in the committee on this bill his clause, for the purpose of compensating the poor farmers, who might be ruined by it. The Times, which had written a leading article upon his clause, had said that if the committee contemplated in it were ever called into existence, it would have to deal with the applications for relief of 300,000 individuals at least. The extent of the injury inflicted was no reason for not granting his clause; and if he could believe that such would be the general ruin inflicted by this bill, he would, had he 500 votes, give every one of them against it. He thought, however, that the time was at length come when this question ought to be settled one way or another. He never gave a vote with greater reluctance than the vote which he should give in favour of this bill.

MR. BENETT hoped that the House would never forget that the great object of Government ought to be the happiness of the people, and that the happiness of the people would not be promoted by converting England into a manufacturing instead of an agricultural country. The condition of the manufacturing classes was not so comfortable as that of the agricultural classes, and if he wanted any proof of it, he would quote the speech of Mr. C. Buller, who had proved that the estimated duration of life in the manufacturing districts was only 17, whilst in the agricultural districts it was 33 years.

MR. PLUMPTRE opposed the third reading of the bill, and prayed Almighty God, that the evils which he anticipated from its passing, might not take place.

MR. HASTIE, in a short speech, expressed his reasons for supporting this measure. He considered the landowners as labouring under very unnecessary alarm respecting it, as it would not produce any diminution in the amount of their rents.

SIR J. WALSH pointed out the inconsistency of the language used by Ministers in the progress of these debates. At first they would not venture to predict what would be the consequence of their own measure; but now they alleged that the price of agricultural produce would only be reduced by it to that golden mean, which, without injuring the producer, would be of considerable benefit to the consumer. He could not give credit to that allegation, nor could he believe that so many advantages would accrue from competition as Ministers pretended now that they had become proselytes to political economy. Moderate competition might stimulate; but severe competition, such as this bill would create, would paralyse agricultural improvement. No doubt there was immense room for such improvement in Great Britain; but as there was no royal road to mathematics, so was there no cheap road to agricultural improvement. Besides the enterprise, industry, and intelligence, which were necessary for the application of modern skill and science to agriculture, capital, and large capital too, was also necessary. But when the competition with which he was threatened must reduce the profits of the agriculturists, and of necessity render them more uncertain than ever, who could recommend him so to employ, or rather so to endanger his capital? He acknowledged the honesty of Sir R. Peel's motives; if guilty at all, he was only guilty of an error of judgment in bringing in this bill; but that error was a most important

one, and belonged to that class of errors which destroyed statesmen and shipwrecked empires.

MR. SHARMAN CRAWFORD recommended those who opposed this bill on the ground that it would produce a great fall in the price of provisions, to recollect that they were teaching the labourer by their arguments, that he would be greatly benefited by it, and that the present was beyond all controversy a landlord's question. Such a lesson was calculated to inflict incalculable injury upon the aristocracy of the country.

MR. F. SCOTT observed that nothing had occurred since the opening of Parliament down to the present evening, to induce him to think that Ministers were right in abandoning their old principles on the Corn Laws, or wrong in formerly maintaining them. If the object of Ministers were, as they pretended, the relief of the labouring classes, why had they not repealed the duties on malt and tea, instead of the Corn Laws? He predicted more than "an Iliad of woes" as the inevitable result of passing this measure.

LORD BROOKE opposed the bill, and quoted the opinion of Mr. Canning to prove the necessity of giving protection to agriculture in this country.

CAPTAIN VYSE followed on the same side, in a speech denouncing Free Trade as a monstrous fallacy.

MR. SEYMER admitted that the remuneration for labour in Dorsetshire was not so great as he wished it to be, but did not think that it would be improved by repealing the Corn Laws. He implored Sir R. Peel to recollect the advice which he had given the House upon the Factory Bill, and not to legislate upon a risk. If it were matter of state policy to protect the working classes against their own ignorance and improvidence on the Ten Hours' Bill, surely it was equally a matter of state policy to protect them from their own blindness on the subject of the Corn Laws.

MR. COLQUHOUN moved the adjournment of the debate.
The debate was then adjourned till Friday.

FRIDAY, MAY 15.

MR. COLQUHOUN began by remarking that when the Noble Lord the Member for Lynn (Lord G. Bentinck) pressed the Right Hon. Baronet (Sir R. Peel) as to the decrease in the price of wheat that might be expected under the proposed act, the Right Hon. Gentleman, with his usual dexterity, evaded the question, but let fall some hints which led to the conclusion that he anticipated a very considerable decline. The words attributed to him were "Relying on the opinion of Mr. Jacob, and on the consular returns, I am not prepared to admit that, with Free Trade in corn, the price of wheat would be reduced below that of 35s."

SIR R. PEEL.-Allow me to explain: that is a mistake. The Noble Lord asked me what I thought the price would have been in 1835, supposing there had been a Free Trade in grain; and what I said was,- 66 Supposing there had been a Free Trade in grain for some years preceding, I am not prepared to admit, as a necessary consequence, that wheat in that year would have been below the price at which we know it was, namely, 39s. 4d."

MR. COLQUHOUN continued.-At all events the Right Hon. Baronet seemed to admit it to be not unlikely that, under certain circumstances, the price of wheat under Free Trade might fall as low as it fell in 1835. The League held out a hope of its being still lowerthat the manufacturers would get it at 30s.; at all events there would be a great reduction in price, probably to 398. or 40s. Now, if so, the shock to the industry of the country, mercantile, manufacturing and agricultural, would be the most severe it had ever sustained. This measure had been carried in the country-for carried in public opinion he believed it was-by holding out these hopes; but if those nopes were realized the result to the country would be a general injury. There would be an immense development of manufacturing industry, and an immense depression of agricultural, and the former not having sufficient returns at home, would be driven into the foreign markets, and then would follow the stagnation of 1841 (hear). He thought his friends had fought this battle gallantly and with singular ability, and the more they engaged in this war the more experience would they gain. Whether on the hustings or in the counties, where the Hon. Member for Stockport said he reigned supreme in the affections of the farmers, or whether in the borough towns, where he considered himself still more triumphant-in all these sufficient opportunity would be given to meet them with courage and, he hoped, with success (hear). And if they were worsted, as he thought was very likely, in the present fight, still they would, in defence of the great institutions of the country, carry on a gallant and, he hoped, ultimately successful warfare; for though great excitement now prevailed, and was in favour of these measures, that excitement would, however, pass away, and when the promises of the Hon. Gentlemen opposite were found not to be realizedwhen the promises they had made to the merchants, the manufacturers, and the labourers were not fulfilled in the increase of trade and manufactures-when all the hopes they had held out were proved to be visionary and fallacious, then would they (the Protectionists) appeal to the people of England with this simple question, "Who, in the hour and crisis of difficulty, were your subtle but faithless counsellors, and who your humble but consistent friends ? " (cheers).

MR. C. WOOD wished to take that opportunity of stating very shortly one of the main grounds on which he supported the corn bill. He was not one of those whom the experience of the last three years had convinced; he had long ago expressed to his constituents his opinion that the landowners of England had no right to ask for Protection. He had never wavered in the opinion that any system of laws which had the effect of enhancing the price of food to the consumer for the benefit of the producer, was inexpedient and unjust. Until he had heard the arguments of the Noble Marquis opposite (the Marquis of Granby), and the Hon. Member for Shrewsbury (Mr. Disraeli), he had thought that the commercial advantages of a repeal of these laws was undoubted; and he thought that opposition to a free importation of corn, on the ground that it would exhaust this country of bullion, had been thoroughly exploded, until he had heard the Noble Marquis read a letter of an ancestor, written two centuries

ago; and in reply he would only wish to call the attention of the House to a fact which was far more important than any theory that could be put forward on such a matter, namely, that we had had for years past the most extraordinary importation of corn, under a low duty, coincident with the most extraordinary importation of bullion. That was a perfect contradiction to the theory of the Hon. Member and the Noble Marquis. If the House would refer to returns on the table they would find that at the end of 1838, there were £9,700,000 of bullion in the Bank of England. In the subsequent year upwards of 3,000,000 quarters of wheat were imported. The first consequence of this importation of grain necessarily was an immense exportation of bullion; insomuch, that the bullion in the Bank was reduced to £3,000,000. The next year 2,500,000 quarters of wheat were imported, and at the end of 1840 the bullion in the Bank remained nearly the same. In 1841, about 2,500,000 quarters were imported, but the bullion in the Bank was raised from £4,000,000 to £5,000,000. In 1842, the importation 3,000,000 of quarters, the bullion in the Bank rose from £5,000,000 to £10,000,000. In 1844, there were 3,250,000 quarters imported, and the amount of bullion rose to nearly £14,500,000 sterling, showing that a large importation of corn at a low duty, even though made from countries that did not take our manufactures, did not at all lead to a permanent drain of gold from this country, but quite the reverse. He confessed he did not anticipate a great fall in the price of food from the adoption of this measure as was anticipated by some. The results, whether for good or for evil, had, he thought, been greatly exaggerated on both sides. For himself he anticipated no change which increased energy on the part of the farmer might not meet. He believed that the increase of his produce would meet and more than make up for any diminution that would take place in the price of his produce (hear, hear). But with his (Mr. Wood's) feelings as to the effect of a low price of corn, or at any rate a security against a high price of corn, which was of as much consequence-on the condition of the lower classes, he must say that whatever sacrifices it might entail upon the landlords, he believed that their feeling for the poor, and their consideration for their fellow countrymen, would induce them to make them; but he believed that it would be for the interest of all parties that the change should be made (hear, hear).

MR. P. BENNET said he had understood the Right Hon. Baronet at the head of the Government to assert that wages rose and fell in the inverse ratio of the price of provisions. Now he (Mr. Bennet) had taken great pains during a short time he had been in the country to ascertain the opinion of the people on this point. He had asked individuals of all political parties and of every grade in life, and he assured the House that, in every instance, the answer was that wages did vary with the price of the produce extracted from the landthat the moment wheat rose wages rose, and the moment wheat fell wages fell (hear, hear). He was not prepared to assert whether the rise or fall of wages was in direct proportion to the price of wheat; but he had no hesitation in saying that they rose and fell at the same time. To prove this he read a statement which he had received from an intelligent farmer, stating the prices he had received for his

wheat in certain years, and the wages which during the same period he had paid to his labourers. He remarked, also, that in many parts of the counties of Suffolk and Cambridge, it was very usual for farmers to pay their labourers the value of a peck of corn per day for their labour, and, of course, in these cases the rate of wages necessarily varied with the price of corn.

SIR R. PEEL-As the Hon. Member seems to have misunderstood what fell from me, I beg to state exactly what I did say. I said, and I think I proved, that speaking of agricultural labourers, in the counties from which I cited examples, and I offered to place the communications which I had received in the hands of any gentleman who wished to see them-I say I gave returns for the last thirty years from certain agricultural counties, and I said-and I think those returns proved-that the wages of the labourers did not vary in direct ratio with the price of provisions (hear). I said this, speaking of agricultural labourers, and I think I proved the fact. Speaking of manufacturing labourers, and not of agricultural labourers, I said I could show that at many times, and in many places, the wages of manufacturing labourers did vary inversely with the price of food. That was my statement (hear, hear).

MR. HUDSON said that after listening attentively to the debates on this question, he begged to assure the House and the country he had not changed his opinion of the impolicy of the measures of Government. He agreed with the Right Hon. Baronet, that the rate of wages did not bear an exact proportion to the price of wheat; but that was not the question they were now discussing. Labour, like every other article, was a question of competition; and undoubtedly when there was a large importation of foreign wheat it would generally be found that there was a great depression of the commercial interest, and consequently less employment for the artisan, and they would in the same way find prosperity of the agricultural interest arising from a large consumption of home produce (hear, hear). It would be found that a large importation of foreign produce usually led to a curtailment of the accommodation given by the banks, and hence the suffering entailed upon commercial men. He (Mr. Hudson) regarded this as purely a labourer's question-as a question of competition between this country and the corn-producing countries of the continent-a question as to whether we could continue that competition with advantage and profit to our producers; and his opinion was that we could not (hear, hear). He believed that under this bill wheat would be at the low rates it had been at some periods during the last few years. How would the English agriculturist be able to compete with the foreign grower? The lawful burdens of the landed interest amounted to 5s. an acre; while a person who had £1,000 a year in the funds might live in a garret, if he chose, and pay nothing. At all events, it did appear just that a farmer, with a farm worth £300 a year, ought not to pay £75 a year in poor rates, county rates, and highway rates. The measure appeared to him to be one of great speculation, and those who, as he did, opposed it, would have the satisfaction of feeling that they had not been provi