The Sun.
London, England, 1842-04-08 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, FRIDAY MORNING, APRIL 8, 1842.

Coning ought to be perfectly free. Recently they had taken
away the right of Members to speak on presenting petitions.
Give them an inch in the way of injustice, and they would take
an ell ; and now they sought to do away with the right of pe-
titioning. '1 be Right Hon. Baronet was right in the brief and
firm manner in which he refused his assent to the motion. If
he had assented to it he would never have been able to carry
his income tax. If he were to assent to it now the table would
be covered with petitions against it from all parts of the coun-
try as quickly as the post could bring them in. The measure was
distasteful to all classes. The farmers disliked it quite as
much as the ten pounders, and such would be the number of
petitions against it, that all Members, unless they happened
to pos•ess close counties, as many Hon. Members opposite did,
would venture to support it, and no Minister, even with a ma-
jority of 120 to back him, would be able to carry it through.
They had been endeavouring gradually to abolish the right of
petition; they had negatived his (Mr. Wallace's) motion to
permit means to speak on presenting petitions. He should,
however, renew that motion next year, feeling perfectly certain
that he should ultimately carry it. If the Right Hon. Baronet,
in place of carrying his resolutions, had announced his inten-
tion to the public two or three weeks before hand, and had sus-
pended
express thThee
iorr derop i sn i ionn t
wh ei t
h meantime,rega regard
t oa nhdi
sallowed t theo a people tmeasureo
suon unprecedented nt
their hostility time
of
edn
i peace—he n o
Minister believed
would b
people
ablewould
t o
carry the measure. He never gave a vote with so much plea-
sure, and he should be almost sorry if the motion were carried.
—(Laughter ) If the Right Hon. Baronet would appeal to
the country, and advise her Majesty to dissolve Parliament on
this ground, that the people had no confidence in that House,
they would see what! returns they would make to Parliament.
That was what he (Mr. Wallace) would like to see.—(Divide.)
Sir T. HANMER (amidst cries of " Divide, divide,") said
that he was desirous to state the reason why he would support
the motion of the Hon. Member for Finsbury.—(Cheers. )
Though the more numerous classes of the people were not
affected by the income tax, still, looking to the tariff, which was
to be connected with that tax, and which should be taken as a
part of the same measure, he should be very jealous in limiting
the rights of the people on such a subject. With respect to
the precedent on which tiiis practice had rested, he must say
that, although he had as much respect as any one for the prin-
ciples which placed King William on the throne, he had not
the same respect for the Parliament which sat in his reign.—
( Hear, hear.) The Parliaments in that reign were corrupt,
rotten, and disgraceful Parliaments—( Cheers from the Oppo-
sition)—and he thought that the practice under consideration
was worthy of the source from whence it originated.—( Hear. )
He would give his vote with great regret on this occasion, but
he should fearlessly and honestly vote for the motion, because,
he believed it to be his duty and the right of those whom he
represented there.--( Cheers. )
Mr. WAKLEY said that an Hon. Member opposite had
asked him how many of his (Mr. Wakley's) constituents would
be affected by the measure ; but he gave a very curious illustra-
tion of the nature of his own curiosity. He confessed that
many of them were favourable to the views of the Right Hon.
Baronet.—( Hear, hear.) . They thought his proposition would
be productive of benefit to trade, but at the same time they
were unanimous against the proposition of an income tax.—
( Cheers.) So far as he could learn they were all of them
hostile to an income tax.—( Hear, hear.) The Right Hon.
Baronet had that night made one of the weakest speeches he
ever heard._( Hear, hear.) And the reason was obvious.
He was without a case, without the semblance of an argument.
—(Hear, hear,) The Right Hon. Baronet had given the
House a few historical data, and he went to the year 1795,
and mentioned the contests between Grey, Pitt, and Fox,
and he (Mr. Wakley) thought that the Right Hon. Baronet
would have stated that then Mr. Grey and Mr. Fox were pre.
sent in the House; but nothing of the kind was stated; he
said, that the petition was rejected, but they had no record of
the opinion of those statesmen. He (Mr. Wakley) was
disposed to ask this plain question—Was the right of petitioning
a valuable right? He put the question fairly to the House,
because he really thought that Hon. Gentlemen opposite, if
they were prepared to vote against the motion of his Hon.
Colleague, ought, in candour and honesty, to follow it up by a
vote declaring the practice of petitioning to be altogether use-
less, and one that ought to be discontinued.—( Hear, hear.) If
ever there was a time when that practice was useful, and could
have an effect upon the proceedings of that House, it was when
a proposition was before the House to take money from the
pockets of the people. That practice never could be of more
use than when employed in a case where the whole of the com-
munity was to be affected. Now it was known that here the
greatest secrecy had been observed as to what measures were
about to be proposed; and after that game of secrecy had been
played the Right Hon. Baronet surely ought to give the people
an opportunity of expressing their opinion.—( Hear, hear.) At
the beginning of the Session, he asked several Gentlemen if
they were aware of what propositions were to be put to the
House. The answers invariably were, " No ; can't tell ;" " Not
a word ;" " Havn't heard a word ;" " Can't give an idea."
Then down came the Right Hon. Baronet witha proposition to
affect the interests of every man in the kingdom, and the doors
of the House were to be shut against the prayers of the people.
Did the Right Hon. Baronet know that the resolution of the
House which he read referred to a tax which was to be pro-
posed for the current year only, whilst the Right Hon. Baronet
proposed his for three years?—( Hear, hear.) He (Mr. Wakley)
did say that if the resolulion in the original case were objec-
tionable, it was much more so now, when it was made to apply
to a term of years.--(Hear, hear.) He did hope that in this
instance the Right Hon. Baronet would be in a minority.
On a division the numbers were—
Ayes
136
Noes
167
Mori against the motion ...
CORN-LAWaj IMPty ORTATION BILL.—WA GES OF
LABOUR.
On the Order of the Day for going into Committee on
this Bill,
Mr. COBDEN rose to propose his motion as follows :
" That inasmuch as this House has repeatedly declared,
by its votes and the Reports of its Committees, that it is
beyond the power of Parliament to regulate the wages
of labour in this country, it is inexpedient and unjust to pass a
law to regulate with a view to raise unnaturally the price of
food." At the eleventh hour (proceeded the Hon. Member
who, from indisposition, we were sorry to perceive, was indif-
ferently heard), he would call on the House to prevent one of the
greatest outrages which a Legislature had ever perpetrated.
The House said now that it could interfere to attempt to regu-
late the wages of labour. In fact it was the custom of our
ancestors to do so ; indeed the latest attempt of the House to
do so was in 1823, when the Spitalfields Weavers' Act was
abolished. This was their last direct act, but until 1834 the
House did it under the old Poor-law. The French war
caused high prices of provisions, disturbed the trade of the
country, and caused a sudden agitation of the currency. In con-
sequence the wages of the working people were unequal to sup-
port them. Therefore, relying upon the precedents of former
times, those people repeatedly petitioned the House to fix a
minimum of wages. Mr. Whitbread proposed a resolution on the
petition, and endeavoured to have the object passed
into a law. Mr. Pitt resisted the motion, and, instead of the
measure prayed for, a modicum was paid out of the poor-
rates to supply the insufficient wages. This was indirect
legislation for the regulation of wages. But in 1834 the
House repealed the old Poor-law, and since that time the
labouring man of this country received neither protection
nor kindness from the Legislature.—( Hear, and cheers.) This
was felt so dreadfully, that in 1835 he endvoured to per-
suade the House to regulate wages by law. The House had
then declared its inability to regulate the wages of labour,
and yet the same House was about to read, for , th(s third
time, a Bill which had for its object to raise artificially the
price of food.—.(Hear, hear.) He would probably be met, as
he had been met before in those discussions, by those' vague
declarations under which Honourable Gentlemen some-
times sheltered themselves, that in raising the price
of corn they necessarily raised the wages of labour. It was
very odd that the half-starved people of this country, when
they wanted work and food, had not been told that the object
of the Corn-law passed in 1815 was to raise the wages of la-
bour.—( Hear, hear.) Their ancestors, if they had harboured
such a thought, would have put it in the preamble of Vile Bill.
—( Laughter.) That, however, had never been stated by those
who postponed the Bill. He had statements in his possession
which would show that practically the high price of food had
not maintained high wages. The Hon. Member then read a
statement of the average amount of wages in several branches
of manufacture, which had not been affected by the itivention
of machinery. The calculation showed, said the Hon.. Mem-
ber, that the wages were not more than half what they weir
in 1815 ; the average wages at the present time
were Bs., and the labour for that sum was harder
than it had been in 1815 for twice that sum.
Was it to be wondered at, if by the operation of the Corn-laws
and the reduction of wages, they had a great number of peti-
tions presented to that House, calling on it to do something to
regulate the wages of labour, and to prevent the continually
downward course of earnings, while they maintained the. price
of corn ? He had some extracts from a petitions or two which
had been presented to that House, and he would read p, trt of
one from the operative weavers of Manchester, present ed so
, long ago as 1827, long before the Anti Corn-law League came
into existence, which was accused of having instilled all this
poison into the minds of this class. The petitioners stated: that
, they " knew by experience that one species of pro perty
was protected by the operation of the Corn-laws, and they
conceived that even-handed justice required some protection for
, labour." This was the language of the weavers of Manchester
in 1827. It was to be regretted that the middle classes of -hhis
country had not taken up the question of the Corn-laws as tqey
had done now, when the laboering classes were endeavour ing
to procure their repeal. The other extract was from the
statement of a poor fustian cutter, made in 1829 ; he said,
"as the Government never protected labour, it was -un-
fortunate that it should protect land, and as they
did not suffer one monopoly, they should allow another to
exist. If the labourer was obliged to work cheap, he oug ht to
be allowed to live cheap." He had seen the man who dre iv up
that petition, and he believed it conveyed all that could. be:
said on the subject. The labourers in Lincolnshire and I iot-
tinghamshire, even in that place, where they were working fc r
mere nominal wages, must live—thoy must have bread or pc -
tatoes, and who had them to sell ? Why, the landowners-
•of
the neighbourhood. If they said they could not give the prio .3,
and that they heard they could get wheat for 40a. a quarter ; it
Hamburgh, the landowners say—Oh !we have a law to kee p
up our prices. But, says the poor frame-work knitter, haw e
you passed no law to keep up our wages ? And he should lilk e
to see the nobleman or landowner that could meet him, who is
he asked that question. He did not object to the law, simpl, y
becauses it taxed the food of the people ; he objected. to 0
it on a higher ground. The Right Honourable Ba-
ronet had brought forward his Qom-law scheme, with. the
avowed purpose of keeping up an artificial price of ,torn.
If they had brought in a Bill to lay a fixed duty on fo reign
corn, he would have opposed it, as he did the proposition 4 if the
late Government. But the present measure was still w sense.
They had told the labourer that they could not fix his -wages
at one steady price, and now the Right Hon. Paronet
avowed that the object of the new Corn-law was te maint Ain the
price of corn at from 545. to 565.--( Hear, hear.) Un, lee this
law there could be no lowering of prices from a superabu indance
of supply; prices could only fall through the inabilitj r of the
people to buy a sufficiency—however objectionable • my tax
upon food must be, still a fixed duty was not open to t he same
charge of injustice as this new scale. TI 3fl put
a fixed duty of 2s. on French hats, and -a fixed
duty on French gloves. They gave the: home
manufacturer that advantage ; but they told him that i fhe was
indolent, if he did not exert his skill and industry to i A
Lual the
French, he should have no higher protection. But ;they did
not say this to the landholder. They told him that ss , matter
1 how the Poles, or the Americans, or the Germans nal ght im-
prove their agricu:ture, the British landowner, howet er indo-
lent or careless he might be, should be secured a prig 3 of not
less than 51s. the quarter. The conduct pursued by the Go-
jvernment appeared to him to he a violation of prise ciple and
ustice. Was the whole area of the country to be appropriated
by the landlords as they might think fit, while the pc s )ple were
to have no control over the production of the print ii ple article
of human subsistence? He would tell them that th at doctrine
was revolutionary—he would tell them that it had/. : awakened
feelings in the minds of men which they would It ave been
shocked to entertain a few years ago. And why;? Because
they were invading the rights of inustry, and bees use they
poor man.—(Hear, hear.) He believed that V the
were snaking an unjustifiable inroad upon the rtiroperi cy of the
iltaldwodurd lebayd theto
ILmepgiosrltaar
awanergeescairnriedthiisoi •o effectcountry, I
1 irinciples
He believed that the law would not be allowed 't ter main with- I
out producing changes which many we
n in 1
who
took p art the agita- 1
tion for its repeal had nevercontemplted. The yh dr !fused the
slightest modicum of justice. They had-a '
pl, red the trade in 1
the most precious of human coramodities—tb etrade i corn—
beyond the reach of the merchant and the ar
had thrown it into the hands of the gambler i and '
,anu a re s
.nd thectu sp eettlator. i

- -
All the petitions they had received against the Corn-laws from
the people at large were treated with less respect than the whis-
perings from ha-a-dozen failures in the City.. —( ,;ear. ) tie
would recommend Hon. Gentlemen who had some stake in the
country to think what would be the consequences of such a
course. He could tell them, that in the district with which he
was immediately concerned—that in Lancashire there had been
a sacrifice of fully one-half of the capital vested in manufactures
within the last six years. lie said that deliberiitely. He would
ask his Hon. Friend, the Member for Manchester, whether he
could realise far the capital of Lancashine one-half of the sum
it would have brought six years ago. That state of things was
not the result of a few partial failures ; for if that were the
case, the vacuum so created would soon be filled up by men of
more energy and industry. He would urge the Right Hon.
Gentleman to take the same capacious view as Mr. Huskisson had
done when he had sought to discover what was necessary to be
done for the regeneration of the manufactures of the country.
If the Right lion. Baronet did that, he must come to the same
conclusion with Mr. Huskisson, which was, that this country
could not continue to pay the present amount of taxation
to maintain the public, credit and to maintain the Corn-laws
too. If they continued their sliding scale. they would be
pressing unjustly both upon capital and upon labour. It was
partial—it was unjust. They were mulcting the labourers of
his earnings in a palpably unjust manner by this sliding scale,
and they were at the same time depriving the capitalist of the
means of giving the labourer employment. They would, if
they read this Bill a thi.d time, stand self-convicted of legis-
lating merely for a class. They took corn out of the category
of other articles of Commerce. They refused to carry out the
principles which they applied to every other article to the
article of corn, and if they persevered in such a course there
could be no question as to what must be the result. He (Mr.
Cobden) was a practical man, and the present was a subject on
which he felt strongly. With regard to the trade between this
country and America, as he could claim some sort of acquaint-
ance with the subject, he hoped the Right lion. Baronet would
even at this late period pay attention to what he had said. He
would not detain the House longer, but would at once propose
his resolution as an act of justice to the labouring classes, for
he considered the present Bill as a violation of every principle
of justico as far as they were concerned. •
Mr. BROTHERTON seconded the motion.
Sir R. PEEL could assure the Hon. Gentleman that he
had listened to all that he had stated, both on this and on
all former occasions, with the greatest attention; and how-
ever he (Sir R. Peel) might differ from the Hon. Gentleman
in the conclusions at which he had arrived, he cauld assure
the Hon. Gentleman that he had never treated any of his
arguments or observations with either disrespect or indiffer-
ence; and he trusted the Hon. Gentleman would not consider
it any mark of disrespect, if, after the ample discussion which
this subject had already undergone, he should refuse, on the
present occasion, to follow the Hon. Gentleman through the
whole of his arguments. The resolution which the lion.
Gentleman proposed was clearly tantamount to a declaration
that there ought to be no duty at all on the importation of
corn; that all duty was unjust, and that corn ought, under
all circumstances, to be admitted free of duty. The resolution
condemned a fixed duty equally with a sliding scale. There
might- be some objections to a sliding scale which did riot
apply to a fixed duty ; and, on the other hand, there might be
many objections to a fixed duty which did not apply
to a sliding scale. But the resolutions of the Honour-
able Gentleman condemned equally both propositions. The
Hon. Gentleman's resolution says, " That it is inexpedient
and unjust to pass a law to raise unnaturally the price of food."
But he apprehended that a fixed duty must have the effect of
raising the price of food according to the Hon. Gentleman's
own argument. According to him it must also raise it unna-
turally, because no regulation should be applied to articles of
subsistence. He (Mr. Cobden) referred to the opinion of Mr.
Huskisson in 1831 and 1832. He (Sir R. Peel) would not
take advantage of the lapse of the Hon. Gentleman's memory,
but the accident which terminated Mr. Huskisson's life oc-
curred in 1830. The opinion of Mr. Huskisson, was that the
Corn-laws as they existed could not be maintained, but that
opinion was equally applicable to a fixed duty as to a graduated
scale. The opinion he delivered was, that the existing Corn-
law could not be maintained consistently with the prosperity of
the manufacturing interests of the eountry. The alteration in
the law which he had proposed was perfectly reconcilable to
the opinions of Mr. Huskisson in the year 1830. A t the period.
when Mr. Huskisson quitted office he was uniformly and deci-
dedly an advocate for a graduated duty, on the ground
that it was necessary as a protection to domestic agricul-
ture, and to insure a supply of corn at all periods. He
thought that the Right lion. Gentleman would hardly deny
that the measure which he had introduced would both relax
the duty and prevent the speculations of those whom he had
spoken in terms of such severe censure, namely, the merchants
in Mark lane ; that it would facilitate in a great degree the im-
portation of foreign corn, and tend generally to make it plenti-
ful; and that by preventing sudden fluctuations it would re-
move the chance of gain by mere speculation and gambling in
coin. Having already expressed his opinions on this subject at
great length, he hoped the Hon. Gentleman would not consider
it disrespectful if he referred him to the statements which he
had made on former occasions, and refrained from entering into
any lengthened discussion on the particular motion before the
House.
Lord J. RUSSELL said he did not rise either for the pur-
pose of supporting the motion of the Hon. Member for Stock
port, or of opposing the third reading of the Bill ; but he wished
to state his views with respect to a point which had arisen in
the course of discussion. The Right Hon. Gentleman had re-
ferred to the opinions of Mr. Huskisson. He did not wish to
enter into any. controversy with regard to those opinions. He
had, hiniself,,voted, for the graduated scale in 1828, and it
appeared, at first sight to have many advantages.—( Hear.)
He was convinced that if Mr. Huskisson, whose authority was
30 often referred to, had lived a few years after 1828, the ex-
perience then furnished by the operation of the new measure
would have shown so able a man that it had failed in its object,
either as respected the farmer, the labourer, or the consumer,
for it took away all possibility of calculating future prices with
safety. This state of things would have been reconciled by
his (the Noble Lord's) Bill, which would produce a certain,
constant corn trade ; but the Bill now before the House,
though an improvement certainly on late ones, though it was
worse than any measure introduced from the Revolution of
1688 to 1800. He had never heard it stated from the other
side of the House that they expected they were establishing a
permanent system—all they were doing was to shake the au-
thority of the present system without forming a permanent
one. When they had altered the law as to all other authori-
ties—when its the next year they should proceed to alter the
law relating- to foreign sugar, French brandy, and
French silica they would again have to alter the law
with respect to cant.—(Hear, hear.) So far he should
rejoice in the passing of the present measure, as it would shake
the authority of the present law; he looked forward to a time
after passing the law, when they would find that the plan of a
graduated scale was altogether faulty, and that a better system
would he substituted in its place. He was not one of those who,
like the Hon. Gentleman behind him, was for taking away all
duty, and admitting cern free. He admitted the talent and
ability with which the Hon. Gentleman supported that view of
the question ; it was impossible to listen to him without feeling
that it was possible to argue very strongly for the plan he pro-
posed. He thought a moderate protection was fair to the
farmer, but the system established in 1828 was most faulty, and
he certainly hoped that the time would not he long before they
had established a plan on sound principles of trade, which he
hoped, with regard to other articles, the House was about to
sanction.
Mr. VILLIERS said, if the Noble Lord thought he should
propitiate the farmers by declaring in favour of a fixed duty,
he thought he was likely to be disappointed. He believed the
farmers would be better pleased if he would not disturb the
present system. He congratulated the country, however, on
the prospect of receiving the Noble Lord's eloquence and ex-
perience in disturbing the present law, for he was convinced
they could not have one less suited to the circumstances of the
country than the present one. He could not help ob.erving,
that his Honourable Friend could not be justly charged
with having improperly quoted Mr. Huskisson with re-
gard to the sliding scale. The country had not the
misfortune to lose Mr. Huskisson till the year 1830.
The principle of his Hon. Friend, the Member for Stoekport,
was virtually recognised by Mr. Huskisson—namely, the prin-
ciple that they should not raise by artificial means the price of
food, while they left uncharged the price of labour. If they
raised the price of food, they ought to raise, in a corresponding
degree, the wages of labour. That principle, however, was
violated by the present law. The price of food had never been
so high as at present, acid the wages of labour had never been
so depressed. He could not let the new measure of the Go-
vernment pass without expressing his most unqualified disap-
probation ; he considered that it tied not been recommended by
the experience of our agriculturists, or by the expe-
rience of the community at large. He believed that
all the evils of the old law would follow frons the
present. He believed it would relieve nobody, and that
it would satisfy nobody. A graduated scale would neces-
sarily baffle the calculations of capitalists, and the trade in corn
would continue as unsettled under the new system as it had
ever been before. No one who had reflected upon the sub-
ject could deny that the Corn-laws had been at the bottom of
all the evils under which the country had lately suffered. He
was surprised under those circumstances to find the Hon.
Gentleman proposing such an abortion of the law as the pre-
sent—a law which he believed was really deserving of the words
that had been applied to it, namely, that it was • but a
mockery of the people. Some said that it was an improve-
ment upon the former plan ; but he said there was no improve-
ment. It would not enable the country to obtain more food than
could be obtained under the old system ; for in order to obtain
more food, more corn should be grown ; and such a result
could not be expected under the operation of a law which left
the trade in corn as uncertain as it had ever been. He knew
it was said that this was all the Right Hon. Baronet could
have effected to correct the evils of the law, and that he
could not have accomplished more ; but he did not hear Hon.
Gentlemen around the Right Hon. Bart. say so. He seemed to
have great influence over them, and he thought if the Right Hon.
Gentleman persuaded them to it, they would be induced to
accept a measure more suited to the circumstances of the country.
The presumption was that they were a very docile body,
and would have consented to greater changes if the Right
Hon. Baronet persuaded them to it. If he had proposed such
a measure as the country required, he did not think he ( Sir
Robert Peel) would be deserted. The Members for Essex,
and Berkshire, and Sussex, would not of themselves form a Go-
vernment.—( Laughter.) But at all events the public would
support him in such a case. Persons were sent to that House
entrusted with great privileges, and those who had the power
of sending them should exercise it for the general welfare of
all, and not for their own interest, otherwise they who had not
the power had just grounds of complaint against them.—
( Cheers.) There was only one national ground suggested for
the present system of legislation—that was that they should
be dependent on their own soil for their own supply.
—(Hear.) But he believed that the present mode
of legislation was the very one which made them
dependent on other countries. They were a perfect nuisance
to other countries when they went to purchase corn, because
they took away that which was only necessary for the supply
of the country where they scent to purchase. They were
starving at home under the present system, and that ought
to make them ready to try another.—(Hear, hear.) How
could they be worse off if they depended on other countries?
They would be much better, because they would get trade and
food if they depended on other countries.
Sir JOHN TYRRELL hoped the Hon. Gentleman who
had spoken last would not think it discourteous in him if he
did not attempt to fellow him in his argument. But he would
just remind the Hon. Member that oil every occasion that he
had brought this subject before the House it had been with
a still increasing majority against the motion.—
His (Sir John Tyrrell's) object in rising was to
answer an accusation which had been made against
Honourable Gentlemen who represented the agricultu-
ral interest. The accusation had been made, both in that
House and out of it, that,
in supporting the prspesition of the
Right Hon. Baronet, they were deserting the interests of the
agriculturists. lie, for one, had no hesitation in saying that
such an accusation was totally unfounded.—( Hear, hear. )
The Hon. Member for Sheffield had stated, on many occasions,
to his constituents, that the agricultural was the slowest pro-
cess of making money. The Hon. Gentleman must recollect
that there were many persons who could only cultivate the poor
and sandy soil; and he (Sir J. Tyrrell) would ask the Hon.
Member, what would become of those persons, if there was no
protection given to them ? It had been said, that many of the
agricultural Members had had interviews with their con-
stituents.—(lronical cheers, and hear, hear.) He could
say that he had attended a meeting of his constitu-
ents, and had submitted his conduct to a direct show
of hands, and the result of that was that three out of four held
up their hands in favour of this conduct, and only one indi-
vidual held up his hands against it, "and," said the Hon.
Member, "I ca led upon him to explain hinvelf."—(Roars of

laughter.) He would defy Hon. Gentlemen opposite to this.
The lion. Member for Southwark, who was as it were, sprung
&am the loins of thet.tpp,,;;lion,or, vulgasly spsakiog, was
one of their own kidney—(Laughter)—was delighted with the
Conservative :party in power, for this reason—he said, the
Whigs would now concede that which they never would con-
cede before. This was the reason why he (Sir J. Tyrrell)
gave his vote in favour of the proposition, althought it might
seem to be in opposition to what was held to be his conscien-
tious convict ion. —( Roars of laughter.) He admitted that a
universal panic had been raised among the agriculturists. But
the Right Hon. Baronet had got an unanswerable argument in
favour of the tariff. The Right Hon. Baronet had yesterday
presented, a petition from Ireland, purporting to support the
proposed tariff. That petition was immediately seized upon by
Hon. Gentlemen opposite. He ( Sir J. Tyrrell) had read that
petition, and the last two lines what was vulgarly
called the prayer of the petition—( Loud laughter)—was
to the effect that protection should be given to all
classes of the community. Now that was a principle
in which he (Sir John Tyrrell) entirely concurred.
With respect to the propositions of' the Noble Lord opposite,
he must say that they on that side of the House (Ministe-
rial) were not to be duped by a fixed duty. They on that
(the Ministerial) side of the House, had been considered as
dull as animals that browsed on thistles.—( Roars of laughter. )
They were certainly too dull for a fixed duty. "It i 3 said in
the East," continued the Hon. Member, " that when you
cross the desert, they put a donkey in front."—(Laughter. )
They put a donkey in front.—( The laughter was here renewed
throughout the House.) They put a donkey in front (said the
Hon. Member when the laughter had subsided, and again
the laughter was renewed.) It is no laughing matter, said the
Hon. Member.—(Shouts of laughter.) They put a donkey in
front—(the House again was convulsed with laughter)—to re-
gulate the pace.—( Roars of laughter.) Gentlemen on that
side of the House, and on the other who had been in India would
bear him out in his assertion.—(Shouts of laughter. ) Those
Gentlemen would confirm his views.—( The House was again
convulsed with laughter.) He did not wish to compare the
Right Hon. Gentleman, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, to
a donkey ; but he must say, that his proposition for relieving
the financial difficulties of the country, were utterly un.
worthy of a great statesman. The observation he (Sir J.
Tyrrell) had made might excite some mirth, by the man-
ner in which he had endeavoured to state his sentiments,
still they were of a grave character.—( Great laughter.) fie
could assure the Noble Lord that whenever he makes those
propositions which he has made this night, he will find that
those opinions do not gain ground in the country—on the
contrary, that he will find himself in a larger minority.
Mr. WARD said he did not know much about the practices
in the East or West of putting certain animals in advance ;
but there was another subject which he did understand better,
and that was 'the consistency of the Hon. Baronet who had
just sat down. Now his Hon. Friend stated very clearly the
charges which had been brought against him and the Hon.
Members who sat upon the same side of the House as himself,
of gross inconsistency. In his (Mr. Ward's r opinion, they
had no principle whatever; he would go over the whole of the
hustings' speeches made by the Gentlemen opposite or elsewhere
and he would not find one speech acquiescing in those measures
which they were now prepared to support. Not one was pre-
pared to speak of the Corn-laws as now proposed ; every man
amongst them denounced the late Government as the bitterest
enemies of the agriculturists ; and now he had heard some of
the constituents of his Hon. Friend who had just sat down; szy
that they would much prefer the propositions of the Noble Lord,
with his Bs. duty, to the plan of the Right Hon. Baronet.—
, ( Hear.) The Hon. Baronet told his constituents at the time
of the election that he had no leaders; one Noble Duke, ex-
pecting a seat in the Cabinet, and not having obtained one, was
now good for nothing—that was she Duke of Buckingham;
that another Noble Duke had met him in the lobby, and hail
recommended this Bill to him, as it was better to be in the
frying-pan than in the fire. He himself, he said, was but an
humble individual; he did not put himself forward—n it even
in the Eastern fashion—(Laughter and cheers)—but he said
that he accepted the measure, because he thought it one suited
to the exigency of the times, and one calculated for the peop,e's
welfare. In his (Mr. Ward's) opinion there never was a more
absurd measure than this brought before the public ; it was one
which ought to have been, and which might have been settled
long ago. Measures well calculated to settle the • question
were brought forward some time ago, and they were rejected
for party purposes. They had settled nothing ; and they would
at no distant period find it a difficult matter to explain their
conduct in,that House, when compared with their statements
out of kdoors.—(Hear, hear.) It was with some
pleasure, therefore, that he heard the justfication
of
his Hon, Friend, hut the Hon. Member did not succeed so well
in that House as he did in Chelmsford—he did not succeed so
well in throwing dust in their eyes as he did in those of the
people who held up their hands so unanimously in favour of the
Hon. Member. The fact was difficulties were raised merely
for party purposes, and to obtain place. They had obtained
place, certainly, but at a a very considerable sacrifice of cha-
racter and consistency. Last year every monopolist joined
hand and hand; he could understand that they beat his party
by a large majority, but what did they do then ? Did they
carry out their principles? No; they stood by their leader,
and he f ,rgot his pure principles. They had abandoned
their principles, and they should never recede. Their
leader had now stated as a roan of honour, that he
would stand by the tariff; he had pledged himself to do so.
They must go on, or public opinion would desert them, and
they would have no principle to stand by ; such an abandon-
ment of principle had never been heard of in the history of
party contests.—( Hear, hear.) He, for one, did not care whe-
ther he voted at all on the third reading of this Bill. He did
not care whether the poor clays and bad soils which were put
into cultivation by the hopes held out by bad laws, were to be
put out of cultivation, for some day or other they must go out
of cultivation. - He did not care for that ; but he had no feel-
ing in favour of the Bill, because he did not believe it would do
any good, or permanently settle the question ; he hoped it
would let in a little more corn, at a more reasonable price; but
he was afraid that nothing of the kind would followthe measure.
Mr. DARBYsaid, when the Hon. Gentleman who had just
sat down said that Members en his side of the House had not
dealt consistently with their constituents, he begged to say
that the Hon. Member had not spoken the fact.—( Hear.) It
was impossible for any man to declare that he would support
measures that were to be brought for ward when he did not
know what they were ; and he would beg to say that the ques-
tion had been put to him on the hustings whether he would
vote for all the measures of the Right Hon. Baronet, and in
reply he stated that he would not.—( Hear.) Then with re-
, Bard to the question of the Corn-laws, he would. beg to tell
the Hon. Gentleman opposite that if he wanted to look for
' principle he would not leave hisside of the House to go to the
other.—( Hear.) That side, which had first made this an
open question, then brought a measure forward last
year, and who, had they been in power certainly
never would have abandoned that measure.—Hear, hear.)
The course which he had taken, he had taken solely because
he believed it to be the best that could be proposed for the good
of the country ; and he could tell the Hon. Gentleman that
there was a growing desire throughout the country that this
question should be settled; and if he were asked whether, if he
did not altogether approve of this question, he would vote for
it, he would say that lie would do so to settle the question.—
(Hvar, hear.) He could tell them that a strong Government
was one that was required now, and none other would be of
any service to the country. If the Noble Lord were to form a
Government, who would he call to the Cabinet ? Would he call
the Noble Lord, the Member for Tiverton, who, when he went
down to the Cabinet, would say, that he came down with
the strong arm of power to sweep away the cobweb of
monopoly ? Hear, hear.) They might taunt him with
inconsistency on this question, but he would say that that Bill
would work well, and that the present was not an abandonment
of principle, for the Right Hon. Baronet had distinctly stated
that he would abide by the sliding scale, though he might con-
sider it necessary to -snake some alterations in the details. He
said that; and if Government did not know what was to be
done, then it was their own fault.— (Hear, hear.) The Noble
Lord had not adhered to his principles.;., and was it for Mem-
bers on that side of the House to taunt him with incon-
sistency ? Did the Noble Lord think that there was no
difference between an Bs. fixed duty and an Bs. duty with a
sliding scale? What then would become of this dreaded averages ?
As far as he was concerned he would support the sliding scale.
But if the proposition of the Hon. Gentleman opposite was
merely an abstract one, or merely to declare that nothing ought
to be done to keep up the price of food, he would not have the
slightest objection to vote with him. But the object of this
measure was not to raise the price of food, but to benefit the
consumer without injuring the agriculturist—( Hear, hear)—
and he thought it was right that there should be a regulation
providing against the effects of severe years upon the price of
provisions, when all the increased cost to the consumers went
out of the pockets of a few farmers. He concluded by saying
that whatever measure he might support he should support on
principle, but he was not to learn that principle from the other
side.

Mr. WAKLEY said that the speech of the Hon. Gentleman
(Mr. Darby) was a specimen of many that the House would
have, not only for the remainder of this Session, but
in future Parliaments. It was one of those which had already
indicated that there was a growing state of opinion out of
doors, which caused a feeling of uneasiness on certain benches
in the House. —( Hear, near.) The Hon. Gentleman said
that he would vote for the proposition of the Hon. Member
for Stockport, it it was merely an abstract one, but he would
not vote for it if it was intended to give it any practical effect.
(Hear, hear, and a laugh.) The Hon. Baronet opposite (Sir
J. Tyrrell) spoke of political consistency, and yet he said that
he was going to give a conscientious vote in opposition to his
conviction.—( A laugh.) He regretted the Right Hon.
Baronet (Sir R. Peel) was not in the House at the time, for
the speech was a most amusing one. If a vote against his
convictions was a conscientious one, then of course a vote in
accordance with his convictions would be unconscientious.—
( Hear, and laughter.) The Hon. Baronet stated that
he hadeonferred with his constituents, and he had triumphantly
vindicated himself from the accusations brought against him
of having deserted his principles. The Hon. Baronet it
seemed, had shown them that he had supported their interest
by putting a high duty upon the importation of calves.--( A
laugh.) The Hon. Baronet and his party spoke of the neces-
sity for protecting those who had embarked their capital
bringing inferior soils into cultivation, upon which agricul-
tural produce could not be raised in competition with the fer-
tile countries of other parts of the world. If the manufacturers
of this country came forward and said, that in consequence of
the inferiority of their machinery they could not compete
with foreigners, and asked the House for a protection, would
the Hon. Baronet grant it to them? Certainly not. Much
had been said of the cruelty of the manufacturers and millowners,
but what- was the conduct of the landowners in the present
state of things? They declared in that House that the
farmers and labourers would be the sufferers. Now, did they
come forward and say to their tenants and labourers, " We
will do for you what we have said the manufacturers ought to
do for those from whom they derived their wealth?"--( Hear,
hear.) But the farmers were finding out the truth, and one
of them in the west of England said to him, " We have found
that there is a greater devil than Lord John !"—( A laugh. )
He believed that tke Right Hon. Baronet did all the good for
the country that his party would allow him.—(Hear, hear.)
But the Right Hon. Baronet would find that every interest in
the country which was affected by his measures would press j
upon him until they compelled him to go to the agriculturists,
and tell them that. they could not be allowed to carry out any
principle in opposition to the resolution before the House.
After a few words in explanation from Mr. DARBY and
Sir JOHN TYRRELL.
Mr. BLACKSTONE said that there was no doubt that
every one had expected it was the intention of the Right
Hon. Baronet to propose an alteration of the scale, but he for
one was not prepared for so great a one as had been proposed.
—( Hear, hear.) If such an alteration had been proposed by
the Noble Lord the Member for London, would one of the
county Members have voted for it ?—(Cheers. ) He (Mr.
131telcstone) had beets through the whole east of England, and
he knew that the strongest feeling prevailed throughout against
the measure proposed by the Right Hon. Baronet.--i Hear.)
Lord WORSLEY must persist in saying that the measure
created the greatest alarm amongst his constituents , but if it
were thrown out he did not think that a fixed duty measure
could be carried.
Mr. PALMER had never given a pledge to his constituents
on this question—(Hear, hear)—but knowing now that they
looked with the greatest alarm on a measure that would strike
off half their protection at one stroke of the pen; and stillappre-
bending a worse measure if the present were not carried, he
advised them to acquiesce, as they had agreed to do so.—(Hear,
hear.) They thought it better to submit to the Right Hon.
Baronet, than fall into the hands of the Noble Lord opposite:—
(Cheers.) He had come, upon the whole, to that conclusion,
although perhaps reluctantly, that, under existing circum-
stances, the best course which the friends of British agricul-

Mr. ALEXANDER JOHNSTON moved the addition of
a clause to the effect, " That foreign or colonial flour in
bond, of such a degree of acidity as to be generally
unfit for human food, and which shall be so ascertained by a
test to be furnished by the Board of Trade, shall be permitted
to be taken out of bond for use in the manufacture and finish-
ing of cotton and other goods, upon payment of the duty of
one penny per hundred." The Hon. Member then proceeded
to read a letter from a chemical gentlemen, stating that
flour was sometimes in a state totally unfit for human food.
Mr PHILIPS seconded the motion. Flour was indispensi-
ble in the manufacture of cotton ; they wished to use the best,
but they could not do so, considering the low price foreign ma-
nufacturers obtained it at. All they wanted now was that a
duty of the amount stated should be permitted to be paid on
flour from abroad, when it had first been made unfit for human
or animal food by a chemical process. Some manufacturers
would save 1,000/. a year by it. He would in a few days prove
that this process could be certainly executed.
Mr. COBDEN also spoke in favour of the motion. To refuse
it would, in fact, add to the privations of the poor.
The House was at first going to divide on the motion, but it
was not pressed.
The clause was then brought up.
A short discussion on a point of form ensued upon the clause
being Lead, after which it was negatived without a division.
Mr. WAKLEY then rose to move that it was unjuet to in-
clude in the returns of the averages wheat that sold for less
than one-third of the highest market-price averages. He
thought the object of his motion was one deserving t, 'e atten-
tion of the House—that the proposition was based in
justice and sound principles, and ought to be adopted. The
Hon. Member then read a letter from a correspondent, stating
that 309 quarters per week of bad wheat entered into the port
of London from Scotland, and that it had been said
that the whole was used for starch, and not for food.
The effect in Mark-lane of the sale of 1,800 quarters by one
house alone, was to lower the average price of the week in
which the sale took place 7s. 4d. a quarter. It had been also
discovered that grain in certain states was a prolific source of
disease ; a modern discovery with respect to rye was
a most important one; that grain was at one time
very extensively used in this country, and at that period par-
ticular diseases constantly appeared in the body, of which the
cause could not be ascertained. These were gangrene and
mortification of the feet. Medical men had on examination
discovered the cause to be a disease in rye, and now one of the
most powerful medicines was composed from the grain in its
diseased state. It was the same with rice, Dr. Tytler having
discovered that the disease known as Cholera proceeded from
a uisease in this grain. Wheat was subject to a similar change
as rye. He did nut think a more important proposition on the
subject could be made to the House.
Mr. HAWES seconded the motion.
The clause was then read a first time. On the question that
it be read a second time.
Sir R. PEEL thought the effect of the clause would be
delusive. It would giva the power to any individual by selling
a single bushel of superior wheat at a third of the market price
to exclude a large quantity of grain from the averages. He
thought it would be dangerous and open a door to fraud,
Mr. WAKLEY replied. He thought the question one of
great imiortance, arid he trusted that though the clause was
not so framed as to meet all the objections, yet that the Right
Hon. Baronet would give it his careful consideration, with a
view to prevent the evils he had alluded to.
Alter a few words from Mr. HARDY and Lord WORSI.EY,
the clause was put and negatived without a division.
On the quis ion that the Bill do pass,
Mr. COt3DEN said that he must enter his protest against
the passing of this Bill. He protested against this Bill as a
robbhery of the poor.
robber--( Hear, hear. It seas a daring robbery
of te of the y
without compensation —( Hear,
talkbread
of. He sincerely hoped they would not
waste their time by sending petitions to that house for any
such purpose.-_( Cheers from the Ministerial benches) They
would not petition that House, but he trusted, ere long, they
woul pour in their petitions to the Throne, beseeching
herdMaJesty to dismiss this House of Commons, and to
dismiss her present Ministers. (Cheers and laughter.)
If a dissolution of Parliament were to take place, and the
people should be again appealed to, he had a stong opinion that
the House that would then be returned would not continue
the bread tax. The result would be very different to what it
had been at the last election, when the grossest delusion had
been practised on the people.—(Ministerial ironical cheers. )
The majority of the present House had been returned by the
lrossest delusion being practised on the people, who had at the
ast election been made the victims of a system of the most