PROTECTION TO BRITISH 
 INDUSTRY, 
 
 SPEECH 
 
 LORD GEORGE BENTINCK, 
 
 HOUS3 OS' COMMONS, 
 
 ON TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 27, 1846. 
 
 From tiie Morning Post of March 23, 1846. 
 
 BLYTH : 
 
 PRINTED BY J. ROBINSON. 
 
SPEECH 
 
 LORD GEORGE BENTINCK, 
 
 February 27th, 1846. 
 
 Lord G. BENTINCK then rose—Lord Palmerston and Mr. Wakley, 
 who rose at the same time, having given way—and spoke as follows :— 
 Sir, I can assure the House that, in asking for its patience, while I en¬ 
 deavour to answer some of the arguments which have been advanced on 
 the other side, there is no man within its walls who feels so much as I 
 do my unworthiness to ask for its indulgence. (Cheers.) I have had 
 the honour of a seat in this House in eight Parliaments, but have never 
 yet once ventured to trespass upon its time on any subject of great de¬ 
 bate. (Hear.) We oppose your leaving the chair, Sir, not only because 
 we object to the great change that is proposed to be made in reference 
 to the agricultural interest, but because we object in principle to the en¬ 
 tire measure upon the details of which it is proposed that we should go 
 into committee. (Cheers.) We see in that measure a proposition effect¬ 
 ing a change in regard to no fewer than eleven hundred articles—(Hear, 
 hear)—a great commercial revolution, which we are of opinion that the 
 circumstances of the country do not by any means require. (Cheers.) 
 Sir, it is not only that we object to the removal of protection from the 
 agricultural interest, but we object, also, to the removal of protection 
 from the shipping interest, from the silk trade, and from all the other 
 interests connected with domestic industry which are injuriously affected 
 by the proposed measure. (Hear, hear.) My Right Hon. Friend the 
 Secretary at War (Mr. S. Herbert) has called upon the agricultural in¬ 
 terest to submit to this great change now, whilst, in his opinion, it can 
 be accepted with honour, and before it is extorted from us by force, 
 coupled with loss of honour, loss of character, loss of influence, and loss 
 of station, in the country. (Hear, hear.) Sir, I wish to God I thought 
 that this change could be carried by this House of Commons with ho¬ 
 nour, and without loss of character, loss of influence with, and loss of 
 station in, the country. (Loud cheers.) Vicious as I think this measure, 
 and injurious as I consider it is to all the great interests of this country, 
 I think I should feel that it was deprived of half its vice if it could be 
 carried by this House without loss of honour, damage to reputation, and 
 forfeiture of public character, to a vast many Gentlemen who are now 
 seated within its walls. (Great cheering.) It is but candid to Gentlemen 
 opposite to state that their honour is not concerned, for they are the 
 consistent advocates of Free-trade principles, and came to this House 
 pledged to maintain those principles on which they avowedly solicited 
 the suffrages of their constituents, and are now with honesty and fidelity 
 
4 
 
 maintaining. (Hear.) But when we are told by Hon. Gentlemen, and 
 more especially the Hon. Gentleman the Secretary of the Treasury, that 
 this is not a Protection Parliament, I am at a loss to understand upon 
 what principles they and he ground their assertion. Why, was not the 
 subject of free trade in corn discussed over and over again prior to the 
 dissolution of 1841 ? Sir, may 1 not ask if it were not emphatically upon 
 the question whether or not we were to have a iixed duy of 8s a quarter, 
 or whether we were to have a higher protection, that her Majesty ap¬ 
 pealed to the people in the year 1841 ? (Loud cries of “ Hear, hear,” 
 from the agricultural benches.) Sir, upon this subject there can be no 
 mistake. (Hear, hear.) It was not only the Right Hon. Baronet now at 
 the head of the Government, but then the leader of the Opposition, who 
 challenged his opponents, and made the accusation against them that 
 they were going to dissolve the Parliament upon the cry of “ Cheap 
 bread,” but the Secretary of State for the Home Department followed in 
 the same wake, and not only charged the Government with the intention 
 to dissolve, but in making the accusation charged them with the malice 
 of the devil himself. (-‘Hear,” and laughter.) Nay, he even charged 
 them with something more than the malice of the devil himself, for apos¬ 
 trophising the speech of Mr. Tierney addressed to Mr. Canning in 1807, 
 in which he charged the Government of that day with something more 
 than the malice of the devil himself, for devising a scheme such as a dis¬ 
 solution of Parliament upon a cry of “The Church in danger.” My 
 Right Hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department, 
 upon being ironically cheered by the Noble Lord the Member for London 
 (Lord John Russell), exclaimed, “Well, you cheer that; but let me ask 
 is a cry of “ The Church in danger” half so maddening, half so exciting 
 to the feelings of the people, as the cry of “ Cheap bread” when raised 
 from the Treasury bench ?” (Loud cheers from the Protectionists.) I 
 should like to know what cry has been raised now from the Treasury 
 bench? (Hear, hear.) Have we not had the cry of “ Cheap bread” 
 from the Treasury bench ? Have we not heard from my Right Hon. 
 Friend that this is a landlord’s question, and that he for one will no 
 longer consent to eke out his rents from the sufferings of the poor ? 
 (Hear.) But, to return to 1841, what was the course of proceeding at 
 that time ? The Noble Lord at the head of the Government of that day 
 found himself defeated by a vote of no confidence, by a majority of 312 
 to 311, and then the Noble Lord advised her Majesty to dissolve the 
 Parliament. But what was the language adopted by her Majesty in the 
 speech from the throne when proroguing the Parliament preparatory to 
 the dissolution in 1841 ? Her Majesty appealed to the sense of the 
 people in these words, “ On a full consideration of the present state of 
 public affairs, I have come to the determination of proroguing Parlia¬ 
 ment, with a view to its immediate dissolution. The paramount impor¬ 
 tance of the trade and industry of the country, and my anxiety that the 
 exigencies of the public service should be provided for in the manner 
 least burdensome to the community, have induced me to resort to the 
 means which the constitution has entrusted to me, of ascertaining the 
 sense of my people upon matters which so deeply concern their welfare.” 
 (Hear, hear.) After that declaration from the throne, I cannot help 
 
saying that every Member who was returned to Parliament at the gene¬ 
 ral election which ensued was returned pledged by. the speech from the 
 throne. (Cries of “ No, no,” and “ Hear, hear.”) I appeal to the sense 
 of this House—1 appeal to the sense of the country—whether, after that 
 speech, every Member who occupied a seat in this House must not he 
 considered as having been returned pledged to either one course or the 
 other? (No, no, and Hear, hear.) Veil, Sir, though 1 hear a few cries 
 of “No, no,” that is my view of the matter, and as it appears to me it is 
 the only correct view of the matter; and being of this opinion, I must 
 repeat that in my opinion no Member of the old majority of this House 
 can give his consent to this measure, as proposed by her Majesty’s 
 Ministers for the repeal of the Corn Laws, without dishonour. (“ Hear, 
 hear, hear,” and loud cheers from the agricultural Members.) But, Sir, 
 we are told that there has been some change of circumstances, and that 
 the experience of the last three years has proved that the recent com¬ 
 mercial policy of the Right Hon. Baronet has been attended with the 
 happiest results, and that the policy pursued during the last thirty years 
 has been cjuite erroneous. Sir, the country will not be satisfied with 
 three years’ experience of any system. Three years' experience, I con¬ 
 tend, is not sufficiently extensive to afford a proper criterion by which 
 to decide the failure or success of any description of policy whatsoever. 
 (Hear, hear.) The Right Hon. Baronet has most especially founded his 
 belief in doctrines contrary to those which he has heretofore uniformly 
 maintained, on the assumption that the price of corn will not be much 
 reduced, and has argued that in the case of cattle and other commodities 
 included in his previous tariff, no diminution of price has resulted as a 
 consequence of the relaxation of protective duties. He is also sanguine 
 of success, because of the results upon the silk trade, and has challenged 
 the House to instance any one single example of a case in which the 
 reduction of duty had not proved equally beneficial to the consumer and 
 the producer. (“ Hear, hear,” from the free trade benches.) I accept his 
 challenge. I will meet my Right Hon. Friend in his challenge in regard 
 to silk, and I am also ready to encounter him as well as my Hon. Friend 
 the Member for Sheffield on the article of wool. (Hear, hear.) My Hon. 
 Friend the Member for Sheffield (Mr. Ward) distinctly challenged my 
 Hon. Friend the Member for Somerset (Mr. Miles) on the article of 
 wool, but my Hon. Friend the Member for Somerset forgot to answer 
 him, but I will do so for him ; and I am also prepared to accept the 
 challenge of the Right Hon. Baronet at the head of the Government in 
 the matter of timber, and engage to shew him the injurious effects of 
 free trade in timber upon the prices of English oak, whilst 1 am at the 
 same time prepared to demonstrate the evil consequences to the carrying 
 trade of Great Britain, which have already resulted from the past mea¬ 
 sures, and must still more result from the proposed measures yet further 
 reducing the differential duties between foreign and colonial timber. 
 There is also another article, which was mentioned the other night by 
 the Hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Muntz)—I allude to spelter. 
 The Right Hon. Member for Stamford attempted to answer the Hon. 
 Member for Birmingham when he asserted that the spelter manufacture 
 had been destroyed by the reduction of the protective duties, hut he had 
 
6 
 
 utterly failed to overthrow hia statements. The Hon. Member for Bir¬ 
 mingham stood up as a witness, and as he is, I believe, in his character 
 of a hardware manufacturer the consumer of a seventh part of all the 
 epelter that is used in Great Britain; his evidence ought to be most 
 valuable in this House. He has told us that, although, perhaps, his 
 branch of trade may have been assisted by the relaxation of prohibitory 
 duties, the result of that relaxation has been to utterly annihilate every 
 single concern for the raising and manufacture of zinc in its raw state. 
 (Hear, hear.) I think the Hon. Member said there was one exception, 
 and that that was in a case where the lessee of the spelter mine had had 
 the good fortune to hold the lease of a coal mine in conjunction with the 
 spelter concern at a very low rent, but with that solitary exception the 
 result of Free Trade as applied to spelter has been to utterly annihilate 
 it. This statement remains up to the present hour, and I take it will 
 continue to remain uncontroverted and uncontrovertible. (Hear, hear.) 
 I now, Sir, approach the subject of wool. Let us see, then, whether the 
 experience of the past three years, with respect to that commodity, has 
 been such as to afford a valid argument, why the duty on corn should 
 be repealed ? (Hear, hear.) [At this stage of the Noble Lord’s address 
 the House became densely crowded in every part, and owing to repeated 
 cries of “Adjourn,” and “ Divide," and the noise which was created by 
 Hon, Members continually moving about, the Noble Lord, who spoke 
 in an exceedingly low tone of voice, was on frequent occasions almost 
 totally inaudible in the reporter’s gallery.] Sir, this “ wool” argument 
 is a most convenient weapon in the hands of the Right Hon. Baronet. 
 In 1846 the results of a free trade in wool afforded my Right Hon. 
 Friend a most irresistible argument to his mind in favour of free trade in 
 corn ; the happy results which he sees in 1846, of the removal of one 
 penny per lb. duty on foreign wool in 1842, convince him of the indubi¬ 
 table policy of an entire removal of all Protection to home-grown corn 
 and to the landed interests of the British empire. But, Sir, I well re¬ 
 member my Right Hon. Friend in a speech which, from its surpassing 
 ability, will never be forgotten, triumphantly appealed in 1839, not to 3, 
 but to 20 years’ experience, of the operation of a protecting duty on wool, 
 as the best possible reason why we should maintain high duties on corn. 
 The Hon. Gentleman the Member for Sheffield, when he challenged my 
 Hon. Friend below me (Mr. Miles) on this subject, facetiously observed 
 that the agricultural interests were wholly incapable of taking care of 
 themselves; that, in fact, you could not do them so great an unkind¬ 
 ness, indeed, you could not inflict so great a cruelty upon them as to 
 indulge them in their taste and passion for Protective legislation ; and 
 referring to the year 1825, he said that in one of these fits of foolishness 
 they had resisted, tooth and nail, the friendly efforts of the late Mr. 
 Huskisson to remove the sixpenny protecting duty on foreign wool, 
 which was their bane. Happily, however, for these poor misguided, be¬ 
 nighted agriculturists, who were so blind to their own interests, Mr. 
 Huskisson was too strong for them, and, in spite of them, succeeded in 
 taking off the duty; “ and what,” triumphantly exclaimed my Hon. 
 Friend, “ was the result ?” Answering his own inquiry, he said, “ the 
 result was, that the price of English wool instantly rose higher, and 
 
for the next Jive yeari, continued higher than it was ever known be¬ 
 fore." Undoubtedly, Sir, this was a wonderful statement, if true ; but 
 let us first examine into the matter-of-fact—and here I will appeal to an 
 authority which will not, at least, be doubted on the Treasury Bench— 
 1 appeal to the authority of Sir Robert Peel in 1839. Sir Robert Peel, 
 in 1839, stated, in his place from the benches opposite, that a duty of 
 sixpence per pound was placed on foreign wool in December, 1819, and 
 that this duty was continued until the 10th or 20th of December, 1824. 
 Well, what does he say was the effect and consequence of this protect¬ 
 ing duty of sixpence per pound on foreign wool ? He says, the conse¬ 
 quence was that the price of wool remained steady and unwavering at 
 Is. 6d. per lb. for five entire years, that is to say, from 1820 to 1824, 
 both years inclusive. In December, 1824, the protecting duty of 6d. 
 per lb. was reduced to Id. What happened? Did “English Southdown 
 wool rise higher the next five years than ever was known before,” as 
 stated by the Hon. Member for Sheffield ? No such thing, Sir; far from 
 rising, it fell from Is. 6d. per lb. in 1824, to Is. per lb. in 1825 ; it re¬ 
 mained Is. per lb. in 1826. In 1827, there was a still further fall to 9d. 
 per lb. and it remained 9d. per lb. in 1828, and 9d. per lb. in 1829. 
 The House and the country, therefore, will see that so far from the price 
 of English Southdown wool having been enhanced, as stated by the 
 Hon. Member for Sheffield, it was greatly reduced, as the natural and 
 direct consequence of the reduction of the protecting duty. (Hear, hear.) 
 Have I not now, then, met the Right Hon. Baronet, who challenged us 
 to instance a case where the reduction of duty had proved disadvanta¬ 
 geous either to consumer or producer ? (Hear, hear.) Is it not manifest 
 that in the case of wool, at all events, the producer has been materially 
 injured? (“Hear, hear,” and cheers from the Ministerial benches.) I 
 think I ought to mention at the same time, that during these five years, 
 when the duty of 6d. was imposed, it did not interfere with the prospe¬ 
 rity of the import trade, for I find, on looking to the returns, that the 
 imports in wool amounted to 10,000,0001bs. in 1820, and that in 1824 
 they rose to 22,000,0001bs. This proves that the protective duty of 6d. 
 maintained the price at home, and did not prevent the importation of 
 such additional supply as might be required to supply the wants of the 
 manufacturing interest. I believe the duty on foreign wool imported 
 into this country in 1823 amounted to 375,000?., and in the present 
 state of this country are we to be told that the loss of such a source of 
 revenue is a mean and insignificant consideration ? (Hear, hear, hear.) 
 The Right Hon. Baronet (Sir R. Peel), when alluding to the subject of 
 wool, went back to 1842, selecting a year of great depression, when he 
 told you the price of wool was down at ll|d. per lb., but that in 1844 
 and 1845 it rose to Is, 2d. per lb. He also told you that the importa¬ 
 tion of foreign wool was only 45,880,0001bs. in 1842, that in 1844 there 
 were 65,079,0001bs. imported; and in ten months of the last year the 
 importation amounted to 65,216,0001bs. (which quantity it appears by 
 the return since laid before the House, has been further increased to 
 upwards of 76,000,OOOlbs.) and that this increase of importation, and 
 increase of price was “ all in consequence of the reduction of duty .” 
 If he had gone back to 1836, ten years ago, during the reign of his 
 
8 
 
 rivals, the Whigs, he would have found that the importation was up¬ 
 wards of 64,000,000, and that in 1S35 the price of wool was not Is. 2d. 
 but Is. lOd.; in 1836, Is. 8d.; in 1837, Is. 8d. ; in 1838, Is. 4d. ; in 
 1839, Is. 3d., a great deal higher than under his much vaunted three 
 years of Free Trade. (Hear, hear.) It is much to be lamented, I think, 
 that the Right Hon. Baronet should have restricted his view to three 
 years only. If he had taken the trouble to refer to the years which I 
 have specified, it is probable he would have arrived at a different con¬ 
 clusion from that at which he has arrived. (Hear, hear.) Having dis¬ 
 posed of wool, I will now examine how far my Right Hon. Friend is 
 justified in introducing so mighty a change as regards the landed interest 
 as a repeal of the Corn Laws, upon what he considers the perfectly suc¬ 
 cessful and satisfactory results of a similar experiment in regard to cattle. 
 My Right Hon. Friend reverted to the fears entertained by the agricul¬ 
 tural interest in 1842, at his proposal to admit cattle at a low duty, and 
 triumphantly appealed to the results of that measure in proof, not only 
 of the visionary character of the fears of the agriculturalists, but my 
 Right Hon. Friend even went the length of arguing, that the free ad¬ 
 mission of cattle, sheep, and pigs, had actually improved the prices of 
 meat in England, and in proof of the truth of this argument, he gave 
 these as the contract prices of fresh beef, salt beef, and pork for the 
 navy, in the years 1844 and 1845 :— 
 
 1844. 1845. 
 
 Fresh Beef.£1 14 9 £2 2 0 
 
 Salt Beef. 3 18 2 6 8 8 
 
 Pork . 3 15 10 6 12 0 
 
 Arguing that this extraordinary rise in the price of meat was “ all in 
 consequence of the reductions in the tariff of 1842.” Now, Sir, whilst 
 I cannot help observing as I pass that those engaged in supplying her 
 Majesty’s navy cannot have been very happy in the markets to which 
 they went in 1845,1 must take leave to say that if, instead of restricting 
 his view to 1845, my Right Hon. Friend had only taken a view of the 
 prices of meat for the last seven years, he would have found very differ¬ 
 ent results, and probably have come to very opposite conclusions. Sir, 
 I hold in my hand the contract prices of provisions in the workhouses of 
 a number of unions in various parts of the empire for the last seven 
 years, but, for fear of wearying the house, I will be content to quote 
 one or two only. I will first take a metropolitan parish, St. George’s, 
 Hanover-square; it is a return of the contract prices for the third week 
 in January in each year :— 
 
 Contract price of meat. 
 
 Per Bibs. 
 
 1841— 3s. 6d. \ Average of two years previous to the passing of 
 
 1842— 4s. Id. j the new Tariff, 3s. 9)d. 
 
 1843— 3s. 2d. } 
 
 1844— 2s. 7|d. (Average of four years subsequent to the passing 
 
 1845— 2s. lid. f of ditto, 2s. lljd. 2-4ths. 
 
 1846— 3s. 2d. ) 
 
 Thus, instead of an average rise of prices in consequence of the new 
 
But, Sir, whilst I thus state that the Right Hon. Gentleman at the head 
 of her Majesty’s Government if not absolutely wrong in his facts has at 
 least given a false colouring to the effects of his Tariff, by selecting par¬ 
 ticular years to suit his purpose, let me not be misunderstood as meaning 
 to convey to this House that the importation of such an insignifi¬ 
 cant quantity of cattle as 24,000, can have affected the prices of 
 cattle either for good or evil. It must be clear to every one that as 
 regards the importation of cattle, ihe new Tariff has been entirely inope¬ 
 rative. And recollecting as I do how strenuously my Right Hon. Friends 
 on the Treasury Bench, previously to the introduction of that measure 
 urged upon their then Agricultural Friends that this would be the case, 
 —assuring us there were no foreign cattle to come, and the sole object 
 was to strengthen the hands of the agricultural interest as regarded 
 more essential and more effectual protections, by removing from them 
 the odium of a nominal protection, which, practically, was no protection 
 at all, it is hardly ingenuous in my Right Hon. Friend to turn round 
 upon the agricultural interest and say, “See how I have raised the price 
 of meat in 184.5 by my Tariff of 1842, and the consequent introduction 
 of 24,000 head of foreign cattle.” My Right Hon. Friend knows full 
 well that, as regards cattle, his Tariff of 1842 has been, virtually, as he 
 intended it to be, wholly inoperative. Convinced by my Right Hon. 
 Friends, in 1842, that such would be the case, I gave my cordial sup¬ 
 port to that measure. The Noble Lord then proceeded to review the 
 operation of the new Tariff on the articles of meat, live stock, and silk, 
 and amid repeated cries of “ Adjourn,” “ Divide,” and other symptoms 
 of impatience, which rendered him almost inaudible, read various state- 
 
10 
 
 ments, and referred to various returns, with a view to show that the 
 effect of the relaxation as regarded these articles had not been at all as 
 beneficial as the advocates of Free Trade contended. Sir, I will now 
 meet the challenge of her Majesty’s Ministers, and especially that of my 
 Right Hon. Friend at the head of the Government, in regard to silk. 
 The silk trade has been made the great battle horse of the Ministry, and 
 the great success, as alleged, of the Free Trade in silk has been put forth 
 with great parade, as an unanswerable argument why Free Trade in 
 corn cannot fail to benefit all. classes of her Majesty’s subjects, producers 
 as well as consumers. Sir, I undertake to show that Free Trade in silk 
 has proved a signal failure. But before I go into the details of the silk 
 question, I must explain to the House that there are three descriptions 
 of silk, first there is “ raw silk," varying in value from 14s, to 20s. per 
 lb., and then there is “ thrown silk," varying in value from 20s. to 28s. 
 per lb. ; and lastly, there are “ knubs and husks," which mean the 
 “ scales, excrements, and offals of the silkworm,” worth no more than 
 from 6d. to lOd. per lb., and which no more resemble and no more 
 compare with raw silk than the chaff or straw can compare with the 
 grain of wheat, or than the offals of cattle resemble beef. To work up 
 2,0001bs. weights of “ knubs and husks” would occupy 60 or 70 per¬ 
 sons no longer time than it would occupy 700 or 800 persons to work 
 up and manufacture the same weight of raw or thrown silk, that is, one 
 week. It will be clear, therefore, to the House and to the country, that 
 to mix up “ raw silk,” “ thrown silk," and “ knubs and husks," in one 
 common mass, would be to play off a complete delusion upon the House 
 and upon the country; yet such, Sir, was the course adopted by my 
 Right Hon. Friend the First Minister of the Crown, and such was also 
 the course pursued by the Right Hon. Gentleman the Vice-President of 
 the Board of Trade. This was the statement of the Right Hon. Gentle¬ 
 man the Fiist Minister of the Crown. After adverting to the hard 
 names applied to Mr, Huskisson some twenty years ago by the Friends 
 of the Silk Weavers, the Right Hon. Baronet went on the other night 
 to ask, what was the result of Mr. Huskisson’s measures? Were hun¬ 
 dreds of thousands of silk manufacturers thrown out of employment ? 
 (asked the Right Hon. Gentleman.) Have the poor rates been bur¬ 
 dened for their subsistence ? Have we been unable to compete with 
 foreigners? In the decennial period ending in 1823, the quantity of 
 silk entered for home consumption was 19,409,0231b.; for the ten years 
 ending 1833, 39,681,2481b., immediately after the reduction of the 
 duty; for the ten years ending 1843, 52,007,1181b. The aggregate 
 annual consumption of the successive decennial periods was 1,940,0001b. 
 for the 10 years ending 1823; 3,968,1241b. for the 10 years ending 
 1833; 5,200,7111b. for the 10 years ending 1843, a further reduction 
 of duty having taken place in 1842 ; whereas now the consumption, 
 which for the 10 years ending in 1823 was 1,940,9021b., is now (for the 
 single year 1844) 6,208,0281b. Which is the true philanthropist ? Is 
 it the man who cries out against the admission of French papers ? Was 
 it the man who cried out against the admission of French silks ? Or, 
 was it the Minister who said “ Good God ! don’t suppose I do not sym¬ 
 pathise with distress. Don’t load me with the reproach of causing ruin 
 
II 
 
 to thousands when I am endeavouring to benefit them !” / have seen 
 
 Spitalfields at the point of starvation ; let me trace the causes of suck 
 calamities, and try whether by bringiny in the free air of competition, 
 I cannot diminish or remove the sources of such calamities. Sir, with 
 the leave and indulgence of the House, I will tell you how all this was, 
 but I must commence by explaining to the House that prior to the 25th 
 of March, 1S24, whilst there was either absolute prohibition, or else 
 duties practically amounting to prohibition, upon all silken articles of 
 foreign manufacture, there existed, at the same time, high revenue duties 
 upon the importation of thrown and upon the importation of raw silk, as 
 1 shall show you, annually bringing in a large harvest of revenue to the 
 Exchequer. The duties on raw silk until the 25th March, 1824, were 
 5s. 6d. per lb,; these duties were then reduced to .3d. per lb., but were 
 finally reduced on the 5th July, 1826, to Id. per lb. In like manner, 
 the duties on thrown silk, which up to the 25th of March, 1825, were 
 14s. Sd. per lb., were reduced on that day to 7s. 6d. per lb.; on the 
 15th of November in the same year to 5s. per lb. Further reductions 
 took place in July, 1829, whereby thrown silks were classed according 
 to value, singles paying Is. 6d., trains 2s., and organzines 3s. 6d.; and 
 finally in 1842, all were charged alike, Is. and three-fifths of a penny 
 per lb. Having thus, I fear, at too great length explained the exact 
 history and position of the silk trade, I will now proceed to contrast the 
 progress of the silk trade in its protected state previous to 1824, with its 
 progress subsequent to 1824, “ when breathing the free air of competi¬ 
 tion." Sir, that the accuracy of my statement may be above dispute, I 
 have selected my data as regards the period of Protection, from the 
 tables of the late Mr. Deacon Hume, and I have taken three triennial 
 periods, commencing with 1815 and concluding with the conclusion of 
 the protected trade in 1823, the last triennial period being six years in 
 advance of the first. This then is the state of the trade whilst fostered 
 and cherished by high protecting duties :— 
 
 UNDER PROTECTION. 
 
 Raw silk, worth 14s. to 20s. per lb., 1815, 1S16, 1817—average, 
 l,095,0001bs.; 1818, 1819, 1S20—average, l,504,0001bs.; 1821, 1822, 
 1823—average, 1,970,0001bs.; increase as compared with triennial 
 period 1815-16-17, 90 per cent. 
 
 Home Consumption—Thrown silk, worth 20s. to 28s. per lb., 1815, 
 1816, 1817—average, 293,OOOlbs. ; 1818, 1819, 1820—average, 340, 
 OOOlbs.; 1821, 1822, 1823—average, 355,OOOlbs. ; increase as com¬ 
 pared with triennial period 1815-16-17, 23 per cent. 
 
 Knubs and husks, viz. the scales, nests, excrements and offals of the 
 silkworm, worth from 6d. to lOd. per lb., 1815, 1816, 1817—average, 
 27,062lbs.; 1818, 1819, 1820—average, 84,9S41bs.; 1821,1822,1823 
 —average, 74, llOlbs.; increase as compared with triennial period 1815- 
 16-17, 170 per cent. 
 
 Duty received on foreign silk and silk manufactures, 1815, 1816, 
 1817—average, 466,0001.; 1818, 1819, 1820—average, 620,000/.; 
 1821, 1822, 1823—average, 754,000/.; increase as compared with 
 triennial period 1815-16-17, 64 per cent. 
 
 Showing, under Protection, a steady progress of the silk trade to the 
 
12 
 
 amount of 90 per cent, in the home consumption of raw silk ; 23 per 
 cent, in respect of thrown silk ; of 170 per cent, in knubs and husks ; 
 and last, but not least, of 64 per cent, in the amount of revenue paid 
 into the public Exchequer. Now, Sir, let us contrast this picture with 
 that of the silk trade under Free Trade. And here I beg leave to state 
 that I am obliged to take not a triennial period six years in advance, 
 but a triennial average nine years in advance of the last triennial period 
 under the system of high Protection. The House, therefore, will see 
 that the comparison is highly advantageous to the argument of her 
 Majesty’s Ministers, and to the same extent disadvantageous to my 
 argument; but I shall show the House that the silk trade under Protec¬ 
 tion can spare even so great a disadvantage in the comparison. The 
 reason I cannot take, as in fairness to my own argument I ought to 
 take, the triennial period 1827, 1828, and 1829. is, that during the first 
 five years of the Free Trade experiment, “ Kxuns axd Husks” were 
 mixed up in one common mass with “ Raw Silk so it is practically 
 impossible to come to any just or sound conclusion as to the progress of 
 the silk trade during those years. I shall take, therefore, the first trien¬ 
 nial period free from this objection. 1 shall now give the statement:— 
 
 Raw Silk.—1830, 1831, 1832, average 3,403,082, increase in nine 
 years 72 per cent.; 1842,1843,1844, average 3,869,32Slbs., increase 
 in 21 years 100 per cent. 
 
 Thrown Silk.—1830, 1831, 1832, 426,902lbs., increase in nine years 
 19 per cent.; 1S42, 1843, 1844, 394,95Slbs., increase in 21 years' 10$ 
 per cent. 
 
 Knubs and Husks.—1830, 1831, 1832, 835,9S5lbs., increase in nine 
 years 730 percent.; 1842, 1843, 1844, l,548,0641bs., increase in 21 
 years 2000 per cent. 
 
 Duty received on Foreign Silk and Silk Manufactures.—1830, 1831, 
 1832, 210,9731., revenue sacrificed, 543,0271.; 1842, 1843, 1844, 
 285,7681.—absolute loss and sacrifice of revenue, 468,2321. 
 
 The result being that whilst under a highly protected trade the home 
 consumption of raw silk advanced at the rate of 90 per cent, in six 
 years; and that of thrown silk 23 per cent, in the same period, whilst 
 the public revenue increased at the rate of 64 per cent. Under the 
 blasting effects of Free Trade the progress of the silk trade fell down to 
 an increase of only 72 per cent, in nine years, and to no more than 100 
 per cent, in 21 years as regards the home consumption of the raw silk, 
 whilst in thrown silk the home consumption, which in the first nine years 
 of Free Trade had increased 19 per cent, as compared with 23 per cent, 
 in the six years under Protection, actually fell down to an increase of 
 only 10$ per cent, upon the whole period of 21 years; whilst as regards 
 revenue, instead of an increase of 64 per cent, in six years, under Pro¬ 
 tection, an absolute loss of no less than 468,2321. per annum had 
 to be submitted to by the Exchequer, a great portion of which 
 unquestionably would have been extracted from the industry, and from 
 the pockets of Italians and Frenchmen. Lastly, as regards the Silk 
 Trade, I come to the most important and painful bearing of Free Trade 
 upon the wages—the comforts—and the morals of the unfortunate peo¬ 
 ple, engaged in the lower ranks of the trade. With respect to the 
 
13 
 
 operation of Free Trade Measures on die silk-weaver, J will, continued 
 the Noble Lord, take the evidence adduced before a committee which 
 sat in 1832, The first witness to whose evidence I will refer, is Mr. 
 Grout, an extensive silk-manufacturer in Norwich. He states that, up 
 to 1824, the number of hands employed was 3,594, and that their wages 
 averaged 8s. lgd. per week. In 1831 thenumber of hands fell to 1,877, 
 and their wages to 3s. a.jd. (Hear, hear.) Thus the gross amount of 
 wages, which up to 1824 amounted to 60,000/. had fallen off to 16,000/. 
 in 1831 : showing a reduction in wages of 44,000/. So much for the 
 beneficial effects of the relaxation of protective duties, as far as the em¬ 
 ployment of silk weavers is concerned. (Hear, hear, hear.) Now I will 
 refer to the moral condition of the weaver as detailed in the evidence of 
 the same witness. He said it was not only a reduction of wages that 
 they had to submit to, but he had been obliged to discharge a great 
 number. Some of the men had emigrated, others had gone to the poor 
 house; and many of the females had gone to a state of prostitution from 
 necessity. “ Their condition (he added) is most abject, and much to be 
 pitied.” (Hear, hear.) Mr. Brocklehurst, a Member of this House, was 
 also examined before the same committee. He was asked, “ What has 
 been the condition, since 1826, of the people employed in the mills ?” 
 He answered, “ In 1S26, when overtaken bv this change, they were 
 living in comfortably furnished houses, and were amply provided for. 
 When distress first assailed them they fell back on their little properties, 
 which they gradually disposed of. They were now reduced to a state of 
 utter destitution; hundreds of them were without change of clothes, and 
 in many instances without a bed, sleeping on straw, and covered witli 
 their clothes worn in the day. Gross demoralisation had been the result, 
 and the once respectable and industrious artisan was now broken-heart¬ 
 ed, and reduced to pauperism. Two-thirds of the people were found to 
 be in want of the common necessaries of life.” These are the fruits of 
 your much-lauded Free Trade. (Cheers.) The duties on silk manufac¬ 
 tures had then been reduced to something like 30 per cent. It is now 
 proposed to reduce the protection to half that amount. Now, let us see 
 what was the operation of that original reduction of Protection upon 
 wages. The silkweavers assured me, that up to 1823, when their wages 
 were regulated by Act of Parliament, for weaving the article I hold in 
 my hand, which is called royal floret, they earned 2s. 4d. a day. In 
 1825 their wages were reduced to 14d. a day. (Hear, hear.) And now, 
 in consequence of the intended reduction, their wages were to be further 
 reduced from 14d. to 12d. a day. My informant assured me, that he 
 could weave, witli great industry, twenty yards of royal floret in a week, 
 consequently a reduction of 2d. per yard would be equivalent to a re¬ 
 duction upon the aggregate work of a week of 3s. 4d. (Cheers.) I ask 
 you then, whether you think that the silkweavers will be benefited by 
 Free Trade ? (Cheers from the Protectionists.) I think they were not 
 far wrong when they stated, in the petition which I presented to the 
 House, that for a period of 20 years, experience and common sense had 
 taught them that cheap bread was of no use to man, woman, or child 
 unless they could obtain wages adequate to purchase it. (Loud cheers, 
 and cries of“ Divide, divide.”) I trust the House will recollect that I 
 
14 
 
 am now fighting the battle of a party whose leaders have deserted them 
 —(Cheers)—and if I cannot wield my weapon with the same skill as the 
 Right Hon. Gentlemen on the Treasury benches do theirs, I trust the 
 House will, for the sake of the cause I am supporting, show me some 
 forbearance. (Cheers.) I shall now go to an article termed ladies’ fine 
 velvet. (So we understood the Noble Lord.) So long as the trade was 
 protected the silk weavers received 4s. 3d. a yard for manufacturing this 
 article, and I understand that a very superior journeyman, with great 
 labour, may manufacture from eight to ten yards per week. In conse¬ 
 quence of the diminution in the protective duties their wages were 
 reduced, in 1825, to 2s. 6d. a yard, and on Thursday week last, on 
 account of the proposed measure, they received notice of a further 
 reduction of 3d. a yard. Now, Sir, I leave it to the House whether a 
 man who can manufacture ten yards a week, and has his wages reduced 
 3d. a yard (amounting to 2s. Gd. a week, or 130s. a year) can derive 
 any advantage from cheap bread equivalent to that reduction of wages ? 
 (Hear, hear.) It is well known to every gentleman in this House that 
 the estimated consumption of each man per annum is one quarter of 
 wheat. I leave it, then, to the house and to the country to decide, 
 whether, on the supposition that a man by his own labour has to sustain 
 himself, a wife, and three children on a quarter of wheat each, any dif¬ 
 ference that can arise in the price of wheat in consequence of Free 
 Trade, will compensate him for the loss of 3d. a yard on the article of 
 his manufacture ? (Cheers.) Why, it is clear to every one that the poor 
 silk weaver would be better off with his old wages and wheat at 70s. a 
 quarter, than he will be now with his wages reduced 3d. a yard, with 
 wheat reduced to 45s. per quarter. (“ Hear, hear,” and “ No, no.”) 
 No ! Why, I believe 5 times 25 make 125s., while the loss on his wages 
 amounts to 130s. I challenge any Hon. Gentleman opposite to refute 
 that statement. I ask, would not the silk weavers be better off with 
 wheat at 70s. a quarter, with their wages unreduced, than they will be 
 with reduced wages; with wages reduced 2s. Gd. a week under the 
 Free Trade system, though the price of wheat should be reduced to 45s. 
 a quarter ? Great- stress has been laid upon the argument, that by open¬ 
 ing the trade in corn you will be conferring a benefit on the labouring 
 classes, and for the first time that I ever heard such a strange doctrine 
 propounded, we had heard it maintained from the Treasury Bench, 
 “that the rate of wages has nothing to do with the. price of corn;” nay, 
 even more than this, that the rate of wages rise and fall in the inverse 
 ratio to the rise and fall in the price of corn. (Hear, hear.) I confess 
 this novel doctrine sounded strangely in my ears, more especially when 
 I heard it propounded, not only by the First Minister of the Crown, but 
 also by my Right Hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home 
 Department; for I thought I could remember a celebrated address to 
 the landowners of England, wherein my Right Hon. Friend laid it down 
 as a proposition not to be refuted, “that the wages of labour sink to the 
 price of corn, though the taxes remain and must be paid out of dimi¬ 
 nished earnings.” (Cheers.) My Right Hon. Friend, in supporting that 
 proposition, contended that the happiness and prosperity of the lower 
 classes of the people, far .from depending on a reduced price of corn, was 
 
apt to be least when prices were lowest. (Hear, hear.) Reviewing the 
 concluding period of the French war, during which the prices of wheat 
 had been as high as 125s., averaging, 1 believe, somewhere about 100s. 
 a quarter, he tells us that, in 1815 or 1816, “ the price of wheat fell to 
 64s., and then ensued such a scene both of agricultural and commercial 
 distress as this unhappy country had at that time never witnessed." My 
 Right Hon, Friend continued his history down to the years 1S21, 1822, 
 and 1823. In 1822 the price of wheat fell to 43s. ; and during this 
 period of three years the price of wheat averaged under 50s. We are 
 told now that we have nothing to do but to open the ports and reduce 
 the price of corn, and that comfort, happiness, and contentment will 
 follow, as far as the working classes are concerned. But what says my 
 Right Hon. Friend, writing the history of those three “ bitter years” 
 when bread was so cheap in 1821, 1822, and 1823 ? Describing the 
 condition of Ireland, as spoken to in the evidence of Mr. Nolan before 
 the distress Committee of the House of Commons, my Right Hon. Friend 
 says, “ In Ireland distress is greatest when provisions are cheapest; then 
 “ we see famine without dearth ; hunger amidst superabundance of pro- 
 “ visions; farmers without a market; labourers without the means of 
 “ purchase ; it was the fall of prices in which famine originated ; that 
 “ fall prevents the tenant from paying the rent; then the miserable stock 
 of the miserable tenantry is seized, next the labourer is left destitute 
 “ without employment, and then ensues a scene of famine and despair, 
 “ of tumult and bloodshed suppressed by military force.” Such, Sir, 
 was the sad picture drawn by my Right Hon. Friend of the results of 
 low prices in Ireland in 1822. But how was it in England ? “ Amidst 
 
 the ruin of the farmer and the manufacturer, the distress of landlords, 
 and the insurrections of a populace without bread and without employ¬ 
 ment, one class, says my Right Hon. Friend, flourished and was trium¬ 
 phant ; the annuitant and the tax-eater rejoiced in the increased and 
 increasing value of money—rejoiced in the sacrifice of productive indus¬ 
 try to unproductive wealth—rejoiced in the victory of the drones over 
 the bees.” (Hear, hear, hear.) I really think my Right Hon. Friend 
 must have been thinking of the tax-eaters and tax-consumers when, in 
 introducing this measure to the House, he told us that the wages of 
 labour did not depend upon the price of corn. Undoubtedly their wages 
 do not sink to the price of corn, but the contrary. (Cheers.) But I 
 must not forget the speech of the Hon. Member for Wolverhampton, 
 who cast so much obloquy on Gentlemen on this side of the House; 
 and, though I will not attempt to cast back upon him the hard epithets 
 he applied to my Friends on this side of the House, I must say that his 
 speech certainly was not one overflowing with the milk of human kind¬ 
 ness. (Hear, hear.) But when the Hon. Member for Wolverhampton 
 comes forward, and stands up as a witness before this House and the 
 country against the landlords of England, and describes them as a set 
 of men wholly indifferent to the sufferings of the poor, and talks of them 
 “ as idle consumers, to whom it might justly be made a matter of con¬ 
 gratulation, that food was scarce and the people dying of starvation.” 
 I think I am entitled to insist that he should himself be questioned upon 
 what in legal phrase in Westminster-hall is, I believe, termed the “ Voir 
 
dire," and I have a right to ask, and the country to know, whether he 
 is altogether a disinterested witness—whether he has not some pecuniary 
 interest in this matter ? I have a right to ask him, and the country has 
 a right to know, whether or no as an Examiner in the Court of Chan¬ 
 cery, enjoying a snug sinecure of 1,000/. or 1,200/. a year out of the 
 taxes levied on the people, he does not come within the category of my 
 Right Hon. Friend—whether he is not “ one of those annuitants and 
 tax-eaters who rejoice in (he increased and increasing value of money, 
 who rejoice in the sacrifice of productive industry to unproductive 
 wealth; who rejoice in the victory of the drones over the bees ?” (Cheers.) 
 Sir, we have been taunted on this side of the House with dealing in 
 revilings of the Right Hon. Gentlemen who have deserted us and their 
 principles on this occasion, and also with having used no arguments in 
 support of our views. I thought in the admirable speech of my Hon. 
 Friend (Mr. S. O'Brien) who sits beside me, replete as it was with 
 argument, as w ; ell as in the speeches of many others of my friends around 
 me, especially that of mv Hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury, we 
 might have well claimed exemption from the unjust taunt, that we have 
 brought no arguments to our support. But to return to the heart-stirring 
 speech of my Hon. Friend the Member for Northamptonshire; my Right 
 Hon. Friend the First Minister of the Crown thought fit to mock the 
 speech of my Hon. Friend, and instead of the touching appeal and reply 
 of tenant and landlord, which my Hon. Friend so well and so feelingly 
 imagined and gave utterance to, my Right Hon. Friend suggested ano¬ 
 ther speech to be put into the mouth of the landlord, in which, out of 
 his supposed and visionary savings by Free Trade, the unhappy landlord 
 was to offer an advance of capital to his tenant to enable him, by im¬ 
 provements of his farm, to compensate in increased quantity for the loss 
 which he might incur through the reduced value of his produce conse¬ 
 quent upon the repeal of the Corn Laws. Such an observation, I think, 
 did not come with a good grace from the Right Hon. Baronet. The old 
 landed aristocracy have done their duty to their tenants, but are not in 
 a position to advance capital to enable them to increase the products of 
 the soil. The Right Hon. Gentleman, when he goes down to Drayton 
 Manor, and surveys the broad acres and wide domains which surround 
 that splendid mansion, might have recollected that they once belonged 
 to the old aristocracy of England. He might have remembered that a 
 Bill passed in 1S19, changing the currency, and that that Bill bore the 
 name of the Right Hon. Gentleman at its back ; and whilst, Sir, in 
 referring to that law, it is far from my wish or meaning to impute any 
 thing but the most perfect innocence of intention, the Right Hon. Gen¬ 
 tleman is said to have added by that law half a million sterling to the 
 vast wealth of his family, whilst in a like degree it diminished from the 
 wealth, and crippled the resources of the old landed aristocracy. I 
 think, then, it was rather hard on the part of the Right Hon. Baronet 
 to turn round now upon the old landed proprietors of England, and 
 taunt them with not advancing the capital which, I am sorry to say, 
 they no longer possess, to improve the farms of their tenants, now about 
 to be injured by Free Trade. But, Sir, the Right Hon. Gentleman is 
 himself a landlord, and, if I mistake not, some time in 1842 or 1843, 
 
17 
 
 after passing liis tariff, went down and addressed a landlord’s speech to 
 some 250 or 300 of his tenantry at Tamworth. I do not think he began, 
 
 “ My good fellows,” that might be too familiar in the First Minister of 
 the Crown, and might lead to too great expectations. He did not begin, 
 
 “ My good fellows,” but began, “ Gentlemen.” Destruction of rabbits 
 was promised, something conditional said about hares, long leases too 
 were hinted at: nay, in one instance, a lease was proclaimed to have 
 been actually granted where to be sure the land was run out, and the 
 farm out of condition, and the tenant was to set out with a low rent, 
 which was to rise by a sliding scale as his lease went on. Lastly, after 
 exciting the expectations of his hearers, who were looking, no doubt, 
 to reductions of rent, some to fifteen, some to twenty, and some perhaps 
 even to fifty per cent, my Right Hon. Friend, after adverting to the 
 great advantage of improved stocks, wound up his courage and liberality 
 to the uttermost, and went the length of this gracious announcement, 
 
 “ regardless of the expense of the animal, at my own entire cost, I will 
 “ purchase, say a bull, and give free access to that animal, not only to 
 “ my tenants, but to the cows of my tenants as well.” But, for my life, 
 
 I cannot recollect that my Right Hon. Friend, out of his savings from 
 his new Tariff ever hinted a syllable of putting his hands into his breeches 
 pockets, and advancing any capital to his tenants, in compensation for 
 the operation and injury done to them by his new Tariff. Such are the 
 differences between the practice, the speeches, and the professions in this 
 House of my Right Hon. Friend. (“ Hear,” and cheers; “Order;” 
 “ Chair, chair;” “ Order, order;” “ Hear,” and cheers.) I beg leave 
 to say that though this debate has now continued for three weeks, I am 
 the first gentleman who has at all entered into the real state of the case 
 as regards the allegation of a potato famine in Ireland, upon which, be it 
 remembered, is founded the sole case of her Majesty’s Ministers for a 
 repeal of the Corn Laws. (“ Oh, oh,” “ Hear, hear,” cheers, “ Chair,” 
 “ Order, order, order,” “ Hear, hear,” and cheers.) Well, I may be 
 mistaken, but as far as I can recollect the debate, I am the only gentle¬ 
 man who has taken a practical view of the pretended potato famine in 
 Ireland. (“Hear,” and cheers.) They have told us that there is a great 
 calamity impending over Ireland. I do not believe it, but let them prove 
 to us that it is so, and I will venture to say for those that sit around me, 
 that they will be behind no gentlemen in England—(Hear, hear)—in 
 rendering every assistance to the sister kingdom. (Loud cheers from the 
 Agriculturalists.) We have, however, been told a good deal of the extent 
 of the potato disease in Ireland ; but what does my Noble Friend the 
 Marquis of Clanricardo say on the subject ? He is a resident landlord 
 in the county of Galway, and is himself a cultivator of potatoes. Well, 
 he told me a short time since that the reports had been greatly exag¬ 
 gerated—that he had himself grown 140 acres of potatoes, and that 
 certainly here and there there were a few diseased potatoes to be found, 
 but not so many as to occasion any particular notice to be taken of it, 
 had it not been for the great alarm and clamour that had been 
 previously got up on the subject, chiefly by her Majesty’s Ministers 
 encouraging the panic, and sending their potato-famine commissioners 
 to Ireland. (“ Hear, hear,” and great cheering.) “ I firmly believe,” 
 
18 
 
 said my Noble Friend, “ that one-half of the mischief has been created 
 by the sending of these very learned commissioners to Ireland, who 
 began their absurd recommendations by advising that all the potatoes 
 should be dug before they were ripe.” (Hear, hear.) Common sense 
 might have told them how pernicious a course that was ; every practical 
 man knowing that the inevitable consequence of lifting and storing po¬ 
 tatoes before they are ripe is, that the potatoes would all decay. (Hear, 
 hear.) The next thing they did was to recommend the application of 
 artificial heat—viz. “ kiln-drying the potatoes.” I believe, however 
 sound potatoes may be, it is impossible to devise any more certain spe¬ 
 cific for making them rot than kiln-drying them. (Hear, hear, hear.) 
 I myself witnessed the result of some experiments made by the Duke of 
 Portland at Welbeck, and whilst those potatoes which had been cured 
 with magnesian quick-lime, and those which had been cured with char¬ 
 coal ashes, after being pitted six weeks proved as sound as the day they 
 were pitted ; when the learned professor’s pit, the kiln-dried potato pit 
 was opened, I can assure this House that it smoked up like a dunghill, 
 the potatoes cured according to the recipe of her Majesty's Ministers 
 and their learned professors, was one entire mass of corruption ;—(Loud 
 cheers)—but that was not all the mischief that the Government and 
 their learned commissioners had done, for they created such a panic 
 about these potatoes, that the people were not only induced, in the hope 
 of saving a portion of them, to rush upon the trial of those suggested 
 methods that proved their destruction, but, from fear of the rot, they 
 hastened to consume their potatoes in every possible way; in the lan¬ 
 guage of the peasantry of Galway, “ to destroy them," that was, to give 
 them lavishly away to pigs and cattle, not then wanting them—in short, 
 to any thing that would eat them. My Noble Friend told me that from 
 the great excitement that prevailed, even he was himself induced to give 
 them to his pigs and cattle, and even his horses; in fact to dispose of 
 them in any and every way by which he could get them used ; before— 
 as he was induced to think—the disease should affect them all; and this 
 all proceeded from the panic caused by sending these commissioners 
 into Ireland. (“ Hear, hear, hear,” and cheers.) We are told by her 
 Majesty’s Ministers that there are four millions of the Irish people on the 
 brink of famine: I therefore wish to ask her Majesty’s Ministers what 
 provision they have made for those four millions of poor people ? If they 
 honestly believe that there will be four millions of people requiring sup¬ 
 port for three months, they must know that it will require a million 
 quarters of grain to feed them. But we are told that the order they 
 have sent to the United States for maize to supply their wants, is limited 
 to one hundred thousand quarters, which would afford subsistence du¬ 
 ring three months, not for four millions, which they say are on the brink 
 of starvation, but only for a tenth part of that number, that is to say, 
 for four hundred thousand. I would, therefore, be glad to know if her 
 Majesty’s Government really believe that there will be four millions of 
 people depending upon them for relief for the space of time I have men¬ 
 tioned, how they intend to supply the deficiency ? Is it not quite clear 
 that to serve their purposes here they have exaggerated tenfold the ex¬ 
 tent of the calamity, which in their hearts they believe to exist ? (Loud 
 
19 
 
 cheers.) The Right Hon. Baronet, the First Minister of the Crown, has 
 told yon that wheat has at this time an import duty of 17s. a quarter 
 upon it, and nothing on earth could induce him to come to the people of 
 England to ask them to pay that price for the purpose of feeding the 
 people of Ireland ; but I believe that the Right Hon. Baronet never in¬ 
 tended to feed them with wheat, but maize or oats. I am sure Hon. 
 Gentlemen will be rather surprised when I tell them that in January last 
 there were 100,000 quarters of oats imported into this country from Ire¬ 
 land—a quantity corresponding exactly to the Government contract for 
 maize from the United States as a provision for the starving people of 
 Ireland. Well, then, I ask, ought not common sense to have taught the 
 Government the propriety of purchasing these Irish oats, thereby confer¬ 
 ring a double benefit upon the people of that country. In the first place 
 they would have been paying the Irish people for the produce of their 
 land; and in the next place they would have had the supply ready at 
 hand when and where the scarcity required it. (Hear, hear.) As I 
 understand, the poorer classes of the people of Ireland generally cultivate 
 one acre, perhaps of oats, and two of potatoes ; the oats are grown on 
 the same land only once in three years; it is upon the potatoes that they 
 generally depend for their food ; and they sell their oats to pay their 
 rent, and to supply perhaps some other few necessaries and comforts of 
 life ; therefore, had the Government adopted the course I mention, it 
 would, as I said before, have conferred a double benefit on that country. 
 (Loud cheers.) Sir, I now come to the pretext of ‘'famine in the land;’ 
 out of the false cry of which in England, and the exaggerated cry of 
 which in Ireland, this Government measure for the repeal of the Corn 
 Laws has really arisen—and since that cry first obtained importance from 
 the sanction it received in a voice from Scotland, conveyed in a letter 
 dated the 15th of November, and written by the Noble Lord the Mem¬ 
 ber for the city of London. I will take the kingdom of Scotland first, 
 and examine how much real truth there was in the alarm of famine thus 
 proclaimed from Edinburgh in November. That my authorities may be 
 above all suspicion, they shall be restricted to such information as may 
 be gathered from the printed circulars of the corn trade itself. I will 
 begin with the circular of Messrs. A. and R. Smart and Co. of Montrose, 
 of date the 12th of December, 1845. What say they ?—They say, 
 
 Sir—they say in consequence of the alarm and uncertainty about the 
 state of the potatoes, we have not submitted our report of the harvest 
 earlier to you, in order that we might gather more particular informa¬ 
 tion, and ascertain hoiv they would keep in the pits. After careful 
 inquiry, we have come to the conclusion that from this district there 
 will be fully the usual quantity exported of sound quality. Though 
 they have, in many localities, been tainted more or less with the disease 
 prevalent in other parts of the kingdom, and have in some few instances 
 suffered partially in the pits ; yet, as none but those which are tainted 
 will be used for cattle, or other feeding purposes, we think fully as many 
 will be made available for human food as in a season of abundance. 
 
 “Wheat, notwithstanding the untoward character of the season, is 
 proving a fair average crop in quantity, but of various quality. There 
 is not a large breadth cultivated, and only a trifling quantity exported 
 
20 
 
 from this district, but from some of the northern counties, where-toe 
 ship, a good many cargoes can be spared. The 'h eights at present 
 RUN FROM 56 to 62-Jlb.; BUT as the season advances WE MAY EXPECT 
 THEM TO INCREASE. 
 
 “ Oats are a full average crop, unless on the high and cold lands, 
 where they were exceedingly late, and did not thoroughly ripen. Their 
 quality is fair—weights from 39 to 43 lb. Potato oats can be shipped in 
 good condition about 42 to 42£lb.; Angus, 41 to 421b. 
 
 “ Viewing all the crops together, we consider the harvest in this 
 district, and all to the north of it, a very abundant one.” 
 
 So much, Sir, for the prevalence of dearth in the neighbourhood of 
 and north of Montrose. I will now cross the island and see how it fared 
 in the west of Scotland. This is an account of the Glasgow Corn 
 Trade. It is from Brown and Co.'s Circular. Here it is, Sir:— 
 
 “ Glasgow, Dec. 31, 1845.—We beg to refer to the statement at foot, 
 showing the annual stock of grain in granary since 1841 :— 
 
 STATE OF STOCKS AT THIS DATE FOR THE LAST FIVE YEARS. 
 
 
 
 Wheat. 
 
 Bariev. 
 Bolls of 
 
 O a ts. 
 
 and Peas 
 
 Flour. 
 
 Oatmeal 
 
 
 
 If oils of 
 
 
 
 
 Loads of 
 
 
 
 2401b. 
 
 b20lb. 
 
 2b4lb. 
 
 4bushels 
 
 1961b. ’ 
 
 2801b: 
 
 2801b. 
 
 1841 
 
 s Free .. 
 
 85,800 
 
 16,860 
 
 67,120 
 
 50,180 
 
 18,310 
 
 7,590 
 
 15,040 
 
 \ Bond .. 
 
 17,760 
 
 730 
 
 840 
 
 6,540 
 
 12,289 
 
 None. 
 
 None. 
 
 1842 
 
 $ Free .. 
 
 164,850 
 
 9,088 
 
 54,450 
 
 27,286 
 
 6,597 
 
 2,370 
 
 15,929 
 
 \ Bond .. 
 
 18,073 
 
 5,525 
 
 None. 
 
 25,810 
 
 12,708 
 
 None. 
 
 None. 
 
 1843 
 
 | Free .. 
 
 140,267 
 
 15,954 
 
 52,047 
 
 16,779 
 
 15,489 
 
 6,023 
 
 41,217 
 
 j Bond .. 
 
 13,151 
 
 None. 
 
 None. 
 
 25,927 
 
 330 
 
 None. 
 
 1844 
 
 f Free .. 
 
 112,212 
 
 24,767 
 
 20,724 
 
 17,076 
 
 22,547 
 
 7,054 
 
 33,675 
 
 |Bond .. 
 
 29,326 
 
 None. 
 
 None. 
 
 927 
 
 6,0S2 
 
 None. 
 
 None. 
 
 1845 
 
 f Free .. 
 
 158,333 
 
 18,674 
 
 29,162 
 
 12,325 
 
 56,353 
 
 23,789 
 
 24,837 
 
 \ Bond .. 
 
 1 
 
 78,854 
 
 67 
 
 None. 
 
 2,552 
 
 9,449 
 
 None. 
 
 None. 
 
 Showing an absolute excess in the stock on hand on the 31st of last 
 December of no less than 54,264 bolls of wheat, of 46,497 barrels and 
 21,419 sacks of wheat flour, as compared with the largest stock of wheat 
 and wheat flour ever before known to be on hand in the city of Glasgow 
 at any corresponding period of the last five years !!! Oh, Sir, what a 
 tale of famine is this to have been imposed as such upon a credulous 
 nation, and wherewithal to have half frightened the people of England 
 and the Queen’s Ministers quite out of their senses !!! But, Sir, with 
 the leave of the House, I must read one sentence more in the circular of 
 Messrs. Brown and Co., as in my opinion it will go far to enlighten this 
 House in regard to the progress of the Scottish nation as regards their 
 comforts and condition. What say Messrs. Brown ? They say—“ Our 
 stock of wheat on hand exceeds by far that of any previous year, not¬ 
 withstanding a decided considerable change in the national taste from 
 oatmeal to wheaten four, of which the consumption has been unprece- 
 
21 
 
 denied. The latter, we are inclined to think, applies to most of the 
 large towns in this kingdom. Of vjhcat the crop of 1844 was of a 
 superior order both in yield and in quality all over the United Kingdom 
 and Ireland. The productiveness of that crop becomes more apparent 
 on comparison with former stocks and this year's, which latter, with a 
 trifling exception, is all of the groivth of 1844, exhibiting an increase 
 of 46,120 bolls of free, and 49,528 bolls of bonded over 1844. The 
 crop of 1S45, considered a fair average in quantity, but deficient in 
 quality, has not yet got into condition, so that we arc lying heavy on 
 old wheat for bakers' purposes. The value of wheat, compared with 
 last year’s same period is about 10s. higher for old, and As. for new, 
 per boll of 2401b.” 
 
 Thus, Sir, 1 have shown you, not only that so far from a famine pre¬ 
 vailing in Glasgow and in the west of Scotland in December last, the 
 stores of grain were unprecedented, whilst a very considerable improve¬ 
 ment had taken place in the condition, the comforts, and the habits of 
 the people of Scotland. (Loud cries of “ Hear, hear,” cheers, and “Order, 
 order.” When his Lordship, on turning to the side from whence the 
 interruption proceeded, asked)—Why should 1 thus be interrupted ? Is 
 it because I speak of the comforts of the people—is it nothing in the 
 estimation of some to speak of their comlorts ?—(Hear, hear)—to speak 
 of the comforts of the poor. (“ Hear, hear,” and cheers.) 1 am anxious 
 to show that my friends here, who have argued for Protection—who 
 have shown the advantages which have resulted front protective laws— 
 are the real friends of the poor. (Hear, hear.) I am anxious to show the 
 wonderful increase which has taken place in all that pertains to the food 
 of the people, under Protection. (Hear, hear.) In Glasgow, a decided 
 change for the better has taken place; there the people have advanced 
 in their taste and in their comforts, from oatmeal to the use of wheaten 
 flour. (“ Hear, hear,” and cheers.) Whereas, let it be remembered, 
 when the Right Hon. Baronet introduced his Corn Law in 1842, he was 
 obliged to acknowledge the immense number that were there (1 forget 
 whether in Glasgow or in Paisley) existing only upon charity—but this 
 I remember well, the numbers then kept alive by charity were 17,000 !!! 
 (Hear, hear.) It would appear, too, that the pleasing advance in Glas¬ 
 gow was also visible in various other towns in Scotland. (Hear, hear.) 
 That the wheat crop in 1S44 was so superior in quality and amount in 
 comparison with any former stock, that even in last December they had 
 not commenced the use of the crop for the year 1845—(Great cheers)— 
 besides the large quantities in bond. (Immense cheering, and consider¬ 
 able interruption, intermingled with loud cries of “ Order, order.”) I 
 make no charge against those who are opposed to us on this question. 
 (Hear, hear.) I am only defending my party by indubitable evidence 
 from the attacks of indifference to the comforts of the poor which were 
 advanced against us—(“ Hear, hear,” and cheers.)—that we cared not 
 so we preserved our own interests, though they were starving. (Hear, 
 hear.) You first make a charge against us, and then you are afraid to 
 hear the answer. (Great cheering from the agriculturalists.) Last, as 
 regards Scotland, I travel back to the neighbourhood of Edinburgh, 
 from whence, on the 15th of November, the celebrated letter of the 
 
22 
 
 Noble Lord the Member for the city of London was written. I am now 
 going to read you some extracts from the circular of Messrs. Grindlay, 
 Cowan, and Co. It is dated 
 
 “ Leith, Dec. 17, 1845. 
 
 “ Sir—Although our harvest has been finished fully six weeks ago, we 
 have deferred our report till now, that we might obtain more detailed 
 information as to the result, 
 
 “ Wheat may amount to about an average quantity ; the quality is 
 of all grades, from fine to very inferior, tire medium however prepon¬ 
 derates ; the whole is sound and wholesome. The weights are from 54, 
 58, 60, 62, and 631b. per bushel. 
 
 “Oats are upon the whole a full average quantity, but are very various 
 in quality and condition : those grown upon the coast are bright, heavy, 
 and handsome, while the produce of the high country, though sound, 
 and of tolerable colour, is mixed with greens, and extremely damp and 
 light. They are all weights, from 35, 38, 40, 42, 43, 44lbs. per bushel. 
 
 “ Potatoes are a good crop as regards quantity; they have been 
 affected by the disease throughout the whole of this district, but in a 
 greater or lesser degree ; those raised early and put into pits without 
 ventilation went rapidly to decay, but such as were taken up later, and 
 where proper precautions were taken in storing them, have kept much 
 better, and the disease among them is not making rapid progress. We 
 have, in the meantime, abundance of good quality for human food, and 
 we have reason to believe that that will be the case till spring. The 
 decayed ones make good cattle feed. 
 
 “ In the counties north of us, the corn crops generally are fully 
 better than in this quarter, and in Aberdeen, Banff, Moray, Ross, and 
 Sutherland-shires potatoes are little if at all affected. 
 
 “Just before harvest our stocks of grain here were very limited indeed. 
 The disease in the potatoes, and the very unfavourable weather, gave 
 such an impulse to the market as has since attracted large supplies, 
 both heme and foreign, so much so that, notwithstanding the considera¬ 
 ble sales which were effected, we are now so completely choked, that 
 granary room is not to be found, and we think a considerable portion of 
 still-expected arrivals from abroad will have to go to other ports." 
 
 Good heavens, Sir, what a description of a country of famine ! so 
 completely choked that granary room is not to be found!!! 
 
 “ The quantity of grain in bond here consists of about 65,000 quarters 
 of wheat, 17,000 qrs. of barley, and 4,000 qrs. of oats, besides which 
 we have about 40,000 to 45,000 qrs. of home wheat, chiefly very fine 
 old English. [And pray listen again to this, Sir.]—“ In fact, in place 
 of the general outcry of ‘ famine ,’ me are literally labouring under 
 repletion.” [Literally they say, Sir, labouring under repletion. (Great 
 cheering.)] “ To the quantity of wheat under bond, about 20,000 qrs. 
 still on the passage, will soon be added, besides a considerable quantity 
 of barley and other grain.” 
 
 From the circular just read, it then appears that the potato crop was 
 good as regarded Scotland generally—(Hear, hear)—that there was an 
 abundance of potatoes of good quality for human food. (Hear, and 
 cheers.) I would ask, then—was there any ground to change the whole 
 
23 
 
 policy of the country on such u miserable pretence of famine as this ? 
 (“ Hear,” and cheers, with interruption for some time, and loud cries of 
 “ Order.”) It would appear from this document, that, so far from there 
 being any just ground for an outcry on the subject of famine, they were 
 literally labouring under repletion. (Hear, hear.) Sir, I have now done 
 with Scotland, and, I trust, sufficiently disposed of the unfounded pre¬ 
 tence of a famine in Scotland. I will now see how this matter of famine 
 stood in England. Sir, in the month of December last, I saw a letter 
 from a gentleman in Liverpool, whose name I think would be entitled to 
 no little weight in this House,—the letter was signed “ John Robert 
 Gladstone,” and what did it say, Sir ? It said the outcry about famine 
 was all a mistake, as, at that time, there were not less than 200 ware¬ 
 houses in Liverpool as cram full of grain as they could hold. (Great 
 cheering.) One more statement, and so far as regards the wheat famine 
 I have done. Sir, on the 5th of January, 18-15, a year admitted by all 
 to be a year of extraordinary abundance, the stock of wheat and wheat 
 flour in the United Kingdom amounted to 407,193 quarters, whilst in 
 London it did not exceed 153,008 quarters—whilst on the corresponding 
 day of the present year, when you tell us there is a famine, there were 
 bonded in the United Kingdom, no less a quantity than 1,079,030 qrs. 
 of wheat and wheat flour, whilst in the city of London alone there were 
 in granary under bond 418,422 quarters of wheat and wheat flour; 
 being in this year of famine a quantity within a few thousand quarters, 
 equal to the entire quantity in bond in the whole of the United Kingdom 
 in the preceding year, which you all admit to have been a year of extra¬ 
 ordinary abundance. (Loud cheers.) But we are told by my Right Hon. 
 Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department, “ that bread 
 was rapidly rising to the war prices.” Why, Sir, was ever such an 
 unfounded statement made in this House ? Bread rapidly rising to the 
 war prices ! Bread at a famine price 1 Why, Sir, in the war in the year 
 1800, or 1801, if I mistake not, bread was actually lid. a pound! 
 Eleven pence for one pound ! Whilst 1 find in the last week, these two 
 statements as to the prices of bread in London and in Liverpool, in the 
 last week ;—“ Price of Bread this Week—The highest price of bread in 
 the metropolis is 9d. the 41b. loaf; some bakers, however, sell 2d. below 
 that rate.” “ Price of Bread and Potatoes in Liverpool—In this part of 
 England, where every article of food is as dear, if not dearer, than in 
 any other town in the kingdom, potatoes have fallen in price, within the 
 last few days, from 4s. to 3s. per measure of 90/4$. weight, and the 4/5. 
 loaf of excellent wheaten bread from Id. to 6d.—Liverpool Mail." 
 Why, Sir, if I do not err greatly, the price of the 41b. loaf was lOd. in 
 1841, when we turned out the Whig Government for proposing so low a 
 protection as an 8s. fixed duty, and it had actually risen to lOJd. a 
 short while before the Right Hon. Baronet, the First Minister of the 
 Crown, introduced his bill of 1842, which is now the law of the land; 
 and yet I cannot for my life recollect that either he or my Right Hon. 
 Friend, in the course of those discussions, spoke even of 1 Oid. as a 
 famine price ! (Cheers.) But my Right Hon. Friend says, the law of 
 1842 has failed, inasmuch as when it was wanted the Sliding Scale 
 refused to slide. Sir, I think 1 have shown good reason why it would 
 
24 
 
 not slide, in the exposure that was made in the course of the month of 
 December, of—I can't call it “ the great fact" (another monosyllable 
 would be more applicable)—of the alleged famine in the land. But 
 what says our own great Duke—England’s great Duke—on this subject? 
 The Duke of Wellington tells you, “ that he saw no reason for opening 
 the ports, inasmuch as whenever a deficiency should appear, prices 
 would rise, and, under the existing law, the ports would open them¬ 
 selves.” And with regard to Ireland lie tells you, that although there 
 has been a great loss of potatoes, and there must ensue in consequence 
 considerable privation to a great portion of I he people of Ireland ; from 
 all accounts there is no ground for believing that there is any danger of 
 an absolute deficiency of food in Ireland (Loud cheers.) We have been 
 told, by the First Minister of the Crown, that there are 4,000,000 of 
 people on the borders of famine and starvation, but I will prove to you 
 that her Majesty’s Ministers believe no such thing. (“ Oh, oh,” “ hear, 
 hear,” cheers, interruption, and cries of “ Order, order.”) It is five 
 weeks ago this day, that the Member for Somersetshire, who moved for 
 a return of the highest prices of potatoes in each of the last seven years 
 in each of all the market towns of Ireland ; but that return has not yet 
 been produced. 1 want to know why it is kept back?—why are we 
 kept in the dark ? (“ Hear, hear,” cheers, “ order, order.”) The Right 
 Hon. Baronet has taunted us with being unwilling to listen to the his¬ 
 tory of famine in Ireland ; he said that it appeared to us a matter which 
 was distasteful. (“ Hear,” “ no, no,” “ order, order.”) That it was dis¬ 
 tasteful to many Gentlemen on this side of the House. I beg leave on 
 the part of my Hon. Friends to say, that what was distasteful to us, was 
 not the length of the details, but it appeared to us that the Right Hon. 
 Baronet did not tell us the whole truth. (“Hear, hear,” “order, order.”) 
 That was what was distasteful to us, and not the length of the details. 
 (“ Hear, hear,” and cheers.) Sir, I trust the House will allow me to 
 proceed. I can assure the House that, tedious as I know and feel that 
 I must be, possessing neither wit or talents to enliven the debate, there 
 is no Member in this House, however wearied he may be with listening 
 to me, who feels that weariness so painfully as I feel the obligation of 
 being the cause of it. Nothing but the most imperative sense of duty 
 could have induced me to come forward on this occasion to trespass 
 upon the valuable time of this House. Nothing but the circumstance of 
 those who advocate the same principles with myself having been aban¬ 
 doned by our leaders could have induced me to undertake a task so 
 distasteful to me. I think, having sat eighteen years in this House, and 
 never once having trespassed upon its time before in any one single 
 great debate, I may appeal to the past as a proof that I duly weigh the 
 very small measure of my abilities, and that I am painfully conscious of 
 my proper place in this House; that I feel deeply how unworthy I am of 
 the indulgence of which I have already received so large a portion, and 
 that nothing but an emergency such as this could have dragged me out 
 to intrude upon the time of a House so replete on every side with men 
 of such very superior talents, abilities, and eloquence to myself. (General 
 cheers.) The Right Hon. Baronet gave us an account of a London 
 provision dealer who went a tour into Kent, and after visiting the gardens 
 
25 
 
 iu Kent, returned by the railway, and as he was whirled along in the 
 train looked out of the window of his railway carriage, and saw the 
 potatoes looked black ; he read us also a letter from Yorkshire, written 
 by a Mr. Wood whom nobody knows. (Laughter, “Order, order,”) I 
 happen to know something about Yorkshire. But I want know why, 
 instead of the letter of this Mr. Wood, the Right Hon. Gentleman did 
 not favour us with the opinions which I presume he must have learnt, of 
 my Hon. Friend the Member for the West Riding of Yorkshire, the 
 seconder of the address, upon this subject of the potato disease in 
 Yorkshire ? My Hon. Friend tells me, that in the month of December 
 he called upon my late lamented Friend Lord Wharncliffe, himself the 
 Lord-Lieutenant of the West Riding of Yorkshire, himself too a Cabinet 
 Minister, and told him, that there was no foundation for the cry of 
 famine as regarded the state of the potato crop in Yorkshire. Now, Sir, 
 as this was not a private or confidential communication, it is hardly to 
 be supposed my late lamented Friend, Lord Wharncliffe, would keep it 
 back from her Majesty’s Ministers, and if not, I must beg leave to ask, 
 when Mr. Wood’s letter was communicated, how came the information 
 from my Hon. Friend the Member for the West Riding, to be kept back 
 from this House? (Hear, hear.) I shall now go to Ireland. (Hear, 
 hear.) We have heard a great many statements as to the disease of the 
 potato in Ireland ; statements from police, and from inspectors of police 
 as well as from various other quarters. (Hear, hear, hear.) But, Sir, I 
 must take leave t.o ask, what has become of the reports of the Lieute¬ 
 nants of the counties of Carlow and Kilkenny? My Noble Friend, the 
 Member for Derby, is Lieutenant of the county of Carlow, and he made 
 a report to the Irish Government; and the Lieutenant of the county of 
 Kilkenny made a report to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland. Lord Bes- 
 borough, long a Cabinet Minister, is the Lieutenant of the county of 
 Kilkenny, and I will ask, if there is any man in England or in Ireland 
 whose opinion, on account of his business-like habits, of his great prac¬ 
 tical knowledge, and the warm and affectionate interest which for a long 
 period of yeais lie has ever taken in every thing which concerns the true 
 interests of Ireland, and more especially of the peasantry of Ireland—is 
 there any man whose opinion could have had greater weight ? Is there 
 any man whose opinion would have been so willingly listened to by this 
 House or by the country, either in England or in Ireland, as that of the 
 Earl of Besborough upon an Irish subject? Well, Sir, I am assured, 
 and I appeal for the truth of my statement to my Noble Friend the 
 Member for Derby, that the Earl of Besborough took the greatest pos¬ 
 sible pains to ascertain the truth—to ascertain the real state of the case 
 as regards the failure of the potato crop in Ireland, and, having done so, 
 made an elaborate report to the Irish Government. Well, then, I desire 
 to know why Lord Besborough’s report to the Irish Government is 
 suppressed ? Is it because Lord Besborough told both sides of the 
 story, and that his report would not assist the present policy of her 
 Majesty’s Ministers ? (Loud cries of “ Hear, hear.”) I can also appeal 
 to my Noble Friend the Member for and Lieutenant of the county of 
 Down ; my Noble Friend made his report to the Irish Government. 
 Why have we not had laid before us the report of my Noble Friend the 
 
26 
 
 Lieutenant of tlie great county of Down ? (Hear, hear.) Then, again, 
 there is my Hon. and Gallant Friend the Member for the county of 
 Antrim, who was canvassing the county of Antrim throughout the month 
 of December, and feeling a deep interest in the prospects of the Irish 
 people, lost no opportunity of making every possible inquiry as to the 
 true state of the potato crop ; and my Hon. and Gallant Friend has 
 assured me that the invariable answer he received was—“ We have here 
 and there a bad one, but we have no fault to find with the potato crop.” 
 (Hear, hear.) Sir, I can also appeal to my Right Hon. Friend the 
 Member for Chatham as an evidence in proof of the undiseased state of 
 the potato crop in the county of Roscommon in December last. It was 
 a little before Christmas last year, that after having witnessed the result 
 of several experiments tried under the directions of the Duke of Portland 
 at Welbeck with diseased potatoes, thinking I might be of service to 
 Ireland, I wrote to my Right Hon. Friend, who was then staying at 
 Lord Crofton’s in the county of Roscommon, the results of those experi¬ 
 ments ; and first I had to tell him of the disastrous results of those 
 modes of cure especially recommended by certain learned professors sent 
 to Ireland by her Majesty’s Ministers ; the invariable effect of the appli¬ 
 cation of artificial heat, of “ kiln-drying,” as recommended originally by 
 these learned professors, rvas, that the -potatoes one and all became 
 rotten !!! (Hear, hear.) Sir, I myself witnessed, and so I wrote to my 
 Right Hon. Friend then in Roscommon, the opening of the pit cured 
 according to the prescription of those learned professors, and I can 
 assure the House when “ the professor’s pit” was opened, it steamed up 
 like an opened dunghill, such was the state of putrefaction which it was 
 in. Anxious to communicate to my Right Hon. Friend any information 
 that I deemed might be useful to Ireland, I wrote to him an account of 
 the experiments which appeared to me to be most successful, and more 
 especially of an experiment made with magnesian quick-lime, which 
 seemed in every way to be entirely and pre-eminently successful. But 
 what was my Right Hon. Friend’s reply ?—“ Much obliged to you for 
 the trouble you have taken, but there is no potato disease in Roscom¬ 
 mon.” (Prolonged cheering.) Sir, again I can appeal to my Right Hon. 
 Friend the Secretary for the Admiralty and a Member for the county of 
 Tyrone, who only returned from Ireland from the county of Tyrone on 
 the first of January. He will tell the House that potatoes were then in 
 Ireland only 3d. per stone. In like manner, I can appeal to my Hon. 
 Friend the Member for the Queen’s County. He assures me that pota¬ 
 toes at this time are only 2fd per stone in the principal markets of the 
 Queen’s County, though here and there in the mountainous districts, the 
 potatoes may have entirely failed. Well, Lord de Vesci, the father of 
 my Hon. Friend, is Lord-Lieutenant for the Queen’s County, and he, 
 too, made a report to the Irish Government. Why have we not that 
 report ? But how can it be honestly, or with truth, affirmed that there 
 is famine in the land, with potatoes at no more than 3d. and 4d. a 
 stone? Why, good God, when Mr. Burke wrote of scarcity in 1794, 
 potatoes were 5s. a bushel; and, upon looking at Mr. Tooke’s prices, I 
 find that the average price of potatoes in the whole of the cotton manu¬ 
 facturing districts of England, during eleven years, from 1810 to 1820, 
 
37 
 
 both inclusive, averaged 7.}d. per stone, whilst the highest price mounted 
 up to 17 Ad. per stone, and the lowest price was 5 3-5. And, depend 
 upon it, the money price is always the best criterion of the crop. Sir, 
 we have been told by my Right Hon. Friend, the Secretary of State for 
 the Home Department, that bread was approaching a famine price, and 
 that bread was getting up to the war prices, and yet the Sliding Scale 
 refused to slide ; why, how stands the fact? In the war, in the vear3 
 1800 and 1801, bread was at one time as high as elevenpence a pound, 
 3s. 8d. the 41b. loaf, whilst the highest price of bread of the finest qua¬ 
 lity, during the last winter, has been 9d., or at outside, with some few 
 bakers, 94d. the 4lb. loaf;—mark, bread of the first quality;—for there 
 has been no time since the passing of the present Corn Law, that good 
 bread, household bread of excellent quality, could not have been bought 
 in this metropolis, for 7d. the 4lb. loaf. But what was the price of bread 
 in the winter of 1841 and 1842, a few weeks prior to the introduction 
 into this House of the present Corn Law ? Why, Sir, it was actually 
 tenpence-halfpenny ! And the average price of wheat at the time when 
 her Majesty’s present Ministers beat her Majesty’s late Ministers, on the 
 question of an 8s. fixed duty on corn, the average price of wheat was 
 upwards of 62s., and the import duty 24s. 8d. The average price is now 
 5fis. 7d., and the duty only 17s. How then can my Right Hon. Friend 
 have the face to say that wheat and bread are approaching Famine 
 Prices! Sir, 1 now come to the great challenge which is ever and anon 
 put forth by the Anti-Corn Law League, and now’ by their disciples, her 
 Majesty’s Ministers. How are we, they ask, with our limited extent of 
 territory, to feed a population annually and rapidly increasing, at the 
 rate of 300,000 a year, as generally stated by the Hon. Member for 
 Stockport—a rate increased by my Noble Friend the Member for the 
 West Riding of Yorkshire to a thousand a day, or 365,000 a year. Sir, 
 I will meet the Hon. Gentleman and my Noble Friend, as well as her 
 Majesty’s Ministers, upon this ground, and 1 will undertake to show not 
 only that for the last five and forty years the produce of the land has 
 outstripped the growth of the population, but that there is ample scope 
 even without any new discoveries in the science of agriculture, for a 
 continued excess of production over population, at all events for the next 
 twenty years to come. I will first examine the past. 1 find, Sir, that 
 the population of England and Wales, which in 1S01 amounted to 
 8,872,980, rose to 10,150,615 in 1811, being an increase of 14 J per 
 cent upon the first period; and that by 1821 it had grown to 11,978,875, 
 being a further increase of 174 per cent.; the aggregate increase on the 
 20 years amounting to 3,105,895. Sir, you will now expect me to 
 furnish my proofs wherein this immense growth of the population was 
 provided for; these are my proofs. I find that the select committee of 
 the House of Commons, which sat in 1813 to inquire into the state of 
 the corn trade, of which I believe Sir H. Parnell was the chairman, 
 stated in their report, “That through the extension of, and improvements 
 in cultivation, the agricultural produce of the kingdom had been in¬ 
 creased one-fourth during the ten years preceding the time of their 
 inquiry.” Sir, the House will recollect that during the same period the 
 population had increased not one-fourth, but 14| per cent, which is only 
 
28 
 
 a fraction above one-seventh. But, Sir, if there were any doubt about 
 this fact I might triumphantly refer to the number of Inclosure Bills, and 
 to the number of acres of waste lands brought into cultivation during 
 the exciting period of the war prices, when wheat averaged nearly 100s. 
 a quarter. Sir, I find by a reference to Parliamentary documents that 
 between the twenty years from 1801 to 1821, no less than 1,677 Inclo¬ 
 sure Bills were passed for the inclosure and reclamation of no less than 
 3,068,910 acres of land, being an average of 83 Inclosure Acts, and an 
 average of 153,445 acres a year. I have before stated that the aggre¬ 
 gate increase of the population during the same period was 3,105,895; 
 the House, therefore, will observe, that since 1801 and up to 1821, for 
 every new mouth born there was as near as possible a new acre of land 
 brought into cultivation. (Loud cheers.) Sir, I must now proceed to the 
 period between 1821 and 1845. Prices fell after 1820. In 1822, wheat 
 fell to 43s. a quarter, and the rage for inclosures correspondingly dimi¬ 
 nished. I find from 1821 to 1835 inclusive, the average number of Inclo¬ 
 sure Bills greatly fell off, and so, of course, did the new acreage brought 
 into cultivation. The total number of Inclosure Acts in those 15 years 
 amounted to no more than 262, and the acreage reclaimed to 442,860, 
 showing an average of about 16 lnclosure Bills, taking in 29,524 acres 
 a year. In the last ten years there occurred a still further decrease in 
 these respects, the Inclosure Acts, in the last ten years, amounting in 
 the aggregate to only 150, or 15 a year. I do not know the number of 
 acres included in the inclosures during this last period ; but the whole 
 shows a sad falling off, subsequent to the fall in the price of wheat, as 
 compared with the period of war prices. It may be as well to state also, 
 in passing, that the average of the last four years, since the last modifi¬ 
 cation of the Corn Laws, showing only an annual average of eleven 
 Drainage and Inclosure Acts. Sir, having failed under continually fall¬ 
 ing prices to give you evidence of new lands brought into cultivation so 
 as to keep pace with the growing population of the country from 1821 
 to 1844, I must look elsewhere for evidence of an increased growth of 
 corn, and I am happy to say I readily find it in the improved cultivation 
 of the land. The population of England and Wales which was 11,978,875 
 in 1821 ; in 1831 had increased to 13,089,338, being an increase on 
 1821 of 16 per cent.; in 1841, it further increased to 14,995,508, or 14 
 per cent, on 1831 ; estimating this increase or something like it to have 
 continued to 1844, and assuming the population in 1844 to have grown 
 to 15,662,274, the gross increase of population in 1844 as compared 
 with 1821, would be something under 32 per cent. I must, therefore, 
 turn to the improved cultivation of the soil of England, and see what has 
 been going on there to meet this prolific increase of the population. 
 Well, Sir, I find that in 1821, in his evidence before the agricultural 
 distress committee, Mr. Wakefield—an authority universally quoted by 
 all great writers on agricultural statistics—Mr. Wakefield computed the 
 average produce of all the wheat lands in England, at no more than 
 seventeen bushels per acre. But in 1840 Mr. M'Culloch was of 
 opinion that the produce of the wheat lands of England had been raised 
 on an average to twenty-six bushels per ache, whilst in 1844 Mr, 
 McOgregor estimates that such had been the rapid improvement in the 
 
n 
 
 science of agriculture, ami in the cultivation of the soil, that the average 
 produce of wheat throughout England and Wales had mounted up to 
 twenty-eigiit bushels per acue. What, then, is the result of this 
 comparative statement of the growth of the population with the growth 
 of corn to feed them between 1821 and the year 1844. The results are, 
 that whilst the population increased at the rate of less than 32 per cent, 
 the growth of wheat has, during the same period, increased no less than 
 64 per cent. (Great cheering from the Protectionists.) Sir, it may be 
 asked if such is the increased produce of wheat, as compared with the 
 population—how comes it that we aie still, to a certain extent as regards 
 bread corn, an importing nation ? I rejoice to think that it is to be 
 accounted for in the universally improved condition, and the enlarged 
 command of food, by the working classes of the people. Sir, 1 have 
 myself, in the course of this evening, shown to you, that the taste of the 
 people of Scotland, through increased affluence, has, throughout the 
 manufacturing towns of that kingdom, in a considerable degree changed 
 from oaten to wheaten bread. You hare heard the Right lion. Gentle¬ 
 man the Vice-President of the Board of Trade affirm, that the consump¬ 
 tion of bread in this metropolis has been ten per cent, higher in the last 
 year than in any previous year; but we have still higher authority for 
 this gratifying belief in Mr. Porter’s Progress of the Nation, wherein, 
 after contrasting the duration of life in England as compared with other 
 countries; showing, that whilst in Sweden and Denmark the average 
 number of deaths is 1 in 48 ; in Holland it is 1 in 43 ; in France, 1 in 
 40 ; in the United States, 1 in 37 ; in Prussia, 1 in 36 ; and in Wur- 
 temburg, 1 in 33; in England—in happy England, it is only 1 in 59; 
 he goes on to show', that in England and Wales, in 1800, the deaths 
 were 1 in 47; in 1811,1 in 53 ; and in 1S31, 1 in 58; now, 1 in 59 : 
 accounting for this continually diminishing mortality, this improvement 
 of health, and prolongation of life, by the vast amendment in the 
 condition of the people; the less crowded state of their dwellings ; the 
 superiority and cheapness of their clothing; to better medical assistance; 
 greater personal cleanliness, and above all to tiie command or better 
 kinds or rooD. Sir, the year 1845 alone remains to be accounted for; 
 but I think I shall have no difficulty in showing, setting aside all other 
 improvements in agriculture, that by the importation and application to- 
 the land of guano alone, there must have been an increase in the pro¬ 
 duce of the land far more than equivalent to even the 365,000 additional 
 mouths assumed to have been born, by my Noble Friend the Member 
 for the West Riding, in 1845. Sir, we are informed that in the year 
 1845 no less a quantity than 2S0.000 tons of guano, at an expense to 
 the farmers of somewhere about 2,000,0001. sterling, were imported into 
 this country ; that of this, 200,000 tons, or in other words 4,000,000- 
 cwt., were last year expended upon the land. Of this I will assume that 
 one half would be applied to the grow th of wheat, and the other half to 
 the growth of turnips, preparatory to next year’s wheat crop. To begin, 
 then, with wheat. According to the experiments tried and recorded in 
 the Royal Agricultural Journal, it would seem, that by the application 
 of 2 cwt. of guano to an acre of wheat land, the produce would be in¬ 
 creased by one quarter per acre. At this rate 100,000 tons, or '2,000,000 
 
so 
 
 ewt. of guauo, would add 1,000,000 quartern of wheat to the crop, or 
 tread for one year for 1,000,000 of people. But to be quite sure not to 
 exceed a correct estimate, I will assume that it would require 3 cwt. of 
 guano to an acre to produce an extra quarter of wheat. According to 
 this estimate, 100,000 tons of guano applied to the land in 1845, must 
 have added 666,666 quarters of grain to the wheat crop, or, in other 
 words, bread for 666,666 additional mouths. (Great cheering from the 
 agriculturalists,) Now for turnips: Mr. Everitt, of South Crake, near 
 Fakenham, in Norfolk, has, in like manner, proved that 2 cwt. of guano 
 will add 10 tons per acre to the turnip crop. But again, for fear of 
 exaggeration, I will suppose that 3 cwt. per acre would be requisite to 
 create such increased fertility—in this case 2,000,000 cwt. of guano 
 would add 6,666,660 tons of turnips to the natural unmanured produce 
 of the crop, 1 believe it is generally considered that one ton of Swede 
 turnips would last twenty sheep, three weeks; and that each sheep 
 should gain half a pound of meat per week, or one pound and a half in 
 three weeks; thus, twenty sheep feeding on one ton of turnips in three 
 weeks should, in the aggregate, make, as the graziers say, 301bs. of 
 mutton. But, to be quite sure to be under the mark, I will assume that 
 one ton of turnips will only make half this amount of mutton : multiply, 
 then, 6,666,660 by 15, and you have no less than 99,999,9001bs. of 
 mutton as the fruits of 100,000 tons of guano; which, at 921bs. per man, 
 which is the average Englishman’s allowance—or, in other words, meat, 
 mutton, for 1,860,955—nearly 2,000,000 of people. (Loud cheers.) 
 Such, Sir, will have been the produce of the last year’s crops, made 
 luxuriant by the application of guano ; but after the turnip crop, fed off 
 by sheep, as a necessary consequence, would follow a productive wheat 
 crop in 1846; added to which, it will be recollected, that I said before 
 that there remained of the 280,000 tons of guano imported in 1845, 
 80,000 tons, as stock in hand for the coming year of 1846. (“ Divide, 
 divide,” “ Hear, hear,” and great confusion ) Well, but you have chal¬ 
 lenged us to show how we could feed the people, and will you not allow 
 me to reply to your challenge? (“ Hear, hear,” loud cheering, and cries 
 of “ Adjourn-”) God knows, if you had not taunted us and thrown out 
 this challenge, I would not have troubled you. (Cheers, and cries of 
 “ Hear, hear.”) You have challenged me to show how the agricultural 
 interest could provide food for the people under the protective system. 
 I have answered your challenge, and, as 1 think, have triumphantly 
 shown you that this country possesses the power of feeding its popula¬ 
 tion, and under the influence and encouragement of Protection, has fed 
 its population, as I will show you, better than the people of any other 
 country of Europe are fed. (“Hear, hear, hear,” “ oh, oh,” cheers, and 
 cries of “ Divide, divide.”) Well, .Sir, 1 have shown you that we have 
 most successfully fed the growing population of this country up to the 
 present time; that, under the influence of Protection, the agricultural 
 produce of the country in a remarkable manner has outstripped, and 
 continues to outstrip the growth of the population; it remains for me to 
 show that there exist the means and the scope for its continuing to do 
 so. Sir, these means exist in the still remaining wastes in Great Britain, 
 and more especially in Ireland, which are stated to be capable of being 
 
31 
 
 brought into profitable cultivation. Sir, I find in Mr. Porter’* “ Pro¬ 
 gress of the Nation,” which I have already quoted, this estimate of 
 waste lands thus remaining waiting for cultivation :— 
 
 3,454,000 ’ 
 
 530,000 
 5,950,000 
 4,900,000 
 160,000 
 
 Total. 15,000,000 
 
 Sir, assuming that in the course of the next 20 years these 15,000,000 
 acres of wastes should be brought into cultivation, and that they be 
 made to produce the present average of England—that is to say, 28 
 bushels of wheat per acre in four years ; the annual average produce of 
 the lands now waste would, at the end of the next twenty years, prove 
 equal to the growth of 10,075,000 quarters of wheat, or bread annually 
 for an increased population of 10.075,000 of souls; an estimate of 
 increase which must by all be admitted to be fully equal to any 
 increased growth of the population of I he United Empire of Great Bri¬ 
 tain and Ireland that can fairly be expected during the next 20 years. 
 (Great cheering from the Protection benches.') We are told by the Hon. 
 Member for Stockport, and by the lion. Member for Durham, that the 
 English are the worst farmers in the world, and that it is absolutely 
 necessary to take away their protection, and to excite them to exertion, 
 by the competition with Free Trade and foreigners, to induce such lazy 
 fellows to exert themselves. I will not fatigue the House by quoting 
 documents—(Hear, hear, hear)—or I could show that England produces, 
 comparatively speaking, much more than France, or even Holland, and 
 I could show you, from the testimony of honourable and high-minded 
 foreign writers, whose authority would not be disputed, and who appear 
 to have more candour, and to possess higher feelings of generosity, than 
 some of our own countrymen towards the farmers of England, that in 
 England not only a better system of farming prevails, but that there is 
 a larger produce, compared with the space cultivated, than in any other 
 country in the w’orld. (Cheers, and cries of “ Divide, divide,” and con¬ 
 fusion, in the midst of which the Noble Lord proceeded to quote various 
 facts to prove his assertion, but from the confusion which prevailed it 
 was impossible to catch a single sentence. When, at length, the confu¬ 
 sion had in some measure subsided, we understood the Noble Lord to 
 say,)—Sir, I might at great length quote the authority of a distinguished 
 French author—I mean Monsieur de Chevalier Tapies—in proof of this 
 assertion ; but at this late hour of the night, when the House is so 
 wearied, 1 will only trespass further on its attention whilst I state that 
 Monsieur de Chevalier Tapies says, and in this Mr. M‘Gregor confirms 
 him, that whilst France only produces, on the average, 14 bushels of 
 wheat per acre, Great Britain produces 28 ; and that whilst the cattle, 
 sheep and pigs in England, even in 1814 (since when the greatest im¬ 
 provement has taken place in the breed of every kind of animals in thii 
 
 England ... 
 
 Wales . 
 
 Scotland ... 
 
 Ireland. 
 
 British Isles . 
 
32 
 
 country), had doubled in weight since 1710,—those of France appear 
 at the present day to be precisely of the same weight with the farming 
 stock of England in 1710. He then gives what he conceives to have 
 been the weight of these creatures in England in 1710 and in 1814, as 
 follows :— 
 
 1710. Ih». 1814. 
 
 An ox usually weighed . 370 800 
 
 A calf . 50 140 
 
 A sheep . 28 112 
 
 A lamb. 18 35 
 
 A pig . GO 84 
 
 f may here as well observe, that in 1842, Sir Charles Lemon, a high 
 authority. estimated the average weight of the carcase of an ox at SOOlbs. 
 and those of sheep at SOlbs. Well, Sir, with all this disparity in size 
 between the cattle, sheep, and pigs of France with those of England, 
 what says M. le Chevalier Tapies of their comparative numbers ? He 
 says, “England with a population of 14,000,000, and France with a 
 population of 32,000,000, produce as follows:—England, 170,000 
 horses: 1,250,000 oxen ; 10,200,000 sheep. In proportion to her num¬ 
 bers (he says) France ought to produce 400,000 horses; 2,520,000 
 oxen ; 24,000,000 sheep ; whereas her actual produce is under 100,000 
 horses, 800,000 oxen, and under 5,200,000 sheep.” The result of all 
 which is, that according to ML le Chevalier Tapies’ calculations, that if 
 there were to be a dearth of grain in France and England, that compa¬ 
 ring the riches of each country in cattle with their respective population, 
 France would be found to possess fresh meat enough to keep her people 
 from starving to death for three months only, whilst the cattle and sheep, 
 and pigs of England, would keep her people alive for nearly two years. 
 But what does M. le Chevalier Tapies say of the comparative improve¬ 
 ment in the condition of the two people ? He says, that the population 
 of Paris having averaged from 1766 to 1775, 511,000 ; and 890,000 in 
 1831, he finds that the consumption of the French metropolis was as 
 follows:— 
 
 Population. Oxen. Sheep. 
 
 1766 to 1775, 511,000 66,000 333,000 
 
 1831, 890,000 61,000 278,000 
 
 M. le Chevalier Tapies remarks, that a similar diminution in the con¬ 
 sumption of animal food is to be remarked in pretty nearly all the towns 
 of the kingdom ; showing a considerable diminution of consumption in 
 the face of a greatly increased population. Now contrast this retrograde 
 movement in the condition of the people of France, with the consump¬ 
 tion of this metropolis— 
 
 Cattle. Sheep. 
 
 1833, 152,093 1,167,820 
 
 1842, 174.964 1,423,280 
 
 Increase.... 10,861 255,460 
 
 But the falling off in France is not by any means confined to animal 
 food. He gives thus the consumption of Paris in other things, compa¬ 
 ring now the years 1821, 1822, when the population of Paris was 
 678,860, with 1831, when it had increased to 890,000 
 
33 
 
 Sacks of flour. 679,860 
 
 Cheese, dry lbs.1,348,500 
 
 Wine (hectolitres) . 828,440 
 
 Brandy (ditto). 42,774 
 
 Beer. 148,276 
 
 r>|>ulatioli 820,(XlO. 
 
 587,940 
 
 996,369 
 
 does not appear, however, that the condition of France generally has 
 proved since 1830 ; for it seems that taking the entire of France, her 
 nsumption of meat continued to fall off in 1840, as compared with 
 30, although, during the same period, her population had increased 
 im 32,569,223, in 1830, to 33,540,910, in 1840. A kilogramme is 
 o pounds and one-fifth. 
 
 1830 32569223 .. 306172965 87485622 39365S5S7 — 
 
 1840 33540910 .. 29SS8S995 79673321 378562316 832837095 
 
 Diminution in 1840 ) 
 
 as compared with - 72S3970 7812301 15096271 33211796 
 
 1830 .J 
 
 Increase of population during the same period, 971.6S7, 
 
 Thu consumption of England and Wales, during the year 1840, exclusive 
 of pork, was 1,260,336,0001bs., showing, with a population considerably 
 less than half tlmt of France, an excess of consumption of beef, mutton, 
 and veal, of no less than 427,498,9051bs., thus with considerably less 
 than half the number of mouths consuming more than half as much 
 again of beef, mutton, and veal as France. In corroboration of this 
 statement, I find it said in April, 1841, in the Chamber of Peers in 
 France, by 11. Cunin Gridain, the Minister of Agriculture in France, 
 that whilst in France the consumption per head is 28lbs. of beef, veal, 
 and mutton, and 21 lbs. of “ charcuterie,” which 1 understand to be pig’s 
 meat; altogether 51 lbs. He says in England the consumption per head, 
 including “ charcuterie," is actually 149lbs. (68 kilogrammes). 11. 
 Tapies further observes, that in England the manure expended on the 
 land is nine times that expended upon the land in France. This same 
 impartial historian tells us, moreover, that whilst with our large proper¬ 
 ties, consequent upon the law of primogeniture, in the course of the last 
 fifty years England has knocked down 200,000 miserable cottages, and 
 replaced them by magnificent farm-houses (batiments rurau.r), in 
 France, with her small divisions of property (avec la petite culture), 
 during the same number of years it is not the cottages but the chateaux 
 that have been razed to the ground. I will now turn to Holland, said to 
 be, with the Exception of Great Britain, the best cultivated country in 
 the world. Well, what says Mr Macgregor of the average produce of 
 the wheat lands in Holland? You will recollect that he estimates the 
 average of England at 28 bushels per acre; the average of Holland he 
 estimates at 23 bushels per acre; more than 20 per cent, less than Eng : 
 land. Whilst of her ability to feed the people, and of the fullness with 
 which they are fed, he thus expresses himself—“ If the labouring pepu- 
 
34 
 
 lation of Holland instead of eating bread and animal food m«/KK si’a- 
 rixgly thaii, perhaps, any other in Europe, were to consume as 
 great a quantity as the French do, the com produced in all the pro¬ 
 vinces of the kingdom would not probably be equal to half the cox- 
 su-mption!" Now, haying already shown, upon the authority of the 
 French Minister of Agriculture and Commerce, that the French people 
 can only afford to eat, and do only, upon an average, eat a third part of 
 the meat and pork commonly cat by the average of Englishmen. 1 do 
 most cordially hope, before it is too late, that the working classes will 
 come forward and say that they do not wish to see those Protective 
 Laws to British agriculture, under which they have fared so well com¬ 
 pared to their neighbours of France and Holland, hastily done away 
 with, (Loud cheers from the Agriculturalists.) Well, then, if there is no 
 country in Europe which can compare in the science or enterprise in 
 agriculture with English and Scottish farmers, perhaps it is in America 
 that you can find our rivals and our superiors,—if you think so, pray 
 hearken to what a noble-minded and generous American says of his 
 British rivals Mr. Wadeworth, who for the generous mention he makes 
 of the people of this country, would do honour to the chivalry of the 
 British ancestry from which he sprung, in a speech delivered at a meet¬ 
 ing of an agricultural association of which he is the president, held some 
 three years ago in the state of New York, delivered himself of these 
 memorable sentiments :—“ It has been our fate to meet the English on 
 the battle field and upon the ocean, and whenever we have met the 
 results of the contest have been such that neither party has had need to 
 be ashamed, but there is now a more appropriate field of action, that 
 field which the ploughshare furrows ; and when we reflect, that whilst 
 England makes her land produce forty bushels of wheat per acre, whilst 
 America can only produce fifteen, we may well acknowledge, “ that 
 England is pretty hard to whip, meet her where we may.'’ Now, Sir, 
 when disinterested foreigners bear such important and honourable wit¬ 
 ness as this to our great superiority in farming, I do think it is not a little 
 hard that our own countrymen, manufacturers chiefly, knowing nothing 
 themselves of the science of agriculture, should take upon themselves to 
 hold up to public contempt the agriculturalists of England, as being the 
 very worst, instead of what, in truth, they are, the very best farmers in 
 the world. (Loud cheers from the Agriculturalists, and cues of “Oh, 
 oh,” “ Divide, divide,” from the Free-traders.) Sir, there is one point 
 with regard to the comparative value of wages in France and in Eng¬ 
 land, which I have omitted, but which with the leave of the House I will 
 state. (Cries of “ Divide, divide,” “ Oh, oh,” “ Order, order.”) Sir, it 
 is the poor of whom I am going to speak. You pretend to be the friends 
 of the poor, will you not hear me when 1 address myself to the interests 
 of the working classes ? (Renewed cries of “ Oh, oh,” and loud cheers 
 and cries of “ Adjourn, adjourn,” from the Protection benches.) Sir, 
 Monsieur leTapies, after noticing that the average price of wheat for the 
 previous eleven years in England had been 56s. 6d., and in France 
 39s. 7d;, proceeds to discuss the question whether the labourer in Eng¬ 
 land with his 2Id. per day ft. e. IOs. 6d. per week), or the French 
 labourer in his own country with his wages at 12£d. a day, are best off 
 
35 
 
 in their respective countries, when he comes to the conclusion that the 
 Englishman is very considerably better off. He shows first, that not¬ 
 withstanding the comparatively low price of wheat in France, it takes a 
 Frenchman in France fifteen days and a quarter to earn in France a 
 hectolitre of wheat; whilst in England, with his higher rate of wages, 
 and much higher price of wheat, it will only take him eleven days and 
 three-tenths; in other words, at the respective prices of wages and bread 
 in their own countries, it would take a Frenchman thirty-eight days' 
 labour, and an Englishman only fifteen days and a quarter, to earn a 
 quarter of wheat; but, as an Englishman in other regards consumes 
 one-fifth more than a Frenchman, it takes an Englishman but S4 days 
 and three quarters’ work to purchase his subsistence, whilst it takes a 
 Frenchman ninety-one and a halfdays’ work to procure his. Thus says 
 Monsieur do Tapies, there is an immense difference in the lot of the two 
 workmen, to the advantage of the Englishman, in whose food, meat, 
 beer, tea, and sugar abounds, whilst in that of the Frenchman it only 
 enters as a rare luxury. Those, theiefore,says the French writer, commit 
 a great error, who advance the doctrine that the English people are a 
 miserable people, as regards their system of subsistence, and their means 
 of paying for it. My Right Hon. Friend, the Secretary of State for the 
 Home Department, on the 10th of June last, in resisting the motion of 
 the Hon. Member for Wolverhampton, for the Repeal of the Corn Laws, 
 emphatically declared that the inevitable effect of such a measure would 
 be, “ to throw two millions of acres of the most ancient land in England 
 out of cultivation, and that the consequence must necessarily be to throw 
 the 500,000 or S00,000 persons dependent upon their cultivation out of 
 employment, stopping the whole machine of State, and reducing these 
 unfortunate people to pauperism, to beggary, to destitution, and 
 despair." (Renewed cries of “ Divide, divide,” “ Order, order.” The 
 impatience manifested by the House was such, that it was quite impossi¬ 
 ble to glean even the gist of a sentence.) I wish to ask her Majesty’s 
 Ministers, if such fatal and sad consequences as these are to arise out of 
 the very measures which they are pretending to bring forward as an 
 alleviation of the sufferings of the poor, how they reconcile these anta¬ 
 gonist doctrines ? If you, the Ministers, honestly wish to afford relief to 
 the labouring classes, why instead of taking oft’ the protecting duties on 
 Dritish agriculture and British industry of every description—why, in¬ 
 stead of removing the Customs'duties, none of them prohibitory, scarcely 
 any of them exceeding 30 per cent, ad valorem on those articles which 
 come into competition with the industry of Englishmen, of Scotchmen, 
 and of Irishmen, whether engaged in agriculture, in manufactures, or in 
 handicrafts -why, instead of remitting the customs’ duties upon the 
 produce and manufactures of those countries who maintain against you 
 the most stringent and prohibitory tariffs, do you not apply yourselves to 
 the reduction of other customs’ duties on articles that do not come into 
 competition with domestic industry, but are not less than corn, or than, 
 timber, or than silk manufactures, articles not only of luxury, but almost 
 of absolute necessity to the poor ? (Loud cheers.) Take for example 
 sugar or rice, or above all, tea; tea has become almost as great a neces¬ 
 sary of life, especially to the female portion of the working classes, as 
 
36 
 
 bread itself; and how does the matter stand as regards tea? Tea would 
 come into competition with no article of domestice produce, or domestic 
 industry. The introduction of cheap tea would injure no one, and 
 benefit all- The tax on tea is not some 25 or 30 per cent, upon the 
 value, as are those on corn, on timber, on silk manufactures, and other 
 articles, but actually 250 per cent, upon the cost of the tea. The cost 
 price of the tea is only lOd. per lb., the tax you put upon it is 2s. 2Jd. 
 per lb.—that is 250 per cent, on the produce of China ; 250 per cent, 
 on the produce of the Chinese, who take all your manufactures, 
 charging you not prohibitory duties, not extortionate duties, as you arc. 
 charged in Prussia, in Russia, in Germany, in Fiance, and in the United 
 States, whose produce and manufactures you are going to admit free of 
 duty, or at almost nominal duties; but charging you a duty not excced- 
 ing 6h per cent, ad valorem, upon your manufactures. Take, for 
 example, a consignment of grey woollen cloth, say the merchant's trans¬ 
 action shall be one of 20/., viz. forty pieces of grey cloth, measuring 20 
 yards the piece, at 6d. per yard, or 10s. per piece, the Chinese charge 
 you with a duty of 15 cents, or 7.(d. a piece on these grey cloth goods ; 
 the Chinese duty will be exactly 1/. 5s. The Chinaman pays your 
 merchant back with 480lbs. of tea, which, at lOd. per lb. comes exactly 
 to 20/., the valuation of the 40 pieces; but your duty at‘2oj r d. a lb. comes 
 to the enormous sum of 52/. 10s. on an article of exactly the same value 
 with that on which the more liberal Chinese only charge you 1 /. 5s. Sir, 
 I am at a total loss to discover any principle in this, unless it is a fixed 
 principle with her Majesty’s Ministers to deal with nations as they deal 
 with parties in this House and in the country, the principle of cringing 
 to their enemies, and of maltreating and bullying their best, their truest, 
 and their staunchest friends. (Great cheering from the Noble Lord’s 
 Friends.) But there is yet another consideration,—the Americans are 
 your rivals with their manufactures in the markets of China; the Ameri¬ 
 cans, wiser than you, admit the tea of their good and liberal customers 
 in China free of duty. Take care with the ill-advised, ill-assorted, ill- 
 conditional policy you are now pursuing, you do not alienate from 
 yourselves, and transfer to the United States the goodwill of the Chinese 
 and their Government, and lose a market that numbers three hundred 
 millions of people. (Loud cheering.) Sir, one more word before I have 
 done. We have heard in the course of these discussions a good deai 
 about “ a limited Monarchy—a reformed House of Commons—and a 
 proud aristocracy.” Sir, with regard to our limited Monarchy, I 
 have no observation to make ; but, Sir, if so humble an individual as 
 myself might be permitted to whisper a word in the ear of that illustrious 
 and royal personage, who, as he stands nearest, so is he justly dearest, 
 to her who sits upon the throne, I would take leave to say, that I cannot 
 but think he listened to ill advice, when, on the first night of this great 
 discussion he allowed himself to be seduced by the First Minister of the 
 Crown, to come down to this House to usher in, to give eclat, and, as it 
 were, by reflection from the Queen, to give the semblance of the per¬ 
 sonal sanction of her who wears the Crown to a measure which, be it 
 for good or for evil, a great majority at least of the landed aristocracy of 
 F.nglaud, of Scotland, and of Ireland imagine will be fraught with deep 
 
37 
 
 injury, if not ruin, to them—a measure which, not coniined to this great 
 class, is calculated to grind down countless smaller interests engaged in 
 the domestic trades and industry of this empire, transferring the profits 
 of all these interests—English, Scotch, Irish, and colonial—great and 
 small alike, from Englishmen, from Scotchmen, and from Irishmen, to 
 Americans, to Frenchmen, to Russians, to Poles, to Prussians, and 
 to Germans. (Great cheering from the Protectionists, mixed with loud 
 cries of “ Oh, oh,” and interruptions from the Free-traders.) Sir, I 
 come now to the Reformed House of Commons, and as one who was a 
 party to that great measure, I cannot but feel a deep interest in its 
 success, and more especially in that portion of it commonly called the 
 Chandos clause, but originating, I believe, with my Hon. and Gallant 
 Friend the Member for Lincoln, which extended the franchise to the 
 largest and most respectable body in this kingdom—I mean the landed 
 tenantry of England—and deeply should I regret should any large pro¬ 
 portion of those Members who have been sent to Parliament to represent 
 them in this House, prove to be the men to bring lasting dishonour alike 
 upon themselves, their constituencies, and this House, by an act of 
 tergiversation so gross as to be altogether unprecedented in the annals 
 of any reformed or un-reformed House of Commons. (Great cheering 
 from the Noble Lord’s Friends, mingled with loud cries of “ Oh,” and 
 great interruption.) Sir, lastly, I come to the “ Proud Aristocracy.” 
 We are a “ proud aristotracy but if we are proud, we are proud only 
 in the chastity of our honour; and if we assisted in 1841, in turning the 
 Whigs out of office, for that we did not consider a fixed duty of 8s. a 
 quarter on foreign corn a sufficient protection, we did so with honesty of 
 purpose and pure single-mindedness; and as we were not before, we 
 will not be accomplices after the fact, in the fraud by which the Whig 
 Ministers were turned out of office; if we are a proud aristocracy we are 
 proud of our honour, inasmuch as we never have, and never can, be 
 guilty of double dealing with the farmers of England—swindling our 
 opponents—deceiving our friends, or betraying our constituents. (Im¬ 
 mense cheering, amid which the Noble Lord sat down.) The cheering 
 was thereupon renewed, and continued for some minutes. There was a 
 short pause, and one or two Members shouted “ Palmerston,” but the 
 Noble Lord did not rise, and the Speaker ordered strangers to with¬ 
 draw, after which 
 
 The House divided, when there appeared— 
 
 For going into committee. 337 
 
 Against . 240 
 
 Majority for Ministers. — 97 
 
 The announcement of the numbers was received with cheers by the 
 Free-traders, and also with loud cheers from the Protectionists, the 
 Ministers having, up to the very moment of the division, confidently and 
 notoriously vaunted that they would have a majority of 104 !