CORN LAWS.

HL Deb 23 May 1826 vol 15 cc1366-401

The Earl of Liverpool

said, that in proposing the second reading of the bill now before their lordships, it would be unnecessary for him to trespass at any length upon their patience, and the more so, as in the debate anticipating the present motion, he had so fully stated the motives which governed, and the obs jects which were expected to be realized by his majesty's government. He would, therefore patiently hear any observations which noble lords might think proper to offer, and he trusted to their indulgence to allow him to make such remarks as those observations might call for. He had already put their lordships in possession of the motives which induced him, at that period of the session, to call their attention to this subject; and he would now only address to them a very few words indeed. Here, however, he begged to repeat, what he had so often stated before, that the two bills now before their lordships had no reference whatever to the general question of the Corn-laws. That question he considered to be entirely open for discussion, and whether any alteration in the general system of these laws would be advisable or not was a point in no degree whatsoever affected by the bills now before their lordships. Under special circumstances, he considered these temporary measures to be necessary; although he knew that, in certain quarters, considerable apprehensions were entertained as to the nature of their operation. Despite of that, however, he had the satisfaction of believing, that, with respect to the first bill which he had the honour of proposing (and which, in point of principle, might be considered the most ob- jectionable) those most connected with the agricultural interest, on a calm consideration of the subject, felt satisfied that it in no ways militated against their particular interests. In the course of the last session a similar bill was introduced, and the representatives of the agricultural interest had not objected to it. To be sure, if they looked at these bills with a sheer view to their own interest—if they could prove that all foreign corn could, at all times, and under all circumstances, be excluded from this market—if they could thereby obtain a monopoly, then perhaps there might be some reason in objecting to the proposed measure. But he thought that the agricultural interest could neither be so unwise nor so unjust, as not to see that there were certain circumstances under which it would be both expedient and necessary to admit the importation of foreign corn. If, then, that were once admitted, it would be natural for their lordships to consider what particular measures, under a particular emergency, would be least detrimental to the agricultural interest. The allowing of a limited importation of foreign corn, had been again and again admitted to be for the advantage of the agriculturists. In the years 1816, 1817, 1818, and 1819, but particularly in the year 1816, this country was visited with an unusually defective harvest. This was known as early as the month of July, and yet, on the 15th of August, the price for the previous three months being a few shillings below the importation price, the ports continued closed till the November following. The Baltic was then shut up; no importation could take place, and the consequence was, that wheat rose from 53s. to 110s. the quarter. Then the general feeling was, that, if a limited importation could have taken place, not only the agricultural interest would not have been injured, but the public distress would have been materially alleviated. The result of that was, a rise in prices, and a corresponding rage for speculation, so that, what was called a real evil, became a double evil; for the ports were not open when a moderate supply of corn was necessary, and they were open when hundreds of thousands of quarters were unnecessarily thrown upon the market. In the year 1818, there was an average crop; but yet the ports were open, because the corn was a little above 80s. the quarter. Speculation then went on to an alarming extent; the market was glutted, and the result was the ruin of hundreds. He merely adverted to this subject, with a view to shew, whether the general system of the Corn-laws was good or bad, that it would be necessary to review it in the next session of parliament; and he would add, he felt persuaded, that a moderate importation of foreign corn, in proper time, would be the very best thing which could occur for the agricultural interest. These few observations more particularly referred to the first bill before their lordships; but he thought it would be more convenient to take the discussion on both bills together. Here the noble earl adverted to some of the clauses of the bill, which he admitted to be unintelligible, but which originated from following the bill introduced last year. The bill was only intended to permit the admission of the bonded grain into the market at intervals. He should therefore propose, that one half of it should be admitted on the 15th July next and the other half within a certain period afterwards. Noble lords would thus see, that the object of the bill was, to limit the quantity to be brought to market at each time, and thus prevent the injury that might accrue, were the whole thrown in at once. In this limitation the proposed measure was preferable to the former bill—and, in this way, by the former enactments, an individual holding, suppose 3,000 quarters of wheat, was allowed to bring "any portion" of it he pleased into the market, at a given time, and "the remainder" at a subsequent period; so that he might in the first instance, introduce only 500 of his 3,000 quarters—a proportion insufficient, perhaps, to meet the existing exigency—and then throw his remaining 2,500 quarters into the market, when not so requisite, and with the probable effect of also depressing the market to the injury of the British grower. By the present measure, that mischief would be obviated; and he was sure noble lords would admit, that it was necessary to conciliate those whose interests were so largely at stake, and who looked with a certain portion of jealousy on the bill.—So much, therefore, with respect to the first bill. With regard to the second, he felt that it was not necessary at that stage, to go at any length into a detail of it. An amendment, suggested last night, would certainly go to render it more intelligible. But he must confess, that whatever the objection to the first measure might be, it would be greater with respect to the second, which stood not on the same grounds. He did not ask, that under the proposed bill, ministers should be intrusted with a discretionary power, which it would not be proper to give to any government—that question was to be decided, not by reference to the individuals to be intrusted with the power, but on its own merits. He should say, with respect to it, that it was a most extraordinary power to intrust to any government; but, in trying a measure like that, it must be done with reference to its consequences as regarded the public interests, and not with respect to the individuals who were to be clothed with it. On that view he rested the question; but he entreated of their lordships to consider whether, in the interval that must elapse between the passing of the bill and the period at which parliament should again assemble, something might not happen to render its enactment necessary. He knew very well that it might be said, the occurrences of such circumstances were possible at any other time, but it was very different to apply for a measure of that description at an ordinary period, and at the present, when the possibility of increased distress was ten-fold, twenty-fold, nay, a hundred-fold, beyond that of any ordinary year. He had heard it said, "Why do ministers apply for powers to the legislature? Why not act against the law, should necessity arise, and then throw themselves, for indemnity, upon the justice of parliament?" To that he would answer—if an unforeseen contingency should happen in a parliamentary recess, there was no set of individuals fit to hold the reins of government a single moment, who would not boldly assume the responsibility, and then throw themselves upon parliament for an indemnity. But he would say, that if the possibility of such an occurrence should appear to government previous to a prorogation of parliament; if existing circumstances were such as to justify the apprehension of ministers that such circumstances might arise; it became their duty to come down to parliament and ask for a bill of indemnity in anticipation; that was, to be able to do that legally which they might be compelled to do illegally. His majesty's ministers had no desire for the possession of the power referred to, nor for the exercise of it; but, as the emergency was possible, they would feel more at their case, if the power to act were conferred by parliament; not to be exercised but in case of absolute necessity. These were the grounds on which both bills rested. He had lately had more than usual intercourse with that class of society termed the agricultural interest, and he could assure their lordships, that, as far as he could ascertain the sentiments of that class, they were much more reconciled to those measures than formerly. They had been taught to believe, that legislating upon the subject then under consideration, was an attempt to tamper with the general question of the Corn-laws, and with an intention to convert the passing of those measures into precedents, whenever the discussion of the general question should take place. They had no objection whatever to allow the bills then before their lordships, to operate, so as to answer their avowed and real object; namely, to meet the urgent necessity which pressed upon the country in this year leaving the general question of the Corn-laws to be fully and impartially discussed at a time when that discussion could be approached with more calmness, and with more prospect of coming to a wise decision upon it. The noble earl concluded, by moving the order of the day for the second reading of the warehoused Corn-bill.

The Earl of Malmesbury

said, he might appear singular in expressing his opinion that a partial and gradual admission of the corn at present in bond was not objectionable, and that, with reference to the state of the country, the operation of the measure would bear a strong resemblance to the safety valve of a steam engine. The measure was not, however, called for by any alarming rise in the price of corn. Last year, the average price of wheat was 68s. per quarter; in the present year it was 59s. Of course he did not mean to say that, because corn was at a higher average price last year than in the present, the proposed measures could not become necessary. But when he viewed both, he thought it would be better that the first should pass, because it would diminish the chance of the second being required; for if the first, which would liberate 300,000 quarters of corn, should receive the sanction of the legislature, it became the less probable that the second, which would allow the importation of 500,000 quarters, should be called for. He had thought, and he had expressed that opinion, that we could not go into the great question with the necessary calmness at the then present period; but as, by the introduction of the measures before their lordships, the subject had been opened, he thought ministers ought to have been prepared for the discussion of it. He felt much gratified at the explanation given by the noble earl; namely, that one moiety of the 300,000 quarters should be admitted into the market on the 15th July, and the other moiety on the 15th August, by which time the quality of the new harvest would be ascertained, and we should then have a chance of going on till November. With respect to the statement of prices referred to by the noble earl, he was not certain to what year it applied, the average price of wheat in May, 1816, was 74s. per quarter; in June it was still 74s.; and in August it rose to 82s. The circumstances, therefore, at that and the present periods differed. Moreover, there was in 1816, an act already in existence, which allowed the importation of foreign corn, whenever the average price of wheat rose to 80s.; and beyond which it had risen in 1816. There was another striking difference between the two periods. In the year preceding 1816, the importation of foreign grain had been only 30,000 quarters, while, in the year 1825, the quantity imported was 500,000 quarters. Their lordships were aware that there were two species of foreign grain imported, to which the averages applied; namely, barley and oats. Now, how had that system applied? With respect to the latter, the average price of oats had, in May 1824, been 24s. 4d. per quarter; in June, 25s. 6d.; in July, 26s. 6d.; and that in the month of August it had exceeded the average price at which foreign grain was allowed to be brought in by two-pence. Noble lords might recollect in what manner that excess had been effected. The corn jobbers, when they saw that the price was, in the six weeks preceding the 1st of August, coming near to the required average, made a push by which to achieve their object. They went down into Wales, and there sold to each other small quantities of the grain, at such prices as raised the average beyond that required by law; the consequence of which was, that the markets were thrown open, and inundated with foreign grain. The same occurred with respect to wheat in 1818. For these reasons, his opinion was in no wise changed respecting the second measure; for, if he agreed that 300,000 quarters of foreign wheat should be admitted, it by no means followed that he must consent to the admission of 500,000 quarters more. He could assure their lordships, that a positive evil would be done by the second measure, to an important class of agriculturists, the less opulent farmers; who, in the following fortnight, might be expected to bring the residue of their wheat to market, in order to raise the funds necessary to meet the expenses of the hay and corn harvests. They had paid their rents and tithes, and were anxious to be provided, as usual, for the present season of the year. The consequence to them of the proposed measure would be a loss of 8s. per quarter, or about 20 per cent. The farmer would be therefore obliged to say to his wife, that she should wear her Manchester stuff gown twice as long as usual; or he must do this—he must reduce the price of labour at that period of the year to which the poor agricultural labourer looked forward as a period at which he should be more fully compensated than at any other. Their lordships would thus be inflicting a positive evil, in order to guard against a contingent one. The noble earl here referred to the injury which the corn-dealers would receive from the proposed measure, and cited the cases of some Irish dealers, who had lost 10,000l. by what they deemed a breach of a pledge of his majesty's government; and contended, that compensation was as justly due to those individuals as to any persons to whom compensation had ever been awarded. This might be the last opportunity he should have of delivering his opinion upon the subject; but, although their lordships had not adopted his suggestions, he hoped that when they should come to meet the general question, he should have their support in moving for the appointment of a committee to inquire into all its circumstances. He would throw out a hint, that government should, in the interval, between the close of the present session of parliament and the commencement of the next, use all possible industry to procure information on the subject—not from political economists sent travelling throughout Europe —but from our consuls resident abroad, whose salaries had lately been increased, and who must therefore be held to be competent to supply it; and he further hoped, that all the necessary papers would be laid before parliament at an early period of the next session. His objections to the second measure remained unchanged; and he trusted that their lordships would agree with him, that the first being sufficient, the second ought not to pass.

The Lord Chancellor

said, he should not consider himself justifiable, holding the responsible situation which he held in his majesty's government, if he did not distinctly state it to be his opinion, that no measure could be more open to blame, than one calculated deeply to affect the agricultural interest. He was firmly convinced that every other interest which went to the constitution of the country, that the manufacturing, the commercial, the professional interests, rested so strongly on the agricultural interest, that parliament would do infinite mischief to every rank and class in the community, if they did not carefully foster the interests of agriculture. But he could by no means look on the measures under consideration as correctly represented, when they were described as affecting, or leading to any important change in, the system of laws which governed our trade in corn. With respect to the measure for liberating bonded corn, that seemed to meet with little or no objection; and he should, therefore, dismiss it without remark. But the other and more important measure, to which considerable objection was made, seemed to him to be so founded on constitutional principles, that he hoped their lordships would allow him to say a few words respecting it. No man could feel more strongly than he did the inexpediency, on the part of his majesty's government, of committing any act of power against the law. Yet, sure he was, that circumstances might arise, in which it would be absolutely necessary, for the salvation of the country, that his majesty's government should commit an act of power against the law; provided always that they were warranted by necessity in so doing. In fact, the constitutional doctrine seemed to him to be this; if a case could be foreseen in which it would be necessary to commit an act of power in violation of the law, it was their duty to remove the objectionable part of that act by divesting it of its illegality. But even that proposition ought to be limited: for his majesty's government ought, in no case, to apply for such a measure in advance, if it was probable that more mischief would result to the public from the application, than from waiting until the necessity for the act should arrive. If such should be the case—if it were probable that more mischief would be occasioned by the application—it then became the duty of his majesty's government to wait until the necessity; then to perform the required act of power, even in violation of the law; and subsequently to apply to parliament for indemnity. But, let their lordships consider how the present matter stood. The second bill before them was a bill to enable his majesty, by an order in council, to do certain acts therein mentioned. But it did not take away the obligation on his majesty's government to abstain from such acts, unless on the spur of an urgent necessity. It only authorized them to do such acts as his majesty ought to be, and would be, advised to do, if parliament had not interfered at all on the subject. There was one point on which he wished to be clearly understood; namely, that the proposed law had not, and could not, have any connexion whatever with any measure affecting the existing system of the Corn-laws. It gave an antecedent power, but his majesty's ministers were just as responsible for the manner in which they exercised that power, as they would have been for their acts, had no such power been given. He was, however, particularly anxious to impress on their lordships, that the proposed measure ought not to affect, and could not in any way affect, the existing system of the Corn-laws. If either directly or indirectly it had that tendency, nothing on earth should induce him to vote for it; for he looked upon the support of the landed interest as a question not affecting A, or B, or C, but affecting, in substance and effect, the whole constitution of the country. Suppose the bill did not pass, was there a single member of his majesty's government, who, if a necessity should arise for committing an act even against the law, would hesitate to advise the commission of that act? And would such a step tend, in any way, to affect the system of the Corn-laws? Yet, that was only what the bill rendered it legal to do. He did wish to disguise it from himself, that it was possible that consequences of a nature to be lamented, and which he did not foresee, might possibly arise from the adoption of the measure; but it was one thing to say that he did not foresee those consequences, and another to say that it was his intention to affect the Corn-laws. He solemnly protested before their lordships, that he had no such intention; nor could he divine in what manner the Corn-laws could be affected. If the measure pledged that House, or any man in that House to any alteration unfavourable to the Corn-laws, he would be the last man to stand up as its advocate.

Earl Grey

observed, that the noble and learned lord had stated very properly the grounds on which he supported the proposed measure. He had as much jealousy as the learned lord of an act of power on the part of the Crown, in violation of the law; but he was well aware, that if, under certain circumstances, such an act were not resorted to, the public safety might be endangered. He fully subscribed, therefore, to the principle which had been laid down by the learned lord. But, the question to consider was, how far that principle supported and justified the present proposition; and, after listening to the learned lord with all the attention to which he was entitled, he must say that the learned lord had failed to convince him, that the measures in question was susceptible of the defence which had been set up for them. The learned lord had justly called this measure an act of indemnity in advance; and had added, that where a necessity could be foreseen, in which his majesty's government would be compelled, by a sense of public duty, to do an act in violation of the law, it was better to provide them with this previous indemnity, than to wait for indemnity until after the act had been done. If he agreed with the learned lord in this opinion, it must be with some qualification. He admitted, that if such a necessity could be foreseen, it might be right for parliament previously to arm his majesty's ministers with the power of acting under that necessity, in the same manner as they would be justified in acting, were the power not granted them. But then the necessity must be clearly proved. The circumstances must be of so striking and extraordinary a nature, as not only to justify the legislature for taking such a step, but to make it criminal in them not to take it. Now, he asked their lordships, was that the case in the present instance? When did the necessity of which his majesty's ministers now spoke arise? Did it exist on the 18th of April, when a motion was made in another place respecting the Corn-laws, and when his majesty's mi- nisters emphatically declared that, although the existing duties made a principal feature of the discussion to which he alluded, they would not support the proposition for taking the Corn-laws into consideration. Nay, one eminent person expressed it as his opinion, that any measure which tended to diminish the price of corn would aggravate, rather than alleviate, the distress which all parties allowed to exist. In fact, that distress had existed, not for days or weeks, but for months, and yet ministers did not foresee the necessity of which the learned lord now talked. What had occurred since? The distress continuing to operate, had at length produced not and insurrection. Nobody felt more strongly than he did the necessity of controlling, by the strong arm of power, acts of violence and disorder; but he also trusted, that no man felt more compassion and indulgence for the unhappy persons who were goaded, by want and suffering, into the commission of such acts. He must say, however, that it ill became a legislature, framed as that and the other house of parliament were, to withhold a provision calculated to relieve distress, at a time when the existence of that distress was fully known to them, and to consent to such provision as soon as the distressed persons had proceeded to turbulence and outrage. He must say, therefore, that he could not see any necessity proved which would justify antecedent indemnity. The question, then, came to this point, had not the present course produced great and important evils; and might not those evils have been avoided, if ministers had acted upon the necessity, when it arose with that responsibility, the indemnity for which they now sought beforehand? The learned lord himself admitted, that evils had been the result of the measures now before the House, and stated that he, for one, would be the last man to acquiesce in them, if he thought they, in the most remote degree, affected the agricultural interest—that interest upon which the learned lord, with great truth, had observed the constitution of this country mainly rested. He was glad to hear such a declaration from so-high a quarter; and he trusted that he should satisfy their lordships that the learned lord, acting upon the sentiments he had expressed, would find it impossible to support these measures. What, he begged to ask, was the question before the House? Was it not this? Great distress afflicted a large portion of the manufacturing districts, breaking out into open violence; and thereupon, ministers came down to parliament, and, in answer to a proposition for affording relief to the sufferers, declared, that they must at once take some steps for lowering the market price of corn. Now, what could the effect of such a declaration be, but to publish throughout the country, that government considered the price of corn as the cause of the distress; or, at all events, as mainly contributing to it? This was a most unfair way of treating the agricultural interest; for it was impossible for any man who looked before him not to foresee, that it must create a general impression, and certainly a most unfounded one, that the Corn-laws were the source of the present distress. The effect of accompanying the first notice of the distress with a proposal to seek relief in a breach of the Corn-laws could not be other than this. It was, in fact, holding up to public obloquy those persons who sought to prevent a relaxation of the Corn-laws, as opposed to the relief of the manufacturing classes. He, for his own part, had no peculiar interest to advance by his conduct in that House. Not professing more disinterestedness than any other noble lord, he appealed to the history of his public conduct, whether he was likely to be influenced by motives of a personal nature. The only thing that could influence him in his conduct on this question was, a natural, and he trusted an honourable desire of maintaining in his family that property, which had been handed down to him from his ancestors; but, anxious as he was to secure that property from deterioration, he should still feel ashamed if, in his efforts to preserve it, he did not act with a due regard to the general interest; which, after all, was inseparable from the landed interest. And, although he now disapproved the mode in which relief was proposed to be administered, there was no one personal sacrifice he would not make to rescue from distress his suffering fellow-subjects. When, however, acting on his conviction that the measures now before their lordships would not only not mitigate, but would increase the evils, was it fair that he should be taunted with a want of feeling? The noble earl opposite, as well as the learned lord, were anxious to impress on their lordships, that parliament could come next year to a consideration of the Corn-laws, without prejudice to the general interests. But how, he would ask, could they come to a fair, unbiassed, impartial consideration of a question already prejudged, by the adoption of the measures now recommended by the government? Could the agricultural interest come into the field on equal terms, when it was notorious, that many individuals had voted for those measures, because they thought that their adoption would afford them a footing on which to rest their attack on the Corn-laws? He was satisfied that many persons had acted on that view of the case. It was therefore necessary to proceed with great caution; and whatever odium might attach to his present opposition, that odium he should be ready to meet. In the course of the discussion which took place since the first announcement of the distress by ministers, they had shifted their situation; their first tale was, that the measures were called for by imperious necessity, but all this had since dwindled down to a mere possible necessity. It was stated, for instance, that the prevalence of a particular wind might at any time make a similar application to parliament necessary—a north-east wind was declared as likely to cause a scarcity of provisions to an alarming extent. He appealed to the noble earl opposite, whether he had not stated, that cold weather had checked, nay destroyed, the harvest. In fact, the noble earl went so far as to assert, that he remembered one occasion, on which, in the course of a single day, a mere change of wind and weather had produced blight and disappointment. The state of the weather might, undoubtedly, have been unpleasant to the feelings; but it certainly had not retarded the hopes of an early harvest. Referring to a statement made a few nights back, that there was at present a scarcity of corn in the country, the noble earl observed, that he had taken great pains to procure information on the subject. He had consulted, among others, his hon. friend Mr. Coke of Norfolk, and a noble friend of his possessing property in the same county: both of them extensively connected as they were with the landed interest, and, consequently, enjoying the best means of acquiring accurate knowledge as to the fact, had assured him, that so far from there being grounds for apprehending a scarcity, there was never seen so large a quantity of corn at any former period in the stackyards throughout Norfolk. In Ireland there was also a great abundance; and in that part of the country with which he was more immediately connected the harvest was of the most promising description. Indeed he had been informed, on the most respectable authority, that all along the coast of Northumberland there was in the hands of the merchants and farmers as great a stock of corn as had ever been remembered at this period of the year; that the crops were going on well, and held out a hope not only of a good, but of an early harvest; and that, in fact, a greater quantity of wheat had been sown this year, than during many preceding seasons, owing to the high price of corn last year. Now, he put it to their lordships, was the necessity proved? or rather was there any thing more to bear up the arguments of the noble earl opposite, than the bare possibility that that might happen this year which was just as likely to occur in any other year? Feeling that he had stated to their lordships enough to satisfy them of there being no grounds for the adopting of the present measures, he next came to the learned lord's argument, as to the balance of evils. The evils were unquestionably of great magnitude; but looking to the necessity as a mere possibility, he thought it would be best for ministers to act on their responsibility, the chief advantage of which would be, that they would, by so doing, excite no alarm; and the act of power, against law (for such, notwithstanding the indemnity in advance, it must be regarded) would at all events be thus rendered much less mischievous in its effects: but, were he to admit the necessity, he would certainly feel, that if it were right to provide an indemnity for an act of power, that indemnity might be indefinite and without any limitation whatever. He differed widely from the declaration of the learned lord, that when the necessity was foreseen, it was no merit in parliament to give to ministers the power of acting on their responsibility, with an indemnity in advance, particularly when given on mature consideration. To such a doctrine he could never consent. He thought it unconstitutional to grant to ministers the power of dispensing with the laws, nay more, of taxing the people to the amount of 400,000l., by the imposition of a duty of 17s. on the 500,000 quarters proposed to be admitted; and this, too, on the eve of a general election. He was anxious that an inquiry should take place before parlia- ment established a precedent so destructive to the constitution. It could not be said that the present distress came unexpectedly on the government; as it had been distinctly alluded to by a minister in the other House, whose peculiar department it was, to attend to such matters, and who was admitted, on all hands, to be the moving spirit of the new system of free trade;—a system of which, however plausible in theory, the more he lived, the more he doubted the possibility of applying it with advantage to the commerce of this country. He was aware that, for entertaining such sentiments, he might be set down as ignorant by many persons; but still he could not help observing, that in all the alterations hitherto introduced, there came some little circumstance to upset all their refined calculations, and expose the fallacy of their theories-. If the distresses were foreseen in April last, when the proposition for a revision of the Corn-laws was submitted, why, he asked, did not ministers then propose the measures which they now brought forward, and why did they now seek to press them through parliament, without affording time for inquiry? Inquiry could not be opposed, on the grounds that it was necessary to dissolve parliament without delay, as it had often sat to a much later period; it had often continued its sittings to the end of July, or the middle of August. Their lordships, then, were desired, on the mere confidence of ministers, to forego inquiry. His opposition did not arise from a want of confidence in his majesty's ministers, although he was not one who felt disposed to place particular confidence in the noble earl opposite, disapproving, as he generally did, of the measures of the noble earl. But he held, that it would be a surrender of his trust, if he placed confidence now at the eleventh hour, when so much time had already been lost, which might have been much more usefully devoted to inquiry. For his own part, he was not opposed to a revision of the Corn-laws, and even in 1815 he thought the protecting duty too high. He was also anxious to have the sum reduced at which the importation was to take place; feeling that some relief had, since that period, been afforded to the agriculturists, by the reduction of taxes which pressed heavily upon them, and also by the alteration of the currency. Although he was of opinion, that it might be desirable to fix the price at a lower rate, he was far from admitting, for a moment, that the operation of the Corn-laws had hitherto proved a practical evil; agreeing, at the same time, with the noble earl, that nothing was more dangerous than a fluctuation of the value of articles of human subsistence. The effect of the present measure would be to give large fortunes to speculators in foreign corn. Instances of fortunes being acquired in such a manner were not un-frequent amongst the merchants, whilst the farmers were as often ruined; the consequence of which was, that they limited their consumption, and thereby brought distress on the manufacturers. Averse as he was to opening, at the present moment, the question of the Corn-laws, he would still rather, by ten to one, go into an inquiry on them than consent to the proposition of government. After remarking on the insidious light in which the landed interest must be placed by the course pointed out by ministers, the noble earl declared, that in his opposition he was not influenced by any consideration of personal interest. At the same time, he admitted the right of every individual to consult his own advantage; as it was by each class attending to his own interests that the general interest of the country was advanced and protected. The noble earl concluded by expressing his decided opposition to the measures before the House.

The Earl of Harrowby

said, that the price of 80s. was collected from the average prices of the whole country. If noble lords would look to the Gazette, they would find that the average prices of corn throughout the country, furnished this price of 80s. although in some parts of the country the price might have reached even so high as 96s. or 100s., and in many places must have exceeded 80s. And it was to be observed, that this was the average for a space of six weeks together; and during that time one of these two contingencies must have occurred—either the prices must have been tolerably stationary, or they must have been undergoing a rapid rise, and in the latter case, they might have risen from any low price that could be supposed, to that of 80s. The question was to be considered not merely with reference to the number of shillings, but the ability of the country to bear any particular price should be taken into calculation. At a time when every man had an opportunity of abundant labour the case was very different from the present; when, in consequence of the general distress, thousands and tens of thousands were compelled to subsist on the charity of others. Sixty shillings, which at an ordinary time might be a reasonable price, and might allow proper advantages both to the consumer and the seller, might, at a juncture of distress, be in effect more oppressive than 80s, at a period of no unusual pressure. The noble lord opposite seemed to say, that the proposed measure would afford no relief. What! was it no relief to those who were receiving but half their former amount of wages, to furnish them with the means of purchasing provisions at something approaching to a corresponding scale? He was satisfied that there was not a noble lord in that House, who would contend, that some measure was not necessary to relieve the country, before the time at which foreign corn could be admitted. If the pressure of national distress should at any time be sudden and unforeseen, ministers would merit the contempt of that House and of the country, if they did not show themselves ready to break through the strict forms of law, and to throw themselves upon parliament and the country for an indemnity for the adoption of those expedients which the exigency of the state would have rendered necessary. But, if they could foresee the likelihood of such a contingency, as would render the opening of the ports unavoidable, were they not equally bound to ask for the power to do that legally, which they must, in the other case, have had in contemplation to do illegally, on their own responsibility? An inquiry into the general system of the Corn-laws would be, as it seemed to him, peculiarly inconvenient at the present moment, and it was a course which he should certainly object to. Noble lords asked when it was, however, that the new lights upon which they were acting had broken upon ministers? That was a question which, from the nature of it, it was impossible to answer. At what particular period it was that the intelligence of tens of thousands being thrown out of employment, and of the general increase of distress, had accumulated to such an extent as to lead the government to the consideration of this part of the question, he could not say; nor could he take upon himself to pronounce an opinion, whether the measures of government ought to have been adopted a week before, or deferred for a week after, the time at which they were resorted to. He could only say that it was the accumulation of the intelligence, from day to day, of the increasing difficulties of the country, which appeared to his majesty's government to require the adoption of extraordinary precautions. One thing only, he could assure the noble lord, was not the cause upon which the determination of ministers on this head was founded—and that was any feeling of intimidation at the riots to which the noble lord had alluded. Every noble lord must know that ministers had already given proofs that they could not be deterred, even by more serious riots than those to which allusion had been made, from following that course which the interests of the country appeared to point out. Few persons, he believed, would wish to meet parliament under such circumstances as those that must inevitably occcur, if, instead of doing something for the immediate relief of the suffering manufacturers, they were content to go into the consideration of the whole question. He thought they might look forward with confidence to another session, when that great question could be calmly and deliberately discussed. If ministers had not, in the present exigency, come fairly before parliament, and requested these additional powers—if they had, on their own responsibility, broken the law —that, indeed, would have afforded some reason for not intrusting them with such powers, if they were called for at some future period. The noble earl opposite, in adverting to the speech of his noble friend had asked, whether more mischief would not be done by introducing these measures, than if government had stood still; inasmuch as that which had been proposed by ministers would have the effect of prejudging, in a certain degree, the question of the Corn-laws. Now, he would say, that nothing could possibly be more remote from the intention of ministers than to prejudge those laws, by any thing which they proposed at present. Who, he asked, had, in reality, prejudged the Coin-laws? In his opinion, the noble lords opposite, if they had not actually prejudged those laws, were at least more ready to do so than his majesty's ministers. The two principles on which the proposed measures were founded, did not at all apply to a prejudication of the Coin-laws. The first measure admitted into the market 300,000 quarters of bonded corn, at a duty of 12s., the price of corn being now 60s.; and he certainly did not think it was fair to argue from thence, that it was intended at all times to allow all bonded corn to go out, when the market price here was 60s. Unless this was stated, how could it be said that the Corn-laws were prejudged? There were circumstances in the present state of the country which induced ministers not to stand in the way of allowing this supply, but it did not therefore follow, that at all times foreign corn should be admitted, when the price was 60s. For the same reason, they had acquiesced in allowing corn, to a certain extent, to be imported at a duty of 17s. They allowed this at the present moment; but they were not settling the price at which corn might hereafter be admitted. In introducing those measures, the only object of ministers was to afford present relief. But the noble earl opposite contended, that those measures would produce no relief. Why, by the first measure, a certain relief, to the extent of 300,000 quarters would be given; and by the second, a relief, possibly, to the extent of 500,000 quarters. Now really, as this was the case, he could not conceive how any one could say, that these measures would afford no relief. Whether the relief which they would effect would be sufficient or not, he could not say; but, if the pressure grew more severe, recourse must be again had to parliament. He hoped that their lordships would act, on this occasion, as he had always known them to act when any great principle was concerned; namely, that if an individual sacrifice was to be made for the general interest, it would be made with cheerfulness. He could assure their lordships that he would not have voted for the present measure if he felt that it afforded any fair reason for saying, that it went to a prejudication of the question of the Corn-laws. That it did not at all prejudge that question, he was persuaded. A case had arisen which called on the legislature to adopt the measures now before their lordships. Their continuance would not be of any great duration; and he conceived that, until the next session of parliament, no inquiry was necessary into the state of the Corn-laws. He trusted their lordships would, by the success of these measures, ensure to themselves this consolation, that even if the distress of the country increased (of which there was not the least apprehension) they had done much towards the alleviation of that distress.

The Earl of Lauderdale

said, he felt it necessary to deliver his opinion on the two measures which had been brought forward by his majesty's ministers. He must in the outset say, that the speech of his noble friend behind him had given him the greatest satisfaction. A speech of greater power, of more justness of argument, or more deliberate calmness of reasoning, he had never heard in the course of a public discussion; but, though he was sensible of the effect which that speech would have on their lordships, yet he felt too much interest in this question to give a silent vote on the present occasion. Before he proceeded to investigate the subject, he requested, that the two first paragraphs of his majesty's speech on the 3rd of February, 1825, should be read.—The paragraphs were accordingly read as follows:—"My lords and gentlemen,—We are commanded by his majesty to express to you the gratification which his majesty derives from the continuance and progressive increase of that public prosperity upon which his majesty congratulated you at the opening of the last session of parliament. There never was a period in the history of this country when all the great interests of the nation were at the same time in so thriving a condition, or when a feeling of content and satisfaction was more widely diffused through all classes of the British people."—Here there was a most flattering picture of the prosperity of the country; and yet, wheat was actually 6s. 4d. a quarter dearer then, than it was when the measure now before the House was proposed. Now, he must distinctly object—not, perhaps, to this first measure, which came with a good grace, and he never did object to any measure that seemed likely, however remotely, to benefit the people; but he did object to those two measures combined; and further, he must object to the language used by the noble earl opposite, in giving up the principle on which the Corn-laws of this country stood. In 1815, the noble earl was in favour of the corn bill; and yet he might, at that day, have arraigned that measure on the very same grounds and arguments which he now advanced. In defending the bill to which he had alluded, the noble earl opposite agreed that corn must be at 80s. for six weeks, before foreign grain was admitted. Was there, he would ask, one evil which the noble earl had noticed as likely to occur at the present day, which was not equally likely to occur on the former occasion, when the noble earl and himself supported the corn bill? The noble earl declared that this was a measure of relief. Surely it was not a measure of relief for the manufacturers; because, when they had no money, they could not purchase corn. No: it became a measure of relief, it appeared, for the subscribers; because it would make their money go a little further. The truth was, that this measure could not possibly, even for a moment, be treated as a measure for the relief of the manufacturers. What was the price of wheat in November last? It was 10s. per quarter dearer than when the noble earl brought forward the present measure. At that time, too, ten months must intervene before the harvest could be brought to market to sustain the people; whereas, at the present moment, the harvest was but three months distant. Those, it should be recollected, were summer months; when it was more easy to subsist, than during the cold and damp of the winter and spring. At this time last year wheat was 8s. dearer than it was when the noble earl proposed this bill; but in neither instance did he think it necessary to ask parliament to pass such measures as these. Looking to these circumstances, and considering the situation of the times, it did appear to him that this was an attack upon the Corn-laws. The noble earl said, he meant no prejudgment of those laws. He did not care what the noble earl meant; but there was no man in the House, or out of it, who saw the public newspapers, or who knew what was passing in the streets of the metropolis, and throughout the country at large, that must not feel, that the introduction of these measures was received and considered as a prejudgment of the corn question. Nay more, he did not know how he could come to the consideration of that question, with equal calmness and patience, with the same dispassionate wish to view it in all its bearings, as he could have done before those measures were introduced. In his opinion, whatever might be said to the contrary, the line of policy adopted by ministers would have the effect of setting the manufacturers of the country against the agricultural interest; and would prevent, for years to come, a temperate discussion of that great subject. Why did the noble earl think that this was not a fit time for inquiry? What possible reason or argument could the noble lord advance, to show that the present was not as fit a moment for inquiry as any other? Let him look to the committee on the Corn-laws of 1814. That Committee was not appointed until the 17th of June; and yet, with this fact before him, the noble lord rejected inquiry in the middle of May. The noble earl could not adduce any reason for refusing inquiry; otherwise he would have done so. But, instead of that, those who demanded inquiry were met with little more than a bare negative. The noble earl proposed to let out this bonded corn at a duty of 12s.; and had argued, that no person entertained any objection to that duty. He, however, would object to it, because he thought it a most dangerous measure, when combined with the provisions of the second bill. What, he demanded, was the reason for sending Mr. Jacob abroad for information? As a noble lord had already said, no man could read the instructions given to Mr. Jacob, without perceiving, that those who sent him to the continent, had determined, in future, to place their reliance on the foreign corn-growers for the consumption of this country. From 1816 to 1822, the country was found, with due encouragement, perfectly capable of meeting its consumption. But the noble earl, it seemed, had now found out, that Great Britain could not rely on its own agricultural industry to furnish corn for itself. The noble earl had told them, that he believed there were many agriculturists who, whatever their former opinions might have been, were now convinced, that this country must have recourse to foreigners for an adequate supply of grain. Now, here he would take his stand; and he must declare, that this was one of the most dangerous doctrines that could be laid down. If that doctrine were once admitted, and went forth in conjunction with these measures, the effect would be ruinous to the agriculture of this country, and must impede the possibility of fair discussion on this subject at any future period. His doctrine was this: that great Britain and Ireland could, on all ordinary occasions, grow sufficient corn for the consumption of their own people. If they looked to the committee of 1814, they would find that the evidence given bore out that fact, and that that very evidence was relied on by the noble earl opposite to support that proposition. But he need not refer to the evidence given before the committee of 1814. If they took the trouble to examine the immense quantity of grain now exported from that country, in comparison with what was exported at the former period, they would see the proposition in a still stronger light. He believed the average exported yearly from Ireland, since 1814, was 1,200,000 quarters; and therefore he would maintain, that this country and Ireland were capable of producing sufficient grain, without any foreign assistance. What, after all, was the inference to be drawn from the noble earl's conduct? Why, it was this, that he had bound himself up in a peculiar way with this question, in order to give effect to a principle, or system, which he had, some how or other, recently found out; that principle being, that this country must rely, for a certain portion of its consumption, on foreign states. He would say, that a more dangerous proposition could not be advanced. Not, be it observed, merely dangerous to the landholders, but to the manufacturers, to the labourers, to every person who was a consumer of grain. The most mischievous principle that could be adopted by this country was, to rely on foreigners for a supply of grain; and he would state why. If it were true, that when the crop was little in one part of Europe, it was sure to be found great in another, then there would be some certainty about the matter. But the fact was not so. If they looked to the corn-trade throughout Europe, they would find that, when there was a bad season here, there was also a bad season on the continent; especially in the north of Europe, from whence the great supply was to come. Therefore, they would be inundated with corn in a year of plenty; but, in a year of scarcity, they would not be able to procure the requisite supply. If, therefore, they adopted this proposition, that they must depend for their supply in a great measure on foreign countries, they would destroy their own agriculture; and, in bad years, their demand for corn could not be answered by the foreign power. The law of nature was opposed to such a system; but, independent of that, it would be affected by municipal laws. If they examined the law of France, the law of Sweden, and the law of other countries, on this subject, they would find that provision was made to prevent corn from being exported when it was at a certain price. Here, again, their object might be defeated by the operation of those laws. It was not the cause of the landholders, but of the consumers of grain generally—both the manufacturing and the agricultural labourer —that he now advocated. He was not actuated by any petty motive; and he defied any one to say that his opposition to this—or to any other measure of government, ever originated in any other feeling than an anxious desire to discharge a public duty. When he wished to acquire knowledge on any subject of this kind, he always looked to the experience of past times, and that experience showed him, that the constant admission of a foreign supply of corn was calculated, beyond all other measures, to create frequent alterations in the price of that article, without sensibly diminishing its value. It would be found in the history of this country, that, by an efficacious law, passed in the reign of Charles 2nd, before foreign corn could be admitted the price in the market here must have risen to 50s., which, with a duty of 11s. brought the importing price to 61s. Looking to the value of money at that day, that sum was equal to 8l. 4s. at the present time. During the first thirty years after the passing of that act, they had wheat at 1l. 19s. per quarter. That system was continued down to 1765, and during the last thirty years of that period, wheat was at 1l. 14s. 11d., showing that, during, the whole of that period, a low price, under those restrictive regulations, was constantly maintained. It was also a curious circumstance that, during the whole of the period he had mentioned, the highest price of grain was never more than two-thirds of that to which it rose when the system was changed to that of a perfectly free trade. This statement of facts, he would allow, was not consistent with the new-fangled doctrines about free trade, which had been buzzed into the ears of the noble earl opposite, by some of his colleagues; but as to their free trade principles, which they boasted to have applied to manufactures, particularly to silk, what was the fact? Why, though they admitted the raw material, they imposed a duty of 30 per cent ad valorem on the importation of manufactured silk;—and yet to talk of free trade! At the period he had mentioned, a free trade was allowed; and, at the end of eight years, the average price of grain was found to have been 2l. 10s. 10d. a quarter, being 15s. 11d. higher than it had been for a long period, under the large and formidable protection that had been granted in the time of Charles 2nd. In 1774, another law was passed, fixing the importation price at 50s.; and again, in 1791, a law was enacted, admitting the importation of foreign grain at 2l. 8s. If they looked to the average of wheat, from the time when the act of Charles was given up, to the end of the year 1791, when the act of 1774 was repealed, they would find the general average to be 3l. 2s. a quarter, and during a considerable portion of that time this was actually an exporting country. In 1792, a new act was made, which continued till 1804, by which wheat was admitted to be imported when it had reached the price of 2l. 9s., at a duty of 2s. 6d. Under that protection wheat rose to 3l. 14s 6d. In 1804, another scale of protection was adopted. It was then thought proper to go back to the protection of Charles 2nd., and the average was struck at 5l. 4s.; being considerably greater than that recently imposed. The effect of all this was, to create a variation in the price of grain which was most injurious to all classes of society. The noble earl then proceeded to argue, that it was much better for the country at large to have steady and moderately high prices, than constantly fluctuating low ones. If grain were too low in value, still the agriculturist must pay his rent, his taxes, his poor-rates. To meet this exigency, he had no other resource but that of dispensing with the labour of those workmen whom he had not the means of paying. The consequence was, that a number of individuals were thrown on the parish. In the present state of the country, many of those persons would find no difficulty in applying themselves to the working of machinery used in manufactures at a low rate of wages; and thus a superabundant supply of manufactures was forced into the market. A great deficiency in the amount of wages would compel those new workmen, in order that they might procure the comforts they formerly possessed, to undertake much additional labour, and thus distress was created amongst the established manufacturing workmen. This would not occur if the price were kept up at a just rate, so that the labourer could be profitably employed. Extremely high or low prices of grain were injurious to the country. What was wanted was an equality of price. —The noble lord then proceeded to contend, that the landed interest were subjected to burthens peculiar to themselves, to a very great extent. The land-tax amounted to about 10 per cent on the value of the rent. Did the silk manufacturers, who had obtained a protection of 30 per cent, labour under any such burthen as this? The poor-rate and tithes taken together amounted to about 33 per cent on the value of the rent; which, added to the 10 per cent before mentioned, made a total of 43 per cent of taxes, pressing exclusively on the land. This was not all: the landed interest were obliged to furnish the means of forming roads, bridges, and all public buildings, and to indemnify the owners of property for all losses occasioned by the riotous proceedings of distressed manufacturers. So that the landed interest was subjected to exclusive taxation amounting to more than 50 per cent on the value of the rent. It was under these circumstances that the present measures were brought forward, and discussions elicited which were more mischievous even than the measures themselves. He begged the noble earl to recollect the language which he held in 1815, when he supported the Corn-laws. He then said, that he supported those laws because he wished to render this country independent of foreign supply, and by so doing to produce an equality of prices. Could the noble earl look to the increasing exports from Ireland, and say that at the present period the country did not produce a sufficient supply of grain? He wished to have an opportunity of supporting the noble earl; but that he had found it impossible to do, since the commencement of the session. The noble lord concluded with repeating his objections to the measures, and by expressing his conviction that if they should be carried, it would be impossible to come to the discussion of the general question of the Corn-laws with any chance of obtaining a fair decision upon it.

The Earl of Liverpool

said, he felt it necessary to say a few words in answer to some part of the noble earl's speech. At the same time, he did not feel it necessary to touch upon many of the arguments of the noble earl, which, though they involved considerations of great importance, bore rather upon the general question of the Corn-laws, than upon the particular measures before the House. In the first place, he would tell the noble lord, who complained of the injurious effect which the present measures would have on the general question of the system of Corn-laws, that if any such effect was produced, it was the fault of those who opposed them. It was well known that, when the measures were first proposed in the other House, they were hailed universally, as well by those who supported the agricultural, as by those who supported the manufacturing interest. It was owing to the opposition offered to the measures in that House, that the opposition exhibited in the other House took place. Those who introduced the measures stated, that they were not intended to have any effect on the general question of the Corn-laws. The opposers of the measures, by putting it into the heads of people, that they were connected with the general question, had done that which they alleged ministers to have done. Ministers had declared that they intended the measures as temporary, and applied to a special purpose. The noble earl had gone into a long history of the Corn-laws previously to the year 1765, and since that period. He was not going to follow the noble earl through his statement, but he could not help observing, that the noble earl had omitted to notice, as the advocates of the agricultural interest always did, the great growth of the agricultural interest and increase of population since 1765, and to inquire, whether the increase of produce had been proportionate. The noble earl was not correct in stating, that previously to 1765 there were no great fluctuations in the price of grain. The fluctuations were considerable; of which he would give a few examples. Take the beginning of the last century. In 1707, wheat was 23s.; in 1708 it was 36s.; in 1709 it was 69s. 7d. In 1740, wheat was 49s. 10d.; in 1741 it was 41s. 9d.; in 1742 it was 28s.; and in 1743 it was only 22s. He did not state this as an argument for one system or the other; but merely to show, that there always had been great fluctuations in the price of this article of food. The noble earl had accused him of inconsistency in having supported the Corn-bill in 1815, and now advocating the present measures. It was true that he did support the Corn-bill of 1815; and he thought it a just measure on that occasion. He said then, that he wished Great Britain and Ireland to produce corn enough for their own consumption. He said the same thing and felt the same wish now, but he could not shut his eyes to the fact, that the imports of foreign grain proved that Great Britain and Ireland had not produced sufficient for their domestic consumption. Whether the growth of population had been more than proportionate with the growth of produce was a question which he could not undertake to determine. He supported an import price of 80s. in 1815; but, were we not then in extraordinary years—years of efficient harvests? But why did the noble earl as well as himself support an import price of 80s. in 1815? The noble earl was aware that, in 1813 and 1814, a member of the House of Commons, connected, he believed, with Ireland, introduced a corn bill, in which the import price was fixed at 120s. The House threw out that bill. Why did the noble earl agree to the import price of 80s., but because he thought that it suited the then circumstances of the country? The noble earl went upon the principle, that the agriculturists ought to be protected up to a fair remunerative price, and he found that price in 80s. He was not now going to discuss the question, whether 80s. was at present a fair price; but, when the noble lord talked of the burthens to which the land was peculiarly liable, he thought it necessary to remind the House, that the property-tax, the agricultural horse-tax, the salt-tax, the leather-tax—all pressing on the landed interest,—had been repealed, whilst the taxes bearing upon the poorer classes, which had been repealed, were few in proportion. Could the noble earl deny, that at the present moment 60s. or 65s. was as fair a remunerative price as 80s. in 1815? He gave his support to both prices upon the same principle, that of affording a fair and equitable remuneration to the farmer; and, whenever the great question of the Corn-laws should come to be discussed, he should be prepared to advocate the same principle. He was prepared to agree with noble lords who advocated a fair remuneration to the agricultural interests; but he was equally prepared to say, that there were other interests which ought to be looked to, in order to guard the country against the perils and dangers to which she had recently been exposed. The noble lord had said that there were other measures of relief. He thought, however, that, in the present circumstances of the country, a more effectual one could not be devised. He had already said, that the price of corn was not the cause of the present distress. He repeated that statement. The cause of the existing distress he believed to be overtrading. To say, however, that the measures submitted to parliament were not measures of relief, was really laughable. They were most essentially measures of relief. Some noble lords contended that, as the manufacturing population was out of employment, and had not the means of purchasing bread, it was of no use to make that article cheaper, or to prevent it from becoming dearer; which was, in fact, the only object of the proposed measures. It might be true that some proportion of the manufacturing population could get no work, but the great mass were working at reduced wages —some getting 7s. per week, others 5s., and some only 2s., out of which, in many instances, large families were to be supported. Would any man tell him, that to these people it was of no consequence whether the quartern loaf was a shilling or eighteen-pence? The price of corn, he repeated, had nothing to do with the present distress; but that distress having been found to exist, it was important to find a remedy for it; and no remedy could, in his opinion, be more effectual than that which was proposed. But the noble lord argued, that there was no necessity for the measure, and that when the necessity did arise, it would be time enough to apply the cure. But, was it not the duty of government to provide against the contingency of a bad harvest? Could any noble lord, after leaving that House, sleep soundly on his pillow when he considered what might be the fatal effects of an unpropitious harvest? What, under the present circumstances of the country, could be more ruinous than such a result? Even in the most prosperous years the contemplation of a bad harvest brought with it the most distressing consequences. Last July, when not only the manufacturers were in full employ, but advertisements had been put forth, inviting labourers from Ireland, would not every noble lord have considered it his duty to guard, by every possible means, against the contingency of a bad harvest; if such had been apprehended, how much more necessary, then, was it to guard against such a contingency in the present circumstances of the country? The noble lord, however, said, "wait until the necessity occurs, then act upon your own responsibility, and afterwards come to parliament for an indemnity." He must, however, beg leave to say, that government had taken the wisest as well as the more prudent course. If they had adopted a different line of conduct—if they had refrained from calling for the previous approbation of parliament, what would be the result, supposing that a scarcity were to occur in the interval between the dissolution and the sitting of the new parliament. Ministers would, in that case be obliged to summon a parliament; and for what purpose? To enter into a discussion on the Corn-laws. Now, with reference to the interests of the agriculturists alone, what could be more injurious to those interests, than to have parliament especially called together, at a most inconvenient period of the year, for the purpose of discussing those laws? Again he said, that the proposed measures would not prejudge the general question. On the contrary, they tended to leave the questions more as it formerly stood, by removing an impression which might operate unfavourably. He was decidedly of opinion, that the executive government had done their duty by endeavouring to obtain a power by law, rather than assuming it against law. It was most fair and just, and becoming in a constitutional government, to come to parliament, and ask for that power, which every body admitted must be exercised, and every body said it would be criminal not to exercise.

The Earl of Limerick

said he did not think that any necessity had been shown for the adoption of the measure. On the contrary, he considered it pregnant with mischief. He knew that it had excited great alarm in this country. In Ireland it had created the greatest confusion. He held in his hand, a letter from a gentleman, upon whose assertion he could rely, stating that a friend of his had a quantity of corn coming from Dantzic, the prime cost of which was 20s. a quarter, and which, including all charges, would be imported into this country at 40s. per quarter. He asked their lordships to consider into what distress the agriculturalists and landowners of this country would be plunged, if the price of corn should be reduced to so low a rate as that at which this foreign corn could be sold by the importer?

Lord King

said, he would do the noble earl, at the head of the government, the justice to say, that that noble earl had made a stout defence in a bad cause. He had no doubt that that noble earl, with many others, would, in the next year, make a defence in the last ditch; but he trusted that such opposition would not induce parliament to stand in the gap between prosperity and a starving population. He congratulated the noble earl upon his success over his domestic enemies; and the noble earl, having set his House in order, might next year, with the certainty of success, proceed to the discussion of the Corn-laws. There were only two ways in which the proposed relief could be afforded to the manufacturing population. One was, by passing the bill now before their lordships, and the other, by his majesty's ministers acting upon their own responsibility in case of emergency. He preferred the mode adopted by his majesty's ministers, and he did so because it held out to the population the positive assurance that government would, if necessary, give them relief; whereas, if such a measure had not been brought forward, the manufacturing population would have been left in doubt as to the intentions of government. He knew many noble lords who were averse to free trade—many who were averse to free air (of which there was not then much in that House)—and many who were averse to free conscience. He was a friend both to free air and to free trade; and he trusted that the God above would give free air, and that his majesty's ministers would give free trade. He also looked forward to a better state of things, when men would enjoy free conscience. Many noble lords were averse to free trade; and at the close of the last war, propositions had been made to exclude all raw produce. One said, exclude butter; another said, exclude corn; another said, exclude wool — that was the codex agrestis of the hon. member for Somerset, and Suffolk, who joined in the cry, that this country ought to be a nation of sellers, and not a nation of buyers; but those who maintained that doctrine, did not state how a nation could sell, without buying something in return from the nations to which they sold. A question had been asked, whether this country could produce sufficient corn for its own consumption? No doubt this country could. But then another question arose—at what price could we produce that corn? How much labour and capital would be lost in producing this corn? When the good corn land should be exhausted, bad land must be brought into cultivation, at a great sacrifice of capital and labour. A noble earl had said, that he wished to renounce all paradoxes in the discussion of this question; but that noble earl immediately afterwards had said, that a low price of corn would be productive of general distress. That statement appeared to him paradoxical. He could not see how a low price of corn could be productive of distress to the consumer. On the contrary, he thought that, excluding foreign corn, and thereby compelling the consumer to pay a higher price than he could procure foreign corn for, was a tax upon his labour. They were told, that it would be a great misfortune to be dependent upon foreign supplies. He was satisfied, that those who made those statements were actuated solely by a wish for the prosperity of the consumer uninfluenced by any personal considerations. Those persons said—"Oh, if you allow foreign supplies, we must live like Dutchmen, dependent upon the other nations, who might, if they pleased, combine, and stop the supplies." In answer to that argument, he would refer their lordships to the period when Napoleon's power was at its height, and when he had opportunities (such as would probably never again exist) of injuring this country. What was the fact then? Foreign corn was supplied to this country upon paying a good price. Whilst it was the interest of the nations of Europe to sell their produce, there was not the most distant chance of a combination. One noble lord had urged, as an argument against this measure, that the land-owners paid the tithes; but he begged leave to inform that noble lord, that the tithe was as much paid by the consumer, as if the clergyman, after the loaf was purchased at the baker's shop, were to cut off one tenth part of it. He liked this bill, because it made an inroad upon the Corn-laws. He was glad to get at them in any way, or by any means; and he trusted that, next year, the call of the country for an alteration in those laws would be irresistible.

The Marquis of Salisbury

said, he had voted upon the former occasion against the appointment of a committee; but, in consequence of what he had heard that night, he repented having given such a vote. This measure was now urged as a relief to the manufacturers, but he denied that it was any such thing, because any measure which would produce distress to the agriculturist must in the end be productive of distress to the manufacturer. With respect to letting out the bonded corn, he thought it a matter of little importance, except that it interfered with the principle of the Corn-laws, and as such he should decidedly oppose the measure. If ministers had taken upon themselves to allow the importation of foreign corn, they must, when they came to parliament for indemnity, have stated good reasons for having violated the law; but he was unwilling to give to ministers the powers required by them in the absence of all information, respecting the existence of an emergency to justify such a measure.

The Earl of Carnarvon

observed, that, although there might be no great objection to the taking out the bonded corn, yet, if this measure was to be repeated, a temptation would be held out to the corn factors to overload the warehouses with foreign corn; and it would be injustice and ruin to them to refuse admission to it. Since the commencement of the present session, the measures of ministers had been calculated to prolong the distress of the country. The distress was, in fact, owing to the imbecile, wavering, and changeful measures of the government. None of those measures had been adapted to remedy the evils they professed to provide for. In consequence of this, the dissolution of parliament was looked to without regret by the country. It was his opinion, that the Corn-laws should be inquired into at once, and established on a solid foundation. For want of this, the country, during the intermission of parliament, would be left in a state of confusion. The speech of the noble earl opposite had been filled with false logic and panegyrics on ministers; at the same time that it was not very complimentary to the House, and held out a sort of threat. But, notwithstanding the taunts and threats of the noble earl, he hoped their lordships would do their duty, not from a sense of interest, as landed proprietors, but out of regard to the country. He objected to the measures before the House, because they were alike foolish and michievous.

Lord Redesdale

objected to the measure, because the object of it was to impose a tax exclusively upon the agriculturist, for the relief of the manufacturer. He should have no objection to a general tax for that purpose; but he must protest against this partial tax. It was like stealing leather to make poor men's shoes. To ruin the agriculturists for the benefit of the manufacturers, would be to injure both classes, without relieving either. The first care in every country was the agriculture of it; from its agriculture its population arose—and from its population arose its manufactures. Thus, in the United States of America, where the agriculture was not restricted, the manufacturing classes were not numerous; yet those states were increasing in strength. And for what reason? Because their agriculture was encouraged. To cause distress among the agriculturists, such as had existed sometime ago, when the importation of corn had ruined more than half the farmers, could not be beneficial to the manufacturers. Yet the present measures were calculated to cause the diminution of the capital of the agriculturists—a diminution which would be felt, as well in the production of meat, as an article of food, as in the growth of corn. Their lordships were bound, therefore, to give protection to the cultivation of corn. Looking upon the subject in another point of view, he would ask, if some check ought not to be formed against the superabundant increase of the manufacturing classes? What caused the great distress prevailing in Ireland, a country blessed with fertility of the most extraordinary kind? The want of capital to carry on its agriculture. If, therefore, the capital of the agriculturists was reduced in this country, the injury to the manufacturers would be great in the extreme. What was the cause of the late agricultural distress? Nothing but importation, which had ruined many farmers, and in the county of Dorset had caused prices to fall one half. If there was any difficulty in this country supplying itself, it was entirely owing to importation. He had lately conversed with a gentleman who had made inquiries in different parts of the country, as to the means which farmers possessed of paying their rents. From this gentleman he learned, that out of two hundred capital farms not more than ten were fully stocked, and that one hundred were only half stocked. This want of stock must produce a defalcation of corn. Some noble lords thought that poor lands ought not to be cultivated. But, what would be the effect of throwing the poor lands out of cultivation? According to Mr. Ricardo, those lands included one half of the soil in cultivation. Their produce was, perhaps, one third of the whole produce of the country. By throwing those lands out of cultivation, the production of the country would be rendered less by so much than it now was. It was by cultivation that the country had been made to flourish, and if cultivation were discouraged, the injury would be irreparable. On this ground his objection to the measures was founded. A great deal had been said about free trade. For his part he was no enemy to it. It was good in theory, and would be so in practice if all countries would agree to it; but so long as Great Britain acted on that principle, and other nations did not, what was called free trade would be injurious instead of being beneficial to the best interests of the country. For these reasons he disapproved of the measure, and in case of the bill being read a second time, he should propose in the committee some modification of the most objectionable clauses, in order to protect the landed interest and the country against their injurious tendency.

The Earl of Darnley

said, that the discussion had run, very unnecessarily, in his opinion, into the general question of the Corn-laws. Whenever that question came regularly before the House, and it could not, he thought, be longer delayed than the next session, the agricultural interest must make up their minds to considerable alterations. The system of prohibition must be relinquished entirely, and open ports, under a protecting duty, be established. He meant such a protecting duty as would be sufficient to place the grower of corn in this country, laden as it was with taxation, upon a footing of equality with countries less pressed upon by the demands for establishments, and the payment of interest on so large a national debt. He did not think that there was much probability of ministers taking upon themselves the responsibility of the measure for allowing the further importation of corn; as, unless there was a total failure of our harvest, of which at present there was no appearance, the provisions of that bill would be altogether inoperative. But, as it might do some good in quieting groundless apprehension, he should vote for it.

The Earl of Malmesbury

said, he should not have again troubled their lordships had it not been for an observation which fell from the noble earl at the head of his majesty's government; namely, that these measures would have passed over with silence, unless for the opposition in that House. The opposition arose, on his part, from a wish to discharge his duty as a peer of the realm. He well knew what he had to contend against. Two great influences were opposed to him, but neither the "civium ardor prava jubentium," nor the "vultus instantis tyranni" should ever prevent him from expressing his sentiments. The noble earl was too good a scholar not to know that the last word did not mean tyrant solely, but any other person possessing power. It was true that he regarded his interests as involved in the question of the Corn-laws; and as such he was interested in the subject; but it did not therefore follow that he was unable to consult the interests of the country at large.

The Duke of Somerset

opposed the motion, and wished an inquiry to take place into the subject of the Corn-laws generally.

The House divided upon the second reading of the Warehoused Corn bill. Contents 84; Not-contents 23: Majority 61. Another division took place upon the second reading of the Corn Importation Bill. Contents 78; Not-contents 28: Majority 50.