Page:History of the Anti corn law league - Volume 2.pdf/191

 superstitious veneration and that abhorence of change with which landlords have been taught to regard their acres, but as something on which to give employment to the people, and which, by the application to it of increased intelligence, energy, and capital, may produce increased returns of wealth. (Cheers.) Bnt we shall have another advantage from my committee. Recollect that hitherto you have never beard the two sides of the question in the committees which have set to inquire into agricultural subjects; and I press this fact on the notice of the right hon. baronet opposite, is a strong appeal to him. I have looked back upon the evidence taken before these committees, and I find that in none of them were both sides of the question fairly stated. All the witnesses examined were protectionists—all the members of all the committees were protectionists. (Hear, hear.) We have never yet heard an enlightened agriculturist plead the opposite side of the question. (Hear, hear.) It is upon these grounds that I press this motion upon honourable gentlemen opposite. I want to have further evidence. I do not want a man to be examined who is not a farmer or landowner. I would respectfully ask the Earl of Ducie and Earl Spencer to be examined first. (Cheers from the Opposition.) And then, honourable gentlemen, you could send for the Dukes of Buckingham and Richmond. (Lord cheering, mingled with laughter from the Ministerial benches.) I would like nothing better than that—nothing better than to submit these four noblemen to a cross-examination. I would take your two witnesses and you would take mine, and the country should decide between us. (Renewed cheers and laughter.) Nothing would so much tend to diffuse sound views as such an examination."

Mr. Cobden went on to say that he asked for no advantages in the appointment of a committee. There was a sort of etiquette that the mover for a committee should be its chairman. He waived all pretension of the kind, and only asked to be present as an individual member. He told the landowners there that their boasted protection was not protection, but destruction to agriculture, and concluded by saying:—

"Let us have a committee, and see if we cannot elicit facts which may counteract the folly of those who are trying to persuade the farmer to prefer acts of Parliament to draining and subsoiling, and to be looking to the laws of this House when he should be studying the laws of nature. (Cheers.) I cannot imagine anything more demoralising yes, that is the word—more demoralising that for you to tell the farmers