CORN-LAWS.

HC Deb 01 April 1840 vol 53 cc315-97

Mr. Villiers

, said, Sir, in rising to propose the question of which I have given notice, I beg to apologize to the House for its postponement till this evening. I assure the House that it proceeded from a cause which I could not control, arising as it did from indisposition—an excuse, indeed, which I could offer with great force this evening, but learning that many persons expected that the subject would be discussed this week, I determined that, if possible, no other delay should occur on my account. The circumstance, however, only adds to the many considerations that now present themselves to my mind to make me regret that it is still in my hands to make this proposition to the House. The subject is now assuming a very serious aspect in this country; it is engaging the attention, as it is affecting the interest of the great mass of the community, and whatever the House may think, questions of this character, affecting as they do the commerce, the employment, and the condition of the people, excite among them an interest far exceeding any other. I wish, therefore, that the question was with those who could do more justice to it than myself, and still more that it was with those who had the power to do the people justice. I had, indeed, well hoped that 'ere now, that the landed proprietary of this country, would, in consideration of that deep distress which is now pervading and bearing down the productive classes of our community, have given some sign of intending to relax the rigours of their law, and that what has hitherto been denied to the claims of justice, might yet have been granted on the grounds of mercy. Three months have, however, passed away since the Parliament assembled, and not a whisper of such an intention has been heard; on the contrary, the same querulous note has been sounded in another place about agitation, and the same haughty and ill-placed observations respecting its object; while, in this House, we have seen that the usual efforts have been made to procure some proof of opinion in favour of the law, but, in truth, proving nothing but the influence so commonly used by the landholders over their dependents; and showing nothing, as it appears, but the determination of the class to maintain the law unchanged. Having, however, mooted this matter before in this House, some confidence is placed in me that I will not suffer it to slumber; and I cannot, therefore, allow more time to escape without asking the majority of this House to reconsider the decision they gave on it last Session, and seriously to review the grounds on which they rested their opinion, and which I apprehend to have been, that the law works well, that it has satisfied the purpose for which it was enacted, and that it ought to be maintained. A bold conclusion, I think, to have pronounced last Session, but one I think, that will require more courage to repeat; I, therefore, shall restate some of those facts and arguments which have led me to the honest conviction that the law is had, that it has worked ill, that it has caused, and is causing great loss and suffering to the productive classes, and that it now casts upon the community a fearful addition to those burthens which it is at all times compelled to endure: and were I to state further what prompts me to press this matter again on the House, it is that I believe that a day has net passed since the last discussion, that either from personal suffering or greater intelligence, fresh converts have not been made to the repeal of this law, while I do not believe that one human being would be produced, who having been either indifferent to the law before or opposed to the law, has since become a convert to its continuance; and I regret the importance which I know I must attach to this circumstance, for I fear it will greatly outweigh any argument that I could adduce on the subject. For I cannot persuade myself, that unless there was a general impression in both Houses of Parliament, either that great ignorance or general indifference prevailed among the people on the question, that those who take a prominent part in these discussions, would utter the things which we hear on the subject. For not only do we hear that the Corn-law is a necessary evil, but that it is a positive advantage; and the advocates of repeal have it thus cast upon them to prove that an abundance of the essential of life, which in its abundance gives further means of satisfying the wants of life, is better than that clearness and scarcity that deteriorates the condition of all. However, if this task has to be performed again, the moment is, perhaps, favourable for the purpose. For it is almost difficult to believe, that if those who argued in favour of the law last year, could have known that their statements would have followed so close upon the heels of events which afforded to them such complete denial, that they would have uttered them, or indeed perhaps if it could have been expected that we on this side should have had the sad advantage which the distress of the country this year affords us, the decision on the question might have been different. I am not going to deny, however, that there has been great misapprehension on the subject of the Corn-laws, that mystery has been artfully thrown round the question, and that thousands are only, at this day, viewing the question in the true simplicity of its character. I shall, therefore, consider it with all the calmness and deliberation which should attach to a question that admitted of dispute; and I shall, as I have done on former occasions, proceed to consider the object of the law. The object of the Corn-law, then, may be simply stated to be, to limit the quantity of food imported from abroad, for the purpose of raising and maintaining the price of that which is grown at home, this is the object as it is to be collected from the avowed purpose as well as the provision of the law. The policy of such legislation seems to belong to the present century, and we are now living under the third legislative experiment that has been made for the purpose. In 1804, Mr. Western's bill passed into law, this was followed by the law of 1815, and we are now living under the enactment of 1828. Each of these laws have professed the same purpose, namely, to keep lands in cultivation, to keep the people in employment, and to secure to the cultivator a certain price for his produce; to each, also, have the same objections been offered, namely, that such policy may be at variance with the public good, that the interests of the community may be sacrificed by maintaining particular soils in cultivation; and that, as the price of produce depended upon circumstances beyond the reach of legislation, that the law was only calculated to mislead those who relied upon it. The justice of such objections with respect to two of those laws is now matter of history. Mr. Western procured his bill by stating that thousands of acres would otherwise be thrown out of cultivation, and that a proportionate number of labourers would be thus rendered destitute. Now, Sir, I believe I state the fact, when I say that after the passing of that bill, that the ports never were closed; and that so far from land going out of cultivation from this circumstance, that within six or seven years after it had passed, produce had risen nearly 300 per cent above the price that he had fixed as remunerative. Next came the law of 1815, which proposed to make the community pay for its food at the price which it had reached during the war, and in a depreciated currency, and that for ever. I have a right to say, that that was the deliberate intention of the Legislature, because there was an hon. Member, at that time in this House, whose eager and able exertions on that occasion to expose what he called the iniquity and injustice of the law, excited general attention, and he made a distinct proposition that if such a law were to pass, that it should not exist beyond the time when we should place our currency on a more sure basis—in short, when we should resume cash payments. I need not say I allude to Mr. Baring, who has since become Lord Ashburton. He made that proposition to the House, but it was rejected. Sir, it is no longer matter of question, that that law was a failure in every respect. It failed to give profit to the producer—it failed to give plenty to the people—it failed to maintain steadiness of prices, and it failed even in that which might have been expected from it, namely, in giving wisdom to those who projected it. It was introduced amidst the curses of the people—it seems to have expired without more favour from its friends. But in 1828, its failure did not seem to be ascribed to the purposes which it sought to obtain, but only to the means which were adopted for its attainment. It was thought, still, that it was possible to fix the price by law at which the produce could be sold, and to secure the cultivator the price which he expected. It was only considered the means had not yet been discovered by which that object should be attained, and it was in 1828 that this discovery was thought to have been made, and the scheme of a sliding scale was suggested for meeting the wishes of the agriculturists; and I take it we are now to consider whether this scheme, which was devised in 1828, has succeeded or not. There are some who think that it has worked well—that it has accomplished every object intended, and I hope they will prove their case. I certainly am of opinion that it has only verified every prediction of evil that was likely to attend it, and I think I can show it has done so. I do not think the public require much information on the subject; but they are watching this discussion, and I trust that they will consider well on which side the truth prevails. Now, Sir, I contend that the present law is a complete failure; and when I say so, I refer, perhaps, rather to its avowed object than to that which may have been intended, though not avowed, I contend that it has failed to benefit agriculture, though perhaps it has succeeded in greatly raising the value of land. And it is very important here to distinguish clearly between what is called agriculture and the ownership of land. These interests are, in many respects, distinct; because, however, in some degree, they are the same, the landowners claim for themselves all the arguments usually advanced in support of the law that have only reference to agriculture. Now, the fact is, the connexion is not nearer between the cultivation of the land and its ownership, than between a house arid the business carried on in it; or between the merchant and his banker, who may lend him the capital to conduct his business; or between the manufacturer and the person of whom he purchases the raw material. These interests are in some material points distinct, and nobody confounds them and there is no more reason for confusion between the cultivator and the owner of the soil, than between those interests. The landowner may hardly know where his property is, he may be unable to distinguish one kind of produce from another; he may live abroad, and know no one connected with his property but the receiver of his rents; and again, the cultivator may be equally ignorant of any circumstance connected with the ownership of the land, beyond the price he pays for its use. The distinction, how- ever, is so obvious that I would not have troubled the House by stating it, but for a singular confusion which is made in this respect in arguing for the law, and that under the general term agriculturists, we hear the most exaggerated pretensions put forward, based on the assumed interest of landlord, farmer, and labourer. These interests, however, being in so many respects distinct, it is important that they should be so viewed. Now, with respect to the necessity or policy of legislating at all for the particular interest of the agriculturist or the farmer; what does it consist in? What would he desire the law to do for him if it could? Why, probably, to enable him to get the return for his capital that he expected, and that is, what I suppose, every capitalist would wish; in fact, to be made sure in his calculations, and obtain the profit he expects; and this is, in truth, what the Corn-law promises it will do for him, and does hold out the expectation of something like certainty and steadiness in this respect. We have now to examine how far it has realized his expectations: the first fact then that is to be observed is, that since the passing of this law, there has been every variation in the price of produce, and that the farmer has experienced great distress and disappointment, which at least seems to lead to the conclusion that this law has not averted the evil apprehended by the agriculturists. But the next question is, whether this has not been actually caused by the law? This I believe can be almost demonstrated, and I collect the proof of it from the agriculturists themselves—not to have referred to their opinions as it has been collected by this House, seems to have been an omission in the previous discussions upon this question; the fact is, that those who complain of this law, are usually so much occupied with showing the gross injustice of the law, that they have as yet paid little attention to the evidence against it by those for whose interest it is professed to be maintained; but there has, however, been a great body of evidence collected by the House, and given under circumstances which compel us to give it credit; and to which the public ought to have its attention directed; for I do say, that if there is one conclusion before another to which a candid inquirer would arrive after reading that evidence, it is, that the law is extremely prejudicial to the farmer—and that it has occasioned distress and disappointment to all of that class who have trusted to it. This is an important consideration, because there are many now who distinctly see the injustice of the law, but yet from fear of the consequences of its repeal to the persons who have invested their capital upon the faith of its continuance, are yet slow in calling for its repeal; and now, at the risk of wearying the House hoping to be excused by the importance of the question, I shall proceed to read some extracts of the evidence collected in 1836, by the agricultural committee appointed in that year. The first person whose evidence I will advert to is that of Ellis, a Leicestershire farmer, who is asked whether the distress of the time had any connexion with the Corn-law—and he says in reply that he thought the present duty too high, because it gave a fictitious value to land, and that it gave the farmers an expectation of something that could never occur; and on that account, it holds up the value of land fictitiously. This question is then put to him; then you think it induced the tenants to make larger offers than in the result they have been able to pay? I think so, farmers are prone to expect high prices, and they have been expecting something that was not likely to occur.—

Mr. Parker, an Essex farmer, is asked:— Do you consider, that the distressed state of those farmers can be at all attributed to the rents not having been lowered sufficiently in time?—I should say very materially, the landlords not prudently lowering their rents earlier than they have done. The farms would have been in better condition?—Yes; it has been by persisting in the high rents that the farms would have been worked out of condition, and then no person would take them except at a very low rent. Do you think, that they (the Corn-laws) hold out hopes of a continuance of a higher rate of price than can ever be realised?—The Corn-laws have been in operation but a few years, they commenced with large foreign supplies; we have been only put on our own growth the last four years; I do not think if the present laws continue, that we should be often interfered with by foreign supply. Take the whole of the farmers in the county of Essex, do you think, that they are possessed of as much capital now, as they were in 1821?—Certainly not. Then they have been labouring now for fifteen years, and have expended a great deal of industry, and skill, and capital, with no return at all, as a body?—They have been parting with their capital, a great many of them, to their landlords, and to other persons, whose charges upon them were excessively high. Mr. Cox, of Buckinghamshire, gives this evidence:— For the last three years you have been farming that land to a profit?—Decidedly not to a profit. Should you say that the cultivation of Buckinghamshire has fallen off within the last eight or ten years?—I should say so, in the neighbourhood in which I live. In what respect?—The land is getting very foul and overcropped; in some places, driven further than it should be. Mr. John Houghton, a gentleman of great experience, states:— Have you not arable farms in the county of Buckingham, over which you are steward?—Yes, I have. What is their state now compared with the state of the grazing farms to which yon allude?—On the heavy clay lands the distress is very great, more than it is on the turnip and barley lands, or grass land. How do you account for that distress upon the clay lands?—From the low price of wheat. Do you find, that the capital of the farmesr has been dimishing?—Certainly; I think the great distress has been on the heavy land farms. Have their farmers been paying their rents out of their produce, or out of their capital?—If you take the heavy clay land, certainly out of their capital. Mr. John Rolfe, farmer of Buckinghamshire, gives this evidence:— Do you use wheat for any other purpose, but that of human food now?—I have not done it; some have ground wheat for the pigs; some have given it to their horses, but that was principally the grown wheat of the last harvest but one. What is the cost of the cultivation of your farm per acre now, as compared with what it was some years ago?—The cost of cultivation is very much the same; there is a little difference in the price of labour. Can you state how rents are paid in your district?—Rents have heretofore, till the last two years, been very well paid. How have they been paid since 1833?—They have been paid very badly. Even on the light soils you speak of?—Yes. There is more wheat grown upon land now?—Yes. Supposing there should not be a corresponding demand for wheat in proportion as that class of land increases, it must make the heavy clay land less profitable?—Yes. You do not complain of the price of mutton now?—No. Of wool?—No. Of barley? you cannot expect much increase in that?—No, not much. Oats?—Oats we should wish for a little increase. Beans?—If we had 4s. a quarter more, we should not have much fault to find. The chief complaint is on account of the depression in the price of wheat?—Yes, that is where the farmer is suffering most; that is where he looks for his rent in the spring of the year, when he should have the price of his wheat to raise the money for his rent; when he is looking for a large sum of money to meet his payments; when he comes to thresh out and carry to market, his expenses almost take the whole price. What will become of the landlord?—We shall be all beggars together. Mr. John Curtis, another Buckinghamshire farmer says— Has the capital of the farmers in your opinion diminished?—I should say considerably. Will you state in what way farmers are worse off?—In the first place, they have cropped their land hard, and it is now getting into bad condition; it is getting foul, and the stock diminishes. Now looking at the different descriptions of soils; first of all the grass, has the produce of your grass enabled you to pay the rent upon the grass land?—What little grass I have is very good; that is the best part of my farm. You have stated that the condition of the labourers is good; you mean those that are employed?—Those that are emplóyed; and there are very few out of employment. Chairman; Has the poor-rate been reduced lately?—Yes; the Poor-law bill works well with us. Mr. John Kemp, an Essex farmer gives this evidence:— Do you consider, then, that the quantity of wheat in the market has been the cause of the depression of the price?—I should say so. Has the capital of the farmers in your neighbourhood, and under your knowledge, diminished or not?—Very much diminished. What was the rate in your parish previous to the passing of the Poor-law Bill, and what is it now?—Our expenditure in the parish used to be 1,600l., and last year it was not more than 1,200l. What is the state of the small farmer about you; the man who rents an hundred acres?—As bad off as the poor man. Are farmers paying rents from their profits or their capital?—From their capital. Taking the labourers as a body, are they as well employed as they used to be?—They have been very well employed for the last three years. Do you think, that upon the average, the higher price, from a scarce season, compensates the farmer for the deficiency of his crop?—No; for at the time when corn was so high, about six years ago, during the wet seasons, we were certainly worse off than we are now, and wheat was much higher. This is from the evidence of Mr. Thurlwall, of Cambridgeshire:— What, in your opinion, is the condition of the tenantry generally in your neighbourhood?—I think verging on insolvency, generally in the most desperate state that men can possibly be. Mr. Charles Page, in Essex, farmer, is asked:— Have you lost or gained this last year upon your farm?—In fact, I have lost every year since I have been in business. Have you lost principally upon the wheat or the barley crop?—The loss upon the wheat crop I think is the most material. Mr. George Babbs is asked:— Do you believe whether the farmers are paying their rent out of capital, or out of the profits of their farms?—I believe the farmers have been paying their rents out of the capital they employ. Is that your case?—It has been my case. Has the land been cropped harder in your neighbourhood than it used to be?—I think it has. Mr. Charles Howard is asked:— Taking the period since the last committee sat in 1833, what do you consider to be the comparative state of the farming interests now and at that time?—Decidedly and progressively worse. Do you take into your consideration every species of land, or one species of land more than another?—I think upon the sheep farms, the upland farms, from the increased demand which there has been for sheep, the distress has rather decreased; sheep have been very high. Then with respect to the low-land farms?—Their situation has been progressively much worse. You slated that in consequence of the depressed state of the farming interest of that country, the landlords have permitted a considerable portion of the old grass lands to be ploughed up; has that tended to precipitate the affairs of the tenant, or otherwise?—It has kept the tenant longer upon his legs. But it has more materially deteriorated the condition of those farms upon which the permission was given?—Decidedly so. Either you think that the land will go out of cultivation and produce a diminished supply, or you think that the Legislature will interfere in some way so as to produce a rise in price?—Exactly. And you think that is the view of those persons that buy those farms at present?—I do believe it. Mr. Robert Hope, a Scotch farmer, gives the following evidence:— Have you ever thought anything about the present Corn-laws, whether they are beneficial to the farmer or not?—Yes, they have been often discussed, but it is a very general feeling among those that pay corn-rents, that they have not been hitherto beneficial, but the very reverse of being beneficial. What is your reason for that opinion?—It induced men to offer more than has been well realized by the price of corn, because it was generally expected from the Corn-laws, that prices would be kept up to something like what they promised; that the import of foreign corn would be restricted, and by that means, keep up the price of the home growth to 70s. or so. How has the Corn-law disappointed your expectation?—Because it led those that took farms at money rents, to give a much higher rent than they would have done. Then is it the opinion of you and those other gentlemen that have considered the subject in the way you mention, that the present Corn-law ought to continue, or do you think, that any change would be beneficial to the farmer?—From what we experienced in the year 1831, I am disposed to think, that a change might be more beneficial to the farmer, by reducing the scale at which foreign corn is imported. You have stated, that the existing Corn-law you consider is prejudicial to the farmer; is your opinion founded upon the circumstance of there having been a miscalculation as to the effects to be produced by the Corn-laws, or upon the working of the Corn-laws themselves?—I think by the present working of the Corn-laws, that it may run prices too high for the interest of the farmers in years of scarcity, before any foreign corn can be admitted into the country, prices may be run up so high as to be prejudicial to the interest of the farmer, because, in such a year as we had in 1831, we could not grow so much wheat as we had to pay in rent. If the result of this Corn-law should be to produce great fluctuations in price, you would think that effect would apply to all farmers?—I think it has been prejudicial to those that even pay a money rent, because I am sure, that if it had not been for the Corn-laws, they would not have given so high a money-rent. Mr. James Tison, an English farmer, gives this evidence:— What causes have there been to depress the state of the farmers of stiff land?—High rents; it is my opinion, founded on the testimony of farmers themselves, that many of them are farming under war-rents, while they are selling their corn at peace prices. Mr. Loch: The consequence of the rents being kept up too high has been that the land has been overcropped?—Yes; when I have conversed with farmers, this appears to be the conclusion they have come to, that they have paid their landlords, what they ought to have paid to the labourers. If they had paid it to labourers they would have had value for the money; whereas they paid it to the landlord, and, of course, received nothing back, and they had so much less to lay out upon their farms. On the light soils, have the tenants been, met by the landlords with a reduction of rent?—They have not needed so much reduction as they have upon the heavier soils. It appears from your evidence, therefore that it is a question very much between landlord and tenant, as to the present condition of the farming interest; that is to say, that the landlord has more in his power than can be done by the Legislature?—Decidedly; I do not see what the Legislature can do, except with respect to the Poor-law, to benefit the agriculturist effectually. Mr. Wodehouse: Looking at Mr. Coke's estate, in Norfolk, could any number of his tenantry afford to give him any rent whatever, with wheat al5s. a bushel?—Yes, I think with a good crop they could. Then you think that the want of intelligence and the want of skill has gone a great way towards producing the depressed state of the farmers?—According to my view of it, such is the state of society in this country, that for a person to do well in any branch, whether in agriculture, manufacture, or in commerce, there must be a combination of intelligence, practical skill, capital, and industry; and if any of those be wanting, whether it is in agriculture, or in mercantile affairs, a person is almost sure now to go wrong; and when I have traced a great number of cases of individual distress among farmers to that cause, one of those has been wanting. What do you conceive to be the effect of the present Corn-laws upon the consumer?—I think they have a very unfavourable effect; they operate as a very great hinderance to the extension of trade, to the manufacturing and commercial interests, because, under the present system of Corn-laws we can receive nothing in return from those countries which would take our manufactured goods, if they could send us their corn in return; for instance Prussia; our trade would be immense with Prussia if we could take their corn in return. What do you think is the average price which may be fairly calculated upon by the farmer under the existing Corn-law?—Under 50s. a quarter for wheat. Mr. Thomas Bennett is asked:— Do you think, with reduction of rent, and the reduction of prices, the farmer can cultivate his land at a profit?—Looking to the seven years back, and having taken those farms under very low prices, I have not a question that some may do it profitably, and I have no doubt some will. Sir James Graham: At what price do you estimate wheat for the next seven years?—If I was going to take a farm myself, I should not expect, nor would I calculate for the next seven years, to have wheat above 5s. to 6s. a bushel. Will the Duke of Bedford's tenants, who have retaken those farms, be able to pay the rent for which they have just agreed, with wheat at 5s. a bushel?—I think they will. I think the majority do not expect to see it at much more. Mr. Andrew Howden, a Scotch farmer, gives this evidence:— If you had been sold off in 1820, do you think you would have been better off than you are now?—I do not know that mine is a fair case to be taken as a general case, because I started very poor in life, and I have had a hard struggle, and other circumstances that contributed to assist me. I am the only remaining farmer in the parish where I was brought up; except myself, there is not a farmer, nor the son of a farmer remaining within the parish hut myself. What is the reason of their having all gone away?—The money rents that where exacted of them. They all conceived that they were to have 80s. a quarter, and their calculations were made upon that. It soon appeared that that could not be realized, and they were not converted, and ruin has been the consequence. Then there has been a great change of tenancy in your neighbourhood?—There has been. And that has been caused by the fall of prices?—Yes, and the want of accommodation on the part of the proprietors. In your opinion did the Corn-law that was made in 1815, deceive both the landlord and the tenant?—It did. I believe that the calculation upon which they took at that time was almost universally 4l. a quarter. The Corn-law having promised a price of 80s., failed to perform it?—Yes. Mr. William Bell, a Scotch farmer, is asked:— What is your reason for supposing a fixed duty would be preferable?—By the present Corn-law, when the price approaches near the rate at which the foreign corn can be brought into the market with a profit, the prices may possibly be run up to that rate by artificial means. Thus a great quantity of corn would be improperly liberated and thrown upon the market, and this might probably depress the market for the whole season. Now, at a fixed duty, that could not take place. Mr. George Robertson, another English farmer, gives this evidence:— Supposing that mutton had borne the same proportionate price when wheat fell to 40s., do you think the Scotch farmer would then have been enabled to make a good living?—The Scotch farmer would have tried something else than wheat; he would have extended his grass cultivation, and that would have tended to reduce the price of meat still more?—No doubt. And if the price of barley had been also reduced?—Those are all regulated by the demand of the manufacturing and commercial classes. Do you know anything of the sale of the manufacturing and commercial classes?—My belief is, that they were never more prosperous. How long has that been the case?—It has been gradually coming on for years. In the face of that increasing prosperity, has there not been a decline in the price of wheat?—That may be accounted for by the great additional average crops for a series of years. Are you able to perceive a great increase in the demand of the operative classes?—Very great in flour and meat, and I have no doubt, the increased price of barley is caused by a demand for malting in England. Supposing the supply and demand for labour to remain the same, will not eventually the price of labour fall in proportion to the fall in the price of food?—At present the demand for labour for the manufacturing interest is so great, that we can scarcely get hands for necessary operations of agriculture. You have been asked, with reference to the price of wheat governing the price of meat, can you anticipate a very great falling off in the price of meat, when you consider that the population of this country is increasing so rapidly, and that the manufacturing employment of that population is so great as it is at present?—No. I think the price of agricultural produce must keep up; that is to say if the manufacturing classes prosper and live as they are doing. I shall not however, trouble the House with any further extracts. It is impossible to read that evidence without being convinced that the farmers are induced by this law to promise rents for their land, which it does not enable them to pay, and that they are tempted by the price of which the law professes to assure them, to devote much of their capital to the growth of wheat, which as it is the most expensive plant they can grow, if they are disappointed in the price they expect, the loss they experience is proportionally severe. And I think, Sir, I may venture to state this with confidence to this House, since I find in the admirable address you published to your constituents, that this was the conclusion to which you arrived, after devoting more attention and time to that committee, and to the subsequent consideration of the evidence than perhaps any other Member. And I find, that your conviction is, that the law is actually prejudicial to the farmer, and in the manner in which I have stated it to be so, and you Sir, seem to agree in the conclusion to be drawn from much of the evidence given by agriculturists themselves, namely, that they must not depend for fortune upon the adventitious aid of such legislation as the Corn-law, but upon what all other capitalist must rely upon, namely, the skill, experience, and intelligence, which they bring to their pursuit. But now I wish the House to mark the consequence of the farmer being tempted to direct his attention chiefly, or to apply his capital so largely to the cultivation of wheat, and by neglecting the culture of other products and by the overproduction of wheat, lowering its price below the sum that could be remunerating: namely, that he becomes suddenly alarmed and disappointed at his loss, and withdraws much of his capital from such employment, and thus narrows the breadth which he sows with wheat, and then we see how another purpose which the law is supposed to have, is fulfilled—namely, to supply the community with food at a reasonable rate. Why, the first consequence of growing less wheat has been of course to raise the price, which occurring at the time of a bad harvest the public have been suffering for the last eighteen months, and are now suffering, from an unusual deficiency, and have been paying a great additional price for their food neither have they any prospect of improvement. There is every probability that prices will keep up, and that great sacrifices will yet have to be made by the public for food. But supposing that all the assertions about the present season and all the usual predictions respecting the coming harvest were true, and that the price was greatly to fall in consequence of the rotation of the crops being disturbed by a greater breadth of wheat sown this year than was ever known before. Why, how will that benefit the farmer? We shall have the same story of distress over again, and we shall see that class as badly off as they were in 1836. And this is, indeed, the regular operation of the Corn-law, namely, either to ruin the farmer or greatly prejudice the public. Yet this is the law which is sought to be identified with all the cherished institutions of the state, and if any one assails it, he is charged with designs against the constitution itself. But who is benefitted by this law, if the farmer is thus injured and deceived, it is usual to say in these discussions, that by making prices high, particular soils are kept in cultivation, and the labourers are thus secured employment, that wages rise with the price of food, and that in fact, the labourer is thus made better off by high prices because his wages are higher. This was deliberately said last year? will that be repeated? I trust not—I dont think it creditable to have urged it at all—it certainly is not true. It is almost cruel to the labourer to say it, seeing that he can have no doubt of the privations he is obliged to endure from a high price of food. There is not a pretence for asserting, that when provisions are high the agricultural labourer is well off. The contrary has always been the case whenever such periods have occurred. In 1797, a year of great scarcity and high price, so far from its leading to higher wages, it was the time when the system of pauperising independent labourers commenced, and wages were made up from the rates for the very purpose of escaping from what is said to be the result of high prices, namely, raising wages in proportion to the price of food. Again in 1810, 1818, 1830, and at the present time, there have been great complaints of their sufferings, and during each of those years the prices have been high. But it is a fact not less striking, in contradiction of what is assumed, that whenever provisions have been low, the labourers have been well off, that there has been a great demand for their labour, and that their wages have given them a greater command over the necessaries of life. Not certainly astonishing to any person who reflects for a moment on the subject, because it is clear that as every body is more or less an employer of labour, and that he is so according to his means, that in proportion as his means are greater or less, so will be his demand for labour, and so consequently will be the wages of the labourer, as it is the proportion which their number bears to the demand for them, which must determine their condition—but if there can be any doubt as to the influence of high prices or the condition of the people, it will be well to view what really is the case at this moment, and I own as far as my own enquiries have gone, I can learn nothing but that either the wages though raised, have not risen in proportion to the price of food, or that, not having risen at all, the labourers have in many cases endured the greatest privations. And here I will just read to the House a report of some cases occurring a short time since, which have appeared in a provincial paper, into the truth of which I have enquired and to which I merely refer to show how incautiously it is asserted here that the agricultural labourers are not affected by the price of food— In the southern part of this county 6s. a-week is commonly given to agricultural laborers. Within the last fortnight at the petty sessions held at Salisbury, a farmer, living at Durnford, was summoned by a labourer named Blake, for refusing to pay him 6s. 6d. for a day's work. The complaint stated that he worked on "the Stem," sometimes for one master, sometimes for another, at 6s. 6d. a week, the rate agreed to by the farmers at a vestry meeting. His employer had refused to pay him more than 6s. which Blake would not accept, as it was not sufficient to maintain himself and wife. The master in his defence, told the magistrates that the farmers of Durnford had "stemmed" the surplus labourers of that parish at 6s. per week, which was as much as they could afford to pay. The Bench expressed their surprise—as well they might—at the practice pursued by the farmers at Durnford towards the labourers, and ordered the defendant to pay Blake the full amount of wages agreed on 6s. 6d., and to remunerate him for his loss of time in seeking redress. This week we will lake a different district, and name Rushall, a parish standing comparatively in favourable circumstances, where the poor have advantages which in many other places they do not enjoy. This parish is divided into three large farms, the land is chiefly arable, and of excellent quality, producing on an average, certainly not less than, eight sacks of wheat, and ten sacks of barley per acre. On this fertile spot the highest wages of able-bodied married labourers with families are only 9s. per week (we except harvest work, for which, of course, more is paid); those without children, and single men, although equally able, aye and willing too, to a good day's work, are put off with 5s., 6s., and 7s. a week. We do not understand why this is; it appears to be an act of injustice, and we should be glad to know upon what principle the distinction is made;—If an able man's service be worth 9s. a week, then is the single man deprived of his due by being paid only 5s.; but if an able man's services be worth only 5s. or 6s a week, then must the difference between that and 9s. be considered as parish allowance for the children; it is high time this were properly understood, for if the latter be the case, the real rate of wages in much lower than it is represented to be. Of course, with such wages, destitution and distress abound. Many families are unable to obtain more than one meal a day, and in many instances that one meal consists of potatoes and salt, without meat, and with only a small quantity of the coarsest bread. Very few even of those who are the best off get wheaten bread, but are obliged to have recourse to a mixture of barley and wheat, the latter being of a very inferior description—tail wheat. Meat is hardly ever eaten by any of the labourers, they never buy any. I think I have a right to refer to such cases when I read addresses to the peasantry, such as have been made by a noble Duke (Buckingham), who takes a lead in maintaining the Corn-laws and asks them to believe that while they maintain those laws they will ever be prosperous. Why, Sir, if it was for no other reason but the one that the Corn-laws tend to make land dear, it is prejudicial to the labouring class, who are always better off when land is accessible to them, and nothing tends more to their contentment and comfort than the possession of land. Another circumstance I might mention which tends, in my judgment, to shew that the people are badly off and discontented now in the agricultural districts, namely, that there have been a greater number of the agricultural labourers who have sought to avail themselves of the provision for emigration this year than ever they did before. Why should this be the case, if the people were well paid and well employed; but the fact is, that there is less means for employing labour this year because the price of food is so high, and the poor are driven from the farmhouse to the poor-house, and from thence to the State, to implore of it to send them out of the country. And, really, if we will not allow the food to come to them, it is only merciful to send them were the food is produced; but in God's name, why are they to be driven from their homes, when if provisions were low as they were in 1836, they would get plenty of employment, as the admission of all the farmers themselves they did then. Who is it, then, after all whose interests are benefitted by these laws. I say, in the first place, none can be permanently so at the expense of the rest of the community, but immediately and for the while, there is no doubt whatever that the owner of the land has an advantage in them—and it is an advantage in this way, that it enables a certain class of inferior soils to be cultivated with wheat, and which doubtless could not bear the expense if the produce of better foreign soils was brought into competition with it; and these soils being thus articifically enhanced in value, tend to raise the value and consequently the rent of all other land; and the owners of land, therefore, without reference to the effect of the law upon other classes of the community, have this interest in the law; and it is well that the truth should be avowed and known, and that it be allowed that they have a temporary advantage in the corn-law, and though the farmers and the labourers cannot benefit by rent being thus artificially raised, it is clear the landowners do, and it is to them alone to whom we must deliberately turn for redress, and appeal to them on the score of injury and injustice done to the community at large, and ultimately of injury to themselves, by impairing the fortunes of those on whom they must depend, by means of their custom for the permament value of their estates. It is reasonable, therefore, to direct our whole attention to that class, for certain am I, that notwithstanding the delusion of some of the farmers on this subject, that if some of the more distinguished of the landowners in both Houses of Parliament, were to rise in their places and express an opinion that the law ought to be changed, that all alarm among their tenants would at once be dissipated and allayed. I am not, however, inclined to join in any wholesale denunciation of the landowners of this country; it would be unjust to do so; because I know that there are among that class men of great intelligence, high minded men, men of generous feeling, some who are ready and anxious to change this law, knowing it is prejudicial to the country at large, and some who seeing their own advantage in it, yet will not adhere to it at the expense of their country; it is right, therefore, to discriminate among them, but certainly it is fair to fix upon those among the landlords, who obstruct and oppose all change of the law, all the consequence, and all responsibility that results from such a course; and I say this the more confidently, because it is not in their power to shew, that the law rests upon any ground of justice or of public good. The landlords in any other country but this might allege that they were exclusively taxed, that they bore more of the burdens of the state than any other class, and were entitled to have a law that should give an artificial value to their produce. I say in this country they cannot allege this. Will they go into an inquiry? Is there any particular burden they bear from which other classes are exempt? Will they say that they are not exempt from burdens that others bear? They are not entitled to this protection on the ground of advantage to the community. It cannot be shown there is one burden that they bear that other classes do not equally endure. What, therefore, is the ground for their exclusive protection? What is the ground that they themselves take? They say if you allow the produce of foreign countries to come into competition with our own, you will throw out of employ many of the labourers on our own land. What is the principle of that, supposing it to be true? Are the interests of the country to be sacrificed that certain lands shall not forego a particular cultivation? We wish, for the benefit of the community, to resort to soils more productive, whence we shall get food cheaper—and the landowner forbids us on the ground of protection. What might the mechanic not say? What says the hand-loom weaver? They might say, do not introduce a machine that shall make labour cheaper. They do say tax machinery. The principle is the same. There seems to be no difference in the policy. What is the truth then? The proprietors not being exclusively taxed, but, on the contrary, being rather exempted from taxation, have no ground in justice for claiming protection, whatever may be their power for enforcing it. Before I quit what may he called the agricultural part of the question, perhaps I may be allowed to refer to what may in the course of this discussion be adduced in support of this law, namely, that Ireland is an agricultural country, and that it is an advantage to Ireland that the present law should be continued. I should be sorry to let anything fall from me that could possibly give offence to that country. We have done enough to offend that country already: but I must say, that of all the groundless and unreasonable pretences for supporting this law, the case of Ireland seems to me to stand beyond all others. Ireland, that has of late years been sending us less and less wheat; Ireland, where the mass of the people are too poor to consume wheat, where the husbandry is the worst in the kingdom, where the landlords have a larger share of the produce for rent, and spend it more out of their own country than any other landlords in Europe; Ireland, moreover, where agriculture would thrive more by not cultivating wheat, and where no country would benefit more from the prosperity of manufacture here, or its introduction there—for Ireland has always felt and instantly so, the benefit of the prosperity of manufactures in England; and what condition would she now be in, if English manufactures were to decline with her new liability to maintain her poor. That is a question for Irish landlords to consider. But before the committee on agriculture to which I have referred, there is positive evidence that where Irish agriculturists have prospered, it has been referable to their abandoning the culture of wheat and applying the soil to other purposes. How then are the real interests of Ireland consulted by a law which by the price it promises offers peculiar temptation to the cultivation of wheat? If I thought the present corn-law of great advantage to Ireland it would have great weight with me, but what is to be gathered on this head from the avowed opinions of men who have studied and sought to promote the interests of that country, and I allude more particularly to the opinions of Mr. Sharman Crawford and the Member for Dublin, Gentlemen differing on many matters, but agreeing in condemning the Corn-law, as tending to make land dear and as repressing manufacturing enterprise in their country. I cannot think, under all these circumstances, that Ireland offers us any ground for upholding the Corn-law. And now, Sir, I think I have said enough with regard to the wisdom of this law, as it respects agriculture, and how far that interest can be said to have thriven under the influence of monopoly. I must now turn to the great and general question involving the principle which should be the test of every law, namely, its effects upon the community at large; for I have hitherto examined its effect on the partial interest alone for which it was professed to be passed, and it is one thing which the public will expect to learn from this discussion, namely, how far they are effected by paying more or less for food in this country, and this I think can be shewn. It is indeed among the advantages of the agitation of a great question of this kind, that it brings a great many intelligent minds to its consideration, which tends to illicit truth where doubt prevails. And here I am glad to be able to point to a very intelligent work recently published, entitled "Influences on the Corn-laws," by Mr. James Wilson, for this author appears to me to have made some very faithful and accurate calculations, as to these effects of the Corn-laws. He takes as the basis of his calculation, the amount in quantity, and the rate at which the people have been annually paying for food for the last seven years. He adopts the general estimate as to the quantity annually consumed, which is sixteen millions of quarters, and the average price of the last seven years, which has been about 52s. a-quarter. From this it will be found that the annual cost of wheat to the community, is 41,600,000l. It follows therefore, that whatever is paid more or less than this sum, is gained or lost to the community, and it can, therefore, be shewn what this has been of late years, and what is the amount now lost to the community. Mr. Wilson in his work, presents in one table what has been the sum paid at home and abroad for wheat during the years 1834, 1835, 1836, 1837, 1838, 1839. For instance: in 1834, the total cost of wheat was 36,933,333l., while the total cost of foreign wheat was 101,750l., in 1835, the total cost of wheat was 31,400,000l., and of the latter 34,654l.; in 1836, of the former 38,800,000l., while of the latter 51,177l.; in 1837, 44,666,000l., and of the latter 499,430l.; in 1838, 51,666,000l., and of the latter 4,594,014l.; in 1839, 56,533,000l., and the latter 7,515,800l. It thus appears, that during the last three years, we have as a nation spent more in wheat grown at home, by 45,793,000l. than in the preceding years, and paid more by 12,420,000l. during the latter years for foreign wheat, than during the three preceding years. The illustration however, will be still more simple, if we compare the two last years, namely, 1838 and 1839. In the beginning of the year 1838 we find the price of wheat is at an average of 52s. a quarter. In the autumn of the same year it suddenly rose to 75s. being more than 20s. a quarter higher—therefore, taking the consumption at 16,000,000l. the country was suddenly called upon in September 1838, to pay 300,000l. a week more for food than was paid in the six preceding months, and 450,000l. a week more than it paid in 1835, and this increased sum was paid during the whole year following. This then is a sum suddenly abstracted from the capital and income which, under existing arrangements, was finding useful and convenient employment elsewhere, and must be considered as thus lost to those departments of industry to which it was giving employment. It seems, moreover, that what invariably attends a high price of food in this country is, importation from abroad, the amount of which, in late years, has been stated; but with our present relations with the corn growing counties, to pay for grain we are compelled to export bullion; we have therefore, on these occasions, a certain amount of the currency of the country invariably abstracted to make this payment. We have thus an additional abstraction from the means usually devoted to the employment at home—a very important consideration in a commercial point of view, since the absence of so much bullion is of necessity followed by a contraction of the paper currency. The public, therefore, have to view the law connected with this twofold evil, high price and contracted currency—thus doubly checking the operations of capital and labour. The same author, to prove the connection between the price of food and the currency in this country, has collected in a tabular form the annual amount paid for wheat, the amount of bullion, and the amount of deposits in the Bank of England, and the amount paid for foreign wheat—and this for a period of above twenty years; and there appears from this table a close correspondence between the different amounts of bullion and deposits in the Bank, and the different amounts paid for wheat at home and abroad—the former declining as the latter en-creased, and with that regularity as to render it impossible not to conclude that a necessary connection exists between them. From 1817 until the present time, as grain has been imported from abroad, and prices have been high, the deposits and the bullion have declined. The diminution of the deposits would result from the increased payments required for food, which lessens the amount of surplus capital in the country; and the amount of it in the Bank of England would indicate pretty much what surplus was in the country generally. In support of which I quote the opinion of a mercantile man who says, When money is everywhere abundant and prosperity general, the resource of the Bank of England must be very great; at such times the surplus of every man throughout the country finds its way to his banker; a portion of the surplus of the bankers throughout the country finds its way to their agents in London for employment; and the surplus of these agents, as well as all the London bankers, finds its way to the coffers of the Bank of England, as the most accredited place of safety; and thus constitutes an index, not of the wealth and capital of the Bank of England, but of the extent of surplus capital possessed at any given moment by the whole country. It seems to be reasonable to expect, that if great and sudden demands for the national means were made, that it would manifest itself in this way, and the facts to which I have referred, seem to establish that; it does so. Now we observe, that from the end of 1838 till October 1839, there appears to be a diminution, from month to month, of bullion and deposits, during the whole of which time we were importing food from abroad; and we know farther how bitterly the commercial classes have complained during that time of the contraction of the currency. The great importance to the public of this circumstance is, that they may know the truth respecting the sources of those fluctuations in the value and amount of the currency, which occasions such serious and alarming embarrassment in this country, and though I do not stand here as the apologist of the Bank of England, against whom, if only judged according to the rules it has laid down for itself, there is abundant ground of complaint, yet it is well to know, that what is imputed entirely to the mismanagement of the Bank of England, must in great measure be referred to the operation of the corn laws. And now, Sir, it becomes us to consider, after having proved that there has been a contraction of the currency, an increase in the price of food, and a large sacrifice of the national means to meet it—what has been the effect of these circumstances upon the commercial interest of the country. I will first allude to the cotton trade. The facts I am now about to state, I believe, will prove that, whereas there had been a greater export of manufactured goods, the consumption of manufactures at home had been less. I quote these facts to show that the whole trade of the country was worse in the years in which the price of provisions was high. I take the years 1838 and 1839. The quantity of cotton exported in 1838, was 269,000,000lbs.; in 1839, it was 262,000,0001bs.; being a deficiency of 7,000,000lbs In 1838, the home consumption of cotton was 155,000,0001bs.; in 1839, it was 122,000,000lbs.; being a deficiency of 33,000,000lbs. Of wool, the home consumption, in 1838, was 56,000,0001bs.; in 1839, it was 53,000,000 lbs., being a deficiency of 3,000,0001bs. But the export of woollen goods had increased. In 1838, the quantity exported was 6,000,0001bs.; in 1839, it was 6,600,0001bs. Of flax, the home consumption, in 1838, was l,600,000lbs.; in 1839, it was l,200,000lbs., and so on with respect to many other articles which he would not then stay to enumerate. It appeared also that the articles which contribut- ed to these staple manufactures of the country, had also greatly fallen off in consumption, from the returns I have quoted, the House will perceive, that whilst the goods entered for home consumption had materially diminished in amount, the quantity of manufactured goods exported had increased. Doubtless some persons in this House will think, that this proved that the country was prosperous. I advise such persons, however, first to consult their manufacturing friends, or indeed any competent authority connected with our foreign trade, whether the increase of exports was a sure sign of prosperity, and whether it was not compatible with the manner in which business was conducted in this country, that the exports should increase when the consumption at home declined, the manufacturers being driven by necessity to procure somewhere a sale for goods cast back, as it were, on their own hands, and whether it was not usual for them then to consign these goods, on their own account, to houses abroad to be disposed of, and whether this has not, from distress, been done during the last year, to a very great extent. Indeed there was evidence of it in the complaints which had come from different countries of the sales of our manufactures which we were forcing on their markets. I find in a letter addressed to one of our most influential journals, from its correspondent abroad, speaking of the extraordinary quantity of British goods brought into foreign markets, says, I would wish to give a hint to those British manufacturers who continue to send over goods to be sold at forced sales, at any price, if that practice be continued the loss will be enormous. Mr. Biddle, who was well known in America, in a letter he addressed to this country last year, spoke of the injurious extent to which British merchandise was forced into the American markets. I might indeed quote much more evidence to shew that goods are frequently exported for want of a market at home for which they have been produced, and which, for some reason has failed, and which, in this case, I chiefly ascribe to the heavy payments that have been required for food. Another proof I might give of the depression at home would be the diminished consumption of certain articles on which revenue is collected, as that, at least, is shown by the amount collected on the different quarters, ending in January 1839 and 1840. I will take four articles of ordinary consumption.

	£		£
Hops in 1839	298,343	in the year ending 1840	280,679
Malt—	3,211,798	—	4,845,948
Soap—	1,047,545	—	7,400,000
Spirits—	5,451,792	—	5,442,477

But, Sir, I will fortify my opinion, that there has been a diminished power of consumption at home, owing to the influences that I have traced to the corn laws, by the authority of a gentleman, whose name I am sure will be received by the House with great respect, I mean Mr. Jones Lloyd, and who in a pamphlet recently published, in which he inquires into the cause of the commercial distress for the last year in this country: he places first in order The succession of two bad harvests in a country afflicted with laws which render such an occurrence peculiarly oppressive to the community, and by a peculiar felicity in mischief, contrive to make monetary derangement, and consequently commercial pressure, the inevitable accompaniment of the misfortune of the seasons. The poison of impolicy is thus thrown into the fiendish cauldron of injustice, 'For a charm of powerful trouble Like a hell-broth to boil and bubble.' Now, in referring to this Gentleman, I am not naming a person likely to express himself rashly or incautiously, or one who had no stake in the country, as it is called, but I am referring to one who was probably the possessor of more property than any of those who would take part in the discussion this evening—property of every description, not only in money but in land, and whose judgment was held in high esteem wherever he was known. And now, Sir, we will just consider what are the consequences of this monetary derangement and commercial pressure of which Mr. Lloyd speaks; for there ought to be something to correspond in the actual condition of some of our manufacturing towns, if these things were true, and I think I have here a report from one of those districts which will enlighten the House upon that subject. I will read the result of an inquiry made at Bolton a few weeks since:— In the cotton mills alone, about 95,000l. less have been paid during the last twelve months. Many of the mills have been entirely stopped for all or part of the time, and with only two exceptions, all have worked short time for a considerable portion of the past year. I have made a very careful calculation from extensive personal inquiry, and assert most confidently, that, altogether, there must have been at least 130,000l. less paid in wages in the Bolton Union. Now, add this 130,000l. less in wages to the 195,000l. more for food, and there is a total loss to Bolton of 325,000l.! What are the consequences? There are now in Bolton 1,125 houses untenanted, of which about fifty are shops, some of them in the principal streets. Here is a loss to the owners of 10,000l. to 12,000l. a-year. The shopkeepers are almost ruined by diminished returns and bad debts. There were, a short time ago, three sales of the effects of shopkeepers in one day. Distraints for cottage rents occur daily. The arrears of cottage rents, and the debts to shopkeepers, are incalculable, but they must amount to many thousand pounds. The pawnbrokers' shops are stowed full of the clothing, furniture, and even bedding of the destitute poor. Fever is also prevalent. Mr. R. S. Kay, one of the medical officers of the union, and a young practitioner of great promise, lately took the infection of malignant typhus fever, and last week fell a victim to his harassing duties. He had latterly worked almost day and night. A short time ago 590 persons were relieved by the poor-law guardians in one day, in amounts varying from six to eighteen pence per head per week. In many cases two or three families are crowded into one house. In one case, seventeen persons were found in a dwelling about five yards square. In another, eight persons, two pair of looms, and two beds, in a cellar six feet under ground, and measuring four yards by five. There are scores of families with little or no bedding, having literally eaten it, i. e, pawned or sold it for food! The out-door relief to the poor is three times greater in amount than on the average of the three years ending 1838. South of Bolton, four miles, a large spinning establishment, giving employment to 800, and subsistence to 1,300 persons, has been entirely stopped for nine months. The proprietor has upwards of 100 cottages empty, or paying no rent, and, although possessed of immense capital, finds himself unable to continue working his mills to advantage. Entering Bolton from Manchester, another mill, requiring 180 hands, has been entirely standing for eighteen months. In the centre of the town, another, 250 hands, stopped several weeks. North of Bolton, one mile, a spinning, manufacturing, and bleaching establishment, on which 1,200 persons were dependent for subsistence, has been entirely standing for four months. Several machine makers and engineers are now employing one or two hundred hands less than usual, at wages varying from 15s. to 40s. a-week. A public subscription, amounting to nearly two thousand pounds, has just been raised to mitigate, in some degree, the sufferings of the destitute poor; in fact, to deal out a scanty pittance, just sufficient to keep them from actual starvation, to a body of workmen who possess, perhaps, greater skill and industry than any population of similar numbers on the face of the globe, but who are forbid, by the inhuman policy of our landowners, to exchange the produce of their labour for food in the open market of the world! And that really was the cause of their distress; and this melancholy state of things is unfortunately by no means confined to the cotton districts, as I know well myself from information which I have procured from the place which I represent. And is it not strictly in point, I would ask, to bring these matters before the House? I am not one who would advise the Legislature to interfere simply because there was distress; but when great evil and great distress can be traced to the law, then I think it is the duty, as it is in the power of the Legislature to interfere. I believe, in this case, that it is in the power of this House to give instant relief—I believe it is possible to give permanent relief. The people are now suffering from the high price of provisions, and they are suffering for want of commerce with those countries where the food is grown cheap. The warehouses here are full of foreign grain, and the countries where it is grown are ready to negociate with us for a regular interchange of products. But the people are starving, and we forbid them to touch the cheap and abundant food within their reach; the people want employment, and we refuse to allow them to work for corn-growing customers and employers; our manufactures are stopped, because payments from abroad are not made for goods already supplied from the scarcity of money; they offer us flour in payment for our manufactures, and our manufacturers are willing to take it, and would at once be willing to execute fresh orders upon receiving it, but the law forbids the people to touch it without payment of the duty, and stops the payment that would thus be readily made by the merchants in America to the manufacturers of this country. This is no opinion, it is the fact—America owes a large debt to our merchants in this country; owing to their own monetary embarrassments they have no means of paying their debts, but large quantities of flour have been sent to this country on American account; could this be admitted, not only would those debts be paid, and thus relief be given to our manufactures but they would be ready to execute fresh orders, and thus give employment to our people who are starving for want of it. We are moreover now left without a pretence for saying, that the states from which we might export our corn, have not always been, and are now, ready to admit our manufactures on terms of reciprocity. I do not understand the denial of it, if that proceeds from any authority. Is it intended to imply that the late President of the Board of Trade stated what was false, when he said he hail, besides the official communications which he read to the House, perused many other letters from foreign ministers all to the effect of shewing the willingness on the part of those foreign countries to reduce there tariffs on our applying the same principle to their product; and what does the able report of Dr. Bowring but distinctly confirm the impression which these official documents, read by Mr. Thomson, had made, and proves, even at this hour, the readiness of those countries to trade with us. I believe what is contained in Dr. Bowring's report, for it corresponds exactly with the information I procured myself when in those countries, and I have heard no reason since to question its correctness. But it is not only with the German state, that it would be important for us to negociate at this moment, but it is the moment which is yet left to us, to engage in fresh treaties with the United States and Brazil—and here I must hope that the President of the Board of Trade will tell us exactly the truth on this matter, and whether the general impression is correct that the present tariff of the United States will cease in 1842; and that, about the same time, our present treaty with Brazil will expire; and that our future relations with those countries, will very much depend upon the terms, that we may be enabled to offer them. I hope, at least, that the people will be under no delusion on the subject, and that if we are to continue these fetters on our commerce, at least it shall be done deliberately and with our eyes open. The future well being of this country must now depend upon the extension of our commerce, there is no other mode of providing for our population, or averting the decline of our country. The foolish and impolitic fetters with which we now restrict the commerce of this country are now pressing upon the vitals of the people, and their cry for relief is to be heard in this motion before the House. There are some who think our foreign trade has been carried too far, and that we should have been better without it, that may be true or not, but the complaint is too late, and our foreign trade is now essential to our existence, and we cannot lessen it or destroy it without jeopardising our whole financial and commercial system. We must look to it for the maintenance of our credit, and the collection of our revenue. Most cer- tainly this is not the moment to weaken the sources of our revenue when our expenditure has increased and is increasing by the price we pay for our sustenance, and by the steps we are taking to subdue our colonies, I cannot, indeed, see how the deficiency in the revenue is to be supplied. The great sources of our revenue are found in the capacity of the people to consume the articles that are taxed. I cannot see how it is possible to expect that any fresh tax upon the daily consumption of the people can be collected—for while the price of provisions was thus enhanced by the Corn-law, and the prospects of trade remained as they were, how could it be supposed that if a fresh tax was imposed, that some other branch of the revenue would not fall off. The only resource which in wisdom or justice I can think it possible to resort to would be a properly tax. In the year 1830 the country was then tending to the condition in which we now find it. The price of food was then high, and the taxation was grievously felt by the productive classes; Mr. Huskisson then in a most able speech and the last that he made in this House on the state of the nation, drew the attention of the House to the sources of our revenue, and the difficulties which there would exist in collecting the same amount of revenue if trade declined, and the productive classes remained depressed, he did then point to our only alternative, in the imposition of a tax upon property. These were his words:— The more general considerations to which I now claim the attention of the House are these. First, that no other country in Europe has so large a proportion of its taxation bearing directly upon the incomes of labour and productive capital. Secondly, that in no other country of the same extent—I think I might say in none of five times the extent of this kingdom—is there so large a mass of income belonging to those classes who do not directly employ it in bringing forth the produce of labour. Thirdly, that no other country has so large a proportion of its taxation mortgaged (in proportion to the amount of that mortgage are we interested in any measure which, without injustice to the mortgagee, would tend to lessen the absolute burden of the mortgage). Fourthly, that from no other country in the world does so large a proportion of the class not engaged in production (including many of the wealthy), spend their incomes in foreign parts. I know I may be told, that by taxing that income you run the risk of driving them to withdraw their capital altogether. My answer is, First, that ninety-nine out of every hundred of these absentees, have no such com- mand over the source of their income. Secondly, that the danger is now of another and more alarming description—that of the productive capitals of this country being transferred to other countries, where they would be secure of a more profitable return. The relief of industry, is the remedy against that danger. I believe that the people will now turn their attention to this mode of obtaining relief, and certainly I doubt if any new tax but that on property will be submitted to. I am afraid, that I have now exhausted the patience of the House by detailing the mischievous results of these laws, and I will proceed no farther; but I cannot conclude without exhorting those who had hitherto opposed any change, to pause well before they pronounce their decision again upon this question. I ask them whether they perceive anything in the appearance of circumstances around them that encourage belief that the people would adopt their views? Do they think, that any change of opinion since the last Session has occurred in the public mind? Do they not, on the contrary, know that great numbers have come forth and declared their opposition to the existing law who were silent before? Were there not many classes, who had never spoken before, now eager upon the subject? I ask the attention of the House to the fact, that some of the most cautious and conservative persons in the community—men who were supposed to preside over the monetary system of the country, and who were most averse to change, have come forth, and declared their opinion that this law is most injurious to all the great interests with which they are, connected. Have not a greater number of persons of the working classes, pronounced their opinion upon this question than have ever done so before. I want, therefore, to know what it is that is expected to result from the rjection of this motion. The hon. Member for Rutland has declared his determination to oppose this motion, and I certainly admire more the bold injustice of the hon. Gentleman than the insidious proceeding of the hon. Member for Cambridge, who has proposed an amendment, but who left the real mischief of the law untouched. I wish to ask what these Gentlemen expect to gain by such a course? Do they expect that all those who have come forward and devoted their attention to this subject, who have sacrificed their pro- perty in the cause, and have pledged themselves for the future to agitate this question until it was brought to a satisfactory conclusion."—[Opposition cheers.] Yes; he thought it was the best test of the earnestness of men when they devoted their money to promote an object, [Hear, hear.!] Did hon. Gentlemen who opposed his motion expect that by its rejection all those persons of whom he had spoken would go home and admit themselves to be in error? Did they expect those persons would say, "We certainly did think we were right, but we have found, after discussion, that we are wrong; that all those who have agitated the question are in error; and that this law is a gain and a blessing to us. Let us forget our folly, and never revert to the matter?" Was it reasonable to suppose that the great mass of the people would quite reverse their language upon this subject, and adopt that quiescent and convenient course, if this motion were rejected? If hon. Gentlemen did not expect this, what was it that they conceived would be the consequence of that rejection? Why, the people would return to their homes in the conviction that they were right and at the same time satisfied that the House of Commons would not do them justice. And what prospect did that present? Would it settle the question? If there was difficulty now in making arrangements in the settlement of property, would the mere rejection of this motion facilitate their views. Would it allay the anxiety of the public mind on the subject? What was there to induce the people to admit that they were wrong? They did not doubt themselves, that they were cruelly injured by the law. What eminent authority was there, what person of that kind had lately appeared to shake them in this conviction. And yet, what year passed that some fresh person whose interest or intelligence entitled him to credit, did not appear to denounce it? On all other great questions there had been drawn forth men of ability, advocating opinions in favour of, as well as in opposition to, the proposition advanced; but with respect to this particular question, there was hardly a single man of eminence and intelligence who had undertaken to write in support of the present law [Ironical cheers from the Opposition] If any able publication had appeared in favour of the views of the hon. Gentlemen opposite, he was unaware of the fact, and should certainly feel great pleasure at having the opportunity of perusing it [Hear, hear !]. But while there was comparative silence observed by the advocates of the existing system, men of the greatest talent and most extensive information, were coming forth daily with publications of their opinions against it. What, then, could hon. Gentlemen expect to result from their resistance to any change. "I pray the House therefore, to pause before they come to a decision, that they will resist all enquiry. I have abstained from stating my own views of what consists with justice and policy; in what should be substituted for the present law. I have satisfied myself with pointing out the evils that resulted from the present law. There was no pretext, therefore, for resisting the motion on the score of the known opinions of the mover. Supposing that the House should now resist all enquiry, how long will those who vote in that way abide by their decision—let them reflect how soon it may be, that they will be called upon to vote in the directly opposite way—and whether that will reflect great credit either upon the House or themselves—for this reason then, I ask the House to pause before they oppose all changes. It is no use to say, that because I propose this question, that they would not assent to it, or because I wished to see the law totally repealed, that they who had the power to resist all change, who have the power to determine the precise amount of change would not consider the subject. The people would not be deluded by such distinctions and pretences as those. The motion is now made by one who has a perfect right to make it; and those who vote against it, will be very justly considered the friends and advocates of the law. And when they decided thus to maintain the law, did they consider who were the parties who were arrayed against them? It was no question simply between landowners and manufacturers. That was the weak invention of the enemy to assert, and said for the purpose of throwing discredit on the question. No ! The question was above any other that could be named, one in which the great majority of the community were interested one way, and a comparatively small section of it, deemed themselves interested the other way; and the advantage which the minority possessed, was in their position in the legislation where their interest greatly prevailed. But was it wise simply to rely on this power? As far as I have been able to collect the opinions of that great and intelligent portion of the population termed the working class, they had rested their claims to the Suffrage chiefly and with great distinctness on these grounds; that they considered that their interests and those of the community at large, were not duly represented in the House of Commons, that they were bound by laws enacted and maintained by those who had no fellow feeling with them—and that the general conduct of the Legislature was their strong argument for widening and altering the character of the constituency. And as far as he could collect the views of the many thousands of this class who had petitioned to repeal the Corn-laws, it was as a sort of test of the character and constitution of the House, which they might point to hereafter as a ground for the assertion of their claims. But do the working classes stand alone? Had not other classes attached themselves to them? Were not the classes immediately above them acting cordially with them upon this occasion? The working classes certainly spoke with confidence of the House not doing them justice in this matter. They consented, however, to act with the middle class, whose language to those below them generally was, "act cordially with us, petition the House respectfully, pray for the redress of your grievances, we will join you, do not yet believe that the Parliament will reject your prayer, and refuse you justice." The people then have petitioned, but it is well known that every working man who had signed those petitions this year, had declared, that if they proved abortive, that it was the last they would sign for the repeal of the Corn-laws. The next petition they would sign would be for the reform of the House of Commons itself. There was now upon this question of the Corn-laws an union between the middle and the working classes, and did hon. Members believe, that, under common disappointment, there would not be an union as firm and cordial between those classes, and upon the other the ultimate question which would then be raised. If this motion is rejected, he believed that three years would not elapse before that junction would be formed for the purpose of a further reform in the constitution of that House. The middle classes experienced the mischief of these laws, and they called for their repeal. The working classes suffer from them equally, I believe in a much greater degree, but they have said, that it is useless to call upon this House to accomplish the object, and they tell the middle class, that it is for this purpose that they want the franchise, that they do not call for change for the sake of change, but that no advance will be made in that House, on these questions of national interest, until they can throw their weight into the political scale. And did this House for one moment suppose, that it would be able to change this opinion, thus deliberately formed, and strongly maintained, by the rude rejection of this measure. A few months ago he attended a meeting of the working classes at Manchester, when he witnessed the most gratifying spectacle of upwards of 5,000 working men who had just quitted their daily avocations, and who had assembled together at dinner to express their opinions upon this vital question. A more orderly, respectful, or attentive meeting, and one where those decent observances requisite in public assemblies were more regarded, he never witnessed. Nothing could have been more strikingly contrasted with the conduct of many other meetings which frequently occurred, composed of persons who were accustomed to discredit and disparage the people, than the decorous deportment of that vast assemblage. He did not doubt that, throughout this kingdom, that a similar feeling and conduct would be displayed wherever the working people might assemble. What, then, does the House think, would be the effect of the rejection of this motion upon these very men to whom I refer, or on any others in their circumstances, and equally endowed with qualities so justly entitling them to respect. Was it supposed that they would tamely submit to the injury and the affront that you would offer them by refusing an inquiry into the working of this law? Would they believe that they were in error, because those who were interested in the law asserted that they were so? Would they proclaim to the world that they had, on this occasion, met and made fools of themselves, by remaining silent in future? Let, then, the majority of this House make it matter of calculation with themselves, and ask, what they will gain by persisting to maintain the law as it is, and incurring all the odium that attaches to such a course? Whatever the opinion of the House really may be, it should look at this question practically. Supposing that the repeal of the law was an evil, was it not an inevita- ble one? The people believed the law was an intolerable evil; do you prove to them that it is not, in anything you say, and do they not hear, and have they not heard, from some of the most distinguished men in the land, that they are right? That the law is unjust and unwise, and that they rightly refer their sufferings to it—still I fear that these considerations are not weighing with the majority of this assembly, and that this motion is to be rejected. I shall then only say, that the responsibility of all the consequences that follow from this course must be fixed upon them. Whatever might happen—whatever disturbance might follow—whatever evils that may-occur, whether they be social or political, or of a physical kind, as resulting from this law, the whole blame and responsibility must attach to those very persons individually and collectively who give their vote this evening against this motion. The people were now enduring great physical suffering, which, on great professional authority, I may justly ascribe to the miserable food to which this law condemns them: there is discontent pervading the working classes throughout the kingdom, springing from a sense of injustice inflicted on them by this House, and their attention is now being drawn, though at first reluctantly, yet now grown into habit, to the consideration of political subjects, and their feelings, from these circumstances, are becoming hourly heightened by the agitation of this question. The House, then, has at this moment an opportunity of allaying this excitement, and extending to them relief from the pressure which is now bearing them down. Will they throw away this moment? Let them ! if they do, they will surely be indebted to fortune alone if they should be enabled to regain it. I will not longer obtrude upon the attention of the House. If I have expressed myself with warmth, I regret it. If I have done so, it proceeds only from the very sincere conviction on my part that I am right on this subject; and from an apprehension that the House may be guilty of the egregious error of resisting the motion, I now move that the House resolve itself, into a Committee of the whole House to take into consideration the act 9 Geo. 4th, regulating the importation of foreign grain.

Sir G. Strickland

in rising to second the motion that this House resolve itself into a committee on the corn-laws, in the few observations I shall make, my endea- vour will be to dilate as little as possible upon the returns and statistical tables, which have received so clear an elucidation from the able speeches of my hon. Friend, the Member for Wolverhampton, both now and during the last session. My object will be to point out what has been the progress of public opinion upon the question, and in what respects its position is changed from that of the last year. In entering upon this subject, I think I may anticipate with certainty, that on both sides of the House—that in the breasts of landed proprietors—of merchants and manufacturers—there is but one feeling—all are agreed, that for the prosperity and happiness of the community at large, for the advancement of all branches of industry, and even for the safety of the state and the security of property, it is most desirable that a termination should be put to the agitation of a question which comes so home to the feelings and interests of all—which is so full of excitement—as the sufficient supply and the price of our "daily bread." It has been my duty to present numerous petitions to this House, praying for a repeal of the corn-laws. Those which have lately been entrusted to me have, in their language, been more earnest, more deeply impressed have the petitioners appeared to be, of the injurious effects of these laws, than were those of last year. And a correspondingly increased effort appears to have been made by the persons, who suppose themselves interested in keeping up and maintaining the present restrictive system. The former denial by the House, to inquire then, so far from allaying irritation, has greatly and widely extended it; and the time has surely arrived for an anxious, an impartial, and a full investigation, by a Committee of the House, into this momentous subject. The statement of the petitioners calling for a repeal has been, that by restrictions upon our taking the produce of other countries for the results of our manufacturing skill, capital, and labour, we are giving a bounty upon the establishment of factories abroad, and creating competition against ourselves. That, Sir, is the state of things which has recently occurred; it has become evident, that the laws which have caused an augmented price of food, have at the same time depressed the demand for labour, and the reward of industry. The statement of these petitioners is supported by the opinion of Mr. Horsley Palmer and others, "as to the baneful influence of the system on the monetary and commercial relations of the country." They say, moreover, that these laws, by limiting the supply of the staff of life, and absorbing every labourer's wages in purchasing food, leave him without the means of procuring clothing, and thus depress the home market for manufactured goods. They say, that these laws are a heavy tax upon the many for the benefit of the few, creating discontent and disaffection, and endangering the public peace. The most striking difference between the petitions presented this year from those of the last, is, that whereas last year they principally proceeded from our large manufacturing and commercial towns and districts, such as Leeds, Manchester, and Birmingham, many have this year emanated from purely agricultural districts, and towns and villages. I have myself presented one a few days since, signed by about 300 persons from Driffield, a market town, the centre of a rural population, and where manufactures are hardly known, and where commerce never reaches further than the sale of their own agricultural products. From Doncaster, likewise, I have presented a petition of a similar description, with many from the surrounding parishes, from which no anti-corn-law petition ever before proceeded; and these were passed at public meetings, and signed by about 2,000 persons; and I have presented petitions from other places, signed exclusively by landowners and farmers. Along with the petition from Doncaster I received a letter, containing many valuable remarks illustrative of an extensive change of feeling and opinion. I will read one short extract. The writer says:— By this post you will receive a petition from the town of Doncaster signed by 1,524 persons, and also nine other petitions from Thorne, Hatfield, &c, with 904 signatures, making a sum total of 2,428. The Doncaster petition was unanimously agreed to at a public meeting, held at the Town-hall, on Monday, February 17, when the mayor presided; and it was confirmed at another meeting, held on the 22d, and which had been called by the pro-corn-law advocates. As these petitions are very important as coming from an agricultural district, I shall be obliged to intrude upon your time by calling attention to a few important facts. That last year petitions were got up by the pro-corn-law advocates in twenty-nine towns, villages, and townships in this district, the signatures to which amounted to 1504, and at that time not a single counter-petition was sent up. Since then, the principles of free trade have made such progress that we have not only obtained 1,524 signatures—voluntary unsolicited signatures—but the people have at two very large public meetings most emphatically expressed their disapprobation of the present unjust taxation of the staff of life. You are aware that Doncaster contains about 12,000 inhabitants, and as the signatures affixed to our petition are those of adults only, it is obvious that we have procured the greater number of adults in this place. And the writer then adds— Compare this with the fact that last year there was not a single petition from Doncaster, or any of the other places, for any alteration in the present Corn-laws. It is therefore evident that a wide change of opinion and feeling is taking place amongst farmers, and still more amongst agricultural labourers, as to the effects of restrictions upon the importation of corn. But after all, it is the merchants, the manufacturers, and the manufacturing labourers, who are suffering under the deepest distress. This is a mighty interest. Trade may be called the mainspring of our national prosperity. For if, through neglect or oppression, our trade were to migrate to other nations, the landed proprietor and the farmer would be reduced to the depression of those in Poland or Hungary. That the mercantile classes of this country constitute a vast and a powerful portion of the population, will appear from the following short statement:—

The annual value of the produce of the cotton trade has been estimated at, a year	£34,000,000
Of woolens	27,000,000
Of linens	8,000,000
Hardware and cutlery	17,000,000
Total	86,000,000
The persons employed are—
Cotton	1,500,000
Woollens	400,000
Hardware and cutlery	300,000
Total	2,200,000

These are the persons who appeal to this House—who tell you that their distress is hourly increasing—who ask you, not for restrictions and protection, but for a fair and an impartial hearing to be allowed to prove their case: they ask to be permitted to show that unwise and partial laws are depressing their interests and advancing those of their rivals. That Germany, instead of taking our manufacturing produce, takes raw materials and the best, machinery and implements. That, vast as are our national advantages, the Americana undersell us in South America and in the West and East Indian markets. That Switzerland, which England used to supply with yarns and goods, is now an exporting country. That Saxony has become an exporting country not only to America, but even of its hosiery to England. That in Prussia the growth of manufactures is rapid, and she undersells us in the German market; and, consequently, in five years (from 1832 to 1837) the quantity of woollen goods exported from England to Germany had diminished one-half. That in America, where we look for abundant markets, as well as in Germany, the people, our rivals, are saying, "Take our corn, and we will buy your manufactures." They wish for an opportunity to prove that all this results from the corn-laws rendering the cost of living here greater than in any other country in the world by restricting the exchange of our manufactures for the grain of other nations. This, surely, is no time for refusing even inquiry. All the accounts that reach us from the most populous districts concur in representing the distress to be deep and afflicting. At Leeds no less a sum than 5,000l. has been generously subscribed to afford temporary relief; at Bradford nearly 3,000l. for the same purpose, while the poor-rates are doubled. At Settle, with a mixed agricultural and manufacturing population, the union poor-house is filled, and out of doors relief afforded to a very great extent; and lately the hon. Member for North Lancashire, while presenting a petition, stated that he was bound to admit that the distress in Lancashire likewise was great. The largest manufacturer at Halifax, employing many thousand workmen, states that he will be obliged permanently to contract and relinquish a large portion of his works. It has often and confidentially been said that an advanced price of corn causes an equal increase in the amount of wages, and that this keeps up a healthy state of the home-trade: but the petitioners to that House wish to prove that no such result is now perceived; that, on the contrary, all the earnings of a labourer are consumed in buying bread for his family so that he has nothing left for purchasing clothes, and that the home trade is destroyed; and that if we allowed the exporting merchant to bring back the corn of Europe and the flour of America, which our people so much want, an immediate And extensive stimulus would be given to industry and enterprise in all their branches. Nothing," says a writer well acquainted with the manufacturing districts, "can be more notorious than the long-continued stagnation of trade—the partial suspension of manufacturing—the frightful number of bankruptcies and insolvents—and the thousands and tens of thousands of workmen in the manufacturing districts thrown out of employment, and subsisting on the precarious pittance of public charity. It is in vain, against these undoubted facts, to produce the official return showing an increased value of exports during the last year; because this, when contrasted with the diminished consumption of the raw materials, only tends to increase our conviction of "the extreme depression of our home trade, and of our home population." To illustrate this I will take only two branches of our trade—namely, cotton and woollens. In the year ending on the 5th of January, 1839, the declared value of our exports of cotton manufactures was 16,715,857l. in the last year it was 17,694,303l. But in the first of these years the raw materials entered for home consumption were as follows:—cotton 460,756,013lbs., and only 355,781,9601bs. in the last year. In woollen manufactures there has been an increased exportation amounting to 482,930l.; of sheep wool, in the year before the last, 56,415,460lbs. were imported for home consumption, but in the last year only 53,221,2311bs. This diminished produce of manufactures, with an increased exportation, proving beyond the possibility of doubt the depressed state of the home trade, caused by the high price of bread, "diminishing the power of the nation to consume the necessaries and comforts of life." This is truly a national question. Can we be surprised that, under a belief that such is the cause of their suffering, a large majority of the people ask to be heard at your bar? During the continuance of the corn-laws, the price of wheat has undergone ruinous fluctuations. But this was not the case in former times. In ten years, from 1771, to 1781, when the duty on foreign wheat was only 6d. a quarter, the highest price was 2l 12s. 8d., and the lowest price was 1l. 13s. 8d., being a fluctuation of only 19s. But in eight years, from 1815 to 1823, prices varied from 4l. 14s. 9d., the highest price to 2l. 4s. 7d., being a fluctuation of 2l. 10s. 2d., that is to say of 50s. a quarter. The real object of foreign trade is to get the produce of other countries, not similarly situated as we are, and the true means to prevent extreme fluctuation of price is to give wide extension to the principles of free trade. Sad experience has taught the working classes that dear corn does not cause high wages in proportion. Loud discontent has prevailed, but at this time the suffering people are bearing privations with unexampled patience and forbearance: but the refusal to hear evidence having failed to produce feelings of contentment and security, the time has surely come to take a different course. In heavy taxation we are now paying the penalty for long continued and desolating warfare. It is said, that the better to bear the burden, the Corn-laws were passed, giving protection to the landed proprietor at the expense of the great mass of the people; but it is no longer necessary to prove that monopoly and restriction, produce depression and poverty, not affluence; and that taxation can more easily be borne by a rich than by an ill-employed and an impoverished people? Revenue is to be raised out of national wealth, not out of national poverty. It is the great body of the middle and labouring classes who respectfully, but earnestly, appeal to this House, and ask for an inquiry. The merchants and the manufacturer ask for no protection; but that all restrictions should be removed. Can the present state of things continue? We hear from high authority that the landed interest "complain of annual agitation, and that no proprietor can sell his land, nor tenant think it safe to take a lease." Inquiry, investigation, and discussion are the only means to give confidence and security, and to remove a state of things so truly alarming. It is said, that an inquiry would be a serious interruption to public business. But how, I would ask, can this House be better employed than in listening to the prayers of the people—giving to them an abundant supply of food—and in alleviating their distresses, and redressing their grievances.

The Earl of Darlington

said, that after the very great length, and after the elaborate nature of the discussion upon this subject last session, after there had been a debate of unprecedented duration, extending over five nights, when every argument had been used on the one side and on the other, and when the sense of the House had been unequivocally declared in one of the largest Houses on record, by so large a majority as 147, it would hardly have been imagined that under the same circumstances, and in a parliament composed of the same individuals, the same subject would have been re-argued in the following session; although he verily believed that it was not with the consent and approbation of the hon. Member himself, that he again brought forward this measure. Its second discussion seemed to be necessary to satisfy the party of which the hon. Member was the organ, who seemed to think that agitation must be kept up, and that the public mind must be kept alive with all the pomp and array of delegates, week after week assembled in Palace-yard, who had been meeting for the last month in their petty Parliament, whose speeches were published, and a copy sent to every Member of Parliament, and to whom it did appear that after this display it would never do to be satisfied with the defeat of last year, and who thought that they never could go home without drawing down a similar defeat this year. Although the hon. mover had made a long speech, and had used many able arguments, yet there was little new in those arguments, and few that were not advanced by the hon. Member himself, or by some other Member on the other side of the House last year; and if the opinion of the hon. Member and of those who acted with him remained unchanged, nothing that he bad heard that night had changed his opinion, or had altered the resolution to which he had come last year. He denied that the House of Commons came then to a hasty or to an inconsiderate conclusion. The subject was fairly discussed and deliberately considered before the vote was given, and he was ready to admit for himself, that having last year advanced all the arguments which appeared to him to be conclusive, he had now no stronger arguments to offer in support of a measure which he continued to uphold than he used last year, and he would therefore be sorry to waste the time of the House by any repetition of those arguments. He should feel also most sorry if he thought that the fate of the landed interest should rest on any foundation so shallow as any arguments of his, but he could not but recollect, as the House would recollect, that last year arguments were used in support of those laws which would last for ever, and which placed the landed interest on the pedestal of a rock from which it could not easily be shaken. He alluded particularly to two speeches, one the speech of the hon. Member for the North Riding of the county of York (Mr. Cayley), whose absence that evening from ill-health he sincerely regretted, and the other, the speech of his right hon. Friend the Member for Tamworth (Sir R. Peel); the first as remarkable for the completeness of its details, as for the minuteness and the extent of its calculations, and the latter equally eminent for close reasoning and for sound argument. As a proof of its power, he would refer to the great advantage which the hon. Member for Wolverhampton had in giving his reply. The speech of his right hon. Friend was delivered on the Friday, the reply of the hon. Member for Wolverhampton was not given till the Monday; he had three days for the consideration of his right hon. Friend's speech; he could examine it point by point before he gave his reply, and what was the result? That to no one of those arguments did the hon. Member venture to reply, and why? Because the hon. Member was unable. If he asserted that his right hon. Friend's speech was unanswerable, he might be charged with presumption; but if he said that it was unanswered, he stated what was really the fact. This was not from any want of talent on the part of the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, for he allowed fully that he was a most judicious assailant, and he believed that the Corn-law opponents could not possibly have a more able advocate than the hon. Member had always shown himself, but, as was always seen as well out of courts of law as in those courts, a cause that was unsound in principle and that was rotten at the core, invariably failed even under the guidance of the ablest advocate. He could not concur with the hon. Member for Wolverhampton to the full extent of his statement, that the subject had assumed an entirely different shape from the shape in which it had appeared in former years, or that it was a question arising between conflicting interests of the manufacturers and of the country gentlemen or landed proprietors, although he was willing to allow that it had since assumed a somewhat altered form, and that many parties who were once indifferent to the question, had now enlisted themselves on one side or on the other. Among those who had been neutral were the annuitants, the fundholders, and others who had fixed incomes, many of whom might now, on abstract principles, believe that a low price of corn would be better for them than a high price, and who, therefore, the more readily joined the Corn-law opponents, forgetting that they were thereby loosening the very bonds by which they hold their own security. And no doubt, at the present day, in a question so much agitated between different parts of the nation at large, every different section in the constituency was invited to take part on one side or on the other. He knew, indeed, that very active exertions were made to make them take part by the Anti Corn-law League, and he believed that they were not very scrupulous in the unfair means which were resorted to. Every now and then the productions of their press were sent to him, the productions of that press which was in the pay of the Anti Corn-law League, and he must say, that anything more scurrilous or more abusive than what was contained in that press, it was impossible to conceive. Besides, there had been inflammatory handbills disseminated in every manufacturing and in every great town, and itinerant preachers in the pay of the Anti Corn-law League were employed to go into the agricultural districts, as well as the manufacturing, to preach to the populace, and to instil into their ears every kind of filth and of abomination. He could not, therefore, but regret, that men of wealth and of much weight in Manchester, and that the merchants of this metropolis and elsewhere, whose wish to advance the well being of the community no one would question, should, for a small pecuniary advantage, and for the sake of a temporary gain, join parties whose ultimate objects he was sure they could not contemplate without disgust. At many of the arguments made use of by the hon. Member for Wolverhampton that night, he confessed that he was astonished. The hon. Member had pressed upon their consideration the agricultural parts of the question, for he thought, that that class of arguments had been abandoned, and that they never would have heard them again; it had been, as he thought, proved that the landowners and the labourers were equally associated in interest with respect to it either one way or the other, and that whether the Corn-laws were necessary or were not necessary, yet that if they were necessary for the one class, they were necessary also for the other, whilst the hon. Member went on in his speech to argue that there was a distinction between the interests of the two classes, and that they might be necessary for one class, and not for the other. He would only ask if that were so, if the farmers thought with the hon. Member, who was it that signed the petitions which had been that year presented to the House for the maintenance of the Corn-laws? They were almost all signed by farmers and labourers. In the face of all which the House had seen, it did seem extraordinary, that they should hear such arguments as those this night advanced. It only showed to what shifts and devices hon. Gentlemen were driven to defend their case. What was the course of the argument last year?—almost the entire subject of debate in the Chamber of Commerce of Manchester? What was the subject that was most complained of in the newspapers which were sent to Members of Parliament?—of what did all the outcry consist? Of the distress that they suffered from the diminution of the exports to foreign countries—of that alone their speeches consisted—they never complained of any other point. They said:— Only let us have the same exports to foreign countries; those exports have been gradually diminishing year by year, and now they have fallen to such an extent that we can get no orders, and we shall be ruined, but give us back our exports, and we shall have nothing to complain of. This year, however, because the official returns which had been published showed the direct coutrary of what they last year stated, these same Gentlemen admitted, that the exports had increased, and that in the last year, up to the 5th of January, 1840, there had been two millions advanced over the exports of 1839, but then they said, that this increase was of no use. Really, these Gentlemen changed their tactics very easily; they were distressed last year, because their exports were diminishing, but they now turned round, and, although they admitted, that the exports had increased, yet that, instead of making them prosperous, it was the very reverse, because, as they said, the raw material this year imported, was less than than that last year imported. Their profits might not have beeen so great as they had been, but he could not admit, that their loss was as great as they said, neither could he admit, that any loss they might suffer was owing to the operation of the Corn-laws. But, in addition to other documents, there was one very remarkable paper which had been sent to him, and which emanated from one of the debates in Palace-yard, it was entitled, "National Distress proved by Increased Exports, combined with Diminished Production;" and was, in fact, the speech of Mr. Edward Baines, jun. He supposed, that he was the son of the hon. Member for Leeds. He had no hesitation in saying that it was a very ingenious speech for a young man, and it had given such satisfaction to the delegates, that they had ordered the speech to be printed, and a copy to be sent to every Member of Parliament; but he must add, that able as that speech was, he could not admit that his reasoning upon the point was conclusive. Although Mr. Baines, jun., admitted fully, and in a manly manner, that the exports had increased, yet he said, that a considerable decrease of the imports of raw material having taken place, he asserted, that the increased exports instead of being a proof of prosperity, was the very reverse. Alluding to the official documents giving an account of the exports, Mr. Baines said:— That official document shows that a larger amount of British manufactures was exported in the year ending January 5th, 1840, than in the year ending January 5th, 1839; the increase being nearly two millions on the declared value. I shall shortly prove, from the very document thus adduced, a case, not of extending, but of declining trade and manufacture. But, before I do this, I cannot help expressing any surprise that any document or any figures could indnce men who have the use of their eyes and ears, to believe, that trade was good, or that the present condition of the country was not one of severe and fearful suffering. So far, he thoroughly agreed with Mr. Baines. He had never heard it asserted, by any one that trade was good, or that there was not a great deal of suffering in the country. But this state of things might as well be attributed to the duty on timber as to the duty on corn; and as he (the Earl of Darlington) liked to attribute effects to the true causes, he had no objection to state his own opinion of the causes of the severe distress which now existed. The hon. Member for Wolverhampton had already alluded to the withdrawal of the bullion from the Bank to pay for the corn; and the hon. Member stated also, which he agreed with, that they would see month after month the variation in the bullion in the Bank and the importation of foreign corn, exactly corresponded. This was a proof that corn could not be purchased to any extent by this country un-Jess it were paid for by bullion. Nearly six millions of bullion had been sent out of the country in the year 1839 for the purchase of foreign corn. This withdrawal of bullion from the Bank caused them to make a considerable contraction of the issues, and no one would blame the Bank for doing what it was necessary for them to do. It was, indeed, asserted, and on no mean authority, that last September, the Bank was in possession of an order in council to suspend cash payments whenever they might think it necessary. But, whether this assertion were true or not, whilst there was this large drain for bullion, the Bank was called upon to double the accommodation to the merchants in the shape of discounts. The consequence was, that a great number of master manufacturers, who were not able to obtain accommodation, were forced to shut up their mills and fling their men out of employment. That was one of the main causes of the distress. But there was another point which he could not altogether overlook, and which was another cause of the distress—the system of overtrading. There were not, perhaps, many persons in that House who were Members of it in 1825; but he was one, and he well recollected, that Mr. Huskisson, who was then President of the Board of Trade, attributed the distress and the panic of that year solely to the overtrading of the years 1823 and 1824. Those were two years of the greatest commercial prosperity that were ever known. The consequences had been, that factories had been built out of number, that labourers were advertised for to be employed for three years; there was a great extent of overtrading, and manufactures were so largely produced, that they could not be sent abroad, and they remained on hand. If that were the case in 1825, considering the improvements that had since been made in machinery, considering the great subsequent increase of population in the manufacturing- districts, and considering that at the present moment it was asserted by the manufacturers that the extent of machinery and of population were such that they could manufacture for the whole of the present world, and that they could manufacture enough for a new world, if a new one could be found, was it not likely that the same cause existed now, that there was proof of overtrading, and he feared that the great improvements in machinery and the increase of population, instead of proving an advantage to the country, would be found a great and positive inconvenience. He had intended to go generally through the amounts of the exports, to show that in every year, from 1829 up to 1838, they had almost invariably increased, but as be should weary the House by going over details which had been already referred to and admitted, he would content himself with mentioning only one branch, the iron trade, in which the results were so extraordinary that they were worthy of separate relation. The exports from 1829 to 1838 showed an almost constant increase. In 1829 the exports were 89,338 tons of iron, in 1832 they were 120,442 tons, in 1835 they rose to 167,349 tons, in 1836 there was a slight fall to 160,524 tons but in 1837 there were 162,496 tons, and in 1839 there were no less than 217,900 tons of iron and hardware exported from England. Now, let them see what Mr. Edward Baines said to this. After alluding to different articles for which the importation of the raw material had decreased, he came to the iron trade, and thus accounted for the statement of a diminution of profits— Again, we have seen that there was an increase in the exportation of hard wares and cutlery; but, on turning to the raw material, namely, the finest quality of iron, which we import from abroad, and which, therefore, is contained in this list of imports, it appears that the quantity of iron entered for home consumption, instead of increasing, declined. In 1838 there was 19,318 tons of iron entered; and, in 1839, there was only 18,437 tons. Now, he (the Earl of Darlington) had mentioned the increase of iron exported, and to every one who knew the state of the iron trade, it might not, perhaps, appear wonderful that there was not a very large importation of iron, but he would call the attention of the House to the manner in which iron was protected. One great argument with hon. Gentlemen opposite was, that there was a higher protecting duty on corn than on anything else; whilst the fact was, that iron was more protected than corn. He must premise that he was not an iron master himself, nor was he personally acquainted with the value of the different qualities of iron; but he was informed that there were three different qualities, having a different amount of protecting duty. On iron bars there was only a duty of 1l. 10s. per ton; but on the second description there was a duty of 5l. per ton; and on hoop iron, the finest description, there was a duty of no less than 23l. 15s. a ton. He understood, also, that three tons of these different kinds of iron, that is, one ton of each, could be purchased here for 30l; and if they added the three duties together, they would amount to more than 30l. Iron, therefore, was protected by a duty of more than 100 per cent. He felt, also, that in this question there was one great cause of distress in the manufacturing districts, which consisted in the great quantity of goods sent to America, and there sold at ruinous prices, or not sold at all. He believed that at this moment this country was an immense creditor of America, and so long as the debts which existed remained, he was surprised that any should be sent at all. But what he was still more surprised at was the allegation which had been made by Mr. Baines, that the great proof of our distress was the failure of the home demand for manufactured commodities. He had always heard it asserted that it was the foreign markets to which the manufacturers looked, and that the home consumption was nothing as compared with the demand for the foreign markets. But it was said also, that the home demand had diminished from an inability to purchase, and that was an effect which was attributed to the Corn-laws. If that were so, he begged to inquire who were the persons who were the real home consumers? He had always heard that they were the landowners and persons employed in agriculture, and there could be no doubt that they, being the principal customers, consumed at least four-fifths of the articles produced. He would now refer to another passage of the speech of Mr. Baines. He said, Let me, in conclusion, offer a plain illustration, which may convince even an agriculturist that increased exports may, under certain circumstances, be a proof not of prosperity, but of exigency. Suppose a farmer, whose land yields on the average one hundred quarters of corn, of which he sends sixty quarters to market in order to pay his rent and other expenses, and keeps forty quarters for the support of his family. Suppose that in an unfavourable year his farm only yields ninety quarters instead of 100, but that, owing to increased necessities, be sends sixty-five quarters of corn to market instead of sixty quarters—it is evident that this increase of his sales, which I may call his exports, is not a proof of prosperity, but of present need. It takes place in spite of diminished production, and it leaves for the consumption of his family, not forty quarters, but only twenty-five quarters. This is just what has taken place last year in England; we have produced less—we have exported more; and thus in both ways our own consumption, that is, our own supply of necessaries and comforts, has been abridged. It was true that in favourable seasons farmers might produce ninety quarters only instead of 100, and if he could only obtain payment at the ordinary rate, he would sustain a clear loss of ten quarters; but at the same time, the probability was that he would get for the ninety quarters the same amount as would be paid in other years for 100, and the argument, therefore, went for nothing. He should not trouble the House with any further allusion to this speech. It had been thought by the advocates of Corn-law repeal to be one of great value and importance, and he believed that it was mainly on it, that the delegates now assembled in Palace-yard rested their case. He merely wished further to refer to some important documents which had only appeared on that day, and which, in his opinion, were highly valuable in allusion to this question, and he should not then trouble the House any further. One of the strongest arguments quoted against the policy of the Corn-laws was the great evil which was alleged to be produced by the constant fluctuations of prices, which, it was said, were equally injurious to the consumer and the merchant. He agreed that steadiness of price was an object which it was most desirable to attain; but every body who had made the least inquiry into the subject must be aware that the prices could not be fixed, but that they must vary in a great measure according to the season. It had been stated, and was generally believed, that those variations had been effected by the working of the Corn-laws. He held in his hand a most valuable document, which would at once contradict such a suggestion. It was divided into three tables, the first of which was a "Return of the highest and lowest annual average prices of wheat, and the differences per cent, between the years 1815 and 1838 in England and the following countries: Prussia Proper, Posen, Brandenburg and Pomerania, Silesia, Saxony, Westphalia, the Rhenish Provinces, Sweden, Bordeaux, Lisbon, Hamburg, Rotterdam, Dantzic, Petersburg, Riga, and Trieste;" and it was very remarkable that in this list there appeared to have been much less fluctuation in England than in any other country. The second and third tables were returns of the same description, referring to the years from 1829 to 1838, in England, Dantzic, and Rotterdam, and also of the highest and lowest weekly average prices per quarter in England and Wales, and the difference per cent, between the same years. In these tables, also, the same fact was observable, that the prices in England were the lowest. This was a remarkable fact, and it distinctly proved that this argument against the Corn-laws at least could not for a moment be contended for, but must be admitted to be erroneous. In saying thus much he must declare that he never grudged the prosperity of those who, having been formerly men of straw, had in a very short time amassed large fortunes. So long as by fair means and diligence their condition and success were maintained, he was the last man to object to it, but when he found that their position was to be supported at the cost of the landowners, so long as he held a seat in that House he should always raise his voice against such a proposition. He had now stated his opinions upon the subject to the House. He might be supposed certainly to be in some degree biassed, from the fact of his being the representative of a large agricultural county, but he had always kept in mind the fact, that they were not sent there as the representatives of any particular district, but as the representatives of the whole country. Under these circumstances, and in consideration that he had always endeavoured to do his duty to the best of his judgment, when he was told that agriculture and commerce and manufactures could not flourish together, he had always disavowed, and never believed, that that principle could be supported. They had flourished together before, and if that had been the case, he begged to ask why they might not now flourish together, and continue to flourish together? If be was to be told that they could not be supported together, and that for that reason the agriculturist must give way for the manufacturer, then he was obliged to say, "Let the agriculturist prosper." But it was not his intention to say one word which should appear to favour or discountenance either of them. He should say, "let them flourish and go hand in hand together," but he could not help regretting that many of those who were the well-wishers of the agriculturists should, at a time when they stood in the greatest need of their support, give an ear to those whom they must know to be their bitterest enemies, when their own good sense must at once convince them of the errors into which they had fallen. He would now say no more, but express a fear that from the moment at which that protection was taken away from the agriculturist which was at present afforded him, England's sun would set, and her glory would sink never more to rise.

Mr. Grote.

—In approaching the consideration of this question, I must say that I fully agree in one sentiment expressed by the noble Earl who has just sat down. He has told the House that no Gentleman who holds a seat within these walls is the representative of any particular district or class, but that he is the representative of the entire people. This is a sentiment in which I repeat I entirely agree, and I can only express a hope that the decision to which the House will come to upon this question will be in conformity with it. The noble Lord has expressed his astonishment that this question should be again offered to its consideration, after the final and complete answer which it had received last year. If I could admit that the numerical majority which the party opposed to any change in the existing Corn-laws then obtained, could be considered as an exponent of the justice of the cause, I should say that that party had a triumphant case; but it is a fact in our history that the majority of the people are dissatisfied with this law, and I find that that very principle is affirmed in the speech of the noble Lord, because he says that the hon. Member for Wolverhampton brought forward this question, not so much from his own opinion, but from a pressure from without. From what can that pressure proceed, but from a firm and settled conviction that the decision of this House last year was not satisfactory, and that the question is one which must be reconsidered, and determined after more mature deliberation? The noble Lord admitted that in the course of the last year a state of extreme distress existed throughout the country, and he commented on that point in a manner which did him great credit, and I am much rejoiced that on this point at least we are somewhat nearer to an agreement, because much of the discussion of last year took place upon the question whether there was or was not a sufficient degree of discontent to warrant an inquiry. I feel painfully sensible that after the, long and incessant discussion which the subject has undergone, it is utterly impossible to produce anything like new argument on either side of the debate. This is a disadvantage to which I must submit in common with my opponents, and believing, as I do, that the present system in respect to the importation of foreign corn is extremely pernicious to the country, I shall not debar myself from the liberty of insisting on the main objections against that system merely because the same objections may have been already enlarged upon by others. I cannot but think, indeed, that whatever there may be of novelty in the present discussion as compared with our discussion of last year, is in favour of the view which I take of the corn-laws, and not in favour of the view taken by my opponents. The intervening period has furnished us, not indeed with any fresh arguments or undiscovered principles of reasoning, but with certain new facts and illustrations in respect to the practical working of the present system. I shall be much astonished if my opponents can find much in the phenomena of the year 1839, to advance the credit of our present corn-laws in public opinion. I think it will not be difficult to point out much in those same phenomena which tends to discredit and depreciate them. My hon. Friend, the Member for Wolverhampton, has already alluded to the condition of the Bank of England, and to the manner in which our commercial and monetary affairs, during 1839, have been affected by the present corn-laws. That which was matter of prediction during the discussion of 1839, has become matter of history for the discussion of 1840. I shall make no apology for touching upon this topic again, for I consider the late derangement of our monetary system, to be au effect distinctly and directly deducible from the corn-laws, giving rise to serious apprehensions, if things are suffered to continue in their present state, for the future maintenance of our monetary standard. To this one great public danger is to be added, the disturbance which has been so largely occasioned in the commercial relations of private individuals, and the loss, anxiety, and hazard which has fallen, and which is sure to fall somewhere or other, among very large classes of merchants or traders. Scarcity of money, as it is called, or in other words, a difficulty in borrowing, and great rise in the rate of interest on commercial securities, though undoubtedly it presses hard upon the trading world generally, is vet neither the greatest nor the foremost of the evils entailed upon them. The embarrassments occasioned to all who have to pay for goods, the unwillingness to buy which is felt by prudent men, who foresee this embarrassment the consequent stoppage of sales and accumulation of stocks in the hands of the importer and the manufacturer, the inevitable slackening of the demand and means of employment for labour—all these indirect evils, the result of a pressure on the money-market, are severely and cruelly felt throughout every department of the trading world, far more than the amount of positive payment which each man may have to incur in the shape of increased charge for interest. And these evils spring from that violent demand for bullion, which large and sudden payments for foreign grain have entailed upon us under the present corn-laws. I advert, Sir, to these mischiefs, first, not because I consider them first in the scale of importance among those which flow from our corn-law, but because they happened to have made themselves peculiarly prominent during the last twelve months. If I am asked what I consider the capital and primary evils ascribable to the corn-laws, I reply, as I did last year, that I rank first and foremost the evil to the community generally, trading or non-trading—the aggravated price, and the still more aggravated uncertainly, in regard to the purchase of the prime necessary of life. The average price of wheat for the year 1839 was 70s., and the price in particular portions of the year has been as high as 80s. per quarter. It may be difficult to ascertain with minuteness the precise fraction of this price, which is the direct consequence of our present corn-laws; but on the very lowest estimation, when multiplied into the number of quarters consumed in this country, it will appear to be an impost of serious and formidable magnitude. This, Sir, is, in my mind, the direct and primary mischief, apart from the many indirect and collateral mischiefs which arise out of the corn-laws, and I never can speak upon the subject without making allusion to it. These laws add considerably in the majority of years to the price of grain, the subsistence of every citizen of our community; while the sum which is thus taken out of the pockets of every man is applied, not in aid of the general taxation, but is partly cast away without benefit to any one, partly applied to the benefit of one separate and peculiar class. I never can persuade myself that a law thus branded, both with injustice and with impolicy, can be permament. Gen- tlemen do, indeed, tell us, in defence of the corn-law, that the present system ceases to impose any duty at all so soon as prices rise to an inconvenient magnitude; that the duty becomes smaller and smaller as the price becomes larger and larger, and that when the price once reaches 73s. per quarter, no part of the burden borne by the consumer is to be considered as arising out of the corn-law. This is what Gentlemen often tell us, and they seem sometimes to take credit to the landed interest for something in the nature of generosity, in permitting the scale of duty gradually to decline and vanish, in proportion as the price of corn rises. Sir, I do not know how others may be affected by this reasoning, but to me it seems to imply an unusual confidence in the indulgent dispositions of the audience; for what reflecting man will be induced to believe, that the total addition to the cost of procuring foreign corn, is measured exclusively by the amount of duty actually levied, and comprises nothing beyond? There are many and various ways of enhancing the cost of commodities, and direct taxation is only one of them. If you accumulate difficulties and uncertainties in the course of any particular trade, if you deter merchants from purchasing on your behalf, at the time and place when the article is cheapest, if you will enter into no regular commerce, and give no deliberate order before-hand—all this vicious management will impose upon you the necessity of paying an additional price for what you buy, as infallibly as if there were a tax charged upon you at the moment of purchase. All vexations or impediments in the way either of the manufacture or the purchase of an article, will make themselves felt in the price just as certainly as a tax imposed upon the article only at the full period of its completeness. Now, the present system of Corn-laws is more replete with uncertainty and variability than any other scale which, has ever been adopted. The contingent fluctuations in the price and in the duty are beyond the reach of any just or accurate estimation; no merchant can safely undertake any operation under our present Corn-law, without having a very wide and ample margin of prices to cover risks and possibilities. All these elements of risk, of difficulty, and of uncertainty in the trade are felt in the price of the article when sold in our market; they are a cause of enhancement of price, over and above the positive amount of duty, and not less effective than the duty. There are two objects, Sir, which it appears to me that we ought to aim at in our legislation on the corn trade. The first is, that corn should be afforded to the consumers at the lowest cost of production; and Gentlemen will recollect that the consumers are, in point of fact, the entire nation, or at least the overwhelming majority of it. The second is, that the price of corn should be steady, and subject to as little fluctuation as possible. I combine these two objects together in my view of what is desirable, and I firmly believe that you cannot disunite them in practice. If you legislate with a view to raise the price of corn above its free and natural level, you will by the very same act, render its price more variable and unsteady. If you are to raise the price of grain artificially through the means of legislative enactment, for the benefit, real or supposed, of British cultivators, this can only be done by embarrassing or preventing the foreign supply; and the more we narrow the surface from which our subsistence is derived, the more we stand exposed to injury from the fluctuations of the seasons. Thus to put an extreme case.—if our landed gentlemen were to call upon us to prohibit foreign grain altogether, after a certain moderate interval, it would perhaps be possible that British agriculture might be pushed so far that it would supply us with all the food for our population, at the expense, indeed, of enormous cost and suffering in many ways to the community; but still such a quantity of food might perhaps be supplied. But I entertain as little doubt that if this supposition were realized, and if British grown corn were forced from our soil in sufficient abundance for our population during very bad seasons, there would be, under such a system, a prodigious and extreme superfluity during good seasons, and there would be fluctuations in the price of grain to an extent such as we have never yet witnessed. There would be prices occasionally exorbitant, and generally high, but occasionally also ruinously low, in seasons of abundance; and in such seasons the agriculturists would suffer even more than they did in 1834 and 1835. Now, our present Corn-law does not carry protection to agriculture to the extent which I have just put as an hypothetical case. It does not exclude foreign corn altogether; it excludes foreign corn in years of Ordinary home produce, under our present extent of cultivation; it admits foreign corn in years of deficient home produce, and in those years only. But it still does involve the same principle of protection as the hypothetical case which I have imagined, though in a more limited degree; it does keep up artificially the price of corn here during years of ordinary produce, and therefore it exposes us, during years of abundance, to the evils of a factitious surplus, selling at a price altogether disproportioned to the cost of production, ruinous to the cultivators, and yet too dear to be relieved by exportation. It is thus that the event will ever turn out; you cannot force up prices above their natural level during scarce years, or ordinary years, without exposing yourself to a reaction, and to an unnatural depression during periods of abundance. I repeat, that you cannot disunite in practice a low price of corn and a steady price of corn, considered as objects of legislation—the same laws which promote the one will infallibly promote the other. Admit supplies freely from all quarters, and you will have done all that legislation can do, both to obtain supplies at the lowest cost of production, and to render the quantity supplied equal from year to year, and therefore, also, the price steady. On the contrary, the more you deviate from this rule of unlimited and universal admission—the more you shut out supplies from one quarter, for the the purpose of procuring a partial monopoly to the supplies from another quarter—the further will your efforts go as well to heighten the cost of production as to render the aggregate supplies unequal from year to year, and therefore, the price of the article unsteady and fluctuating. Sir, I am well aware that when I endeavour to show that the way to diminish as much as possible the chance of high prices of grain, is to open the sources of supply as widely as you can, I am not likely to find favour with agriculturists. They believe that they have an interest in high prices; and, so far as regards the landlords, though not so far as regards the farmers, I think they believe so rightly. But, as to the point of steadiness of price—there at least we seem to be agreed—the agriculturists are of opinion that they have a common interest with the consumers in securing steadiness of price, though they may desire that it should be a steady high price, and not a steady low price. If, then, it can be proved that, the present Corn-laws, though they may secure a higher average of prices during a series of years, yet purchase this benefit at the expense of multiplied and aggravated fluctuations—if this can be proved, I say, even the agriculturists themselves ought to be prevailed upon to set the loss in one way against the benefit in the other. Now, Sir, I maintain that nothing can be more thoroughly certain than the tendency of our present Corn-laws to multiply and aggravate the fluctuations in the price of grain; and I am astonished, I confess, when I hear Gentlemen opposite defending them on the ground of their having produced steadiness and uniformity of price. I do not, of course, contend that our Corn-laws are the sole and exclusive cause of fluctuations in the price of grain. I know that the inequalities of the seasons must always lead to considerable inequalities of price from year to year, under any and every system of legislation; but I do contend that our present system operates as a new and separate cause of fluctuation in itself, and that it aggravates exceedingly that irregularity of supply, which is the main cause of fluctuations in price generally. How, indeed, can it be otherwise, when we have adopted a graduated scale framed with exquisite skill, so as to baffle the most careful anticipations and the most far-sighted sagacity on the part both of the growers and importers of corn, and to reduce the corn trade to a state of greater uncertainty and conjecture than the betting-room at Tattersall's? Under a trade perfectly free, and without any duty at all, it must always be a matter more or less of hazard to bring over any considerable quantity of corn from a foreign country, from the difficulty of calculating accurately the produce of domestic harvests. If you impose a fixed duty upon importation, you increase the hazard by the addition of so much positive charge to the prime cost of the article. But if you graduate your scale of duty in such manner that the difference between a price of 63s. per quarter, and a price of 73s. per quarter, becomes equivalent to a difference of 35s. per quarter, by means of the dilatation and contraction of the duty, then the hazard becomes aggravated, until it exceeds that of any other trade carried on in our markets. Upon any large adventure, a lucky guess is wealth at one stroke: mis-computation is absolute ruin. When you require a supply of beef or bread for the army or navy, you take care to announce beforehand the precise quantity which you will want, and the precise time and place at which it must be delivered This is the established way of ensuring a regular trade and a reasonable bargain, and the nearer any trade can be made to approximate to this pre-ascertained relation—the more completely both the extent of demand and the conditions of supply can be marked out and determined beforehand, the more conveniently will the traffic be carried on fur the seller and the more cheaply for the buyer. Now, it is very certain that, even if our Corn-laws were done away with, the foreign corn trade could never be reduced to anything like a state of precise contract; the importer must always take his chance of those variations in price and in the extent of supply required from abroad, which the inequalities in our domestic harvests are sure to occasion. But our present Corn-laws accumulate in his path artificial dangers and difficulties, over and above those which are natural and inherent in the trade; and these difficulties and dangers make themselves felt both by enhancing the price, and by aggravating the fluctuations in the price of the article. Many of the Gentlemen who uphold the present Corn-laws are not equally ready to defend the Corn-law which existed from 1815 to 1828. They condemn the system of absolute prohibition up to 80s., and they consider the adoption of the present system as a change from what was injurious and impolitic to something which is positively and decidedly beneficial. If they contented themselves with saying that the law of 1828 is, to a certain extent, less objectionable than that of 1815—that it is on the whole, and comparatively speaking, an improvement, I should agree with them. But I contend that the same objectionable principles which marked the law of 1815 will be found substantially to mark the law of 1828, though undoubtedly lessened and circumscribed in the extent of their working. By the law of 1815, the consumer could obtain no foreign wheat until the average prices in this country reached 80s. The law peremptorily forbade him. This I admit: at present the law does not peremptorily forbid him from buying foreign corn at any price for which the importer—having paid the duty according to the scale-may be willing to sell it. But though the law of 1828 abandons the unqualified prohibition comprised in the law of 1815, what has it substituted in place of prohibition? It has substituted a scale of duties so arranged, that when a supply of foreign corn really is wanted, the consumer is sure not to obtain it until prices here reach an average of 73s.: while if the importer should make a mistake in calculating the real wants of the country, and if the price falls short of this level by only a few shillings, the enormous rise of the duty entails upon him a loss hardly less than the absolute unsaleability of his merchandise to which the old law condemned him. There is indeed a difference for the better, and not an inconsiderable difference, between 80s. and 73s.; but, looking at the question as it concerns the consumer, the certainty that under the disguised prohibitions of the present law the prices will reach 73s. whenever any foreign supply is really needed, is practically as great as the certainty, under the old law, that the prices must reach 80s. before any foreign corn could come into consumption. Why should the importer consent to pay more than the 1s. duty, when, by simply keeping back his corn for a few weeks, he can insure to himself this prodigious advantage? In point of fact, the present Corn-law makes it certain that whenever we really have occasion for a foreign supply of corn, the averages in this country will rise to 73s. at the least, just as the former Corn-law made it certain that the price would rise to 80s. under similar circumstances. The difference between the two is principally between 73s. and 80s.—a difference in degree and not in principle. I have said, Sir, I think it incontestable, in the very front of the case, that the present Corn-law inevitably occasions a rise of price to 73s., whenever we stand in need of a foreign supply. Not more than five years ago the price of wheat was as low as 36s. and what, then, shall we say of a law which practically ensures a minimum price, before foreign corn can reach the English consumer, more than double the price which wheat bore five years ago, by the simple effect of good and abundant seasons at home? a law which is a main accessory and help in the creation of a difference of price equal to that between 73s. and 36s.? How shall it be pretended that such a law is favourable to steadiness and certainty of price? The present law contains in itself a certainty that the price will rise up to 73s. at particular epochs during every short cycle of years; but it does not contain any certainty that the price may not fall even below 36s. during years of abundance. It forces a temporary rise, but it does not, and cannot, sustain the rise, and the extent of reaction to which the fall will go is generally proportioned to the magnitude and violence of the forced rise by which it has been preceded. In both ways our present Corn-law contributes to aggravate the extremes of fluctuation, not to abate them. When prices have a tendency to be high, our Corn-law renders them still higher; when they have a tendency to become low, our Corn-law does not in any degree mitigate the fall, but tends indirectly to aggravate the downward movement. When Gentlemen praise so much the beauty of the sliding scale of duties, on the ground that the consumer is benefited by it, I am tempted to believe that they can never have inquired how this scale actually works in respect to purchase and sale in the corn market. The benefit arising from the fall of duty is almost universally a boon, not to the consumer, but to the importer or the speculator. If the duty falls, the importer may make a large profit; if it does not fall, he makes no profit, or may probably incur a severe loss; but in neither cases will the consumer gain by the transaction. In general, it may be stated broadly that the consumer can never gain except from the greatest possible freedom of competition in respect to the furnishing of the supply, and from the greatest possible certainty and most exact fore-knowledge of the circumstances of the market. I repeat that the rising or falling in the rate of duty is a question of profit to the speculator far more than a question of price to the consumer. You impose upon the speculator the hazard of enormous loss in the event of the duty rising, and he will not continue to import unless he has also the opportunity of pocketing a large profit when the duty falls. In truth when we examine the nice gradations of the present scale of duty, and the adjustment of a varying amount of duty to all the varying amounts of price, it will appear that all discrimination between the different amounts of duty which belong to the range of prices below 63s. is useless, and might be omitted. They might all be comprised under the one general word, "Prohibition;" for a duty of 30s. per quarter, and a duty of 40s. per quarter, each attached to the price put against it in the scale, are only two different modes of pronouncing a sentence of prohibition, and it is for all practical purposes as useless to distinguish one of them from the other, as it would be to graduate the barometrical column of mer- cury for portions of altitude below twenty, six inches. The real practical working of the scale is confined between the prices of 63s. and 73s., and the differences are here felt so violently and painfully as to convert the whole trade into a matter of the most hazardous speculation. Uncertainty is, indeed, imprinted in fearful characters upon all those portions of the present scale which really are significant and effective; and this uncertainty greatly enhances the cost to the consumer, coupled with the additional evil of a serious chance of ruin to the importer A fixed duty would of course remove to a great degree the element of artificial uncertainty out of the trade, and would so far put an end to one sort of mischief. But it would, in my opinion, substitute mischief under another form, and it will depend upon the amount of the fixed duty which you impose, whether such a change shall be for the better or for the worse. A fixed duty may be better or worse than a varying duty, according to the absolute magnitude of the one, as measured against the magnitude and rates of variation of the other. My opinion is opposed both to the one and to the other. I think that the importation of grain ought to be free, subject only to a nominal duty of 1s. or 6d. per quarter; and if I am required to take my choice between a fixed duty and a varying scale, I am unable to determine the question without being informed of the precise figures which it is intended to place on each side of the account. The object which I seek is to lessen as much as possible the obstacles in the way of procuring corn for the consumer at the lowest cost of production, and to bring the corn trade into a state of as much regularity and steadiness as possible. A fixed duty, if it were high in point of amount, would defeat both these objects, hardly less than the present varying rate of duty. It would be equally burdensome to the consumer, and it would have no other effect than that of rescuing importers from the serious hazard of ruin to which they now stand exposed. A low fixed duty would undoubtedly be an improvement upon the present system. Now, Sir, in reference to a fixed duty, the House will recollect, that the right hon. Baronet opposite, the Member for Tamworth, has declared himself decidedly opposed to it, and has proclaimed his preference of the principle of a varying scale of duty. To that extent, undoubtedly, we have upon record the positive opinion of the right hon. Gentleman; but as to almost all other matters I must be allowed to remark, that he has left his sentiments to be darkly and ambiguously gathered, without announcing them in distinct terms. In the ingenious speech made by the right hon. Gentleman last year on the present question, he made a very elaborate attempt to overthrow the reasonings of those who supported the motion of the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, and to show that no case had been made out against the Corn-laws; but he left it only as a matter of conjecture and inference, without expressing any decisive opinion, whether he was determined to uphold the present law in its literal extents and integrity. Considering the very eminent position which the right hon. Gentleman occupies in the country, and the number of persons to whom his declarations serve as a beacon of guidance and authority, I do think that he ought not to content himself with simple negative and refutation, but that he ought to tell us plainly whether, in his opinion the present Corn-laws are perfect, and admit of no improvement, or what modifications he thinks might be advantageously adopted. I repeat, Sir, that the importance of this question—the prolonged excitement which is sure to subsist with regard to it, and the ascendancy exercised by the right hon. Baronet's opinion, upon whatever subject it is proclaimed—all these consideration appear to me to impose upon the right hon. Gentleman an obligation to declare what extent of modification, if any, he is prepared to accede to it in the present system. Hon. Gentlemen opposite contend, that English agriculture, with all its prospects and prosperity, hangs upon the maintenance of the present Corn-laws. If I could agree with them in this opinion, I should indeed look forwards to the events of the coming years with mournful anticipation. But I entirely dissent from the proposition. I believe, that English agriculture, taking it as a whole, is neither more skilful nor more profitable in consequence of the Corn-laws, I believe, that the only portion of English agriculture which actually does depend upon the Corn-laws, is an unsound excrescence, which, under a wise system of legislation would never have been called into being. The Corn-laws have had the effect of causing an undue proportion of the English land to be turned to the culture of wheat, including both the forcing of poor soils and the overcropping of the better soils. To a certain extent under a free trade in grain, it is true that soils which were never intended for the growth of wheat, would be devoted to some other culture, but the extent to which even this change would take place appears to me to be generally exaggerated. For it is to me quite incontestible that even when the corn trade is free, the vast proportion of the wheat which is consumed in England, must be supplied from the soil of England. To what precise number of quarters the foreign supply might reach in a year of ordinary productiveness throughout England, must, of course, be a matter of conjecture, as well as the price at which wheat would range in this market under such circumstances. I ventured to make a guess upon the subject last year, and I see no reason, from subsequent inquiries, to distrust the probability of the estimate. When I consider the bulk and weight of such an article as wheat, and the extraordinary difficulty of transporting it, even for an inconsiderable distance, by land carriage, and that, even after the land carriage, a long and costly water carriage has to be undergone: all this, coupled with considerable poverty, and want of perfect arrangements for conveyance and communication throughout the producing countries—I must confess, that I feel astonished at the enormous over-estimate which I sometimes hear of the deluge of wheat with which we should be inundated, in the event of the trade being made free. When I examine the aggregate amounts of corn exported in any one year from the corn-growing countries of Europe—from the Baltic ports, from Hamburg, and from Odessa—when I also look at the records of prices of exportable wheat from these ports, in all those years in which there is an efficient demand—I see every reason to apprehend, that the English consumer will not be able to benefit by the opening of the trade so much as I could wish. Sir, there are many bearings of this very important question which I have left wholly untouched, more particularly as it concerns the development and the prosperity of our manufacturing industry. I pass lightly over this topic only because I am satisfied, that there are many other Gentlemen in the House, who, from personal knowledge and familiarity with the manufacturing districts, are better able to do justice to it than I can be. I fear, however, that the statement made by my hon. Friend, the Member for Wolverhampton, of the distress now existing in our manufacturing districts, is but too well founded. And sure I am, that this is one great additional reason for entering at once, and immediately, upon a revision of the Corn-laws. I do not at all pretend to say, that the Corn-laws have operated as the sole originating cause of this distress, but I do assert, that they have a constant tendency, if not of themselves to create, at least to aggravate and prolong distress, and to weaken the influence of all those remedial causes which have their source in the industry and enterprize of the country. Whatever exaggerated hopes some individuals may entertain as to the effects of the Corn-laws, it is within the strictest limits of truth and reason, to say, that these laws are one serious, concurrent, and aggravating cause of public suffering and calamity; and, as such, I believe, that they will be held up to public discontent and" indignation, until the re-consideration of them is forced upon the prudence of the Legislature. The longer that re-consideration is delayed, the greater risk we incur of seeing it done under the influence of passion and violence. The question of the Corn-laws will become in England as grave and critical a question as the tariff question in the United States—pregnant with continued discord and danger to the country. However unwilling the House may be to entertain the doctrine I must once more express my conviction that neither the prosperity nor the peace of this country can be regarded as secure, under the existing restrictions on the importation of grain, and under the artificial aggravation in the price of the first necessary of life, to a population already too nearly verging on misery and impoverishment.

Mr. D'Israeli

observed, that the hon. Member for London affirmed, that the exportation of gold had been the cause of our late financial disorders, and that if we had a free commerce in corn, that disorder never would have existed. Now, he protested against this question being decided as a mere abstract question of political economy. It depended on the circumstances of the nations with which we dealt—on their manners, their laws, their customs, and their engagements. The hon. Member for Wolverhampton had announced to the House that Prussia was ready to deal with us on the basis of an extensive modification of our Corn-laws. The hon. Member in making that annunciation, had assumed a fact which he was disposed to question; and in offering to the House the reasons, or, he would rather say, the facts, on which he questioned that annunciation, he should be able to reply to the arguments which the hon. Member for London had founded upon the assumption that the corn-growing countries were prepared, if we made concessions to them upon the Corn-laws, to carry on with us a well-regulated commerce. The hon. Member for Wolverhampton had pressed upon the House the necessity of coming to a decision on this question without delay; "for," said he, "the tariff of Germany must be decided before the commencement of the year 1842." It was, therefore, of some importance to show that the tariff of Germany could not be regulated in relation to any course which we might think fit to adopt—that our Corn-laws had nothing to do with that tariff—and that it had been conceived before our Corn-laws existed. If he could show this to the House, he had no doubt that it would draw from such premises the inferences which he wished it to draw, and which he considered to be unquestionable. The House would then be in a position to judge whether any steps which we could take could produce that regulated commerce with Prussia and the rest of Germany which the hon. Member for Wolverhampton recommended. He must first call the attention of the House to the situation of Germany upon the fall of Napoleon. There was a great distinction between the empire and the kingdom of France. The restrictive system of Buonaparte extended not only over France, but over Belgium and Holland, and that extensive portion of Germany which formed the Confederation of the Rhine. That part of Germany enjoyed, in consequence, an extensive market in France; but when the French government, on being restricted within the ancient limits of France, continued the restrictive system of Napoleon, Germany found the inconvenience of it. In linen alone Germany found that she had lost a consumer of 8,000,000 dollars. This produced great discontent. The Commercial Union of Germany had been produced by moral principles and material interests. He would refer in proof of this to a very extraordinary paper, drawn up several years ago by Baron Stein, the celebrated Prussian Minister, in which the whole plan of the union was laid down. It stated, that the material interests were custom-houses on an extensive and united frontier; and the moral principles were that system of education which had obtained in Prussia, and would probably obtain in all Germany. He found that our imports from Prussia in 1834, the year in which the union was established, were 724,442l.; in 1838, 1,718,541l.; that our exports to Prussia in 1834 were 509,089l.; in 1838, after the union had been in existence four years, 584,851l. These facts, in his opinion, showed how little was to be apprehended from the German Commercial Union, the imports and exports having increased, especially the first. He knew it would be said, that the amount of our imports and exports to Prussia was no real test of our trade with that country, a great portion of it going through the Hanse Towns. He found that our exports to the Hanse Towns, in 1834, were 4,500,000l.; in 1835, 4,564,000l.; in 1836,4,433,000l.; in 1837, 4,867,000l.; in 1838, 4,943,000l. This increase, so important, and yet so gradual, was rather inconsistent with the theory of hon. Gentlemen opposite, that our manufacturing prosperity was in a state of progressive decline. It was the fashion to express great alarm respecting the manufactures of Belgium, which was in league with the German Commercial Union. It was true, that in 1830 there were indications of a considerable development of industry in Belgium, which might have interfered seriously with the British manufacturers in our markets; but causes were then at work to produce that development, which no longer existed. The natural resources of Belgium for manufactures were formerly called into action by the capital of the Dutch. The Belgians had also had a great market for their productions in Holland, but the revolution of 1830 might be considered as having dealt a fatal blow to the industry of the country, as it had deprived the Belgians both of Dutch capital and the Dutch market. From Belgium our imports in 1834, were 1,400,000l.; in 1837, 1,892,957l. in 1838, 2,308,504l. Our exports to the same country in 1834, were 3,220,326l.; in 1838, 4,617,439l. It seemed, therefore, that with that country, which we were told had been very considerably affected by the Commercial Union, our trade had largely increased. At one of the great meetings lately held at Manchester to petition for a repeal of the Corn-laws, a glowing description had been given of Mr. Cockerill's manufacturing establishment in Belgium. That gentle- man was styled the iron king, and he was said to have 2,000 men at work. The fact was, that the real demand for the manufacturing industry of Belgium, had entirely ceased with the cessation of the Dutch sovereignty. The manufactures of Ghent were destroyed, and the ironworks of several other places were only supported by the patronage of Government. What had happened in Belgium since the last discussion on this subject in the House of Commons, was a full answer to the apprehensions of our manufacturers. The Belgian bank had failed, and many great manufacturing establishments had stopped. Industry in Belgium was now all but extinct; there was no market and no demand for its goods; unless some new combination of the elements of the European system took place, there could be no demand. He disclaimed the doctrine which was sometimes imputed to Gentlemen of his side, that we had the power of maintaining our own population on our own resources, a position which he thought was quite as fallacious as it would be to think of maintaining them out of the resources of another power. The real question was, how far it might be advisable to stimulate the industry of this country above that of our neighbours and rivals. The same experiment which the Corn-law repealers were now trying to force on us had been tried in Holland, a country once in circumstances very similar to our own, in the year 1670. A celebrated work which had been published, relating to Holland, contained the following passage:—"Tillage in this country is of no account, for the Dutch say, Europe is their farm." He (Mr. D'Israeli) could not help thinking, that that expression would be an appropriate pendant to one which we were much in the habit of using in this country—to make Britain the workshop of the world. The same principle as in the former case was now at work, the same arrogant aspirations were influencing our manufacturers and the Government, and history told what was the consequence of acting on such assumptions. The year 1670 was a very interesting one in relation to this discussion, inasmuch as it was that in which England ceased to be an exporting nation. Previous to that time several hundred thousand quarters were exported annually, the greater part to Holland. That country was then in the emjoyment of a wealthy commerce, as Britain was at the present day, but it had gradually declined, and left the field in the possession of a more powerful rival. Passing on to the next century, he would read to the House a description of the state of Holland, which he had found in a letter in the library of the House. It was as follows:— Rotterdam, Dec. 31, 1772. The Dutch are in the utmost distress for want of bread corn, no wheat having lately come to market from any of the following corn countries,—viz., Poland, Warsaw, Hamburgh, Elbing, Konigsberg, Pomerania, Stettin, Magdeberg, Friesland, Muscovy, Groningen, Oldhampt, Brabant, Zealand, and Great Britain; and what little comes from Foreland of the red sort sells from 17l. 10s. to 18l. 5s. per last, and wheat of the white sort from 17l. 10s. to 19l. 15s. per last. Neither has any rye come either from Pomerania, Colberg, Stettin, Brabant, Flanders, nor Great Britain; and what little quantity has been brought from Prussia sold from 26l. 10s. to 28l. per last, and from Konigsberg, 25l. 10s. to 27l. 10s., Barley from Zealand, 13l. to 13l. 15s. These were facts which he thought should put the House on its guard against the enormous proposition that the industry of foreign nations was to be regulated by a mere devotion to our interests and necessities. He was certain that the arrogant aspirations to which he had alluded were founded on profound ignorance of human nature, and, however, we might modify our own tariff, the industry of other nations would ramify into various courses, and would establish opposing interests in the same community. His object was to impress on the House, that the assumption which prevailed in this country that the changes in the tariffs of other states were the result of the wishes or measures of this country was an error. Other countries could not always be thinking of us; they had their own interests to look to. At the congress of Vienna, Prussia had but 5,000,000 of subjects, she now possessed 27,000,000. By the machinery of the commercial union Prussia had conquered Germany in peace. That union had done as much for Prussia as another Frederick the Great could have done. Throughout the whole of the immense territory embraced within the union Custom-houses were established, at which inspectors in the Prussian uniform were stationed, and in every quarter the money of Prussia passed current. It would be ridiculous to contend that the whole of these countries were not essentially Prussian. If Prussia had conquered them by the arms of her generals, the acquisition could not have been more complete. He had shown that the Germanic Commercial Union was essentially of a political nature as far as Prussia was concerned, and that, however, we might modify our tariff it would have no effect on their legislation. He had shown also that as regarded the league, our commerce was in a healthy and prosperous state, and that the case was the same as related to Holland and Belgium. As these were the countries in which they had been told the commerce of the country would suffer most, he placed confidence in the returns of our principal exports, which hon. Gentlemen opposite had treated as factitious, and he believed that the commerce of the country was in a prosperous state.

Mr. Labouchere

said, that although he had on every occasion on which the subject of the Corn-laws had been brought before the House voted for an alteration in the present system, yet he had always found the arguments which weighed with him so infinitely better stated by other Gentlemen, that he had never found it necessary till now to trespass upon the patience of the House; and he could assure the House that he should not do so now, if, considering the situation which he held, and its connexion with trade and manufactures, he had not felt it his duty to state to the House, in a very few words, the reasons why he should give his support to the motion. The hon. Gentleman who had just sat down, thought it necessary to warn the House against fostering and encouraging in the people of this country what he termed the arrogant aspiration of rendering England the workshop of the world. He trusted that the House would turn a deaf ear to such a warning. The hon. Gentleman might call this an arrogant aspiration, but he would say, that he looked with hope to that British energy which had led the people of this country to struggle against the weight of taxation, against foreign enemies, and other difficulties, and which had raised us to that pitch of manufacturing greatness which was the real talisman of this country, and from which we could not now descend, he would not say with honour, but even with safety. He was of opinion with Mr. Grattan, that a nation which had arrived at such great- ness as England had no refuge in littleness. He held that it was no longer a question whether this should be a great commercial and manufacturing country. With such enormous masses of the population dependent for subsistence on the foreign export trade, the real interests of the whole community must be seriously affected by the extent of our foreign trade. He hoped, therefore, notwithstanding what had been said by the hon. Gentleman that the great majority of the House, on whatever side they might be ranged on this question, would feel that it was their duty to foster, extend, and encourage the manufactures of this country. He now came to the question before the House. He was opposed, very strongly opposed, to the present system of Corn-laws. We had now had experience for nearly twelve years of the operation of the Act 9 George 4th, and it appeared to him that it had kept none of the promises which had been held out to the House. The promises were, in the first place, that it would maintain steadiness in prices, and in the next place, that it would keep up an uniform and regular corn trade. Now, he thought it would not be denied that during these years great fluctuations had taken place both in the price and the quantity of corn imported. He should be obliged, then, though most unwilling to do so, to refer to figures in support of his assertion. Mr. Canning and those gentlemen who supported the measure in 1828, said that they did not expect the price of corn would oscillate more extensively than between 55s. and 65s. Now he held in his hand a return of the fluctuations in the price of corn which had actually occurred under the Act of 1828, and he would state to the House what had been the monthly average prices of wheat from 1828 to the end of 1839, so as to show the number of months in which each of the various average prices occurred. He had thought it advisable to put this statement into a shape more distinct than had been hitherto adopted, and the results were these. He found that wheat had been sold, at an average price, under 40s. for seventeen months of this period; at an average between 40s. and 50s. for twenty-three months; at between 50s. and 60s. for forty-eight months; at between 60s. and 70s. for thirty-eight months; at between 70s. and 80s. for sixteen months; and between 80s. and 90s. for one month. Therefore, whatever other advantages the corn-law might have produced, it certainly had not answered the expectations of those who predicted that the price of wheat would only oscillate between 55s. and 65s.—[Sir R. Peel: "During how many months had there been an average of between 55s. and 65s.?"]—He had not calculated this average. As little had the other promises of Mr. Canning and those who supported the measure been borne out by the results. As to the trade in corn, the trade under the measure had been any thing but steady, as the House would! at once perceive from the statement which he would now beg leave to make. In the year 1829, when the average price of wheat was 66s. 3d., the number of quarters imported and retained for consumption was 1,364,220; in 1830, when the average price of wheat was 64s. 3d. the number of quarters imported and retained was 1,701,885; in 1831, when the average price was 66s. 4d., the number of quarters imported and retained was 1,491,631; in 1832, when the average price was 58s. 8d., the number of quarters imported and retained was 325,435; in 1833, when the average price was 52s.11d., the number of quarters imported and retained was 82,346; in 1834, when the average price was 46s. 2d., the number of quarters imported and retained was 64,653; in 1835, when the average price was 39s. 4d., the number of quarters imported and retained was 28,483; in 1836, when the average price was 48s. 6d., the number of quarters imported and retained was 30,554; in 1837, when the average price was 55s. 10d., the number of quarters imported and retained was 244,619; in 1838, when the average price was 64s. 7d., the number of quarters imported and retained was 1,853,048; and in 1839, when the average price of wheat was raised to 70s. 8d., the number of quarters imported and retained for consumption rose to 2,711,308. These returns showed at once how very far from uniform and regular had been the supply of foreign corn. It was to be borne in mind, also, that this law, even at the time it was introduced, was not considered by its proposers as one calculated for all time or to endure amid all circumstances, but, on the contrary, as a measure to which they resorted as a sort of compromise with the existing prejudices. What was the remarkable language held by Mr. Grant, now Lord Glenelg, upon introducing this measure? He said, upon March 31, 1828:— He had spoken of these resolutions as an introduction to something better, but in one point of view they are permanent. As far as the Legislature was concerned, they were permanent. They were permanent until the minds of men could be led to entertain juster notions upon this subject; and could be changed only as the notions which at present prevailed were altered for the better."^* Now he could not help thinking that the notions of men were altered on this subject. At any rate, he was sure that a change of opinion was going on in this country, which indicated that a time was not far distant, when the minds of men would alter for the better; and he could not help saying, with reference to this point, that he hoped, in case he and those who thought with him incurred a defeat that night, that the friends of this change, both in the House and out of the House, would not be discouraged. He hoped they would not give up the cause in despair: he trusted that while they did not think it necessary to resort to violent agitation or inflammatory topics, they would trust to the force of reason and argument, well assured that the day was nigh at hand when reason and argument would gain their just victory. Having referred to the speech of Lord Glenelg on introducing the measure in question, he might also quote the opinion of a noble Member of that House, who also spoke on that occasion, the present Member for North Lancashire, whose opinion being of great weight in that House, he was happy to quote, as it concurred with his own. On one of the discussions on the present Act, Lord (then Mr.) Stanley said:— He had yet to learn the reasons which had induced the right hon. Gentleman to prefer the present bill to that of last session. He was certainly inclined to the opinion of those who abstractedly supported a fixed permanent duty; but feeling that it was impracticable to carry such a measure, he felt that the next best plan would be to adopt such a scale of duties as would keep the price of corn as low as possible, at the same time giving to the agriculturists a fair profit. Still adhering to that principle, he conceived the scale of last year to be much better than that now proposed. He must say, he had heard with some surprise the complaint made by the noble Member for Shropshire at this question being discussed in that House, a complaint, ^* Hansard, vol. xviii. now series, p. 1385. however, which had been fully met by an hon. Gentleman who had already spoken. Did the noble Lord really imagine that the discontent with the present Corn-laws was confined to the people of the description to which he had referred? Did not the noble Lord know that almost without exception every author of science and knowledge, who had earned any reputation upon such subjects, had declared himself opposed to the Corn-laws? On the other hand, could the noble Lord point out any author of name who had ventured to stake his reputation in support of these laws? When, therefore, it was found that at the same time those who felt practically the pressure of these laws, the manufacturing and commercial classes, and those who looked at the theory as well as the practical effect of things, concurred in protesting against these laws, surely this was a sufficient ground why the Legislature should take the subject into its most serious consideration. A great deal of the discussion last year was as to whether or not our manufactures were in a state of peril and depression; and from what he had heard to-night, he foresaw that this question would form a prominent part of the present debate. The right hon. Member for Tamworth, in his able speech last year, distinctly declared his opinion that our manufacturing interests were in a most prosperous and sound condition. If mere returns were to be considered as a sure and unerring test on this point, the returns of the past year, as to all the staple articles, certainly exceeded those of the previous year. But he thought that the House would come to a rash and precipitate conclusion if upon that statement alone they should infer that our manufactures were in a flourishing condition. Although the export trade had increased, the home consumption had decreased, and, taking the two together, there was a positive diminution in the manufactured products of the country. He did not wish to hold out the language of despondency or alarm; on the contrary, he had the fullest confidence in the energy of the industrious classes of this country. He believed that British enterprise, and industry, and skill could bear up against all difficulties; but he thought at the same time that there was that in the present position of the manufacturing interest in this country which afforded good reasons why the House should take care to do nothing which could, in the race of competition which our manufacturers were running with foreign manufacturers, throw any unnecessary obstacle in the way of British industry. Upon the question of the amount of our export trade, he could not do better than refer hon. Gentlemen to the pamphlet of Mr. Wilson, a work which no one could peruse without admitting how strong and able was the case which he stated. It appeared from Mr. Wilson's pamphlet that the entire consumption of foreign wool in 1838, was 460,756,000 lbs.; and in 1839, 355,781,000 lbs.; showing a diminution, of 105,0001bs. The quantity of sheep's wool entered for home consumption was 56,415,460lb. weight; the quantity in 1839 was 53,221,231lb., being a diminution of 3,194,229lb. The quantity of woollen goods exported in 1838 was 6,181,000lb.; in 1839 it was 6,679,000lb., being an increase of 498,000lb. The flax for consumption in 1838 amounted to 1,625,830 cut.; and in 1839 to 1,228,894 cwt., so that there was a diminution of 396,936 cwt. The exportation of linen manufactures in 1838 amounted in value to 3,566,000l., and in 1839 to 4,237,000l., being therefore a surplus exportation on the previous year of 671,000l. The quantity of silk consumed in 1838 was 4,887,000 lbs.; in 1839 it was 4,756,000lb. The value of silk goods exported in 1838 was 771,280l., and in 1839 it was 865,768l., being an increase of 88,488l. In 1838 there were 19,318l. tons of iron entered; and in 1839 there were only 18,437 tons. Again, in the article of oil, extensively used in our clothing manufactures, there was a decline in every description; in train, blubber, and spermaceti oils, from 28,014 tons in 1838, to 22,348 tons in 1839; in palm oil, from 276,809 cwt. to 266,427 cwt.; in cocoanut oil, from 38,781 cwt. to 15,541 cwt.; and in olive oil, from 2,037,987 gallons to 1,815,692 gallons. It would be unsafe, because of an increase in the exports of onr manufactures, to come to the conclusion that they were in a state of prosperity; and it was a public duty to look into the operation of the present Corn-laws, to see how far it affected the prosperity of the country generally. In one way the present Corn-laws were decidedly imperfect as a piece of machinery. They operated most injuriously from the manner of taking the averages. In the petition from the merchants of Liverpool they asserted this distinctly: They said that, As a proof of the oppression and unjus working of the existing Corn-laws, by a graduated scale of duties, your petitioners beg leave to state to your honourable House, that although the prices of wheat of good and sound qualities, from the beginning of December last to the present time, have been quite as high as they were in the preceding winter, yet. in all that period the duty on wheat has been 18s. 8d. to 21s. 8d. per quarter; whilst within the same period, in the year before, the duty never exceeded 1s. per quarter, such difference in the duties having arisen from the lower averages occasioned by the unsound state of a large portion of the produce of the late harvest. He was most desirous that the House should consent to take into consideration the present state of the Corn-laws. Some reference had been made to alterations which a change in our Corn-laws might be expected to produce in the commercial policy of other nations—in the tariffs of other states. He certainly did not feel warranted in holding out to the House any positive expectation that if we were to show any disposition to modify our Corn-laws, that there would be immediately on the part of other nations a disposition to relax their prohibitive duties against British manufacturers. But he must say, that he was convinced it was for the real interest of this country to be put in the situation of being a good customer to other nations. He attached much more importance to such a position than to commercial treaties or to stipulations for the reduction of tariffs. The operation of such treaties was short lived, and they were not to be depended on whenever it became the interest of the party giving the reduction to depart from it. He attached great importance to putting this country in such a situation as to become a good customer to other countries. If we put ourselves in such a situation, we should make it their interest to take our manufactures in return for the corn which we took from them. Upon this subject, he would read another part of the petition of the merchants of Liverpool, engaged in commerce in the United States. He was most anxious to call attention to the case of America particularly, because the operation of the present system of duties was such as to press with peculiar severity on countries which were at a great distance. Under the operation of the present system, the corn-dealers at Hamburg and Dantzic, taking advantage of the sudden opening of the English ports, might pour in their corn, while the dealers of New York might be prevented, from the shortness of the time during which the ports continued open, from doing the same thing. The merchants engaged in the American trade at Liverpool said in their petition:— That the present fluctuating system of duty on corn imported into this country is injurious to all the great interests of the empire, not excepting the agricultural interest itself; and that the operation of the averages acts unequally and to the prejudice of our commerce with distant countries, particularly with the United States; because, whenever the duty falls so as to admit corn at a low rate, the sudden influx from the ports of the continent very frequently raises the duties to a prohibitory rate before time has been afforded for the arrival of supplies from America; hence very large means of paying for British manufactures, on the part of our best customers, are rendered unavailable, hostility to British interests is created, and direct encouragement is afforded for the establishment of rival manufactures in other countries. They, therefore, looked with the greatest anxiety to the effect of our Corn-laws on the policy of the United States. The present American tariff would expire in 1842, when the whole system would come before the Legislature. At that time, 20 per cent, would be the highest duty upon any foreign article imported into America. He believed there was a great deal of excitement in America on the subject. The manufacturring interest of America had already grown to a very considerable height, and applied for more protection. They urged strongly our Corn-laws as giving weight to their claims on the Legislature for protection. He greatly feared that if nothing were done to alter the Corn-laws, they would find that the middle states, such as Maryland and Pennsylvania, corn-growing and exporting states, who held the balance between the cotton-crowing states in the south and the manufacturing states in the north, might conceive it their interest to look to the home market, and that they would be found ranged on the side of prohibition and hostility to English manufactures. Another important subject connected with the Corn-laws was their effect on the monetary system. He was very unwilling to go into details on the subject, but he could not help saying that no man, who had given the most cursory attention to the subject, and observed how the drain of bullion from this country for the payment of the foreign corn which was poured in was effected, and how it operated upon the Bank, constraining it to contract its issues, causing the greatest possible distress and derangement of commercial affairs through the whole country, could doubt that a system which so compelled us to send out gold instead of manufactures called for the most serious attention of the House. By the operation of the present Corn-laws, there were sudden demands for great quantities of corn. But the Corn-laws prevented any regular trade, and therefore it was necessary to pay for the corn so suddenly demanded in gold. There was one topic to which the noble Lord the Member for Shropshire had alluded in a tone of great triumph, and which appeared to be very much dwelt upon by those who agreed with him. He meant the allegation, that it was absurd to complain of fluctuations in the price of corn, when greater fluctuations took place abroad. The noble Lord referred to a return lately laid on the table of the House, in proof of his assertion. He thought he could show that that return afforded no data whatever for that conclusion. There was one fact which would show that there was something fallacious in it. It stated the aggregate average of the extreme yearly difference in the price of wheat between the year 1829 and 1838, at Amsterdam was 48 per cent, and at Rotterdam 26 per cent. It was wasting the time of the House to show that there could be really no such difference between these towns. But the fact was, the averages in England were formed both upon the quantity sold and the price, whereas, in those averages at Amsterdam and Rotterdam, there was no reference to quantity; the highest and the lowest price were taken, although the quantity sold at either might be very small. At Amsterdam some was sold for 63s. and some for 27s.: in the same week at Rotterdam, some was sold for 38s. and some for 54s. Averages formed in this way must, of course, vary, as there might happen to be a small quantity sold at a very high or a very low price. It was impossible to make any comparison between the variations of such averages and the averages of this country. He was not prepared to deny the fact that there were great fluctuations in the price of corn at many of the shipping ports abroad, even greater than in England. He believed that to be the case, but he thought it the necessary consequences of the operation of our own Corn-laws. When the price mounted up in England, and the duty fell, so that foreign corn was likely to be admitted duty free, it at once followed that the price of wheat in foreign ports would depend upon the English market, and the fluctuations in such ports might be much greater even than the variations here. He would read from Mr. Wilson's work a paragraph which well explained this matter. Mr. Wilson said, With respect to the other objection to which you allude, namely, that while I attribute the great fluctuations of prices in this country to the effects of our Corn-laws, yet in many continental countries, where there are no Corn-laws, that the fluctuations are as great, I believe, will be most satisfactorily explained by the necessary influence which our laws exert over the whole of Europe. I admit, indeed, as a necessary consequence, that the fluctuations on the continent must be much greater than even here. Thus, for example, in 1834, 1835, and the beginning of 1836, the prices of wheat were so low in this country, as to hold out no hope for many years, of any foreign supplies being admitted. The prices on the continent were, therefore, only established in relation to their own consumption, with a larger supply than they naturally required, the production having been artificially stimulated by the demand for England two or three years before. In the end of 1836, some suspicion existed that, owing to the bad weather during harvest, we should require a foreign supply. This feeling caused a much greater advance in foreign wheat than British. If the market price of British wheat rises 1s. per quarter, the price of foreign, with such a prospect, will rise 2s.; for, while the intrinsic value of the article rises 1s., the duty for its admission falls 1s., and makes the latter 2s. more valuable. Thus, if English wheat in London were worth 60s. per quarter, and foreign wheat at 40s., at which the duty would be 26s. 8d., if the former rises 1s., to 61s. per quarter, at which the duty would be only 25s. 8d., there is then on the foreign 1s. advance in intrinsic value, and, being then subject to 1s. less duty, would be equal to 42s. of a market value Our…… duties duties being high, when our prices are low, excludes the continent from our market at that time, and depresses them to a most unnatural extent. But our duties being only nominal, when our prices are double the lowest point, gives them a full participation of these high rates. Thus, when wheat is 39s., the duty 47s. 8d., and freight, &c. about 18s., no operation takes place with foreign wheat at all. The English price rises to 72s.; the duty is 1s.; freight, &c. 18s or 19s.: if, therefore, wheat can be bought at 53s. per quarter on the continent, it will then pay to import; whereas if it had been got as a gift two years before. it would have been a serious loss, if introduced into English consumption. It is, therefore, evident that our own laws render the prices more fluctuating on the continent than even here. He did not wish to trespass longer on the time of the House, but there was one point more to which he wished to refer—he meant the enormous loss sustained in bonded wheat. During the first three years of the present law, foreign wheat flowed rapidly into this country. Then it was suddenly checked, and a large quantity accumulated in our granaries, where it remained for six years, till the end of 1836. The noble Lord the Member for Northumberland, in a most ingenious argument on the subject, had calculated the loss thus sustained at 1,100,000l. That enormous loss must fall somewhere. It fell on the consumers of this country. In this system there was not even the compensation of contributing to the revenue, at the same time that it raised the price of food. On the contrary, it seemed framed for the purpose of making up at one time to the corn-merchant, by immoderate profits, the enormous losses it occasioned him at another. He could not believe that such a system could be for the real interest of any class. A sound and wholesome corn-trade is of the utmost importance to all interests in the country. He believed that, under such a system, prices could be kept more equal, and that the insular position of England, and its facilities of communication, would make it the best corn-market in the world. It was no satisfaction to him to be told that our foreign neighbours were worse off. He felt we were throwing away great national advantages so long as we kept our ports closed against the corn of foreign countries. In his opinion, it would be neither wise nor expedient to deprive the agricultural interest of protection; and he would give them the protection of a fixed and moderate duty. They would obtain a steady price; and he held it, that a steady price in corn was of much more importance than a low price. He thought that the utmost evil that could be done to all classes of the community would be to have, as they had at present, fluctuating prices. They not only made the trade a hazardous one, but they rendered it the most gambling and speculative of all trades, a much more gambling and speculative trade than it otherwise would be. The present system made every man in the community a gambler. It made gamblers of their manufacturers—of their farmers—of their labourers—of their landowners. No man in the country could know, amid the variation of prices and the oscillation of trade, how to make his calculations beforehand. He knew that in proposing that there should be a steadiness of price, he was proposing that which would be most satisfactory to the farmer and most advantageous to the labourer. Of course Gentlemen would come to a conclusion upon this subject according to their personal experience; for himself he must say, that he had always found the most intelligent farmers to be those the least disposed to rely upon a high protecting duty. He believed that the effects of such a system were injurious to the labourer; he believed that it had a disastrous effect upon the moral character, and a disastrous effect upon the physical condition of all such persons, for it was impossible to tell how it might operate. The Corn-laws were particularly disastrous in this respect, that no man could calculate what would be the value of his property; and therefore it was, that he thought that a change in that system must be of great advantage to the landlords of this country. At the same time, he felt it to be his duty to say, that while he most cordially gave his vote for the motion of his hon. Friend (the Member for Wolverhampton) for going into committee on the Corn-laws, yet he did so with the intention not to repeal those laws, but to give to the agriculturists that protection to which he thought they were fairly entitled.—[Sir R. Peel: What amount?]—He thought he might very fairly answer that this was a reserved point, and he might not be required to state his opinions until they went into committee, if he thought they were going into committee. He thought, however, it was a fair question, and he was not disposed to shrink from it. Let them have a committee, and he would give his reasons for that which he proposed. He said, then, that if it were in his power he would fix the amount of duty, not to exceed 7s. or 8s. Gentlemen might contend that the landed interest would consider that was very low. He confessed that he believed that it would afford a fair protection to the agricultural interest, and place the corn-trade upon a sounder basis than it stood at present. He would also add that in order to meet the objection, that the duty would not be maintained when wheat got to a very high price, he should wish to be provided for that case. He assured hon. Members he had nothing to conceal upon this point. When the price of corn rose to 70s., then he would provide a fall in the duty to one shilling, or a rapidly descending scale from 70s. That was what he desired, but at the same time, he did not mean to say that for the sake of a compromise, he would not be prepared to have a higher fixed duty. He believed that any alteration of that nature, instead of the present fluctuating duties, would be a great advantage. He was for a moderate fixed duty, and from the best consideration he had given to the subject, he was sure it would be of great and permament advantage to all classes in the community. He did not think it necessary to trouble the House further. He had, he was aware, expressed himself somewhat imperfectly, but he felt it to be his duty to state to the House what were his opinions. There was one topic more upon which he could not avoid speaking, and submitting it to the consideration of those who did him the favour to listen to him. He could not help thinking from some expressions which had fallen from the right hon. bart the Member for Tamworth, that he held now, or had held once in his life, the opinion that the present scale of corn duties could not be permanently maintained. If that were the right hon, baronet's opinion, and it was shared in by others, he appealed to them whether it would not be desirable for them to take advantage of the present opportunity for making a change in these duties. At this moment the agricultural interest was in a situation of prosperity. The stock of wheat in the foreign ports was nearly exhausted, and no change that could now be made could produce a superabundance in the supply of foreign corn. He believed that the state of the prices of corn in the market here and abroad afforded the opportunity for making, with advantage and security, an arrangement with respect to the prices, such as could not occur again very speedily. He had felt it to be his duty to make those observations, and he would heartily rejoice if that House did, contrary to his expectation, consent to go into Committee. He believed that, by so doing, they would be affording to all interests in the community, the advantage of putting the corn-trade upon a sounder footing than it ever could be under the operation of the present corn-laws.

Debate adjourned.