§ Mr. James Oswaldpresented a Petition from Glasgow, signed by upwards of 59,000 persons, for the repeal of the Corn-laws. It was got up at a public meeting at which the Chief Magistrate of that city presided, and it was again submitted to another public meeting, at which the Chief Magistrate also presided. Amongst the signatures were those of all the Magistrates of the city of Glasgow, excepting one, and it had been signed by that large number of persons in the course of last week. The greatest enthusiasm was manifested in signing it—the shopkeepers opened their shops for that purpose, and it was carried without putting the public to any expense. Whatever difference of opinion respecting the Corn-laws there might be in other parts of the kingdom, there did not exist a more general and determined opposition to them anywhere than in the city of Glasgow—a city in which education was more generally diffused than in almost any other part. The petitioners stated, that they received with deep disappointment the resolution of Ministers to resist any measure that would tend to relieve the country, by repealing the laws which prevented the free importation of grain. In these sentiments he cordially concurred, and he regretted the declaration of the Government that these laws should not be taken into consideration. He was sorry that there appeared a feeling, if of not going back, at least of standing still in the matter of Reform. There appeared to be something as if they regretted the carrying through of the great measure of Reform, or otherwise they would have permitted these Corn-laws to come under consideration. He would not trouble the House with anything upon the Corn-laws, because it was clear to him that there were two qualities requisite in a Member wishing to address the House—that he 1196 should afford information or propose relief. He was not capable of one or the other, and he would not trouble the House with any argument; he would merely state one important fact relating to the Corn-laws. In 1815, when these Corn-laws commenced, this country had a very extensive trade with the United States of America. The government of those States proposed that corn should be introduced free from duty, at least upon the same footing as Colonial corn. The proposition was objected to, and the Corn-laws were enforced, in consequence of which the American tariff took place, and the Americans now manufactured annually from 240,000 to 250,000 bags of cotton, not one of which would have been manufactured there, but for the existence of those Corn-laws. If it were essential for the happiness of this country that encouragement should be given to manufacturers, it was clear that those Corn-laws lessened the value of manufactures by thus preventing a large exportation. It was said that this was not a proper time to discuss this question. It appeared to him to be the best of all times. The price of grain was at present low, and the question might therefore be discussed under more favourable circumstances than at any time when the price of corn should be raised.
§ Mr. Ewingbore testimony to the respectability of the petition, which, as his hon. colleague had stated, was signed by nearly 60,000 persons. He agreed too in a great measure with the prayer of the petition, but against that part of it which prayed for a total repeal of the Corn-laws he totally dissented, because he conceived that some tax proportionate to the burthens of the State, should be placed upon the importation of foreign corn, for the protection of the agriculturists of this country. He would agree to the admission of foreign grain upon payment of a fixed and moderate duty, but he did not think that the total repeal of the Corn-laws would be advantageous.
§ Mr. Abercrombybore testimony to the respectability of the petition. In his opinion a great national misfortune had resulted from what he thought a great legislative error, in departing from the principle of free trade in corn. The sooner the Legislature retraced their steps, the more advantageous it would be for the country, but how that was to be effected he would not presume to say; he thought 1197 no time should be lost in an attempt to bring about the alteration.
§ Sir Edward Knatchbullthought the petitioners, however respectable they might be, were not sensible to their own interest, or they would never have presented such a petition. It was evident that if a lower price was imposed upon agricultural produce than at present existed, not only would the farmer be involved in ruin, but every class in the community would be equally affected.
Mr. Cayleysaid the Corn-laws had existed for a period of 400 years, and it was necessary to go back to the year 1436, and trace their operation down to the present moment, distinctly to understand their nature and effect.
§ Mr. Bainesthought the best argument in favour of a repeal of the Corn-laws, was the present state of the country. Agriculture was never in a more flourishing state than before their existence, and since they had been brought into operation, the country altogether had never been in a more depressed state.
§ Petition to lie on the Table.
§ Mr. Hume, having presented a petition from 31,000 inhabitants of the metropolis, for the repeal of the Corn-laws, (which, as to size, resembled one of the largest rollers used in husbandry,) and petitions to the same effect from other places, went on to say, that he had to crave the indulgence of the House, while he endeavoured to state his views on the important question of which he had given notice for that night. It was unnecessary for him to dwell upon the great importance of the question, and the necessity of setting it at rest, if possible, by taking from the landed interests the undue privileges at present conferred on them; and steps ought to be taken to relieve the public mind from agitation, by conceding to the people what they conceived to be their rights. He was anxious to have the subject discussed without intemperance or heat; and he said so the rather, because, on former occasions, much ill feeling had been excited, under the idea that one party had effected an usurpation, which it was prepared by every means in its power to maintain at the expense of the rest of the community. Parliament would best perform its duty by taking the prudent course he recommended. He felt anxious, as this was the first time the question had been brought fairly forward in a Reformed 1198 Parliament, that the people should see a disposition in their Representatives to listen to well-grounded complaints, and remedy acknowledged evils. He called to the recollection of the House, the parties in this case; they were those who sought, and those who opposed, an alteration in the existing system. The mass of the population sought to be relieved from a burthen under which they had long laboured; they desired to see an end to the law by which a few individuals obtained, and still retained, the possession of exclusive advantages. He was not surprised that this should be the case, for when he looked back to the constitution of the un-reformed Parliament, he found that a great majority of its members was influenced or nominated by those whose interest it was to have high rents. Laws had been made to favour those parties, and a monopoly had been created for their advantage. While he complained of this, on the part of the people, he was anxious to redress it, without exciting the unpleasant feelings of those whose monopoly he, desired gradually to destroy. Few subjects had occupied more of the time of the House than the present—there were few subjects which deserved it more—and on few subjects, since the reign of Henry 6th, had more laws been made. He did not complain, therefore, of the subject having been neglected, but he complained of the manner in which it had been treated; he complained, that from ignorance of the principles of political economy, much mischief had been done, and much injustice. Now that we had obtained a Reform of Parliament, and now that the people had a greater number of Representatives in the House, the class which had been long deprived of the advantages of a free trade in corn might fairly appeal to Parliament for relief. It was his wish not to infringe upon the privileges or rights of any class; but he wished to extend equal rights and protection to all, giving to the capital and industry of all equal protection. That had not been the case, and he would show the manner in which the agricultural interest had been peculiarly favoured, at the expense of the other parts of the community. It was the duty of the House and the Government, to deal out equal justice to all. But he would put it to any man who would allow himself candidly to consider the subject, whether, during the last thirty 1199 years, equal protection had been extended to the labouring man and to the landed proprietor? No man could be so blinded by self-interest as to assert that the protection had been equal. He would explain to the House what he considered to be the special claims of the landed proprietors to the peculiar privileges which they enjoyed by law. It would be necessary to state what were the systems that had hitherto existed with regard to the corn trade. But. first, he must observe, in reference to what fell from the noble Lord (Lord Althorp) a few nights ago on the subject of the Corn-laws, that he fully concurred with the noble Lord, when he stated that the best mode of improving the condition of agriculture was, by promoting the welfare of the community at large, and not by maintaining individual interests. The object of the Corn-laws was opposed to this principle, because it gave special protection to one interest, at the expense of others. If gentlemen would turn their attention to the state of the Corn-laws at various times in this country, they would find, that the cause of complaint was of comparatively modern date. According to the short abstract, given in the Report of the Committee of 1821, it appeared that at an early period, the trade in corn was free, that, subsequently, a variety of laws had been passed, alternately imposing heavy duties, and relaxing them, and enacting bounties. Before 1660, the importation of wheat was free, and the average prices were high. In 1663 an ad-valorem duty was imposed, of nine per cent, or about 5s. 4d. per quarter, on imported wheat; and the object of all measures adopted since then was, to keep up the price of corn; but it had been found utterly impossible to effect that purpose steadily. Although certain objectionable limitations existed previously to 1815, yet we had a right to consider the present system as beginning then. When the price of corn was between 44s. and 46s., there was a duty of 2s. 6d. above that price; there was a sixpenny duty. That system continued till 1791: 50s. was then substituted for 44s., and the scale continued unaltered, he believed, till about the commencement of the peace. From the commencement to the termination of the French war, the Corn-laws were inoperative, as the prices were above the sum at which the duty came into operation. In consequence of this, we had the full advantage 1200 of all the markets of the world; and, if gentlemen looked at the effect of that state of things, they would find reason to be satisfied, but we should never have more than was necessary to feed our population as they ought to be fed, and to give them an opportunity of paying for their support by their labours in manufactures. The House would bear in mind, that, up to the period between 1764 and 1774, this country regularly exported grain; and the price of corn in England was above the price on the Continent of Europe, otherwise we could not have sent corn out of the country. Up to that period we were an agricultural country, but from 1770, a rapid increase took place in our manufactures, and our population was augmented in consequence. Such being the case, if we would maintain our increased population, we must facilitate their means of obtaining food, without throwing them as a burthen upon the land. There not being sufficient food in the country for the population, it became necessary to seek for food from without. The real cause of the existing distress, then, was the want of food, and the want of employment; which was always found where food could be obtained: and there existed no other mode of relieving that distress, but by increasing the means of employment, or removing the surplus population. The latter measure, however, would afford only partial relief; and, as the land could not be expected to supply the population of this country with employment, there remained no other way of giving permanent and substantial relief, than by encouraging importation of food, by sending abroad the manufactures of the country. This object, he contended, would be attained only by granting permission to the British manufacturer to exchange his goods for foreign corn. The right hon. Baronet, the First Lord of the Admiralty, had, in a work on currency, published some years ago, introduced a table which might be advantageously quoted on the present occasion. It appeared from that document, that from the year 1700 to 1800, the price of corn on the Continent increased, taking 100 as the starting point, in the same proportion as the price of corn in England; but that from the moment our laws prohibited the free trade in corn, the price immediately increased in England, while it remained stationary abroad. Since this country had ceased to be au exporting country, 1201 with reference to corn, the population had nearly doubled, and it would be found that the increase had taken place principally in manufacturing towns. The population of Glasgow, which in the year 1801, amounted to 76,000, had in 1811, increased to 140,000, and in 1821, to 202,000. The population of Manchester had, during the same period, increased from 90,000 to 221,000; of Birmingham, from 73,000 to 142,000; and of Leeds, from 53,000 to 123,000. A similar augmentation of population had taken place in Paisley, Aberdeen, and other manufacturing towns, and had undoubtedly arisen from the increased manufactures of the country. This increase of population showed that there was no means of employing it, but by giving an increased stimulus to our manufactures, and that could not be accomplished without giving the people cheap food. It was true, that a system of emigration might be brought in aid of increased manufacturers; but he was of opinion, that, without taking the produce of other nations in the shape of food, we could not materially increase the amount of our manufactures. The only return that many other nations could give us for our manufactures, would be their corn; and yet we had hitherto resisted its importation, unless at an extraordinary fluctuating scale of duty. All the changes which we had made in the scale of duty on the importation of foreign corn, convinced him of the necessity for an increased employment of our manufacturers, as the only means of relieving our market from the amount of surplus labour with which it was overstocked. Let the House only look for a moment at the vast amount of cotton which was imported into this country in the year 1814, as compared with the last year. Some idea of the great increase which had taken place in the manufactures of the country, might be formed from the extent to which the trade in cotton had been carried. In the year 1814, the quantity of cotton wool imported was 80,000,000lbs.; in 1832, it amounted to 249,000,0001bs.; and in the last year, it had still further increased to 296,000,000lbs. A similar increase had taken place in the importation of other raw articles for manufacture in this country; and it was the increase of our manufactures which had created the surplus population, for whose relief nothing would be effectual but a free trade in corn. 1202 In the various other branches of our trade, the same principle would apply; and he besought the House now, while there was time, dispassionately to consider the subject. The principal obstacle to a more extended sale of our manufactures was, the high price of corn for the food of the people. There had been a great deal of discussion both within and without this House, as to the difference between the manufacturing and the agricultural interests; but, looking fairly at the question, he could not see that there was any such distinction. As manufactures increased, a portion of the agricultural population would be drawn into, and as if merged with them—and, in fact, so closely was their interest allied with each other, that it would be extremely difficult to draw any line of distinction between them. He thought it, however, right to state, that a calculation on this subject had been made by one of the Gentlemen who sat at the Table of that House (Mr. Rickman), and it appeared from his statement, that the owners, occupiers of land, labourers, and other persons dependent on its cultivation, might be taken at fifty-eight per cent on the whole population of the country. The calculation applied to the year 1831, and the number of families in Great Britain employed in agriculture, was stated to be 961,000; the number of families employed in manufactures, 1,434,000; while the number of those not comprised in either of the two first classes, was reckoned to be 1,018,000. In Ireland the number of families engaged in agricultural pursuits was calculated at 884,000; the number of those employed in manufacturing, 249,000; and the number of families, not belonging to either of the first-named classes, 251,000. He believed, that this account was somewhat exaggerated; but supposing it to be perfectly correct, was not that House bound to ask itself how such a large and continually increasing population (a population, which in the space of the last ten years, had increased seventeen per cent,—three-fourths of that augmentation being attributable to the increased extent of our manufactures) could be maintained otherwise than by allowing them to export the work of their hands, and obtain foreign wheat in exchange for it? It was idle to say, that the land of England was capable of supplying the population of the country with food, for at the time when wheat was as 1203 high as 100s. per quarter, and soils of every description were forced from the high price into cultivation, it was found even then to be inadequate for that purpose. The price of foreign wheat had been stated by some persons to be from fifty to eighty per cent lower than the price of wheat in this country, and, at some places, that might be the case; but he was not disposed to believe, that so great a difference of price existed, and he thought, that on an average, foreign wheat would be found to be from thirty to forty per cent cheaper than wheat in this country. It followed, then, as a matter of course, that the price of labour abroad was thirty or forty per cent lower than it was in England, and, consequently, the foreign manufacturer was enabled to send his goods to market at less cost than the British manufacturer. The raw materials were as cheap in England as in any part of the world; but the manufacturer in this country laboured under the disadvantage of being obliged to pay higher wages to his workmen than were paid to labourers on the continent. The consequence was, that he could not compete with foreign manufacturers in the markets abroad, and, as he was not able to sell his goods, he, of course, ceased to manufacture. His workmen were dismissed; and being deprived of employment, they looked to the poor-rates as the only means of obtaining subsistence. But though he was of opinion, that the repeal of the Corn-laws would benefit the general body of the labourers in this country, he could not coincide in the opinion expressed by an hon. Member in that House, that it would have the effect of raising the wages of the hand-loom weavers. It no doubt would improve their condition, in common with the rest of the community; but it was absurd to suppose, that hand-labourers would, by any measure, be placed in as good a situation as that in which they stood previous to the introduction of machinery. The object of the Act of 1815, which the Legislature passed under the protection of fixed bayonets, was to keep wheat at a fixed remunerating price of 80s., but experience had shown it to be totally ineffectual for that purpose; and, in the year 1828, the Act was altered, and the remunerating price reduced to 60s. Still, under the new law, fluctuations in price to a very considerable extent were continually occurring, by which both 1204 landlords and farmers suffered great losses. Many of the latter had either become bankrupts, or were paying their rents, not out of their profits, but out of their capital. The law which had been passed in favour of the landed interest, had not guarded that interest against the evils he had mentioned, and, at the same time, the rest of the population of the country had been starved by it. By creating an artificial scarcity, it had made food dear. The object of the law was to keep up the price of bread, and it had that effect, though not to the extent which had been expected. If it had not had that effect, why not at once consent to repeal it? It was well known by every Member present, that the effect of the Act had been to starve a large part of the population, to deprive them of employment, and drive them to the poor-rates. Nothing could be more easy of proof than what he was now stating. He was confident, that the manufactures of this country might be doubled or trebled, if the cost of production were reduced, so as to enable the British manufacturer to compete with the foreign manufacturer; but how could the cost of production be reduced, unless the wages of labour were lowered? He understood the meaning of that cheer; but he was prepared to contend, that, notwithstanding the wages of labour might be lowered, the workmen would still be benefited, if, by a free trade in corn, they obtained their food cheaper, and secured a constant demand for their manufactures. He was not disposed to think, that, under a system of free importation, the price of corn would fall permanently below 48s. or 50s. per quarter; and he might, therefore, be asked, what advantage did he expect from the establishing a free trade in corn. One great advantage sure to result from keeping the ports permanently open was, that an end would at once be put to the fluctuations at present occurring in the price of corn, and to the uncertainty which existed as to the amount of importation which would take place in any unexpected emergency. During a period of eighteen years, ending at the year 1831, the quantity of corn imported equalled 24,000,000l. in value; in some years amounting to 6,000,000l., while, in others, it fell short of 600,000l. These fluctuations, injurious to all classes of the community, would cease to occur if the ports were thrown open for the admission 1205 of foreign wheat, commencing at first with a moderate duty, and lowering it gradually until the trade in corn became perfectly free. He would not wish the change to be made otherwise than gradually, because he was not ignorant of the injury that might be inflicted by any sudden alteration in an existing system. The mischief of the present Corn-laws was the uncertainty to which they gave rise; and their injurious effects had been so frequently felt, that the law of 1815 had been violated by no less than eleven or twelve Acts passed, and Orders in Council issued, on different emergencies. Was not this a matter of great evil? If the ports were regularly open, the trade would become more regular—regular habits of interchange would be induced; and in lieu of the corn imported, articles of British manufacture would be taken in return. In illustration of this, he would instance South America, where British articles had been introduced, notwithstanding it had at first been deemed impossible. Another advantage which would follow, was, that the carrying trade would become more particularly our own; and, instead of employing foreign vessels, those ships which were now rotting in our docks would be called into profitable employment, because the ship-owners, many of whom were also merchants, could calculate upon a fixed, and not a varying and uncertain trade. It had been objected, that the repeal of those laws would be the ruin of the agriculturists. By looking at the prices of corn in various parts of Europe in 1825, it would be found in England 67s. 8d.; in Cadiz, 75s.; in Lisbon, 73s.; at Marseilles, 52s.; in other years, 33s. in Bordeaux; 39s. in Antwerp; 66s. in Lisbon; and again, in other years, in Amsterdam, 29s. 9d.; Bordeaux, 47s. 9d.; Marseilles, 60s.; and Lisbon, 47s. If England became a regular importing country, these variations would diminish; the consumption of England would increase; and that increase would regulate the price, which, as he said before, would be repaid in articles of English manufacture, and ensure to this country a fixed carrying trade. The effect, too, of opening the trade in corn, would be, that England, to a much greater extent than at present, would become the manufacturer to the whole world; while an adequate supply would be received in return for the produce of our industry, of those 1206 blessings which the growing necessities of a rapidly-increasing population demanded. He had prepared a statement, which the House, he hoped, would allow him to read, by which it would be seen how little real protection had been afforded to the agricultural interests, while all the other branches of the community had grievously suffered under the operation of the present ruinously restrictive system. The statement to which he alluded, embraced a return of the quantity of corn imported since July 15, 1828, when the Act of 1827 came into operation, to the 7th of January, 1834, including a period of five years and nearly six months. During that interval, there had been imported 4,832,000 quarters of wheat, 975,000 quarters of barley, and 1,458,564 quarters of oats; making, in all, 7,265,564 quarters of the three different sorts. The amount of duty raised, was, in the aggregate, 2,380,005l.; the wheat paying at the rate of 6s. 8¾d., barley 5s. 0¾d., and oats 5s. 11½d. per quarter. But still the duty not being fixed,—as valuations, in fact, were continually occurring every week and every day—almost the whole trade was left in a state of extreme uncertainty, which had in many instances produced the most ruinous consequences to the agriculturists themselves; who, to counterbalance this, had, no doubt, the pitiful satisfaction of excluding from the ports of England, millions of quarters which might have fed millions of people now half-starved, or existing only as a burthen on their parishes; whereas, if they had adopted the proposition which he humbly submitted to the House in 1827, the condition of the agriculturists would not have been one farthing worse, but, on the contrary, a great advantage would have been gained by them, in being relieved from the pressure of poor-rates, which now fell on them so heavily, in consequence of the high rate of corn, to compensate for any small reduction that might have taken place in its price by an increased importation. If such had been the case, why should the present system any longer be continued? But he was told the agriculturist was to be protected, and the proposed change could not be introduced because the land had peculiar burthens. Now, he was quite ready to give to the farmers every possible protection, if they should, upon due examination, appear entitled to it. But he thought he could 1207 show, that the agriculturist had no claim whatever,—he meant, no claim to protection but what arose under the Act of 1815. He was prepared to make this out to the satisfaction of the House. In the first place, he should like to know, what were the claims which the land had to the species of protection which was so much insisted on—meaning, of course, by the term "protection," the power of raising the price of corn? If they claimed the right of raising the price of corn in England above that on the Continent, it was incumbent on them to show how it originated, and why it should be vested in them, to the prejudice of the rest of the community. From the year 1791, till 1815, they had no such claim, and received no such protection, because corn was then imported without any duty; its price in England being pretty nearly the same as the price over Europe generally. If they had no such claim at that time, in what had their demand originated? Corn was then at a very high price; but, since it had been lowered on the continent, they had claimed protection, and, to a certain extent, they had enjoyed it, although, he verily believed, its only effect had been to ruin them. It held back many of the farmers from giving up their farms, in the hope that prices would continue to rise; and, trusting to a return of better times, their expenses and farms were kept up, till distress, he was sorry to say, had at length overtaken them. They had heavy claims on their property, they said, in 1815, and it was their intention then to pay them off by the high price of com; in that, however, they had been disappointed. What, he begged to ask, were the burthens under which the land peculiarly laboured? There were tithes, poor-rates, county, road, and church rates, besides parochial and militia assessments. He was not aware of any other. As to tithes, he should be glad to know what title any one of them had to be free from tithe; his property having been purchased from time immemorial subject to that charge? There could be no claim to protection on that ground, although he must say, there had been a most inordinate increase of tithe; in some places, it had actually been doubled, and even quadrupled; but how that addition had been made to their difficulties he did not know; at all events, whether great or small, that burthen did appear to him to 1208 form no ground of protection whatever. From 1700, up to 1815, they had never claimed protection on that ground, and, therefore, no allowance could legitimately be made for it. The next burthen was that of poor-rates. Now, conceding their right to a claim on this score, it must be limited to England, because no poor-rates existed in Ireland or Scotland. That tax had been in existence for the last 230 years, and it could not fairly be considered now as a ground of exclusive protection. Besides, the towns paid as much, if not more, poor-rates than the land. Then as to parochial assessments, the towns also paid their share as well as the rural districts, in the proportion out of 6,966,157l., of 2,170,675l. to 4,795,482l.; besides, the landed interests were almost entirely exempted from Church-rates, which in towns were felt to be very oppressive. The landed proprietors too were generally members of the Church of England, and had seats in the Churches, they paid to keep up, while the towns people being in a great measure Dissenters, had to pay for Churches which they did not use. As to the militia, it had, during the war, certainly been a heavy burthen, but its pressure was now very much diminished, if in fact it existed at all. It would be seen, by a reference to the Parliamentary returns, that in regard to county assessments, many of the agricultural districts paid much less than the manufacturing portion of the community. These various burthens, in fact, pressed so unequally on different counties that it would be impossible to say exactly what the amount of protection ought to be in consideration of them. Some counties too were more agricultural than others; and in some that were most agricultural the burthen on account of the poor-rates was higher than in others. In Sussex, for instance, the Poor-rate was 6s 9½d. in the acre. This, however, might be accounted for from the custom of paying the wages of labour partly from the rates. It would not be said that a burthen imposed in this way afforded any good reason for a prohibitory duty on corn. In Berkshire, the rate was 1s. 1d. the acre; in Kent, 5s. 8d; in Hereford, 3s. 11d.; in Yorkshire, 2s. 6d.; in Cumberland, 2s. 1d. Upon any of the grounds alluded to he could see no reason why protection should be given. It was worthy of remark that population did not increase in this country in the same proportion as 1209 capital did. Between the year 1776 and 1815 money increased in this country fivefold, while the population increased only threefold. This must have arisen from mismanagement. He was not aware of any other charges which could be said to I press exclusively upon the land. An hon. Member said the Malt-duty, but the Malt-duty could not be said to fall upon the land, because, in point of fact, it was paid by the consumer. Taking all these circumstances into consideration, what right, I it might be asked, had the agriculturists to this protecting duty? So far from being a benefit to the country, even to the farmers themselves it was productive of most serious evil. The immediate consequence of it was to prevent the export of manufactures; thereby to lessen the employment of manufacturers, to throw them on the Poorrates, and to add greatly to that very heavy burthen. It had been clearly proved, that the expulsion of their manufactures from the ports of the United States of America was occasioned by their own Corn-laws. When this country imposed a tax on corn the produce of America they very naturally, in retaliation, imposed taxes on the importation of British manufactures. One powerful source of their manufacturing prosperity was the great demand from the United States. He saw no limits to the demands of a country like America, daily increasing in population, if this country would only admit their corn upon fair terms. How did the matter stand as regarded Prussia? The principle of reciprocity, if fairly and fully acted upon was a good one. He approved of the principle, but in point of fact it was never carried into effect in such a way as to give it a fair trial. Indeed it was impossible it could be, while the great article of corn continued subject to a duty. This country, from the narrow-minded policy of protection to her colonies and to her landed interest, refused to] admit the two great articles of Prussian export, her timber and her corn. It was; very natural that Prussia, one of their best customers, should retaliate, and accordingly she made efforts to shut out British manufactures from the markets of; Europe as well as from her own; and she had already prevailed upon most of the German governments to adopt her plan of exclusion. This was the natural result of the paltry, narrow-minded, commercial) policy of England. This was essentially 1210 a manufacturing country. Her greatness, her wealth, and power arose from, and must always depend upon, her manufactures. There was no instance in ancient or modern times of a country, exclusively agricultural that was not a poor country. Their greatness commenced with their manufactures, and these once overthrown, there must be an end to their prosperity as a trading and commercial nation. Seeing then, that their manufacturing industry could not prosper without foreign markets, in which it might be employed—seeing that they must be in a great measure excluded from these markets if they did not give free admission to foreign corn—was it not better to extend their manufactures, than to sacrifice them to a protecting duty for the benefit of the agricultural interests, which, after all, were not benefited, but in reality injured by it? The agriculturists would benefit more by the increase of home consumption, arising from the increase of manufacturing employment and manufacturing population, than they could by any duty of this kind. It was a great mistake to suppose that farmers depended entirely on the sale of corn for payment of their rent. In the neighbourhood of great commercial and manufacturing places they paid their rent by the sale of butter, cheese, milk, pork, poultry, and other articles, as well as corn. It was as much the interest of the landlords as of the farmers to have manufactures enlarged and increased as much as possible. It could be very easily shown that their rents increased in proportion to the increase of manufactures. Let manufactures go to decay, and the consequence must be that the manufacturers would be thrown upon the land for support, and the income of the landowners be eaten up by the Poor-rates. No class, therefore, of the community was more interested than the agriculturists themselves in supporting and advancing the manufacturing prosperity of the country. They should come forward without further delay, without regard to petty commercial jealousy, and set the example of a large and liberal commercial policy. If they did not do so, the other nations of Europe would ere long take the start of them in this matter. A petition not long back presented to the French Chamber of Deputies afforded ample proof of the growing intelligence of that country on matters of commercial policy. It was only recently that the most numerous 1211 public meeting that perhaps ever took place in France was held in Bordeaux. In the Resolutions come to upon this occasion they said to the French Government, "If you do not open our ports to allow the free exportation of our wines into the ports of England, and to receive in exchange their manufactures, we must cease to become a wine-producing country. The monopolies which it is the object of your commercial policy to support, do not benefit us. Confine these monopolies to the north of France; and let not their effects extend to us when they contribute to ruin in place of serving." Had this country long before now acted upon the principles of a wise and liberal policy, it would have been productive of the greatest good; they would see their manufactures flourishing, and be now receiving in return for them the produce of other nations. The nations of the Continent, and of the rest of the world, giving this country credit for great commercial experience and great commercial knowledge, were naturally disposed to look up to them for instruction, and to follow their example. This opinion led them to follow their bad examples, and to act upon narrow selfish views. If a sacrifice was to be made at all—if there was a necessity for it—why should it be made in favour of the wealthy landowners? Let fair play be given as to the food of the people, and he cared not for the amount of taxes to be raised for payment of the interest of the national debt, or for maintaining the necessary establishments of the country. This restriction upon the importation of corn, so far from enabling them better to meet these burthens, only crippled their exertions, and rendered them less capable of bearing up against new difficulties. Let them set a good example, and they might be assured that other states would very soon follow it. It was not on the article of corn alone that these mischievous and most impolitic restrictions were imposed. He held now in his hand a long list of articles, and of the duties imposed on the importation of each. It showed within what narrow limits they had confined what was called a principle of commercial liberality. There were several articles which were merely nominally taxed from twenty-five to twenty and ten per cent, and which might be done away to-morrow without the slightest injury to manufactures, as in the case of silk, flax, &c. No manufacture 1212 was protected above thirty per cent, with one exception, whilst there was a long list of articles of agricultural produce which the people of this country were absolutely prohibited from importing. The people of England were not allowed to exchange their labour for imported beef, pork, black cattle of any kind, fish, with one exception,—a foreign salt fish. He admitted, that salt fish was not an agricultural production, but it was an article of food; and he, therefore, classed it among the absurd restrictions we had of that kind. What right had the agriculturist to all these advantages? What right had he to say, that his timber, his hay, cider, cheese, straw, and tallow, should be protected? They were protected, however; and so jealous was he of anything entering into competition with him, that even the importation of asses was prohibited. Everything that tended to raise the price of food acted as a blight upon the industry of the country, and our Corn-law was a gratuitous blasting of the blessings which nature had put within our reach. He could easily conceive how it came to pass when the landed proprietors were the only lawmakers, when an Unreformed Parliament did not think itself bound to attend to the welfare of the whole community; but now that Parliameut was reformed—now that they were compelled to attend to the interests of weavers, of shoemakers, of cotton-spinners, of seamen; in short, of every class as well as to that of the owners of land; he could not conceive that these injurious restrictions upon the supply of food to the community, could be long kept up. It was the duty of a Reformed Parliament to do justice to all classes of its constituents, whatever their calling might be. The policy of our law, however, did not confine protection to British agriculture; it gave it also to various articles of British manufacture, upon which, in his opinion, it ought not to be continued. There were protecting duties imposed on brass, on buttons, on cables, on carriages, on clocks—no, clocks had recently been taken out of the lists,—on copper manufactures, on cotton manufactures, on earthenware, on glass, on iron in bars, and on various other articles imported from foreign countries. The list, in which these articles were enumerated, brought to his recollection the fact, that there were only two cases in which a protecting duty ought to be imposed; one of them was 1213 where the amount of duty was just equivalent to the amount of excise paid in this country; and the other, where it was imposed as a matter of revenue. Now, if a Government thought fit to raise a revenue of customs in that manner, the duty ought to be imposed upon articles for which all classes of the community were obliged to pay, and on which no one class could obtain an advantage over another. To him it appeared that, as the thing itself was mischievous, the very name of a protecting duty ought not to exist. With the advantages which the agricultural interest possessed as to cattle, wood, cheese, and various other commodities, it had no right to demand the continuance of a monopoly which had so long oppressed and afflicted the country. He considered the present as the most suitable time for attempting to get rid of that monopoly. There was at present no reason for any hurry. There was time for deliberation—they could consider the propriety of the change to be made without having anything to apprehend from excitement among the manufacturing classes. But could they hope to go on as they were going on at present—keeping up the price of food artificially, and shutting every foreign market against our manufactured goods, without creating great and permanent excitement among our manufacturing population? At present, there was only a question of time as to the abolition of the Corn-laws, except amongst a few ultra-landed gentlemen. Every person with whom he talked upon the subject, told him, "Things cannot go on much longer in this way; let us alone now, and consider how you can amend the Corn-laws at a future period, when we may be better off." To such arguments he had invariably answered, "No: this is the time for improving your Corn-laws, and unless you now consent to create a free trade in corn, and to keep your ports open at all times to the importation of it from foreign countries, you will not long enjoy the advantages which are now in your possession; you will cease to have the means of keeping in employment the millions of manufacturers whom you now employ, and yon will increase the poor-rates, of which you already have such a just horror, to an amount to which no man can affix a boundary." There was a limit to the numbers engaged in agriculture; but there was no limit to the numbers who might be employed in manufactures.—That being 1214 the case, the next point which came under his consideration was this—what is the best mode of making a change in the Corn-laws? That question he solved by saying—" Let us have a system of steady prices—let us have corn admitted at all times into our ports at such a price as will enable us to have plenty of it always to feed our population." He had never met any country gentleman who said, that he thought the present Corn-laws necessary for his own protection—no, the country gentleman only wanted them for the protection of the population at large. Now, when he looked back upon what had occurred since the Corn-laws were originally passed in 1815, he observed, that in spite of them, or perhaps, he should rather say, in consequence of them—the agriculturist had been regularly getting worse off. He would only refer to the table published by Lord Milton—a table which, he believed, to be perfectly correct—from which, it appeared that, for a long series of years, the higher the price of bread was, the worse off was the labouring population—ay, even that part of it which then obtained the highest wages,—he meant the agricultural population. He appealed to such hon. Members as had heard the arguments advanced in 1815, and again in 1828, in defence and support of the Corn-laws, and asked them, whether those arguments did not resolve themselves into this simple proposition,—" We must have these laws as a means of keeping the agricultural population comfortable?" Now, he would ask those hon. Members, "Were the agricultural population comfortable at present?" Nay, he would go further, and ask, "Could any set of men be in a worse situation than that in which they unfortunately now were?" It appeared then, that, under the protection of this monopolizing system of protection, the state of the agricultural labourers had been regularly deteriorating. Any change, therefore, in the Corn-laws must be better for them; and if the farmers would only judge for themselves, and apply their common sense to the investigation of the interested prejudices suggested by their landlords, they, too, would see that any change weald be better for them also, save where they were the holders of long leases. There were not many farmers leaseholders now; but, where leaseholders were found, there means should be taken to afford them the necessary relief. If he should succeed in creating a trade in corn 1215 with foreign countries, he believed that the average price of corn here would be nearly the same as it was now; if so, the landed proprietors would be benefited by the steadiness of prices which his proposition would produce, whilst the country would be less subject to the fear of famine, from having the whole world, and not one or two countries at most, enabled to supply us with the first necessary of life. What with deteriorated soils, suspended cultivation, diminished, and too often exhausted resources among the farmers, and want of employment among the labouring peasantry, nothing could be worse than the results of the existing Corn-laws. He saw a volume at that moment on the table containing details respecting the state of the Corn-laws in France. He would not make any remark upon it, but would merely mention that, in the latter part of it, there were several questions which bad been put to a person of the name of Johnson, and several of his answers. Mr. Johnson stated, that wages were now one-sixth less in France than they were here. If that were the case, it was an additional reason for our endeavouring to render the food of our population as cheap as possible. It appeared to him, that nothing would be so beneficial as to establish a trade in corn with foreign nations, and to admit their corn into our ports at a fixed duty. What, then, ought to be the amount of that duty? On a former occasion, when he had brought this subject under the notice of Parliament, he had proposed to commence with a duty of 15s. a quarter, to go down 1s. every year until it came at last to a point at which, if the agriculturists claimed it, the country must be prepared to do one of two things—either to relieve the agricultural interest from the taxes which pressed exclusively upon it, or to place a protecting duty to that amount upon the importation of foreign corn. The first course was that which he should prefer to follow. He had heard several gentlemen, who had opposed his former Motion on this subject, say, "that a fixed duty was that to which they must come," and express their sorrow that it had not been already adopted. He had the honour of reckoning the noble Lord, now the Under-Secretary for the Home Department as one of his supporters on this subject in the year 1826; he trusted that he should also reckon him as one of his supporters now. He was now 1216 of opinion, that the duty should commence at 10s., and that it should be decreased 1s. every year. He admitted, that that was but slow progress; but he would rather establish a right principle, and go on decreasing the duty slowly but gradually every year, than repeal the duty at once, and throw all classes into confusion and disturbance. If the duty were to be-repealed at once, such a repeal would, in all probability, be attended with disastrous consequences. He said, that if the landlords could show no right to a protecting duty, the people of England had a right to demand that the importation of foreign corn should be duty free. He also said, that the duties placed on other articles of foreign growth and manufacture for the protection of British articles of the same kind should be removed, and, in such a manner, as would cause the protecting duties on manufactured goods, &c., to expire on the same day with the protecting duties on foreign corn. From that day the prosperity of the country would take a start; and, instead of the gloomy anticipations in which some men were now indulging respecting the prospects of the country, all would be mirth and joy and cordial satisfaction. He had only one word more to add before he sat down. An hon. Gentleman in the morning sitting had insinuated that his interest lay in the funds. Now, if there was any one interest more than another from the prosperity of which he was likely to derive benefit, that interest was land. If he were mistaken in the sentiments which he had that evening explained to the House, it was, at any rate, an honest and disinterested mistake of which he had been guilty. He advocated a change in the Corn-laws, because he was convinced that, unless it were made landed property in England, would, in many cases, soon cease to be of any value whatever. On that ground, he should conclude, by moving the following resolution:—"That this House do resolve itself into a Committee of the whole House, to consider of the Corn-laws (9th George 4th, c. 60), and of substituting, instead of the present graduated scale of duties, a fixed and moderate duty on the import at all times of foreign corn into the United Kingdom; and for granting a fixed equivalent bounty on the export of corn from the I United Kingdom.
Colonel Torrenssaid, that, in rising to 1217 second the Motion of the hon. member for Middlesex, he should venture to express to the House the reasons which induced him to believe, that it was necessary for the prosperity and peace of the country gradually to abolish any restrictions upon the importation of human food. Upon a question so vitally and extensively important as the present, it was necessary to argue with the utmost caution, and to state the truth plainly and broadly, and distinctly, on both sides. The advocates of the agricultural interest had one argument—and he thought only one sound argument—to support their view of the question, and that argument amounted to this: that in a country like England, densely peopled with a manufacturing population, it was dangerous to trust the food and subsistence of that immense mass of people to a foreign supply of corn. That was the only argument the agriculturists had to use in support of their system He did not consider that argument a valid one. He did not believe the advocates of the agricultural interests themselves thought it a valid one, because they did not argue consistently with their own principle. If they wished the manufacturing population to be independent of foreign supplies of food, why did they resist the importation of foreign barley, and prevent the cultivation of what was essential for the food of man? If they wished to rely upon a supply of domestic food, why did they object to the introduction of sugar and molasses instead of malt, so that the ground now employed for the production of malt might be cultivated for the food of man? Thus they were not consistent in their arguments. They said they wished the country to be independent of a foreign supply of food; and yet they insisted upon the continuance of restrictions which were to cease if the land, being occupied in producing superfluities, prevented an independent supply of human food. The advocates of the agricultural interests said that the home market was the best for the manufacturer. This argument they urged strongly; but he would turn it against themselves, and would say, that if the home market was the best for the manufacturer, it was certainly the best for the agriculturist. The manufacturer of muslin, for instance, having great value in small bulk, could carry his commodity conveniently to a foreign market, and realise a large profit; but the manufacturer of corn and grass, having but little value in great bulk, could gain no profit by transporting his commodity 1218 to a foreign market; and therefore the home market was more advantageous to the agriculturist. Indeed it was the only one he could be sure to find. He should be borne out by history in the remark, that there never was a rich agricultural country which did not derive the source of its wealth from the manufacturing towns giving value to its produce. If the abolition of all restrictions upon the importation of human food and raw materials for manufacture should have the effect of greatly increasing the domestic market, and adding to the numbers of the manufacturing population, there would arise for agricultural produce a more extensive market; and, on the other hand, if restrictions upon the importation of human food and raw materials had the effect, as it must have the effect, of diminishing profits, lowering wages, and driving our manufacturing and commercial capital to countries more wisely governed than our own, the agriculturists would lose the domestic market, the only one which they now enjoyed, and were seeking by most unjust and impolitic means to monopolise. What, let him ask, would be the effect upon the rents of land if the manufacturing population of the country were doubled? What would be the effect of such a state of things upon the value and the rents of land? What would be the increased rent of houses? What would be the increased rent of ground for building, and of garden and pleasure grounds? What again would be the increased rent for ground for all productions of grass? He believed, that if the manufacturing population were thus increased, the rental of the kingdom would be thereby doubled. This would be the means of giving to the agriculturists a vastly increased value for their property, which they now sought to obtain by restriction and monopoly. Again he entreated the House to consider what would be the effect-upon the value and the rent of land if any disastrous cause were greatly to diminish the manufacturing population of the country? It was now supposed that the country required one-tenth of its consumption to be imported. Now supposing that one fifth of the manufacturing population were taken away, the agricultural community would be supplying a greater quantity than could be consumed, and then England, instead of being an importing country, would become what it had been before—a country exporting corn. In that case, he asked, where would be the 1219 rents of the landed proprietors, and their mortgages, and the value of their estates? England would become what Poland now was; the price here would fall to the level of that of Poland; and, instead of the price being higher here by the amount of carriage, it would be lower by the cost of carriage here than on the continent. England, he repeated, would become what Poland was now; the agriculturists would lose the value of their property; and commercial capital would fly to better regulated countries than our own, but the landlord would remain like giant Despair to survey the desolation he had wrought. He had hitherto argued the case on behalf of the agriculturists themselves. He had endeavoured to show that it was the interest of the landed proprietors to abandon the system which they endeavoured to maintain. The interest of the agricultural community was based upon the prosperity of the manufacturing and commercial classes; and if the agriculturists attempted to push monopoly too far, they would destroy their own prospects. But he would now ask the landed proprietors if they conceived that the immense masses of our manufacturing population would tolerate the system which they were desirous to perpetuate? It had been demonstrated, over and over again, that, in proportion as you increased the value of the produce of the soil in relation to the productions of the manufacturing classes, in the same proportion did you diminish the profits of manufacturers, and lower wages. Would the great towns allow the landed proprietors greatly to depress wages and profits, in order that they might increase their own rents? He told them, that the great towns would not let them act so, and it would be better for hem to be wise in their generation, and, while there was yet time, come to a settlement of the question. How could the landed proprietors attempt to stand upon the ground they had taken? Was any individual land-owner able to meet the argument which had been so often and so successfully laid down, that in a great manufacturing country there ought to be no restriction upon human food and the raw material of trade? However intelligent and enlightened the landed proprietors were—however versed in science, or gifted with genius, he defied them to contradict the proposition, that, in proportion as you increased the value of agricultural produce, you thereby lowered the wages of manufacturing labour, and diminished the rate 1220 of manufacturing and commercial profits. While this proposition was unrefuted, and incapable of being refuted—for he challenged all the landed proprietors in that House, or in the other House, or in the country, to disprove the demonstrations that had been made on the subject,—how, he asked, could the agriculturists attempt to continue the system? Did they think the industrious and intelligent people of England would allow themselves to be put down, even without a reason, for no reason was given? Those who were endeavouring to keep up the system of restriction and monopoly were contending against an irresistible power—they were contending against the power of knowledge, and struggling with the omnipotence of truth. He hoped his own peculiar and intelligent countrymen, the members for Ireland, would support a proposition for the total abolition of the Corn-laws. If they were consistent and true to their own principles, they would support a motion for the total abolition of the Corn-laws. [No, No.!] No, no! He said yes, yes; and he would show them why. The Irish patriotic and liberal Members loudly complained, and no doubt complained with justice, that absenteeism was a great evil, and that one cause of the poverty of Ireland was the great amount of rents which was withdrawn by absentees. Now, if they would let in Polish corn, rents would fall, less would be taken away, and more would remain in that unhappy country to feed the people. He had one gentleman in his eye, the representative of one of the greatest agricultural counties in the world, and he thought he had reason to reckon with confidence upon his support of such a measure. But these gentlemen-were also advocates of a Repeal of the Union, because they said, that they had no protection for their manufactures; and that, if the Union were repealed, they would put on a small protecting duty, and England, in return, would put a countervailing protecting duty upon her produce. But he said, that the abolition of the Corn-laws would produce the same effect; the people of Ireland might then prosecute their manufactures with success, because they would have labour so much cheaper. An hon. friend of his complained of the distress of the agricultural interests in Ireland. Now, as there were no poor rates in that country to oppress the fanner, and as wages were low, there could be no cause for that distress except the high rents of land; 1221 and there was nothing that would tend so effectually to lower that rent, and, consequently, to remove the distress, as allowing the people of England to have cheap corn. Therefore, he was sure that his hon. friends, the members for Ireland, would support the motion of the hon. member for Middlesex. But, putting all that aside, and coming to the real question before the House, he asked, was it possible to maintain the present Corn-laws in a great and intelligent manufacturing country? Was it possible to continue a system which tended to contract the foreign market for our manufactured goods, to lower the wages of labour, and to depress the profits of capital and commerce. He said it was impossible, and unless his hon. and learned friend, the member for Kircudbright, with all his ingenuity and intelligence, could show that wages and profits would not fall by raising the price of human food, he was sure he would say, with the candour which distinguished him, that the Corn-laws could not and ought not to be upheld. There never was a country so blessed with the elements of prosperity as England; with her coal mines spread over the country, more inestimable than gold and silver, giving, as it did, unequalled advantages in manufacturing for the foreign market. All we wanted was cheap corn, and in consequence of that want, the foreigner was enabled to enter into competition with us. We had cheap fuel; the foreigner had cheap corn. In Saxony some kinds of goods could be manufactured cheaper than at Manchester, and therefore the high price of food here robbed England of the advantages which she ought to enjoy in working up her manufactures. Some persons said, that the price of corn would not fall much in England if the Corn-laws were repealed. He cared not whether it did or not. He knew, if the price of corn did not fall here, it must rise on the continent, and thus the comparative disadvantage which we laboured under would be done away with, and England, when she had food as cheap as the foreigner, would derive the full advantage of the cheapness of her fuel. When it was said that those persons would deceive the people who endeavoured to persuade them that the abolition of the Corn-laws would give them cheaper bread, let that argument be pushed to the uttermost, he would answer, that we at present laboured under the disadvantage of dear food, and that if these laws were removed, we should reap 1222 the entire advantage of our cheap fuel. There was no possible limit to the prosperity of England, if the ports were only thrown open to foreign corn. Every quarter that was imported would be a payment for some manufactured goods of our own. With every importation of corn, the demand for our manufactures would increase. When we considered the agricultural resources of Russia and of the great continent of America, and compared the condition of England with those countries, the human imagination could set no limits to our prosperity, if we had cheap food, and an unrestricted supply of the raw material for our manufactures. He had endeavoured to draw a picture of the condition in which the country would stand, if the manufacturing population were doubled; but he was convinced that if these restrictions Were removed, the population would go on increasing as rapidly as the human constitution was capable, and would double itself in twenty-one years. Why was America so happy? Because, as population increased, it spread over that hitherto unreclaimed country, and food was cheaply raised. Why was England not so prosperous? Because she was hampered by restrictions upon the supply of food. Let this system only be relaxed—let the duties upon human food and raw materials be done away with, so as to give high wages and profits,—and he was convinced that capital and population would accumulate so rapidly that we should soon attain a degree of national prosperity which his imagination could not reach; and, which, therefore, he could not attempt to describe. He would say, in conclusion, that the landed proprietors of England were upon their trial. They must come forward in the face of an enlightened country, and say, that the demonstrations made by those who had philosophically investigated the subject contained some inherent fallacy; before they could establish a justification of the present system. They must show particularly that human labour could obtain high wages when employed in cultivating a soil which yielded barely sufficient for subsistence. They were upon their trial, and declamation would not do—[" Hear, Hear."] "Yes, hear it! "he said. The hon. member for Essex must produces demonstration that by increasing the value of corn the profits of labour and wages would not be diminished. Although he rose to second the Motion of the hon. member for Middlesex, yet if any one would show that the in 1223 creasing the value of corn would not lower the rate of profits and wages, he would vote for the continuance of the present system.
§ Sir James Grahamsaid, the hon. and gallant Gentleman who had just sat down had observed, that the landed interests of England were now upon their trial. He should be sorry if that great interest were to suffer, in consequence of its defence being intrusted to so feeble an advocate as himself, or from the hon. and gallant Member being one of the Jury; yet so satisfied was he of the strength of the cause, that he was not in the least afraid of the result of this evening's trial. The hon. and gallant Officer had taken upon him not only to point out the line of the trial but also to frame the issue, and to say that it was incumbent upon the landed interest to prove, that the continuance of the existing Corn-laws was for the interest of the country at large. He accepted that issue, and would endeavour to establish his case upon that footing. The gallant Officer had said, that declamation was useless. Declamation was not in his power; and if it were, he should not attempt it on this occasion. He would rather follow the example of his hon. friend, the member for Middlesex, who, he must say, had brought the question forward in a tone of calm and deliberate discussion, which it would be his duty to imitate, and from which he hoped that the House would not depart, notwithstanding the somewhat intemperate vehemence of the hon. and gallant Member. Before he went further he would observe, that there were two or three points in the speech of the hon. member for Middlesex, in which he had the pleasure to state his entire concurrence. The hon. Gentleman had said, that, in deciding this question, it was the duty of the House to consider what would be for the interest of the whole community. He should never take the view he did of this subject, if he were not convinced, in his mind and his conscience, that the maintenance of the existing Corn-laws was for the interest of the community at large, that interest being duly and dispassionately considered. He stood there as the representative of a large county, containing not only agricultural, but also extensive mining and manufacturing interests. He had the honour to represent that county both in and out of office; and he felt satisfied, that the 1224 opinions he was about to express were the opinions of an overwhelming majority of his constituents. The hon. member for Middlesex had said, that it was very difficult to draw a line between the interests of the manufacturing and agricultural population. This was a truth which it was impossible to deny; for, although at the first blush, it might appear that the Corn-laws were opposed to the welfare of the manufacturing population, yet, so difficult was it to draw the line between that which was likely to give prosperity to the agricultural, as distinguished from the manufacturing classes, that it might be assumed that these interests were identified, and that agricultural prosperity was the foundation of manufacturing and commercial prosperity also. If, therefore, he could show, that the proposition of the hon. member would be fatal to the landed interest, he should then contend, on the ground that all these interests were so interwoven as not to be separated, that any measure which would give a death-blow to the landed interest could not be consistent with the prosperity of the manufacturing or commercial classes of the country. The hon. member for Middlesex, in his first sentence, expressed a wish in which he cordially participated; namely, that this question might be settled; but then, the hon. Member had gone on to prove that it could be settled in one way only, and that was by a Repeal of the Corn-laws. This would be altogether inconsistent with the interest of the landed aristocracy, and of the farming interest also. Even if the aristocracy were swept away, and the connection of the farmer with them dissolved, the inevitable consequence must be, that the agricultural labourers would be thrown out of all employment. The hon. Member said, that perpetual changes were in themselves a serious evil; yet what had he recommended? Not a change once for all, but a progressive series of changes. The hon. Member did not take his stand upon a fixed duty, for he declared that a fixed duty was not his ultimate object, but a free trade in corn; thus taking the very course he ought, with any regard to consistency, specially to condemn. The hon. Member said, he would, in the first instance, have a fixed duty. He could not understand, by what solecism in language the hon. Member called that a fixed duty 1225 which was to descend at the rate of 1s., per annum, until totally abolished. The hon. Member's proposition was only a: medium between a sudden dissolution and a lingering death; and, in his opinion, the greater evil was the prolongation of uncertainty. The hon. Gentleman had said, that one great benefit which would result from a free-trade in corn would be, an increase of population; and in the same breath he alluded to a surplus population as an evil—and recommended emigration as a remedy. He (Sir J. Graham) did not rest upon the inconsistency of the argument alone, for he would state a fact, which, if the increase of population was a good, would show that that good had not been pre-vented by the Corn-laws, because the population had gone on progressively in-creasing under the existing Corn-laws. It was worthy of observation, that this change was sought for at a moment when the manufacturing population were in full employment, and when the only part of the population which was without employment was that consisting of the agricultural labourers. The hon. Gentleman said, he would consider this as a; British question; but, instead of doing so, he took more enlarged views of the subject, and considered it as a European question. To his (Sir J. Graham's) astonishment, he found, that the object of the hon. member for Middlesex was not to lower the price of corn, for he appeared to have thrown aside altogether the vulgar idea of cheap bread. The hon. Member called upon the landed interest to submit to a change which they thought 'destructive to their prosperity, and with-out the expectation of having bread at a lower price; for the hon. Member sup-posed that his measure would produce no such effect, nor would it lower the rate of wages, or increase the profits of the labouring classes generally. The object of the hon. Member appeared to be, to cause the agriculturists of the kingdom to incur the greatest risks for the space of two or three years, not with the view of lowering prices in England, but rather with a view of raising prices throughout Europe, and thus placing it more upon a level with every thing in England. He would not admit that the European policy of the hon. Member could be realised; and he would, therefore, prefer keeping the present moderate price of corn, and 1226 treat the subject only as a British question. The hon. Gentleman had said, that the present protecting duty had been so moderate, that on an average it had only amounted to 6s. 8d. per quarter, and stated that his measure would increase this duty to 10s. per quarter, and thus yield a greater revenue than was at present derived from that source. This was all very good if the question were to be viewed as a fiscal arrangement, on the admission that corn was a proper article to be taxed; but that House, in considering the measure as one calculated to benefit or injure the agricultural classes of the community, would view the subject differently. The hon. Member might think it a good tax; but that House would first consider whether it was consistent with the public good, and whether it" could be adopted with benefit and perfect safety to the landed interest. The two hon. Members who had spoken, had professed themselves to be warm friends of the landed interest, and said, that the proposed measure was politic, desirable, and even necessary to that interest. Now, whatever might be the imperfection of understanding in the landed gentlemen, he should contend, that in that which was conducive to their own interests, they were capable of forming a judgment for themselves, and would not take the opinions of the hon. Members in opposition to their own. He agreed with the hon. member for Middlesex, that it was not possible for any set of men to have a deeper interest in the employment of the labouring classes than the landed interest, for the value of the products of the country depended altogether on the labouring classes. If those classes were not contented, happy, and fully employed, there could be no safety for the State, and no security for individual property. For his own part, as a landed proprietor, he would not advocate any question which he thought inconsistent with the welfare of the great labouring body of the country, manufacturing as well as agricultural. The hon. member for Bolton (Colonel Torrens) argued, that if the landed interest ceased to grow corn, the land might be converted to produce other articles equally as profitable; such as butter, cheese, and wool; and large tracts might be converted into sheep-walks. It was proved, however, before the Committee of last Session, that the land likely to be 1227 thrown out of cultivation would be the cold clay land of England, which was incapable of being converted into sheep walks. It was a very remarkable circumstance, that that land in our southern counties, which had been longest in cultivation, was precisely that land which was capable only of growing corn. It was certain that some of this land was not suited to the growth of wheat, which required constant labour. The consequence of throwing this land out of cultivation would be, that it would cease to produce; and if that were the only evil, it would be considerable; but it was not. It could not be thrown out of cultivation without depriving of employment the whole mass of agricultural labourers. The hon. and gallant Officer, the member for Bolton, who seconded the motion, had stated, that the question had been always argued in that House speciously, and that hon. Members always regarded a secret interest under the garb of protecting the interest of the entire community. Now, it was an established fact, that no country in Europe, from the most wealthy to the very poorest, consumed anything like the same quantity of wheat, in proportion to their numbers, as the inhabitants of the United Kingdom. Therefore, in his opinion, it was of the very highest importance—nay, it was absolutely necessary to our safety—that our supply of wheat should be constant and abundant,—so abundant as to leave out the possibility of scarcity, so constant as not to put it in the power of a foreign country to injure or annoy us. It was absolutely necessary, that we should be entirely independent, and that the supply necessary we ourselves should grow, because we ourselves consumed it. On this subject he should quote an authority, which the gallant Officer himself would admit to be a high one—an authority, indeed, which was indisputable, one to whom economists ever bowed—the Coryphæus of free-trade—whose opinions were the corner-stone of it, and whose memory would ever be held in the highest possible respect so long as talent was valued in that House. It did so happen, that he was about to quote the opinions of a man who was generally looked upon as not very friendly to the landed interest—he meant the lamented Mr. Huskisson. That right hon. Gentleman had stated in a pamphlet—'The history of the country for 1228 the last one hundred and seventy years clearly proves, on the one hand, that cheapness produced by foreign import is the sure forerunner of scarcity; and, on the other, that a steady home supply is the only safe foundation of steady and moderate prices'. But Mr. Huskisson did not overlook the fact, that, in 1765, a remarkable change took place in our Corn-laws. From the reign of Charles 2nd, down to 1765, the policy of this country was to prohibit the importation of corn. There was a duty of 8s., when the price rose to 51s., which, at that period, was tantamount to a prohibition. On this subject Mr. Huskisson said, 'During upwards of 100 years, up to the year 1765, the import of foreign corn was restrained by very high duties. What was the state of the country during those 100 years?—That, in ordinary seasons our own growth supplied a stock of corn fully ample for our 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 gain to the farmer, and of starvation to the consumer;—that prices, instead of rising from year to year, 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 this salutary system! But, in 1765, it was most un-fortunately abandoned. What has been the result? Precisely the reverse of the former system. Instead of a steady supply, afforded at steady and mode-rate prices, we have witnessed frequent and alarming scarcities. Every year our dependence on foreign supply was in-creasing, 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. In the first eighteen years of this war, we were forced to pay sixty millions of money (to nations, every one of whom has, in the course of it, been an enemy) for a scanty and inadequate supply of foreign corn; and when, for this purpose, we had parted with all our gold, and even our silver currency, combined Europe shut its ports against 1229 us, and America co-operating, first laid an embargo, and then went to war.'
Now, what did he say further on this subject?—'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 frequently experienced, but in our maintaining ourselves habitually in-dependent of foreign supply. Let the bread we eat be the produce of corn grown among ourselves, and I, for one, 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 ensure to our own growers that protection against foreign import which has produced these blessings, and by which alone they can be permanently maintained.' Mr. Huskisson delivered these opinions in 1815, the period when the heavy restrictive duties were imposed.
§ Sir James GrahamWhen?
§ Sir James GrahamChange his opinions?
§ Sir James Grahamwould join issue with the hon. Member. He held in his hand the Report of the Agricultural Committee, drawn up in 1821,—drawn up, he believed, by Mr. Huskisson, and from it, he could, certainly, draw no such conclusion as that Mr. Huskisson had changed 1230 his opinions. Let the House remark, that he was now about to quote from a Report which was drawn up by the lamented Gentleman himself. Now, what were the remarks?—did they show any departure from the general principles previously laid down? The Report said, 'Your Committee are not insensible to the importance of securing the country from a state of dependence upon other, and possibly hostile, countries, for the subsistence of its population'. The terms were almost the same; and if they were not, he could assure the House, he would not, for the sake of obtaining an advantage in debate, have quoted one word, if he thought that, by so doing, he exposed the memory of that great statesman to the slightest taunt. The measure which now regulated the corntrade of the country, and which the hon. Gentleman found such fault with, was the measure of Mr. Huskisson. [Mr. Hume: No, no.] He would appeal to the right hon. Gentleman's colleagues—to hon. Members right and left—whether it was not a measure which he particularly favoured; whether the duty, as it now stood, was not his own suggestion; or, more correctly speaking, whether the scale of varying duties was not suggested by him, in direct contradistinction to a fixed scale, on the ground, that a fixed scale was highly dangerous, and wholly inapplicable when the landed interest most required protection—the season when the crops might happen to fail? He knew that to have been Mr. Huskisson's opinion, for he had it from himself. In his judgment, the great excellence of the present law was, that, as the price rose, the duty declined, thus giving both relief to the consumer, and protection to the agriculturist. The next point to which he (Sir James Graham) should allude, was, the nostrum prescribed by the hon. member for Middlesex, the ultimate effect of which would be, an absolute free trade in corn. It was a hardship, that, in debating important matters, terms were thoughtlessly, and sometimes flippantly, used, which ought never to have been used at all; and he should contend, that as the hon. Gentleman applied the words "free trade," they could have no meaning; such a thing as free trade did not exist. Mr. Huskisson himself never contemplated such a state of things; he never made any attempt at free trade;" he never applied the term 1231 "free trade" to his measures, but spoke of them as they really were—a substitution of protecting for prohibitory duties. What course did Mr. Huskisson take with respect to the silk trade? Did he make, or attempt to make, what was called a "free" trade in silk I He laid a duty of twenty-five per cent, or rather, the minimum was twenty-five per cent on silk, which, as far as certain goods—gauzes, he believed—were concerned, was afterwards raised, and was at the present time little below forty or fifty per cent. Now, this was what was called free trade. The hon. member for Middlesex had shown, that the only protection the agriculturists now had, did not amount to more than 6s. 8d. per quarter; and was that equal to the protection given to silk? And what, he would ask, were the grounds on which Mr. Huskisson defended the imposition of these duties? Expressly, that, as our manufactures were burthened by taxation, a protection as against France was not merely advisable, but necessary. He would show, that, in addition to the I general, there were also special burthens; pressing on agriculture, which required, that land should have a similar protection. Before he sat down, he would promise to the House to demonstrate that. Then, as to the argument of the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Hume), that the existing Cornlaw, compared with that of 1815. was incompatible with the commercial prosperity of the country, he would show, that a greater fallacy could not be entertained. He desired the particular attention of the House to this, as he did not wish to be misunderstood, and his argument was very capable of misrepresentation. He would show, that under the present law, there had been a considerable increase of exports to those countries which were the chief corn-growing countries,—such as Russia, Denmark, Prussia, Germany, the Netherlands, the British North American Colonies, and the United States of America. The whole exports to those countries (and he included all articles of whatever kind) in the year 1828, amounted to 27,472,000l. official value; and, in 1832, 35,216,000l.; being an increase of one-sixth during the period that the present Corn-law had been in existence. But, perhaps, it would be fair to state the British and Irish exports only, and the hon. Gentleman might have the declared or official value, or both, just as he liked. 1232 [Mr. Hume: The official.] Very well; the official. In 1828, the official value of exports of British and Irish produce, was 21,275,000l.; in 1832, the value rose to 28,031,000l.; showing an increase of seven millions, during the time that these decried laws had been in operation. He must beg to state another argument. The hon. member for Middlesex had undertaken to point out all the burthens to which the landed interest was peculiarly exposed; but he really thought, that the hon. Member had understated the case which might be made out on their behalf. The hon. Gentleman actually asserted, that he knew of no tax which bore directly on the land. The hon. Gentleman had wholly—he had entirely overlooked one little tax, called the "Land-tax," which, at the present time, amounted to not less than 2,000,000l. The hon. Gentleman had expressed a doubt, too, on the subject of tithe—whether or not it bore exclusively on the land. Wishing to resolve the doubts of the hon. Gentleman, he would beg leave to quote an authority of some considerable standing on the subject. Mr. Ricardo said thus:—'The growers of corn are subject to some of these peculiar taxes, such as tithes, a portion of the poor-rate, and, perhaps, one or two other taxes, all of which tend to raise the price of corn, and other raw produce equal to these peculiar burthens. In the degree, then, in which these taxes raise the price of corn, a duty should be imposed on its importation. If from this cause, it be raised 10s. per quarter, a duty of 10s. should be imposed on the importation of foreign corn, and a drawback of the I same amount should be allowed on the exportation of corn. By means of this duty, and this drawback, the trade would be placed on the same footing as if it had never been taxed; and we should be quite sure, that capital would neither be injuriously, for the interests of the country, attracted towards, nor repelled from it. The greatest benefit results to a country when its Government forbears to give encouragement, or oppose obstacles, in the way of any disposition of capital which the proprietor may think most advantageous to him. By imposing tithes, &c, on the farmer exclusively, no obstacle would be opposed to him, if there were no foreign competition, because he would be able to raise the price of his produce; and if he could not do so, 1233 he would quit a trade which no longer afforded him the usual and ordinary pro-fits of all other trades. But, if importation was allowed, an undue encouragement would be given to the importation of foreign corn, unless the foreign commodity were subject to the same duty, equal to tithes or any other exclusive tax, as that imposed on the home-grower'. The hon. Gentleman surely could not be doubtful now on the subject of tithes, or assert, that land was not subject to direct burthens. There was tithe to pay—there was the Land-tax—simply two millions—the Malt-duty, no very trifling impost—county rates, which, in fact, put the landed proprietors in the place of public prosecutor; these were the burthens resting solely on the land. But he would only refer to tithe and poor-rate, of the amount of which he happened to have an estimate, which had been given him, in some degree, as an award by the Legislature, and which set these burthens down at three-and-thirty per cent on the amount of rental. [Mr. Hume: Three-and-thirty on the rental?] The amount was three-and-thirty; and as the hon. Gentleman seemed to be taken by surprise, he would call his attention to the time and circumstance when the award, as he termed it, had been made. At the time that the Property-tax was imposed, 1s. 6d. in the pound was charged as the farmer's share. Scotland remonstrated against this, on the ground, that tithe and poor-rate were both computed in their rent, which was not the case in England, and the consequence was, that, after a fair consideration of the question, the tax was reduced to Is. in the pound for the farmers of Scotland, and maintained at 1s. 6d. for the English farmers. Therefore, as he before stated, the Legislature had decided, that the amount of tithe and poor-rate was thirty-three per cent on rental. He presumed, that the hon. member for Middlesex would get over that difficulty by telling the House, that it was proposed to have a commutation of tithe; but even, supposing that accomplished, which it was not, and could not be for some time, still he would say, that tithe was a charge upon land, and never could cease to be one of its burthens. If argument founded upon the expected commutation of tithes was good for anything, it was far more powerful against the Motion than in its favour; for what did it come to? Nothing 1234 more nor less than this—" You are on the eve of making great changes, which, when they come into operation, will permit the free importation of corn upon just principles and without injury to any one; but, by all means, take care that you admit the foreign corn before those circumstances take place which alone can justify that admission." Let not the House forget that the hon. Member had, in express terms, admitted, nay, unhesitatingly avowed, that his Motion was but a stepping-stone to perfect freedom of trade; but, in the meanwhile, that stepping-stone was to be a resting place, and one of some duration too. Did he suppose, then, that during the long interval which of necessity must elapse between the alteration of the present law and the establishment of the hon. Member's fondest hopes, popular discontent could be prevented? Did he or did any man suppose that a fixed duty would give satisfaction to the people at large? What their sentiments were on the subject there was, he believed, no reason to doubt. Very conclusive evidence of the prevailing opinion out of doors was to be found in the columns of a leading journal, which, while it greatly influenced the public feeling, was a pretty sure index of its nature and tendencies. He should now read from the journal to which he had been alluding, a passage the most condemnatory of a fixed duty that it was possible to conceive:—'As to a "fixed "duty, it is neither more nor less than a fixed evil—a fixed discouragement of manufactures—a fixed robbery of the consumer by the producer—a fixed bounty upon foreign industry, to the detriment of British—a fixed aggravation of the burthen of the Poor-laws—a fixed monopoly of subsistence against a hungry multitude'. The hon. Gentleman would probably desire no better proof of the utter insufficiency of his plan to produce content in the public mind, than was to be derived from the extract which the House had just heard; but he seemed to think, and perhaps justly, that the proposed alteration in the Corn-laws would have the effect for a time of raising prices. The hon. member for Middlesex had more than once declared, that the effect of an alteration in the Corn-laws would be to raise prices abroad. But he was prepared to prove, that a free trade in corn would raise prices here, and 1235 not abroad. And what was the fact?—In the year 1673, the trade in corn was perfectly free, and the average price was 53s. The corn-trade was then restricted, and the prices gradually fell. From 1700 to 1735, the price, in the earlier part of that period, was 39s. 2d.; in the latter, 34s. 10½d. From 1766 to 1774, they had eight years of free trade; and he begged attention to the consequence; the average price was 50s. 10d., being a difference of 15s. In 1773, there was an alteration of the law not very material to the question under consideration, and the price from that to 1791, was 49s. 2½d., being a difference of 13s. 4d. From these facts it was evident that the operation of free trade was to produce fluctuations and high prices, while the effect of an opposite system was uniformity and steadiness. To refer to what he conceived likely to be the evils of the change, the first effect, if it should ever be carried into operation, would be to throw land out of cultivation, and diminish the demand for agricultural labour; and he would ask, what then was to become of our surplus population? Those labourers would cease to consume to the same extent as if they were employed; the shop-keepers would suffer; and they would make fewer demands on the manufacturers. It would therefore immediately operate upon the manufacturing classes, diminishing the demand for their productions, and producing a depression of wages. That again must act injuriously upon the interests of agriculture, by diminishing the demand for agricultural produce, and depressing the wages of the agricultural labourers; and so the whole operation would proceed in a vicious circle, and one body of labourers would go on displacing another, until the manufacturing interests themselves would be forward to regret, that there ever had been a free trade in corn; and he hesitated not to predict, that the ultimate effect would be the total destruction of the manufacturing interest of the country by destroying the home market. He did not undervalue the foreign market; it was the great stimulus to manufactures; but the zeal to extend it should not lead to the destruction of the home market, which would be fatal to the prosperity of all. The hon. member for Bolton had made an appeal to the Irish Members on behalf of the Motion then before the House—he, too, would appeal 1236 to the same parties, confident that they would see that the true interests of their constituents were identified with the maintenance of the present system. The hon. and gallant Member had stated, that there was a resemblance in the situation of Ireland and Poland, as to the export trade in corn of those two countries. The parallel was more strictly correct than the hon. and gallant Member seemed, by his afterwards relinquishing it so apprehensively, to imagine. He had sought with much pains accurate data, to institute a comparison in this respect, both as to prices of corn in Ireland and in Poland, during a certain period. He quoted from an authority, he hoped altogether unimpeachable, the house of Armand and Verny, of Dantzig, in Poland, which assured him, that there was above one-third of that vast country waste, and that great tracts of country were now thrown in pasture for want of a market. The issue of these inquiries as to the probability of receiving an adequate supply of corn from Ireland to meet our deficiency in cases of short harvests, was, that a great quantity of land was also waste in that part of the United Kingdom. It was represented, that in Poland, from peculiar circumstances, a great quantity of corn was habitually consumed by the cattle. It was also the opinion of these intelligent gentlemen, that Poland would export perhaps three times as much corn as was now exported, without growing a single blade more. The returns of the prices of corn during the years 1832 and 1833, in the province of Volhynia, enabled him to strike the average price for that period at from 36s. to 38s. per quarter. The prices in Ireland, in 1833, were, for wheat, 41s. 6d.; for barley, 26s. 7d.; oats, 12s. 6d. the English quarter; but the average for the last two months was as closely as possible the same as in Poland, being 37s. 4d. a quarter, which also was about the same price it bore in Canada. Would the House, then, taking the European view of the hon. member for Middlesex, and disregarding Ireland and our colonial possessions, prefer the produce of foreign countries to the produce of his Majesty's dominions, Let it be remembered, that our North American colonies were the outlets for our surplus population; and the question was, he repeated, whether they should be cultivated, or Poland. He could not hesitate, and 1237 he now would appeal to Irish Gentlemen, whether they would not prefer that our supplies should be drawn, in cases of emergency, from Ireland or our colonies in America—a great and rising country—to importing it from a foreign country? "Encourage (he said) the growth of wheat, above all things, in Ireland. I rejoice in the ports of this country being open to Irish corn; and I hope sincerely, that her full participation in the benefits of our trade and our institutions will render the Union between the countries perpetual, which I believe never can be safely calculated upon, unless we secure to Ireland all the advantages of the English market." The hon. member for Middlesex had stated, that prices were kept so high as to interfere with the manufacturing interest. That assertion could only be controverted by facts, and to facts he would appeal. He ventured to predict, on the restoration of the ancient standard of value, that the price of wheat in this country could not exceed the average price of the last century, as judged by the same standard. What was its average price during the last century? It was 50s. From the restoration of the standard in the reign of William 3rd, down to the year 1792, there was no quinquennial period in which it exceeded 49s. 11d. During the last six weeks, with a regulated duty, it had actually been 48s. 11d.,—Is. less. That fact was conclusive of this point,—that an exorbitant price of corn was physically impossible. A scarcity, indeed, might arise from the vicissitudes of seasons, under the existing law, and the price might be raised at home; yet, in that case, importation was not only not prohibited, but it was even favoured. But in years of average production, it was his belief, judging from both theory and experience, that the price could not exceed 50s. the quarter. He was not disposed to weary the House by recapitulating the evidence taken before the Agricultural Committee of last year; its tendency was to this effect,—that rent, and all prices, were rapidly accommodating themselves to the existing standard. The opinion expressed by the Committee was, that no sudden or hasty interference should take place; that much individual suffering, indeed, must occur, but that the general tendency of things was to settle down to a steadiness of price. He hoped, then, that as a deliberative assembly, the House 1238 would pause and consider seriously before it deranged a matter of such importance; involving, in that confusion which must attend all rash experiments, the price of agricultural produce. As the organ of the Committee in question, he stated, that steadiness of price was above all things to be considered; that it was the primary object never again to be overlooked. The Committee, in their Report, not only delivered that opinion, but endeavoured to trace—and to trace with precision—what had been the effect of the present law in that respect. From the account given by the Committee, the following statement, showing the aggregate average price of each quinquennial period between 1797 (when first any approximation was made to accurate official returns of the average price of corn throughout England) and 1833, and the percentage of each variation—omitting the intermediate period, between 1826 and 1829, when the existing law came into operation; had been drawn up:—
He begged the attention of the House to the evidence afforded by this statement. In the five years, 1822–26, when, at precisely the same period, the restriction law of 1815 was in operation, and a great alteration had taken place in the value of money, then the price of wheat fell, as will be seen, from 74s. to 56s. the quarter, and the variation became reduced from 143 per cent to 81 per cent. But, during the five years 1829–33, the price of corn being 61s. 8d. the variation only reached 49 per cent. Were it necessary to push these arguments further, he was in a condition to extend them so as to prove, to most incontestible demonstration, the superiority of our present law, as regarded steadiness of price, to even a free importation of corn,—the measure contended for by the hon. member for Middlesex. He would next compare our prices to those of Rotterdam; and he appealed to the hon. member for Essex to say whether he could take a fairer market for this purpose than that of Rotterdam, where there existed a perfect free trade in corn? In the five years to which he had just alluded, the 1239 variation in the English market being 49 per cent, the variation in that of Rotterdam was 91 per cent. The hon. Gentleman might say, that the extreme variation in former periods had arisen from the disturbed state of the English corn-market, induced by war; but let him remind the House, that the hon. Member called upon it to revive that very state of things; for his recommendation was, to place the country in that condition of dependence on foreign importation, in which the caprice or misgovernment of any neighbouring State might derange our whole policy. The hon. member for Bolton appeared to think the question before them was a landlord's question. That was the opinion of many other persons, and, therefore, to that he should apply himself. Few, perhaps, there had waded through the whole contents of that voluminous report of the Agricultural Committee; but many persons had attended pretty steadily throughout the examination detailed in its pages, and they and the hon. Member would recollect the examination and evidence of a very intelligent witness—Mr. Oliver. He had been asked whether, when once rent and prices had accommodated themselves to the change in the circulating medium, the Corn-laws would not become a landlord's question? To which he had replied in the affirmative, and remarked, that labourerswages would not afterwards be very materially affected, and, consequently, they would not be particularly interested in the question. Upon matuver thought, however, that gentleman changed his opinion, and when cross-examined, he acknowledged his first declaration to have required qualification, and admitted that the labourers were as much interested in the question as the landlords. He stated, that if 3,000,000 quarters of corn were imported into the country, the number of labourers who would be thrown out of employment must, of course, depend upon the number of acres of land necessary to produce so much marketable corn, and the inutility of the land so thrown out of culture. In a former part of his evidence he stated, that twelve bushels for each acre producing corn was required for seed and feeding farm horses, and, consequently, the marketable corn was the excess of the gross produce over twelve bushels per acre. If, then, it were supposed, that land producing eighteen bushels per acre would be thrown out 1240 of cultivation, it followed, that the extent would be one acre for each six bushels of the quantity assumed to be imported, which would give, in round numbers, 4,000,000 of acres. Assuming, then, that the land to be thrown out of cultivation in the case put, would be equal to the production of 24 bushels per acre, the extent thrown out would be 2,000,000 of acres; and if the gross consumption of the empire, or the gross produce, at the usual Estimate of 50,000,000, were divided by 36 (the estimated average number of bushels produced per acre) it would give 18,000,000 of acres as the land annually producing corn. The quantity of land which would thus be rendered unsusceptible of culture by the annual importation of 3,000,000 quarters, would be 2,000,000 or about one-ninth part of the land now under corn crops, and, according to the proportion of the population dependent on agriculture, as ascertained by the last census, it followed, that between 900,000 and 1,000,000 of individuals would be deprived of their present means of subsistence, of whom about one-fourth part, or say from 200,000 to 250,000 might be considered labourers. After that statement, he (Sir James Graham) would confidently ask the House, was that a landlord's question which he advocated? To him it seemed so much to involve the good of the labourers, that he dreaded, by meddling with it, to derange the present system, and involve them in ruin, and the country in disaster. The economists, however, had a cure for these evils; but, the present, he confessed, was one of those questions on which he felt himself compelled to differ front that class of enlightened and ingenious men, for whom, on all other questions, he entertained great respect. There was no question in which they pushed their theories to a more dangerous length than that of the corn trade; their argument being, that the hands thrown out of employment by the free admission of foreign grain must be elsewhere absorbed. He would appeal to the hon. member for Oldham, than whom no one was better acquainted with the circumstances and habits of the rural population, and he should judge between him and the economists, whether any absurdity could be greater than the supposition, that the ploughman was capable of being made to spin. Let them conceive his iron hands manipulating cotton,—his 1241 ponderous strength stooping to manufacture bobbin-net, and his hardened constitution, accustomed to all the vicissitudes of climate, transplanted to the atmosphere of a workshop,—and they would feel that such speculations were impracticable;—that they might, indeed, serve well enough for clay dreams to the political economists, but that nature herself would rebel against the attempt to carry them into execution. There was one other subject at which he wished to glance before he sat down, which was most satisfactorily established in the evidence given before the Committee last year,—he meant the thriving condition of the artisans and labourers employed in manufactures. He knew, indeed, that there were, as there must be, exceptions,—that some honest men, able and willing to work, could not obtain employment; but he spoke of their general state. It was admitted on all hands, that they were, so speaking, fully employed; for, indeed, it was precisely among those occupied on land, that the surplus labour was found. He was aware that he might be taunted with having used, in reference to the restoration of the standard of value, an argument which went to show that the condition of the labourer would be injured by that change; he admitted, that he was then, and that he had since been, overborne by the force of evidence; but he denied that the falsification of his opinions upon that occasion at all invalidated the line of argument he adopted on the present; the result, though different from what he had anticipated, had been most gratifying. He had to state a very remarkable instance to show, contrary to the opinion of the hon. member for Middlesex, that while wages had risen, the price of bread and other articles of subsistence had sustained a great diminution. The case which he was about to instance, was that of the strike which had recently occurred among the journeymen coopers. About a month ago they struck for an advance of wages, though the masters had, at different periods, within the last twenty years, made them an advance. The masters conceiving that they had already advanced their wages as far as was consistent with the profits of the trade, and that their present demand was an exorbitant one, refused to accede to it; and as there was a great demand at that time for casks, the master coopers, not knowing well what to do, came to the Admiralty, 1242 and requested to be supplied with store-casks from the King's Yards; and to prove that the demand was an exorbitant one, they put into his (Sir J. Graham's) possession the paper he now held in his hand. The hon. Baronet then read the following extract from the paper in question:—
Quinquennial Period. Average. Variation. s. d. 1797–1801 70 1 220 per cent 1802–1806 69 9 100 1807–1811 88 5 74 1812–1816 82 2 183 1817–1821 74 0 143 1822–1826 56 1 81 1829–1835 61 8 49 To explain the above to those who are not in the trade. Suppose a man to make, for his week's work, two of each kind of casks, as above, and the man and his family consume seven quartern loaves, and seven pots of porter weekly (their basis of wages), it would stand thus:—
(Making, with Common Hoops). 1813. 1816. 1819. 1825. 1834. s. d. s. d. s. d. s. d. s. d. Stout butts 4 10 3 7 3 10 3 11 4 6 Ditto puncheons 2 10 2 9 2 9 3 0 3 6 Ditto hogsheads. 2 5 2 2 2 4 2 6 2 10 Ditto barrels 2 2 2 0 2 0 2 3 2 7 Ditto kilderkins 1 9 1 8 1 8 2 0 2 4 Firkins 1 7 1 6 1 6 1 7 1 10 X hogsheads 2 3 2 0 2 2 2 2 2 4 Ditto barrels 1 11 1 10 1 10 1 11 2 2 Bread, per quartern 1 6½ 1 1½ 0 11½ 0 10½ 0 9¼ Porter, per pot 0 6 0 4½ 0 5½ 0 5½ 0 4 It would be seen from this list, that the wages of the men fell a little in 1816, the effect, no doubt, of a well known monetary operation of the time. But now, in the year 1834, when the men struck and refused to work, what were the wages they received, and what was the comparative 1243 price of those articles of subsistence upon which, as a basis, their wages had been originally fixed? The wages that they now received amounted to 21. 4s. 2d. per week, while the price of bread and beer (taking the amount to be consumed by a man and his family in the week) had fallen from 14s. 3½d., which was the price in 1813, to 7s. 8d., which was the price at the present period. The simple facts which that document stated spoke for themselves; they were so conclusive, and so entirely confirmatory of what he had advanced, that he was sure nothing was required to add to the force of them. He was certain, that-they would produce but one opinion in the House with regard to the necessity of such a Motion as that now brought forward by his hon. friend, the member for Middlesex. He had now gone through the principal part of the arguments which he had deemed it his duty to address to the House in opposition to the Motion of that hon. Member. He was about to come now to a part of the question of rather a delicate nature, but he felt, that he should be betraying his duty if he did not advert to it. The point to which he was going to allude was this—that it was impossible to regard this question of an alteration in the Corn-laws without a reference to the political considerations connected with it. He conceived, that those relations between tenant and landlord, and between farmer and labourer, which still existed in the rural districts of this country, were ties of great importance, ties which existed with comparative laxity in the manufacturing districts, and which were essentially interwoven with the greatness, the security, and the prosperity of the country. He should regret, as he had no doubt the House would regret, exceedingly to see those ties at all loosened in the agricultural district of England. He had endeavoured to show, that the question under discussion was not a landlord's question solely, as it had been so frequently represented, but that the considerations connected with it were bound up with the interests and welfare of the community at large. It was a question with regard to which, if they should take one false step, the ruin of the landlords would not be the sole consequence—they would involve in their common ruin the great farming interest of England. It was not to the agricultural interest only that great danger was to be apprehended 1244 from such an alteration as the hon. Member proposed in the Corn-laws. It was his solemn and firm opinion, that if such an alteration should be carried into effect, the whole frame of society now existing in this country would receive an irreparable shock—a shock to which he was not disposed to subject it. He had already said, that, with respect to the effects produced by the alteration made in the standard of value, he had made, in a statement which he had formerly put forth on that subject, one mistake. He had, in offering a prediction on the subject, gone somewhat too far, as was often the case with those who attempted to foretell the future effects of measures. He had said, that the alteration in the standard of value would be the ruin of the labourer, and that it would be productive of great danger to the landed interest. He had frankly stated where he thought he had been wrong in that prediction,—would to God he had been wrong in the latter point! So far from his having been wrong upon that point, all that had since occurred had only tended to confirm the statement which he then put forth on the subject; all the previous family engagements, all the mortgages of those connected with the landed interest, had been actually increased by the alteration effected in the standard of value. The hon. member for Essex, he remembered, was then wise among the few. He then foretold what would happen as regarded the landed interest, and he had never heard the hon. Member retract what he then said. That hon. Member had sincerely stated, at the time, what, he conceived, would be the effect of the proposed alteration in the standard of value, and subsequent events had confirmed the wisdom of his predictions. The landlords were obliged to reduce their rents equivalent to the altered value of money; they were obliged to reduce their means of meeting their engagements, while the weight of their fixed engagements, instead of being diminished, was actually increased by the alteration effected in the standard of value. He concurred in what was stated on that point in the Report of the Agricultural Committee of last Session. In fact, he drew up the Report that was agreed to by that Committee. He had stated, in that report, that a matter which, according to the time presented for its consideration, might be 1245 but a trifling injustice in 1826 and 1827, would be an overwhelming and most indefensible injustice in 1833; that the landed interest having gone through a state of suffering, and having accommodated itself to the existing state of things, it would be gross injustice to subject it to such another ordeal; and that the opinion of the House should be fearlessly expressed in support of the stability of an interest of more importance than any other interest in the country. He was now prepared to do what, he then called upon the House to do—he was prepared to stand by the existing Corn-laws, and to resist any the first inroad which might be attempted to be made upon them. As an honest man, he felt it his duty to resist, and to resist to the utmost of his power, any measure which went to create a sudden simultaneous reduction of rent. It was admitted by the hon. member for Middlesex, that the effect of such a measure as that which he proposed, would be a reduction of twenty per cent, in the rent of land. Now, would the House take a step calculated to produce such an effect as that? If the effect of the proposed measure should be to reduce rents twenty per cent, he spoke advisedly, when he said, that two-thirds of the landed property of England would at once change hands. Now, he conceived, that a measure, pregnant with such effects, was nothing short of injustice, and to any such measure he would not give his support. He did not think that it could possibly be any benefit to the State that a great change of proprietors should thus suddenly and simultaneously take place; it would be attended with great individual suffering—with much individual injustice. How far soever those evils might eventually attend such a large and extensive change, brought about under any circumstances, yet if it took place gradually—if large capitals should be brought to bear quietly and peaceably on the purchase of land—if an immense mass of land should not be thrown together into the market,—those necessary evils would be greatly mitigated, and the suffering occasioned by such a gradual transmutation would be comparatively slight. But if the House were, in one night, to change the existing system of the Corn-laws, the injustice thereby produced would be immense, and the danger beyond calculation. However unjust such a change in the property of the country 1246 might be under any circumstances, if gradual and not sudden, it might be safe. But, in the present instance, the change would be at once dangerous and overwhelming. He would repeat, that such a sudden change would be equivalent to an agrarian law—it would be a complete change in the existing frame of society. These were the considerations which weighed with him principally in opposing this Motion—considerations which could never be dissociated from such a measure as that now proposed. It was a measure, he would be bold to say, that would not be beneficial to the community at large, for no measure could possibly be productive of general benefit which was calculated, like the present, to bring about a great change of property—to effect great individual misery, and to produce the total destruction of an entire class of the community. It would be no small evil, when such a change would produce the destruction of an entire class of the community; and when such a class was the agricultural interest—the most important class of all. His solemn opinion was, that its destruction would be the destruction of the state itself.
Wages. Bread and Beer. £ s d. s. d. 1813 1 17 10 14 3 1816 1 15 0 10 5 1819 1 16 2 9 11 1825 1 18 8 8 10 (Now demanded) 1834 2 4 2 7 8 Meat, and other articles in proportion."
§ Mr. Feargus O'Connorsaid, that although he should oppose the Motion of the hon. member for Middlesex, still, he agreed with that hon. Member, that the question was one that ought to be immediately settled. If foreign corn were admitted free of duty into Ireland, it would do the greatest injury to that country, which was essentially agricultural, and would throw out of employment immense numbers of persons engaged in agricultural pursuits. The people of Ireland were now but poor consumers; but, if they were thrown out of the corn market, they would be still poorer consumers both of English and Irish natural or manufactured produce. Irish exports, such as butter, pork, &c. were, upon an average, one-third less in price than they were during the war. They were told that this measure would give cheap food; but what was the use of having bread at 5d. the quartern loaf instead of 11d., if people should be thrown out of employment, or their wages reduced in the same proportion as the cost of bread? It had been said, that the Irish Members would be unanimous in support of this measure, but he would say, that they would, as they ought to be, unanimous in opposing it He considered 1247 that he was expressing the opinion of the great body of Irish Members when he stated, that the agitation of this question in that House would cause great mischief in Ireland, particularly if it were found in that country that the present Motion was not resisted by a great majority of that House. This was the only question on which he had ever addressed that House, in which the interests both of Ireland and England were united. If the result of the measure was only to give cheap bread, he did not see how, at the same time, the standard of rent could be kept up. He thought that, as the Representative of one of the largest agricultural interests in the country, he was entitled to a patient hearing from the House; and the more so, that in treating this question, he did not mix it up with any extraneous matters. However, he would merely appeal to the Irish Members in that House, and ask them not to be led away by the arguments or eloquence of hon. Members opposite. He would not further take up the time of the House than to call upon the Irish Members to consider this question as a national one, and, as such, not to give up, by supporting the Motion, an important portion of their rights and privileges.
§ Mr. Richardssaid, after the powerful speech of the right hon. Baronet, the First Lord of the Admiralty, a speech which did the greatest credit both to his talents and industry, it was not his intention to trouble the House at any length on the subject of the Motion of the hon. member for Middlesex. But there was one point which the right hon. Baronet had left unnoticed, on which he would make a few observations. The right hon. Baronet stated truly, that agriculture had peculiar burthens; but he omitted to state that, in the very nature of things, agriculture, in reference to foreign competition, was much less able to support excessive taxation than commerce and manufactures. The raising corn was a simple operation. The boors of Poland and of Russia knew how to grow wheat almost as well as the most skilful farmers in England. In fact, the manner of raising corn had not much improved since the days of Virgil. It mattered not, that the implements of husbandry, in many parts of the continent, were rude and misshapen; these implements answered sufficiently well the purposes for which they were used. Again, the division of labour in agriculture could not, easily, be carried to the same extent 1248 as in manufactures. The same individual was commonly found to plough, and harrow, and sow, and reap, and thresh; and, therefore, it was vain to expect equal skill and despatch in husbandry labour as in manufactures, where labour was generally divided and subdivided to an astonishing degree. When, to this, was added the astonishing increase in mechanical and manufacturing power, by the wonderful discoveries made by such men as Watt, and Arkwright, and Dalton, the House would not fail to see the wide difference in the ability to sustain foreign competition, between agriculture and manufactures. But, in regard to manufactures, we possessed natural advantages beyond almost all other countries. We had abundance of fuel, and a climate which admitted of great and long-continued exertion. And, in point of fact, notwithstanding our enormous taxation, we were able, in manufactures, not merely to compete with, but to take the lead of, all the nations of the world. To manufactures, therefore, the principles of free trade, might be safely applicable; but the same thing would not be safe for agriculture. If the ports were to be opened for the free admission of foreign grain, the agriculturists of the United Kingdom would be placed in circumstances of the most unjust and perilous kind. From our general and local taxation we could not raise corn as cheap as the foreigner. If, then, the ports were opened, the corn grown abroad would drive much of the land at home out of cultivation. The price of corn abroad would rise in the same proportion as the price here would fall. The price of corn, in the markets of Europe, would—the cost of freight and the merchant's profit excepted—find a common level. In the same degree that agriculture would be encouraged abroad, it would be discouraged at home. Landlords and farmers would alike be ruined; farms would be deserted; thousands of husbandry labourers would be thrown out of employment; and the Poor-rates would prodigiously increase, whilst the number of those able to pay rates would diminish; discontent and disaffection would spread over the country, and neither property nor life would be secure. The hon. member for Middlesex advocated the repeal of the Corn-laws, because he wished the people to eat cheap bread. He had the same wish; but he dreaded lest the attempt to make it cheaper should make it dearer, and even incur the risk of having no bread at all. If a great country like this were 1249 so far to change its policy, as to become dependent for a large portion of its food on foreign countries, circumstances might arise of the most dangerous and frightful description. Reduce the general and local taxation, and lower the cost of production, and then they might safely adopt the Motion of the hon. member for Middlesex; but the advocates for a free trade in corn began at the wrong end. The great error of the hon. member for Middlesex was, to disregard circumstances, which made that fit and proper in one state of things, totally unfit and improper in another. The natural state of the corn-trade would be that of absolute and complete freedom; but it was little short of madness to expect the British farmer, loaded with rates and taxes, to sell his grain at the same price as the foreigner. Again, the hon. member for Middlesex seemed chiefly to have relied in his speech on the assumption that trade and manufactures were distressed, and distressed in consequence of the Corn-laws; and therefore, he said, the trade in corn ought to be free. Unfortunately for his argument, but happily for the country, manufactures and trade were in a state of great prosperity. Agriculture, indeed, was distressed, but not in consequence of the Corn-laws, but in spite of them. He would not vote for the Motion of the hon. member for Middlesex.
Mr. Gilbert J. Heatkcote, as the Representative of one of the largest agricultural counties in England, could not but trespass a few moments upon the attention of the House. It was a fact but too well acknowledged, that the interests of the land had so fallen as to be of little or no value at all to the holders; and that fanners gained no profit for their capital and labour, whilst the landlord's rents were reduced to a mere nothing. Rents and rates had changed places; and while the whole population of the kingdom had very much increased, the agricultural population was diminished, not only in England, but in Scotland and Wales. The hon. member for Middlesex had said, that the Corn-laws were for the benefit of the few, and not for the many. If this were a question affecting the interests of the landlords only, he would not say a word on it; but on the part of a very numerous portion of his Majesty's subjects, the small gentry, the yeomanry, and the labouring population of the country at large, as well as the artisans of small provincial towns who supplied those agriculturists with implements and 1250 other articles of manufacture; for the sake of these extensive interests, he claimed some consideration from that House. In so important an alteration as that proposed by the hon. member for Middlesex—one calculated to affect so many interests—he should surely come forward with the opinions and wishes of the country at his back; but he maintained, that great and influential bodies in the country held different opinions. In the county which he represented there was a strong and general feeling against the scheme of the hon. Member; and he represented a county that possessed more property than half the boroughs that sent Members to that House to support the hon. Member's measure. He could not see on what principle of justice or utility any one could support a proposition that went to the subversion of an interest so bound up with the security of the State and the prosperity of the country as the landed interest. To that interest, at which such a vital blow was now aimed, he contended—and he hoped he expressed the opinions of a majority of that House, as he certainly expressed the opinions of great and influential sections of the community—protection should be extended. It was no difficult matter to foresee the ruin and general discontent that would follow any plan that would strip the agricultural interests of that support hitherto extended to them, and so eminently due to them. The country wanted no change—they did not call for the remedies of the hon. Member—they were satisfied with the law as it stood—and they were determined to uphold it. Whatever might have been the feelings among the agriculturists on the subject of Corn-laws, they were now unanimous against change. Their eyes were now open; and they clearly saw that what was proposed as a fixed duty was no duty at all—that it was another name for free trade. If corn reached a price that would be called the remunerating price, they knew that the ports would be thrown open by order of Council. When the hon. Gentleman spoke of the justice of giving cheap bread to the manufacturing labourer, did he forget the justice of giving employment and sustenance to the agricultural labourer? Did he think that no interest was to be consulted but that of the manufacturers in large towns? Was the landlord to be stripped of his rents, the farmer of his profits, and the labourer of his wages and his comforts, to support the theories of the hon. member for Middlesex? It was 1251 stated, and with as much solemnity as if it were a truth, that now the time had arrived for making a beginning of the experiment; that it could be done safely now when the price of corn was low. But he denied, that any change could now be with safety made. Once begin innovation, and where would it end? The agricultural interest was confessedly in embarrassment; and was such the season for making an experiment to embarrass it the more? But the hon. Member was strangely inconsistent; and the vacillation of his plans was some evidence of the danger of his doctrines. One would expect that, on a question of such vital importance, there would have been some fixed scale laid down. But that was not the case. Last year he had his plan of 15s. duty. Well, did he stick to that? Now, this year, he proposed 10s. There was besides a third plan of 2s. 5d. When he saw those shifting remedies pro-posed—when he saw the advocates of free trade in corn differing, not only from one another, but from themselves—he could not help thinking, that the House should receive their projects with caution, as he was sure the country would with distrust. He would just notice another observation, merely to mark his total dissent from it, as one that had neither reason nor probability to justify it; namely, that an alteration would not lower the price of corn. He could not suppose that if advantages were to result from the proposed scheme to the agricultural interests, such as were implied in that declaration, that it would excite dissatisfaction. But he would rather judge from facts than assertions. The landed interest felt a conviction—and in that conviction he (Mr. Heathcote) joined,—that the measure of the hon. Member would come upon it fraught with ruin. The measure, as an experiment, was a bad one; for he was sure that in the present state of depression the agricultural interest could not bear it. It was argued again, that it was a question between the landlord and tenant; that it was merely a consideration how much of his rent the landlord should resign for the public good. He (Mr. Heathcote) denied, that it should be considered in any other light than as a question involving the whole landed interest. Was not property in land to be attended to as much as any other property? And it could not be desirable surely to sacrifice it. It was not the great landed proprietors alone whose interests were concerned. The question would most deeply 1252 injure the small proprietors. There were thousands of these throughout the country; and if the Corn-laws were altered, they would be sunk from the rank of proprietors into the condition of farmers, while the farmers would descend to the level of cottagers. The House should consider the situation of that class; and he would ask, was it wise or just to strip them of their property and their position in society? The House should consider too that other interests were protected; and why, he would ask, should not the agricultural interest as well? The woollen interest was protected, the cotton interest was protected, the shipping interest was protected—all were protected; and was the landed interest the only one that should be left undefended? The shipping interest were petitioning for protection, and they only desired to be let alone. So did the agriculturists say, they only wanted to be let alone.
§ Lord Morpethwould not attempt to follow his right hon. friend in the manifold details of his speech—a speech distinguished by his usual eloquence, heightened by the introduction of topics which were congenial to his own feelings, as they appeared to be to those of his audience. But he would take that opportunity of expressing his determination to support the proposition of the hon. member for Middlesex. Ever since he could think on any public question, he was an advocate for free trade in corn, and rendering bread cheap to the industrious poor. When he first had the honour of a seat in that House, as the representative of a borough favourable to liberal principles—when liberal principles were not common—he was one of sixteen who divided with the hon. Member in support of such a proposition as he now advocated. Those principles were at that time considered vulgar; but he considered they were just, when their object was to render bread cheap. If he were actuated by selfish views, he should perhaps have taken another-course. His pecuniary interest was in favour of the superiority of the landed interest. He resided among a numerous body of agriculturists, who were deeply distressed; but he must deal justly by all. He was not sent to that House as the advocate of the manufacturing classes, but to support the interests of the entire community. He could not refuse his assent to the demonstration, that the more liberal and free the trade in corn, the more would the general prosperity be promoted. The same principle would apply to corn as to 1253 other articles. Men must pay for all articles, and the more they paid for one, the less could they spare for the others. His right hon. friend had stated, that the present measure would disturb many interests, and create agricultural distress. Those might be good topics for declamation; but they were bad reasons for cheating the nation, which would be the case if it were forced to buy articles dearer in one place than it could get them in another. He could not see why any objection should be made to take the whole question into consideration now, in order that a due allowance might be made for the various interests of all, and a fair adjustment entered into. It might be said, that at the present period of general agricultural distress, acknowledged in the Speech from the Throne, it would be harsh to adopt measures which would increase that distress. He should be sorry to increase it, but he contended that permanent injury would not result to the agriculturist by the proposed measure. Those who called themselves the friends of the agricultural interest, cried out "Oh, do not withdraw from us our present protection; if we are distressed, let not others grow sleek and fat." The greatest grievance would be sudden and violent change; and the only prospect of a permanent and useful settlement would be to introduce a measure on the basis of justice to all. The shock and suddenness of the change that must ultimately take place, if the present system were upheld, would be rendered harmless by acceding to the Motion before the House. The time was now come for the landlord to strike his bargain, when wheat was so low as forty-eight shillings. But let him hold out; and he might be forced to strike under more inauspicious circumstances. His right hon. friend had said, that, in the manufacturing districts, there was full employment, and therefore the measure was uncalled for, and on that ground invoked the aid of the member for Oldham. But if that were so, the agriculturists must suffer less, for manufacturing employment would absorb a great portion of the unemployed agricultural population, and the agricultural labourers would find that refuge in manufacturing employment which they could not now find under the chilling wing of protection. His right hon. friend had thrown severe sarcasms out against the hon. member for Middlesex, for saying this was a European question. But they did not call on the House so to decide it; they called on the House to decide on it as 1254 an English question. But if the question combined European with English welfare, then philanthropy required of the House to support it. He was always an advocate for free trade in general; and he thought it absurd for some of the advocates of free trade to allow it in all other articles, and refuse it in corn. It was the duty of the House to give all aid to domestic labour; and not impose additional burthens upon the people from a wish to yield to any partialities of the Government. One argument advanced on the other side was, that the interests of manufacture were concerned in preserving the interests of agriculture, and that both were interwoven with each other. But it was commonly the case, that when one person wished to wrong another, he said that the interests of both were identical. He (Lord Morpeth) did not deny that the interests of the agriculturists and the manufacturers might be made to harmonize; there were certain inalienable links to bind them all, if the great interests of the nation were consulted. A relaxation of the Corn-laws would be a vast relief to all the industrious classes; and would their comforts and content be no benefit to the county? To those whose wages were brought so low as barely to enable them to procure the common necessaries of life, could it be said, that a reduction in the price of bread was not an object of vital importance? The advocates of the present system maintained that privileges were due to the agricultural body; that it was the most ancient and respectable; and their property was most secure and least liable to fluctuation; that the agriculturists were the most loyal and peaceable subjects—the props and boast of the country; and, for these reasons, that the ascendancy of that body should be upheld. All that it would be well to say, if England were an agricultural nation, and no choice left but to allow agriculture its supremacy. It would be well to say so for the vale of Tempe—not burthened with a national debt. But when the English nation chose to wage long and expensive wars, and rule over large dominions—when she called forth the manufacturing energy and skill of her people to her aid—and when her manufactures became the great source of her wealth and her power—the Parliament was bound not to disregard that manufacturing interest. It might, sound very prettily to cite the example of the tenant of a tenement on the banks of the lazy Scheldt, or the inhabitant of a superb villa on the Brenta, upholding and enforcing 1255 a restrictive policy on the commerce of Venice or Amsterdam; but Great Britain could not afford to stickle for an Arcadian system, with a debt of 800,000,000l. to provide for yearly. With his cordial good wishes, he should conclude by expressing his intention to vote with the hon. member for Middlesex.
§ Mr. ClaySir, I do not purpose, in the few observations with which I am about to trouble the House, to take any very extended or general view of the wide field of argument which presents itself to the mind of any man coining to the decision of the all-important question now before the House; neither do I purpose to notice all the reasons which have been adduced by the various hon. Gentlemen who have addressed the House in opposition to the Motion of my hon. friend. I shall confine myself to a commentary upon some of the leading propositions which have been brought forward by the right, hon. Baronet; partly because every thing that fell from that right hon. Gentleman must have great weight with the House; and partly because all the propositions to which I refer, are, I think, those chiefly relied on elsewhere by the opponents of any alteration of our present system of Corn-laws. I feel that it is an arduous task to attempt to reply to the speech of the right hon. Baronet; but I am emboldened so to do, because I thought that I discovered in that speech—much as it seemed to meet the approbation of a large portion of the House—fallacies a thousand times refuted, and which the happy elocution and clear and perspicuous language with which the right hon. Gentleman invests every argument he employs, only seemed to render more conspicuous. The first point I shall notice is the connexion of the question of the Corn-laws with that of the currency. I deny most distinctly that it has any such connexion. I deny that the return to cash payments—the measure of 1810—is the cause of the present low prices of agricultural produce. It could only have been so by contracting the circulating medium. I deny that it contracted it. I assert, that the currency is now larger, greatly larger, than before the return to a metallic standard; that it is very greatly larger than during the range of high prices of corn from 1809 to 1814, and probably double what it was in 1800 and 1801, when wheat reached the highest price it ever attained in this country; and that the Bill of 181,0 cannot, therefore, be the cause of the fall 1256 of the price of agricultural produce. But supposing that I am completely mistaken in this supposition—supposing that the measure of 1810, has occasioned the present low prices of agricultural produce—what justification would that circumstance afford for legislating to secure high prices for agricultural produce alone? It might be as good reason for those to use who seek to depreciate the standard, or return to a paper currency, because then the rise of prices would be general. But it is no argument at all for laws which enhance the price of the articles furnished by one class of the community alone, in order to enable them the better to bear the burthen of taxation, while that burthen falls with unmitigated pressure upon all the other classes, the produce of whose industry receives no such legislative support. But it is not only that the Corn-laws increase the price of agricultural produce, leaving all other commodities at their natural level, they positively and distinctly tend to lower the prices of all those articles of our manufacture of which we export any portion. This assertion may seem strange to hon. Gentlemen, but it is capable of proof amounting to the strictest demonstration. No axiom is more completely established in commercial science, none more universally by commercial men, than this—of whatever commodities you export your surplus, the price which that surplus obtains in foreign markets regulates the price of the whole. Now, it is certain that our Corn-laws, by depriving the growers of corn on the continent of what would be the best market, lower for the continental manufacturer the cost of the necessaries of life, and thus enable him to come into his own market on lower terms, as compared with the English manufacturer, than would otherwise be the case; but the English manufacturer must face this price,—it is the price at which alone he can compete with his foreign rival; the price, therefore, which we can obtain for the surplus of the manufactured goods which we send to foreign markets is lowered by the effect of our Corn-laws, whilst they enhance the cost at which such articles are produced. Is it not monstrous, under these circumstances, to legislate to give high prices to the agricultural classes, that they may escape the taxation which is borne by the community at large? Would it not be as reasonable to ask for a tax from the community at large, to repay to the agricultural classes the whole of the taxes which they furnish to the State? Such, 1257 in fact, is the present and direct operation of the Corn-laws. But again, Sir:—from what source do hon. Gentlemen suppose I that taxation either is now or ever can be drawn? Are they not aware, that it never can he drawn from any other source than that portion of the produce of capital and labour which remains after defraying the cost of subsistence of the labourer, and replacing the fund of the capitalist. Now, under what circumstances does the House think that this portion, this surplus, will he the largest?—When the necessaries of life are dear, or when they are cheap?—When the articles produced by the industry of the country are furnished at little cost or at much? I really feel it quite unnecessary to push the argument further, or to give any other reply to the often-repeated fallacy, that the Corn-laws are justifiable to protect the agricultural interests, and that they enable the whole community to bear the burthen of taxation more easily. ["Question, question! "] He was anxious (the hon. Member continued) not unnecessarily to detain the House, and he was not in the habit of troubling them with long speeches. He hoped, therefore, that he should not he interrupted. The question before them was one of the greatest consequence to the interests of England; and it would be disgraceful if it did not meet with the attention from the House which it deserved. The right hon. Baronet, the member for Tamworth, had, on a former evening warned the House against having the appearance of legislating for their own benefit, and not for that of the community. He (Mr. Clay) would ask the right hon. Baronet and the House, if the Corn-laws were not exactly a measure of that nature? Was it possible that the great body of the community should be free from suspicion, when they saw that the principles of free trade were advocated in reference to every branch of domestic industry with the exception alone of the necessaries of life? Could the industrious classes be satisfied to hear the necessity of high prices, of protection, and monopoly advocated, as regarded the necessaries of life, while the advantages of free trade and competition were lauded in regard to the production of all other commodities? His opinion was, that no act of greater injustice was ever committed by any legislature than was committed by the English Legislature, when it commenced acting upon the system of free trade with every other interest, before applying its principles to the trade in corn. What the 1258 Legislature ought to have done was, to say to the merchant and manufacturer of this country, "Against the competition of the world we cannot and will not protect you, but you shall have the necessaries of life on such terms as will enable you to endure it." Such was not the course pursued by this House; in which he need not say, that the advocates of the landed interest had hitherto been, as at present—all-powerful; and he much feared that, in the estimation of their fellow-countrymen, the conduct of the proprietors of land might have rendered them obnoxious to the condemnation so solemnly pronounced on those "who lay heavy burthens upon men's shoulders, grievous to be borne, and wall not touch them themselves so much as with a finger." Was the argument of necessity successful, when other interests, not those of the agriculturists, were at stake? When the Navigation-laws were altered, and the meritorious class of persons engaged in shipping almost entirely ruined—when measures were mooted concerning our colonies, which risked the ruin of the West-India body—were the interests of those particular classes put in opposition to the general wish of the nation? No. They were left to their fate, and while they taxed the timber used to build ships, and taxed the food and clothing necessary for the sailors, they left the proprietors without protection from foreign competition. The late Mr. Huskisson was alluded to by the right hon. Baronet, as supporting his views; but he confessed his doubts whether the sentiments of that great man were precisely such as they might be supposed from the extracts read by the right hon. Baronet. He had reason to believe that when Mr. Huskisson was remonstrated with for not commencing his system of free trade by applying it to the trade in corn, he said, "I admit the great injustice we commit; I admit that we ought to begin with having a free trade in the necessaries of life; but what can do? I could never persuade Parliament to adopt such a course." But, unjust as these laws were, they were yet more impolitic. The right hon. Baronet—indeed, every Gentleman who had spoken—allowed that the landed interest owed much to commerce; but he must respectfully say, that the right hon. Baronet was far from giving to this consideration the weight which it deserved. What was it rendered the situation of an English landlord so much more enviable than that of any other? How was it that 1259 The English gentlemen in possession of 2,000 or 3,000 acres of the soil of Britain, was able to compete in expense with the ancient and high nobles of other countries, owning ten times the quantity of the earth's surface? What made our nobility the admiration as well as the envy of foreign nations on account of their wealth? It was to the manufacturers of the country that they owed all; for the manufacturers doubled, tripled, and even quadrupled the value of lands in England. And not only was it in our manufacturing districts that this increase had taken place. In the agricultural districts too a proportional increase had taken place. Additional capital was invested in land, improvements were made, and cultivation was brought to a height unknown before, and all owing to the increase of our manufactures. The people of England had suffered much, and they had heavy burthens; but still they had capital, industry, energy, and intelligence. These qualities would stand by them in the midst of their difficulties, and in the long run they would certainly triumph. But he would ask any Gentleman who had read the report of the Committee last Session on Commerce and Manufactures, whether it did not appear from the evidence given in it, that notwithstanding all our capital and other advantages, our manufacturing superiority was trembling in the balance, and was threatened with early destruction? In America, in France, on the banks of the Rhine, in Switzerland, and in Prussia, formidable rivals had sprung up to our manufactures. He ventured to warn the aristocracy and landlords against the system they were at present pursuing. The imminent danger to which the capitalist was exposed might drive him to countries where he would be better appreciated, and the consequence would be, that the landowners would be left to provide for a starving unemployed population which would be left on their hands. It was idle to say, that if so many unemployed persons were left, they could be removed. They were bound to the country, and their condition must rise or fall with it. The right hon. Baronet had brought forward as an argument against the free trade in corn, that we should not be too dependent on the Continent for a supply, because, in case of war, the ports of the Continent might be shut against us. There never was a greater fallacy. The greatest despot that ever lived could not act entirely 1260 against the feelings and the interests of the people over whom he domineered. Even Napoleon found how impossible it was to stop the intercourse of the Continent against us, and no more puny tyrant would ever succeed in closing the ports of Europe against England, when it was the interest of the people of Europe to keep them open. The right hon. Baronet had talked of the number of agricultural labourers that would be thrown out of employment were there to be any reduction of prices. This appeared to him (Mr. Clay) a rather extraordinary statement, especially as coming from the right hon. Baronet, when the Committee of which he was Chairman, on this subject, had expressed their conviction that the comfort of the agricultural labourer would rise with the fall of prices. He could not understand by what logical process the right hon. Baronet had arrived at the conclusion, that a trifling fall in the price of corn would plunge the agricultural interest into such deep distress as he had supposed. He thought he saw distinctly the evils which would necessarily follow should the landed Gentlemen in that House be so ill-advised as to raise their powerful voice against the partial Repeal of the Corn-laws. One certain calamity which would result from the refusal of the reasonable demands of the people on this subject would be, that their demands would rise with such refusal. They would hereafter demand, in a much louder tone, the entire abolition of those laws. It had been said that the present was not a proper or convenient time for repealing the Corn laws. He entertained a quite different opinion. There could not be a more favourable moment for the purpose. He repeated that the demands of the people of this country would rise with the refusal. It had been so invariably, as regarded all the questions of great interest which had, in the past history of England, occupied the minds of the nation. He could refer, as illustrations of the fact, to the progress which the question of Catholic Emancipation, and that of Reform, made in the public mind on every successive rejection of those great measures by the Legislature. The eventual consequence, he was afraid, of refusing to repeal the Corn-laws, would be the overthrow of those institutions of the country in which the landed Gentlemen were most deeply interested. These gentlemen had a most important game to play—let them play it wisely.
§ Mr. Edward Bullersaid, that though 1261 he was dependent upon the soil, he took a different view of the question from that entertained by most hon. Members similarly circumstanced. He trusted, however, that he should have the credit of acting with sincerity. To those who differed from him in opinion he willingly conceded the same feeling, and he was bound to say, that he wholly disbelieved the charge so frequently made against the lauded proprietors, namely, that they consulted their own interest in preference to that of the public. In considering the question, he would narrow the ground as much as possible. He would at once put aside the whole question of foreign trade. He was not ignorant that in adhering to a system of monopoly they were risking the trade of Russia, Prussia, and Germany; but he would leave that topic to be handled by abler hands, and would confine himself more to the domestic view of the question. With respect to agricultural distress he knew that last year rents were well paid, and, looking at this fact, he could not admit that agricultural distress was so overwhelming as it was represented; nor could he admit that less capital was laid out on the improvement of the soil, and he maintained, that its productiveness was not impaired. He contended, that the Corn-laws had not effected the objects for which they had been adopted. One of those objects was to produce constant high prices; but that it had not been effected was quite clear from the Returns. The hon. Member quoted the prices at different periods to show the variation. In 1817 the average price had been 94s. per quarter; in 1823 it was 43s.; in 1830 it was 66s. 4d.; and now it was 48s. Another object of the Corn-laws was to render the country independent of a foreign supply. That they had not effected that object was perfectly clear. It was a statistical fact that at the present moment we were actually dependent on foreign nations for one-twelfth of our supply of corn. Now, if there was one law of nature which might be called universal, it was this—that man was dependent on his fellow-man, and nation upon nation. Without the admission of foreign corn, it was impossible to support the population of the country. The harvests were so fluctuating, and the produce of one year compared with another so uncertain, that it was necessary to fall back on the resources which the Continent afforded us. One year, perhaps, might give us a good harvest, and there might be 1262 a surplus of corn produced over that consumed; the next, the consumption might fail short one-sixth of the demand; we might have seven years of plenty, and then seven years of famine. There was one remarkable fact which was well worthy of attention. The measures of the Legislature had even produced a different effect as to price to that which had been intended. In 1618, an Act was passed in order to raise the price, and yet under that Act the price continued to fall till 1723. In 176'3 came the peace of Paris, and that effected a change which the Legislature had failed to accomplish. It caused a rise in price; and it did so because it found a vent for British commerce. In 1764 the price was 47s. 10d. per quarter; and in 1792 it was 50s. 2d. He was sure that the causes of fluctuation were aggravated by the interference of the Legislature. Under the present system the home-grower turned his attention solely to the state of the foreign trade, and looked to that for his remuneration by high prices. He, however, must say, that the Corn-laws had not yet had a sufficient trial. The immense exports from Ireland ought to be taken into consideration. Very little corn was grown in the north of Europe at all. It was impossible to bring corn into England under 45s. or 46s., and under these circumstances he did not think there was any very great danger of our being excluded from foreign commerce. The fluctuations of prices had been most injurious to the agricultural interest. He was sorry that the high sense of honour formerly entertained by the British farmer, and the pride of not being behindhand with his rent, one day, was fast wearing out.
§ The question was accordingly adjourned.