Lords Sitting of 18 February 1839

Preamble
MINITES. Petitions presented. By the Earl of DURHAM, from the Protestant Society, for the Protection of Religious Liberty.—By the Duke of NEWCASTLE, from the Nottingham Agricultural Association, against any Alteration in the Corn-laws.—By the Earl of WARWICK, from 155 places in Warwickshire, by Lord RALEIGH, from several places, by the Earl of STRADBROKE, from fifteen places in Suffolk, by the Duke of RICHMOND, from Chichester, and other places, by the Duke of BUCKINGHAM, from a great number of places, by the Earl of WINCHILSEA from forty-five places, by the Marquess of LANSDOWNE, from a place in Wiltshire, by a noble LORD, from East Grinsted, by the Earl of SHAFFESBURY, from several places in Yorkshire, by Lord GAGE, from three places in Sussex, by a noble LORD, from Croydon, by the Marquess of SALISBURY, from several places (Herts), by the Earl of STRADBROKE, from fifteen places, by Lord WHABNCLIFFE, from places in Yorkshire, and by Lord HARDWICKE, from several places, against any Alteration of the Corn-laws.—By the Earl of SCARBOROUGH from Yarmouth, by Lord FOLEY, from one place, and by Lord VERNON, from Newcastle, for the Repeal of the Cornlaws.—By a noble LORD, from Cambridge, against the Beer Act.—By Lord CLARE, from Limerick, for considering Ireland in any proposed Alteration of the Corn-laws.

CANADA—MR. TURTON.
The Earl of Winchilseaseeing the noble Viscount in his place, begged to put a question to him. He had last year felt it to be his painful duty to ask the noble Viscount a question on the subject of an appointment to a high situation in the Government of the noble Earl, then Governor-general of Canada. The noble Viscount, in his answer to that question, led him to believe as indeed be expressed it, that he felt both "surprise and regret', at that appointment,
508
for these were the words of the noble Viscount. Upon looking over the report which the noble Earl had produced, he (Lord Winchilsea) was surprised to find, that throughout the documents contained in that report, not one of them related to that point. He, therefore, begged to ask the noble Viscount whether there were any returns in his possession which he intended to lay on the Table relating to that appointment, because otherwise he should feel it to be his duty to press for the production of those documents.
Viscount Melbournesaid, it was not his intention to lay any papers on this subject on the Table of the House.
The Earl of Winchilseawould, to-morrow make a motion on the subject.
The Earl of Durhamsaid, that as this irregular conversation had taken place—he certainly considered it to be an irregular conversation, if the noble Earl intended to give notice of any motion on the subject, otherwise he should not have any ground to complain of—he begged to inform the noble Earl, that in the appointment to which he referred, the noble Viscount at the head of her Majesty's Government had no concern whatever. It was an appointment of his own, made as he had a right to make it, without any authority from the Government. It was not an appointment under the sign manual, nor one requiring the confirmation of her Majesty's Ministers; but strictly en appointment of his own, and the responsibility of which he should be prepared to meet whenever the noble Earl might think proper to bring the subject forward; and he begged to assure the noble Earl, that so far from thinking the appointment a wrong one, he considered, that the public service had very much benefited by the legal attainments of that gentleman. He had received the greatest assistance from that gentleman, and felt the highest gratification in the results of his official labours, and he would add, that he should be prepared to male the same appointment again, if he had the opportunity.
The Earl of Winchilseahad studiously avoided alluding again to this subject, until the documents now laid on the Table were before the House. He had determined not to introduce the subject again until those documents had been produced, because he had felt bound to act, fairly towards the noble Earl, and not in any way

509
to prejudice the question. The question was not between him and the noble Earl, but between him and the noble Viscount at the head of her Majesty's Government. He had nothing whatever to do with the private feelings of the individual that was alluded to—with his abilities, or with his talents. He had no doubt, that he had rendered most efficient service to the noble Earl. But on public grounds he had expressed his regret, as he should have done if the appointment had taken place by his dearest friend; he had expressed his regret at, the appointment, and having been joined and sympathised with in that expression of regret by the noble Viscount, he bad a right to know, not in his own name, but in the name of the public, what course had been taken by her Majesty's Government, on the subject

CORN-LAWS—HEARING EVIDENCE.
Lord Broughamafter presenting a number of petitions against the Corn-laws, said, my Lords, in rising to address your Lardships on this very important subject, which occupies the minds of all men out of doors and which, I may add, occupies no small share of the interests and attentions of this House, I confess I have considerable difficulty in performing the task I have undertaken, and very great uneasiness at the prospect I have of standing before you, opposed in no common measure to strong feelings among many of you, and to very great—and I will add, with all possible respect, I am almost sure, groundless apprehensions. It has often been my lot whether at that Bar, or upon your bench, in the discharge of professional duties, or standing here as a Peer of the Realm, to deliver my own individual opinions—it has of times been my lot to state things which were distasteful to this House—distasteful because I knew, that my statements differed from your Lordships' opinions. I have sometimes gone against strong, conscientious, deeply-rooted convictions, grounded on principle. I have at other times been compelled, by a sense of my duty, imperative and unyielding in me, to run counter to what you deem the interests of your Lordships. But on the present occasion I feel, that both these antagonist principles and feelings are working against me, and that you think you have an interest in opposing my motion, and that if you were not to oppose it, you
510
would fail in performing a duty. Little, then, should I hope for success in the discharge of my duty if I did not know, that there is in this House, and I trust always will be in this House, the highest Court or Judicature in the country—the gravest and most dispassionate part of the Senate—a body of the most enlightened men that adorn and fortify the Constitution, who never will rashly decide on-behalf of any preposition without hearing it thoroughly discussed, but who still less even, will decide against any proposition without giving these who propose it the most ample end impartial, the most deliberate and calm hearing upon its real merits. That you should reject a proposition only calling upon you to hear—that you should say "no" to a prayer only preferred to consider and examine—that without hearing what can be said, and urged, and proved, you should turn your backs upon the prayers of the people—that when evidence is tendered at your bar upon oath to propositions of fact of the most alarming importance to the highest interests of the country—you, this high Court of Judicature—you, this grave Senate—you, this body of reflecting, accomplished, learned, and deliberative men, should at once say, "the matter is important, but we will not hear it—the propositions of fact which you offer to prove, are grave in their consequences, aye, in their nature, and perilous in their possible results, but we won't hear a tittle of the evidence which you say you are prepared to give on your oath," My Lords, I will not believe it till you yourselves tell me the impossibility, and that it is true. Therefore, it is, my Lords, that I feel less anxiety now, than I did, when a few minutes ago, I rose to commence my address to you, for I now feel fortified by the conviction that that is impossible, and that you never will tell me that that is true. My Lords, I dare to take consolation from another source. I am here to war with no interest. I am here to oppose myself to no portion of the community. Whosoever expects to hear one word cross these lips of mine disrespectful to any one class of the Queen's subjects, as a class, will go hence disappointed in that respect. Whoso expects one word to be said by me in disparagement of the landed interests—in depreciation of its extensive, its acknowledged, and by me most readily admitted, paramount importance to this

511
community—will go hence disappointed. Whoso expects one word to drop from me which betokens a wish that any preference whatever should be shown to masses and numbers over the rights of property—will likewise be disappointed. My Lords, I stand here as the advocate of my country; I represent here the case of all classes—of land, of trade, of manufactures, of commerce, the landed interests, the commercial interests, all professional interests, the interests of producers, of consumers, of workers up, of exchangers of commodities, all these classes, I embrace in the view I take of this great question. And, my Lord, I am "out of Court"—if your Lordships will allow me to use a professional phrase—I am out of this the highest Court of Justice in the land, if I stand upon any but universal comprehensive Catholic ground—embracing at once the interests of each, and the interests and rights of all. But, my Lords, I trust I shall not sit down without satisfying your Lordships, that you can grant the prayer of these petitions without shaking the interests of land, which at first sight might have appeared to be endangered by it. Observe, my Lords, (that I am here, not to argue the Corn-law question upon its merits to-night, I am here not to call upon you to grant the repeal of the Corn-laws, in whole, or even in part.) I am here to ask you to inquire—to hear the case before you decide it—I have only to ask you to look to it—to examine it—to investigate its details—to tender you help in that investigation, and to furnish you with the means of that examination, and all that I have now to do is, to state so much of the case of the Corn-laws—to make such assertions as I know I can prove by evidence on oath—as is necessary to drive those who oppose the prayer to be heard—for that is this only question—as will drive those adversaries to this dilemma, that they must either admit my propositions of fact to be true, and therefore requiring no proof—or they must state them to be so false, as that no proof can demonstrate them—or assert them to be so immaterial that whether true or false, it signifies not to inquire into them, they are so futile and unimportant. My Lords, I have shown you the kind of statements I am to make, rather than the arguments I am to use before you. I am about to tender evidence, and to explain the materiality of that evidence and nothing—absolutely nothing
512
more. My Lords, as these are the views which alone, I think it my duty to bring before your Lordships, I think I shall save your time by at once coming to the different matters of fact, in such an order as may serve to aid the inquiry by somewhat arranging them, giving them method, and then leaving it to your Lordships to say whether what I have tendered to your Lordships is impossible to prove or admit, that is the only proper ground of bringing a subject like the present one under the consideration of the House. First of all, my Lords, let us come to what the present Corn-laws actually are, and then state what they do—your Lordships always bearing in mind that every assertion I make, is meant—not as a statement which I call upon you to believe, or admit, but as one that I am prepared to prove at your Lordships' bar. I am only opening the evidence to your Lordships, asking you to sift and examine it. The former encouragement given to the agricultural interest of this country by the Bill of 1804, commonly called Mr. Western's Bill, from the name of an old friend of mine, now ennobled, who was then a Member of the other House and a zealous friend of the agriculturists, was this. His Bill enacted that the ports should be opened for the importation of foreign grain only when the price, taken by the average of a certain number of towns, twelve, I believe, fell below a certain price. When corn was at a low price, the ports opened, when it reached a higher price the ports closed—I beg your Lordships' pardon—When corn was at a certain high price, and so remained for a certain time, the ports were opened; when it fell to a certain price the ports were closed; between these two points, corn when imported was subject to a certain duty. Now I am here to offer proof that all the objections which have ever been urged to that mode, and they are not a few in number, nor of light importance—I am here to prove that all those objections apply to the present different, and falsely supposed, improved law. By this measure, instead of opening the ports when corn is high absolutely, and shutting them when they are lower absolutely, it affixed a certain scale, taken by the average of a certain number of towns in which there seemed to be a considerable corn trade—taking the average every week, it estimated the admission of foreign corn thus;—when the average was 73s. or up-

513
wards in those districts, there was no prohibition—it was not by way of prohibition, but it was done by duty. When the price was up at 73 s. and upwards, then the duty was one shilling. When it was 70 s. we will say to go a little lower, I think the duty is 10 s. 8d., when it is 65 s. the duty is 21 s. 8d. when it is 63 s. the duty is 23 s. 8d. [Viscount Melbourne—Is this quite correct?] It is perfectly immaterial to my argument whether it be correct or not. When the price is 60 s., then the duty is 26 s. 8d., and when sit is 50 s. the duty is 36 s. 8d., so that as the price is lowered, the duty rises till the price reaches 45 s., when the duty is equal to the price of the article itself. Now, my first proposition is, that there is no difference between the present and the former law, and I shall show this by the most indisputable testimony. I shall shew that there is no difference between the operation of one plan and the other. Now, only observe, foreign wheat is at a certain price, to which, if you add the transport and all other expenses, and make the whole sum equivalent to the condition at which you allow foreign wheat to come to your own markets, there is a price at which it will not bear a duty. Suppose, for instance, the average price of wheat for a certain number of years at Dantzic to be 36 s., ["No," from a noble Lord] and I am prepared with persons to prove that upon oath, and my noble Friend has given me a vote on this occasion-indirectly, in saying that he desiderates proof on the subject; but as I stated, 36 s. was the average price for a certain number of years. I am also prepared to prove, that the cost of conveyance, the shipment at Dantzic, the bringing it over here, the harbour dues, the insurance, the landing, and the carrying this corn to the nearest markets, amount altogether to 10 s. 6d. the quarter, consequently 46 s. is the price at which that wheat can be sold at your market. I state this as it were in detail, for this reason, because, in a subsequent part of my statement, I shall show that those who think, that the markets will be lowered by the admission of foreign grain have greatly exaggerated the quantity of the supply, and the cheapness at which it can be got; and I am ready to show to the House, and prove it on oath, that 46 s. 6d. is the average price at which that corn can be sold in this market. Suppose the price to be 70 s., here, then the duty being 10 s. 8d. that must be added to it, and that will make the price near 57 s. I do not think, that
514
much grain would come over at that price. But suppose, my Lords, the price falls to 65 s., then the duty is 21 s. 8d.—say in round numbers 22 s. What, then, would be the price of foreign grain here? Very nearly 70 s.; a price very nearly sufficient to shut the ports or to exclude foreign wheat; it is above the price at which it is selling in your market, and consequently the coin that comes over and is so excluded here, goes into bond; all price below that causes exclusion by the duty just as much as it was caused by the Bill of 1804. For all above 70 s. the ports are open as in the Bill of 1815—you have, therefore, this state of things in principle, and I am now to open to your Lordships, and which I will prove upon the oaths of those who have felt the inconvenience of the state of things, aye and of persons who have been ruined by those consequences continuing, and who will ever continue to feel those consequences, I am ready to prove to your Lordships, that the consequences are the same with those you before dreaded, and the experience of which drove you from the principles of the Bill of 1804, and made you take refuge in your new plans of 1815, and 1818. Now, I have, I think, explained generally the nature of the plan, and I may now solicit the attention of the House to those consequences. In the first of three alternatives I stated, as the only conceivable ground of refusing to hear evidence at the Bar, the impossibility of tendering any at all of the existence of those consequences, I now state to your Lordships not only that they are highly probable, but that, instead of being utterly impossible, I shall show, by what I am ready to prove upon oath, that they have happened, and that they are actually occurring and inevitable. I shall show by reasoning, that they must occur whilst the present system continues, and I am able to show this by a very short consideration of this system, as I have described it. I will assume for the present, for argument's sake, that the corn trade is a traffic that deserves to be encouraged. I will assume, that we look occasionally to a supply of foreign grain. I will assume that, for some reason or other, I could define it if I thought it necessary, but I will assume, that we think it better not absolutely to be confined to the grain of our own country—why do I assume all this? For this reason—because your Bill

515
assumes it; your Act of Parliament assumes it, even the Bill of 1804 assumes it, for nobody excludes or attempts to exclude foreign corn altogether. It is admitted when corn is high, or that is to say, to avoid scarcity, you do not look to your own resources, but to the foreign growers. Foreign corn is excluded when corn is low, because you rely then upon your own resources, but admitting corn at any price shews, that we look occasionally for foreign support. Now, having put my foot upon that position, from which it is immoveable, because it is the Act of Parliament, it is the system I am grappling with that gives me that position—I now ask whether it does not follow, as a matter of course, that the corn trade ought to be the object of your encouragement? You meant to encourage it—you thought that the former Act discouraged it too much, and, therefore, as an object deserving the encouragement, you favoured it by the change of the law, partly in the year 1815, but chiefly in the year 1814. Now, I am about to demonstrate to you—first, to show by reasoning, because it is probable, in order that I may get rid of the first answer—namely, that that cannot be proved at all, for it is utterly impossible. I am first going to show you by argument it is probable, and then to tender my evidence to show it is true in point of fact, that this system is fatal to the Corn trade. I won't abate one jot of my position. I won't be satisfied with convincing any man it is only hurtful to him; I won't be satisfied with proving, on the oaths of a cloud of witnesses ready and anxious to come to the Bar to state it; some of them who have suffered themselves, but hope it may prove a warning to you, and be the means of saving their brethren from following their fate; but I won't be satisfied in proving, either from their oaths or my arguments, that it is only very pernicious to the Corn-trade; I will take nothing unless I demonstrate first—the probability, and then by evidence the certainty, that the Corn-trade is destroyed by this system. Now, my Lords, only suppose one case, and that carries with it the great part of my argument. Suppose merchants, upon grain being up at 72 s. or 73 s., and the duty therefore being down at 1s., suppose merchants, three or four, join in a venture, and for the purpose of supplying a certain number of quarters of grain, 40 or 50,000 quarters of grain,
516
they ship at Dantzic or Malta, where the price is 42 s. instead of 36 s, or at Odessa, where it is 24 s. instead of 36 s., suppose that from any or from all of these ports they ship Polish or Russian corn, which is with some persons whom I well know an object of very great dread, or Odessa corn or Malta corn, brought chiefly from Africa, to the amount of 100,000 l. The venture sails from the different ports; the fleets cross the sea, they arrive, and then, when the importers had well hoped that they might be permitted to land the corn; and when it had been well hoped that the market would receive the benefit, that the pressure of the scarcity which had raised it to 70 s. would be relieved by this foreign importation, of 100,000 l. worth of foreign grain—they find, that instead of that, there has been a fall from the 70 s. by the last week's average while the ships were upon the sea, when it was utterly impossible to stop the venture—when they are all but landed they find, that when they were in the middle of the Atlantic or of the North Sea, that all of a sudden in the last week by some change in the weather, or in the speculation of the grain dealers at home, that instead of wheat being at 70 s., with the duty at 1s., it had come down to 63 s. or 65 s., which is a prohibition price when the duty is at 24 s., and then they cannot land one single ounce of that corn without ruin. [The Duke of Buckingham: They may bond it.] They may bond it, if they choose to be ruined. I know they may bond it. Do noble Lords suppose one does not know that? One would be extremely ignorant on the subject not to know so much. I dare say I am. If I do not know the A B C of it I know the A B. I know there are such things as bonded warehouses; and that leads me to what I was going to state. It is easy to say, you can lay it in bond, and get it out when the duty is low. What, think your Lordships, is the consequence of that? Six shillings a-year on every quarter, is the expense in a bonded warehouse. The grain must be turned generally once a-week. The grain must be stowed away, and the warehouse-room and rent paid. The interest of money, at 5 per cent. at least, upon the merchants' capital, must he dead and profitless; but if it is disputed, I have witnesses to show it. This is what I ask; I want to be allowed to prove it. Give me leave,

517
and I will demonstrate, that 6s. per week is below the amount.—[The Duke of Buckingham: Nobody doubts it.] Well, then, what is the consequence? The owners cannot tell when the corn is to get out again. They want to get it into the market. Its being in the warehouse is no use to them whatever. They would rather it had remained at Odessa, and then they would not have to pay the freight, and the landing, and the bonding warehouse charges; but it is now in London—it is in Bristol—it is in Newcastle, a place from which my noble Friend presented a petition the other night, for the abolition of the Corn-laws, and with great propriety—for there is no place in the Queen's dominions, where the Corn-laws are felt more, as I know, professionally, than at Newcastle-upon-Tyne. But what is the consequence? They cannot get the corn out of bond. They may wish, but let them sigh ever so much—let them weep ever so bitterly over their fate in the bonded warehouse, the winds won't sigh the louder—the rain won't fall to the measure of their tears—it depends upon the weather—and until they get grain at 73 s. again, not one ounce of that can they afford to take out of the bonded warehouse. It may wait for two years—it may wait for three years. What, if it wait five years? What, if it wait six years? What, if it wait seven years? There is not only the profit upon the venture gone, but the whole capital absorbed, two-and-forty shillings a quarter absorbed. My Lords, this is what no man can deny as the possible consequence of this system—no man can deny, that it is the probable consequence of that system. But I go further. I told your Lordships, that in shewing the probability, I should prove the fact. What I have told your Lordships, and I implore the attention of the noble Duke and the noble Earl opposite, what I have put to your Lordships as a possible case, is a fact. It has happened—took place here—it happened in the city where you now, sit. It happened upon the river that washes these walls. A merchant imported 100,000 l. worth of grain from the Baltic, in the year 1831; the price allowed him. He hoped to be able to land it: he expected to make a reasonable profit. The ports were open—I say open, because the duty was so low as one shilling when he shipped it in the Baltic. The ports were closed when the vessels arrived in the
518
river. He had recourse to a bonding warehouse. He was told in his distress, as I was told in my argument a little time ago—"Oh! but there is the bonded ware house." Into the bonded warehouse went the 100,000 l. worth of grain; and the 100,000 l. of the merchants' capital might as well have gone into the river, upon whose banks the bonded warehouse was built? What happened? Seven long years—for that was no supposition of mine—seven long years prices kept so low, that not one ounce of that grain could be sold in the market. During that seven years, the whole profit—not only the profit, but the corpus of the venture—the capital was consumed in charges. The house failed—a Newcastle house—therefore it was, among other reasons, that I said my noble Friend's petition justly came from a place which had suffered so much. But that is not the only instance. The house, a most respectable one, failed, became bankrupt, has not paid Is. in the pound; and I have the gentleman ready to be produced at the bar of this House, to prove, upon oath, that a commission agent, for he was no more,—not the adventurer, not the merchant, not the speculator,—but the commission-agent lost one-and-twenty thousand pounds by being such commission-agent. Now, my Lords, that which happened to this respectable man may happen to any one man any one day, that he ventures into a speculation of this sort. My Lords, I think, therefore, that I have some right to state this as a trade which is not fit for a discreet merchant to embark in; a trade which is not fit to receive encouragement from the nature of its channels, precarious, tortuous, broken with shoals, and impeded with rocks and quicksands which no sounding can enable him to fathom, which never can be laid down in the charts or buoyed. It shifts like the rapid river's course every night, following the winds and weather of the twenty-four preceding hours. But fine weather comes—but the harvest looks well—but the yield appears great—down go the prices and the pens shut. A trade more unfit for merchants to embark in—a trade more unfit for fair speculation—one more unseemly for the employment of mercantile capital cannot well be imagined; for gambling—a trade for desperate speculations—for needy hungry adventurers—for persons without capital, it may do well; for regular traders

519
and the wholesome operations of commerce, it is utterly unfit. Now, my Lords, the next view of the subject which I am about to impress upon you and the next body of evidence which I am about to tender to your Lordships, relates to the immediate effects of this system of cramping the supply of corn, and the stinting effects of those laws upon prices. And, my Lords, I am about to admit, that a great deal of exaggeration has been put forward on both sides—I am about to admit, that the fears of the landed interest have exaggerated, and the hopes of the manufacturing interest have exaggerated, the cheapness that would result. I may give no great satisfaction to either party, differing as I do upon this point from the petitioners. I stand here not as their agent, but as a Member of your Lordships' House. But now I think the probability is, and I am ready to prove it to your Lordships, that some cheapening of the commodity, although not perhaps a very considerable lowering of it, would be the consequence of the repeal of the Corn-laws, and leaving the trade in grain absolutely free. But what I have already said about the price of wheat in Dantzic proves that. In Dantzic the price of wheat is 36 s., and adding about 10 s. for costs (making 46 s.) is the price at which that wheat may be sold in our market. But you are selling it at 55 s. or 60 s., being 10 s. or 15 s. per quarter dearer than you could get it at Dantzic. In Malta the average price of wheat for ten years ending 1836, was about 32 s., and adding for expences 15 s. 6d., make 47 s. 6d., or 48 s. as the price for which Malta wheat might be sold in our market. But within the last ten years your average has not been 48 s., but somewhere about 58 s., which is a difference of 10 s. At Odessa the price of wheat in differently stated in different places, and it has been said, by way of alarming the agriculturists, by a Mr. Saunders, in his evidence given in 1836, that Odessa wheat was telling ford. 10 s. or 12 s. only, consequently if you add 15 s. to that, it makes the price of Odessa wheat in our market under 30 s., and therefore, says this friend of the farmers, and say the friends of the system (although I have been told he has changed his opinion within the last few years:—"You all will be ruined." He omitted a very material circumstance, which I shall supply to your Lordships. During the time, that
520
he said the price was 10 s. or 12 s. that was quite true, but he forgot to tell the jury, that at that time the Dardanelles were shut, and consequently the wheat brought down was a drug in the market—but when the channel trade is open Odessa wheat is 10 s. or 12 s. higher, being nearly 30 s. which added to 15 s. 6d. for charges makes that wheat come to 45 s. 6d. in our market—not a very material difference between that and Baltic wheat; because,, whereas, it is cheaper to bring wheat from Dantzic, than from the Levant, the expenses of transport, &c. being only two-thirds from the Baltic what they amount to on Odessa wheat. But now, my Lords, it may be assumed from the price of bread on the continent being considerably less than here, partly no doubt owing to taxation, but partly owing to the Corn-laws, which regulate the price of bread. My Lords, I find, that in 1838 the 41b. loaf on the other side of the channel was sold for 4d. while on this side of the channel it was sold for 8d.—[A noble Lord "it is now a shilling"]—I am talking of that time. I am not about to state, that the Corn-laws have been the sole cause of this, nor do I mean to give way to any clamour about cheap bread one way or the other. I am going to state to your Lordships that I do not expect from repealing, any very great cheapening of bread. I think it will fall very little—I think it won't fall very much—that is my belief—I may be wrong; but suppose it fell only 5s. a quarter—suppose you make an average of the usual price, and take it at 5s. lower. When your Lordships consider that there are some fifty millions of quarters of gain, and twelve or thirteen maligns of wheat consumed annually, you will see what an enormous sum is levied by these laws: I don't mean to dwell upon this—this is not the view I take of it—I have much higher objects in view than in making grain cheap—not that I undervalue making cheap the staff of life—not that I undervalue the effects of these laws upon our whole system, not only upon the comforts of the people, but upon our system of trade and commerce—not that I underrate that; by no means; but, I am afraid, from the very nature of things, it is not likely that the reduction will be what is anticipated, and neither the landowners on the one hand, with their exaggerated apprehensions, nor the manufacturers on

521
the other, who cherish such fairy hopes—hopes which appal the one, and enchant the other—arising from the somewhat incorrect and superficial views on the subject which they have taken, will find their expectations realized. But, my Lords, suppose there is only a permanent reduction of 1s.—and I think that is putting it low enough—suppose, that instead of 5s. a quarter difference, as I have now argued—(I suppose it will be admitted on all hands, that the result would be a reduction of 1s. a quarter only)—and suppose that as the steady, permanent, effectual consequence of the repeal of the Corn-laws, which now exclude foreign grain from the home market, and that the difference would be neither more nor less than 1st—I ask your Lordships to pause, and reflect well one moment upon what that shilling means. It means a tax—it means a poll-tax—it means that capitation-tax so hated in ancient times under the justly execrated name of a poll-tax, which in this country, in civilized times, is never resorted to, and never viewed with other sentiments than those of abhorrence, and which is only tolerated under corrupt, arbitrary, and tyrannical Governments—a tax from which there is no escape, for all must eat and all must pay—a tax which falls upon all, the poor equally with the rich—upon the men who can hardly support life by the sweat of their brow, and upon men who are wallowing in wealth, and worth one hundred thousand pounds per year. The poor man and his family pay five shillings tax upon their bread,—as much as the man of fifty or a hundred thousand pounds a year, who has the same number of children. Of course he pays more than others if he has a larger family. But, my Lords, there is more than that—a great deal more—bread forms a much greater portion of the food of the poor than of your Lordships; you have luxurious living, which they know not of. It is as if you were taxed far every part of the food you consume.—[A noble Lord: "And so we are"],—and for most of it you are. I know that your spices and wines, and other luxuries are taxed, but it is hard that the poor must pay, in their humble sphere and scanty means, as much, or more in proportion to their families, than the wealthiest of all. My Lords, I think that this is quite enough to disincline any man from supporting the present system of taxation,
522
from any but the most undoubted and peculiar advantages. Now, my Lords, I have already said, I care not, (having brought down the cheapening effect of the repeal of those laws from 7s. to 5s., and from 5s. to 1s.; and having paused to make a supposition of that cheapness, I care not if that shilling be taken away entirely. Possibly it may not lower the price at all, because, in all those calculations of the effects of the repeal, suffer me to say that one thing has been left out of view bribe alarmed agriculturists on the one hand, and the sanguine manufacturers on the other. I have already stated that the price of wheat at Dantzic is 36 s.; at Malta 42 s.; and at Odessa 30 s. All this is the price of foreign wheat under the present system of our Corn-laws. But, suppose our markets were thrown open—suppose there was as free an importation of foreign grain here as any other article, is it likely, with that increased consumption, that the supply would continue to be as great?—[A noble Lord:—Certainly not.]—Some noble Lords are so quick, that they cut before the point. I argue by steps, and I cannot take two steps at a time as others can. If the demand is to be increased by opening of our ports, particularly the ports of England and Scotland (for I believe the Irish would be able to defend themselves by the cheapness of the grain) the immediate effect would be to raise the price of Dantzic corn, and Odessa corn would also rise, and a check would be put upon the low prices. Then it may be said on the other hand, that the consequence would be an additional growth of that corn, and it is said, that there is an unbounded supply of corn if not of land, and that it would open new tracts of cultivation. It is very possible this may be so. I am prepared with evidence to show your Lordships the difficulties attending that alteration. How could the land be brought into immediate cultivation, which is now overspread with thick and impenetrable forests?—how difficult it would be to get hands to cultivate it; how little land there is capable of cultivation, except towards the remote recesses of Volhynia and the Ukraine, which it is almost impossible at present to get at. I have evidence on oath to prove this; yes, both documentary and parole evidence, if your Lordships will give me leave to produce it. It is barely possible, that in the course of years, as for many

523
years it cannot happen; but it is barely possible, that in the course of some years that an additional extension of agriculture may cause an additional supply of foreign grain, and the consequent effect would be to reduce the price, which would in some degree counteract my statement. But admitting, that the manufacturer will gain nothing at all in point of cheapness, and the agriculturist will lose nothing, I am now coming to what in my mind is infinitely more important a question than lowering the price of grain. I am now about, for the rest of my statement, to assume, that there would be no cheapening of the price of food whatever, and I am about to show to your Lordships, and to prove it upon oath, what would be the inevitable consequences, and what must be the inevitably beneficial consequences of having a free trade in corn. Now, first of all, it would give the best possible security against famine, and the present system, on the contrary, exposes you to the greatest possible risk, and to the greatest danger of encountering famine. That is the first proposition which I am fully prepared to prove. I am prepared to show your Lordships, that by evidence I can produce, this is not improbable; at least, that you may not say, "What is the use of producing evidence to that which possibly cannot occur?" In the first place, it is to be remembered, that in all calculations of chances, where the calculation is made upon but a few instances, the calculation becomes a matter of greater uncertainty; wherein your calculation is confined and restricted to a fewer number of places, the calculation to which you come must be attended with the greater uncertainty. In such a case, the greater uncertainty must prevail, and the greater must be the uncertainty in the nature of the result. I pray of your Lordships attention to the course of reasoning which I am now pursuing, as it requires some little attention so as accurately to comprehend it. Suppose a man were to seek to make a calculation of what number of male or female children there would be born from any given marriage, why, my Lords, that would be a calculation which it would be wholly impossible to make. But, suppose, upon the other hand, a person were to make a calculation as to the number of male and female children, there would be in a parish, he could not be very certain in his calculations if he
524
made it in a very small parish: but he would be the nearer the truth, the larger the parish, respecting which his calculation was made; but let him then extend his calculation over a larger portion of the community; over an entire country, or continent, and his calculation would amount almost to a certainty. Suppose, then, a calculation were made as to the changes of the weather; and this is coming very near to the present case. Now, to tell what weather there would be upon any given day, in any given year, would be impossible. [Viscount Melbourne: such calculation has been attempted.] In the noble Viscount's reading, in his various reading, he may have found that such a thing is not impossible. But, in my reading, I have not found laid down that such a calculation can be attended with any certainty. Suppose the attempt were made, to calculate, that in any one given year there would be a good season, that would be a thing very difficult to determine. No man could undertake to determine it; but suppose you were to take ten years; suppose twenty years, and say there would in those be certain variations of seasons, the calculation would be easier, it would be more certain; and suppose you extend it to a century, the calculation would amount to a certainty; as in such a long period of time, there is always found to be an equal balance of good and had seasons. That then is exactly the case with a country in any given year. No man could attempt to say, that in this district the grain will be abundant, and in that the crop will fail; no one could venture to predict this of a particular farm, of a particular county, or of a particular country, and yet it might be carried over the world and the prediction would be found to be good, that the crop would be abundant in one place, and. that it would fail in another, for it very seldom happens, that there is an universal failure of the crop's all over the world. Countries differ greatly from each other in climate, in soil, in productiveness, and in various other circumstances; so that looking at them altogether it is wholly a moral, or rather a physical, certainty that, looking at the whole world, you will never find at the same time the season bad, and the failure universal, or the season every where favourable, and all the countries having good crops. What, then, does the Corn-law, in its exclusion

525
from this country of foreign wheat? What does it do by excluding the foreign supply, it strikes all other countries out of the calculation, and in a time of scarcity leaves the nation to the certainty of famine. It confines your chances against famine to the one country, it confines your chances to the one kind of weather. To avoid scarcity, you have but one choice, and thus it leaves you more or less dependent upon the mercy of the fickle wind and the unfavourable elements. But this could not be the case if the whole of Europe were open to supply you, your chances against famine would be still greater, if the East, if the Levant, if America, as well as Europe were open to you; for then you would be able to say, if there be a free trade in corn, there cannot be a scarcity with us; because you would be well off, if any of those countries were well off. There would be all the difference between dearth and famine—the dearth, the consequence of the bad season, you could not avoid; but if man did not interpose his luckless hand, that dearth never could be converted into a famine. Dearth there would be, and dearth only; but the existence of the Corn-laws expose you to the inevitable risks of a famine; and I am ready to prove to you, from all countries, by persons from those countries, persons who have been traders in those countries, persons who have been residents in those countries, men who have shown the bad seasons balanced by the good—persons who can show you the wholesome, and if you will but be wise, the most comfortable inference from this fact, that if you leave their trade universally free, a famine is almost as little to be dreaded in this country as an earthquake. My Lords, the next great evil which is done by the Corn-laws, next to taking away security against famine, and of converting dearth into famine—the next great mischief of the workings of the Corn-laws, is to make the price of corn fluctuating and uncertain. I am the more apt to put forward this view of the subject, and to tender my evidence upon it, because it was the ground of the Bill when that Bill was brought in. It was said by those who opposed the bill, "Oh, you want to make corn dear." No such thing, said the supporters of the bill; nothing is further from our intention than to raise the price of wheat. Then it was said, you want to keep the price up. Nothing of the kind;
526
we assure you we do not ask that—that is not our object; you mistake us altogether. Why it was said there, a very odd sort of people these, what do they mean? they don't want to let foreign corn in, they don't want to raise the price of wheat, and they don't want to keep the price up. They deal in corn, and they say they don't want it to be dear. They would rather have it cheap. What do these men mean? We will tell you what we mean—we mean steadiness—steadiness is what we mean, and steadiness is of much more importance than cheapness. I agree to that. That is my own proposition. Well, then, they said, we want not to make corn dear; we would rather have it cheap; but we don't want fluctuation; make it as cheap as you please, but only let it be steady. I know that was said—I heard it myself—I heard it urged so elsewhere, and they may be as reasonable and as rational elsewhere as here. They said so; and at all events I entirely agree, that is a grand object, second only to the prevention of famine. Certain circumstances may be accommodated; but there can be no accommodation to a fluctuation; and of all the curses that ever were inflicted upon a country, those great fluctuations of prices that took place by tampering with the standard at the tail of the last century, were the severest. I was one of the parties, and I take great blame to myself for not taking greater care to moderate the rapidity and the uncompromising rapidity of the changes that then took place. I was most dangerously ill at the time (I do not know whether that would be any excuse or not), and prevented taking any part in the discussion, but I was one of the parties. I acknowledge it; and I take great blame to myself for it. I agree with the noble Duke (Wellington); and that is one of the very few things upon which we do agree. Upon the whole, I supported Mr. Peel's Bill. If I had been in vigorous health at the time, and been able to attend the House with the great doubts I had, Whether we should come back to the old standard, or something like the old standard, my opinion, I think, would have been, that it would have been better to have made some pause between the two extremes. But at all events, I am of this opinion, that a greater curse never visited any country than when those great and enormous fluctuations which took place during the war, and immediately after the

527
peace, one day a pound note being worth only 13 s. 6d., and another worth 20 s. Now, in respect of steadiness of price and prevention of fluctuation, I looked at the continued operation of the Corn-laws with additional alarm. I will shew your Lordships the degree in which those laws have affected steadiness of price and fluctuation. I say they have not prevented fluctuation; and I am about to tender evidence to your Lordships, shewing you they have not prevented fluctuation. Nay, I will go a step further, and I will shew you they have caused fluctuation. I will not detain your Lordships with many figures, but I will give you one or two abstracts. Take seventeen years, from the year 1773 to the year 1790, the fluctuations were not more than 2s. or 2s. 3d. yearly, or 4½ per cent. was the whole measure of the fluctuation.—[The Duke of Wellington: Do you take the average of years?] I take the price by years—year by year, I will afterwards take the average of a series of years—the different prices in different periods. I am now taking the average by years, and the greatest fluctuation was not more than 4½ per cent.—it was a very steady price. Now I stop at 1790, for a very obvious reason—I mean to omit the next 15 years—up to 1804 and 1805, for this reason, that there were two years of scarcity, 1795, 1796, that might confound the calculation. There were still worse years, 1800 and 1801, which made, I adroit, the fluctuation in 1801,11 s. a quarter. Then I omit those years for another reason, that it was the beginning of the depreciation; se that for these three reasons, scarcity in 1796—scarcity in 1801, and the beginning of the depreciation, which greatly are all disturbing causes, I pass over those 15 years, because I have no right to argue on them. Now what was the price in the next years, which I am going to call the attention of your Lordships to—from 1815 to 1828? I am now going to the fluctuation in each year, and the year in which there was the least fluctuation, it was not 4½ per cent., but 11¾ per cent, under the influence of the steady operation—the equalizing operation of the Corn-laws, for it was after the year 1815 when the late Corn-taw Bill—Sir Henry Parnell's Bill—had passed the House of Commons. What think you, my Lords, was the greatest fluctuation under the same steady, poising, equi-poising, regulating influence of the Corn-laws,
528
those being the purposes of the Bill? Not 4½ per cent., as it was before the Cornlaws—not even 11¾ per cent., as it was in the year of the least fluctuation, but 94¾ per cent. Here was a fluctuation in price of near 100 per cent, during one single year, on the same commodity, and that commodity the prime necessary of life. [The Marquess of Lansdowne, What year was that?] I think it was the next year after the first of those two important laws had passed, but I will tell you in a moment, I have a memorandum of it. It was in 1816, and the fluctuation was 95¼. [The Marquis of Lansdowne, still under the influence of the depreciation?] Still under the influence of the depreciation. Now whether that was a very well-considered remark of the noble Marquess, your Lordships will judge. The depreciation was the same in the beginning of the year as it was in the end—the depreciation was throughout the whole of the year 1816. Mr. Peel's Bill was passed in 1819, and there was not one farthing in the pound difference in the value of gold in any one month of that year, from January the 1st. to December the 31st. How would depreciation make grain fluctuate? If there was a going up and down of bullion—if the pound note was worth 21 s. in one month, and 13 s. in another, [The Duke of Wellington, there was a reduction in the currency.] If the ounce of gold had risen from 3l. 10 s. ½d. to 4l. 10 s. at one period of the year, and had gone down to 3l. at another period of the year, no doubt my noble Friend would be quite right; but was there any such alteration as that? I remember the bullion question well enough to be certain that during the whole of the year 1816—though I am quite aware there was a contraction of issues,—I venture to say, without the slightest hesitation, it will be found there never was from the beginning to the end of that year above three or four shillings difference at the outside between the mint and market price, from January to December. [The Duke of Wellington, what does that make?] I will show that instead of making 95 per cent. it does not make 20 per cent. so that I will make you a present of 70. So that there is at least 70 per cent, variation instead of 4½ per cent, which it was before the enactment of the Corn-laws. But I am going to read to your Lordships other sums, because that is an extreme case and it is not worth while to argue on extreme

529
cases, The noble Duke thinks there was a great alteration in the issue of bank paper in 1817. Now, in the year 1817 the fluctuation was fifty-two per cent. That is enormous; the next year it was sixteen per cent., then twenty-three per cent., then thirty-six per cent. Now, then, comes the year 1820, and I am glad we have got to the year 1820, because it clears, away all doubt as to the fluctuation being attributable to the currency. The mint price of gold has, never since Mr. Peel's bill, varied from 3l. 17 s. 10½,d. per ounce. Now, I entreat your Lordships' attention to the fluctuation of the price of grain. The fluctuation in 1821, was fifty-three per cent.; in 1822 it was thirty-two per, cent.; and what do you think was the fluctuation in the price of grain in 1823, which was not a year of scarcity, and when the currency was steady? It was enormous—fifty-six and a quarter per cent. In 1825 it was thirteen per cent. in 1826 it was thirteen per cent.; and yet one would have thought, that if ever there would be a fluctuation, it would be in those two years, 1825 and 1826—one being a year of great speculation, and the other of great distress; but no such thing—it was thirteen per cent., clearly showing, therefore, that the fluctuation must depend on something else. Then, in 1828, it was forty-six per cent.; in 1829, thirty-three per cent.; and so on, till you get to 1836, and in 1836 it was no less than seventy-one per cent, although the year 1836 was not a year of scarcity. The ports were all shut—the Corn-laws were in full operation. The ports were shut from 1832 to 1838—there was to be no fluctuation, it was said, under the Corn-laws, and yet it was, in one year seventy-one per cent. Now, then, we will take it from year to year. The first Corn-law bill of Mr. Western's was passed in 1804; and one of the great arguments urged in its favour was, that if we did not have cheap bread, we should have steady prices. In the next year, 1805, it was thirty per cent., twenty-two, forty-six, fifty—so it goes on. I purposely avoid going upon those years because those were years of great depreciation. There never was however, such a difference between the issue, either an over-issue of bank paper, or a contraction of bank paper, so as to make anything like those enormous variations in prices. Now, my Lords, I have Atatccl—what I am prepared to prove by
530
the evidence of witnesses—I have stated to your Lordships the effects of those Corn-laws in preventing or exacerbating the great evil of fluctuation. My Lords, I certainly am one of those who attach the very highest importance to steadiness of price. It is not only a pre-eminent convenience to all mankind in their dealings to know exactly the amount of prices—it is not only of the first importance to all mercantile men for guiding their conduct and governing their speculations in trade—to manufacturers especially, who employ hundreds, and even thousands, of hands, and who pay hundreds of thousands a-year in wages—it is not only to them of the highest importance, but it is of the last necessity, that they should know what prices they can fearlessly and undoubtedly rely on. Without that they are in the dark, groping their way, no glimmering of light to lead them, ignorant whether they are entering on a speculation that is to redound to their wealth, or to prove their ruin. But for that, standing still is the best course to take according to the proverb that where you cannot see you should not move, for all classes, for the consumer of corn, for the buyers of manufacturers—for every person, be he the industrious worker with his hand, or the capitalist trusting to his head, or the idle consumer having an annual income to be spent, for all classes it is of the first importance to have steady prices affecting all the commodities in which they deal, either to purchase or consume. The price of corn will more or less affect the price of all commodities. When you tell me, that prices are steady, you tell me that every man's income is steady, and that each person, be he agriculturist or manufacturer, producer or consumer, knows his own resources. But if you tell me, that prices fluctuate, you tell me that no man's income is known, that no man's resources are within his own knowledge, that no man can study economy with prudence. And I believe, that steadiness of price, followed as it is by a certain knowledge of each man's resources, is, of all the helps to prudential conduct—of all the preventives to extravagance and dissipation—the most important, which lawyers, ministers, or moralists, can desire, or aim at. Therefore it is, my Lords, that I look upon fluctuation—which makes every man, more or less, a speculator—which causes every man, more or less, to lead a gam-

531
bling life—fluctuations in the prices of the necessaries of life, I look upon as that evil against which the wise lawgiver would most sedulously guard by every means in his power. My Lords, it is for that reason I have tendered the evidence upon this head, and have gone into it at some length, because I think it is altogether impossible to overrate its importance. And now, my Lords. I come to another part of the evidence I tender, and which I think hardly inferior to, and is, in fact, closely connected with the last. My Lords, the effect of the Poor-laws. [Earl Stanhope, the Corn-laws]. My Lords, when I look towards that part of the House where my noble Friend sits, I am instinctively reminded of the Poor-laws, and hence arose the error. The two subjects, in truth, are by no means unconnected, and I may say this in passing—the landowners who have the burthen chiefly of maintaining the poor—have a great interest in cheap food, which they yet, by some strange fatality never, seem to be conscious of. If they sell corn high they must pay high wages; and when there is a scarcity, maintain the labourers out of the poor-rates. So it is not all gain from keeping up a high price of corn, and fluctuation is of most pernicious tendency, for whenever there is an uncertainty in trade, there is variation as to the numbers employed, and this throws, from time to time, numberless persons on the poor-rates, that is, upon the landowners, which would not be the case, but for the fluctuation caused by the Corn-laws. My Lords, I was about to state to you a very important head of evidence,—that with respect to the inequality of prices produced by the Corn-laws in different parts of the world. The consequence of our not taking corn from the continent, corn being the only commodity in many countries offered to you, or which is there to be sold, is, to make corn unnaturally cheap in other countries, to create a greater difference than nature would make between the price of corn in England and the price of corn elsewhere. Consequently, it has a tendency to make a greater difference than naturally would be produced between the price of labour here and elsewhere; consequently, it tends to make a greater difference than is natural between the prime cost of producing our manufactures, and the prime cost of producing manufactures elsewhere; consequently, again, it makes a greater differ-
532
ence than natural, between the facility of entering a market, to the foreign manufacturer, and the facility which our manufacturer possesses of entering the same market. And this produces another consequence, or rather, perhaps, the same result in a different shape. I wish to drive home the conclusion, and therefore, put it in another form, consequently I say, that when you, under the "protection," as you call it, of the Corn-laws, to your agriculture, intended to produce steadiness in prices—I don't dispute that now, I have disposed of it already, you increase the difficulties in the way of the manufacturers of our own country, on entering into competition with foreign manufacturers, in continental markets—you tend to shut out your manufacturers from the foreign market, giving to the foreign manufacturer a premium at the expense of your own manufacturer. My Lords, this is the probable theory and I tender proof of the fact upon oath. I am ready to prove on the evidence of unquestionable witnesses, that whenever your markets are open to foreign corn, a check is then given to foreign manufacturers, and an encouragement to your own. I have evidence of facts which I shall presently state more in detail, and which, if they are admitted to be true, and on that hypothesis alone can your Lordships reject the proffered evidence, should have great influence on your Lordships. I shall upon them ground resolutions which your Lordships cannot than but agree to. My Lords, there is another evil which the manufacturers of our country sustain from the Corn-laws. In order to be able to export our goods—and this applies, therefore, to the merchant who exchanges, as well as to the manufacturer who works up, commodities, to enable them to approach foreign markets with profit—they will not do so without—it is necessary that means exist in that foreign market for furnishing returns to our exportations. Nominally, it is done by bills of exchange, &c. But unless you take the goods of your foreign customers, they will cease soon to deal with you. Now what is the effect of the Corn-laws? In countries to which the Corn-laws do not apply in this way; which have other commodities besides corn to send in return for our manufactures, our merchants have a considerable trade, and our manufacturers export large quantities of their goods to those countries. But how is it with those

533
countries which have nothing but corn and timber to give us in return?—and the argument applies to timber, for there are timber laws for the behoof of the colonies, answering to our Corn-laws, for the benefit of agriculture at home—those countries which are much fitter customers for us than others, inasmuch as they can be communicated with four or five times, to once with other countries; the districts on the Baltic, for example, which he within a ten days' or a fortnight's voyage, and which produce nothing for exportation but corn and timber; if you will not take their corn and timber, they will not take your manufactures; so that you are not contented with raising the prices of your own manufactures—with lowering the prices of foreign commodities—with giving the Continental manufacturers a premium against your own—but you must shut out your manufactures, hampered as they are by the restrictions of the Corn-laws—you shut them out altogether from foreign markets, by saying, that they shall not receive the only commodities which the foreign merchants can offer them in exchange for their manufactures. The operation of this result of the Corn-laws is confined to Europe, and principally to the northern parts of Germany, and the districts bordering on the Baltic. There is the test of this effect? It is this—simple, I think, and decisive. Examine what are your exports to those countries from which you decline to receive the manufactures. Then take another set of countries—those which have other commodities besides the prohibited ones to send you in return: that is, Africa, Asia, the West Indies, South and North America—all which countries have some commodities, either gums, or metals, or cotton, like North America, or sugar, &c., which they can supply us with. Examine where your exports have increased, where kept steady, and where diminished, under the influence of your Corn-laws, and the result of the two branches of the inquiry will show the effect of those Corn-laws, whether it be prejudicial, innocent, or advantageous, to our manufactures. Now, my Lords, I will open to you the evidences which on this part of the question I am prepared to lay before you. In those countries to which our Corn-laws do not apply, they having other commodities to exchange with us, there has been, from 1816 to 1836, twenty years, an increase
534
of our trade, from 16,000,000 l. annually to 28,000,000 l., clearly showing, that there was no want of skill in our manufacturers; that there was as great a demand for our goods as ever, where our customers had the means of buying them—that Is, Africa which could export her ivory and gold dust, the West Indies, which had their sugar and rum, and America, which had her cotton; in all these countries there was an increase of fifty per cent. in our exports in twenty years. Now we turn to those countries where our Corn-laws act as a prohibition on the importation of theft commodities—for the five years ending 1820, as compared with the five years ending 1836, there was a difference of no less than twenty per cent., and unfortunately a diminution to that amount, in the latter period of our exports. For one or other, or both of two reasons, my witnesses will show to your Lordships, that their experience leads them to believe, that they have found out the real cause. For my own part, I believe, that it is not one, but both of the reasons to which I have alluded, that operates upon the commerce of the country—the favour which the Corn-laws gave to the foreign manufacturer, by keeping down their prices and raising ours, and by shutting the home market to the only article with which foreigners could pay us for the articles they wanted. My Lords, I will go into more detail in my evidence. The returns of the exports show a most alarming increase in the export of those articles upon which we have spent little or no labour—not one of the most alarming aspects is the great increase of new manufactories abroad, and I can prove, by witnesses at the bar, by men of skill, by men of experience and knowledge—I will show by these gentlemen, that the operation of the Corn-laws has been to make, to force, foreign nations to become manufacturers. Now, my Lords, look at the articles in which our exports have decreased. My Lords, the raw materials have increased in a most extraordinary ratio—while the export of manufactured articles has most materially fallen off. In bar and pig-iron the exportation has increased very greatly—they are the raw materials, but cutlery, the manufactured article, has not increased, but in many places fallen off. Again, take the article of woollen cloth: the exportation of woollen cloths has greatly fallen off, but the exportation of wool has

535
greatly increased; for instance, the woollen cloth exported to Russia in 1826 amounted to 346,000 l. Well, sixteen years later it had fallen off two-fiths of that amount, and was then no more than 23,000 l., but the export of wool has greatly increased. In the three years ending in 1827 the amount of the wool exported was 178,000lbs. while in the three years ending in 1837, it had amounted to the enormous quantity of 3,744,000lbs. Again, the yarn exported in 1827 amounted to 154,000lbs., but in 1837, it, like the wool, had increased to the large amount of 2,472,000lbs. These figures which I have laid before your Lordships clearly show, that the exports of the raw material has most materially increased, while the manufacturing articles has most sensibly and alarmingly fallen off. What do we find—do we not know, that in former times English buyers regulated the whole markets of Germany, but now German and Belgian merchants regulate the markets, and supply themselves to our exclusion, as I am perfectly ready to prove by credible witnesses at your Lordships' bar. I will now illustrate to your Lordships by a few facts—facts which I am ready to prove on oath, the establishment of manufactures abroad, and the places where they are established. We know, that the great staple manufacture of Nottingham, from which my noble Friend presented a petition, has been for many years stocking hosiery. In 1815, there were in Saxony, the other great stocking mart, 1,000 stocking frames. In this country there were at the same period 16,300 stocking frames. But at the present moment in Saxony there are upwards of 16,000 stocking frames established. They have in that period arrived at an equality with us. This, my Lords, is one particular branch of trade. I could show your Lordships that spinning machinery has been established in various parts of France and the Netherlands. But I should prefer proving it to your Lordships in a more satisfactory and a more compendious manner. I have looked around me in order to see what kind of manufacture itself is the best test to try this question, and it immediately occurred to me, that to refer to the supply of machinery to foreign nations is at once going to the fountain-head. If I can demonstrate to your Lordships that there is an almost incredible increase in the manufacture of machinery for abroad—if I can show that the manufacture of cranes,
536
spinning-jennies and wheels, is now going on by the gross for foreign nations, I shall have demonstrated to your Lordships that there is great danger accruing to our manufactures. If I demonstrate to your Lordships that a great many establishments have been erected abroad for the purpose of making machinery, I shall have demonstrated to your Lordships the necessity for an inquiry. I am prepared, my Lords, to prove that such establishments either now exist or are in the course of erection by two most respectable witnesses—by two gentlemen who have been much alarmed at the falling off of the manufactures of this country—by two gentlemen who have visited these establishments, not out of any idle curiosity, but because they were alarmed at being successfully opposed by foreign manufacturers in markets which hitherto were their own. They are prepared to state, my Lords, that these foreign manufactories are greatly on the increase. They are prepared to state, my Lords, that there is a large manufactory for machinery at Dresden; that there is another at Chemnitz, which is worked and superintended by English hands; that at Prague there is another of the same sort; that at Vienna there is another, which is thought of so much importance by the paternal government of that enlightened country, that the establishment is absolutely fixed in a palace; two, in fact, of those I have enumerated are established in palaces. At Elberfeldt there is another—at Aix-la-Chapelle there is another, and each of them worked by English hands; and I pray your Lordships to observe, that when I speak of one manufactory at each of those places, I speak of many—I might say that every one of them is a manufactory of manufactories, because each of them being a manufactory for making machinery alone, must supply a great number of manufactories. Spindles, wheels, and cranes, every kind of machinery is made at Zurich, and I am prepared to prove to your Lordships that they use no less than five tons of pig-iron—that no less than five tons of pig-iron are melted and used in that establishment at Zurich in one day. If your Lordships want another test—if your Lordships should like the test of numbers, I am prepared to prove that at Liege there is one manufactory alone where 4,000 hands are employed under English auspices; and set in

537
motion by English capital. A noble Lord to-night presented a petition, which I saw made its impression on the House, and in commenting upon it, the noble Lord said, if the Corn-laws were repealed, English farmers would be under the necessity of seeking their fortunes in distant lands. I do not deny the importance of the observation. I am far from saying, that you ought to shut your ears against those who solicit your opening them to that statement. Yes, I say you ought to hear both sides. I say it is fit to hear what these petitioners only represent as a possibility—only state as an opinion of theirs—only give as the apprehension of their minds—naturally sensitive, yet perhaps not naturally the best informed on this subject, though naturally and inevitably deeply interested in it: I say it is fit, in answer to those who cheer and cry "hear!" that the apprehensions and anxieties of these not very well-informed individuals should obtain a hearing before you. But then, if you listen to their apprehensions of what may happen—of what never has happened—of what I think not likely to happen—how much more does it behove you to hear my statements of what has happened—of what is every hour happening—of what will continue to happen, until it overwhelms your manufactures; for my statements will be proved on oath by persons who have seen what they state—who will not represent their vague conjectures, their apprehensions, their fancies, or their fears of what may be; but, who will tell you on oath what they know is, and has been, and must be, because it has already taken place. I am told, that farmers may emigrate, though they have not done so—though the emigration of farmers was never known—and though the emigration of the peasantry of a country is impossible. My prayer to your Lordships is to hear. I only desire you to hear. But I desire that you would not hear fears and fancies, and shut your ears to facts and truths: that you would not hear vague apprehensions of what may one day take place, and refuse me liberty to bring evidence before you of what has already taken place. Let me ask your Lordships, is it natural or desirable, that our English manufacturers should go abroad to a foreign country? Your Lordships thought it a consummation much to be apprehended, that a single English farmer should go abroad: yet, if a single
538
English farmer should go abroad, and become a servant to a foreign Peer instead of an English Peer, we should have indeed to regret the loss of a most valuable member of society, but there the loss would end. But if an English manufacturer goes to Zurich, we do not merely lose one citizen from Birmingham or Wolverhampton—we do not merely lose a good justice of the peace at quarter sessions—the state is not merely diminished by a unit however respectable— but he goes to work manufactures, to work into machinery—into spindles, and wheels, and spinning jennies, five tons of pig iron every day in the year, for the purpose of meeting the demand of that fatal competition with your spinning jennies in the markets of Europe. Another going to Liege, does not merely take away a respectable member of society from this country, but establishes works where 4,000 men are employed in the manufacture of cotton twist, or still worse for this country, in the manufacture of machinery. I now come to what is said by my noble Friends opposite, who are so anxious to hear, but so unwilling to listen; who are so anxious for one side being heard, that they do not think of hearing the other; my prayer is, that you should indulge with an audience, not only the men who dread and apprehend, but also the men who can prove and swear. I now go from the case of the manufacturers to the landed interest, and all that I have said respecting fluctuations, all that I have said respecting steadiness of price, applies to the landed interest just as much—not more—but just as much as to the manufacturers. I speak as much of them as of the manufacturers. And I say, that one any more than the other, has un interest, as many imagine, in retaining these Corn-laws; but, on the contrary, every interest in checking the downhill progress of our manufactures which these Corn-laws are unquestionably producing. But now, I address myself to the landed interest, and to what distinctly applies to this case. And first, I think it is something for my position—I think it goes far to show that it is not unfavourable to the landed interest that some of the very greatest agriculturists—greatest in skill, experience, in the extent of their farming operation, and in the amount of capital invested in them—have been decidedly of opinion that they would be better with, out the Corn-laws than with them. I can

539
produce strict legal evidence of this. I can bring testimony to show that this opinion has been held in the highest quarters; and indeed, if I were to name among all your Lordships any one who had a great stake in the country more than another—who had no possible interest in throwing impediments in the way of agriculture—who ought to be more wedded than another to that interest—whose means of subsistence and wealth were more especially derived from agriculture, I should name my noble and much loved Friend who is bringing forward this motion; for I am only endeavouring to lay a foundation for the case by evidence. The noble Earl, I mean, who is connected with Yorkshire, with Ireland, and with Northamptonshire; with districts of this country where manufactures are wholly unknown—and with Irish districts, where there is scarcely a manufacturer, and where a strong prejudice prevails against any alteration in the Corn-laws; yet that noble Earl has a most unhesitating—a most unflinching opinion, that he is the worse for the Corn-laws. So, likewise, is the opinion of a great—the greatest agriculturist connected with Norfolk (the Earl of Leicester) that the present system of Corn-laws was no benefit to the farmer. It is no matter what his peculiar opinions might be. I do not inquire at present respecting the kind of alteration which should be made. A fixed duty is opposed to the present system, and those who are for the present system are against a fixed duty. Another who was opposed to these laws, was one whose loss I must always deeply deplore; one of the dearest friends I ever had in life; a man whom to name is to honour—the late Earl of Thanet—a man whose opinion on this subject ought to have the weight due to a vigorous understanding, and to experience of very large agricultural operations of various descriptions. It was his conviction that the maintenance of the Corn-laws was more harm than good. But, perchance he did not know how to form an opinion—perhaps he knew nothing of farming—perhaps he was ignorant of political and economic matter. No, he was intimately connected with land, and skilful in farming; and he was an enemy to the Corn-laws, on the ground of interest, both as a farmer and as a landlord. And, my Lords, I can also produce to your Lordships formers—with deep interests as farmers
540
—who will give exactly the same testimony. One fact I will mention to your Lordships by way of blunting the edge of the appetite of those noble Lords on the other side of the House who seem to wish for my destruction. The period of the closest and most complete monopoly of the home market to the home growers was from 1832 to 1838. Now, what was the price of wheat at that time? During the whole of these years, till the ports were open, the average price of grain was 36 s. and a fraction. ["No, no!" A noble Lord observed that that was the lowest price.] I am going into a comparative statement, and it is a matter of indifference whether I take the highest or the lowest average. It would signify if I spoke of the absolute price, but when I take a period when the ports were shut to compare with a period when the ports were open, it is quite indifferent—36 s. 7d. was the lowest price; it was the average of December,1835. ["One month."] No doubt it is one month; I take the month of December, 1835. I have no average of a time when the ports were open excepting the month of December, and, therefore, I take the same month when they were shut. The average of the same month of December in 1838, when the ports were shut, was 77 s. That is a decisive fact to blunt the edge of the appetite for my destruction which I saw in noble Friends around me. Now, I may say there is this detriment—this very material detriment to the landowners from the present state of the Corn-laws. I will now admit they are as wise as if framed by an angel. I will admit, that all my arguments—that all the evidence I tender against them proves nothing. I will admit all, that their warmest eulogists are pleased to pronounce in their favour; at all events they are repealable, and at all events it must be conceded that fluctuation of prices has not been prevented tinder them. At all events it must be likewise granted, that as long as these laws give rise to fluctuation, so long will capitalists hesitate to rely upon them, and so long will capital be withheld from agriculture. I can bring capitalists—large capitalists, who will prove to your Lordships, that a repeal of the Corn-laws would, in a few months, produce a steadiness of profits—of farming profits—which would cause capital to be invested in land; would let loose millions, now in-

541
vested in the funds, and yielding a profit of only 3½ per cent.—less, in fact, for the money invested in the three per cent. consols. And nothing, I take it, would be more beneficial to the landed interest, especially to any part of it which may happen to be in distress, than the application of large capitals to purchases. It would further be a great advantage to the landowners, if the protecting duties on manufactures were taken off, so that manufactures might be sold cheaper. So that you could buy goods of the various descriptions that are manufactured in this country, and are consumed by the farmer—of a better kind, and without any increase of price. I need not stop at this moment to show, that till the Corn-laws are repealed, no man of sense would venture to propound so extravagant a proposition, as to deprive the manufactures of their protecting duties, and at the same time keep up the protecting duties in favour of the landowners. My last observation on this subject is one of a striking nature. I beseech and earnestly implore the best attention of your Lordships to what I have already stated, and solicit your attention to what I am now going to observe. In reference to what I have stated as the wane of our manufactures, I began by saying, that not one word should escape from my lips depreciating the agricultural, the land interest, the landlord and farmer, whose great influence by right in this community I admit—whose great influence in point of fact, in this community I admit—whose being mixed up with the fate of the country from the stake he has in the country. I am the last man to deny, or hesitate, to amply concede; but so neither will I not say one word against the manufacturer, or whisper one breath which tends to undervalue that most respectable, useful, essential member of the community; and I have lately seen, with the greatest astonishment, from a noble Friend of mine, one of the present Ministers, a statement made upon an election occasion, I suppose it must have been, in which he places in the most invidious contrast the merits of the manufacturer and the cultivators of land. Morality, tranquillity, a love of all qualities that make good men and good citizens, he denies to the manufacturer; he places in the most odious contrast them and the landed interest in all things relating to morals, to steadi-
542
ness of conduct, to tranquillity as good subjects, he conceives it to be a wild imagination, a dreaming fancy—to compare the manufacturer to the land cultivator. My Lords, these are not my sentiments. As my noble Friend has, in his experience, expressed great alarm at the bare thoughts of Government venturing to touch the Corn-laws—he says—I am afraid to say, that this Government (my noble Friend was then in Opposition) means to give up the Corn-laws to the manufacturers—the experience he has since acquired has altered his views, and he now finds, that these, Corn-laws are not so beneficial, and he now presses a fixed duty to the present laws. My Lords, it is not a statesmanlike view to give preference to one class over another—it is neither a statesmanlike, or a correct view, to say, that one class of the community better deserves the confidence or protection of the Parliament of England than another. I am of that old-fashioned opinion, and though it came from a trader rather than a statesman, I think it contained more of political wisdom—it was more sound, more practical, and more statesmanlike. I mean those memorable words of Sir Josiah Child, "Land and trade are knit together, and together they must wax or wane; so that it never shall be well with land but trade shall be the better for it, nor ever. trade shall suffer but land shall feel it." Comparing this with the Huntingdon address, in political wisdom few would doubt that it is infinitely superior. This is the sound view of the subject, and the last member of it I especially commend to your Lordships' attention—that "it never shall be ill with trade but land shall feel it." I will now, my Lords, show you what trade has done for you, aye, and I will bring you, a test by showing you the prices of wheat before and after the time to which I refer. I allude to the spring our commerce and manufactures made about the year 1770 or 1771. Before 1774 there was a bounty of five shillings on exportation, and we must deduct that amount from the prices I am now about to recite. In the fifty years commencing in the reign of George 1st. and ending in 1771, the average price of wheat in the English market, deducting the bounty of five shillings, was 26 s. The average price was 31 s. 8d. and the deduction of the bounty makes it 26 s. 6d. The averge price of fifty-six years ending in

543
1825 was 62 s. Deducting from that period the years from 1800 to 1820, which included a period of great scarcity and also the period of the depreciation of the currency which led in 1818 to a rise in the market price of gold above the current price, until it was restored to a level by Sir Robert Peel's Bill in 1819—deduct these years from the whole period, it will leave the average price of the remaining years 52 s., which is exactly double the price of grain before 1771. But most true is the saying of Sir Josiah Child, that "it never shall be ill with land, but trade shall suffer; nor ever ill with trade, but land shall feel it." The bounty was taken off in 1774, and the same period was the most remarkable the most brilliant, and I will say the proudest, in the history of the English nation. The mines of this country and of Wales, teeming with wealth, were first fully explored, serving not only to aggrandise their possessors, but also to call into operation innumerable tools, engines, and machines of the most exquisite and powerful description, by which rocks were blasted—trees felled—the forests cleared—the earth broken up—all rude produce worked into the finest shapes with infinite skill, while at the same time manufacturing industry was exerted to add to the wealth which the bowels of the earth yielded, till those mighty spinning jennies, and the most extraordinary facts of the new power of steam, appeared enlarging the sphere of Human potency and giving man a new existence and a new dominion on the earth. The whole face of nature was changed; the whole aspect of the earth in this country became that which it now is, and which God forbid it should ever cease to be, one large, wealthy, industrious, expert and skilful workshop of the most laborious the most ingenious, and I will add from intimate knowledge, the worthiest, I wish I could say the wealthiest, of mankind. These were the miracles of manufacturing industry. This was the period of manufactories. And yet we were not blessed with peace all that while, But in spite of broken peace, bearing up against an enormous and wrongful war, overcoming, by the skill and industry of one class so many evils fatal to both, which the profligacy of another sort of men would have brought upon them—notwithstanding ten years of one war and ten years of another—notwithstanding the genius of Washington and the success of Napoleon. The fleet
544
of America could not shake your dominion over the seas, nor the military power of France repress the energies of your commerce. Art and manufactures, exposed to the most formidable enemies, have flourished and advanced, and this people has remained.
Quos neque Tydides, nee Larissæus Achilles
Non anni domuere decem, non mille cariæ.
When you thus see, my Lords, what these consequences were—when you observe that during those years the price of agricultural produce was doubled, can you have the slightest doubt that Sir Josiah Child was perfectly right? Seeing, then, that manufactures were the cause which doubled the rental of every estate in the realm, I ask your Lordships on what principle can you refuse to hear the evidence which I am prepared to tender you at your Lordships' bar, to prove that the Corn-laws are rapidly driving away from us those very manufactures which so doubled, in forty years, the value of every estate in the country. These, my Lords, are the grounds on which I have founded my request to your Lordships. I offer to prove on oath the destruction of the corn-trade by the Corn-laws. I offer to prove on oath the removal of all security against famine by the Corn-laws. I offer to prove on oath the fluctuation of all prices at all times caused by the Corn-laws. I offer to prove on oath the equalization of prices abroad and at home prevented by the Corn-laws. I offer to prove on oath our manufacture's destroyed by the Corn-laws. I offer to prove on oath the destruction of our export trade, and the closing of a foreign market to our goods by the Corn-laws. My Lords, I thus close this my tender of evidence with the same proposition with which I set out: that if my request is refused—if I am not allowed to prove my statements by evidence at your Lordships' bar, the refusal can only be grounded on one of three arguments—either that, fully admitting them to be all true, you require no evidence to prove them, or that they are so false that no possible evidence could be brought to prove them; or, that, whether true or false, the point at issue is so immaterial as to require no evidence one way or the other. My Lords, I know that the two latter propositions are altogether erroneous and impossible to be proved, as I hope I have shown; and I, therefore, conceive that any refusal of yours to hear

545
evidence, can only be grounded on the first supposition, that you admit what I have advanced to be true; and in the event of your refusal, I shall accordingly take my statements to be virtually admitted to be true, and on the eight propositions which I have submitted, a noble Friend of mine who is not now present, will, in all probability, ground a motion for some alteration in the system. But, my Lords, I earnestly implore you will not reject my request; for, believe me, my Lords, if you do reject it, the day will come when you will say, "Better had it been for us if we had thought twice." The day will come when this reflection will be too late, and when your repentance will not supply the place of a wise compliance now. When I say this, I am quite conscious that your Lordships are a body of men, the last in the world, likely to be influenced by anything bearing the most remote semblance of menace, and I am the last man to advance anything which could bear that construction; but at the same time, I know that advice is not lost on your Lordships, but that you are ever disposed candidly to take it into your best and most serious consideration. I shall add but one word more to induce your Lordships to listen to the prayer of the petitioners, who earnestly implore to be heard, not by counsel, but by evidence, at your Lordships' bar. Whatever resolution you ultimately come to, supposing even that it be to do nothing against the present Corn-laws—stick to them, if you will, in the minutest detail, re-enact them as often as you will, resolve not to hear a word said against them—but for God's sake do not form this resolution till after you have heard the evidence I tender you. I protest to you, that if I were the most strenuous advocate of these laws—if I were the most unalterably fixed in my resolution that nothing should make me judge against them, if I were determined beforehand—though this would hardly be a rational determination, though this would hardly be a proceeding worthy of a judge whose business it is to hear before he decides—but even were I thus predetermined that nothing whatever should induce me to give up the Corn-laws, I should deem this predetermination on my part, not as an argument for refusing to go into the inquiry, but, on the contrary, as the strongest inducement I could have for permitting the investigation before I
546
published my final resolution to the country. My Lords, let me put it most seriously to you, what will be the consequences of such a fact going forth to the manufacturers as that, when evidence was offered at the bar of your House in proof of eight propositions, every one of them vitally affecting the interests of trade, the manufactures, the commerce, the well-being of the country—the deep importance of which no man denies, the possibility of proving which, no man can reasonably call in question, the truth of which is so solemnly asserted, the proof of which is tendered on oath—what will be said, I ask, if those propositions are arbitrarily thrown to the winds—are put down by the mute eloquence of numbers, by the mere force of an overwhelming Parliamentary majority; and the people of England are told, "Parliament has made up its mind about the matter: go your way, return to your empty shops, repair to your ruined manufactories; or hie away to foreign countries; do what you list; we want none of your evidence; we care not for your testimony; we despise your facts; we have made up our minds to this foregone conclusion; and, lest your evidence might shake our determination, we won't run the risk of listening to it at all." Rely upon it, my Lords, that a refusal on your parts would be accompanied by the most unwelcome suspicions and comments on the part of the country. It is a much more pleasing task to contemplate the happy effects of the opposite course, of your acceding to my request that you hear this evidence. I can conceive no earthly event which would tend more to reconcile—if there has ever been a falling out—the people of' this country to the established order of things, to the order to which your Lordships belong, than your candid consideration of, your paternal listening to, the application of those petitioners—your opening wide your doors to the people's prayers—your not shutting out the proffered evidence as to their distresses, and the remedy which they propose for them. My Lords, returning to you my best thanks for the patient and indulgent hearing which you have granted me, addressing you on the part of the people of this country, I will now conclude with moving, "That the petitions on the subject of the Corn-laws he referred to a Committee of the whole House, and that evidence be heard at the bar."
The Duke of Buckinghamwould not trespass at any length upon their Lordships' time, after the very able speech of the noble and learned Lord, for whose talents he entertained a very great respect. It was perfectly clear to him that the whole gist of the noble and learned Lord's speech was nothing more nor less than a repeal of the Corn-Laws. The noble Lord had asked for witnesses to be heard at the bar of the House, but it was impossible for him (the Duke of Buckingham) to disguise from himself the fact that the ultimate object of the noble Lord was a repeal of those laws of which he honestly acknowledged himself a firm and strenuous advocate. It was impossible also not to perceive, that the agitation now going on in all the country, was for the sole purpose of creating dissension between the manufacturer and the agriculturist; and when he heard from the noble Lord opposite what his opinions were, he could not but recollect the opinions of noble Lords and others in another place, who openly avowed their intention of repealing the Corn-Laws. He would take the earliest opportunity of expressing his dissent from those opinions, and his firm adherence to those laws which he considered were only a just protection to a large class of her Majesty's subjects—a class which, when in distress and difficulty they appealed to both Houses, had done so in vain, and had still borne with perfect temper the distresses and reverses to which they had been subjected. He now asked the manufacturers, for whom he entertained every possible respect, how were the English farmers to compete with foreigners if these protecting duties were taken off. It was impossible they could do so, and he would appeal to the noble Earl opposite (Spencer), who was a practical farmer, and he was satisfied that he would agree with him, that if they repealed those laws, and took away all protection from the English farmer it would be impossible to compete with those who would grow their grain under such superior advantages. With regard to the consumer it appeared to him that a fair remunerating price would not interfere with their interests, while the great manufacturing interests of the country would receive that protection to which they were fairly entitled. What alarmed him upon the present question was, the difference of opinion which was said to exist in influential quarters, and he should have wished
548
that a question of that sort, affecting the interests of a large portion of the community, should not have been made an open question by the Cabinet, or one upon which its members should hold divided opinions. All parties in times of difficulty and danger look to her Majesty's Ministers for protection and assistance; but he must say, that upon this question the agricultural classes of the country could not look to the present Government for either. They must look for it from their friends in both Houses of Parliament, and from the exertion they would make in their own behalf. There was another point to which he wished to call their Lordships' attention. He would remind them of what had taken place in that and the other House of Parliament during the last Session. Their Lordships would recollect, that the question of tithe composition had agitated the country for some time previously. That question was settled by taking the average of the last seven years, and no sooner had that Act received the sanction of Parliament, and become the law of the land than the averages, which were the basis of that Bill, and which adjusted all differences between the farmers, landlords, and tithe-owners, was at once to be destroyed, and the fabric on which it was built overturned. The proposition of the noble Lord was therefore unfair to all the class of landowners in that country. He conjured them, as they valued their country's welfare, the prosperity of its inhabitants, and the stability of the Throne of these realms, not to permit that interest which had always been foremost in manifesting its loyalty and affection for the Throne, to be deprived of that protection and defence which they only asked for, because they were fairly and legitimately entitled to it. He would not trespass further on their attention, but he felt he should not be doing his duty to the country at large if he had not, on taking his seat in that House, performed a duty to those whose confidence he had maintained for so many years. He should have blamed himself had he not at the earliest opportunity entered his most strenuous protest against the proposition of the noble Lord opposite, and asked their Lordships not to agree to a motion which had for its object the entire overthrow of the Corn-Laws of that country. He disagreed totally with that proposition and he adhered firmly to the present system of Corn-Laws—he wished for no

549
alteration in them, and in that opinion he was supported and guided by a large majority of the commerce of that country. He asked forgiveness for trespassing so long on their Lordships' attention, but he could not sit in that House without deeply and honestly expressing his entire dissent from the motion of the noble and learned Lord.
Earl Stanhopewould wish to call the attention of the House to the course which had been pursued by the noble and learned Lord, not to the arguments he had urged, for arguments he had disclaimed, but to the statement which he had made. In the whole course of his address he had not stated what was his ultimate object, supposing that evidence was produced at the bar. The noble Lord did not say whether he wished for a total or a partial repeal of the Corn-laws—whether he would be content with a moderate or a high fixed duty, or no duty at all. He trusted, therefore, when the subject was brought forward on another occasion in regard to its real merits, that he (Lord Stanhope) might be allowed to speak his opinion upon the general view of the question. At present he would confine himself solely to the series of statements which the noble and learned Lord had made. No man felt more strongly than himself, that it was the duty of that House to open wide its doors to receive the petitions of the people—to afford them every opportunity and advantage of establishing by evidence—nay more, by the arguments of counsel at the bar, any grievances of which they complained; but it was obvious, that that could apply only to a case where in the first existence there existed a prima facie grievance, and secondly, where the Legislature had the power of redressing it. He would now proceed to notice those statements of the noble Lord in which he asserted, that under the existing system of Corn-laws the trade in corn had ceased to exist. He would ask whether the fact was not, that with a general deficiency of corn in the country and abroad, the importation for the last year had amounted to 1,800,000 quarters. The noble Lord was uninformed in many other points. With respect to the price of corn at Dantzic, it might at present, after an unfavourable season, fetch the price mentioned by the noble Lord; but he would venture to assert, that some years ago the best wheat could be procured at Dantzic for 28 s. a quarter. He was also most grievously
550
misinformed on other points, for he confined his observations to the port of Malta, (although that was only a port of deposit, Malta producing no corn of its own) and the single port of Odessa. He was also misinformed with respect to the relative price of bread in that country and on the Continent. He happened to have been at Calais last month, and he inquired the price of the 4lb. loaf, and was told it was 8d.; he had also inquired in that part of Devon, with which he was connected by property, and he found, that the 41b. loaf there was also 8d. He need not observe, taking into calculation the comparative value of money in both countries, that the price on the Continent was considerably higher than in England. The noble and learned Lord had told them a very pathetic story of some merchant who, no doubt, from purely patriotic motives, and the public good, and having no regard to emolument, but contemning lucre and pelf, had provided a large supply of foreign corn—[Lord Brougham: I never said he did.] The noble Lord related it as a matter of suffering, as if the individual had been acting solely for the public good. His noble and learned Friend had grossly mis-stated the case upon that point. He was not going to read an extract from an Act of Parliament, for nothing could be more tedious, and, he might add, unintelligible to peruse. He would find, however, that when the average was 72 s. the duty was 1s., and that the duty increased 2s. for every 1s. the price declined. So that that unfortunate gentleman, because he would not consent to sell his corn at a moderate loss, chose to go into the Gazette. [Lord Brougham: Look at the act again.] Let the noble and learned Lord look at the act himself. The noble and learned Lord was much more expert and dexterous than he could pretend to be. He merely looked at the schedule, and if there had been anything like ordinary prudence he would have lost very little. The present was an age of paradox, there was no opinion so extravagant or unreasonable which did not find an advocate, and now they were gravely told the Corn-law menaced the country with famine. Now was it not much more probable, and much more to be apprehended, that those laws being repealed, and we being obliged to rely for food upon supplies from foreign countries, we should be much more liable to the visitation of famine? If our communications

551
with those countries were interrupted, either by edicts from their respective governments, or by the occurrence of war, the inhabitants of these realms would undoubtedly be much more in danger from famine, if they had to depend upon those countries for provision than if they could draw them in general, as now, from their own resources. Now was it not a fact, that the soil of this country was well able to supply its people with food? Why even the noble and learned Lord himself admitted, that from 1832 to last year there had been no importations whatever of corn into this country. He (Earl Stanhope) would now proceed as rapidly as he could to disprove the points on which the noble and learned Lord had successively dwelt with so much emphasis as the ground work of the proposition which he expected their Lordships to adopt. It was necessary to do this as carefully as possible, as there was no other question in which were so deeply involved the interests of those engaged in commerce, in manufactures, in agriculture; and most, though last of all, the labourers. One of the strangest complaints of the noble and learned Lord against the Corn-laws was, that they caused a fluctuation of prices. And he would admit this proposition. He acknowledged, that the Corn-laws had not answered their purpose in maintaining remunerative prices to our agriculturists. But could it with justice be asserted, that the fluctuations were to be ascribed to those enactments? Were they not rather ascribable to the measures which from time to time had been adopted respecting the currency; and which had had a great influence in producing the fluctuations they had witnessed in the various articles of trade and manufacture? In 1822, he showed that a fluctuation of not less than thirty per cent had taken place in the prices of several articles of foreign manufacture, from the very same cause that had caused the fluctuations in the prices of corn—namely, the alteration in the currency. And the argument he and others then advanced had never been conclusively replied to. The noble and learned Lord had enlarged upon the benefits that would arise from the reduction of a full tax of one shilling per quarter on the wheat consumed by each individual per year, that being taken as the amount of burden imposed on each member of the community, by the Corn-laws. Now, no
552
one had spoken more than himself of the extreme importance; the paramount duty; the essential necessity of doing everything that was possible to raise the condition of the labouring classes of this country; to alleviate their distress; to promote and secure their welfare, and he could wish the noble and learned Lord to ask any one of the labouring classes whether he could consider it the greater boon to have this reduction of one shilling a quarter; that was to say, supposing the party to be a single man, of one shilling per annum in his expenses—one quarter per annum being the average consumption of corn of each individual; whether he would prefer this shilling reduction per annum, or whether he would not rather, for his own benefit and advantage, prefer to pay the shilling more for his wheat, in order to retain the advantage of better wages and constant employment. This part of the subject was naturally connected with another, which, however, nothing that had fallen from the noble and learned Lord should induce him to mix up with the present discussion—namely, the new Poor-law, the consideration of which, as well as many other points, he should reserve till this subject came regularly before the House. The noble and learned Lord had talked much about the great increase of foreign manufactures. He was quite aware, that in many branches, and in some, too, which had not been mentioned by the noble and learned Lord, considerable manufactures had sprung up abroad, but did the noble and learned Lord suppose that even if the Legislature did lower the price of corn one shilling a quarter, this would enable our manufacturers to compete in all cases with those of foreign countries?
Lord Broughambegged to say he had not stated one shilling a quarter to be the reduction contemplated. He had put it hypothetically, and entirely for the sake of argument, "Suppose the reduction were 7s., or 5s., or even 1s., or even nothing at all." But he had not mentioned either 1s., or nothing at all, as the amount of the benefit he contemplated.
Earl Stanhoperesumed: The noble and earned Lord would admit, that even though he did speak hypothetically, he lad represented one shilling in the quarter as a great benefit to the people. Now le would contend, that in order to attain he object which the manufacturers pro-

553
fessed to have in view, to enable them to undersell the foreigner in his own market, the scale of prices and of wages must be reduced to the level of those on the continent; and be would contend further, that even if the scale were so equalised, our manufacturers would not succeed in underselling their foreign competitors in their own markets, and for this sufficient reason among others, in which he would retort the noble and learned Lord's argument upon himself:—Did the noble and learned Lord suppose, after all he had said of the great increase of manufactures in foreign countries, that the Governments of those countries would, in mere compliment to the political economy of Great Britain, or to gratify that inordinate grasping after gain which distinguished the manufacturers of this country—did be imagine they would allow that importation to take place into their states from Great Britain which would crush and extinguish their own manufactures? The noble and learned Lord had, most ingeniously and judiciously for his own purpose, sought to keep altogether from the view of their Lordships—had entirely abstained from any suggestions as to the modus operandi by which his object was to be attained; and in this the noble and learned Lord had acted wisely, for difficult, indeed, would it have been for him to point out any legislative enactment which could accomplish it. The noble and learned Lord had spoken as though the English manufacturers had a patent, a sort of exclusive right and privilege, to manufacture, not only for these islands and their extensive and populous colonies, but for the whole habitable globe, as though, even had foreign governments the impolicy, the insanity, to admit such a preposterous assumption, the subjects of these powers would have the baseness to submit to it. He was willing to grant any toleration for every variety of opinion when it was conscientiously entertained, and moderately expressed; but no words could express his abhorrence when he heard the false statements that had been put forward to the labouring classes on the subject of the Corn-laws, and which he knew in many districts were now suffering the most severe privations. The object was, to misrepresent the end in view, and to effect the abolition of Corn-laws; they were told, that it would only lower rent, and enable the labouring classes to procure and con-
554
sume a greater quantity of agricultural produce. He did not think, that any credit was due to any persons who could put forward such an opinion, knowing full well that it was fallacious; but he was willing to bestow some degree of commendation on a person who, at some meeting against the Corn-laws, boldly asserted, in defence of his opinion, that without the repeal of the Corn-laws, they never should be able to beat down the wages of labour sufficiently to enable them to compete with foreigners. This was the kind of measure that these persons had in view, and their ultimate object could only be obtained by means such as now proposed. They were told, that the manufacturers found it every day more and more difficult to compete with foreigners, but much of the evil was attributable to themselves; for he would on another occasion prove to the House from official documents, that from the end of the year 1834, to the end of August last year, a period of little more than three years and a half, there had been an increase in the machinery and cotton trade alone to the amount of fifty-three per cent. This obviously caused a factitious increase of produce, But what remedy did they propose, and in what way did they propose to benefit themselves? It was perfectly obvious, that they proposed to relieve themselves by an unscrupulous reduction of the wages of labour. By this means it was supposed that the profits of manufacturers would be increased. If this were so, what would be the result? Why, the manufactures of this country would be subjected in foreign markets to a higher duty than they bore at present. Therefore there would be little or no benefit to them. It would be tedious to follow the misstatements—unintentional, no doubt—of the noble and learned Lord as to the price of corn in foreign parts, and the price at various periods in the home market. The noble and learned Lord had alluded to a period when the price of corn was 35 s. or 36 s. a quarter; but if he would refer to official returns, he would find that a century before the period alluded to, namely in 1736, the average price of wheat was one shilling more. He would also find, that during the reigns of Queen Anne, Charles the 2nd, a part of the reign of Charles the 1st, and the end of James the 1st's reign, the average price of corn was not much lower than at pre-

555
sent; and though rents had increased, the average price of corn had not increased. But what were the practical results which the noble and learned Lord wished them to arrive at on any one of his categories? There were a great many other and important considerations on the subject, which he should have gone into, but which the noble and learned Lord had entirely overlooked. He had overlooked entirely the effect that would be produced on the labouring classes by the abolition of the Corn-laws. He might be asked, if there was a reduction in the price of corn, and a corresponding reduction in the wages of labour, what difference could it make to them, and what evil would result? But he would ask what good would it do them, and how then could it be said, that the labouring classes would be benefited? The noble and learned Lord said, that he did not choose to rest his argument on the advantage to the labouring classes; but what would become of the large body of the labouring classes, that would be thrown out of work in the agricultural districts? They would be exposed to all the horrors of distress and famine which they were not exposed to now. But there were other fundamental points that had been left out of consideration. Had the noble and learned Lord dwelt on any of the effects, that would be produced by a repeal of the Corn-laws on the state of Ireland? Pass this measure and the great agitator might cease altogether from his pursuits; he might dissolve the Precursor Society and his other associations, and remain comparatively inactive, for the effect of the measure which was now proposed for the benefit of the manufacturers would lead to a revolution in that country. Before he sat down he must say, that he was extremely disgusted at the attempts that had been made to reduce the constitutional authority of that House, which he should always be most zealous to assert. But if he did not allow the House of Commons as at present constituted had any right, he did not mean constitutional right, or any peculiar right— to maintain any peculiar judgment on this question—but if that House which called itself—but as now existing, falsely called itself, the sole representatives of the people—if that House passed any measure which would have the effect of reducing the wages of the labouring classes, and the labouring classes were
556
not represented in that House—he was sure that if an application were made to the House of Lords to agree to that measure, they would never be induced to do so. He could not see what advantage would result from examining evidence at the bar, as to the truth or falsehood of the abstract propositions involved in this subject. It certainly would not lead to any practical result, which could be beneficial to the manufacturing classes, and at the same time it would unsettle the minds of the agricultural interests of this country, and would make all classes discontented with the existing state of things. When the ulterior proposition came from the noble and learned Lord, or from one of his noble Friends, he should be prepared to state his opinion on it, and would undertake to show, that the change proposed must have an injurious effect on all classes of the community.
The Duke of Richmondwould not trouble the House with more than a very few observations. His noble and learned Friend had called upon them to hear evidence at the bar, as if this was a new subject, and one on which they had never heard any evidence before. If such had been the case, he could have understood the proposition of the noble and learned Lord; but he had been too long in Parliament not to know, that by hearing evidence, they would be holding out to the country an expectation that they intended to repeal these laws, or at least that they doubted the expediency of continuing the Corn-laws. He would not be a party to such a delusion, and be therefore would at once move the direct negative to the motion of the noble and learned Lord. The noble Lord had eloquently endeavoured to show them, that the interests and well-being of the agricultural interests was mixed up with those of the manufacturers. This he did not for a moment deny. The noble Lord also told the House of the loss that the manufacturers sustained in foreign markets; and that, notwithstanding all the improvements that had been made in machinery in this country, and the improvements in manufactures, foreigners were enabled to produce articles at a cheaper price than the people of this country; and that, therefore, our foreign trade was declining; but, in the first place, this was accounted for by the Legislature having allowed the exportation of the raw material; and, secondly,

557
because foreign countries were now at peace and enabled to attend to manufacturing industry. But the noble and learned Lord said nothing as to the effect of the repeal of the Corn-laws, on that most important, and indeed the best portion of the present consumers of English manufactures—he meant the home market. Again, if they succeeded in reducing the rate of wages of labour, all experience showed, that it would be to a much greater extent than the reduction in the price of corn. He asked, if the labourers got five shillings a-week less than at present, and could get their corn five shillings cheaper, what difference could it be to them? But if this were the case, the condition of the labouring classes, instead of being better, would be much worse than at present; as they would not get their clothes or other articles cheaper. The noble and learned Lord went further, and said, that it was for the interest of the agriculturists that they should repeal the Corn-laws, and that he did not think, that it would much lessen the price of bread. But was this said out of doors? Was it likely that they would be able to induce the labourers or the working men to sign the petitions for the total abolition of the Corn-laws, or indeed any classes but the mill-owners, if they were not told that the price of bread would be cheaper? For his own part, he believed, that the repeal of the Corn-laws would be attended with this result, that in many parts of the country a great portion of the land would go out of cultivation. If they repealed these laws, it would be impossible to collect the greater portion of the taxes that were paid now. Who paid the malt-tax, the land-tax, and many other taxes that he could name? Could it be denied, that they fell almost solely on the agricultural interest? and what other class in the community would submit to be taxed in this way? If, then, they repealed the Corn-laws, they must take off those burthens that now press on the agriculturists, so as to enable them to compete with foreigners. He repeated, that he knew many thousand acres that would be thrown out of cultivation if this measure passed; and if, under these circumstances, a year of dearth should happen, it would be a famine indeed, for he did not suppose they would compel the agriculturist to continue to cultivate the ground at a continued loss. He was surprised to hear, that the manufacturing in-
558
terest was at such a low ebb. If such were so, he should like to know how so much money was procured for so many railroads through all parts of the country, and when new docks were being made at Liverpool, and other places, and which were crowded with ships as soon as they could be got ready to receive them. When he observed this state of things, he could not believe that the manufacturing interest was at such a low ebb as some Gentlemen wished to make them believe. Under all the circumstances of the case, and knowing also how very unpopular a course it was to meet a motion by a direct negative, still he felt it to be his duty to the farmers of the country, and, above all, to the labouring classes, many thousands of whom would be thrown out of employ, if they repealed the Corn-laws, to meet the motion with a direct negative.
Viscount Melbourne: The noble and learned Lord has stated at the conclusion of his speech that it is his intention to submit a series of eight resolutions to the House, upon which a noble Friend of his hereafter intends to bring forward a motion. This is a most constitutional and a most parliamentary mode of proceeding—it is exactly the mode of proceeding that the noble and learned Lord ought to adopt. My wonder is, that the noble and learned Lord has adopted the present mode of proceeding in the first instance. I cannot help thinking, although the noble and learned Lord has delivered a speech of great power and eloquence, that he has brought forward this subject more in compliance with the wishes of others than in accordance with the suggestions of his own mind. The noble Lord is not convinced that it is absolutely necessary that we should go into this inquiry. The noble and learned Lord has made a very powerful appeal to your Lordships, at the same time I must say that, in the course of his speech, and more particularly at its commencement, he laboured a little. He did not speak with that spirit with which I have frequently heard him address your Lordships, when he had his own good sense as his advocate and assistant. The noble and learned Lord laboured under the disadvantage of his own accuracy, and his own certainty, and his own knowledge of the subject being arrayed against him. Because the more clear the facts he stated, the more certain the propositions he had laid down, the more obvious his reasonings and the more

559
decided his facts, the less ground is there for the inquiry he has proposed, and the less necessity has he proved for proceeding in the course which he has recommended. My Lords, I entirely agree with the noble and learned Lord, that I am sure this House would not decide on a question of this great importance—a question of such material and vital interest to all classes in this country and this community—a question in which such deep and general interest is felt, and which so materially affects them without full consideration, without a full hearing of all parties on the subject, and without a full consideration of all the arguments which can be adduced in order to influence your Lordships' determination. But then we are to hear them in the manner which may be best for the subject and for the petitioners themselves. Let us not throw in the way of that great and important question useless embarrassment and impediments by this inquiry at your Lordships' bar; for I declare, if I wished in any manner to defer or postpone the measure—if I wished to cast delay on and avoid a parliamentary discussion of the question—if I wished to perplex and puzzle it—if I wished to endeavour to embarrass it in an inextricable maze of conflicting facts and opinions, I don't know a better mode by which it could possibly be done than having this inquiry at the bar of your Lordships' House. What is that which the noble Lord has stated which we are to inquire into? What is there in the way of fact that is not either perfectly obvious, or that is not in itself so difficult of proof, that it is impossible to be ascertained? Is it not evident that we should be hereby involved in a mass of inquiry without aid or determination. The noble Lord says, we must engage in the inquiry unless we are prepared to admit, that all which has been stated is either obviously true or false, or perfectly immaterial. Is it because nothing has been stated which is immaterial—is it because nothing which has been stated is obviously false, but that much has been stated which is obviously true, and because a difference of opinion exists upon this subject, that we are to go into this inquiry? The question of these laws is not a new one—as the noble Duke says, they have been long sufficiently investigated and inquired into—it is not a new subject, but the whole question as to their operation, influence, and the conclu-
560
sions to be drawn from their effects, are known to your Lordships, and can be as well decided upon by yourselves as by hearing all the evidence that the noble and learned Lord proposes to have presented at your Lordships' bar. That would substitute inquiry for decision just at the moment we are ripe for the consideration of this subject in any way the noble and learned Lord may think proper to bring it forward. The result, then, of agreeing to the present motion will only be the delaying and impeding the business of the House, and leading them into imterminable disputes and inquiries involving a vast variety of subjects. In point of fact, the agreeing to this motion will be nothing more nor less than going into an inquiry of the whole House into the state of the nation, for it could not be confined to one subject, but the House must necessarily go into an investigation of the state of the commerce, the manufactures, and the agriculture of the country, and it would also involve them in many political inquiries. For, if evidence be produced on one side, we shall be obliged to hear evidence on the other side; and we shall thus be led into an inquiry which can be productive of no good, and which must produce a great waste of time, which would give no satisfaction to the country. Therefore, if the House do not consent to go into the inquiry this night, it will not be thought that it arises from any indisposition to hear evidence, or from a desire to avoid the subject, but from an intimate conviction, that the present motion has mistakenly been recommended, and that the object which the promoters of this motion desire may be better obtained in another manner than that proposed, and therefore I for one shall resist the proposition of hearing evidence at the bar of the House. I do not mean on the present occasion to go into the general argument of the Corn-laws. I have already stated it to be my opinion, that it is not so much new facts that we require as inferences from the facts that we now have, which we could consider and determine on without having any further evidence. Upon the general question, it is not my intention to go into any argument on the present occasion. The noble Lord has mentioned a great many facts, but the whole of his speech consisted not so much of the statement of the facts to be inquired into, as it did in inferences from those

561
facts and opinions to be derived from them—opinions which your Lordships can here consider and determine upon without any further evidence. Undoubtedly, the noble Lord urged a great many statements very forcibly. I do not agree with many of the opinions he has professed on this occasion. At the same time in a great deal of what the noble Lord has said, no one can but concur. The noble Lord adverted among other things to the tampering with the currency, which he says, has been the cause of many evils to this country, and which he says, took place during the great revolutionary war, in which this country was engaged in the course of the last century. Unquestionably, that tampering with, and depreciating of, that currency was of great consequence. But when that is talked of, we must recollect, that no country furnishes any history, of any example, of going through such changes without experiencing. something of that nature. The noble Lord said, the return to the metallic standard was made with too much haste and too much violence; I remember the predictions very well, but I thought it right then, and still think it right, to have acceded to that measure. My Lords, my experience at that time has made me a little shy as to such experiments, and I know not the effect of the measure which the noble and learned Lord proposes, and I shall be very cautious before I take another such leap in the dark, utterly ignorant of what I am doing. The noble and learned Lord, towards the end of his speech, made some very wise and prudent observations, and which he himself adhered to through the course of his speech, which, indeed, was characterised throughout by great temper and moderation and judgment—I mean the observations in which he alluded to the impropriety of drawing comparisons and distinctions between one class of the community and another. But the noble and learned Lord, after making these observations, was pleased to make some allusions to a noble Friend of mine, in which he stated, that the opinion that my noble Friend formerly expressed was different from that that he now held with respect to the Corn-laws, and that my noble Friend had also made some allegations as to the superiority of the agricultural classes over the manufacturing population, as regarded their morality. Considering the variety of opinions that have
562
been expressed on the subject of the Clornlaws—the many changes of opinion that have taken place among the most eminent men on this subject—I think that it is no disgrace to my noble Friend, if the variety of facts, and observations, and arguments that have been adduced on this subject within the last few years, should have produced a different effect on his mind, and have led to some change in the opinion he formerly entertained. With respect to the greater respectability and moral superiority of the agricultural population over the inhabitants of manufacturing towns, I will only observe, that this was the opinion of Adam Smith, and therefore it was no disgrace on the part of my noble Friend to have said so, or have committed this fault, if fault it were. The noble and learned Lord has, no doubt, drawn a very splendid picture, with all that eloquence, and with all that great power that he possesses, of the rise of prosperity of this country in 1771, and its progress which has now brought us to the present acme. Now, I believe that the Corn-laws were passed about that period.
Lord Brougham: The present act was not passed until many years afterwards.
Viscount Melbourne: But an act of the same character, and founded on the same principle, was passed about the period I allude to. That act gave protection to the home-grower of corn, and that was the period from which the rising prosperity of the country dates. I do not argue, however, that the system of Corn-laws was the cause of the prosperity of the country, but I think, that it did not very seriously impede or prevent that prosperity. With respect to the extent to which foreign corn could be supplied, or what were the prices at which it could be imported here, these were questions which could only be decided by experience, and all inquiries on the subject would only leave us just where we were. This was also the case with regard to the questions as to the rich lands in Pomerania, Volhynia and the Ukraine, and as to whether or not these were situated in impenetrable forests through which there were no roads, the evidence could not he of a very satisfactory nature, or of a character on which they could very much rely. Allusions had been made to the state of foreign manufactures; no doubt they had greatly advanced, and the prosperity of many had much increased during the long period of peace; many of them,

563
however, formerly existed in a most thriving condition, and in many instances, also, the continental manufacturers possessed advantages for carrying on their operations not inferior to those possessed by the manufacturers of this country. Whether in many instances the continental manufacturers had been raised and been enabled to carry on their trade by the help of the Corn-laws of this country, they had no facts within their grasp at present by which they could arrive at a satisfactory conclusion. I admit, as I did on a former occasion, that the state of our Corn-laws and of our timber laws materially affects us in our negotiations with foreign nations, whenever questions of reciprocity are the subject of them. Their effect is an answer we are met with on all such occasions. But this by no means proves—on the contrary, I very much doubt the fact—that our Corn-laws have been the means of raising up the manufactures of foreign nations. Still less is it proved, or established as a consequence, that if we repeal our Corn-laws the effect will be to throw down the manufacturing system that has been by some means or other raised up abroad. Such a result would be more than ever doubtful and incapable of proof if a repeal of those laws were conceded to the mere feelings and wishes of the people, instead of proceeding from a deliberate conviction of their partial and repressive operation on trade. My Lords, I had not intended to say so much. I had intended to confine myself to the mere question of whether or not evidence should be heard at your Lordships' bar on this question—a course which I think useless, prejudicial, and disadvantageous to the objects of even the promoters of the opposition to the Corn-laws. While I was, a short time since, absent from the House, I understand, that the noble Duke (the Duke of Buckingham) declared, that the agricultural interest could not have much confidence in a Government which declined to take up a question of such importance as this. The noble and learned Lord also, on a recent occasion, indulged in some severe strictures and animadversions upon what he declared to be the impropriety of Government avowing a division of opinion in the Cabinet on great questions, making them in fact what are called open questions. I would advise the noble and learned Lord not to adopt this
564
doctrine too hastily, as it would go to condemn much that has passed, and to render many future operations difficult, and many great questions utterly impracticable. I know, that all the argument goes on one side of this question. I know it is a question on which much eloquence may be expended, also on one side; but, my Lords, it is a question as to which all the practical sense, all the utility is on the other side. I know there is much in what the noble Lord said as to governments not making up their minds on questions of public right—that it is a vile thing to sacrifice great principles to the mere keeping a government together. I should have thought, however, that the noble and learned Lord's experience would have taught him, that to keep the Government together is very necessary, though at some times not very easy. Some years ago I should not have been surprised at this declaration of principle on the part of the noble and learned Lord, but knowing, that the noble and learned Lord has been since then a Cabinet Minister, I confess I am surprised, that he should express himself so adverse to keeping a Government in office by a partial sacrifice of opinion on the part of some or all of its Members. When we recollect, too, that Lord Liverpool's Government, a Government which lasted from 1812 to 1827, which conducted the country to the end of the greatest war in which she ever was engaged, and also through the unparalleled difficulties of the peace that followed—a Government which, on the very measure that was during those years most the object of the national attention and most in dispute, and which therefore most demanded the attention of the Government as a Government—I think, that the noble and learned Lord is a little too premature in his declaration—that all open questions are discreditable, always prejudicial, and always to be avoided. The noble and learned Lord said, he had always viewed such things with disgust; but I was engaged for many years with the noble and learned Lord on a great question, one on which the same division occurred in the opinions of the Ministers, yet on those occasions I never heard any expression of disgust whatsoever fall from the noble Lord. I remember, we were always very glad to have the support of those who agreed with us, and that we were always very much offended with those who were against us; but I do

565
not remember, that we ever thought it necessary to express, or that we entertained, any disgust as to the practice he alludes to. My Lords, I do say, considering the difference of opinion that exists on this question—considering the manner in which it affects various great interests, that it is one of those which, in my opinion, may as well be left for the impartial and unbiassed decision of Parliament, as any other that can possibly be conceived. I have nothing further to say, my Lords, on the present motion. On the general question I trust your Lordships will think it unnecessary for me to enter.
The Duke of Wellingtonhoped, that the utmost attention would be paid by their Lordships to the exhortation with which the noble and learned Lord commenced his speech—to the arguments which had been advanced in the course of the debate, and that they would do everything in their power to come to such a decision as might be most consistent, not with the interests of one class or of another class, but with the interests of the community at large. The noble and learned Lord, in addressing their Lordships upon this subject, certainly appeared to him, as he had also appeared to the noble Viscount, to have particularly avoided that part of the subject which related to the proper and technical question before their Lordships—namely, the mode of inquiry which he proposed to the house to adopt. That mode of inquiry he believed to be entirely without precedent. He did not believe, that there was an instance to be found of a committee of the whole House being moved for to receive petitions and to take them into consideration by the examination of witnesses at the Bar of their Lordships' House. He did not think there was a single instance upon record of such a proceeding, and positively convinced he was, that the present was a case in which, above all others, they should refuse to establish such a precedent. A precedent they had, certainly, in the other House of Parliament; but he thought he should be able to show to their Lordships, that they would be wrong in following it. He would here observe, that he quite agreed with the noble Duke who had spoken from the cross Bench, when he said, that they ought not to consent to the proposed inquiry solely on the ground that they should not encourage the notion, that they intended to make
566
any concessions upon the main question when brought fairly under their consideration. The noble and learned Lord had gone no further on the subject of inquiry than to state with what view that inquiry was to be directed. He was prepared, he said, to prove such and such points, by the examination of witnesses at the Bar of their Lordships' House, in case their Lordships consented to receive evidence on the subject; but the noble and learned Lord had not said one word to show that such would be a proper course for their Lordships to adopt. The precedent to which he referred, in the other House of Parliament, arose upon a petition respecting a great public question, upon which petition an inquiry was had by a Committee of the whole House. The result of that petition had been held out to the public as an inducement to urge the adoption of a similar mode of inquiry upon this question. He was quite certain, however, that the noble and learned Lord did not intend that a similar mode of proceeding should be adopted in that House with the view of producing the same ends. He felt so the more particularly when he referred to a history of that transaction, which had been recently published, showing the mode and object of the proceeding—an object which he believed would be found to be the object of those persons out of doors who now insisted upon a similar mode of inquiry. By that history, of which he held an extract in his hand, the noble Viscount would perceive that be was wrong in supposing that delay would be the consequence; that, on the contrary, the inquiry would be accelerated as much as possible by the adoption of such a course, and that the results would be rendered quite certain by clamour rather than by calm and fair investigation even in that House: He would read what the history to which he alluded said upon the subject, and from which their Lordships would at once see how impossible it would be to adopt such a mode of inquiry, more particularly upon a subject of such great importance, and in which such vital interests were involved. It stated, "that on the 20th of April, 1812, the House agreed without a division to hear evidence in support of the petition; that the inquiry on the side of the petitioners was wholly conducted by two Members; that each night presented new operations, new defeats to the orders in

567
council, new advantages from the Opposition by incidental debates on petitions presented, by discussions arising on the evidence tendered, and by other matters broached occasionally in connexion with the main subject; that the Government at first conceiving and hoping, that the clamour raised out of doors against their policy would subside, endeavoured to gain time and put off the hearing of the evidence; but that the party anxious for inquiry kept steadily to their purpose, and insisted upon calling in witnesses at the earliest possible hour; that they at length prevailed so far as to have it understood, that the hearing of evidence should proceed daily, at half-past four o'clock, and continue at least until ten, by which means they generally kept it on foot till a much later hour, all but those who took a particular interest in the proceedings having previously left the House." In that case they had to do with the orders in Council and an act of the Government; but here they had to deal with an Act of Parliament. Possibly that might have been a regular proceeding where it took place; but in their Lordships' House it certainly would not be so, for there was no precedent to sanction it. He likewise contended, contrary to the opinion of the noble Viscount, that such a proceeding would be one, not of delay, but one of celerity and force. He, however, entreated their Lordships not to lose time upon this question; he entreated them to consider it upon each and all of the grounds stated by the noble and learned Lord, and to come as speedily as possible to such a decision as would, according to the best of their judgments, be consistent with the public interest at large. He had always regarded it as one of the most important questions that could come under their Lordships' consideration. The origin of the existing Corn-laws might be traced, as was stated by the noble Viscount opposite, to so distant a period as 1773; but the object of those laws most undoubtedly was, as enacted in the year 1804, to give protection to the agricultural interests of the country. Our agriculture, therefore, had enjoyed that protection for the last thirty-five years—a fact which was alone a sufficient reason for proceeding with great caution to make any alterations which could interfere with interests which extended over such a vast portion of the country, and which, it
568
might indeed be said, affected all classes of her Majesty's subjects. Many persons no doubt, were of opinion, that an alteration should be made from a shifting duty, as it was called, to a permanent duty. But let it be recollected that, the reduction of that permanent duty, even a trifle too much might involve the country in the utmost difficulty by rendering the cultivation of the soil impossible, and thereby ruining a vast class of industrious and, at present, happy people. If, by any misfortune, they were to make such a mistake, it was impossible to say what might be the extent of the alteration, nay of the revolution of property which would follow. It was very easy to calculate, as the noble and learned Lord had done, the consequence to the consumer of the loss of 7s. or 5s. or of 1s. upon the price of a quarter of wheat; but if the noble and learned Lord would look to what had taken place between the year 1814 and year 1822, and from that year down to the year 1828 when this Bill was passed, he would find that a very small importation of corn into this country had, at different times, produced very extensive distress amongst the agricultural interests; that that importation sometimes occasioned by a rise of price, at other times by the interference of Government and again by other circumstances, had so affected those interests, that Parliament was at length obliged to adopt the principle upon which the existing law was founded. He firmly believed, that they could not change that law without incurring the risk of imposing upon the agriculture of the country the greatest possible innovation, the inevitable consequence of which would be distress, if not absolute ruin, from an extensive revolution of property. The law was originally established to give protection to agriculture, and without that protection it could not be prosperous. The noble and learned Lord had taken great pains to prove, that the law had not ensured a uniformity of price. He confessed that he could not see how a uniformity of price was to be ensured in any country, upon a commodity, the price of which must necessarily vary with the produce. In this country the produce varied in price, sometimes to double the amount. It was quite impossible to provide against a fall in price when there was an increase of produce. The noble and learned Lord said he would pick out particular days of particular

569
years at which the price of corn had been enormously high; but if he were to view that part of the subject upon a wider basis, from the passing of the present law, for instance, to the year 1835, he would find that the fluctuations, except in the last year, had been very trifling indeed. Taking the average price of the year 1828, he would find that it was 64 s. 6d.; of 1829, 67 s. 6d.; of 1830, 66 s. 10 d.; of 1831, 72 s.; of 1832, 61 s. 2d.; of 1833, 66 s. 5d.; of 1834, 54 s. 9d.; and of 1835, 42 s. 3d. the average of those ten years being 56 s. 4d. He therefore said, that the present law had brought the price as nearly as it was possible to a steady mark. The noble and learned Lord had made an assertion which appeared to him, from the papers he held in his hand, and to which he would call the attention of their Lordships, rather extraordinary. The noble and learned Lord had said that one of the consequences of the present law was to destroy the trade. Now, he begged to inform the noble and learned Lord, that in the twenty years which elapsed from the year 1815 to 1835, there were imported from foreign countries into Great Britain, under the different laws, 8,428,589 quarters of wheat, making an average of 401,361 quarters a year. The importation even upon the average was very considerable; but in years of scarcity it was enormous. In 1829, for instance, it amounted to 1,000,029 quarters; in 1830, to 1,000,493 quarters; and in 1831, to 1,000,034 quarters. Talk of the destruction of trade having been effected by the measure in question, another interesting result appeared from this paper. Not only was the measure proved to be beneficial in respect of the trade in corn, but it was also shown to have operated very advantageously with regard to the trade in corn with Ireland. It appeared that from 1815 to 1835, a period of twenty years, 6,585,242 quarters were imported into this country from Ireland, being an average of 313,518 annually. This average had been increased in latter years. In 1830 the quantity thus imported was 515,888 quarters; in 1831, 552,740 quarters. The Act, therefore appeared to have effected all the purposes for which it was framed, increasing not only the trade in corn, but increasing' its growth in Ireland. Besides this quantity of wheat, there was 394,695 cwt. of foreign flour imported, while there was not
570
less than 6,394,065 cwt. imported from Ireland; so that the measure appeared to have increased rather than repressed the trade in wheat. He would now proceed to make an observation on the complaints which had been made by the noble Lord with respect to the misfortune of the merchant to whom he had alluded as having imported a large quantity of wheat which, in consequence of the fall in the market, and the consequent rise in the duty, he was obliged to place in bond, where the expense of keeping it ultimately exceeded its value. According to the noble Lord's own statement, the merchant brought the corn to this country at an expense, including freight and insurance, of 42 s. per quarter. [Lord Brougham—47 s.] The cost of the grain per quarter on its arrival in port was 47 s. and the merchant expected to get at least 72 s. for it, the duty, at the period of his effecting the purchase, being only 1s. a quarter. Now, that was a tolerably good speculation. The Gentleman would have made the difference between 47 s. and 72 s. had the speculation succeeded. The speculation, however, did not answer; the price fell and the duty rose. Most probably the price had fallen in the same way as it had done during the last few weeks; and if so he might have sold at a very moderate loss.
Lord Brougham. The fact was this, that the ports were shut by the price having fallen, while the grain was on the seas, and upon its reaching port it became liable to a duty of 22 s. 8d. per quarter.
The Duke of Wellington.Then it must have been a very long time on the passage. No doubt, the merchant would, according to the statement of the noble and learned Lord, have incurred a loss; but he certainly did intend to make a good thing of it, and under the circumstances it was not at all unreasonable, that he should be expected to submit to the loss in which his speculation ended. The question should be taken into consideration on general grounds and with a view to the benefit of all classes in the community, not of particular interests. It was impossible, that this great change could take place without a repeal of many of those charges (as had been remarked by the noble Duke on the cross bench) which the landed interests were now groaning under. He was of opinion, that the agricultural prosperity of a great country like this should be carefully fostered; and he

571
must honestly recommend to their Lordships not to withdraw from it their warm encouragement. Let them never forget, that in the course of the last thirty-five years, during which the agricultural interests of this country had met with that encouragement, not only had they brought that great war to which the noble Viscount had referred to its termination, but had found their way out of the greatest misfortune which, he thought, had occurred during that war—he alluded to the alteration in the currency. They had paid off (by paying off the interest) 100,000,000 l. of debt, and they had reduced the taxes to an enormous amount—he was afraid to say how much; and they had only to persevere as they had done in that course, by which they would eventually find themselves extricated from the difficulties of the moment by which they might be surrounded.
Lord Broughamthought it necessary to correct one or two very great mistakes which had been fallen into by some of the noble Lords that had addressed their Lordships. Their Lordships seemed as if they did not wish to hear the reply, but they must and should hear it, whether they liked it or not. That was nothing to the House of Commons. He was glad to hear the noble Duke's statement as to the felicitous situation in which this country was placed after a war of unprecedented extent. The noble Duke had talked about having off a hundred millions of the debt. There could be no doubt, that the taking off the interest relieved the burthens of the people, but they could not take credit for paying off so large an amount. The noble Duke had also talked about the reduction of taxation. It was true, that a very great amount of taxes had been taken off, and during the time that the noble Duke was in power and those with with whom he was associated, the Ministers had taken off some millions in the income tax alone. The noble Viscount at the head of her Majesty's Government had stated, that he had a bad case because he was so dull in his statements. It would have been very extraordinary for him to have been otherwise. The noble Viscount said, he did not argue the cause with the warmth with which he usually did any case that he took an interest in. Now he must tell that noble Viscount that he was extremely mistaken if he thought there was any want of argument
572
on his part from a disinclination to enter upon the subject. If his argument were dull, it was from the nature of the subject upon which he was arguing. It was an exceedingly dull subject, and one that was extremely difficult, and required a great deal of statement and facts, which were of themselves dull in their nature. He saw that their Lordships were not over-willing to hear him, and that he had rather an ungrateful task to perform; but that task, however ungrateful, he was determined to accomplish. If he had not taken the lively views one noble Lord had taken, not so humorous, not so droll, but as comfortable to himself, as easy to himself, for nothing was easier in dealing with a subject than to pass it over on one side—and it was easy in proportion as it would be difficult to discuss it, and it was just as natural in proportion as their Lordships felt not very able to deal with it, and these things altogether tended to get the noble Lord out of the difficulty, instead of enabling him to put an end to it. Now, as to what the noble Duke had addressed to himself, his noble Friend and the noble Viscount above all had most egregiously misunderstood his statements, when they said he did not apply himself to the matter which he was bringing before the House, namely, whether evidence should be heard. He really thought he had usque ad nauseam, said, that he offered to prove his case by evidence. That was the whole burden of his song'. How could any person argue in favour of receiving evidence more strongly than by saying here are important facts which bear on the question, which are material to the question, which go to decide the question—they are not impossible of proof—you admit the materiality of them, you admit the truth but won't allow me to prove the truth. That was the most complete non sequitur he ever heard. But, said his noble Friend, we all agree, more or less, as to the facts, but not as to the conclusions. But the noble Duke, and the noble Viscount, at another part of his speech, when he had forgotten the first part—every one of their Lordships indeed, denied the facts on which he relied. There was a no less difference than this. He said, they could not import wheat from Dantzig under 46 s. or 97 s. Now that was very important. His noble Friend opposite said, that he was ready to prove

573
that not to be the case. He was ready to prove that he was right. Now, said the noble Viscount behind him (Lord Melbourne), you are at issue upon an important fact decisive of the question. And what was the conclusion to which the noble Viscount vaulted in his buoyant manner? Why, that they should not be allowed to examine witnesses on one side or the other, but make the "aye" of one side pair off with the "no" of the other, Now his statement was made from the average of fifty years at Dantzic, and his witnesses were ready to prove, that on that average, wheat could not be bought at Dantzic for less than 36 s., nor be brought here for less than 10 s. The noble Duke said, that it would not do to hear evidence at the bar, that it was not customary for that House. He never heard it denied that the House was competent to call evidence before it to satisfy itself upon any subject. The noble Duke said, and their Lordships were excessively merry, and he was sorry that he had interrupted their pleasantry, that it was neither more nor less than a gambling traffic, and that a person wanted to make 40 per cent, profit, whereas in a wholesome trade they would be satisfied with a moderate profit. Then the noble Duke said, it must have been a very long voyage, otherwise the transaction could not have happened; and then their Lordships were delighted. It was a voyage of ten days, and as the average was taken every week, one week was enough to make the price come down. If they doubted these facts, he was ready with evidence to prove them at the bar of the House. The noble Viscount said, that two lines had been taken, and that it was very difficult to steer between them. The noble Viscount wished to hear the whole matter fairly, but he feared its lasting too long, and interrupting the business of the House. What business? What House? Were they in the House of Commons? Why, they had no business here, but the business of going to their dinners, for he never saw any business done in this House until the last week of the Session. Then the noble Viscount came to what he called the delicate part of the question. The noble Viscount said, that he was surprised that he bail lost all recollection of the use of open questions, and the difficulty of keeping together a Government; and upon that he was very merry, and their Lordships joined him in
574
his pleasantry. He did not remember any particular difficulties to which the noble Viscount had alluded, and which had made him so merry. The noble Viscount said, that he knew what difficulties there were. Now he proposed that he did not, that he had not, the remotest guess—he could not fancy or divine what it was; but then he knew, that his noble Friend on the bench opposite, was most correct in stating, upon a late occasion, there was no open question made of the Corn-laws, for he never heard it said, until it was repeated elsewhere, that the Corn-laws had been made an open question. He felt it disagreeable not to take the part which he wished to take, and complained to one or two of his colleagues, for his opinions had been very strong on the subject. Not one word did he say precisely, because he thought it was not an open question. He never knew, to this hour, that it was an open question. He could not tax his memory with any such thing as an open question. He denied, that there was any. It was indeed possible—indeed they had seen the practice—that one Minister might be at one side of an open question, and another at the other, and yet that both should keep together. The noble Viscount had said a good deal about the difficulty of keeping Governments together. Now, since he had ceased to be connected with Governments, he had seen much more of its difficulty. There were various acts and schemes for keeping a Government together. One way was to turn out one Member to keep the rest in; he believed that had recently been practised in a certain Cabinet, which he should not name. Another plan was, for all the Members to cling together like the bundle of the rods in the fable, that the weakness of one might be helped by the strength of the others. All these systems he had learned since he had ceased to be connected with a Government, and the result of his observation had induced him rather to envy the twig that had left the bundle than any one of those that were linked in connexion. He admitted, that much had been done by the Government upon the reservation of open questions. He agreed with the noble Government, that there was a great excuse in respect of the Catholic question, for here the great object was to carry the war to a successful termination. Still, if this question had been brought to a crisis in 1814 or 1816, and had been

575
settled one way or another, he thought it would have been infinitely better for the question itself and for the people of England, and for the country in general. In speaking on one point the noble Lord looked exceedingly sly—indeed he (Lord Brougham) had never seen him look so sly—he had looked unutterable things; but his words, after all, were but blunted tools, when the sweetness of his countenance was regarded. He must repeat, that the conduct of the Government of the day, in leaving the Catholic question an open one, was most disgraceful, although he was nevertheless most grateful for the support he had received from one part of the Government, as it was better to have half with him than the whole against him. Still he then severely censured the practice of one member of a ministry voting black what a colleague voted white—of one rising up in his place to contradict the arguments which another had advanced. It would have been much more honest—more manly and more becoming for them to have acted all upon one side. He (Lord Brougham) thought after this statement, it would be admitted that all the pleasantry which his noble Friend had indulged in at his expense, ought to have been paid for out of some other persons pockets. Nothing could be more delusive than the statement of the noble Viscount that he had asserted that the repeal of the Corn-laws would only have the effect of reducing the poor man's bread tax to the amount of 1s. per head, or 4s. or 5s. per year for each member of a family. Now he had said that it would go much further, but he assumed the reduction at only 1s. knowing that the fears of the farmer and the hopes of the manufacturer as to the effects of a repeal were exaggerated. He had even referred to a reduction of 7s,—but even a reduction of only 1s. would be a great deal, as there was a tax paid by every one who ate bread. As for the working classes, his noble Friend had spoken in an honest and sincere manner; and his noble Friend opposite (Earl Stanhope) had done himself honour in stating that the interests of that body should be the principal object in discussing the question. He thought it was an exaggeration to state that wages would be reduced to so great an extent by the repeal of the Corn-laws, for wages were not regulated by the price of provisions, but the relation between the demand for
576
labour and the supply. No doubt provisions had their effect upon the value of labour, but they operated in a round about manner for they increased population, and thus diminished the price of labour. But even if wages should be reduced, the labourers would find abundant compensation in having commodities cheap, even if an increase of the population were to follow. It was a great delusion to say, that the workmen were not quite as much, and in the long-run perhaps more interested in the repeal of the Corn-laws than the masters. My Lords, concluded the noble and learned Lord, these are my explanations. If you refuse to hear evidence admitting the facts proposed to be proved, I have nothing to do but to move my resolutions, which must then of course be assented to. But if my motion is this night rejected on the pretexts, I cannot call them reasons, which have been urged, I must confer with my noble Friends who think with me on the course to be hereafter adopted. The noble Duke (Wellington) has discussed the subject with great calmness and gravity, and the noble Viscount (Melbourne) has expressed his sentiments with candour and firmness. I have also been complimented on the fairness with which I have brought forward the question. It would have been strange were it otherwise; for I have no interest whatever—no feeling but the desire to do my duty. And I must say, that he will utter a gross falsehood who shall declare that your Lordships considered the subject with anything like levity, or trifling, or indifference; or that you have not given it a patient hearing. I wish your Lordships' opinions had been otherwise. But I have said all I can in favour of my proposition, I have heard no good reason against it; and whether I divide the House must depend upon your Lordships.
Question negatived.