The Sun.
London, England, 1842-02-22 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, TUESDAY MORNING, FEBRUARY 22 1842.

the rental of land amounted to 6,500,0001. ; in 1841, the rental
was 200,000,0001.; he should think, therefore, that they might
be prepared to pay something towards the poor-rates.—( Hear. )
From 1810 to 1830, there were upwards of 1,000 enclosure
Acts passed, and no less than 6,840,540 acres of land had been
enclosed; he thought, then, that whatever burdens the landed
aristocracy might say they endured, they always
took very good care of themselves.—(Cries of " Hear.")
In a town in Derbyshire he remembered to have seen a sign,
upon which was painted the king in his robes, with a scroll to
this effect, " I govern all ;" near him was painted the Arch-
bishop
of Canterbury, with the inscription, " I pray for all ;"
next was a field-officer, with the inscription, " I fight for all ;"
and then at the bottom was a person dressed in a smock frock,
supported by a plough and a harrow, who was good enough to
tell them he "paid for all."—(Laughter.) The landlords, he
contended, did not bear more than their lair proportion of the
burdens of the country; he should say on the contrary, that
instead of paying all, all paid for them.—(Laughter.) He be-
lieved that the beggars in the street paid more than their pro-
portion of taxation, for the benefit of those who were
placed by the bounty of Providence in the enviable situa-
tion of landed proprietors: By an Act of Parliament,
passed in the reign of Queen Elizabeth, any soldier or marine
who was found begging in the streets was liable to be punished
by death ; that law had been repealed as a disgrace to our legis-
lation ; but he believed that a law which restricted the food of
the people was no less cruel, unwise, and unjust. He was not
disposed to tax the landed interest with selfish or avaricious mo-
tives—he thought that they were merely mistaken in their opi-
nions. He did not tax them with injustice, but he taxed them
with ignorance. Blessed by Providence with all the comforts
and luxuries of life, they were not aware of the many miseries
and wants to which a large portion of their fellow-countrymen
were subjected. He wished the Members of the Go"ernment
had taken care to make themselves personally acquainted with
the wants of the humbler classes. He wished they might visit
Birmingham, Manchester, Paisley, Liverpool, and other towns;
and that they might pass from Liverpool across the Channel to
that country so important to us in every point of view, and
which the Right Honourable Baronet had declared to be
the chief difficulty of his Government. Now a difficulty
it would continue to be to any Government which did not
administer to its people full and impartial justice.—( Hear. )
He wished Hon. Gentlemen would visit Ireland, not to see
Wicklow or Killarney, but to inquire into the misery and dis-
tiess which existed in that country to an amount of which he
had no conception till he had been quartered there.—(Bear,
hear.) They would also see that misery and distress borne
with a fortitude and resignation, which, if it was ever equalled,
was certainly never surpassed. —( Hear, hear.) And he
thought if they had seen it they would soon come forward
with a remedy to alleviate it.—( Hear, hear.) He might be told
that any alteration of-the Corn-laws would he the ruin of Ire-
land. He (Captain Layard) entirely denied that statement.
A sliding scale might ruin it, but a fixed duty would be a boon
and a benefit.—( Hear, hear.) It was the gambling specula-
tor, and not the Irish agriculturist, who gained by the present
system. He begged to say one word with respect to thellon.
Member for North Lincolnshire, who seemed to him act to the
part of the dog in the fable of the " Dog and the Shadow."
—(Laughter.) He could assure them there was no fear to the
people of this country from relaxing the present restrictive
Corn-laws, but if they persevered in upholding them, he was
certain that if there was truth in the opinion that " coming
events cast their shadows before," the handwriting would be
seen on the wall, and their kingdom would be taken from
them.—(Hear, hear ) With regard to those who held the
reins of Government, he could not help thinking that they
lo,t, a golden opportunity of reaping a rich reward fur them-
selves by feeding the hungry and relieving the suffering people
of the country ; but he believed the time was approaching
when they should grant to the people what they unwisely de-
nied to their petitions.-,(Cheers.)
Mr. SM Y THE said that he considered the Hon. and Gal-
lant Member who sat down, and the lion. and Gallant Mem-
ber who preceded him, acted wisely in rejecting all proposi-
tions and assenting to none, but he (Mr. Smythe) would en-
deavour to prove the inconsistency of such a line of conduct.
the Hon. Member for Wolverhampton had told them that
the effect of repealing the Corn-laws would be to throw a great
deal of land out of cultivation, while the Hon. Member for
Stockport had told them that, in his opinion, the value of land
would be considerably diminished, and that there would be a
restriction of capital to agricultural objects on the Continent.
It such were the case, no one would pretend to tell him that
the producers of this country would be able to compete with the
producers of the Continent. There was a great discrepancy
if opinion between those who told them that the agricultural
interest was suffering under great and peculiar burdens and
those who said that they had no such burdens to complain of.
Mr. Ricardo, in his week on agriculture, in an argument in fa-
vour of a drawback, said, that in allowing this drawback
they merely returned to the farmer a tax which was already
p tid, and which he must have to place him in a situation to
compete with the foreign producer. Not less inconsistent were
those who denounced all protection, and who yet voted with
the adVocates for a fixed protection. There was an-
other inconsistency between those who advocated a
repeal of the Corn-laws, because they believed tisat
it would extend the home market, and those who advocated
it because they believed it would extend the foreign market.
Now if the House would dispassionately consider the proposi-
tion of the Right H.n. Baronet, they would see that finding
that the agricultural interest had been too much protected,
he proposed to abate it, but gradually—a course that had been
adopted in similar cases in foreign countries, and referred to,
cot in reprobation, but as an example, by Mr. M'Gregor, in
his evidence before the Import Duties' Committee. That
Gentleman stated that Austria, considering that her manu-
factures were inordinately favoured, imposed a maximum duty
of 20 per cent. on foreign manufactures. In like manner the
Right Hon. Baronet proposed a maximum duty of 20s. per
quarter on foreign corn. But, truly, the best praise of the
Right lion. Baronet's measure was, that it had displeased the
extreme men of both parties. However, as an argument for
the justice of the Right Hon. Baronet's course, he (Mr. S. )
would remind the House, that in 1802, 1803, and 1804, which
were marked by agricultural improvement and encourage-
ment, the average price of wheat was 61s. ; in 1823, by no
means a bad year, it was 51s. 9d. Taking into consideration
the cheapness of labour since that time, the improvements in
agricultural science, and the reduction of taxation' be ,wOuld
n,w put it to those Honourable Members who feared tbat,
the landed interest were hardly dealt with, whetber from the_
same soil, wheat could not now be raised at much less expense.
But he would also put it on another and a kindlier ground.
He would remind them of what they owed to the manufac-
tures--( Hear, hear)—to them they owed the splendour, the
power, the prosperity of the country.—(Cheers.) And in
reference to what had been said by the Hon. Member for
Knaresborough, he must warn those to whom it appeared
that it was the time for the agriculturists to indulge in Quixotic
aggressions, which originated in spurious and hypocritical
benevolence—(Hear, hear)—this was not the time to re-
ject God's gifts—(Cheers)—this was not the time to rojeet
the blessings of machinery.—(Cheers.) But for it Birmingham
and Manchester would be like Woodstock and Dunstable.—
( Hear, hear)—and Liverpool would still be a fishing village.—
( Hear, hear.) Look to the imperial Augsburg, of which it
,vas said that it was more magnificent and great when the
sound of the hammer and the mill-wheel was in a perpetual din,
than when it was the seat of imperial grandeur. The rent of
the adjacent land was ten times as high.—(Hear, hear.) For
his own part, in looking to the working of this question, he had
come to the conclusion that there had been but four Ministers
who had dealt with this question in the spirit which the people
had a right to expect. These were Lord North ; afterwards
Mr. Canning, who was unsuccessful in the measure which he
proposed iu lbw • and he thought the Noble Lord opposite
( Lord J. Russell) was entitled to a full meed of credit for the
measure which he proposed last year.—( Hear, hear.) But he
thought, however, that the Right Hon. Baronet had a still
higher claim for the measure which had been laid before the
Committee.—(Hear.) He was glad to see an end approach
to the unjust system of protection—(Hear, hear)--by which
so much bad land had been broken up—by which our commerce
had been crippled, and so much wealth amassed with little
labour and little merit.—( Hear, hear.) lie wns glad to see
that this monopoly and another also—( Hear)—would be
broken up and trampled in the dust.—( Hear, hear.) He had
been sent to Parliament to represent, if not directly, at least
indirectly, 16,000 consumers, and he could testify not only to
the distress which prevailed amongst them, but to the grati-
tude with which they would receive any boon.—(Hear, hear.)
The assertion of the people's rights is consistent and natural,
whereas opposition to them is inconsistent and unnatural—the
Hon. Membet for Bradford had, the other night, pronounced a
well-merited panegyric upon this country—he described her as
the mistress of one-sixth of the earth and the entire of the seas.
low could it be said there that she was not able to protect the in-
ilustrfof her sons?—( Hear.) What could be more melancholy than
that the distress which is now so general throughout the
country was owing to the idleness of the people—not to their
negligence or inactivity but to over-production—to over in-
dustry—to the over exercise of those arts and sciences, and of
those talents, for which the people of England have long been
celebrated—

Lex est artificis, ante perire sua.
(Hear, hear) It was melancholy that the industry of the
people should be the cause of their distress ; but he hailed the
measure now proposed by the Right Hon. Baronet as an in-
stalment.—(Cheers, and counter cheers.) Yes, he hailed
that measure as an instalment of a wiser and a more thoughtful
course of policy.—(Loud cheers and counter cheers. )
He entertained an anxious hope that that measure would serve
the country, and he looked upon it as an earnest, that the pro-
portions of their monstrous tariff would be reduced to some-
thing of a seemly shape.—(Hear, and cheers.) He trusted that
the Right Hon. Baronet would carry out his projects without
inflicting a calamitous burthen of additional taxes upon the
starving people of this country. If the measure proposed by
the Right Hon. Baronet were carried into effect, it might save
the people of England from destitution and misery. England
was pre-eminent in power—pre-eminent for her arts and sciences,
but those advantages would be scarcely a guarantee
for the preservation of her interests. It was he believed
Dryden, who said that he had heard of many virtuous per-
VMS ending unfortunately, but he had never heard of a virtuous
nation ending so. It was to be hoped that the calamities of
misfortune would not weigh down this country; and if the
ga
tt to
wouldthe passionspasse ourn
itvher
shampel reagernjrsuy.a)dt
expressionsii
teuesdeoof fthae rpehel
eef
da, hisna
Right Hon. Baronet had accomplished his objects without
C
ad
able sret a r nw
free dmaAcconAteulteAdypeosapilde.—th(aCt
from the
hwH
tohne.
yMemberb whoet
ak e hadn
by j
tuhs s
es awt
idtohwwn
whom
mn dh he ewcoounl
d-
sdiiivleidreedotnhtehme tphreesebnetstocpcaarstiosno. of his For
hspimeeseehlf—whehichandhneehvearrdonly
any former occasion addressed the House on this subject;
maandde
the course he should think it his duty to take this
night
him very desirous that he should not be misunderstood. He
thought, also, that something was due on this occasion to the
great constituent body he had the honour to represent, and
and which on this subject entertained a feeling peculiarly in •
tense. The House would permit him perhaps to say, that there
was no constituent body more entitled on this subject to a favour-
able hearing, for there was, perhaps, no constituted body, nn city
in the kingdom, containing ahundred and twenty thousand inha-
bitants, somuch in a situation to be an impartial judge of the
question. He had heard with great pain the sarcasms that
had been thrown out against the manufacturing interest—sar-
casms thrown out against great communities engaged in com-
merce. But against the people of Edinburgh such sarcasns
would fall pointless, for Edinburgh was a capital city, a city
having no manufaCtures, a city having no foreign trade, a city
awdhmicihnis"traast
os
nu p
of
fo r
thete d principallywh yits
eboyn
niet
es t
icoonn nwei cthti on
the wui
Univer-
sity, v theer_
gentry of a whole kingdom, who were
fsitteyiiitbiyesiittshleiltderoantitirteo,
theby its society, and the attractions and
in the habit of repairing thither during a portion of every year,
It would be difficultto mention any constituent body which, to
an equal extent, could be so truly said to have no interest but
that which it had in common with the whole empire. Its in-
terest was that which was common to all ; and he could truly
say, that although the people of Edinburgh took an interest
in this question as strong as his own, yet he expected rather
their disapprobation than their approbation for the course which
he should think it his duty to take on the present occasion.
Should the great body of his constituents not feel satisfied with
that conduct, yet he did not feel at liberty to support the motion
of his Hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton. With
that motion, nevertheless, he agreed in principle, and as he
agreed in principle witha that motion,
Right Hon.
so
Boanronpetr.incipHlies
was he opposed to the po of the
difference with the Right Hon. Baronet was fundamental. He
understood the grounds of the measure to be principles on
which he was sure, if the Right Hon. Baronet should feel him-
self to be in error, he would see it to be an error of the most
fatal kind. He understood the grounds of the measure to be
based on this principle, that the cheapness of the necessa, ies of
life was not uniformly essential to the prosperity and well-being
of a people. The Right Hon. Baronet, in the most distinct

manner said that he should be deluding the people if he held ,
out from this, or from any similar change, a hope of relief. He
said it was a mistake to suppose that cheap food necessarily
had a tendency to promote the prosperity of the people. i
Now, if on that point the Right Honourable Baronet was
wrong, he must admit that he had founded his measure on false
principles. The Right Honourable Baronet had distinctly
disclaimed all intention of benefiting One class mere than
others. They had heard no talk from him about the consti-
tutional grounds on which one class should be protected to
enable them to support the dignity of their state. Such
doctrines were not only not brought forward on the present
occasion, but he (Mr. Macaulay) understood the Right Ho•
nourable Baronet, disclaimed all such doctrines. He under-
stood that he considered this subject with a view to the general
prosperity. If it. then were the fact that cheapness of food
was always a blessing to the people who enjoyed it, he ( Mr.
Macaulay) conceived the measure of the Bight Honourable
Baronent not to be defensible. On that matter, certainly,
the political economists had the advantage. For certainly
the general opinion of mankind, from the earliest ages to the
present time, decided that the cheapness of food was a blessing.
That was the deeply-rooted conviction of all countries. Ile
need not refer to the Hebrew Scriptures, as some had dune, for
the purpose of deciding this question. The oldest documents
and historical authorities contained the clearest proof of the
feelings of mankind on this subject down to our own times.
No person was better acquainted with the histories of Greece
and Rome than the flight Hon. Baronet, nor could better fur-
nish proofs of the feelings of those nations on this subject.
When one found a labouring man making 401. a-year for the
support of himself, his wife, and family, would one say that a
difference of 81. a-year, being I/. on each of the eight quarters
required for the sus' enance of his family was not material ?
That was only a prima fucic case; and how did the Right Hon.
Baronet meet it? Why, the other night the Right Ho-
nourable Baronet came forward, after the sense of all
ages and nations had been otherwise expressed, to show
that cheapness of food was not necessarily a benefit to the
people. The arguments of the Right Hon. Gentleman were
simply these—that there were countries in which food was
cheaper than in England, and yet the people were not so well
off. The countries mentioned were Prussia and Belgium. If
the Right Hon. Baronet used any other argument than that in
opposition to the sense entertained and expressed by the world I
during 4,000 or 5,000 years, with respect to the advantages of
cheap food, such an argument would receive his (Mr. Ma-
caulay's) most particular attention. Nor was the argument ab-
solutely worth anything—was it even plausible ?—( Hear, hear.)
The doctrine he (Mr. M.) affirmed was, that cheap food was
a blessing to a nation, in the same way that health was a
blessing to an individual. Of course a man might !be in the
enjoyment of excellent health, and yet, from peculiar circum-
stances, such as family embarrassments or a stain upon his
character, he might be worse off than another man who
was ill. But that did not go to disprove the general
position, that the man who was in the enjoyment of health
was better off than the man who was labouring under disease,
and that the invalid, who enjoyed other blessings, would cer-
tainly have those blessings greatly enhanced by the
enjoyment of health.—( Hear, hear, and , cheers.) The
Right Honourable Baronet's argument. went to destroy
all belief in good and evil. It was the same thing as saying
that fertility of soil was no good to a country. Suppose they
possessed the power by legislative enactment, which they did
not, of making the barren moors and mountain tops of Scotland
as fertile as the vale of Taunton, the Right Hon. Baronet, upon
his principle, would be bound to tell them it was their duty to
abstain from doing so. He would tell them to look at the state
of Scotland and of Bengal--:Bengal, a country so fertile, that
they had regularly three harvests every year, and yet where the
labourer could not enjoy from his earnings one half the luxuries
and comforts that are enjoyed by the Scottish peasant. The
Right Hon. Baronet, pointing to the fertility of Bengal,
and the state of the labourer, then would say that it was
their duty to abstain from the endeavours to make Scotland as
fertile as Bengal. In considering this question the Right
Hon. Baronet had kept out of view all those modifying circum-
stances to which he was bound to have paid attention before in-
stituting the comparison—circumstances all-important in the
consideration of such a question. Apart from good. government,
the security of property, internal order, the collection of im-
mense masses oft machinery, the enjoyment of civil and
religious liberty, the iminewe wealth of our mines—
all these had been entirely left out of the question
by the Right Hon. Baronet, and he had produced merely one
single argument, which he had urged against the general
sense of all ages, and of ail nations—( Cheers.) There was
one single point in the comparison between England and
Prussia which had been instituted by the Right Hon. Baronet,
to which he (Mr. M.), would direct the attention of the
Committee, wh:ch had been wholly passed over by the Right
Hon. Baronet; that was our insular position, and our miri-
time supremacy, which was the consequence of that position.
—( Hear, hear, and cheers.) We had never within the
memory of any one living seen an enemy in this country.
Our fathers had never seen such a thing. With the exception
of the march of the Highland clans to Derby in the years 1745
and 1746, they must go back for centuries to find the time
when Englishmen had seen a foreign enemy in this country.--
( Cheers.) Could the like be said of Prussia ?—(Cheers. )
Why, in the memory of many now living 50 pitched battles had
been fought in that country, and within the memory of many of
those who now heard him, in one year, 13,000 houses in Prussia
hail been reduced to ashes by a foreign inroad.—( Hear,
hear.) But were they, therefore, in instituting a comparison
between the people of l'russia and England, to say that cheap-
ness was no blessing?—(Cheers.) If the Right lion. Baronet
had said that there was a necessary connection between cheap-
ness of bread and lowness of wages, he might have made some-
thing out of that. But he was not aware that the Right Hon.
Baronet had made such an assertion, and he (Mr. Macaulay)
was by no means disposed to admit the existence of any such
connection, for he had seen within the last few months the price
of bread much raised in this country, hut wages had not risen
in proportion. Besides, every fact refuted an argument
founded on the assumption of such a connection. It was true
that in Prussia corn was cheaper than it was in England, and
wages were lower ; but it was equally true that on the banks
of the Ohio corn was much cheaper even than it was in Prussia,
and wages were twice as high.—(Loud cheers.) It was
therefore perfectly clear from experience that the mere cir-
cumstance of the price of provisions being low would not cause
wages to descend. He (Mr. Macaulay) conceived that the
Right Hon. Baronet had shown no reason against the principle
that to the people it was a blessing to have cheap
food, and, as he had founded his measure upon that
principle, his measure was against hint. He (Mr. Macaulay)
equally dissented from the other propositions on which the
Right Hon. Baronet had raised his measure. He denied the
doctrine the Right Hon. Baronet had laid down with respect
to the importance of being independent of foreign countries.
He would not argue the question whether they could be per-
fectly independent. That would be a good state of things. It
was unnecessary to argue that question, because the Right
Hon. Baronet. himself admitted that perfectly independent they
could not be. It seemed to him that it could all
hut be demonstrated that it was utterly impossible
for a nation in which corn was grown to be per-
fectly independent. He would suppose that 25,000,000
quarters of corn was the supply required annually by the peo-
ple of this country ; such being the case, it was clear that, in
y always at command, it
quantity of corn, that in
years they should have
ovwerodauerlsrd
thbaet certainwn eelrcyee
shtseoatrt
yehra
to
ohe a
nstol
tiwah that
uqa
cuvhea
average
gi e
t
a larger quantity. Such a circumstance must be taken into
consideration when the nature of the product was considered,
and also the nature of the season. Such a course must be
adopted in order to have a certain supply to so great an extent.
Corn was very different from manufactured commodities; they
might order 25,000,000 pairs of stockings and be certain
of having them ' • but such was not the case with corn.
If they wished to have 25,000,000 of quarters certainly, they
must at times have an over quantity ; the only way, therefore,
in which they could be certain of always having 25,000,000
quarters for consumption, must be ruinous to the farming in-
terest ; it therefore seemed to him to be clear to demonstra-
tion that when once in the country the price of corn was dearer
than in others, independence was impossible, and experience
confirmed it. Formerly England was an exporting country,
but in later time, in spite of all improvements in agriculture,
the progress of population had gone on to such an extent as to
render it almost impossible for agriculture to supply
the wants of the people.—(Cries of " Hear, hear.")
The Right Honourable Baronet admitted that we were to be
dependent, but he (Sir R. Peel) preferred casual dependence
to constant dependence; he (Mr. Macaulay) would say that
he preferred constant dependence.—( Hear, hear.) He pre-
ferred it partly for reasons which had been assigned by others
more ably than he (Mr. Macaulay) could have done—he pre-
ferred it because constant dependence had a tendency to be •
come mutual dependence—and he preferred it because it would
lead to the exportation of manufactures.—( Hear, hear.) If we
had casual dependence we must export the precious metals, and
those consequences which had been depicted by Mr. Huskisson
twenty years ago would result.—( Hear, hear.) But he like-
wise preferred it on the Right Hon. Baronet's own ground.
The Right Hon. Baronet and others had said that if we were
not independent we should remember that the harvests in
foreign countries were likely to be bad at the same sea-
son that they were bad hera.. They would find by
experience that the probability was that if we de-
pended on them, when a bad harvest came, they
would shut their ports ; but those were the very years when
we must be dependent—the Right Hon. Baronet admitted there
must be casual dependence, and that would be the time when
we must be dependent. —( Hear, hear.) He believed the system
which the Right Hon. Baronet proposed to dopt would have a
tendency to produce those evils ; but though it happened that
in countries situated near to each other the harvests were
generally bad at the same time, it was by no means the case
that when the harvests of England were bad the harvests on
the banks of the Ohio would he bad too.—( Hear, hear. )
Could anything be more clear, than that next to independence
—and, indeed, almost the same thing—was a very wide de-
pendence—a dependence on the whole world ?—( Hear, hear. )
The probability was against the • supply failing simul-
taneously in . all parts of the world. The • only way to
have this wide dependence on the whole world was a constant
dependence, for it was quite clear that under the Right 11On.
Baronet's sliding scale, we could not have it—( Hear, hear)—
and an Hon. Gentleman on the other side had said that we
could not have it if the Right Hon. Baronet's measure were
carried out as it at present stood,
and that we shouldlikely to have a supply from the United States. He
confessed.
that there might be a danger of being
politically dependent n
be ot
n
consequence of being commercially dependent, but
but it was
im-
possible
Experience
however, was quite clear on this point, and his Noble Friend the
to show any ground for its real existence.
Member for the City of London had mentioned
might have made stronger. He (Mr. Macaulay)
believed
an instance he
that the year in which the greatest import of corn was made
p
into England that had ever been made in any year up to that
time, was the yial benches.)ear 1810.-4 Hear, hear, from
an Hon. Member
(Hear.) He was not so fortunate as to catch what the Hon.
Gentleman said, but he believed these facts to be perfectly
obvious—that in the year 1810 England imported about
on the Minister Under the continental system.—
1,600,000 quarters of wheat ; that
of those 1,600,000_ quarters h
of wheat absut 800,000 came from France itself.—( Hear, ear. )
That the rest came from countries that were then provinces of
France. For observe what the year 1610 was. It was the
thevery
That system was n
height of the continental system.
of Holland his own brother Loui for
the beginning of 1810 that Bonaparte deposed from the thrones,
screwed up to its very utmost rigour. It was in
not carrying that system
knew, it was not from America
that
any part of that supply
came which was desereing of attention. Now, were we ever
likely to be placed in such a situation again ? Was it probable
that there would ever be again sech a combination against us—
the whole of Europe united against us under a chief of such
, and distinguished above all
extraordinary ability and energy,
by his intense hatred id! this country,
tion to attack that country by
means .
of its trade and com-
in that ver yy ear we imported into England,
and his determine_
com-
merce? And yet in such a Government, and in the very year
when the severit of that Government was screwed up to the
very highest point,
end from his own domionins, a greater quantity of corn than
lw with respect
had ever been imported into England before.—(Hear, hear. )
That circumstance, until he heard some explanation of it, which
he had never yet heard, that circumstance seemed to him verycon-
s oing
as
a
et
a to the
blessing;effect of
he that
fully agreed with all that
tcommercial dependence.
He thought that, in a certain degree, the mutual dependence of
nations and
was so eloquently and forcibly said the other night by his Noble
Friend, the Member for Tiverton. He could not but consider
it as one of the most consolatory facts, as one of those things
which ought to lead them to entertain the best hopes fur their
country, when he saw, in remote and fertile parts of the world,
a peptilation whose most lucrative employment Was turning the
wilderness into corn fields, multiplying at Such a rate that it
doubled every two or three and twenty years. He did not know
what limit they were to place to the prosperity of a country

whose skill, whose machinery, whose vast accumulations of ca-
pital enabled it to supply the whole world with manufactured
articles. Whatever the distress might be here, however unfa-
vourable the seasons, people were at work to save our population
from starving. All along the banks of the Mississipi arid the
Missouri ; all along the Euphrates, in those countries where coal ;
perhaps did not exist, where there was scarely any capital,
there were people looking forward to cutlery and clothing.
and a thousand comforts of life coining from their skill ; and
then stepped in the Legislature, and said, " No, you who
ought to be manufacturers for the whole world, shall be turned
into ploughmen ; and you, who ought to be producers of corn
for the world, shall be turned, against your will, into manu-
facturers ; you shall not buy from them, you shall undersell
them." In a time of distress they had at one end of the
world artisans starving, in order that barren fields might be
forced to yield a small return for an enormous outlay ; while at
the other end of the world they had persons who could be most
beneficially employed in sowing corn ; they had been making
bad coats and bad knives , and all this that a particular class
might be benefited at the expense of every other.—( Hear. )
This was a subject which they had been cautioned against en •
tering upon by the Hon. and Learned Gentleman the Member
for Bradford; but he (Mr. Macaulay) could not refrain from
touching it. although he hoped he should do so in such a mari-
ner that no woe could condemn the spirit in which he spoke.
It was not possible for us to shut our eyes to the remote poli-
tical consequences of such a state of things. The people had
borne their privations patiently—they had borne their disap-
pointments patiently, for with regard to those little exhibi-
tions of feeling to which allusion had been made, he thought as
little of them as he dared say the Right Hon. Baronet himself
thought of them. But it was their duty to look to the future ;
and lie should say, that if there were to him any s gn that was
ominous—any sign which every friend of law, of property, and
of order, ought to contemplate with uneasiness, it was one
which he saw so very generally hailed with acclamation by those
gentlemen who professed the strongest attachment to the princi-
ples Conservative policy.—( Hear.) He knew of nothing
that seemed to him more alarming than the obstinacy and
the enthus'asm with which some persons, to whom he could
give no better name than that of incendiaries—persons who
professed doctrines subversive of all order and all property--
labour to prevent a settlement of the question of the Corn-
laws. Whenever he heard that by the advice of some noted
dealers in sedition, numbers of people, who were all Chartists,
had gone to break up meetings held for the purpose of peti-
tioning for a repeal of the Corn-laws, he looked upor. it as a
sign, not of immediate danger, but still as a sign of serious
danger. For what reason could it be imagined that those whom
they (the Ministerial Members) agreed with on that sideof the
Hoe-e, in designating as incendiaries and sowers of sedition were
desirous of preventing an alteration in what they considered an
abuse? Did that proceed from a love of the landed aristo-
cracy, or of any other interests connected with the aristocracy ?
They all knew the aristocracy ; nay, they knew that the
people in their own addresses talked most bitterly against those
very Corn-laws. And yet if a meeting were called in almost
any of the great towns in this country to petition against
the Corn-laws, those men would move Heaven and earth
to cause the meeting to fail; and for what purpose ?
Evidently for this; they knew perfectly well that however much
the people might complain of the effects of the present partition
of power and of Government—however much they might feel
about abuses merely political, there was very little danger
that unless they had such a grievance as the Corn-law to work
upon, they would never raise the people against the established
order of things. They knew that the most formidable rebel-
lions were the rebellions of the belly.—( Hear, hear.) He
(Mr. M.) firmly believed that it was not by chance
but by deliberation, and with a serious purpose,
that those parties wished to have the Corn-laws part of our in-
stitutions, in order that some (lay or another those Corn-laws
might be the death of our institutions.—( Loud cries of " Hear,
hear.") He believed that they wished this abuse to remain
part of our laws, in order that some day or another—that day
he prayed they might never see--this abuse and our laws
might perish together.—( Cheers.) There was also another
circumstance connected with the question, to which he wished
to refer. The Hon. and Learned Member for Bradford had
warned them not to draw any parallel from France and the
French Revolution. The Hon. and Learned Member would ex-
cuse him if he alluded to the subject in a manner of which
he could not complain. If they observed the history of the
French Revolution, the first thing that would strike them was,
that that revolution was not merely brought about. by the
lower classes. It was not a mere movement of the Faubourg
St. Antoine. If the labouring chsses, had not, in the first in-
stance, and a great part of the higher and aristocratic classes at
their head, they could have done nothing. But the feuds en-
gendered by all sorts of vexatious distinctions between the landed
aristocracy on the one hand, and the monied and
commercial classes on the other, were those which
enabled the first end of the wedge to enter. Whi e a
whole empire like this was united, he could not fear the
result of any insurrection ; but he could not but feel uneasy when
he saw all those topics which, in other countries, and ages, had
been confined to the lowest disturbers, now being agitated
by men worth twenty thousand a year—(Cheers)—it was im-
possible for him not to fear, when he heard the manufacturers
crying out that the landlords were grinding the faces of the
poor, and, on the other hand, men of great landed property
denouncing the manufacturers as they had been denounced in
that House, ever since the present debate had commenced.—
( Oh, and No, no.) lie would venture to say that no expres-
sion could be more unjustifiable as used by a manufacturer
against the landholders than what lion. Members had heard in
the course of the present discussion, coming from the mouth of
the Hon. Member for Knaresborough against the manu-
facturing body.—(Cheers, and No, no.) He (Mr. M.) was
quite wiliing that the truth of this assertion should
he left to the judgment of all those who heard and read that
attack.—( Cheers.) Now, therefore, we had arrived at a most
serious stage in the interests of this country. He did not ap-
prehend the dangerous issue that lie feared would occur to-
morrow, or next year, or five years hence ; hut he would say
that it was impossible that this country could safely follow up
a system which they saw had the effect of arousing and pro-
voking the violent passions of multitudes, while at the same
time it promoted division, rivalry, and animosity amongst the
two great classes of proprietors in the country. Therefore it
was of the greatest importance that this question should be.
satisfactorily settled. Yet that which was proposed as satis-
factory was not even contended to be so en the other side.—
(Cheers.) Even the Right lion. Baronet, the Secretary for
the Home Department abjured all notions of finality.
—(Hear, hear.) The Honourable Gentleman now laid
it down as a .vise system that we should legislate
gradually, and in bit by bit reforms. The present measure he
would take as an instalment; but if it were to be received as
an instalment, he (Mr. Macaulay) should consider it as an
instalment of little more than a farthing in the pound.—
( Laughter and cheers.) But was it to be understood, now
that we were to have a Bill of this kind introduced as often as
the Members of that House were summoned to assemble thither,
Were we doomed every year, or every three years, to renew
discussions of this sort? Was it to be expected, that the first
Minister of the Crown would again .settle and again unfix
this great question? 'the more he (Mr. Macaulay) thought
on the Right Honourable Baronet's Bill, the less he (Mr. Ma-
caulay) confessed himself able to understand why the Right
Hon. Gentleman introduced it.—(" Hear, " and cheers.) lie
did not introduce it to please those who cried out for
a change in the Corn-laws, for it was clear that they
were not satisfied.—( Hear, hear.) It was equally clear that
he could not have introduced it to please his own supporters,
for, though they would vote for him and carry his Bill though,
there could be no doubt that nine-tenths of them would vote for
him with much greater pleasure if he refused all change.—
(Cheers, and cries of " No, no.") On this point he (Mr. Ma-
caulay) was content to defer to the judgment of those who ob-
served the silence of some gentlemen opposite, and in the House—
something very different from silence elsewhere.—(Cheers
and laughter.) The Right Honourable Baronet himself had
avowed that he knew he could not please both parties, and
he complained of the peculiarities and difficulties of his position.
Now he (Mr. Macaulay) could understand that an enlightened
statesman might risk the displeasure of each party, while
supported by the consciousness that he was introducing
a measure that would relieve and prevent the distresses
of the country. But did the Right Hon. Baronet say this of
his own measure ? Why, he told us that he could
hold out no hope of relief to the distress that pre-
vailed.—(Cries of " Hear, hear.") Did he then bring in
his Bill to settle the question? Why, finality was disdained
on his own benches. Why, then, did the Right Hon. Baronet
introduce his measure? Why, he said he introduced it to
prevent frauds in taking the averages, of the existence of
which frauds he was not sure, and which he acknowledged must
have been much exaggerated.—(Hear, hear.) He also in-
troduced it to fix the price of wheat between 545. and 5,55. a
quarter. But he could give no reasons, except exceedingly
vague ones indeed, to show why he was convinced that his
plan would have this effect. Vague ! why to be sure it must
be vague for any wise statesman to determine what the price
shall be—(Cheers)—and that is the reason that all wise states-
men have agreed to leave the price to he settled between the
buyer and seller.—(Loud cheers.) There was a measure—
he took the Right lion. Baronet's own statement—
which settled nothing, which pleased nobody, which
nobody asked for, which nobody world thank him for, which
would not extend trade, which would not relieve distress, and
which offered provisions at a price of which the Right Hon.
Baronet did not profess to know anything, and for wkich he
could give no reason.—(Loud cheers.) principle he op-
posed the Bill of the Right Hon. Baronet, and on principle he
approved of that of the Hon. Member for Wolverhampton.—
( Loud cheers, answered by ironical cheers from the Ministe-
rial benches.) In the first place, he understood the Hon.
Member for Wolverhampton was opposed to protection alto-
gether, and therefore opposed a fixed duty; but he (Mr. Ma-
caulay) desired to be understood as advocating a fixed duty,
on the ground of protection alone. 'There were two
reasons for imposing a duty for the purpose of protection,
in one of which he entirely concurred; and there was only ono
word in the motion of the Hon. Member for Wolverhampton
with which he could not entirely agree—that was the word
" now."—(Hear hear.) He did not think it had been proved
satisfactorily to him that the price of corr. in England was in-.
creased by the burthens which peculiarly affected agriculture.;
but he considered the English farmer entitled to protection to
the extent of those burthens, reserving to himself, at the same
time, the opinion that it would be touch more expedient to
take into consideration a new distribution of them, than that
which existed under the present system.—( Cheers.) The
other ground for not removing protection altogether,
seemed to him (Mr. Macaulay) to be unanswerable.—( Hear. )
He was not disposed to take all protection from the Eng-
lish farmer, and he thought that time should be allowed for the
purpose of transferring capital from one employment to another.
—( Hear, hear.) But though he differed from the resolution
of the Hon. Member, he did not differ from him in principle.—
(Cheers.) He (Mr. Villiers) had declared that the people
were desirous of having an immediate repeal of the Corn-laws;
but he (Mr. Macaulay) thought they would be satisfied if a
certainty of repeal, at a certain distance of time, was given
them. As the motion stood, it might be thought to be brought
fors and in a fit of despair ; by men who, knowing they should
get nothing, were determined to ask much more than they
could expect.—( Hear, hear.) He understood that the Hon.
Member for Wolverhampton had expressed a resolution,
that if he saw any prospect of the question being brought to
a settlement on what he thought sound principles, the word
" now " should not stand in the way of such a settlement. But
while the word " now" stood part of the proposition, while it
remained such as it was, he could not give his vote for it.
With regard to a fixed duty, as a permanent measure, he con-
sidered it in no other light than as a mitigation or a compro-
mise. Asa mitigation, and as a compromise, he was ready
to support it, as a measure brought in distinctly for the purpose
of giving relief to the people ; but he could not consider that a
settlement of the question which left a distinct protecting duty,
not intended for the purpose of a revenue, and any suppoit he
might give to such a measure would only be such a support as
he apprehended every person in that House had repeatedly
given to measures which they thought imperfect, becanse,
though imperfect, they also considered them decided improve-
ments.—( Hear, hear, hear.) He felt exceedingly indebted to
the House for the patience with which it had listened to him
on a question on which he had never before addressed it, but he
considered that his vote on the question might have otherwise
been misunderstood. His objection applied to the word " now,"
and on this ground he had thought it necessary to give the
House the present explanation.—( Cheers. )
Mr. STUART WORTLEY said he should take the present
opportunity of declaring his opposition to the proposal of the
Member for Wolverhampton. He rose with some reluctance
to speak on a question that had been so thoroughly debated by
the House that it would he impossible for him, and difficult for
many who were better qualified than him, to add anything new,
either of fact or argument, to the subject the House bad to de-
bate. If there was one reason why he had taken the' liberty of
addressing them, it was the speech of the Right Hon. Member
; for Edinburgh, because he must say that of all the speeches he

ever heard, he had never listened to one that so little an-
swered the purpose its author intended, as one half of it com- I
hated phantoms of his own raising, and the other half was
formed of arguments tceally inconsistent with the course
he had adopted. He had charged the Right Honour-
able Baronet with maintaining in general, abstract terms,
that cheap food was no blessing to the people. The Right
lion. Baronet never made use of any such expression—he
never laid down any such maxim.—( Hear, hear.) 'I
here
was no doubt that if the question were asked, whether cheap.
ness of food was a blesing to the population of the country,
there could be ne other answer, than that, ag a matter of
course, it would be of the utmost importance ; but notwith-
standing the truth of that maxim, it was very questionable
whether the condition of the poorer classes of the country
would be improved because food was made cheaper. The
whole et the arguments of the Right. Hon. Gentleman Opposite
(Mr. Macaulay)depended upon the fact, whether the population
had the means of maintaining itself, and could, if provisions
were cheaper, enjoy a larger portion of the necessaries
of life. He talked of that as if the sole question to be consi-
dered was whether, if provisions were cheaper, the demands for
labour would be such as would enable the labouring classes to
obtain sufficient employment. If those commodities, which
constitute the necessaries of life, were cheaper, no doubt they
would be brought within the reach of the population, who could
procure the means of purchasing them ; but it did not follow
that they should be brought within the reach of the population
generally, unless there was employment given to them. He
( Mr. W. ) was prepared to contend, and he believed it to be true,
that if the price of food was reduced, the benefits would not go
into the pockets of the poll., but the advantages would he conferred
upon a totally different class of persons. There was much more
labJur in th's country than the demand required. Wages
were depressed, and the consequence was, that if the price of
corn was reduced much lower than it was now, the poorer
classes if the people would not obtain any advantages from that
reduction.—(Hear, hear.) The feeling of the manufacturing
labourer at the present moment he believed to be this—he felt
a strong conviction that there were other questions affecting
his moral and social condition, more bearing upon his int,rests,
and more deserving of his anxiety and attention. It was to
these lie looked.

Mr. C. BULLEIL-What are they?
Mr. S. WORTLEY.-The Hon. Member asked what
they were, he would tell him. The regulation of labour-that
which affected every act of their lives, and which pressed di-
rectly or indirectly upon their social existence. The atten-
tion of the manufacturing labourers was directed to these ques-
tions as more important to their interests than the question of
the Corn-laws. He did not mean to say that the question of
the Corn-laws• was not a most important one. He admitted
its importance, but he did not think it excited so much inte-
rest among the manufacturing labourers as had been
represented. -( Hear, hear.) If it could be shown that,
by reducing the price of corn, they would give to
the people a greater mass of the necessaries of life; if he could
be convinced that it was for the advantage of the great mass
of the labouring population, that the importation of foreign
corn should be permitted without restriction, he would not
be found to oppose it. He admitted that the first concern of
a Legislature, was the happiness, welfare, and improvement of
the condition of the great mass of the population ; and if it
could be proved to him that that happiness might be secured
by the course recommended by the other side of the House, he
should be unwilling to place himself in opposition to it.
It had frequently been asserted that the price of food had no
connection with the rate of wages. He denied that proposi-
tion and could quote high authorities in support of his opinion :
Adam Smith, the father of the science of Political Economy,
said " the money price of labour is regulated by two circum-
stances ; the demand for labour, and the price of the neces-
saries of life." This opinion of Adam Smith was confirmed
by Mr. 111'Culloch, and Mr. Ricardo had, in treating of wages,
said "we must not forget that wages are also regulated by the
prices of commodities." Mr. Huskisson who had been fre-
quently quoted as an authority by lion. Members opposite,
had said that if they reduced the price of food in the
manner proposed, he held it by no means clear that
wages would not fall in a still mote rapid manner.
( The Hon. Gentleman then read an extract from Mr. M'Cul-
loch's Dictionary of Commerce in proof of his argument. It
was to the effect-that, in 1814, the price of wheat was'74s.
per quarter ; and, in 1815, it had fallen to 645.; and, in con-
sequence of the tall, the price of wheat not indemnifying the
occupier of poor lands, those lands became gradually out of
tillage.) He said, therefore, that he was justified in concluding
that the price of food and wages had a relation to each other.
The competition amongst the labourers themselves, and the
competition amongst the masters, in respect of the employed
atone, would prevent the working classes being benefited by
any reduction in the price of food. That this was the case
among those who were practically conversant with the subject he
thougnt there could be no doubt whatever. It was not very long
s:nce,they had heard the evidence of a person of that class of whom
they were then speaking, and who expressed the opinion of a great
number of his companions upon this question. '1 he man's name
was Brighton, and he was examined before a Committee of
Inquiry of that House. He said " some people will say that
if our provisions were cheaper we should be better off, but
our masters would take advantage of these rates, and reduce
the weavers a penny upon each quantity of work, which would
amount to about 2s. or 2s 6d a week." He proved by this that
the working people held the same opinion as that expressed by
Hr. Huskisson, that a reduction in the price of food would not
put the labourer in a much better position than at present.
Now when they talked of repealing the Corn-laws, he thought
there were full and sufficient grounds for decidedly opposing
that measure. His opposition and objection to this measure
was founded simply upon this reason, that he was not prepared
to ask for relief of one portion of the population, and that the
minority, by almost certain ruin to the other class.-( Cheers. )
Because, whatever lion. Gentlemen might say, there could be
no question of this fact being proved beyond the possibility of
a doubt, that, taking the two classes which inhabit the empire,
those who were engaged in manufactures and those employed
in agriculture, that the latter class and the former,
compared with the numbers, would show a great ma-
erity of the agriculturists.-( Hear.) He thought be should
be within the mark, when he stated what had been alleged
during the course of the debate, that the manufacturing popu-
lation taken altogether, was as one to two compared with the.
agriculturists. When they took these classes together, and
they were asked to adopt a measure for the purpose of relief,
and this a doubtful relief to the smaller body, but which in-
volved ruin to the other, he thought it was best to hold from
such a proposition. Gentlemen opposite told them that the
English farmer would not suffer. In the first place they told
them that the importation of foreign corn would not be such
as to reduce the price of corn in this country. It did not seem
to him to be necessary to occupy the time of the House in
entering into that question.-( Hear, hear.) It was in the
power of the foreigner to transport corn to this country at 355.
to 405., and if they had notsome protection the foreigner would
be able to introduce corn into the country to the prejudice of
the farmer, and so far the farmer would be injured. But Hon.
Gentlemen turned round and said, supposing it were so, he
need only turn his capital to other sources of industry and culti-
vate grass land, and he would make as much profit as he
formerly did. In the first place, did those Hon. Gentlemen
recollect the circumstance that all those lands which were first
abandoned from cultivation, were those least capable and the
worst of quality ? Therefore it was no answer whatever to tell
him that he would do well by turning his land under cultivation
into pasture or grazing land. But there was another circum-
stance attending this to which he would call the attention of
Hon. Gentlemen. They must look to the population supported
by the cultivated land. He (Mr. S. Wortley) had seen some-
thing of this, and he had no doubt he was within the mark
when he said that the population supported by the labour in
grazing land was not above one-half that supported by the
other branches of agriculture. This land was, therefore,
thrown out of cultivation, and the labourers were necessarily
thrown upon other resources. This, then, it was that made
the argument inefficacious which was brought forward, that the
farmer could turn his capital to another channel.
Ile would not detain them longer, as it was not
his wish to occupy an unreasonable portion of the time of the
House. The question had been so elaborately debated upon,
that there was scarcely anything new to be added. His reason
for opposing the proposal of the Hon. Member for Wolver-
hampton was, that he felt that it would not he advantageous to
the whole community that the Corn-laws should be repealed.
He thought it was fair there should be such a reduction made
as the nature of the case called for. He wished for relaxation
of the law, but he was not prepared to risk all the consequences
of an entire repeal of the Corn-laws. With respect to the
proposal of the Right Hon. Bart. at the head of her Majesty's
Government, he believed it would be viewed by the people of
this country as a measure of reasonable relaxation, and calcu-
Ia ed as much to benefit one side as the other.
Mr. MITCHELL said that a fixed duty was preferable to a
sliding sale. He had taken the opportunity of consulting
his friends in the City, both Whig and Tory; and he found
that all, from the highest to the lowest, although many of
them considered the measure of the Right Hon. Bart. did not
go tar enough, yet the principal part of them considered that
the measure was a great and valuable improvement en the late
sliding scale.-( Loud cheers from the Ministerial benches.)
Some three years ago, considering that the prices were low,
he had himself speculated in corn.-(Laughter.) However,
they condemned the present system, he condemned the former
one more. So far he believed that it was a block to trade, and
prevented fair speculation.-( Laughter from the Ministerial
benches.) He had purchased wheat at 30s. a quarter, and he
might have purchased 20,000 quarters at the same Brice ; now,
calculating the charges from the continental port of freight,
sound dues, commis ion, &e., altogether they would not exceed
7s. a quarter - he knew that the average price of British wheat
was 565. a quarter, and which was the average stated by the
Right Hon. Baronet in his speech ; now, adding this 7s.
'to 305., the original price of the wheat would be 375.,
the duty when the price was 375. in this country
Would be 165., and that brought the price of the article up to
531. Now, as the average price of wheat was 565., this would
give him a profit of 2s. or 3s. a quarter. The, average price
of wheat in London was generally a shilling or two higher than
other parts of the kingdom ; therefore, the average price in
London would be 575. or 58s. Now, Recording to' the pro-
posed measure, he had a fair prospect of from 4s. to, ss. a
quarter, by importing wheat from the Continent when the
price was at 565. in this country. Now, under the old sliding
scale of duties, he found that the duty at 695. and 70s. would be
13s. Bd. Now, when the average price of wheat was at 69a.
the duty was never paid, because those who held wheat would
keep it back until the price was up to 715., 725., or 731. a
quarter. The only time when a duty higher than 6s. ed. is
paid is when the price has been up to 735., and when the price
is going down, cargoes of wheat came over, and the parties are
anxious to pay the duty before it rises to 20s. The only time
that 10s. Bd. or 13s. ed. duty has been paid, has been when
large quantities have been imported at one shilling duty.
Now the effect of the alteration as proposed by the Right
Hon. Baronet will be this, that upon an average crop in this
country, and when the average price of wheat is 565., wheat
will be ordered from the foreign market with a view to its
being brought over as a legitimate subject of speculation, and
expecting a profit of 3s. or 4s. a quarter. that speculation not
being founded upon the prospect of a sufficient harvest, but
upon the certainty of a fair mercantile profit arising out of it.
He therefore was of opinion, that the alteration of the duty will
have the effect of causing an importation of foreign wheat in
this country when the average price was 563. or 575.
and lie was also of opinion that it would prevent persons hold-
ing back corn till the price was at 70s. or 713. He there-
fore considered that there was a productive and a real and bona
fide improvement in the whole scale, by which the duty might
be expected seldom to exceed 14s. or Iss. Now he considered
that a great improvement upon the whole scale. Honourable
Gentlemen might ask whether it was equal to a fixed duty?
He said candidly he did not consider it was; but although he
did not think no, yet he considered it to be his duty, sitting
there as a Member of the House of Commons, and one sent
there to do the best he could for his constituents, to take
this measure when there was no chance of getting any
better-( Cheers)-not only in that House but in the other House
of Parliament. flaying no prospect, then, of a better measure,
he thought it his duty not to reject the measure of the Right
Hon. Baronet merely because he was of opinion that another
measure might be brought forward. He did not consider it his
duty to reject the measure of the Right Hon. Baronet on that
ground. A great many Hon. Gentlemen might think he was
acting contrary to party in this declaration; because a fixed duty
was proposed by one party and a
sliding scale by another, he
did not feel himself called upon to vote For a fixed duty when he
saw no propect of its being carried, and therefore his was wil-
ling to accpt of the present instalment. - (Cheers from
the Ministerial Benches.) He did not expect the mea-
sure would be a final settlement. Certainly not.-( Hear
and cheers from the Opposition.) He was of quite
a contrary opinion. Yet, at the same time, he considered that
the Right lion. Baronet opposite had brought forth the most
liberal treasure that he himself thought lie could carry, and as
such he (Mr. Mitchell) accepted it.-( Cheers from the Minis.