CORN LAWS. (Hansard, 27 May 1834)

§ Earl Fitzwilliam

expressed his entire concurrence in the prayer of the Petition. The greatest benefit would accrue to agriculture by the removal of that duty. He would also take the liberty of calling the attention of the House to the complaints of other parties as to other laws. He had a Petition to present from nearly 18,000 inhabitants of Edinburgh, praying for the repeal of the Corn-laws. He felt the great honour done to him in selecting him for the presentation of such a petition from such a body. The petitioners declared, that restrictions on the trade in corn were an obstruction of the welfare of the entire human family, unjust in principle, oppressive in tendency, and most injurious in operation. This petition was well worthy the attention of the House, as containing those maxims and principles of true commerce, by following out which they would alone be able to arrive at a state of permanent commercial and national prosperity. He should ill consult his duty to their Lordships, if he trespassed long upon their attention on the present occasion; but it was impossible for him not to avail himself of the opportunity of suggesting to their Lordships the question, whether the Corn-laws did really confer that benefit upon the agricultural classes, which many of their Lordships were inclined to ascribe to them. They had now been tried for a great number of years, and there was no man at all acquainted with the agricultural classes, who would be bold enough to say, that during that period, they had been in a prosperous state. He was quite convinced that they had not been in a prosperous state. If so, might their Lordships not look for the cause of the adversity of the farmers in the very laws which had been intended to promote their prosperity? He did not speak his own individual opinions merely, for if their Lordships would look back at the evidence taken last year before the Committee of the other House of Parliament, appointed to inquire into the state of agriculture, they would find pregnant proof of the general admission of the proposition he was advancing. There was not one of the surveyors examined before that Committee, who did not say, that the effect of the Corn-law was, to induce, in the first place, 1355 the landlord to ask, and, in the next place, the tenant to offer, rents not justified by the prices afterwards realized. The witnesses who gave this evidence were most unexceptionable, belonging to a class prejudiced in favour of what was called the protective system. They said, without exception, that, under the law of 1815, the price of 80s. per quarter was assumed as the basis of all calculations between landlord and tenant. Their Lordships knew, that six years did not elapse when, so far from 80s. being the average price of wheat, it was, on one occasion, quoted at 39s. for the average price in the London Gazette. These same witnesses said, that, under the law of 1828, 64s. was assumed as the basis of contracts; but, that in a few years, they found it an erroneous basis, and had been obliged to lower it to 55s. or 56s., the price of corn at the time they spoke,—in 1833. But what was the price of corn at present? It had pleased Providence to shower upon the country the blessings of abundance in a degree scarcely ever before enjoyed,—except, perhaps, those seasons which occurred about the middle of the last century, when the mildness of the climate was such, that the productions of the earth were more exuberant than they had ever been before or since. With that exception, we had never had more abundant harvests than during the last two or three years. What had been the consequence?—that wheat, which the law wished to fix at 64s. a quarter, was, by the bounty of Providence, at 47s. a-quarter. What was the consequence? Why, the bounty of Providence had been converted into a curse, mid had turned to the ruin of the farmer. But why had it turned to the ruin of the farmer? Because—and he repeated the expression, although before rebuked for using it—because he had been deluded by the Legislature, and those who had deluded him were themselves deluded. They believed the expectations they held out to be well-founded,—they believed that through the medium of a roll of parchment, they could make the price of corn 64s.,—that they thereby ensured the prosperity of the farmer, and through the farmer, the prosperity of the landlord. The consequence of this delusion had been the distress, and almost the ruin, of the agricultural class. A large majority of that House thought, he was aware, differently from him on the subject, and time would afford the only test to prove which opinion was right. But though he was one of a very small mi- 1356 nority in that House, the opinion he entertained was held by men of the most profound thought—by men who had deeply studied the subject, and whose writings were amongst the most able of those which the past or present age had produced on the commercial polity of nations. He had said the last age, but the principle of free commerce was hardly known in the middle of the last century, and was certainly not acknowledged by any nation of Europe. He was sorry to say, that it was not even yet acknowledged to the extent it ought to be: but it was truly said by the petitioners, that it had been acknowledged by the Government of this country, that commerce ought tube free, and it had swept away the whole code of prohibitions, substituting in its room a sort of policy whirls it was, perhaps, necessary to adopt in the first attack upon an old inveterate system. The plan had been, not to attack the old system bodily, but by degrees to undermine, and thus eventually destroy it. Upon this principle, the men who began the attack on the old mercantile system, instead of entirely putting an end to the restrictions on commerce, thought it more prudent to substitute rated duties for the prohibitions which previously existed. They adopted the principle of protecting the manufactures of the country by a duty of 30 per cent. Corn formed an exception to that rule, for the duty on corn might be estimated at 60 or 70 per cent. If he was to take the duty at the present moment, it was above 100 per cent; for it was 38s. per quarter, which was undoubtedly higher than the price of corn at any of the ports of the Continent. He conceived, however, that the amount of duty,—which might be fairly considered as what the Legislature was desirous should be paid,—was the duty realized at the time when the price was that which it might be inferred, from the construction of the Act of Parliament, the Legislature thought corn should fetch. That price was 63s. per quarter, and the duty levied was 23s. per quarter, making about 60 or 70 per cent on the price of corn abroad. Corn, therefore, formed a remarkable exception to the principle adopted fourteen or fifteen years ago with regard to manufactures. But it was perfectly well known that, in ninny instances, the duty of 30 per cent on manufactures did not operate. No article which was habitually exported from this country had its price raised by the duty of 30 per cent imposed upon the same 1357 article when imported from abroad. In respect, therefore, of a great number of our manufactures, that duty did not operate by making the people pay a higher price for them than they otherwise would. But that was not the case with regard to corn. At present, through the unexampled bounty of Providence, the price of corn was low; but when anything like a dearth occurred, the Corn-laws came into operations; they never came into operation, except when there was to a certain degree, a narrow supply of corn in this country. The Corn-laws then operated not for the benefit of the farmer, but to the injury of the people, by raising the price above what it would be under a free trade. He was convinced of nothing more certainly than this, that the prosperity of the country never could be placed on a secure basis, and, above all, the prosperity of the farmer never could be on a secure basis, until those laws which were intended to be, but which were not, beneficial to him, were done away. Whether they were beneficial to the landowners themselves was a very doubtful point. It was just possible, that they might enable the existing generation of landlords to put a little more rent into their pockets than they otherwise would; but if they looked to their sons, and to their grandsons, he was perfectly assured it would be found that, even to the landed interest, the Corn-laws were injurious; and he was certain, that there was not one of their Lordships who would prefer a temporary increase of present profit to the permanent prosperity of those who were to succeed them. He might be expected to state whether it was his intention to call upon the House for an expression of opinion upon this subject in the course of the present Session of Parliament. When he looked to what had passed with regard to it in another place, and compared the division this Session, with that which took place in the last, he could not help feeling that this question Was in progress. When he saw, that 150 Gentlemen of the House of Commons voted for a change of system, he could not help feeling, under all the circumstances of the case, that the question had even made a rapid progress. He did not believe, that he should accelerate its advance by calling upon their Lordships for a vote upon it, and he should therefore content himself with begging to lay the petition upon the Table.

The Earl of Malmesbury

objected to the 1358 system of desultory warfare pursued by the noble Earl; for, when statements were made upon the presentation of petitions, they went forth without that efficient contradiction which might otherwise be given them. That his noble friend was sincere in his opinions he had not a doubt; but of their correctness he had very great doubt. His noble friend, in all his arguments, regarded neither his time, circumstances, nor seasons. His noble friend stated, that the Corn-laws had been detrimental to the landed interest. [Earl Filzwilliam.—To the farmer.] In former days, when 900l. was the gross produce of a farm, one-third of it went to the landlord to pay the interest of his purchase-money at the rate of three per cent only; one-third to the farmer for the use of his capital and skill; and the other third to the discharge of different expenses; the chief of which was the employment of the labourer. Now, if that gross produce was to be diminished, he could not see how the diminution would not be felt by the whole of the three classes. It was true, that a wealthy landlord might not feel the loss so much as the farmer and the labourer, and that showed the delusion of calling this a landlord's tax. If the price of corn was brought down so low that land should yield little or no rent, the landlord would be obliged to occupy it himself, and make what slender profit he could of it, whilst the tenants would be ruined and destroyed. The owners of large estates like those of his noble friend would manage them by Bailiffs and middle-men; but the yeomen, the most valuable class in the community, would be destroyed. The greatest sufferers, in his opinion, had been the small landed proprietors, whose thirty or forty acres had become unable to maintain them, and whose condition was often worse than that of the common labourers. To call this tax, then, a landlord's tax, whilst to the great landowners the question was only one of convenience, but to the thousands and tens of thousands of the small landowners, one of existence, was a pure delusion. As to the distress which had existed, and the connexion the Corn-laws had with it, he considered, that the Corn-laws just made the difference of being distressed and being ruined; and he was surprised at this petition coming from Edinburgh, for it would in reality be in the situation of modern Athens, destitute and in ruins, had not agricultural improvement in Scotland been successfully pursued, But the petition, 1359 he believed, prayed for a free trade generally, as well as for a free-trade in corn. He was then to have taken off the half-guinea tax imposed upon the hat in his hand. The House would hardly believe it, but it was a curious fact, that the duty on the importation of hats operated as a complete prohibition, for none were imported. Again, the duty on printed calico was 3d. per yard, and this was so prohibitory, that not above 3,000l. per annum was paid on imported calico. The duty levied on foreign woollens, including carpeting, was even less, proving, that the protective duty on manufactures was, as regarded the consumer, more prohibitive than that upon corn. If the shoemakers or tailors combined to raise the price of their manufacture, the duty remained the same; whereas, if corn rose to 72s. the quarter, it came in free of duty. This was a point which he threw out for the consideration of his noble friend. The depreciation in the value of landed property might be traced to other causes than the existence of the Corn-laws. Suppose that there was a continual outcry for a free introduction of French silk, would it not check the enterprise of our silk manufacturers, and keep down the market, than which nothing was more sensitive? So this black cloud which was hanging over the heads of the agriculturists, and the continual harping upon this subject, affected the agricultural interest. What the noble Lord had said to-night would affect the market, and, till the interest could look forward to some degree of rest and safety, the market would not be as steady as it ought to be.