Page:History of the Anti corn law league - Volume 2.pdf/363

 of each, and how that reduction affected beneficially the condition of the labourer. And this was the argument by which the question, whether the total abolition of all protective duties was not the means of improving instead of deteriorating the condition of the people, was met. (Hear, hcar.) The noble lord (Lord John Russell) had proved that the people were not advancing relatively with the wealth and prosperity of the conntry, and had told then that this was owing to their legislation, and it was in their power, by altering the system upon which they had legisInted, to improve their condition. Now, this statement of the noble lord's was useful, for it came at a time when many from fear or benevelence were always talking in that House of the poor, and suggesting some crotchet or remedy for the distresses of one branch of industry or another; but the noble lord said, 'Away with all this pretence and affected sympathy for the poor, unless you relieve yourselves from the charge that for the purpose of promoting your own interests you are the canse of their deterioration. (Hear, hear.) The noble lord told them fairly that they upheld the present system, because they believed it to be most conducive to their own interests. He said, "You, the legislature, are the cause of the misery and distress of the poor, by passing laws to keep up the price of food.' (Hear, hear.) He (Mr. C. Villjers) did not defend the noble lord's conclusion, in one respect, but he thanked him for having advanced, and given the weight of his authority to the very measure which he (Mr. Villiers) would recommend for the benefit of the labouring classes, and of the people generally. (Hear.) The noble lord had shown that when they compelled the people to pay high prices for food, they were deprived of the comforts of life, and were rendered altogether incapable of providing education for their children. The noble lord said that by raising the price of food they injured and deteriorated the condition of the working classes, while on the other side no man upheld the price of food, he believed, except for the purposes of protection. (Hear, hear.) They raised the price of food by these protective duties; that was their parpose (hear, hear), and the right honourable baronet, the Home Secretary, had told them what was the consequence of success in that object. He had shown them, that if they bad high prices they would return to the state of 1840 and 1841, and if they did not succeed by their legislation in raising prices-and that was their grievance—that they did not get so much for their wheat by 10s. a quarter, as the right honourable baronet had promised the present law would give—then they were disappointed, and complained of the government. Those who advocated high prices, and those who witnesscd the results of low prices, were now together—let them solve the question as they would, the country would look on and judge between them. The advocates of high prices were now about to withdraw