The Sun.
London, England, 1842-02-23 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, WEDNESDAY EVENING, FEBRUARY 23, 184

to aggravate the distress, but no practical man, of clear and
unbiassed judgment, could fail to attribute that distress prin-
cipally to the restrictions on our commercial policy, and, above
all, to our pernicious Corn-law.—( Cheers.) He would refer
to the petitions of the people, notwithstanding the manner in
which the Hon. Gentlemen opposite had last night spoken of
those petitions—a manner in which he thought the petitions
of the people ought never to be spoken of; but in referring to
those petitions he would not allude to the petitions from
the working people themselves, because it might be said that
they had been forced to sign those petitions ; but he
would refer to the unanswerable arguments set forth, in the
petitions of the master manufacturers themselves, who stated
that they had been obliged to•discharge those people because
hey had no employment for them, for their trade was com-
pletely stagnant. He would throw overboard the petitions of
the agricultural labourers, and would advert to the petitions
presented by their richest landowners in Scotland, who told
them that in their part of the country the whole scene was one
of destitution. There was one petition, he thought, that refuted
the assertion that the present state of misery in the coun-
try had no connection with the state of the Corn-laws.
He alluded to the conference he had with the Government the
other day, when he presented two petitions from starving thou-
sands in the west of Scotland, praying that the bonded ware-
houses might be unlocked, in order that they might obtain food.
If these things were not caused by the Corn-laws, it was at
least the disease that must be cured at their hands. A little
incident had occurred to him that morning, which he thought I
illustrated the pernicious effects of the Corn-laws. An indus-
trious man, an optician trading to Hamburgh, had called upon
him that day, and, alluding to the present discussion, he said
his case showed the benefit that would arise from a relaxation
of the laws regulating the importation of corn ; for if such a
relaxation took place, he should be able to buy twofold
the amount of provisions he now did with the money he re
ceived. There could he no wonder, considering the impres-
sion her Majesty's Ministers entertained with respect to the
Corn-laws, that they should have proposed such a measure ; he
acknowledged that it was an improvement, but it embodied
the same bad and vicious principles that the law that it was to
succeed did. He did not wish to infer that he was one of those
who were calculated to alter the opinion formed upon the sub-
ject, but he felt that any measure which would have the effect
of obstructing trade was pernicious to the interests of the
country. In the Right Hon. Baronet's speech, which he (Mr.
Stewart) did not hear, but which he read attentively, it appeared
to him that the Right Hon. Baronet argued for the protection,
while he sought to get for the landed interests upon two
grounds, and these were the special burthens thrown upon the
landed interests ; and the other ground was, that it would be
worth while to pay something to be independent of the supplies
of corn from other or foreign countries. These were the two
principal grounds urged by the Honourable Baronet in favour
of his measure. Now he (Mr. Stewart) would simply put be-
fore the House in figures the real state of the facts ; first, with
regard to the special burthens upon the landed interests of the
country. He (Mr. Stewart) admitted that there were large
burthens pressing upon the landed interests of the country , but
he denied that tithes formed a portion of those burthens ; he
was not a political economist, but avoiding the mystifications it
threw about such subjects as the House was then engaged in dis-
cussing, he asked how was it possible that tithes could be a
burthen upon land? It was sought to infuse tithes into rent,
but that was contrary to common sense. How could they be
considered to form any part of rent ?—( Hear, hear.) If an
estate were bought subject to tithes, that was a clear purchase,
and could they be looked upon as a burthen upon the land?
He did not admit that tithes formed any item in the settlement
of the question of the Corn-laws. Then there were other
rights which were based upon the rights of property. He
should admit that he did not well know his way through official
documents, but as to county rates, he;would state to the House
the returns which had been made in 1826. He wished to show
what the basis and extent of those burthens were in 1826.
The taxes upon land were 4,892,000/. The taxes upon
house and other property, 2,074,0001., making a difference of
2,818,0001., and amounting Li the rntire to 6,966,0001. From
1826 to 1834, the burthens increase 1; but this year owing to
th se laws that had been enacted, the burthens were
deer asing considerably. It was said that land w.,s subjected
to stamp and other du ies ; in 1819, the whole mum levied on
land for stamp duties was 1,699,Cn/. Taking off the
699,000/. it would be at last 1,000,0001 charged upon land for
stamp duties. It was used as an argument in de.enee of the
landed interests, that th y were subject to certain duties for

s'ames for which other p operty was n t charge -lite. In
1839 it would be found, according to the returns, that p •rso :al
property hid paid upwards of 40,003,0301. for stamp duty, and
2,170,0001. for legacy duty. Real property was now exempt d
from that duty. If real property was now subject
to that description of duty, upon a valuation of tha taxes it
would amount to '1,200,003/. a-year at least ; the rental o' the
kingdom was 50,000,000/. a-year ; the purchase of that wou'd
be 1,250,000,0001., and the present legacy duty would be
2 000,000/. ,which would be a burthen upon land, and the special
exemption would be 2,500,000/. lie said nothii.g of the question
of Corn-laws; the argument for protection w .s founded upon
two grounds, namely, the special burthens upon land, and the
necessity of paying something to render this country indepen-
dent of foreign supplies ; 13,000,000 quarters of A heat we; e
brought into this country since the proposed law was intro-
duced. In 1828 the Right Honourable Baronet stated
that it was quite clear this country did not produce
sufficient corn for the consumption of cur popula-
tion. The population had considerablyincrea ed since then,
for that was three years before the census had been taken ; yet
the Right Hon. Baronet in 1828 admitted " that it was quite
clear this country could not produce a sufficient quantity of corn
for the consumption of her population."—( Hear, hear.) He
(Mr. Stewart) was not prepared to admit that this country
was not capable, in ordinary years, of producing a sufficiency of
corn for her population ; and, backed as the Right Hon. Ba-
ronet was, he (Mr. Stewart) did expect something of a bolder
and a more effectual measure of relief than that proposed by
him. He should say he was surprised at the Right
Honourable Gentleman, the Vice-President of the Board
of Trade, arguing in favour of the relaxation system
with Russia ; because the fact was, the tariff
of Russia was never so stringent as at present. England con-
sented to take her flax, oil, &c., and now the people of Russia
were entirely independent of this country, except for one article,
cotton twist. He (Mr. Stewart) thought that the Right lion.
Baronet should have directed his attention to the Act of 1793,
which repealed more stringent Acts with respect to the trade of
this country in corn. That Act remained in force for many
years, and during that time, it seemed as if the object was ac-
complished for which the people were now groping in the dark,
namely, to obtain a stability in the price of corn,
which, he believed, did exist during that time.
The Right lionourab e Baronet, the Member for Dorchester
( Sir J. Graham) concluded his speech a few evenings ago by
stating his opinion that a fixed duty on corn was absolutely
dangerous to the interests of this country ; that had not a ways
been the opinion of the Right Hon. Bart.—(Cheers from the
Opposition benches. Mr. Stewart then quoted certain pas-
sages of speeches delivered by Sir J. Graham, in which he ex-
pressed opinions in favour of a fixed duty on corn.) The Right
Hon. Baronet the Member for Wiltshire (Sir F. Burdett) had
also voted upon that occasion for a fixed duty upon corn. The
opinion of Mr. Huskisson had been quoted by both
sides of the House, and unequivocally relied upon.
—( Hear, hear.) The authority of Air. Huskisson's
opinion fully sanctioned the course taken by him (Mr.
Stewart) in holding that this country shou,d have a free trade
in corn.—( Hear, hear.) In 1828 Mr. Huskisson expressed
an opinion in favour of that principle ; he then said that be
should be prepared the next Session to bring in a measure iu
favour of a fixed duty—that principle was recognised by Mr.
Huskisson, was fully approved of, and upon that position
he (Mr. Stewart) now stood. He voted heartily and entirely
in favour of the motion of his Hon. Friend the Member for
Wolverhampton.—( Hear. ) He (Mr. Stewart) had had the
honour of. presenting to the House several petitions from the
most influential parts of the country in favour of the principle
he then advocated, and he called upOn the House to devise
some remedy, and under no circumstances to impose upon the
people so odious and so cruel a tax, as they were now subjected
to. The last object of taxation should be the food of the people.
Now the history of the Corn-laws was a very instructive his-
tory. The Hon. Member for Canterbury told them last night
that he had been studying it, and let them look at the effect
of the Hon. Member's study. And though he (Mr. Smythe)
spoke on the other side, and would vote on the other side, his
study was a useful subject for those who advocated free trade
in corn. The Hon. Gentleman divided his admiration
between four principles. In the first instance he considered the
thanks of the country were due to Lord North for the act of
1773 for free trade ; in the second instance thanks were due
to Mr. Canning for his act of 1826 ; thirdly, the Noble Lord
the Member for London was entitled to thanks for his fixed
duty; and lastly, though not least, the Right Hon. Baronet
the .Member for Tamworth was entitled to thanks. The Hon.
Gentleman, not knowing which way to give his praise, divided
it into four.---( Hear.) The law of 1815 was ushered in with
the strong recommendation that it would reconcile all parties,
in the same way as it was said the present measure would do.
Hear, however, Mr. Huskisson's opinion of that law. He said,
" I lament from the bottom of my soul the evils, losses, and
misery, occasioned by this Act, which have caused prices to
be lower than would otherwise have been the case." Look at
the law of 1828, and the debates which took place upon that
occasion, they would see the difference of opinion that existed
between gentlemen at that time and the present, though the
Acts were in reality the same. This was enough to stagger
any man, and it had brought him (Mr. Stewart) to this reso-
lution, that he would not legislate on that principle, and would
not vote on that principle, which had proved to be a fraud on
the landed interest, a fraud on the consumer, and on the com-
mercial interest.—( Hear, hear.) These were his (Mr.
Stewart's) views on the question, and he thought that every
one—that the Right Hon. Bart. himself—would be convinced
that the question, to be properly settled, must be formed on
some principle diametrically opposite to that which constituted
the foundation of the present 13111.--( Hear, hear.) He (Mr.
Stewart) was not astonished that the country at large was so
disappointed at the Right Hon. Baronet's measure, when they
considered the time that the Right Hon. Baronet had taken
for deliberation, the mysterious silence which had been pre-
served ; and when they beheld the bearings and labour-
ings of the mountain, no wonder, as had been said
before, that the people were diviptillyl at the mi-
serable mouse.—( Heais hear,' dea" ), rilevniserable mouse,
though it might be diversion to those who hau 'strength and
spirits left, was an Oject of dark dismay and terror isa, thousands
ousands
of our suffering cointrymen.—( Het -, hear.) This
how-
ever, must eventt'ally force its way from the statute-ho-\k. I„
the body of the ',reposed scheme was the same pernicious prin-
tchi
Actat wh i
anc h ho
baile rmo f enda
tt
oen ea
lv
distress,i I s ofits pa rnedc uarss ru,
cahn (01
rhaitmioandaei
diseont mt.--( Hear, hear. )

Mr. WODEHOUSE said he always helieved the Corn.
laws ought to be banded on general grounds, and in proporsion
as they were based on that principle, they deserved our sum ort
or condemnation. He went on this principle, and if it cold( be
proved that the Corn-laws Worked ill for general prosperi y,
they ought tl he repealed.—( Hear, from Opposition benches, )
When they arrived at this, which was the argument on which
they rested their case, he would go back to the e%Wence of the
last fifty years; and it was admissible of the clearest prof
that the a•cendancy of this country, both as regarded agriculture
and manufactures, was confined within the period embraced
between the war of the cdonies of America and the war of the
French Revolution, Or, in ether words, between the years I'M
and 1815. The export of wheat, prior to the year 1792, nearly
balanced the imports. An Hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr.
C. Buller), said last night that it was better to depend on
foreign supplies constantly than o^casionally ; and he adverted
to the year 1810. He (Mr. W.) was surprised that the
Hoe Gentleman should advert to that year without men-
tioning the peculiar circumstances by which the year
was marked. ( Hear.) That was the year in which
Bonaparte gave his Generals leave to become dealers in corn, by
which they amassed great wealth. Dantzic fell into the occu-
pation of the French in 1806, and continued in their occupation
till 1813 ; and he would refer to the prices and import of corn
during these years. During the year 1806, the total import of
wheat from Prussia, Sweden, Denmark, Russia, Germany,
,
Holland, and Flanders, was 112,0€) quarters, with the price
from 735. 6d. to 765. In 1807, the total quantity imported
of the Emperor was 70,000 quarters, and the price was 735.
cilrurltBeo,sB,itmhpeogruteadn
tity imp, ted was 60,000 quarters at a price of 78e. In 1809
189,000 quarters were imported at the price of 945., and,
ob-
serve
True
;butthis,
that
tl Bwlaos,
owingtiiere
to werethe 1,232 ,C
Na-
poleon.connivance In 1811, the price being 925., the total import was 163,000
quarters and no more, whilst in the year immediately preceding,
ithadwleellenkonne: n in Yorkshire as " the dear year," when therly one million and a half quarters. In 1812. a
year
price was 122 e. there were 100,000 quarters admitted, and in
1813 339,000 quarters. This appeared to him (Mr. Wode.
house) to be a most curious argument for the Hon. Gentle.
men opposite to adopt as a reason why they thought it better to

have constant dependence on foreign supplies than a partial de-
pendence. In 1801 the King of Prussia declared that when
the prices here were famine prices he should kcep his duty up to
the full, but if the prices got lower here he should reduce
his. A great deal had been said with respect to the burdens
upon land; it had been said that the agriculturists had no
right to ask for any protection.—( Hear, hear.) On the sub-
ject of burdens upon land he (Mr. Wodehouse) would refer to
what took place many years ago on the subject. The present
Sir Geo. Phillips was connected with certain returns made at
that time ; by those returns it appeared that the taxes on land
were' four millions and a helf. One million on houses,
and 300,0001., and no more, was the amount
of the taxes upon the trade and manufactures of the country.
When this return came back, Sir George Phillips said there
must be some mistake, and he recommended that a second re
turn should be made. The second account came back in the
same shape as the preceding one, and they never heard Sir G.
Phillips on the subject any more. With respect to wages, did
they think it possible that wages should keep pace with
the price of provisions.—( Hear.) The Honourable Member
opposite, in speaking of this subject, had gone back to the
earliest periods, when wages were 9.1. a day.—( Hear, hear. )
He would refer them, however, to the wages of labour between
the years 1800 and 1810, when it would be found that wa; es
were nearly doubled. It had been stated that these laws would
be really a great obstruction to foreign commerce; he (Mr.
Wodehouse) hoped he did not undervalue the commerce, but
he did not believe the proposed measures would in any way
materially affect our relations with foreign countries. In speak •
ing of this question, however, he should quote from what had
been said by a eentlernan,whose correctness he presumed would
not be doubtede by Hon. Gentlemen opposite. (The Hon.
Member here proceeded at some length to quote some
remarks of Dr. Bowling on this subject, which have
already appeared in the course of the debate.) He
believed the measure of the Government was intended to
act fairly towards the landed and the manufacturing interests;
but he did not view it without fear of danger--( Hear, hear)—
for though there might be an obvious necessity to relax the
duties on foreign wheat, which was the food of man, or on fo-
reign oats, which was also the food of man, what necessity
was there to relax the duties on foreign barley ?—( Hear, and
laughter.) He maintained that the cultivation was most im-
portant to the cultivation of wheat, for the sowing of barley
maintained the land in heart. Yet the correspondence laid on
the table would show that the prospects of a supply of barley
from Elsinore alone were enough to alarm this country. This
was the principal point of objection he had to make to the mea-
sure, and having now stated his views, he thanked the House
for its kind attention.
Dr. BOWRING, in explanation, referred to the period
when he met the representatives of the Govern-
ments composing the Prussian League at Berlin, on
behalf of her Majesty's late Government, to consider
the question of a mutual modification of the tariffs of
Prussia and Great Britain, in order that the twenty-four mil-
lions of inhabitants comprised within the territories of the
League, might be induced to take our manufactures, on condi-
tion that we should open our markets to their agricultural pro-
duce. The Deputies were willing enough to consider the corn
and timber duties of England on this principle, but our engage-
ments with Canada prevented any modification in the latter,
and the corn question was not so ripe in or outside the House
then as it was now; consequently, nothing was done. Con-
sidering the motion of the Hon. Member for Wolverhampton,
he (Dr. Bowring) was glad to recognise one great merit an it,
that was, the introduction of the word now." That word
appealed intelligibly to all. There were around us multitudes
suffering from want, and " now" was the time to
relieve them ; and if the claims of the landed in-
terest interposed injustice between us and this great
act of duty, let those claims be investigated, and if they
were proved' not a man in the House would be more
willing to afford them compensation. Before they came to a
vote on this question, they should consider how it was regarded
by public opinion. While every one admitted the awful gravity
of this question, two petitions, signed by less than 100 persons,
had been sent to the House in support of 'the Right Hon.
Baronet's measure; whilst theee had been presented 1,694
petitions, signed by 427,600 petitioners, expressing dissatis-
faction with the present Corn-laws, and almost unanimously
demanding their total and immediate repeal.—(Hear, hear.)
In the House, too, the question of repeal had made a great ad-
vance. In 1829 Mr. Hume proposed a fixed duty of 205., and
was supported by only te elve Members. In 1833 Mr. Whit-
more brought the question forward, and was supported by 103
Members. In 1e34 Mr. Home's minority was raised to 155. In
1836 the motion of the Hon. Member for Wolverhampton was
supported by 195 Members ; and in 1840 it was supported by
177, in a much less numerous House than that that who heard
the previous debate. Now in 1842 we saw that 226 Hon.
Members declared that the present state of things ought not to
be tolerated, and that the measure of the Right Hon. Baronet
ought not to be accepted. Let us again refer to the evidence
of advancing distress in the country. The 150 market towns
which furnished the averages showed that from 1836 to 1838
the consumption had been 12,346,000 quarters, making an
average of 4,145,000 quarters; while from 1839 to 1841 the
consumption had diminished to 10,938,000 quarters, being an
average of 3,646,000 quarters, proving in these towns a falling
off of 469,300 quarters. This referred to wheat alone. An
Hon. Gentleman opposite remarked that the duty was but
ss. 9d. a quarter • but he should remember that the lower
the duty the higher the price to the consumer. The Hon.
Member for Shropshire said this would be but a tax of five
farthings a week to each man. Now there were hun-
dreds of thousands in the country who did not earn more than
Is. a week each. Yet on these unfortunate people the bread-tax,
even accofding to that Hon. Member, would be 10 per cent.
out of their earnings. The Right Hon. Baronet, the Secre-
tary for the Home Department, said the Bill of the Govern-
ment would give a protection of 14s. a quarter ; this would be
30 per cent. out of the wages of those miserable people who
earned ls. a week; but adding the ss. 9d. to this, they would
have an aggregate of 19,000,0001; and adding 6s. more for
transport, the amount of tax paid by the consumer would be
26,630,000/. The Hon. Member for Kent spoke of thp
burthens land was peculiarly liable to. The history of this
country on the contrary, was a history of the exemption of
land from burthens. The Hon. Member said the landlords
were not allowed to grow tobacco. No one would object to it,
if they paid the 3s. duty now paid by the consumer. Upon
the same principle on which they now spoke, the landed in-
terest would have cultivated beet-root sugar, and would have
insisted upon compensation, if the proposal by Lord Sydenham
some years ago to lay a duty of 245. on foreign beet-root
sugar were carried. Returns presented to the Chamber of
Deputies in 1810, showed that in forty-three departments of
France east of Paris, an a-ea of 64,600,000 acres,
growing 6,280,000 quarters of wheat produced on the
average 14 3.20 th bushels an acre. Now, our land produced
not less than 28 bushels an acre ; yet, while the whole direct
land-tax paid by this country did not exceed 1,250,000/., that
paid by those 43 departments in France, exceeded 3,000,0001.,
and this was but one kind of tax. After alluding to the feudal
system still prevailing in those parts of Poland. Russia, and
other districts to which we might look for supplies, the lion.
and Learned Gentleman alluded to their want of
capital and labourers, and added that he should be
more afraid that they would not be found able to supply our
growing population, rather than that our agriculture should be
overwhelmed by the abundance of their exports. It was said
that there were sliding scales in other countries. Would the
Right Hon. Baronet adopt some of these? The scale in
France was most complicated, or, rather, there were four
scales acting in the four zones into which that country was
divided. Under the French tariff, when wheat was 445., the
duty was 9s. 6 d. ; at 58s. 3d. it was 6d. a quarter. In Hol-
land, when the price was under 235. 9d., the duty was 14s. 3d. ;
given
Nei
nn pbbrl
Member
reLt
:00er:di
T theai pv epArl e aoe
nt. i
bo
Ten
rht
for
re the
London,
drroi
ennvc,ei
npa
unl es
but when the price was above 425. 10d., the duty was Is. °id.
e
th
trThe
eel
ne
Noblenii
n Dutche ndLe
ohdra
dd bythteh
was collected as well en the produce of industry as on the land,
and it was taxed at the mill. He could not help saying that
this was one of the causes which produced the rebellion in
Holland, and led to the alienation of Belgium, and the creation
of a separate Government. In Belgium the importation of
corn at 565. was duty free, and when it was under 275. 9d.,
its importation was prohibited. Therefore, when he
referred to the sliding scales or the Continent, and compared
with them that of the Right Ron. Baronet, he could not but
feel that the people of England were unjustly dealt with.—
( Hear, hear.) Taxation in Holland was high, the cost of the
Government was great, the comforts and conveniences of life
were nearly at the same price as in En land,
ls. 2d. ( Hear,
and, and yet they
could import corn for 425. at a duty o
hear.) He now came to the averages, .and he recollected the
Hon. Member for Shoreham had said the landed interest was
willing to make concessions on this point. An opinion
was prevalent: abroad that a fall of 4s. or ss. in the averages
would take place, but the Hon. Baronet introduced new ele-
ments hear.) (Dr. Bow-
ring)e tithe commutation had been set-
tled
w in
was
thee ft opinionaking of
ththatern th.--( Hear,
the p
theon
re systement mode, of averages
but
which had been established un-
der
the
Right lion. Baronet was now
about to supersede it altogether. If the new system would
cebedultncgawmhetieohto the have the effect, as he believed it would, of lowering the
averages, then he was dealing unjustly with those
interests for which he professed so much attachment.--( Hear.)
The Hon. Member for Pontefract had referred to him (Dr.
Bowring) with regard to the Prussian League, and he stated it
was a failure, but he (Dr. Bowring) did not think so. It was
true that with the aid of other States it might turn out un-
fortunately, but the opposition of that House to the introduc-
tion of a moderate fixed duty, or free trade in corn, added
greatly to its influence.—( Hear, hear.) The agricultural in-
terests of Germany were enfeebled, and the manufacturing
interests were encouraged, by their legislation.—( Hear.)
That League was becoming more powerful every day, and a
free trade was now being established without embarrassment or
impedimentbetween 24,000,000 or 25,000,000 of persons, who
before gave every resistance and annoyance to each other.—
( Hear, hear. ) Many others had expressed their intention to
join that League, and he (Dr. nowring) considered its
creation, both in a commercial and political point of
view, one of the most remarkable events of modern
times. The Hon Member for Pontefract had made allusions to
the Legislature of France, and quoted the opinion of M. Dupin,
whom he considered the Brougham of that country, and who
looked upon the sliding* scale as the beau ideal of political
invention. But M. Dupin was not the individual whom
the lion. Member represented him to be. He stood high
factsh
sattattehhies
of evidence
ea
ntrsiein gnsf
indeed, with respect to many valuable contributions which
to the progress
employed, the
extensive.—( The
hadltwrhea'es distressn
e tm oaf made
me
out
foe
much
eea literature, rk ,nlcrbt uhtadul
classesop boneae
Ins(wlittiana,
atsatisoso at
statedwi
nnct
idhoaniteegt
ought show
the
not greatto ex exist,
distress
remehiasc
would
xonuieslrtdye
d,
be but
enridef
equally he they looked
machinerya
Mouse to dis-
chargeduction in the price of wages which had taken place in those
of Question, and he'could not
branches of trade to which machinery had not been applied,
Hon. Member was then pro
when he was met by loud cries of " Question" from the 111 i •
nisterial benches.) It was with great pain he spoke of the
that sad and painful
.duty of representing their isntattebeofthatuhnintgrys, wahnidchwehxeinsctreldteh,sey
suffer-
ings, it was met by loud
from but contrast the shouts which proceeded n
Bart the party opposite
with the testimony of the Right el
co the sufferings of the
people and the patience with which those sufferings were en-
dured.—( Hear, hear.) The Hen- Member for Bath repu-
diated the idea of the present being a religious question, but he
(Dr. 13owring) thought they were only acting ;2; and legislating
in a true Chaistian spirit in endeavouring, as far as it could
be done by legislation, that the hungry should he fed
area the naked clothed.—(C"" of " Hear, hear.") The
Honourable Member for Knaresborough had spoken of the
women of Manchester, but they only endeavoured, as far as they
were able, to remove the distress with which they, were be cast
sur-
rounded,
and whatever obloquy may upon them in that
House, they would find their recompense in their own bosoms.
And he thought that when the women put themselves forward as
they had done iu Manchester, lion. Gentlemen might anticipate
out of this discussion a new state of things would arise. The
Hon. Member for Finsbury was right In saying that the hope-
/yard to
le mess of the people with the repeal of the Corn-
laws would create new demands for political changes. A feel-
ing existed out of doors, and it was spreading widely, that in
that House were many who rePreseintfd a few, and but few who
represented the many ; and until t ie interests of the many were
attended to with more devotion than they had been heretofore,
the: demands for organic ehang! would become more cla-
morous. The pressure from
Wit
Houotn—the power of which
had been recognized by the Right • rtarenet—would pene-
trate to that assemble, and the result would be another
Parliamentary reform, the consequence of which would
be the removal of everything thhe people deemed to be op-
pressive, and which one day or ot would be swept away.
Mr. BENETT said, that the 11? n• Member who had just
sat down had made allusion to the tithe composition, and the
mode of taking the average's; but he should recollect

that under the present system the tithe had risen
five per cent. ( Hear.) The Honourable Member
bad also spoken of the number of petitions against the Corn-
law, and the thousands by whom they had been signed, but
with all the exertions of the Anti-Corn-law leaguers, and the
expense of hiring Anti-Corn-law orators, there were only
400,000 who signed these petitions, whereas in the last
year they obtained 1,300,000 signatures.—(Loud cheers.)
Did he not see in this very circumstance that a re-action had
taken place amongst the labouring portion of the people? Was
it not clear that thy had begun to see what would be the effect
of a repeal of the Corn-laws upon their wages ?—(Hear, hear.)
Attempts had been made to get up petitions against those laws
by the agricultural labourers. Not a single petition,
however, had been obtained from that class of society.
Hear.) The agricultural labourers all knew, that if
a repeal of the Corn-laws took place the inevitable effect would
be to reduce the price of labour in proportion to the reduction
in the price of corn. The amount of wages paid to the agri•
cultural labourer of this country was at present ii. upon every
quarter of wheat. If they imported two millions quarters of
wheat they must grow two million quarters less ; and thus
there would be 2,000,0001. lost to the labourers. —( Heat.) That
was a truism of which the labourers themselves were cognizant.
_(Hear.) Now it had been stated that there was great
distress existing in the manufacturing districts, and he ad-
mitted the truth of that statement. During the war, the ma-
nufacturers of this country had a perfect monopoly, nearly of
every article of manufacture. One of the immediate conse-
quences of peace was, that foreigners endeavoured to obtain
for themselves a share in those advantages which had hitherto
been exclusively enjoyed by our own countrymen._(W ar.)
He had the means of knowing, that they were at the pre-
sent time rivalled by continental nations in many of the use-
ful arts, and that in cotton goods, stockings; and several articles
of manufacture they were constantly being undersold by
foreigners. They need not be surprised at that state of things;
for what was said by the manufacturers on the Continent ?
" Unless your best hands can work for sd. a day, we can and
will beat you ; if you cannot reduce your wages, we vial con-
tinue to beat you. —(llear, hear.) He recollected when gen-
tlemen in that House contended for an r'teration in the
Corn.laws, on the ground that it would reduce wages.
Now the same Honoprable Gentlemen contended for an
alteration on the ground that it would raise wages.—(Hear,
hear.) He was an advocate for cheap corn.—( Hear, hear. )
He did not stand there to plead for any class interest, bat for
the country; he advocated cheap corn, but he was not merely
for having cheap corn, bee. for enabling the labourer to purchase
it. lie had always thought that 553. was the price at which
corn should remain. So confident was he of that, that before
the measure of the Right Hon. Baronet was proposed to the
House, he had pulled out his pocket-book and we itten down
that.—( A laugh.) Forty shillings was, in his opinion, the
extreme price at which foreign corn wor'd be brought
into this country. His constituents, as well as himself, weft
extremely anxious that this 13ill woad be passed into a law. In
letters which he had received f-om them, some of them stated
that they would rather suffer by a low price of wheat, than
that the price should be kept too high; the only thing which
they dreaded was the reduction of the wages of the labourer.—
(Hear, hear.) He honed that no amendments would be pressed
by those Gentlemen woo were .liendly to protect'on, but that
they would all unite in passing the proposed measure into a
law.—( Cheers. )
Mr. M. GIBSON said the Hon. Gentleman had taunted
the supporters of the Anti-Corn-law cause, with having failed
to obtain such a number of t:gnatures to their petitions as
would show that any considerable number of the people were in
favour of a repeal of the Corn-laws, but if they were to infer
from that remark that any number of signatures would induce
him to agree to a repeal of those laws, he was rfraid that they
would be very much mistaken.—(Hear, hear.) Certainly he
agreed with one remark which the Hon. Gentleman had made,
namely, that no person ought to make inflammatory remarks
on that subject, and, let them come from where
they might, ho (Mr. Milner Gibson) should disapprove
of remarks which deserved such a description. But there
were occasions, and this was one of them, in which it did be-
come Members of that House t a call things by their right
names.—( Hear, hear.) The present was one of those occa-
sions in which they would not do their duty unless they spoke
up to their convictions; in which they ought not to fear the
giving offence to the over-refined and the over-delicate, or to
shrink from declaring to the country what they believed to
be the nature and object of the laws under discussion. There
was one position, it was admitted by all parties
in the House, with the exception, perhaps, of the
Right Hon. Gentleman the Paymaster of the Forces, which to
his mind was highly satisfactory, namely, that the Corn-laws
could no longer been maintained, merely for the benefit of a
class, but could only be vindicated upon the ground of the
general good. The Hon. Gentleman who had just sat down
declared that he was of ro class—he was for the country.
This was a most satisfactory statement. Hon. Gentlemen
now began to admit that different orders of men had a
right to increase their industry, in different ways,
and had a right to bring the produce of that
industry into the markets of the country, and thus no obstruc-
tions should he thrown in their way which were not throw a in
the way of any other class of the community.—( Hear.) Hon.
Gentlemen began to see that the corn and the cattle which
were impor ed into this country in exchange for our manufac-
tures and coals, were just as much the produce of Brttish in-
dustry as though they were grown on British soil, and that
the Legislature had no right to raise obstructions to a fair ex-
change
,between nation and nation. This position was ad-
mitted, and a very impoi ;:ant position it was, compelling those
who defended the Corn-laws to d fend them on certein reasons
of state, and of public utility, and also on the ground that
there were certain burdens upon the landed interest
which did not fall upon other classes in the community.
But before they discussed the question itse", it behoved them
to bear in mind the position which the supporters of the
Corn- laws held in that House and in the country. They could
not forget (he said it in no obnoxious sense)—they cor'd not
forget that Hon. Gentlemen opposite had a personal into est in
the question, and therefore it would be proper to subject the
reasons which they ad.anced in support of the course they were
pursuing t i a more rigid and sea• citing investigation, than ;f
they were eerf_ctly disinterested parties.—( Hear, hear.)
Th. re was one thing wh eh gave their cause a very
unpleasant complexion ; the country believed these laws were
made by the landed interest for their own especiel advantage,
and when Hon. Gentlemen opposite attempted to justify them,
they differed in the reasons they advanced for that purpose.
One Hon. Gentleman said one thing, and another lion. Gentle.
man took a different line of defence. They all knew that when
pasties charged with an offence in a court of law differed with
each other in their defence, it gave a suspicions complexion to
their case. They found in this Session of Parliament the
Noble Lord who moved the Address stating that the Corn-
laws were maintained for the puipese of enabling the
landed proprietors to bear the general and local burdens
of the country. The Right Hon. Baronet at the head of
the Government said that they were passed simply in
order to enable the landed interest to bear the special burdens
imposed upon them, while the Right Hon. Gentleman, the
Paymaster of the Forces, said that the object of those laws
was to keep the la,nded aristocracy in their present station in
society. Now theirdifferent statements were at variance with
each other ; and therefore threw a suspicion over the sincerity
of the parties who brought forward such defences.—( Hear. )
He believed that any party enjoying the power of the landed
aristocracy of this country would convert that power to the
same purposes to which they had converted their power. He
did not say that the landowners of England had less bene-
volence or a less sense of justice than other men ; and he
dared say that legislators of any calling would endeavour to
benefit that particular calling. Adam Smith stated that
in his day no persons of the same trade could meet
together without entering into some contrivance for raising
their prices to the injury of the public generally. That
was the disposition and tendency of human nature, and it
behoved Hon. Gentlemen opposite to consider that that was
the position which they occupied in the minds of the people in
this country. It was believed that they were maintaining a
particular law for their own advantr3e. If Honourable Gen-
tlemen opposite were to witness a combination of workmen
forcibly preventing other workmen from offering their labour
in the corn market, they world hesitate before they admitted
that these parties were acting for the general good, and not for
their own particular benefit. —( Hear, hear.) It should not be
forgotten that Hon. Members had not lost their characters of
men in entering that House, and that they were just as likely
to use the power they possessed for their own advantage as any
other men. Let them consider what were those special burdens
to which land was subjected, which the Right Hon. Baronet at
the head of the Government offered as a defence of the Corn-
laws, and he (Mr. M. Gibson) did not admit that special
burthens always formed a just ground for compensa-
tion to the landowners. If that wore the case any parties
who were more heavily taxed than others had a
right to ask for compensation from the public. It would be an
argument, for instance, for those who paid heavier highway-rates,
or Church rates, than their neighbours, to ask for compensa-
tion, or a diminution of such burdens. But tithes existed before
the Corn-laws; and he would ask any Hon. Gent. whether it
could be contended that, if tie Corn-laws were repealed, the
should puy no tithes. That was the position, however, which
Hon. Gentlemen opposite had taken ; and such an argument
must of necessity create great alarm among those who consider
Church property as vested property, and that the Church had
the same right to tithes which the landlord had to his estates.
—(Hear.) He would not go into the question of special
burdens, as it had been already so ably discussed by the lion.
Member for Renfrewahire. With regard to the argument of
the advantage of our being independent of foreign supplies,
he was surprised to find that an Hon. Gentleman opposite
had pointed out no single case of a country dependant for a
supply upon other countries, which had failed to get that sup-
ply when they had the means of purchasing it.—( Hear, hear,
hear.) On the means of pc-chasing, the certainty of
the supply entirely depended. He was perfectly cer-
tain that if we were dependent on our own landlords
for our supply of food, and had not the means of pnrchasing it,
we should never get such a supply from them.—( Hear,
hear, and a laugh.) But the Right Hon. Baronet the
her for Dorchester had quoted Scripture for the purpose of
showing that a country should seek to be independent of other
countries. He told his constituents that there were two countries
mentioned in llolyWrit, namely Tyre and Judea; and that Tyre
which was a powerful country, had a quarrel with
Judea, which was a weak country, and ambassadors were
obliged to go from Tyre to Judea to solicit peace, because the
latter country was supplied by the former. The Bight lion.
Baronet told his constituents that that particular passage was
written for their use and instruction.—( Hear, hear, and
laughter.) He said that it went to the essence of the question,
and that it showed the necessity of an independence
of foreign countries for supply of food. But did it not occur
to the Right Hen. Baronet that that very dependence was the
means of insuring peace, and putting an end to war? The
passage which the Right Hon. Gentlemen quoted, offered one
of the strongest arguments in favour of maintaining a system
of mutual intercourse with distant countries.—( Herr,
hear.) But the Right Hon. Gentleman the Alember for
Tamworth would not admit that the Corn-laws had been to any
considerable extent the cause of the distress now prevailing in
the country ; and he attributed that distress to over-specula-
tion, to the connexion between master manufacturers
and joint-stock banks, and to the facilities for
obtaining credit, which induced parties to manufacture
more goods than they could reasonably hope to sell.
But he wished to call the attention of the House to this cir-
cumstance—that in the cotton trade there had been no over-
production, and the quantity of raw cotton brought in for
consumption during the four years ending in 1837
was less by mane thousand pounds than the quantity
used in the four years ending in 1841. The home market
had of late fallen off, and that was the reason why a greater
quantity of cotton goods had been expoited of late years than
at preceding periods. The Right lion. Gentleman at. the
head of her Majesty's Government, had also stated that tnere
had been a decline in our expoits with China, but the
Honourable Member for Paisley had contradicted that state-
ment ; and it was really important that the house
should receive some accurate information, and some further ex-
planation on this subject. It appeared from the last census
that the increase of
population had been greater in the manu-
facturing than in the agricuhural districts; and that was a fact
which showed the necessity for encourageng manufactures which
gave employment to the su. plus populati. n in the agricultural
parts of the country. It was stated that a reduction in the
price of food would be attended with a reduction in
the wages of labour; but he (Air. Gibson) wou 'd put
it to Honourable. Gentlemen opposite whether there was
any force in that argument. In his belief the wages
of labour were totally irrespective of the price of food.
competition, would not the
If wages were reduced by
labourer be better off if he could get a larger amount of
food for his wages than if he could only get a smaller e—
( Cheers. ) The Right Honourable Gentleman had in-
stituted a comparison between the F.nglish labourer

and the Prussian labourer.—( Hear.) Did the Right
Honourable Gentleman mean to say that if there had
been less food in Prussia, the Prussian labourer would have got
more—(Hear' hear)—and that if there had been a greater
amount of food in England, the English labourer would have
got less ?—( Cries of " Hear, hear. ') It appeared to him
(Mr. Gibson) that if wages were reduced by foreign
competition, the difference in the price of food would make a
vast difference in the welfare of the English artisan.---( Hear.)
If there were more food in the country, undoubtedly he would
get more; and if the quantity of food in the country were re-
duced, undoubtedly he would get less.—( Hear, hear.) But
how was it possible, he would ask, for the English manu-
facturer to compete with the foreign manufacturer,
if they forced upon him the necessity of pur-
chasing his agricultural produce at a greater cost
than the foreigner ?—(Cheers.) Hon. Gentlemen opposite
were not perhaps aware of the quantity of agricultural pro-
duce which was used in certain branches of our manufactures.
—(Hear.) in many instances the quantity of agricultural
produce consumed in the process of the manufacture
exceeded in certain branches the amount of agricultural pro-
duce consumed by the people empleyed in the manufactories.
If the manufacturers had to pay a large al-tomtit:for the produce
thus employed, was it not evident that an additional difficulty
was thrown in their way of competing with those who could pur-
chase this produce at a less rate. The action of the Corn-laws on
the manufacturer was in the first place to limit his power
of exchanging the produce of his industry, and in the next to
render the process of manufacture more expensive.__( Hear,
hear, hear.) This was a most important question in
reference to the employment of the p mple. How could
they extend their manufactures if they limited the
manufacturer's power of exchange, and if they would not allow
the manufacturer to take what other nations offered him in ex-
change for his commodities ? Gentlemen opposite seemed to
read the amount of our exports as if they were jealous
of our foreign trade—as if they imagined they saw a
species of rivalry existing between commerce, and manufac-
tures, and agriculture ; as if they were afraid ofevery advance of
the commercial classes, and viewed thee] as a power desirous of
deriving them of the stations they occupied. It was in a jealous
spirit they read the list of the exports. They said you have added
much to your exports this year, are you not satisfied?—( Cheers.)
Now it appeared to bins (Mr. Gibson) that the question ought
to be not what was the amount of the exports, but were they
as great as they might have been if they had not been re-
stricted by Act of Parliament ?—(Cheers.) Was it right
that trade should have only so much extent as the landed
proprietors chose to permit ?__( Hear, and cheers.) Were the
merchants and manufactnrers to be considered only as a
secondary class, dependent upon the indulgence and pleasure of
the landowners ?—( Hear.) Was it right that they should be
allowed to trade to a sufficient extent to minister to the luxuries
of the higher orders, but be debarred from trading when they
sought to benefit the condition of the humble?—( Hear, hear. )
They might be allowed to import wines and every other
article that ministered to the splendour, luxury, and greatness of
the aristocracy, but they must not be permitted to import
bread to better the condition of the working classes.—(Loud
cheers.) The competition for farms, to which an allusion
had been made by the Hon. Member for Sheffield, was another
consequence of the Corn-laws.--( Cries of " Divide ! divide.")
The farmers were complaining that by damming up all
the channels of trade and commerce. They were unable to pro-
vide for their families, except by bringing them up to agricul-
tural pursuits, and hence the ruinous competition for farms
which the Hon. Member had described. Was not such the
case? Had not the farmers sons and daughters; and how
were they to be pros:ded for, if all the channels of
trade and commerce were dammed up? He had ob-
served in the Mark Lane Express, which he believed
was the organ of the Corn-law supporters, that the Editor ex-
pressed his surprise at the exi eaordinary apathy existing among
the farmers upon the question of the Corn-laws. He (Mr.
Gibson) was not surprised at it. The farmers knew well that
it was a question of rent —( Loud and continued cheering)—
and that if prices were reduced they would be enabled
to make their agreements accordingly ; and whatever
might be the state of the Corn-laws, they knew very well that
competition for farms was so great that they would never be
enabled to get more than ordinary profit for their capital.—
(Hear, hear.) The present system had a tendency to make
the occupation of the farmer more dangerous than it aught to be.
The farmer must, under it, be prepared to meet, first
the usual haze-d of his &ling ; secondly, the chance
of a repeal of the Corn-laws—( Cheers)—and thirdly, the
chance of the Corn-laws not fulfilling their purpose.---(Loud
cheers.) The Corn-laws had proved faithless to the farmer.
They were a• rotten foundation, and the farmer, when malsing
his eereement on the faith of the Corn dews, thought anxiously
of that period of agricultural distress against which the Corn-
laws had failed to protect him. He would admit that
the agitation of Corn-law repeal made the application of ca-
pital to land pm :lous. He admitted that that agitation was an
evil, but whose fault was it ? Certainly the fault of those who
maintained the law.--( Cheers.) So long as the Corn-law re-
mained, so long would they have Anti-Corn-law agitation.
It was therefore entirely the fault of those who maintain the
Corn-laws.—(Cheers.) He did not lay any blame to the Anti-
Corn-law League. He believed they were performing a sa-
cred duty in endeavouring to expose wriest legislation.
He would advise the farmers to be cautious in taking their
leases. He knew the amount of this agitation. He knew what
bitter feelings were rankling in the minds of merry who did
not openly express them. From his place in the House of Com-
mons he called upon the fr fliers to payee before they
allowed themselves to be again deluded by the Corn-laws.
—(Hear, hear, and loud cheers.) The proposition of the
Right Honourable Baronet could not be considered as anything
like a permanent settlement of the question. —(Loud
cheers.) He was not one of those who would hold
out to the landlords the hope that the C ern-laws could be re-
pealed without some suffering to their property.—( Hear. )
He could not see how cheap bread could be obtained
and high rents maintained, at the same time.
He believed that, ultimately the Iredloeds world share
in the genera, prosperity which meet follow a repeal of the
Corn-laws, but he believed that that eluld only be obtained at
the expense of some present sacrifice, and if the
aristocracy were so very patriotic—so disinterested, so
high-minded, and so magnanimous, as they repres nted
themselves, he would call upon them at once to mite
that sacrifice, and not for the sake of high rents risk the per-
manent safety of the country.—( Cheers.) He wor'd cell upon
the landlords not to be so blind to the" own interests as for
the sake of grasping at some temporary advantage
to peril the permanent welfare of the costa y , and he would
bid them recollect that it was impossible that a temporary good
should be long based on injustice and wrong.—( Cheers. )
Mr. ESCUTT said it was impossible for any Hon. Mem-
ber in that House to be impressed with deeper feelings of the
immense importance and very great difficulties of the question
they were now called on to decide than he. It was said on
the opposite side that the plan now proposed was for
the interest of but one class. (Hear, hear.) Ile
(a4e. Escett) begged to tell Honourable Gentlemen
that, if such were the case, no consideration would ever induce
him to rise in that House as the advocate or such a class. He
could not conceive how this clamour with respect to the agri-
cultural interest of the country had been raised. He could net
but recollect the pr"t taken by Hon. Gentlemen opposite on
this question during the last Session of Parliament.
That part was now being played over again, but
for different results. If ever there was a plan of
mischief devised by the cunningest of men in any
country, it was that of procldming cheap bread in a partly dis-
tressed country. It was striking upon the most tender, the most
vital, the most vulnerable point—the life and existence of all
those who lived by land. The question now raised must be
met by argument, not by assertion. Before the Hon Member
for Wolverhampton (Mr. Villiers) called on them to
repeal the principle of a law under which
the agricultural interest was protected, and the people
of England supplied with foreign corn for more than twelve
years, it appeared to him (Mr. E.) that the Hon. Gen-
tleman ought te prove two propoitions—first, that the distress
which they all lamented was the consequesce of the principle
of the law which he would repeal, and next, that the repeal of
the principle of that law would not. cause greater distress to
the agricultural interests of the country than the benefits which
he thought it would confer on the working classes.
He (Mr. E.) never heard one of those propositions either
ar_ ued or proved in that House ; but until that were the case,
that man must be a madman or something worse who sought to
unsettle the principle of a law under which the great agricultural
interest had thriven, and recovered from the reverses into
which it, as well as the other great interests of the country, had
fallen during sema years preceding. The commutation of tithes
had just taken place, and before the commutation decd was
dry would they pass a law that would have the effect of bring-
ing down the price of wheat in this country to that of wheat
in Prussia or Russia—namely, 405., and make that the standard
of landlords' rents, and the amount of tithes to be received by
those to whom such should be paid ? They talked of free-trade
in corn. Was that a free -trade when the produce of every
other commodity in England was protected by a heavy
ad valorem duty ? Did they think that wheat should be the
only untaxed article, whilst every other article of production
was heavily taxed? Did they forget that if they were to have
a free trade there was no class in the community 30 able to
bear free trade as the agriculturists were ?—(Loud cries
of " Hear, hear," from the Opposition benches.) Let
them not talk of feee trade, and mean a different thing ?
It had been admitted by the Hon. Member for Wolverhamp-
ton, that the agriculturists had exclusive burdens to bear, but
that a proposition for the removal of those burdens would be
submitted to the House. His (Mr. E.'s) answer to that was,
they did not wish to break up the financial system of the country.
If they did get an increased price for the articles they pro-
duced in consequence of the heavy expense of taxes, what
would the Hon. Member do? lie would, by introducing an
unlimited importation of foreign corn, deprive them of getting
that large price.—( !dear, hear.) He admitted that they paid
the malt-tax--(Hear)—the highway-rates, the tithes, and the
land-tax—(Hear, hear)—he admitted that they paid these
things, but then he said that they went into the price of corn,
and then he proposed a plan to bring the price of wheat down
to ss. a bushel. That was the sort of free trade which came
from the Right Hon. Gentlemen opposite.—(Cries of "Ques-
tion, question," and " Divide, divide.") The Right Ho-
nourable Gentleman who spoke last night, the Member
for Edinburgh, said that the present was only a question
whether bread ought to be cheap or dear. The question of
cheap or dear, in his opinion, was a gross fallacy: cheap bread
was a good thing, there could be no doubt; but cheap and dear
were only relative terms ; they depended not only on the
supply and demand, but also on the money in circulation.
Ile was astonished that those who were crying out for cheap-
ness, did not see that they were far more likely to ruin the
manufacturer and trade,than the land, because the land they
could not annihilate.—( Hear, hear, and laughter.)
The manufacturers owed to the landowners what the land-
owners never owed to them—they owed to them their very
existenee—( Hear)—and they ought also to remember whence
they derived their prosperity and their origin. They derived
them from that comercial system in the country which they
would now annihilate. He could not think what had induced the
manufacturers to adopt the course they had unless too much
prosperity had driven them mad.—(Laughter, and cries of
" Divide, divide.") He believed the neglect of domestic
agriculture had been the forerunner of the miseries of the
people. It put him in mind of the stords of the Roman poet,
and he would read the original, if the House would bear
with him. [The Honourable Member read the quotation to
which he referred, amid considerable laughter and confusion.]
The meaning of that quotation was this—he did net com-
plain of farmers reduced to poverty, of the crushy of land-
lords, or of a starving people ; he did not speak of classes,
he knew better than to consider agriculture as a class in-
terest—he spoke of the life of all, of the whale people of his
country,
.reduced to fifteen days' provision—not because they
did not import corn, but because they would import it ;
because they preferred a precarious commerce to the improve-
ment of their own lands.—( Cheers, laughter, and cries of
" Divide, divide.") It was the same thing here.—(Cries
of
" Oh, oh.") There was no country in the world, nor in any
period of the world's history, in which such an experiment
was more likely to fail, or more certain to be atteneed with
extensive inisery.—( Tory cheers.) li would now say one
word more on the measure of his Right -Hon. Friend.--
(Cries of " Divide, divide.") He could well unders'and the
argument, that Parliament ought to stand upon that which
had proved to be good, rather than experiment upon that
which might be supposed to be better. But there was
another and a wiser course to be taken on this oc-
casion.—( Cries of " Short, short," and " Divide.")
They must divert mischief by the means which Providence
had put into their hands for avoiding mischief ; and he thought
it wise to accept the present measure as a present settlement
of the question.—( Renewed confusion, and cr° 3 of "Divide.")
He had not forgotten. the year 1829, and the events conse-
quent upon that unhappy era—( Laughter and renewed confu-
3ion)—nor the impetus
given to the downward movement by