would say, that it was not the annual increase in our population, but the enormous amount of destitution and distress in the country—evinced by the fact mentioned by Sir J. Graham, that we had 1,500,000 paupers last year—which required the alteration he proposed in the Corn Laws. He showed that if an unfavourable harvest or a period of scarcity should recur, there were circumstances which would make the pressure of them more severely felt the it had ever been, inasmuch as the standard of living had been much exalted both at home and abroad; and as many countries, France and Belgium for instance, which had been exporters, were now importers of corn. Besides, their legislation had discouraged agriculture in every country in Europe, and there was not a grain of corn grown upon the continent at present with a view to the English market. Moreover, the recent alteration in our banking system would render the revulsion more severe on the manufacturing interest, whenever it should become necessary to export bullion; and whenever they were first compelled to send for corn, they must send bullion, or else submit to a most ruinous fall of prices in their manufactures. He was at a loss to know what plea would be urged by the government in reply to his demand, on behalf of the people, for free access to the means of subsistence. If the government should either plead the pressure of local taxation, or the peculiar burdens on land, he would reply, "Bring us in at once an account of what is paid on those scores, and we will show that it is far less than the loss which the people sustain every year owing to the restrictions on their supply of food." He called upon the government to indemnify the landlords in any way they pleased, except that of making the food of the people dear.
Mr. Oswald, one of the members for Glasgow, seconded the inotion in a brief but excellent speech.
Mr. Christopher moved a direct negative to the motion. He did not think the working classes at all interested in the question:
