CORN-LAWS—MINISTERIAL PLAN—ADJOURNED PROCEEDINGS (THIRD DAY).

HC Deb 16 February 1842 vol 60 cc538-625

On the Order of the Day for resuming the adjourned debate being read,

Mr. E. Buller

said, that the credit he was willing to bestow upon the declaration of hon. Members opposite in general, that they supported the proposition of the right hon. Baronet from a conviction that it would benefit the country, he could not bestow upon the hon. Member for Aylesbury; who, while he professed his attachment to that proposition, declared that it would lower the profits of the agriculturist to the extent of 20 per cent. Now he confessed, that as a landed proprietor, and in his anxiety for the general prosperity of the country and the welfare of all classes in it, he should oppose the proposition of the right hon. Baronet, because it was his firm conviction, that all the supplies we could obtain from every quarter of the world, not even excluding Hamburgh, would not countervail the growing numbers and the growing wealth of the country. The consumption of this country might be estimated at 26,000,000 quarters for 26,000,000 of people. Now, of that quantity of corn 1,000,000 quarters at least were, on the average of the fourteen years, annually imported into this country, and considering that according to the rate with which our population was increasing, it would be 3,000,000 or 4,000,000 more than it now was in ten years, lie thought it not too much to suppose that we should then really require more corn from abroad than we could find it easy to obtain, and certainly much more than could be supplied by home growth. He was delighted that they had at last received some tidings from Tamboff—tidings by which the ghost of Tamboff had been laid; for, after all that had been said of the enormous quantity of wheat which we might derive from that quarter, it appeared that the surplus produce of that province amounted, not to millions, but to 21,235 quarters. He did not admit that the present Corn-laws were an impious violation of the decrees of Providence, or that they were the sole cause of all the misery that at present existed in the country. But he did believe, that under all circumstances, they were highly inju- rious to the country; that in times of prosperity they impeded the advancement of that prosperity; and that in times of distress, they aggravated that distress. While he believed, that he was also satisfied, whatever might be our state of prosperity, that under existing circumstances, the interruption of our trade in the Mediterranean, and of our relations with China, the peculiarity of our position with regard to America, and the influence which the failures on that continent had upon the commerce of this country—that under these combined circumstances, let our prosperity be what it might, it was impossible that the poorer classes of this country could be otherwise than in a state of suffering. Still less did he join in what had also been said at his side of the House, that the measures of the right hon. Baronet was an insult to the starving people of England. He believed that the right hon. Baronet deeply deplored the distress which existed in the country, and that he was desirous of doing everything in his power to alleviate it. There were gifts which ought not to be considered with regard to their amount, or the result that followed, but be appreciated on account of their motives with which they originated. He gave the right hon. Baronet credit for desiring to alleviate the sufferings of the people, and his measure he valued as the smallest measure of relief ever offered by a Minister of the Crown to the expectations of an anxious people. He lamented the straitened circumstances of the right hon. Baronet, for it was those, he believed, which precluded him from giving to the country a measure of greater relief. The right hon. Baronet said, that the price which he wished to maintain, as affording ample protection on the one hand, and sufficient relief on the other, was between 54s. and 58s.; but he could understand why it was that the right hon. Baronet. with these views, laid upon the table a scale of duties which he (Mr. Buller) was satisfied the framer of it intended should have the effect of raising the price to 66s., and which, in his (Mr. Buller's) own opinion, would have the effect of raising it to 73s. There was a very great discrepancy between the speech of the right hon. Baronet and his plan. The right hon. Baronet said he was the decided advocate of a sliding scale, but when he looked at the right hon. Baronet's scale, and saw in it the novelty of what he called a testing scale, be could not refrain from thinking that the right hon. Baronet was a convert to the principle of a fixed duty. That resting scale was, in fact, a fixed duty within narrow limits. Aware of the evils of fluctuation, the right hon. Baronet introduced this rest to meet the objections which existed against a complete sliding scale when the price rose beyond what was considered necessary for the protection of the home grower. He introduced it with the expectation that when the price of corn should rise to 56s. foreign corn would then be readily imported at a duty of 16s., but he thought the right hon. Baronet would in that be disappointed. He thought that the inherent difficulty of a sliding scale was, that it invariably held out to those who were in possession of corn in bond an artificial inducement to hold it in bond; and although the right hon. Baronet, no doubt, reduced that inducement by the proposal which he submitted to the House, still, he did so in so slight a degree, and left still so strong an inducement to the owners of corn in bond, to keep it there whenever the price was rising, that he could only regard the right hon. Baronet's proposition as a mitigated mischief. Although the inducement to hold corn in bond, in the expectation of obtaining a larger price, was greater under the present system than that proposed by the right hon. Baronet, yet the danger was also greater. Under the present system a greater risk was run in retaining the corn in bond than there would be under the proposed plan, a risk which almost entirely counteracted the difference in the extent of the inducement. Another point to which he desired to refer was what the right hon. Baronet styled the "rest." Now, there might be no doubt as to the excellence of the intentions of those who proposed it, but nevertheless he could not see what was the object of this strange device. Neither could lie understand why this rest, as it was called, was fixed at the period when the duty was at 18s. It seemed to him that there were excellent reasons why the rest should not have been so fixed; 18s. was as effectual a prohibition as 20s., and if, therefore, the rest at this point was not intended to create an additional obstruction to the free or cheap import, he must draw the conclusion that it was inserted for ornament rather than for use. The right hon. Gentleman seemed very fastidious about these rests. He was not satisfied with one of them. He must have a rest at the top as well as at the bottom of the scale, the former being used, as he (Mr. Buller) supposed, rather for the sake of uniformity than anything else. With regard to the rest at 66s., he must say, that if the originators of it thought that it would cause the introduction of corn into the country at the 6s. rate of duty, he believed that they would in the end find themselves grievously disappointed in their expectations. Besides, the price of 66s. per quarter was never obtained, except when the produce of the year was insufficient, and then, as experience proved, the maximum price of 73s. a quarter was almost sure to be reached. If he was right on this point, and he did not state it on light grounds, the effect of the scale would be to force up prices. For his own part, he believed that would be the effect, and if it were, he called on the Government to show how, or in what manner, their new proposition would tend to the advantage of the consumer. He had looked at the scale in all its points, and lie owned he could not see where that advantage was. Then, 150 towns were to be added to the list of those from which the averages were taken. He gave the right hon. Baronet every credit for the integrity of his motives in proposing to add those towns, and in making their selection, but he was strongly of opinion that the result would be to lower prices, and, consequently, to increase the stringency of the measure. Then there were other obstacles offered to the consumer. The supply from Canada was to be intercepted. A duty was to be put upon all American wheat coming across the Canadian border, and so by the St. Lawrence to the British market. There was a great peculiarity about this proposition. The Government were pledged, most solemnly pledged, to the principle of the sliding scale. Yet in this measure they introduced the principle of a fixed duty, for they proposed to take an unvarying duty of 3s. upon all American wheat and flour imported into the Canadian territory. Why was this? Why did the Government depart from their principle in this matter? The reasons for a fixed duty in the Canadas were the same as for a fixed duty in England. The seasons varied as greatly there as here. The price fluctuated as much there as here. Did the Government purpose to regulate the seasons and the prices in Canada? Could they influence the seasons more potently across the Atlantic than at home? Had they greater sway over prices in America than in Europe? On the contrary, he had the authority of a Member of the Cabinet, the right hon. the Home Secretary, for saying that prices and seasons were no more to be governed in Canada than in England, that they were equally liable to variations, equally impossible to guard against. In a speech the Home Secretary had made on this subject, in 1839, he had referred to the quotations of American flour as given in a work called the American Almanack. He had contrasted the prices of corn in that country at different times. In 1834, he said, it was five dollars a barrel; in 1835, it was at four dollars a barrel; and in 1817, it was thirteen dollars a barrel. The right hon. Baronet then made use of the following remarkable words, quoted from the same publication:— There is nothing in the history of the Corn-law prices in this country, to compare with the violent fluctuations which the whole American table exhibits. Why, then, he would ask, if they must have a fixed duty in Canada, not have also a fixed duty in England? Was it because the Government wanted to test the efficacy of the measure? Was it because they desired to try the effect of the system, and had selected Canada for the purpose of making their experiment? He believed, there must be something of this sort going forward, or else there was a great inconsistency, to say the least of it, in the conduct of the Government. Looking to the value of this measure, he must say, that he was at a loss to form a just calculation concerning it. He was not lost in amazement at the magnitude of the proposition, but lost in the minuteness of the calculation as to the benefits it would give to the people. A noble Lord, whom he did not see in his place (Lord Stanley) had calculated last year, the smallness of the reduction in the poor man's savings, provided the measure of the then Administration had been adopted for relieving the people from the sugar monopoly. He would now give the noble Lord another arithmetical problem, which he trusted he would solve prior to addressing the House upon this question, He would beg of him to calculate the difference arising to the consumer upon the price of the 4lb. loaf under the old system of duties, and under the scale now proposed by her Majesty's Government. It would be, he thought, infinitesimal; something like a negative quantity. It was true, the scheme was not unopposed. It was true, that Oxford grumbled—it was true, that Buckingham growled—it was true, that Lincoln was in roaring rank rebellion— Heathcote himself and such large acredmen, Lords of fat E'sham or of Lincoln fen, And all those wights, that fondly call their own Half that the Devil o'erlooks from Lincoln town. —all these—all the agriculturists of the kingdom were up in arms—they threatened to undo to day, what they had done yesterday—they threatened to unmake what they had made—to destroy a Cabinet they themselves had formed—a Cabinet which had issued from their loins, and which, six months back, they deemed the very epitome of Ministerial excellence. Although he condemned the measure, he took their rage as an earnest of some good. He looked at any proposition to alter what had existed, as a proof, that some ray of light, however feeble, had gleamed upon the Government. Perhaps we might hope for better things. Our greatest blessings were gradual. The revival of learning itself was gradual. The darkness of the age was not all at once dispelled by the sudden burst of the glorious sunshine of a second Augustan era— Old Chaucer, like the morning star, To us discovers day from far; His light those mists and clouds dissolv'd, Which our dark nation long involv'd; But he descending to the shades, Darkness again the age invades. Next, like Aurora, Spenser rose, Whose purple blush the day foreshows. It was pleasant to see the morning star arise in the shape of a change in the system, however trivial; it was pleasant to think that Aurora blushed as she rose, the forerunner of an embryo day—that rest in the scale which was, no doubt, an embryo fixed duty. Yes, hon. Gentlemen might rely on it that this rest was the germ of the blossom which would some day, sooner or later, bud forth in the shape of a fixed duty on corn; and he was no true prophet, also, if the House did not find that the point at which that duty would be fixed would be 6s. Well, then, there was the morning star in the person of the right hon. Premier; and after him blushed the sweet Aurora, the right hon. Gentleman, the Member for East Kent, and then came another herald of the morn in the person of the Home Secretary. He came before them under very auspicious circumstances. He had consulted Mr. Hubbard, and Mr. Hubbard had carried such conviction to his mind, that he really quite agreed with him in every point except one. Nay, so very anxious had the right hon. Gentleman been to get into Mr. Hubbard's book, that he had, according; to his own confession, absolutely overlooked the title page, and even the name of the author himself, although it was one that was very familiar to most people, even in their cradles. As the right' hon. Gentleman had quoted Mr. Hubbard for his purpose, so would he quote Mr. Hubbard for his:— The failure of the harvest of 1816, says Mr. Hubbard, not only in this country, but upon the continent; the general scarcity which ensued; the unusual precautions taken by the continental Governments in prohibiting exportation, and, as in France, offering bounties upon importation (by which wheat was actually drawn from this country at the enormous price of 115s. per quarter), all these circumstances would doubtless have rendered extraordinary measures necessary, and have required the suspension of the fixed duty, had there been one. Still the suspension would have been called for, rather to counteract the results of foreign temporary enactments, then to remedy any defect in our own fiscal regulations. Such circumstances may occur again; but a quarter of a century has elapsed without their return, and shall we refuse to legislate upon a gainful, sound, and equitable system, because this minute possibility exists? As well might we abrogate the Habeas Corpus Act, because possibly a rebellion might occur which would require its temporary suspension. It would be certainly quite as reasonable to fix on a sliding scale for the purpose of adjusting the operation of the Habeas Corpus Act as for the purpose of adjusting the Corn-law. Why not measure sedition, privy conspiracy, and rebellion, by a sliding scale? Why not regulate the Trial by Jury by a sliding scale? The one would be just as sound in principle, and just as much warranted by necessity, as the other. But he had said enough to show his decided hostility to this scale. He could not sit down, however, without adding that he did feel most deeply that something ought to be done for the settlement of the question. In his opinion the principle on which a decision should be come to should be to consult the interests of the home grower up to a certain point, and after that to consult the interests of the consumer; and if it could be shown that the sliding scale was essentially necessary for the success of agriculture, then he would say, maintain it up to the necessary point, and no further. If, however, it could be proved, as he thought it could, that the sliding scale was opposed to the interests of the consumer, then he would say, do away with the sliding scale altogether. These were the points of principle by which he would regulate his measure. With regard to the terms, the prices, the rates of duty, &c., those were matters of detail which might be made subjects of consideration. But he had already pressed too long on the consideration of the House; he would, therefore, conclude by thanking them for their kind indulgence, and assuring them that in what he had said he had only endeavoured to argue for truth.

Sir W. James

observed that while the noble Lord at the head of the Opposition had denounced the right hon. Baronet's measure as an aggravation of former evils, the hon. Gentleman who just spoke had performed a sort of scanty justice in calling the measure a mitigated mischief and a widow's mite. The speech of the hon. Member was not different from the speeches of other hon. Gentlemen on the same side of the House in representing the distress of the manufacturing districts in glowing, but, in his opinion, exaggerated terms. The hon. Member had talked of Tamboff, and the exaggerated statements made by the noble Lord, the Secretary of the Colonies, with respect to it; but it must be conceded, from the fertility of the American states near the Ohio, which had been described in such glowing terms by the noble Lord the Member for London, that the British farmers would have but little chance of competing with them if corn was admitted at the low duty advocated by hon. Gentlemen opposite. He conceived the real question to be, whether any protection should be afforded to agriculture, and if so, to what amount. They had begun at the wrong end. They were now discussing what protection should be given to agriculture, and when it was decided that that protection would be best afforded by a sliding scale, the hon. Member for Wolverhampton would come and ask them to take away all protection whatever. The con- sequence was, that confusion was introduced into their debates, and two questions mixed together which ought to be kept distinct. The error into which hon. Gentlemen had fallen seemed to him almost inseparable from the circumstances of the case. That there should be protection to agriculture he thought the thinking part of the people of England, had decided. No one could have more respect than he had for public opinion, but the difficulty was to know what the public opinion was. On the whole (and taking it with all its faults he loved it still), he did not know how any fairer representation of public opinion could be taken than the returns to that House. He thought it might be fairly argued that the sound, moderate, and enlightened part of the public opinion was in favour of protection to agriculture. Upon these grounds he should be most willing to leave the question, had not Gentlemen entered largely into it who had preceded him. The hon. Member for Coventry had interspersed his speech with abuse upon the landlords, and the hon. Member for Sheffield had talked of their cobweb interests and their flimsy selfishness. Protection had been given to the landed interest for the last 500 years, and that that had been done with success, he thought was plain from the statements of Mr. M'Culloch himself. The value of agricultural produce since 1774 had increased in this country to a greater extent than her whole taxation. It was impossible to look at the state of the country, without seeing that there was no favour extended to any one class in preference to another, and that there was no favoured interest. "Land and trade," said Sir Josiah Childe, a high authority on such a subject, "Land and trade are twins, and must ever wax and wane together. Land cannot flourish but trade will feel it, and trade cannot fall but land will fall also." This had been quoted so often, that it had become a truism; but when he perceived that hon. Gentlemen on both sides the House, and in each interest, had, during the course of the present debate attempted to depreciate the importance of the interests to which they were opposed, he thought it was a truism of which many hon. Members ought to be reminded. There was another point to which he would allude, that of independence of foreign supply. He would not deny that, to a certain extent, we were dependent upon foreigners, but still he contended that every endeavour should be made to avoid being as little dependent upon foreigners as possible for the staple food of the country. Agriculture had always been considered infinitely preferable to trade or commerce. The noble Lord had said that there was no authority but Malthus, who had advocated an independence of foreign supply. Now, he contended that Adam Smith was also an authority in favour of that position. He said, that trade was, in addition to the danger from the winds and the waves, exposed to danger from the folly and injustice of absurd laws. He did not think it would be prudent of this country to give up the idea of being in most years independent to a certain extent of a foreign supply. Besides the land bore exclusive burdens. ["No," "What?"] The land-tax, the county tax, and the bulk of the Poor-rates were borne by the land. If that were not the case, he would be prepared to go to a Committee of Inquiry, as proposed by the hon. Member for Sheffield. Considering also the various ways in which protection was afforded to the manufactures, he thought it was undeniably no more than fair to give some protection to the agriculturists. (The hon. Member then read from the returns a list of the various articles of manufacture which were protected by a duty, and also of some articles of agricultural and colonial produce which were protected by duties.) Now, as the right hon. Baronet, the First Lord of the Treasury, had said, if the duty on corn were entirely abolished, it would be necessary to alter our fiscal system. If the protection were taken off corn, it could not be continued upon linens, cottons, and the like. He should like to know, if such were the case, how they could raise the revenue, and pay the national debt? He did not believe it would be possible. Mr. Deacon Hume had said that if they repealed the duty on corn, they ought to repeal it on all others simultaneously. He had heard a great deal of talk about the distress in the country, and the effect of the Corn-laws on it; he did not deny that they might have had some effect on the distress of the country, but that other concurrent and concomitant causes had a much greater effect. There was one cause mentioned by the right hon. Baronet, which he believed had a great effect, it was the war with China, and the disturbance of the monetary system of America; the over-issue of paper currency, and the over-trading and speculating which occurred in 1838 were other causes; and it appeared to-him that the over-issue of paper money and derangement of the currency resulted from there not being a sufficient regulation with regard to country bankers. The hon. Gentlemen opposite had represented this as the landlords question, and not as the question of the farmer's and labourer's. That appeared to him to originate from the fallacy that rent did not enter into the cost of production. That had been stated about the same time by Mr. Malthus, Mr. Ricardo, and a barrister named West; it was quite evident, how. ever, that rent did enter into the cost of production. In the price of every article, there were three shares; first, the labourer's share, then the capitalist's share, and then the proprietor's share. Take cotton for example; there was the labourer's share, the manufacturer's share, and the grower's share, and so it might be argued with respect to land. There was the labourer's share, the share of the farmer, and also the share of the landlord, who is the proprietor of the raw material. Rent did therefore enter just enter just as much into the cost of production as other articles; and he could not understand the reasons alleged by those who argued on the other side. This measure he thought, therefore, was calculated to benefit not so much the landed proprietor as the farmer and the labourer. Now, with regard to a sliding scale as compared with a fixed duty, it was impossible for any person to look attentively into the subject, and not see the great advantage of a sliding scale. To a certain extent he admitted that there might also be advantages in a fixed duty; but he could not abandon the sliding scale. In the first place, when corn was very low, a fixed duty gave no protection to the farmer; for what protection could a fixed duty of 6s. or 8s. be to the farmer, when the price of corn at Elsinore was 25s. or 30s.? In framing a sliding scale, the best principle appeared to be, to make the duty as gradual as possible, and if there was any rest, to make it as near as possible to the centre. He had seen a project for a sliding scale, framed by a gentleman named Thorpe, which retained a fixed duty between 50s. and 60s., and a sliding scale at each end of it. He thought the idea was not a bad one, as it made the level as large, and the ascent and descent as gradual as possible, and would, perhaps, be more beneficial to the farmer, and still more to the importer than the plan of the right hon. Baronet; still he accepted that plan as a great boon to the agricultural interest, and he might state that he had received from his constituents the most satisfactory and flattering accounts of it. The hon. Gentleman read an extract from a letter approving particularly of the improved mode of taking the averages, and proceeded to say, that, under the present system, it was only the strong men, the men of great capital, who made fortunes; the small traders, and men of small capital, were frequently ruined. He was, unfortunately, aware of many instances in the town he had the honour to represent of persons who had declared themselves to have been ruined by the operation of the present scale of duties, while others had made large and flourishing fortunes. He stated facts that must be well known to every Member of that House who had paid any attention to the subject; but as he had said before, he was sure that all moderate, and practical, and thinking men would consider the measure of the right hon. Baronet as a great boon. The noble Lord on the opposite side of the House described the proposed scheme as a measure which conceded without conciliating. He was very glad of that, because it was too much the fashion for the Conservatives to conciliate without thinking of justice. Conservatives conceded sometimes for the sake of conciliation and not for the sake of justice, but he was convinced that the proposed measure had been made not alone for the love of conciliation, but that it was made for the benefit of the public, and from the pure love of justice to all parties. He was convinced it would promote the interests of all classes of the country, and not of any particular class. If there was any proof of that wanted, it might be had by looking at the extreme views taken up by those who were opposed to the present measure. There were first the farmers of Boston, who say that the proposed rate of duty is a great deal too low; and on the other hand, there were the gentlemen of the Anti-Corn-law Conference who think that it is a great deal too high. Now, if there was anything in the old maxim that virtue was a mean between good and evil, he unhesitatingly said that the scheme proposed by her Majesty's Ministers was the very best that could be devised; and as such it should have his most earnest and hearty support.

Mr. R. Bernal

said, he had been surprised to hear the hon. and gallant Member for Westminster on the previous night revive the old fallacy that cheap bread implied low wages. He must tell that hon. Member that the price of bread depended on the rate of wages, and that in no case whatever did the rate of wages depend on the price of bread. In 1835 the price of bread was 1d. a pound, and wages did not fall. In 1840 the price of bread was double, yet wages did not rise. The hon. Member had asked, supposing there were a saving of 2d. on the quartern loaf, into whose pockets would it go? The answer was this: the cost of wheat to the consumers of this country in 1835 was 32,000,000l.; in 1840 the same article cost 54,000,000l., leaving a surplus of 22,000,000l., which, of course, the consumers spent in clothes, and the manufacturer and the whole community were satisfied. This was a sufficient refutation of the fallacy of the hon. and gallant Member for Westminster. Too much stress had been laid on the analogy attempted to be drawn between the comparative habits and comforts of the Englishman and the foreigner. From our extensive commerce and high degree of civilization, we had established a maximum of comfort, and therefore a foreign statesman might as well endeavour to prove, that because the labourer in other countries used wine as a common beverage, he must be better off than the Englishman, who only drank beer. He could not think any analogy could fairly be drawn between the two, even supposing the statistics quoted by the right hon. Baronet were founded in fact. He believed it was only since the beginning of the reign of George 3rd. when the steam-engine and the spinning-jenny came into play, and gave a new impetus to agriculture, that this country had become what it was, and the population had been wheat fed. He was surprised at the faint praise which had throughout this debate been bestowed on machinery. Delusion seemed to prevail to a considerable extent upon this point, and it reminded him that in 1812, when corn was at 66s. per quarter, the Luddites arose and visited upon ma- chinery the real grievance which arose from the high price of provisions. The hon. Member for Knaresborough had, the other night, in a somewhat bombastic vein, thrown down the gauntlet to the gentlemen representing the commercial and manufacturing interests, saying, like Bombastes in the tragedy, Thus do I challenge all the human race! Among his many assertions—his many "rattling" assertions, to use the hon. Member's own phrase—there was one which he used which, if capable of proof, would very much influence the vote he should give to-night. The hon. Member averred that the petitions which had been presented to that House in favour of a repeal of the Corn-laws were for the most part forgeries. The petitions presented amounted to 1,033, and the signatures to 259,939. Why then should an accusation of so sweeping a character be made against such a number of petitioners upon mere speculation, or as a vent for idle declamation? The right hon. Baronet in bringing forward his scheme had expressed his conviction that the agriculturists as a body were in favour of some change in the present system; he, on the contrary, maintained that the farmers were opposed to any modification of the Corn-laws. If, indeed, this were not the fact, why had the noble Duke (of Buckingham), who was supposed to represent the agricultural interest in this kingdom, quitted the Cabinet of the right hon. Baronet? He hoped that some of the numerous Members in that House who were supposed to have peculiar connexions with that noble Duke would afford some satisfactory explanation upon this interesting point. He had the honour to represent a borough in Bucks not yet absorbed by the noble Duke, and the impression certainly prevailed among his constituents that there had been a good deal of coquetry between the right Baronet and the noble Duke to whom he alluded; and as the hon. Member for Staffordshire had thought fit to quote poetry, he might be allowed to say the whole circumstances connected with the retirement of the noble Duke strongly reminded him of the lines,— So sweetly she bade him adieu, That I thought she bade him return. Hon. Members opposite were in the habit of appealing to the returns at the last election; but it seemed to be convenient for them to forget their speeches at the hustings. He had been present at many of the elections, and he would venture to assert, that whatever might be said now about the alleged willingness of the agricultural body to see a change in the present system, wherever a Conservative had been returned, he was pledged to maintain the Corn-law in its pristine deformity, and to alter the Poor-law. The right hon. Baronet took now a very different view of protection from that which he maintained in 1828, when Mr. Hume brought forward his motion for a fixed duty. He denied that land was subject to any peculiar burdens; but if it could be made out that the agriculturists were taxed more than any other class of the community, he should vote for such amount of protection as would repay them.

Mr. Scott

said, that he represented a county which was not only pre-eminently distinguished by the intelligence of the practical farmers who cultivated its soil, but was also distinguished as containing within its limits divers thriving manufacturing towns; and he thought the hon. Gentlemen who had just sat down, had gone too far in saying that he and other Gentlemen, representing similar constituencies, were sent for the mere purpose of maintaining the law in its pristine deformity. He knew, from communications received from his constituents since the announcement of the right hon. Baronet's measure, that his scheme was one which was entirely satisfactory to the great body of his constituents. When this plan was brought forward in contradistinction to that of the late Government, the question which we ought to ask ourselves was, whether we should depend upon ourselves for the sustenance of an increasing population, or whether we should resort to foreign nations for the supply; or whether we should get what we could first from our own agriculturists, and then take what we wanted from abroad; whether, in short, we should depend upon our friends; or upon those who were our present rivals, and might be our future foes. Believing as he did, that in ordinary years the country could maintain itself, and that in extraordinary years it could do so too, if agriculture were supported, he doubted the policy of depending upon foreign supplies. The measure of the late Government was held out as a means of dimin- shing the natural fluctuations of supply, and augmenting the comforts of the whole body of the community. If that were the case, the House would certainly act very wrong in withholding its sanction from it; but he thought that many of the arguments by which the supporters of that plan endeavoured to recommend it had received very undue influence. Amongst the evils attributed to the existing Corn-laws, was the derangement of the currency; but that derangement had occurred at a time prior to the period when the Corn-laws could have had any injurious effect upon the currency. The circulation between 1833 and 1836, that is, in two years and a half, had increased 4,000,000l., on account of other issues than those of the Bank of England. He found that in 1833 there were ten joint-stock banks, with 107 branches, and a circulation of 1,315,498l.; and in 1836, there were twenty-five joint-stock banks, with 550 branches, and a circulation of 4,258,097l. It appeared to him that when we considered not only that the circulation was thus affected by the joint-stock banks, but also by the displacing of currency to the amount of 4,000,000l., there was enough to account for the embarrassment and distress which prevailed in the country. It could cot be said, at that time, that the Corn-laws were the cause of the evil, because we had then a plentiful supply of corn at home, and were not dependent upon a foreign supply; and if the Corn-laws had not then caused the evil, how could the removal of them now cure it? The noble Viscount, lately at the head of the Government, had said that, alter the Corn-laws as we would, he did not believe foreign nations would take one bale the more of manufactured goods from us. He would remind the House of what had been said by Burke—that it was not the necessity of the seller, but of the purchaser that raised the price of an article. If, then, we reduced ourselves to the necessity of depending upon foreign nations, they would raise their prices, and study their own advantage and not our convenience. It was argued, that if we altered the Corn-laws, our exports to foreign countries would be greatly increased; but he thought we ought to judge of the future by the past, and if, taking those years when there was large importations of foreign corn, and those in which there was little or none, we found that our ex- ports had gone on steadily increasing in both periods, we might conclude that there was little or no connection between our imports of grain, and our exports to foreign countries. He found that in the year 1829, according to the official returns, the foreign wheat introduced to this country amounted to 6,169,036 quarters, and that the value of the exports in the same period was upwards of 66,000,000l. In the year 1832, the exports were 76,000,000l. and upwards, showing an increase of 10,000,000l. In 1833, the exports were 79,000,000l., and in 1836, 97,000,0001., showing an increase in the latter over the former year of 18,000,000l., whilst the wheat imported from abroad in the interval between the two periods was little more than 6,000,000 of quarters. In the year 1837 there were 85,000,000 of exports, and in 1840 upwards of 116,000,000, showing an increase of 30,000,000l. from 1837 to 1840, during which period there was an importation of 7,240,269 quarters of foreign wheat. And yet this last was the period in which we complained that our commerce and manufactures were in a distressed state. All he argued was, that from this it must appear, that the distress existing in the country is not to be imputed to the Corn-law. If reliance were to be placed on the report of Mr. Pabler, it would seem that the annual value of agricultural produce was no less a sum than 250,000,000l., whilst the annual value of the manufacturing produce was 150,000,000l. And the same gentleman, in making reference to our exports to foreign countries, during the three years ending 1837, said, that they averaged not less than 48,000,000l. a year out of this 150,000,000l.; so that there was about one-third exported to foreign countries, whilst the remaining two-thirds of the annual value of our manufacturing produce was consumed at home. Now, he thought it would be very remarkable if we deserted our home market to encourage the foreigner; for if there were any one thing more than another that deserved legislative attention, he thought it was the encouragement of native industry; and he congratulated the House and the country on the introduction of the right hon. Baronet's measure, which, when it passed, he believed would give encouragement to all branches of our public industry. No person could lament the distress existing in various parts of the country more than he did, and be did not desire to underrate it in any way. It was stated last night by the hon. Member for Sheffield (Mr. Ward), that one proof of that distress was the number of uninhabited houses in the manufacturing districts. Now, comparing the population of 1831 with the population of 1841, and the number of occupied houses in the former with the number in the latter year, he found that instead of there being a large increase, there was reason for congratulation that the uninhabited houses were not so many in proportion; for, instead of 198,000, taking the increase of population into the account, they should have amounted to 400,000. This showed that there were more inhabited houses in proportion in 1841 than in 1831. With regard to the causes of the distress, in the evidence of the hon. Member for Stockport, in April, 1840, given before the committee on banks of issue, there was an acknowledgment or admission of "a mania," or madness in the way in which mercantile speculations were carrying on at that time; they had an acknowledgment that there was a mania among the manufacturers in 1836 and 1837, and the hon. Gentleman professed his total ignorance of the influence of the Corn-laws at that time on the operations of the manufacturers. Manufacturers were prosperous in the prior period, they fell into distress in the latter; and the Corn-law was in operation during the period of prosperity as well as in the period of adversity. Therefore he did not see that they could impute any influence to the Corn-law one way or the other. But he did see various other circumstances which might have influenced certain manufacturers in endeavouring to effect a repeal of the Corn-law. The hon. Member for Stockport said, on a former occasion, in this House, that if wages were reduced he would let the people know who were to blame for the reduction, as though hon. Gentlemen on his (Mr. Scott's) side of the House were accountable for the wages in manufacturing districts being reduced. The secret had been disclosed before, for another hon. Member had previously stated that the only way the manufacturers of this country hoped to be able to compete with foreigners was by a reduction of wages to the continental level. At the Derby conference, on the 9th of December last, it was stated by a member of that body, that if the duty on the exportation of machinery were taken off, all the stocking frames would be sent abroad—of course, he added, the English artisans would not go with them, because of the low rate of wages in foreign countries. Why, if they reduced wages in England to the continental level, he did not see what could be the advantage to the operative to remain in this country instead of going to Saxony. He would be just as well off in one country as in the other. The noble Lord, the Member for London (Lord J. Russell) had said that the operative would not be worse off, as he would have much more work; and that lie would, in all probability, be as well off with a reduction of wages as at present. He believed, however, that with dear corn and high wages the labourer had more to spend than if corn were reduced in price, and wages were low. If reduced to the continental level, every man who had 15s. now would be in the receipt of only 7s.6d. then. He regarded the measure of the Government now before the House as calculated to produce steadiness, avoid scarcity, prevent speculation, and, contrary to the measure brought forward by the opposite side of the House, assist the farmer in times of plenty, and provide food for the poor man in periods of scarcity.

Mr. Hastie

said, he viewed the question before the House in quite a different manner from that in which it had been looked at by any hon. Member who had yet spoken. He would advert to some of the facts of the case. In 1836, the harvest was abundant and corn cheap; that, in 1837, difficulties arose in the commercial world, which sprung out of the difficulties then developing themselves in the monetary system. It would be in the recollection of hon. Members connected with manufactures, that some of these difficulties arose from the numerous engagements of American houses paralysing commercial transactions; but so rapidly did the country relieve itself from this state of things, that it showed that internally all was right, and that nothing existed to impede the natural elasticity of the whole commercial world. But, the succeeding harvest being a scarce one, provisions became dearer, and the people could not purchase other necessaries as well as they would have done had the prices continued as they were before. The years 1833, 1834, 1835, and 1836, were periods at which prices were low, and little or no foreign corn was introduced; but in the following year, owing to a bad harvest, there came a sudden demand for foreign corn, and thus the money market was, with equal suddenness, greatly affected by the demand for bullion with which it was necessary to pay for large importations of grain. And here he must observe that one of the causes of the distress in the commercial world arose from the immense quantity of surplus bills drawn upon this country from Hamburg, and a variety of other ports, for the purchase of grain, which were thrown upon the market, and which caused a fall in the exchanges. The effect of this payment for corn in cash was, that the Bank of England was liable to be drained of bullion to an immense extent. Such a state of things when they arose, compelled the Bank of England to raise the rate of discounts, and thus to affect all the commercial interests, whether in connection with the East and West Indies or elsewhere, which were thus rendered unable to meet the engagements which they had entered into the year before, and had the effect of suddenly forcing large stocks upon the market, causing the fall of prices to the lowest level, and reducing the producers to insolvency and ruin. And such, he maintained, must ever be the consequence of a Corn-law, which had in it a prohibitory duty. The purchases of corn made in the beginning of the year arrived this country in the months of June, July, and August, the speculator or buyer well knowing that the price roust rise to his own estimate, and the whole system of averages was so admirably, contrived that it was quite impossible to prevent the evils which the sliding scale held out to the speculator, whilst corn was let in upon the farmer at 1s. The privations to which the people of this country were subject no description of his could convey an idea of; and all this had been the result of the present sliding scale. Its tendency was mischievous, for it destroyed our commerce and manufactures, and he should like to know where the landed interest would be when these other great interests should be destroyed. He Had listened with the greatest respect and attention, to the speech of the right hon. Baronet the Member for Tamworth, and he had indulged in the hope that he should have heard good and forcible reasons given for the adoption of the sliding scale, but in this hope, indeed, he had been grievously disappointed; and what the right hon. Gentleman put forward as the causes of the distress which prevailed appeared to him (Mr. Hastie) to be anything but the right ones. He admitted, that they might be auxiliary causes, but they were of comparatively slight character: the only causes which the right hon. Baronet had stated were the operations of joint-stocks banks, the American difficulties and differences, and the war with China. Now, with regard to the interruption of the trade with China, he begged to state that in the year 1841, there was a larger quantity of cotton goods exported for that market than there had been in the year before, and in 1840 our trade was greater than in 1839. In short, the increase of our trade to that quarter since the trade had been thrown open had gone on increasing; so that this could not be even a tributary cause in placing the trade of the country in its present position. With regard to the United States of America, it was true that there was a deficiency of two or three millions; and it had been truly stated, that in this country's trading with the whole world particular quarters and outlets would be paralysed, and for a short time there would be a decrease on the usual demand; and that fact would naturally affect those trades which looked to the supply of these markets. But, then, taking the general aggregate amount of our export trade, it would be seen that it had gone on increasing year by year; and yet the distress continued. He would take the total amount of the exports of this country for four years—namely, 1838, 1839, 1840, and 1841, and the House would see that there had been a gradual and progressive increase on the whole continent. In the year 1838, the total amount of our export trade was 43,344,630l.; in 1839, it was 45,281,252l., being an increase of 1,936,622l. [Sir R. Peel: Is that the declared value.] Yes. In the year 1840, the amount was 43,959,604l. This was less than the previous year, when taken as the declared value only. In the year 1841, the amount was 44,545,535l. Now, in the year 1841, it was well known that there was a fall in prices of not less than 10 per cent; and if to the amount stated as the declared value, say, in round numbers, 44,000,000l., they added 10 per cent to that sum, say 4,000,000l., the amount would have reached 48,000,000l. and upwards, had prices remained the same as they were in the preceding two years. This fact showed, there had been no falling off in the extent of our exports, but that the difference in value or price was great. The distress had not arisen from a falling off in the foreign trade of this country. In illustration of this, he would state, from documents, the number of manufactured cottons in yards. In the year 1839, they amounted to 731,000,000 yards, the declared value of which was 16,378,000l. In 1840, there were 790,600,600 yards of calico exported, the declared value of which was 16,302,000l. The quantity of our trade was not diminished, but the declared value was less. The quantity exceeded the former year, notwithstanding the distress which then prevailed. With regard to cotton yarn, it appeared that in the year 1839 there was exported 105,600,000lbs., the declared value of which was 6,858,000l. In 1840, the quantity exported was 118,000,000lbs., and the declared value was 7,100,000l. making an average cost in the year 1839 of about 1s. 3½d. per lb, and in 1840, of 1s. 2¼d. The quantity had increased, but there was a deficiency of value. And yet, under all these circumstances, our trade had languished, our manufacturers had no employment, and the people were starving. He had shown, that this state of things had not arisen from a falling-off in the aggregate amount of our exports; and he would now state what, in his opinion, was the cause of this distress; and he would then leave the House to judge of the matter. Those cheap years which he had mentioned were 1834, and 1835; and taking the three years ending 1836, the average price of wheat in this country was 46s. 2d. Then, assuming the quantity of wheat consumed by each person according to the data furnished on the previous evening by the hon. Member for Salop (Mr. O. Gore) to be eight bushels per annum, and taking the population in round numbers for the United Kingdom at 28,000,000, giving each person one quarter of wheat upon an average of the three years, ending 1836, (though he agreed with the right hon. Baronet opposite, that taking the general consumption at eight bushels per head, was too high,) in the population of the United Kingdom, the Scotch and Irish consuming largely of oatmeal; this description of food, how- ever, is equally affected by the law, and to avoid going into the particulars of each description of grain and quantity consumed, I have assumed for argument, that all the inhabitants consume wheat, and so make the calculation in round numbers. It would appear, that the cost to the inhabitants of this country would be, for wheaten flour, 62,000,000l. and odd. The three years ending in 1837, the average price of wheat was 44s. 6d., and the cost to the people of this country was 60,000,000l. He stated these as years of prosperity in the manufacturing districts; but then came the years when, by reason of short crops, the pressure was greater. In 1838, the average was 56s. 2d., and the cost to the country was 75,000,000l., showing a difference in the year of 15,000,000l. Now, if the people were required to give 15,000,000l. more for wheat to keep them alive, that sum could not have been expended upon clothing. Then came the year 1839, when the average rose to 63s. 8d., the total cost to the inhabitants of the kingdom being 85,950,000l., showing a difference of 25,950,000l. as compared with 1837. In the year 1840, the average rose to 67s., and the cost was 89,000,000l., showing a difference of 29,000,000l. In 1841, the average rose to 67s. 1d., the cost was 89,000,000l., showing, that for the past four years, the inhabitants of the United Kingdom had paid about 100,000,000 more for the first necessary of life, than they had done upon the average price of the three years ending in 1837; which, in a great measure, accounts for the want of trade, by so large an amount being required to pay for food, as compared with the three or four years of prosperity, ending with 1837. The high price of food still continues, and with the working-classes upon short time and low wages, he would ask, how could the manufactures of the country be otherwise than depressed? All these evils were brought upon us by the effect of a sliding-scale of duties, which has in it a prohibitory rate, from periodicaliy shutting out corn for years, and when the demand came, from no regular exchange of commodity having been established, the bank was drained of bullion by the effect upon the exchanges, and all the commerce of the country unconnected with corn, deranged and embarrassed. He could not hope, that the right hon. Baronet would change his plan, but he thought, when the right hon. Gentleman next considered the question, he would substitute a fixed duty, if the agricultural interest required it. It would be far better that this should be done, than that the sliding-scale should continue.

Mr. Christmas

said, that an hon. Member having, in the course of the debate, alluded to the silence of the Irish Members (a fault not generally attributable to them), he thought, that circumstance and the course which the debate had taken, called upon him to address the House, and he should, therefore, do so, rather from necessity than choice, and chiefly with reference to that country. Although hon. Members who advocated this question on the opposite side, were very liberal of such phrases as "monopoly" and "taxation on the people," he could not conceive, that the House of Commons, consisting, as it did, of practical men, returned by the constituency of the kingdom to legislate impartially for the kingdom, could legislate on this subject, otherwise than with reference to the whole community. If that observation applied to this country, it applied with still greater force to Ireland, in which nearly the whole population was agricultural, and which would have nothing to fall back upon, if deprived of the means of support by agricultural labour, since the House could not hold out to them the promise of extended commerce, which was held out to the population of this country. He thought, that when hon. Gentlemen came forward and appealed to the agricultural community, to give up these laws, they ought to be able to satisfy them fully what the effect would be, but on this point, there appeared to be great discrepancy of opinion. Some said, the landed interest would not suffer at all, but others took a different view of the subject. If the effect should be to throw out of cultivation a considerable quantity of land, the most serious consequences would result to Ireland, and to this country also, from the vast number of agricultural labourers, that would be thrown out of employment. Let hon. Gentlemen consider what would be the effect, if, in consequence of the diminution of the price of their produce, proprietors were obliged to take large tracts into their hands, and thus deprive numbers of the agricultural population of employment. Let hon. Members remember, that the price was lower in Ireland than in this country, and let them remem- ber, also, that land was not so much improved there, as it was here, and consequently, that any reduction must be attended with the most serious consequences. The hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets had made some observations on which he wished to say a few words. The hon. Member had said, that the import of wheat from Ireland, of late years, had been considerably reduced, and his argument was, that they could no longer obtain supplies from Ireland. It was true, that for some few years past, there had been some reduction, but the import of wheat and all kinds of corn from Ireland had increased greatly within the present century, and he found, that the increase of imports had been simultaneous with the operation of the present Corn-laws. He found, that in 1833, the quantity imported was 840,211 quarters; in 1834, 779,505 quarters; in 1835, 661,766 quarters; in 1836, 598,756 quarters; in 1837, 534,665 quarters; in 1838, 542,583 quarters. Then came the three last years, during which there had been a considerable reduction; the imports in 1839, being 258,331 quarters; in 1840, 174,439; and in 1841, 218,718 quarters. He found, also, that taking the total average up from the year 1833 to the year 1838, the amount of imports was 3,991,297 quarters, and that in the six years preceding that period, it was 3,055,564 quarters, showing a reduction of about 500,000 quarters. The hon. Member had said, that this was a proof of the increased prosperity of Ireland. Now, he would grant, that an increase in population might cause some increase in consumption; but, as far as his knowledge extended, there had been no considerable improvement in the condition of the people. He thought, that the decrease in exportation was partly attributable to the linen trade, which, of late years, had sprung up in Ireland; but he did not admit, that the trade in wheat with Ireland, would hereafter necessarily fail. He also thought, that it was partly attributable to other causes, such as the variety in the seasons. The autumn of 1839 was, in Ireland, very wet, which prevented the farmer from sowing any great quantity of wheat, and, accordingly, the smallest importation, namely, 174,439 quarters, took place in 1840; and, again, only 218,718 quarters in 1841, that having, also, been a bad season. Now, it was his opinion, that the export of wheat from Ireland might be considerably increased, under a better system of agriculture, but he could not draw the inference, that the three last years might be taken as presenting a fair average, though he would admit, at the same time, that the climate of Ireland night not be so favourable to the cultivation of wheat as that of England, just as the climate of England, on account of its great humidity, was not so favourable as the climate of the Continent. But there was another article of export which he had not adverted to, which, although generally but a secondary one, was, in Ireland, of primary importance—namely, the article of oats. He found, by the returns, that great increase had taken place in the exportation of oats, from the year 1825, or thereabouts; and that in the last three years, although the seasons had been bad, the exports of this article had scarcely fallen off. The exports in 1839 were 1,904,903 quarters; in 1840, 2,037,835 quarters; in 1841, 2,539,380 quarters; while last year was inferior in this respect only to one year in the present century. Therefore the cultivation of oats was an object of primary importance to Ireland. Now, an impression prevailed amongst the Irish Members that the Government proposition was not sufficient protection; and although he should not press this opinion to a division, yet considering the position of Ireland, if, on a fuller consideration of the question, he should think fit to vote for a higher duty, he should feel himself at liberty to do so. With reference to flour, the House was aware that a trade in this article had sprung up of late years, and that its importation into Ireland was prohibited, but now it was to be admitted. But, if foreign flour was permitted to displace Irish flour, great numbers would be thrown out of employment; and he would, therefore, call on hon. Members to pause before they consented to such a measure. He felt little inclination to enter upon the general question, and if he did, it would be presumptuous and superfluous in him to do so, after the able speeches they had heard upon the subject. He thought that hon. Gentlemen must have been led away by party feelings, when they said that the new measure was no better than the old. He found, by reference to the scales of duties, that at the price of 60s., the proposed duty was 12s., while the present duty was not less than 26s. 8d. Did hon. Gentlemen say that was no advantage? He confessed he thought it a great advantage. The noble Lord, the Member for London, had objected to all sliding scales, as having all of them prohibitory duties. But he thought, that the noble Lord's own fixed duty of 8s. was not less a prohibitory duty. He thought the House had been debating this question somewhat illogically, and that the amendment of the noble Lord should have given place to the resolution of the hon. Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. Villiers). With reference to the American trade, which was most important, it appeared to him to possess many elements of uncertainty. The speech of the hon. Member for Knaresborough appeared to have excited considerable sensation, but if hon. Gentlemen opposite complained that they had been attacked, they should remember, that both in that House and out of it, very severe charges had been previously made against the landowners, and that he who struck the first blow was most in fault. He would not follow either party in these charges, but would rather inquire whether those improvements in manufactures of which they had heard so much, had been followed by any improvement in the condition of the people. He remembered, that previous to the reform of Parliament, considerable discussion had taken place as to the condition of those employed in factories. The hon. Member, the Lord Mayor of Dublin, was one of the first agitators in that field; but the House was now in a condition in which it must either force unnaturally the amount of labour, or inflict injury upon the manufacturing interest. No doubt it was their duty to employ as much as possible the existing population. Ho was sorry to find the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets take so desponding a view of the state of the commerce of the country. But, whatever the present depression might be, he thought that if there had been no Corn-laws, that depression must have followed in the natural course of things, since, notwithstanding the hon. Member's views as to its capacity for indefinite extension, in all communities, as well as in natural bodies, there might be found a principle of decay. But whether this were the case or not, he was prepared to give his support to the measure of the Government, believing it to be a practicable measure, holding the balance evenly between the two parties. He believed, that without causing any great declension in agriculture, it would give a great stimulus to manufactures. He bound himself to no finality in legislation, not even in constitutional matters; but he took this to be a practical measure, and one suited to the present day, though it might or might not be proper hereafter to limit still more the scale of duties. They might be wrong on his side of the House. but believing that on the whole, it would tend to promote manufactures without injuring agriculture, he should give his assent to the measure that had been brought forward by the Government.

Mr. Roebuck

said, that he should not have solicited the indulgence of the House, but that he felt that if he gave a silent vote upon this question he might render himself and those who entertained similar views to his own liable to some misapprehension. He should, therefore, state his views as shortly as he could, and he was driven to do so by certain observations that had fallen last night from the right hon. Baronet opposite (Sir J. Graham), who said that the condition in which those on that side of the House were placed, arose from too strict adherence to technical forms, and that sometimes the rules of that House might lead to conduct opposed to the rules of common sense. He should have quite agreed with the right hon. Baronet if he had thought the right hon. Baronet's views of the rules of the House had been correct, and that they should have commenced discussing whether there should be any duty at all before they discussed in what mode the duty should be levied. He quite agreed that they were then discussing a question that ought to have been left for secondary consideration, but he believed that their reason for doing so arose partly from a misconception that had gone abroad as to the rules of the House, and partly from a misconception of what had fallen from the Chair; for he thought that he was quite justified in saying that it was competent to any hon. Member to have proposed on an abstract proposition a resolution against imposing any duty whatsoever. And even now he would go so far as to say, that to the amendment of the noble Lord (Lord J. Russell) another amendment might be proposed, and a division be previously taken on it—on an amendment of an amendment;—that he took to be the rule which he desired should have been followed, for by that means those who were of opinion that there should be no duty on the importation of foreign corn would have been relieved from a difficulty which he acknowledged they now experienced. It might be said that the question was so put now that it would be inconsistency on their parts to vote for it, but he thought that if his explanation were properly received, there could be no danger of misapprehension on the subject. If the House should decide upon voting on the question as it at present stood, he was willing to defer his individual judgment to their better judgments, leaving the public to determine whether he had been prudent or imprudent in so doing. He would not ask any one to believe that he was not going to discuss the sliding scale. He opposed the plan, not because it was a sliding scale; that which alone he was induced to think a matter of great importance was, not the particular mode of levying the tax but the tax itself. What was the point of dispute between himself and the right hon. Baronet? It was this, that he believed the plan brought forward by him to be as unwise as it was impolitic, and that for reasons which he would by and by expose. The plan was unwise for the purposes which the right hon. Baronet professed to have in view, and it was equally inapplicable as a measure for the benefit of the country. When he said that, he did not mean to impute to the right hon. Gentleman any views but the most kindly and beneficent. Let him be permitted to divest the question before the House of all the extraneous matter which had been mixed up with it, previous to entering upon its consideration and examination. Let him in the first place state that he was not going to make it a religious question, nor was he going to put it upon the footing which had been adopted by some persons, namely, of stigmatising the Corn-laws as a flagrant sin. What he would endeavour to do would be to set the question fairly before the House; to urge those arguments against its policy, which in his opinion were most applicable and cogent, and to lay aside altogether the vulgar prejudices which had been mixed up with the Corn-law question. It had been made the vehicle of many arguments and considerations which were wholly foreign to the subject, and amongst others was the imputation of sin, which he was ready to ad- mit was quite as applicable to those of his own side of the House as to any other party, and which would hereafter be used with effect against themselves, and they would suffer from that spirit of fanaticism which they had invoked. The law imposing a duty, either fixed or shifting in amount, upon foreign wheat might be an unwise law, it might be an impolitic law, but in no sense could it be termed a sinful law; and it was not a fair mode of argument to attack the Corn-laws upon the ground of their being sinful. Nor would he ever endeavour to overcome or to vanquish his opponents by having recourse to so unworthy a mode of proceeding. He should therefore first endeavour to sift to their origin the causes of the distress which it was now with one universal consent admitted did actually exist, throughout the principal branches of manufactures in England and Scotland; and in doing this be must be permitted to express his sense of the valour—for he could apply no other term—and exemplary patience—a valour and patience which all were ready to applaud—with which the people had borne their sufferings. All who knew the amount of the privations which the working classes had endured for many, many months past, were ready to testify to the heroic resolution with which they had been endured, and honoured the endurance whilst they sympathised in the distresses of the people. Before he addressed himself to the question itself, he would venture to offer a few remarks upon the state of distress that existed in the country. That distress had been admitted by the right hon. Baronet, and by every body on the other side of the House. One class had been loud, unanimous, and vehement in their descriptions of that distress, and all parties were bound to agree and bear testimony to the valour, for he could apply no other term, with which the people of the country had borne the burden of their distress. But all parties were not agreed as to the cause of that distress. At the outset of his remarks he wished to disclaim all intention of imputing the cause of the distress to any party in the state now present. He believed that the distress had arisen from circumstances over which they had had no control—from circumstances which, perhaps, were unavoidable. At the same time, however, he considered that the cause was a worthy subject for consideration: he thought they should cast their eyes a few years back, and learn what was at the bottom of this distress. He thought it would be found to have originated and been created by the views, not of themselves, but of those who had preceded them. Years ago a factitious system was created to make head against the overbearing power of France. The manufacturing power arose. England became an isolated country—she stood alone, insulated as regarded the rest of the world, quite as much as regarded her political as her geographical position. As time rolled on, this new and extraordinary system became subject to fresh trials and novel combinations, which had at last brought about the state of things under which the present generation existed: But it should be remembered by the Gentlemen opposite, who represented the landed interest, that the energy that had in those days been called forth was called forth by themselves. Those Gentlemen had made the people a manufacturing people, and they could not now turn round and ask the question whether they were called upon to maintain the manufacturing system—a system that had been brought into existence by those who had governed the country. Those who now ruled were not perhaps responsible for the distress, but they were for the mode in which they dealt with it. The manufacturing class had a claim upon the Gentlemen who represented the landed interest, and it did not rest with the latter now to turn round and say we will not foster your manufactures. That should have been said before, when the enemy was at their doors. The landed Gentlemen were not in that House to say, "Can we now maintain the manufacturing system?" They must maintain it. It would not do now to ask, "Can we foster this system?" They must foster it. They must keep it up, not only as a matter of right, but as a matter of necessity. He disclaimed all intention of imputing to the right hon. Baronet responsibility for the cause of the distress; but he would beg him, and the House, and the country, to consider the peculiar position in which the right hon. Gentleman stood, and the peculiar responsibility he assumed when he began to deal with this question. Some few months ago this difficulty was seen coming on—all men of practical sagacity foresaw it. That was the time when the right hon. Baronet and his party chose to make a grand effort—to move all the engines they were able to command—for the purpose of seating themselves where they now were, and violently to seize the reins of government. He was merely describing the fact; he did not blame them. He was merely stating that it was at that peculiar juncture of affairs, when every man of common sagacity must have seen what was impending, the present Government chose to assume office. There was, therefore, a peculiar responsibility upon them when they were about to deal with the distress of the country, seeing that upon their shoulders the blame, if blame there were, of a failure must inevitably rest. At the time the former Government left office, they had proposed, late he would admit, very late, a plan for relieving the distress of the people. It was a proceeding that might be likened, not inaptly, were he ill-naturedly disposed to the baptism of Constantine, which was put off as long as possible, and adopted at the last moment to expiate a life of error and rapacity. That measure, however, good or bad, the late government were not permitted to carry; the right hon. Baronet assumed the reins of power, and upon him devolved the business and the responsibility. The right hon. Gentleman last year appeared before the house, and said, he thought justly, Don't press me now. I must take all the evidence that can be gotten. I am new in my seat. I have not had time to consider this great question. Give me time, and you shall see what I will propose. Time went on. The Session of Parliament commenced. All must remember the first night of the session, when the right hon. Gentleman, and with much emphasis, and a solemn deportment, as if almost weighed down by the weight of the burden upon his mind, solemnly said, that as early as possible, as soon as the forms of the House would allow; he would come down and touch this awful question. All hon. Members were alive to the importance of the occasion. Gentlemen on both sides wondered what the perspicacity of the right hon. Gentleman would bring forward for the relief of the distress of which he had acknowledged the existence. There could be none in that House who did not remember the scene which took place on the night the right hon. Gentleman was to announce his plan. The nation was on tip-toe and the public ex- pectation was so much roused, that hon. Gentlemen around him were overwhelmed, as they would recollect, with applications to fill the seats in the gallery. The House was crowded at an early hour. He well remembered the right hon. Baronet walking up the House, every eye turned upon him. Great was the marvel at what was forthcoming—as to how the right hon. Gentleman had managed to keep his secret—" Omne ignotum pro magnifico." All expected that some great plan had been devised, characterised by profound forethought and prudence, and which was to be as effective as the most consummate statesmanship could accomplish. During two long hours the right hon. Baronet was developing his plan: every now and then Gentlemen seized paper and pens, in order to catch the ideas, for which, however, they vainly looked. The right hon. Baronet continued to talk "about it, and about it, and about it," and at length— such a scene as it was he should never forget—all the marvellous secresy and all the wonderful sagacity and perspicuity of the right hon. Baronet had ended in the smoke of the sliding scale. And what was the marvellous plan which the right hon. Baronet had at such apparently infinite pains conceived for the amelioration of the sliding scale, but a mere alteration, amounting to a slight modification in the present law. The right hon. Baronet said that was the best plan that in his opinion could be devised for all parties; but if he were of that opinion why did he not say so at first, and in half an hour settle the matter, instead of spreading his plan in a superficial speech over the space of two hours. The right hon. Baronet had complained of the jumping scale, but all that he had to object to on that ground, and all he had to propose in the way of amendment upon the present Corn-laws, might have been easily said in half an hour. That was what he objected to. What the right hon. Baronet ought to have done was to have boldly and concisely said, "the present is the best scheme that can in my opinion be devised, and I adopt it as the basis of my Corn-law." The right hon. Baronet had now made the child his own, and he would leave the country to admire the bantling. Had the right hon. Baronet looked at the question in an extended and statesmanlike manner, he might have opened such a field for action as would effectually have alleviated the distresses of the people. He had been in hope that an arrangement would have been proposed which would have produced steadiness of price, and the advantage of a low price, which would have extended the markets of the country, and thus created a larger demand for the labour of those who were starving, not from idleness, but from want of work. The right hon. Gentleman, the Vice-President of the Board of Trade, had compared the prices in other countries having no Corn-law with the prices in this. But the right hon. Gentleman had fallen into a fallacy. The right hon. Gentleman had compared the advantages of a country that was sell-supporting with those of a country that was not self-supporting, and was extending her markets all over the world. This country combined the disadvantages of a self-supporting system with a supplying system. With respect to the alleged independence of this country of foreign supply, it was chimerical, and incapable of being followed out. It was not in existence—it could not be brought into existence. England had more mouths than the produce of her soil could feed; she could not grow corn enough, and she was obliged to have recourse to her manufactures to purchase it. They had better get rid of the notion of this being a self-supplying country, and they would gain this great advantage instead of independence; they would bind mankind to them by the only bonds of amity, the bonds of self-interest. He would ask if this country would not have been at war with North America ere this, had it not been for our commercial system? Spread that net all over the world. Go to Spanish America, to Odessa, to every wheat-exporting country, and give them the opportunity of entering into permanent and profitable bonds for the exchange of produce against manufactures, and so vast a source of mutual interest would spring up as for ever to put an end to the bloody system of war. If the people of England went as merchants—if they went as Christians, and offered to enter into such relations as he had alluded to with foreign countries, philosophy warranted him in drawing the deduction which he had done. What was it broke the alliance between Alexander and Napoleon? Was it the force of British arms? No, it was the power of her manufactures, and who, therefore, would say that she would become dependent upon others by stretching the mighty arms of her commerce from pole to pole. But let him ask if the right hon. Baronet had stated it to be his expectation that his newly arranged sliding scale would stop the fluctuations in the price of corn, or bring into operation a certain and regular trade in that article? On the contrary, all that the right hon. Baronet appeared to have considered was how best to conciliate those friends who sat behind him. He had told the country that they were not to have a free and extended commerce with the whole world, and to give in return for corn their manufactures. He had told them the very reverse of all this, for he had declared that the prohibition to import foreign corn would be continued, and that the fluctuations in price would still continue. Then came the question as to the lowering of the price of food; and here he must candidly avow that he had never entertained any expectation that the price of food would be lowered by the abolition of the Corn-laws. The right hon. Baronet the Member for Kent had said that protection was necessary in order to enable the landowners to maintain their present station in society. By that, he presumed, the right hon. Baronet meant it was necessary for the good of the country that there should be maintained a class of resident gentry, who having nothing to do, and being able to command perfect leisure, were, therefore, at liberty to cultivate their intellect for the good of society at large. That was probably what the right hon. Gentleman meant, but he had not shown that all those same advantages of a resident gentry could not be obtained without the expense of protection. He could not however, believe this. He could not believe that the landed proprietors would be less wise, less enlightened, less patriotic, less the ornaments, the Corinthian capitals of society, less country gentlemen, in short, if the nation were to refuse to continue to give them 20s. a quarter additional upon their wheat. Were all the virtues of patriotism centred in the ownership of a spring carriage? Was there no wisdom but such as was to be obtained by a tariff. He believed the resident gentry were what they were said to be—a great benefit to society; but he believed they would be just as beneficial without a protecting duty of 20s. To be wise and beneficial did not imperatively require that wealth should be concentrated in few hands and in large masses. On the contrary, if it were somewhat more widely spread, in portions sufficient for modest wants and comforts, it would be far more likely to engender feelings and habits beneficial to society at large. Beware, said the friends and advocates of the landed interest, how you touch the Corn-laws, or remove the present protection given to the home growers of corn. They are, say they, your best customers. True, they are considerable customers; but to make them good customers by our present system of protection, the manufacturing public pay back with one hand the profit they obtain with the other, from the agriculturists for their manufactured articles. Would it not be, perhaps, the best way, certainly it would be the shorter, to give the agriculturists so much money at once. The hon. Gentleman opposite the Member for Shropshire and the hon. Member for Bolton, disagreed as to the sum given to the agriculturists by this plan of protective duties, the latter contending that the bonus given was above 50,000,000l. sterling, the former that it did not exceed 5,000,000l. Whatever its amount might be, which course was to be proposed? To lose their custom in future, if that could be conceived possible, in consequence of refusing to give this bonus of 5,000,000l. or 50,000,000l., and to seek by the extension of our trade, which he thought very practicable, with foreign countries, an equivalent, or more than equivalent profit from the good so exported; or to continue to contribute in this very objectionable and injurious way to our interests and the manufacturing interests the amount of bonus given to the agriculturists by this state of the law? To adopt the latter course would be highly impolitic, and, in his mind, buying a Corinthian column too dearly. To this part of his argument he would invite sincerely an answer from any Gentleman who should deem anything he said worthy of notice. Let it too be understood that he repudiated all idea of protection in this or in any other branch of our national industry. Protection! what does it imply? It means that we, forming the great body of society, are to be compelled to labour intensely; to sustain privation on privation; occasionally to starve; and to endure the harrowing and appalling condition described in the numerous petitions of the people presented to the House, in order that at this fearful expense to society at large the agriculturists and the landed interest shall enjoy a monopoly of the supply of food for this great country, rapidly increasing as it is, year by year, in the amount of its population. Upon those who would continue that monopoly must rest all the odium of the system, and the onus to prove that they were worthy of the price which was paid for it The right hon. Gentleman seemed to admit that as much odium was attached to a fixed duty as to the sliding scale, and that all the objections made against the sliding scale were equally applicable to a fixed duty. Certainly it would appear that they who came forward with a proposition for a fixed duty were not in a position to enable them to throw off their shoulders the odium incident to the maintenance of a peculiarly odious monopoly. The right hon. Gentleman had stated that the landed interest sustained peculiar burdens, and therefore they ought to be protected. The answer to that was, first, that he denied the assertion. They had always shrunk from bearing their proper share of the public burdens. Let them prove that they sustained more than their share, and the moment that they did so it would be far more economical to come to the determination to remove them by direct than by indirect measures. [Hear, hear.] He was happy to hear hon. Gentlemen on the Ministerial side of the House cheering, and he hoped the time would soon come when they would not only cheer, but vote in support of that sentiment, for then their cheers would be far more honest, and he would be ready to think that they really did believe themselves to be unfairly dealt with. But he must again call upon them to prove their grievance. He wanted some hon. Gentleman to get up and state their grievance. Would one tell him that they paid the Poor-rate? So did he. Would another say that they paid the county-rate? So did he. The other classes of the community paid the same taxes as the agriculturists, and he believed that the quota of the manufacturers was as large as that of the agriculturists, if not larger. But they who said that they had certain peculiar burdens to sustain, had no right to make that an argument for the continuance of this monopoly. If they were aggrieved, they ought, like other classes of the community, to lay their petitions before that House, and, exposing their grievances, ask the House to find a remedy for them. An hon. Member (the Member for Staffordshire) had said, that he had never given a vote upon the Corn-law question which had not been given for his personal and private interest. [An hon. Member, "no, no."] In order that there should be no mistake on this head, the hon. Member had repeated the assertion and then followed the old statement that in so voting be had voted for the benefit of the people. In these stale generalities all within these walls were certain to agree. They were all virtuous; nobody doubted that. But he was not like the hon. Gentleman; he had no Roman virtues, at least, he had not the Roman virtues of the hon. Gentleman. He disapproved of the doctrine that they would best consult the interests of the country by consulting their own private interests. If an hon. Gentleman gave his vote in furtherance of the interests of his country, and it served his own interest at the same time, so much the better; but he should not vote to suit his own purpose with a vague hope that it might be beneficial to the country. As the representatives of the people, they ought not to discard principle and be guided by such loose political morality as that which would make the public good subservient to private interest. He, therefore, entreated hon. Gentlemen to give a fair consideration to this question, and to reflect that there was at that moment that peculiar acumen of consideration in the public mind, which would lead the people to judge whether they were possessed of that Roman virtue which belonged to the hon. Member for Stafford. If they continued to consider themselves only, to pay a paramount regard to their own interests, to seek to maintain their own incomes by keeping up the price of corn,—if they continued to weigh heavily upon the people, and look upon their distresses with that calm philosophy which every right-thinking man must regard as stoicism, there would come a time of reckoning that would not redound to their advantage; that time he believed to be about to arrive, for in his heart he did think that at the present moment the working classes of this country were looking upon the great experiment which was going on with great and intense anxiety. It had been said, the working classes had taken no part, or at least a small one, in the agitation. He believed that was true; but let not hon. Members lay that flattering unction to their souls on that account, that all was secure and safe. The working classes were looking on, and they said, "This is a great experiment going on as regards two interests—the landed interest and what is called the mercantile interest." First, they would inquire whether the landed interest were willing to do that for the people which the great bulk of the people thought ought to be done for them —whether they would voluntarily yield to the distresses of the people, and to the demands which those distresses justified them in making? That was what they would look to from the landed interest. Then they would look to the mercantile interest and say, "They also are represented in Parliament: we will see whether they have, by their own unaided efforts, power so to act, and to coerce the landed gentry, as to compel them, if not willing, to do justice to the people." If it should turn out that this experiment failed, then would the people come to two conclusions—first, that the landed gentry were unwilling to do them justice; and, secondly, that the House of Commons was unable to compel them to do them justice. If ever the time arrived at which the people came to the latter of these two conclusions, then would the great body of the labouring and industrious classes look for the co-operation of the mercantile interests in a system of agitation different from any that had yet existed in this country. Depend upon it, that not looking at the measure now proposed simply as a mercantile question —not regarding it merely as an experiment of fiscal regulation—but viewing it as the great project of a great statesman, the time would come when the people would point the finger at that statesman and say, "As he lagged behind his age before, so does he lag behind it now. Wavering and temporizing in his policy, he lost the opportunity of conferring a practical benefit upon his countrymen, although it was plain to every man of ordinary sense, that that benefit could not long be withheld. Lacking courage to quicken his pace, so as to be equal with the spirit of the times in which he lived, henceforward he may strive, but strive in vain, to reach the onward march upon which his countrymen are bent. His opportunities as a statesman were great—he failed to employ them. His convictions were often not unjust—he feared to act upon them. His race is run." The right hon. Baronet's position was not an enviable one. Should this project fail, as fail it must, on him and on his head would be concentrated the onus and odium of the failure. He would have shown to his country either that he had not sagacity to see and understand the distress of the people, and the mode of relieving it, or that seeing that distress, and well knowing the means of relief, he had not the courage to propose the proper remedy.

Lord Ashley

here rose and said, it was not his intention to enter at all into the discussion of the question before the House; but he hoped the House would forgive him for interposing for a moment upon a matter relating to himself. At five o'clock that day he was informed that the hon. Member for Sheffield, in a speech which he delivered on the previous evening, made an allusion somewhat in the nature of an attack upon him. Not being in the House at the time when the hon. Member spoke, he had not the benefit of hearing what was said; but as soon as the information was conveyed to him, he resorted to the only channel through which he could obtain an accurate statement of the speech of the hon. Member. (The noble Lord produced a copy of a newspaper, and was about to quote the speech of Mr. Ward, but the noble Lord was called to order by the Speaker.) He would endeavour to state the nature of the argument, if he could not cite the precise words of the hon. Member, and that for the purpose of giving to them the flattest contradiction. He understood that the hon. Member had said, that the object of the hon. Member for Knaresborough was to revive discussions which ought to be forgotten, and to engender angry passions which ought to be allayed, to set masters against men, and to produce nothing but anarchy and confusion. "Had that," continued the hon. Member, "been the sentiment of a single speaker, he should have taken no notice of it; but it was most vociferously cheered by a noble Lord, who had refused office on account of his sincere, but, as he thought, foolish devotion to a set of principles and wild theories which would take us back to savage life, if they were acted on." The hon. Member then proceeded to say, that he (Lord Ashley) supported the hon. Member for Knaresborough in his attempts to excite the bad passions of the people, and that the principles he maintained would restore the country to its pristine and savage state. Now, (said the noble Lord), I will ask, does the hon. Gentleman know whether I cheered at all? Does he know whether I heard the speech of the hon. Member for Knaresborough? Does he know whether I was present in the House? Allow me to say, that before a charge of this nature was made, it would have been but courteous, I think, to give me some notice of it; but I not only did not hear the statements I am said to have cheered, but I did not hear the speech containing the charges made against me. I was not even in the neighbourhood of the House when the speech of the hon. Member for Knaresborough was delivered; and I will leave the House to judge which of the two, the hon. Member, or myself, has done most to bring about the manners and habits of the ages of barbarism.

Mr. Ward:

I hope the House will excuse me if I take the earliest opportunity of expressing to the noble Lord my deep and unfeigned regret for the mistake into which I was most unintentionally betrayed. I could not possibly have an intention to misrepresent a fact. If I had not most implicitly believed that the noble Lord was the person who cheered the hon. Member for Knaresborough. ["Oh, oh"]. Surely you cannot imagine that any man in his senses would intentionally bring a charge against a Member of the House sitting opposite to him which was capable of being contradicted in terms so decisive as those just used by the noble Lord. I believed that the noble Lord had expressed his assent in the way in which assent is usually expressed in this House to the sentiments of the hon. Member for Knaresborough—believing that I conceived that I had a right to allude to what I considered to be a marked expression of his opinion upon the subject under discussion. It seems that I did him wrong. I can now only express my deep regret for having misrepresented him, and a hope that he will pardon me for having introduced his name into the discussion.

Lord Ashley:

I am very much obliged to the hon. Member for the manner in which he admits his error. I am perfectly satisfied.

Viscount Sandon,

though unwilling to protract the debate, could not avoid calling the attention of the House to the manner in which the language of the merchants of Liverpool engaged in the American trade, as contained in the petition he had presented, had been commented upon by the right hon. Member for Taunton. Now, although he was not prepared to deny, that those merchants preferred a fixed duty to a sliding-scale, still the right hon. Gentleman had no right to assume, that which was not the fact, viz., that in the opinion of the petitioners, the new sliding-scale as proposed by Ministers was not a great improvement upon the sliding-scale as it at present existed, and that they did not believe, that great benefit would result from it to commerce and manufactures. If the House would allow him, he would read an extract from a letter he had received from one of those merchants, in which he said:— You are aware, that my own judgment inclines to a fixed duty, but knowing, that the feeling of the Government, is in favour of a sliding-scale, I am disposed to look on the proposition, as brought forward, as a very great improvement, when I consider the very large amount of the present undue protection, while it affords an ample guarantee, against our being dependent upon foreign countries, for too large a proportion of our supplies. The danger of being dependent upon foreign nations for the supply of food was to be avoided by every country. America was fully alive to this. The late President of the United States, in his message to the Congress, three years ago, had adverted to the evils likely to result from a country placing itself at the mercy of others for its supplies of food, leaving it in the power of those foreign nations to concede or to refuse them. He had already referred to a communication, showing that in the eyes of mercantile men the proposition of the Government was likely to be attended with most important advantages to the mercantile interest. He had also had a communication with a gentleman connected with the mill interest, who had informed him, that the Government measure would have the effect of affording facilities for the trade in foreign flour, which did not at present exist; for as flour was a perishable article, all persons were anxious to avoid speculating for the home-market, under the existing system, owing to its uncertainty; but now there would be a regular trade going on, and, of course, a great advantage to those engaged in it. These were the opinions of practical men, who looked upon the question of the Corn-laws as a matter of business. They saw in the Ministerial measure a great improvement upon the present law. He thought these opinions formed a sufficient answer to the assertion put forward by the other side, that the measure of the Government would leave the trade in corn precisely in the same position in which it now was. He must beg to warn the House against those dreams of perfect prosperity which were held out to the House by Gentlemen opposite, as the result, if they would but accept their nostrums of a perfect free-trade or a fixed duty. Mr. Greg, of Manchester, in his pamphlets on on the Corn-laws, the object of which was to show the advantages of a free-trade in corn, had, after referring to the way in which British manufactures were now driven out of every neutral market by our continental rivals, and the importance of our endeavouring to regain our position, admitted, that to effect that object, a reduction in the wages of labour was necessary; for he said, that foreign nations had a decided advantage over us in this respect, and that an increased trade in provisions would be beneficial in reducing that advantage, though, he added, he doubted if it could be entirely removed. But were the manufacturers alone to be considered? Now, they had been told, that the effect of the Corn-laws had been to bring into cultivation a very large amount of land in this country, which would not else have been cultivated, and which now employed a large proportion of our population. If those laws were repealed, and all protection to British agriculture were withdrawn, that land would be thrown out of cultivation, and what then would become of all those who were now engaged in tilling the soil? Hundreds of thousands, nay, millions of persons would thus be thrown on the poor-rates, or sent into the manufacturing towns, to lower the price of wages there. Therefore, he held, that it was the interest of all classes, not that of a few landed proprietors only, to give such a protection to agriculture as should prevent this calamity. It was alike important to all parties to consider this question in all its bearings. If they thought it necessary to reduce the present amount of protection, it was due from them, as wise statesmen, to make that reduction gradually, and to see the effect of such an alteration as that proposed by his right hon. Friend, at the head of the Government, before they decided upon making so sweeping a change, as that proposed by the noble Lord, the Member for London. He was of opinion, that if the changes in the present Corn-laws were brought about with consideration, they might confer important advantages on our commercial interest, give the people food at a cheaper rate, and still preserve a due amount of protection to agriculture. That important interest might, he believed, be preserved, without infringing upon any other. He thought, that by a judicious compromise, like that now proposed by the Government, our commerce and manufactures might be promoted and extended, while that protection which the landed interest had a right to look for, would be maintained. He would not longer detain the House. He bad risen chiefly to state that commercial men, who were uninfluenced by mere party considerations, were, to a great extent, satisfied with the Government measure, and accepted it as a great boon, and as a large measure, conceived in most liberal spirit.

Lord Worsley

said, that he was anxious to explain to the House the reasons why he could not give his consent to the motion which had emanated from his noble Friend the Member for the City of London, and also why, as the representative of a large and influential constituency, he could not conscientiously extend his support to the proposition which had, a few evenings back, been submitted to the House by the right hon. Baronet at the head of her Majesty's Government. He was of opinion that the question substantially before the House, and one which hon. Members ought principally to consider, was the resolution of the noble Lord. He could not vote for that resolution, because it was not his belief that the sliding scale was productive of the evils which l4a4 been said to result from its operation. Much of the distress which prevailed throughout the country had been attributed to the influence of the present Corn-laws. From that opinion he disagreed. He did not consider that they stood in the relation of cause and effect. The great distress which unhappily existed in the country could not legitimately be traced to the Cornlaws. Let the hon. Members who entertained an opposite opinion look at the past condition of the country. During the existence of the present Corn-laws, the manufacturing interest of this country had accumulated great wealth. This had taken place under the operation of laws similar to those now in existence. In no other part of the world had the manufacturing body prospered to so great an extent as they had in this country. They had exhibited a spirit of almost unexampled speculation. Large sums of money had been embarked in the establishment of railroad communications, and in other important and useful enterprises, and he, therefore, was justified in asserting, that under the present system of Corn-laws, the country had been in a prosperous state of advancement. With regard to the proposition of a fixed duty, he had no hesitation in stating that he objected to it. If it was agreed to have a fixed duty on corn, then he would ask for a low instead of a high one, because there would exist a better probability of sustaining a low duty; but if a high duty was proposed and adopted, then in times of scarcity it would be impossible to maintain it. Under a low fixed duty he thought that the agriculturists and the farmers would not be able to cultivate a sufficient quantity of corn for home consumption; he had the same objection to the measure of the right hon. Baronet. Indeed, he was at a loss to conceive why, at this moment, such a scheme should have been submitted for the consideration of Parliament. He perfectly recollected that during the last Session, when the hon. Members opposite were seated on that side of the House, many petitions were presented by them, praying for no alteration in the Corn-laws, and it was his belief that many of those hon. Gentlemen who now gave to the Government measure their unqualified support, pledged themselves in the presence of their constituents, not to support any measure which would have the tendency to diminish that protection which the agriculturists now enjoyed. They certainly, if they did not positively pledge themselves to resist any alteration in the Corn-laws, left an impression on the minds of the constituent body, when they addressed them from the hustings that such were their intentions. He would, on this point, refer the House to the Speech of the Hon. Member for Rutland, who stated, when addressing his constituents, that the Corn-laws could not be altered for the better. The Member for Northamptonshire stated, that he was prepared to stand by the present law. The Member for East Norfolk declared, that in the pre- sent scale of duties the national safety consisted. The Member for East Suffolk declared it to be his intention to oppose any alteration of the present system, and his colleague supported him in that resolution. It was his hope that all the hon. Members who held these opinions when before their constituents would come forward and act up to their professions, and oppose the measure of her Majesty's Government. He was very much mistaken if those hon. Members had not led their constituents into the belief that it was their intention to offer a resolute opposition to any serious alteration in the Corn-laws. He must also observe with reference to his own case that he had given his opposition to the late Government when they proposed to alter the Corn-laws by substituting a fixed duty for the present scale. During his late election, many Gentlemen had been induced to oppose him, having been persuaded that he would vote against the Government of the right hon. Baronet. His constituents were under the impression that the right hon. Gentleman did not intend to alter the Corn-laws. He had stated to his constituents that it was his opinion that the right hon. Baronet would not, in any measure which he proposed, extend to the agriculturists the same protection which they enjoyed under the present law. He had been told frequently that he had misrepresented the sentiments of the right hon. Baronet, and in consequence of that feeling, an opposition was offered to his reelection; but he was proud to say, that he stood in that House by the suffrages of 5,401 electors, who voted for him in order that he might exert the utmost of his abilities to maintain the present law. The right hon. Baronet, when he stated to the House the nature of the measure which her Majesty's Government had thought it right to propose, stated various reasons which had induced them to bring it forward. He stated also that he did not think the Corn-law was the cause of the present manufacturing distress, in that opinion he agreed; he thought there were other causes which might account for it. Then the only other reason given by the right hon. Baronet was, that the agricultural interest thought the present law might be altered with advantage. Now, if the right hon. Baronet was right in attributing the distress now prevailing in the manufacturing districts to other causes than the Corn-law—if the right hon. Baronet, the Secretary for the Home Department, was right in what fell from him last night, when he gave evidence of the flourishing state of the spinning trade, by the great increase of mills within the last few years —if that were so, why was the agricultural interest now attacked by the Government? If that were the case, and the right hon. Baronet only proposed his measure because the agriculturists thought that the scale might be altered with advantage, he wished to know why he proposed the particular scale of duty which he bad laid before the House. He supposed he (Sir R. Peel) thought the agricultural interest were of opinion that it might be amended in this particular manner in consequence of something which had taken place in the county he had the honour to represent in October last. On the 25th of that month, his hon. Colleague addressed his constituents, and in that speech he said, that a scale very similar to that proposed by the right hon. Baronet would afford enough of protection to the home-grower. Indeed, the scale proposed by him on that occasion ranged no higher than 20s., and came down gradually sliding to 5s.; but it was so coolly received, that the hon. Gentleman had himself given notice of his intention to propose that the scale should reach 25s. as the maximum. He would ask the right hon. Baronet whether he did not think he might be wrong in his scale of duties, when even the scale of his hon. Colleague was found to be so unpalatable in the county of Lincoln, that that hon. Gentleman himself had been compelled to give notice of his intention to propose an amendment upon the scale of the right hon. Baronet? He was going to amend even his own proposition. The right hon. Baronet seemed to have formed his scale of duty from the averages during the last ten years, and assumed them to have been 56s. 11d.; but the farmer did not obtain anything like that price. It was well known, that the greater quantity of corn was sold in the third quarter of the year; it was in that quarter the merchants sold, in order to make up the averages; but then the farmer had scarcely any to sell. He would not go into detail on that part of the subject; but, in order to prove his position, he would state the sales in one year:—In the first quarter of 1841, there were sold 949,156 quarters; in the second quarter, 860,484 quarters; in the third quarter, there were sold no less than 1,121,339 quarters; and in the fourth quarter, 984,838 quarters. Those figures showed, that the greater quantity was sold in the third quarter, and the average then was 60s.; but the merchant obtained all the benefit of that state of things, for the farmer, having then no corn to sell, did not participate in the advantages such a price gave. The average was 56s. 11d. throughout the other three quarters of the year, when the farmer was in the market. The right hon. Baronet took his position between 54s. and 58s., now he had no hesitation in saying, on the part of his constituents, that that would not be considered a remunerating price. In his opinion, and those on whose behalf he appeared as a Member of the House, an average of 60s. was necessary; and, if the House would allow him, he would endeavour to show that the proposition of the Government with respect to the averages would be of little or no benefit in checking the fictitious sales. By the scale proposed by the right hon. Baronet, when the prices averaged from 54s. to 58s., the duty was to be 16s. per quarter; he did not consider that that duty would afford sufficient protection. He had taken some pains and trouble to ascertain the quantities of corn which had been imported into this country at a duty above 16s. during the last ten years. They were as under:—

Years.	Quarters.	Average Aggregate Duty.
1831	30,622	22s.	7d.
1832	116,127	27s.	10d.
1833	11,044	32s.	2d.
1834	163	41s.	2d.
1835	47	27s.
1836	997	36s.	8d.
1837	210,256	30s.	9d.
1838	19,456	27s.
1839	49,688	18s.	9d.
1840	299,354	20s.	8d.

It appeared to him, that this quantity of corn imported in 1840, the merchant paying an average aggregate duty of 20s. 8d., was sufficient to prove to any one that a duty of 16s. would afford no protection whatever. He took it for granted, the Government were of opinion that their proposed scale was an improvement on that now in force, but when they found so large a quantity imported at so high a duty as 20s. 8d. [Sir R. Peel: What was the price then?] The price was then 66s. to 69s.; but he would again say, that when they found so much, so large a quantity imported, paying so much higher a duty than 16s., the latter could afford no protection to the farmer. He had stated his opinion, that the measures proposed by Government for remedying the fraudulent averages would not produce a beneficial effect. It was proposed to remedy this evil, by adding to the towns from which the averages were now taken a number of other towns. In many of the towns, however, which it was proposed to add to the list, there was very little corn sold during the latter part of the year; and he feared the plan would fail to accomplish the end it was designed to effect. He thought, there would be no difficulty in making an arrangement for the return of the averages by the grower, as well as by the purchaser. This principle of taking the averages had been recommended by many practical men. There was no doubt it was considered by farmers generally., that the scale of duty proposed by the right hon. Baronet opposite was too low, and that the scheme which had been proposed was not so favourable to their interests as they had anticipated. He could assure the House, that the farmers did not think they had now more protection than they were fairly entitled to expect. He believed, that when the farmers of England found that the Government, which they anticipated would protect their interests, was lowering the protection on corn, and facilitating the introduction of foreign wheat into the market, they would think with him, that they had acted rashly in placing confidence in such a Government. He supposed, that the scale of duties proposed by the Government had been adopted, in a great measure, upon the information they had received from Mr. Meek. He had in his hands a letter which had been received by a friend of his from a gentleman in Germany, containing some remarks on the visit of Mr. Meek to that country; and it would appear from the statements in that communication that, from the mode in which Mr. Meek conducted his inquiries, he was not likely to obtain much information on the subject it was his object to investigate. The noble Lord read an extract from the communication to the following effect:— Mr. Meek was a few hours at Lubec, but proceeded the same day he came here to Rostock. The corn speculators amused themselves with his total ignorance of this country. He assured them, that if the English Corn-laws were altered, all the sandy soils would grow turnips and wheat immediately. I should like to have seen this wiseacre to learn how I can grow turnips on our sands, where everything burns to snuff in our usually warm summers.

When the farmers of Lincolnshire learned that the person who had recommended the scale of duties proposed by the right hon. Baronet, had made such a statement as this, he was convinced they would wish that a better agent had been selected. Before he resumed his seat, he wished to prefer to the Government a humble request, that they would seriously and attentively consider a better measure for taking the averages, because he believed it was the unanimous opinion of the farmers of the county he represented, that the scheme at present proposed by Government would afford them little protection. The system of taking the averages, as at present existing, was the subject of general complaint by the farmers; the numerous fictitious sales which were made, led to the introduction of bonded corn, and, the market being thus glutted, the farmers prices were lowered. He was aware, that those who were opposed to the sliding scale, would gather an argument from what he had said, and would contend, that the sliding scale was the great source of the evils to which he had alluded. But he was of opinion, that a fixed duty would be injurious to the country, that it would be impossible to maintain it when the price of corn was high; and that they could not adopt a rate of duty sufficiently high to protect the farmer when the price of corn was low. He believed that, by a more stringent system of taking the averages, they might act most beneficially upon the principle of a sliding scale; and he therefore felt it his duty to oppose the motion which had been proposed by the noble Lord near him.

Mr. Christopher

said, the noble Lord who had just addressed the House had thought fit to cast some reflections upon him, in reply to which he deemed it necessary to offer a few observations. It was not his intention when he entered the House to take any part in the debate; but he could not avoid congratulating the House, and especially that portion of it which supported the agricultural interest, on the new-born zeal of the noble Lord who had last spoken. When they considered that at the commencement of the last session of Parliament his noble Friend had thought fit to vote for an address to the Crown, which attributed all the distress which prevailed in the manufacturing districts to the operation of the Corn-laws, be thought that it ill became him, on the present occasion, either to attack him for deserting the interests of his constituents, or to come forward and explain to the House that the manufacturers were not distressed from the operation of the Corn-laws. Considering that his noble Friend bad on more than one occasion recorded his vote of confidence in favour of an Anti-Corn-law Administration, it ill became him to doubt the sincerity of his right hon. Friend at the head of the Government in coming forward with the present measure. His noble Friend had been pleased to state, that he (Mr. Christopher) was the first person who had recommended to his constituents the adoption of a maximum duty of 20s. on importations of foreign corn. He bad thought it his duty, in consequence of a vote at the commencement of the last session of Parliament, when he thought that not only his noble Friend and those who acted with him, but that both Houses of Parliament, were pledged to entertain the question of the revision of the Corn-laws, to apply his mind to the subject, and to state to his constituents what modification of duty he thought would be beneficial. He did not say on that occasion, that he thought a maximum duty of 20s. ought to be levied on the importation of foreign corn. He had stated that, as the noble Lord had said that foreign corn could be introduced into this country in any quantity, exclusive of duty and profit, at the price of 36s. a quarter, the maximum duty of 20s. was sufficient; that if it could be introduced in any quantity under 30s., a maximum duty of 25s. would be sufficient; but if, as it had been stated, a considerable quantity could be introduced at 23s., a maximum duty of 30s. ought to be imposed on the importation of foreign corn. He had taken the opportunity of making that statement not in any part of the county which he represented, where he might be supposed to be supported either from local interest or party feeling, but he had made that declaration in the presence of many adherents of a near relative of the noble Lord; and whether he had said on that occasion that a maximum duty of 20s. or of 25s. was a sufficient protection, he must say, that what he had said had been not only well received, but had been cheered by the persons who lived on the estate of that relative of the noble Lord, and it was not till six weeks after that the noble Lord, more for the sake of embarrassing the Administration of this country than with the view of obtaining a settlement of this question, had chosen to agitate this country and his own tenants on this subject. It might be expected that a panic arose in consequence of this agitation; but this he would say, from information he had received from the county he represented, that ever since the proposition of the Government had been considered, the great majority of the constituent body of that county would rather accept the measure as it was, than any measure which any combination of the noble Lord's friends might propose. He bad given notice of a motion, that when the House resolved itself into a committee, he would state to that committee good and sufficient reasons for inducing them to adopt a maximum duty of 25s. in lieu of the duty proposed by her Majesty's Administration. But whether the House agreed to his proposition or not, so persuaded was he that it was desirable to have a permanent settlement of this question for the benefit of agriculture, and for the benefit of those individuals whom he and whom the noble Lord (Lord Worsley) also represented in that House, that he would infinitely rather see the measure of the Administration pass without a single alteration than he would see the agricultural interest left to the mercy of the noble Lord. With regard to what his conduct had been, either in the presence of his constituents, or as a Member of that House, he was not afraid to appear before them, and to enter the lists with the noble Lord whenever the occasion required it. The noble Lord had thought fit to impute to him what had been imputed to him by a former Member of that House, that he had acted the unworthy part of concerting with the Administration to overthrow the agricultural interest. He appealed to his right hon. Friend at the head of the Government, whether, directly or indirectly, he had ever made any communication to the Government on the subject of the Corn-laws, till he had stated his opinions publicly in the presence of his constituents.

Lord Worsley

hoped the House would allow him to say that he did not intend to cast any reflection on the hon. Member. He had merely said that the hon. Member had formerly proposed a plan which he opposed in his amendment, and this, therefore, showed that his former plan, which agreed with the proposed measure of the Government, was unpopular with his constituents.

Mr. G. Berkeley

was not going to desert the landed interest, nor did he fear being charged with attending too much to the demands of the middling classes of the population; and even if he had but that one reason it would guide his vote that night. He thought that by adopting a sufficient fixed duty we should get rid of the present gambling transactions, which pressed so hard on the manufacturer, while the sliding scale did not in any way protect the agricultural interest. Under these circumstances he should support the amendment.

Sir R. Peel

said,—Mr. Speaker, after the demand which I was obliged to make on the attention of hon. Members in bringing forward the measure now under discussion, I shall certainly feel it incumbent upon me to limit myself as strictly as possible within the bounds which the nature of the motion prescribes, and confine myself altogether to the issue which is proposed by the noble Lord. I am a little surprised at the nature of the issue raised by the noble Lord. I am quite aware that I have to contend against two classes of antagonists, entertaining entirely opposite opinions, the one led by the noble Lord—the advocate of a fixed duty; the other coincident with the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Roebuck)—a decided enemy to all duty whatever. And I was a little curious to know by what process these two classes of antagonists could be brought to range under the same banner. The noble Lord I expected to affirm that a fixed duty ought to be preferred to a sliding scale. I heard much when the noble Lord was in the Government—much from him in condemnation of those who, opposing his measures, did not clearly announce their own plans. "Concert, if you please" (the noble Lord used to say), "the rejection of the measure we propose, but if, giving your assent to abstract propositions, you resolve to combine against the measures of her Majesty's Government, in that case it becomes the character of a great Opposition, to leave on record the principles on which they have acted." The noble Lord used to say, "It is very well for you to act in opposition to our measures; you are not charged with the duties and responsibility of government; but you have had a long public life; you enjoy the confidence of a great party; these measures have undergone frequent discussion, and the country really wants to know what are the principles on which you oppose them." Such being the language which the noble Lord used to hold when in the Government, I certainly did expect to find the noble Lord meeting us fairly on the grounds on which, in his opinion, the measure which we propose cannot be entertained; I did expect from him, after all the eloquence which I have heard from him against ambiguous abstract resolutions, a full and complete exposition of his own principles. How they who are the advocates for a total repeal of all duties on foreign corn can vote for the resolution of the noble Lord, I confess I cannot understand. It is a matter of wonder to me how any advocate of a fixed duty can be found to concur with the noble Lord in his proposition. The noble Lord merely affirms, That this House, considering the evils which have been caused by the present Corn-laws, and especially by the fluctuations of the graduated or sliding scale, is not prepared to adopt the measure of her Majesty's Government, which is founded upon the same principles, and is likely to he attended with the same results. Why, Sir, fixed duty lurks under this ambiguous phraseology. He who moves the resolution is in favour of a fixed duty. How it can find approval with you, who are opposed to all duties whatever—how it can be worth your while to vote for this motion, which you know perfectly well involves in it, ambiguous though the words may be, the principle of a fixed duty and nothing else, I confess I am at a loss to imagine. The motion which the noble Lord ought to have made—I mean, if he intended to maintain his own declared principles—would have stated distinctly and clearly what were the principles which be was prepared to recommend the House to adopt in preference to the principles of our measure. I thought the noble Lord would have presented us with some such motion as would have brought fully and fairly to issue the question whether a fixed duty is preferable to a sliding scale; and if the noble Lord had acted on former precedents, his motion would have been this— Resolved, that no settlement of the question of the Corn-laws can be permanent or satisfactory which does not include within itself the principle of a fixed duty. Acting on the precedent of the year 1835, when it was difficult to bring men of conflicting opinions to join in a common course and unite in a common vote, that would have been the resolution which the noble Lord would have brought forward. But in this case opinions are even more discordant than they were in 1835, and the noble Lord has not had the benefit of a compact alliance; if on this occasion the noble Lord had fairly announced in his resolution the principles on which he was prepared to act, and, consequently, it was necessary for the noble Lord, and the advocates of total repeal, to concert what might be the best mode of covering the grounds on which they are severally prepared to support the same proposition, and how they might best hope to conceal from that enlightened public who, we are told, have their scrutinizing eyes upon us and our proceedings, what are the real differences between the noble Lord and the parties whom he expects to support him to-night. But in fact my conflict to-night is not a conflict with a fixed duty, and I must say that, in respect of the general principles which have been laid down by the noble Lord as those on which he should have legislated on this question, there is no material discordance between us. I also fully agree with the right hon. Gentleman, that the great object which we ought always to maintain in view in legislating on the corn duties is the welfare and benefit of the great body of the people; and I think that man not a true friend to the agricultural interest who, for the purpose of conferring any temporary benefit on that interest, tries to effect his object by calling on the great body of the public to sacrifice real advantages. Then, with respect to the opinions of the noble Lord, he said, that he would submit to any odium rather than agree to do what he considered to be injustice to the agricultural interest; he said that the agricultural interest would be entitled to protection on two grounds—first, if they were subject to any peculiar and special burdens; secondly, if in consequence of the long endurance of laws originally, perhaps, defective in their principle, the agricultural body had been led, under the sanction of the legislature, to embark their capital, and had entered into engagements on the faith of what the legislature had done,—then, that though in principle it might be competent for you to retrace your steps, yet, nevertheless, the considerations of sound justice and equity forbade you to return; but, on the contrary, imperatively demanded that you should continue to foster the interests which had grown up under your management. I say, then, that if these be the sentiments of the noble Lord with respect to the agricultural interest, I don't know, as I said before, that I materially differ from the noble Lord, and whatever difference there is between us is not a difference of principles, but a difference only as to the mere nature of the measure which is fit to be adopted in order to carry out those principles, and it is because we are of opinion that we shall so best carry out those principles, that we propose a graduated scale on the footing of a duty, varying inversely as the price, and diminishing as the price rises, but guarding the agricultural interest against competition when the price is low, as far as is consistent with the interests of the consumer, and abandoning the duty when the interests of the consumer requires its abandonment. I consider that a better principle than the principle of a fixed duty, and therefore it is that I propose it for the adoption of the House. A fixed duty, indeed, the noble Lord now seems inclined to abandon. "We will have no sliding scale," says the noble Lord, but still the noble Lord in one case adopts a sliding scale. The difference between the noble Lord and me is that he slides on one leg. The noble Lord is prepared to maintain the system of averages to determine when the duty at certain prices shall cease altogether. Well, I think that my plan is the better of the two, because, as was justly observed in his able speech by my right hon. Friend the Vice-President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Gladstone), because the noble Lord keeps on the fixed duty of 8s., when the price is at 72s., but at 73s. or 74s., determining the price by the averages, the noble Lord proposes that the duty shall altogether cease. Now, if combinations Can exist under the present system for the purpose of raising the averages, and if there is now, when corn is at 70s., inducement to hold till it reaches 73s., what an immense inducement to hold back will there be when the difference of 2s. in the price makes a difference of 8s. in the duty. And then with respect to America, the merchant there, finding the duty here remitted when the price is at 73s., ships his corn; but the holders here have poured in corn upon the market in the meantime. It is then said to be their interest to combine to raise the duty. They do combine, and the price falls in consequence to 72s., and the duty rises to 8s., and the American merchant is left to put up with the failure of his speculation. The noble Lord must, therefore, confess that after six months' time for deliberation, the only amendment which he proposes leaves unremedied almost all the defects of the present system. Sir, an attention to the debate that has occurred during these three evenings, the conflicting opinions expressed by many hon. Members, and the different apprehensions entertained, must have convinced any Gentleman, however wedded he may be to his own opinion, that to endeavour to effect a settlement of so complicated a question as the Corn-laws is a task of no ordinary difficulty. Contrast the speech of the noble Lord the Member for Lincolnshire to-night with that of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade last night. [An hon. Member.—The late President of the Board of Trade]. The ex-President of the Board of Trade, I mean. He spoke with such authority that 1 thought he was still in office. But contrast those two speeches. The right hon. Gentleman told us last night that my mode of taking the averages would diminish the price, and raise the duty to the amount of 5s.; but what does the noble Lord tell us to-night? He tells us that the greatest alarm had been excited in the county of Lincoln on account of the mode in which I propose to take the averages, for that, in point of fact, it would prejudice the farmer to a most material extent. At the views of the right hon. Gentleman I confess I am surprised. I am surprised that he should have given utterance to an apprehension so unfounded. All I can say is, that I utterly disclaim the idea of affording any additional protection to agriculture by the altered mode of taking the averages; and if, on a consideration of the working of that system, I should be convinced that it will have any effect which I had not anticipated, I shall be prepared to consider the effect of so taking them. I hold it quite to be legitimate to correct any frauds that may now exist; but as to attempting to afford any additional protection to agriculture by an altered mode of taking the averages, that is false in principle, and I have no intention of effecting it. Whatever protection for agriculture I take, I will take openly. But then the noble Lord the Member for Lincolnshire tells us to-night that there are scarcely two persons in that county who are satisfied with the scale as fixed with regard to wheat, but that as regards oats and barley the scale fixed upon had met with unanimous and universal condemnation. Why, Sir, those different opinions, urged as fair objections to my measure, I look upon as conclusive proofs of the policy of our modifying our opinions. To effect any satisfactory settlement that shall carry with it that degree of assent and good-will which all great public undertakings of the kind ought to carry with them, we ought to look to the opinions of extreme thinkers on the one hand, and on the other. We must look to the views of the advocates of free trade, and the advocates of continued protection, each differing to some extent and degree from each other, and from the proposition before the House. But while we observe the manner in which the proposal is dissented from by these two extremes, we must look to that intermediate class of persons which I am confident exists, which will deliberately consider the proposal, and examine the evidence in its favour and against it. And though they may not be entirely contented with the details, they will admit, that, on the whole, it is just and reasonable, and that being a good measure, it ought to be adopted as speedily as possible. Seeing the violence of the opposition with which I have been assailed for proposing this measure, and the disappointment and dissatisfaction that have been expressed m some of the manufacturing districts, and again, on quite opposite grounds, in some of the agricultural districts,—all which opposition I must have naturally expected,—I am supported through all this opposition by the consciousness that my colleagues and myself have attempted to suggest that which we believe to be wholesome at the time, and likely to obtain that practical good which ought to be the object in touching a great question of this sort; and that, on the whole, looking at the artificial state of the system affected by it, and the complicated and important interests that are involved, I declare again that our object has not been to conciliate the favour of any party; that we have not proposed the measure to secure the interests of any particular class; but looking at the whole complicated interests of this country, we have offered this, under circumstances of great difficulty, as a great improvement on the existing law, and as itself an advantageous measure, which will meet the wishes of the moderate thinkers on all sides, and one which ought, if agreed to, to be adopted as speedily as possible. And here let me refer to something which fell from the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite (Mr. Roebuck), who, in a speech characterised by his usual ability, advised me to discard all class prejudices, to show, not perhaps that I am in advance, but at all events, that I do not lag behind the intelligence of the age, and to bring forward some grand and comprehensive scheme that would stamp me at once with the character of a great statesman. I will tell the hon. and learned Gentleman what I think belongs more to the true character of the Minister of such a country as this. I think it is more in keeping with that true character for me to aspire to none of those magnificent characteristics which he has described, and that the wisest and safest course for me to adopt is to effect as much practical good as I can, and not by pronouncing panegyrics upon general principles, which might obtain temporary popularity and praise, delay even a partial remedy for evils the existence of which all acknowledge. Now, considering the great difficulties attending this question, and forgetting, as I must forget, if I hope for any satisfactory termination of them, the minor interests of party, and those party differences which have caused so much asperity in former debates, and remembering that I am in a very different position as Minister of the Crown from the hon. and learned Gentleman, and also now from the noble Lord the Member for the City of London, —situated as I am, I must try to effect a practical adjustment of this question as much to the satisfaction of the general classes of the community as I can. The hon. and learned Gentleman would find it easy, it seems, to apply the great principle of free trade to this question, but I am compelled to look to the mighty interests that have grown up under the system of restriction. You, the hon. and learned Member, give me an estimate of the corn grown in this country; you tell me of 22,000,000 quarters of wheat, and in all 45,000,000 quarters of grain; now think of the amount of capital engaged in the production of that enormous quantity of 45,000,000 quarters of grain. Think what pecuniary interests must be involved in the production of such an amount of grain. Think, too, of the amount of social interests connected with those pecuniary interests which are also involved—how many families are depending for their subsistence and their comforts upon the means of giving employment to thousands, before you hastily disturb the laws which determine the application of capital. All these considerations you may disregard or overlook in your haste to apply the principles of free trade; but let me tell you, if you do so, you are the real enemies of the application of those principles. If you disregard those pecuniary and social interests which have grown up under that protection, which has long been continued by law, then a sense of injustice will be aroused, which will revolt at your scheme of improvement however conformable it may be to rigid principle. How many leases have been formed under the existing system—under the faith of these laws? Take the case even of the tenant-at-will, and how can you instil into him the idea that it is a landlord's question, and not a tenant's question? His capital is embarked in agriculture. Do you thing it possible not strongly to affect that capital by pouring in millions of quarters of corn duty free, diminishing his means in the same degree that you diminish the price of corn in the home market? Do you think you can safely disregard the position in which the tenant-at-will even would be placed by the adoption of your free trade principles? But in the case of the farmer who is under a lease on the faith of the endurance of your acts of Parliament, what would you you do? If the laws have been defective that is not his fault. If for 140 years you have continued the protection to agriculture, is it possible lightly to regard the interests which have grown up under it? 140 years of protection are no proof that that protection has been in itself wise; but if you have continued the protection for 140 years, that is a decisive reason why you should touch most lightly and carefully the interests which have been established under that protection. Take the case of your own acts of Parliament —take the case of the Tithe Commutation Act which you passed some seven or eight years ago. You assume in that act that a certain price of corn shall determine the amount of rent charge for which hereafter each tithepayer shall become responsible. You vary the price, it is true, year by year, and the amount of rent will vary with the price, but the original quantity will remain, the number of bushels, whatever may be the price which shall hereafter continue to be paid, and that appears to me a conclusive reason why, in approaching this subject, you should make with the greatest caution any change in the laws for the protection of corn. Take the case of Ireland. The noble Lord proposes to admit at once oats there at a duty of 3s. 2d. or 3s. 4d., I forget which. The right hon. Gentleman proposes to admit oats from all parts of the continent duty free. Does any one think that this would be either wise or just? Ireland having been in the habit of sending 3,000,000 quarters of grain annually to this country, would it be either politic or just at once, and without notice, that corn having been ground and sent here upon the faith of your own legislation, either to admit oats, barley, or wheat, the growth of the continent, into your markets perfectly free, or at such a duty as 3s. 2d.? If at the same time that you alter the Corn-laws, and attempt to make an arrangement respecting corn, you should deem it desirable to inquire into the laws which affect the importation of other commodities, I must say, that I should wish to substitute for a system of prohibition a system of protection, at such duties as would insure ample security to him who had hitherto flourished while relying on the system of prohibition, that his interests would not be lightly interfered with. Again, I find that in Ireland there is a positive prohibition to the importation of flour. I cannot maintain the continuance of that prohibition, if about to make a settlement of the Corn-laws. There again important interests are involved; and when I look to the vast and complicated interests generally which are involved in this question of the provision laws, I say, in the first instance, it is absolutely necessary, if you wish to act consistently, that you should adopt any measure you may take with the greatest circumspection and caution; and, secondly, that I am convinced, whatever may be the clamour of those who sincerely believe that there should be no import duties upon provisions, that he who does act with circumspection and caution, will, in the end, be more likely to succeed than he who inflicts great injustice by hasty and precipitate legislation. It is upon these principles that the Government have considered this question of the Corn-laws, and it is in pursuance of these principles that I have submitted to the House a measure which is denounced by the eager advocates for free trade as a perfect mockery and delusion, and by some even as an insult to the sufferings of the people, but which I, notwithstanding those condemnations, do believe to be a great improvement in the existing law, which I do believe to be a concession of protection which the agricultural interest can make without danger, and which I do believe to be a measure which will at the same time permit corn to be imported into this country on a better principle than that which, under the existing law, has hitherto regulated its importation. Let me, for a moment, examine the scale, or at least the leading principles of the scale, which I propose. It certainly does at the price of 50s. fix a duty of 20s.; but then that duty is, under no circumstances, to be increased. The noble Lord says, that it is a prohibitory duty. The noble Lord, however, will find it very difficult to apply a duty which will not, under certain circumstances, amount to a prohibitory duty. The noble Lord spoke much of the advantage of putting the United States of America on the same footing as the Baltic. He said that, the United States was a power with which we ought to endeavour to carry on an extensive commercial intercourse; that it contained immense plains bordered by rivers, which would afford a ready means for the conveyance of exports and imports; and that it would be of the greatest advantage to us to be able at all times to carry on a trade with that country. But the noble Lord also said that the cost of a quarter of American wheat when brought into Liverpool would be 47s. Now, considering the disadvantages under which the United States stands with reference to corn, I should have thought that at that price no duty ought to apply; but the noble Lord fixes a duty of 8s. upon corn from America at the price of 47s.; and that being so, I would ask, whether, when the price of English corn is at 50s., the noble Lord's fixed duty of 8s. would not, according to his own showing, amount to a prohibitory duty? It may be less a prohibitory duty than that which I propose. Yes; but that is not the question we are now examining. The noble Lord laid down the principle that there should be no prohibition, in order that there might be a constant importation from the United States; and I am endeavouring to prove, from the noble Lord's own showing—although in a degree my proposal may be more objectionable than his in the particular point in question—that when the price of corn was at 50s., his duty of 8s. would operate as a prohibitory duty upon American corn. I do propose a duty of 20s. when the price is under 51s.—a proposal, I am aware, to which objection exists on the other side. But, in making it, I stated, what I now repeat, that I did think when the price of grain was under 51s. in this country, that there could be no public evil in prohibiting the importation of foreign corn! that 20s. would be sufficiently effectual for that purpose; and I also said, what I now say again, that I thought a superfluous protection involved nothing but positive obloquy and mischief. I vindicate that amount of duty, not for the purpose of protecting the special interests of particular classes, but because I think it important to give to the farmer that encouragement which shall induce him to continue a system of improvement, by preventing a sudden import of corn when that corn is not required for home consumption. I think it is for the public advantage, as well as for the farmer's own peculiar interest, that I should tell him upon whose labours we are now depending for 45,000,000 of grain—knowing the effect that a sudden influx of corn must have when corn is sufficiently abundant at home for all the purposes of the consumer—I do say it is for the public advantage that I should say to him, "Continue your improvements; I cannot undertake to guarantee to you by legislation a particular price, but this I will say, that as long as corn is under 51s. you shall not be exposed to the importation of foreign corn." And now let us take the intermediate part of the scale—let us take it at 56s. or 57s. Here the argument is, that according to Mr. Meek's papers, it is impossible that foreign corn could come into competition with home produce. Now, a greater fallacy I never heard in my life than that which has been made use of to prove that proposition, and to justify those who used it in saying, that my scale is as defective as the existing one—that it stripped the present scale of some of its evident deformities, but yet that it gave the same degree of protection, or rather that it as effectually excluded foreign corn when foreign corn could be of any advantage. Gentlemen placing those papers before them argue in this way—they say that it appears from the Consuls' returns that the price of foreign wheat would be on the average 40s. 6d.; that the charge for conveyance would be 5s.; and that consequently foreign corn could not be introduced into the English market at a less price than 45s. 6d., which a duty of 16s., supposing the price of home corn to be 56s., would raise to a prohibitory price. Now, that is one of the greatest fallacies I ever heard. They add up together the entire prices given by the Consuls at all the different places, including Antwerp, where the price is 55s. 6d., and Rotterdam, where it is 55s., places where the price is entirely governed by the English market. The fair way to determine the question, when the price at home is 58s., 59s., or 60s., is to take those places from which foreign corn may be imported at the lowest price. By that means I will prove to you the utter absurdity of your mode of taking the averages. Supposing there are only two places from which corn can be brought—supposing that at Odessa wheat is 26s., and at Antwerp 56s. 5d., united these two prices make 82s. 5d.; divide them, and you have an average of 41s. 2½d. Now would it not be absurd for any man to argue that we are safe from the corn at Odessa because the average price of it, when united with that of Antwerp, was 41s. 2½d., at which price foreign corn could not be introduced. In what a miserable plight would that corn-merchant be who founded his speculations upon such a principle as that? The question then is, not what Odessa wheat may average in price when united to that of Antwerp, but what is the price of wheat at Odessa, what the charge for freight from Odessa, and what the price at which wheat can be brought into the English market from Odessa? I will take the case of Danish wheat. I think in determining whether foreign wheat can come in at a given price, it is important to consider the questions—first, as to the port from which that wheat is sent; and secondly, as to the quantity that can be exported from that port. Now what does Mr. Meek say with regard to Denmark? He says, The prices of corn in Denmark have, during the last twenty-five years, averaged—for wheat, 28s. 10d. per quarter; rye, 19s. 9d. per quarter; barley, 14s. per quarter; oats, 10s. 6d. per quarter. Considering the depression of the corn market during the greater part of that period, and that the prospect of a permanent sale of corn in England will be likely to render the continental markets more steady and more firm than they have hitherto been, it is probable that the prices, free on board, would not be much below the following quotations:—wheat, from 30s. to 31s. per imperial quarter; rye, from 22s. to 25s. per imperial quarter; barley from 16s. to 20s. per imperial quarter; oats from 12s. to 15s. And he adds that— In case of a regular and steady demand in England for foreign corn, the quantity produced in Denmark and Sleswick Holstein, might, without much difficulty, be considerably increased. And in passing a law regulating the importation of foreign corn, is it not wise to deliberate upon what may be the possible supply in future years? Is it not a wise principle of legislation not to take wholly the prices of corn now, but to consider what may be the increased improvements by railways or otherwise, what may be the effect of a regular demand, and what may be the diminished freights? Ought we not to take all those things into account when we propose to legislate, without ever having the opportunity of retracing our steps, at least so far as the agriculturists are concerned? Mr. Meek says, further, that The freight of wheat to the east coast of England, in ordinary times, varies from 3s. to 3s. 6d. per quarter in summer, and from 4s. 6d. to 5s. per quarter in autumn, and for the other sorts in proportion. And that The prices of corn per quarter paid in the interior are scarcely to be ascertained with any degree of accuracy. They vary considerably, almost each province, and even each town, delivering a different quality of grain. The prices that have been paid in the provinces during these latter years, so far as the same can be ascertained, appear not to have exceeded the following:—For wheat 23s. 6d. to, 29s. per quarter; for rye 17s. to 20s. per quarter; for barley 10s. 9d. to 15s. 6d. per quarter; for oats 8s. 6d. to 10s. 6d. And in 1841:—For wheat 35s.; rye 23s.; barley 16s. 6d.; oats 11s. And he adds that The freight of grain by water from the provincial ports to Copenhagen, Kiel, or Elsinore, may be computed at from 1s. 4d. to 1s. 8d. per quarter, adding to the cost of conveyance the expense of removing, warehousing, and turning the grain, putting it into condition, loss in measure, and shipping charges. The total expense at the port of shipment would amount to from 2s. to 2s. 6d. per quarter greater, on an average, for the several descriptions of grain. And thus many experienced persons in Denmark Are of opinion that if the trade in corn were made constantly open at a moderate duty, wheat and corn generally would be grown in Denmark to a much greater extent than it is at present. I think, then, that if I show that the price at Elsinore is 28s. 10d., and that the freight from Denmark does not exceed 4s. per quarter, I prove that, at least from Denmark, corn would be introduced into this country when the price is less than 61s. per quarter. But you will say the quantity grown in Denmark is insufficient to supply the wants of our population. Now, what does Mr. Meek say on this point? He tells us that the average export of wheat from Denmark is from 150,000 quarters to 200,000, in addition to 250,000 quarters of other grain; and Mr. Meek adds, that that quantity, great as it is, might be exceeded if corn were shipped from thence to any considerable extent—that is to say, 700,000 quarters of corn might be brought here in years of moderate growth. Then, I say, if prices are below 50s. in England, and there is a great quantity of surplus wheat in Denmark, do not discourage home production, do not chill the expectations and blight the hopes of your own farmers by permitting the Danish agriculturist to throw a quantity of his corn at a low rate of duty into your market, and so damage the prices of your own produce. It is on that principle of protection to your own growers that I found my measure. I cannot hope that this country will ever be entirely exempt from dependence to a certain extent on foreign supply. I do not doubt but that some corn must be imported, but what I say is, do not import corn to the injury of your own producers, but import it as a supplemental supply to fill up any deficiency in the products of your own soil. When you tell me that the habits of the people are formed in correspondence with their consumption of food—when you tell me that the comforts of the people are dependent to a great extent upon that supply, you only convince me that my proposition is a just one—that you ought to draw your supply mainly from your own soil, and not expose yourselves to the hostilities, to the caprice, or to the failure of the crops, of foreign countries. I tell you, if you do so, the time will come when you will repent it. When your wheat harvest is deficient, and you are suddenly obliged to place your reliance upon a foreign supply, you may find that that reliance is not a safe one, and that it would have been better to have promoted the growth of your own corn. I know that you think such a doctrine as that opposed to your principles of free trade; but in discussing a question like this—in considering that prices are more peculiarly affected by influences which fluctuate, and must of necessity be uncertain—I own it appears to me that the strict principles of free trade cannot be applied without danger to the interests of the community. But my main object is to show, that with respect to some countries, the scale of duty, as I have fixed it, between 54s. and 60s., will admit of the import of foreign corn, and of the application of your general principle. That application may not be to so great a degree as you desire, but it is infinitely greater than you believe. Now let us take the upper parts of the scale. I want to show you, by a comparison with any other hitherto proposed, that my scale is infinitely more beneficial to the consumer. Take the duty I propose to levy when wheat is between 64s. and 72s., a period which certainly indicates severe pressure upon the people. Let us compare my scale at these prices with other scales that have been submitted, remembering that my principle is, that above 60s. the interest of the consumer ought to be considered. Of course, the interest of the consumer ought to be considered at all times; but when prices are at that amount, what I contend for is, that then they ought to be specially considered, and that the interest of the farmer should be, in comparison, overlooked. Now, look at the scale of duties I propose to levy at these critical periods. And here I cannot help saying—I really must say—that I cannot understand how sensible and enlightened men, like some of the hon. Gentlemen opposite, can for a moment conceive that my scale is no improvement. How can they hold that I offer no benefits to the consumer? Why, just look at the scale I propose, and compare it with that at present existing. According to my proposition, when wheat is at 64s. the duty will be 8s.; the present duty is 22s. 8d. Can any one say that I do not relieve the consumer? When wheat is at 65s. I propose that the duty shall be 7s.; the present duty is 21s. 8d. I propose a 6s. duty on wheat at 66s.; the present duty is 20s. 8d. I propose that the 6s, duty shall continue until the price is at 68s., and then it diminishes 1s. upon every shilling the price rises. But you say that this scale offers no security that the holders of corn will not continue to hold. Can you deny that the inducement to hold is rendered infinitely less? Will there not be an inducement in the natural operation of commercial enterprise to bring the corn into the market, and sell it even when the duty is 6s. a quarter? Now, suppose the price of wheat to be 66s., at which price a duty of 6s, would be levied, that duty continuing until the price reaches 68s. Now, what would he the natural feeling of the holder of corn under such circumstances as these? Would he not say, it is better to realise at once than to wait until the price reaches 68s. Would he not argue that it might be dangerous to take the chance of a rise in the price, accompanied by a corresponding fall in the duty? He would naturally be disposed to think, that others might be importing, and that the consequence might be a diminution in the price, which would prevent him from throwing his wheat into the market with advantage. These calculations, I say, would no doubt enter into the importer's consideration, and influence his conduct; and, under such circumstances, it is my firm conviction, that corn would be brought in at the 6s. duty in such quantities as would afford a very great relief to the consumer, and a protection to the agriculturist from all the disarrangements which follow upon the sudden influx at a duty of ls. But now, having compared the probable operation of my scale with that at present existing, let us compare it with that proposed by Mr. Canning. What was Mr. Canning's scale? He proposed, that when wheat was 64s. the duty should be 12s; I fix the duty at 8s. I propose, that when wheat is 65s. the duty should be 7s.; Mr. Canning fixed it at 10s. When wheat is 66s., I propose a duty of 6s.; Mr. Canning proposed to impose a duty of 8s. Now, take the noble Lord's scheme. Compare the high prices under his proposal with the high prices under my scale of duties, and I am sure all reasonable persons will form the conclusion, that my proposal is much more advantageous for the consumer. From 64s. to 72s., the noble Lord proposes to levy a duty of 8s. According to my scale the duty at 70s. will be only 4s., whilst at 73s. it will be merely the nominal sum of 1s., the noble Lord's duty being 8s., unless he reduces his scale by the sudden diminution he spoke of the other night. Why, it is impossible not to to come to the conclusion, that of the two propositions mine is infinitely the more advantageous to the consumer. It is impossible to draw any other inference, and I beg to say, that that inference is drawn by those who are better judges upon this subject than we ourselves. I ask you to judge, not by the apprehensions of the agriculturists, or the denunciations of the free-trader, but to examine the reports of those who are most conversant with the corn trade. Why should there be a universal combination on their part to speak favourably of this scale? The hon. Member for Coventry, by whose speech of last night I was much amused, represented all those dealers in corn as innocent doves, whom it is very easy to deceive. The hon. Gentleman predicted, that under my scale there would be at first a great relief; he admitted, that if it should pass into a law, great many holders of foreign grain would not keep up their corn in the hopes of pouring it in at a duty of 8s., 7s., or 6s., and that the pressure on the consumer would be diminished. If the hon. Gentleman, then, will only let my bill pass into a law, I have his admission, that there would be a great relief to the trade. But then the hon. Gentleman saw great danger of having his argument refuted by this admission, and he said, These corn-dealers will be deluded at first; they will not understand the operation of the new law; but the time will very shortly come when they will be aware of the advantages they may gain by operating so as to lower the duties, and then do not calculate that you will not again have the same frauds repeated. Why, was there ever anything so absurd as to suppose that a corn dealer will not have a pretty good notion of what is for his own advantage? Every speech hear in which a gentleman is betrayed into a fit of candour, contains some sentence from which I can perceive, that amid all the loud denunciations which are indulged in, there is a confident assurance on the part of the speaker that my scale is an immense improvement. And those attempts which are made to deprive me and my plan of the credit of the advantage which will result from it, if in two months after the passing of the law great relief will ensue to the consumer, by showing that I am hoodwinking and deceiving the dealer in foreign corn, only show to what shifts intelligent gentlemen are reduced in order to find in it matter of censure. I received this morning from Liverpool the circular of one of, those unfortunate gentlemen who are so easily deceived, dated Corn-Exchange, Tuesday, February, 15, in which it is said, The new scale must be considered a very important change. Compare the rates at which corn can be imported into Liverpool under the present scale, and under that which is proposed. The present price of wheat on an average of six weeks is stated in the circular at 61s. 10d. a quarter. The duty which the holder of foreign corn would have to pay at present is 25s. 8d.; under the new scale it would be 11s. On barley the present duty is 18s.; by the new bill it would be 9s. On oats the duty is now 16s. 9d; by the new bill it would be 6s. On rye it is 9s. 6d.; by the new bill it would be 2s. 6d. On beans it is 18s. 3d.; by the new bill it would be 8s. 6d. On peas it is 16s. 9d.; by the new bill it would be 7s. 6d. This is the scale which is said to be a miserable delusion and deception on the public when prices are high, and to offer no advantage to the commercial interests. Then as to flour, the article in which the Americans are so much interested, this circular states, that at the present moment the import duty on American flour is 15s. 5¼d. per barrel, whereas under the new scale it would be 6s. 6d. But then it is said there will be no real advantage in this, for I take no precautions against the practice of frauds on the averages. I say it is impossible that Gentlemen can seriously entertain this opinion if they will examine the figures. I should ask any rational man who examines my scale to say whether it is consistent with truth and sound argument to assert that I am practising a miserable delusion upon the public, and that I give no advantage to regularity in the trade. Nothing can be so various as the opinions by which I am assailed one after the other. Some disinterested persons tell me to abandon the scheme and retain the present law. No doubt, it would be better to have such a great grievance to complain of. That is what some wiseacres advise, in the hope that public indignation will be directed against me. I think I take a better part in attempting an improvement. Then the noble Lord (J. Russell) advises me to propose an 8s. duty, in the hope of allaying all opposition from every quarter. Do not disturb, says the noble Lord, unless you settle. The retention of old customs is, according to Lord Bacon, very unwise; but the disturbance of old customs, unless you settle and arrange peaceably and amicably, is more unwise still! The noble Lord tried an 8s. duty last year. If he had proposed that duty now, does he hope he could carry it with satisfaction and contentment to all parties? Let the noble Lord sound to the detachment of allies who hang upon his left flank, and who, although they may vote with him, have not, I think, aided him very materially in the discussion. They seem to me to have shown more innocence during its progress, because they feel that those high and enlarged principles of which they think themselves to be advocates are not at stake. But supposing the noble Lord sure of a majority for his duty of 8s., does he think that would be a permanent and satisfactory settlement of the question? If the noble Lord had carried it last year, this year as a Minister he would have come forward to amend it. Light has broken in upon him now which he then did not perceive; I speak it not to his dispraise. I ventured to warn him last year not to be too confident of maintaining an 8s. duty when prices rise high, and that he might be certain that a pressure would be made upon him to induce him to abandon it. He and others then thought an 8s. duty could be rigidly maintained, but this year, in order to calm apprehension, he is willing to provide the means of dispensing with the duty when prices rise. Now, I must say that the Corn-law which involves in itself a self-executory principle, and is enabled to work without calling in the intervention of Parliament or the Privy Council, has a great advantage over one which requires the interference of the executive for the purpose of regulating commercial duties. Therefore, if the noble Lord tells me that many on his side are dissatisfied with my plan, and that the disturbance of old customs is, according to the sage advice of Lord Bacon, an unwise thing, unless you make a permanent and satisfactory settlement, he must, I think, abandon the hope of acting in strict conformity with the advice of that philosopher if he supposes that an 8s. duty will secure him from hearing again on the subject of the Corn-laws. The House will perhaps agree with me that it was necessary for me to vindicate my scale from some of the imputations which have unjustly, as I think, been cast upon it. I know well the difficulties which attend all arguments and statements on this subject; and when I try to answer unreasonable objections by showing that foreign corn may be imported under my scale, I am perfectly conscious that I fortify the objections of those who are adverse to any change. I know I cannot stir one step in a matter on which opinions are so divided without exposing myself to this. If I try to calm an apprehension here, I see a note taken on the other side; if I try to answer an unreasonable objection there, I am met, not by obstacles, but by the intimation of alarm on this side; and it is whispered from one to the other that I am conceding too much. This is inseparable from the task I have undertaken. I do believe that in a mere party sense it would have been wiser for me to say—I will stand by the Corn-laws, and resist all change. Some tell me that all the change required is an amendment of the averages. But other considerations other responsibilities, press upon those who are charged with the administration of affairs. I stated before, and I repeat, that in considering this question, the arrangements which ought to be made consistently with enlarged and comprehensive views—avoiding disturbance of capital embarked in agriculture, and the clouding of the prospects of worldly prosperity and social happiness of those who derive their subsistence from land—looking again to the state of commerce, to the advantage, when there is to be a supply of corn, of so introducing that corn that there may be the least disturbance of the monetary system of the country, the greatest approach to regular commercial dealings, the greatest encouragement consistent with due protection to agriculture, to manufacturing and commercial industry—having to consider all these questions—having to weigh their relative and comparative importance, the measure upon which we have determined is that which we conscientiously believe to be upon the whole the most consistent with the general interests of the country. We did not confer with agricultural supporters for the purpose of insuring their concurrence—we did not permit the abatement of it in this particular or in that, in order to insure its success. I gave a proof, I think, that I was ready to incur some risk to the Government by persisting in advising that which I believe to be for the best. Upon these principles we shall continue to act. We shall expect, no doubt, from some, violent opposition; we shall fear from others extravagant apprehensions; our reward will be the consciousness that, we have acted on the principles which we believe to be right; our hope and confidence in success will he, that when the first storm of passion may have passed away, and when clear judgment and reason, and the examination of the documents which we have presented, shall mitigate unjust apprehensions on the part of the agricultural body, then, though extremes may not be reconciled and may continue irreconcileable, yet, after the old practice in this country, reason and moderation will gravitate towards that which is just; and, supported by that reason, supported by those who may differ as to degree, but who agree in thinking this a positive substantial improvement, we entertain a confident hope that we shall triumph over all obstacles, and have the satisfaction, without injuring the agricultural, and with benefit to the commercial and manufacturing, interests, of amending the laws which regulate the import of provisions into this country.

Viscount Palmerston

said, at the close of the last Session of Parliament I ventured to express the apprehension I entertained that the measure which the Government announced their intention to propose in the present Session of Parliament would not satisfy the expectations of the country—that it would be merely some re-adjustment of the sliding scale, or some change in the central pivot—and I took the liberty of saying, that such a measure would give satisfaction to none. The measure proposed by the right hon. Baronet has justified the apprehensions which I entertained, and has realised the feelings which I then took the liberty of expressing. After five months' deliberation, after ransacking the continent for information, the Government has now come forward with a measure, which, I take leave to say, is at least imperfect and incomplete for the purpose, and which has justly been denounced by the noble Lord near me, in that terse and epigramatic language of which he is so able a master, as a measure that disturbs everything, and settles nothing. What has been the result of the proposition of the right hon. Baronet? It has been that while on the one hand the Government has dissatisfied hon. Gentlemen on this side of the House, on the other hand also it has displeased the great bulk of his own friends [" No, no!"]. I think that the truth of this assertion is to be found in the silence with which hon. Gentlemen on that side of the House received the speech of the right hon. Baronet the other night, a silence not only expressive, but eloquent. The right hon. Baronet has himself admitted that this measure gives almost universal dissatisfaction. He has described it in a very lively manner—he has justified the course which the Government have taken, upon what they consider their sense of duty, but he has plainly admitted that the measure is not one which has met with the approbation which he wished for. The Government must have taken their stand upon the law as it is, if, as they assured the House on a former occasion, they thought that it was a good measure, and one which it was inexpedient to alter. If they had taken that course, they would no doubt, have been supported by the cordial voice of the great bulk of this House [" No, no!"]. To have taken that course would, I have no doubt, have secured the adoption of their plan, and would, perhaps, have been for the immediate interests of party. Another mode of proceeding, was that dictated by a belief that the state of the country required a change of these laws. If they were desirous of considering the feelings of the people, and of attempting to apply a remedy to the distresses of which we hear so much, they might have taken a bold course—they might have disregarded the opinion of those around them, and, supported by the recent information which they have obtained, and disregarding the taunts of those who disapprove of such a course, they might have recommended a practical freedom in the trade in corn. Such a course, no doubt, would have been opposed by many of those who now support them. There would have been a temporary secession of some of their ordinary supporters, but they would have obtained support from other quarters. They would have carried their measure, and that course would have been best for the country, as well as for the permanent interests of the Government. They had taken neither course. It was not given to man, much less to men in office, to please all parties but it had been given to the present Government to displease almost every one. I am aware, however, that the measure of the Government will be carried. I have no doubt that it will be carried, and that though few hon. Members opposite will be found to express their acquiescence in it, they will be found voting with the Government. Now I am against this scale, I am against the other scale; and admitting if you will, with the right hon. Baronet, that the scale he now proposes is a mitigation in some respects of the scale as it now exists, though it is liable to some objections which the right hon. Baronet overlooked—because, when the right hon. Baronet says that his proposition affords less scope for gambling, and such like speculations, than has hitherto existed, I think he is mistaken —I believe that it is not calculated to meet the evil which is complained of. The scale of the right hon. Baronet arrives at the vanishing point by a smaller mitigation than the former scale, but it affords, perhaps, an additional temptation to persons to contrive to raise the price to that at which the duty vanishes. Because, under that scale persons so combining would feel that if they should not raise the price, a heavy duty must be paid, whereas by the present scale, if they fail in getting it up to the vanishing point, the failure can but little add to the duty which they will have to pay, and, therefore, the House will see that the proposed scale does not afford the advantage which the right hon. Baronet expects. I have no hesitation in saying, that I am for a fixed duty. I am not an advocate for a fixed duty upon the principle upon which those who have spoken support the sliding scale—upon the principle of a protection to agriculture; but I am an advocate for it upon the general principle that foreign corn is a proper object of taxation. I am sure, if we entered into a calculation as to the average of protection which should be distributed between the agricultural, manufacturing, and commercial interests, we should get into a labyrinth of difficulties from which there would be no escape. I do not agree with an opinion expressed by the right hon. Baronet the Member for Dorchester, in a speech which he made to his constituents a short time ago, when he held a doctrine which was repudiated that night by the right hon. Baronet at the head of the Government, and stated that the sliding scale should be so constructed that the growers of corn should not only have protection in years of plenty against low prices, but that in times of scarcity it should insure them against risk for their bad crops. Was not this nothing more nor less than to insure them against the contingencies of the seasons? You do not do this in any other trade. You do not call upon the merchant and tell him that you will insure him against any loss of cargo by the accidents of sea, or for other deteriorations which the property they are bringing home may sustain. In case any articles of commerce were wanting in one place, the traders were permitted to send to another for it, and its free entrance into this country was not forbidden in order that the price might be raised, and that certain parties may be compensated. I object to the application of this principle to the agricultural interest. I hold that the landlords and the cultivators of the soil should calculate against loss like persons engaged in other pursuits, and make allowance for the contingencies of the seasons. I am not the advocate for a fixed duty for the reasons given in favour of a protecting duty by the right hon. Baronet, that the farmer and cultivator of the soil should be protected when the price was below a certain point, and when prices were above it that the consumer should be looked to. I contend for the principle, that you are justified in levying taxation for the purposes of revenue only; therefore, I do not see why the importation of corn from abroad should not take place when you levy such a duty as not to interfere or impede an abundance of supply. Such being my views, I object to the sliding scale; and I must say, that throughout the whole of the speech of the right hon. Baronet on the former occasion, as well as on the present evening, I do not remember to have heard any argument in favour of a sliding scale, in contradistinction to a fixed duty, and certainly no argument for the proposed scale, or against the existing one. The right hon. Baronet, on making his proposition to the House, stated that when it appeared expedient to make an alteration in the Corn-laws, that the subject should be introduced in the speech from the Throne, and that this should be followed by a prompt explanation of the proposed measure, and stated why this was not an unfitting time for the determination of the question. But, at the same time, he omitted to state to the House the evils of the present scale, and why it was expedient for the Government to alter it at the present time. Was this accidental? No, I do not believe it. The right hon. Gentleman is too experienced a debater, and had been too much accustomed to conflicts of this nature, to deal with hidden weapons; but he must have well known that any argument that he could have adduced in order to show that the present system worked ill, and that, therefore, it was desirable to make a change in it, would have told against his present scale. It would have been manifest that any argument which he urged against the present scale applied, in principle at least, against the proposition which he now makes. I say, therefore, it was on this ground that the right hon. Baronet abstained from stating any reasons which induced the Government to propose to make a change in the present law. If the right hon Baronet wished to conciliate the agriculturists, and, at the same time, to relieve the distress of the country, he stated those matters which were not reasons for the proposed alterations. He stated, that the distress which existed so extensively, did not arise from the operation of the present system of Corn-laws, and that the alteration which he proposed, would not do much good or much harm, and the only reason he gave for making the change, was, that the agriculturists had a superfluity of protection, and that, therefore, they could, without any very great loss, make a sacrifice of this superfluity, in consequence of the sufferings of the other classes of the community. I contend, that a sliding scale, modify it as you will, contains in itself fundamental principles which render it a much less expedient mode of keeping up the object of the Corn-laws, than a fixed duty, supposing that fixed duty always to be moderate in its amount. What we proposed last year, was a fixed duty of 8s. a-quarter; but the right hon. Baronet has this night almost convinced me, that this was too high, and that such an amount would be almost as prohibitory as the scale which he proposed. I do not admit this; but what I contend for is, that the duty should be fixed and known, and that it should not be allowed to vary with the rise or fall of prices in the market. If a moderate fixed duty was established, you would have a complete change in the trade altogether—you would have an entirely different system of transactions in the corn-market; for instead of gambling transactions, you would establish a sound and advantageous trade; and, instead of the merchant hurrying at every rise in price to the foreign market on the continent—for the distant markets are now hardly touched—and thus at once enhancing the price of corn, you would establish a steady and well-regulated barter, which would at the same time supply your wants and open new fields for the consumption of the produce of your manufacturing industry. Under such an arrangement, the merchant would make his arrangements for buying a supply of corn in those places where it was cheapest, and would bring it home at a period when he thought, that it could be best disposed of, both to the country and to himself. Above all, you would extend greatly your commercial relations with the United States. Commerce would not be carried on between the two countries on the uncertain footing, that it was at present, and occasioning a constant confusion by the flowing of bullion from one country to the other; but there would be an uniform trade by our exchange of manufactures on the one band, for corn on the other. What was the state of the corn-trade as it stood? No man could tell from week to week, or from month to month, what to do, or what operations to embark in. The merchant felt he was obliged to wait until a bad season raised the price of wheat in the home-market. He then went to the nearest market, where he thought, that he could get a ready supply of corn. But did he succeed in getting a ready supply in the foreign ports on the continent? No; for no foreign capitalist would purchase wheat, and lock it up in warehouses, on the uncertain chance of such a demand; he would not run the risk of locking up his capital by the purchase of corn to store up for the contingent demand of the English market, at the end of, perhaps, two, three, or four years, for during that time, his capital must be idle, and remain unproductive in his hands. The English merchant went where he believed he could get a supply of corn, namely, one of the great sea-ports of the continent; but he seldom or never could meet with a supply of corn in such a place. at the moment, for not much more corn was stored, than was required for the people on the spot. For the most part, corn was grown at a distance from those ports, and being a bulky article, it took a considerable time to bring it down for exportation. The merchant was in a hurry, and feared that others from different quarters would get the better of him, and that there would be such an efflux of corn into the home-market, within a short time, as materially to lower prices. The consequence was the necessity of purchasing at a disadvantage, and there was a great rise of prices in the ports on the continent, and if you pay the foreigner much more for his corn than you would do, if the trade was at all regular, a great deal of money was necessarily thrown away. If, then, there was a fixed duty, it would be the means of producing a revenue to the country, instead of our being exposed to constant loss, as at present. Again, you must pay a higher freight for your shipping, to bring corn from the continent, for the merchant was obliged to take those vessels on the spot at almost any charge, and of course those for the most part would be foreign ships. There fore your shipping interest suffers; whereas, with a regular trade and barter, British ships would go out with cargoes of manufactures, and come back with cargoes of corn, to the profit of the British instead of the foreign shipowner. And, then, as to the arrangement for payment. You cannot send your commodities to a foreign consumer unless you take in payment what he has to give. If you do not take his corn, except perhaps once in four or five years, you can have no means of paying with your goods for that corn when you want it. You must, therefore, send out bullion for that corn. You must take it from the Bank, and then comes the derangement of your currency, Your currency must be restricted, and panic, distress, and bankruptcy follow. Does any man think that landowners and farmers do not suffer in those common convulsions which agitate all the families and disturb all the property in the country? I venture to say that upon the most long-sighted regard to their own interests, those engaged in the cultivation of land and the owners of the soil would prefer a system which would relieve them from those perpetually recurring panics and distresses, even if it tended—and I do not think it would tend —to a temporary sacrifice of their annual income. These are the evils of the sliding scale with regard simply to the internal interests of the country, and with regard to the interest of persons engaged in commerce. But beyond that, this law affects your relations with almost all foreign countries. When you ask them to make treaties of commerce with you, you are met by taunts about your tariff. You are told "We cannot come to an understanding about the admission of manufactures, because you do not take the produce by which alone those manufactures can be paid for." Then you are gradually excluded by retaliating duties from different markets to which otherwise you might have free and constantly increasing access. Why, Sir, in this way your manufacturing industry is cramped and crippled. I may be told that, in spite of these difficulties, the all-conquering energies of the British people do surmount these obstacles, and your manufactures and commerce do continue, and I trust will continue annually to increase. But it is no answer to me, to tell me that, in spite of difficulties, you export annually a greater quantity of manufactures. If that be so, then I tell you, in reply, that you forego a positive and large increase of commerce, which you might, by adopting our principle, secure to yourself. I say that these are the evils of the sliding scale. To this no answer whatever has been given, that t have beard, by any person who has spoken in the course of this debate. We are told, indeed, that this question is to be considered not merely in its commercial, but also in its political bearings; and although the right hon. Baronet partly repudiated the principle, or, at least, qualified it in his speech to-night, we have been repeatedly told that this great country ought to be independent of foreign nations for its supplies of food. I venture to say, that notwithstanding the right hon. Baronet has admitted considerable exceptions to that principle, many will vote in the division with him to-night who hold that doctrine, and arc influenced by it in their decision. Why, what a childish doctrine is this? Independent of foreign nations for its supply of food!—ia nation in which several millions of men live by foreign commerce calling itself independent of foreign nations for the means of subsistence for its people. Why, Sir, those who depend on foreign commerce for the means by which they buy their bread, are, to all practical purposes, as dependent on foreign nations for food, as if the food which they bought was grown on a foreign soil. A man many starve in the midst of plenty, if he has not the means to purchase subsistence. Your fields may be filled with luxuriant harvests, and yet the face of the starving manufacturer may grow pale with pining famine. There was a period of the greatest distress in Ireland—when the people were dying of want, and when, at the same time, cargoes of wheat were leaving the ports to supply the markets of England; the people had not the means of purchasing the food, and some of them perished with hunger, while food—I was going to say an abundance of food—was leaving the country. Sir, I contend it is a perfect fallacy to say that a country, in which a large portion of the people subsist by foreign commerce, whose wages, the means of purchasing their food, depend upon foreigners, or the productions of foreigners—for if foreigners did not produce they could not buy—it is, I say, a perfect fallacy to call such a people independent of foreigners, or to think, by any arrange-meat or contrivance, to give them such independence. But, sir, there are larger grounds on which this doctrine ought to be repudiated by this House. Why is the earth on which we live divided into zones and climates? Why, I ask, do different countries yield different productions to people experiencing similar wants? Why are they intersected with mighty rivers—the natural highways of nations? Why are lands the most distant from each other, brought almost into contact by that very ocean which seems to divide them? Why, Sir, it is that man may be dependent upon man. It is that the exchange of commodities may be accompanied by the extension and diffusion of knowledge—by the interchange of mutual benefits engendering mutual kind feelings—multiplying and confirming friendly relations. It is, that commerce may freely go forth, leading civilisation with one hand, and peace with the other, to render mankind happier, wiser, better. Sir, this is the dispensation of Providence—this is the decree of that power which created and disposes the universe; but in the face of it, with arrogant, presumptuous folly, the dealers in restrictive duties fly, fettering the in-born energies of man, and setting up their miserable legislation instead of the great standing laws of nature. Sir, I am convinced, whatever may be the result of this night's debate, that reason will prove more powerful than error. I am satisfied that the truth is strong enough to sweep away the cobwebs of fallacy by which it is attempted to entangle it. There may be some delay before the consummation that I desire shall arrive. There may be an interval of much and deep suffering felt by millions. I trust they will bear that suffering with patience. I trust they will look to the gradual, but I hope, speedy diffusion of enlightened principles on this question. The seeds of good which have been sown in these discussions will not he slow to ripen and bear fruit. The Government has made one step, though a small one, in the course of sound policy. Yes, they have broken ground—they have quitted their entrenchments. I trust, that having once got them to move down from their fortress, they will meet us on the plain, and, though their first movements may be attended with a temporary success—we may be defeated now, of course—I do not look to anything at present—I know very well the strength of your majority, but I hope and trust, I confidently expect, that at no distant period the mind of this country will be so far enlightened on the subject, that the same deference to public opinion, which has wrung this reluctant concession from the Government, will finally extort from them an approximation, if not a full and complete adoption, of the sound principles of legislation on this all-important subject.

The question was put as follows:— That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair.

Amendment proposed, to leave out from the word "That" to the end of the question, in order to add the words, This House, considering the evils which have been caused by the present Corn-laws, and especially by the fluctuations of the graduated or sliding scale, is not prepared to adopt the measure of her Majesty's Government, which is founded upon the same principles, and is likely to be attended by similar results.

Question put, That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the question.

The House divided:—Ayes 349; Noes 226: Majority 123.

List of the AYES.
Acland, Sir T. D.	Bodkin, W. H.
Acland, T. D.	Bodkin, J. J.
Ackers, J.	Boldero, H. G.
Acton, Col.	Borthwick, P.
Adare, Visct.	Botfield, B.
Adderley, C. B.	Bowes, J.
Alexander, N.	Bradshaw, J.
Alford, Visct.	Bramston, T. W.
Allix, J. P.	Broadley, H.
Antrobus, E.	Broadwood, H.
Archdall, M.	Brodie, W. B.
Arkwright, G.	Brownrigg, J. S.
Ashley, Lord	Bruce, Lord E.
Ashley, hon. H.	Bruce, C. L. C.
Astell, W.	Bruen, Col.
Attwood, J.	Buck, L. W.
Attwood, M.	Buckley, E.
Bagge, W.	Buller, Sir J. Y.
Bagot, hon. W.	Bunbury, T.
Bailey, J.	Burrell, Sir C. M.
Bailey, J. jun.	Burroughes, H. N.
Baillie, Colonel	Campbell, Sir H.
Baillie, H. J.	Campbell, A.
Baird, W.	Carnegie, hon. Capt.
Baldwin, C. B.	Cayley, E. S.
Balfour, J. M.	Chapman, A.
Bankes, G.	Charteris, hon. F.
Baring, hon. W. B.	Chelsea, Viscount
Barneby, J.	Chetwode, Sir J.
Barrington, Visct.	Cholmondeley, hn. H.
Baskerville, T. B. M.	Christmas, W.
Bateson, Sir R.	Christopher R. A.
Beckett, W.	Chute, W. L. W.
Bell, M.	Clayton, Sir W. R.
Benett, J.	Clayton, R. R.
Bentinek, Lord G.	Clerk, Sir G.
Beresford, Capt.	Clive, hon. R. H.
Beresford, Major	Cochrane, A.
Blackburne, J. I.	Cockburn, rt. hn. Sir G.
Blackstone, W. S.	Codrington, C. W.
Blake, M. J.	Cole, hon. A. H.
Blakemore, R.	Collett, W. R.

Colville, C. R.	Hale, R. B.
Compton, H. C.	Halford, H.
Connolly, Col.	Hamilton, C. J. B.
Coote, Sir C. H.	Hamilton, J.
Copeland, Mr. Aid.	Hamilton, W. J.
Corry, right lion. H.	Hamilton, Lord C.
Courtenay, Viscount	Hanmer, Sir J.
Cresswell, B.	Harcourt, G. G.
Cripps, W.	Hardinge, rt. hn. Sir H.
Crosse, T. B.	Hardy, J.
Damer, hon. Colonel	Hawkes, T.
Darby, G.	Hayes, Sir E.
Dawney, hon. W. H.	Heathcote, G. J.
Denison, E. B.	Heathcote, Sir W.
Dick, Q.	Heneage, G. H. W.
Dickinson. F. H.	Heneage, E.
D'Israeli, B.	Henley, J. W.
Dodd, G.	Hepburn, Sir T. B.
Douglas, Sir H.	Herbert, hon. S.
Douglas, Sir C. E.	Hill, Sir R.
Douglas, J. D. S.	Hillsborough, Earl of
Douro, Marquess of	Hinde, J. H.
Dowdeswell, W.	Hodgson, F.
Drummond, H. H.	Hodgson, R.
Duffield, T.	Hogg, J. W.
Duncombe, hon. A.	Holmes, hn. W. A'Ct.
Duncombe, hon. O.	Houldsworth, T.
Du Pre, C. G.	Hope, hon. C.
East, J. B.	Hope, A.
Eaton, R.J.	Hope, G. W.
Egerton, W. T.	Hornby, J.
Egerton, Sir P.	Hoskins, K.
Egerton, Lord F.	Howard, hon. H.
Eliot, Lord	Hughes, W. B.
Emlyn, Viscount	Inglis, Sir R. H.
Escott, B.	Irton, S.
Estcourt, T. G. B.	James, Sir W. C.
Farnham, E. B.	Jermyn, Earl
Fellowes, E,	Jocelyn, Visct.
Ferrand, W. B.	Johnson, W. G.
Filmer, Sir E.	Johnstone, Sir J.
Fitzroy, Captain	Johnstone, H.
Fleming, J. W.	Jolliffe, Sir W. G. H.
Follett, Sir W. W.	Jones, Captain
Ffolliott, J.	Kelburne, Visct.
Forbes, W.	Kemble, H.
Forester, hon. G.C.W.	Kirk, P.
Forman, T. S.	Knatchbull, rt. h. Sir E.
Fuller, A. E.	Knight, H. G.
Gaskell, J. Milnes	Knight, F. W.
Gladstone, rt. hn. W. E.	Knightley, Sir C.
Godson, R.	Law, hon. C. E.
Gordon, hon. Capt,	Lawson, A;
Gore, M.	Legh, G. C.
Gore, W. O.	Leicester, Earl of
Gore, W. R. O.	Lennox, Lord A.
Goring, C.	Liddell, hon. H. T.
Goulburn, rt. hon. H.	Lincoln, Earl of
Graham, rt. hon. Sir J.	Litton, E.
Granby, Marquess of	Lockhart, W.
Grant, Sir A. C.	Long, W.
Greenall, P.	Lopes, Sir R,
Greene, T.	Lowther, J. H.
Gregory, W. H.	Lowther, hon Col.
Grimsditch, T.	Lyall, G.
Grimston, Viscount	Lygon, hon. General
Grogan, E.	Mackenzie, T.

Mackenzie, W. F.	Russell, J. D. W.
Mackinnon, W. A.	Ryder, hon. G. D.
Maclean, D.	Sanderson, R.
MacGeachy, F. A.	Sandon, Visct.
Mahon, Viscount	Scarlett, hon. R. C.
Mainwaring, T.	Scott, hon. F.
Manners, Lord C. S.	Seymour, Sir H. B.
Manners, Lord J.	Shaw, right hon. F,
March, Earl of	Sheppard, T.
Marsham, Viscount	Shirley, E. J.
Martin, C. W.	Shirley, E. P.
Marton, G.	Sibthorp, Col.
Martyn, C.C.	Smith, A.
Master, T. W. C.	Smollett, A.
Masterman, J.	Smyth, Sir G.
Maunsell, T. P.	Smythe, hon. G.
Meynell, Captain	Somerset, Lord G.
Miles, P. W. S,	Somerton, Viscount
Miles, W.	Sotheron, T. H. S.
Milnes, R. M.	Stanley, Lord
Mitchell. T. A.	Stanley, E.
Mordaunt, Sir J.	Stewart, J.
Morgan, O.	Stuart, H.
Morgan, C.	Sturt, H. C.
Mundy, E. M.	Sutton, hon. H. M.
Murray, C. R. S.	Taylor, T. E.
Neeld, J.	Taylor, J. A.
Neeld, J.	Tennent, J. E.
Neville, R.	Thesiger, F.
Newry, Visct.	Thompson, Mr. Aid,
Nicholl, rt. hon. J.	Thornhill, G.
Norreys, Lord	Tollemache, hn. F. J.
Northland, Viscount	Tollemache, J.
O'Brien, A. S.	Tomline, G.
Ossulston, Lord	Trench, Sir F. W.
Owen, Sir J.	Trevor, hon. G. R.
Packe, C. W.	Trollope, Sir J.
Paget, Lord W.	Trotter, J.
Packington, J. S.	Tumor, C.
Palmer, R.	Tyrell, Sir J. T.
Patten, J. W.	Vere, Sir C. B.
Peel, rt. hon. Sir R.	Verner, Colonel
Pemberton, T,	Vernon, G. H.
Pigot, Sir R.	Villiers, Visct.
Plumptre, J. P.	Vivian, J. E.
Polhill, F.	Waddington, H. S.
Pollington, Visct.	Walsh, Sir J. B.
Pollock, Sir F.	Welby, G. E.
Powell, Colonel	Westenra, hon. H. R.
Praed, W. T,	Whilmore, T. C.
Price, R.	Wilbraham, hn. R. B.
Pringle, A.	Wilmot, Sir J. E.
Pusey, P.	Wodehouse, E.
Rae, rt. hon. Sir W.	Wood, Col.
Ramsay, W. R.	Wood, Col. T.
Rashleigh, W.	Worsley,Lord
Reade, W. M.	Wortley, hon. J. S.
Reid, Sir J. R.	Wyndham, Col.
Repton, G. W. J.	Wyndham, W.
Richards, R.	Wynn, rt. hn. C. W. W.
Rolleston, Col.	Wynn, Sir W. W.
Rose, rt. hon. Sir G.	Yorke, hon. E. T.
Round, C. G.	Young, J.
Round, J.	Young, Sir W.
Rous, hon. Captain	TELLERS.
Rushbrooke, Col.	Fremantle, Sir T.
Russell, C,	Baring, H.

List of the Noes.
Acheson, Visct.	Ellis, W.
Aglionby, H. A.	Elphinstone, H.
Aldam, W.	Esmonde, Sir T.
Anson, hon. Col.	Evans, W.
Armstrong, Sir A.	Ewart, W.
Bannerman, A.	Ferguson, Col.
Barclay, D.	Ferguson, Sir R. A.
Baring, rt. hon. F. T.	Fielden, J.
Barnard, E. G.	Fitzalan, Lord
Bell, J.	Fitzroy, Lord C.
Berkeley, hon. C.	Fitzwilliam, hn. G.W.
Berkeley, hon Capt.	Forster, M.
Berkeley, hon. F.	Fox, C. R.
Berkeley, hon. G. F.	French, F.
Bernal, R.	Gibson, T. M.
Blake, M.	Gill, T.
Blake, Sir V.	Gordon, Lord F.
Blewitt, R. J.	Gore, hon. Capt.
Bowring, Dr.	Granger, T. C.
Bridgeman, H.	Grey, rt. hon. Sir G.
Brocklehurst, J.	Grosvenor, Lord R.
Brotherton, J.	Guest, Sir J.
Browne, R. D.	Hall, Sir B.
Browne, hon. W.	Harford, S.
Bryan, G.	Harris, J. Q.
Bulkeley, Sir R. B.W.	Hastie, A.
Buller, C.	Hatton, Capt. V.
Buller, E,	Hawes, B.
Busfield, W.	Hay, Sir A. L.
Byng, G.	Hayter, W. G.
Byng, rt. hon. G. S.	Heathcoat, J.
Carew, hon. R. S.	Heron, Sir R.
Cavendish, hon. C. C,	Hill, Lord M.
Cavendish, hon. G. H.	Hindley, C.
Chapman, B.	Hobhouse, rt. Hn. Sir J.
Childers, J. W.	Holdsworth, J.
Clay, Sir W.	Horsman, E.
Clive, E. B.	Howard, hn. C. W. G.
Cobden, R.	Howard, hn. E. G. G.
Colborne. hn. W. N. R..	Howard, hn. J. K.
Colebrooke, Sir T. E.	Howard, Lord
Collins, W,	Howard, Sir R.
Cowper, hon. W. F.	Humphery, Mr. Aid.
Craig, W. G.	Hutt, W.
Currie, R. I	Jardine, W.
Curteis, H. B.	Jervis, J.
Dalmeny, Lord	Johnson, Gen.
Dalrymple, Capt.	Johnstone, A.
Dashwood, G. H.	Labouchere, rt. hn. H.
Dawson, hon. T. V.	Lambton, H.
Denison, J. E.	Langston, J. H.
Dennistoun, J.	Langton, W. G.
D'Eyncourt, right hon.	Larpent, Sir G. de H.
C. T.	Layard, Capt.
Divett, E.	Leader, J. T.
Duff, J.	Loch, J.
Duke, Sir J.	Macaulay, rt. hn. T. B.
Duncan, Visct.	M'Taggart, Sir J.
Duncan, G.	Mangles, R. D.
Duncombe, T.	Marjoribanks, S.
Dundas, Capt. D.	Marshall, W.
Dundas, D.	Marsland, H.
Dundas, hon. J. C.	Martin, J.
Easthope, Sir J.	Maule, rt. hon. F.
Ebrington, Viscount	Mitcalfe, H.

Morris, D.	Sombre, D. O. D.
Morrison, J.	Somers, J. P.
Mostyn, hn. E. M. L.	Somerville, Sir W. M.
Muntz, G. F.	Stanley, hon. W. O.
Murphy, F. S.	Stansfield, W. R. C.
Murray, A.	Stanton, W. H.
Napier, Sir C.	Staunton, Sir G. T.
O'Brien, W. S.	Stewart, P. M.
O'Connell, J.	Stuart, Lord J.
O'Connell, M.	Stuart, W. V.
O'Connell M. J.	Strickland, Sir G.
O'Conor, Don	Strutt, E.
Ogle S. C. H.	Tancred, H. W,
Ord, W.	Thornely, T.
Oswald, J.	Towneley, J.
Paget, Col.	Traill, G.
Paget, Lord A.	Troubridge, Sir E. T.
Palmerston, Visct.	Tuite, H. M.
Pechell, Capt.	Turner, E.
Pendarves, E. W. W.	Villiers, hon. C. P.
Philips, G. R.	Villiers, F.
Philips, M.	Vivian, hon. Capt.
Philipps, Sir R. B. P.	Vivian, hon. Major
Phillpotts, J.	Vivian, J. H.
Pinney, W.	Wakley, T.
Plumridge, Capt.	Walker, R.
Ponsonby, hon. C. F.	Wall, C. B.
A. C.	Wallace, R.
Ponsonby, hon. J. G.	Ward, H. G.
Powell, C.	Wason, R.
Protheroe, E.	Watson, W. H.
Pulsford, R.	Wawn, J. T.
Ramsbottom, J.	Wemyss, Capt.
Rawdon, Col.	Westenra, hon. J.
Redington, T. N.	White, S.
Rennie, G.	White, H.
Rice, E. R.	Wigney, I. N.
Ricardo, J. L.	Williams, W.
Roche, Sir D.	Wilshere, W.
Roebuck, J. A.	Wilson, M.
Rundle, J.	Winnington, Sir T.E.
Russell, Lord J.	Wood, B.
Russell, Lord E.	Wood, C.
Rutherfurd, rt. hn. A.	Wood, G. W.
Scholefield, J.	Wood, Sir M.
Scott, R.	Wrightson, W. B.
Scrope, G. P.	Yorke, H. R.
Seale, Sir J. H.
Smith, B.	TELLERS.
Smith, J. A.	Tufnell, H.
Smith, rt. hn. R. V.	Parker, J.

Mr. Villiers

rose to express a hope that the right hon. Baronet would enable him to bring on the motion, of which he had given notice, on Friday.

Sir R. Peel

said, as they had as yet made no progress in forwarding the measure which he meant to submit, he trusted the hon. Gentleman would not postpone his motion beyond this day. He was quite sure, that they who considered this subject with a view to the practical result of the proposal made by her Majesty's Government must desire to see it submitted as soon as possible in the form of a bill to the House, and there would be ample opportunity for those who agreed with the hon. Gentleman to have their views canvassed at the future stages of the measure. When the hon. Gentleman called to mind that his right hon. Friend (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) postponed his motion on the ground that the debate would be continued another night, he hoped that for the personal accommodation of the House, the hon. Gentleman would accede to the wish which he had already expressed.

Mr. Wakley

hoped, that the right hon. Baronet would consent to the postponement proposed by the hon. Member for Wolverhampton. The hon. Member's motion referred to a question upon which hundreds of thousands of the people had petitioned the House, and they would be disappointed if it were brought forward when the House was fatigued by a previous protracted debate. The proposition of the Government was to tax the bread of the people, and how did the House know whether the other propositions which the right hon. Baronet had not yet developed would not involve more taxes. The Government was very strong in that House, and he thought the right hon. Baronet ought to consent to the postponement proposed.

Lord J. Russell

thought, the request made by the hon. Member for Wolverhampton was very reasonable. No discussion could take place on the question to which the hon. Member's motion referred, after the right hon. Baronet should bring in his bill. The proposition, as the hon. Member for Finsbury said, was supported by the prayers of a large body of the people, and on that ground he thought it but reasonable that a day's delay should take place before the motion was made.

Sir R. Peel

had objected to the proposition for delay from no motive of personal convenience, but solely from a desire to promote the public interests. If, however, the hon. Gentleman still wished for a day's delay, he would not press his objection further; and as the Chancellor of the Exchequer had postponed his motion for tomorrow, he saw no reason why the House should meet to-morrow.

The House resolved itself into Committee, and resumed.

The Chairman reported progress—Committee to sit again.

Adjourned.