Page:History of the Anti corn law league - Volume 2.pdf/376

 was required of them. Those who were anxious to provide a further supply of food for the population were told to wait, and therefore they were obliged to inquire whether the improvements for which they were to wait had any chance of being accomplished. Mr. Villiers then entered into a long argument to show, that so long as the present system continued there was not the slightest chance of those improvements being accomplished. There was, therefore, no likelihood of providing from domestic sources that adequate supply of food which the population required. What, then, was the reason that precluded us from providing it from foreign sources?

"He (Mr. Villiers) had taken the trouble to look over all the publications of the Protection Society, and he found that the leading topic, from beginning to end, was that if yon made food cheap you would reduce the wages of the people, and that if you made it dear you would increase their wages. (Hear, hear, from some honourable members on the ministerial side of the house.) Was he to understand, then, that there were still some persons in that house who maintained this doctrine? (Hear, hear.) He considered that what he Dow stated ought to be regarded as a very serious charge against an influential class in this country. (Hear, hear.) The present Corn Law was maintained by a great majority of both houses of the legislature, and they contended that the people were not desirous of seeing it repealed. Many persons, both in that house and the House of Lords, had lent their names, carrying with them great authority, to maintain that notion. In a publication which was now in his possession, the charge was reiterated against gentlemen on his (the opposition) side of the house, particularly against the manufacturers, that their object in seeking the repeal of this law was purely of a selfish nature. They say (continued the honourable member) that our object is to lower wages, (Cheers.) The honourable members for Lincolnshire and Devonshire both cheer that sentiment; they will, therefore, have something to do to meet the statements of the Home Secretary. (Hear, hear.) I suppose they are going to stand forward to night, as they ought to have done the other night, to prove that the right honourable baronet is wrong and fallacious; they do not shrink from the task of charging us and him with the propagation of a deception; they are prepared to vindicate what they have said and done—that the right honourable baronet is in error when he maintains that when wages rise criminals decrease, and the happiness and comfort of