Lords Sitting of 29 March 1830

MINUTES.
Returns Ordered. On the Motion of the Earl of MALMESBURY of the quantity of Wheat remaining under Bond on January 5th, 1828, the quantity entered for Home Consumption between January 1828 and January 1830; the quantity exported in the same period, and the quantity in Bond on January 5th, 1830:—of the quantity of Flour imported from the Idle of Man into Liverpool, from January 1858 to January 1830. On the Motion of the Duke of WELLINGTON, of the quantity of Raw, Waste, and Thrown Silk entered for Home Consumption during the last ten years, specifying the Rates of Duty: —of all Silk Manufactured Articles imported since 1826: —of the quantities of Thrown, Raw, and Waste Silk which have laid Duties during the last three years: —of the number of Skins on which Duties have been paid during the last ten years: —of the Vessels which have passed through the Sound during 1829: —of the number and tonnage of British Ships which entered Inwards and cleared Outwards during the five years ending January 5, 1826, and the five years ending January 5, 1830: — of various Articles, such as China-ware, Earthenware, Cordage, Iron, Lead, Toys, &c &c On the Motion of Earl BATHURST: Copies of any correspondence between the Board of Trade and the Directors of the East-India Company, and of Letters written by the Directors to the Government of India, relative to the cultivation of Cotton and Tobacco in the East Indies.
Returns Presented. Extract of a Letter from the Government of Bengal to the Court of Directors, dated June 29th, 1826, respecting the permission given to Europeans to hold Land on Lease for the cultivation of Coffee: —Minute of Mr. Trower, of the Board of Revenue at Calcutta, dated March 25th, 1823, and Resolution of Bengal Government, pasted 7th May, 1824; —extract of g Letter from

961
the Court of Directors to the Government of Bengal, dated Sept. 10th, 1828, in reply to a Letter from that Government, of June 29, 1826, and extract of a Letter from the Court of Directors to the Government of Bengal, dated July 8th, 1829, directing that Government to adhere to the terms of the Resolution of May 7, 1824. The East Retford Witnesses Indemnity Bill was introduced and read a first time, and ordered to be read a second time on April 20, when witnesses were ordered to attend.
The Marquis of LANSDOWN gave notice, that on an early day he would move an Address to the Crown, requesting that his Majesty's Consuls in South America be directed to furnish a statement of the exports of the precious Metals from the districts with which they were connected.
Petitions Presented. By the Duke of GORDON, from Rossshire, praying for a Repeal of the Malt Tax.— Laid on the Table. By the Earl of CARMARVON, from Owners and Occupiers of Land in the County of Wilts, praying that as to the Poor-laws, Ireland might be placed on the same footing as England. By the Duke of NORFOLK, from Sheffield, praying for Free Trade to India and China:— By the Duke of GLOUCESTER, from Gloucester, to the same effect: —By the Marquis of LANSDOWN to the same effect, from Pollockshaw, Perth, Hastingden, and the Chamber of Commerce, Dublin. By Lord GRENVILLE, from Wellington, against the Truck System. By the Earl of ESSEX, from Wellingborough, praying for a revision of the Penal Laws. By Lord WHARNCLIFFE, from the Fishermen of Robinhood's Bay, praying for a continuation of the Fishery Bounties. By Lord HOLLAND, from Archibald Hamilton Rowan, and George Cockburn, complaining of the manner of Registering Marriages in the North of Ireland, and praying a remedy.

STANDING ORDERS.
The Earl of Rosslyn The Earl of Rosslyn moved an amendment in the Standing Order No. 210, which was introduced by Lord Lauderdale with a view to check the introduction of bills for making Joint-stock companies for purposes of idle speculation. Almost every public improvement for which a bill was likely to be necessary was specifically excepted out of the operation of the Order. It became now requisite, however, to make some further exceptions of other works, of which mention was at first omitted, but which were strictly within the intention of the former exceptions.—Amendment, including in the exceptions Wharfs, Stairs or Landing-places, and Market-houses or Market-places, agreed to.

PETITIONS.—MALT TAX.
Lord Suffield, in presenting three Petitions from certain inhabitants of Norfolk, praying for a repeal of the Malt Tax, said, he should take that opportunity to explain what he had already stated when presenting a petition of a similar nature on Thursday. The petitioners, on both occasions, complained of the distress which at present affected the agriculturists; they alluded to the burthens under which they suffered, but more particularly they complained of the Malt-tax, He had likewise
962
stated, that the sympathy evinced by the yeomen and farmers of Norfolk for the distresses of the labouring population was highly creditable to their feelings. With respect to the Poor-laws, he thought that they were not so well administered as they might be; but it was to the gentry and magistrates, to the higher classes of society, that he looked for the improvement of them rather than to the farmers. He had been present at a most respectable meeting of the county of Norfolk on the 16th of January last, when all who attended were unanimous in desiring a repeal of the Malt-tax,—the only difference of opinion which existed referred to the amount of taxation from which they expected to be relieved. The whole county of Norfolk, he was persuaded, desired the abolition of this tax, principally because it peculiarly pressed upon the poor.
The Duke of Wellingtonprofessed to have a perfect recollection of what the noble Lord had said upon the presentation of the former petition. To the best of his belief, he had expressed himself to the same purport, if not in the same words, then, as he had done upon the present occasion. He remembered his having referred to the ineffectual administration of the Poor-laws in Norfolk, and specified the 9th Geo. 3rd as the source to which they were to look for a remedy.

CHRISTIANS NATIVES OF INDIA.
The Earl of Carlislepresented a Petition from the Christian inhabitants of Calcutta, who were born of European fathers and native mothers, complaining of various disqualifications to which they had been subject since the first settlement of the East India Company. They stated that they were excluded from privileges to which both natives and Europeans were indiscriminately admitted. They were incapacitated from serving in the civil, military, or marine service of the Company, as the preamble of every appointment was required to set forth that the person proposed was not the son of a native and European. The petitioners were likewise disqualified from holding the King's commission in India, nor could they hold offices of trust and emolument in any department whatever.
Lord Ellenboroughsaid, that the present was not a favourable opportunity for entering into a discussion on the subject of the Petition. This much, however, he might

963
observe, that he felt, as all who had any feeling must do, for the unfortunate situation of the class to which the petitioners belonged, and was desirous to ameliorate their condition as far as was possible, without violating a principle that was essential to the maintenance of British Government in India. With regard to some of the practical grievances described in the petition, for example, in cases of wills and succession, he saw no reason why they should not be remedied. It should, however, be borne in mind, that the petitioners did not require an equality of civil rights, but an admission to privileges to which the native population at large were not entitled, and this they demanded notwithstanding they were the offspring of Europeans by native women. He could only add, that their representations had received, and would continue to receive, the most attentive consideration from the Board of Control and the Directors of the East India Company. Their grievances should certainly be ameliorated as far as was consistent with the well-being of the people generally, and the observance of the principle to which he had already alluded.
The Earl of Carlisleinquired if there was any difference between the children of half-castes and the half-castes themselves?
Lord Ellenboroughsaid, the latter were considered as natives, and were eligible to all the offices in the Company's service to which the natives were eligible. The parties to the petition were illegitimate, being of half-caste, and were not eligible to those appointments.

PETITION FROM BIRMINGHAM—DISTRESS.
The Earl of Radnorsaid, he had a Petition to present from Birmingham, which was entitled to the greatest attention and consideration on account of the number and respectability of the names which were annexed to it. It was signed by 25,000 persons. It embraced a variety of topics, such as Parliamentary Reform, and a revision of Taxation, but it derived its chief importance, in his view, because the distress of the petitioners was the foundation of their prayer,—a point which ought by no means to be overlooked, as they had already heard so much of the abatement of that distress, in support of which assertion Birmingham itself had been adduced as an example. The tri-
964
umphant statements sent forth from another place had rendered him cautious as to how far he should be warranted in crediting the averments of the petitioners to the contrary; nor was it until he had made personal inquiries on the subject, that he fully assented to the truth of their representations. He was sorry to say, that the representations of returning prosperity made elsewhere were not borne out by his information. It had been pretended that the change in the currency in 1819 had not caused the fall of prices; hut those who said so might as well affirm that there was no depreciation whatever. When the bill of 1819 came into operation, it was a remarkable coincidence that prices had fallen, while they rose in the same proportion when its provisions were neutralized by the bill of 1822. The main paint, however, was the distress, and he should most sincerely rejoice if it could be ascertained that the alleged revival of the agricultural and manufacturing interests originated in any permanent source of prosperity. It had been also said, that the depression was partially attributable to the introduction of steam navigation, which brought the produce of the most fertile land of Ireland and Scotland in sudden competition with the produce of the inferior soil of England. Now these causes would not account for the distress of the manufacturers, except that inasmuch as the pressure was upon land, the effect was proportionate upon manufactures. It was also said that machinery was a cause of distress by the over-production which it occasioned, but if this were so, it formed an additional reason why we ought not to continue our present system of Corn-laws. But he could show to their Lordships that distress existed in several branches of manufacture, and a depreciation took place in a variety of articles, in the manufacture of which the same machinery was used at present that had been in use for the last twenty-eight years. [The noble Lord here read extracts of letters from manufacturers to show that some articles of brass-foundery had been reduced in price from 5s. 6d. and 6s. per dozen to 2s. and 3s.] It had been stated in another place that Birmingham had recently much improved, and great stress was laid on the advance that had taken place in ground-rents, and the increase on certain tolls in that neighbourhood. The advance on ground-rents was in instances

965
where valuable houses had been built, and the increase of tolls was to be explained by the fact of a valuable coal-mine having been opened in the neighbourhood. It had been said that the increase of four-wheeled carriages since 1825 was a proof of increased prosperity, but it should be recollected that the Assessed Taxes had been reduced by half since then, and the increase was not in the number of large carriages, but in the small four-wheeled one-horse carriages, which were now very common. He could prove also by documents which he held in his hand, that the condition of the labouring classes at Birmingham was much worse at present than it had been for many years, except the years 1817 and [1818. But the first of those years was one of great scarcity. Corn was then 17 s. a bushel—it was now only 7s. 6d. At that time the number of out-door poor to be relieved at Birmingham was 5,300—at present it was 3,800. But looking at the difference in the price of corn at both periods, the number of out-door poor to be relieved at present showed a greater pressure of distress than existed in 1817, and in this respect the statement of the petitioners was fully borne out. The petitioners complained of the effect of the Corn-laws, and they also complained of Free Trade; but in this he owned he did not concur with them, for the Free-trade system was that by which they had the best chance of getting a market for their manufactures.
The Duke of Wellingtonsaid, it was very unfortunate that noble Lords departed from that rule of the House which was opposed to any direct allusion to what was said in former debates, or to what passed in the other House. Had the noble Earl attended to that rule he would not have fallen into the errors he had committed. It was impossible for his right hon. friend to know the condition of the people except from the public returns, and he conceived that in the statement he made he was perfectly justified. The noble Lord, in asserting that the people of Birmingham suffered more now than in 1817, and in appealing to the number receiving assistance from the poor-rates, for the purpose of sustaining that assertion, referred to the prices of the two periods, and attributed the existing distress to the difference between them. But the noble Lord could scarcely compare the prices of the two periods with any accuracy or justice, when
966
he remembered that the prices of the one were estimated in a paper, the other in a metallic currency. He could not help again protesting against the practice of thus, at the end of three or four weeks, or three or four months, adverting to what took place in the other House and in that House during former debates, instead of confining their discussions to the materials regularly brought under their consideration.
Lord Hollandsaid, since the strict order was that they should not make any allusion to what took place in the other House, or to any former debates in that House, which in his opinion was a nice regulation—he wished to see it strictly observed. The noble Duke had complained of his noble friend as being irregular, when, if there were one question more than another which might excuse an allusion to such occurrence, it would be a petition upon a question of facts affecting the condition of the people. His noble friend did not state any particular date or place, and had he spoken of the conversation generally, as having occurred elsewhere, he might have escaped all imputation of disorder. In short, he would contend, that nothing could be more parliamentary than was his noble friend.
The Earl of Radnorexpressed his concurrence with the sentiments of the noble Duke as to the rule of Parliament he had alluded to, but differed from the noble Duke as to the possibility of comparing prices.
Petition laid on the Table.

CORN LAWS.
Lord Kingrose to move a series of Resolutions on the subject of the Corn-laws. He wished to place upon their Lordships' Journals a statement of the views which he took upon that most important subject; and whether at the present time they agreed with him or not, he felt confident, that at no distant time they would feel the justice of those principles which he advocated, and be compelled to adopt them ultimately, with a view to the welfare of the people. In approaching this question, it was at least satisfactory that it had been cleared of one of the difficulties which stood in its way. It was now universally admitted that one great cause of the existing distress was the too great pressure at present weighing down the productive industry of the country. Mr. Huskisson—he might mention that

967
Gentleman's name, as he did not tell the place wherein the language attributed to him was delivered—had said, (and he was a great authority upon such subjects) that it was the too great burthen upon the productive industry of the people which was the great cause of the existing distress— not the occasional, but the habitual and permanent pressure upon the productive industry of the people. Such being the admitted state of the case, he must complain of the right hon. Gentleman for deserting his own principles—why did he not carry the matter to its full and legitimate extent—why did he not at once say, that the Corn-laws were the grand source of that pressure? It would be easy to prove that everything else which affected the productive industry of the people was not in the aggregate equal to the weight of the Corn-laws alone. They affected the enjoyments of the people at least to the extent of twenty to five-and-twenty per cent, for without them the cost at which corn could be obtained would be about 50 s. During the ten years between the French and American wars, the usual price was 48 s. Supposing that 12,000,000 quarters of wheat were annually consumed, and that the average price was from 15 s. to 20 s. more than what he had stated, which was about the truth, then it was plain that the Corn-laws levied a tax on the people to the amount of from nine to twelve millions a year, being greater in amount than the taxes on soap, leather, and on all other articles of necessary consumption. A right hon. Gentleman had said in another place, that it should be the policy of the Government of a great nation to place the people committed to its charge in such a situation as that their own soil should produce their food. For his part, he could not conceive any policy more lame or timid, or one more calculated to retard the progress of society. True policy demanded that none but good land should be cultivated. He could not imagine any thing more monstrous than to hear it asserted that the people of this country should not get their Corn from Poland, from Russia, or from any other place, wherever it could be found the cheapest, rather than from Hampshire or from other places in which its quality might be inferior and its price higher. He knew it might be said, that we ought to render ourselves independent of the support of other countries—that was a convenient cry to raise—it would form an
968
imposing inscription upon a banner—but what compensation would it prove to a population half-fed. It might be said, that if we allowed ourselves to become dependent upon other countries for food, they might at a most critical moment stop our supplies, and that by discouraging the growth of corn in this case, we drove matters to that state in which a small supply would necessarily become the habitual state of the Corn market; but what danger would there be of that prohibition so long as the interests of all foreign nations led them to supply us with all that we were willing to take off their hands, and in return to supply them with all the manufactured goods which they could possibly desire. After adverting to the bill of 1815, and the impossibility of adhering to the scale of duties and of averages there laid down, he proceeded to contend that the present distress arose from the low rates of profit and the inadequate remuneration of labour. With a greatly increased quantity of trade, there might be a much less amount of nett profit: thus, if the raw material of a piece of calico were 2s. 6d., and it formerly sold on the Continent for 10 s., the profit upon it would be 7s. 6d.; but if the value of the raw material were lowered to 1s. 6d., and the piece of calico sold for only 5s., the profit would only be 3s. 6d. upon each piece; and if two pieces were sold instead of one, the profit would not equal what it had before been upon one piece. How then were we still able to compete with the foreigner? First, by being satisfied with reduced profits; secondly, by having to pay greatly reduced wages; thirdly, by the substitution of machinery. The consequence was, the most miserable remuneration for labour, and the most inadequate return for capital, reacting on the landed interest, and occasioning the present want of demand for farms of all kinds, but especially for grass lands. It had been stated in another place, that at present one-third less meat was consumed in Birmingham than in prosperous times; and accounts of the same description from Manchester and other manufacturing places! would, no doubt, present the same result.! Profits were the criterion of prosperity, and how were they affected by the Corn-laws? In several ways:—1st. By the cessation of that demand for manufactures and produce, which would exist if the Corn-laws did not exist. 2nd. By the different level of prices occasioned by

969
the Corn-laws making corn dear in this country and cheap abroad. Rival manufacturers were thus created in foreign countries, who availed themselves of the low rate of wages there, and were enabled to enter into successful competition. 3rd. By employing labour on the cultivation of poor land, on which the return for capital was, of course, much Jess than on good land. The level of profit on all capital was determined by the return for capital employed in the cultivation of the least productive soils: if, therefore, bad soils were cultivated, the profit on capital was reduced. What advantages did we not enjoy, were we but at liberty to use them! We were in possession of an unbounded supply of coal, of the most ingeniously contrived machinery, and of a very extensive amount of capital. These advantages were very great if we could only be prevailed upon to use them; for with them the produce of England would always exchange against a greater amount of the produce of any other country not possessing the same advantages. Suppose, for instance, that the labour of four Englishmen, aided by machinery, would produce manufactured produce which would exchange against the produce of the labour of eight Russians when applied to the soil, was it not palpably to the advantage of England to make this exchange, since the result was double profits to the capital of England. If, however, they persisted in employing capital where it was unprofitable,— if they persisted in laying it out upon the cultivation of bad land, thus realizing little or no return, and bringing down all profits to a level with it, — the exchange of commodities between this and foreign countries must be disadvantageous. Well then, if this system were generally disadvantageous to the country, to what particular persons was it advantageous? Why, it seemed that the English landlords thought it was advantageous to them. This, however, he had no hesitation in characterizing as one of the greatest mistakes that could be made. It was manifestly for the interest of the land-owner to admit foreign Corn, and to allow the industry of the country to have free and fair play. For instance, if this were done, the poor-rates would be instantly diminished. It was perfectly well known that one-fifth only of the produce of the land went to the landlord: and for this small profit what a heavy and disproportionate burthen was put upon the com-
970
munity. He did think that under the word "protection," if carefully considered, they could have a history of the folly of people, of parliaments, and of governments, all over the world. Under this word "protection," governments had in all times oppressed the industry of the countries over which they presided. Under the pretence of protection, the industry of France had been oppressed from the time of Colbert downwards. The history of Spain consisted of nothing but protections. Little Holland alone, in its best times, was not so protected; and while it was not, its history might shame the greatest monarchies in the world. In England we had been protected from the days of Charles 2nd, down to the time of the present Lord-protectors. At one period of the history of this country bounties were the principal feature of our Corn-laws. At that period we paid others for being good enough to eat our food. Now, on the contrary, we had turned round, and imposed restrictions on foreign Corn. When we wanted manufactures we excluded them; now that we wanted Corn we excluded that. There was unfortunately one point in which these two principles agreed,—the country paid and suffered for both of them, Here he would leave the subject of protection. He might be asked, however, whether it would be possible to admit the principle of Free Trade? He begged to inquire whether it was possible for the country to go on without it? He was persuaded that the prosperity of this country depended upon unrestricted commerce. What was Free Trade but a saving of labour? And what was restriction but a waste of it? The principle of the prosperity of a country was the perfection of the economy of labour— producing the greatest quantity of goods with the least amount of labour. That state of things could not be established without admitting foreign produce in return for our manufactures, and at this moment we were competing with the foreigner, who had cheap Corn on his side, while on our side we had machinery and capital. Capital was daily increasing abroad, and machinery in the course of introduction; so that unless we had Corn as cheap as our neighbours, we must in the end be beaten in the contest. Those who decried the principles of Free Trade, meant that every country should do every thing for itself. America, according to them, should not cultivate her soil, but make cottons and hard-

971
ware. France ought, by the same rule, to neglect the culture of the vine and the olive, and strive to surpass England in making iron. England, instead of endeavouring to buy Corn with cotton and hardware, should forego the use of steam and machinery, and employ all her artizans to dig up the heaths of the country. The principle of these Gentlemen, pushed to its full extent, would prevent division of labour, and would compel every man to procure every thing he wanted for himself. But foolish as was the principle when pushed through all its consequences, it was not equal to the wisdom of a young statesman of three-score, called the Pope. His Holiness beat all the sages of our country hollow, and deserved to be held up as a model for imitation. Sensible of the necessity of employment, he issued a decree to prevent the importation of all iron implements for tillage, and no doubt his Holiness boasted that he had provided employment for all the starving peasantry of the Campagna di Roma, and so perhaps he did, but it was by adding to their trouble. His Holiness was not aware that such labour was a painful waste, and but for the decree of his Holiness, more would have been obtained at a less cost. His conduct was like the memorable scheme of digging holes and filling them up. His Lordship then proceeded to answer the question, whether it was fit to sacrifice the capital embarked in the cultivation of poor soils? He answered, that the country would be better without such capital so employed than with it. If he were asked why he did not leave the question at rest, his reply was, that it would never be at rest while the Corn-laws were in force, which inflicted so much injustice and occasioned so much distress. The subject was well understood out of doors, if not in Parliament, and the people were well aware of the contrast presented by the last fifteen years of peace, and the ten prosperous years which followed the American war and preceded that with France. The Corn-laws put the prosperity of the country as it were in Chancery; it could not advance: it was like the motionless person described by the Poet under the power of a wizard—
"He strove to move, while waved the wizard o'er,
But though he strove, moved not one inch the more."
The country was like an unhappy suitor in Chancery—within the power of a wizard
972
and unable to move. As long as the Corn-laws existed, the country could not advance. It had been said by somebody, as his Lordship saw by the newspapers, he did not mean to impute such nonsense to the noble Duke (Wellington) that "the Corn-laws worked well—that the crops had been deficient; but that no blame could be imputed to the Corn-laws." He did not know in what way it could be truly said that they worked well when the "neat post waggon" of the State, instead of running on the nail, was imbedded in mud up to the nave. Was it a proof that the Corn-laws worked well that three millions and a half of taxes had been just repealed? He had never heard of the repeal of taxes while the machinery of Government worked well. During the ten years preceding: the war of 1792, Corn was admitted in large quantities, at a nominal duty of sixpence per quarter, and the country was then under the administration of Mr. Pitt. He, for one, preferred what some might call the ignorant simplicity of Mr. Pitt to the elaborate net-work of the noble Duke. The noble Duke might value himself upon the perfection of the machinery of his Government: it was, no doubt, very complete; but, like the air-pump, its very perfectness was the destruction of the unhappy animal confined in it. Some other person, in the course of a late debate (not the noble Duke), had admitted that "machinery was to a considerable degree injurious to the working classes." This was not by any means the first time it had been said that machinery produced distress; but. the true reason why the lower orders were out of work was, the existence of the Corn-laws. The invention of the steam-engine, instead of throwing people out of employ, had been the cause of the employment of thousands and tens of thousands. This result had been produced by a corresponding increase of demand; and if now we took Corn in exchange for goods, the means of feeding the population would instantly be afforded. The noble Duke, on a former occasion, had talked of the necessity of giving religious peace, and by an alteration of the Corn-laws he would produce peace instead of discontent arising from distress. Before he moved his Resolutions, he begged to remark, that in them he had made no allusion to any fixed duty, because it was necessary, in the first instance,

973
to agree upon the principle of an alteration. A noble Earl (Malmesbury), on a former day, had objected to stirring the question; but why was it not to be stirred? and sure he was, that it would not be allowed to rest, as long as the people were suffering under the infliction of a system so injurious and oppressive. The noble Earl had lately shown a strong disposition to nibble at the averages, yet, in whatever form the subject was brought forward by others, he objected to its discussion: if upon petition it was interlocutory, and if in the form of a regular motion, it was injudicious. His Lordship concluded by reading and moving the following Resolutions:—
"That all regulations, duties, and prohibitions, which prevent the admission of corn, and increase the price of that necessary of life, are impolitic and unjust.
"A regulation of the trade in Corn, for the pretended benefit of the public, is a most impolitic interference of Government in the management of the most important of all trades, which Government is wholly incompetent to direct, and which it never can attempt to regulate without the greatest detriment to the public interests.
"A duty levied upon Corn for the purpose of raising a revenue, is the worst of all possible taxes—being, in effect, not less destructive than a curse of sterility inflicted on the soil.
"An absolute prohibition subjects the consumer to the most pernicious and the most odious of all monopolies.
"That Great Britain, by the abundant supply of coals, by the advantages of machinery, by the accumulation of capital, and by superior skill and industry, possesses the rare and inestimable advantage of being able to make the labour of her people more efficient and more valuable than that of any other nation in the world. More efficient, because, when that labour is applied in directing the powers of steam and of machinery, it produces more goods than the same quantity of labour can produce elsewhere; and it is more valuable, because that produce will exchange for the produce of more labour in any other country, and in this manner it highly contributes to the increase of public wealth and individual enjoyment. That it is therefore the true policy of England to encourage the full developement of her most productive industry, to avail herself of all her great natural and acquired advantages. That it belongs only to the most perverse ignorance, and to the most culpable misrule, wilfully to preclude the country from the fullest enjoyment of these benefits, by prohibiting, under heavy duties (unless when at a famine price), the admis-
974
sion of Corn from foreign countries, whose labour applied to more fertile soils can supply that article of first necessity at a far cheaper rate than British labour, when applied to the least fertile soil under cultivation in this kingdom can produce.
"That since the enactment of the Corn-laws in 1815, the whole of that long period (a period also of uninterrupted peace) has been marked by an unusually low rate of profit in all trades, by an inadequate reward of labour, by the frequent recurrence of distress in the manufacturing districts, and by the heavy pressure of Poor-rates in the agricultural counties—a state of things the most opposite to the increasing wealth and comfort which so eminently distinguished the ten prosperous years succeeding the peace of 1782, when foreign wheat was, without any interruption, admitted at a nominal duty of sixpence the quarter.
"That great and flourishing manufactures, by the superior reward of labour which they are able to afford, tend most materially to improve the condition of all the labouring classes, by the constant demand for the increasing population of their own, and of the agricultural districts; they provide also the best market for every description of agricultural produce; they furnish the most ample and the most profitable employment for the new accumulations of capital; they afford the means of promoting to an indefinite extent, the general prosperity and wealth of the country; or if there be any limit, that limit is only determined by the returns of raw produce which the great market of the world is enabled to supply.
"That the impediments which have been interposed by law to the admission of foreign Corn have impaired, and, in some degree, destroyed the advantages which nature and industry had bestowed upon us; they have checked the demand for our produce; they have greatly repressed the rate of all profits, because the rate of profits in every country must be regulated by the return of that portion of the national capital which is employed in the cultivation of the least fertile soils; they have prevented our labourers from receiving their just reward, by confining them nearly to the home market, when a cheaper supply could be procured elsewhere; they have rendered almost unavailing the advantages which must otherwise have infallibly attended the improvements of machinery, and the superior facilities of manufacture; they have checked the prosperity of the country, impoverished all the productive classes, and by the most perverse policy compelled our natural customers to become our competitors, our rivals, and almost our enemies."
The Earl of Malmesburywould not have risen had he not been personally called upon by the noble Lord. He denied that

975
he had deprecated all discussions on the present Corn-laws: he had opposed them originally tooth and nail, but nevertheless he did not intend to move for the repeal of them, for a very powerful reason, stated in one of the interlocutory discussions on a petition on a former night, viz. that imperfect protection was better than constant alteration; for while nothing was fixed and settled, landlords and tenants could come to no definite and clear understanding. He was quite aware that the march of intellect out of doors had rendered people competent to understand and discuss all matters of State and Government, and among them the Corn-laws: he was glad of it, because he should have an opportunity of reasoning with them. The foundation of the noble Lord's Resolutions was the supposition that entire prohibition existed, but the introduction of Corn was not prohibited, and he appealed to documents on the Table to show that within the last two years, a very large quantity of grain had been imported, notwithstanding the existence of the Corn-laws. Within the last eighteen months no less than 2,200,000 quarters of foreign wheat had been imported—that was our prohibition, that was our system of monopoly. But besides, there had been a new description of importation—he meant from Ireland, from which place during the. last two years 4,600,000 quarters had been imported. When he recollected these things, he really was astonished at noble Lords talking of prohibition. Nearly 3,000,000 quarters of foreign grain had been imported within the two last years. Now, suppose he had imported 3,000,000 pairs of shoes, what would the shoemakers say? Would not their trade be affected, and would not they cry out for protection? With respect to the averages, he thought Ireland aught to be included in the calculations on which they were made up, and that was the reason of his moving the other night for papers relating to them. It was said that these importations gave a been to the English landlords of 5s. per quarter; but he contended that it was the reverse, and that not one-tenth of the grain really imported was calculated among the averages. Their machinery for taking the averages was imperfect, and he contended they ought to see that these averages were properly taken. He thought our present distresses ought not to have been attempted to be fathered upon the Corn-laws, which
976
had no more to do with them than the man in the moon. The noble Baron had appealed to the authority of a right hon. Gentleman: he (Lord Malmesbury) respected the talents of the right hon. Gentleman, and knew him to be a most amiable man in private life; but on this subject he was the last person to be referred to as an authority. He well remembered who presided in 1825 at the Board of Trade; he recollected the attack then made on the agricultural interests—an attack continued up to the present time. In that year, when a great degree of distress prevailed at Manchester, the Earl of Liverpool was asked whether he would give the people there any money to relieve them? The noble Earl answered no, but said he had the panacea in his pocket, and that was, to let the foreign Corn out of bond. From that time to the present the two great interests of the country had been arrayed against each other—they were wrong in this—the welfare of each depended on the other, and live and let live ought to be their mutual desire. When the noble Baron talked of eight Russians producing corn which could be purchased by the manufacturing labour of four Englishmen —if he meant to take the Corn from the former, he should be prepared to go to them, and ask them to pay the Poor-rates and the Land-tax, which now weighed heavily on this country, and the latter of which could not be repealed. The noble Baron had referred to the Prussian liberality, but surely he ought to have recollected the fragment of a despatch, which looked like a threat from the Prussian minister of fearful consequences, if we did not let in their Corn. But if we should afterwards go to war, and his interest lay the other way, he might refuse to let us have Corn, so that we might be deprived of a supply of the primary article of life. Under all these circumstances, was it not better to be independent of foreign powers for the supply of this necessary of life? It did not follow from this that he was a friend of prohibition—there was a point between that and unlimited introduction of foreign Corn, to which, for the benefit of both the great interests of this country, it was desirable to adhere. Noble Lords seemed agreed that 60 s. was the point that would afford a fair remuneration for the growth of grain. That was not for the protection of the landlords, but for the protection of those who grew the Corn

977
When he heard such stuff as that rent was the surplus profit of the land, he could not forbear asking, what would be the effect of doing away with all but the profits to the occupier? What would be the effect of such a state of things? Every landowner must cultivate his own estates, and as it was not likely he would actually cultivate them in person, but would employ a bailiff, the yeomanry would be destroyed. Would not that be an evil? Was not an independent tenantry one of the finest bodies of men in any country? In his opinion it was, and it would be a great evil to destroy them, and leave none but landlords, middlemen, and peasantry. The noble Baron had talked of monopoly. That word, like liberality, free trade, and reciprocity, had many meanings. What monopoly was it, to admit, as we had admitted within the last few years, 8,000,000 of quarters of grain? If their Lordships would calculate that at 60 s. for wheat, 32 s. for barley, and 40 s. for peas and beans, they would find 16,000,000 of foreign produce brought into our market to compete with our own produce. If there was free trade there ought to be free labour; but he believed that if any noble Lord went to his tailor or shoemaker, and said that his coat or shoes ought to be cheaper because the tax on leather was reduced, and because there was no duty on the importation of foreign wool, he would be told that their articles could not be sold cheaper, for there was a combination among the workmen, who would not work for less than the present wages, and who would not let others work. But there was no such thing as free labour. No one could work in the City of London (which had lately sent up a petition clamouring for free trade) except he was a freeman. Was that freedom or monopoly? Why was the manufacturing interest distressed? Why, but because the agricultural interest, who were their best customers, were distressed. The manufacturing interest had not to bear the same burthens as the agricultural interest, who paid eight-tenths of the poor-rates and were subjected to all the vicissitudes of bad seasons. In all quarters of the world a duty was imposed upon the importation of foreign Corn. At New York the duty was 10 s. per quarter, which, considering the circumstances of the country, and the little amount of public debt and taxation, was very great. Even in Holland, ever since
978
that country had been united to an important agricultural district, a duty had been imposed upon foreign grain. France acted upon the same principle; and the arguments of the noble Baron were applicable only to an Utopian state of things. When their lordships could reduce to nothing 800 millions of debt—when they could take off the poor-rates, they might talk of free trade in Corn; but till that time they must adapt themselves to the circumstances of the day. He thought it cruel to impute the present distress to the landlords. He repeated that all nations adopted systems of restrictions, and he called on their Lordships so far to act on the same principle as to preserve our independence of other nations with respect to the production of the first necessary article of life.
Lord Mountcasheldid not agree with the noble Baron as to the waste of labour in the cultivation of poor lands; for he had seen such lands maintain thousands of persons in Ireland, who, but for them, could not have found the means of subsistence. Other countries cultivated their lands to the fullest extent. In China he had heard that the highest tops of the mountains were cultivated, and why should not our waste lands be cultivated?
The Earl of Roseberyentirely dissented from the deductions of the noble Baron, not only because they were founded upon speculative and untried doctrines, but because he thought that in the peculiar circumstances in which the country was placed, it was necessary for our prosperity that a protection for the domestic agriculture of the kingdom should be maintained, and also that the principle of the existing laws (deciding the amount of duty payable on the importation of foreign Corn according to the price of the commodity in the home market, by an ascending and descending scale) was the most beneficial to the community at large that it was possible to adopt, and the least injurious to any part of it. Without entering into any detail of argument on the subject, the principle of his objection to any attempt at the establishment of a free trade in Corn was, first, his conviction that in a long series of years the price to the home consumer would not be less than it was under the existing system if the Corn-laws were abolished, or but very little less; and even if the price were reduced, wages would fall along with it, so that the poor

979
would derive no advantage from a change; and next, that if the average price of some years were reduced, the vast fluctuation in years of scarcity would be increased, if we relied upon foreign countries for a supply of Corn for the support of a large portion of our population. But other objections might be stated on this score, that he did not believe a really free trade in Com could be relied on. In seasons of scarcity in foreign countries, those countries would prohibit an exportation of grain to us, and in seasons of scarcity here, they would avail themselves of our want for purposes of revenue, if not through feelings of hostility; they would raise the tax on the exportation of grain, so as greatly to enhance its price in the British market. But if he were induced to concede, for the sake of argument, that for a number of years the principle of a free trade in corn could be constantly adhered to, he might say, that when we had so large a portion of our population dependent upon foreign countries for a supply of Corn, this immense demand would tend to enhance the price of the article abroad to such a degree as nearly to bring it up to the present price of its production at home. Our great object (as expressed in the Speech put into the mouth of his Majesty at the close of the Session of Parliament of 1828) should be, to bottom the Corn-laws on the principle of "combining adequate protection for domestic agriculture with clue precaution against the consequences of a deficient harvest," affording a sufficient supply in years of dearth and scarcity. That was the sound principle on which to establish a system of Corn-laws. The real object, which was, to produce prosperity in the country, was not to be attained by a little increase or diminution in the price of Corn, but it was to be accomplished by securing as great a quantity of employment as possible for the population. Some who advocated a change in the present system (even the noble Lord himself appeared to hint at it) still talked of a duty, which he suppossd was to be a fixed one. Now, he thought that a fixed duty upon the importation of foreign Corn would be of all others the most variable and subject to change. Mr. Ricardo thought that a duty of 10 s. a quarter on foreign wheat would be a fair amount to fix upon, and grounded his opinion upon a calculation into which he entered with respect to the charges which
980
affected land in this country, as compared with and above those affecting land in other countries. He begged to ask the supporters of a fixed duty of 10 s. a quarter on wheat (without referring to seasons of great scarcity), whether Government could have persevered in levying such a duty in November 1828, with a season resembling one of scarcity, though not of actual famine, wheat being then at 74s. and a fraction, and when a large number of quarters of foreign grain was imported at a nominal duty of 1s.? He could not conceive a fixed duty offering a fair protection to the grower under ordinary circumstances, which it would be possible to adhere to in seasons of distress and scarcity. He must here add, that it appeared to him, independently of the consideration of all other matters, that the British farmer and occupier of land was entitled, on principles of strict justice, to a protecting duty. In all other commodities, with the exception of Corn, the persons producing them had all the advantage of the utmost scarcity that could arise in their supply. Not so the grower of Corn, which, being a prime necessary of life, it was the principle of the legislature to take off the protection as soon as the price reached an amount likely to be distressing to the consumer. Thus the farmer, who in years of scarcity had but little produce to sell, was not allowed to obtain an increased price for it. He could safely say, that there was no object which he had more at heart than the improvement of the condition of the lower orders. He could assure their Lordships that he was actuated by no base feeling of self interest in the course he took; but thinking with the noble Earl that it was impossible to separate one class of the public from another in a matter so important to the prosperity of all, and believing the present system to be conducive to the advantage of the community at large, he felt disposed to support it in preference to plans of a different character.
The Earl of Carnarvonobserved, that if a general repeal of all protections affecting manufactures, as well as those by which agriculture was guarded, could be accomplished, he should have no objection to proceed on that broad and general principle. But feeling that such a state of things, however desirable, could not be brought about, and hoping that, year after year, they would continue to

981
approach that desirable situation, at least so far as it was likely to be really serviceable to the country, he must object to withdrawing at once, and that too in a time of great difficulty and distress, the protection which the agricultural interest at present enjoyed.
The Duke of Wellingtonsaid, he felt it necessary to say one or two words on this Motion, more particularly after what the noble Earl below him had said, with reference to what had fallen from him (the Duke of Wellington) in the course of the last Session. He agreed entirely with the noble Baron in wishing to have plenty of cheap Corn; because he thought it would be highly beneficial to the country, and would tend to improve the condition of every class of society. But he was anxious to see that effect produced in a manner different from that pointed out by the noble Baron. He wished to see plenty of provisions created in a way that would confer benefit and advantage on the native agriculturist; he wished to see that plenty derived from the improvement of Ireland, and from the increase of her productions. If cheap provisions were produced by these means, great national good must be the result. And he would say farther, that a plentiful and steady supply of provisions could not be produced by any other means. In reply to the observations of the noble Baron, he would call on their Lordships to look at the Returns which had been laid before that and the other House of Parliament. Let them advert to the long period, from 1791 to 1815, during the whole of which time the ports were open, at a duty of 24 s. per quarter when the price was beyond 50 s., which duty was continued up to 1804, and 22 s. when beyond 60 s., which was the case up to 1815,—let them advert to that very long period, and they would find that there was not one single cheap year of Corn. It never was below the price at which importation was prohibited. If their Lordships would refer to last year, they would perceive that Corn had been in the course of that year as high as 74 s.; and his noble friend had stated what the amount of grain imported was,—namely, 8,000,000 of quarters of grain of different kinds, of which 3,500,000 quarters were wheat. Now, he begged leave to ask, did the price of Corn come down in consequence? It did not, although there was an importation, in one week, to the amount of 400,000 quarters, The price, however,
982
still remained the same—it experienced no fall. The noble Baron had made a sort of attack on him with reference to the measure, connected with this subject, which he had the honour to introduce some time since into that House. The noble Baron affirmed that the measure had not worked well. Now he would assert that the measure thus noticed had worked well. It protected the agriculturist; by its operation the produce of the country was rendered sufficient for its consumption; and it prevented the price from rising to an exorbitant rate. Such was the fact, while it was equally true that the introduction of foreign Corn to this country did not bring down the high price of from 70 s. to 74 s. a quarter. Their Lordships might look at the subject in another point of view. Let them look at the price of wheat at Dantzic from 1791 to 1815, and let them also consider the price at which it was sold in recent years, when it was required in this country. In January, 1826, the price of wheat at Dantzic was 18 s. 11 d.; in June it was 19 s. 5d.; in December, it was 27 s. 3d.; in January, 1827, 25 s. 7d.; in June it was 22 s. 4d.; in December, 22 s. 9d.; and in December 1828, it was 57 s. 8d. Was it owing to any deficiency of the harvest in Poland that this rise took place? No such thing; it was caused by the demand in this country. Was that the mode of procuring cheap Corn? It was the very reverse, for our demand had the effect of raising the price. In January 1829, the price was 58 s. 8d., and in June it was 45 s. 8d.,—an alteration which arose from the circumstance of the harvest in this country not turning out so badly as was expected. In December 1829, the price was 30 s. 8d., being a fall of nearly one-half between January and December. Why, he would ask their Lordships, had such a fall taken place in the price of wheat at Dantzic? Simply because the demand for it in this country had ceased. This clearly substantiated his argument that the high price was occasioned on the Continent by the demand of this country. Then he would say, if we are to pay a high price for Corn, let us give it to the English or Irish agriculturist, and not to the foreigner. That was exactly the principle of the existing Corn-law; and he would assert that it had worked well. It had one great advantage which preceding Corn-laws could not boast—it had been carried into execution without interruption, while the pre-

983
vious law and the amended law had been infringed on by the Government every year, or every second year, by the introduction of Corn without any duty, to the advantage of certain individuals, but without any advantage to the agriculturist. Another effect of the present Corn-law was to give protection to the agricultural interest of this country; and in his mind, it was a most important point to effect that object. It was a great political object, not only when viewed with reference to the duties which the nobility and gentry throughout the empire were called on to perform, but it was also an object of the first importance, so far as the interests of the people of this country were concerned, in order to ensure them a certain supply of Corn of home growth, whether the year happened to be unproductive or otherwise. The noble Baron ridiculed the idea of a duty being levied abroad on foreign Corn about to be shipped to this country. But there was nothing ridiculous in the matter; for the noble Baron would find, that a duty of 20 s.aquarter had been levied on Corn about to be exported to this country; and therefore, it was not wise that we should place ourselves so much in the power of foreigners. Buonaparte had levied a duty on Corn, the growth of France, as well as of Austria and of Prussia, when he was in possession of the capitals of those countries, which was intended for exportation to England. If Buonaparte did so, what was to prevent the monarchs of Austria, Prussia, or Russia from taking the same step? In fact, as the noble Earl near him reminded him, the king of Prussia did lay on such a duty in 1801. And it ought not to be overlooked that a great portion of the Corn intended for this market must come through the territory of Prussia. Were they then to rely on the forbearance of these foreign sovereigns to obtain the necessary supply of Corn to England? He said, certainly not; and therefore he would contend that this country could not wisely do otherwise than secure the interest of the agriculturist, who ought to be encouraged to raise a sufficient supply of Corn to meet the wants of the country either in time of war or at any other period of distress. The noble Baron had taken1 up much of their Lordships' time in discussing the amount of profit which the manufacturer derived from exporting his goods to foreign countries; and he argued, that if we allowed foreign Corn to be im-
984
ported at a small nominal duty, that profit would be vastly increased. But the noble Baron had forgotten one great cause of the small profits that were realized on our goods when sent to foreign parts—namely, the great increase of manufactures abroad. The greatest difficulty was experienced in exporting our manufactures. In some countries there was a total prohibition of them, in others there was an extremely high duty, and in all there was much competition and jealousy. The government in every one of those foreign countries did every thing in its power to prevent the sale of British manufactures. He was convinced that if the people of this country went to the continent, and purchased all the Corn in Poland, not an additional article would they be enabled to force into France, Germany, Prussia, or Russia. If the merchants of this country were allowed freely to purchase grain, foreigners would get as much for their Corn as they possibly could; but their rulers would not allow a single article of our manufactures to be imported in consequence of our being obliged to buy the grain of those countries. There was undoubtedly a certain quantity of manufactures in this country more than the population itself could consume, which it would be very desirable to get rid of. But was it exactly true that taking foreign Corn would have the effect of enabling other countries to purchase our manufactures? And even if such were the case, what were we to do with our own Corn? If those countries wished for our manufactures, why, when Russia and Prussia disposed of their Com to other states, did they not come and purchase goods from us? For his own part he believed, after all, that the home market was our best resource, and that there we disposed of the greatest number of our manufactured articles. It had, and he thought with truth, been stated that two-thirds of the whole quantity of our manufactures were disposed of in this country. The greater part of the woollen and the whole of the silk manufactures were consumed here; and, he asked, would they take the Corn trade from the hands of those who afforded them the best market? He thought that such a proposition was quite preposterous. He was sure that the interests of all classes in this country were nearly allied. They were not to look to the interest of the cotton-manufacturer, or of the iron-manu-

985
facturer. That which they were bound to consider was, the benefit of all; and, in his opinion, the common good would be most effectually secured, by getting the greatest quantity of provisions for the whole community,—by giving a proper remuneration to those who produced those provisions,—and thus encouraging them to do what was most beneficial to the community at large.
Lord King, in reply, admitted the importance of the home market, but his argument was, that if the foreigner were admitted to send his Corn to this country, the manufacturer would, in consequence, have two customers instead of one. With respect to what had been said relative to a duty being imposed by foreign powers on Corn about to be exported here, such a practice never could, in his opinion, be carried into effect. It was very true that Buonaparte had levied such a duty; but it should be observed, that he was at that time master of all the potentates of Europe, and they were obliged to obey his mandate; but he was sure that now no country would be so foolish as to levy an impost which would put an end to its own trade. The noble lord concluded by defending his motives for bringing forward the Motion at the present time. He was sure it was much better to do so now than to introduce it when a great rise in the price of Corn, which he was sure would take place, had created irritation and ill-will in the public mind.
The Earl of Rosslynsaid, it was very clear that the foreign powers would impose such a duty as had been alluded to. The king of Prussia had imposed such a tax in 1801, and on its inconvenience being represented by his subjects, the answer was, that it should remain for a time, but that if the price of wheat in England fell to between 50 s. and 60 s., it should then be taken off. This was a fact which showed that foreign powers would take that course
The resolutions were negatived without a division.