Commons Sitting of 8 March 1827

CORN LAWS.
The Chancellor of the Exchequermoved the order of the day, for the House to resolve itself into a Committee on the Corn Trade Acts. On the motion, that the Speaker do leave the chair,
Lord Cliverose, and addressed the House to the following effect:—For a period of nearly twenty years he had had the honour of giving his general support to the measures introduced by some of the members of his majesty's present government; but, of all the occasions upon which he had ever felt it his duty to dissent from them, he remembered none more important than that upon which the House was now called to go into a committee. He should take the liberty, at the very commencement of the address which he proposed to deliver to the House, to read to them, with their permission, a Resolution, which would, in the shortest and clearest manner, express to them the sentiments he entertained on the subject. This was a course of proceeding, he was fully aware, somewhat different from that usually pursued by hon. gentlemen, who were accustomed to propound their Reso-
1034
lutions at the end, and not in the beginning of speeches. He preferred, however, this mode of proceeding, and his resolution was, in substance, this:—
"That it is necessary to give protection to the growers of British corn against the importation of corn the produce of countries not cultivated by British subjects, nor liable to the payment of the same taxes, on a principle similar to that established by the law of 1822, until grain shall have reached, in this country, the price of—(a price hereafter to be deter mined), in order to enable the British agriculturist to make his accustomed payments, and discharge his government and local taxes; to give to the consumer the prospect of a moderate price of grain during a number of years; and to Ireland and the Canadas a preference in respect of importation."
He hoped that the House would do him the favour to observe that, in this resolution, he had carefully abstained from naming the specific price which it might be proper to assign with regard to the protection of the British grower. In the view which he took of the subject, he owned that he considered it pretty immaterial what that duty might be stated at hereafter; for he was satisfied that that was a matter which might be left, with far more advantage, to be ascertained by his majesty's ministers, than by any hon. gentlemen not sitting on the same benches with them. In the mean time, his clear conviction was, that no adequate protection could possibly be given, under the system at present proposed, to the British farmer. Let them but have a fair field given them, and Englishmen, in every station of life, whether as farmers, or as occupying any other station, would always be found able to maintain themselves, and make good the ground upon which it was requisite they should stand. But the situation we were at present proposing to take, was one in which it was manifest that the British farmer had no chance of competing with others on equal ground. The result would be, not to place him in competition with the foreign farmer (against whom the government, by imposing a duty on his imported produce equal to the difference between the taxes on raising grain in foreign countries, and the taxes on its production in this, might, perhaps, protect him, and so enable him to compete with this foreign grower), but to place him in

1035
competition with the greatest and most powerful rival in the world—the British capitalist. The British capitalist, under the system lately suggested for the adoption of parliament, would bring in, just in any quantities he might choose, foreign grain, when the duty of that commodity was low, and keep it in his warehouses, until some season at which that duty should attain a higher rate. He had heard, this very day, of a case in point. A person had made a large purchase of foreign wheat, at 21 s. the quarter; freight upon this made it about 8s. more. Suppose that, between the present, period, and the commencement of the next harvest, when grain, in the ordinary course of these matters, would attain a higher rate of price than at other periods of the year, the price of British corn should reach that designated in the Resolution now under consideration, of 60 s. per quarter; for, with the right hon. the Secretary for Foreign Affaire, he would take that as the medium price, and he would suppose the duty of 20 s., now suggested, in operation. Under these circumstances, the person alluded to would import his foreign wheat at 49 s. the quarter. Now, this being so, it would be morally impossible for the British farmer to bring his own corn to market with the least possible chance of sale, against the competition of foreign grain, brought into it at so much lower a price than he could manage to raise it. He entreated the House to consider; what must be the consequence of placing the British grower in this predicament. If the farmer was unable to maintain himself during any long interval of time, the result of that inability would obviously be, that he must endeavour to save himself, by diminishing that produce for which he could not find a market. But this was not all. The further consequence must be, first or last, great suffering to the consumer. That the farmer must be the first sufferer, he did not at all intend to dispute; but in the next instance, the suffering occasioned by the lowered price of corn, must fall on the consumer himself. But, as he hoped, before he sat down, to enforce this point upon the House in language much stronger than any which he could himself employ, he trusted the House would allow him to call their attention to the state in which the agricultural interest of the kingdom now, in 1827, stood. For his own part, if he objected to
1036
the principle of the proposed measure, he objected still more to the time at which it was brought forward. In 1815, the first experiment as to a change in the laws affecting the corn trade, was introduced. Subsequent to that experiment, there was effected a great alteration in the currency. In 1822, another experiment was made, accompanied by an avowal, on the part of a noble friend of his, now, unfortunately for the country, no more, that at some future time there would be effected a further alteration in those laws. But at the time that the late lord Londonderry made that declaration, he had obtained an enactment, that the currency of the country should remain on the same footing as it then stood, until the period at which the Bank charter would, by law, expire; namely, the year 1833. Now, what was our present state? In the course of last year, the government had made a great alteration in the currency; the result of which was to afflict and depress the agricultural interest, far more than the wildest speculations which, for two or three preceding years, and about the same time, had been indulged in, to the great injury of our commercial prosperity. In the mean time, the effect of the measures to which he was alluding, had proved most fatal to the landed interest; and, though the bounty of Providence, had, some seasons before, given us one of the most extraordinary harvests ever known, those measures had prevented it from proving any great boon to the agriculturists. Besides, last year, the grain harvest yielded from one-third to one-half less than that of the preceding-year. Added to this, it should be remembered, that fodder, and winter stock of all descriptions, had fallen almost equally short; so that, this year the farmer had not only realized that produce in grain, which he might have reasonably expected; but he had been under the necessity of putting himself to a very great expense in order to keep up a sufficient supply of the winter stock necessary for the maintenance of his farm, or, in the alternative, to part with his farm at a heavy loss. Two most untoward circumstances had, therefore, operated, during the last year, on the agricultural interest. One was—the steps which had been taken in respect of the alteration of the currency; and the other, the deficiency of the corn crop, last year.—He now came to the third step; and how could the farmer be expected to make

1037
his payments, under such a system as this third measure would introduce? while he would, tit the same time, be doing so in the assurance, that it would be followed tip within twenty-two or twenty-three short months, by a still further alteration of the currency? If this measure was meant equally to affect all classes of the agricultural interest, it would not answer its intention; for, how differently must it operate on two distinct descriptions of farmers, with whom it was his fortune—his properly lying in very different parts of this country—to have been connected. His own property was laid down nearly as much in grass as in grain. In the more distant counties the lands were appropriated principally to grain; nearer to the metropolis the reverse was the case; and, upon properties of many hundreds of acres, there would be frequently found on each not more than thirty acres of grain; so that the proportion of grain would, in those instances, be not more than one-tenth as to the grass. Honourable gentlemen might judge from this, how materially different the effect of such a measure as that proposed would be, upon the produce of a farm taken altogether as a grain farm, and the produce of lands comprising, in fact, altogether, a grass farm.—The House would now permit him to direct their attention to the present condition of the kingdom, so far as the growth of corn this season might be concerned. He believed he was correct in stating, that probably a greater breadth of wheat had been sown last autumn in this country, than had been sown here during a considerable number of years. A great additional quantity of land had been generally reserved for this purpose, with a view to remedy the deficiency of last year. If we should have a good harvest this year, the produce would, in all probability, prove far greater as to quantity than the produce of any former year, for a long time past. At the present moment, it was generally understood, that between seven hundred thousand and eight hundred thousand quarters of foreign grain were lying in warehouse; and he believed he did not exaggerate in stating, that between this time and the next harvest there would be from three hundred thousand to four hundred thousand quarters more imported into Great Britain. Add to this the probable produce of such a greatly increased breadth as had been sown last season at home, and it would be easily
1038
computed how vast a supply there would be ready for the market. He would be glad, then, to know, what chance of protection the British farmer would have against the foreign grower, under this state of things? The farmer, at all times, stood in a peculiar, and a very singular situation. If he failed at one season, he would scarcely recover himself at another. The merchant, on the contrary, had a chance of recovering himself from the losses he might experience in one or two unfortunate years, by the successful results of a third. But very different was the case with the farmer, and, more especially, under a system like that now proposed to be introduced; for he could have only, at the best of times, a certain price for his produce; and, should ever the price of grain in the market exceed that stipulated sum, importation would immediately take place, and he must be exposed to the competition of immense stores of corn, raised at an expense infinitely short of that which he would be liable to, in growing the same quantity of grain. To him (lord Clive) it appeared impossible, but that, under the measures and the scale of duty now proposed to be adopted by his majesty's government, the British farmer must, in a limited number of years, be reduced to beggary. When the resolution in question was brought in, he had hoped that ministers would have accompanied it with some measure of protection to our own agriculturists; and such a protection, he could not help saying, they were, upon every principle, fairly entitled to. The result of the proposal, if it should be carried, would be to place in the hands of the government somewhere about 1,000,000 l. per annum; for, supposing the importation of foreign grain was annually about one million quarters, this would be the product of a twenty shillings duty per quarter on the importation. With the prospect of so much benefit, then, to arise from the measure suggested, some little attention should have been, at the same time, paid to the case of the agriculturists, who were so much the sufferers; and this kind of relief might have been afforded, by the repeal of one or more of the taxes pressing most heavily on that interest [hear, hear.] If any such intention were entertained by government, surely it would be a boon perfectly well received by hon. gentlemen in that House, and very grateful, at the same time, to the agriculturists,

1039
to have the duty on foreign wool reimposed. Some bounty, again, might be given to the grower of British corn, in proportion to the increased produce he should be able to raise—an assistance and a stimulus which might, perhaps, be found to go very far in enabling him to compete with the foreign grower. In point of fact, it was at present admitted, on all hands, that the British farmer would require protection; and to show how little even such a bounty would compensate him for the loss he must suffer by the competition of his growth with foreign produce, it was sufficient to say, that a long course of years must elapse, however much he might increase the amount, or lessen the expense of his own production, before he could dispose of his grain in any other market.—Having said thus much, he could only again take the liberty of urging on his hon. friends on the bench below him, the propriety of not further pressing the resolution they had introduced, until they had taken some steps for placing the currency of the country on a sure and permanent footing [hear, hear]. They might be assured, that the alterations which took place in that currency last year would even now lead to far more extensive and mischievous results, than any which had yet manifested themselves. If it were retained on its present footing, those mischiefs must go on increasing: if it were placed on a permanent and stable footing, the existing injuries to the home-grower of corn could not but be lessened. Having troubled the House to this extent, he would not now further trespass on their time, than to read a passage or two from a Letter on the subject of the Corn Laws, addressed to the right hon. the President of the Board of Trade, which had lately been put into his hands, and which expressed the sentiments he entertained on this most important subject in a manner so much better than he could command, that he could really only regret they had not emanated from himself. He should have been proud to have originated them; and they certainly reflected the highest credit on their writer. He had been told, indeed, that in this letter (it was a printed one), some charges had been very unworthily and very unjustly made against a most distinguished member of the House. He could only say, he was most sorry, if any thing like obloquy had really been attempted to be cast by this writer, on any hon. gentleman who was a
1040
member of his majesty's government, he would, however, proceed to read the following passages:
"But even in peace the habitual dependence on foreign supply is dangerous. We place the subsistence of our own population not only at the mercy of foreign powers, but also on their being able to spare as much corn as we may want to buy. Suppose, as it frequently happens, the harvest in the same year to be a short one, not only in this country, but in the foreign countries from which we are fed—what follows? The habitually exporting country, France for instance, stops the export of its corn, and feeds its people without any great pressure. The habitually importing country, England, which, even in a good season, has hitherto depended on the aid of foreign corn, deprived of that aid, in a year of scarcity, is driven to distress bordering upon famine. There is, therefore, no effectual security, either in peace or war, against the frequent return of scarcity approaching to starvation (such as of late years we have so frequently experienced), but in our maintaining ourselves habitually independent of foreign supply. Let the bread we eat be the produce of corn grown among ourselves, and, for one, I care not how cheap it is; the cheaper the better. It is cheap now, and I rejoice at it, because it is altogether owing- to a sufficiency of corn of our own growth. But, in order to insure a continuance of that cheapness and that sufficiency, we must insure to our own growers that protection against foreign import which has produced these blessings, and by which alone they can be permanently maintained."
A little further on, the writer proceeded to say—
"During upwards of one hundred years, up to the year 1765, the import of foreign corn was restrained by very high duties. What was the stale of the country during those one hundred years? That in ordinary seasons our own growth supplied a stock of corn fully ample for our own consumption; that in abundant seasons we had some to spare, which we exported; that in bad seasons we felt no want, and were under no apprehension; that the price of corn seldom varied more than a few shillings per quarter; that we had no years of inordinate grain to the farmer, and of starvation to the consumer; that prices, instead of rising from year to year,

1041
were gradually diminishing; so that at the end of this long period of a century, during' which we never imported foreign corn, they were actually one-fifth lower than at the beginning of it. Would to God that we had continued in this salutary system! But in 1765 it was most unfortunately abandoned. What has been the result? Precisely the reverse of the former system. Instead of a steady supply, afforded at steady and moderate prices, we have witnessed frequent and alarming scarcities. Every year our dependence on foreign supply was increasing, till the war came, and, by interrupting that supply, greatly aggravated all our evils; for a country which depends on enemies or rivals for the food of its people, is never safe in war."
Now, all he asked of the House was protection, amounting to a prohibition. He considered such a protection necessary. At what precise price it might be provided, he left the legislature to determine; but he qualified his demand, by supposing, that it should be a protecting duty, amounting to a prohibition, continued, say, for two years; during which interval, the government might repeal taxes, at present bearing on the agricultural interest, to such an amount as should enable them to raise their corn at a much less expensive rate, so as to give them some chance of competing with the foreign grower.
Sir Edward Knatchbullcommenced with an expression of the great reluctance that he felt in opposing any measure coming from those with whom he generally concurred in opinion, and with whom he was in the habit of acting. It gave him real pain to express his dissent from the plan now brought forward, which the right hon. Secretary for Foreign Affairs told the House was the plan of the noble lord at the head of the government; but which he could not have believed, if he had not received the assurance of the right hon. gentleman that it was so. He owned he was surprised at the measure coming from such a source. He said this with great respect for the noble earl, of whose services the country, by an afflicting dispensation of Providence, was now unfortunately deprived. To that noble earl he was desirous of paying the tribute of his approbation, for his long, and eminent, and laborious services, and of his admiration for his many eminent virtues. Before he pro-
1042
ceeded to notice the measure now before the House, he would notice a petition which had been presented by the hon. member for Staffordshire, praying that the principle of free trade, which had been introduced into our commercial system, should be extended to the article of grain. Now, he was desirous of strongly entering his protest against the application of this principle to the trade in corn; convinced as he was that it could not be applied to that trade, without entailing on this country the greatest and most irreparable mischief. He owned he was at a loss to conceive what there was in the present circumstances of the country, that required the bringing forward this measure now more than at any former period; and the changing that system on which we had hitherto acted, and which was the one which the fair protection of the agricultural interest rendered requisite. The present introduction of such a measure was the less required, as, in all the late changes with respect to wool, iron, timber, and other produce of the earth, the agricultural interest was greatly aggrieved. The hon. baronet next proceeded to advert to a Letter of the right hon. President of the Board of Trade, written to his constituents in 1814, which contained an approval of the system, which, in his opinion, was the sound one for this country to adopt, but which was quite at variance with the resolutions on which the present bill was to be formed. The hon. baronet said, it was his opinion—an opinion in which he was supported by eminent authority—that this country ought to depend for its supply of grain on the soil of the united kingdom. In this opinion he was supported by the authority of lord Liverpool, from whom this measure was said to emanate, and by the right hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer. In a speech of lord Liverpool, at the time of the alteration in 1815, this passage occurred:—"The general principle, supposing all nations, or at least the most considerable nations, to act upon it was, that in these cases, the legislature ought not to interfere, but leave every thing to find its own level. In such a state of the world, it was perfectly clear, that every nation ought to be left to prosecute, without interference, that particular species of industry for which, by its nature and condition, it was in all respects best adapted. If that were to be adopted by all the con-

1043
siderable nations of the world, there would be no doubt but it was the system which all must consider as the most proper and desirable. But, unfortunately, the period was not yet arrived, when nations would have the wisdom to act upon any such system. It was unnecessary for him to tell their lordships, that the actual state, of the world was very different from what it must be, before any nation in particular would with safety rely upon such a line of policy. Then, if such a system could not be pursued, when considered in connection with the regulations adopted by the several nations of the world, ought the principle to be acted upon by any individual nation having regard to the different description of industry presented within its own limits? That was a more doubtful question. But this at least was clear, that no nation could so far act upon it without exceptions." The hon. baronet proceeded to read a passage further on, in which the noble earl stated, that "if their lordships were now to begin a new system, the course of legislation would, in all probability, be materially different; but these statutes had been long acted upon, and the condition of the country had, in a great degree, adapted itself to the system. Whatever might be their opinion of these measures, if they had been for the first time proposed, they must now take them as they stood, and legislate with a proper regard to the existing system considered in all its bearings and relations." The hon. baronet contended, that the application of these observations of the noble earl was the encouragement that it was necessary to give the agricultural interest, and which it had been the generous policy of the legislature to extend to it. He now came to the opinion which his right hon. friend, the chancellor of the Exchequer, had pronounced at nearly the same period, and on the same subject, in that House. The right hon. gentleman had said, "He did not believe an import duty would be preferable to a prohibitory price." This was the opinion which he also held; and he hoped to hear from his right hon. friend the grounds upon which he had changed, if he had changed, that opinion. No man would listen to those reasons with more courtesy than himself; but until he heard them, his right hon. friend must allow him to say, he thought the principle which had been laid down by him in 1815
1044
was the true one, and he should oppose every other. In another speech of his right hon. friend, delivered on the 11th of February 1815, he had said, "In looking to the principles which should guide their decision, the House ought to recollect that they were not now in the situation of arguing for the first time, whether they should act on the principle of restriction or not; for not only on the subject of corn, but on all the great branches of trade in this country, they had, from time immemorial, proceeded on a system of restriction, and therefore he contended they were not now, for the first time, to inquire whether they were to act upon this principle or not. The question had been acted on for a long period, and he could not depart from it without encountering a frightful revulsion which it would be dreadful to combat. It was not, therefore, a question between restriction and non-restriction, but how they were to apply principles that had been long called into action, to the existing circumstances of the country?" His right hon. friend added, a little further on, that "It was quite impossible for us safely to rely on a foreign import. If we did, the necessary effect would be a diminution of our own produce, which would become more and more extensive every year, and consequently call for a greater annual supply from foreign countries—a supply which must progressively increase as the agriculture of the kingdom became less encouraged, and that when the fatal moment arrived, the system of foreign supply would be completely illusory." In a debate on the same subject, the right hon. the president of the Board of Trade, in answering an objection of an hon. member who had asked, why not put other countries on the same condition with respect to ourselves that Ireland was? had said "He would tell the hon. gentleman why that experiment would not do. Ireland was under our control, and other countries were not; besides, did not Ireland receive our manufactures in return, and were we quite sure that other countries would do so?" This had been the opinion of the right hon. gentleman in 1815. At a subsequent period, when the question of allowing the importation of wool and iron was discussed, and the effect of a large importation of those articles taking place was anticipated, the right hon. gentleman very judiciously objected

1045
to extending it, and said he would wait to see how the experiment succeeded, so that if any danger should ensue, a remedy might be promptly applied. Now, it was because he was satisfied the measure before the House was merely trying an experiment, that he paused upon it; and, before he could agree to it, he wished to know whether the right hon. gentleman had any security to offer in the event of its failure [a laugh]. He did not mean to disturb the gravity of the House by an allusion to securities, but he expressed his decided opinion, that the agricultural interest ought to be protected by means of a prohibition, if it should become necessary, against the possibility of a danger which he thought was too likely to accrue. He was firmly of opinion that no satisfaction would ultimately result to the country from the system of legislation which ministers had proposed. Could the right hon. the chancellor of the Exchequer undertake to say what would be the price of corn in any given quarter at any given period, and what would be the rate of freight? When the case of the shipping interest came to be brought under the notice of that House, he could not believe that some relief and protection would not be given; and, in that event, would not the rate of freight undergo a change? He should like to know, too, if any alteration in the warehousing system were contemplated. He should like to see, he confessed, the change in the ancient laws of the kingdom in this respect, conducted upon the same principle of gradual change and amendment, which was evinced in the mighty improvement in progress upon the criminal laws. The manner in which that change was effected, recommended the change itself to the unanimous approbation of the country, and the individual who effected it to general applause. Nothing would be more grateful to the landed interest, than an alteration in the laws relating to corn, conducted in the same spirit. But the present plan he conceived to be an inconsiderate application of a sound principle, to a state of things in the highest degree artificial. Although government did not wish to do harm, the consequences of a wrong step would not be the less severe. He earnestly hoped that the country gentlemen would stand forward, and cheek the progress of an experiment, which threatened to do violence to the best interests of the country.
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid, he thought that the place which he filled as a minister of the Crown, and the situation in which he stood with respect to the question of the Corn-laws, made it incumbent upon him to reply to some of the observations which he had heard, both from the noble lord behind him and the hon. baronet who had just sat down, whose direct appeal to his opinion rendered that reply the more necessary, because he felt that it was his lot to have been the original proposer of a plan, founded on the question of the Corn-laws, though different from that which was now about to be considered. He owed it to his own character, and to the honour of those in conjunction with whom he acted, to express his cordial and unequivocal concurrence in the wisdom and policy of the proposed resolutions which he had now the great and peculiar satisfaction to support. He had no false delicacy to plead, for he confessed he felt no shame to admit, that his opinion with respect to this question was different now from what it had been. Where, then, was the justice of charging him with acting inconsistently, because he now, from conviction, supported a different view of the question from that which he had formerly entertained? At the time to which the hon. baronet had referred, he held a different situation in his majesty's government to that which he had now the honour to fill. At that time he was not one of his majesty's advisers, as he was now, and therefore he was so far released from the responsibility of his acts. Besides, he remembered distinctly to have said, when he proposed the measure, that it was not merely a choice of difficulties, but a choice of evils. He matured and prepared that measure it was true; but if he now supported a plan which, on further consideration, he conceived to be more efficient and beneficial, where, he would ask, was the mighty inconsistency with which the hon. baronet thought proper to accuse him? No man, he contended, was fit to be a minister of the Crown who was not prepared, upon questions of this nature, involving not any individual or particular interests, but the welfare of the country at large, to adopt that plan which reason, experience, and conviction pointed out to be the best. Without reference, therefore, to the part which he had formerly taken, he now most cordially joined his right hon. col-

1047
leagues, in proposing the resolutions that were before the House. His right hon. friend, the President of the Board of Trade, had been referred to by the hon. baronet, as the person on whom the odium of framing the original measure of 1814 should fall. But he should be ashamed of himself and of that right hon. colleague, if he were calmly and silently to look on without refuting such an assertion, and taking upon himself a full share of whatever odium belonged to that measure. If he were base enough to let his right hon. friend be sacrificed, in order to shield himself he should deserve the indignation of all honourable men, of whatever class or party. But the truth was, that as to that free trade, the principles of which his right hon. friend had so well and so usefully supported—which was the horrid phantom that disturbed the mind of the hon. baronet, and raised those gloomy apprehensions with which his speech was tinctured—and which in the estimation of some hon. gentlemen, was as great a bugbear as the Pope himself—if any individual member of his majesty's government was liable to the censure of the hon. baronet, he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) was that individual member. When, therefore, his right hon. friend was charged with that of which he was not guilty, it was the duty of him on whom blame should fall, if any were due, to avow openly the part which he had taken. But, neither himself nor his right hon. friend could with justice be charged with inconsistency, with regard to this question, or with neglecting its true interests, He (the chancellor of the Exchequer) held the office of President of the Board of Trade before his right hon. friend was appointed to that situation; and from the first moment of his appointment, he never ceased to apply himself to the consideration of the subject on which the present resolutions were founded. Those who knew his right hon. friend, knew also that his time and talents were devoted to the same ends. When, therefore, the hon. baronet lauded the prudence and caution of his right hon. friend and colleague, whose exertions to simplify and consolidate the criminal jurisprudence of the country had met with such deserved applause, it was not, he conceived, altogether fair, in the same breath, to accuse him (the chancellor of the Exchequer) and his right hon. friend, of precipitance and
1048
imprudence. The hon. member for Kent, and all those out of doors who felt and thought as he did with reference to this question, were guilty of gross ignorance, or rather, he should say, of gross misapprehension. They seemed to think that the resolutions now proposed were, in effect, a material alteration of the laws relating to corn; but he would venture to say that he could prove to the satisfaction of even the hon. baronet himself, or of any one else espousing the same opinions, that what was called innovation was nothing more than an endeavour to bring back this country to the state which she enjoyed before that revolution which turned every thing topsy-turvy, [hear, hear, and laughter.] He hoped the House would not be swayed by the opinion of his noble friend (lord Clive), who said that he was not only against the measure, but against hearing it discussed. His noble friend, after a speech in opposition to the measure, concluded by declaring that he would not go into it at all. Now, it did appear most extraordinary, that, any man should get up and declare himself to that effect, and thus, as it were, shut the door to inquiry at once. His noble friend had given a history of the corn measure of 1815; and he too would give his history, or at least his version, of the same measure. In the year 1815, when 80 s. was first fixed as the importation price of corn, he always contended that the effect of that law could not, in point of fact, have the effect of ever raising the price of corn to 80 s. It so happened, however, that the harvests of the years 1816 and 1817 were unusually had and unproductive. The effect of which was, that the law of 1815, sanctioning the admission of foreign corn at 80 s., came into operation. The next year, however, the summer having proved exceedingly fine and favourable to the harvest, the price of corn fell as rapidly as it had before risen. The consequence was, that the farmers were frightened out of their wits, and predicted, as they often did predict, that their total ruin was at hand. The praiseworthy plan of lowering rent, which had since been so beneficially adopted throughout the country, had not then been acted upon, and consequently the farmers and the landed interest generally were seriously alarmed. They thought it right to place their affairs in the hands of a committee of their own body, and this agricultural parliament, at the head

1049
of which was Mr. Webb Hall, sat in the immediate neighbourhood of that very House, gravely deliberating and issuing their manifestoes throughout the country, calling upon the landed interest to join with them in objecting to the law of 1815, and to implore the House to do—what? not to revoke that law with which they were lately so well satisfied. No such thing; for soon the table of the House was filled with at least five hundred petitions, objecting with all the strength of language to that very law, the principles of which the landed interest now told us ought not to be touched. Was he, then, the only party to whom the charge of inconsistency would attach? Surely those who yielded to those manifestoes, petitioning against that for which they now prayed, were at least as liable to the charge of inconsistency as he was. Be this, however, as it might, in the year 1819, the hon. member for Wareham had asked him if it was the intention of government to propose any alteration of the Corn-laws, in the session of parliament which was then approaching; he answered that there was no such intention. The next year the hon. member for Surrey. (Mr. H. Sumner) proposed a committee; and for what purpose was that committee proposed? The object was to alter the law of 1815, founded on the extraordinary principles of an extraordinary man, Mr. Webb Hall. He (the chancellor of the Exchequer) had opposed the formation of that committee but he had been defeated; the motion of the hon. member for Surrey was carried, and a committee was appointed; but nothing resulted from their deliberations excepting a law to alter the system of averages. In 1821, it was well known that the agricultural interest experienced great distress. On the representations of the landed proprietors, government felt it their duty to acquiesce in the propriety of taking the Corn-laws into consideration. A committee was accordingly appointed, consisting of members of that House; and the result of their deliberations was an extremely elaborate and ably-executed report, in which the principle of the law of 1815 was condemned in toto. In the following year another committee was appointed, who adopted the opinion of that of the year preceding, although nothing resulted from that circumstance; he, (the chancellor of the Exchequer) wished to see the principles of the report of 1821,
1050
carried into effect, although he had no hand in framing it. But, had nothing been done by his majesty's ministers to meet the wishes of the landed interest? Had no change been effected in the curency of the country? Surely a most material change had taken place in that particular; and that very change in the currency was another strong reason for a change in the Corn-laws. Had nothing-been done, he would ask, to lessen the taxes, and thereby to relieve the landed interest, and the country generally? Had not his majesty's ministers been steadily occupied, since the year 1821, in reducing the taxes; and what had been the result? Twelve millions of taxes had been repealed since that period [cheers]. Whatever difficulties, therefore, the farmer suffered from the effect of the taxes, those difficulties were less by so much than they were before the year 1821; but the noble lord who now complained that we had taken no steps towards this change, and who resolved to oppose any change in the Corn-laws, until a reduction of taxes took place, at the very moment that he staled this, terminated his complaint by proposing a tax—the re-imposition of the duty on wool. Now, if there was a single point on which almost the whole country was absolutely and undoubtedly in error, it was on this of wool. He had read a great number of petitions on the subject; and, among them, one from the county in which he had the honour of living, upon this subject, in which sagacious remarks were made upon the "wisdom of our ancestors," who always protected the trade of wool. Now where did the "wisdom of our ancestors" begin? The "wisdom of our ancestors" was exactly eight years old. The high duty on wool was imposed for the first time in 1819; not for the protection of the farmer, but as a matter of finance. It was then raised from one penny to six pence the pound; and on the condition that it was not to be a permanent tax. Here, then, was the "wisdom of our ancestors," a fine grown baby, eight years old! [a laugh.] If he were to run through all the topics adverted to by his hon. friend, the member for Kent, he was afraid he should never end. But if he was at dinner with him, where he assured him he would much rather be than where they now were, he would like to ask him a few questions about these duties—what was

1051
their amount—when they were imposed, and when altered? If his hon. friend said he did not know, his argument would then go for little. But, if he answered otherwise, then he would ask, were they so sacred, that we could not bring them back to what they had originally been? One other topic he would advert to; namely the timber duty. This duty was not laid on till 1809.—The Baltic was then closed against us, and the duty was imposed for the protection of our colonies; but it was limited to the duration of the war. In 1822, this duty was diminished. How? By rash precipitation on the part of a government full of all sorts of schemes and changes, and projects? No such thing. By a committee, which, after much investigation, and after having examined a great mass of evidence, recommended the fearful and wonderful alteration which appeared to have so alarmed the nerves of his hon. friend, the member for Kent. He had discussed the subject more at length than he had at first proposed to do; and perhaps than it was necessary to do; but really the motives of his majesty's ministers, with reference to this question, had been so misrepresented, both in that and in the other House of Parliament, and also out of doors, by persons who wrote and spoke with the most mistaken views, that he did not think it would be a waste of time if he craved the indulgence of the House, in order to show the grounds on which his majesty's government had heretofore acted upon this subject, and were now proceeding to legislate. His noble friend had built a strong argument on the necessity of giving protection to the landed interest. Why, who ever disputed that that interest should not be protected? The thing was in itself so rational, so self-evident, that the noble lord had little occasion to press his arguments in that particular. To be sure, the agricultural must be protected, for the benefit of those several interests with which that great body was inseparably connected. And, what were the means to effect that object? The only question was this—whether the object was to be effected by a protecting duty or a positive law, prohibiting corn altogether. Now he thought the hon. and learned member for Winchelsea had, on a former night, clearly proved that a duty, proceeding on an ascending scale, must necessarily come to some point which amounted to a pro-
1052
hibition. But, what was the evil of the other system? When corn came to the importation price, after a calculation made four times a year, the ports were thrown open, and the speculators in this article poured in all the corn they could, from every quarter of the world; not in reference to the demand, or the certainty of the market, but because the time for importation was limited, and, if they did not take advantage of that moment, and import all at once, they might not have the same opportunity for ten years again. This was most injurious to the agriculturists; and the change from such a system must be for their advantage. And what was he himself but an agriculturist? Was it not from the land that he derived his income? Were it not for the land, he and his connections would be nothing in the country. Was he foolish enough to cut his own throat, by advising measures which he knew would end in the ruin of the landed proprietors. He felt satisfied that the measure proposed by his right hon. friend, the Secretary for Foreign Affairs, would ultimately prove beneficial to all classes, and that great public good would arise from them. To hear hon. gentlemen talk of the Corn-law of 1815, which they hugged to their bosom with all the fatuity of misplaced affection, was really ridiculous. One would think that in this law was locked up all the good things for which the farmers had sighed for so long a period. No man who knew any thing of a county statistics but must know that this country had been in a gradual state of improvement ever since the Revolution down to the year 1815. He did not mean to say that every thing connected with agriculture was flourishing at present; but, deducting the occasional misfortunes that now and then visited the farmers, his assertion would be found to be correct. Was it then, too much to say, that his majesty's ministers were innovators? Were they not resorting back again to that system which had proved so generally beneficial to the country? The hon. member for Kent had stated, that year after year petitions had been presented to the House on the subject of the Corn-laws. It was quite true; the table of the House literally groaned beneath the weight of the prayers of divers petitions. Some prayed for a total abolition of the Corn-laws; other petitioners prayed that the House would not interfere in the sub-

1053
ject at all; while a third class of petitioners, and by far the most reasonable of the three, prayed that parliament, in legislating on the subject, would consider the interests of all classes of the people, without reference to any particular body. To this latter class of petitioners, he confessed he felt the best inclined; for they had reason, sound sense, and the true policy of the country with them. Ministers would not be performing their duty to the country, if they did not endeavour to do something which might be for the advantage of all parties; though in doing so, it might be impossible for them to satisfy both sides. The hon. member for Kent objected to the proposed measure on another ground—that the time had not yet arrived for it; that before such a measure could be fairly introduced, it would be necessary to introduce another measure; namely that of settling the currency. Why, that had been already done. He had an impression something stronger than a dream, that a measure had been introduced on this subject by his right hon. friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department, in 1819, to arrange the currency until 1823, and from thence to 1827; and, though some deviation from the rules then laid down was made in 1822, measures were taken last year to remedy that deviation, and to accelerate the period for the withdrawing of the one-pound notes. Was not this an arrangement respecting the currency? He did not know what more was to be done. But he strongly suspected, when he hoard these frequent remarks about settling the currency, that there was something more meant than was distinctly avowed. He suspected that by this settling of the currency was meant an alteration of the standard. This notion he had seen distinctly avowed in some pamphlets which had been published on the subject. It was there laid down, that nothing could be fairly done with respect to the Corn-laws unless there was an alteration of the standard, or as it was otherwise termed, an "equitable adjustment." For his own part, however, he could make neither head nor tail of what the terms meant; but if they meant an alteration in the standard, he decidedly protested against it; and he trusted he should never be found so far forgetful of his duty as to consent to it. If they were to wait for an alteration in the Corn-laws until such a measure was
1054
adopted, he hoped to God they would have to wait a long time; for he trusted that government would never consent to it. His hon. friend, the member for Kent, had expressed his anxiety to have a regulation, by which the price of corn might be kept steady, and by which something like a certain price should be kept up. Now, this was exactly the advantage which would follow from the proposed alteration—an advantage which he was prepared to contend did not exist under the present system. Were not the fluctuations of price under this system notorious? Since the passing of the bill in 1815, they had had the price at one time 112 s., and at another it was as low as 38 s. What could be more uncertain than a price varying at this rate? It was impossible to guard against such variations, under the law as it now stood; or under any system depending so much as that did on the uncertainty of the seasons. In the plan proposed, it was endeavoured, by regulating the scale of duties, which would ascend and descend from week to week, according to the fall or rise of prices in the home market, to prevent those sudden fluctuations which must result from suddenly opening the ports in a period of scarcity, or by keeping them closed for a certain period after the price had become high. No man under the new plan would be obliged, by the sudden change in the market, to bring his corn all at once for sale. He could wait from one week to another; because he would feel secured against any sudden change to any great extent. If, then, any plan could prevent uncertainty or fluctuations with respect to price, that which was now proposed would do it; while nothing could be more uncertain or unsteady, than the price under the system now in existence.—But then they were told, that this new plan would have the effect of ruining all the agriculturists in the kingdom—that the change would involve them in utter destruction—and that this was the opinion of the great majority of the agriculturists throughout the kingdom. He did not believe that any such opinion prevailed amongst that class. He had heard the opinions of agriculturists from all quarters of the kingdom on the subject, and he could state, that the principle of the proposed change met with their unqualified approbation. There were, no doubt, differences of opinion as to the details; but, as to the principle of the measure,

1055
the concurrence was, he firmly believed, general throughout the country. He would give one instance. In some resolutions recently entered into by an agricultural association at Lewes, and signed by Mr. Elman, a gentleman who appeared to have studied, and to be well acquainted with the subject, the principle of the measure before the House was fully approved. This was only one instance; but he would undertake to say, that instances, almost innumerable, could be found, in which the same opinion was adopted by agriculturists; and he had no doubt, the more the subject was reasoned upon and considered by the parties interested, the more fully would the plan be approved, as decidedly superior to the system at present in force. He knew well when any alterations were proposed in matters connected with trade or commerce, that hundreds and thousands interested in the particular business in which the alteration was proposed, got immediately alarmed, at what they feared would be the result. He had frequently, in the discharge of his duty, had to propose several alterations in the laws affecting- particular branches of trade and commerce; and in every instance when his intention became known, he had been assailed on all quarters with the most doleful assurances, that the parties complaining would be utterly ruined by the proposed change; and yet, in no one instance, had he ever found that the fears of those parties had been well-founded, or that any of the evils which they had anticipated had come to pass. He could not mention a stronger instance of the blind opposition which was sometimes raised at the mention of a change of system, than that which had occurred, when it was proposed to admit the importation of corn from Canada. That measure had been proposed on the liberal and sound principle of recognizing the king's subjects in that colony as our brethren, and giving to them some of the advantages which they had a right to expect from such recognition. The measure was recommended by every principle of justice and sound policy; yet it was received at first in that House with the highest degree of alarm. It was opposed on the ground that if it passed, this country would be deluged with corn, not only from Canada, but from many ports in the United States. Those objections were successfully met and got rid of in that House, and the bill passed
1056
through; but when it reached the other House, there terror took its stand. Those worthy persons—with many of whom he was nearly connected, and of all of whom he desired to speak with the highest respect—got dreadfully alarmed at the proposition. They had never heard of the like. They could not enter into the justice or policy of extending an advantage to our fellow-subjects in Canada, which their fears told them would be so injurious to the people of England; and they threw out the bill, or, what came to the same thing, they so modelled it, that that House was compelled to reject it. They afterwards adopted the measure in a modified form; but only for a limited period, and it would expire in the present year. But, let the House recollect what had been the result of that measure. It turned out that, in the first year of the operation of the bill, when, of course, that operation might be expected to be most active, the quantity of corn imported into this country from Canada was only between 70,000 and 80,000 quarters; and in the next year it shrunk to 30,000 quarters. And this was the result of a measure which we were called dolts and children, unable to put two ideas together, or to reason from cause to effect, because we did not anticipate from it the ruin of the agriculturalists of England. In conclusion, he would observe, that if the noble lord persisted in the course that he now proposed, and if it should be adopted by the House, he was satisfied it would be found most seriously prejudicial to the interests of those for whose benefit it was intended—of those on whose behalf he (the chancellor of the Exchequer) then stood up, and for whose sakes he was willing to forfeit his character for consistency, in opposing a system which he felt convinced would militate against their best interests.
Mr. Westernsaid, that the measures respecting the currency introduced in 1822, tended to increase the circulation of the country, and as a necessary consequence, it raised the price of corn. The price continued to rise in the years 1823, 1824, and 1825; so much so, that in February in that year the chancellor of the Exchequer came down to that House, and made his prosperity speech, in which he described every branch of our trade and commerce as in the most flourishing condition. Yet, during that prosperous state of the country, corn was at 68 s,

1057
This was created by the tampering with the currency. But now it was sought to bring in a bill to prevent corn from again rising to that price under which we had enjoyed so many national benefits. The right hon. the chancellor of the Exchequer seemed disposed to retract what he had then said; and now it appeared to him that 55 s. or 60 s. was price high enough, or rather too high. He would, however, tell the government, that the operation of the proposed measure would be to keep down corn perpetually to 55 s. But at that price agriculture would decline—manufactures would decline—the revenue would decline. It was impossible that our present amount of taxation could be paid at that price—that the country could go on at that rate. If the price of corn was low, all other things would be low-priced in proportion. The manufacturers looked on themselves, as far as this question was concerned, only as consumers; but they should recollect, that they were also sellers, and that if they bought corn cheap, they must sell their commodities cheap in the same proportion. It would be found by them, and by labourers of all classes, that if corn fell, the price of goods and the price of wages would fall much faster; and that, in the result, they would lose much more than they at first gained. It was, he thought, unfair to the agriculturists, to have these frequent alterations with respect to the trade in corn. The bill of 1815 was intended to be permanent, and not tried as an experiment. If he had thought it was any thing else, he would not have concurred in it. Ministers now, however, talked of that measure as if it had been intended only as an experiment. He did not mean to impute blame to any of them for a change of his opinion; but he must say, that, as a body, they showed a degree of vacillation on this subject by no means creditable. Was it not an anomaly, that after the great attention which had been bestowed on the subject in 1822, they should now give up the measure recommended by the committee of that year. He did not approve of the measure of that year, for he preferred to adhere to that of 1815; but, as that measure had been adopted with such deliberation, he thought it ought to be allowed to continue. It had been stated by the right hon. gentleman, in 1815, when president of the Board of Trade, in support of the corn bill at that time before
1058
the House, that taxation could not be expected to be reduced much below sixty millions, and that, as the amount before the war did not exceed seventeen millions, it was impossible that the large amount could be paid, unless corn was much higher than it was before 1793. Now, however, he had altered his opinion. In 1822, that right hon. gentleman had said, that on behalf of the agriculturists, the merchants, the manufacturers, and the public creditor—on behalf of every interest in the community—he earnestly recommended the House to adopt the measure then proposed. What reason had the right hon. gentleman given for going directly opposite to the opinions he had then so earnestly avowed? It had been said, that great fluctuations in the price of corn had occurred in this country, since 1815. This might be true; but, at the same time, much greater fluctuations of price had taken place in every other country in Europe, except France; where the restrictive law was more operative than in this country. The extremes of fluctuation in England, since the year 1817, had been from 92 s. to 43 s. In the year 1817, the price of corn at Berlin was 65 s.; and, after 1824, it varied from 65 s. to 24 s. At Warsaw and Prague, the extremes of price from 1817 were, from 51 s. to 13 s. At Cracow, 57 s. to 13 s. 5d. At Dantzig, from 90 s. to 22 s.; Vienna, 112 s. to 17 s.; Munich, 120 s. to 25 s.; Hamburgh, 81 s. 9d. to 21 s. In France the price had fluctuated from 8s. 4d. the bushel to 4s. 3d. In every country from which there had been any accurate returns, the fluctuations had exceeded those of England. How could this be attributed to the Corn-laws of 1815? He, therefore, should support the prohibitory system, upon the grounds of political expediency, or even necessity—he meant the necessity of maintaining the country independent of foreign nations. The national prosperity depended upon the continuance of the prohibitory system. Whoever advocated the system of free trade in corn, advocated that which would subject us to the greatest difficulties, when the countries, on whom we should thus be dependent, chose to be hostile towards us. He intreated the House to pause ere they passed this bill, as it would be throwing the country into the hands, and leaving it at the mercy, of foreigners. It was placing in their possession a double-edged

1059
sword, which they might wield to our destruction. They would be able to deprive us of food at their caprice, starve the people, and bankrupt our manufacturers. If the House would look to the speculative character of this country—the propensity which existed to create artificial prices and artificial dealings, for individual emolument—they would see how much this speculation would be placed within the power of men of large capital, who could buy up vast quantities of corn, and, by the advantages which their great pecuniary resources gave them, entirely alter the condition of the corn-market at their pleasure, and create an eternal fluctuation in the averages. But further, he would affirm, that if the average price of British wheat were to be fixed at 60 s., foreign grain, which could be grown at 20 s., would be freely imported into this country. The price assumed would be injurious not to one interest alone. The manufacturing classes would suffer as well as the agriculturists. The measure proposed was founded upon a principle of foreign commerce; whereas, any law intended to afford sufficient protection to the landed interest, and to secure the advantage and welfare of all classes, should be regulated with a view to a reliance on our own resources, independent of any extraneous supply. These were his sentiments, founded on the fullest conviction; and if the right hon. gentleman opposite was entitled to pardon for changing his opinions, he trusted that he, too, would be excused for adhering to his own.
Sir Thomas Goochsaid, that this was a subject of which he most deeply felt the importance. Although the representative of a great agricultural county, he would not consider this question with reference to the exclusive interests of his constituents, but on enlarged principles, such as became the representative—not of a body of agriculturists merely, but of the nation at large; and in that character he would take upon him to say, that if ever there was a question in which the happiness and the comfort, the interest and the prosperity of the whole empire were involved, this was the question. Such being the case the House was bound to enter into the consideration of it with the utmost vigilance and caution. If there were any hon. members, with whom he was in the habit of voting upon roost occasions, who were disposed to censure the proceedings
1060
of ministers, he must take leave to say, that he did not concur with them. Although he might object to the principle of the resolutions now submitted to the House, yet he was of opinion, that ministers could not, under existing circumstances, have done other than resort to it. Looking at the hundreds of thousands of manufacturers in distress, with whose petitions the table of that House was loaded, the legislature would not have done its duty if it had not listened to their prayer. In the year 1821, when the agriculturists were pouring in their petitions from a similar cause, he was one of those who grumbled most, until they were effectually attended to. It was but justice to his majesty's ministers to say, that no government was ever placed in a more difficult and trying position. They had, on the one hand, the distressed manufacturers, who imagined that their sufferings arose from the Corn-laws—a most erroneous idea. The distress was caused by totally different circumstances. The fact was, that a child of ten years of age, from the improved state of machinery and science, could do as much work now as a man could do heretofore. Our manufactures had so accumulated as to overstock and outstrip all the sources of their diffusion. Every storehouse in the world was filled with the manufactures of England; and, until some new vent was found for them, things must remain in their present condition, which all so much deplored. He was sorry to find himself compelled to differ, on the present occasion, from those with whom he generally voted. But he thought that the right hon. gentlemen did not give the agriculturist the protection they professed to do. The right hon. gentleman who had been the principal instrument in bringing the proposition before the House, had stated, that the main spring upon which the machinery turned was, the average of sixty shillings per quarter. If that proposition were really sustained, he should have been satisfied, and thought the arrangement a fair one. But he was prepared to prove, that the protection would not, in fact, be more than from 45 s. to 56 s. per quarter as the medium; 60 s. being the maximum. The right hon. mover of the resolutions had said, that he wished to keep the price fluctuating only between 55 s. and 60 s. the quarter; and that, at the former rate, he should be able to impose a protecting duty,

1061
which would amount to a prohibition. This might be a tenable assumption, if it were known at what price the foreign grower could send his grain to this country. The only data, however, which were available on that subject were, the returns of our consuls abroad, and Mr. Jacob's Report; neither of which furnished sufficient information as to the price at which corn could be sent into this country from the north of Europe. Mr. Jacob said, that in Poland there were large tracts of land, which were not at present employed for agricultural purposes, but were converted into sheep walks; and it was well known that there were a hundred thousand acres which could be easily made productive of corn if so employed. It was, therefore, impossible to tell at what price the foreign grower would be able to send his corn into this country; but he was convinced that he could do so at such a rate as materially to lower the price at home. Some gentlemen talked of the high price of wheat at present as compared with former periods. But let the House calculate the rise on that article beyond its amount fifty years ago, contrasted with the increase upon other commodities in the corresponding period, and they would find how fallacious were these computations. Wheat was not now thirty per cent higher than it was fifty years ago; while, if we looked at the augmentation of our national debt, the increase of the sum necessary for the payment of the interest, the increase of poor rates, of parish charges, and other items—all these had risen, not thirty per cent, but two hundred per cent. Therefore, as compared with the state of prices fifty years ago, wheat was, in fact, low. To the present Corn-laws he must admit that there were some strong objections. The right hon. gentleman had alluded to what was no doubt a serious disadvantage; namely, the extreme fluctuation to which they might give occasion. But, looking back to the year 1819, it would be found, that the average price since that date was about 59 s. Now, what class in the country would have a right to complain of that average, if it were not the agriculturists? But he considered such a rate reasonable and fair for all classes. There was another material point worthy of observation; namely, that since the year 1819, with the exception of a hundred thousand quarters of foreign corn, the country had been
1062
totally independent of external resources. This fact was a strong proof that, with a due protection to the agricultural branch, and a judicious regulation of the corn system, the country had abundant resources in its own production, without any foreign supply. Nothing could tend so immediately to general distress, or be so sure a forerunner of famine in the country, as any measure calculated to depress the farming interest. Amongst the other objections which he had to the proposed measures was this—that it would not realise its professed aim of giving a full protection to 60 s. For instance, he was an extensive agriculturist: he sent a large quantity of corn to the market at 60 s.; but although 60 s. was the price paid by the purchaser, the seller did not put that sum in his pocket. The factorage, commission, and other charges, took off four shillings a quarter; and, therefore, his protection was only 56s. The protection ought, at least, to amount to the rate it purported to be. He thought it but fair to state, that there was very great difference of opinion amongst his constituents on the subject of this measure. Several of them would be quite content with the proposed regulations; but he was apprehensive that those regulations would not be beneficial, either to those who entertained this impression, or to the country at large. He had another strong objection to the admission of foreign corn, which was, the quantity of gold that would, consequently, be sent out of the country. He might be told, that it was not gold but goods that were exchanged; and that, therefore, it was an advantageous barter. In answer to this assertion, he could affirm, that he had known of many vessels which had come to this country with corn, and returned in ballast. So much for barter! When this matter should come before the Committee, he should be prepared to maintain the opinions which he had avowed; and should feel it expedient to call for a higher rate of duty upon the inferior kinds of grain—barley, oats, peas, and beans; and, for the 60 s. as the average of wheat, he would propose that 64 s. should be substituted.
Mr. Ward, member for London, said that he looked in vain for those material improvements which the House had been led to expect from the projected alteration in a system, the existence of which he certainly much regretted. A noble lord,

1063
and other hon. members, had adverted to the subject of the currency; but he could not coincide in any of the remarks which had been made on that head. The noble lord had said, that within twenty-two months we should have a totally new and different currency; but, judging from experience, it appeared to him that any change might be disadvantageous rather than profitable. The measures now proposed had, in fact, been deferred on account of the currency; and it must, be acknowledged that, with reference to that branch of the subject, last year would have been a very injudicious time to originate the contemplated changes. He was of opinion, that the proposed measure would be beneficial, considering it with reference to the supposition of an unfavourable change in the currency. Should such an unfavourable variation take place, he would, for his part, rather that its pressure should be felt under the new law than under the old. With regard to what had been said by the hon. member for Kent, as to tampering with the currency, he would beg to state that, in the year 1819, the currency had been settled upon a basis, which, he trusted, would not be departed from. But a very material inconvenience had arisen from the circumstance of country bankers limiting their advances to the agriculturists, for want of such security as they had been used to require and approve. This had created a diminution of the circulation, and had led to general distress. It appeared to him that the principles of this measure were mistaken, to a very great extent. The principle of free trade, as he understood it, was, that the traffic in all commodities should be free. This principle had, unfortunately, in many instances, been departed from, owing to various circumstances, which it was not necessary to recount. But, in God's name, the would say, let us have some approximation to those principles, which ought, if possible, never to have been departed from. This his constituents instructed him to implore; and more than this they were not willing to ask. For many years they had suffered, in common with other classes, the disadvantages which war must, more or less, entail upon all. But they had hoped that, on a return to peace, they would not have been visited with a law to which they had not before been subject. They had made many applications to ministers for a ^litigation of the evils imposed by the
1064
Corn-laws. But it was no more than justice to them to say, that, they had invariably obeyed the law, however injuriously they felt it to press upon them. In their name he now called for a modification of these laws. The idea of fixing the price at one immutable standard would be a vain and futile one. Prices must vary; and all that the proposed alteration would effect, was a qualification of that variance, and a prevention of the excess of fluctuation. It was a mistaken notion to suppose, that the agricultural interests was exclusively burthened with taxes. Commercial capitalists were subject to the usury laws, and to other laws which materially cramped their operations and reduced their profits. He trusted that the existing jealousy would give place to the utmost concord and sympathy between the two great interests of this affluent nation.
Mr. Secretary Peelsaid, he should not have addressed the House upon the present occasion had it not been for the personal observations which had been made with regard to himself by his hon. friend, the member for Kent. His hon. friend had paid him a compliment which he valued as he ought; but he was afraid that he could not accept it upon the terms on which his hon. friend had offered it. His hon. friend had expressed a wish that the same caution which he (Mr. Peel) had displayed in the alterations which he had introduced into the criminal jurisprudence of the country, had been displayed in the alterations which had been introduced into our commercial policy, and last of all into the Corn-laws. But, he would remind his hon. friend, that there was a very wide difference in the principles upon which alterations in jurisprudence, and alterations in commercial policy, were made. Our criminal jurisprudence, for instance, was not affected by external circumstances, and alterations in it could therefore be made as well in one year as in another. It was not so with regard to measures affecting commerce and corn; for a transition from war to peace, an apprehension of famine, and various other circumstances, which it was easy to imagine, might render it necessary to make very important alterations in our system without any delay. Be that, however, as it might, he would still say, that if any blame were due to the administration for precipitation in altering the commercial policy and the Corn-laws of the country, he was ready to take his

1065
full share of it. The measures to which the hon. member for Kent had adverted, all met with his concurrence; and in case his right hon. friend, the Secretary for Foreign Affairs, had been prevented from attending the House by indisposition, he should not have hesitated to submit to its consideration the present resolutions; not in the mere dry discharge of his official duties, but with the most cordial and zealous desire to support them. He thought it necessary, as he was present during the speech of the hon. member for Kent, to make that avowal explicitly to the House; and as his right hon. friend, the President of the Board of Trade was absent, he felt himself compelled to add, that his right hon. friend had been most hardly dealt with. He rejoiced that his right hon. friend would soon have an opportunity of exposing the misapprehensions to which his system had been exposed; and he had no doubt that when his right hon. friend had exposed them, his hon. friend would applaud his system as warmly as it deserved.—He apprehended that the House was not now discussing the details of the resolutions, but was arguing the general principles on which they rested. Some of the arguments which had been employed against the resolutions, were the very arguments on which he relied for their support. One hon. member had declared, that the state of the currency at the present time induced him to distrust the propriety of the proposed change. Now, the recent alterations in the currency, and the effects they were likely to produce on the I old system of our Corn-laws, had induced him to think, that some alterations in that system were absolutely necessary. When that hon. member referred to the law of 1815, and said that he would adhere to the price of 80 s. fixed by that law, did he recollect the alteration in the value of money, created by the alteration in the currency which he had introduced? Could that price, he would ask the hon. member, be adhered to now? He thought, that when it was recollected, that corn could not be imported into this country, under the law of 1815, until the price of it was above 80 s., no gentleman who called himself a friend to the agricultural interest, would seriously advise a rigid adherence to the law of that date. What, then, was to be done? If the hon. member for Suffolk objected to going into the committee, and the noble lord succeeded in his resolution,
1066
he would not have an opportunity of proposing the amendment which he himself thought advisable. He, therefore, trusted that the hon. member would withdraw his opposition, and would allow the Speaker to leave the chair. He wished it to be understood, that no man had a more friendly feeling towards the agricultural interest than he had: and he was happy to say that there appeared to be, on the part of the agricultural, a most kindly disposition towards the manufacturing classes. Could there be a stronger proof of that disposition than the fact, that in consequence of the letter addressed by his Majesty to the; Archbishops of Canterbury and York, 100,000 l. had been raised by contribution for the relief of the manufacturers—and that mainly in the agricultural districts?—He could not sit down without saying a word or two more upon the currency. One of his reasons for wishing to see an alteration in the present system of our Corn-laws was, that the continuance of it would endanger the currency. There had been such an alteration in the currency since the Corn-laws were first introduced, that it was quite impossible to impute inconsistency to any man who, in 1827, condemned the continuance of the measure which he had supported in 1815. The Bank of England having returned to cash payments, and being obliged to pay in gold, nothing would be more likely to injure that measure, to cause a run upon the Bank, and to send gold out of the country, than the system proposed by the hon. gentlemen who differed from him and his colleagues upon this question. One hon. friend of his had mentioned the fact, that he had seen, foreign ships receive gold for their corn, and then leave this country in ballast; and this, too, at a period when the importation of com was limited. But if this took place under a limited importation, let hon. members consider how much more extensive it would be if, under the present system, corn rose to eighty shillings, and the ports, of necessity, were kept open for three months? In the case of such a scarcity as opened the ports in this way, speculations would be indulged in to the greatest extent, and must be paid in gold, so that such a run would be caused upon the Bank as must disturb the present currency of the country. An hon. gentleman had complimented him upon having introduced the measure which established that currency: but let them not now adopt a

1067
measure, which would bring back upon the country a return of those evils which a different system had brought upon them, and which he now hoped and trusted were nearly overcome. He was sure the House would join with him in opposing any measure calculated to produce a recurrence of those evils, and therefore he relied upon their rejection of the plans recommended to them from other quarters. After stating it to be his opinion, that the mischiefs likely to arise to the agriculturists from the proposed alterations were enormously overrated, the right hon. gentleman proceeded to contend, that the hon. member for Essex was mistaken in stating that the measure then before the House was an experiment in legislation hitherto unheard of. It was no such thing; as he would show by a short historic reference. From the Revolution to the year 1774, there had been an absolute prohibition of foreign com; whilst from 1774 to 1815, there had been leave to import it, on the payment of certain protecting duties. Now he would show, from what had occurred within those two periods, that there was no greater fallacy than to suppose that the importation of corn was fatal to agriculture. If any injury were inflicted upon agriculture, it was most probable that it would show itself in the diminution of enclosure bills. Now? since he had entered the House that afternoon, there had been put into his hands a list of the number of enclosure bills which had been passed within the period during which the prohibitory system was in force, and within the period when importation was allowed on the payment of a moderate duty. From the Revolution to 1770, there had been six hundred and ninety enclosure bills; and from 1771 to 1815, the period when the admission of corn was allowed, there had been two thousand, eight hundred and fifty-two such bills. He thought that this was a sufficient proof that the importation of foreign corn was not injurious to the home grower. His hon. friend had said, that no report had been made of the expenses of raising corn in foreign countries. Certainly no such report had been made, and it appeared to him, that nothing could be more difficult than to make such a report, for the expense of growing corn in those countries must depend upon various circumstances—upon the demand for corn in those countries, and upon the situation of the land; for it was evident, that when
1068
the land was situated hear a great river, or in any other spot which afforded facilities for carriage, the expense of raising corn upon such land must be less than the expense of raising it upon land not so advantageously situated. The demand for corn must necessarily raise the price; and, therefore, it was a fallacy to suppose, that because corn was at that moment, or at any other moment, at a certain price in Dantzic, that price would not be raised by the increased demand of this country. Let them look, for instance, at the average price of grain at Dantzic and Mark-lane, for twenty-five years, from 1770 to 1795, and the difference would be found to be about 20 s. When, therefore, to the price of the foreign article they added the expense of freight, the profits of the importer, and above all, the duty imposed by these resolutions, he did not think that any man who fully considered the subject, could suppose that the proposition of his right hon. friend was likely to prove detrimental to the British grower. He certainly did not believe that it would; and if he conceived that it was calculated to produce an injurious effect, he would be the last man to support such a change. Again, let gentlemen consider what effect had been produced by the admission of Irish grain into England. Before the year 1807, that article was positively prohibited; but, at that period, the prohibition was annulled. Now, the price of labour was much lower in Ireland than it was here, and the land was much richer. Yet the effect of removing that prohibition had not been injurious to the British grower. What then was there, practically, speaking to lead gentlemen to suppose that the admission of foreign corn, under the regulations laid down in these resolutions, would be attended with a bud effect? He believed the tendency of the measure would be to produce an equality of price, so far as good harvests and bad harvests would allow that equality; and he was quite certain, that if any body would more than another be benefitted by level prices, the agricultural interest was that body. In his opinion, a greater boon could not be conferred on them than to keep the price of grain between 55 s. and 65 s. The country was not now situate as it was some years ago, when the enormous quantity of three million quarters of foreign coin were brought into the market; and if they, by this measure, could prevent such

1069
large importations, and thus do away with those fluctuations which had been so much complained of, they would be conferring a boon on the agriculturists, which would infinitely outweigh any apparent disadvantage connected with it. Under these circumstances, he gave his most cordial assent to the propositions of his right hon. friend. He did hope that his noble friend would not, by persisting in the resolution which he had proposed, prevent many persons from acting with him upon those principles which he approved, and more particularly prevent the hon. member for Suffolk from proposing a protection which he thought better than that proposed by h is right hon. friend; namely, a protection of 64 s. instead of 60 s. After the numerous applications which had been made to the House, on the part of the manufacturing and commercial interests of the country he could not see that we had any alternative, but to take the present system of the Corn-laws into immediate consideration, and he did hope, that his noble friend would withdraw his amendment.
Lord Clive signified his willingness not to press the House to a division. On the question of the Speaker's leaving the chair,
Sir T. Lethbridgeexpressed himself decidedly adverse to the resolutions. He believed that, even now, doubts existed amongst his majesty's ministers, with respect to the efficacy of this measure. For his own part, he was convinced that the plan now proposed was not founded in good policy, and that it would afford no protection whatever to the landed interest. The measure had been most precipitately introduced. Many points connected with it remained to be considered; and up to this moment, sufficient inquiry had not been set on foot. If he were correct in his view of the case he thought the House ought immediately to adopt means by which a more extensive consideration of the subject might be effected. In fact, a committee of that House ought to be immediately appointed to make inquiries, similar to those which were about to be instituted elsewhere. Having this strong impression on his mind, he called on the House to adopt the suggestion which he threw out, before they permitted the Speaker to leave the chair. In 1822, he had himself proposed to the House a permanent duty and open ports; but he was now convinced, that neither that proposition, nor the proposition now submitted to their
1070
consideration, would afford just protection to the landed interest. But he especially objected to the machinery of this measure. It was not so much to the price proposed that he objected, as to the mode in which the measure was to be carried into effect. If the House should go into the committee, he would propose that 64 s. should be the lowest protecting price for wheat, and 24 s. for oats.
Sir J. Newportprotested against the recommendation of the hon. baronet, He could not consent to go on a voyage of discovery indefinite as to its object, and which might be interminable in its continuance. He was favourable to the proposed resolutions, because he wished the law to be placed on such a basis, that the agricultural community might know, with, some degree of certainty, on what ground they were to build their calculations.
The House having resolved itself into the committee,
Mr. C. Grantsaid, he should decline entering into the general question at the present moment, but would reserve to himself, the right of making such observations as he might think necessary, in the course of the discussion. He should now move the first resolution: viz.
"That it is the opinion of this committee, that any sort of corn, grain meal, and flour, which may now, by law, be imported into the United Kingdom, should, at all times, be admissible for home use, upon payment of the duties following, viz.—If imported from any foreign country—
"WHEAT.—Whenever the average price of wheat, made up and published, in manner required by law, shall be sixty shillings, and under sixty-one shillings the quarter, the duty shall be for every quarter 1l. And, in respect of every integral shilling by which such price shall be above sixty shillings, such duty shall be decreased by two shillings, until such price shall be seventy shillings; whenever such price shall be at or above seventy shillings, the duty shall be for every quarter 1s. When ever such price shall be under sixty shillings, and not under fifty-nine shillings, the duty shall be for every quarter 1l 2s. And in respect of each integral shilling, or any part of each integral shilling, by which such price shall be under fifty-nine shillings, such duty shall be increased by two shillings."
The resolution having been put from the chair,
Mr. Bankessaid, he thought that the proper time to move an amendment. It was his wish to raise the average price from 60 s. to 64 s. and he would propose an amendment for the purpose of effecting that object. Those who disliked the proposed resolutions, should come forward on this occasion and oppose them—the rather as this was not a general committee on the subject of the Corn trade, or relating to the law of 1822, but one for the purpose of discussing a specific proposition. When, on a former evening, the resolutions were brought forward by his right hon. friend, the foreign Secretary, he had put a question to the right hon. gentleman, which had not received so distinct an answer as the importance of it appeared to demand. What he then wished to know was, what were the real intentions of ministers with regard to the Corn-trade, and what was their object in proposing the resolutions at the present time? He had then requested to be informed by the right hon. Secretary, what effect he expected his resolutions to produce on the price of corn; was he satisfied with the present price, or did he consider 53 s. a quarter high or low; and, lastly, what price did he think corn, under the new regulation, would be at? To this the right hon. gentleman had replied that he thought the resolutions would explain themselves; that the fluctuations would probably be from 55 s. to 65 s. and that ministers thought 60 s. or thereabout, a fair medium price. Now, if government desired to fix the medium price at 60 s., they had not taken the proper way to effect it. The proposed system was calculated to bring prices to 53 s. or 54 s, rather than to 60 s. The price he wished to keep wheat at was 64 s. The avowed object of the right hon. gentleman's measure was to raise the protecting price of wheat about. 7s. a quarter, and the means to effect that end was rather extraordinary; namely, the importation of foreign grain. The hon. member concluded by moving as an amendment,—"That whenever the average price of wheat, made up and published in manner required by law, shall be 64 s., and under 65 s. the quarter, the duty shall be, for every quarter, 20 s."
Mr. Charles Barclayexpressed his satisfaction at the circumstance of the Mouse having come to a bettor understanding on this important subject than they had heretofore done, and that they
1072
had assembled together for the purpose of altering the existing Corn-law. He would not enter into a statement of the injury which the country had suffered in consequence of that law; but of this there could be no doubt—that its effects had been most mischievous. He was very much surprised to hear the hon. member for Dorsetshire complain that the medium price now proposed was too low, and that the measure under consideration would be the means of bringing in a great quantity of foreign corn. That hon. member ought to have known what the effect of the proposition had already been on the corn market. Wheat had, in fact, risen 5s. or 6s. per quarter, in consequence of the intimation given by his majesty's ministers. He was glad that all parties had nearly come to an agreement, as to what ought to be the maximum price. He thought that a duty of less than 16 s. a quarter would not be an adequate protection to the agricultural interests, considering the load of rates and taxes with which they were oppressed. It seemed to him, that a full remunerating price for the landed interest would be best for the manufacturers. Their distresses did not arise from high prices, nor would low prices conduce to their prosperity. It was on the ground that it was a fair medium between the two, that he should support the proposition. He also felt convinced that it would increase the exportation of manufactures, and consequently benefit the manufacturers.
Lord Althorpobserved, that the amendment was merely a difference of 2s. on the importation price, and therefore it was scarcely worth the while of the committee to consider it. He had expressed his opinion on this question the other night, and he was happy to find that at the market of the place which he had the honour to represent the farmers approved of it.
Mr. Fergusonthought it was impossible that this debate should terminate without taking a more general turn than that of a discussion upon the difference between 60 s. and 64 s. He was of opinion, that the question ultimately would be, whether a duty of 30 s. at the price of 50 s. would afford an adequate protection to the grower. It had been said by a right hon. gentleman, that the existence of these restrictive laws had nearly destroyed the foreign commerce of the country. In the absence of that right hon. gentleman, and

1073
speaking from what had been the consequence of his acts, he begged to deny that these laws had been the cause of its destruction. He entertained many doubts upon the subject of free trade; and he believed that the trade in grain never could be altogether free. Nevertheless, he approved of the principle of the present measure; since, in comparison with the act of 1815, he thought it was calculated to restore order and permanency to the price of corn. He objected, however, to the duty now proposed to be laid on barley and oats; and if it was determined to preserve that duty, he entertained so strong an objection to it, that he should feel himself compelled to vote against the bill.
Mr. Secretary Canningsaid, he rose rather to call the attention of the committee to a particular point or two in the debate, than to offer them any observations upon the general question; which there would be many opportunities of discussing, in the future stages of the bill. The discussion that evening had begun upon the principle of the question; but by some means or other, they had now got into a discussion upon the alteration of the medium price from 60 s. to 64 s.; and perhaps it would be more convenient to dispose of it now, if it could be done; but he feared it could not. He had suggested 60 s. after the vote which had been given the other night; but it now seemed that an hon. member had some other proposition, and he should wish to adjourn the discussion till tomorrow, in order to consider of that proposition. If no other was then submitted to the committee, they could come to a vote upon which of the two sums they should prefer. He had been asked, why 60 s. had been selected as the medium price? Perhaps it would be difficult to say why there had been any selection of a particular point in the variety which had been offered to their choice; but he believed that 60 s. had appeared, by analogy, to be the natural point at which the medium price should be fixed. In the year 1815, the sum of 80 s. was assumed us the medium, in reference to the averages of the twelve preceding years. During the first six years, the average had been 98 s., and during the latter six years it had fallen to 80 s. Below even the latter sum, the medium had been chosen; and had been fixed at 80 s., in consequence of the cessation of the war, and the decrease of those inflated prices which had been
1074
created by it. In 1822, the sum of 70 s. was assumed, because the preceding averages had rather gone beyond that sum. The price was accordingly assumed rather below than above the average of the preceding twelve years, during the first six of which the average had been 70 s., and during the latter six years 50 s. The average of these two averages was within a fraction of 60 s., and that average was supported by the evidence of the positive average of the last four years, which was also 60 s. On these averages the medium price of 60 s. had been selected. This selection had been made, although some circumstances now existing seemed to justify the choice of a lower price. The present assumption of the average medium price was, therefore, most blameless; especially with regard to the agricultural interest, who had been rather favoured in the selection. If the rule which these analogies seemed to have established was now departed from, it seemed to him that they would fix a medium price arbitrarily. Such a course would not be safe; nor would it be justifiable, merely because some of the agriculturists might consider it reasonable. Another question which had been asked was, why make any alteration at all? His answer was, because of its positive necessity; for by the law under which we were now living, until wheat got up to 80 s., not one single grain could be admitted into the country. If it was now possible to go into the argument, he thought he could convince the committee, that such a system could not long continue to exist.
Colonel Woodobjected to take the averages in the way the right hon. gentleman had proposed; and if the discussion was adjourned until to-morrow, he wished that one thing besides the amount of the medium price should be noticed. It had been said, that the calculation was made upon the Winchester bushel. Now, he believed, he was correct in asserting, that by law the Winchester bushel had ceased to exist within the two last years. All the people in the country had been put to great expense and trouble in obtaining the imperial bushel; and he thought that the introduction of the Winchester bushel, as a standard of calculation would bi-productive of great confusion. He therefore, thought, that the imperial measure should be adopted as the standard of calculation, and in conjunction with that stand-aid, the sum of 64 s. as the medium price.
The Chancellor of the Exchequerwished to say a word or two in explanation of the supposed difficulties of the two measures. It was undoubtedly true, that the bill for the regulation of weights and measures had produced—as every attempt to effect improvement in the laws or customs of a country would at first do—great expense and trouble, and some confusion, and at first sight it might appear to do so in the calculations upon the medium price, as applied to the standard measure of corn. But, if he was not mistaken, there was an express provision in the act passed for altering the measures, that though persons were compelled to buy and sell by the imperial measure, the calculation of the inspector and his return were to be made upon the standard of the Winchester bushel. There would not, therefore, be any practical difficulty, nor confusion arising from this mode of calculation.
Mr. Calcraftthought, that great confusion had been produced by these different standards of measurement, and that the act ought to be repealed. Though the counties had been called on to provide themselves with the new measures, he did not; believe there was any enactment which compelled them to use these new measures in preference to the old ones. He was ready to try the experiment now proposed upon wheat, in order to satisfy the country that every tiling had been done to enable them to obtain food in the cheapest way. But he would not at present consent to make the same experiment with regard to barley; nor would he do any thing that would interfere with the present improved system of husbandry; as such an interference would affect not merely corn, but meat.
Mr. Davies Gilbertsaid, he had recommended the Winchester measure; but as the imperial measure was now established by law he thought they ought to use it in preference to the other. He would not himself move that the imperial measure should be taken as the standard of calculation, but he would second any member who would make such a motion, as he thought it necessary to preserve that uniformity which the law had established, If the imperial measure was taken as the standard of calculation, he believed that 62 s. was the medium price that would most nearly adapt itself to that measure.
Mr. Broughamsaid, he would not go into the question at large, or into the di-
1076
gressions which had been made from it. With regard to the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Dorset, he felt a strong repugnance to adopt it. It was a frightful thing to be told that we ought not to be satisfied with the price proposed by the right hon. gentleman opposite. In his opinion, that price was far too high; but by the amendment it was proposed to add 4s. to the price, which would tend to raise wheat to 64 s. That it would effectuate that object he denied, if the duty of 20 s. was attached to wheat at 64 s., instead of 60 s., as proposed by the right hon. gentleman. If the price of wheat at Amsterdam was 30 s., the duty 20 s. added thereto, would make wheat saleable on importation at 50 s., supposing that the opening a door to the foreign market would have no effect whatever on the price abroad; if the duty of 20 s. attached at a price of 60 s. would raise the price, or tend to raise it, to 55 s. the adding 20 s. to the price of 64 s. would, by parity of reasoning, tend to raise the price to 59 s. This was a sufficient reason for him to object to a change in the resolutions, making that higher which he thought too high already. The subject, he confessed, was replete with difficulties, but he agreed with the right hon. gentleman opposite, that it was impossible to go on longer upon a principle which combined all possible disadvantages without any benefit at all: for, by the existing law, corn was allowed to go up to a famine price, and up to that price, whilst wheat was selling at Amsterdam at 30 s. the people could receive no benefit; they might be starving whilst wheat was 79 s. here, and on the other side of the water little more than half that price. Here was a great hardship to the consumers; and the injury to the growers had not, in the long run, been different, as he was prepared to show. But he should thereby be accused of falling into the damnable heresy of "free trade,"—the worst of all lay crimes. Whatever, therefore, were his sentiments on the subject of free trade, and on the liberal system of the present administration, he should confine them within his own bosom, to avoid the denunciations pronounced against any unhappy wight who might be favourable to them. His opinion on that point was, like his religion, a matter between himself and his conscience; and he should do what he could to enjoy it in security. It was clearly for the interest of the

1077
grower of com as well as for that of the consumer, that the prices should be steady. Certainly, the landholders were greatly burthened by the poor rates and other taxes, which fell so heavily on the agricultural interests; and they were perhaps entitled to some protection as a set-off against these burthens. Still, however, the great, the paramount interest of the landlords, depended on steadiness of prices. By this criterion could they calculate their income and regulate their expenditure for any considerable time? Uncertainty in this respect, was opposed to all comfort and to all regularity. The old system of importation, from the mismanagement of the averages, and other causes, left the landlord liable to be overwhelmed by a deluge of inconveniences; and for that reason, among others, he hailed the approach of a new system. Whether the proposed new system went the whole length in the way of improvement which he would have thought desirable, he did not mean then to state. He was entitled to keep his own secrets; but he was sorry to find that in another place which he could not regularly name, some persons had prevailed in obtaining permission to enter into an additional inquiry upon this subject. But rather than involve themselves in abstract questions now, and resort to a desperate extremity, it would be far preferable that the House of Commons should at once put the matter on an issue that might lead to some practical result. Let those who wish for no change go to one side, and those who did wish for an alteration in the present system of the Corn-laws go to the other; and then, he believed it would appear that the numbers against any alteration would be scanty enough, if not confined merely to the tellers. Indeed those who had talked about the weights and measures, and were hostile to the medium price of 60 s., agreed that there ought at least to be a considerable alteration in the present system. But were they to argue ever so long, he believed they could hardly expect to convince each other. Suppose they were to embody in their speeches all that had been stated in the innumerable pamphlets published on this subject—as to those which had been published during the last three or four weeks, few, perhaps, read them, and indeed, a treatise on logarithms would, in comparison with such pamphlets, be easy and light reading—but suppose
1078
they were to go over again all the arguments and reasonings which had been published on this subject in pamphlets, or otherwise, they could not now hope to convince each other. But they could easily come to a vote on the general principle of the new system proposed to them; and then they could discuss the subordinate questions, whether any, and what amendments, should be made in the details of the new system. But in another place—he must not say where—they were proceeding upon quite another plan, and had already, as it was said, got into the mire and slough of Despond, with reference to this matter. New inquiries had been projected, as if there had been no committees on this subject in 1814 and in 1822, and no voluminous reports from those committees. Notwithstanding all this, it appeared to be conceived, in a certain quarter, that they were still in the infancy of the question; that they had been all along in a complete hallucination on the subject; and that it was still necessary for them to enter into an inquiry as to the facts. They said, that this was a most important question, and therefore asked to be allowed to inquire into two points. But what were those two points? First, an inquiry into the price at which foreign wheat could be sold in the home market; and next, the price at which wheat could be obtained in the foreign country? In order to follow up these inquiries properly, it would be necessary for the inquirers to examine into the state and effect of taxation in those foreign countries; into the parish rates of Poland, if there were any such rates there; and into all the circumstances connected with Odessa and other ports [cries of question, question! and hear, hear!]. That was the question, no doubt [a laugh]. He begged of the House to bear with him a little while, as he might not have an opportunity of addressing them on this subject again. But certainly he did not think that when they came to argue the question now, they ought to be called upon to enter into the inquiries as to the policy of Russia and Poland, and other states, since they had enjoyed abundant opportunities of making themselves acquainted with all the material facts that bore upon the subject. Most of the members of that House knew the mode in which bills were sent out of that House to the other. But in case some of the new members might not be aware of it, he would

1079
state that the practice was, when a bill passed the House of Commons, to appoint some member of that House to carry it to the other House. The member who carried it up mentioned the passing of the bill in the Commons, and desire their lordships' concurrence; but when the bill which was now in contemplation for carrying into effect the new system should be presented in the other House, with a request that they would concur in it, the reply might be, "No, we will not concur in it; we have an inquiry pending on the subject; and, if you will please to come to us at the end of next session, when our inquiries may, perhaps, be terminated, then we will inform you whether we shall concur or not." He had no hesitation in saying, that proper protection ought to be given to the agricultural interests; but while he admitted that, he begged of the agriculturist to recollect that they were not entitled to any undue advantages to the prejudice of the other interests of the community. To protect the agriculture of this country was just and necessary. The fanners of this country, under all the circumstances in which they were placed, could not produce corn at the same price which formed a remuneration to the foreign grower. Upon this ground, he was perfectly ready to allow the agriculturists that extraordinary protection which their extraordinary circumstances required. He was willing that, in consideration of the heavy burthens to which they were subjected, they should have an equivalent protection: but, beyond that point of equivalent protection he could not advance in their favour a single step. When any person proposed to go beyond this in support of the agricultural interests he acted in a manner as extravagant as it was unjustifiable. It was a mockery of all reason and common sense to say, that the agriculturists ought to have any thing beyond what was a fair and just protection. When the restriction on the importation of foreign corn went beyond its proper medium, it ceased to be a protection, and became a most unjust and invidious tax, in favour of the landlords, upon all other classes of the community. Now, it had been stated, that wheat was selling in foreign ports at the price of 30 s. per quarter, and some reasoning had been, founded on this fact by certain publications. He certainly did not mean to go the length of some of the propositions
1080
which had been advocated by such publications. Many of the arguments urged against the land-owners had his most decided disapprobation. But at the same time it was a little too much to say, that the landlord should have for his corn in this country, more than double the price at which corn could be procured abroad. They were entitled to adequate protection; but any thing beyond this would be most unjust to all other classes of the community, and a gross iniquity. In the course of his examination into this subject, he had found that from the year 1775 we had been an exporting country; that was, sometimes importing, but as often exporting, up to 1793. In the two years, 1779 and 1780, when the average price of wheat was 45 s., there were 222,000 quarters of wheat exported, and 45,000 quarters imported. It followed, then, that with all the populousness and fertility of foreign countries, and the boasted wretchedness of the half-fed swarms of Polish peasants, it was found to be a profitable speculation for a merchant to buy our corn at 45 s., and sell it abroad at between 45 s. and 60 s. He could not help, with these facts before him, looking with some suspicion at the accounts furnished by our consuls abroad, as to the price of wheat at Rotterdam, for example. It appeared from those accounts, that there was a difference of 12 s. per quarter, between the price of wheat at port and at Rotterdam, a few hours distance only by canal. In 1811 there was a difference of 63 s. and 66 s.; in 1812, a difference of 70 s. and 79 s. These things surprised him; and he, therefore, went back to the fact of our exportations in 1779, when the price abroad must have been higher than here. The present low prices abroad must have arisen from a glut, and not from the natural course of things. He could explain this subject to the committee—[No, no]. The hon. and learned member then proceeded to show that the probable prices abroad would seem to render any restrictive laws regarding the importation of foreign corn unnecessary; but the House manifested much impatience by coughing, and at length the noise throughout the House occasioned a total interruption to the hon. and learned member's speech. On its subsiding, he said, that he did not think that, upon so important a subject as this, it was decorous that it should go forth to-morrow to the world that interruption like this had been

1081
given; it would not be consolatory to the hungry multitude, nor was it creditable to the House, or likely to add to the reputation of a new parliament, that a vital question like the present should be clamorously prevented from being discussed. If, in the only stage he could have an opportunity of expressing his sentiments, there was a rooted determination on the part of some gentlemen in the House—[Here the noise from both sides rendered the conclusion of the sentence inaudible.] he hoped he was mistaken. The fault might be his: he might have discussed the question in a tedious and tiresome manner: he would much rather that he should bear the reproach, than that it should appear that there was an attempt to clamour down a speaker for the sentiments he expressed. He parted now with the question with pleasure; he entertained a charitable feeling towards those who opposed him: they were only prejudiced; though their prejudices were not easily overcome. He could not help taking that opportunity of declaring his hearty concurrence in the principles of commercial reform which the government had recently entered upon. Step by step he approved of them; and the more so, because they were gradual—for, first, he thought it best not to scare the minds of those abruptly, who felt themselves likely to be affected by new changes; and, secondly, because he thought it not the surest way to succeed, to take too large a stride at the outset; for if the step were wrong, there was less of mischief to repair, or of error to retrace, in effecting any alteration—and it was not exactly wise, abruptly to place great interests in jeopardy. It was under this impression that he had acted respecting parliamentary reform, and had thereby obtained from some quarters the epithet of being a friend to mock reform only. In all improvements of this nature, even in that very worst of all cases, the amelioration of what were called the courts of equity, he was for proceeding systematically and gradually, because he thought that mode afforded the best chance of ultimate success [Cries of "question"]. He really hoped that the gentlemen who interrupted him would abstain from further impediments: the effort would only affect themselves, and bring on colds and coughs tomorrow, from unnecessary exhaustion He would tell those self-sufficient members, that it was of no use to press the
1082
government to commit themselves with the country upon this question; for really if ministers were desirous of favouring such a project, the people would not bear it; they would not permit such a sacrifice to the landed interest. At all events, he saw nothing in the principle of the present plan, differing, as he did, from the proposers of it as to some of the details, which did not entitle it to public support.
Mr. Secretary Canningrose merely to offer a few words of consolation to the hon. and learned gentleman, for his apprehension of a change of policy elsewhere upon this measure. He could venture to assure the hon. and learned gentleman, not of his own knowledge certainly, but from the information of others, which he thought was equally as good, that the appointment of the committee to which he alluded elsewhere, was not a sudden concession, but an old understanding admitted by the noble earl who had the charge of this question, on this express understanding, however, that the committee was not to be protracted, so as to interfere with the legislative provisions of the contemplated bill. In fact, there existed a perfect understanding, that the main progress of the measure was not thereby to be impeded.
The committee divided: For the amendment 160; for the original Resolution 229; majority 69. The chairman then reported progress, and asked leave to sit again.