CUSTOMS AND CORN IMPORTATION REPORT.

HC Deb 24 March 1846 vol 85 cc4-68

The Order of the Day having been read for continuing the debate on the Second Reading of the Corn Importation Bill,

VISCOUNT POLLINGTON

said, that it was with great pain that he rose to express his opinion against the present measure of the Government. He had for years given a firm, but, as his votes upon the Maynooth Bill would show, not a blind support to Her Majesty's Government. He asked, therefore, the indulgence of the House whilst he explained the reasons which induced him to give his vote against the measure. He entered upon this question unfettered. He had never been a member of a protection society, and had never attended a protection meeting. He had always thought that those who supported protection ought to show that they could provide a sufficient supply for the exigencies of the country; and as he had felt some difficulty upon this point, he had never closely allied himself with those with whom he would vote that night. But he had said before, and he said now, that he would rather vote for a total repeal under the noble Lord opposite, than under the right hon. Baronet. Much had been said of compensation; and the agricultural interests surely had a right to expect, that when the right hon. Baronet had taken away their protection, he would also have removed their burdens. Farmers were called upon to educate their children expensively, and to apply science to farming; but if they were called upon to do this, they might surely be allowed to cultivate the soil in the way they pleased. They might be permitted to grow hops and tobacco, and to use barley for fattening their cattle. What were the compensations offered to the agricultural interest? As to the Bill of Settlement, it was no compensation. The right hon. Baronet might just as well have passed Lord Ashley's Bill. The measure was due to humanity, but would be of no benefit to agriculture. As to the Highways Act, he could not understand how that would operate as a compensation. From the time that Joseph had been prime minister in Egypt, no measure had been better adapted to bring the soil of the country under the surveillance of the Government than the measure which on this subject they now proposed. If the right hon. Baronet had admitted colonial corn duty free, he would not have objected. By so doing, he might have rendered more close the connection between the Colonies and the mother country, and made the Colonies an integral part of the Empire. Jealousy had once existed betweeen the mother country and the Colonies, but that time had passed away. Once there had been a jealousy between England and Ireland, as was proved by a letter from an ancestor of his to the great Lord Strafford, and by the difference which had arisen between Mr. Burke and his constituents. But those days had passed, and the Government might have protected the colonial interests without exciting any jealousy at home. The plan now adopted of supporting foreign trades, and of opposing the colonial and domestic interests, was to him a strange one. He did not believe that any advantage would be obtained by these free-trade measures, even from the free States of the Zollverein, or from France. From Naples the right hon. Baronet himself expected nothing. He had himself found that English ships were in the habit of sailing from Beyrout in ballast, although the finest tobacco was growing in the neighbourhood of that place; and on asking the reason, he was told it was on account of the exorbitant duties we levied on the import of the article. Then, as to China, if we had happened to have a small establishment in this country engaged in the preparation of British tea, there would have been some chance of a reduction of the duty upon the import of that commodity from China. But in the right hon. Baronet's opinion, it seemed essential that a duty should be in favour of some protected interest to insure its remission or reduction. Therefore upon hops, the duty was reduced, while upon tobacco it was retained. So, as to brandy: there was a trade in British brandy which required protection; therefore the Government reduced the duty upon foreign brandy, and retained it upon other articles in which there was no home competition. But both as to brandy and as to wine, the duty could not be considered improperly levied; and if wine was the luxury of the rich man, it ought not to be forgotten that tea and tobacco were emphatically the luxuries of the poor man. In respect to corn, was it necessary to cripple our own resources while professing to be anxious to augment them? He did not take the gloomy view of existing exigencies which the Government appeared to take. But he would say, that if agriculture were fostered as it ought to be—while applying a temporary remedy to a temporary necessity—security might be taken against the recurrence of the evil; and the immediate supply might be acquired from our own Colonies. No country was better fitted for the production of maize, for instance, than Australia, as to which Colony the Government had, no longer ago than last year, refused to permit any relaxation of the Corn Law, now to be so suddenly repealed. There was another reason why he deprecated a dependence on other countries, and preferred a recourse to our own Colonies. That reason was, that we might not run the risk of a sudden interruption, by means of war. And here, he might allude to a former opinion of the noble Lord the Member for the West Riding, as to whom he could cordially declare, that since the noble Lord's cause, which he had so consistently and honourably championed—had been fated to triumph, he rejoiced that it had triumphed in the noble Lord's person. That noble Lord had once [alluding to an early effusion of Lord Morpeth's pen] impressively alluded to the position of Rome when invaded by Alaric, and the famine to which the Empire was speedily reduced, in consequence of the interruption of those foreign supplies of grain on which Rome had for a long time previously become dependent. Whatever apprehension, however, might be entertained for the future fate of England in reference to her supplies of corn, he acknowledged he entertained far greater fears on account of the moral and social evils likely to result from the manner in which this measure had been promoted and proposed. Without desiring to say any thing personally offensive, he could not avoid expressing his opinion that it was more to the agitation than to the arguments of the League that the Government had yielded. And the right hon. Baronet at its head, might well be addressed by the agriculturists in the memorable words of the celebrated warrior of old—"Destroy us if you will, but at least destroy us in the light of day!" If the right hon. Baronet had only intimated to his adherents that the reformed sliding-scale was only intended to last as long as the good harvests, and that it would be removed by the first unfavourable season, many excellent speeches would have been saved. The House would not have lost some valuable Members; and others, like the hon. Member for Bridport, would have been relieved from the necessity of some useless journeys. Many letters had been published by Members to their constituents—some resigning their seats, some offering to resign, and some refusing to resign. From one of the former class he would read a few lines—the letter of one who, in the course of no inconsiderable career, had uever sought a personal honour or advantage, and whose efforts had been devoted to the cause of humanity—he alluded to Lord Ashley, who thus addressed his constituents:— Although no pledge was asked or given at my election, I should be acting in contravention of an honourable understanding between myself and the electors on this particular subject, if I retained my seat and voted for the Ministerial measure. Now no Member had ever taken his seat less pledged or fettered than that noble Lord; and he put it to others, whether the example of such men as Lord Ashley and others, were not worthy of being pondered over ere it was utterly disregarded? To those who professed that their opinions had been avowed in favour of the principle of the Ministerial measure before it was announced, he had nothing to say. He assumed that their course was clear and straightforward. At all events, as to his own course on this occasion, he entertained no doubt or misgiving. He distrusted the measure. He had deep apprehension and doubts as to the means by which it had been promoted; and no political prejudices, no deference to any men, would induce him to support it.

MR. PLUMPTRE

said, connected as he was with a large and important agricultural county, which the right hon. Baronet the Home Secretary had himself a year or two ago declared would be among those in which the repeal of the Corn Laws would soonest throw land out of cultivation. He wished to say a few words upon this measure, which he conceived to be equally perilous, rash, and unjust. The reasons which had been given for its sudden adoption seemed to him suspicious, insufficient, and unsatisfactory. And though the right hon. Baronet, who professed to have been so quickly converted, considered that their former speeches in favour of protection were disposed of by being simply abandoned, it was not quite so easy to get rid of the facts, the principles, and the arguments on which those appeals had been founded. Nor could he dispose so easily of the convictions he had formed as to the necessity of protection for all branches of British industry. He did not consider it as a landlords' question: though aware that it would seriously affect the smaller classes of landowners—in whose circumstances the projected change would work serious distress and embarrassment. He viewed it principally, however, as a labourers' question. He had been surprised to hear it so confidently asserted that there was no connection between low wages and low prices. He maintained, upon the contrary, that the price of bread directly influenced the rate of wages, and that the latter regularly rose and fell with the former. His own experience and observation had satisfied him of this. He had been engaged practically in agriculture for about twenty years, and had access to the farming accounts of those who had gone before him; and he knew that during the last half century the price of bread had influenced the rate of wages as much as 100 per cent. When corn had been high, wages had been 18s. a week in his own county; and when corn had been low, wages had been 9s. a week. A year or two ago, when corn was low, wages in Kent were 10s. a week. Before the last harvest they were at 12s. When corn rose at the time of last harvest they were at 13s. 6d., and recently, corn having fallen, they were at 12s. How could it be denied, then, that wages rose and fell with the price of corn? When corn was low, the farmers employed few labourers, and those they retained they paid at lower rates. The retail tradesmen, having less custom, sent smaller orders to the wholesale dealer; the master manufacturers, experiencing thus in their turn the depressing influence, employed a diminished number of operatives, and paid them at a reduced rate; and so it seemed as natural and inevitable a consequence as any that could arise from the relation of cause and effect, that wages rose and fell with prices, and that poverty increased as prices were lowered. Of this opinion had been the right hon. Baronet at the head of the Government, when, in 1839, he thus addressed the House:— Look over the whole world, and you will find that low prices of food lead to low rates of wages, and that where there is a low rate of wages there is a great degradation in the character of the working classes. Look at the Hindoos, or at the Sicilians, in their respective countries: food is cheap, but the rate of wages is also extremely low, and hence there are not in Asia or Europe more miserable and degraded races. There was another part of the subject on which he wished to remark, and upon which he should also have to quote the right hon. Baronet. He alluded to the effect of the measure on tithes. At the commutation of tithes the clergy had given up their right to share in the advantages of the advance of agriculture, in which advantages they had a just right to participate, as their duties were proportionately augmented, along with an increased population; and at the passing of the Commutation Act wheat was at an average price of 56s., and barley of 32s. Now there was every reason to believe, under the proposed measure, corn would fall considerably; and if the clergy, instead of having the value of a certain quantity of corn at those prices of 52s. and 32s., were to have it at prices of 40s. and 20s., the result would be that they would be robbed by this measure of one-third of their incomes. In 1839, the right hon. Baronet had declared that the repeal of the Corn Laws would, after the Commutation Act, be a "gross fraud" on the clergy and on Parliament. He begged to repeat the expression of the right hon. Baronet. The measure was indeed a "gross fraud;" and it perpetrated upon the clergy a grievous wrong and robbery. For his own part, indeed, he hesitated not to affirm that the conduct of the Government on the question was as difficult to explain as it was painful to contemplate. Sir (continued the hon. Member), this to me is the most serious and painful view of the subject. We do not now know where to look for public men, in whose character and consistency we can confide. If ever there were men who were naturally looked up to and relied on, it was the Members of the present Administration; and certainly, what has recently occurred tends to inspire me with a distrust for public men, and a positive disgust for public life. The failure of the potato crop, the ostensible cause of this movement on the part of the Ministry, is regarded as a most unsatisfactory and suspicious pretext; and the impression is general that the movement was brought about by the proceedings of a most unconstitutional body — the Anti-Corn-Law League—to the pressure of which the Government has unhappily yielded. Having conceded to the pressure of that League, and allowed that body to attain its ends, is it not to be apprehended that other leagues will be formed, encouraged to attempt the attainment of other ends by similar combinations? Perhaps you may at some future time find it expedient to alter your opinions as to the Chartist claims, and to relinquish your dislike of universal suffrage. What security can we have that you may not thus be induced to venture further on the dark and dangerous ocean of expediency, until this highly-favoured nation becomes exposed to imminent peril, and this wisely limited monarchy is plunged into the convulsions of a wild and uncontrollable democracy. May He "who is over all" grant that my fears may not be realised! May He, in His great mercy, deliver this great country from the dangers into which (in my conscience I believe) she is now exposed! I have considered the question, Sir, according to the best of my ability and judgment, and upon my conscience I believe that I shall be promoting the best interests of this country by continuing to give to the measure the decided opposition which I have already offered to it—an opposition which I have given from my most inmost conviction, and which I shall continue to give in the firm persuasion that, if the measure were carried, it would inevitably produce the degradation and the ruin of the working population of this country, and do irreparable injury to the empire at large.

MR. HAWES

did not hesitate to give his warmest support to the Ministerial project. He was sure that it would be highly advantageous to the country;, there was a very general impression to the same effect out of doors, as was testified by the fact that petitions were presented to the House from London, Liverpool, Birmingham, Manchester, the great towns and cities of England, praying that the question might now be settled, and that the measure proposed by Her Majesty's Ministers might be passed without any unnecessary delay. There never was a political movement which had received less of sympathy and countenance out of the House than that which Gentlemen opposite were endeavouring to get up in favour of protection principles. They protested with unbounded indignation against any alteration of the silk duties, and declared that it would be ruinous to the trade; but it was worthy of remark that but few of the silk manufacturers joined in this cry, or sanctioned the opposition. The same fact had occurred in the case of timber also; and yet these Gentlemen talked as though it was they alone who stood between the English manufacturers and absolute destruction. He would venture to say that in obstructing those measures hon. Gentlemen opposite had not sufficiently studied and appreciated either the temper or the information of the people, and that they would find out of doors nothing like the support or sympathy they expected. But he was glad to perceive that this debate had been contradistinguished favourably from the previous debate on the subject; and with one exception there had been an absence of that vituperation which characterized almost exclusively the debate on the former occasion. He hoped that on this occasion hon. Gentlemen would condescend to argue the question, and would state some intelligible reasons which might be grappled with when they raised objections to the measures which Her Majesty's Ministers had proposed. It was no business of his to defend Her Majesty's Ministers; but this he would take upon him to say, that there was nothing in which the people out of doors took less interest than in the vituperation and abuse of the Government which had hitherto formed the staple of their debate. When this case had been argued, he thought that hon. Gentlemen opposite would have shown that that protection on which they said the interests of agriculture entirely hung, had at some period or other effected the object they had in view. But he would undertake to show this, that there never had been a period from the year 1815, when the first great innovation in the old Corn Law system of England had been introduced, in which Agricultural Committees, and most eminent agricultural authorities, had not condemned the laws, and the principles of those laws, which those Gentlemen now sought to uphold. And when he was now told that protection was essential to agriculture, that a Corn Law was necessary, and that a sliding-scale could not be departed from without injury to agricultural interests, he looked back to former times, and he found that at all periods of agricultural distress there was evidence to show the utter inefficacy of any Corn Law that had hitherto been introduced. Let him refer in the first instance to one of the grounds on which the Corn Law of 1815 was defended by one of its most eminent supporters. Sir Henry Parnell said— But such measures would not be requisite were there no legislative interference whatever in matters of trade. If capital was left quite free from the interposition of laws giving encouragement to its investment in every species of manufacture and every branch of trade, there would be no necessity for any Parliamentary regulation. It is in order to counteract the perpetual operation of the system of bounties, monopolies, and protecting duties, in taking capital from agriculture, that any law in favour of the corn trade becomes desirable. If every kind of trade were perfectly free, agriculture would not require any protection; but as every kind of trade is supported by some sort of legislative aid, it is folly to refuse it to that trade which is the main support of all others. If all those who are now concerned in manufactures and commerce will consent to adopt the system of a perfectly free trade, those who are now advocates for restraints on the importation of corn will willingly abandon, on their part, all claim to any such protection. And here let it be observed that the time was come when other branches of trade in the country repudiated protection; and, if they complained of anything, it was that there was too much of the principle of protection included in the Tariff. Here then was the Mover for the Committee at that period, who said he advocated the measure because manufacturers were protected inordinately; but that their protection being removed, there would be no ground on which any longer to defend the protection of corn. The law of 1815 was passed; and he asked had that law been successful? There was then perfect protection; protection carried to the extent of prohibition; and he asked the Gentlemen opposite to have the goodness to tell him if that law had been successful or useful to the agriculturists. He would turn to the Report in the year 1821 of the Agricultural Committee in answer to this question; and he begged to be permitted to say that Agricultural Committees in those days were appointed by Parliaments in which the landed interest had an overwhelming ascendancy. Since the passing of the Reform Bill, the constitution of that House had been materially altered; and no Committee to inquire into the state of agriculture could now be appointed without there being probably included in it individuals interested in the trade and commerce of the country; but at the time to which he referred an Agricultural Committee was almost certain to be composed exclusively of landed proprietors; and yet a Committee so constituted condemned in the strongest terms the law of 1815. He would invite hon. Gentlemen opposite to attend to that Report. What then did the Report of 1821 say, after an experience of six years? It stated that— This system is certainly liable to sudden alterations, of which the effect may be, at one time, to reduce prices, already low, lower than they would probably have been under a state of free trade; and at another, unnecessarily to enhance prices already high; to aggravate the evils of scarcity, and to render more severe the depression of prices from abundance. On the one hand, it deceives the grower with the false hopes of monopoly, and by its occasional interruption may lead to consequences which deprive him of the benefit of that monopoly when most wanted. On the other hand, it holds out to the country the prospect of an occasional free trade, but so regulated and desultory as to baffle the calculations and unsettle the transactions both of the grower and the dealer at home; to deprive the consumer of most of the benefits of such a trade; and to involve the merchant in the more than ordinary risks of mercantile speculation. That Report was drawn by Mr. Huskisson, and submitted to a Committee consisting of individuals representing counties, and large landed interests in those counties, and assented to by them again. The Committee of 1822 stated in their Report, that— Exclusion up to certain points, and perfect free trade beyond, had induced the agriculturist to regulate his outlay by the hope of monopoly profits, whilst, in fact, he obtained only the returns of free trade. Such, then, was the testimony borne by Agricultural Committees to the protective system up to 1822. In 1822, and between that period and 1828, there was a great pressure on agriculture; and he asked was that pressure caused by an alteration in the law, or by the importation of corn? The importation of corn in those years was trifling, and could have had no effect on the markets. The average imports amounted to 244,000 quarters a year, and there was little or none introduced in 1821, 1822, 1823, and 1824. Therefore let it be remembered that it was not owing to foreign competition that low prices ensued. Now, with respect to the law of 1828, when a new system of protection was introduced, he asked, was that successful—did that law answer the objects for which it was passed? Why, the Report of 1833 was just as decisive with respect to the law of 1828 as the Report of the Committee of 1821 was with respect to the law of 1815. The Report (1833), after reciting and confirming the fact stated in the Report of 1821, that the charges and outgoings of the farmer were paid out of capital and not out of profits, continued— The Committee of 1821 expressed a hope 'that the great body of the occupiers of the soil, either from the savings of more prosperous times, or from the credit which punctuality commands in this country, possess resources which will enable them to surmount the difficulties under which they now labour.' Your Committee, with deep regret, are bound rather to express a fear that the difficulties alone remain unchanged, but that the savings are either gone or greatly diminished, and the credit failing, and the resources being generally exhausted; and this opinion is formed not on the evidence of rent-payers, but of many most respectable witnesses, as well owners of land as surveyors and land agents. Such, then, was the result of the agricultural experience of the Corn Laws up to 1833, and which was recorded upon no less an authority than the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department. It was then stated, as it is now, that low prices were not beneficial to the labouring population. But the answer was given at the time. He would now call the attention of the House to a very remarkable declaration of the late Lord Liverpool, who, in the year 1822, made use of the following language:— When the noble Earl says that the low prices incident to the distress which agriculture suffers, benefit no man, I answer that, although I sincerely wish the distress did not exist, I cannot be blind to the fact that they do benefit a great majority of the people. I have been at some trouble, my Lords, to ascertain the real state of the case, and I can pledge myself to the accuracy of this statement. In this metropolis, in which your Lordships are now sitting, never were the lower orders of the people in a better condition than they are at this moment. So that when the noble Earl says that the low prices incident to the distress of the agriculturists have not been beneficial to anybody, he certainly labours under a great mistake, for that distress, however much to be lamented in itself, is accompanied by a considerable benefit to a great proportion of the people. Upon that declaration he would stand at this moment; and he would say further that they would find the great body of the community and the agricultural labourers invariably better off when prices were low and food was abundant than at any other periods. Let him now proceed to the next Committee, that of 1836, a Committee composed largely of individuals representing the landed interest. It was admitted that there was ample foundation for the opinion that, whatever was the state of the landlords and farmers' interests, on the whole the tenant was much better off than in any preceding year; and it would be difficult to assign any other cause for this than the lower prices of articles of human subsistence. Let it be remembered also that the law of 1828 was distinctly termed a delusion, and was so designated in the draft Report of the Committee of 1836, and subsequently published under the sanction of the highest authority in this House. That opinion was confirmed by some of the most eminent agriculturists of the country; and there was a distinguished Member of that House (Mr. Woolridge Whitmore) who, in the same language, denounced the law of 1828 as a delusion. He (Mr. Hawes) contended, then, that protection was not beneficial to agriculture; and he now asked the hon. Gentlemen opposite how they intended to maintain any argument from experience in its favour? The law of 1842 had failed; it had not secured steadiness of prices, it did exclude supplies when they wanted them; and further, when hon. Gentlemen opposite said they would consent to the opening of the ports, the admission was itself a condemnation of that law. It appeared that protection had not answered its purposes; and he proceeded now to ask, had they any experience of the working of what might be almost considered a free trade in corn? He thought to a certain extent that the law of 1773 was one practically establishing a free trade in corn. From 1773 to 1792 the imports of corn amounted to 4,114,995l., and the exports to 2,473,214l., leaving a balance of imports of 1,511,781l. During the same period the population increased from 7,100,000 to 8,100,000. There were, further, 460 Inclosure Acts passed, whilst the average price of wheat was 46s. The population had gone on increasing, trade was flourishing, agriculture was in a thriving condition, and no agricultural committees were appointed during the continuance of that law. But through the whole of such period, any one who would turn to the pages of Arthur Young would find that there was a great increase of cultivation, and at the same time our imports also greatly increased. The period to which he more particularly referred was from 1784 to 1789, of which the following table would give an accurate representation:—

Year.	Highest average price of Wheat in the London Market.	Lowest average price of Wheat in the London Market.	Difference.
	s.	d.	s.	d.	s.	d.
1784	48	2	41	10	6	4
1785	37	5	34	6	2	10
1786	36	2	34	6	2	5
1787	44	10	36	1	8	9
1788	45	1	42	9	2	4
1789	54	11	47	0	7	11

That was a period when the corn trade was practically free, and there was little or no protection. He defied any one to show him a period when protection prevailed that the variation in the price of corn was less. But what so much contributed to the improvement of agriculture was certainly the thriving state of trade and manufactures; for about that period the steam-engine began to be applied to manufacturing purposes. In 1787, also, the Commercial Treaty with France existed, and the consequence was a great increase in the trade with that country; at the same period peace had been restored with the United States, and in a short time the trade that grew up with America became of increasing importance. That period was very analogous to the present day as regarded the measures introduced by Her Majesty's Ministers for relaxing the restrictions on commerce, by the opening of new markets, and by giving new employment to labour; therefore the same principles might be said to hold then as now, and thereby encouraging a spirit of enterprise, and an extension of our trade. When manufactures and the trading interests were in the most thriving condition, in consequence of the freedom from obsolete restrictions, and the invigorating influence of sound and just principles—principles which were practically in operation in the period referred to—agriculture flourished. They had been told that this measure would lower prices. He agreed with the right hon. Baronet that he would be a bold man indeed, after what had passed, who would venture to predict the future price of corn. He expected a fall in the price of corn when the trade in corn was no longer disturbed by Corn Laws. But, concurrently with this fall of prices, he anticipated a reduced cost of production. The advance of science, the facilities of transport, the cheaper conveyance of produce to market, longer production, all justified this expectation; and a larger share of the average taxation of the country was paid by the trading and manufacturing interests than at any former period. The agriculturists could therefore afford to contemplate the prospect of lower prices. But low prices had occurred under protective laws, not from foreign competition, but from the excess of home growth and production. Suppose we had an abundant harvest next year, which, under the blessing of God, he hoped would be the case, what would be the effect? They recollected, a few years ago, that wheat was down to 36s.; but did they remember the price of corn after a series of good harvests? He thought that it would be a wholesome proceeding to consider the price of corn when the Corn Laws were clearly inoperative. When they had a succession of good harvests, it was obvious that the Corn Laws would have no effect. From 1742 to 1748 there was not a single year in which corn was more than 30s. a quarter; and these were all years of war. In the year 1742, wheat was from 26s. to 29s.; 1743,20s. to 23s.; 1744, 19s. to 21s.; 1745, 18s. to 20s.; 1746, 16s. to 24s.; 1747, 27s. to 30s.; barley, 8s. to 12s.; oats, 6s. 9d.; 1748, wheat, 26s. to 28s. Making all allowances for other and distinct causes, they would find that the average price of corn was far below what it was in modern times. Now, what was the state of the people at that time, as recorded by historians, as described by Arthur Young, and by Mr. Tooke in his invaluable history of prices? It appeared that there never was a period when the labouring population were in so thriving and good a condition. The hon. Member for Kent said that low prices would produce low wages. At that period, according to Arthur Young, "the average price of wheat was, for the whole of the seventeenth century, 38s. 2d. per Winchester quarter; and for the sixty-six years, 1701 to 1766, 32s. 1d., being a fall of 16 per cent; while the average price of agricultural labour, which on the average of the seventeenth century had been 10¼d. per day, was for sixty-six years, ending in 1766, 12d., or a rise of 16 per cent." So that through that long period of time there had been a steady decline in the price of food, and a considerable rise in the rate of wages. And it must be so; for the price of labour was not dependent on the price of corn; if there was a great demand for labour, there must be a rise in wages. No doubt the cost of subsistence depended upon the price of corn; but to argue that the rate of wages in a civilized country depended upon the price of corn was both monstrous and unjust. Nothing was more mischievous than the regulation of wages by the cost of subsistence. A skilful, intelligent, honest labourer was worth more, all other things the same, than an unskilful and dishonest one. To pay both by the cost of subsistence was injurious to the community, and, as he thought, injurious to the producer. Here, then, there was a proof that for a long period there had been a rise in the wages of labour with a fall in the price of corn. This was a decisive reply to the hon. Gentleman; but he referred to Sicily and Hindostan. There were other circumstances than the price of food in these countries, which so materially affected the condition of the people, and determined wages in those two countries. It was hardly necessary for him to refer to the United States, or to some of the English Colonies, to show that provisions might be low, and wages high. The hon. Member might depend upon it that they could never come to any safe general conclusion if they did not look to all the facts in connexion with each particular country. He could not help referring to one proof more of the effects of the comparative free trade in corn which existed between 1773 and 1792. At the commencement of the present century a controversy was going on between a number of able writers with respect to the fact that the Bank of England, by the large issue of paper money, had influenced the price of corn. He had in his possession a pamphlet written at that time by Sir Francis Baring, the most eminent mercantile authority in the country. Let him recall to mind that at that period between 400 and 500 Inclosure Acts had passed, which the increased population of the country called for. The price of corn was rising: the population was suffering in consequence. This was all attributed to an excessive issue of bank paper. It was upon this point of the controversy that, incidentally, Sir F. Baring bears this testimony to the condition of farmers and agriculture under the influence of the law of 1773—practically, as he had said, establishing a free trade in corn. He says— An alarm not very dissimilar has been raised against the country banks, who have been accused of enabling the formers to hoard their corn, by making them advances of money; but the inhabitants of this metropolis are not aware of the total change in the situation of the country banks, in consequence of the war. Those which are established in seaports and great manufacturing towns may still be considered as having commercial deposits, with which they must, in preference, accommodate their commercial friends; but the general mass of banks through the country look to the farmers for deposits and support, as the only persons who have money to employ. It is very rare that a farmer wants to borrow; but the instances are not rare where he is able to accommodate even his landlord with a loan. Now, if anything could show that up to this time the farmers were in a state of prosperity, this authority was sufficient. He had already said that he expected, under the proposed law, much lower average prices. It should be recollected that the altered condition of the English agriculturist, in many respects, would diminish the cost of production; and with the improvements that would be introduced, they would grow more profitably wheat at much lower prices. But there was one thing connected with this point, to which he desired to call the attention of the House. In all former Agricultural Committees there had been statements as to the prices that would be remunerative to the farmer; These ranged from 125s. to 56s. per quarter. He believed that 125s. was the amount actually mentioned in the Report drawn up by Sir Henry Parnell. It appeared, then, that 125s., 100s., 80s., 60s., 64s., had been considered from time to time the only remunerative prices to the English farmer. But as all these predictions of ruin founded upon the dreaded prevalence of lower prices had been falsified by the result, he might safely leave all present predictions to the same test, the test of experience. Whenever he found a witness before Agricultural Committees maintaining the possibility of growing corn at a lower price, he was sure to be scouted and discredited by agricultural catechists. It was so in 1836, when intelligent Scotch, and indeed English farmers gave in evidence the price at which they could grow corn, some saying they could do so at 8s. and 10s., below even present prices. The evidence was on record, and need but be referred to. He could refer to many parts of the evidence, where witnesses said 48s. was a remunerative price for wheat. Several witnesses undertook to show that corn might be sold at much lower prices, and that English agriculture would nevertheless flourish, as he trusted that it would, at lower prices. There was one other point he was anxious to allude to in connexion with what fell from the hon. Member who had just sat down. He believed that the operation of the Corn Laws had been most disastrous to the commerce of the country. The Corn Laws, regarded in a commercial point of view, could only be regarded as producing a diminution of profits. If they increased wages under such a state of things, they must diminish profits. Now the effect, if traced, of such a diminution of profits would prove to be most detrimental to the labouring classes. He was sorry that some of those hon. Members were not present who sympathized with the condition of the labouring classes. He had said that the operation of the Corn Laws tended to the diminution of profits. The effect of diminished profits was to stimulate the invention of machinery, to economize human labour. Hence that vast combination of capital, and skill, and machinery. Hence arose the great manufacturing system, which, with all the wealth it had conferred on the country, had carried with it a large amount of social evils, which the endeavours of that House had been more than once exerted to counteract. He ought, however, to say that much more for the benefit of the condition of the labouring class had been done by the voluntary energy of the great manufacturers themselves, than by any enactments of the Legislature. But what was the effect of the Corn Laws upon the agricultural interest, regarded in an economical and solid point of view? Hon. Gentlemen opposite dreaded the increase of the great manufacturing interest; they dreaded the increased congregation of multitudes in large towns. Whenever they interfered with the profits of trade in a country like England, they would engender the means of injuring themselves. He should be sorry to see this country a dull succession of manufacturing towns, connected by railroad. So he should be sorry to see the village green, and green lanes, and open commons, disappear, as disappear they would, if the Corn Laws were maintained, and population increased. The demand increasing for food, and the acreable supply remaining the same—every acre must be pressed into the service of the farmer. Capital must be also called in, and the aid of machinery, and a system of mechanical and strictly economical farming must universally prevail. In fact, the manufacturing system must prevail in agriculture. But country pleasures and sports must be extinguished altogether, and a dull succession of mere farms must take the peace of all rural scenes. Wealth for a time might increase in spite of the injurious action of these laws; but it would be gained at the expense of all the healthful pleasures and pursuits af country life. On the contrary, widen the area of supply—let there be no unnatural stimulus to agriculture—let its profits be those alone of a free competition; and whilst under its influence, the skill and capital of England would ensure the full development of the powers of the soil, and the knowledge of the agriculturist; and it would not be at the expense of those social and moral influences which ought preeminently to distinguish country life. For the reasons which he had offered to the House, he purposed to give to Her Majesty's Ministers his most cordial and entire support with regard to this measure. He rejoiced at the course which they had taken. He thought that it must have been foreseen and expected, that from the opinions which they had expressed last Session, and from their former measures, that they would introduce a measure similar to the present. He would only add, if they allowed agitation on the supply of food to increase, they would not be able to limit its action to this subject alone, but they would soon find it extended to other subjects of importance involving the future interests and the Constitution of the country. He contemplated that this measure would be received by the great manufacturing and commercial body with pleasure. It would allay many angry passions and prejudices, and would tend materially to produce the most beneficial results amongst all classes of the community. He must apologize once more for having occupied so much of the time of the House, and should sit down with giving his most cordial support to the measure.

SIR J. TROLLOPE

wished to address to the House a few observations, in reply to the hon. Member who had just sat down. The hon. Member said the population of the country were unanimous in favour of this measure. Now, he represented a very large constituency, one of the largest purely agricultural constituencies, and he found in his district that the unanimity was all the other way. He had attended large meetings in his county, where only one band was held up in favour of the Minister's measures. There were at these meetings numbers of persons who were connected with trade and with the learned professions; and these persons were the foremost to speak in favour of agricultural protection. He might further add that in the part of Lincolnshire which he represented, very free comments were made upon the conduct of those Members for the boroughs who had taken a different course—he particularly referred to the right hon. Member for Stamford. He was closely connected with that borough—the constituents were his near neighbours—and he knew that they had witnessed the conduct of their right hon. Representative with great dislike and surprise. He believed they had taken a still farther step—they had produced before him the opinions which he held on former occasions; and they had called upon him to take that step which alone could be taken in consistency with what was due to his character. But still his right hon. Friend rose in the House night after night, and with great ability combated his own opinions, and overturned all the arguments he had formerly used. He had heard with some astonishment, at the beginning of the Session, that they were called upon by Her Majesty's Ministers to decide upon these measures according to the experience of the last three years. As far as he had been able to consult that experience, it appeared to him eminently to confirm the opinion which he had always entertained in favour of moderate protection; for he would tell the hon. Member for Lambeth, that he was as favourable to low prices as the hon. Member could possibly be; but he wished that the low prices should spring from the abundance of the home supply, not from the foreign market. The hon. Member had taken them back to a period antecedent to the political life of most of them—the year 1815. Very few of the hon. Gentlemen whom he saw around him had a vote either in the Legislature or anywhere else at that time. But if they examined what had taken place since that period, they would find that there had been a gradual diminution of protection. He agreed with the hon. Member that the law of 1815 was a monopolist law; but the legislation of the House ever since had been to mitigate its severity; and they were now going on at a steady and moderate pace towards that goal which the hon. Member was anxious to arrive at by a single leap. It was said that in 1822 there were low prices and great distress among the agriculturists. Undoubtedly that was so; but it did not arise from Corn Law legislation: in his opinion it arose from currency legislation. But were the complaints at that time confined to the agricultural interest? If the hon. Member would search his commercial records, he would find that at the same time there were great complaints from those who were engaged in the trade and commerce of the country; and that the Gazette of that day furnished a long list of victims to the rashness of the legislation that was then pursued. In fact, it was the same rash spirit then applied to currency which they now saw applied to corn, and which they were endeavouring to resist. The hon. Member had carried them back a considerable time; to the period intervening between 1701 and 1766; when, he said, the average price of wheat was 32s. 4d. per quarter. But he had looked into another record, embodied in a Report of a Committee of this House in 1833, of which the right hon. Baronet (Sir James Graham) was Chairman; and he found that the price of wheat for a century prior to 1793 was there estimated to average 50s. per quarter. At the same time it was stated that great doubts were entertained as to the accuracy of any records of the price of wheat in this country prior to 1797; that the Eton College records, which were generally referred to, could not be considered as a fair criterion of the price over the whole country. Then the hon. Member not only told the agriculturists that it was incumbent upon them to produce more corn; but he was good enough to tell them how to produce it, and even named the price they could afford to grow it. He was not aware that the hon. Member had much agricultural knowledge; if he had, he must know that the improvement of land was a very expensive process, and that it was a considerable time before any returns were yielded. He must say, as representing a county which certainly had not been behindhand in its struggles to provide food for the people, that he could not call to mind a single acre of land which was lying waste in that division of the county which he represented; and that there was not an unenclosed parish, except in the borough (Stamford) which his right hon. Friend represented, and that remained unenclosed only on account of some mixed rights of the freemen. From the returns he had been able to procure, he was able to state, that from 1828 to 1841 there had been an increase in the produce of the county of Lincoln to the extent of 70 per cent in the article of wheat alone; and he was satisfied from the improvements that had since taken place—from the great amount of drainage, the breaking up of pasture land, the artificial manures, and other processes that were applied to the land—that a much greater farther increase had since taken place in the county, and that the increase in the last sixteen years could not amount to less than 100 per cent. During the same period the population of the county had not increased above 20 per cent; so that there was a large available surplus for the food of the population in the manufacturing districts. Their principal markets were Manchester, Leeds, Newcastle, and London. But how was their produce conveyed? Why, by the tedious and expensive conveyance of coasting vessels. But were they allowed to hire cheaper vessels—that is, supposing they would get them from the Baltic or the Rhine? He found that the coasting trade was an absolute monopoly. No: he found that the cultivation of the soil was hampered with serious restrictions. For instance, the tithe was a serious restriction upon the cultivation of the land; because it prevented them from cultivating it in any manner they might wish. If, for instance, a man wished to revert from tillage to pasture on his land, he was met by a fixed tillage tithe; for the amount of tithe might now be taken, under the Commutation Act, at about 10s. per acre upon tillage land, and upon pasture at 2s. 6d. per acre; so that if land which was now tillage were to be laid down in pasture, it must still pay the tillage tithe. There must, therefore, if this measure passed, be a remission of the Tithe Law: in fact, it could not stand with a repeal of the Corn Law; and that was a point which the heads of the Church would no doubt seriously consider, when the measure came before them in another place. He had heard it said that the heads of the Church were about to become consenting parties to this measure; but he did not believe that on this point they would desert the working clergy; for, upon them it was, that the burden of this measure would fall. The legislation of this House had very properly been directed of late to encourage residence, and to diminish pluralities; but how did they expect the clergy to live, if they diminished the income of the clergy in such a manner as the operation of this Bill would inevitably cause? Then he had heard the malt tax mentioned as a burden upon agriculture. He had never taken part in the agitation for the repeal of the malt tax: he believed, that as a tax, it fell upon the consumer, rather than the producer. But still he knew that it told upon the farmers more heavily than upon any other class, because they were in the habit of giving beer to their labourers; and without the malt tax they could give them very good beer at 1½d. per quart; but the malt tax added another penny to the price. It certainly affected the farmers, therefore, as large consumers of beer; and he would not say but an injurious effect was produced upon the farmer also in this way, that he was prevented from feeding his cattle with malt; and thus the farmer was restricted from doing what he liked with his own. Then he might go on to state that there were many things which a farmer might grow profitably, but which he was at present restricted from growing. For instance, the alluvial soils of Lincolnshire were well fitted for the growth of tobacco; but this the farmers were absolutely prohibited from cultivating. But did they think that excise laws could be maintained with free trade? It was impossible. Then, again, they might cultivate boot-root for the growth of sugar as they did in France; but there was a 24s. duty on that manufacture; and this was in effect a prohibition. He had been told, however, of the special exemptions from taxation which the agriculturists enjoyed; and the hon. Member for Lambeth glowed at that point. He presumed the hon. Member alluded to the legacy duty; for, with the exception of the remission of the tax on shepherds' dogs, and such trifles, he knew no exemption. But he would ask if the legacy duty was not more than met by the imposition of the stamp duties? He would give a practical case. He had recently bought a small piece of land, which lay in the middle of one of his farms; and the stamp duties and cost of conveyance amounted to five years' rent of the land. Look at the cost of the transfer of estates in all parts of the Empire. Look at Ireland. He believed the best measure for the improvement of that country would be to facilitate the abolition of long entails, and to encourage persons to purchase small pieces of land, which they might call their own. That would be real fixity of tenure; and the House would see that it would give rise to a happy and contented population. Don't let it be supposed that there was no capital in the country for such a purpose. It was well known that a great portion of the capital raised for the railways in Ireland, was furnished by the people of that country; and he was sure they would eagerly employ it in the purchase of small portions of land, if it were not for the great expenses of the stamp duties and costs of conveyance. He begged pardon for alluding to this subject, but he felt that this was in a great measure an Irish debate. It had arisen confessedly out of the scarcity of Irish potatoes. All the other arguments he had heard in support of it—his right hon. Friends on the Treasury bench would forgive him for saying so—he thought not worth a farthing. That failure in the potato crop, though a temporary evil, was likely to be more lasting, he was sorry to say, than some hon. Gentlemen seemed to think. He had tried some experiments, of which, he regretted to say, he could not give a favourable account; and he certainly entertained some fears for the future crop of potatoes. But he did not think Providence ever visited a land with chastisement, without, at the same time, giving some compensation; and he trusted that the effect of the present calamity would be to elevate the condition of the people of Ireland, to give them a taste for an improved description of food, and to give them that true independence which arose from adequate wages. He had endeavoured to ascertain what were the effects of these free-trade measures on foreign countries; and it did not appear to him that there was any country which was likely to meet us in the spirit of reciprocity. In France, he understood that they were in all quarters rejoicing at the relaxation of our duties, and preparing to take advantage of it by a large importation of those articles of taste in which the French are so skilful, and that they had already raised the price of their brandy; but he did not hear that any preparations were making to admit into that country British iron or British linens. They were complaining, indeed, that we had not extended our relaxations in favour of their wines; and, perhaps, when the right hon. Baronet relaxed his duties on French wines, they might be more disposed to go into measures of free trade. If he turned to the countries on the shores of the Baltic, he did not see there that they were prepared to follow our example. On the contrary, he found that Denmark, Hamburgh, and the States of Northern Germany, were preparing to join in that powerful association, the Zollverein. Then the right hon. Baronet had told them that Prussia was shaking. If she was, it was not from anything that England had done. She might, perhaps, be shaking in consequence of her participation in the greatest act of spoliation which history recorded; but it was not by the example of England. Then, if he cast his eyes across the Atlantic, he found there a proposition made, but with very little show of being carried, that the American tariff, which was at present 40 per cent on the value of imported goods, should be reduced one half. Even supposing that measure were carried, would that be free trade? Why, the British agriculturists did not ask more than a protection of 20 per cent, and then they would be able to meet foreign countries, fair and square, on the ground of mutual reciprocity. But it was of more consequence to consider what the effect of the measure would be upon the great and noble province of Canada. He had opposed the Canada Corn Bill, because it did not apply to the Colonies alike; it gave to Canada what it withheld from Australia, what it denied to the Cape of Good Hope, and did not give even to British India. He admitted that the apprehensions entertained of the measure in this country were groundless. The quantity imported had hitherto been very small; but the Canadians had been making great preparations, by the construction of canals and railways, and the erection of mills, to send a larger supply in future. Now, the whole of that flour would inevitably be directed to another channel; and he believed the Canadian corn would find its way into the market of New York. As regarded himself he confessed that when he heard the landed gentlemen stigmatized by hon. Gentlemen opposite as monopolists and plunderers, he would rather abandon protection altogether, than submit to be the subject of such misrepresentations. But he stood there the representative of a large agricultural constituency; and he had shown that that constituency had performed their part towards the nation with all integrity and with good effect; and though it had been said that that district had not treated the poor with the kindness and consideration expected from its inhabitants, he begged to deny the truth of the charge, and to contend that the labouring classes of Lincolnshire were as well off as were the same classes in any other district of England. It had also been stated that the wages of the county were low. He could deny that also by the best of all experience—the experience of his own practice; and he would vouch for the truth of what he stated on this point when he declared that the average of agricultural wages was from 9s. to 15s. per week. Skilled labourers, indeed, obtained more than the highest sum. If the measure now before the House became the law of the land, landholders must of necessity reduce expenses, and wages must be reduced. It was Saturday night that took away the money of the farmers. A large portion of the land also now growing corn would be thrown back to pasture. He had a pamphlet put into his hands a few days since, he should wish to quote to the House; and he would do so did he not know that no official returns of prices existed in the period to which the publication alluded. In the days of Henry VII. and Henry VIII., so different were the laws affecting corn, in comparison with those of the present day, that enactments were made compelling persons to cultivate corn. But another opinion he held was this—that the prices of corn would be high under a system of free trade; and for this reason, that the measure discouraged the growth of corn. A scarcity would therefore ensue, and if bad seasons followed abroad, more than a scarcity. The bonding system was an admirable provision against a period of dearth; but the new law quite discouraged it. It was the policy of the Romans to keep a supply of corn for the people; and if the House required an earlier example, they would find that stores of corn were found in Egypt when famine prevailed in Judea. The new law, however, would demolish the entire system of bond, which had been found so found so beneficial, and at the present time furnished a larger store of food than was possessed by any other country in Europe. It had been said that merchants would still supply the land with all the grain required; but that could not happen, because protection for trade would be taken from him. He begged to apologize for the length to which his observations had extended; and with the remarks he had already made he would conclude his observations.

SIR J. HANMER

agreed with the right hon. Member for the county of Perth, who spoke last night, that it was desirable for some and justifiable for others who supported this measure, and were wholly dependent upon the land, to rise and state their reasons; lest it should be thought simply an emanation of that "enormous money confederacy" of which his hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire had spoken rather bitterly, in a speech the ability of which he readily admitted, but which seemed to him to refer to matters capable of affording a very different illustration of the case. That hon. Gentleman invoked justice to aid him in support of what he believed to be protection, which yet he did not regard as equal in endurance to justice; for he contemplated the possibility of this corn law being repealed—that was rendered unnecessary by time. And therefore his hon. Friend opened all the question of whether this was not the time at which it should be repealed by Parliament, looking at the condition of agriculture, which it might be was able now, in its own interests best understood, to dispense with the existing system of what was called protection. It had dispensed with many previous systems; and when his hon. Friend said there was a tract in Cambridgeshire which, at a vast expense, with great industry and labour, had been reclaimed from a state of waste, on the faith and security of protection, within these sixty years, one was induced to ask which protection it was on which reliance was so placed? Surely it must be something sound and practical by which the marshes of Cambridgeshire were reclaimed. If it was protection that had done this, why, then, no doubt protection was an appreciable thing, and not what some considered it, a delusion and a superstition. But if though it should be a superstition, it might have been of some avail by inducing those who believed in it to undertake operations which, when they were once engaged in, their own energy carried them through; then the mind of his hon. Friend was too direct and manly not to be ready to inquire into this, and to prefer the real and effective power, whichever it might turn out to be. Now, he knew not when these operations were commenced, or when they were completed, or by whom they were carried on, but he took the time assigned to him by his hon. Friend; and it was a very moderate portion of the years since the Revolution, to which Gentlemen so often appealed. He took the last sixty years, and he marvelled which corn law it was during that period that had afforded the appreciable protection on which the conversion of all these marshes was made to depend. But he would say in passing, that if the memory of the great works of a similar nature executed in former times had any effect upon these undertakings, if it was the fame of the Bedford Level to which the noble Lord the Member for Lynn had appealed, that induced these works as a continuation, then that the Bedford Level could have possibly derived any support from corn laws, from legislative protection, he thought might fairly be questioned, and when questioned denied. Whatever part of the Bedford Level was begun or was carried on prior to 1670, was carried on under laws the avowed object of which, written in their preamble, was to keep down the price of corn. Would hon. Gentlemen like to look at those ancient laws? Such they would find to be their object; yet under them, and in spite of them—for they were as absurd, and restrictive, and injurious as any other—the greatness of this country grew continually, and countervailed them, though grievous famines happened, marking the futility of legislative interference with trade. Whatever part of these memorable works was completed subsequently to that period, or to the first year of the Revolution, 1689, was completed under laws which, though they were intended for protection, and to raise the price, had, as all these attempts always had had, a contrary result, for grain was from 15 to 20 per cent cheaper during the seventy years after 1689 than it had been for forty years before that time. And well it might, when all the absurdities of the mercantile system were in vogue; and when they had a Resolution, still, he believed, to be found on the Journals of that House, affixing the name of "nuisance" to a foreign trade. In the course of the last winter he desired to inform himself concerning the Bedford Level, and he procured many of the works which had been written on that subject, and read them all. He read of the noble character, the patriotic exertions, the engineering skill, the indomitable perseverance of the men who, in various capacities, were concerned in it. He read of their motives, which were answerable to their characters; but among them the idea of agricultural protection, by a corn law, as a main inducement or encouragement to drain the fens, was what he did not find; nor, to say the truth, did he expect it; and unless it was the restoration of the coinage, which was brought about at the Revolution, he did not remember any essential protection, beyond their own exertions, which they could have received. But as to these modern works, which he wanted to come to, sixty years ago they had an import duty of 6d. upon a market price of 48s. Well, that was very nearly a free trade—very little encouragement in the way of foreign duties was to be found there. But great encouragement to enclosures, to improvements of wastes, was found somehow, for the number of acres enclosed up to the time of the Bank Restriction Act, in the reign of George III., was 2,800,000 and more. Then came the Bank Restriction Act; and if that Act and the peculiar circumstances of the long revolutionary war—which must be taken completely to overbear the Corn Laws, and to make the changes in them that occurred up to the peace of 1815 hardly worth alluding to—were in any way concerned as main reasons or instruments of the improvements in Cambridgeshire, then at least it was not upon a corn law that they rested during that time. Perhaps they made a more stringent corn law necessary when war ceased; and that was the opinion of 1815. What protection could Cambridgeshire improvements have derived from the Corn Law of 1815? From petitions to that House, presented in former times, it seemed to have been peculiarly on that county, or on that county with as much severity as any, that the scourge of that law fell; for far was it from a protection. Did hon. Gentlemen doubt that it was a scourge? Let them not take its character from him, but as it was given without contradiction in 1827, in that House, by the Minister of the day. It was delivered by Mr. Canning. He would rather refer them to that speech than read it; but he would tell them what was the effect of the law, and his authority was Mr. Canning. He believed there was plausibility in the political arithmetic of that law; and the pivot price which it contained was fixed rather below the average price of the preceding twelve years. The effect of that law was infinitely worse than that which they were going to repeal, of which the Secretary of State had said, that "the sliding-scale would neither slide nor move, and that that was its condemnation;" for in the case of 1815 the sliding-scale did move, but it moved all the wrong way. That was at a time of scarcity at home; it made the ports closed, as if it had been a foreign enemy blockading them on their shores. At a time of plenty, when it should have averted foreign supplies, according to its theory, it poured them in. In the one case it was the fraction of 5d. in the averages, of 2d. in the other, that did this; and the fluctuation of prices, and the ruin of the land, and the misery which this protective measure caused, were such as had not been known before. And what did the Agricultural Committee, which sat afterwards, recommend? Was it increased protection? an aggravation of political arithmetic? He spoke not from recent reference, but he had a strong impression that they recommended them to construct a Corn Law, so that it should interfere as little as possible with the course of trade. In 1821–22 that did not appear to be wisdom which had been held wisdom by not inconsiderable men, and by responsible Ministers, in 1815. At that time there was again a change in the Corn Law; but the scale was so constructed that it never came into operation, and that law, therefore, did not remedy any evil; it did not in itself effect any evil; it was simply another instance of protection professed by an Act of Parliament, but in any practical sense worthless altogether. Well, then, to come to what he might call our Corn Law; that was, the Corn Law under which this generation had lived, and which they, sitting in that Parliament, had repealed. He doubted very much whether, under that law, the improvers of Cambridgeshire or any other agriculturists found appreciable protection—found that was a principle upon which calculations could be based, which could make agricultural improvements arithmetically secure. One principle there was which was developed—a kind of science, not famous for its security, however—a science well known along the eastern coast; much practised, at all events, though, like other illicit sciences, it betrayed its votaries sometimes; which was called "working the averages." How much corn came in at the 1s. duty? How much at periods when it was not required, by dint of these operations? How much was heaped up, of two or three years' growth at a time, unprofitably, in warehouses, either here or along the Baltic, exercising, like that mountain of loadstone that they read of in the Arabian Nights, a kind of magnetic influence upon prices, though it did not stir, and when it did stir, coming down like a landslip or an avalanche, confusing and overwhelming everything in its way? No laws can set prices in trade"—[he repaid his hon. Friend (Mr. E. T. Yorke) for Sir Simon D'Ewes with Sir Dudley North]—"no laws can set prices in trade, the rates of which must and will make themselves; but when such laws happen to lay hold, it is so much impediment, and only prejudicial. They had heard of wheat, brought from various places, imported at a low rate, during the existence of the Corn Law. Did they think they could argue generally from particular instances, or that the rates spoken of last night and heretofore by the Member for Sunderland would be the rates easy to come by, when these impediments were removed—when there was no longer a law which rendered it uncertain to the foreign merchant, who bought from the producer, at what time and after what rate he should be able to sell again; which introduced an extraneous uncertainty, and added it to that which was incidental to such matters? Why, they would be laughed at from Dantize to Odessa who came with such expectations to buy corn. The noble Lord the Member for Lynn repaid that anticipation by a smile; but he would tell that noble Lord, acute as he was said to be in matters of calculation elsewhere, given to calculations, as he certainly was, in that House, whether they were acute or not, that the merchants of the Baltic would be a match for him, and that they would tell him impediments to trade did not always tend to raise prices; and that an article of commerce might be worth a greater price, in proportion as hindrances to bringing it into the market were removed. He rejoiced, therefore, as a landed proprietor, that these impediments were to be removed. He thought, also, the condition of the world rendered it full time. He believed it was necessary that a great example should be shown of what the true policy of such a country as this really was, whether at home or abroad; and as foreign trade could not be well separated from home trade, and as it acted on our internal and domestic condition in a way which he suspected some of the Gentlemen who talked about protection to native industry had little considered, it was satisfactory to find the example set by the Government, and which would be warranted by the Parliament of England, bearing sign of fruits even now. He held in his hand a paper in which the revenues and expenditure of England and France had been contrasted by Baron Charles Dupin; and since the opinion of foreigners had been called the voice of contemporary posterity—at all event it was less disturbed by party and personal topics, and by philippics, such as one heard occasionally in that House, but looked to the main current of affairs, and took its judgment thence—let them see whether, in the policy of this country, influenced as it had been for a long series of years by the right hon. Gentleman, governed as it was by him now, there was any inconsistency apparent to Baron Dupin. So far from it, he saw but one object steadily pursued from 1815 to the present day; and when he drew his conclusion and his comparison with the contrary system in his own country, it was not in favour of France. The case of the Government was, that great public emergency called on them to proceed. He believed that this was true. On the one hand, reason, experience, the concurrent voice of statesmen, the warnings of many years, the accents of 1842, stronger and deeper than them all, and which sounded in the ears of this Parliament, called upon this Parliament, rather than on any other, to take the steps to which they were invited by the Government, before which party spirit bowed its head, to which they were equally invited by the right hon. Gentleman, or with a change of opinion every whit as great and as amply acknowledged by the noble Lord. On the other hand, what was it that they proposed who were opposed to the present measure? What was their policy? What did they design—a new fixed duty, a new sliding-scale? this one they had condemned. He knew not what was their policy; but if he wanted to find a comparison for those who sought shelter and protection, as they were pleased to call it, under auspices of unstable Corn Laws, he should say that they were like that fisherman, of whom they had all read in Milton, anchoring his boat, in delusion and the darkness, to a whale.

VISCOUNT EBRINGTON

said, he had no wish to imitate the spirit which animated the debate of yesterday, and felt glad that hon. Members had that night adopted a different tone. He would not follow the example of attacking the right hon. Baronet and his Colleagues. He would leave them to be attacked as they might by their friends, and defended as they best might by themselves. For the purpose, however, of making intelligible the question before the House, and the position in which it stood, he would refer to what had happened in November. [The noble Lord narrated at some length the resignation of Sir R. Peel, after he had in vain endeavoured to persuade his Colleagues to join him in a gradual repeal of the Corn Laws; Lord John Russell's attempt to form a Ministry; and Sir R. Peel's, resumption of office.] He would consider the Bill before the House, first, as a separate measure; second, as a part of a comprehensive adjustment. He regretted that Government had combined the repeal of the Corn Laws with the continuation of the sliding-scale for three years. To that scale he had ever been opposed. The first speech he had made in the House, had been in opposition to the principle of that scale. Against the evils of that scale, his noble Friend the Member for London (Lord J. Russell) had in July, 1842, prophetically warned the House, and predicted the evils which would infallibly result from its introduction. The noble Lord warned the House, in 1842, against the adoption of the Government measure then proposed by the right hon. Baronet at the head of the Government (Sir R. Peel), and had on that occasion observed, that whatever way the averages were taken, that still there would be found a defect, because they did not take into consideration the quality of the corn. For instance, in 1841, a considerable quantity of the Corn crop had been damaged; and in consequence of this a great diminution had taken place in the averages which regulate the duty. But had the public derived the advantage consequent upon this apparent reduction of price? No, the consumer obtained no benefit whatever, for he had to pay as much for his bread as if no such reduction in price had taken place. The noble Lord had further exposed the fallacy of the system by stating— In January, 1841, the average price was 61s. 2d.; in 1842, it was 61s. 2d.; but did the people obtain their bread at the same price? Far from it. The price of the best town-made flour was 55s. per sack in 1841, while in 1842 it was 61s., thus making a difference of 6s. per sack in the flour of which bread was to be made, while the averages did not vary one jot. This clearly proved that the price of bread could not be accurately ascertained by reference to the averages of corn. He could not but rejoice to find that the hon. Member for Hull (Sir J. Hanmer) had now taken this view, and was prepared to admit the evils of the sliding-scale. He trusted that hon. Member would use his influence with the Government, and impress upon them the necessity of repealing this last vestige of a system which increased so much the uncertainty of trade, and though frequently confounded with protection, had in reality nothing to do with it. But there were other reasons why the Government should not continue a modified sliding-scale; and one of those was, that by so doing they were conceding in substance that great object sought by a powerful confederation, while they at the same time failed in putting a stop to the agitation which that confederation was formed to carry on. The Government by the present proposition was about to concede what the Anti-Corn-Law League required; but at the same time left enough of protection to justify a continuance of the agitation. For his part, he thought it would be well at once to put a stop to a remedy, in his opinion only less dangerous than the evil it was intended to cure. But there was yet another stronger reason why the Government should at once abolish the laws respecting the importation of corn from foreign countries. The unprecedented scarcity of food, owing to the extensive failure in the potato crop had stripped the foreign warehouses of their accumulations; so that the British farmer would continue to be protected, not, it was true, by prohibitory laws, but in consequence of the extraordinary peculiarity of the times. He was far from sharing in the opinion of the right hon. Baronet (Sir R. Peel), that because there would be a great increase in the cultivation of foreign corn, and consequently an increased production, at the expiration of three years the prices on the Continent would be higher. He, on the contrary, thought that prices, so far from rising, would, in accordance with the usual laws which regulate supply and demand, diminish at the end of three years; and the farmer, decidedly, at the expiration of that time, would be subject to some accumulations of corn kept back till the duty entirely ceased. He felt that an apology was due to the House for detaining them at any length, especially after the very long discussions that had already taken place: but, as they had been informed by Her Majesty's Ministers that the measures they had proposed for the adoption of the House were to be considered not only as a settlement of the long-disputed corn question, but as a general scheme of commercial adjustment, he hoped he might be permitted to consider it in that light for a few moments. He would not discuss what had been usually considered the burdens on land; for the hon. Member for Lincolnshire, in two consecutive sentences, had stated with respect to tithes, that an injury would be inflicted on the landlord by the permanent tithe rent charge, and a cruel loss in the rent charge would be sustained by the tithe receiver from a reduction in his tithe under this Bill. Neither would he dwell upon highway rates, the malt tax, or other charges, which were to be alleviated by other means rather than by a fancied shifting of burdens from one class to another. But there was another burden upon land, which had not been referred to in this debate, and which, while it yielded little to the revenue, pressed grievously upon the small landed proprietors, and heavily, though not in the same proportion, upon the large: he alluded to the laws of real property, and the expense of transferring or mortgaging land. The consequence of this system was, that small properties could with great difficulty be sold, and it lessened the value in the market of large ones. He denied that the Government measures now sought to be introduced, could be called a comprehensive adjustment, while this monster grievance affecting landed property remained untouched. Free trade in land, since it did not precede, ought at least to be coincident with free trade in corn; he asked it as a right, he did not beg it as a favour to be allowed to sell land in the dearest, and buy it in the cheapest market. He did not mean to say that since the able Report of the Real Property Commissioners, much had not been done towards redressing the grievance, or that some relief had not been afforded; but this he would say, that though some of the Bills brought into Parliament in accordance with the recommendations of the Commissioners were to a certain extent productive of utility, that the efforts of volunteer legislators had confused still more the expensive and complicated laws relating to the transfer mortgage of real property. One very remarkable proof might be given of the positive defect in the law of real property with respect to the value of land. In England, where all our prejudices and feelings were enlisted in favour of the possession of land, land sold at fewer years' purchase than in any other country. In France, Belgium, Holland, Switzerland, and in parts of Germany and Italy, land sold from thirty to thirty-five, and sometimes as high as forty-five years' purchase; but in England it averaged from twenty-seven to thirty, and in Ireland it was rather less. The consequence of this system, combined with the enormous cost of transfer, had the effect of rendering small estates almost unsaleable, the charge for transferring bearing no proportion to the value of the estate transferred. He did not so much object to the cost of stamps, but he objected to the cost incidental to showing a title and making a retrospective history into an estate, at a charge quite irrespective of the magnitude of the estate, or of the frequency of the transaction. Those charges constituted, in his opinion, an enormous burden on land. In the Report of the Real Property Commissioners, several startling statements had been made upon the subject. There was one case in which the cost of making out the title would have been greater than the price; and the vendor having signed a contract was glad to let the purchaser have the land for nothing, in preference to making out a title, and receiving the purchase-money. There was also a case where the vendor of some land in Somersetshire paid 4,000l. purchase money, and 1,000l. in law expenses. In addition to those cases, a conveyancer had told him that it was a matter of no uncommon occurrence to charge ten or twelve per cent expenses on the sum realized by a sale. There was one remarkable fact contained in an anecdote, so pertinent to the present question, that he could not omit mentioning it. An eminent lawyer having sent a title to a conveyancer, called upon him to hear his opinion, when the conveyancer pointed out to him many defects in the title, which appeared at first conclusive, against its validity; upon which the lawyer remarked, "Then you advise me to give up the purchase." "I beg your pardon," replied the conveyancer; "I thought you were for other parties: buy it by all means; the title is as good a one as you can get." Now, he would ask, did not a system such as that eminently require reformation, and ought not some other principle to be adopted which would consult the interests of both parties, by affording facilities of transfer to the vendor and to the purchaser? As a question of political economy it needed no discussion. But in a social point of view, there were also many evils consequent upon the law of real property. The state of the law as it at present existed, precluded the possibility of a poor man ever hoping to become a landed proprietor, because the enormous expense of transfer would deter him from investing his savings in the purchase of land. Who could doubt but that a cottage and garden would be the most attractive savings' bank the poor man could possibly invest his money in? or who could doubt but that the landlord's ability to sell a portion of his estate, without a heavy cost incurred in transferring it, would facilitate the acquisition of such property? The state of the law led also to the absorption of the smaller proprietors. If hon. Members would read the evidence taken before the Lords' Committee on Drainage, they would perceive how such a tax pressed upon those who expended capital in improving property. One gentleman stated that he had undertaken improvements which would cost him 7,000l., and that the legal expenses connected with raising the money were 700l., or ten per cent on the capital. Such a want of facility of raising money led to bad cultivation and increased pauperism. He believed the community owed a deep debt of gratitude to the Anti-Corn-Law League for the efforts it was making to put small estates within the reach of the industrial classes. In England the general feeling of the people had not been one of hatred or enmity towards the owners of the soil; but this was caused by the general diffusion of landed property. The state of the law, however, was diminishing the number of small properties; the poor could not become landed proprietors, because of the expense of transfer, except in the case of copyhold. The consequence of the continuance of such a state of things might be seen in Ireland, where there were but two classes of occupiers of land—barons and serfs, with no yeomanry or middle class to connect them. In the Highlands of Scotland they had the same state of things; vast tracts of land held by one proprietor; the same want of employment for the population; and the same want of a middle class of landowners. Till lately they had no political and religious differences there; but how long would it be before the Free Church might become an element of discord in that country as great as ever had been experienced in Ireland? He regretted to say that the conduct of too many of the Scotch landlords had been such as to lead the people to view them with feelings somewhat analogous to those with which landlords were regarded in Ireland. And was the case different in Wales, where there existed so much discontent? It was all very well to talk of the new Poor Law and the bastiles, as they were called, as being the cause of that discontent, and of a state of things similar to what existed in Ireland. The evil was produced by the very same cause that created it in Ireland; but, being on a smaller scale, the effects were on a smaller scale too. He contended that while this monster grievance remained in the land, no one was entitled to regard the Ministerial scheme as one worthy the name of a comprehensive adjustment. Mr. Wilson, describing the difference between the two kinds of property in his valuable pamphlet, quotes Mr. Hargreaves' authority for saying that real and personal property can be dealt with (substantially) in the same manner, sold, mortgaged, settled, disposed of by will; and goes on to say that what the register at the Bank of England declares as a fact, the abstract of the title affords the means of ascertaining through the ordeal of a laborious investigation. The purchaser accepts the stock because it is standing in the vendor's name; the land, because it ought to be so standing. The law has provided machinery for posting up to the day the title to the stock, and telling the standing purchaser how the account actually stands; whereas, the title to land is left sixty years in arrears, and requires an accountant to post it up. If he were called upon to suggest a measure for settling this matter, it would be one in accordance with the opinions of a gentleman who stood high in the estimation of all who had considered this subject — he meant Mr. Senior. He would appoint real property commissioners to go into the whole subject, recommending that they should take steps to assimilate the condition of England with respect to the facility of dealing with landed property to the state of matters on the Continent, where it was transferred from hand to hand as easily as the three per cent Consols in this country; so that by degrees all classes would come to have an interest in the welfare and safety of the owners of the soil.

MR. RASHLEIGH

was not accustomed to trespass upon the indulgence of the House; but there were some occasions of such importance, that although a man might wish to consult his own convenience, it behoved him to come out boldly and state his opinions. He could not, after hearing the proposition of the right hon. Baronet (Sir R. Peel) sit still, or refrain from expressing the alarm with which he viewed the precedent about to be established with respect to the commercial policy of the country. He would like to ask the right hon. Baronet, whether he was prepared to concede to the unconstitutional demands made upon him by the Anti-Corn-Law Leaguers, for there were other persons of that persuasion, besides the hon. Gentlemen opposite. The measures lately proposed by the Government, and now sought to be made the law of the land, would, in his opinion, so far from causing an adjustment of the question, prove a bonus to further agitation. The right hon. Baronet the Secretary for the Home Department might smile; but he had no right to indulge in smiles upon so momentous a matter as the subject under discussion. Hon. Gentlemen opposite might smile; but they were the promoters of the agitation to which he had made allusion. But he confessed he was surprised to see the right hon. Baronet the Secretary for the Home Department, who ought to put down agitation wherever he found it, smiling at such a subject as the present. [Laughter.] Hon. Gentlemen opposite were not going to silence him by their laughter, for the cause he was about to advocate was of too much importance to be put down by the laughter of the hon. Member for Stockport, or the crew he saw behind him. The speeches that had been made in times past by the right hon. Baronet the First Lord of the Treasury (Sir R. Peel) were quite sufficient to convict him upon the present occasion. The noble Lord the Member for North Lincolnshire (Lord Worsley) had quoted extracts from two of the right hon. Baronet's speeches delivered in 1842; but he held in his hand an extract from a speech made in June 1844, not twenty-one months ago, and a portion of which he would read, with the permission of the House. It was in answer to a Motion made by the hon. Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. Villiers), for a repeal of the Corn Laws. What the right hon. Gentleman had said upon that occasion, he (Mr. Rashleigh) would stand by, for they were worthy of the great leader of a party that had since been deserted. The right hon. Baronet, on the 26th of June, said— I know, according to your strict rigid principles of political economy, abstractedly, if we were to forget the condition and circumstances of the country, and the interests which have grown up under the long endurance of protection—if we were to speak mathematically of these principles, no doubt they may be true. It may be true that a population from which protection is withdrawn, ought to apply itself to other employments; but is that strictly true? If we are not mere philosophers, and men of science, having to deal with abstract or indefinite quantities, but have to consult the convenience, the comfort, the substance, of great masses of human beings, are we to disregard those convictions which must be presented for the consideration of the Legislature and of statesmen. I speak not merely of tenants under leases, but of tenants-at-will, and of the labourers. No doubt, as far as the law is concerned, there are free opportunities for the application of capital to other branches of industry; no doubt it is true, speaking literally and technically, that the labourers in Kerry and Galway may go and seek for subsistence in Manchester and Coventry. That is all true enough in theory, but false in practice. How can you disturb a man who is far advanced in life, to the age, perhaps, of nearly half a century, whose father and grandfather before him were occupied in agriculture, and who knows nothing else himself? How is he to try this project of suddenly removing himself from his old occupations and locality, to new ones? Why, you would destroy his confidence in the application of his capital to agriculture as before, and you leave him without other modes of employing it. You may rejoice and indulge in those theories of modern philosophy and political economy; but when you have endangered and destroyed the peace and happiness of a nation, you will have but a sorry return for your pains. Looking then at the long endurance of the protection, at the amount of capital involved in agriculture, and the position of the population dependent upon agriculture, and at the interests, not merely of the landlords and tenants, but the comprehensive interests of all classes of the community, I must give my solemn and unqualified opposition to the proposal for the immediate removal of the present protection to agriculture. But I will not shrink from the other question. Am I prepared then, as I am opposed to the immediate removal of protection, to bring under the immediate consideration of the House any modified proposition for altering the amount of protection determined upon two years ago, and carried into effect with the general goodwill and concurrence of the agricultural interest? I say at once, I am not holding language different from that which my right hon. Friend and myself held at an early period of the Session. We then said, that we never had it in contemplation, and now we say that we have it not in contemplation, to make any alteration whatever in the Corn Laws. This was not said by a mere private individual of this House, but it was the opinion of the First Minister of the Crown—an opinion stated to this House not twenty-one months ago; and he thought it the duty of the right hon. Baronet to state to the House and the country his reasons for his tergiversation. This change was the more extraordinary, considering the silent and deserved contempt with which the Motion of the hon. Member for Wolverhampton used to be treated in that House; and that was the constitutional way of treating an unconstitutional set of tyrant agitators. This perhaps might be considered pretty strong language; but it was the language suited for 1846, when the right hon. Baronet at the head of the Government had become the leader of the Anti-Corn-Law League. He looked with great confidence and hope to the right rev. Prelates of the other House, who, he trusted, would stand by the Altar, the Throne, and the Cottage. Gentlemen opposite might save their sarcastic smiles at the mention of the cottage. He knew those hon. Members well enough. Though he lived at some distance from their smoky regions, their long chimneys were above the horizon of his memory. Some of those personages, whom the manufacturers held in the greatest contempt, were his greatest friends. Some of the operatives whom they treated with so much contempt and severity, he should be proud to have at his table. The League had on all occasions trampled on the rights of those operatives, but they never dared to face them in an open meeting. All the League meetings in the manufacturing districts were held in holes and corners. They were not open meetings. Though some of that party might laugh — and among them be saw the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets — yet that hon. Member might, if he visited the manufacturing districts, satisfy himself of the distress that prevailed there among the operatives. The hon. Member for Bolton was smiling under the shade of his fingers; but this was no smiling question, and the sooner he left off making those ill-timed grimaces the better. He was glad to hear from the right hon. Baronet (Sir R. Peel) a few nights ago of the prosperous condition of the miners in his (Mr. Rashleigh's) county. They were described as being in a state approaching to luxury. It was said that they had such an abundance of food that they were enabled to apply a large portion of their earnings to the purchase of feather beds. Now, could there ha a better argument for continuing that state of things under which they enjoyed such prosperity? These people had good wages, and knew nothing of the truck system. He should like to see the hon. Member for Stockport coming among them. It would take some time before he could lay himself down in one of their feather beds. But these operatives were wide awake to the proceedings of the right hon. Baronet. They were well aware of the evil tendency of his free-trade measures. They knew that his proposition respecting the article of copper ore alone would ruin a vast number of the industrious classes. He would read to the House a letter which he had received from a gentleman in that district, who employed upwards of 3,000 men daily. [The hon. Member then read the letter, the effect of which was that the free-trade measures of the Government would materially injure the industrious classes, particularly those in the mining districts; and that in bad harvests the miners would have been often without bread, if the self-adapting power of the sliding-scale had not secured them an ample supply on moderate terms.] He regretted to be obliged to oppose the measures of the right hon. Gentleman, whose experience and talent were so great; but he could not, at the expense of his own consistency, follow the right hon. Baronet's newfangled notions. He had always acted on principle, and should continue to do so. He hoped the Conservative party around him would remain true to their principles, and that the next election would send many gentlemen to their aid whose conduct would give a tone and character to the House that would raise it in the estimation of the public.

MR. F. T. BARING

trusted that the hon. Member who had just sat down, would not consider him wanting in respect if he followed the course of which the hon. Member seemed to approve on a former occasion, and treated his observations with that constitutional silence which the hon. Member considered so conclusive an argument. He should be very much disinclined to break silence at all on this subject; but as it seemed to be the arrangement that they were to debate the question until a given time, and he was, therefore, not prolonging the debate, he felt an anxiety that it should not pass by without expressing his cordial approbation of the measures introduced by Her Majesty's Government. He might perhaps wish, with his noble Friend, that some modifications might be made; but, looking at the measure as a whole, and seeing in it great good, and much more the seeds of future good, he should give it his warmest and most cordial support. As for going into the arguments upon this question, they were so utterly worn to pieces that there was nothing left; and any Gentleman who had heard the speech made that evening by the hon. Member for Lambeth, would feel that it was quite unnecessary, until at least an answer had been given to that speech. There was, however, one circumstance which had developed itself in the course of the discussions—one great fact, if he might so call it, which required notice—he meant the formation of a large party independent of the two parties which used to divide the House. This party had withdrawn their confidence from Her Majesty's Government, and stood now in a perfectly independent position. He could not but agree with the observation made on a former night by his hon. Friend the Member for Liskeard, that a great party must, with the power, assume the responsibility of party. When a party chose a loader, and bound themselves together by party ties, they were called upon to declare to the House and the country the course which they intended to follow. He begged hon. Members opposite to believe that he spoke of that party with no feeling of disrespect; but on the contrary, he gave them great credit for the spirit, intelligence, and ability with which they had conducted themselves under the very difficult circumstances in which they had been placed, deprived of their former leaders, and thrown on their own resources. He was desirous to put to them some questions as to the course they were about to pursue: he wished to ask them what they proposed to do with regard to this Corn Law? It was all very well for an individual Member to rise and object to the measures of Her Majesty's Government: he was not called upon—it was almost presumptuous—to lay before the public counter proposals; but a party stood under serious obligations. If hon. Gentlemen had taken upon themselves to form a party, looking, as they naturally must do—if they were in earnest, which he was sure they were—to the ascendancy of their own opinions, and the elevation to power of those in whom they placed confidence, they must act as a party. He was desirous, therefore, to ask them, if the present measure were rejected, what measures they were prepared as a party to lay before the country? He had heard several propositions from Gentleman of the protection party. Some hon. Gentlemen were in favour of a fixed duty; others again, among them the hon. Member for Somerset, said that the battle was to be fought for the present law—for that or none; that no compromise could be accepted. An hon. relative of his own who had spoken ably against the Bill, stated as his opinion, that the present moment was the best for a compromise. He must be permitted to recall to the memory of the House an admission made to the right hon. Baronet opposite at the beginning of the Session. The right hon. Baronet, in his opening speech, stated the dangers he foresaw, and asked the question whether or not he might consider it as admitted, that he ought to have taken some measure in November last—some such measure as suspending the Corn Laws. The House would remember that the right hon. Baronet put that question, and that it it was then generally admitted on the protection benches, that under the circumstances the right hon. Baronet ought to have suspended the Corn Laws. But, further than that, hon. Gentlemen went the length of blaming the right hon. Gentleman for not having issued an Order in Council at the time. Now, he put it to them, in the face of that admission, what course could they now take? He asked them for a plain answer—would they condescend to be intelligible? What was their scheme? Did they mean to support the sliding-scale? If they did, he asked, after that admission, to know by what arguments? One great recommendation of the sliding-scale used to be, that its opponent—a fixed duty—could not be relied on or upheld in times of scarcity; while, on the other hand, the sliding-scale adapted itself to the emergency, and admitted corn as it was required. Such had been their argument; but how could they now contend that the sliding-scale had this power of self-adaptation, when they admitted that no longer ago than November, it ought to have been suspended, because it had not so adapted itself. But that was not all. There was another argument that used to be urged in favour of the sliding-scale. His noble Friend the Member for the city of London, in bringing forward his proposition in 1841, admitted that a difficulty did exist in the way of the fixed duty: he admitted that in case of famine it might be difficult to retain the fixed duty; and he proposed to overcome it by investing the Crown with the power of issuing an Order in Council, to admit corn in times of scarcity. What was the reply of the right hon. Gentleman opposite? It was, that such a power ought never to be vested in a Government—that a law should be devised which would adapt itself to circumstances. What became of that argument after the admission that the Government, in November last, ought, on their own authority, to have issued an Order in Council to suspend the law. Who, too, they asked, supposing the Corn Laws to be suspended, would have the courage to replace them? Such was the tenor of their arguments. But how would they go to the country, and in the face of such arguments—after contending that the sliding-scale ought to have been suspended—how could they go to the country and seriously propose to support what by their own showing was so inefficient? How could they continue to advocate the present sliding-scale when their admission showed it possessed none of the qualities which originally rendered it preferable to the fixed duty? All the old arguments on which the sliding-scale had been defended, were abandoned by the admission made by the protection party—had they not made that admission? They had told the House that the agricultural party would have supported the right hon. Baronet in a temporary suspension of the Corn Laws. The hon. Member for Somersetshire stated that he had been ready to do so, and that the great body of the farmers entertained the same views. For his own part, he thought that the right hon. Gentleman was right in proposing what he had proposed to the Government last November. If, with the authentic information before him, the right hon. Baronet dreaded scarcity in Ireland, the right hon. Gentleman's proposal was a most just and proper one, and one for which he would have gladly supported a Bill of Indemnity. But the right hon. Baronet was well aware that when he consented to the Order in Council he rendered a reconsideration of the Corn Laws necessary, and so were his Colleagues. Well, but was it a fixed duty which they were prepared to advocate? He was not disposed to attack those who favoured a fixed duty. He had been a party to the proposition of a scheme of this kind in 1841, thinking it the best which could under the circumstances have been proposed, and the one which would have given them ultimately the means of meeting further claims with more knowledge of the subject than the present arrangement had afforded. But the time for such an arrangement had passed. He could not but feel that they were now justified in changing their opinion on this subject. Could they go to the country on the question of a fixed duty? The Member for Newcastle-under-Lyne, and some other Gentlemen, had expressed a great hankering for a fixed duty. Well, they abandoned that proposal: then, what did they propose? He asked the noble Lord the leader of the party to state to the country what he proposed—what was the business scheme which he was prepared to stand by, and what was the expectation in which they continued their opposition? It was quite clear that the opinion of that House was in favour of the measure of Government. Were their expectations, then, founded upon the Bill being thrown out in another place? If such were the case, had they calculated the cost of the position which they were about to assume? Was it so comfortable a thing for the House of Commons to be opposed to the Lords on such a question? Such a circumstance had not been unknown of late, the greatest difficulties of Lord Melbourne's Administration having been occasioned by the opposition of the two Houses of Parliament. But the protection party talked of appealing to the country. Were they prepared for that fight? Was it so light a thing to have an election—in which the agriculturists would be banded against the trading classes? And on what question would the fight take place? On that of the food of the people; one of the most exciting of all subjects which could possibly be mooted. Let them think of what would be their position in such circumstances. Parties would be bidding on both sides for the physical strength of the country; on the one side they would have the argument used by the manufacturers, that the labourer was by them—the country party—deprived of his food; while, on the other, he saw symptoms that the arguments to be used would not be of a less stirring description. The rural population would be told that the foreign would be employed instead of the home labourer—that a repeal of the Corn Laws would throw out of employment the agricultural peasant, and starve the labourer. These were not safe arguments to use in the course of a violently contested general election. Therefore if hon. Gentlemen did not feel perfectly assured of success, they were taking upon themselves a most heavy responsibility in throwing the country into such a state of confusion and excitement. And at what a moment would such a contest come? If the expectations of the right hon. Baronet were correct, this contest would take place at the very moment when Ireland would be suffering under a want of food. But, putting aside these difficulties: suppose, for the sake of argument, they were in power—suppose they had a Treasury bench able to contend with those who now fill, and those who lately filled it—suppose that they had a willing and united majority—were they quite sure that they would have no other enemies to contend with? Look to the course of every Government since 1815. From that time to this, if they would look to the history of the administration of commerce, they would find that it had been one of continued relaxation. It might have been quick at one time, and slow at another; but whether they looked to the Governments of Lord Liverpool, or Mr. Huskisson, or Earl Grey, they would invariably find that our commercial policy had been one of relaxation. What inference did he draw from that fact? There was a free-trade influence in Downing-street, which seemed to be infectious. It seemed as if those who had the best means of knowing the state of trade of the country, and who had also the responsibility of providing for it, found of necessity, that there was to be but one course, that of relaxation, to be pursued. Let them but select independent men, to sit on the Treasury bench—men who had the power to think, and the manliness to act upon their determination, and he would have no fear even of a protectionist Administration. He felt satisfied that when they felt the responsibility of the position, they would be compelled, at whatever sacrifices, to follow in the footsteps of their predecessors. It was not to be supposed that it was a particular agitation which was the cause of their present position. It was reason, justice, truth, which were betraying them—they were silently undermined by the stream of time; for their castle was built upon sand.

MR. SHAW

could assure the House that he was not unmindful of the indulgence and kind attention he had recently experienced from them in a former stage of the measure then under their consideration. He would therefore make his present trespass as short as possible, consistently with the facts he was anxious to lay before the House. He was the more anxious to do so, on account of the speech of the right hon. Gentleman who had just sat down, which related to the alleged famine and consequent disease in Ireland, on which the right hon. Gentleman, following the example of the Government, had laid such stress. He had from the first approved of taking every precaution against the possibility of so great a calamity as a famine in Ireland, and for the alleviation of the undoubted sufferings of a large class of the poor in that country; but he had likewise maintained that the prospects of famine had been exaggerated, and that the Government had been unduly alarmed, and misled by the reports they had received on the subject. He was not unconscious of the unpopularity and invidious observations which the course he had taken was calculated to bring upon him; nevertheless, in a matter of that grave importance, he felt it an imperative duty to state to the House what, in all sincerity, he believed to be the real truth of the case. He wished at the same time to guard himself from misconstruction; he bore in mind the melancholy fact that a large portion of the Irish people were habituated to live on the very verge of destitution, and that any failure in their almost only food, the potato, must sadly aggravate their sad condition. He had never denied that there had been in the last season a general disease in the potato, and a considerable failure: he had, therefore, lent his willing support to the remedial measures of the Government for giving labour to the unemployed, food to the destitute, and medicine to the sick poor of Ireland. He had not charged, as he had been accused of doing, the Government with wilful exaggeration, nor the officers of the Government, or those employed by them, with intentionally misleading the Government; but he had said, and then repeated, that the prospects of famine in Ireland had been in fact exaggerated, and that the Government had been in fact misled. He had been challenged for the proof of that statement. He was then prepared to make it. He would commence by referring to the first official document which had been presented to the House, namely, "the Report of Dr. Playfair and Mr. Lindley." In that was the following statement:— We can come to no other conclusion than that half of the actual potato crop of Ireland is either destroyed, or remains in a state unfit for the food of man. We, moreover, feel it our duty to apprize you, that we fear this to be a low estimate. That was on the 15th of November last. Now, that one document illustrated his whole statement, for no one could suppose that these eminent men were guilty of a wilful exaggeration; yet, when they said that in November one-half of the potato crop in Ireland was destroyed, there was not a practical man in Ireland who did not know that that was a monstrous exaggeration; and he (Mr. Shaw) would demonstrate it to the House. Why, if half the crop was gone in November, there would scarcely be a potato in Ireland at that moment, and the papers he held in his hand would show that not only were the Irish markets plentifully supplied with potatoes up to last Saturday, but that the market price was rather falling than rising. The next document was the Report of the Commissioners of Inquiry, sitting at Dublin Castle, and dated the 20th of January. Did they attempt to say that, even at that period, two months further advanced, half the potato crop was then gone? No such thing. They did not give any estimate of the loss. It was a difficult calculation to make with anything approaching to accuracy; but he had reason to know that so far as they had made it, their opinion was that at the end of January there might have been about one-fifth deficiency in the stock of potatoes. A fifth in January could not have been more than a tenth, instead of a half, in November; and was he to be blamed for calling that exaggeration? Then, as to the market prices, his hon. Friend (Mr. Miles) had obtained a return "of the highest price of potatoes in the various market towns of Ireland, in the week ending the 24th January, for the last seven years." The previous six years had been very low ones; but that document showed that on the 24th of January last the average price throughout Ireland was about 4d. the stone, or less than 3s. the cwt.; that was, at least, no evidence of famine: it was not more than a remunerating price. He should, however, be able to show that since then the price had not materially varied; that, in fact, it was, it anything, lower. He had from time to time, since that return had been placed in their hands, marked in the margin of it the variations in the price up to the latest period he could receive from market notes or otherwise authentic information; he had done so without making any selection, and the result was, that the price up to the present time was, as nearly as possible, the same as in January. He would read from different parts of Ireland a few samples to the House:—

POTATOES, PER STONE.
Belfast	Jan. 24.—6½d.	March 3.—5d.
Randalstown	5	11.—6½
Cork (City)	5½	21.—5
Downpatrick	5	10.—4	to 4½d.
Newry	4½	3.—4	to 4
Enniskillen	4	10.—3½	to 4
Galway	4½	4.—2½	to 3
Gort	3	14.—2½

Kilkenny	Jan. 24.—4½d.	March 11.—5d.
Limerick	4½	12.—3½	to 5d.
Castlebar	3	4.—2	to 3
Drogheda	6	13.—5	to 6
Nenagh	3	10.—4½
Waterford	4	12.—3½	to 4½
Enniscorthy	5	8.—3¾
Wexford	4½	4.—4	to 5

He had received that morning a weekly paper, the General Advertiser, printed last Saturday in Dublin, and furnishing market notes, with the last prices of potatoes, in thirteen market towns in various parts of Ireland, which he would shortly read to the House, taking them all in hundredweights:— Dublin, which was the highest, was 4s. to 4s. 6d.; Belfast, 3s. 6d. to 4s. 6d. Castlebar (Mayo), 2s. 6d.; Enniskillen (Fermanagh), 2s. 6d.; Kilkenny, 3s. 4d.; Limerick, 3s.; Mullingar (Westmeath), 3s. 6d.; Newry (Down), 3s.; Tralee (Kerry), the market note states, 'the potato market was plentifully supplied, and, as yet, no advance in prices beyond our former quotations;' Randalstown (Antrim), 3s. to 3s. 4d.; (and it was curious that Randalstown was the first town mentioned in the disease (Ireland) return, where disease was said to exist on account of insufficiency of food); Waterford, 2s. 6d.; and Wexford, 3s. Surely those returns indicated no famine price. Next, with regard to the Paper headed "Disease" (Ireland), presented to the House on the 13th of the present mouth; introduced so pompously, and with such threats of extinguishing his representations, by the immense impression it was to make upon the House; he lamented that even so much sickness, and apprehension of sickness, prevailed at the present time in Ireland as that return set forth; but he did not recollect a year in which, at that season, the same might not be said with truth of the sanatory condition of that country; and a more complete failure of the promise, as compared with the performance, to establish any alarming increase of fever as the consequence of famine, he had never met with. The Paper was headed "The most serious representations made by the several medical superintendents of public institutions." The first inquiry that occurred to the mind upon reading that document was, what was the entire number of such medical officers in Ireland, and what proportion did the number of extracts given bear to the whole? He believed the medical superintendents of public institutions in Ireland were in number nearly 700; and all the extracts given in the Paper in answer, he presumed, to a circular, only amounted to 108. He (Mr. Shaw) had analysed these, and he found of the 108 that only 29 gave any positive opinion that fever or other epidemic had been caused by scarcity of food. Six, who reported that fever had appeared, declared that it was not owing to the scarcity of food; others attributed the existence or apprehension of disease to various other causes; such as wet weather, bad habitations, insufficient clothing, and, above all, want of employment. The following extracts, which he would take at random, afforded fair specimens of what these "representations" principally were:— Apprehends fever in districts; strongly recommends establishment of a fever hospital." "900 able-bodied men and an equal number of women, besides many small farmers, are seeking employment. Apprehends breaking out of disease. The people being unemployed, are unable to purchase food. Outbreak of fever frequent in summer months, and spreads rapidly for want of an hospital." "5,000 or 6,000 poor unemployed. Breaking out of disease apprehended in the spring and summer. Suggests the erection of a fever hospital in districts where destitution is heavily felt. Medical district of officer embraces a diameter of twelve miles from his residence. Nothing could be more natural nor more just than that medical officers should recommend the establishment of fever hospitals, and a better provision for the sick poor in districts where, no doubt, such were wanting; and that seemed to him the whole drift of the return. He had then endeavoured to show, from the market price of potatoes throughout Ireland, which should be the best criterion; from a comparison of the Government's own Reports, and from an analysis of the Fever Return, that there was at present nothing approaching to a famine in Ireland: but he would like to complete his proofs by reading a few general communications. The first he had taken from the report of the charge of a learned Judge, delivered within the last fortnight in Omagh. He was a very humane Judge, of long experience, and also well acquainted with country affairs?—he meant Mr. Justice Torrens. In referring to one of the Acts lately passed in that House for the relief of the Irish population, Judge Torrens observed:— I must say, however, in relation to this subject, that, in passing through the country, I have not been struck by any appearance of starvation or misery which may be said to be abroad. I have observed the potato fields and haggards of the farmers of the country as I have passed along, and I really must say that there is not more than the usual, if so much, appearance of misery or destitution throughout the country. That was on the North-west Circuit; including Tyrone, Fermanagh, Donegal, Londonderry, &c. The next was from an hon. Friend of his, a Member of that House; and though the letter was private, and written for another purpose, yet, as it was very creditable to the feelings of his hon. Friend, he might mention his name—the hon. Member for Longford (Mr. Lefroy). The letter was dated the 18th of that month, and stated— It would in the present state of things be most important that all who can should remain as long as possible, with a view of ascertaining in the different localities the extent of real want, and endeavouring to relieve it and to guard against its increase. Mr. Lefroy added— Your statement of the other evening as to the potatoes, is confirmed by my experience in Longford, Sligo, and Roscommon. I have been an eyewitness in those counties; but precautions are no doubt necessary. Those were two counties of Connaught, and one of Leinster bordering on Connaught. He would take some other counties in Leinstor, and next read an extract from the letter of a gentleman who resided in the county of Wexford, and was a grand juror of the county of Kildare, and who spoke of both counties; his letter was dated the 17th of that month, and it stated— It is perfectly true what you have stated in your place in Parliament, that the amount of distress in Ireland has been greatly exaggerated. Last Saturday I bought, in the public market of Naas, several barrels of potatoes for seed of the best description and perfectly untainted, at 5½d. per stone. Having come to this county to attend the assizes from the county of Wexford, where my family residence is, I am enabled to state that there also there is an absence of distress. On Saturday, the 8th inst., I myself sent to the market of Gorey, two loads of potatoes, wound and no appearance of taint; and the man in charge had to store them in Gorey. So great was the glut in the market, that he was unable to obtain a higher price than 3½d. a stone; and he considered that not enough. In Enniscorthy, distant from Gorey eighteen or twenty miles, the price was the same, and the same again in the town of Wexford. As regarded the south, he had a letter from a gentleman residing near Cork, who said on the 18th, in allusion to his (Mr. Shaw's) statement in the House— I myself am a farmer, to the extent of from 300 to 400 acres; and, as a landlord and farmer, can safely say Ireland has not, in my memory, experienced a better year than the past. From the neighbourhood of Fermoy, a clergyman of the Established Church wrote to him within the last week:— I am a friend to the principle of free trade; but I think a great question ought to be considered on its own merits. The potato panic in this part of the country is vox et prœterea nihil. I drove towards Kildorrery yesterday. The people were employed in opening their pits, and the universal answer to me was, 'They are very good.' My own are as good as I ever saw; and Mr.—, of Old Town, near Doneraile, gave me a similar account of the neighbourhood about him. The last extract was from a Presbyterian clergyman in the neighbourhood of the city of Cork, and it was the only communication in answer to one from himself; the others had all been casually received. [Mr. COLLETT: What is the date of the letter?] The 21st of March, last Saturday. The writer said— Since you left this neighbourhood," in the end of December, "the general opening of the pits show that the disease had progressed. He wished to keep nothing back: the letter continued— And what is more strange, the injury appears most where most care has been taken to avert the malady; wherever the plans recommended by the Commissioners were adopted, the destruction of the potato appears more complete. In some districts the potatoes have been much less injured—as the barony of Inniskilly, from which a great supply is at present sent to the Cork market; farmers from which district proposed to let me have as many thousand stone as I wished guaranteed safe from disease at 5d. a stone. This is the market price of white potatoes to-day in the Cork market; the cups are 3d. All agree that the crop was more abundant by one-third than it has been for the last seven years; that the injured potatoes have been given to cattle in place of the good ones, formerly set apart for the same purpose; and that there is a greater quantity of potatoes in the country than is generally believed. Much has been done to spread the cry of famine by interested individuals, to make themselves popular, by calling on the wealthier class to subscribe funds for the purchase of provisions for the poor, and most people will inform you that distant districts are starving. From all this, it is evident that fears have been magnified not a little. He hoped that he then had satisfied the House, that while he charged others with exaggeration, he had not himself been guilty of any in the former statement he had made to them. The right hon. Baronet at the head of the Government had rested so great a part of the case of his present measure on the foundation of the potato failure in Ireland, that he felt the more justified in dwelling upon it; but for his own part, if he were to admit that the failure had been to the utmost extent represented, he still should be at a loss to understand why the whole commercial policy of a great Empire should have been changed to meet a casualty which in this climate every thinking man who had supported the existing system of corn laws must always have contemplated as possible; and, if the system was good for anything, it must have been good to provide against contingencies to which they were constantly subject. Further, according even to the showing of the right hon. Baronet (Sir R. Peel) himself, it would have been like the old adage—"Live horse, and you shall have oats." The remedy would be too late for the disease. He still believed the measure would be disastrous to the best interests of England; but more unquestionably so in Ireland. When he saw that in the year ending the 5th of January last, there had been imported into Great Britain from Ireland upwards of 3,250,000 quarters of corn and flour of Irish growth, he could not comprehend those new political economists who said, if by the repeal of the Corn Laws you removed the artificial price that was then paid for their corn in England, it would be left at home for the poor Irish farmers and their own families to eat. He had certainly read something of political economy, although he did not profess to be a political economist; but at least he knew enough of the principles of common sense to think that you might as well tell the butcher and the baker that if they lost their customers they and their families might live plentifully on the meat or bread that would be left upon their hands, as tell the poor Irish oat-grower that he would be the better for losing his at present protected commerce with England. But none of the young converts talked free trade so glibly, there were none to whom the lessons of political economy seemed to come so easy, as his right hon. Friend Sir G. Clerk. His right hon. Friend appeared to think that the Vice-President of the Board of Trade was a piece of official mechanism in that respect; and he verily believed, that there was no one in the House doubted, including his right hon. Friend himself, that if the right hon. Baronet at the head of the Government had not changed his opinion on the subject, there would not at that moment be a stouter or burlier protectionist in the House than his right hon. Friend the Vice-President of the Board of Trade. His right hon. Friend had never said, so far as he knew, that he had altered his opinions, and his right hon. Friend very wisely had attempted no explanation; if his right hon. Friend had, he might borrow a short couplet from a character in dramatic history:— Ban, ban, Ca-Caliban, Get a new master—be a new man. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Portsmouth (Mr. Baring) paid a great compliment to the protectionist benches in turning from the right hon. Baronet (Sir R. Peel), nominally at the head of the Government, and addressing his hon. Friends as if they were then the only influential party at that side of the House. The right hon. Gentleman seemed very inquisitive about what was to be their policy if they came into office. Taking warning from the example of the last and the present Government, he would advise his hon. Friends not to commit themselves by any pledges or promises of consistency. An hon. Friend of his had just put into his hands an extract from an answer of the right hon. Baronet the First Lord of the Treasury (Sir R. Peel) to somewhat of a similar question put to him in August, 1841. The right hon. Baronent (Sir R. Peel) then said— Upon this subject I must maintain precisely the same language which I held previously to the dissolution; at any rate, you shall not have cause to charge me with having, before the dissolution, employed language which, now that I have obtained a majority, I am inclined to modify, and that whilst I have assisted in removing you from office on account of distinct measures which you have proposed, I contemplate confirming myself in power by proposing measures of the same nature. I tell you frankly I contemplate no such thing. That was what the right hon. Baronet (Sir R. Peel) said in 1841. But what had he done since? So he would recommend his friends to observe a prudent silence on such subjects. But, he was persuaded that office had never entered into the calculations of his hon. Friends. He, for his own part, could speak disinterestedly, for he not only did not contemplate office, but there was no office or situation that could be offered to him which he could accept. His hon. Friends had been formed into an independent party by the desertion of their former leaders, and a simple determination to oppose what they disregarded as a dereliction of principle, and a course injurious to the best interests of the country. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. F. Baring) as representing the Whig party, seemed only to be able to regard political motives in connection with office. For a constitutional Whig the right hon. Gentleman was wonderfully apprehensive of an appeal to the constituencies. His hon. Friends neither desired the one, nor feared the other. But this much he would say, that he was persuaded they would not shrink from any responsibility that circumstances, not of their own seeking, should cast upon them. It was very obvious that no man, no matter what his abilities might be, could attempt to govern this country, who could only command about a hundred and twelve or a hundred and twenty followers in that House; and depend upon it, if the protectionist or independent party had, after a general election, a majority in that House, based upon sound and constitutional principles, they would not long be without competent men to lead them in both Houses of Parliament. He had all along felt that, bad as the measure was, a thousand-fold worse were the means which had been adopted to carry it. And up to that moment only three members of the Cabinet of November had made anything that could be called an explanation of their public conduct. One of the three to whom he alluded—the right hon. Baronet the First Lord of the Treasury—had placed his renunciation of the matured opinions of thirty years partly upon the experience of the last three years, but principally upon the Irish potato failure—a ground which he could not help thinking had itself since failed the right hon. Baronet. The conversion of the right hon. Baronet was sudden—indeed so sudden as to spread consternation throughout the country; but there was something so miraculously rapid in that of the young Gentlemen who used to come out, morning after morning, in the public papers with confessions of their "change of opinion on the Com Laws," that if the subject had not been too serious, it would have covered the whole with ridicule. Such, however, as they were, that was a section who professed to have abandoned their former convictions, and to act upon their new opinions. There was another class who did not profess to have altered their former opinions, but only to act in opposition to them. The second member of the Cabinet who had explained, might be considered as the representative of that class; and they had in him no doubt the example of a great man—the greatest of living men—a man who for more than half a century had served his Sovereigns and his country as probably no one man had ever served them before. He seemed to think that some peculiar command of his Sovereign forced him to an act which, all must know, could only be a sacrifice to him. If his explanation was not perfectly intelligible, still the answer was, it was the Duke of Wellington, and, as regarded him personally, if England was not satisfied she must be silent. But, though the laurels of Waterloo could not thus be withered, depend upon it they would not shelter the public reputation of the other nine, who seemed to have that only refuge. Their conduct was still unexplained, it was probably inexplicable. The remaining member of the Cabinet had given his explanation, as well by his acts as by his words; he had declared his principles, and he had stood by them. A man of ancient lineage, and of mind as noble as his birth, he had by his manly and straightforward conduct done much to redeem the honour of his order. If the measure were to become law, he earnestly hoped that his anticipations of its ill effects might not be realized. But at least throughout the present generation, the mode of carrying it would remain an indelible disgrace to English statesmanship. It would impair the national character of England throughout the civilized world. It had not only destroyed all public confidence in public men, but the ramifications of its blighting injury were untraceable. Making constituents distrustful of their representatives — dissolving old friendships into bitterness and execration—setting father against son, and son against father—it had disturbed all the relations of social and domestic life. The whole House, the entire country, would participate in the evil. All those who sat at his (Mr. Shaw's) side of the House must deeply share the sorrow; but let it be the consolation of the friends who surrounded him, and himself, that they had escaped the degradation.

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER

presumed that the cheers with which the remarks of his right hon. Friend had been received by those who sat around him were to be ascribed rather to the peroration of his speech, in which he had animadverted, with his accustomed severity, on the conduct of those with whom he was formerly connected, but whom he now opposed; for he could not believe that any of those hon. Gentlemen who had attended to the course of events in this country since the commencement of the year, or who had paid the most ordinary attention to what had been passing in that House, or to the reports which had been laid on the Table as to what was passing in Ireland, could have intended, by their cheers, to sanction or approve the statements which the right hon. Gentleman had made with respect to the existence of scarcity in the sister country. The right hon. Gentleman had commenced his speech by stating that he was now prepared to confirm, by detailed statements, what he had hinted at on former occasions when he had addressed the House?—that there was not that ground for apprehension of scarcity in Ireland which Government had endeavoured to impress on the country; that those statements had been made with the particular view of supporting the Government measure, and had no reference to the real state of the country. The right hon. Gentleman had further referred to the documents on the Table of the House, for the proof of that fact. He should have heard these statements with considerable surprise from any one; but coming from an Irish Member, who ought to know the state of the country with which he was connected, they had astonished him. He had heard them with yet more surprise, knowing that the hon. Member for Somersetshire had stated distinctly, in an early period of the debate, that he was deeply impressed with the prevalence of distress in Ireland, and was prepared to assent even to a suspension of the Corn Law, with a view to afford relief. On what ground were these statements said to be exaggerated? The right hon. Gentleman said that the accounts on the Table of the House represented nothing more than what was the ordinary state of scarcity in Ireland. If that be so—if the people of Ireland are suffering under a degree of starvation such as was represented, and which every day's accounts confirmed—if they are suffering under sickness as described in those Papers—if they are threatened, moreover, with increased scarcity and increased sickness—and if this be the ordinary state of the population of the country, what shall we think of those who, when the Government comes before the House, and asks for the means of increasing the quantity of food in Ireland, and of preventing, if possible, the recurrence of such calamities, think it consistent with their duty to oppose the measures of the Government, to resist the more extensive introduction of food, and to prevent the diffusion of comfort among a people whose ordinary state was alleged to be what these Papers describe. Let him read to the House what were the statements with respect to the population of Ireland at this moment—whether it was the ordinary state or not, he would not stop to inquire. He would begin with the most favouredpart of Ireland—Ulster. From Market-hill the report was— Fever, diarrhœa, and dyspepsia, have increased considerably, and are in many cases traceable to the use of unsound potatoes. It is very probable that fever will break out and spread, especially among the lower orders. From Belturbet, in Cavan, the report was— Dyspepsia, dysentery, and diarrhœa, caused by unsound food; cottiers are without even tainted potatoes for food; many unemployed poor are in a starving condition; breaking out of disease, arising from scarcity of food. From the Tullagh Dispensary, Clare, the reports were— Fever patients have increased nearly two-thirds, compared with the last year; many of the poor unemployed; potatoes daily getting worse. This statement mentioned the want of employment. What was want of employment in Ireland when food was scarce? The people of Ireland were not generally employed on wages: during great part of the year they lived on the produce of their land; the potato was to them their chief subsistence during the period of the year in which they had no employment. Therefore, when it was stated that the people were unemployed, and that the potatoes on which they had relied were diseased, it was as much as saying that there was a total failure in the means of subsistence for themselves and their families. He might read similar accounts from other counties; but he trusted that the Members of the House had read those accounts, and would not be turned from giving weight to them by the statements of the right hon. Gentleman. So much for the sickness that was prevalent; but the right hon. Gentleman said that potatoes were not so scarce, that there was no deficiency to alarm any one, and quoted the price of potatoes in several market towns in Ireland during the month of January last, to impress upon the House that the price was not excessive. But, he would ask, why had not the right hon. Gentleman informed them of the comparative price in this, as compared with previous years? The criterion of the pressure on the population was the comparative price of the food they consumed; and if it was double now what it was last year, it was obvious that the lower classes in that country must suffer deeply from that pressure. He could show to the satisfaction of the House that the price of potatoes in Ireland had risen to a degree that must cause the greatest possible suffering. There had been a Return moved for of the price of potatoes in the several market towns in Ireland. From that it appeared, that in the county of Antrim the price in 1845 was 3d., and the present price 6½d., being an increase of more than 100 per cent. But there was another circumstance to be borne in mind. It was well known to every one in the House, that at a period when the whole crop in the country was supposed to be diseased or unsound, there was a great desire at an early period to dispose of the article, which would not be felt at another time; and if at such early period, and especially before the month of May, those who had potatoes had any doubts of their soundness, they rushed to the market and disposed of them before the decay should render them unsaleable and useless; thesefore the comparison of 6½d. in 1846, and 3d. in the antecedent year, did not sufficiently represent the truth of the case; it represented an aggravation of price, but not that extreme distress which impended over the people. He (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) had said, on a former occasion, that the ordinary price of potatoes was 2d. a stone—the right hon. Gentleman said 4d. But the Papers on the Table of the House showed that, at many market towns in the county of Antrim, to which the right hon. Gentleman had referred, the highest prices in antecedent years had been 2d. a stone, 2¼d., and 2¾d., whereas they had now risen to 5d. and 6d. At Bushmills the price, in 1845, was 2d., in 1846, 5d.; at Carrickfergus, in 1845, 3d., in 1846, 6d.; at Cushindall, in 1845, 2d., in 1846, 4½d.; showing, therefore, an enormous increase. The right hon. Gentleman had said, upon the credit of some selected letters from Ireland, that there was not any real scarcity of food there. He admitted that there were places—in the county of Wexford, for example—in which the potatoes were not affected in the same proportion as in other parts of the country; but there were large districts, in different parts of Ireland, in which pits of potatoes recently opened were found either so putrid as to be unfit for the food, of animals, or in which the quantity not decayed was exceedingly small. His right hon. Friend had ridiculed the reports of the persons who had been sent over to Ireland to ascertain the state of the potato crop, and had supposed that, where the potatoes were damaged, it was in consequence of the remedies suggested by those gentlemen being applied to them. Whether this was the case or not, he could not determine from personal knowledge; but the uniform tenor of the advices he had received was, that the people did not adopt the recommendations of those gentlemen. He should be happy if he could persuade himself that the extent to which the disease of the potatoes was likely to reach had been exaggerated; but he received representations every day from gentlemen connected with the Commissariat, confirming in all respects the sad state of the potato crop, of pits being opened, in which the potatoes were absolutely rotten. The right hon. Gentleman had referred to the evidence of Mr. Justice Torrens, as opposed to the representations given by other persons. He (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) knew Mr. Justice Torrens, and he had as high a respect for his opinion as his right hon. Friend could have; but when Mr. Justice Torrens wrote a letter to his right hon. Friend—[Mr. SHAW: It was not a letter. I quoted a charge to the grand jury.] When that respected Judge stated in a charge to the grand jury that he observed no difference in the crop of potatoes, as he had had no means of accurate investigation, he could not attach so much weight to that gentleman's testimony on that particular occasion, when opposed to the statements of those who saw pits opened, and saw the condition of the potatoes in them. He had risen merely with a view of not permitting the House to separate this evening under the false impression which might be made upon it by his right hon. Friend. He wished to point out the real circumstances of the disease, and the distress in the country for which they had to provide; taking the Papers on the Table as representing comparative prices of the article, it would be seen that, in some cases the prices were more than double what they had been in former years, and in all cases greatly aggravated. And he thought the House would be satisfied that this was no ordinary case of distress; that it was an occasion which called upon the House to make those exertions to relieve that distress in which it had so readily concurred. His right hon. Friend seemed to say that this was not a moment at which provision ought to be made to increase the food of the people, and said that he could not reconcile to himself the means which the Government had taken to effect that object. His right hon. Friend, as he said, did not consider consequences, but went straight to his object. But his right hon. Friend was not responsible for the conduct of public affairs, nor charged with the duty of relieving the wants of a people suffering under the pressure of great distress; and therefore his right hon. Friend ought to make some allowance for those who, standing in a different situation, did look to consequences, and, placed in the responsible position of watching over a people labouring under great difficulties, did recommend to Parliament the adoption of measures which they thought necessary, and made that recommendation without regard to that consistency of political opinion which his right hon. Friend deemed to be so high a virtue that it ought to stand between them and the fulfilment of a duty they owed to the people. But he could not think his right hon. Friend could reconcile to himself not to adopt some permanent measure of relief. The people of Ireland had been in the habit of subsisting upon an article of food which was in a state of decay. The effects of that decay were not limited to the present time only, but must be felt for years to come. His hon. Friend the Member for Lincolnshire, in the able speech which he had made against the measure of Government, had admitted that the results of the experiments he had made showed that the effect of the decay would last for many years. Under all these circumstances, his right hon, Friend would have done well to consider what course it was expedient for him to pursue. It was not enough for him to say no to the measures of the Government; but it became him to point out what course he would take to avert such evils, and guard against the recurrence of them. Having before had an opportunity of addressing the House on this subject, he would not now enter again upon an explanation of the motives which had actuated him in the course he had adopted, although his right hon. Friend had repeated his animadversions, He had only to state that, seeing distress and danger in the country—thinking they were not temporary only—believing that the only mode they were to be met was, the free admission of every article of food, and that that was the only course by which they were to be prevented for the future—he had had no hesitation in giving his concurrence to the proposed measure, however at variance it might be with his former opinions. He thought that being able to lay claim to consistency of political conduct, was a small weight in the balance, as against the necessity of providing for the subsistence of a famishing people.

The EARL OF MARCH

would not have risen at all, did he not think it a paramount duty under existing circumstances to come forward and state his views on the measures which had been brought under their consideration. He thought a remark which had fallen from the right hon. Gentleman who had just sat down, somewhat unjust as regarded his hon. Friends around him; if they had resolutely opposed, and declared they would oppose, an extraordinary measure brought in under extraordinary circumstances, his remark might be just; but the fact was otherwise. He came now to the remark which had been made in the course of the evening by the hon. Baronet the Member for Hull. He confessed that he was astonished at the course which the hon. Baronet took. He began by taking them over a long and somewhat rambling course to the Bedford Level, and works in conjunction with them. The hon. Baronet said that Corn Laws had existed in 1600; and he brought them down very regularly through every Corn Law to 1828, and condemned as most un-just and unwise each and all the laws on this subject. He confessed, when he heard the hon. Baronet come down to 1828, he thought that when the hon. Gentleman had disposed of that law, and all others, he would naturally allude to the Corn Law of 1842; but, by a strange coincidence, the hon. Baronet stopped short. He said not a syllable about the law of 1842, and left them, therefore, to conclude that that law was a perfectly just and sound one. He confessed that nothing he had heard from the right hon. Baronet at the head of the Government, or from his new allies on the other side of the House, had induced him to alter the opinion he had formed as to the merits of this measure. He could see no one, either on the Treasury bench or on the other side of the House, who had put forward any solid or tenable grounds for the extraordinary conduct of Her Majesty's Ministers. For it was not a modification of the law of 1842 that was proposed, but a departure from the principle of protection—in fact, the utter abandonment of that principle. They had had a Corn Law for 300 years; but now they had been rashly called upon to adopt and act upon what the present Secretary for the Colonies had well termed a vain theory—the theory of perfect free trade. That he might not mistake the words of that right hon. Gentleman, he would quote them. The right hon. Gentleman said, in speaking of the alteration of the Corn Laws then proposed— That it would be a benefit to the entire community, as containing that principle which the House was pledged to maintain, a reasonable protection to the agricultural interests of the country, and to that large and decidedly preponderating proportion of the people which was essentially connected with and dependent upon the agricultural interest. These were the words then used by the right hon. Gentleman. It had been stated by the Secretary at War, and by other hon. Members, that if there was free trade in corn, a great influx of it might be at times expected from foreign countries; that it would be a very dangerous thing to throw the land in the country out of cultivation, and make us dependent upon foreign countries; and he had never yet heard these arguments answered. He would now endeavour to show that other countries could grow corn cheaper than us, and a great deal more corn than they did at present; and also that there would be great danger in depending on them for a constant supply. He would, for the last time, quote from Hansard an authority of the greatest possible weight with the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government—namely his own—his own speech in 1842 on the Corn Laws. This was what the right hon. Baronet said on that occasion:— I shall now take the returns of Mr. Meek, to which so much reference has been made. Now, with regard to Denmark, if you admit the principle, that with the averages we have nothing to do, but that the real question is, what is the port from which corn will come at the lowest price; and what is the rate of freight at that port, and the expense of importation from it, which are the real questions for consideration? What does Mr. Meek say as to Denmark? Mr. Meek says, that during the last twenty-five years the average price of wheat at Denmark has been 28s. 10d. per quarter; of barley, 14s.; and of oats, 10s. 6d. And he also says that, in case of a regular and steady demand arising in England, the quantity of corn produced in Denmark and Holstein might without much difficulty be considerably increased; and in passing a law for the regulation of our own corn trade, is it not wise to consider what are the possibilities of the case? And in determining upon a plan which may seriously affect the agriculture of this country, is it not wise and proper for me to consider not only what may be the prices of corn in foreign countries at the present time, but what effect might probably be produced upon those prices by increased railway communication, by a regular demand, or by diminished freight? Am not I bound to take all these considerations into account when I am trying to arrange a plan which may be permanent and satisfactory, and without possibly the opportunity of retracing my steps? Mr. Meek further says that the rate of freight at Copenhagen and Elsinore varies from 3s. to 3s. 6d. per quarter; and that the average prices paid in those provinces, did not exceed the following:—Wheat, from 23s. 6d. to 29s.; barley from 10s. 9d. to 15s.; and oats, from 10s. 6d. to 12s.; and he says that, if the trade in corn was steadily and regularly open at a moderate duty, he has no doubt that wheat and barley could be grown to a much greater extent. I think then I have shown, that if the average price of wheat is 28s. 10d. per quarter, and the price of freight from Denmark does not exceed 4s., that, at least from Denmark, an opportunity would be afforded by my scale for the introduction of corn into our market, when the price here was lower than 61s. or 62s. But perhaps you may say that the quantity which could come from Denmark is wholly inconsiderable; but Mr. Meek says that from 300 to 350 quarters of wheat, from 250 to 300 quarters of barley, and from 200 to 250 quarters of oats, is the smallest quantity of corn annually shipped for Great Britain; that is to say, at the prices which I have mentioned, from one country alone, 700,000 quarters of corn are exported from Denmark, and brought here, and that in years of common fertility."^* He could quote a great deal more from the same speech, but would not at that late hour fatigue the House. If this statement was right as respected Denmark and Sleswick Holstein in 1842—if it were not right to depend on foreign countries then—if it were unwise at that period to adopt a measure which had thrown the land in this country out of cultivation, why should it not be equally unwise to adopt it at the present time? This question had been often argued as if it were merely a landlords' question. He maintained that such was not the case. The first class that would suffer by the measure was the tenant-farmers and the labourers. The small landowner who resided in the country, acting as a magistrate, performing a responsible duty as a country gentleman, settling disputes among his neighbours, and preventing litigation, who was looked up to and respected by the poor—if the income of these valuable persons were diminished, they would be obliged to leave the country with their families in order to escape the poor rate and the pressure of the local burdens. It would fall with peculiar severity on the tenants and labourers: that most respectable class the yeomen, who lived on property varying in value at from 50l. to 200l. or 300l. a year, would be obliged to sell their possessions—those men who enlightened by their example, and rewarded the exertions of the meritorious labourer, would be banished, and thus a great link in the social system would be broken. But the shopkeepers in the rural towns would likewise suffer, and the mechanic and the merchant; for, their customers being ruined, they must share in the general calamity. He must, therefore, deprecate the rushing into a desperate legislation without any experience of any sort to guide them as to the result. The right hon. Gentleman at the head of ^*Hansard's Debates, Vol. lx., p. 602. the Government had cautiously avoided telling what his opinion was as to the prices of agricultural produce in the event of the proposed measure becoming the law of the land, although that question had been most pertinently asked by his noble Friend the Member for Lynn. The right hon. Gentleman had only stated that he had been so unsuccessful in his former predictions regarding the price of wheat, that he would on the present occasion maintain a solemn silence. He protested against a measure which would place in jeopardy the landowner, the occupier, the labourer, and the shopkeeper in the rural districts; he thought the measure would likewise operate to the disadvantage of the manufacturer and the merchant, who were connected with any branch of our colonial and native industry; and entertaining those opinions, he had resolved, as his constituents had done him the honour to send him to Parliament, to vote against the measure, and to do all in his power to prevent panic and an agitation from triumphing ever safe, sound and deliberative legislation.

Debate adjourned.

House adjourned at half-past Twelve o'clock.