§ Mr. Ewartpresented a petition from the great body of the inhabitants of Liverpool, praying for a free trade in all articles of importation, but more especially in corn. He was happy to find, that the subject of free trade was one which engrossed the attention not alone of this country, but also that of other countries with which it was in extensive commercial intercourse, as not long since a petition to the 434 same general effect as the one he had now the honour to hold in his hand had been presented to the French Government by the opulent, enlightened, and important city of Bourdeaux. It was, therefore, quite evident by the coincidence of opinion which the two greatest commercial countries in the world had manifested, that the principle was triumphant; and he hoped before long it would extend its blessings over all the nations on the face of the earth. As the contents of the petition which he had now to present were most important, and as the question involved in it was a vital one to the interests of the community, he should make no apology to the House for reading it in detail.—[The hon. Member proceeded to read the petition. It stated, that the petitioners having thought one of the first benefits which ought to accrue to the country from Reform would be free trade, were surprised at the apathy evinced by his Majesty's Government on that all-important question. It prayed an unrestricted commerce in imports and exports, subject only to such moderate duties as the exigences of the public revenue might demand. They prayed an unrestricted trade in corn, as calculated to be most advantageous to British trade, and a very great encouragement to British industry and enterprise.] He concurred most heartily in the prayer of the petition, and he hoped the time was near at hand when this subject would be treated with the attention which it merited, and when reason and experience would convince the agriculturists, that it was their interest to encourage instead of oppose the removal of those injurious restrictions, which, whilst they only conferred on them a fallacious benefit, inflicted a positive and grievous mischief upon the people. If the great basis of our commercial and manufacturing prosperity was connected with our trade, as was evidently the case, and if foreign countries were not blind to the sources of our industry, assuredly we ought to adopt every means by which we could be able to secure to ourselves the advantages which we had hitherto enjoyed. Germany was quite alive to the source of our greatness, and the political economists and statesmen of that country were aware of the means of our prosperity. They well knew that the advantage which an English Gentleman had over the German Count, or a 435 Polish Baron, arose entirely from the trade of this country. They knew this, too, that if this country attempted to defend its trade by restrictions, they also could act in a similar manner.—[The hon. Gentleman read an extract from a pamphlet, to show that the refusal of England to receive the timber of the Baltic and of Prussia, had led to a strong feeling of hostility towards England, and that restrictive measures had been adopted in Germany and Prussia, against England.] There was no country in the world, of which the people were more characterised by industry and frugality than Germany; and there was no country of which the consumption of British manufactures would be more profitable; and never had we a better opportunity of greatly extending our trade than that which was found to exist at present when that country was consolidating itself in one great financial confederacy. If that opportunity were neglected, he very much doubted if the Germans would not become a formidable rival to England in manufactures should the characteristic vis inertiœ of the Germans be once moved in that direction. The petition which he had to present prayed for a repeal of the Corn-laws. His constituents, however, did more than ask for a free trade in corn, for they prayed for free trade generally, as the only means of affording employment to the redundant capital of the country, which, as had been proved before the Committee which sat last Session on trade and manufactures, was either going to foreign countries, lying stagnant, or generating competition at home, for want of profitable sources of employment. He was happy to observe, that every improvement in the free institutions of a country increased the public indisposition to submit to restrictions, and the attachment of the people to free commercial intercourse. Such had been the case in America, and such it now was in France. He was perfectly convinced that in this country also the voice of the people generally would be eventually joined to that of the most enlightened men among them against the unjust restrictions to which they were now subject. The time was coming when nations would be more firmly united together by the mutual interests of commerce than by Protocols, Embassies, or Treaties. He was convinced the peace of the world 436 would more depend upon the intercourse between the Seine, and the Thames, and the Mersey, and the Hudson, than on all the intrigues of diplomatists. He agreed with those who said, that this was the best time for beginning freedom of trade in that article, freedom in which must form the basis of all freedom of commerce—he meant food. The price of corn being now moderate rendered this a proper time to act. The minds of the people were now calm, and they calmly demanded their rights. It was for the Government to take care that their indignation was not wrought to violence by scarcity. Circumstances were evidently forcing on the change for which the petition prayed; and better would it be for the House to anticipate the time when this great act of justice must be conceded. The permanent prosperity of a great empire must not be sacrificed to the interest of a few.
§ Mr. Brothertonsupported the petition. He thought a free trade in corn most important to the prosperity of the manufacturing interest, and to the agricultural interest he believed it would be equally advantageous. The county from which this petition came was, in itself, a fair sample of the extent and importance of the manufacturing interest. In 1815, the rental of Lancashire was 3,100,000l.; but it now amounted to upwards of 4,000,000. and in the same period, the population had increased from 900,000 to 1,500,000, In that county, the consumption of wheat, was not less than 1,000,000 quarters annually. This was sufficient to show that this free trade in corn would be most beneficial, and would tend to increase the prosperity of the nation at large.
Mr. Cayleycould not support the petition for free trade. Gentlemen connected with the manufacturing interest, exaggerated greatly, when discussing this subject. They gave themselves credit for taking a very extensive view, when they stated, that the agricultural interest took a very confined vim. Men might be great philosophers, and be capable of taking extended views, and yet overlook the objects that were near. The hon. Member who presented this petition, had forgotten to state the number of signatures which were attached to it. The hon. Member had some time since presented a petition, to which, he found there were only six signatures attached. He was not surprised, however, that Liverpool should 437 feel anxious for free trade, as it would be decidedly for the interest of Liverpool. England had been called the work-shop of the world, and Liverpool was the principal door of that work-shop. It was, then, of course, the interest of that town to have a free trade. Liverpool had a commission upon every export and import; so that, the more Manchester exchanged her cotton goods for foreign corn, the more Liverpool might thrive, even though the rest of the country should be in a state of ruin. His views of the identity of interest between the different classes in the State, amount to this—that there was a strict identity between the agriculturists of this country, and those manufacturers who furnished the home market. The maker of cotton or woollen goods for the iron-master who again supplied the plough-maker, were all as interested in the growth of British corn, as the sower of the seed. But, he could easily imagine Manchester, which was now engaged half in the foreign and half in the home trade, to be exclusively engaged in supplying the foreign market, with Liverpool for its carrier. Let them effect their exchanges entirely with foreign agriculturists, and the identity of interest would cease between Manchester and Liverpool, and the British agriculturist. He knew that was an unfashionable doctrine; but it was, in his opinion, true; and would be merely a repetition of the state of the small free trading towns of Germany, and the Italian towns of the middle ages. The hon. member for Middlesex, the other night, had said, that the Corn-laws were directed against the mass of the population, and that manufactures were the staple of this country. He, on the contrary, asserted that this country was essentially agricultural. The population Returns of 1831, of England, Scotland, and Wales, gave the following results:—
438 Now, taking the manufacturers at 2,400,000 in round numbers, as one-third of the 6,900,000 agriculturists and miners. He would apportion the 6,406,398 individuals last-mentioned, as interested in, or employed, two-thirds by the agriculturists, and one-third by manufacturers. He would add 4,077,000 to the agriculturists, and 2,316,000 to the manufacturers—making 10,977,000 agriculturists, and 4,716,000 manufacturers. But of this number of manufacturers, half at least, were employed by the agricultural body and its dependencies; this would deduct 2,358,000 from the aggregate manufacturing interest, and leave only 2,358,000 as the purely, or rather export, manufacturing body, whilst it made the agricultural body and its dependencies amount to 13,335,000. But Ireland was a strictly agricultural country? Add, therefore, 8,000,000, the population of Ireland, to the above 13,335,000, and there was a total of 21,335,000 as the real agricultural interest of Great Britain and Ireland, compared with not more than 3,000,000 at the outside, of manufacturers engaged in the export trade. He, therefore, contended, that ours was essentially an agricultural country. It would be impossible for it to compete with foreign countries in respect to the growth of corn, pressed down as it was with all manner of burthens; and he was anxious to uphold those laws, which secured to the landed proprietor, and the farmer, the slight advantages which they at present enjoyed. They might call the landed proprietors monopolists if they would; but, if their monopoly were the means of keeping 20,000,000 persons employed, the merely calling them by the ugly name of monopolists, would not furnish a sufficient reason for destroying them. Then, as to the question of free trade. What were the facts with respect to it? Why, that we some time ago altered our Navigation-laws, and adopted what was called the reciprocity system, which France very willingly took advantage of to send her silks and wine into this country. But did she in return receive our iron or coals? The philosophers of Germany were all conspiring to shut out our manufactures from that country. They were willing for a few years longer to take our yarn, because they had not got the capital and machinery necessary to spin for themselves; and, he asked, were we to sacrifice 439 the interests of six-sevenths of the population, for the sake of two or three years' trade in yarn? The hon. member for Middlesex had said, that all he wanted was to "unshackle corn." Now, wool had been unshackled in 1825, and what was the consequence? After 1826 the growing of wool became so bad a trade, in consequence of foreign competition, that a great part of the sheep-lands were ploughed up; and this led to a scarcity of wool, and the present high prices. In 1825, the value of our exports of woollens amounted to 6,185,648l.; and, in 1832, it was no more than 5,244,000l.; a falling off of 1,000,000l. sterling, in the seven years after the unshackling. He admitted that the value had risen in 1833 and in 1834 to 6,511,780l.; but he asserted that such a small rise in nine years was no encouragement to unshackle the trade in corn. He (Mr. Cayley) denied that the Corn-laws had caused the fluctuation of prices. That fluctuation was wholly to be attributed to the variations in seasons, and to the alteration of the currency from 1815, 1819, to 1825, and afterwards to 1831. The hon. member entered into a variety of statements relative to the currency, and concluded by saying, that he opposed the proposition of the hon. member for Liverpool, because he believed that it would, if carried into effect, throw at least four-fifths of the population out of employment.
Agricultural occupiers 1,500,000 Agricultural labourers 4,800,000 Mining interest 600,000 6,900,000 Manufactures 2,400,000 Millers, bakers, and butchers 900,000 Artificers, builders, &c. 650,000 Tailors, shoemakers, and hatters 1,080,000 Shopkeepers 2,100,000 Clerical, legal, and medical 450,000 Disabled paupers 110,000 Proprietor, annuitants, &c. 1,116,398 6,406,398
§ Mr. Roebuckbegged the indulgence of the House for a very short time. He considered the question one of the very highest importance, and at the same time so simple, that it could be stated in five minutes; but somehow or other it was always evaded. In the first place, this country was very populous, so much so, that the countries contiguous to it could produce corn at a cheaper rate than it could be produced here. The next fact was, that we were enabled, from peculiar circumstances, to produce manufactures at a cheaper rate than the contiguous countries. Such being the fact, it was clear, that in a natural state of things, the great body of the population of this country must devote their industry to manufactures, and give their produce in exchange for food to be brought from abroad. But it so happened, that there was a body of men in this country, who said, "No, you shall not buy your food abroad for little labour, but you shall pro- 440 duce it at home with much labour and great cost, or go without it!" Now, the question was, whether the advantage derived by this body of men from the restriction placed upon the food of the people counterbalanced the evils it inflicted upon the nation. In the first place, he would assert, that the first injury experienced by the people of England was an increased price of their food; and he was here met by an extraordinary argument on the other side, viz., that the Corn-laws were intended as a protection to the agriculturist, but not to raise prices or rents. How they could complain of the fall that would take place were there a free trade in corn, and yet say, that the object of preventing a free trade was not to raise the price, he could not understand. The advocates of free trade were accused of not taking the agricultural labourers, who were styled the mass of the population, into consideration. Now, he was ready to prove, that the interest of the agricultural labourer was identical with that of the manufacturer, and distinctly opposed to that of the landowner. Because the rise of rent which the latter sought would be accompanied by a rise in the price of the labourer's food, and would lower profits. The agricultural capitalist was in precisely the same situation as any other capitalist, and anything which tended to raise the profits of capital must be advantageous to him as a capitalist. He and his labourers had the same interest as the weavers of cloth and their workmen. The great body of the people, therefore, were taken into consideration by the advocates of a free trade in corn. He had heard it stated, that it would be an injury to the manufacturer, to have the price of food lowered, because, as was urged with that acumen which particularly distinguished some of the corn monopolists, it would deprive the agriculturist of the means of purchasing his manufactures. A very homely illustration would give the answer to this argument: suppose a haberdasher was every day to stand at the door of his shop, and give a shilling to every passenger with a view to induce him to lay it out in his shop, although he might appear to be carrying on a flourishing business, his profits could not be very great. This then was the case in the present instance. The agriculturists took from the people the highest penny they could in order that they might lay it out in manufac- 441 tures. One of the evils of the present Corn-laws was the fluctuation in the price of corn. Owing to this, all commercial care was set at nought, for there was no security in respect of price. The trade in corn was complete gambling. The advocates of the Corn-laws said, the object of the fluctuating duty was to produce an equality of price. But the effect was the very contrary; for when corn came up to a certain price, foreign corn was admitted, and then the price of corn dropped down immediately. Who were injured by this change? Not the landlords certainly. The person who suffered was the farmer. It had been said, that the interest of the landlords was of such paramount importance that any other interest in the country ought not to be considered in competition with that. He had heard it stated, that the greatest interest in the House was the landed interest. He would take the monied interest, which was understood to include the agricultural capitalist, as well as the monied capitalist. He contended, that the landed interest was nothing more than the interest of the landlords. An hon. Member had said, that you might cut off Manchester or any of the large towns without an injury to the general trade of the country.—[Mr. Cayley said, that he had only made the statement hypothetically.]—But if it were an hypothesis, from which no advantage could be derived, why make the hypothesis at all? England was chiefly indebted to its manufactures for the position which it held among nations; and, though he would not then enter on the question of capital, he believed, it was undeniable that more of the capital of the country was employed in manufactures than in any other branch whatever. It had been said by an hon. Member on the other side of the House that, even if the ports were opened to-morrow, it would have no influence on the supply from the north of Europe. This he denied; but he would assume it, however, to be the case for the sake of argument. He would, however, beg leave to ask the hon. Member, what would its influence be on North America—North America, which, considered either with regard to its present or future opulence, was undeniably the most important market in the world? Was it not in evidence before the world, that the people of the United States—that ever-increasing and 442 extending portion of the social community—that place where the want of all which our manufacturers produced increased more than a hundredfold in the year—was it not admitted, that the people of this most important section of the world were willing to exchange their agricultural products for the results of our industry and skill; and that, in consequence of our not acceding to their desire, they had been compelled, in self-defence, to adopt towards us that system which we had long adopted towards them? If there was a market in the world worth coveting, it was the North American market, because the human mind could set no limits to the probability of its extension and the increase of its demands. What, then, became of the hon. Member's objection, even making him a present of the German market? The hon. Gentleman concluded by asserting, that it was evidently the interest of the people in every possible point of view, social or commercial, to insist upon a free interchange of production between America and England, without modification or delay.
§ Sir Robert PeelThe hon. Gentleman, the member for Bath, commenced his speech by observing, that this was a very simple question, which could be stated in five minutes. Now, what precise period of time it would take to state the whole of the case I will not determine; but this I know, that the hon. Gentleman has occupied the attention of the House for considerably more than five minutes, and yet he has omitted altogether almost every one of the most important elements which enter into the consideration of a question of the utmost importance, complication, and difficulty. Take, for instance, one consideration, the relation of this country to Ireland; the attempts making to excite a popular feeling in Ireland against the legislative Union; the degree to which those attempts may be encouraged, should we depress that interest in the sister country on which her prosperity almost exclusively depends. Surely this is an important element in the decision of the question, which cannot be excluded from the minds of provident statesmen. Surely the difficulties it involves are not removed by the mere assertion—that the principles of free trade require you to buy your corn in Poland, if corn is cheaper in Poland than in Ireland. The hon. Member says that the case is simply this: other coun- 443 tries can produce corn cheaper than England, and England can furnish manufactured goods at a cheaper rate than other countries, and therefore all further discussion is needless; the conclusion is inevitable, that there ought to be a perfectly free interchange between the two commodities. But is this position (a position tenable, perhaps, in the abstract with respect to a new society, and a new state of things)—is this position necessarily true in regard to a country situated like this, with balanced and complicated interests, with burthens from taxation which cannot be removed, and those burthens unequally apportioned in their pressure? The hon. Gentleman says, that the landed interest claims the continuance of the duties on foreign corn, on the sole ground that that interest is the most important interest, and has a claim to be protected at the expense of all other classes of the community. I deny this to be the ground, that is, the exclusive, or the main ground, on which the landed interest rests its claim for protection. Whether it be not most important, in a constitutional point of view, to maintain that interest—whether the moral and social interests of the whole community are not deeply concerned in its maintenance, is a point into which, on this occasion, I will not enter. I concede nothing upon that point to the hon. Gentleman, but I will content myself for the present with showing, that protection for the land is not urged merely on vague allegations of general policy, but on the grounds of substantial and equal justice. I contend, then, that before you determine to take off the restriction on the import of foreign corn, you ought first to look at the burthens to which the landholder is subject, and at the difference of degree in which those burthens, whether they be local or public burthens, press upon the landed proprietor, and the manufacturer respectively. Consider the Land-tax, the Malt-tax, and the payment of tithes; for tithes are admitted by all political economists who have written on the subject of free trade in corn, to be a tax peculiarly burthensome to the land, and for which the land is entitled to equivalent protection. I hold in my hand an account of the amount of Poor-rates paid by this country in the year 1823, which, though it may refer to a somewhat remote period, will yet tend to show the proportionate pressure of that impost upon the land 444 and upon trade. The total amount of the Poor-rates paid in the year 1823, in England and Wales, was 6,703,000l. Of this, dwelling-houses paid 1,762,000l.; the land, 4,602,000l.; and mills and factories, only 247,000l.—namely, one-eighteenth part of the payment of the land. I ask, therefore, can it be said, after such a statement, that the local burthens are fairly appropriated between the landed and the manufacturing interests—and have not the proprietors of land a right to claim, on this head alone, that degree of protection for their property, which is equivalent to the excess of contribution to which the land is subject? As I before observed, I will, on the present occasion, put out of the question the policy of supporting the landed interest on grounds involving moral and social considerations. I will not now dwell upon the importance, in a national point of view, of encouraging the improvement in the land, or the effect which that improvement has had in promoting the general health, and diminishing the average mortality of the country. I will not now discuss whether there be not other and higher considerations for a great country, than the mere accumulation of wealth, and whether we should be a happier people, even if we were a richer—if this country presented nothing but vast congregations of steam-engines and factories, separated by morasses and rabbit warrens—I will, I say, put all considerations of this kind out of the question, and merely ask, is it fair or just to hold up the landed proprietor as a monopolist, claiming an exclusive protection for his property, from motives of mere pecuniary gain? If there be a free trade in corn, is it not evident that the landholder will he no longer able to bear those burthens which press peculiarly on the land? Let not the manufacturer suppose, that, if the interest of the landholder is sacrificed, he can bear his present burthens; there must be a different appropriation of those burthens—a transfer of them from the landed interest to more prosperous claims. Will the land be able, when exposed to competition with foreign corn, any longer to support those classes of the poor whose distress is occasioned by the vicissitudes of manufactures? Do those who represent the landholder as a monopolist mean to contend that there is no other monopoly but that of the supply of corn?—that the landholder claims an ex- 445 clusive protection?—that the landholder is subject to no tax imposed for the purpose of securing monopoly, or giving protection to the manufacturer? It is true, that this petition applies generally for the establishment of free trade. I can well understand that the great export merchants of Liverpool are desirous for a free trade in corn, and in all manufactured articles also; but do the manufacturers of the large towns, and throughout the country, join in such a demand? There is a great misconception on this head. The manufacturers seem to think that restrictions on the import of foreign corn are open to some special and peculiar objection in principle, to which restrictions on the import of foreign manufactured goods are not liable. This Liverpool petition speaks of restrictions on the corn-trade as at variance with the rights and privileges of free-born Englishmen. This is more nonsense. Such restrictions are no more at variance with any right of the subject than restrictions on the import of foreign silk handkerchiefs. The objection to the restrictions on foreign corn is this,—that they give an undue encouragement to the application of capital to the production of corn, and that, therefore, by the diversion of capital, they diminish the sum of the national profits. Precisely the same objection applies, and with equal force, to every restriction on foreign manufactures, operating as a bounty on our own. There is no difference in the characters of the two monopolies. I will refer to any writer on the subject—I will ask the hon. member for Bolton, whose works I have read with great pleasure, as they are distinguished by very great clearness and ability, whether there is any argument which can be urged against the protection of the landholder which is not equally applicable to the protection afforded to the manufacturer? I do not think the manufacturers clearly understand, that the abolition of the restrictions on foreign corn must be instantly followed by the removal of every impediment to the import of foreign manufactures. And are there no such impediments? I have before me pages upon pages of duties on foreign manufacture, beginning with letter A, and ending with letter Z.—[Mr. Hume: These are collected for the revenue.]—No; nine out of ten of them are imposed, not for revenue, but for the purposes of prohibition or protection. The hon. Gentleman speaks of 446 revenue; why, so far from the landed produce of this country being protected exclusively from foreign competition, there is so much of foreign butter and cheese introduced, that the revenue collected upon those two articles alone amounts to 200,000l.—to more than is collected on the import of the whole foreign silk manufactures.
§ Mr. HumeIt is not denied, that a considerable sum is raised upon the importation of foreign cheese and butter, but that the duty on these and other commodities raises the price without any benefit to the State.
§ Sir Robert PeelAnd is not the effect of the duties on foreign silk precisely the same? What I am now maintaining is, that the landlords do not enjoy an exclusive monopoly. Let the silk manufacturer propose an abolition of the duty on foreign silks, and then he may, with some better show of reason, at least, complain of the Corn-laws. Recollect, too, that the landholder has to pay the Land-tax, and the Malt-tax, and the Tithes.—[Mr. Hume: It is the consumer who pays the Malt-tax.]—Yes; but the consumer will consume more malt, if you repeal the tax. The tax, though paid directly by the consumer, operates as a discouragement on the growth of barley. The member for Bolton must think with me, that the Malt-tax is a burthen on the land; for he gave notice the other night, that, if the hon. member for Oldham had succeeded in abolishing the Malt-tax, he should move for the repeal of the duty on foreign barley. I should like to know what single article of manufacture this landholder—this great monopolist—can consume, without paying a tax. What step can he take—which way can he look—what is the single action of his life that is not taxed for the protection of the manufacturer? The manufacturer claims a right to eat foreign corn without paying a duty—can the farmer wear a foreign dress without paying one? Can he look out of his window—can he build his house—can he dress himself—can he eat his meals—can he enjoy any amusement in doors or out—without encountering a tax, levied, in addition to the original cost, on every article of foreign manufacture? Let us begin with the first act of the day. He dresses himself. If he wishes to wear foreign boots, he must pay at the rate of 2l. 14s. per dozen pair; for his foreign hat, he must 447 pay 10s. 6d.; for his shirt, forty per cent; if he indulges in foreign woollens, he must pay twenty per cent; but, if he should fancy a foreign silk hat, how much do you think he will have to pay? No less than a duty of 1l. 5s. for the single hat; and if his wife should covet a silk gown of foreign manufacture, she must pay a duty of 2l. 10s. So much for the farmer's dress. Now take his meals. Upon foreign porcelain, he must pay twenty per cent; upon his glass, twenty per cent. If he uses an article of foreign silver plate, he must pay 6s. 4d. per oz.; if of gold plate, 3l. 16s. 2d. per oz. His very walking-stick is taxed. [An Hon. Member: No; the taxes on foreign canes are abolished.] I beg your pardon; they are no such thing; so far from it, there is more ingenuity shown in imposing discriminating duties upon foreign walking-sticks, than on all the other articles put together. I am speaking with the book before me. If I walk with a bamboo-cane, I pay at the rate of 5s. the 1,000; if with a rattan, not ground, 5s. the 1,000; if with a whangee, or a jumboo, or a dragon's blood, still 5s. the 1,000; but, if I aspire higher,—if I take pleasure in a walking-cane or stick that is either mounted or painted, or otherwise ornamented—that is, if there is the slightest competition with domestic labour—then I must pay twenty per cent duty on the value of my ornamented stick. [Mr. Hume: These duties are absurdities.] So they are; but, therefore, they prove more strongly the animus—they prove more strongly, that protection is the ruling principle. Now, these are some of the items—a very small part—but some of the items of that Bill which the right hon. Gentleman, the President of the Board of Trade, the other night, called upon the agriculturist to furnish. He said, "Bring in your bill, and I will pay it." Why, we cannot make out the bill without a tax on every article we use in making it out: for our pens we must pay thirty per cent; for our pencils thirty; for the paper on which we write, 9d. per lb. If we send the Bill to the right hon. Gentleman in an envelope sealed with wax, we must pay thirty per cent; if we use wafers, 1s. 3d. per lb. It is the same with every foreign article necessary for the convenience or the amusement of this supposed monopolist—the farmer. If he rings a foreign bell, the charge is thirty per cent; if he wears a foreign watch, 448 twenty-five; if he uses a foreign carriage, thirty; if he shoots with a foreign gun, he must pay twenty per cent; and foreign gunpowder he cannot buy. If he plays on a foreign fiddle or a foreign flute, or any foreign instrument, the duty will be twenty per cent; but if he plays with foreign cards, he incurs the moderate charge of about 7s. per pack duty, for what, probably, costs 1s. Have not I, then, established my position—that there is scarcely one act of a farmer's life for which he is not subject to a tax; and that tax imposed for the protection of some domestic manufacture? Nay, taxation does not end with his life—it visits him even in the grave; for if he should desire to lie under foreign marble, he must pay 2s. 6d. per square foot for his tombstone. Now, what does all this show? That the restrictions on the import of foreign corn are part of a whole system of restrictions devised and continued for the purpose of encouraging both domestic produce and domestic manufacture; that the grower of corn is no more a monopolist, no more a gainer by protection, than is the watchmaker, the hatmaker, the shoemaker, the glover, the manufacturer of paper, of silk, of brass-work, of woollen, of cotton, of porcelaine, of carriages,—of everything. Destroy the whole system of protection and prohibition, and even then you will have to consider whether the burthens upon the land are not unfairly laid—whether the produce of the land, malt, for instance, is not taxed in a degree, which, although the tax may be paid by the consumer, unduly encourages the consumption of other articles, to which, but for the tax, malt would be preferred. You will have, also, to consider whether it is just that the land should bear so large a proportion of the expense of maintaining the roads and of administering criminal justice, when the large towns—the congregation of great masses in manufactures—contribute so much more than the laud towards the production of crime. [Mr. Roebuck: That is not the case.] I differ from the hon. Gentleman, but I will not insist upon the point; but, still, suppose the extent of crime to be equal in the two classes, the manufacturing and agricultural, can he deny this—that the expense of punishing crime falls disproportionately upon the land? Here, Sir, I must, on account of the hour, conclude. It was not my purpose to enter into the general 449 considerations on which the policy of encouraging agriculture may be vindicated. I purposely took, in reply to the hon. Gentleman, the humbler and much more limited ground, of attempting to show, that the agriculturist, in opposing the free trade in corn, is not claiming for himself an exclusive protection—that the protection which he claims is not more than the special burthens Which he bears—and that it is, therefore, most unjust that he should be held up to public odium as an unfeeling and rapacious monopolist.
§ Speaker left the Chair. Debate adjourned.