that it might not come upon them un-
provided.— ( Hear, hear.) if he were desirous of the charac-
ter of a cautious statesman, he would rather yield to the fear
of such a calamity, than depend on the expectation of the
other.—(Hear, hear.) But what did the Farmer's Journal
say upon the subject? Ha would quote from tke " Corn-
trade letter" of the 20th of June. The writer stated his
opinion to be that there was little corn in the hands of
the farmers, and that the coming harvest was not
likely to yield the average crop. He stated the de-
ficiency in 1840 was calculated to be 4,000,000 quarters,
but that Ireland and the Continent were open to them, from
which 6,218,817 quarters were obtained. But, now that Ire-
land was herself bankrupt, and that the Continent was not
likely to grow wheat for them, they would not be able to ob-
tain more than 2,000,000 quarters from them ; so that four and
a quarter millions of quarters were to be supplied.—( Hear,
hear.) That was the statement in the Farmer's Journal, and
it a as confirmed by the Mark-lane Express. This subject
was germane to the question before the House, because
the distress was) occasioned by a deficiency of
food. Charitable contributions would do no good whatever.
There were numbers in the country who wanted food, and he
did not see how they were to obtain it, if the Corn-laws were
maintained. It was true the Corn-law would not provide im-
mediate relief, and the Right Hon. Baronet (Sir J, Graham)
bad misunderstood the argument of the Hon. Member on
that point. What the Hon. Gentleman said was, that the
Corn-law would not be of immediate efficacy, and that it
would require sonic years to bring the country to that healthy
state in which it would be if the Corn-laws had never existed.
But the system of a sliding scale would not produce that
effect. Nothing less than a total abolition of the
Corn-laws would produce that result. ( Hear, hear. )
They could not stop short of free trade. It was a fallacy to
talk of levying a moderate protecting duty, and doing away
with prohibition. They could do no such thing. If, under a
system of free trade, they would import twenty quarters of
wheat, while under a moderate protecting duty they would
only import fifteen quarters, that moderate protecting duty
was, to all intents and purposes, a prohibition as far as re-
garded five quarters of wheat.—(Cheers.) The only proper
Judge of the wants of the community, of the quantity of food
which the community ought to consume, was the community
itself. For any statesman to pretend to know what the wants of
the community were better than the community itself, appeared
to him to be one of the wildest and most visionary ideas in the
world.—( Hear' hear.) He was justified in saying this by the
conduct of the. Right Hon. Baronet. 'The Right Hon. Baro-
net had never been able to give anygood reason why, in the
alterations in the tariff, he had gone no further. '1 be Right
Hon. Baronet. and the Right Hon. Gentlemen the Vice-Pre-
sitlent of the Board of Trade had, in their speeches, laid down
free trade principles as clearly as any Anti-Corn-law lecturer
could have done.—(Hear, hear.) The only difference between
the Right Hon. Gentlemen opposite and himself was as to the
practical application of those principles.—(Hear, hear.) 1 he
Right Hon. Baronet said that they ought to buy in the cheapest
market, and that it was to manulactures, and not to the Corn-
laws that the prosperity of the landed interest was owing.—
(Cheers.) The Vice President of the Board of Trade said if they
imported cattle to the value of 500,000/. a .year they must ex-
port commoditi ,s of an equal value to pay for them. Here
they had the two great principles of
in free trade conceded—
( Loud cheers)—first, the right to buythe_ cheapest market ;
and secondly, the principle that if there be an import trade
there must be an export trade—(Cheers)—and that principle
for which they contended was also admitted—that it was not
corn-laws, or beef-laws, or mutton-laws, that were the founda-
tion of the welfare of the landed interest, but the prosperity of
-- manufactures.(Cheers. 1 Could anything be metre reason-
epwlgeeuroldun out
lnderely understands,
reason-
al, than what was asked for by the present motion? It was
admitted that the country was in a state of unparalleled distress,
and all that was asked for was an inquiry into the causes
of the distress. He would not quibble about the, wording
of the motion. If he shirked the proposition the
hdenoylo y
wouldex be
doors
knewc
e
sng into
t once the ;au toldse s
he could give for so doing was some quibble about wording of
oftons
it. He should be laughed at and be told by his constituents
that he was shirking the question if he were to avail himself
of such a subterfuge. If the Hon. Gentlemen opposite voted
misunderstoodangoathiniisitg. thoef motieo
theirent
quibbles
ifl
be
bl
dyl
ee
eus
.r
upon nsupnell
They
that a motion had been mad
of the distress, and calling upon the Executive to provide a
remedy. if next session the Executive were to be told of a
diminishing trade, and of the continuance and increase of
distress, what would be said ? Weh fyr, they inquiring
wouldii a
that they had made no motion for inquiry.—(Loud cheers.)
—that they had sat, like the Right Hon. Gentleman the Pay-
master of the Forces, with tranquil indifference—(Cheers and
laughter) -and had never exerted themselves to draw attention
to the subject.—( Loud cheers.) If they had acted in such a
manner, they would be undeserving of being returned to that
House.—(Cheers.) They did not ask the House to interfere
with the rights of others ; they
u
only a-ked to be permitted to
exercise their own industry, and that those impediments should
be removed which prevented them from earning their bread.
t
Cheers.) When the agricultural interest complained of dis-
tress, did they content themselves with merely asking this.
No 1 they interfered with the rights of others—(Cheers)—
they asked that the trade of the country should be checked by
Act of Parliament.—( Cheers.) They asked that they should
be corntituted the sale shopkeepers, provision merchants, and
purveyors of the United Kingdotn.---(Cheers.) The manu-
facturers asked nothing of this sort. All they wanted was to
be permitted to exercise their industry withnutimpediment. That
was a measure of justice, and ought not to be postponed
on account of the vested interests of those who had committed

originally an injustice which ought never to have been corn-
mitted.—(Cheers.) The argument made use of by the Right
Hon. Gentleman, that we ought not to reduce the duties on our
imports until foreign nations should reciprocate, was a specious
one, and not an invalid one in instances where there was any
chance of such reciprocation taking place. But according to
that argument it would appear that we were the parties
yielding. Was such the real state of the case? Looking at
our tariff, including the Corn-laws, it was the most hostile
to free trade of any country in the world.—(Cheers.) Take
the Brazilian tariff. They imposed a duty of 15 to 20 per
cent. on some of our manufactures, while, on their staple com-
modity, sugar, we imposed a duty of 350 per cent. They talked
of the recent duty of 20 per cent. imposed by France upon British
thread ? Why we imposed a duty of 1,200 per cent. upon French
brandy. For all these reasons the first proposal ought to come
from us. —( Cheers. ) It was nothing but the energy of our people
and the natural advantages of our country that enabled the ex-
port foreign trade to bear up in the manner it had done against
these restrictions.—(Cheers.) The speech of Gen. Tolbecque,
the American senator, showed in what light our tariff was re-
garded in that country. —( The Hon. Member here read an
extract from the speech alluded to, in which the speaker urged
the Americans to make the tariff more stringent, in consequence
of the adherence of England to her system of Corn-laws.) The
adherence of the Right. Hon. Baronet. to the sliding scale would
be looked upon in America as indicating a desire to perpetuate
restrictions, and to give up all commercial intercourse with that
country.—( Hear.) Although he agreed with the principle of
making the property classes bear the burdens of the country, he
denied that the Income-tax would produce that effect. The
Income-tax would be paid out of the fund from which the
wages of labour were paid, and he felt convinced that the
burden of the Income-tax would be borne by the labouring classes.
The Right Hon. Member for Whitehaven (Mr. M. Attwood)
had said that if the principles of free-trade were beneficial to
nation;, America would be the most prosperous country in the
world. hut what was national prosperity-? A country was
not prosperous in which the few were rich and flourishing, and
in the enjoyment of vast incomes; but that community was
truly prosperous, in which there was a large demand for labour,
and in which the wages of labour commanded an abundance
of the necessaries of life. In that sense America was prosperous,
and those advantages England did not enjoy. In this country
the splendour of the few offered a striking contrast to the
misery and the privations of the great body of the people. We
had, as had been stated by the Right Honourable
Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department,
on a former evening, 1,200,000 persons th.own' for support
on the poor-rates. That was a melancholy state of things, and
proved that there was something rotten in the social system of
this country. And now, that unparalleled distress prevailed
throughout the country the Government had recourse to
charity balls and charity sermons for its relief. He looked
lupon this expedient as unwise and humiliating. He would re-
mind the Right Hon. Gentleman opposite that the landed in-
terest could not expect to prosper if manufacturers were de-
pressed. Ile believed that the Government, by the course
they had taken, had confined themselves to the symptoms of
disease as they appeared on the surface, and that they had done
nothing whatever to strike at the root of the existing evils.
Mr. W. WILLIAMS then moved that the debate should be
adjourned till Monday.
Sir R. PEEL said that he took it for granted that several
Hon. Gentlemen were still anxious to address the House on the
sebjeet of the debate of that evening ; and he should, therefore,
offer no objection to the motion for its asjournment, much as
he confessed he regretted ;that such a course should have been
taken. He hoped, however, that the House would bear in mind,
that the necessities of the public service required that the votes
o f supply should be taken without delay. He had hitherto
abstained from bringing those votes before the House, from a •
desire that the tariff should be passed as early as possible. He
trusted that when the debate was concluded on Monday night,
there would be no objection manifested to give those votes
which would be required for the service of the country.
The motion for the adjournment of the debate till Monday
was then agreed to.
MINES AND COLLIERIES BILL.
On the motion for the third reading of the Mines and Col-
lieries Bill,
Mr, AINSWORTH said he hoped the Noble Lord would
not, on that occasion, press the third reading of the Bill.
There were deputations in London who were anxious to ex-
press their opinions, and he hoped the Noble Lord would post-
pone the third reading, in order to give a further opportunity
of discussing its provisions. The Hon. Member concluded by
moving the adjournment of the debate.
The SPEAKER having put the question,
Mr. FORBES said he had received communications from
coal-owners, who stated that although they approved generally
of the Bill of the Noble Lord, there were some provisions which
were extremely objectionable.
' Mr. VILLIERS and Mr. HUME opposed the third reading,
on the ground that there ought to be further opportunity of
discussion.

Lord ASHLEY said he was extremely sorry that he could
not acquiesce in the proposal to adjourn the third reading.
The communications which he had received were of a very
different chat acter from those received by the Hon. Gentlemen
opposite, stating that the Bill would cooler the greatest possible
benefit on the working classes, and he was desirous of seeing
the Bill brought into operation without any unnecessary delay.
Mr. STANSFIELD said if the House passed the Bill in
its present shape, they would almost annihilate the coal trade.
Mr. B. DENISON said there was a general feeling in the
West Riding of Yorkshire against the provisions of the Bill.
He did not wish to oppose any obstacle to the benevolent inten-
tions of the Noble Lord, but he hoped he would see the pro-
priety of consenting to the adjournment.
Mr. PROTHEROE supported the third reading.
HODGSON HINDE said, if the Noble Lord pressed his
motion to a division, he would feel it his duty to vote against
the Bill, in order to allow an opportunity of further discussion.
Lord PALMERSTON supported the motion.
Strangers were then ordered to withdraw, and the House
divided, when the numbers were—
For the third reading
For the adjournment
Majority against the adjournment- —46
On our return to the gallery, we understood that Mr.
AINSWORTH had again moved the adjournment.
Lord ASHLEY deprecated the obstruct:on thrown in the
way of the Bill, and urged the third reading.
Mr. AINSWORTH explained that, in opposing the third
reading, he did not for a moment wish to countenance the atro-
cities it was directed against.
Mr. PROT HEROE thought it was better it should be dis-
cussed ilia fuller House.
After some conversation, _ .

Mr. AINSWORTII defended his motion for the postponing
the third reading ; he should be contented to let it proceed if
he were allowed the opportunity to bring up a clause respecting
the hours in which children were to be allowed to work.
Strangers were then ordered to withdraw, and the House di.
vided. The numbers were—

For the adjournment 6
Against the adjournment ...
Majority against the adjournment ... —42
Mr. LEADER thought it would be well that the third read-
ing of the Bill should not be pressed that evening. It would
be but fair to afford the cpponents of the measure an opportu-
nity of stating their views. He should, therefore, move the
adjournment of the debate.
Lord ASHLEY said that he found it would be useless to at-
tempt to pass the Bill that evening; and he, therefore, felt
himself compelled to accede to the motion of an adjournment
of the debate. He would agree that it should be postponed till
Monday next.
Sir T. ACLAND suggested that the Bill should be then
read a third time, and that the Hon. Member for Bolton, should
bring up his clause on Monday, when it might be discussed by
the House.

Alter a short conversation this suggestion was agreed to;
and the Bill was then read a third time.

Mr. GLASDTONE gave notice of his intention to move for
leave to bring in a Bill relating to the linen trade of Ireland.
The other Orders of the Dav were then disposed of, and the
House adjourned at Half-past One o'Clock.