HC Deb 17 May 1833 vol 17 cc1349-78
Mr. Wolryche Whitmore

said, he would deal with the subject he wished to bring under the notice of the House, as concisely as possible, being well aware that it was of a very dry unentertaining nature. Still it was one of great importance, deserving the maturest consideration of every hon. Member of that House. It would be recollected, that in former years he had, on more than one occasion, introduced the subject of the Corn-laws to their notice, and d' latterly he had abstained from troubling the House, it was not from any apathy he had fallen into, but for two reasons, which he would then state. The first was, that he was anxious to see how the law of 1828 worked; and the second was, that in a House of Commons constituted as it used to be, he would not look for a just and impartial consideration of the Question. But the law of 1828 had now been tried, and a change had happily taken place in the Representative system, so that the great interest which hitherto had possessed no fair and adequate Representation, could now boast of being fairly represented. Still he did not mean to say, that this was a question concerning the manufacturer alone. He would not confine it within any such compass, it concerned every interest in the kingdom, and he was satisfied, that a change in the Corn-laws would prove as advantageous to the agricultural as to the commercial and trading community. He would first ascertain the operation of the present law, and see whether it had really accomplished the object which its framers professed to have in view. He wished to inquire, whether the Bill of 1828, though an improvement on that of 1815, did not contain the seeds of the evils which were complained of in the original measure. His greatest objection to the present Bill was, that it adopted the most objectionable principle of that passed in 1815, by which a certain price was stated, below which no foreign corn could be admitted. To this extent, at least, the measure of 1828 was founded on that of 1815, at which time, it should be recollected, the importation price was fixed at 80s. per quarter. He maintained, that the principle of both measures was radically vicious, that they did not secure the home grower against fluctuations of prices, and that the great feature, particularly of the Bill of 1828—the sliding scale of duties on foreign corn imported—did not keep down prices, or keep them steady, did not secure us a foreign supply when such supply would be advantageous, and increased it when it could only injure the home produce; and, in fact, by encouraging speculation, and hence gambling, in the Corn-trade, induced more corn to be warehoused here than would be under a perfectly free corn-trade. Hon. Members would err greatly in attributing the comparative steadiness, with a rising tendency of prices, between 1815 and 1819, and between 1828 and 1831, the year immediately succeeding the two Corn-bills, to the working of those Bills, because the fact was, the steadiness and the rise were owing to deficient harvests in those years. Were hon. Members fully aware of the nature and working of the Bill of 1828? It admitted foreign corn at a duty of 24s. 8d., when the price in the home market was 62s.; the duty diminished 1s. for every 1s. of increase of price up to 66s. and 67s., when the duty was 20s. 8d. On the other hand, the duty increased 1s. for every 1s. diminution of price under 62s. When the price arrived at 67s., a considerable diminution of duty took place; so much so, that at 68s. 69s., and 70s., the duty was but 10s.; at 71s. the duty was 6s. 8d.; and at 72s. and upwards, but 2s. 8d. Now, on the face of it, this sliding or fluctuating scale opened the door to endless scheming, and speculation, and gambling, and uncertainty, and revulsions, which placed the foreign corn-trade on quite another footing than that wholesome system of supply and demand which under an honest and free system of trade alone did and alone ought, to regulate the price. Instead of our being supplied with foreign corn in proportion to our natural wants, that is, according as the price varied from 62s., the assumed pivot or standard of home protection, this scale occasioned a much smaller import when the duty was high—that is, the price moderate—than was desirable, and a much larger supply when the duty was low—that is, the price high—than was necessary or expedient. The dealer in foreign corn purchased it at a low rate, warehoused his corn, and kept it under bond till it was admissible at the lowest possible duty, that is, till its price would realize the largest profits; and as this warehousing was a general system of speculation, and as prices were highest just at autumn, ere the new year's supply came in, it followed in practice, that the market was then deluged far beyond the demand, till prices fell so as to seriously affect the price of the new home-grown grain. He would beg the attention of the House to what occurred in 1830, as that year would furnish a fair specimen of the working of the system. In consequence of the deficiency of the harvest of 1829, there was a large importation of corn, and during the spring of 1830 prices had been falling, and the duty proportionably rising. In the month of May, in that year, the price of wheat was 66s., with a duty of 20s. 8d. The price of wheat continued to rise through the summer of 1830, up till about a fortnight before the harvest. At that time there was a great accumulation of foreign corn in bond. The price rose to 72s., and the duty fell to 2s. 8d. a-quarter. The consequence was, that in the latter end of August, and in the beginning of September, not less than 1,200,000 quarters were taken out of bond. Had the harvest that year not been deficient, the large im- portations would have pressed upon the markets, and the price might have been reduced as low as in 1822. If country Gentlemen thought, that the existing law produced equality of price, they were never more mistaken; the supply would always be regulated by the demand, and that alone would be sufficient to preserve as much equality as it was possible in such a commodity to obtain. If, then, the present law were ineffectual for its purpose, why, he asked, should it be continued? The fact, that it encouraged gambling and speculation in corn to an enormous extent, to the injury of the home-grower, and to the destruction of regular wholesome trade, was sufficient to make them desire to have it repealed. Sometimes much more than was wanted, was thrown upon the market, and anything but a regular supply was the consequence of the Bill as it stood. The Hon. Member then adverted to the number of Inclosure Bills, which had passed the House before the Corn-law was passed, in order to show, that the trade in corn being free with a small duty on the importation, had not had any effect in checking cultivation. From 1771 to 1791, 869 Inclosure Bills had passed—making an average of forty-three per annum. From 1791 to 1804, the number of bills was 900, or sixty-nine per annum; and yet during this period, the Corn-trade was virtually free, and it was a period of great comparative prosperity to all classes. As to the price of corn during these periods, he must observe, that from the year 1790 to 1799, the average price had only varied from 45s. 4d. per quarter to 51s. per quarter, which showed, that when there was a regular importation of corn, prices had been steady, while the agriculturists had been prosperous. To show, that we ran no risk of obtaining a supply, he called the attention of the House to the extraordinary fact, that in 1810, during the war, not less than 1,500,000 quarters of wheat were imported from France and the Netherlands. Under any circumstances, then, even the most unfavourable, a supply might be obtained, since the rancorous hostility, then carried on against Great Britain, could not prevent the importation. But without wearying the attention of the House, he would proceed at once to point out the evil workings of the Bill of 1815—evils which far exceeded in magnitude and extent all possible evils for which they were intended to be a remedy. He was aware that details were, at all times, wearisome, and without, therefore, going further into them, he would state the alteration it was his wish to make in the present law. All his feelings, all his convictions, were in favour of a free trade in corn; he was satisfied that that system was, by far, the best; but looking at the various interests that had grown up under the Act of 1815—looking at the condition of some of the Southern and Western counties of England—considering their over-population and the mal-administration of the Poor-laws, reflecting, too, on the temper, and disposition of the people, he was not prepared to carry his principle fully into effect. He was aware of the extensive injury that must unavoidably be produced by a sudden change, and for that reason he wished it to be gradual. On the subject of importation, it was highly gratifying to remark that the quantity obtained from Ireland had of late years increased to an unprecedented extent. From the year 1815 to 1819, the average annual importation from thence was 150,000 quarters, while in the last year, ending 5th October, 1832, not less than 800,000 quarters had been admitted from Ireland. While contemplating the fitness of an alteration of the existing law, he felt bound to take into account the burthens exclusively pressing upon agriculture. He did not think that, upon any occasion, enough had been said on behalf of the landed proprietors of the heavy tax of statute labour on the roads; and looking at this and the other exclusive burthens, as he had before stated, he was not prepared to carry his own principle into effect in their fullest extent. He was aware that all changes were in themselves evils; and if a system were to be altered it ought to be altered as little as possible. The proposition of Mr. Ricardo, in 1822, was, that the following scale of fixed duties should be applied to the different kinds of grain:—Upon Wheat, a duty of 10s.;Rye 6s.;Barley 5s.;Oats 3s.4d. He was disposed to recommend this plan to the adoption of the House; for he thought it would have the effect of removing a great deal of the evil which was felt under the existing system. He was aware that many persons thought that the maintenance of a high price by artificial means was of advantage to the agriculturist, but he entertained a very different opinion on this point. He considered that the agri- culturist was injured rather than benefited by a system the working of which was a matter of total uncertainty, which defeated its own objects, and which tended to encourage a spirit of gambling. He felt confident that if the plan he proposed were carried into effect, the agriculturist would realize on the average nearly as great, if not quite as great, a price as he had obtained for his produce during the last five years. He would certainly not receive a less price than he had obtained within the last five years. He advocated a fixed duty instead of a varying one, but he meant a fixed duty only in ordinary times. He was not disposed to recommend that the duty should remain fixed in times of great scarcity, when the price of corn rose to a very high price. He thought that they ought to establish by law, that at a certain state of price the duty should cease altogether, and not leave it to the discretion of Government to permit by an Order in Council the importation of foreign corn free of duty. Having fixed the price at which the duty on foreign importation should cease, he knew of no way of ascertaining when corn had reached that price except by adopting the system of averages. He understood the meaning of that cheer, but he could assure those hon. Members from whom it proceeded that he objected to the principle of averages only when applied to a system that was ever varying. Connected with a steady system, he considered that the machinery of the averages would be productive of benefit. The Resolution, therefore, which he should have the honour to propose would not assert that a fixed duty should be maintained at all periods, but only in ordinary circumstances; and that in times of scarcity the duty should cease by the operation of the law. In his opinion, the effect of a free trade in corn would be to make the price in this country between 45s. and 47s. per quarter; and he believed that the imposition of a duty of 10s. would not raise the price to that extent, but that the increase would not exceed 7s. or 8s. per quarter. He was convinced that the only plan which would effectually prevent the visitation of famine was that which established a fixed duty on the importation of foreign corn. Under the present system the trade in corn was so uncertain that all ordinary calculations were baffled; and the consequence was, that little or no stock was kept on hand. In 1816 the quantity of corn in store in this country was equal to six months' consumption, but such had been the effect of the Corn-laws, that at the present moment the people had no supply to fall back upon; they were living, as it were, "from hand to mouth;" and should a time of scarcity arrive, the country would be in the greatest possible peril. The next point to which he should address himself was, the great advantage which the adoption of a fixed and moderate duty on corn would confer on the manufacturing interest of the country. During the last three or four years considerable importations of foreign corn had taken place, and the consequence was, that the exports of British manufactures had greatly increased. In looking to the amount of exports which had been made to Germany and Russia, he found the following result:—The annual average value of the exports to Germany from 1821 to 1824, when the corn trade was destroyed, amounted to 6,013,517.; and from 1828 to 1830—a period in which considerable importation of foreign corn had taken place—it had increased to 8,153,731l. A similar result was observable with respect to the exports to Russia. The annual average value of the exports to that country from 1821 to 1824 amounted to 1,262,376l., and from 1828 to 1830 to 9,122,619l. The necessary consequence of the increase in the exports of the country which would take place under a judicious system, allowing the importation of foreign corn, on the payment of a fixed and moderate duty would be to increase the wealth of the country—remove the present stagnation of trade—give a new vigour to British commerce, and materially tend to lighten the severe pressure under which the agriculturists themselves were now labouring. The hon. Member concluded by moving the following Resolution:—"That the present system of Corn-laws, founded on a high and ever-varying scale of duties, while it fails of conferring permanent benefit on the agricultural interest, tends to cramp the trade and impair the general prosperity of this country; that an alteration of these laws, substituting in their stead a moderate duty, fixed at all periods except those of extreme dearth, while it indemnified the agriculturists for the peculiar burthens which press upon them, would, by restoring the commercial relations between this kingdom and foreign countries, increase the manufactures, and render more equal the price of the produce of the country."

Mr. Hume

rose, and commenced by observing, that, although he agreed in much that had fallen from his hon. friend who had brought forward this question, yet he was anxious to put it to the House in somewhat a different view. It Was often said in that House, that the agricultural, the commercial, the manufacturing, the shipping, and all the other great interests, were equally entitled to the care and consideration of the Legislature. Now, the question he wished to ask the Members of that House was, whether they thought they were warranted in giving a monopoly to one interest against all others. Were they ready, as was so often professed, to place the manufacturing and commercial interests in the same position as the agricultural interest; or would they continue to give an advantage to the agricultural interest beyond what was enjoyed by other interests? It was frequently said, that the agricultural interest had exclusive burthens to bear, and was therefore entitled to peculiar protection. He had often heard this proposition stated, but what were the peculiar burthens borne by the agricultural interest? The only burthen mentioned by his hon. friend, which was peculiar to the agriculturists, was the highway rate. [Mr. Whitmore said, he had also mentioned Poor-rate—another hon. Member called out "tithes"!—a third "the Land-tax."] He denied that tithes were paid by the agriculturists exclusively, and as to Poor-rates, every kind of property contributed to the Poor-rates. [An Hon. Member: Does funded property contribute?] No, he did not say, that the funds contributed, but surely they did not call their own debts property, nor should it be said, that, because a man had owed a sum of money, he should contribute to the support of the poor. This, however, was foreign to the present question, though it was well deserving of consideration on some future occasion. What he now wished to confine himself to, was this simple question—were the Corn-laws fair to the manufacturing population? For four or five years past the average quantity of corn imported into this country was about 1,000,000 quarters each year. It was no matter whether the quantity was a little more or less. All he meant to prove by it was, that this country was regularly an importing country; or, in other words that It did not grow corn enough for the consumption of its population. If foreign Corn was excluded, then, until the price at home rose to a certain amount, it was a monopoly to those growing corn, against those who consumed it, and were engaged in other kinds of industry. If there was no peculiar reason why this monopoly should be given to the corn growers, the law which gave it was clearly an unjust law, for it benefited one class, by injuring another. He admitted, freely and fully, that whatever exclusive burthens were borne by the landed interest should be removed, or else a protection should be given to them equal to the amount of those burthens. Much as had been said on this subject, he had never yet beard any one state how much was the amount of the exclusive burthens borne by the agriculturists, calculated on a quarter of corn; and, until that was done, he admitted they could not proceed to fix one particular rate of duty. Leaving out of the question on the present occasion all considerations connected with the rate of duty to which corn ought to be rendered liable, he would confine himself to an examination of the principle upon which that duty was at present imposed, and he was of opinion that it was impossible for the farmer ever to have justice done him, unless the prices of corn were better regulated in the market. They had always seen, that whatever the price of corn was, the landholders contended to have it maintained at that rate. When the price was 80s., they contended that they could not live if it were less, and now that it was 60s. they were afraid of any reduction of the duty, for fear of re-reduction in price. He certainly was of opinion that a fixed duty of a few shillings was all that was necessary to give ample security to the agricultural interest. As long as the present variable rates of duties were maintained, it was impossible that so regular a supply, or regular prices, could be maintained in the markets, as if the markets were left perfectly open; and, as a proof of that they had seen the price of corn varying from 70s. to 50s. within the short period of three months; and even varying 12s. in one month. It was impossible that any prudence, foresight, or experience could avail against such variation. Yet this was the result of the present system, which, as soon as the prices rose, admitted such an influx of corn as brought the markets immediately down, even below the former price. What was most wished for was, a steady price, and steady supply of corn, and he opposed the present varying scale on the ground that it did not afford a steady price or a regular supply. It was on these grounds that he (Mr. Hume) proposed in 1827, that a fixed duty should be laid on all corn imported. He at that time proposed that a fixed duty of 15s. should be laid on all wheat, which should be reduced to 10s. when it could have been ascertained whether that amount would be sufficient to meet the burthens of the country. He had afterwards proposed, instead of the varying scale of duties adopted in 1828, that a free trade in corn should be allowed, on payment of a fixed duty of 10s. per quarter on wheat. The division which ensued upon his Motion at that time gave him small hopes of ever attaining his object; but let him now call the attention of the House to some results which he had selected from the facts relative to the import of corn. The duty at the lowest which he proposed, was 10s. a quarter upon wheat; the importation of wheat since 1827 amounted to 4,795,000 quarters, upon which quantity a duty of only 6s. 8d. per quarter by the graduated scale, had been paid. Consequently if the 10s. duty had existed, the revenue would have benefited by the amount of 3s. 4d. more upon each imported quarter, that would prove a better protection to agriculturists, and he doubted whether it might not also be asserted that the price of bread would have been less. Besides which, it must be observed, that the market was always in danger of being glutted the moment the duty was reduced to so low an amount as to render it worth the importer's while to bring any considerable quantity into the ports. The duty which he at that time proposed on barley was 8s. yet the average amount realised by the varying system had only been 4s. 8d., and the duty which he had proposed on oats was 6s., while the amount realised had been 5s. 11d. From this it would be seen that instead of about 2,300,000l., the total amount of duties realised under the varying scale, the amount which would have been received under the fixed rate of duty proposed by him (supposing the same quantity of corn to have been imported) would have been 3,260,000l., so that not only had the public lost the advantage of a Steady market by the rejection of his plan, but 1,000,000l. sterling had been lost to the Treasury. Nor was that all; the country had also lost the advantage of the improvements in commerce, and the increase of the manufactures, which would have taken place, and the landlords themselves bad had to pay a large additional amount in poor-rates, which would not have been required if the country had been flourishing-, work plentiful, and bread cheap. He would undertake to prove, that the present Corn-laws had been detrimental to the public, without being beneficial to the agricultural interest. He did not expect to hear it denied that every import must be paid for by an export. If so, every quarter of wheat imported put into employment some manufacturers to pay for that import. He wished the House to answer this question—"could the employment of hands in agriculture be now increased in agriculture?" He should say "very little," for there was a limit to the cultivation of land; but there was no limit to the increased employment of hands in manufactures, save a want of demand. Now, what produced a want of demand? A refusal to take from other countries the commodities which they produced. Fortunately for England, all her imports were raw materials. The cost of the raw material, generally speaking, was not more than nine, ten, or at the outside, twenty per cent of the finished article; all the rest was the profits of capital and wages laid out in this country. Every device, therefore, ought to be used to increase the manufactures of the country, which would thus relieve the agricultural parishes of the loads of unemployed poor with which they were at present filled. Whenever a stagnation took place in manufactures, the manufacturing labourers were flung back upon their parishes, and thus increased the amount of the Poor-rates. And thus it happened, that the agriculturists were directly interested in the success of the manufacturer, and that any check to the prosperity of the latter proved more injurious to the former than any monopoly of the Corn-laws was ever found to be beneficial. He did not expect to hear it disputed, that when wages were high, and the price of food dear, industry was proportionably checked. Therefore, if in England we had wages higher, and corn thirty per cent dearer than on the Continent, it followed that we were checking the activity and paralyzing the energy of our manufactures. The manufacturers of Belgium, France, Switzerland, and the United States, were all actively employed in manufacturing articles of every description, which came in competition with the same articles of our manufacture. Now, if he took the continent of South America as a common market, into which they all entered, it was clear that the buyer would not consider so much the cost at which the manufacture had been produced, as the quality of what he was going to buy. If we were obliged to feed our population thirty per cent dearer than the population of our rivals was fed, by paying 50s, a-quarter for corn which in Europe and America could be purchased for 30s. a-quarter, the consequence was clear, that the manufacturers of England were placed in a situation worse, by thirty per cent, in the expense of manufacturing than their Continental and Transatlantic brethren. Consequently the rate of profit which they would otherwise derive from their superior machinery, and their more easy supply of coal, was ground down by their meeting in the foreign market the manufacturers of cheaper corn countries. What, then, did he ask the House to do?—to place the workmen of England on the same footing as the workmen of other countries, and then he had no doubt that we should extend our commerce in every market in the world, and should supply them with better goods at as cheap, if not a cheaper rate, than any of our rivals. We should thus be able to employ a greater number of workmen in proportion to the greater consumption of the goods we manufactured. Would this hurt the agricultural interest? Quite the reverse. At the present moment the people of England were only three-quarters fed, and the result of this improvement in our manufacturers would be, that they would be fully fed. Thus, not only would all the corn now consumed be still consumed at a price equal to that now paid for it, but there would also be a demand for an additional supply, which could not fail to prove advantageous to the agricultural interest. He next called upon the House to consider what the operation of a free trade in corn would be upon foreign nations. Every country, knowing the rate of duty at which we suffered its importation, would calculate the expense at which they could transport it to England; and adding the expense of transport to the rate of duty, would thus calculate the expense at which they could supply our market. Our market would thus be free from fluctuation, owing to the constancy of the supply. Would the price of corn fall in this country in consequence? Certainly not. There was abundant proof that the opening of our ports always tended to raise the price of foreign corn to the price in the English market, and not to sink the price of British corn to the price in the continental market. This had been sufficiently proved by facts. In 1828 wheat at Dantzic was at 28s. a bushel; and at Hamburgh at 23s.; whilst in England the prices rose from 56s. to 76s. The consequence was, that the ports of England had been open to admit corn free of duty, and at Dantzic the prices rose in one week from 24s. to 50s. This was a practical proof that a free trade would not lower the prices in England, but would raise the price in other countries, and that the market of England would regulate the prices of corn throughout the world. In the winter of 1829 and 1830, wheat rose at Dantzic from 24s. to 36s. The price in England was at 51s., but it rose till the duty fell to 1s., and then the prices at Dantzic and Hamburgh rose in proportion as in the former case. In 1832 similar instances occurred. The consequence was, that agricultural distress was greatly increased, and that an able-bodied labourer could earn but 3s. 6d. a-week. He held in his hand a resolution recently passed by a parish in Norfolk, to the same effect as that in Hampshire, to which such pointed allusion was made last night. Was it not fit to try whether altering the system, which had produced such terrible results, would not lead to a better state of things? Worse there could not be; a better he believed there might be, by giving energy to the capital and skill of the country, by which alone could we flatter ourselves with the prospect of finding employment for that part of our population which was now unemployed. He was told, however, by the agriculturists that he ought to consider the difference in the amount of taxes paid by this country and by foreign countries, and that it was not fair to the farmers of England not to put upon foreign corn a tax equal to the difference between foreign taxation and our own. To this he would answer "Would leaving your population unemployed enable them to pay that tax; or, indeed any other tax; and if it would not enable them to pay taxes, would it not render the pressure of taxation still heavier upon that part of the community which would be compelled to meet it? Let them take hardware, for instance. It was admitted that of the value of the exported article from fifty to sixty percent had been paid in labour and in interest upon capital. The average was fifty per cent, although it sometimes rose to ninety. If 100l. worth of cutlery were exported,50 l. of the value had been spent upon labour, and 25l. of this was paid by the labourer for taxes on what he consumed. If, in return for this export, raw materials were imported to be manufactured for exportation, the same calculation was to be made, and thus 50l. was contributed towards the payment of the national debt. As often as the transaction was renewed, as often would the benefit accrue to the community. He said then, that by giving employment to the unemployed and starving labourers, you would give them the opportunity of paying more taxes, by consuming more taxable articles. He contended, that nothing was more opposed to all the principles contained in the speech of his hon. friend, the member for Wolverhampton, than his determination to stand by the present system of averages. Land in England would be of no greater value than it was in Poland, if it were not for the great extent of our manufacturing interests. It was, therefore, his opinion that we ought to throw open our ports to the whole world, to receive any articles which other countries might choose to send us. He was satisfied, that no means of relief would be effectual till we had freed our industry from the shackles by which it was now oppressed. He concluded by moving as an Amendment, "That all the words after the word 'that' in Mr. Whitmore's Motion be struck out, for the purpose of inserting the following—'That it is the opinion of this House that any sort of corn, grain, meal, and flour, which is now imported into the United Kingdom, shall be admissible at all times on payment of a fixed duty.' "He had not named the amount of duty, as he was more anxious upon this occasion to establish the principle of his Resolution than to fix the rate of duty which would be fair to all parties.

Lord Newark

maintained, that if the principles of the hon. member for Middle-sex were to be established, the immediate effect would be to throw all the poor lands of the kingdom out of cultivation; nor was it certain that any foreign supply would be either regular or abundant, or that any advantage to be derived to the manufacturer would compensate for the mischief of throwing so large a portion of the agricultural poor out of employ. He should always be ready to defend the claims of the agriculturists, but at present he put the question before the House upon totally different grounds. Whence would the importation of corn be derived were the trade to be thrown open? Five years the importation amounted to 7,735,000 quarters, and of this 4,500,000 came from the ports in the northern part of Europe, 1,500,000 quarters came from Prussia, and 1,250,000 quarters from Russia, and from these two countries came one-third of the whole supply. The United States in 1829 sent but little, but in 1830 they sent about one-eighth, and in 1831 they sent one-fifth of the whole of the foreign supply. These were the countries on which it was proposed to place England in a state of absolute dependence for a supply of food. Russia, Prussia, and America! With the troops of Russia extending from the Baltic to the Bosphorus, and in possession of Constantinople, would the Ministers of England be better able to assume a higher attitude in dealing with her when this country was dependent on her for the food she ate? Would the Government of England be better able to induce Russia to be neutral in the affairs of Belgium? England had no corn country from which she could receive grain by way of tribute, and she would have to depend entirely on the jealous Powers of the North of Europe. What would there be to prevent Russia doing what she had done in the year 1801? There could be no greater fallacy than to argue that the greater the quantity of corn imported the greater was the export of British manufactures. The returns of exports and imports between Russia and England sufficiently disproved that assertion. In 1830, Russia exported one-third more corn than she had done in 1829, and yet the amount of exports from England to Russia was exactly the same. He had looked over the tables and papers before the House, and he could not find one instance in which the importation of corn had governed the exportation of manufactures. The very year that England had imported the largest quantity of coin from Russia was the very year that Russia had imported the least quantity of British manufactures. The hon. member for Middlesex had pointed out a h umber of facts to show, from the prices at Dantzic and at other places, that the prices abroad would rise in proportion to British importation, until the general prices of Europe would approach to a uniform level. If the experiment were to fail, he asked in what situation would the country be left? He maintained, that the country had been able to produce enough of food for home consumption with very little addition, and he should feel it his duty to oppose the Motion.

Mr. Fergus O'Connor

said, that as the Representative of perhaps a larger agricultural constituency than any other Member of that House, he trusted he should stand excused for offering a few observations to the House. He maintained that the free introduction of corn into the kingdom would have the effect of throwing the agricultural labourers, not only of ail Ireland, but he was persuaded of a great portion of England also, out of employment, and consequently into a state of the greatest distress; and before the country arrived at any such system, they must come to an equal adjustment of all property. By opening this question, they would throw all the peasantry upon the mercy of merciless landlords and though popularity might induce him to advocate free trade in corn, yet he could not do so in justice to those who had returned him to that House, He held, that a system of free trade in corn would not be of any benefit to the manufacturing interest, either now or at any remote period, and he therefore implored the House not to be led away by the wild theory of political economists.

Mr. Gilbert Heathcote

hoped the House would reject both the propositions which had been made; and he regretted that his hon. friend, the member for Wolverhampton, had brought forward his Motion at the present time, knowing, as he did, that many branches of our trade were in a flourishing state (especially the cotton trade); that the price of wheat was on the average 53s. per quarter, a price which was several shillings below that which was considered to be only a fair and remunerating price; and moreover that scarcely a single petition had been presented on the subject of the Corn-laws. Under all the circumstances, he thought his hon. friend might have postponed his Motion; and he regretted that he had not adopted this course upon the present occasion, because the plan he had followed was not likely to lead to any great public result, except the very objectionable one of a great loss of the time of that House. He thought they ought not to engage in speculative discussions or bring forward doubtful motions, but simply confine themselves to those by which the country might be benefited. And such decisions as those sought for by this Motion were attended with this evil, that they often brought into contact two parties who ought to be bound together by affectionate ties. He believed the tendency of this Motion would be, not to secure what his hon. friend had called "an equable price" for corn, but to lower the price of that article; and if a Bill were to be introduced upon these Resolutions, he should call it a Bill to lower the price of corn 20s. per quarter. Now he maintained, that the step towards securing an equable price was to secure permanency in the law. The business of a farmer in England was now more like that of a man gambling on the Stock Exchange; his situation was equally uncertain. He believed that a great change had taken place in the public mind as to a fixed duty on corn; and having attended a large agricultural meeting lately, he had found it unnecessary to argue this point, because the present system was there considered to be the best. All which the agriculturists wished was that they should be let alone. He conceived that the object of this Motion was actually to make a low duty when the price of corn was low. In that part of the county which he had the honour to represent there were seventeen thousand registered voters, who cultivated their own grounds, and who were small proprietors. Now, in respect to those persons, he would ask, what good would the lowering of rents do to those persons? He was sorry that in a personal canvass which he had made, prior to the late election, he had found these small proprietors to be in the greatest possible distress, and he was satisfied that reducing their rents would not benefit them, if the lawyer was to come to them and demand the interest on his mortgage. Now, what the hon. member for Middlesex called the monopoly of the land was, after all, only a fair protection which was afforded to it. Had the silk trade no protection? Had the cotton trade no protection extended to it? It was necessary that the agricultural interest should know without delay upon what system they were to continue; and he hoped that his Majesty's Ministers would at once speak out boldly as to what their future intentions were in reference to this most important topic.

Lord Althorp

rose and said, it was a matter which could be doubted by no man, that this was a question of the greatest possible consequence to all classes, and one in which the feelings of the country, whenever it might be brought under the consideration of the House with a view to its settlement, must be strongly excited. It was impossible that they should not consider, in the first instance, the time at which the subject was brought forward, and the chance which there consequently existed of a settlement of the question. He would appeal to the consideration of the House whether, if the proposition either of his hon. friend behind him, or of the hon. Gentleman who had moved the Amendment, were carried on the present occasion, there would be any chance of the House coming to a satisfactory settlement of the question at the present moment? If he looked to the important interests which were now under the consideration of Parliament, and to the intense feeling which pervaded the country in reference to the questions which must come under their discussion, he would say, that, if ever there was a period in which it was unadviseable to enter upon a consideration of the Corn-laws, that was the time. Looking at the mere question of the time which remained for the public business yet to be done, he thought it would be found short enough without the addition of this question, which, under any circumstances, would make so large a demand on the attention of Parliament. Under these circumstances, he would ask, ought such a period to be chosen for re-opening a subject of such magnitude, and which must greatly excite the country from one end to the other? Besides, the price of corn was not now pressing. It was low, and the manufacturers were, on the whole, in a state of employment. When he objected to making any change in our system at this time, he must add, speaking his own private opinion, that he did not see any such great advantage which those laws produced to the landed interest. He hoped, that at any time he should not allow considerations of individual interest to sway in giving his opinion, even as a private person, on a subject of such magnitude, and still less should he do so in his character as a Minister of the Crown, whose duty it was, to take those measures which might best promote the interest of all classes; but he might remark, that he did not seethe Corn-laws had been of such advantage to the landed interest, that he, as a landed proprietor, would be greatly benefited by keeping them as they were. His great objection to any change now was, the unfitness of the time, and the pressure of so many other and more urgent subjects on the attention of Parliament. On these grounds it was his intention to have moved the "previous question" to the Resolution of the hon. member for Wolverhampton; but he was now precluded by the forms of the House from doing so, as an Amendment was already moved. He would, therefore, oppose the Amendment, with the view of meeting the original question afterwards with a negative. With these feelings of the unfitness of the time for the consideration of this great question, the House would see the propriety of his not following either of the hon. Members into the details into which they had gone. He might remark, however, with respect to fluctuations of prices, to which the hon. Member had referred, that it was impossible to prevent such fluctuations where the price of corn in this country was raised by factitious means above that of the Continent. He would also observe on what appeared to him to be a very general and a very erroneous opinion on the subject of prices as affected by the Corn-laws. It was believed by many, that the loss to the consumer in this country was equal to the whole amount of difference between the price which corn bore here, and that at which it was sold in the foreign market. Now this was not the case, for it was always remarked that the opening of our ports to the admission of foreign corn was immediately followed by a rise of prices in the foreign market, so as often to come very near to our own price. He would again add, that this was not the time for agitating the question.

Mr. Baring

said, it was fit the country should know, that the noble Lord's sole objection to this question being settled was one purely of time, and that he considered the Corn-laws to be in such a state that nothing could be worse. Now, he (Mr. Baring) had been accused of inconsistency in making long speeches one way and voting another, but what degree of inconsistency was this to a Minister of the Crown who came down to that House and objected to a discussion upon the Corn-laws, while he admitted that those laws were so bad that nothing could be worse?

Lord Althorp

rose to explain. He had not said, that the Corn-laws were so bad that nothing could be worse, but he had merely expressed doubts whether they operated so advantageously for the agriculturists as was generally supposed.

Mr. Baring

begged pardon of the noble Lord, if he had pushed his construction of the noble Lord's words too far, but the impression caused by them must be, that he was unfavourable to the protecting duties. If then the noble Lord thought the Corn-laws injurious to the prosperity of the country, what time ought to be suffered to stand in the way of a removal of the evil? Had they sat in that House debating for three months and done nothing? If the noble Lord thought the Corn-laws injurious to the country, there could be no time at which they ought not to be taken into consideration. The noble Lord was not aware of the effect which might be produced upon all the great interests of the country by his remarks, when so much uncertainty existed upon this important question. The state of the Bank of England, the East India Charter—these questions had never been brought before the House; and he need hardly state to them that it would be the duty of a vigilant Government to bring forward some of these great questions on which the industry of the country depended. The impression produced by the noble Lord's speech was, that he was friendly to some alteration in the Corn-laws. Nothing could tend so much to keep all persons in the dark as to how they should keep their engagements as what had fallen from the noble Lord. The hon. Gentleman then adverted to the evidence of a Mr. Webb, of Salisbury, with a view to show the value of land. Mr. Webb, it appeared, was a valuer of land, and on the question being put to him as to what was the average value of land, his reply was, that it was worth twenty-six or twenty-seven years' purchase. He was then asked, what had been the value of land at the period the Stocks were down to seventy, and it appeared that at that period land was worth thirty-two years' purchase. This gentleman attributed the difference as to the value of laud to the uncertainty which prevailed as to what would be done in respect to the Corn-laws. He thought the public would have liked better to have heard that the noble Lord had taken some decided step upon this subject rather than hear that he had made the speech he had just uttered. He acknowledged that he felt most strongly the injury done to the country. The question of the protecting duties on corn he considered to be one of degree, and when he had met his constituents he had acquainted them that he would maintain the Corn-laws as they existed. He should like to know what great injury any Gentleman of that House had ever known or experienced from the operation of the present Corn-laws? As far as his inquiries went he was happy to say, that though distress might prevail in some places, still, upon the whole, the manufacturing districts were in as prosperous a condition as they had been for many years. The contrary was the case as regarded agriculture. The distress in this respect exceeded even what they expected. What necessity was there then to alter the law when the distress was with the agriculturists, and the prosperity with the manufacturers? The noble Lord seemed to think, that the agriculturists were not much benefited by the present protection. Were they, then, to be led away by the opinions of political economists, who themselves did not understand the theories they propounded? The price of corn at present and the rate of rents were very little above what they were before the war. They had it in evidence before the Committee, that in one county one-third or one-fourth of the lands had gone out of cultivation, no doubt from inadequate remuneration. If the present law had produced great fluctuation, or too high a price, that might be some ground for altering it. But such was not the case. It was admitted, on the contrary, that steadiness of price had been the result. The noble Lord (Lord Althorp) said, fluctuation was inseparable from an artificial price of corn. This he must deny. During the five years this law had been in force the price here was more steady than on the Continent. During that period the price stood at about 60s., sometimes a little more, sometimes less. There was no period of history in which it would not be found that the price of corn was liable to fluctuation. During these five years the price at Havre and on the Seine was at an average of 80s. This proved, that the present system had not worked so ill. The principle laid down by the hon. member for Middlesex was one of pure political economy. He went along with him to a certain degree, but there were disturbing causes which sometimes rendered it necessary to depart from these principles. It was the business of a wise Government to render a country as much as possible independent of foreign supply, otherwise it might happen here, as it sometimes did in the East Indies, that thousands might die for want of food. There was no reason to entertain the Motion, but there was great reason why the country should not be disturbed from one end to the other by the language of the noble Lord. What was the state of the great manufactures of this country? In the corn trade, the cotton, the pottery, or any other great branch, was there any prospect of dangerous competition? No; they had advantages in this respect which no other country enjoyed, and there was not the least ground for altering the Corn-laws. He should like to know from the Vice-President of the Board of Trade, whether France manifested any disposition to take these manufactures. He believed not. If the ports of France were opened tomorrow, France would not take our manufactures. These difficulties arose from the fiscal regulation of the other Continental nations. Holland was the only country with which England had a perfectly free trade. The noble Lord (Lord Althorp) said, that if we opened our ports, the price of corn in England would not fall, but the price of corn in foreign countries would rise. This would be the case if there was a great want of corn; but if there was an abundance of corn of home growth, the price must necessarily fall to the Continental price. It was admitted on all hands, that some protection was necessary, to the amount at least of the greater pressure of charge upon English agriculturists above those of the Continent. The two richest countries Europe could boast of were those in which corn was protected: he meant England and France. Those countries in which there was no protection were the most miserable in Europe. He hoped the House would listen to no such proposition as that now submitted to them; and he regretted, that the manner in which the noble Lord expressed himself was such as, he feared, would produce a most unfortunate impression throughout the country.

Viscount Palmerston

said, he should not have risen were it not for the manner in which what had fallen from his noble friend (Lord Althorp) had been misrepresented by the hon. member for Essex (Mr. Baring). The hon. Member had before now observed, in reference to himself, that his own speeches and votes occasionally disagreed in tenor, and, probably, on the present occasion, the hon. Member was too much engaged in keeping hold of his own ideas, with a view to reconcile them to his vote, to attend sufficiently to the sentiments expressed by his noble friend, the Chancellor of the Exchequer. His noble friend did not say (as the hon. Member appeared to suppose) that it was the intention of Ministers in a future Session to make a complete alteration in the Corn-laws; on the contrary, his noble friend carefully guarded against stating the intentions of Government one way or the other. The hon. Gentleman represented his noble friend as having said, that he considered the present law as injurious to the agricultural interest. [Mr. Baring said, he had explained that.] The hon. Gentleman did explain it, but then he repeated the same charge frequently after in the course of his speech. What his noble friend said was, that he did not consider the present law so beneficial to the agriculturists as it was generally supposed by themselves to be; and that was also his opinion. From the expression of this opinion no conclusion could be drawn as to what his noble friend or himself might be prepared to do hereafter. He could not see the force of the hon. Member's argument, that it was politically dangerous for a country to depend on other States for a portion of its supply of food. Every manufacturing country which exported its manufactures must he dependent on other countries for food, because if the manufacturers could not sell their commodities in the foreign market, they could not buy the means of subsistence either at home or abroad. He entirely concurred with his noble friend, that in the present time and circumstances it was inexpedient to agitate this important question; but surely his noble friend's objecting to entertain the subject could not be fairly said to throw the agricultural interest into doubt and uncertainty. He regretted that the subject had been brought forward; but having entered upon its consideration, he thought that the House had better dispose of it in the manner recommended by his noble friend, by negativing the Amendment, in order to afford his noble friend an opportunity of meeting the original Resolution by the previous question.

Colonel Wood

said, the present law in general gave satisfaction to the agricultural interest, because it did procure steadiness of price. If Ministers were more explicit upon the subject, they would have acted more to the satisfaction of the agriculturists. He thought that something more decided should be done upon this question by the Ministers. He never would argue it as one solely in which the agricultural interest was concerned, but as one in which all great interests were alike concerned. The hon. member for Middlesex seemed disposed to impose a duty on corn for the sake of revenue, but not of protection. He should have thought corn would be the very last article selected for such a purpose. This was the object of the law of 1815. Lord Dacre and others then refused to act upon this principle, but expressed their readiness to grant protection up to the point of a remunerating price. The protection of agriculture by duties existed above 150 years. He would not go further back than 1670. The price then was 53s. 4d., and the import duty was 16s. 7d. The degree of protection was not greater now than the change of time required. This law existed for ninety-five years, without being repealed, or even without discussion, up to 1791. He regretted the subject was brought on, and hoped there would be so decided a majority as would prevent it from being brought forward again. No fixed duty could be maintained without leading to such fluctuations as must be ruinous to the agriculturists.

Mr. Cutlar Fergusson

hoped Ministers would propose no change in the law with which the agriculturists themselves were content. He trusted the House would never entertain any proposition similar to the present. It would lead to the greatest confusion, and to the ruin of the agricultural interest. The result of the regulation proposed by the hon. member for Middlesex would be to prevent free trade in corn until such time as the country was on the point of starvation. The language of the hon. Member was very different on the hustings and in that House. On the hustings his language was, "Vote against the Corn-laws, and let us have cheap bread." In the House he said to the agriculturists, "You cannot be injured by letting in foreign corn. The price is sure to rise to the prices on the Continent, and rents must also rise." The present Corn-laws he considered better than any other system he had yet heard of; infinitely better than any scheme he had heard proposed that night as a substitute.

Mr. Robinson

would tell Ministers, that they were labouring under a great fallacy if they supposed the present system of Corn-laws would remain without the fullest discussion, at the proper time, by the Parliament, as then constituted. He perfectly agreed with the noble Lord (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) that it was not at all judicious to press the subject at the present time, when so many other important matters were waiting their decision. What he principally rose for was, to protest against the assertion that the decision of that night would be taken as a final one by the country; for next Session the subject must again come before them, when he felt satisfied there would be no difficulty in showing, that the present system of Corn-laws had completely failed to answer the purpose for which they were enacted.

Mr. Cayley

denied the assertion, that the Corn-laws bad not answered the expectations of the agriculturists. Did the noble Lord (Althorp) imagine, that the agriculturists expected a high rate of duty with a high price? They expected a low rate of duty with a high price of corn, and a high rate of duty with a low price of com; and, in that principle, both growers and consumers received ample protection. The hon. mover could not deny that we had had a very steady price even under deficient harvests he merely maintained, that if certain circumstances had occurred which he contemplated, there would not have been that steadiness of price. He was prepared to show, that we should always have less fluctuation under a graduated scale of duties than under a fixed duty. Let them look back at what had happened since the present Corn-law came into operation. The first four harvests were deficient—the price rose—the duty fell—the consumer was protected—and the fluctuation was not greater than from about 58s. to 66s. per quarter for wheat; then came 1832, a more abundant harvest—prices fell—and the duties were high, and the grower was protected. Our currency did not allow of a higher price in this country, in average seasons, than from 45s. to 52s. per quarter; and if we had average seasons for four years successively, we should have a steady low rate of prices as we had previously had a high rate. It was a mistake to suppose that the Corn-laws had a tendency to raise the price of corn beyond its ordinary price in average seasons; their operation was mainly to prevent prices falling below this ordinary price by means of an importation of foreign corn; and with a deficient harvest they tended to protect the home-grower against the foreign grower, who might have suffered under no such casualty, until the price rises so high that it becomes necessary to protect the consumer. There was no greater fallacy than that of assuming, because the average duty on the import of corn since the present Corn-law came into operation had been only 6s. 8d., that this is the sole protection it affords to the farmer. They had but to carry that principle to its extreme—to suppose the scarcity to have been such that 1s. duty had been levied, to discover its absurdity; for, then, according to this doctrine, the protection would only have been 1s. to the grower. The real protection which the law afforded, was when the price fell to 50s. That was the time when the farmer wanted protection, not when the price was high without it. The agriculturists had often been deluded; but their folly would be extreme if they gave in to the miserable fallacy, that a fixed duty of 10s. or 15s. would protect them better than the present law. The present duty protected the grower under a low price, and a fixed duty of 10s. or 15s. would protect him under neither a high nor a low price, under a high price it would be taken off by an Order in Council; under a low price it would merely add so much to the 25s. or 30s. or 35s., at which foreign corn could be sold in this country free of duly. He could conceive no principle better than that of the present law; but he saw no necessity for being irrevocably bound to the whole of its machinery; and one or two alterations would improve its working. He would not, however, say more than merely to add, that if this question was to be revived and discussed, it could not be done at a more improper season than when a Committee had been appointed upon the distresses of British agriculture.

Mr. Benett

considered, that the present Corn Bill had worked well for all classes in the country for the last five years. He, therefore, was opposed to any alteration of it. So important and numerous a class as the agricultural labourers ought to be the object of the particular protection of the Legislature.

Mr. O'Connell

thought the people of this country ought to have food as cheap as possible, and the meaning of the word "protection" was dear food. There was no virtue in a Reformed Parliament if it did not give the people cheap food. He was groaned at for advocating cheap provisions for the people. If any one would come forward to remove all taxes from the articles of subsistence he would give them his support. But it might be said he was speaking against the interest of the people of Ireland, who had a monopoly of the supply of this country with corn. The fact was, however, that the people of Ireland did not get one ounce of the corn grown in their country. They did not eat bread—they scarcely got potatoes; and all the benefit of the monopoly went into the pockets of the absentees. His only objection to the Motion was, that it did not go far enough. The people well knew, that protection meant dear food; and how would their decision this night go forth to the world? It would be said, that the gentry of the country, the men of fortune, Members of that House, having power to make laws, made them for their own advantage and protection, for the oppression of the poor, who needed legislative protection, and in order to raise their own incomes by impoverishing and starving the people [Loud cries of "No, no," and cheers, in which some one in the Gallery joined].

Mr. Dundas

, who was in the side Gallery, rose, and, addressing the Chair, said," Mr. Speaker, I beg leave to state, that there is a stranger in the Gallery joining in the cheers of the House."—[A pause ensued, and the supposed stranger deliberately put on his hat, a privilege allowed only to Members.] He then rose and addressed the House; but was unable to obtain a hearing amidst the confusion. This Gentleman was Mr. Lalor, member for the Queen's County, Ireland, who was seated in the Strangers' Gallery conversing with a friend.

Mr. Frankland Lewis moved, that the Gallery be cleared.

Strangers were excluded.

Mr. Lalor

stated, from the place he occupied in the Gallery, that he was the only person who cheered in the Gallery. It was a mistake to suppose that any stranger had cheered, at least so far as he had observed.

Mr. Frankland Lewis

disclaimed any wish to interfere with any hon. Member's privilege, and said, that he had acted under the impression that there had been a violation of the privileges of the House, and the freedom of the debate.

The Speaker

said, that as the supposed violation of order had been explained, there was no occasion, he presumed, to proceed any further in the business. Undoubtedly if any stranger had been guilty of using any expression of approbation or disapprobation, or of noticing, in any manner, the observations of Members, it would have been a high breach of privilege, which it would have been the duty of the House to visit with some mark of its displeasure. The hon. Member had done perfectly right in calling the attention of the House to the supposed violation of its privileges.

Strangers were then re-admitted.

Mr. O'Connell

then proceeded. That which he had sought to impress upon the House was, that they would be placing themselves in a very unenviable and, he might add, dangerous contrast between their regard for their own interests and the interests of the people if they rejected the present Motion. "The people would be reminded of this contrast as many times in the day as they took food, and no sophistry would be able to get rid of the impression their conduct would make upon the minds of the people. ["Oh, oh."] There was no argument in those cries. An attempt to cry down his advocacy of the wants of the people was only adding insult to injury. It was his wish to get corn in this country as low in price as it was in the cheapest countries in Europe. He knew, that to do so would be the course of humanity; he thought it would be the course of justice; and he hoped some one would come into that House and sweep away those Corn-laws altogether.

Colonel Conolly

said, it was his fate always to follow the hon. and learned member for Dublin, whole ingenious perversion of facts and the sentiments of the people of Ireland seemed to him to require a corrective. As an Irish landlord he hoped the House would not concur with that hon. and learned Gentleman in thinking, that he could not feel for the interest of the people as well as his own. If the House meant to maintain faith with the public creditor, it must do so with the agricultural interest. This was the opinion of much higher authorities than he could pretend to be. If the manufacturing interest expected relief by spoliation of the landed interest, never had they been more misled by any of the many silly and shallow projects that had been submitted to that House.

Mr. Grantley Berkeley

was as anxious to see the people have cheap food as the hon. and learned member for Dublin, but he did not see how it was possible to give the people cheap food, or more of it, by depriving them of all the money they now earned. He knew that the class of liberal tradesmen were not so much against the Corn-laws as was pretended. He knew a Gentleman who employed 3,000 men daily in the iron-works, and it was the opinion of that Gentleman, that if the Corn-laws were repealed the depression of agriculturists would communicate itself to them. He should oppose the Motion.

Mr. Henry Handley

regretted the question had been brought forward at present, and also the temporising speech made by the noble Lord. He thought there was too much legislation already upon this subject. It would be better to let the parties settle things more amongst themselves.

Sir Francis Burdett

spoke amidst frequent interruptions. He thought the question would be better disposed of by a Committee up-stairs, and that it could not be satisfactorily dealt with by the House. He was for a free trade in corn and all other commodities. He would have voted for the original Motion had no other been proposed; but as the Amendment of the hon. member for Middlesex went further, he should vote for that.

Mr. Hume

begged leave to withdraw his Amendment. He thought the sense of the House might be taken upon the first Resolution.

Lord Althorp

said that, as the Amendment had been withdrawn, he should propose as an amendment the previous question.

The House divided on the question that the question be then put—Ayes 106; Noes 305; Majority 199.

List of the AYES.
ENGLAND. Morpeth, Viscount.
Aglionby, H. A. Morrison, J.
Baillie, J. E. Ord, W. H.
Bainbridge, E. Parker, J.
Barnett, C. J. Philips, M.
Bish, T. Philpotts, J.
Boiling, W. Potter, R.
Briggs, R. Ramsbottom, J.
Brotherton, J. Ricardo, D.
Buckingham, J. S. Rippon, C.
Buller, E. Robinson, G. R.
Bulwer, H. L. Romilly, J.
Burdett, Sir F. Romilly, E.
Clay, W. Ryle, J.
Dashwood, G. H. Sheppard, T.
Davenport, J. Stewart, P.
Dawson, E. Strickland, G.
Divett, E. Strutt, E.
Evans, De Lacy Thompson, Alderman
Ellis, W. Tancred, H. W.
Etwall, R. Tennyson, C.
Evans, W. Thicknesse, R.
Ewart, W. Torrens, Colonel R.
Feilden, W. Turner, W.
Fenton, L. Vernon, hon. G. J.
Ferguson, Sir R. Williams, G.
Fielden, J. Wood, G.
F'ryor, R. C. Wood, M.
Gaskell, D. Walker, R.
Godson, R. Walter, T.
Grey, Sir G. Warburton, H.
Grote, G. Whitmore, W.
Guest, J. J. Whalley, Sir S.
Gully, J. Young, G. F.
Hawes, B. Dunlop, Captain J.
Hornby, E. G. Ewing, J.
Hughes, H. Ferguson, R.
Hume, J. Gillon, W. D.
Humphery, J. Maxwell, Sir J.
Hutt, W. Oliphant, L.
Hyett, W. H. Oswald, R. A.
Ingham, R. Oswald, J.
Jervis, J. Parnell, Sir H.
Key, Sir J. Ross, H.
Langton, G. Stewart, R.
Lester, B. L. Wemyss, Captain
Lister, C. IRELAND
Marshall, J. Evans, G.
Marsland, T. Lalor, P.
Martin, J. O'Connell D.
Milton, Viscount O'Colnell, Morgan
Molesworth, Sir W. O'Connell, Charles
O'Connell, John Ruthven, E. S.
O'Connell, Maurice Vigors, N. A.