"Mr. Gibson: I hope the noble lord does not suppose that they will be contented with that explanation. ('Hear, hear,' from the Opposition.) I should like to hear from the noble lord the grounds on which he thought so. (Cheers and laughter.) Honourable members may laugh if they please, but the noble lord did state the grounds once. Why? That they might be enabled to keep grooms and gardeners. (Cheers.) Considering the position held by the noble lord in this house, we have heard very little from him as to the effect of the Corn Law upon the trading and manufacturing interest. It is true that he did once frighten the agriculturists by his description of Tamboff; but he has never satisfied the manufacturers that the keeping out of corn is for their benefit. I think some are treating this question in a way which amounts to little short of insult. When gentlemen get up, they do not speak to the question. (Hear, hear.) Honourable gentlemen on the ministerial side are responsible in this matter, for they can alter the law, whilst the opposition cannot. The right honourable baronet is their leader, because they cannot form an administration out of the Central Society for the Protection of Agriculture. (A laugh, and a voice, Can you form one out of the League.') The right hon. baronet is nearer to the League than he is to the Central Society for the Protection of Agriculture, for he has acknowledged the principles of the former to be right in the abstract, and has professed his belief that they must eventually prevail. The right honourable baronet is responsible for the Corn Law; he imposed it, and he ought to give a distinct explanation of the benefit which it has conferred upon my constituents. The right honourable baronet cannot legislate for a portion only of the community. (Cheers.)
"Mr. Bankes dwelt upon the opposite side of the question, denying that the agricultural labourers of Dorsetshire were so badly off as they had been described, and somewhat discursively supporting the protective system.
"Mr. Hutt would support the motion of Mr. Villiers, though preferring a moderate fixed duty to total repeal."
Mr. Cobden followed, having been loudly called for. He ridiculed the notion of protecting "native industry," as whatever advance of price was obtained by the producer was a tax upon the consumer; telling the House that they were losing sight of the community at large who were neither manufacturers nor farmers. He also exposed the absurdity of the protection on the ground that the protected might be enabled to pay their taxes, and showed that
