Commons Sitting of 28 April 1825

Corn Laws.
After numerous petitions, both for and against a revision of the Corn Laws, had been presented to the House,
Mr. Broughamtook occasion to suggest, that in proportion as hon. gentlemen really wished well to that momentous question, so soon to be brought before them by his hon. friend, in exactly the same proportion would they do well to abstain from saying any thing on presenting their petitions, or anticipate the discussion of the evening. He had never failed to observe, that when petitions were to be presented in great number, on a subject appointed for debate on the same night, the observations which were usually made upon them, occurring over and over again with each separate petition, had the effect of anticipating much of what might be more conveniently reserved for the principal debate; so that when the debate at last came on, those observations were found to have completely stifled it; or, to use a common phrase, to have thrown a wet blanket upon it. This being the case, he should himself follow his own doctrine. A petition most numerously and respectably signed by the inhabitants of the county of Durham, praying that no alteration might take place in the existing Corn laws, had been forwarded to him, and the petitioners had done him the honour, certainly, to confide it to his charge; but for the reasons he had already stated, he did not intend to present it that night, but would bring it in to-morrow. In the mean time the petitioners had all the benefit of the declaration which he now made, that the whole population of Durham were decidedly averse to any alteration of the Corn laws.
Sir E. Knatchbullremarked on the inconsistency of the hon. and learned gentleman, who deprecated other gentlemen's making comments on the subject of the petitions they might have to present, and yet had himself gone out of his way to remark on a petition that was not to be brought up until to-morrow.
Mr. W. Gordon,in presenting the petions from Kincardineshire, said he could not help thinking, notwithstanding the hon. and learned gentleman's observations, that that was the very moment for such remarks as hon. gentlemen might desire to offer on the subject.
The Sheriffs of London appeared at the bar, and presented a petition from the lord mayor, aldermen, and commons of the city of London, praying for an alteration in the Corn laws.
Mr. Alderman Woodsaid, it was not often the lot of the common council to re

251
cord their approbation of the measures pursued by his majesty's government [a laugh.] On the present occasion, however, they expressed their admiration of the policy of ministers, in removing restrictions and establishing, in almost every direction, a free trade; but they added, that it was quite impossible, without some great alterations in the Corn laws, which should have the effect of lowering the price of grain, to stand up against the foreign manufacturer, whom we had now admitted into our own markets. The petitioners did not ask for any lower duty than what might be sufficient to protect the land-owner. But, under the present system of our Corn laws, many frauds were practised to keep up the price of grain to the consumer in this country; and the monopolist, and not the farmer, obtained all the advantage of those high prices from which the public suffered. He did hope that this trade would, for the future, be placed on a footing which would be most advantageous to the agriculturist and to the consumer generally.
Mr. T. Wilsonwas happy to be able to concur in what had fallen from his worthy colleague; which it was by no means his good fortune to do every day.
Mr. C. Calvertdesired to call the attention of the House to the enormous expense which the country was put to for the printing of all these petitions. There were many of the less important kind that it would be quite sufficient merely to enter on the Journals, in such a manner, however, as to distinguish their prayer and object. Hon. gentlemen, in some cases, might content themselves with having them read, as an hon. friend of his, for example (Mr. W. Gordon), had just now presented about a dozen petitions on the same subject from the same county, the greater number of which were most likely verbatim et literatim the same.
Mr. Brightthought that this objection ought not to have been taken just now, on so important a subject. His hon. friend had surely begun at the wrong end; seeing that the city of London was the chief city of our commerce, and, indeed, of the commerce of the world.
Mr. C. Calvertsaid, he never meant to oppose the printing of a petition from the city of London, like that now before the House; which, of all others, it was most important should be printed. His observations applied to such cases as that which
252
he had taken the liberty of pointing out.
Ordered to lie on the table.

Coronation Oath.
Mr. Egertonpresented a petition from Chester, against any further concessions to the Roman Catholics.
Mr. Grenfellsaid, he was the last man in the House to allude to what had taken place elsewhere with reference to any matter done or to be done by that House; but, something had been said elsewhere which induced him to express a hope that, before the conclusion of the session, some member of weight and talent and character in one of the Houses of parliament, would bring under their consideration the propriety of altering the Coronation Oath [hear, hear!].

Corn Laws.
Mr. W. Whitmorerose and aid:*
Sir;—I rise in pursuance of a notice, I gave early in the present session of parliament, to bring under the consideration of the House the law respecting the trade in Foreign Corn. Previous, Sir, to entering upon this most important subject, I am anxious to offer a few observations to the House, with respect to the motives which induce me to agitate this question, more with reference to the fate of my motion, than on account of any consideration personal to myself; though I do not pretend to be indifferent to the latter point.
If, Sir, I had been led to stir this question from any motive of personal vanity; or from any absurd notion of occupying for a moment a prominent station in this House, which neither my abilities, nor my habits of life, nor my inclination, would enable me permanently to fill–if, Sir, from these, or any such like motives, I had been induced to bring this subject forward, I should feel that I deserved the full measure of that censure which has for the last week been so unsparingly heaped upon me. I should feel that in exciting that ferment, which hon. members describe as pervading the country, on account of the motion which I have now the honour to submit to the House, I should have little to offer in extenuation of my conduct. But, Sir, it is by no motive of this kind that I am actuated; but by a deep conviction, that the period is arrived,
*From the original edition printed for J. Ridgway.

253
beyond which, the consideration of this most important subject cannot with safety be postponed. It is time to make the laws regulating the Corn Trade square a little better with those principles of free trade, which have, so much to the credit of his majesty's ministers, been not only promulgated, but largely acted upon:— principles from whence the greatest benefits will be found to result, not alone to the people of this great manufacturing country, but to the world at large:— principles which reflect so much honour upon the ministers who have the manliness and the true wisdom to adopt them as the basis of their policy, and which will cause their names to descend to posterity, amongst those statesmen to whose memory the gratitude of the whole country is justly due.
Sir, the Corn laws of England stand forward in glaring contrast to these principles—forming an exception, not only obvious to the eye, but calculated also to defeat the great advantages which would otherwise accrue from their adoption. Is it, Sir, not unjust to call upon the manufacturing interest to make those sacrifices, which a change of system, however beneficial in its ultimate results, never fails, in the first instance, to entail upon the parties interested—when, at the same time, you allow to continue in its full force, a system which strikes at the very root of commercial prosperity? Sir, a free admission of foreign corn, subject to such duty as the existence of burthens, bearing with peculiar or exclusive weight upon the productions of the soil, is the basis upon which free trade must repose, and without which it never can be permanently and effectually carried into operation.
The Corn laws of this country have inflicted the greatest injury upon the general trade of the world, that ever, perhaps, was produced by injudicious legislation. They have deranged its course, stagnated its current, and caused it to flow in new and far less beneficial channels than it formerly occupied. The returns from the Consuls abroad, stating the very low price of corn in all the shipping ports of the continent, and complaining, whenever any remarks accompany their returns, of the distress generally prevalent in the corn exporting countries, are sufficient evidence of this fact. One remarkable effect produced by them is, that they have led to the adoption of similar laws in all the other countries in Europe, whose natural
254
condition is that of importing countries of corn. Spain and Portugal have followed our example; and Holland, whose laws respecting the external trade in corn, were, until lately, the best existing in any country, has just been forced to the adoption of the same line of policy. I say forced; because, it will be quite obvious, that if England, the great regulator of the price of corn in this part of the world, and with a view to the supply of whose markets, a considerable portion of this commodity is grown in Poland and the other exporting countries—if England, I say, determines on shutting her ports against its admission, it is clear that the corn, not finding its usual vent, must be thrown back upon the countries of its produce, causing a glut in their own markets, and overwhelming with its quantity the markets of all other countries open to its reception. It follows as an inevitable consequence, that the exclusion of foreign corn from the markets of a country naturally importing, produces similar regulations in other countries similarly situated.
Now, Sir, what consequence is likely to ensue from such a policy? Must it not at no distant period, repress production? Must it not cause the agriculturists of the exporting countries to abandon the cultivation of grain to a considerable extent, and betake themselves to the production of some other article, which, if not equally beneficial in its results, where a regular market exists for the sale of grain, is at least attended with more profit, or rather without the loss contingent upon the continued growth of an article, whose price has fallen considerably below the cost of its production. Such an effect is not only consistent with all reasoning upon the subject, but its existence is proved by direct testimony of the most unimpeachable nature. I hold in my hand two letters from Mr. Behrend, a resident at Dantzic, connected with the Corn trade, minutely informed of the actual situation of the agriculturists of that country, from the circumstance of his being a landed proprietor in it to a considerable extent. With the permission of the House I will read extracts from these letters:
"The Corn trade having now lingered in a depressed state for upwards of six years, the result of this unfortunate circumstance, to the whole northern continent, and more particularly to this country, has been extremely disastrous. The penury of the agriculturists having been

255
driven to the highest pitch, production has gradually diminished, and as the higher classes have also felt the pressure of this general impoverishment, our commercial intercourse with the western parts of Europe has experienced a serious diminution. It is generally thought that the consumption of British colonials and manufactures, does not at present exceed one half of what it was before this unfortunate crisis of the Corn trade took place.
"The price of wheat at which the Prussian farmer can afford to pay the moderate taxes of this country, is calculated by the best economists at 35 s. per Winchester quarter, but the landed proprietor in Volhynia (from which province we get the bulk of good wheat), cannot supply the ports of the Baltic at less than 38 s., as he has nearly 14 s. to pay for freight duties, and charges. Hence it appears, that our prices have been for more than five years under the cost of production, which accounts sufficiently for the considerable decrease which is observed in the extent of the Polish supplies and our home produce. It has been rumoured, that our government intends to retaliate, or, at least, to meet the present prohibitive system of the western countries by a similar measure, as regards several expensive articles of importation which are not in the number of the immediate necessaries of life; but little good is anticipated from such a measure, as it would, perhaps, annihilate trade altogether."
Upon the receipt of this letter I requested further information upon this subject, and received a second communication from the same gentleman; which, as it gives some interesting information with respect to the change of cultivation in Poland, I trust the House will permit me to read to them:
"I am myself the possessor of a patrimonial estate, on which my father never used to keep above 100 to 150 sheep. I have now increased my flock to 1,000 head, and as long as wool maintains its present value, I am certain I shall not recur to an increased culture of grain, were I to be made sure of 40 s. per quarter for my wheat. I now produce about one-half the wheat which was grown on the same soil ten or twelve years ago, but find myself abundantly indemnified by an advantageous sale of the produce of my flock. I observe most of my neighbours to have adopted the same method, and, I
256
think, I know but two classes of Polish agriculturists, one of which is ruined beyond help, and whose properties are in a state of general deterioration; and the other, having directed their whole attention to the breeding of cattle, the latter are observed to make annually large purchases of sheep, more particularly in Silesia and Saxony. Now, it is evident that the value of wool will be reduced in the same measure as production may increase. I am, nevertheless, quite certain, that a reduction of 25 per cent in the price of wool would still render its growth preferable to an increased culture of wheat at 40 s. per quarter, not to mention the disorder naturally arising in a farm, from a repeated revolution in the agricultural system."
Now, Sir, from this reasoning, and these facts, there arise two important considerations: first, with respect to the regular supply of food for the consumption of this country; secondly, with respect to the effect this change of system would have on our own agricultural pursuits. Unless it can be shewn, that the average production in Europe of several years has been above the average consumption of the same period—a fact, which few, I presume, will venture to assert—it must follow, that a considerable reduction in produce, without a corresponding falling-off in consumption, must lead, at some time or other, to great deficiency in the quantity of food, and, consequently, to all the horrors of dearth, if not of famine. Sir, it is far from being my wish to create any unnecessary alarm in the country upon this subject, but I must say, that I cannot but fear, that the period is not very remote, when we shall reap the bitter fruits of our own most impolitic law. The stocks of wheat are now considered, by all the most intelligent persons I have conversed with upon this subject—(and whose views are sharpened and extended by that acuteness and information, which attention to individual interest never fails to produce)—as unusually low; and that we are, therefore, entirely dependent upon seasons, without, as is generally the case, having any stock upon which to draw in case of deficient produce.* Our resource
*The usual stock of old wheat at harvest, may be computed, communibus annis, at 4,000,000 quarters: it is therefore, clear, that a country having that stock in hand in any given year, may continue

257
of foreign supply will be essentially diminished by the change in agriculture abroad, to which I have alluded; and, I own I cannot contemplate all the evils which we are thus madly entailing upon ourselves, and, indeed, upon Europe in general, without the greatest alarm. The evil may be retarded by abundant seasons; it may be altogether averted by a timely change in our Corn laws, but if they are allowed to continue in full force, the fatal effect now contemplated seems at some period inevitable.
The other consideration arising from these facts is, that the hopes of the English agriculturist will be defeated, by the admission of a much larger quantity of foreign agricultural produce, other than grain, provided the present law continues to exclude the latter description of produce. More wool, more flax, more tallow, will be imported, and seriously affect the price of these articles in the English market. The present law is inconsistent with itself; and, in that respect, even Mr. Webb Hall's proposition had a greater appearance of wisdom—it was at least more consistent; though, it must be admitted, it wits a consistency in error. Such, indeed, has been the fact. If gentlemen will look: to the imports of these articles, they will find the quantities imported have lately very considerably increased. The annual average import of wool for five years, ending 1823, amounted to 16,194,502 lbs. for the year 1824, it amounted to 22,558,222 lbs., being an excess of 6,363,720 lbs. The import of tallow for five years, ending 1819, ave-
without an import of foreign corn for three or four years, notwithstanding an annual deficiency of a 1,000,000 quarters, provided, from any circumstance, speculation had been repressed, and that the sole object was, to live from hand to mouth, without reference to a future period: that such has been our situation for the last five years is my decided conviction. The dealers in grain had suffered so much in their speculations during the depressed state of agricultural produce, that they lost all confidence, and confined their view to the immediate, not the remote and contingent demand; such a Corn law as now exists in this country, must ever produce a similar effect. It should be remembered, that all the great scarcities in this country have arisen from low stocks, conjoined with deficient produce.
258
rages 512,116 cwt. 2 qrs.1lb for each year; for the five years ending 1824, it averages 732,494 cwt. 2 qrs. 10 lbs., being an excess in the latter period of 220,378 cwt. 5 qrs. 9lbs. The flax imported from 1811 to 1820 averages 325,946 cwts. annually; in 1824 it amounted to 547,096 cwts. 2 qrs. 17 lbs. being an excess of the last year of 221,150 cwts. 2qrs. 171 lbs.
Now, Sir, I do not mean to press this argument beyond its fair limits. I am well aware, that the increasing population and prosperity of this country require a larger supply of these articles than heretofore. I am also aware that, in some cases, new markets have opened, and, in others, duties on imports have been lowered, which would naturally cause a larger importation; but still, Sir, I am convinced that, if we continue our present system, we shall find ourselves competed with at home, in these various products, in a way seriously affecting the interests of the agricultural classes. I need hardly refer to the evils of glut, as we have so recently escaped from them, that they must be fresh in the recollection of every gentleman; and all who reflect upon the subject must admit that a law, the tendency of which is to produce dearth at one time, will equally conduce to create superabundance at another. Great and ruinous fluctuation of price is the inevitable result of a system of restriction; whereas freedom in the trade in corn leads to the opposite effect; to as much steadiness of price as is consistent with a commodity, the produce of which varies so much with the seasons. In order to illustrate this, let us suppose the trade in corn confined to a single parish. Can any one, in such a case, doubt that dearth at one period, and superabundance at another, would follow as a necessary consequence. Extend the limits of the trade from a parish to a county, the variations, though less sudden and less frequent, will still be of perpetual recurrence. Extend them to a large country, and the chance of fluctuation, as well as its range, becomes thereby diminished. In fact, the more the basis from whence your supplies are drawn is widened, the greater the steadiness of price; the more it is narrowed, the more constant and the more fatal in their effects are the fluctuations to which you are subject.*
*In early times, when there was a difficulty in the conveyance of bulky commo

259
Another material consideration, respecting a price of corn considerably higher than its rate in surrounding nations, arises from its effect on capital invested in manufactures and other pursuits. It must raise the price of labour, and this rise in labour must, in some shape or other, affect the manufacturer. Some imagine it raises the price of his commodities; others, of which I am one, that it reduces the rate of his profits. In the former case, competition in foreign markets, with articles of foreign produce, would become impossible; in the latter case, the profits of stock would be essentially diminished. In either case dangerous consequences would result. Capital, upon the possession of which the power and importance, as well as wealth, of this country depends, would be attracted, by superior advantages, to some other more favoured situation. Gentlemen unaccustomed to reflect upon subjects of this nature, and perceiving great appearance of prosperity in all directions, may, perhaps, undervalue this consideration; and yet is there none of more vital consequence to the essential interests of this country. I implore them to reflect from what cause it proceeds, that England possesses such an extent of power and im
dities from one part of the country to another, arising from the want of roads; when there existed a prejudice, as well as a legal penalty against what was called forestalling and regrating, the fluctuations in price were immense. In 1286, at one period of the year, wheat sold at 2s. 8d. per quarter; at another, at 16 s.; during the year 1317, it was at 2l. 4s., 4l., and 6s. 8d. per quarter; in 1557, at one time, it was 4l., at another, 2l. 13 s. 4d. per quarter. The same holds good with respect to France and Spain, where, during the 150 years ending with the French Revolution, the variation in price amounted to 7 times; while in England, for the same period, it did not exceed 3&#x00Bc; times; restriction either by law, or on account of difficulty of conveyance, existed in the two former countries, whereas in England, notwithstanding a law prohibiting export, except under high duties, which existed up to 1773, yet owing to its being constantly repealed pro tempore in periods of dearth, the trade was comparatively free, the communication between one part of the country and the other was also unfettered.
260
portance in the scale of nations. Is it from the extent of her territory, or amount of her population? Surely not. Viewed with reference to these points, how insignificant does our power appear when contrasted with that of the leading powers on the Continent. How small is the extent of both our territory, and the amount of our population, compared with those of either France or Austria; but still more glaring is the contrast if Russia be the point of comparison. How, if population and territory were the only elements of consideration, could we contend with this colossal empire? and yet we not only have competed with her, and with each of the other powers singly, but united, and could do so again successfully if the honour or interests of the country required it. Even the United States beats us hollow in respect of territory; and, although our population is now larger than her's, will it continue to be so twenty or thirty years hence? I fact, it is capital from whence the chief power of great states is derived; and any line of policy, the effect of which is to diminish our capital, it were sheer madness to pursue.
Does any statesman in this House believe we can pursue this policy with impunity—does any man of common intelligence in the country, who views the subject with impartiality, believe it?—Can they adduce a single instance of a country, similarly situated, who has pursued such a system, and continued to thrive under it?—I challenge them to produce the instance in any part or in any period of the world—the downfall of Holland, on the contrary, is attributed, by the best authorities, whom it might appear pedantry to quote, to this very circumstance, of a large artificial rise in the price of bread.* Sir, I feel convinced, if our Corn laws were to continue without modification for twenty years, that the prosperity of England would receive a mortal stab. There is also another effect produced by this law, which is of no mean importance. I allude to its effect in a political point of view—it is clear that its object is, to raise the price of provisions for the benefit of one class of the community, at the expense of the rest. I am far from wishing to say any thing offensive to
* The Corn Trade of Holland was, until lately, free, but there was, and still is, a tax paid upon flour ground at the mill.

261
any individual but still I cannot, without omitting the strong points of argument in this case, refrain from alluding to the pernicious consequences of such a system. The class whose benefit is thus sought is the powerful and affluent class; those whose interests are rendered subservient are the mass and body of the people—can this produce any other effect than to introduce a principle of discord and disunion there, where harmony and concord are so essential for the public good. Are we, Sir, prepared, at the present time of day, to separate the aristocracy from the people?—are we prepared to set up a privileged class, to whose immediate advantage the real interests of this great country are to be heedlessly sacrificed? Sir, this would be at all times most dangerous—introducing a principle altogether at variance with the spirit of our constitution, and calculated to work in it a change which cannot be contemplated without most serious apprehension. But, is this the time you would select for so rash an experiment?—Is it a time of ignorance and want of intelligence upon matters of this nature?—Is it a moment when monopoly can shelter itself under the garb of patriotism? Is it not, on the contrary, the time, above all others, when the flimsy veil would be most easily seen through, and when the real nature of the law would stand forth in all its worst features, naked and exposed to the indignant gaze of an enlightened and injured people. The present, as all know, is a time when there is spread over the face of the country an enlightenment, a knowledge and spirit of inquiry, such as marked no former period of our history, and when it has penetrated and shed its influence over the abode of ignorance and prejudice—the artizans, the labourers of this country, are fast becoming a far more intelligent body than they formerly were. Not only have the elements of education been generally diffused amongst them, but the abstruse and more intricate parts of knowledge are now communicated to them with an ease and a profusion calculated to excite astonishment, and to call forth serious reflexion. Some individuals entertain apprehensions upon this subject, in which I certainly do not participate; but, if I could believe that the legislature of this country could be rash enough to disregard the spirit of the times, and to continue a line of policy such as that which engendered our Corn Laws—in such an age, and with so clear
262
a view of their injustice as that which pervades the mass of the people, I should also fear the consequences of this extension of knowledge; but, Sir, I cannot and do not believe it—I rely upon the sound and liberal policy of the present administration—I confide in that intelligence which must make its way amongst the landed interest of this country, for the removal of an evil of so glaring and so pernicious a tendency.
Sir, before I proceed to state what alteration in the law I am now about to recommend, I think it desirable to mention shortly what the Corn Law of England formerly was, and the rather because some are in the habit of considering our present law as of long standing, and having, therefore, received the seal of time and experience. This, Sir, is an error; the principle introduced into our legislation on that subject by the law of 1815 is entirely new—such as we never dreamt of before, being, in truth, the wildest theory, and most insane speculation, that ever entered into the heads of practical statesmen. It contained, as we know, a provision, that there should be a complete exclusion of foreign corn under a given price (80 s. per quarter), and a free admission of it above that price. The law of 1822 in some measure modified this principle, but containing an import price, and fixing that as high as 70 s. it left the law in very nearly the same injurious state. This, I have said, was not so formerly: with permission of the House I will shortly state what was the principle of the law from the time we became a regularly importing country of corn, namely, in 1773. By the law passed in that year, foreign wheat was at all times admissible into the English markets, subject to one high duty of 24 s. 3d. per quarter, and two low duties; the first of 2s. 3d., the second of 6d. per quarter. The high duty was payable when wheat was below 44 s. per quarter; the first low duty of 2s. 6d. when its average price was at or above 44 s.; the second low duty of 6d. per quarter when the price reached 48 s. The same principle and amount of duties was continued by the law passed in 1791, but the prices at which they were payable were altered; the high duty of 24 s.3d. was payable up to 50 s.; the first low duty of 2s. 6d. between 50 s. and 54 s.; and the second low duty of 6d. at or above 54 s. In 1804 these prices were again changed to 63 s. per quarter, up to which the high

263
duty was payable; between 63 s. and 66 s. the first low duty was imposed, and at 66 s. the second low duty took place. Owing to the price in the English market being always (with the exception of three or four years, which occurred after the American war) above that price at which the high duty was payable, the effect was a free trade in corn, subject to a duty of 2s. 6d. per quarter at most, but generally to a duty of only 6d. Virtually, then, though not nominally, we had a free trade in corn with very low duties. I shall now proceed to the proposed alteration, but before I do so I must clear my way of the exclusive burthens to which the agriculturist of this country is subject, and, on account of which, by the admission of all parties, he is entitled to some protection. Sir, these have been much exaggerated; but neither am I disposed to reduce them to their lowest amount, as I am convinced that there is a disposition on the part of the people of this country to make a fair and liberal allowance to the agricultural interest with respect to these burthens; but I must inquire a little as to their amount. They are said to consist of poor rates, tithes, land-tax, highway, and other parochial rates.

£

The Poor Rates, including county rates and other payments, amounted in 1823 to about

7,000,000

Tithes

5,000,000

Land Tax

1,210,127

Highways, &c.

2,000,000

£15,210,127

But to cover all possible loss accruing from these burthens, I will take them at 18,000,000 l.*
Now, Sir, let us consider what would be the effect of a duty of 10 s. per quarter imposed on the import of foreign wheat into this country; if we take the con-
* It is quite obvious that this is a high, nay, an extravagant calculation—no allowance is made for that portion of poor and county rates paid by the towns—none for that portion of the tithes in the hands of lay impropriators, nor for the church patronage, generally in the hands of the landed interest—nor is the effect of the legacy duty falling upon personal and not real property, at all calculated. If all these circumstances were fairly estimated, the claim would be considerably reduced.
264
sumption at 14,000,000 quarters, it will stand thus:

&#x00A3;

14,000,000 quarters wheat, raised in price by a duty of 10s. per quarter

7,000,000

14,000,000 barley, duty, 5s

3,500,000

20,000,000 oats, duty 3s

3,000,000

Grass produce, vegetables, &c.

5,000,000

£ 18,500,000

A duty of 10 s. would then have the effect of drawing from the pockets of the people of this country 18,000,000 l. annually more than they would have to pay if the trade in corn were free. No doubt can, I think, be entertained of this being its effect, or nearly its effect. It is clear that the object of the duty must be to raise the price of agricultural produce generally, or it would be of no value at all: and it Would be absurd to impose restrictions without a motive, as would be the case if it were true, as some seem to imagine that the duty would fall only upon the foreign corn imported, and not produce the effect of raising the price of the whole quantity consumed.* In the
The high rate of what is called the remunerating price in this country, provided the whole quantity of food required for our consumption were raised at home, would be owing to the inferior description of soil thus forced into cultivation, and which could not be cultivated unless a high price were obtained for its produce. Under a system of free trade in corn, these inferior soils would not be forced into corn cultivation; Or rather, would not be subject to the regular rotation of crops, which the high price arising from duty payable on the import of foreign corn would produce: there is, perhaps, no soil so inferior now in cultivation which might not occasionally be broke up for one or two crops of grain, but with moderate prices the inferior soils Would not be stimulated to an unnatural produce by a large expenditure of capital, in the shape of artificial manure and great labour, but allowed to rest until nature had again invigorated them for a similar process of cropping. I need not mention to those acquainted with agricultural pursuits, that these inferior soils would bear some species of herbage when not ploughed. It is also true that the better descriptions of soil would be stimulated to greater produce by a large expenditure of capital, when prices were high than when low.

265
event of a free trade in corn, the home growth would be less, and the imports of foreign corn greater, The latter, drawn from soils of a superior quality than those in cultivation in this country, would be sold with profit to the grower at more moderate prices. It is clear that low prices would be the consequence of open ports, and high ones (the demand continuing the same) the result of the exclusion of foreign corn, provided it did not, as it would produce great fluctuation of price: a moderate duty, supposing it not to exclude foreign corn, would thus have the effect of raising its price generally in the markets of this country. If the price of Wheat was raised, that of every other description of agricultural produce would proportionably be increased. This is so generally allowed, that I need not, I am sure, take up the time of the House in arguing it.
The next point to which I wish to call the attention of the House is, the probable price at which a certain quantity of foreign corn would now be sold in the markets of this country. One datum is afforded by the average price at Rotterdam, from the year 1815 to the year 1824, the result of which is, an average price for the whole of the ten years, of 47 s. 9¾d. per quarter. True it is, that in one of the years, 1817, the price rose, on account of scarcity in France and England, to 93 s. per quarter; but during the four or five latter years of this period, the prices were unusually depressed, owing to the English markets being closed against the admission of foreign corn.* There is, therefore, no reason to imagine it is too high an average; and as Rotterdam is about the same distance from ports of the exporting countries as the harbours of Great Britain, the probability is, that if our ports were open for the admission of foreign corn, it could not be sold with profit below that price. The average price of wheat at New York, for the five years ending 1824, is 38 s. per quarter. This, however, was a period during which no import for British consumption took place, and there is, therefore, no reason to imagine the price higher than it would amount to under
*The prices were as follows:

1815

47s

8&#x00BC;d

1820

36s

10&#x00BD;d

1816

60s.

11d.

1821

33s

5d.

1817

93s.

3d.

1822

29s.

9&#x00BD;d.

1818

66s.

8d.

1823

30s.

3d.

1819

46s.

6&#x00BD;d.

1824

32s.

10&#x00BD;d.

266
the circumstance of a demand for this country—to this might be added the expense of freight, & c., amounting to about 12 s., which would raise it to 50 s. per quarter.* Wheat from Odessa could hardly be imported under a price of 44s., including all the charges. From these facts, added to all the information I have been able to collect from the most competent authorities on this subject, and whose opinion, with respect to the probable price of foreign corn in the English markets, provided they were open to its reception, I have found to vary between 45 s. and 52., I am at least justified in assuming, that 45 s. without duty would be as low a price as that at which any quantity of foreign corn could be imported into this country. If to this were added a duty of 10 s. per quarter, it would raise the price to 55s., and that is quite as high as any attention to the real interests of the country, would justify an attempt to raise it. I am, however, aware that great alarm prevails amongst the agriculturists upon this subject, and that, judging from the present low prices on the continent, they believe, that if the ports were thrown open for the admission of foreign corn, subject only to a moderate duty, a most serious revulsion would take place in their interests; that, in fact, they would be overwhelmed with a deluge of foreign corn, which would bring back all the tremendous distress which existed during the recent period of low prices. They conceive this more especially, as they infer from the circumstance of no import having taken place into Great Britain for six years, that there must be a large quantity ready to be poured into this country. I believe their fears are greatly beyond that which the real facts of the case would justify, as I will shortly endeavour to shew; but I have no objection to meet them by such a regulation as must, I think be admitted, even by
*The wheat of the United States is of Superior quality.
&#x000020;The average quality of Odessa Wheat is stated to be inferior by one sixth to that of English growth.
&#x2021;The probability is, it would be higher, and that as a larger quantity were required for the increasing consumption of this country, it would sustain a slight but gradual augmentation of price owing either to the greater distance or diminished fertility of soil from whence it would be drawn.

267
the most fearful, to be a sufficient guarantee against such an evil. I would propose, more with a view to quiet apprehension than as a matter of any real importance in itself, to increase the duty by 5s. per quarter, in proportion as the price declined 5s.: thus, at 55 s. the duty to be 10 s.; from

55 to 50

15 per quarter.

50&#x2013;45

20 ditto.

45&#x2013;40

25 ditto.

It is my belief that this would be, as the high duty formerly was, a dead letter, as I have no idea of prices falling so low under a system of import subject to moderate duties as to call into operation any other duty than the lowest mentioned (10 s.); but it is the part of true wisdom to make any sacrifices to public feeling, which can be done without endangering the main object to be attained; and with that view it is, not from any feeling of the utility of the measure itself, that I venture to propose it.
The fears respecting the immense quantity of foreign corn which would be poured into our ports, on the opening of the markets of this country to its admission, I hold to be greatly exaggerated; I do not conceive that at the present moment the whole world could furnish us with a 1,000,000 quarters of wheat; and I have strong reason to believe, that, considering the low state of our stocks, this would not be more than we require to re-establish them. Nor do I imagine that any great revulsion of price would immediately occur. Where a real and not fictitious demand exists, the opening of the ports produces but a slight effect on price; this was exemplified by the opening of the ports (as it is called) for oats last August—the price, when the ports opened, was 28 s. per quarter; it declined in September to 22 s. 7d. and rose again in December to 23 s. 4d.—the quantity imported was 488,000 quarters.
With reference to the usual import, provided the law were altered according to the plan I have suggested, I have no reason to believe that it would amount to any quantity which could be considered injurious to our own agriculturists. We may judge of what is likely to be by what has been. The total imports of wheat, from the year 1800 to 1820, amounted to 12,577,029 qrs., giving an annual average import of 589,906 qrs. The average price of that period amounted to 84 s. 6d.; but, during a portion of it, the currency
268
was depreciated, and allowance must be made for such depreciation. If we deduct 10 per cent from it, we shall deduct much more than the real fact demands; and this would give us a metallic price for the period in question of 76 s., twenty shillings a quarter higher that that at which I should wish to see it raised to by any duty we might impose. During the period in question, there occurred four or five years of decided dearth, when the prices rose to a tremendous height, and a proportionably large import took place. The following are the years of largest import, with the average price of each year:—

Qrs. Wheat.

&#x00A3;.

S.

1800

1,263,771

110

5

1801

1,424,241

115

11

1810

1,439,615

103

0

1817

1,030,829

94

0

1818

1,586,030

83

8

Whoever will examine the sources from whence these large supplies were drawn, will see at once that nothing but a very high price could have attracted a portion of them to this country. The whole world seems ransacked, with a view to the supply of Great Britain in periods of dearth—not the products of Europe and America alone are pressed into our service, but those of Asia and Africa are made to contribute to our wants.
I do not see any reason to imagine that, with a moderate average price of 55 s. per quarter for wheat, we should import upon an average more than we did during the twenty-one years of which I have taken notice. Supposing, however, the average amount of our annual imports of wheat was 1,000,000, instead of 600,000 quarters, surely no great alarm need be felt by the British agriculturist. He would still have to supply 13,000,000 quarters; and as the population of the country is rapidly increasing, the demand would certainly not diminish, but, on the contrary, might, in a few years, be expected most materially to increase. The plan I have proposed to the House for an alteration of the law involves the maintenance of a system of averages. I am aware how unfashionable such a system is at the present moment; but, after the most mature reflection, I give it as my decided opinion, that so long as duty upon the import of foreign corn continues a part of our system, so long must we regulate it by some such machinery; and I must fairly own, I have no such violent objection to

269
it as I hear generally proclaimed. I see no reason to doubt that the frauds which are stated to have been committed may be effectually prevented, by applying such remedies as the wisdom of the legislature may devise; nor is fraud so likely to be committed, under a system of import, with moderate duties, as under the present law, which establishes an artificial barrier to all trade in foreign corn, until prices shall have reached a given amount. When there is a large quantity of grain in bond, waiting for a market—entailing a heavy loss upon the merchant to whom it belongs—subject to damage and destruction of various kinds—and a most beneficial market existing just without the precincts of the warehouse—there is certainly a premium held out for fraud, such as hardly ever existed before, and which may, in some instances, be irresistible; but the alteration now proposed in the law would at once remove all such inducement: at the utmost, the whole benefit to be attained by fraudulent returns would be a somewhat lower duty than that, at which, without a rise in price in our own markets, foreign corn would be admitted. I have no great apprehension that such a motive would induce men of so high a sense of honour as that which distinguishes the character of British merchants, to injure their character, and tarnish their reputation, by so dishonest a practice. Supposing even that some inconvenience of this nature belonged inherently to the average system, still is it not necessary to guard against the greater inconveniences of import duty upon so important an article as grain, at periods of dearth? You must be prepared either to continue your duty at whatever price corn may amount to, or you must establish a practicable mode, by which, at a given price, such duty shall cease.
With respect to the first, I have no idea of a duty, however moderate, being maintainable in a period of dearth.—I have no idea of any one who has reflected upon the irritation and feverish excitement always existing in the public mind at such periods—seriously determining upon a law of which that was a provision—sure I am its fatal impolicy would soon be discovered, and some remedy be applied. Mr. Burke's opinion upon this point is deserving of great weight—he states in his thoughts and details upon scarcity, published in 1796,that he has observed that the lower orders patiently submit to
270
any privations on the score of food, so long as they can attribute them to no other cause than the visitations of Providence—but that the moment they detect the hand of government interfering with their supply of food, they become discontented and riotous& 3x2014;they attribute not a portion of their distress, but the whole of it, to this cause. This appears to me a most sound opinion, and I do trust that whatever change the House may determine upon in the Corn laws, it never will be lost sight of. Some propose to remedy the evil by intrusting the privy council with a power to suspend the duty when they see reason to do so—I do not know what the present privy council may feel upon the subject, but a power more invidious, one more difficult of execution, without giving great offence to conflicting interests—one more calculated to render them odious in the eyes of the people I can hardly imagine. Others recommend a temporary act to be passed at a period of dearth; but it should be borne in mind, that a dearth is commonly ascertained in October or November, and that parliament does not usually assemble until February. It would therefore be necessary to call it together for this special purpose at an unusual and inconvenient season, besides affording food for all that jealousy and excitement which such a proceeding would necessarily give rise to. Few will contend, that, under the freest system of trade, no dearth would ever occur; that it would be rendered less frequent is obvious; but to guard against it entirely is an Utopian speculation, upon which it were most dangerous to legislate—I must own too that the imposition of high duties at very low prices, which by removing prejudice, and giving a feeling of security to the agriculturist, would so much facilitate a melioration in our law, weighs much in my mind in favour of a continuance of averages, without which no such provision could be made. The information derived from these averages, together with the convenience the public derive from them in regulating rents and contracts of various sorts, ought to induce the House to pause before they change a system which has existed for so long a period, and which never, that I am aware of, has afforded ground for complaint until there was grafted upon it an import price, but with which it has manifestly no inseparable connexion.

271
I feel most anxious the House should immediately proceed to amend a law which contains principles so much at variance with every part of our policy—so fraught with injury to the people of this country—so entirely opposed to the spirit and intelligence of the age in which we live; and I own I deeply regret the determination expressed by government not to enter upon this important subject in the present session of parliament. If ever there was a period when it could be discussed with less risk of excitement on the public mind than another, the present is that period—no distress amongst any class prevails. The interests, therefore, of all parties may be considered with that calmness and moderation so essential to their being thoroughly understood, and the due weight being afforded to them. Those among the agriculturists who admit a change to be desirable, but recommend the House to wait until the moment of scarcity arrives, surely take an extraordinary view of their own interest. Do they imagine that to be a period, when even their fair claims will be patiently listened to? Do they not, on the contrary, expect that such a feeling will go forth throughout the country—that clamour, not reason,—deep-rooted prejudice, not fair judgment,—will at such a season be called upon to decide upon this subject.
It is my full belief, that if we allow the causes now in operation to produce their full effect before we settle this great question, the agriculturists must expect to be hurried away by the tide of popular feeling, and to be compelled to relinquish all claims, even the fairest and most legitimate, to protection and security.
Many other points remain to be noticed, but I have already trespassed at too great length upon the time and patience of the House to permit me to enter upon them at present. I beg, Sir, to move, "That this House will resolve itself into a Committee of the whole House to consider of the Corn Laws"
Mr. Goochsaid, it did not appear to him that the hon. member had made out a case sufficiently strong to justify him in calling upon the House to accede to his proposition. For the last six years, the average price of wheat had been 58 s. 3d. per quarter; and he would ask the House whether, considering all the expenses to which the farmer was subject, it was possible for him to farm his land at a lower price? It appeared to him, that the present
272
system of Corn laws, with all its imperfections on its head, worked well, and afforded the farmer a fair remunerating price. He did not stand there as the advocate of high prices; and he considered that 60 s. per quarter was a fair remunerating price for wheat, and 30 s. per quarter for barley. He was desirous that every working man in the country should have an adequate recompence for his labour, and that he should, on the Saturday night, be enabled to diffuse comfort amongst his wife and children. Nothing, of course, could be more popular than the doctrine of cheap bread. Once raise the clamour about it, and it would naturally run like wild fire through the country; but let the House remember, that the expenses to which land was subject were extremely high, much higher than the hon. member had stated. There were the charges for roads, bridges, gaols, county-rates, poor rates, and the rest; all of which fell upon the land. The average price of corn, in foreign markets, in the year 1824, was 20 s. a quarter. The price of it when imported into this country was 40s. a quarter. Could the British farmer be expected to pay his rent at such a price as that? The distinction between agriculturists and manufacturers was invidious. The farmers were not alone interested: the labouring poor were interested in the Corn laws; the tradesmen were interested; the whole nation was interested in the prosperity of agriculture and the price of corn; all classes were equally affected by them, and all ought to sink or swim together like Britons. When landholders got a good price for their corn, the manufacturers got a good price for their manufactures. There never was a period when the country was more prosperous than it was at present; and at no former period, until the notice of the motion of the hon. member, did there remain more general tranquillity. He therefore thought the hon. member had much to answer for. The British farmer could not, without protection, compete with the foreign importer. The House might as well expect two horses to make an equal race, one of which was loaded with 12 stone and the other with a feather; but give fair weight to John Bull and let him start at the same moment, and he would back him 10 to 1 against the foreigner. He did not want an exorbitant price; 60 s. a quarter would pay him as well now, as 88 did some

273
time ago. The British farmer required legislative protection while he was burthened with such heavy public charges; according to the gradual diminution of those charges he would not object to the partial removal of the protecting duties. His fixed opinion was, that the hon. mover ought to have left well alone; and with that impression he should conclude by moving the previous question.
Mr. Curwensaid, it could not be disguised, that, upon this question, the agricultural and manufacturing interests were directly at issue. To decide between them was a delicate task; but the question was, whether the agricultural interest was to be entirely sacrificed? The hon. member proposed by enlarging the supply, to keep down the price; but did he consider the ultimate result of such a measure? A depreciation of price must necessarily throw a quantity of land out of cultivation in this country, and we should then be reduced to depend on foreign supply. Could the hon. member guarantee such a continuance of that supply as would prevent the disastrous consequences of a dearth in this country? He had no objection to bring the average down to 60 s. because he considered that as good now as 70 s. five years ago. He was once an advocate for a change in the Corn laws, because of the distress he had witnessed in the country; but he had since altered his mind. There was complete security against any present dearth in the quantity of corn on hand. He did not think, therefore, that a case had been made out to call for an alteration of the law.
Lord Oxmantownsupported the amendment. He said he foresaw a multitude of inconveniences in the hon. member's plan. If it were adopted, it would place us in a situation of complete dependence on supplies of corn from abroad. It would also throw much of our tillage lands out of cultivation, and thereby diminish the numbers of that hardy population the agricultural labourers, which it ought to be our interest to encourage: seeing that they constituted the strength of the empire. Upon these grounds, he was opposed to the proposition for altering the Corn laws.
Mr. Huskissonsaid, it was not his intention, in rising to address the House, to make any observations on those facts which his hon. friend, the member for Bridgenorth, had, with such meritorious
274
industry and research submitted to its attention. He believed it was unnecessary for him to say, that in those general commercial regulations, which affected not only the trade in corn, but all other great branches of our mercantile economy, he concurred with his hon. friend. The reason, therefore, why he did not advert to the facts so perspicuously submitted by his hon. friend, was not that he denied that they were of the greatest importance, or that they were not entitled to the most serious notice of that House and of the country at large. So far from it, that he was most solicitous that the whole of those facts should undergo the fullest consideration from both. Without, however, disputing those facts, the grounds of his objection to the motion rested mainly on the time under which such a revision of our system was proposed. If it should be the pleasure of the House to send the subject to the consideration of a committee, he would be prepared to shew in that committee, that, though not differing from his hon. friend in principle, yet still he did not think that the course he proposed was, from the time, and the peculiar circumstances of the case, adviseable, although the real difference between them was only in degree. He was most anxious not to be misunderstood on this point. He believed, however, that the views which he entertained of the system that ought to govern the Corn trade of this country, were not unknown, either within or without that House. He might be allowed to say, that they were on record in the Report of the select committee which sat on the depressed state of agriculture in 1821. Without risking the imputation of arrogance, he might state, that the opinions which he held on that most important subject were fully expressed in that report; and he might now refer to that very document, and call upon the House to compare the observations stated in it, with the prospective relief and improvement of the agricultural interest, what had actually, as affecting those interests, since occurred. It might have been presumed, that those who felt deeply on the question of the Corn laws, as they affected the agricultural interest, would have looked with a less hostile view at any revision of that system, when they actually found that subsequent events had so strictly corresponded with the deductions and expectations laid down in that Report. Indeed,

275
he believed that there were many hon. members, and other gentlemen deeply connected with that interest, who at the time, differed from the views of that committee, but who were now, from the progress of events, fully satisfied of the soundness of its general conclusions. At the same time, he was prepared to argue, that whilst there might exist a full acquiescence in the principles of that report, as to the permanent system that ought to govern our trade in corn, it was not at all inconsistent, that there should exist a difference as to the time, mode, and degree, under which a revision of the present system should take place.
It was certainly with surprise that he had seen so many petitions presented to that House, deprecating any change in the laws passed for the protection of the agricultural interest in the year 1815. He trusted that he should always feel disposed to treat with attention the petitions of any great class of the community; but he could not help reminding the House of the great difference that existed in the tone and prayer of those petitioners a few years back, and at the present moment. It would be recollected, that they were the same parties who had, at a former period, in their petitions to that House, complained of the inefficiency of the present law, and of its total inadequacy to give them full protection. It was impossible that the House could forget the effect of what passed in 1822, when the price of corn was 3S s. per quarter. That was alone the effect of the present system of law; for we had been for five years previous to that period wholly dependent on the supply of this country. He should repeat, therefore, as he trusted he should prove, that there was no inconsistency in acquiescing the general principle of his hon. friend; at the same time that he denied that the present was the fit moment, under the peculiar circumstances, to adopt a contrary course from that now pursued.
That the present operation of the law could not be permanently made a part of our system, was what he should now proceed to show. In the ports of the Netherlands and of France, corn was sold at one half the price at which it could be purchased in this country. That fact alone was sufficient to warrant the conclusion, that such a relation of circumstances, connected with a state of prices here, could not be permanent, as respected our system.
276
We were now, it was to be considered, in the tenth year of a general peace in Europe, and such was the state of circumstances, regarding an article of such immediate necessity in a commercial and manufacturing country. Now, if such an important fact ought not to be lost sight of, which he contended it ought not, he had to press upon the consideration of the House another, entitled to almost equal consideration. Great Britain had, for forty years successively, allowed a free trade in corn with the continent, annually, more or less. For the last six years, that supply had been cut off. The very existence of such a state of things must, in the judgment of every dispassionate man, at once indicate the difficulties which presented themselves, when called upon for an immediate revision of our system. The natural consequence of that interruption which had taken place in our intercourse with the corn-growing countries of Europe, was a great accumulation of that article in those places from whence we were wont to receive our foreign supply. To this was to be added, that since we had ceased to import corn, our harvests at home had been more than usually productive; and he believed the same might be said of the other corn countries of Europe. What then must be the result of such a state of things, but that a great increase of corn must have existed in those markets, and no vent for it in any quarter of the world? For Spain and Portugal, imitating our prohibitory system, had also interrupted the usual vent of supplies from the north of Europe. His hon. friend, the member for Bridgenorth, had adverted to the returns of prices made by our consuls in those ports from whence this country was in the habit of taking her foreign supplies of corn. Now, he could take upon himself to say, without fear of contradiction, that in many places the present price was not more than one half, in others one third, and in some one fourth of the average prices before the interruption of the continental corn trade with England. The House would consider what had been the average selling price preceding this change in the corn trade of this country. He thought he was not travelling widely into the proscribed field of political economy, when he argued, that the difference between the selling price now, and the average price when an uninterrupted intercourse existed between this country and the continent, was mainly a loss to

277
the corn-grower in the latter. The average price at the port of Dantzic had been 45 s. and a fraction per quarter. We were not, therefore, at liberty to argue, from the present prices in the markets of the corn-growing countries of the continent, what the price would be if that intercourse, which had existed for forty years, had not been interrupted, or what it would be, if that intercourse was renewed. Let him be allowed to put it to the noble lord who spoke last, indeed to any hon. member of that House, whether, after having granted to Ireland an uninterrupted trade in grain with this country, and, by that trade, having encouraged her to increase her agricultural exertions, we were suddenly to shift our policy, and put an end to that intercourse, any man, under such circumstances, would maintain that the ruinous depression and fall of prices, which such a policy must produce, ought to be considered a fair price for corn raised under such unexpected circumstances of discouragement? A similar effect must have been produced in the corn-growing countries on the continent, from whence we were wont to draw our supplies. He did not say this out of any particular feeling of compassion for the holders of corn in foreign ports, but merely to point out to the attention of the House, that when we came to consider of any permanent measure for regulating the importation of corn, we should look rather at the cost of producing it in the countries where it was now so cheap, than at the price which it might bring to the grower after so long an interruption of his exports. Another view of the question was, that some of the countries from which we had formerly imported grain, having no other vent for their surplus produce but what our wants under particular circumstances might create, would discontinue to grow corn, and employ their lands to some more profitable purpose; and that thus the surplus in the market would remedy itself. This was an important feature in the case, when they came to look at the question in another light. The truth was, that already these countries had ceased to grow corn to the extent which they did heretofore, when the consumption of England was opened to their supply. His hon. friend had communicated to the House the contents of letters that he had received from certain corn-growers in Poland; and in support of his statement, he would add, that he did believe, that what was stated,
278
as to circumstances in Poland, applied generally to other countries, from which we were in the habit of receiving supplies: growers of corn turned their capital and attention to the rearing of numerous flocks of sheep. And here he begged to state a circumstance to illustrate how the interruption in any one branch or article of trade tended to affect most sensibly our general commercial system. He alluded to the tax on foreign wool, which he was ready to acknowledge he had supported some few years ago. The consequence of that imposition, by the exclusion from our market, was a depression in the value of low-priced wool on the continent. Extensive manufactures in Silesia, and other parts of Germany, immediately followed that depression, and operated as a relief. The result, as affecting our trade, was, that the foreign manufacturers were able to undersell us in that article, and had, in a great degree, excluded us from the markets of the United States, and in South America. Mark what followed the repeal of that tax. The price of foreign wool, in consequence of our demand, rose in the markets of the continent from 23 to 32 florins. The manufacturers of Silesia and Germany were no longer able to undersell us; while our woollen manufacture resumed and continued its former flourishing state [hear, hear!]
He did not wish, for reasons which the House would understand, to enter at present more fully into the illustration of those effects. The state of things that he had mentioned accounted for the difficulties which now presented themselves, to any immediate change. Looking at those difficulties with the strongest conviction of the necessity of a revision of the Corn laws, he still feared to precipitate any alteration, lest it should have the effect of disgusting the people of this country against that system which he hoped to see yet accomplished, of a free trade in corn, under proper and due protection. That a revision of those laws, and the settlement of a permanent system must eventually be accomplished, was what he presumed few gentlemen in that House would deny. It was impossible to expect that this system of alternate monopoly and free trade could be maintained, opposed as inadequate, as it had been at one time, by those whose interest it affected to uphold, and at another period, by other great interests of this country. The question, then, under existing circumstances was, to ascertain

279
what was to be done at present. To those who thought that prohibition, to a certain price, and free trade after that price, was a good system, he would say, as his hon. friend, the member for Suffolk, did say, "Your price of exclusion was far too large." And here he must be allowed to say, that the best answer to the charges made against the landed interest, was given in the declaration of his hon. Friend—a declaration to which he had listened with peculiar pleasure, and which averred that, what with the diminished burthens of the country, and the altered value of the currency, his hon. friend considered 60 s. as a maximum, which gave a sufficient protection to the home-grower. Now, when 80 s. was considered the protecting duty in 1815, and when he heard from his hon. friend the admission he had stated, he felt that both the fact in the one case, and the admission in the other, was an answer to those petitioners who deprecated any change, and that the period for a permanent arrangement could not be far distant.
But, there was another mode which many hon. members supported in that House. That was, to open the ports, immediately, under such a protecting duty as was calculated to uphold the fair competition of our own grower. He would ask the House to consider how, under the existing circumstances, either of these two courses might probably operate. If the ports were to be opened suddenly to the admission of foreign corn, whilst the great accumulation which now existed in the foreign ports continued, what its effect would be on some of the great interests of this country, he would not anticipate. If that evil was to be met by a protecting duty, the difficulty—and a great one it would be—was, in any permanent arrangement, to square that duty with the existing glut that was acknowledged to exist in the foreign corn countries. He saw no other mode of avoiding the evil, unless by a graduated scale. These considerations showed the difficulties with which the question was surrounded at the present time; and which could not be expected to embarrass it at another period. The circumstances of the present day, which prevented an attempt to alter the Corn laws, were so forcibly alluded to in the Report of the committee of 1821 that he was induced to trouble the House with the extract. After suggesting the propriety of a trade in corn, open to all nations in the world, subject only to a fair protecting duty, the committee proceeded to say:
280
"In suggesting this change of system for further consideration, as a possible improvement of the Corn laws at some future time, the committee are fully aware of the unfitness of the present moment for attempting such a change, when, owing to the general abundance of the late harvests in Europe, and to the markets of this country having been shut against foreign corn for near thirty months, a great accumulation has taken place in the shipping ports on the continent, and in the warehouses of foreign corn in this country; and when that accumulation, from want of any vent, is held at very low prices, and might tend still further to depress the overstocked markets of this country, if allowed to be introduced at this period, except at such a high rate of duty as it would be inexpedient to attempt, and moreover very difficult to determine. The present market-price of the corn thus accumulated is not the measure of the cost at which it has been produced, or of the rate at which it can be afforded by the foreign grower, but, the result of a general glut of the article, of a long want of demand, and of extreme distress and heavy loss on the part of those by whom it has been raised, and of those by whom it is now held either in the warehouses of the continent or of this country."
It was here evident, that the difficulties which at present existed were fully contemplated by the committee four years ago. He would, however, repeat, that the present system could not, in the nature of things, remain permanent. The act of 1815 was passed under circumstances very different from those which now existed. We were at the time shut out from many ports of Europe, and at war with America; and it was introduced when the currency of the country suffered under a depreciation of between 20 and 30 per cent. Indeed, when the last legislative enactment as to this system was introduced by the late lord Londonderry, he unequivocally avowed, that it was a measure of a temporary nature, introduced to meet the existing difficulties of the agricultural interest. It was not, therefore, a just assumption to allege that we were not now or hereafter at liberty to enter on a fair revision. He would say, fruther, that after what had been admitted, so much to his credit, by his hon. friend, the member for Suffolk, combined with the notoriety of the diminished burthens and the increased consumption of this country, it

281
was impossible that a revision of the system of our Corn laws should not be a subject which that House must, at no distant period enter upon. Whether the causes which have led to the difficulties of an immediate revision might, or might not, in the interval between the present and the next session, be removed, though it was to be expected that that accumulation in the markets of the continent must be diminished, it was not in the power of any man to anticipate. But, he was ready to avow, that even if it was not likely that the evils which our own system of law had produced, and which evils he believed would be aggravated by any precipitate interposition at this moment, beginning at an early period of the next session, and getting the fullest information, he would then be prepared to grapple with those difficulties, and to apply, what he trusted would prove, an adequate remedy, without injury to the general interests of the country. It was to be presumed, that that artificial mound which had accumulated in the foreign corn countries, in consequence of our own system, would be in some degree diminished—that that accumulation which would swamp us, if we had now recourse to a precipitate change, could only be obviated by a gradual process. He did not feel a doubt but that such a remedy could be applied. Difficulties he was prepared to expect; but they were not such as, in his opinion, might not be overcome. Looking back to another great measure—he meant the law for regulating the currency of the country, against which insupe rable difficulties were supposed to exist—he remembered what had been observed by the hon. member for Taunton, that those seeming difficulties should not deter the legislature from coming back to the sound principles of political economy. That great measure was carried, and the result had fully justified the wisdom which dictated its enactment. So he trusted it would be found with the present question. He should, in the next session, be prepared to concur in some measure which would fix the duty at a certain rate to be gradually reduced, so as that the supply from foreign countries might, by degrees, come to its fair level. He believed it was the intention of the legislature in 1821, to give to the British farmer a monopoly of the home market, for a certain period, in order to redeem the great losses he had sustained; but, by the
282
commencement of next session, that period would have been sufficiently extended. He could not believe the stock on hand at home to be very great. Indeed, the high price at this season, induced him to think, that the supply was little if any thing beyond the demand; and it was not at all improbable, that, before the 15th of August next, if the Corn laws were allowed to remain in their present state, we might have the whole of the foreign markets pouring in their accumulations upon us. This was a circumstance which, for the sake of the country, ought to be guarded against. He would therefore take an early opportunity of submitting a proposition to the House, of opening the stores here, and admitting the bonded corn into the market; and after the admission of the hon. member for Suffolk, that 60 s. would be a fair remuneration to the farmer, he thought that to this proposition there could be no objection. He could not look at the possibility of having the ports thrown open on the 15th of August to the glut in the foreign market, without feelings of apprehension as to the consequences—not as it might affect the owners of corn here, but as to its operation on the public in general; and if he could so arrange as to keep the price below that which would admit foreign corn, without keeping it too low, he thought he should be performing a great service to the country. The quantity of foreign corn at present in bond in this country was not so great as was imagined. It was estimated at 394,000 quarters of wheat, and a very small quantity of other kinds of grain. He was sure that if any hon. gentleman were to object to the admission of this corn, which was calculated to release a capital that had been so long locked up, he must take a very different view of this question, from that which presented itself to his mind. It was not from any feeling of regard to the owners of the corn that he made this statement. They had speculated in the article, and must stand by the consequences of their speculation. They might have made a vast profit out of it; as things had turned out, they had sustained a loss. Considering, therefore, the charges which the parties had already paid upon this corn, and the loss which they had sustained, not only in being deprived of all interest on the capital which had been locked up by it, but also in being deprived of the use of that capital itself, he

283
was sure that if they were now allowed to sell that corn at 80 s. per quarter, they would be losers by such a procedure. The proposal which he should hereafter make to the House would be this—that the corn now in bond should come out at 70 s. per quarter. Now, the averages at the end of March, before this question began to be agitated, were 69 s. per quarter, and before this time would have reached 70 s. per quarter, had it not been for its agitation. He thought, that when the price of corn reached that sum, the House would not object to the admission of bonded corn into the market, on payment of a duty of 8s. or 10 s. per quarter, especially as it would still leave the owners of it liable to a very considerable loss. They would not be at liberty to take it out of bond all at once; but as four months must elapse before the commencement of the next harvest, they would be at liberty to take it out in four quarterly portions, provided that if the whole of it were not withdrawn by the 15th of next August, the owners of it should be liable to all the conditions upon which it was originally imported. He thought that by such a system the country would be saved from that revulsion which might otherwise take place, if a large importation of foreign corn should take place before the month of August next ensuing. Another advantage which would arise from it would be this—that much of the accumulated corn in this country would be disposed of before the arival of the period when the Corn laws must come under the revision of parliament. He therefore thought that there could be no rational objection to the details of the measure which he had just mentioned. He should bring it forward on an early day, and he trusted that he should then be able to convince the House, that a duty of 8s. or 10 s. per quarter would be quite sufficient for the protection of the interests of all parties concerned in this great question.
The House would not, he was sure, expect him to go at any length into the statement of the hon. member for Bridgenorth, nor to enter upon the view which he took of the proper course to be adopted upon this subject. The reasons why such a mode of proceeding would be highly impolitic were so obvious, that he deemed it unnecessary to recapitulate them. He could not, however, refrain from dissenting from the language which had fallen from his hon. friend the member for Suf
284
folk, who had modestly asked, "Why not let well alone?" "The present law," his hon. friend said, "worked well." Now, he had always understood, that the great desideratum in this important question was, to provide for a steadiness of price, and to guard against excessive fluctuations, in it from the vicissitudes of trade. How did the present law provide for these ends? By limiting the markets from which we drew our supplies—by destroying the vent which we should otherwise have for our produce, whenever we were blessed with a superabundant harvest& 3x2014;and by exposing us to an alternate fluctuation of high and of low prices. To say of a system which affected the price of labour and the comforts of the labourer, and which cramped the resources, not only of the manufacturer, but also of the farmer himself—to say of such a system, that it worked well, was so completely refuted by the report of 1821, that he was surprised that any man should be bold enough to make it. What did they think of its working well in 1822, when corn was as low as 38 s. per quarter? [hear, hear]—when gentlemen came down to the House nightly to talk deliberately of a national bankruptcy, and to propose the most extraordinary changes in the currency? At the present moment it might work well; but, had the country gentlemen forgotten their own misfortunes, their former predictions of ruin to the country,—nay their repeated requests that this system, which now worked so well, should be instantly altered? Within two years and a half, the price of corn had varied from 112 s. to 38 s. per quarter. Such a fluctuation in price deprived the business of the farmer of all security, and converted it into a business of mere gambling. The bubbles in the shares of mines could not produce more gambling than that to which such fluctuations must necessarily lead. The man who engaged in a long lease, could not at present be aware of the conditions upon which he was taking it, or of the results which it might produce upon his family arrangements. But, this was not the only inconvenience of the system. Look at the situation in which we were placed, when a bad harvest made it necessary for us to go to the foreign markets. The price of corn immediately advanced there. The foreign government, seeing our demand for it, laid a tax upon the article: this further increased the price; and the result

285
was, that our exchanges would be suddenly altered, and we should obtain the supply we required under the greatest possible disadvantages. Let the House only suppose (which was not impossible, though he hoped it would not occur) that the crops failed this next harvest; it would be October before this was known; and, was that a period of the year at which we could be sure of getting supplies from the northen parts of Europe? Cheap shipping could not then be had; navigation might even be impossible; and we should be exposed, during the rigours of winter, to have the price at the famine level. In spring, when communication was easy, and shipping comparatively cheap, there would be a great depression, from the opening of the ports. Was the possibility of this satisfactory? He had heard it said, and by gentlemen who had reflected on the subject, that if we had great fluctuations, there was in these fluctuations a fair average price. A fair average price! He wondered what this phrase meant, when applied to the provisions of the people. He should like to know how any gentleman who was accustomed to eat a good dinner every day, would like to be kept one week without food, and to be supplied the next with twice as much as he wanted. Would he feel satisfied at being told, that he had got a fair average quantity of provisions for each day in the two weeks? He thought that the gentleman would not be satisfied—that he would find such an averaging system to be neither wholesome to his constitution, nor pleasant to his stomach [hear, hear].
But, it was said, that to withdraw our protection from the manufactures of the country, and to continue it to the growers of corn, was acting upon an erroneous system. He denied this position entirely, and contended, that reasoning from analogy in a case like the present must necestarily lead to an erroneous conclusion. In the first place, we could manufacture cheaper than every other country; but every other country could grow corn cheaper than we could. In the next, we exported to the amount of thirty millions of cottons annually, and not thirty bushels of corn. Then there was no accumulation of cottons on the continent; but there was an accumulation of corn. When there was an accumulation of cotton, the manufacturer could contract his supply; but, could a similar measure be adopted by the agriculturist, when there was an accumulation of corn?
286
Beside these considerations, there were several others, applying to agriculture, and not to manufactures, which were sufficient to convince any impartial man, that the argument founded upon this analogy was any thing but logical. He was not one of those who wished to lessen the rank which the agriculturists held in the country. To be admitted into that class, ought to be the ambition of every man who, by his industry and his talents, had acquired a fortune for his family. He was quite willing, seeing that the rents had already adjusted themselves to the alteration in the currency, and to the improved condition of the country, to say, that he was ready to give any protection to the agricultural interest, which would obviate the necessity of any reduction in the relative situation which it now held, with regard to the rest of the community. Still, it was quite evident that there must be some limit at which foreign corn must be admitted into the country. The difficulty—and it was a difficulty which required all the vigour and attention of government—was to see at what point the price of labour was likely to produce such a diminution of profit and of capital to the manufacturer, as to compel him to seek protection in a foreign state. Capital and skill could not be compelled to remain in this country—they were certain to emigrate, if they were impeded by burthens which they were unable to bear; it was therefore the duty of the House to watch the effect of the price of labour on the advantages we at present possessed; and, if gentlemen reflected, that it was to the capital and skill which our manufacturers possessed, that the agricultural interest owed its present prosperity, they would see, that if their capital and skill was removed from us, the agriculturists, in the long run, must be the greatest sufferers. At this moment America, which procured the raw material more easily than we did, was manufacturing cottons so cheaply as to be driving ours out of the market. At this moment American cotton goods were on their passage to different ports in the Mediterranean, and were selling there at a price at which we could not afford to furnish them to the consumer. If capital had not a fair remuneration here, it would seek for it in America. To give it a fair remuneration, the price of labour must be kept down; for if it were not kept down, the distress it would occasion to the manufacturer would soon revert with tenfold

287
force upon the agriculturist. The hon. member for Suffolk had stated, the other night, and almost as if it had been a reproach to them, that the workmen of London had roast beef and plum-pudding on Saturday, Sunday, Monday, and Tuesday. He did not mean to assert that they had it not, and he had little doubt that they were accustomed to wash such dainties down by large draughts of the ancient and constitutional beverage of the nation, beer. Now, he would wish the hon. member, the next time he presided at the Farmer's Club, to ask the members of it, whence came the roast beef, the plum-pudding, and the beer, on which the workmen banquetted? The answer must be, that they were all the production of the country; and that being the case, he would ask, what would be the condition of those who produced these articles, if the workmen could not procure money to purchase them? Agriculture could not flourish, unless all other classes in the country were in a state of prosperity. Commerce and manufactures could not sustain themselves here, if they met with greater advantages in other countries. The profits now derived from them were smaller than they had been at any former period; and any thing which tended to increase them would be productive of great benefit. He mentioned this circumstance to prove, that it would be necessary to enter at a future time upon the revision of the Corn laws; though he maintained, as he had before done, that the present was not the moment for commencing it. We had done a great deal already to promote the freedom of trade; but every thing could not be done at once. We had allowed the importation of wool, of iron, and of various articles which had formerly been prohibited; and the effect of that measure had been to produce a large importation of the prohibited articles. Some difficulty might arise, if we proceeded too far in such a system; and it was therefore prudent to wait awhile where we now were, to see whether such difficulty would arise; and if it did arise, how it was to be obviated.
There were other considerations which deserved the notice of government. We knew that several foreign countries were in some distress, owing to our exclusion of their corn, and that they had in revenge, shut out our manufactures. It might be worth while to consider, whether we did not hold in our hands at present
288
the key for solving this difficulty—whether, to those who excluded our colonial produce and our manufactures, we had not a right to say, "We will not admit you to the benefit of a free trade in corn, unless you will at the same time admit the free introduction of our manufactures?" This was one of the principal reasons why he thought that this question might be permitted to stand over to a more convenient period. He was aware of the responsibility which was incurred by ministers in general, and by himself in particular, in recommending to parliament not to legislate on this subject at present. Circumstances might arise beyond the reach of human thought, which, by their effects and consequences, might induce him to regret that he had offered such a recommendation. The risks arising out of such circumstances were not, however, faults of his creation, but faults the existing system. He was not shutting his eyes against them, but was judging from all the circumstances of the case, when he said that, at present, he thought it right to postpone the discussion of the Corn laws to another session. He complained of the excessive speculation which was now going forward, not only in shares and companies, but also in foreign merchandise. Such speculation was the offspring of unnatural excitement; and, in the body mercantile, as well as in the body physical, such excitement was generally followed by depression and exhaustion. He called upon those who, to a certain degree, were the controllers of the currency, to watch with care and diligence over the foreign exchanges; and implored the country banks not to lend their money to the encouragement of crude and hasty speculations. One of his great reasons for not wishing to let the Corn laws loose at present, was the spirit of excessive speculation which was now so prevalent. It had already deranged the foreign exchanges, and he wished not to derange them further by opening the door to similar speculation in foreign corn. The right hon. gentleman, after shortly recapitulating his former arguments, sat down amid considerable cheering.
Mr. Baringbegan by observing, that if there was so much evil in the present system of our Corn laws, the right hon. gentleman was partly to blame for it. He had protested against that system on its first creation in 1815, when the right hon. gentleman was found among its foremost sup

289
porters. What the House had heard that night from the right hon. gentleman, was new thunder, which he had got up for the occasion. They had heard the most portentous consequences predicted to the manufacturing and to the agricultural int?rest by the right hon. gentleman, in case there were not some alterations speedily made in the Corn laws; and yet, though it was material, if any alterations were to be made in them, that the mind of the country should be directed to those alterations, not a single intelligible word had been uttered regarding their nature or their intent. Without this it was not possible for the landed interest, or any other interest, to know how to make its contracts while there was uncertainty on this important question. If any one thing more than another ought to induce the House to require that the question should be at once set at rest, it was the speech of the right hon. gentleman. He perfectly agreed in all the statements which the right hon. gentleman had made of the danger that existed from the disproportionate price of food in this country, as compared with the price of food in other countries; and it was because he was perfectly satisfied of the existence of such a danger, that he was anxious this important subject should be mooted and determined upon at a period when we were in a state of calmness and tranquillity that would allow of its being deliberately considered. He confessed that he was quite at a loss to guess, and he imagined that other hon. gentlemen must also be at a loss to guess, from the speech of the right hon. gentleman, what it was in the mind of government to do upon this subject in the next session of parliament. But, if members of that House, who had heard the right hon. gentleman's speech, were in that condition of ignorance, what must be the ignorance of their constituents?—and what would the representatives of counties be able to say to their constituents, when they were asked, what government meant to do with respect to the Corn laws? He would defy those constituents, if every word of the right hon. gentleman's speech were accurately reported, to conjecture what it was that was likely to be proposed.—He perfectly agreed with the right hon. gentleman, that the landed proprietors had a right to protection, and in addition to the claims which had been described by the right bon. gentleman, that they had a right
290
to protection in consequence of having so long had protection afforded them. Nothing could be more unjust than to let them down all at once. At the same time, the amount of protection must have a limit, and that for their own advantage; for, if a time should arrive, at which the artificial industry of the country might become unable to bear the burthen of the protection afforded by the legislature to agriculture, the distress—although in the first instance it would affect the manufacturer and the merchant—would ultimately fall with tenfold weight on the agriculturist. If it was true, which he believed it was, that the inhabitants of England paid twice as much as those of France for their food, he should like to know what it was that enabled them to support that additional expense? Was it not the produce of their artificial industry? As soon as that was stopped, millions of paupers would be thrown upon the country, and the land would be burthened for their support and subsistence. All classes of the community had a common interest in maintaining the prosperity of the manufactures of the country. Distress might fall upon the manufacturers at first; but, it was certain not to be long in pressing on the steps of the agriculturist. Desirous as he was of giving adequate protection to the manufacturer, he was not willing to draw it hastily from the agriculturist Such a change in the agricultural system would be pregnant with danger to the system, and therefore he deprecated it. He really saw no chance of their adjusting this system even next year; according to the course which his right hon. friend had laid down for his guidance. It was true that America was making great exertions in manufactures. This was a circumstance well worthy of the most serious consideration. If, in consequence of the growth of manufactures there, and in other parts of the world, the great mass of our manufacturing industry should be seriously affected, the necessary consequence would be, to throw the manufacturers as paupers on the land. They had all, therefore, a common interest in the maintenance of industry. The ruin of it would fall more fatally on the land, than any where else. Short of risking all other branches of industry, he would go great lengths in the protection of the landed interest. All existing leases, agreements, mortgages, and settlements, had been entered

291
into under something similar to the present system of things; and he did not therefore see how they could do without some sort of protection. It would be impossible otherwise to realize the views which his right hon. friend professed, with respect to the landed interest. The only reason he heard stated for postponing the consideration of this subject was, the great accumulation of corn in foreign ports. This, however, was the case in 1821 also; for the right hon. gentleman, in his own report, stated this as a reason for not recommending the system as a permanent one. What chance was there that this accumulation would cease next year? It was admitted that France, Holland, and other countries had, until lately, adopted measures of restriction. The argument of the right hon. gentleman would therefore go for nothing, unless he proved that these countries were ready to depart from these restrictions. Unless this were the case there was nothing to prevent the great warehouses of Dantzic from being opened again next year. Was it not possible that other changes might take place before the next year? It would, in his opinion, be far the better plan to impose a system of duty, regulating the degree of protection intended to be given to the agricultural interest. This would, in his opinion, be the better plan of proceeding; and he was borne out in this idea by the instance given by the right hon. gentleman of what happened from the importation of oats; namely, that it had the effect of reducing the price in our markets. This he admitted; but, it should be recollected, that this importation, small as it was, swept away the accumulation of oats in those countries from which the article was imported. It was the result of his serious reflection, that if the present system was persevered in until next year, no man of landed property could say what that property was worth, or reckon with the least confidence upon its value next year. The right hon. gentleman proposed to let into the market the corn which was in bond, for the purpose of affording relief to the country; and he also stated to the House, the terms upon which he was ready to let this corn in. Now, he saw no reason why the holders of this corn, who were mostly foreigners (though this made no difference in his argument), should be afforded the enjoyment of such a boon. What was the situation of the persons who were the owners of this corn?
292
Let the House see what the right hon. gentleman was giving them, by his proposed regulation. They had in their possession 400,000 quarters of wheat, said to have been in bond these six years. The arrangement was not assented to by the right hon. gentleman for the purpose of conferring an advantage upon those individuals: The plan was to be carried into execution for the general benefit of the country. Why should those gentlemen receive a benefit? They have received no injury.—The object of the regulation should be, as far as it regarded them, to give them the option of coming to market with this wheat, if they themselves pleased. The holders of these 400,000 quarters could now purchase wheat at Dantzic for 28 s. per quarter. They could therefore replace, if they were so disposed, their bonded corn at 28 s. and sell it in our markets for 80 s. An intelligent dealer had informed him, that some samples of this corn would go as high as 86 s.; and thus it was evident, that the wheat, by being bonded for five or six years, was rendered more valuable to the proprietor. If, therefore, the present holders disposed of a certain quantity of wheat at 80 s. or 86 s. which they could replace at 28 s. without duty, their profit upon the transaction would be nearly a million of money, and it would amount to 800,000 l. with the duty. He did not see why a bounty of 10 s. should be given to the holder of this corn; or why it should be added to the price paid by the consumer. He would rather it went to the Exchequer than to these persons. He was ready to admit they should have a temptation to bring in their corn; but a bounty of 5s. or 6s. a quarter was sufficient. He was sure that, upon reflection, the right hon. gentleman would come to the conclusion, that if he gave 8s. or 10 s. per quarter, he would be making a bad bargain for the public. In the statement made respecting the protection to be given to the agricultural interest, he was disposed to agree with the hon. member for Suffolk, who had mentioned 60 s.; perhaps under. He was very far from wishing the protection to be withdrawn from the agricultural interest, unless a much stronger case was made out by the opposite party. In the consideration of this question he had always hoped,—he had always relied upon it—that the gentlemen of landed property in the country, at least those who understood their interest, would call for the reduction of the

293
protection to as low a scale as possible. He called upon all hon. members—those who feared the measure, and those who did not—to resist the postponement of it and settle it at once by their votes of that night. It was impossible for them to leave their constituents in the present state of uncertainty, caused by the notice they had heard given by the right hon. gentleman opposite, and which had placed the possessors of landed property in a state of ferment. They all knew the importance attached to the declaration of a minister. It was, to be sure, true in theory, that they were all equal in power, and independent of each other; but it should be recollected, that the declaration of a cabinet minister was widely different from the skirmishing of an ordinary member. He did not understand what the right hon. gentleman intended next year; but it was impossible to leave the country with safety in its present state of uncertainty. He was well aware of its real situation. He spent much of his time in the country, and had frequent discussions upon the subject. And here he could not refrain from alluding to the state of the parliament. It was now waxing old; and he did not know whether the question was to be discussed next year by this parliament, or by a new one. Of this he was sure, that a parliament upon its deathbed was not the best for making arrangements respecting the Corn laws. If, upon the other hand, a new parliament was to be elected during the summer, what a situation the country would be in! What a scene would be exhibited amidst the conflicts of the landed and agricultural interests! What various pledges would be required upon both sides! He was decidedly of opinion, that the present was the most favourable time for the settlement of the question. The parliament and the country were in a state of good humour with each other; and the subject would receive a much more satisfactory discussion now than at any other period. He would add one word more. He did not see how any difficulty would arise from the state of the currency, and the nature of the various speculations upon the subject. These circumstances, he thought, could not operate, for the right hon. gentleman would state when his system was to begin, and fix any period he might think proper. Whatever laws might be passed upon the subject, it was, he thought, utterly impossible to leave the
294
country in its present state of uncertainty.
Mr. Philipswas proceeding to offer to the House his sentiments; but cries of "Question! question! adjourn! adjourn!" were so loud and incessant, that the hon. gentleman sat down.
Colonel Woodsaid, he would trouble the House with a very few words on the subject. Both the hon. mover and the right hon. gentleman had argued the question, as if the existing system was attributable to the act of 1815. Now, it had nothing to do with that act. The present system, under which foreign corn was totally excluded, when corn was below a certain price in this country, was the consequence of the report of the committee of 1822. That when corn was at 80 s. the ports should open with a duty of 17 s., and continue open until the price was reduced to 70 s., was, in his opinion, a sound system, and one by no means deserving of the odium which the hon. mover had cast upon it. He was quite averse to a permanent duty, and would much rather that the ports should open at 70 s. or 65 s., with a duty of 17 s.; for he was sure that no permanent duty, sufficient for the protection of agriculture in ordinary cases, could be kept on, when corn was at a great price. The fraudulent practice of returning fictitious averages ought not to be laid upon the present system. If a plan could be proposed, which would render the importation price at 80 s., with a duty of 17 s., he should consider this as a sound and beneficial measure.
Lord Althorpethought, that if the question were to remain until next session undecided, it would be a serious evil; and that if the government intended to revise the laws, it was their bounden duty to do it now. The great object acknowledged by all the advocates of the corn system, was to have a steady price, but it was impossible, with the uncertainty of seasons, to have any consistent or permanent price under the present laws. The government had given no reason for not submitting a motion upon the subject during the present session. The right hon. gentleman had said, that it was unreasonable to call upon ministers to explain measures of which they had not given any notice; but equally unreasonable was it for the government to admit, that they contemplated a great and radical change in an important question, and to

295
be wholly silent on the means by which they intended to effect it. He approved of the course taken by the hon. member who had introduced this motion, because he thought it calculated to correct the existing fluctuation in the market, which was productive of great injury and inconvenience.
Mr. Stuart Wortleyconcurred in the view taken by the hon. mover, who should have his vote if he pressed the question to a division. At the same time, he hoped the hon. gentleman would not press the motion so far, after what had passed in the course of the debate. He entreated the government to pledge themselves to an early consideration of the whole question, at the beginning of next session; for, until that took place, there would be no comfort for the landed interest.
Mr. Wodehousesaid, that he had always supported the average system, from his conviction of its being the best. He admitted that the present mode of collecting the averages was susceptible of great improvement; and he wished an inquiry into it to take place in a spirit of fairness. When he said this, he must at the same time protest against the mischievous fallacy of forming an estimate (as had been done) on the prices at Dantzic, where, for a series of 49 years, which were averaged, they had been found to be at 45 s. a quarter. Ought they not to bear in mind, that during that period, all the governments of Europe were in the foreign market, for rations, often for a million of men, with an immense forage for cavalry? It was a mischievous perversion to draw an analogy from such a period, to govern them in a time of profound peace.
Mr. Calcraftregretted exceedingly that the government had not taken a more decided course on the present occasion. The speech of the right hon. gentleman was, from its vague nature, calculated to excite the greatest alarm throughout the country; for it recommended the postponement from favourable, possibly to unfavourable times, of a question which could never be better discussed than at the present moment. He should entreat his hon. friend, when things were left in this state to press his motion to a division, unless the government pledged themselves to take up the subject immediately. He was aware that those who thought with him would be left in a minority; but, he was too much accustomed to that to be disheartened, and he knew
296
that even minorities sometimes worked extraordinary changes in the conduct of government. As to the question at issue, he confessed that he thought 80 s. was too high a price, and 60 s. too low, and he preferred the medium price of 72 s., which he had recommended in the year 1815. With respect to what was alleged of the existence of alarm, all he should say was, that he had not heard of any until that evening; on the contrary, they had been told that all the interests of the country were going on in a train of unmixed satisfaction. He was quite aware of the frauds in the averages; but still, the system on which the averages were founded had worked well for the country. As to the inequality of the price, that must always recur, unless they could command the seasons. There ought to be no separate interest between the agriculturist and the manufacturer. The latter was the best customer for the land; but, was not the former, in his turn, the great consumer in the home trade? The time had arrived, he thought, for settling this question; not, indeed, permanently, for that was impossible, but upon a fair estimate of the relative interests of the country. Whether they adopted a protecting duty, or lowered the import price, with a correct system of averages, was a point to be considered. He should himself be satisfied with the latter. They must do something; for the obscurity of the right hon. gentleman's speech, in which he forgot the discretion of a cabinet minister, who could not, like a plain member, sport with opinions in the House, left the matter in a state which was likely to create great embarrassment throughout the country.
The Chancellor of the Exchequerinsisted, that it was the hon. gentlemen opposite who were to blame, and not his right hon. friend, if uneasiness followed the agitation of a question which they had themselves prematurely forced into discussion, although the hon. member who had last spoken had admitted that the existing system had worked well for the last six years. Had the government taken up the question of the Corn laws in the present session, they would, from the very nature of the subject, and its probable operation upon other matters connected with the affairs of the country, have been disabled from introducing and perfecting those other measures, which were universally acknowledged to be of the most

297
beneficial tendency to all classes of the people. This was, he thought, an answer to that branch of the argument. He acknowledged that he had been a party to the corn bill of 1815 which he had opposed in 1821. The reasons were, that the intervening years had produced results upon which no human wisdom could have calculated; and he had discovered, with many others, that the course of events was beyond parliamentary control. He had, then, no difficulty in retracting opinions, which experience proved to have been founded in error. He could not allow that government was now to blame, or that it was bound to take this question up, because, against its inclination, it had been brought into discussion. And, as to the rebuke of the hon. member for Wareham, certainly government would have more justly merited, and more surely have incurred his ridicule, by proposing to bring forward any measure in the next session of parliament. The government ought not to be goaded on to the carrying of this measure. He would admit that the feeling of the country ought not to be disregarded, yet the government was not to be forced to the completion of the measure, until the time arrived when a project of so delicate a description could be effected with general satisfaction. He did not think the present time to be the period when that ought to take place; and he therefore found it his duty to oppose the motion.
Mr. Brightcomplained that the government had not determined to take up the consideration of this question during the present session. He was the representative of a large city, and was anxious to protect the interests of his constituents. Therefore it was, that he wished for an alteration now. In the changes of our commercial regulations, the article of corn should have been first noticed. He hoped, therefore, that his majesty's ministers would be compelled to take up the subject before the close of the present session. [Cries of Question! Adjourn! No, no!]
Colonel Johnsonmoved an adjournment of the question to this day week, in consequence of the great anxiety which it had created throughout the country.
Mr. Peelsaid, that the better plan, to avoid anxiety, would be to go on. The division would best tell the opinion of the House. The proposed course would certainly be very inconvenient, and could
298
give no satisfaction. If the House thought proper to continue the discussion, it were better to proceed, and allay, by its decision, the anxiety so much talked of.
Mr. T. Wilsonsaid, there was urgent reason for deciding upon this question during the present session. Every possible information was now within their reach, why, then, delay the question?
Mr. Whitmoresaid, in reply, that so far from taking any blame to himself for bringing on this question, he was determined to renew it in every sitting of the parliament, until the law should be settled upon a satisfactory foundation.
The adjournment was negatived; and

List of the Minority.

Althorp, visct.

Maxwell, J.

Baring, A.

Milton, visc.

Bentinck, lord W.

Monck, J. B.

Bernal, R.

Nugent, lord

Bright, H.

Palmer, C. F.

Buxton, T. F.

Philips, G.

Calcraft, J.

Robinson, sir G.

Calcraft, J. H.

Robarts, A. W.

Calthorpe, hon. F. G.

Robarts, G. J.

Calthorpe, A.

Sefton, earl of

Calvert, Ch.

Smith, W.

Corbet, Panton

Sykes, D.

Cradock, col.

Thompson, ald.

Davies, T. H.

Tierney, rt. hon. G.

Denman, T.

Williams, J.

Evans, W.

Williams, W.

Glenorchy, lord

Wilson, T.

Grenfell, P.

Wilson, sir R.

Gurney, Hudson

Wood, ald.

Heron, sir R.

Wortley, J. S.

Hobhouse, J. C.

TELLERS.

Hume, Joseph

Gascoyne, I.

James, W.

Whitmore, W. W.

Leader, W.

PAIRED OFF.

Lester, B. L.

Mansfield, John

Littleton, E. J.

Pares, T.

Maberly, W. L.

Wyvill, M.

the House divided on Mr. Whitmore's motion: Ayes 47; Noes 187.