§ Mr. Finchrose to resume the debate on this Petition. He would not do so were he not convinced, that neither the agriculturists, of whom he was one, nor the manufacturers, were satisfied with the debate which had taken place on the Motion of the hon. member for Middlesex. The more he thought upon the subject the more he was convinced of the utter impracticability of having a free-trade in corn. Some of the statements of the right hon. the Vice President of the Board of Trade, on a former occasion, appeared to him to be vague and unfounded. The right hon. Gentleman inferred that the sufferings of the agriculturists arose from the continuance of the Corn-laws. Now, anybody conversant with the actual state of things, would know, that the only thing which had saved them from utter ruin was the protection afforded them by those very laws. A series of difficulties had occur- 483 red to the agriculturists which it was almost impossible to record. Let Gentlemen look back to the year 1815, when there was an extensive and most impolitic speculation in foreign corn. This was followed by the failure of the country banks. After that came a season of distress unparalleled in the memory of man. The crops were in the most flourishing state, and every thing promised a very happy return, when suddenly a wet season came on, and all the crops rotted in the ground. Then came on the change in the monetary system, although he admitted, that the agricultural interests did not suffer more from that change than the other classes of producers and of capitalists. After this, again, came an unusually dry season, which reduced the midland counties to such a state, that they presented the appearance rather of the deserts of Arabia than anything else; and the succession of evils left the agriculturists, as they were at present, in a state approaching to bankruptcy. This was the position in which the agricultural interests were at present. They looked during the present year to something like a revival in prices, in order to meet the disasters; and the time chosen for bringing about the great change which the petition referred to, was when the agricultural interests required some additional profits. He (Mr. Finch) denied, that the present Corn-laws were the cause of the distress. A more sophistical statement than that could not be made; and he regretted that the Vice President of the Board of Trade should have committed so great and error as to make such an assertion. He was aware that a portion of his Majesty's Ministers were the advocates, and strenuously contended for, fixed protecting duties upon corn; but in his opinion, such a measure would be utterly impracticable, and would be attended with the most injurious effects to the agricultural interests in seasons of scarcity. Another error in such a measure of fixed duties would be, that if the prices were always to be the same, they would be too high in seasons of abundance, and too low in seasons of scarcity. Nothing, from the nature of the seasons, must vary so much as the price of corn, and to attempt to regulate it would be found utterly impracticable. He approved of one thing in the conduct of the hon. member for Liverpool upon this question 484 —that he had brought it before the House manfully and fairly. He had brought it in its full length, breadth, and width, and presented it as a subject of such magnitude that the House must be astonished at it. For his part he considered a system of free trade a chimera—if they could revive the golden age, they might have a free trade—if they could calculate upon permanent and uninterrupted peace, they might have it; but the moment a war broke out the system of a free trade would be at an end. They would be endeavouring to establish what would be in peace of no practical value, and when a war broke out must he attended with incalculable loss to the agricultural interest. The abolition of the Corn-laws would lead to a total revolution in their social, manufacturing, agricultural, commercial, and financial relations, and would, in all probability, destroy England's greatness. If they went into a system of free trade with the foreign grower, they should start with equal weights. They should take twenty-five pounds off the backs of the British agriculturist out of thirty, in order to place them on an equality with the foreign growers. It had been alleged, that this was a question between the British manufacturer and the British agriculturist; but he denied that such was the case. The manufacturer was much better able than the agriculturist to compete with foreign countries; but the British agriculturist must be beaten in the foreign market, from the great amount of expense and taxes which he was obliged to bear, in comparison with the foreign grower. On the hypothesis of reducing trade to a state of perfect freedom, an overwhelming loss would be caused to capital. Public credit would fall; and every print-shop in the city of London would have a caricature of the Chancellor of the Exchequer wot lost his budget. All trade should be rendered free, if any part of trade was made so; and let the House then consider the destitution that would follow to millions of farmers and manufacturers. A mass of misery would be presented; distress would not be confined to an insignificant or a small portion of the people, it would extend to all the inhabitants of the country. He was not speaking of a body of two or three hundred thousand persons—whose voice could be stifled, or claims refused. 485 No, he spoke of the agriculturists, who were 12,00,000 in number, and those who were their immediate dependents, who amounted to a population of 16,000,000. More than one-fourth of England was agricultural, the one-third of Scotland, the three-fourths of Ireland were likewise agricultural. Now, all that population would immediately raise a clamour for reduction of taxation, that could not be resisted; and let it be considered to what a crisis things would be brought. Yet such would be the inevitable result of a free trade. He saw a statement made in the Westminster Review the other day, a Review he did not praise either for its tone of polities, its classical elegance, its soundness of criticism, or its literary acquisitions; but the statement it contained was a true one. It supposed, that trade had become unrestricted, and it foretold the consequences. These were, that all the agriculturists would be converted into a body of Reformers, in the best meaning of the word, and would not be satisfied with anything short of a universal, unsparing reduction of taxation, which would not be compatible with the interests of the revenue, and, what was worse, would not be an available remedy to their own wants. He regretted his Majesty's Ministers were not in the House, that they might hear the different reasons assigned for not opening trade. He regretted, that the Vice-President of the Board of Trade was absent, as he might learn by the discussion of the subject what a host of opponents he would find, to the introduction of a measure that went to remove restrictions on trade. He believed, that if the markets were thrown open, the Irish linen trade would be destroyed, as would also the China trade, the silk trade, and the sugar trade. It was evident, that in consequence of the opening of the markets, the West-India interest in particular would be overwhelmed with the greatest distress, so as utterly to destroy all hopes of success of the great experiment of last Session, which was so deeply interesting to all friends of humanity; but this was not all; they would be obliged to purchase foreign sugar, and would encourage the slave trade, at the expense of our own colonies. He would further observe, that he had no objection to a free trade between England and Ireland, or England and Scotland, much more between different 486 parts of this country, because they could establish a permanent system. But suppose the agricultural interest were to undergo the losses which must follow from the abolition of the Corn-laws—suppose the West-India interest annihilated, and encouragement given to foreign trade and foreign slavery—suppose the China trade, the silk trade, and other trades to be ruined—and suppose Ireland were to lose the chief benefit which she derived from the union with this country, viz., the English corn market, what class of persons in this country would be benefited? The manufacturers would be dependent upon foreign nations for their supply of food, as the price of corn would be equalized in consequence of the competition with foreign markets. He would only ask the manufacturers what advantage they were to derive from it? It might answer very well whilst they were at peace with all the great importing countries of Europe, but if the system of the hon. member for Liverpool were adopted, and a war should unfortunately break out between this country and the other States of Europe, it would raise the price of corn to such a rate as might lead to a Revolution. It was impossible that a change of this sort could take place—a change so deeply affecting the resources of the country, the interests of the great mass of the people, and in particular the interests of the West-India colonies—a change which would destroy the home market, without in any degree improving the condition of the manufacturer; it was impossible that a change in the Corn-laws of so violent a nature could ever be sanctioned by that House.
§ Sir Henry Parnellsaid, that having a petition to present upon this subject, he trusted the House would permit him to make a few observations upon the question. The hon. Member who last addressed the House, grounded his case upon the interest the farmer had in this question. But whenever such a position was stated in that House, he felt it to be his duty to contradict it in the most direct and positive manner. It was a gross delusion practised upon the farmer by the landlords, to say that the farmers were interested in the continuance of the present system of Corn-laws. Let the question be fully and fairly discussed, and let the farmer really understand his own interest, and he would undertake to say, that it 487 would be impossible to maintain the doctrine that the two interests were identical, and it would be equally impossible for the monopoly of the corn longer to exist. The farmer had to obtain his livelihood by the application of his capital in the tillage of land; his interest depended upon the rate of return rendered by his capital, which again depended upon the price of the produce of the land with reference to the rent. If the price fell, or, if it were reduced by the repeal of the Corn-laws, the losses of the farmer must be prevented by a proportionate reduction in the rate of rent. The interest of the farmer depended upon the price of the produce of the land in relation to rent; and when the price of produce was only high because rent was high, the farmer must be satisfied that he had no interest in the monopoly of the Corn-laws, whatever the landowner had. The whole community, in fact, was taxed by the Corn-laws, for the purpose only of increasing the rent of the landlord. It had been stated, that 12,000,000 of individuals were interested in the question; but that was a most erroneous statement, inasmuch as only a few hundred thousand landlords were really benefited by the Corn-laws. If landlords were to receive, in consequence of the abolition of the Corn-laws, less than they now received by 500,000l. or 1,000,000l. a-year, that money would remain in the pockets of the consumer; the actual income of the country would not be interfered with, although landlords would have less; but the money being in the pockets of the consumer, it would pay as much tax, employ as much labour, and do as much, or even more, good than if it were in the pockets of the landlord. With regard to the evils apprehended from a repeal of the Corn-laws, he believed they had no foundation in fact. As to the excessive taxation of the landlord, he believed it was greatly exaggerated. The Malt-tax was said to be a tax on the land, but that he denied. He would ask who paid it? The landlord paid very little, for it fell upon the great mass of the community. As to the county and highway rates, though they were levied on the land, they were expended in its improvement, making roads, &c., from all of which the landlords benefited. With regard to the poor-rates, the landlords complained of their excess, but the landlords might have prevented the abuse of the 488 Poor-laws, if they had endeavoured in time. Neither did he agree in the supposed injurious effect which the abolition of protecting laws would have on our manufactures. The protection of our manufactures by a tax upon our imports ought to be discontinued; it was productive of mischief. The forty or fifty per cent imposed upon articles of manufacture imported into this country was, in fact, a dead letter. His constituents, who were great manufacturers of linen, and knew their own interest as well as others, would be glad to see the protection on that article done away entirely. The whole question was involved in one principle. Under the peculiar circumstances of the country, there was an enormous quantity of capital unemployed, and a superabundance of labour. That capital and that labour required employment, and the House ought to remove every impediment which lay in their way. The abolition of the Corn-laws would, it is obvious, furnish immediate employment to a considerable extent, and he should be glad to see that impediment removed.
§ Sir Edward Kerrisonhad heard the speech of the right hon. Gentleman with great surprise. The farmer chiefly found the capital to work the land, the right hon. Member admitted the capital to be there, and was that to have no protection? Did the right hon. Member mean to say, that the capital of the landlord and corn-grower was not an important point to be considered? Did that not require protection? Was he to suffer the foreign grower to come into the market, and beat him out of the field? According to the right hon. Gentleman the country would go on well, while the landlords would be utterly ruined. That appeared to be the upshot of his argument, and a weaker argument he had not heard since he had been in that House.
§ Mr. Langdalesaid, that an increase of demand must cause an increase of price to the grower. The landowner might consider land as his manufactory, and he ought to be allowed to turn it to the greatest possible advantage. But what was the fact? He could not change his wheat into malt without being immediately met by the excise, who would forbid him to do so. What would a manufacturer of cotton twist say, if, when he proposed to turn his cotton into something else, he was met in this manner? Suppose the 489 agriculturist thought of distilling his corn into spirits? "No," says the Chancellor of the Exchequer, "you shall not do that." Or suppose he said, "I will grow tobacco." "Oh, no," says the Chancellor of the Exchequer again, "I get 3,000,000l. a-year by the growth of tobacco." All these things should be taken into consideration. If we were to have a free trade, let all parties have an equal chance. The fact was, however, that we were under an artificial system, and, that system, he was afraid, must be kept up.
§ Sir Charles Burrellthought, after the eloquent speech delivered by the right hon. Baronet (the member for Tamworth) yesterday, it would have been much better to have let the question terminate where he left it. In his opinion, the landed interest was entitled to protection; and he could not, therefore, agree to the sentiments contained in the petition.
§ Mr. Benettwould ask the right hon. Baronet (the member for Dundee), whether individuals who had embarked a large capital in any pursuit were not entitled to protection? A great many individuals—such as the sons of respectable farmers—were bred up to agricultural pursuits, and were, in fact, able to do nothing else. Was an education that had been so obtained to be rendered useless, by depriving that individual of the means of employing it with advantage to himself? The real question was, whether or not the farmer was entitled to protection; for the effect of free trade would be to destroy his capital. If land could not be cultivated so as to yield him a profit, the consequence would be, that the landlord would become farmer, and the farmer would become labourer. There was another class, however, in whose welfare he felt a deeper interest than in that of the farmer; that class was the agricultural labourers. It had been said, that England was essentially a manufacturing country; he denied that proposition: it was essentially an agricultural one, and he should wish it to remain so. It should be remembered, that, if the interests of any branch of manufacture was at all assailed, there was at once a combination or union of those individuals connected with it, for the purpose of representing to Parliament the effects likely to accrue, and demanding the protection of the Legislature; while, on the other hand, no combination in de- 490 fence of their interests ever could exist amongst the agriculturists. He believed, however, that the root of all the distress which prevailed in the Country was the great debt with which the nation was in cumbered.
Colonel Torrenswas ready to maintain the principle, that the farmer had no interest in keeping up a high price for corn. During the currency of his lease, indeed, the farmer was a part proprietor of the soil, and had a temporary interest in high prices; but that interest ceased on the expiration of the lease. The farmer, however, had a large, enduring, and permanent interest in low prices, like that of all employers of capital. The cost of cultivation was different in different qualities of soil; and if they admitted foreign corn, they might throw out of cultivation those poor soils that produced little corn, but they would not throw out the superior soils; and on those soils the farmer would get higher profits than before. Suppose a farmer obtained ten bushels per acre from a certain description of soil upon which the expense of cultivation was equal to that of soil which produced twenty bushels per acre, it would be no disadvantage to him to have the inferior soils thrown out of cultivation. If they looked to the question with attention, they would find the interests of the farmer were different from those of the landed proprietor, for the one had an interest in low prices, and the other in high. He was an advocate for cheap corn, if the expense of cultivation were lowered.
§ Mr. Robinsonsaid, that, during all the years which he had held a seat in that House, whenever this question had been discussed, he had found, that it always bore one aspect; and the question now was in exactly the same state as what he first heard discussions upon it. He supposed, therefore, that there must either be more difficulty in the question than some persons were inclined to suppose, or that there were conflicting interests involved which tended to influence men's judgments. His opinion was, that conflicting interests added materially to the difficulties of the question. He was quite sure, that hon. Members endeavoured to divest themselves of all interested motives; but, at the same time, he was quite sure that they could not do so entirely. The great difficulty of all, however, was the immense pressure of the national debt. If they 491 looked at the discussions which had taken place, they would find, that it was the pressure of the debt which presented the great difficulty to the effectual and satisfactory settlement of this question. The burthen on lands induced the farmers to oppose a free trade in corn; and the burthen on the labourers placed them in their situation of difficulty. The fanner complained of the debt—the manufacturer complained of the debt. It was the immense pressure of the debt which stood in the way of the settlement of this question to the satisfaction of all parties. From the extent of her capital, the industry of her labourers, and the enterprise of her merchants, if England were free from the pressure of the national debt, she could compete in free trade with any nation in the world. He did not claim protection for any particular class in the country; on the contrary, he had already admitted, that every class was entitled to protection. The landlords, if their burthens were greater than those of others, and if they could prove that they were, were especially entitled to protection. Though he had voted for the Motion of the hon. member for Middlesex, the other night, yet he would not support the repeal of the Corn-laws. He represented a constituency who were large consumers of corn, but he told them that he could never bring himself to support a free trade in corn; when he knew that the effect of that free trade would be to throw a great quantity of land out of cultivation. He believed thus they would go on discussing this question interminably, until they adopted measures to lighten the burthens upon the industrious classes of the country, by making as large a portion of taxation as possible fall upon the property and wealth of the opulent classes. The petitioners prayed for such a free trade as would be impeded with as little taxation as possible. Now, the amount of the Customs was 16,000,000l. per annum; and, if this source of revenue was closed up, these 16,000,000l. of revenue must be made up in some other shape of taxation. From all these considerations, he was led to believe, that the merits of the case were neither on the one side nor on the other; and that the idea of a perfect free trade, in the present overburthened condition of the country, was a chimera in the minds of some very well-read who were without any practical knowledge whatever 492 on the subject. It was impossible for a free trade to exist unless taxation was considerably lessened.
§ Sir Harry Verneysaid, that the farmers and landed proprietors were more oppressed by the local burthens of the country than by the taxes imposed by this House to meet the exigencies of the State; and it was to this point that the House ought to look when they wished to relieve the land. The pressure of the county and other rates upon the farmer, was very great; and in several of the parishes in his neighbourhood the poor-rates were from 12s. to 15s. in the pound. The necessary consequence of any alteration in the present Corn-laws, under these circumstances, would be to throw out of cultivation a great portion of the land, which would naturally lead to the destruction of the agricultural labourers.
§ Lord Sandonsaid, that there was the evidence of facts to prove, that lowering prices had ruined the farmer. What was the first effect of a fall of prices? Did the landlord immediately, when the price of corn fell, lower his rent twenty per cent? No; he said, that it was a chance which might be made up by a better crop the next year; but the next year it might be the same; and the farmer would continue to pay his rent out of his capital. With regard to throwing land out of cultivation, he could not look with indifference to a great number of the agricultural labourers being thrown out of employment, upon the mere chance of finding employment in other ways. It was the duty of a good Government not to raise one interest at the expense of another. If he looked at the possible extension of trade from the opening of the corn trade, we must, in such a case, take corn from foreign States;—but would those States, for the sake of the 200,000 or 300,000 bushels of corn, which we should want, be induced to give up the protection which they had been so long weaving round their manufactures? Would the United States do it, or Prussia?—when the constant labour of every Prussian Minister, for many years, had been to foster manufactures.
Mr. Stricklandsaid, it had been truly stated, that the question was one of monopoly, or free trade; and also that, in the artificial state of this country, free trade was a chimera. Personally, he was much interested in the question. All he 493 had in the world was in land; but still he was against the Corn-laws. He begged it to be understood, that the manufacturers had never said, though they had been charged with saving it, that their interest ought to have a predominant consideration. He could not agree with what had fallen from the hon. Baronet (Sir Charles Burrell) opposite. That hon. Baronet had observed, that the right hon. Baronet (Sir R. Peel) had exhausted the subject; and that it would have been well to leave the question where he left it. He admitted, that the right hon. Baronet had well expressed himself: but he denied that he had exhausted the question. On the contrary, the right hon. Baronet had advanced one argument only. That argument was, that the manufacturers had no right to complain of the monopoly of the agriculturists, because those manufacturers were themselves protected by duties, such as those on foreign boots, hats, and walking-sticks, if the farmers chose to have such articles of foreign produce. But the absurdity of such protection was, at the same time, manifest. Had the manufacturers ever approached that House, saying,—"Keep up such duties and protections; but while you keep them up, destroy the Corn-law monopoly?" They had never done any thing of the kind. Then, what became of the right hon. Baronet's argument?
§ The Speaker left the Chair at three o'clock. The question was again adjourned.