Page:History of the Anti corn law league - Volume 2.pdf/208

 industry, and keep up the supply of food—at least something of the sort was implied in the amendment of the honourable member for Knaresborough. But what was really the purpose of the Corn Laws? If it was not to produce scarcity, he wished to know what its purpose was? He wished to know why the opposite intention had never been avowed? He wished to know if any person who had spoken in defence of the Corn Laws had ever said or implied anything other than that scarcity was their end and object? If their object was to produce plenty, why were those who maintained these laws dissatisfied whenever there was abundance in the country? How was it that when the people were well fed and well off, that it was precisely that moment at which the agriculturists came forward with complaints? (Hear, hear.) They had evidence to show that it was always the case that, when the people were in a comparatively comfortable state, the complaints of the agriculturists were loudest. If plenty was the object of the law, why, at that moment, its supporters should be most satisfied." (Hear, hear.)

Mr.Villiers concluded a very able speech by saying:

"Considering the misery which had been produced by the Corn Laws, the irreparable injury which they had inflicted on commerce, and the millions they had for ever morally and physically ruined, he, for one, could not, for the sake of conciliating a few great men, abandon a great principle, which had for its object a great public advantage, and the removal from the people of an enormous wrong."

"Mr. Ferrand, after descanting on a variety of topics fall urged in his old tone, his old manner, accompanied with his old stories, unredeemed by a spark of novelty, and his whole conduct manifesting that fools are not always taught by experience), moved an amendment, the terms of which were a copy, or rather parody, of the motion of Mr. Viiliers, with the variation that machinery, not the Corn Law, was the cause of distress, and protection and encouragement to native industry its cure. This amendment found with difficulty a seconder; in answer to the repeated call of the Speaker, 'Who seconds this amendment?' Mr. Borthwick slowly and reluctantly raised his hat; but as it was scouted on both sides, scarcely even alluded to, and finally withdrawn, we shall take no farther notice of it.

"Captain Berkeley lauded the landed aristocracy, whose hospitality at home and courage abroad were conspicuous in peace and war. The Protection Societies should take the title of Anti-Tamworth or Anti Peel Associations; and the Anti-Corn Law League, by its interference with