§ Lord Monteaglerose, pursuant to notice, to bring under their Lordships' consideration a question of no common magnitude. But before he applied himself to the question itself, he was anxious to set himself right with their Lordships with respect to the time which he had fixed for the discussion of it. He could assure their Lordships, with perfect earnestness and perfect sincerity, that he had felt no want of anxiety with respect to the presence of his noble Friend the President of the Board of Trade (the Earl of Ripon); and unless he were controlled by other circumstances which he deemed most essential to the beneficial discussion of the great question he had undertaken, he should most willingly have postponed it to a future day. He had already postponed it more than once, at the request of the noble Lords opposite, and of their request he did not complain; he wished it however to be distinctly understood that if he persisted in bringing it forward that night, it was not from any motive of convenience either personal to himself or to his political friends, but simply and solely because he was convinced that a further postponement would be injurious to the question itself, which he was bound to regard as of primary importance. Much as he regretted the absence of his noble Friend the President of the Board of Trade, he yet could not persuade himself that the question, on that account, would fail of being discussed in the manner which its importance deserved; for he perfectly recollected that the Act of 9 Geo. 4th, (which had been the law of the land, prior to the passing of the act of last year), was carried through 780 their Lordships' House by the noble Duke (Duke of Wellington) himself; not only without the assistance of the noble Lord, who was now the President of the Board of Trade, but, to a certain degree, at least subject to the opposition of that noble Lord. He felt, therefore, that upon the present occasion the question would not suffer any disadvantage; but on the contrary, would derive the greatest benefit from being left in the hands of the noble Duke, the representative of the Government in that House. If the absence of other noble Peers were referred to, he could not proceed without stating that he very deeply felt the absence upon that occasion of a noble Friend of his, to whom those who sat with him on the Opposition benches had been accustomed to look up for counsel and advice; and if upon any occasion the presence of that noble Lord were deemed of importance, it could never be more so than upon a discussion like that which he was about to introduce. He might mention, however, that the motion he meant to submit to their Lordships had been brought under the notice of his noble Friend, and had received his full concurrence. In asking their Lordships to embark in a discussion upon the question of the Corn-laws, he regretted that they were obliged to approach it subject to the disadvantage to which the political events of later years had given rise. The proposition he was about to make did not necessarily involve any party consideration. A more simple proposition—one more entirely connecting itself with the principles of financial and commercial law, could scarcely be presented to their Lordships. It was but a few nights since that they had had occasion to consider the question of the Irish spirit duties. He believed that no noble Lord who took part in that discussion considered it as a question between the two sides of the House. The only consideration that governed them was, how the object sought for might most readily be attained. Such, also, was the spirit in which the Corn-laws had been discussed in former times; but, unfortunately, of late years the question had become mixed up with the party feelings of the country, and the words, "sliding scale "and "fixed duty," were considered by many men to be as strong indications of party, as whether noble Lords sat on this or on the other side of the House. There was never a greater or more unfortunate mistake, in reference to the great interests of the 781 country, than this conversion of the Corn-laws into a party question. There was nothing more important or more necessary towards a satisfactory adjustment and settlement of the question, than that it should be approached in a calm and dispassionate manner. Looking back to the history of Corn-law discussions, it would appear that they had, to a certain extent, been characterised by features of calmness, which he should rejoice to recognize in the debates on the subject of the present day. Without going further back than 1815, he found that in the vehement discussion which then took place upon the Corn-laws, the question was considered in every other light rather than as partaking of a party character. The late Earl of Leicester and several others connected with the opposition of that day were amongst the strongest supporters of the Government measure; and, if his recollection did not greatly deceive him, one of the individuals who took a prominent part in opposing the bill of 1815 was the late Mr. George Rose, who at that time was treasurer of the navy, and consequently in immediate connection with the Government. Again, in 1822, when the Act of 1815 was condemned, there was a similar absence of anything like party feeling in the discussion which then took place, Lord Londonderry taking one side of the question, and Mr. Huskisson moving a counter resolution. Undoubtedly matters afterwards assumed a different aspect, when in 1827 Mr. Canning introduced his bill, and from that time might be dated the unfortunate state of things which had since connected the subject of the Corn-laws with the great party questions of the day. This unfortunate result had been completed by the last change of administration, and the events of the general election. His object in thus referring to what the practice in former times had been, was to impress upon their Lordships how sincerely anxious he was to consider this question as wholly abstracted from any party consideration whatever; to consider it as if he were discussing the duty on any other article—as if he were discussing a question of economical science, or of commercial law, bearing upon any other branch of industry, and as if party strife and party consistency were not in any way connected with the proposition. Before he proceeded further, he wished to set aside certain considerations with which, perhaps, his proposition might be sought to 782 be identified in the course of the debate, but which had, in fact no connection with it. In the first place, he protested altogether against any attempt to connect the motion which he should offer to their Lord ships with the proceedings of certain parties out of doors, who were called the Anti-Corn-law League. With those parties his motion had no earthly connection. He believed that it would not meet the views of many of them; but, at all events, it was perfectly distinct and separate from the Anti-Corn-law League, and no argument derived from the proceedings of that body could, or ought, in any degree, to influence their Lordships' judgment upon the present occasion. But, perhaps, he might take the liberty of asking in passing—Was there no apprehension derived from the existence of the Anti-Corn-law League? Did their Lordships disapprove of so large a confederacy extending over the whole country, collecting money, disseminating information to further its own views, exercising a wide and general influence over the minds of men? Did their Lord ships disapprove of this kind of proceeding? If so, then he (Lord Monteagle) must remark, that if there were any one step that their Lordships could take that would more add to the influence of those who sought extreme measures, it would be by the rejection of propositions which were moderate and reasonable in themselves. It was not for him to pronounce whether the proposition he was about to make was moderate and reasonable; but this he would take upon himself to say, that if in the minds of the mass of the public it should appear reasonable and moderate to ask their Lordships to consider the effects of a bill which they had recently passed, and which affected the interest of the great bulk of the community—if such a proposition were considered reasonable, and their Lordships rejected it, then their Lordships would be doing more to countenance, more to support, more to encourage extreme opinions, than could possibly be done by any other course that could be adopted. He prayed their Lordships to consider that associations similar to that of the Anti-Corn-law League were not peculiar to the present or to any one particular time. The Legislature had had to encounter them upon former occasions and in reference to other subjects; and, as far as his knowledge went, the Legislature had never found any mode of dealing with the questions, so forced upon its attention, so 783 effectual for putting down associations of this nature as that of removing the causes which had led to them. He wished also to protect himself from the supposition that, in dealing with this question, he was giving encouragement to any very exaggerated expectations with respect to the result which an alteration of the law would produce upon the price of corn. He recommended their Lordships to go into committee to consider whether an alteration of the law should not take place; but he should be acting uncandidly if he did not say that he considered that any alteration that might be made in the law regulating the introduction of foreign corn into this country, would have but little effect in reducing the price of grain in the British market. But though the price of grain were not reduced, a great benefit to the community would nevertheless be obtained; because the great benefit to be sought for in respect to this subject, was not so much the lowering of the price, as the ensuring such a steadiness of price as would do justice to all parties—the grower of corn, the consumer of corn, the British merchant, his foreign correspondent, the Bank of England, and all classes of the community. It had been said (this was an example of the exaggeration which he only referred to for the purpose of disclaiming) that a given amount of duty placed upon a commodity which was partly produced abroad and partly produced at home, would have the effect of raising the whole price of the commodity in the amount of the duty which was imposed. A more singular mistake, a more totally incorrect application of a scientific principle, it was scarcely possible for any one to encounter. Suppose, for instance, that the quantity of corn annually consumed in this country amounted to 12,000,000 of quarters—that of that 12,000,000, 2,000,000 were imported from abroad, that upon the 2,000,000 so imported a duty of 5s.a quarter was levied, the gross amount of duty so levied would be 500,000l."But," said the parties to whose views he was referring, "you must multiply the 5s. duty, not by the 2,000,000 of quarters, but by the 12,000,000 of quarters, and thus it will be seen that there is a duty imposed upon the corn consumed in this country not of 500,000? but of 3,000,000l. sterling." It was utterly absurd to suppose that any such result could take place. The consumer could only pay this duty by an increase of price, and such increase of 784 price could only be produced by a limitation of the supply. If the demand and the supply remained unaltered, the price would continue the same. It was a contradiction to the most obvious facts which any man who directed his attention to the subject might collect for himself. He referred to these exaggerations merely for the purpose of repudiating them. He wished also to explain to their Lordships the exact sense in which he should employ the term "free-trade" in the arguments he was about to advance. By what was called freedom of trade, he was not absurd or inconsiderate enough to suppose that a freedom from all duty was necessarily implied. No such thing. If that were the case, no country upon earth that had a revenue to raise could possess freedom of trade. True freedom of trade was perfectly consistent with the payment of any amount of duty (properly apportioned) levied for the purpose of revenue. It was also perfectly consistent with any countervailing duty, which was laid on for the purpose of affording protection to any one class which was subject to burthens that did not belong to other classes of the community. The English maltster, being subject to a heavy duty upon the article he manufactured, it was perfectly consistent with the principles of free-trade that foreign malt should not be admitted, except upon the payment of a countervailing duty. In the same manner, if it could be shown that the landed proprietors were subject to exclusive and peculiar burthens, it was perfectly consistent with freedom of trade that a countervailing duty, equal to the amount of these exclusive and peculiar burthens, should be imposed for the protection of English agricultural produce. This, he said, would be consistent with the principles of freedom of trade; but he was not saying whether it would be expedient or not. And here he must take the liberty of observing, that as long as the agricultural interests resisted all inquiry as to the amount of the peculiar burthens which they said were imposed upon them, the public at large, and he, in common with the public, must be forgiven if they entertained great doubt as to whether any such peculiar burthens existed at all as fairly entitled them to claim a countervailing duty for the protection of their produce. Let it not be said that they were entitled to this countervailing duty, because the agriculturist in England was more highly taxed than in other countries. 785 That was no earthly ground for any countervailing duty. It was only saying that one part of the community should be taxed twice over for the benefit of another part which was only taxed once. To be entitled to a countervailing duty, the party claiming it must show that he is subject to peculiar burthens, bearing exclusively upon himself, and not in any way shared by the rest of the community. Apologising for having occupied so much of their Lordships' time with these preliminary observations, he would now proceed to the proposition which he wished to bring under their consideration. His motion was this—that their Lordships should grant him a committee to consider the effects and consequences of the Corn-law of the last year. He knew not how the proposition would be met by her Majesty's Government. It was probable he might be told that the bill of last year had not yet had a sufficient trial. "Wait awhile," it might be said: "by re-opening the question you will disturb great existing interests." [The Duke of Richmond: Hear.] It, was obvious that his noble Friend, whom he always listened to with pleasure, was likely to take that ground. Well, then, what were the great interests of the country that were about to be disturbed? He would apply himself to the subject in the strictest manner of demonstration; and if it could be shown that the great interests of the country were in a condition of prosperity, of repose, of peace—above all, if the noble Duke (the Duke of Wellington) himself had such an unqualified confidence in the permanence of the existing state of things, that he could put his hand upon the Corn-law of the last Session, and say, "It has received the approval of Queen, Lords, and Commons; I believe it to be the Magna Charta of the farmer; the permanent law that will properly protect the landlord, and justly secure the interests of the tenant." If the noble Duke could do that, then, no doubt, he would be justified, logically and morally, in coming forward and saying "Do not disturb this state of peace, repose, and happiness—waive these committees of inquiry—content are we with the present state of things—confident are we that the 5th and 6th of Victoria, unlike its predecessor, the 9th of George 4th, will not be consigned to an early legislative grave, dug for it by the very hands which assisted at its baptism—do not ask for any inquiry—we believe in the per- 786 manence of things as they now exist." If the noble Duke could say this, it would undoubtedly amount to an answer to his motion. But he did not believe that the state of the country was such that an inquiry into its condition would do any possible mischief to any one of the great interests that existed in it. On the contrary, he believed that it would not be "hope deferred," but "despair created," if without those walls it should be inferred that their Lordships were indifferent to the feelings and interests of the great bulk of the community. This part of the subject was so material that he begged their Lordships' permission to go into it a little closely and accurately. Was the communication from the Throne, at the commencement of the present Session, such as to induce their Lord ships to believe that all was repose and peace, tranquillity and happiness, within the length and breadth of the land? No such thing. This communication from the Throne, referring to the failure that had occurred in the revenue, stated, that the cause of that falling-off might be
In part attributed to the reduced consumption of many articles, caused by that depression of the manufacturing industry of the country which has so long prevailed, and which her Majesty has so deeply lamented.The speech alluded to manufacturing distress; but were noble Lords prepared to say, that the agriculturists of the country were in a state of contentment, happiness, and prosperity? If noble Lords were prepared to say, that, they ought to resist his motion, but if they were assured, as many of them were, that the distress of the manufacturing districts had extended itself to the agriculturists, he should like to know the ground on which they would refuse inquiry into the operation of the act of the last Session. Let them examine the matter a little closely, and ascertain whether the condition of the country was such that a parliamentary inquiry was likely to produce much mischief. First, there was the failure in the revenue. He did not attribute blame to the noble Lords opposite or to the Government on that account. It was sufficient for him to say, that the difference between the annual income and expenditure had increased from a deficiency of 1,593,000l. in 1840 to no less a sum than 3,977,000l. in 1842, shewing an increased deficiency of no less than 2,386,000l. When the amount of this deficiency were analyzed more closely it was still more 787 alarming. In three years the falling off in the gross amount of Customs' Duties had amounted to 874,000l. or deducting the Corn Duties, the falling off had been from 1840 to 1842,1,261,000l. or between 1841 and 1842,1,748,000l. The decrease in the net duties of Excise had been as follows:—In 1840,14,785,000l.; 1841,13,328,000l.; 1842, 12,517,000l.; or a decrease of 2,268,000l. between the first and the last of those years. He had himself suffered so much from the injustice which attributed results, infinitely less alarming than these, to the Finance Minister of the day, that he was far from stating these melancholy facts as proving misconduct in the Government. He made the statement in proof of the distress of the people, as evidence of their want of power to consume exciseable articles, and to obtain that ordinary remuneration for their labour which the working classes are entitled to expect, and which they would receive under a better system. The total amount of Customs and Excise revenue stands as follows:—In 1840, 37,644,000l. 1841, 36,674,000l. 1842, 34,115,000l. exhibiting a decrease of 2,559,000l. since 1841, and of 3,529,000l. since 1840. He only used these facts for the purpose of showing that there was great, and, indeed, universal distress throughout the land, and it behoved them to consider from what cause that distress might have originated, and whether it could not be remedied. He must remind their Lordships, that in the receipts for the present year there was no less a sum than 1,112,000l. derived from the duties on corn. Now, a noble Lord connected with Kent, and a noble Earl, when this matter was previously discussed, had abjured the Corn-law being made a matter of revenue. They had seemed to consider that revenue derived from corn was an accursed thing, that should not be allowed to enter the Treasury. They had called it an odious bread-tax. Yet it appeared now, that the only means of bringing the revenue and the expenditure something nearer to an equality was a sum derived from that very source, the duties on corn. If those noble Lords were consistent, they would now apply that sum to some nobler purpose than placing it in the national purse—either to the relief of agricultural or manufacturing distress—after having disclaimed corn as a source of revenue. If they did not, persons might doubt either their sincerity or their wisdom; and as he 788 preferred bringing an intellectual to a moral charge against them, he would consider it as a want of the latter rather than of the former. What was the state of the foreign trade of the country? The declared value of British produce and manufactures exported had fallen off in 1840 by the amount of 3,221,000l. and in 1841 by the sum of 4,171,000l. Cotton manufactures had fallen off 3,657,000l. since 1840. The falling-off in woollen was less, but still to an amount greatly affecting the interests of those engaged in the trade; it was, from 1840, 128,000l. and thus in the two great staples of cotton and woollen there had been a falling off unexampled he ventured to say in the history of our manufactures. The value of linens exported has during the same period, diminished very nearly one-third, or from 3,306,000l. to 2,360,000l. It might be said, that this was the effect of foreign competition, of adverse tariffs, and that therefore it did not represent the actual state of the manufacturing industry of the country. But he would bring forward another test more accurate and more severe. Had the raw produce introduced into England for the purposes of manufacture increased or diminished? That fact would nearly correctly represent the progress of those manufactures. Taking the years 1840,1841, and 1842, there was a falling-off in the cotton wool introduced into this country of 53,370,000 s. Between the years 1840 and 1842, the importation of wool had decreased from 50,000,000 to 44,611,000 lbs.—a falling-off of 5,389,0001bs. There was also a falling off, but in a lesser degree, in hemp and flax. There had been an increase in silk; and it was interesting to consider the cause of that apparent anomaly. If there was any one branch of our manufactures to which, under the direction of Mr. Huskisson, the principles of a just commercial policy had been wisely and early applied, it was to the silk trade of the country, and we now found, in the midst of pressure and calamity, the silk trade seemed to have been less affected than any other branch. The increase in silk imported was 76,000 lbs. He alluded to these questions not as affecting the amount of the national wealth, but as bringing forward the question of the happiness of the people; for when he named the articles he had enumerated, he did so as the implements, as it were of the people's remuneration, and as indicative of the amount of their command over 789 the comforts and enjoyments of life. Now, had there been a decrease in the comforts and necessaries of life accompanying, the diminution in the means of employing the people? In respect of the article malt, he knew that the adducing that as an instance was open to some objection; still he could not see a large reduction, amounting to 6,605,000 bushels between 1840 and 1842, without feeling sure that it indicated a very large amount of distress. It appeared by the papers on the Table that there were other articles connected with the comforts and necessaries of the poor the consumption of which had fallen off; but there was more direct evidence still in the return of the Poor-law. Comparing the years 1839 and 1842, he was not able to compare the amount, raised for the relief of the poor, because the accounts were not yet completed; but the number of paupers had increased from 1,136,000 to 1,429,000, and had increased in a progressive rate, from 1,136,000 to 1,199,000–1,300,000 to 1,429,000, or 25 per cent. In Sheffield, the increase of rate for the relief of the poor between 1840 and 1842 was from 31,846l. to 52,086l. In the three months ending January, 1841, the rate amounted to 7,571l. and in the three months ending January, 1843, it was 17,925l. From Stockport, the accounts were yet more lamentable. Three thousand houses were untenanted. Between 1840 and 1842 the number of paupers relieved has increased from 3,481 to 14,839; the rates have augmented one third, besides an expenditure of 7,000l. raised by voluntary subscription. In Leeds, the number of paupers had greatly augmented. Let not the agricultural Gentlemen imagine that even if distress were confined to the manufacturing districts, it could exist without re-acting on the agricultural. Not but that he was fully convinced, even if it could so exist, that the feelings of the gentry and farmers of this country would equally sympathise with the distresses of their brethren. But, at the same time, let the agricultural interest see how the distress operated upon themselves. In seasons of manufacturing prosperity the surplus agricultural population was absorbed into the manufacturing districts, and found employment. Now, by the operation of the same principle, of which the agriculturists had no right to complain, the manufacturing districts were sending back into the agricultural districts 790 those persons whose labour they did not require. Take the agricultural union of Settle, in Yorkshire, from whence, during the manufacturing prosperity, many agricultural paupers were withdrawn. Now, in 1841, the number of paupers relieved was 832. In 1842 the number had risen to 1,637. Of these persons, one-fourth were removed from the manufacturing districts. There could not be anything more clear than that the home market and manufacturing market, those great hives of industrious men, were the causes of national strength, and, above all, the causes of our agricultural prosperity. It is mainly to their distress that is to be attributed the fall of many articles of agricultural produce. There is, indeed, an admission made in her Majesty's speech. It had been stated in Parliament, on a former occasion, by the head of her Majesty's present Government, that, let the agriculturists look where they might for protection, there was nothing legislation could give them that was of half the importance to them as the prosperity of the manufactures and commerce of England. In that sentiment he cordially agreed; and if the present Corn Bill or any other law had a tendency to strike at the root of the commercial and manufacturing prosperity of the country, and thereby inflict a more deadly and irreparable blow upon the agricultural prosperity of the country than any blunder that could be committed in direct legislation on the subject of agriculture, the agricultural Gentlemen, he thought, could not refuse to consider the question. He would not say there was reason for despairing or doubting of the future prosperity of a country like this, but there was sufficient of evil abroad to make it bad logic, and a misapprehension of facts, to exclaim against inquiry, lest the prosperous state of things which at present existed should be disturbed. The moral he drew was this: here was a state of things which might by possibility be improved by inquiry; but it required more ingenuity than could be brought to hear upon the question to show that the state of things could be injured by inquiry. He only asked for inquiry; he asked them not to condemn, although he admitted, as far as he was concerned, he was himself, as an individual, ready to condemn. Was an inquiry of this kind unusual, or, taken up on the present occasion, was it likely to do permanent harm? Their Lordships had had no hesitation in inquiring into agri- 791 cultural distress whenever they had been asked so to do. In 1814, 1820, 1821, 1822, 1833, 1836, and 1837, they had inquired into agricultural distress, and not only into corn-laws, but into the currency, the poor-laws, and the whole general system of general and local administration which bore at all upon agricultural interests. Now, if they had been willing to grant inquiry one way, were they determined, or if they were, was it wise to refuse it on the other side? Was that just, was it impartial? Was it a judgment the public at large would ratify? It might be said the cases were not analogous, and it was also said that they did not know what arrangements they might disturb by agitating the question, what leases were about to be granted, and so forth. Some years ago a committee was granted, which, if ever there had been one calculated to disturb great existing interests, that was the committee. He meant that upon import duties. The present Government had taken their measures from the report of that committee, had founded their bills upon the testimony of witnesses before that committee, and surely that Government could not complain of a motion for inquiring into the effect of one act of Parliament, when they not only approved, but took credit to themselves for founding measures upon an inquiry which had extended into 1,100 acts of Parliament? It might astonish his noble Friend now sitting at the Table (Lord Ashburton), who had left this country when the tide was setting strongly against the import duties committee, to find that the report of that committee had formed the groundwork of legislative measures. There was a story in the writings of Washington Irving, which strongly reminded him of the position of his noble Friend. It was to be found in the history of New York by Knickerbocker, one of whose heroes, Rip Van Winkle, upon waking, after a sound and protracted sleep, was utterly astonished at the new state of things he beheld on opening his eyes. Now, from the cross benches his noble Friend had attacked the import duties committee, had reprobated the testimony of the principle witnesses;—and, upon waking like Rip Van Winkle, he must have been wonderfully surprised at finding legislative measures founded upon the report of that very committee and the evidence he had so strongly reprobated. If that committee had been 792 found so harmless they had no right to turn round and refuse him inquiry into a single act of Parliament. But there was another precedent. Government brought forward their budget last year, and introduced a duty upon Irish spirits. Objection was taken to that duty in the course of the Session. A committee of inquiry into the operation of that act was moved for and granted. That committee sat and reported, and he only asked them to do that in the present Session in relation to one act of Parliament which they had done last year. But would any Peer contend, that there was so much confidence felt in the permanence and stability of our present Corn-laws, as to render an inquiry into their effect and operation, dangerous and inexpedient? What was their experience on this subject? Had the conduct of Parliament been steady and consistent, in dealing with that branch of law? Why, of all subjects of legislation none had exhibited such a system of change and variation: In what other case had measures been so rashly taken up on one day, and so unhesitatingly condemned on another, and that most frequently by the very persons who had first propounded them. The act of 1815 had been praised as loudly as the present law. He went back to 1815 because it was the commencement of evil; it was the introduction of a bad principle, it was the foundation of the sliding-scale, which he took upon himself to say was the root and foundation of the evil. But the popularity of the act of 1815 was not of long duration. In 1821 there was more corn legislation, but he would not read the Parliamentary altercations of the day, but the authoritative language of Mr. Huskisson's report, which said—The system is certainly liable to sudden alterations, of which the effect may be, at one time to reduce prices, already low, lower than they would have been under a system of free trade; and at another unnecessarily to enhance prices already high. On the one hand, it deceives the grower with a false hope of monopoly, and by its occasional interruption may lead to consequences which deprive him of the benefit of that monopoly when most wanted. On the other hand, it holds out to the country the prospect of an occasional free-trade, but so ill regulated and desultory as to baffle the calculations and unsettle the transactions both of the grower and dealer at home. The occasional prohibition of import has a direct tendency to contract the extent of our commercial dealings with other states, and to excite in the rulers of those states a spirit of permanent exclusion.793 Much of that might be applied to the present law, but he had read the extract to show that this permanent security, this Palladium of 1815, framed by the ministry, and, with some few honourable exceptions, by almost all the opposition, and which had passed by as great an union of all par ties as could be in the then state of affairs, was condemned in 1821. He would pass by the occurrences of 1827, giving thereby the best proof of a disposition to consider the subject calmly and without asperity. In the year 1828, however, a bill was introduced by the Government of the noble Duke opposite, and of which bill the noble Duke had the conduct in that House, and upon introducing it the noble Duke expressed his disapproval of the act of 1822. The act, then, of 1822 had been condemned by the amendment of 1827, and the noble Duke was reported to have said:It was undoubtedly true that from 1815 to the present time the system of prohibition had been found exceedingly inconvenient. Indeed, on a variety of occasions it had been found necessary for the Government to interfere to introduce corn by proclamation. The various interruptions it had been found necessary to give to the old system of Corn-laws had been equally inconvenient to the Government and to the corn growers. They occasioned great complaints on the part of the people at large—occasioned great jealousy on the part of agriculturists, and no small remonstrances from foreign powers.There could be no stronger bill of indictment against any measure than these expressions of the noble Duke, and a noble Earl not now present, whose absence all must regret (the Earl of Ripon), not then acting in concert with the noble Duke, but speaking on the occasion in coincidence with him, said—He would defy any one to state a case in which there had been such fluctuations as since 1815.The bill of which year had been introduced by the noble Lord himself—the noble Lord thus affording a very happy subject for some one of those artists who were in the habit of caricaturing public men, for a study of Saturn devouring his children. The noble Lord, in his capacity of a legislator was driven by duty to the painful act, if not of eating his own words, at least of devouring his own measures. But it would be far better if their Lordships would give the people something to devour, than to devour their own blunders and mistakes. He was justified in saying, that 794 there never had been a case in which less of permanency had been shown than in Corn-law legislation. The act of 1828, condemning preceding acts, had in turn been condemned by the present Government who were its framers, and he begged the House to observe their reasons for condemning it, and decide whether those reasons did not apply with equal force to the present law. But they had other reasons for doubting the stability of the present law. Measures had been introduced, and declarations made by the Government, which had left even the most credulous without faith in the permanence of the present Corn-laws. But other measures had been introduced and other declarations made. They had had declarations for the abolition of all protective duties whatsoever. They had been told by high authority that they ought to buy in the cheapest and sell in the dearest markets. That declaration might be rather loose in terms, but it could not be made by a class maintaining at the same time the doctrine of permanency. Nor was that all. There was a publication to which he had a right to allude, inasmuch as it had been named in the presence of the party to whom the authorship was attributed, and it had not been denied. It was a publication by a right hon. Gentleman, a member of the Government to which he alluded, and he alluded to the publication as a high honour to that Gentleman. And there could not be a greater proof, both of his wisdom and sincerity, than the publication alluded to—a publication universally ascribed to the right hon. Gentleman, the Vice-President of the Board of Trade. In that paper were the following expressions:—We shall urge that the trade of foreign countries is essential to England, and that the trade of England is essential to foreign countries. We shall urge that foreign countries neither have combined, nor can combine, against the commerce of Great Britain; and we shall treat as a calumny that they are disposed to enter into such a combination. We shall urge that the industry of this country has nothing to fear from the steady and gradual increase of the importation of all commodities from abroad which can be produced there at a less cost of labour and capital than among ourselves; but that it has everything to fear from the cessation or decline of that mighty course of operations whereby benefits are exchanged between the several families of the human race.It was impossible for any free-trader to declare the doctrine of freedom of in- 795 tercourse between state and state more strongly, or more clearly. There was a reservation in regard to certain articles of agricultural produce; but in what mode was the reservation made? He would ask whether it were done in a way calculated to re-assure the agriculturists with respect to that permanent state of things which his harmless, innocent motion was considered so likely to endanger. The paper proceeded thus:—With respect to many other articles, such as butter and cheese—indeed, with regard to all articles to which the simple and essential interests of the revenue will allow the rules (of the late tariff) to be applied, it has been declared that they are only temporarily exempted from the operation of those rules; and it is well understood that no time will be allowed to pass, except such as is necessary, before the work is completed.That appeared to be pretty good notice to the gentleman of Leicestershire, Yorkshire, and Cheshire of a disturbance in that happy state of things which his motion was considered so likely to disturb. Observe, he did not complain of these expressions; on the contrary, he approved of them—he was delighted with them. He should be glad to hear the whole Government repeat these admirable principles. After discussing the inapplicability of protection to manufactures, the right hon. Gentleman adds,—The question may be deemed more dubious as regards agricultural produce. There is the old vexed question of burthens on land, there is the admitted superiority of the soils in some competing countries. But on the other hand, British agriculture is imperfectly developed. Our manufacturers have thriven under the stimulus of competition. We think it can hardly be said that of late years this principle has been sufficiently brought to bear on the growers of agricultural produce. To say that they require to be stimulated—to say that unless stimulated they will not use their utmost efforts to economise and sell cheaply, and that the stimulus they can afford to one another cannot be sufficient, is but to say that they are men, and subject to the infirmities of me…No man who com pares the progress of our population and our supplies of food, can deny but that our economic laws must be regarded—indeed, have they not been regarded—as mutable, according to time and circumstance?So here was a stimulus declared to be wanting, a stimulus promised to be applied to the agriculturists. How did they relish this anticipation? His motion did 796 not go quite so quick, or quite so far, as this excellent author. He did not ask their Lordships to agree to the application of this stimulus, at once and without investigation. His proposition was more moderate; he asked that House to inquire into the effects of the present law, thus to ascertain whether the promised stimulus was necessary, and how it should be applied. Nor were they left in doubt with respect to the nature of this promised, or threatened stimulus—the stimulus was that of foreign competition, the stimulus was the increased importation of foreign grain. He adopted Mr. Gladstone's statement, but, before its adoption by the Legislature, he entreated their Lordships to inquire into the whole subject. He was far from mistrusting or discountenancing the argument, by moving for a committee. But he must say, that with respect to men who had laid down these enlarged general grinciples, which prepare the public for great future changes, it was the greatest of all inconsistencies to refuse an inquiry, on the ground of any possible disadvantages such inquiry can produce.
§ Lord Wharncliffeasked what was the paper to which the noble Lord had referred?
§ Lord MonteagleThe statement he had read was from a periodical publication, (the Foreign and Colonial Review,) and had been attributed to a right hon. Gentleman in another place, without any disavowal or disclaimer by the party concerned, or by any one on his behalf.
§ Lord WharncliffeBut it goes no further than the one individual.
§ Lord MonteagleThe right hon. Gentleman was a member of the Government, and if the noble Lord the President of the Council would avow the same principles, he thought it would be highly to his credit. If all the cabinet would put their hands to this anonymous publication he did not think they could do anything to raise them more in the estimation of the public; or attach the people more to them. To shew that they were capable of holding such wise opinions, and recommending them in such forcible and eloquent language would be delightful to the people. On a former occasion those who pressed the state of the country on the attention of Government had been told that they were not justified in talking about the Corn-law, because there were so many other sources from which the general distress might proceed, and with which 797 the phenomena of the present condition of England were manifestly connected. There were, it was said, the banking laws; but the Government said they were satisfied with them, and did not mean to amend them. There was also the bullion in the Bank of England; the currency might be disturbed, and the Bank embarrassed in its operations with the Exchequer; but the Bank at present had no apprehensions of that kind. Again, it was stated that much of the distress might proceed from foreign loans being contracted, which drew the capital out of the country; but no foreign loans had lately been contracted for. Others said that it was owing to the sale of foreign securities in our own markets; but such sales did not now take place, foreign securities having been in great part, for some reason, withdrawn. It was plain then that to none of these causes could the distress and the commercial embarrassments which existed be justly ascribed; and he thought he was justified in saying that any argument derived from the supposed inconvenience which an enquiry would produce on any of the great interests of the country was totally and entirely inapplicable to the existing state of things. They cannot well be more unsettled than they are, and this in the absence of all these other causes; and they are not likely to be less unsettled so long as the question of corn is left in a state which has become notoriously provisional. Now, let them examine what were the precise evils described by Government as inherent in the act 9 Geo. 4th, and see whether those evils were still found to exist in the act now in force, which was passed last Session. It was stated that the act 9 Geo. 4th, gave too high an amount of internal protection; that a protection beyond 20s. was an absurdity in it self, was entirely inapplicable, and brought odium on the agricultural interest, without being calculated to do them the slightest benefit. So far as that went, he admitted that the new bill was an improvement, because the duty in no case exceeded 20s.; but if all the evil previously done by the higher amount of duty continued under the existing duty, he had not much gratitude to waste on the Government or the Legislature for only repealing an inconvenience which did nobody any harm, while they continued all the hurtful and disadvantageous provisions of the former law. Whether life was taken away by a snipe shot or a bullet, was perfectly immaterial; they had diminished 798 the bullet to the size of a snipe shot; but he should be able to show their Lordships that the mischiefs inherent in the new system were precisely those mischiefs which its authors condemned in the old law, and against which they wished to guard by introducing another measure. The principal objections to the old system were the great fluctuation of prices which it produced, and also the admission of great quantities of foreign wheat at the time of harvest, when an additional importation of corn was not needed by the consumer, and was highly prejudicial to the interests of the growers. The late hill was described, and described accurately, as working evil both ways; on the consumer it inflicted the evil of inducing the holder of corn to withhold it up to the very last moment, and to admit it, not when the price was actually rising, but when it showed indications of a fall. The evil to the grower was, that just at the time when the farmer had thrashed out his grain, he was subject to the forced and unnatural competition of all the foreign corn, which was taken out at the last moment. He must call the attention of noble Lords opposite to the injustice with which the law operated on the different classes of farmers. In some districts the farmers were poor; in others they were rich. The operation of this happy and blessed law was to raise the price very considerably towards the end of spring, summer, and the approaching harvest, especially at the time of gathering the harvest and immediately after it. How did this act on the poor farmer, and on the capitalist? Why, the large farmer might venture to hold his grain; he could stand the competition, and need not thrash it out just at the period when the foreign grain was admitted; he could take his chance of the market, but the poorer class of farmers, who lived from hand to mouth on the produce of their tillage, were compelled to thrash out their grain, and must enter into competition with the foreign grain which was admitted. It was on their heads, therefore, that the evil of the law chiefly fell. These evils were admitted to belong to the last Corn-law in the discussions of last year; it was now his purpose to show that this evil existed under the present law, and to fully as great a degree as before. Let him not, however, be suspected of blaming the act passed last Session; on the contrary, he thought it an amendment of the previous law. He had 799 accepted it as such; he had voted for it, and not only did he admit the bill to be an amendment of the former law, but it went far to strengthen his argument. For if Ministers had introduced a bill, intending, as he believed they did, in good faith, to amend the law, and stating the reasons which induced them to attempt that amendment, and if they found that that evil remained in undiminished magnitude, he would attribute that result, not to any want of skill, knowledge, or sincerity on their part, but to some evil principle which was common both to the bill they introduced and the bill they attempted to amend. He found that the principle of the sliding-scale was common to both measures, and rather than attribute the unfavourable result of which he complained to the Legislature, he ascribed it, as he was bound logically to do, to that principle. He did not ask their Lord ships to accompany him without examination to this conclusion; he only asked that they would inquire whether the effects were as he had stated them to be. He was sensible that he was intruding at an unwarrantable length on their Lordships' time; if he had any chance of getting his committee, he would not trouble them with these details, but having no chance of that, he was bound to make out his case. If the committee were granted, their Lordships would be saved much trouble; but he was obliged under the circumstances to make out his case, and he would do so. He would venture to say, that a more complete demonstration could not be made out than that which he would offer that the present Corn-law contained within itself all the elements of mischief which were admitted to belong to the former bill, passed in the 9th Geo. 4th. He would refer to a publication which was issued from the great corn houses in the country, for the benefit of the whole corn trade, and which contained all the information required regarding the weather, the state of the supplies, and the market prices. He held in his hand important extracts from the circulars of the corn trade before and after the passing of the present law. He would take first the year 1838, and would read some passages which would show the operation of the law in lowering the duty at the most unfavourable season for the home grower. They would prove that the effect of the old law was to cause English wheat to be neglected, and to encourage jobbing in the 800 averages, in order to get the duty on foreign grain down to the lowest point:—
August 31.—The weather very fine for several days past, and the bulk of the crops saved in the neighbouring counties. Yesterday's general average proved 77s. and the duty 6s. 8d. Next week the duty would be 2s. 8d., if not 1s. and there is still the chance of the duty coming down to Is. a quarter for the two following weeks. English wheat was neglected owing to the fine weather, and the near admission of foreign wheat at a low duty.Sept. 3.—The weather favourable for harvest the last week, and the great bulk of the wheat crop in the neighbouring counties saved, and, with this weather, harvest will soon be general in the north. The duty on wheat declined.With these prospects the price ought to have fallen, and the duty to have risen; but, by the operation of the sliding-scale, the effect was exactly contrary, for the duty on the whole declined. As long as they clung to the sliding-scale, they would cling to an instrument which would produce endless frauds. It would be seen that as the prospect of a good harvest became more certain, the duty became lower, and the prospect of undue competition increased:—Sept. 12. The weather very fine for the last three or four days. From a calculation made of the returns, there seems no doubt of the duty on wheat being 1s. to-morrow.—Sept. 14. The week's average proved 48,906 quarters at 70s. 2d. six weeks' average 73s. 2d. consequently foreign wheat may be cleared for a week at 1s. duty. The duty will probably advance to 2s. 8d. next return.—Sept. 17. Duty 1s. expected to advance next return. Wheat cannot be cleared at this duty after two o'clock on Wednesday; nor can a vessel be reported inwards till past Gravesend, and till furnished with a quarantine certificate.He would now refer to the year 1840. It was said under date of August 3:—Weather the last two or three days fine and favourable for harvest, which has generally commenced in the south.—Aug. 7. Weather uninterruptedly fine for harvest this week. Decline of duty on wheat 3s. a quarter.—Aug. 14. Quality of new wheat fine and heavy; growers speak favourably of the yield.—Aug. 21. Our trade is mainly governed by the weather. Tuesday stormy, and on Wednesday several hours rain. Duty declined 4s.—Aug. 28. Weekly average 72s. 7d. Every reason to expect the duty down to 2s. 8d.; it is questionable whether it will remain for more than one week at 2s. 8d.—Sept. 4. Duty declined yesterday to 2s. 8d. at which rate the wheat and flour in bond, fully 1,000,000 of quarters, will be cleared. The 801 duty is not likely to remain at 2s. 8d. more than a week. The duty will rapidly advance to 18s. 8d. per quarter.There was the statement. This was the way in which we carried into effect reciprocity treaties. This was the way in which we placed the United States on an equal fooling with Rotterdam and the ports just across the Channel. A single week might make the difference of gain or great loss to one country or another, and this was the state of the law—a state which placed the trade at the mercy of the weather, to which noble Lords professed their determination to adhere. In the year 1841, he found that the state of matters was as follows:—August 18. Weather now very fine for harvest; duty expected to decline a stage on wheat, barley, &c.—August 25. It is thought the duty will decline 5s. to-morrow.—Aug. 30. Weather exceedingly fine for the last four or five days, and favourable for harvest, which has the usual effect at this season, of an unnaturally great stagnation and panic in sales.-—September 1. The weather continues exceedingly fine for harvest; bonded wheat held over for the low duty next week,—September 3. There is little doubt but that the duty will further decline from 6s. 8d. to 2s. 8d. next week; holders hang back from selling till the duty reaches the lowest.—September 15. Arrivals of foreign wheat unexpectedly large, 116,300 quarters in two days.—September 17. Yesterday the duty declined to 1s. on wheat.The result was, that in 1838, out of 1,818,000 quarters imported, 1,513,000 were imported in September; in 1840, out of 2,282,000 quarters imported, 1,105,000 were imported in September; and in 1841, out of 2,388,000 quarters imported, 2,144,000 were introduced in September, and 1,800,000 in one week. Such was the state of things before Sir R. Peel's Corn-law; I proceed to shew that it remains unaltered under the act of 1842. He held in his hand the circular of the trade for the last year; he would read its statements, and then he would ask the noble Lords opposite to say whether the evils which had been shown to exist, and which they admitted to exist in the former law, did not exist in undiminished force under the present act? There was one distinction between the last year and former years; by the mercy of Providence our harvest was earlier, but for that we had not to thank noble Lords or the Legislature. He knew that once, when somebody had asserted that great thanks 802 were due to the Government, Sheridan said, "Yes, and especially for the late abundant harvest." He did not carry either his sarcasm or his credulity so far; he admitted that Government had effected an improvement by the Corn-law of last Session, and he thanked them for that, but he did not thank them for the harvest. The statements of the circular for 1842 were as follow:—July1. Copious rain, benefiting the growing crops generally; duty declined to 9s. per quarter.—July 4. All spring corn benefited by the rain.—July 15. Weather exceedingly fine this week; duty declined yesterday 1s.—July 18. Weather continuing fine, English wheat 2s. to 3s. cheaper.—July 20. Arrivals of foreign wheat since Monday very heavy.—July 22. A further considerable arrival of foreign wheat.—July 25. Weather exceedingly fine: arrival of foreign wheat large; harvest general—Aug. 1. Weather favourable; sample of new wheat fine; factors had to submit to a reduction of 4s. to 6s.—Aug. 8. 300 quarters of new wheat, all superior, weighing 63lb. to 651bs. the bushel.—Aug. 12. There seems no doubt that the duty on wheat will advance on Wednesday; we expect a very large quantity of foreign wheat will be cleared in the interim. Aug. 17. Wheat is clearing at 8s., in the expectation of its being 9s. to-morrow Aug. 19. The quantity of foreign wheat cleared at this port this week, at 8s., previous to the duty advancing to 9s., is 600,000 quarters, besides 130,000 cwt. of flour, and since May 881,000 quarters.The result was, that out of the year's import of 2,755,000 quarters, the import in August was 2,186,000 quarters. It might be said that this wheat had been cleared at a duty of 8s. instead of 1s. He admitted, that that was a benefit, but the merit of it could not be claimed by noble Lord's opposite, who rejected altogether the idea of deriving any benefit to the revenue from a duty on corn. This was merely an additional ground on which they ought to be ashamed of themselves. They levied 7s. too much duty, because the price obtained by the farmer in the market, for home grown corn, would have been exactly the same had there been no duty at all. The price was not regulated in August by the amount of duty paid on foreign wheat, but by the quantity of wheat in the market, compared with the means of the buyers to purchase. He argued this point against the Gentlemen friendly to a free trade in corn, when they said, last year, release the grain from bond, and we shall 803 get the benefit of it. This benefit to the consumer he then denied, and still denied. The duty repealed would have gone into the pocket of the owners of the grain; for unless the quantity brought to market was increased, the price to the consumer would not have fallen. He admitted, however, on his principles, that the 8s. duty was a great benefit to the State; but it was a benefit to which noble Lords opposite could lay no claim, inasmuch as they repudiated the principle of levying a revenue on corn altogether. One great anomaly of the act of last Session was the introduction of what were called rests; that was, a fixed duty with respect to certain important parts of the scale which regulated the price. He hoped the noble Lord opposite would tell the House on what grounds these rests had been introduced. They must be either better or worse than a sliding-scale. They were not the same thing, but perfectly different in principle; then why did noble Lords introduce those rests? They were introduced because they were considered to be an improvement, and he thought them an improvement also, and he was glad to see the principle of a fixed duty admitted. That principle was admitted in another measure, which had a direct bearing on the question of the permanency of the great charter of the agriculturists—the Corn-duties. It was well known that it was the intention of the Government to introduce a bill of very great significance to the admirers—if such there were—of the sliding-scale. He very much doubted that any person would tolerate that system from any other motive than necessity. The people might ride a very bad horse, because they had no other, but a more vicious, ill-conditioned horse, one more galled, maimed, lamed, spavined, that would not be shown at Tattersalls', and that no one would be found to warrant, was not to be found than the legislative cheval de battaille he was now considering. When noble Lords opposite altered, last year, the duty on American corn, they must have a sliding-scale with it. Formerly, under the 9th George 4th, there was a fixed duty, or what was almost the same thing, it being 5s. in all the contingencies likely to occur, and 6d. under other circumstances. Noble Lords were resolved to have their sliding-scale applied to the colonial duty, like the man who painted red lions, and painted them every where. He could not but wonder that any article in the tariff of last year escaped the 804 application of the sliding-scale. Wherever ministers could introduce it, they had done so; but he presumed that they had discovered the vice of the principle, else why did they now wish to change it? They were about to introduce a bill to allow American corn to be brought into this country subject to a fixed duty of 3s. There was, however, a difference between the manner in which noble Lords opposite applied the principle and that in which it was proposed by the late Government to apply it. The late Government thought that a fixed duty would be advantageous to both producers and consumers—to the farmer and the merchant—but they thought that it would be right that the revenue it yielded should be applied to English purposes. But noble Lords opposite wished to show that they rejected all idea of a duty on wheat, and they said, let it go for the benefit of the colony, we will not touch a farthing of it. Fluctuation of price, he contended, with its attendant evils, was equally inherent in the late and in the present Corn-law. He had prepared a table which would exemplify the unjust and partial operation of the law on the interest of the agriculturists. He took the years from 1837 to 1843, and compared the total amount of foreign grain admitted to home consumption in each year, with the amount admitted during the harvest-month; and in order to bring the matter to a simpler test, with the amount admitted during a single week of each year. He thought the farmers would see that nothing could be more prejudicial to them than the importation of a great quantity of foreign wheat at the most critical period of the year. The necessary consequence of a sliding-scale was to pour the great bulk of the foreign grain into the market as the harvest was about to be gathered in. The table was as follows:—*If it were possible for the ingenuity of man to set himself on devising the system that could do his interests most injury, it would be that which he was now describing. So far was this evil from being remedied, that it was scarcely lessened by the act of the last Session. Last year, out of the whole quantity imported, 79 per cent, was admitted in a single month, and 55 per cent, in a single week. Again, taking the weekly averages for the harvest months of the last four years, it would be found that the flue-
See Table (as note) following page.805 tuations had been higher in the last than in any of the preceding. They were as follow:—For fourteen years preceding the passing of the act, the fluctuation was less, on the whole, than under the act of last Session; from 1828 to 1842, it was less in nine cases, greater in four, and equal in one. In the weekly London averages, from 1831 to 1842, eleven years, the fluctuation was less than under the present act in seven cases, and greater in four cases only. It
1839. Highest price 72s. 3d. Lowest 65s. 6d. 6s. 9d. 1840. Highest price 72s. 7d. Lowest 62s. 5d. 10s. 2d. 1841 Highest price 76s. 1d. Lowest 61s. 6d. 4s. 7d. 1842 Highest price 65s. 8d. Lowest 50s. 9d. 14s. 11d. 806 might be said, that you never could obtain steadiness in the price of grain The fact was, that it was a question of more or less; those who said out of doors that by a free trade in corn you would get rid of all fluctuations in price, asserted what was contrary to the plainest dictates of common sense. What he asked was, that the Legislature should not increase the mischief beyond what was inevitable. The real principle on which the present act was founded, was, that a Legislature could control the elements and the seasons. They pretended to say, that they could give plenty when the Great Master of all things had decreed scarcity, and that they would create a scarcity when he had ordained that plenty should reign. They were legislating with respect to prices, as they had done in barbarous days with respect to wages, forgetting that prices were, like wages, beyond their control. They had a better and more rational Corn-law before 1773—a rated duty, which was open to objections no doubt, but free from the glaring absurdities and mischiefs of the sliding-scale. The fluctuations then were much less than half what they were under the present, system, as the following table would show:
Year. Total Wheat and Flour entreat for Home Consumption a Year. Enter at Harvest Month. Proportion percent-of Month's Admission to Year's Admission. Year. Wheat Largest quantity entered in one single week. Duty on such admission Proportion percent, of the week's admission to the whole year's admission of Foreign Wheat. s d. Per. Cent. 1837 210,000 163,000 78 Sept. 8,1837 98,000 28 8 47 1838 1,818,000 1,513,000 83 Sept. 7,1838 1,261,000 1 0 73 1839 2,698,000 812,000 30 Sept.20,1839 701,000 6 8 28 1840 2,287,000 1,105,000 48 Aug.28,1840 1,217,000 2 8 60 1841 2,647,000 2,1748,000 82 Sept.10,1841 1,852,000 1 0 83 1842 2,777,000 2,186,000 79 Aug,11,1842 1,453,000 8 0 55 Not including flour. The effect of the sliding-scale clearly was to make the speculators bring their corn to market at the time most unfavourable to the home grower, and when the public would derive least advantage from it. It increased the profits of successful speculation, and the risks and losses of unsuccessful speculation, and made the trade more of a gambling character than before. It stood to reason that the fluctuations of price must be greater under the sliding scale than under any other system. If they made the state of the duty such as to lead the merchant in Dantzic to speculate on the fall of duty, they were, in point of fact, doing that which had a tendency to put money into the pockets of the men at Dantzic. He (Lord Monteagle) had compared the prices at Dantzic and in England during a succession of years, 807 and that comparison brought him to a curious result:—
FLUCTUATIONS OF SIX WEEKS' AVERAGE PRICE OF WHEAT, FROM 1784 TO 1789. Years Highest Six Weeks' Average. Lowest Six Weeks' Average. Difference s. d. s. d. s. d. 1784 48 2 41 10 6 4 1785 37 5 34 6 2 11 1786 36 2 33 10 2 4 1787 41 10 36 1 3 9 1788 45 1 42 9 2 4 1789 54 11 47 0 7 11 If it was said that the fluctuations had, during the years 1838, 1839, and 1840, been greater in Dantzic than in England, how had it been in the years from 1833 to 1837, when the importation had been scarcely worth speaking of? If this document, which he (Lord Monteagle) had just read, was not sufficient to persuade their Lordships that free-trade was less liable to fluctuations than a system by which the Legislature sought to tamper with prices, he was at a loss to think what demonstration would be held sufficient. If he were not unwilling to detain their Lordships, he might refer to similar tables respecting St. Petersburgh and Odessa. The following table was extracted from Mr. Hubbard's excellent work on the Corn trade:—
Years. Difference between heights and lowest at Dantzic. Difference between heights and lowest London Weekly average. Difference between heights and lowest six Weekly average. Wheat and wheat flour imported. s. d. s. d. s. d. Qrs. 1833 4 4 9 0 5 7 183,000 1831 4 10 10 6 8 1 109,000 1835 5 3 9 5 6 2 43,000 1836 13 4 26 9 23 10 234,000 1837 9 11 10 5 7 1 544,000 1838 25 2½ 27 10 23 3 1,355,000 1839 38 4 14 10 12 11 2,862,000 1840 23 9 19 10 12 5 2,234,000 But he would invite their attention to a letter from Mr. Horner, and to a better authority it would be impossible for him to refer. Mr. Horner in a letter dated the 12th of February, 1815, wrote thus:— 808
AVERAGE PRICE OF WHEAT FREE ON BOARD. Years. Dantzic. Petersburgh. Odessa. England. s. d. s. d. s. d. s. d. 1831 52 8 56 11 30 0 66 4 1832 39 6 33 7 26 10 58 8 1833 31 6 32 0 31 4 52 11 1834 27 4 32 1 33 2 46 2 1835 26 0 32 3 25 7 39 4 1836 28 6 35 0 22 0 48 6 1837 31 1 32 8 22 10 55 10 1838 41 10 40 11 24 11 64 7 1839 51 9 39 9 30 0 70 8 1840 46 6 42 11 30 10 66 4 Average 37 7 36 0 27 9 56 11 Highest price 52 8 36 11 33 2 70 8 Lowest price 26 0 26 0 22 0 46 2 Difference 26 8 10 11 11 2 26 6 My theory respecting fluctuations would be, that upon the whole nothing would contribute so much to make prices steady as leaving our own cornfactors unfettered by regulations and restrictions of our own making; and without embarrassment from that source, to make their own arrangements for bringing corn when it is wanted, from the various large and independent markets of which in the present circumstances of the world they have their choice.This was just what he said. He now wished to prove to their Lordships that these fluctuations were necessarily incidental to the sliding-scale. From the passing of the 9th of George 4th, the sliding-scale, strictly so called, had been in force with respect to every description of foreign grain; but with respect to colonial grain an entirely different system had been in force. On colonial grain the duty had been 5s. in some cases, and 6d. in others. During seven years, however, the duty had been constantly 5s. Now, if it was found that the supply of colonial corn was governed by an entirely different principle to foreign corn, their Lordships ought to ask themselves to what that difference was to be attributed? It could only be traced to a difference of system—to the existence of a sliding-scale in the one case, and to the existence of a fixed duty in the other. He held in his hand a paper showing the proportion between the colonial corn introduced during the harvest month, and during the whole year, and he found the proportion just reversed from that which existed in the case of foreign corn. The colonial corn, instead of coming into the country in sudden gusts, came in according as the demand arose, and consequently the introduction of the colonial corn was attended by beneficial consequences to all classes. In the one case they had the sliding-scale, and in the other a fixed duty. There was the difference. In the one case we are shewn the effect of the sliding-scale, and in the other that of a fixed duty:—* The table exhibiting these distinctions deserved a very minute examination. In 1839 it was true that the foreign trade exhibited some proofs of steadiness. But why was this? Because during four months the duly was fixed, and during that period the supply became more gradual and regular. On the contrary, whenever the colonial duty passed, or had a* See Table (as note) following page.809 tendency to pass from 5s. to 6d., then the fluctuations incidental to the sliding-scale manifested themselves. On a subject of commerce or finance he could not conceive a more conclusive demonstration than was afforded by these facts. Now what was the state of things produced by this state of the law? Let them ask those interested in agriculture—let them ask those interested in manufactures, whether the state of things produced had been a satisfactory one. Had it been satisfactory to the merchant importer? He would take it on himself to say, that at no time had such wide and devastating ruin been brought upon any other class of the community, as had lately been the case among the importers of foreign corn. He was sure that he spoke within bounds, when he said that their losses had amounted to somewhere between two and three millions sterling, and these losses had literally been the consequences of the sliding-scale. The wide-spreading ruin by which the town of Wakefield had been overtakenFrom 1832 to 183f the duty on colonial wheat was 5s. invariably, the amount of corn admitted at harvest was about 12 per cent. 810 would not have occurred if a fixed duty on corn had been in existence, for the people there would have known that they were not likely to gain anything by withholding their supplies from the market. Yet he could prove to their Lordships, if they would grant him the committee he asked for, that there was a fair prospect that corn would have come in at a duty of 1s. in which case the transaction would have been one of considerable profit. But, by making the trade in corn so ruinous a one, they drove out of the market all men who were not desperate gamblers. As an instance of the ruinous effects of the speculative trade produced by the sliding scale, he might quote a case that came before the Court of Bankruptcy last October. The bankrupt's name was Baker. He had failed in consequence of speculations in corn, and his balance sheet, a very voluminous document, showed debts to the amount of 588,727l.and this man, it appeared from the same balance sheet, had introduced into his business a capital of only 5,974l. And yet the case was one that excited no exasperation among the creditors. No exceptions were taken to the balance-sheet, and the bankrupt was allowed to pass without any farther question being asked of him. They drove men of capital out of the corn-trade; but by so doing they inflicted a most serious injury on agriculture, independently of depriving the corn trade of its legitimate character. And in making these remarks to their Lordships, he wished it was possible for them to forget that "fixed duty" and "sliding-scale" had ever been made words of party warfare. At all events, he would entreat them to consider the question entirely on its own grounds, and abstracted from all previous contention. He felt that he must have wearied them by so long an address, but he thought he had succeeded in making out a strong case for inquiry. However, he would see if he could not strengthen it yet more. A noble Friend near him reminded him of one important difference in the importation of colonial and foreign grain. The foreign grain was admitted just at the time most disadvantageous to all parties concerned. In the year when the proportion of foreign corn imported in the one month amounted to 78 per cent, of the importation of the whole year, the importation of colonial corn in one month amounted only to 24 per cent, on the 811 whole year. In the year when foreign corn was 83 per cent., colonial was only 22, and so throughout; and he would undertake to prove that, in the one instance, they had a regular supply just when the country wanted; in the other instance, they had sudden and large importations at a time when they were least needed by any class. He would, with their permission, call further witnesses to this fact. Here was the opinion of the late Mr. Ricardo:—
WHEAT AND WHEAT FLOUR ENTERED EOR HOME CONSUMPTION IN THE YEAR, AND IN THE SINGLE HARVEST MONTH. Year Foreign Wheat and Flour. Colonial Wheat and Floor. Total year's entry. Single month's entry about harvest. proportion percent. Between months & years entry Total year's entry. Single month's entry about harvest. Proportion percent. Between months & Years entry. 1837 210,000 163,000 78 33,300 8,100 24 1838 1,818,000 1,513,000 83 29,600 6,600 22 1839 2,698,000 812,000 30 12,700 5,100 40 1840 2,287,000 1,105,000 48 113,700 26,600 23 1841 2,647,000 2,178,000 82 259,123 123,000 47 1842 2,775,000 2,186,000 79 214,334 53,634 25 *Duty on Foreign wheat stationary for four months at 1s. in 1838 and 1839. Although a duty on the importation of corn would not be so wise a measure as the approach to that system which he had suggested as the true principles of a corn trade, yet he did think that a permanent duty on importation would be a much wiser measure than that which had been advocated. Let them have a certain moderate duty, which should have a tendency to produce a price of corn that would not be very variable.A few years later (1825) a noble Friend of his (Lord Brougham), then a Member of the House of Commons, said:—It was now time to sweep away that system of averages, which was liable to all the objections made to the system of prohibitions. It was now time to get out of what had been called the sliding-scales, only laying on such a protecting duty as would enable the agriculturist to grow his produce on such terms as to stand the conflict with the foreign grower.In the report of the committee of 1821 he found the following statement:—Your committee are the more anxious to impress on the attention of the House the real state of the corn trade between 1773 and 1814, as it appears to them, in connection with the progress of general prosperity in the country, and more especially with the great improvements in agriculture, and its highly-flourishing condition during that period, to suggest to Parliament, as a matter highly deserving of their future consideration, whether a trade in corn, constantly open to all nations of the world, and subject only to such fixed duty as might compensate to the grower the loss of that encouragement which he received during the late war, from the obstacles thrown in the way of free importation, and thereby protect the capitals now vested in agriculture from unequal competition, is not, as a permanent system preferable to that state of law by which the corn trade is now regulated.That was the opinion of the committee of 1821. He now came to the committee of 1822, and these were the expressions which he found in its report:—If the circumstances of this country should 812 hereafter allow the trade in corn to be permanently settled on a footing constantly open to all the world, but subject to such a fixed and uniform duty as might compensate the British grower for the difference of expense at which his corn could be brought to market, such a system would in many respects, be preferable to any modification of regulations depending on average prices, with an ascending and descending scale of duties, because it would tend to prevent the effects of combination and speculation in endeavouring to raise or depress those averages, and render immaterial those inaccuracies which have occasionally produced mischievous effects on the market. Your committee look forward to such a system as fit to be kept in view for the ultimate tendency of our law, rather than as practicable in any short or definite time.He would call on their Lordships to say whether a definite time had not passed away? Twenty years bad since elapsed, and he would ask whether it was not now high time that the Legislature should have arrived at years of discretion? These opinions of the committee were fully confirmed in a roost important letter from Mr. Solly, an experienced merchant, submitted to the committee of 1821. That gentleman stated in May 1821:The experience I have had in the corn trade has confirmed the opinion that it would be more for the interest of the grower at home and in Prussia, if the importation into this country was at all times allowed at a certain fixed rate of duty, which might be so regulated as to compensate for the greater expense of cultivation of the British farmer. By the present system the surplus wheat of the Baltic is hoarded to the extent of two or more years export, to be poured into the market at once. The period at which the opening of the ports generally takes place, is about or soon after harvest time; not because the new harvest is deficient, but in consequence of the prices of the past weeks having, from the circumstance of diminished supply, risen to a given height. If the surplus foreign corn might be imported at all times at a fixed duty; it would be brought in or kept out of the market in proportion to the price, and would be gradually absorbed in the consumption and stock of the country.Mr. Solly's evidence was corroborated by a letter addressed to the late Lord Londonderry in the same year, by Mr. Mellish then Consul General at Hamburgh.On the opening of the ports in August last for oats, an immediate rise of 30 or 40 per cent, took place. The shortness of the time allowed for importation occasioned shipments to a much greater extent than would have been the case, had the ports remained open; from 813 the rapidity with which shipments were made, to arrive in time, many persons were induced to send their grain to England, who would not have done so had they had time to ascertain the quantity shipped from other quarters. Had the English ports been open for a year it is probable that the importation would not have been much greater, but it would have been move gradual, and consequently not so ruinous. A moderate advance on the Continent, and a moderate reduction in England would have taken place.If their Lordships would refer to the papers on the Table, to the evidence taken in 1821, in 1833, and in 1836, to the reports of Mr. Meek, and the foreign tariff of Mr. McGregor, those papers would prove how complicated, as well as how extensive was the mischief produced by the sliding-scale. He had not as yet alluded to the shipping interest. Let him refer their Lordships on this subject to the evidence of Mr. Hedley and Mr. Young of Newcastle on Tyne, and South Shields—If there was a fixed duty on Corn", ob served the former of these witnesses (Evidence, 1833, Question 8282), "it would give very great increased employment to British shipping instead of foreign in the early part of the year; at the present moment, when any prospect of bad weather occurs during the harvest, or even in the spring of the year, orders are sent out so quickly that there is not time to send English vessels out, and the foreign vessels are taken up forthwith. Now if there was a fixed duty there would be none of that speculation, and we should have a supply of corn of superior description; there would be a regular import instead of a fluctuating one. I think if there were a fixed duty British shipping would become carriers of nearly all the corn.The examination of Mr. Young was equally important, their Lordships will find it as follows in his reply to Questions 7294, 7295, 7296, in the Report on Manufacturing Distress, in 1833.7924. Do you think that having a larger portion of the carrying trade in corn would be beneficial to you?—Yes, it would. If there was a fixed duty on corn I have no doubt it would be beneficial to us; for at the present time, if the ports are opened, orders go out to foreign ports; the foreign ships are at home and get freighted, and before the English ships can get out, the principal part of the orders are filled up, and the freights get lower; we are therefore disappointed when we get there.7925. Is not that in consequence of the short period for which corn can be imported a low duty under the existing law?—Yes.7926. So that the foreign merchant is 814 anxious to lake the first opportunity to ship his cargo, which would not be the case if there was a fixed duty?—Yes.7927. Do you consider that an alteration from a fluctuating to a fixed duty would be the means of giving additional employment to British shipping?—Yes, it would.Our Consuls, during the last year, collected most valuable evidence to the same effect, and it was with peculiar earnestness that he invited attention to the reports of Consul-general M'Gregor, which contain the soundest and most practical information. The following extracts from the consular correspondence deserved attentive consideration.Rotterdam.—If England continues the sliding-scale, it is probable that Holland would still continue a depot for foreign wheat, but if a fixed duty be adopted, that country would cease to be a depot.Stetten.—Corn would certainly be imported to be kept in depot in England. The injury to which wheat corn is exposed in a low damp country like Holland is very great.Elsinore.—If the trade was made constantly open (subject as appears from the context to a moderate fixed duty) the natural consequence would be, that the English merchant would again become the principal agent for the regular supply of his own country with corn, directly from the place of its growth, and that British shipping would be employed to a much greater extent than it is at present, in the carriage of grain under the present system.Kiel.—In 1818, the butter exported from Kiel did not exceed 1,000,000 lbs., at present it is four, owing principally to less corn being grown, and more land converted into pasture; the fluctuating nature of the corn duties in England rendering it more advisable to keep cows and make butter, where the profit is moderate, and the demand steady, than to incur the risk and the uncertainty of the Corn Market.Looking at the effect of a fixed duty more generally, their Lordships would find themselves led to the same results. Mr. Tooke, one of the greatest authorities in economical science, nearly exhausted the subject in 1821. Mr. D. Hodgson, an eminent merchant of Liverpool, gave most practical evidence; before the committee of 1836 (p. 107), he states,—I think an 8s. duty would produce less fluctuation; any unvarying plan that would admit such quantities as might be wanting from time to time on a fixed duty, I think would tend to render the price more certain and steady at home.P. 110, I think the effect of the former 815 system of fluctuating duties is to lower the price in times of plenty, and unnaturally to increase the price in time of dearth.If it were objected that this was merely the evidence of mercantile men, he would refer to the examination of Mr. Bell, a considerable farmer in Berwickshire, and in quoting this witness, he took care to include that portion of his evidence which made in any degree against his argument.I am not sure (observed this intelligent but cautious witness) that a fixed duty would not ultimately be the most satisfactory; but it is a difficult question, because a fixed duty in scarce seasons would not be submitted to. I would make no alteration in the present law, unless an alteration to a fixed duty. By the present Corn-law, wherever the price approaches near to the rate at which foreign corn can be brought in with a profit, prices may be run up by artificial means; then a great quantity of corn would be improperly liberated and thrown upon the market, and thus might probably depress the market for a whole season. Now at a fixed duty this could not take place.From the midst of the improved agriculture of Norfolk similar testimony was obtained:—I should be for a fixed duty, (observed Mr. Tyson of Thetford), beginning with a high duty and going down annually 1s. a quarter, and I should be disposed to fix 5s. a quarter on wheat ultimately.The witness was then asked, (Question 12681).Do you think that the farmer with a protection of 5s. a quarter, could grow wheat in competition with the grower of corn on the Continent?—Yes, with the increased intelligence which is abroad; and the impulse that will be given to agriculture, in consequence of the Poor-law Bill. I do not contemplate that our prices are to go down to the prices of the Continent, but that the prices on the Continent will more nearly approximate to our prices. I will state a fact which illustrates what I have just advanced, and it is this. There are two articles of agricultural produce which are not protected by high import duties, rape seed and wool, and both these articles are selling, and have been selling at a fair price. The duty on rape seed is only 1s. a quarter.Nor were these opinions confined to British merchants; with more or less modification (some of which modifications greatly confirm the general argument) the same principles prevailed on the Continent as might be learnt from the Consular Re ports. They learn from Elsinore, that—In the event of foreign corn being admitted 816 for consumption in England, on payment of a moderate duty, the immediate consequence would, most likely, be a general rise of prices at the places of production. This would, however, soon again find its level; and although, on the whole, prices may perhaps be kept 10 to 15 per cent, higher than the average prices of the last ten years, yet it may reasonably be expected that they will be more steady, and less subject to fluctuation than they have hitherto been. Nothing will tend more to stimulate the energy of the Danish landowner than the opening of the British markets for the permanent sale of his produce, on the payment of fixed and moderate duties.From the consul at Lubeck we receive some curious information, showing how far selfish interests may interfere, and give a direction to mercantile opinions:—The merchants at Lubeck, Rotterdam, Bremen, and Hamburgh, are desirous that the Corn-laws of England should remain unaltered; but they admitted, at the same time, that it was for the interest of England, as well as of foreigners, that some modification should take place, in order that speculation might be diminished, the trade rendered more steady, and the country relieved from the great drain on its treasure to which it was occasionally and suddenly exposed. If England should adopt a fixed duty at too low a rate, they were afraid of the competition of Odessa and of America.But the evidence and reasoning which he had ever been inclined to consider the most valuable, and, in almost all points, the most accurate, was that which bore the high authority of Mr. S. Jones Loyd and Mr. Senior; and it was the more important, as it refers to Mr. Canning's bill of 1827, and not to the act which he had been discussing.It is clear, (observed the hand-loom weaver commissioners,) that this plan is affected by nearly all the vices of the present law. Like the present law (4 Geo. 4th.,) it endeavours to keep corn at an artificial price. Like the present law, it must prevent any steadiness in the corn-trade. A duty rising as the price of the commodity falls, and falling as it rises, that is to say, diminishing as the value of the article increases, and increasing as the value of the article diminishes, is a monster of fiscal legislation reserved for the corn-trade. Such a measure might have been supposed to be intended for the purpose of excluding from the trade all men of capital and prudence, and tempting into it the gamblers of commerce. The two great evils of average high price and fluctuation, would probably continue if Mr. Canning's bill, or any other measure, founded on its principle, were adopted, though, of 817 course, in proportion as the scale of the duty were lowered, those evils would be diminished in degree.Such was the class of witnesses whom he should propose to examine, if their Lord ships could but be induced to grant his motion. And who would be the witnesses on the other side? Would they venture to call a man of the knowledge and ability of Mr. Horsley Palmer, one of the Bank directors? Would they summon Mr. Hubbard, belonging to the same corporation? Would they examine Mr. Lyall or Mr. Masterman, members for the City of London? Or would the Government produce any country gentlemen who would declare that the effects of the law had been found satisfactory to them and to the farmers? He doubted whether this would be done. He had had to hail many conversions, of late, on this point among country gentlemen, and it was singular that when any alteration in opinion took place, it was the doctrine of the sliding-scale that it was abandoned. Never, in the course of his experience, had he heard of an instance of a man who, once opposed to the sliding scale, had ultimately become a convert to its expediency; but they had known many who, having been advocates of the sliding scale, had, after more mature reflection, abandoned it. He felt satisfied the time was not very far distant when the great bulk of the landed interest would recognise the soundness of the opinions in favour of freedom of trade entertained on this subject by the present Lord Spencer, the late Lord Leicester, and by many others eminent, not only as landed proprietors, but as practical farmers. The progress of opinion, which was thus manifested, practically decided the question.On entering into any negociation (observed Talleyrand) I always inquire whether time is for me, or against me, and act accordingly.The Legislature would do wisely to take the same course, for they might well be assured that where the sliding-scale was daily losing support, and a more liberal system was gaining in numbers and strength, the battle was not only fought, but the victory was won. Time, to use Talleyrand's words, was clearly on their side. He fully believed, that every hour this question was postponed, its solution was less likely to be satisfactory to the landed gentry. He would not repeat the [...]te and worn-out illustration of the Sybil's 818 books, but he was convinced, that every day the adjustment of this question was delayed, the more difficult would any compromise become. It would be unfair, after using the name of Mr. Huskisson, in favour of a fixed duty, in consequence of his Report on Agriculture, in 1821, if he were to conceal the opinion pronounced by that Gentleman at a subsequent period, in favour of a sliding-scale; but if noble Lords on the other side, claimed the benefit of Mr. Huskisson's change of opinion on that occasion, he, on the other hand, must ask, what was the opinion ultimately pronounced by Mr. Huskisson? In 1830, in the maturity of his experience and knowledge, what had Mr. Huskisson said, or rather written, on the subject? In a letter written on the 25th of March in that year, he thus expressed himself:—It is my unalterable conviction, that we cannot uphold the existing Corn-laws, with our taxation, and increase the national prosperity, or preserve public contentment. That these laws might be repealed without affecting the landed interest, while the people would be relieved from their distresses, I have no doubt whatever.He referred to these opinions, not as conclusive reasons why Parliament should now and at once repeal this law, but as powerful arguments in favour of his motion for inquiry. Depend upon it, they could not adhere to the present law with a constantly increasing population. After an addition of 8,000,000 made to the population of Great Britain since 1800, it was utterly impossible for any rational man to doubt, that they must soon be compelled to make a change in the law. They could not any longer contend that they were independent of foreign supply. A foreign supply they must have; and on that point he would refer them to the conclusive opinions contained in the report of the committee of 1833. Of that committee, Sir James Graham, now Secretary of State was the Chairman—After the most full inquiry and the most careful consideration of the evidence, the committee are of opinion, that the stocks of home grown wheat in the hands of the farmers and dealers at the time of harvest have gradually diminished; that the produce of Great Britain is, on the average of years, unequal to the consumption; that the increased supply from Ireland does not cover the deficiency; and that in the present state of agriculture, the United Kingdom, is, in years of ordinary production, partially dependent on the supply of wheat from foreign countries.819 Such being the case, ho must remind their Lordships that he only entreated them to consider how a foreign supply, admitted to be indispensable by all parties, could best be attained. It is vain to think of the possibility of making a great and prosperous nation independent of foreign supply. To talk of independence of foreign supply, was to reject civilization. The naked savage, while he remains a hunter in the woods—clothing himself with skins, and eating his food raw—may boast of his independence of the tailor, the butcher, and the cook; but, with civilization, such independence cannot co-exist, and those who talk of the expediency of making England independent of all foreign supply, must wish to see their country retrace its steps and return to barbarism. Mr. Gladstone disposed of that stupid fallacy in a triumphant manner. His words are as follows:—We feel it is unworthy of the character and position of England to deny or stint the acknowledgment that we are dependent to a very considerable degree on the demand abroad for our commodities, in order to ensure the sustenance and comfort of our people. But the same considerations demonstrate, that the regions with which we trade stand in the same predicament. Both, as producers, are dependent upon their consumers for the employment of their labour; both, as consumers, are dependent on their producers for the supply of their wants.But this most fallacious argument is capable not only of being refuted but of being turned against their opponents. But he would maintain that the present Corn-law, instead of making the country independent, made it fatally dependent on foreigners. The sliding-scale, instead of inducing other countries to grow corn for the supply of England, discouraged such a course altogether as a general rule; but the time came when we did want a supply from them, and then we went to ask them to give us a portion out of their own poverty, when, if foreign governments felt themselves strong enough to do so, they might make us most painfully dependent on theme. But no government could interfere to do so. In the height and magnitude of the power of Bonaparte, England, when she needed a supply, was able to obtain it from France. When Napoleon was at the zenith of his power, and attempted to withhold the supply which the British market required, an Insurrection in France was the conse- 820 quence. In short, the idea of making ourselves independent of foreign supply was mere trumpery, and the attempt to carry out the idea tended to take us exactly in an opposite direction from that which we intended to take. He recollected the first Canadian corn bill. It came up to their Lordships in 1827, and its progress was thus described in the House of Commons, by Mr. Frederick Robinson, then Chancellor of the Exchequer:The Canada corn bill was surrounded by every principle of justice and sound policy, yet it was received at first in that House with the highest degree of alarm. It was opposed on the ground that, if passed, this country would be deluged with Canada wheat. When it reached the House of Lords, there terror took its stand. Those worthy persons, with many of whom he was nearly connected, got dreadfully alarmed. They had never heard of the like: they threw out the bill. But let the House recollect the result. In the first year an importation of 70,000 to 80,000 qrs., in the second 30,000.Such was the result of one experiment, from which the ruin of the agricultural interest had been predicted. Mr. Canning, in 1822, proposed what was called the grinding clause, and great alarm was occasioned by the proposal among the landed interest, so much so that Mr. Canning was unable to carry the clause. Our rash inovators of the present day had undertaken the grinding clause, and, more fortunate than Mr. Canning and Mr. Huskisson, had succeeded in prevailing on Parliament to adopt that clause. And what had been the result? Was there any Gentleman connected with agriculture who now felt any alarm as to the effects of the grinding clause? In the meantime, however, powerful interests had been created at Hamburgh, at Dantzic, and at Copenhagen, and those interests were able to maintain an active opposition against us, and the measure, however correct in principle, had been rendered comparatively worthless, in consequence of the opposing interests thus created by our own delay. He would ask them to compare the present condition of our foreign commerce with that in which it would now have been, if at the time of the treaty of Vienna we had negotiated reasonable treaties of commerce with other countries. With respect to many of these tariffs, he could not, however, think that they would 821 be successful. They would fail as being selfish and impolitic. Manufactures created and supported by artificial protection were not likely to prosper permanently. They were more likely to waste capital, than to realize profits. These tariffs would also be counteracted, in many cases, as our own impolitic laws had been counteracted, by the smuggler. View for instance the extensive frontier of the United States, their sea coasts, their boundary line with Canada and Texas. Was it possible to believe that the import of British commodities could be prevented? Indeed, he derived too from these tariffs a further consolation. We may detect and condemn in them faults, which our self-love made us unwilling to recognise in our own imperfect laws. The exhibition of folly on the part of other nations might give us some self-knowledge. It is related of the late Mr. Canning, that finding himself exposed to that severe trial—a wet day in a country house—a trial which it required all his wit and brilliancy to overcome, for want of other amusement he took up a treatise on the protection of British wools, by the late Lord Sheffield, and with the help of a knife and a pen, wherever he found the word wool, repeated in the essay, he altered the letter W into F. The leading sentence thus amended, read as follows:—We have no doubt that with due protection the production of British fools may be rendered sufficient for our national wants, so as to render the importation of foreign fools wholly unnecessary.Now here he differed from the altered version of Lord Sheffield's tract. Re was very favourable to the importation of foreign fools. They sometimes furnish the best means of enabling us to judge fairly of our own. The exhibition of folly and prejudice made in the tariffs of other countries, might teach us to blush for the prejudice and folly contained even in our roost recent statutes. In trespassing so long upon their Lordships, he hoped he had not said one word—and if he had, he begged to apologise for having done so—but he believed he had not said one word calculated to place the question on party grounds. In the interest of the agriculturist, in the interest of the consumer, in the interest of the merchant, he would beg their Lord ships to divest the trade of its gambling character, and not withhold the supply 822 actually in the market at the moment when it was most wanted. He would beg them to make the trade one in which an honest and prudent man might engage. All he asked for, in short, was an opportunity of showing, by sufficient evidence, whether the principles he contended for were founded in error or in truth. The noble Lord concluded by moving,—That a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into the operation and effect of the 5th of Victoria, c. 14, entitled 'An Act to Amend the Laws for the Importation of Corn.'
§ Lord Wharncliffegave the noble Lord credit for the candour which had characterised the Speech which he had delivered in support of his motion. He was quite ready to admit the truth of the greater part of what the noble Lord had stated with respect to the distress which prevailed in many parts of the country, but the question was whether an alteration of the Corn-laws, at the present moment, would relieve that distress. If he and his noble and right hon. Colleagues were satisfied that the evils under which the country was suffering were really owing to the measure passed last Session, they would have the manliness to come down to Parliament and call for its repeal. He must say, however, that all the arguments of the noble Lord and his friends had failed to convince him that the evils in question were imputable to the present system of Corn-laws. He was not one who thought that the present corn-law was perfect; but the question was whether it were not, in the balance of difficulties, the best, that under all the circumstances, could be devised. It could not be denied that the total and immediate repeal of the Corn-laws would have a most pernicious influence on the agricultural interest, and would reduce the farmer and the agricultural labourer to an infinitely worse condition than they were in at the present moment. The result would be that agricultural distress would be added to the existing manufacturing distress. Under these circumstances, it behoved their Lord ships not to take any step which was calculated to induce a belief that they were about hastily to abolish a system under which the country had existed for a long time. He conceived that much of the distress to which the noble Lord had referred was owing to the gambling spe- 823 culations which had taken place in corn, and in other commodities. On them was based a system of credit, and where they failed, they fell, and carried ruin to all around them. It was perfectly true, as the noble Lord had stated that the speculators in corn had suffered severly; but that was a circumstance naturally to be expected: because one of the objects contemplated by the law of last Session was to check the ruinous spirit of speculation he had referred to. The law it was clear, was not responsible for them, for long before that measure was introduced these gambling speculations were carried on. There were circumstances in the condition of this country which made the trade in corn a much greater question now than it formerly was. As the noble Lord said the population of the country had rapidly increased, and in consequence of that increase we were so far from being independent of foreign supply, that it had become necessary of late years to import considerably—in some years as much as between two or three millions of quarters. The question, then, was reduced simply to this—Does the sliding scale of duties, or a fixed duty, furnish the best means of obtaining the supply from abroad which was necessary to make up the deficiency in the amount of the home-grown corn? The great object was to admit foreign corn in such a manner as would be compatible with keeping up agriculture in this country. It was well known that under the system of protection agriculture had improved, and the quantity of corn produced had increased to a much greater extent than most persons had any idea of. It was frequently said that agriculture would benefit by competition, as some branches of manufacture, particularly silk, had done. There was, however, no analogy between agriculture and manufactures. Competition benefited manufactures in this way—that it caused the manufacturers to produce a good article instead of a bad one. What would be the case with respect to corn? True, more might be got out of the land by better cultivation; but that would be a work of time, and if the price should be reduced below the equivalent arising from the increased production, agriculture would never be able to sustain the competition. In manufactures, again, the power of machinery could be increased, and in six months an enormous augmentation of 824 manufacturing produce would be obtained. The case was different as regarded agriculture. It was necessary to wait a considerable time before the results of improved modes of cultivation could be realized. The man who grew three quarters of corn would see many years pass before he could add another quarter to the amount of his produce. It would be most unwise to withdraw protection quasi protection from agriculture before the real effect of the existing law had been ascertained, and the appointment of a committee, as proposed by the noble Lord, would only shake the confidence of the public on the stability of the present law, and excite hopes and expectations which could never be realized. The noble Lord, by the way, was himself an advocate of a species of protection, for although the noble Lord proposed an 8s. duty for purposes of revenue that must necessarily increase the price and operate as a protection. The noble Lord indeed had not admitted that a fixed duty would afford any protection. But he argued that a fixed duty of 8s. would operate as a partial protection. Such being the fact, they ought to consider what would be the effect of that duty when corn had reached certain prices. In case of very high prices induced by a a bad harvest here and in other countries it would be impossible to maintain the principle of a fixed duty. This was admitted by the Members of the late Government, who proposed a fixed duty of 8s. ["No."] He understood that the late Government finally proposed that when the price of corn might reach a certain amount, the Queen in council should have the power of remitting the duty altogether. In the case of an universally good harvest, on the other hand, could any man believe that the price of corn in England would not under a fixed duty be beaten down and overwhelmed by foreign importation? For his own part, he was persuaded such would be the result. It was to avoid such inconveniences that the Government last year introduced the bill which was now the law. They saw that in certain cases the duties were provokingly—nay, uselessly high. They saw that a 20s. duty was at certain prices quite as efficient to exclude corn as a 37s. duty; and he was prepared to contend, that so far from the duties fixed by the bill having done no good, they had proved most beneficial in their past effects, and were calcu- 825 lated to operate still more beneficially in future. But it should be recollected that 1842 was by no means a fair year in which to test the operation of such a bill. Up to the end of April or the beginning of May there was nearly 1,000,000 quarters of wheat in bond. It was supposed that we should have a short and bad harvest, and a general impression to that effect remained unaltered until May, if not indeed up to a later period of the year. When it began to be discovered, or rather to be supposed, that we should have a better harvest, corn was brought to market in larger proportions than it was ever known to be brought to market at that particular period of almost any previous year. He held in his hand a return of the corn entered for home consumption in 1841 and 1842; and he found that, in May, June, July, and August, 1841 (the harvest being in September), the quantity of corn entered for home consumption was 316,081 quarters; in 1842 the quantity entered for home consumption in the months of April, May, June, and July (the harvest being in August), was 624,821 quarters, being nearly double the quantity of the preceding year. The harvest last year, was an early one; and, besides this, there was another circumstance, the result, be it observed, of the bill itself, which operated most powerfully on the averages. He alluded to the operations of those persons who were formerly accustomed to tamper with the sliding scale; but who, after this bill passed, speedily made the discovery that, from the addition to the number of towns at which the averages were taken, it was quite useless for them to attempt to put in practice such schemes as those they had previously carried out successfully. He himself had heard one of those parties say "Peel has done us:" meaning thereby, that the measure of last year had thrown so many difficulties in his way, that it was impossible for him now to put his plans into operation. It was worthy of observation, too, with regard to this bill, that the duty was last year never below 8s. instead of falling to 1s. as under the old law, and the great supply furnished in August last year came in at the duty of 8s. He thought this was a convincing proof that the new law prevented corn from being imported at those very low figures at which it was supposed that injury would ensue to the agriculturalists. 826 Now with respect to the fluctuations. When their Lordships looked at the range of prices, he did not think they could come to the conclusion that prices had undergone under the new law very great fluctuations. The average price was very soon reduced from the very high rates of 1841 and the beginning of 1842, to 51s. or 52s. and, having reached that point, it did not descend lower than 47s. 9d. during the whole year. Under these circumstances, and considering that the bill had only been in operation nine months, he did think it was somewhat early to call on their Lordships to decide so dogmatically against it as the noble Baron would have them decide. It was his firm belief, that if the measure were allowed to go on, not only would existing evils be lessened, but much steadier prices would be secured. At all times steadiness in the conduct of the Government of a country was essential to its interests, and more especially was it so when the great commercial and agricultural interests were implicated. [Lord Monteagle, hear.] The noble Lord meant to say that legislation on this subject had not been steady, he admitted that; but still it had not been so unsteady as the noble Lord proposed to make it. At all times and with reference to all corn bills the House had taken time to discover their faults and to provide for their amendment. He could see no reason why this bill should be excepted from the general rule, and, believing that the House would act most unwisely if they permitted a notion of the unsteadiness of the measure to go abroad, he should conclude by entreating them not to support any motion which, like that before them, would have so evil and injurious a tendency.
§ The Earl of Clarendonsaid, it would be unnecessary for him to trouble their Lord ships with many observations, for much of what he might have intended to address to the House had been anticipated by his noble Friend (Lord Monteagle) in his most able, comprehensive, and, altogether unanswered speech. The noble Lord opposite, indeed, had not attempted to answer his Noble Friend, the task would have been obviously hopeless, and it was no wonder the attempt was not made. He must, in the first place, express the satisfaction with which he had heard that his noble Friend (Lord Monteagle) had brought forward his important motion, with no object hostile 827 to the Government, for in his (Earl of Clarendon's) opinion, that man would give little proof of comprehending the gravity of the circumstances in which the country was placed, who sought to discuss these questions in a spirit of party, or who was not prepared cordially to co-operate with the Government in any measure they might contemplate for the relief, or at all events the alleviation of the distress which had now become universal. The speech of the noble Lord opposite had, however, destroyed all hope of any such remedial measure, although he was at a loss to conceive with what object the distress of the country had been adverted to in her Majesty's Speech, if it were not to direct the attention of Parliament to its relief. He believed it was not in the power of language to exaggerate that distress, and it was most melancholy to think, that the various classes now labouring under its pressure had not yet reached the limit of the wretchedness they were destined to endure. The state of the revenue was a fearful indication of the condition of the labouring classes. Those who knew what constituted—first the luxuries, next the comforts, and then the necessaries, of the working classes, must be aware what a world of misery was indicated by any serious defalcation of the revenue. What availed it to admit the existence of distress and commend the resignation with which it was borne? The time for words had passed. Of what use was it to tell a starving man, surrounded with starving children, that before six months passed, his condition would be bettered? What he wanted was the means of assuaging his present sufferings. If the present state of things were one of those crises to which manufacturing countries must occasionally be exposed, the noble Lord might be justified in saying that the worst was over, and that better times were at hand; but it had now lasted for years—it had gradually increased—it was progressively increasing still—and it was rapidly approaching that point, beyond which human endurance must find its limit, and which will shake our social fabric to its foundation. He was aware that this distress had been attributed to a vast variety of causes over the greater part of which, however, Parliament would exercise no control, such as the bankruptcy of the United States—the rapid increase of population—over pro- 828 duction—over speculation—the too great extent of machinery, and many others, all of them doubtless more or less affecting the circumstances of the country, but none of them coming within the reach of legislation; were they on that account, however, to sit still and do nothing? Could they, in times like these, when more employment for our people and fresh markets for their industry were imperatively demanded by our necessities, so indifferent to our restrictive commercial code, at the head of which for cruelty and injustice prominently stand the Corn-laws. Would they turn a deaf ear to the cry of distress at their doors, and vote that night as the noble Lord called upon them to do, that nothing could be added to their stock of knowledge, and that inquiry was but a useless waste of their time? What had the House to do? This was the beginning of the Session, and they had not yet entered on that scramble of legislation which had been so often reprobated by his noble and learned Friend on the Woolsack, and which would take place a few months hence, when they should have to pass the bills sent up to them from the other House. What were their Lordships in that House for? They were there in the exercise of their hereditary rights it was true; but which rights would be valueless when they ceased to be respected, and they would cease to be respected when their possessors renounced the power of doing good? What, he would repeat, were their Lordships there for; if they were not prepared to devote their energies to the consideration of questions vitally important to their fellow subjects. The noble Lord opposite said, that if the House should enter into the proposed inquiry, they would shake confidence and raise hopes and expectations which could not be realised. That was the old and stale argument against inquiry, and, in the present instance, was singularly inapplicable. Did the Government suppose they had not raised expectations by recommending her Majesty to announce that she was aware of the distress of her subjects; and did the noble Lord think that the people would not be disappointed at finding that not only were no remedial measures proposed, but that an inquiry into one of the causes to which most persons attributed the distress was peremptorily refused? Let their Lordships but grant this inquiry, and they would excite only hopes of their justice and 829 expectations of their unselfishness; and for his part, he could conceive nothing that would be more becomingly occupy their time—nothing that would be more gratefully viewed by the people—nothing that would be more creditable to the House of Lords, than for their Lordships honestly and without fear for the result, to investigate the operation of a law in which individually and collectively they were believed to be interested. The Corn-law was the key-stone of our whole commercial policy: place that on a sure basis, and every necessary reform would follow as an inevitable corollary. Then would the distress of the country be brought within the grasp of legislation, and England by establishing a sound system of commercial policy, would compel other countries to follow her example. He agreed with his noble Friend, that up to the present time, we had certainly acted an unwise part with regard to our commercial negotiations, and that if, at the Congress of Vienna, we had better understood our real interests, and taken our stand on a different ground, other countries would have followed our example, and a free system of trade would now have prevailed, to the general benefit of all the nations of the world. But it was not yet, he hoped, too late to adopt a wiser course. Foreign governments might tell us to expect nothing from them, and that they could not alter their policy; but if we produced cheaply what other countries wanted in exchange for the productions they had to offer, and that that exchange was prevented by their own restrictive systems, there would soon be manifestations of discontent, which the governments of those countries would not dare to disregard. The complaints of the wine growers of Bourdeaux were already beginning to alarm the French government. The same thing was going on at Oporto. The noble Lord the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs recently stated, that he hoped to conclude the commercial treaty with Portugal that had been so long pending, but if he did, the noble Lord well knew he would be indebted for it, not to the Government, but exclusivel to the clamour which the landed interest in that country had raised against the Portuguese commercial system. In Spain, too, the same thing was taking place; the government of that country had admitted that their commercial system—the absurdest, perhaps, in the whole world—had succeeded in effecting only two things, namely, the 830 ruin of the revenue and the demoralization of the people. In Russia the landed proprietors were universally complaining of their prohibitory tariff. The Zollverein was producing general discontent in the eastern agricultural provinces of Prussia. The tariff of the United States of America, which had been framed for financial objects only, could not be maintained; and there was another country in which nothing was wanting but a greater degree of pressure properly applied to cause the restrictive system to be abolished, and that was our own. Oh, but then it was said, we shall get no advantages by adopting a more liberal system; other nations will not take our productions, and we shall be compelled to pay for them in gold and silver—the fallacy however, of gold and silver not being as good as any other commodities for the purposes of exchange was now too generally exploded to be deserving of notice—we must have obtained gold and silver somehow—Mexico and Peru did not make us a present of them—an equivalent must have been taken in exchange, and that equivalent must have given employment to capital and industry. He could state of his own knowledge, that the persons who were the principal upholders of monopoly in foreign countries dreaded nothing so much as to see the principles of free trade fairly carried out by us. The amount of exports must always depend upon the amount of imports, for our merchants could not send domestic products abroad unless they were permitted to bring foreign products back in exchange. In dealing with questions of this nature it was only necessary to act upon the doctrines of common sense—as he rejoiced to find the right hon. Baronet the Secretary for the Home Department had called the principles of free trade and we should benefit, not only ourselves but other nations—we should advance the cause of civilization and human happiness, and be constantly adding to international securities for the preservation of peace. Looking at the subject in this point of view, and not into the narrow and selfish object of keeping up rents, or raising the profits of manufacturers, he declared it was in his opinion the greatest and most important question that could engage the attention of the Legislature. He accordingly thought his noble Friend had done most wisely in confining his proposed inquiry to the Corn-laws, knowing, as his noble Friend well did, that until they were 831 placed on a sound and permanent basis every other interest would remain stagnant and unthriving. And could his noble Friend have given to his motion a more modest or unexceptionable form? An inquiry into the operation of the law ! Why if the noble Lord was sincere in his belief, that the law was working beneficially, this was just the motion which, if the Government did not originate themselves, they should be grateful to his noble Friend for bringing forward. The noble Lord probably spoke from the information he had received from his noble Friend the President of the Board of Trade, the cause of whose absence that night he sincerely regretted, and that information was doubtless derived from those various sources to which he had access. He must, of course, during the last eight months, have been in communication with landholders and farmers, bankers, merchants, corn-factors, and custom-house officers, and the most intelligent too, of these various and conflicting classes. Now, if this were so, and he supposed it was, because it ought to be the case, let all these witnesses be summoned before the committee, and he saw no reason why every member of it should not be brought to the same conclusion. Let him convince the noble Baron now sitting opposite (Lord Ashburton) in the same way; for he feared, from that noble Lord having gone over to the other side, that his mind was not yet made up on the question. [Lord Ashburton had a few minutes before moved from the Opposition to the Ministerial Benches.] His noble Friend near him (Lord Monteagle), who had long been connected with the finances of the country, though he had not been President of the Board of Trade—whose long official experience made him a most competent judge of the operation of any law affecting the material interests of the community, and whose industry in collecting facts, and great ability in reasoning clearly upon them, he was sure their Lordships must that night all have admired—his noble Friend, thus qualified to state an opinion, declared inquiry to be necessary The noble President of the Council, taking his opinions as those of the Government, was of a contrary opinion. Could there be a better mode of arbitrating between them, and ascertaining on which side lay the truth, than by the appointment of a committee such as could be selected in that House, and whose verdict should be enti- 832 tled to the confidence of the country? This would be a straightforward, manly way for the Government to act, and a way in which, if they thought themselves justified in upholding the law, they ought to act, when thousands of our fellow-subjects believed that the evils they were suffering under were attributable to this measure alone, and when it should be the duty of the Government to make plain to them, that they were in error, and that to other remedies, they must look for relief. For his own part, he could only say, that if the noble Lord (Lord Wharncliffe) granted the committee, and convinced him that the Corn-law was a beneficial law, he would abandon all his previous opinions, and publicly do penance for them in that House. But if the noble Lord shrunk from this inquiry, he would do more to damage the law, and to impair public confidence in its durability, than anything that happened even during a late debate in another place, which was full of most important admissions. He spoke from memory; but he saw reported of the right hon. Gentleman, the Vice-President of the Board of Trade, of whose distinguished abilities he meant to speak with all respect, that there was no abstract principle involved in the Corn-law; that it was regulated by the same principles as those which applied to cattle, or any other commodity; that our exports depended on our imports; that the law must be temporary; and that of all classes connected with the land, the least affected by a change would be the landlords. He saw, also, that the right hon. Secretary for the Home Department said the doctrines of free-trade were those of common sense, and that without commercial prosperity, our landed interest must decay. And, lastly, that the right hon. Baronet at the head of the Government was reported to have said, that protection could not be defended as the permanent system of this country. There was, then, no material difference between the Government and its opponents. Why, then, not carry out the admitted principle to its legitimate results? That the difficulty of dealing with protected interests were great, he admitted: but were they likely to diminish? On the contrary, would not their tendency be to increase? for parties always wax strong as Governments grow weak, and this Government, like every other, must expect to see its power decline, indeed, it had done so already. The longer necessary reforms were delayed, the greater 833 will be the difficulty of carrying them out, and the greater the danger of their arriving too late—of arriving too late, also, in more ways than one—for the time may come when the excited passions of the people, and the threatened institutions of the country, may exact from them that which prudence and foresight should have prompted them to grant. It was far from his intention to use or encourage the use of the language of intimidation, which it was not his habit to indulge in, and which he knew would not be tolerated in that House; but he thought it a most pernicious system not to precede and guide public opinion, not to minister to admitted necessities, but to wait, as in the case of Catholic Emancipation, until impending civil war compelled them to grant not only all that had before been strenuously refused, but more even than had been asked. He thought it a most pernicious system, as in the case of Parliamentary Reform, to reject every improvement, to refuse the abatement of acknowledged nuisances, and to goad the people into saying we will, to those who declare you shall not. Let their Lordships look to the present state of this question as compared with that in former years, when it was but little understood; it had now grown in public importance, and was now the topic of every public meeting connected with the industry of the country. It had been said, that facts and arguments took a long time to soak in this country; but when once they were imbibed, they sprung up in convictions and produced results that could not with safety be disregarded. What if the harvest of last year had been like that of 1839? What if the winter had been severe, instead of the extraordinarily mild season we had just experienced? Noble Lords would have had reason to take a very different view of the effects of the law. But the noble Lord had said, that there had not been time enough to test the law; that would be true if it had contained any new principle, if it were likely to settle anything, if it prevented speculations and fluctuations, or if it were such a law as to enable the people to take it as the basis of future and permanent arrangements; but it did not. And how could it, when they were told upon the highest authority, that it possessed no abstract excellence, and that its existence would not be guaranteed for a single year, and that the answer to all inquirers must be considered as a temporary one—why, what 834 dreadful trifling was this with the Most important interests of the country! He did not ask whether it were wise, or straightforward, or statesmanlike to pursue such a course, but he did ask whether it could be for the interest of those whom this wavering conduct was intended to serve? Could any temporary increase of rents compensate for the depressing uncertainty of the present system? He asked their Lordships whether the evils of the present system did not prevent good tenants from taking land? [Cries of "No, no."] He asked whether the state of the law did not prevent that application of capital to improvements which the present state of agriculture rendered more than ever necessary? Surely then it was better to know at once, that which in another year or two we must inevitably come to. At all events those connected with the land had a right to inquire of the Government why the law is a temporary one, and if the Government cannot tell them, they have a right to know what was that pecular operation of the law and state of the country which would justify further change? For his own part, he thought the present operation of the law and the state of the country not only justified, but demanded further change; and, until he was convinced by somewhat stronger arguments than he had yet heard, he should consider the sliding-scale as one of the greatest evils which could be inflicted on a country, and the protection of the farmers from the importation of foreign corn, one of the most fertile sources of those vicissitudes to which they were exposed. And here he was disposed to ask, why that class of producers, which was protected more than any other, and that at the expense of their fellow producers, and in violation of every sound commercial principle, had been, on their own showing, more often and more grievously distressed than any other in the community. The Corn-law was based on the absurd assumption, that it was in the power of Parliament to secure a fixity of price. He wished to know whether corn had ever maintained, or indeed, hardly ever reached the price on which the farmer had been told he might calculate, and according to which, his arrangements were made? The noble Lord said the fluctuations were not very great. But within three months after this last experiment in legislation was made, the price of corn fell from 62s. 6d. 835 to 51s. 7d. and it was now at 48s. 7d. that was 15 per cent below the 56s. upon which the farmer was assured he might reckon as a remunerating price, but not more, for his capital and labour. He would not follow his noble Friend through the details which he had so comprehensively laid before their Lordships; he hoped their Lordships would bear well in mind the proofs of the absurdity and mischief of the present law that had been adduced by his noble Friend. His noble Friend had shewn that the sliding-scale rendered the farmer most obnoxious to competition when he was least able to bear it; and that more corn than was wanted was frequently brought in under it. Indeed there were now 500,000 quarters of duty-paid corn still in warehouse, waiting for a market and depressing the price of British corn. His noble Friend had stated the enormous losses suffered by the corn-importers under the present law. The ruin he knew of these individuals was often heard with indifference, or even with satisfaction. They were likened to men who had suffered from gambling. Now, he looked on those importers as great public benefactors. Without their speculations, the country would constantly be exposed to the horrors of famine prices and the dissolution of social order; but it was the law which prevented this most important of all trades from being placed on the same sound principles as those which regulated other commodities; it was the law which prevented prudent men from embarking their capital in it, it was the law which compelled others to speculate and gamble—it was the law—it was the protection with which the landowners had surrounded themselves, that rendered the importers of corn from abroad the curse and the terror of those who produced it at home. He was far from seeking popularity by the avowal of the sentiments which he had addressed to their Lordships. The little property he possessed he derived exclusively from land, and he spoke therefore as one deeply and personally interested in agricultural prosperity; but at the same time, feeling as certain as he could of anything that had not occurred, that the agricultural interest was about to enter on that crisis which now pressed on the manufacturing, he thought it their duty, by every means they could devise, to drag labour into employment, and to enable manufacturers and artisans to become 836 consumers of agricultural produce. The only means to effect this was by giving a general impulse to our export trade, which, by the capital and labour employed in it, necessarily affected the agricultural interest. We have a redundant population, the land cannot maintain more than it already does, and the excess must therefore look to manufacturers and commerce for support, and unless 150,000 pair of fresh hands could be employed every year in trade and manufactures, they must seek relief from the poor-rates, which fell heavier on the landowners than on any other class. It was yet in the power of the Government to give relief. Last year they had it in their power to carry the largest and most beneficial measures of reform, and the right hon. Baronet at the head of the Government ably demonstrated what they should be. He declared it was the bounden duty of the Government and the Legislature to remove pressure from off the springs of industry, to render the necessaries of life more accessible to the labouring classes, and above all to enable the people to sell in the dearest, and buy in the cheapest market. Had the right hon. Baronet fulfilled any of those conditions? Had he performed his promise of rendering the Income-tax imperceptible by the reduced expences of living? Had our foreign commerce been extended or the wages of labour increased? The state of the revenue afforded melancholy proof of how ill the right hon. Baronet had adopted the means he possessed to the end which he professed to have in view. The Parliament had been assembled six weeks, and this was the first time the portion of the Queen's Speech relating to distress was considered. God forbid that he should despair of the rallying power of the country, or think that the capital, and courage, and industry, and skill of our people should be destined to prove unequal to the difficulties by which we were encompassed; but if our downward progress was to be arrested it could only be by the Government and the Legislature boldly facing the difficulties we had to encounter. No one could deny the critical position in which we were placed; no one could deny that apprehension every where existed; that men's minds were unsettled; that all existing arrangements had been interfered with but not adjusted, and that what had been done could only lead to further changes. Amongst various classes, various opinions 837 of course obtained, but all whatever be their class, were agreed that there ought to be no more bit by bit legislation, that the torture of uncertainty should be put an end to, and that laws affecting the most vital interests of the community should be rendered permanent by being made just. He thought, that the Government, whose duty it was to collect facts, and ascertain the true state of public opinion would admit that this was no exaggerated picture of the feeling which existed upon matters far too momentous to be dragged into the arena of miserable party strife, for if ever there were questions which could be called national, and upon which men of every shade of political difference might cordially unite for the common good it was, those which involved not the prosperity, not the well-being only, but the very existence of the labouring classes. And here he was, that if the Government now used the power they still possessed (unquestionably less though it was than last year), they would secure the support, and earn for themselves the gratitude of every well-wisher of his country. It was because he thought that the appointment of this committee would be the precursor of a sounder policy, and an earnest of better measures that he should cheerfully support the motion of his noble Friend.
§ Lord Ashburtonwas quite sensible that no party was so sure to be heard with satisfaction as those who complained of distress, when it unquestionably existed in the country. It was quite natural that men should be heard in such a state of things to say, "Take our nostrum, it is sure to put an end to all your difficulties." Such professions, however, should be listened to with some distrust, particularly when they emanated from those who were not responsible for public measures. It was undoubtedly true, that the distress was great; it was admitted by all, and it had been of considerable duration. If he were to give an opinion, he should say it was not increasing, but rather subsiding things had a tendency to come round and settle, rather than to produce an aggravation of existing evils. That was his impression, though he confessed he spoke on that point with little more authority than any of their Lordships. Undoubtedly, if their Lordships should be persuaded by the arguments of the noble Lord who had opened the debate on this subject with so much ability and good temper and calm 838 reasoning, and believe in the statement of the noble Earl who had just sat down, that any thing their Lordships could do would alleviate the existing distress, it was their duty to do it; and if they were convinced, with the noble Lord who had opened the debate, that the distress arose from the want of a fixed duty on corn; or if they agreed with the noble Earl who had just sat down, that the whole system of protection was a nuisance, and the cause of the existing distress, he was quite sure that their Lordships would at once seriously consider this important question. He had listened with very great attention to the extensive details of the noble Lord (Lord Monteagle), but had come to a very contrary conclusion from them. Instead of taking the first remedy that was suggested, because distress existed, they ought to be well convinced that the remedy proposed was suited to the occasion, and, more particularly, that it was not one which would aggravate the distress. In his view the manufacturing distress was simply occasioned by the failure of the American market, and by that only. The noble Lord who had opened the discussion had stated, that there had been a great falling off in woollens, and cottens, and different articles of manufacture. It was perfectly well known that the American market had failed to the extent of 5,000,000l. in the course of last year, and that was quite sufficient to account for the distress which prevailed in our manufacturing districts. The same distress was prevalent in America; ships were rotting in their docks, and fortunes were reduced one-half, and all those symptoms of distress which were visible in this country, were to be seen there, with this difference, that in America there were not those large masses of population collected together which made the distress so painful as it appeared in this country. But the question which their Lordships had now to determine was, had they heard from either of the two noble Lords who had addressed them any arguments to show that the distress arose from the state of the Corn-laws; more particularly had they heard that it arose from any difference in the system of protection between a sliding scale and a fixed duty? Had any one argument been offered to their Lordships which tended to prove that fact? If there had, and the argument was satisfactory, he then admitted, that there was sufficient 839 ground on which to appoint a select committee to look into the question. He warned their Lordships from being led away by their ordinary Parliamentary tactics in Parliamentary discussions, by appeals them such as "who could object to inquiry? He should say, on the contrary, that if no proof had been shown that the existing distress was to be altered by any alteration in the Corn-laws their Lordships must see that they ran the risk of adding the distress of the agricultural labourers to that which existed amongst the manufacturers by re-commending any such alteration. When a few years ago the farmers petitioned their Lordships for an inquiry into the causes of their distress, it was perfectly true, that at that time an inquiry was made, but it had resulted in the conviction of the House, that nothing could be done for them, and that the crisis should be left to take its own course. The noble Lord opposite cheered the fact of a committee having been appointed on that occasion. He had sat upon the committee, and was perfectly convinced at the time, that the remedies proposed were hopeless and useless, and there being in fact no remedy things were left to right themselves, as they would if they did not impose measures which, under the appearance of being remedies, were, in fact, constant impediments to a return to a better state. The noble Lord had dwelt very much upon the sliding-scale—upon its defects and consequences, but had left their Lordships entirely in the dark, whether he was one of those who concurred with the late Administration in their view of the 8s. duty as the proper duty to be imposed for the regulation of the corn trade, or whether he was a convert to the principle of no protection which the noble Earl seemed to consider to be proper. He did not deny, that the whole question of the Corn-laws was one upon the discussion of which men might very well differ, and upon which honest opinions might vary; he could not deny that, when he saw opposite to him noble Lords, from whom some thirty years ago he had had the misfortune to differ exactly in the opposite sense in which he now did. When, in 1815, propositions had been made to raise the protective duty, he had objected to any such increase of the protection; and he certainly had objected to any re taxation of the protection in the discussion 840 of the law last year. With respect to what was called finality on this question, nothing could be more absurd than to say that the law on this question never should be altered, or should never alter with the varying circumstances of the time. He at least should be always ready to listen to suggestions from men in or out of Parliament as to the operation of such laws. He did not at all quarrel with those who held even extreme opinions on this subject, provided they were honest. But at the same time that he believed that no sensible person could come to the conclusion as to the precise degree of protection that should be invariably upheld, he was sure that nothing was more dangerous than a constant fluctuation from year to year in the measures of Government, the consequence of which must be that individuals must be left in doubt as to the manner in which they could safely apply their industry and capital. There should be no change but from a grave necessity, and he did not think either of the noble Lords who had spoken had established such a ground for fresh legislation. The noble Lord who introduced the motion left it in doubt whether he meant to uphold a fixed duty, or whether he agreed with the noble Earl (the Earl of Clarendon) that all restrictions should be abolished. The whole tenor of his noble Friend's speech went to abstain from touching on the point as to whether he held an opinion favourable to the fixed duty scheme or that of total repeal, But taking one view of the case or the other, what proof, he would ask, had his noble Friend given that the existing distress could with propriety be attributed to the operation of the present Corn-laws? In the first place a Corn-law was no novelty among them; they had had Corn-laws in various shapes since 1670, laws which had raised the price of corn more than did the present. And under these laws manufacturing prosperity had grown up; in fact they had existed in different forms as long as the country had been a manufacturing one. Yet, out of doors it was the fashion to talk of the law, as having been imposed in 1828, or in 1815, while, in point of fact, every alteration made since the former period had been an alteration of relaxation in the tightness of the system. It would, also, be supposed, from other arguments which it was the fashion to use upon the subject, that this country alone 841 maintained a Corn-law, while Corn-laws in reality existed in different shapes in every part of Europe, and also, he believed, in the United States of America. In the latter country, a duty of twenty-five percent, was levied upon the importation of corn. Some countries had their Corn-laws in the shape of sliding scales, others in the shape of fixed duties, but in some shape or other the principle was recognised in almost every civilised country in the world. He did not mean to say that that was at all a conclusive argument why we should keep up our own Corn-laws, but it was a reason why the burthen of proving them evil should lie with those who called for their repeal. What benefit would accrue to manufactures from the abolition of the Corn-laws? Nobody would say that, since last year, the price of food had been such as to be very pressing. Manufacturing depression did not arise from that. On the contrary, the prices of food had not been more moderate for years than they now were. He believed that the present price was about 48s. But if they took the years from 1655 to the end of that century, they would find the average price not less than 44s. And during the next fifty years it had amounted to about 52s. per quarter. He mentioned these facts for the purpose of showing that at present there existed no prices so high that the prevailing distress could be attributed to them. Further, let them look into the working of these laws. They were told of derangements of the currency arising from them; but since the alteration of the law they had received 1,200,000l. revenue from the corn laws, and instead of the circulation at present showing any symptoms of distress, the bank abounded in the precious metals—the circulation was perfect and abundant, and although nearly six millions had been paid for corn, sending the money out of the country, had produced no injurious effect. There were no outward and visible signs of anything in the condition of the country, which could induce their Lordships to believe that the late alterations in the Corn-laws had produced the present state of distress, or that it had in any degree prevented a return to commercial prosperity. He would not follow the noble Lord who had opened the debate into all the details into which he had entered, but he did feel that many of that noble Lords arguments 842 were most fallacious. They could not complain of the present price of food. There had been no extensive fluctuations in prices. Considering that corn was an article most liable to fluctuation in price, it had been remarkable how steady its price had lately been. They had continued the system of protection in a moderate degree to the home growers, and at the same time allowing, at certain prices and under certain regulations, foreign corn to come in. He repeated again it was remarkable how well the system had produced steadiness of price. If they looked at the figures, they would see that in no country in the world had the price of food for the last few years been more steady than in Great Britain. They might, indeed, be told, of the prices of corn at Dantzic and other parts, but let them look at the prices of rye, the principal food of the people of those countries, and they would find infinitely more fluctuation there than there was here. With respect to foreign markets, every one admitted, that if British manufactured articles were allowed to enter at all, that they would undersell all competitors. We had sent iron to form the railway from St. Petersburgh to Moscow, though Russia produced iron in abundance. But we could not make laws for other countries or prevent them from making laws to protect their own manufactures. If their Lord ships would consider the circumstances of many continental nations, enjoying a lengthened peace, they would admit that it was natural that manufactures should grow up in them, especially when protected by their own laws. He did not say that in these cases these protecting laws were wise ones; he wished that they had not existed, but still they had had the effect of fostering the manufactures of the countries in which they were enacted. Notwithstanding all the restrictions of foreign countries, had we not, he would ask a fair share in the manufactures and trade of the world? In the article of cotton this little island of Britain took nearly, if not completely, the half of the whole amount grown. Surely they had no reason to complain that they had not a fair share of manufactures. But he did not believe that foreign countries would be induced, by an alteration in our Corn-laws, to make exceptions in their restrictive codes in favour of our manufactures in return. He knew so well what was 843 passing with respect to this subject in foreign countries, that he was assured that such would not be the case; and that, although they were to make a sacrifice to the total derangement of the commercial code and the destruction of the Corn-laws, by so doing they would not advance commercial and manufacturing prosperity. When they came to this beautiful free-trade what did they find? Why, the Norwegians could carry coals from Newcastle to the Thames cheaper than British vessels, merely because they lived cheaper. They had heard much ridicule of the notions of independence of foreigners, but they saw how other nations sometimes behaved to them. They saw how the French gave bounties to their fishermen, and how their large fishing-boats were in the habit of driving away our own fishing-vessels on the coast of Scotland during the herring fishery. This was contrary, no doubt, to every principle of fairness—to every principle of political economy; but the commerce of this country was a system which could not be fairly put upon perfect principles of political economy. If they quarrelled with the Emperor of China, they might do without tea; but they could never do without bread. The people must be fed; that must be the first consideration. Noble Lords proposed to accomplish it by means of free-trade. He denied that that was the way. In the first place there was a difficulty arising from political circumstances; and though they had heard something about riots in France because corn was not allowed to be exported, he could tell them of insurrections which had occurred because corn-merchants wished to ship corn for this country. An insurrection of this sort had taken place on the Loire, and from the very circumstance that corn had been prevented from being shipped, whether by despotic command, or irregular popular interference, it became a grave question whether, as respected that article of all others which they could do least without, they should be dependent upon foreigners. If his noble Friend had any doubt of the quantity grown in this country, let him read the pamphlet of that acute-minded man, Mr. Huskisson, upon foreign supplies, written in the year 1815, in support of the bill of that year. The question of in dependant supply must rest very much upon a question of degree. If they con- 844 sumed 12,000,000 quarters and grew only 8,000,000 or 10,000,000 they might look to other parts of the world for the other 4,000,000 or 2,000,000. But if they lowered their agriculture, which no one doubted a material sacrifice of the Corn-laws would do, and made still greater the bloated mass of manufacturing prosperity—a prosperity which he believed to be essentially false—supposing they did do all this, they would remain in a state of miserable dependence, and expose themselves to insults and calamities of every kind. His views had been adverse to an extraordinary degree of protection, but favourable to that moderate extent which would give fair encouragement to the agriculturists, and repay them for the particular charges made upon them. That peculiar burthens lay upon the land, no candid man would deny. No man would deny that they were considerable, and required consideration. By protection was not meant taking money from one class to enrich another; it was a compensation for peculiar charges which, from certain circumstances, were best left upon the land. The noble Lord opposite had stated that this was a question to be considered divested of party feeling; but he really thought it was a question with respect to a sliding-scale on which one Government slid in and another slid out of office. Their Lordships had heard no arguments to show that the present law had worked ill. He was sure that if they were induced by mere hackneyed arguments to enter into a consideration of the causes of the existing distress, that the only result would be to aggravate that distress which they all so deeply deplored, to aggravate it not only by drawing the agriculturist into its sphere, but by still further injuring the manufacturers themselves.
§ The Duke of Richmondwould not have addressed their Lordships had it not been for a statement of the noble Lord opposite, to the effect that Earl Grey's cabinet had been a divided one on the subject of the Corn-laws. The noble Earl had said, that the first Lord of the Admiralty had voted one way upon the subject, and that the Vice-President of the Board of Trade had voted another. Now, he had nothing to do with the Vice-President of the Board of Trade, who was not a Member of the Cabinet, but he said that Earl Grey's cabinet were united upon the subject, that Earl Grey, in the name of the Cabinet, recommended the 845 noble Lord, now absent (the Earl of Ripon), to get up and resist a motion for inquiry into the Corn-laws made by his noble Friend opposite. He was anxious to relieve himself from the supposition that he had staid for one moment in a Cabinet which could entertain notions of changing the Corn-laws every day, or of acceding to motions such as the one now before their Lordships' House. He certainly, for one, deeply deplored the distress of the manufacturing districts. He deplored it not only from the individual cases of misery which it gave rise to, but because he had been one of those who had always felt it to be impossible to sever the great interests of the country without doing injury to them all. He had no sympathy with the Anti Corn-law League, who tried to set these interests in hostile array against each other—the men who did so were no friends to this country. But he had confidence in the uprightness, the integrity, and the intelligence of the agriculturists, and also on the respectable portion of the manufacturing and commercial classes, and he believed that those gentlemen who sought to lead them astray would meet with the reward that demagogues usually received, and would be despised by every true Englishman. He was delighted to have heard it said by the noble Lord who spoke second that when manufacturing distress existed, agricultural distress existed too. He was delighted to hear him admit that that distress threw manufacturing operatives upon the poor-rates, and that the poor-rates were defrayed by the landed interest. The fact that the landed interest was so much pressed by public and local taxation was one of the reasons why the agriculturist did not use so much machinery as the manufacturer. If he used a thrashing machine, for instance, its operation threw people out of employment, who directly became chargeable to himself as inmates of the workhouse. This, he said, was one of the reasons why the farmers of England could not compete with farmers abroad. He himself had had a property abroad, for which he did not pay one fourth of the taxation to which it would have been liable at home. There was one sentiment uttered by a noble Friend of his, which he was surprised to have heard him make use of. He had said that he recommended the House to alter the corn duties, because, they might depend upon it, that agitation would go on until these laws 846 were repealed. Now, it was very extraordinary that such a sentiment should come from his noble Friend. If he recollected right, the noble Lord was no friend or advocate for the repeal of the union. But had there been a subject on which a greater degree of agitation had taken place—and was he on that ground prepared to vote for the repeal of the union? No! Neither was he prepared to vote for any reduction in the extent of protection to be given to the British agriculturist. He agreed with the noble Lord who had just sat down, and he thought that those Gentlemen who had tried to force unduly the export of manufactures had been grasping the shadow and losing the sub stance; for by reducing the value of farm produce, they had prevented the fanner from purchasing one half of the amount of manufactured goods which he had formerly been able to buy. He thought that there never could have been an act more unbecoming of a public man than if the Government of the country had come forward this year: and, indeed, if they entertained even now—unless circumstances should become very much altered—any intention of proposing any further change in the Corn-laws. The country had been told by a great authority in the other House of Parliament, that he believed that alteration in these laws had been necessary for the consumer; but that it would not be hurtful to the producer. He had said there that he thought the probable average price, of corn under the new system would be 56s.; but since the alteration the price he believed, had never risen to that amount. Well, then, would it not be an act of the greatest injustice to the agriculturists, after they had most nobly agreed to give way, and refrained from agitating the country upon the subject of the late changes—after they had professed themselves willing to see whether they could not give away a little of that protection which was their due—would it not be most unfair and unjust if, after all this, Government were to advance and propose to make still greater changes in these laws? He was delighted to have heard that there had been no intention on the part of Government to make any further changes. He took it that his noble Friend did not say what might or might not happen with respect to the Corn-laws during the next twenty years if he was in office so long; but he had said that he thought they had 847 worked well, and he had admitted that the English farmer was entitled in justice, equity, and policy to some degree of protection.
§ Earl Fitzwilliamthought, that it was unnecessary for his noble Friend to assure the House that he would not have been a friend to Earl Grey's Cabinet if they ever entertained any intention of repealing the Corn-laws. His well-known character, opinions, and honourable feelings would have been sufficient to disprove such an imputation, even if he had not made the speech to which he had just given utterance. Now his noble Friend had derived satisfaction from the assurances of the noble Lord the President of the Council, that it was not the intention of the Government, of which he was a Member, to interfere with the Corn-laws; but his noble Friend had omitted to supply that to which the noble Lord had limited his assurance. That noble Lord had stated that it was not "at this moment" the intention of Government to make any such change. He did not think "at this moment" that any such change would be necessary.
§ Lord WharncliffeWhat I said was, that I could not consent to the appointment of the committee asked for so quickly after the late enactment had become the law of the land. I said I thought that it had not as yet been allowed time for a fair experiment, but if at any future time I should be convinced that an inquiry into the effect of these laws was necessary, that then I should have no objection to its institution.
§ Earl Fitzwilliamcontinued: Well, an experiment had been made. It was found necessary to alter the Corn-laws as they lately existed; and he wished to know what great difference there was in principle between the law which now existed, and the law which Ministers had condemned by repealing? He admitted that a slight improvement had been effected. The law, as it at present stood, embraced the principle of the sliding-scale, with certain rests, which rests were made valuable as affording an intimation of the opinion of Government, that they were in truth desirous of having foreign corn introduced under settled rules—that was to say, of adopting in a certain degree the principle of a fixed duty, rather than that of a sliding-scale. Unless such was the object of the introduction of the rests, he con- 848 fessed he could not see why they were introduced at all. But his noble Friend opposite had stated, that if he were convinced that any good could arise from the appointment of the committee moved for, he would be the last man to oppose it. Now, for his own part, he confessed, that if there was a committee of twelve noble Lords to examine the witnesses which it would be necessary to call before them, he was inclined to believe—he spoke for himself—that he should acquire a great deal of information from such a committee which he was not able to obtain in other ways; and, therefore, if that information would be valuable for the purpose of enlightening their minds, he thought good would arise from the appointment of a committee which would produce that information. The noble Lord opposite (Lord Ashburton) had said, that proposing a committee was one of those hackneyed modes of appealing to Parliament which it was known that persons who wished to make a motion without specific purpose generally had recourse to, and he warned their Lordships against being captivated by the noble Lord's proposal. Now, the warning of his noble Friend against this proposal was quite as hackneyed a warning as the proposal itself, and, therefore, he did not think that their Lordships would pay more attention to the warning of the noble Lord opposite, than that noble Lord thought ought to be paid to the proposal. The noble Lord had said that he had no nostrum for curing the distress of the country, implying thereby, that his noble Friend (Lord Monteagle) had a nostrum for that purpose. Now, if the noble Lord had no nostrum for curing the distress which unhappily was so prevalent, he at least had one to account for it; because the noble Lord said that the whole of our commercial and manufacturing depression was caused by the loss of the American markets. He very much agreed with the noble Lord that the loss of those markets was one of the great evils which they had to contend with. It was to him extraordinary, that when the noble Lord attached so much importance to the American market, he would not vote for an inquiry as to how that market might be affected by the maintenance of the Corn-law. He was sure the noble Lord could not have forgotten the despatch of Mr. Addington, in which it was stated that the unfavourable character of 849 the American tariff was to be ascribed to the Corn-law. That remarkable despatch he was convinced could not have escaped the memory of the noble Lord, who was so well able to call to mind so many other passages. He thought that the House had some little reason to complain that the noble Lord endeavoured to lead them to the belief, that the distress that prevailed was one only affecting the manufacturing and commercial interests of the country; at the same time, he would say, that it was a considerable satisfaction to find that the noble Lord on the present occasion, was not advancing that doctrine which he had put forward on other occasions, namely, that the distress which was felt in the country, was merely the effect of fluctuations in their commerce. He thought that the noble Lord would abandon that position, and be obliged to acknowledge, if he did not state it in so many words, but indeed his speech was a complete acknowledgement of it—that these were not mere fluctuations, but that a gradual and permanent decline was perceived in the interests of British commerce. The question then was, how had that arisen? If the Corn-law had the effect, which it was stated to have had, by a predecessor of the noble Lord, in producing the American tariff, was it not also possible that the continuance of the Corn-law had led to the more unfavourable character of the recent American tariff, as well as in the tariffs of other countries? The noble Lord had said, truly enough, that if they repealed their Corn-law, foreign countries might not alter their tariffs; but then were their Lordships quite sure, that if they persevered in their exclusive system, that the tariffs of other countries might not be made more severe against England. That was the point which they had to consider. Foreign countries might not be inclined to retrace their steps in consequence of this country altering its system. Foreign countries were beginning to allege of this country when it showed a disposition to relax its commercial code, that it did so from no liberality of feeling towards foreign nations. They were beginning to ascribe even the late alteration in the tariff not to any increased liberality of feeling in this country, but to the apprehension of increasing distress and suffering. It was on that account that any alteration in these Corn-laws now, would not lead to an alteration 850 in other tariffs; at the same time, if this country persevered in its exclusive system, the tariffs of other countries might become more severe. But then it had been said, that if they made any considerable alteration in the protection that they gave to British agriculture, that an inroad would be made on it, and that the land would not be cultivated so extensively as it was at present. This was the opinion of many noble Lords; but were not the same apprehensions entertained in 1815, when that Corn-law came into operation, and had not agriculture been able to meet it successfully. There could be no doubt about it; and the same arguments were then used which were now employed. He might, too, be allowed to ask, whether the anticipations were not as fearful, when the temporary alteration was made in 1822 or 1823, and he asked whether that alteration had done any great mischief to British agriculture? He might ask too, whether the alteration in 1828 had effected any greater injury to British agriculture? Was not agriculture as successfully carried on from 1822 to 1842, as between 1815 and 1828? There could be no doubt of it. Everybody recollected, that it was. There were on all occasions, the same foolish and the same groundless apprehensions. From the law of 1828 great evils were anticipated, but that no effect in driving land out of cultivation was felt. Thus it was with the law of last year. He wished to know would any one say—but, above all, would her Majesty's Ministers say, that the law of last year had operated injuriously to British agriculture? He wished, that on this occasion his noble Friend (the Earl of Ripon) were present. His noble Friend was President of the Board of Trade—he wished that he were present, for he was sure that his noble Friend would not acknowledge that British agriculture had suffered in consequence of that law. He anticipated no injury from an alteration in the Corn-law. He was supported by experience in affirming that such injurious consequences would not be felt from a further alteration of it, and he was sure his noble Friend felt with him, that in a few years circumstances would call for its alteration. His noble Friend was too well acquainted with the circumstances of the country not to perceive that the change was inevitable. He was sure his noble Friend knew that circumstances must change, and that this 851 law must be changed with them. For four or four years he had anticipated the change in the last law, and changed it was; and as to this law, he also said that changed the law would be; and as to agriculture, the change then would be as innocuous to it as all former changes had been. The truth was, that the British farmer derived very little advantage from the law. His noble Friend (the Duke of Richmond) had said at the conclusion of his speech, which, like every thing he uttered, came from his heart, "Do not withdraw protection from the British farmer;" and this he said when he saw what had happened that the present law had pretended to hold out to him one price, when it only gave him another. Was not, and ought not, he asked, that to be a useful lesson to him. [The Duke of Richmond: Yes; never to make another change.] Yes; until they come to a law, in which there could be no further change; and to that he said they must come. When he had been accused and calumniated as an enemy of the British farmer, because he had said, that they must come at last to that state of circumstances when they should have done with their wretched system of protection, he recollected what had occurred at the time, for which he was more sorry than for any other act of his political life, when he supported the law of 1815. He remembered, that then the farmer was promised a protection of 80s. he had got but 40s.; that the law of 1828 told him he should have a price of 62s., and yet it went down to 39s.; and by the very last act of Parliament the Prime Minister assured them they should have 56s. and his noble Friend (the Duke of Richmond) complained, that it had tumbled down to 46s. Ought not, then, his noble Friend and the House to see that they ought to have done with this wretched system of legislation—that they were attempting to establish an artificial price for food, which was beyond the power of man I The true system was that to which they ought to adhere, it was that which had been so justly described by the Prime Minister, when he said, that the advantages derived by agriculture from protection, were not for one moment to be compared with that which it received from the thriving state of the commerce and manufactures of this country. That was the true source of agricultural prosperity, and it was to that 852 they were to look. Agriculture would not flourish if the commercial property Were fluctuating—agriculture must decline if manufactures were distressed. It was by sustaining both, and not unnecessarily interfering with either, that they could secure and perpetuate the true interest of their country.
Lord Broughamfelt himself, however reluctantly, compelled to present himself to their Lordships after the various proposals he had made upon this subject—unfortunately with no varying success—and a fate not likely, he feared, to be varied on the present occasion. He could not avoid remarking that never had a question affecting such vital interests, and exciting out of doors such violent animosities, been brought forward in Parliament with more ability, and—at a time, too, when those animosities out of doors were strongest—with more entire absence from party feeling; nor could there be a greater contrast than on this occasion had been afforded between the manner in which this question had been treated out of doors by those who affected to be the leaders of the people, but whom the people did not think it becoming to follow, and the manner in which it had been discussed by their Lordships. "Justice requires me to note (continued the noble and learned Lord)—justice to those whose cause is injured instead of being served by the arts of which I complain, because those arts do but obscure the truth and obstruct its progress,—justice, I say, requires me to observe on the arts that have been used by certain parties to the perversion and the obstruction of truth. A considerable step was taken by the Government—approved of by some, condemned by others—towards the introduction practically of what we deem the sound, wholesome, requisite doctrines of free trade. Well, how was this received by the zealots who assumed to "lead the people?" Did they thank the right hon. Baronet for converting an eight and-twenty shilling duty into an amended sliding-scale? an alteration insufficient, I admit—lamenting its smallness, but yet highly approving of and rejoicing in nay, I will add, exulting in it, as a step towards the full development of principles I have ever maintained—a step in the right direction—nay, when the still further step of the Tariff was taken, which some years ago would have been deemed not a step but a stride from the exclusive to the liberal system—.the zealots of free-trade who 853 assume to lead "the cause"—who affect to be leaders of "the people," but whom the people will not follow, being much too rational and sensible—what say these blind guides—blind through factious passions? What is their reception of those measures? The object of their fiercest attacks is the very statesman who made those steps, and who found himself in this extraordinary predicament—that the zealots of monopoly on the one hand, and of free-trade on the other, equally attempted to run him down. And another class, my lords—the really factious men—the true partisans—those who are only actuated by party zeal—who have no honest zeal for free-trade at all,—I supposed the former to have at least the excuse of blindness arising from the excess of honest zeal, which obscures and misleads; but the men I am now saying a word about have no such excuse. Animated purely by personal and party rancour, they were more enraged, more impatient, more intolerant towards the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government, when he "took a leaf out of their book" (as they called it), than they were with the most determined of their agricultural opponents. They actually appeared to complain of the steps taken towards free-trade. "Take a leaf out of our book! Why, it's flat plagiarism, it's theft, it's piracy! What right have you to these principles? What right have you to talk of free-trade? Talk of 'selling in the dearest markets and buying in the cheapest!' Why, that's ours. You have no right to any such doctrines—you must not use our principles;" and thus, my Lords, I heard last Session greater praise bestowed by those persons (not in words and sentences perhaps, so much as in action and in clamour) upon the men who opposed all change than upon the statesman who was occupied in working out some of their own favourite doctrines; not here, not within these walls was this attempted, or it would have been demolished in the twinkling of an eye; but out of doors, the constant cry—the burthen of the song in every factious, every party speech, and in every party print, was "Government is doing the very thing their predecessors (in vain) attempted!"—spurning thus the objects of which they had formerly been so much enamoured—longing for the very things they had cast away—boiling over with impatience at seeing their own opinions 854 adopted! their own principles worked out! their own measures executed! changing all this through very caprice, pulling down because others had built up; building up because they had pulled down; making their whole lives one scene of inconsistency, self-repugnance, contrariety, and contradiction to the course of all ordinary rules of conduct and all the received order of life,—but most of all, inconsistent with, and repugnant to themselves! But a very different course (the noble Lord continued) had been pursued in their Lordships' House on this occasion. His Friend, the noble Baron who had brought forward this subject, had been satisfied with making the progress, and urging the extension of his own; principles, in promoting which he (Lord Brougham) went even further than his noble Friend; not being content to allow of the continuance of any corn duties at all; considering they formed a tax of the worst description, the evils of which he had often pointed out, and which, at so late an hour, he certainly should not at present further allude to. But, now, to meet the objections of his noble Friends, the noble Barons (Wharncliffe and Ashburton); he must, in the first place, observe that if the merits and success of this sliding-scale were so palpable, it was strange that there should be so much reluctance to exhibit them in an inquiry. Certainly, it was no bad test in trying the merits of a controversy—that of readiness for or reluctance to investigation. The language of one party was "We are right, and challenge you to prove us wrong;" that of the other was, "We are right, and care not to give you the opportunity of proving us wrong." Sir Walter Raleigh said that, when you saw two men wrangling, and did not know the merits of their dispute, you might very safely pronounce him to be in the wrong who first lost his temper. So when opinions are very confidently urged by conflicting debaters and assertions made of fact on either side, depend upon it he is sure to be in the right who courts inquiry. His noble Friends the President of the Council and the late Minister to Washington objected to the appointment of the committee, because it could lead to no result. How did they know that? The object of inquiry was to find a result, and until they had inquired it was impossible to know whether any would be found or not. The painful distress which was now so prevalent throughout the country appeared to him to dispose of the question. But as his feel- 855 ings had been harassed and deeply pained in preparing himself for the motion he brought forward last Session upon that distress, and as he had then harrowed the feelings of their Lordship, he would not then go further into that most afflicting subject. He would merely call their attention to one fact, but it was one of an alarming nature. They had heard it stated that the deficit in the revenue was 3,000,000l. Supposing it were so, the fact was appalling enough; but it sank into utter insignificance when compared with that inevitable consequence, which did not at first seize on the attention upon hearing the statement made—what was the per centage of that deficit in the returns from the Customs and Excise? Take it at 5 per cent, as an aver age. Then, the 3,000,000l. deficit indicated neither more nor less than a deficit or falling-off in the expenditure and consumption of the poorer classes of this country of 60,000,000l. sterling in one year; or take it at 10 per cent., and still there was a falling-off in that expenditure upon comforts, nay, upon necessaries, for customable and exciseable articles had now became necessaries, to the enormous amount of 30,000,000l. a-year. He would not enter into the question of the Corn-law being quite satisfied to rest upon the statement of his noble Friend behind him (Lord Monteagle), but he must be permitted to say a word upon a subject which he had broached on the first night of the Session. He deemed it his duty now to renew a subject on which he had formerly said he should take the liberty of making some remarks connected with, or growing out of, the agitation for the repeal of the Corn-laws, when a recent trial should be disposed of. He had then thought it his duty to state that he had never accused a respectable member of the league, he had never accused the league as a body, of the atrocious statement and wanton crime, of which he had made a very general and very vague mention on the former occasion. When his noble Friend behind him (Lord Radnor) had misunderstood what he had said, his noble Friend, he was sure, would do him the justice to remember that he at once got up and stated that he never meant to have charged those offences on the league. But he had been astonished to find that since he had taken that course, since he had made that disclaimer, since then he had never been able to discover that his example had been followed by the league itself. He had 856 searched for an acknowledgment for a disclaimer out of doors, which he, in charity had made in that place. On the contrary, he found that he had been himself the object, and so had others, of the most rancorous abuse, and by far the greatest falsehoods, in point of statement, that he ever yet remembered to have seen (and that was a large assertion to make, and a wide comparison to offer) on any former question by any party in this country. And, in order to show how much confidence was to be placed in those men, he meant those out of doors—those fierce and factious men, and the body of agents whom they employed, and upon whom the money which they levied was expended—he had now to state to their Lordships, what had occurred, which he was bound to do in his own vindication, because the greatest and grossest breach of privilege had been committed with respect to the statement that he had made. He thought that he had already stated that it was most reluctantly he had made the motion which he had brought forward in the month of last July. All his friends were aware that it was with heartfelt reluctance he had lent himself to the motion on the distresses of the country. He had seen a deputation of nine gentlemen, including in that nine one hon. Gentleman who was known to him—it was presided over by a very respectable Gentleman, Mr. Stansfield, of Leeds. They had attended twice in that place, and brought him a letter of introduction from another friend. He went out. He interrupted a cause, that was then being heard, for an hour; but he refused to bring on a motion such as he was requested to make. He told the deputation that he declined it, because he felt that it would be useless, and that it could lead to no good. It was pressed upon him to bring forward the motion, on account of the distress prevailing amongst his former constituents in Yorkshire, as well as in Lancashire. All he agreed to was, upon the earnest entreaty of the delegates, to reconsider his resolution; not to make his refusal final. He saw them again, and he told them he could not make up his mind to do as they desired; but he said that if they would apply to his noble Friend behind him, or to the noble Marquess, (Clanricarde) or the noble Earl who sat near him, and that if either of them would forward a motion he would support it. They then prevailed upon him to present a petition, and he then said, on being again 857 pressed, that if on presenting the petition, which he said he would present, that if on presenting their petition, he found any encourangement in the temper of the House, it was possible he might give notice of a motion. These were the facts, and they had taken place within the walls of that House. He thought it right to make this statement, which he did with great reluctance, because he had seen in a newspaper, the professed organ of the Anti-Corn-law League, and called the Anti-bread-tax Circular, a statement relative to this transaction, which was false and unfounded, and he hoped all other statements contained in it, were not of the same character. He used the terms false and unfounded advisedly, and for the purpose of avoiding a shorter and more vulgar expression, more applicable to the thing, but which respect for his audience prevented him from uttering. But he hoped all the statements in that paper were not as false as this:—"that it was astonished when it found him speak of his reluctance because he had pressed his services upon the league! that he had volunteered the bringing forward of the motion! and that he did this, when they would have preferred the motion being made by another." Now, if anything so opposite to the truth had ever before been uttered or printed, he had yet to learn where, when and by whom. A grosser breach of the privileges of that House had never been committed, than to say that a Peer of Parliament had told an audacious untruth. He had made his assertion in presence of their Lordships and of the nine delegates. It might be said that it was only assertion against assertion, and that proof must be given as to which of the two assertions was the correct one. But, was it likely that nine men, forming a deputation, would come down to that House to see a Peer for the purpose of asking him not to make a motion? What was meant by his pressing his services—by his volunteering to make the motion—by his insisting on taking the matter into his own hands? Had he any necessity to ask the League for leave to make a motion? Why, he did not even ask such leave of their Lordships. Every Peer of Parliament had a right, when it so pleased him, to make a motion in that House. So here was a falsehood of so gross a description, that if any one looked at it only for one moment, he could not fail of seeing that it bore internal evidence of being untrue. 858 The funds so liberally subscribed by his noble Friends near him, and by the public out of doors, to the League, were used in circulating the paper containing these falsehoods: for they sent six or seven copies of it to him, that he might not fail to know how shamefully he had been aspersed, how audaciously the plain truth had been violated. The untruth had been circulated all over the country, had been commented upon in all the country papers, and in all the meetings of the supporters of the League. A more foul and daring untruth never was coined by the spirit of party, and anonymously promulgated by persons who were afraid, in their own proper names, to utter so atrocious a falsehood. He had written to Mr. Stansfield, the respectable chairman of the great meeting of the League, and he had in his pocket the copy of the letter which he had sent to that gentleman, containing a statement precisely similar to that which he had now made to their Lordships, and he had received a reply from Mr. Stansfield, assuring him, in the most distinct and emphatic terms, that his (Lord Brougham's) account of what had taken place, was perfectly accurate. This assurance he had instantly received from Mr. Stansfield, who was the chairman of the late great meeting for the repeal in London, and by far the most respectable man amongst them all. When he said this, he did not intend by any manner of means to deny the respectability of others of the deputation that had waited upon him. Very much the reverse. He acquitted them of this falsehood. They were not the authors of it; but the paper which they supported and maintained, their Anti Bread-tax Circular, as they called it, was at once the author and the disseminator of it. He had desired that paper to be searched for the last four weeks, and to this day it had contained no explanation or contradiction of the falsehood to which it had given birth and currency. However, as he had already stated, he had received Mr. Stansfield's assurance of the correctness of his account of what had taken place, and so there was an end to the falsehood altogether. But no doubt it would be repeated, and others added to it. They lived in an atmosphere of these falsehoods. They lived in that kind of atmosphere which long habit did not render more easily respirable, but against the effect of which long habit certainly case-hardened those who were found to breathe its hateful fumes. He had before said that he disclaimed for the respectable Members of the League all fel- 859 lowship in the foul assassination speeches of a clergyman in Yorkshire. There was no distinction of party amongst these men. They objected just as much to his noble Friend near him (Lord Monteagle) and to Lord John Russell as they did to Sir Robert Peel, and the gentleman, as he was called by the Yorkshire clergyman, the gentleman who talked of drawing lots for committing murder would just as readily (if the lot had fallen upon him) had put an end to his noble Friend near him (Lord Monteagle) as he would to the right hon. Baronet at the head of the Queen's councils, because those people abhorred a fixed duty as much as they did a sliding-scale. Therefore, they were perfectly impartial; but was it not a most marvellous thing that no pains were taken by the respectable Members of the League to sever themselves from such unclean pollution as that to which he had adverted, and which revolted and disgusted the feelings of all mankind. They had abundant opportunity of doing so, and how had they availed themselves of it? He had heard with utter astonishment that at a meeting of the League, consisting of 1,500 persons recently held at the Crown and Anchor, and presided over by the respectable person to whose letter he had alluded, the only disclaimer that was made—at least the only one that had reached him through the information of a gentleman who wag present, and upon whose statement he could entirely rely—was in a speech full of ribaldry and jest, turning the thing into a subject of humour—talking of assassination as a matter of merriment and joke, and endeavouring to run down his right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, with taunts and jeers as absurd and invidious, as the charges made against him were futile and flimsy. The demeanour of the right hon. Baronet had been made the subject of jest and jeers, as if he had shown a want of nerve and want of firmness, from having his feelings excited by the tragedy of which he had been the intended victim. Gracious God! did any man—did anything breathe in the form of man—with the feelings of human nature—with a heart throbbing in his bosom—who would think the worse of the right hon. Baronet for having felt most deeply, most painfully, most acutely, a sentiment of horror and dismay at the dreadful accident (as he must now call it, after the verdict of the jury) by which a friend, and a public servant in employment under him—a man whom he esteemed and loved—had lost his life by 860 being mistaken for the right hon. Baronet himself. He hoped to God that he himself should never speak otherwise than the right hon. Baronet had done if he knew that any dear friend of his had lost his life by having been mistaken by the murderer for himself, because he should feel incapable of severing himself from some sort of share in the accident. He should be unable to dismiss from his mind the notion that he had been the occasion, though the innocent occasion of the catastrophe which followed. That was the origin of Sir Robert Peel's feeling upon the subject; and that man must have a mind callous to all feeling, or a mind utterly perverted by personal or factious fury, who could doubt for one instant what the origin of that feeling was, or who would refuse to say that such feelings did honour to the bosom in which they arose. He would now very shortly trouble their Lordships with a few words by way of comment upon the only argument which appeared to him to have been employed by his noble Friends on the Ministerial side of the house, in opposition to the main point of the question introduced by his noble Friend near him. His noble Friend opposite (Lord Ashburton) had said that there was a great difference between the commerce in grain and the commerce in any other consumable articles, because grain is a necessary of life, and all other articles are merely luxuries, the use of which might be dispensed with. Therefore, said his noble Friend, "We must not allow our selves to be dependent upon other countries for a supply of grain, although we may afford to do so in respect of other articles." He was at issue with his noble Friend upon that point, and if their Lordships would consent to the appointment of a committee to inquire into the whole matter, he pledged himself to satisfy his noble Friend from facts, from returns, from the records of the Custom-house in this country, and from the information derived from our foreign Ministers during the last thirty or forty years, that there never was a greater delusion than to suppose that any particular state of affairs could obstruct, much less cut off, or even temporarily impede, the fulness of foreign supply. As this was the most plausible argument used against the proposition for a free-trade in corn, he intreated their Lord ships to bear with him for a few moments whilst he put an end, as he thought for ever, to that plausible but hollow argu- 861 ment. For this purpose he must pray their Lordships to cast their looks backwards, and to ask themselves whether there ever was a period in the history of this country in which the shutting all the ports on the continent, and the preventing all issue of grain to this country was ever so near possibility as it was during the late war with Buonaparte? In other wars we were at peace with Prussia, if we crossed the sword with France, or we had Austria for our ally if France was our enemy, or we had Russia with us if we had Spain and the Turk against us—and in other wars the powers and resources of the hostile countries themselves had infinitely less force—infinitely less stringent efficacy to shut their ports against us, than we unfortunately found that the great Emperor possessed. He begged their Lordships to look back to the years 1809–10 and 11. When were we ever again likely to see such a state of things as existed in those years, when all Europe was leagued against us under the iron sceptre of the Emperor—when the whole coast—the iron-bound coast of Europe—was under his entire, and absolute, and despotic control—when his armies were counted by hundreds of thousands, and his naval force by myriads—when the greater powers of Europe had become petty principalities, trembling at his nod, eagerly watching his beck, and moving as his finger pointed—when such was the organization of his force—when so perfect was all its structure when so prevailing was the central influence of its immense, gigantic military power, that from the centre of Paris, he could issue his orders into the east, west, north, and south, and, it might almost he truly said, without a figure of speech, that every pulsation of the great heart which resided in the capital of France was felt and made to quiver the remotest fibre of the vast European frame. That was the awful, the unparalleled state of things under Napoleon in the years 1809, 1810, and 1811. Were the ports of Europe shut against us? Did no foreign grain then find its way into this country? Did the gigantic force of the Emperor succeed in cutting off our supply at the time when we most wanted it, and when he was most eager to stop us from having it? Why, the fact was undeniable; and it for ever put an end to this part of the question—for ever broke down and destroyed this only remnant of plausible argument against free-trade. The fact was undeniable and notorious, that during 862 those three years a greater importation of grain took place from Europe to this country than had ever been known at any one preceding period in the history of this country. The authority upon which he made this statement was the speech of his noble Friend himself (Lord Ashburton) delivered in the year 1815, when the question of the Corn-laws was under the consideration of the House of Commons. He heartily agreed with those who had no fears about the dependence of this country upon other countries for a supply of grain. He had no respect for the argument which insisted upon the necessity of each nation making itself, as far as possible, independent of all others. Good Heavens! a nation independent of all others? As if the very bond of national existence was not of necessity, and must not ever of necessity, be mutual dependance of one nation upon another, as if the bond of human existence is not the necessary dependency of man upon his fellow-man! As long as one country produced grain, and another wine—as long as one country produced timber, another spice, and another iron, they who had these things must supply them to those who wanted them.
Hic segetes, illic veniunt felicius uvæ,Arborei fœtus alibi, atque injussa virescuntGramina; Nonne vides croceos ut Tmolus odores,India mittit ebur, molles sua thura Sabæ,At Chalybes nudi ferrum.So it always was, so it ever must be, so it ever had been since the waters of the deluge retired, and left the earth which they had made their prey, a prey to the labour of man, that labour, stimulated by mutual wants, and partial abundance, on which all the plenty of the world depends.Continuò has leges, æternaque fœdera certisImposuit natura locis, quo tempore primumDeucalion vacuum lapides jactavit in orbem.Such was the eternal and irrevocable decree of Providence, recorded in the great book of nature, a decree to which all must yield obedience, and which will for ever mock the impotent attempts of human folly. These were his principles—they were the principles of men who had been much misunderstood and still more misrepresented—they were the principles of the advocates of free-trade. They did 863 not say that no article of importation should ever be made the subject of duty; but they said, that revenue and trade, were two separate and distinct matters; that it was lawful to levy revenue upon articles of importation, but that it was unlawful to levy revenue for the purposes of protection. These were the principles of the advocates of free-trade, and, standing by those principles, he maintained that they were fixed upon a rock which could not be removed or shaken; and endeavouring upon the present occasion to work them out in some small degree, he should give his hearty support to the motion of his noble Friend.
Viscount St. Vincentwished to make an observation with respect to that part of the noble and learned Lord's speech, in which he had spoken of the coast of Europe as having been sealed against this country during the dominion of Napoleon. With permission, he must be allowed to correct the noble Lord upon that point, since there never was a period when the emperor maintained a naval supremacy. There was one other observation that he wished to offer. It appeared to him that what was called a duty of protection and a duty for revenue was little more than a distinction of terms, and that if corn alone were exempted from the payment of that duty (by whatever name it was called), it would operate in future as a bonus to every other object of trading or manufacturing industry in preference to growing corn, the produce of agricultural industry, and, consequently, would so far operate to withdraw capital from the land and transfer it to trade and manufactures. One other word, and he would trespass no further on their Lordships' patience. "A burnt child dreads the fire." He had heard a great deal about the advantage of free labour in the West Indies, as well as about the advantage of free trade in corn. Whatever advantages (and he would not dispute them) might have accrued to the labouring population in the West Indies, there was scarcely a proprietor in those islands who had not been brought into a state of distress and beggary. He mentioned this as a caution to the agricultural interests in this country, and he warned them to take care how they yielded to abstract ciples, however plausible they might be, apon the subject of free-trade.
Earl Mountcashelspoke amidst general 864 cries of "Question." His Lordship was understood to admit the distress of the manufacturing classes; but, at the same time, to contend, that the agricultural classes, by the concessions already made, were reduced to a state of equal suffering.
§ Lord Monteagle, in reply, adverted to the manner in which the noble Lord opposite (Lord Ashburton) had spoken of the manufacturing classes. When the noble Lord referred to them as a bloated mass of population.
§ Lord Ashburtoninterposing, said, that he had not so described or so spoken of the manufacturing classes. The argument that he had advanced was this: that if it were possible (which it was not) to raise a bloated mass of population without the means of supporting it, it would be one of the most distressing positions that a country could be placed in. When the noble Lord stated that he (Lord Ashburton) had spoken generally of the manufacturing population as a bloated mass, the noble Lord entirely misrepresented what had fallen from him.
§ Lord MonteagleI regret, my Lords, that you are about to decide against a proposition which you must surely have deemed to be moderate and reasonable. Inquiries, like that which I have proposed, have frequently been granted, in other times, greatly to the advancement of the public good, and to the contentment of various classes of her Majesty's subjects. I shall not do more than allude to Lord Wallace's Committee on Foreign Trade; to the Inquiry into the Silk Trade; to the Committee on our trade with the East Indies. On all these, legislative measures of improvement have been founded. Before I sit down, I must call your Lordship's attention to the following sentence from the Report on the Hand-loom Weavers, which appears to me deserving of the utmost attention from those who undertake the responsibility of deciding against me. The words are as follows:—
The Government of this country resides in a minority—and a narrow minority of the people—the owners of land. A very small portion of the community constitutes, almost exclusively, one House of Parliament, and forms a very large majority of the other. Such a Government can be safe only so long as it is popular, and popular only while it is believed to be impartial. Its first prudential duty is to avoid the appearance of selfish legislation. We are aware that many of those who support 865 the Corn-laws, believe that to alter them would be injurious to the whole community, and though dissenting from that opinion, we respect its sincerity. But we feel that no such respect is felt by the manufacturing population, who, from their concentration, their union, their numbers, and the rate of their increase, are now the most powerful of the labouring classes, and are becoming more so every day. They find the direct effect of that law is to raise the price of food, and the indirect effect is to lower wages, and they refuse to listen to any reasoning that would prove that such legislation is impartial.These were the opinions of no ordinary men, but of individuals entitled to every respect and deference from your Lordships and the public. The report bore the names of Mr. S. Jones Loyd and Mr. Senior, men of the highest abilities and the highest character. And what may not lessen Mr. Jones Loyd's authority in the eyes of your Lordships, is that he is not only a great capitalist and a sound philosopher, but a great landed proprietor, and one whose management of his estates, and whose transactions with his tenants render him, as I am informed, a model for imitation to all country gentlemen. Thanking your Lordships for the patience and attention with which you have favoured me, I conclude by the motion of which I have given notice.
§ Their Lordships divided.
§ Contents—Present 31; Proxies 47:—78—Not-contents—Present 82; Proxies 118:—200.—Majority 122.
| List of the CONTENTS. | |
| MARQUESSES. | Duncannon. |
| Lansdowne | BISHOPS. |
| Clanricarde | Ely |
| Headfort. | Hereford. |
| EARLS, | BARONS. |
| Cowper | Camoys |
| Charlemont | Campbell |
| Clarendon | Colborne |
| Ducie | Cottenham |
| Fitzwilliam | Dinorben |
| Kenmure | Foley |
| Lovelace | Hatherton |
| Radnor | Lilford |
| Rosebery | Langdale |
| Auckland. | Monteagle |
| VISCOUNTS. | Strafford |
| Ponsonby, of Imo | Sudeley |
| Torrington | Teynham. |
| Proxies. | |
| DUKES. | Norfolk |
| Sussex | Somerset |
| Devonshire | Craven |
| Bedford | Albemarle. |
| Sutherland | VISCOUNT. |
| Leinster. | Melbourne. |
| MARQUESSES. | BISHOPS. |
| Anglesey | Durham |
| Westminster. | Lichfield |
| EARLS. | Worcester. |
| Spencer | BARONS. |
| Suffolk | Lynedoch |
| Gosford | Godolphin |
| Fingall | Methuen |
| Burlington | Stanley, of Alderley. |
| Besborough | Cloncurry |
| Bruce | Kinnoul |
| Effingham | Vivian |
| Fortescue | Mostyn |
| Belfast | Talbot, of Malahide |
| Carlisle | Berners |
| Zetland | Dormer |
| Fitzhardinge | Stuart, of Decies |
| Sefton | Dunalley |
| Gainsborough | Clifford |
| Uxbridge | Poltimore. |
| Minto |
| List of the NOT-CONTENTS. | |
| Duke of Cambridge | Wicklow |
| Lord Chancellor. | Clare |
| DUKES. | Bandon |
| Richmond | Rosslyn |
| Beaufort | Wilton |
| Buccleuch | Verulam |
| Wellington | St. Germains |
| Buckingham. | Beauchamp |
| MARQUESSES. | Sheffield |
| Salisbury | Eldon |
| Abercorn | Somers. |
| Exeter | VISCOUNTS. |
| Camden | Sydney |
| Cholmondeley. | Hood |
| EARLS. | Strangford |
| Essex | Middleton |
| Shaftesbury | Gage |
| Jersey | Hawarden |
| Home | St. Vincent |
| Haddington | Lake |
| Galloway | Canning |
| Dalhousie | Lowther |
| Selkirk | Hill. |
| Aberdeen | BISHOPS. |
| Dunmore | Bangor |
| Orkney | Chichester. |
| Hopetoun | LORDS. |
| Oxford | De Roos |
| Dartmouth | Willoughby de Eresby |
| Aylesford | Beaumont |
| Warwick | Colville |
| Hardwicke | Rolle |
| Delawarr | Middleton |
| Bathurst | Boston |
| Beverley | Southampton |
| Carnarvon | Kenyon |
| Liverpool | Wodehouse |
| Egmont | Northwick |
| Clanwilliam | Farnham |
| Mountcashel | Redesdale |
| Rivers | Feversham |
| Colchester | Tenterden |
| Bexley | Templemore |
| Wharncliffe | Ashburton. |
| Proxies. | |
| DUKES. | Dunraven |
| Marlborough | Amherst |
| Dorset | Cawdor |
| Northumberland | Ranfurly |
| Cleveland | Ripon. |
| MARQUESSES. | BISHOPS. |
| Winchester | St. Asaph |
| Huntley | Carlisle |
| Tweeddale | Rochester |
| Hertford | Gloucester. |
| Bute | VISCOUNTS. |
| Downshire | Hereford |
| Donegal | Arbuthnot |
| Ely | Strathallan |
| Ailesbury | De Vesci |
| Westmeath | Doneraile |
| Ormonde. | Melville |
| EARLS. | Sidmouth |
| Devon | Lorton |
| Denbigh | Exmouth |
| Westmoreland | Beresford |
| Lindsey | Combermere |
| Stamford | Canterbury. |
| Winchilsea | LORDS. |
| Sandwich | Clinton |
| Cardigan | Willoughby de Broke |
| Abingdon | St. John |
| Plymouth | Saltoun |
| Poulett | Sinclair |
| Morton | Reay |
| Moray | Dynevor |
| Lauderdale | Walsingham |
| Airlie | Bagot |
| Leven | Grantley |
| Balcarras | Rodney |
| Seafield | Montagu |
| Tankerville | Braybrooke |
| Macclesfield | Douglas |
| Buckinghamshire | Bayning |
| Egremont | Dunsany |
| Guilford | Blayney |
| Talbot | Clonbrock |
| Malmesbury | Crofton |
| Mornington | Alvanley |
| Roden | Ellenborough |
| Longford | Sandys |
| Mayo | Manners |
| Enniskillen | Castlemaine |
| Donoughmore | Harris |
| Onslow | Prudhoe |
| Romney | Glenlyon |
| Clancarty | Ravensworth |
| Powis | Downes |
| Manvers | Gifford |
| Lonsdale | Cowley |
| Harewood | Stuart de Rothesay |
| Brownlow | Skelmersdale |
| Bradford | Wallace |
| Glengall | Wyndford |
| De Grey | De Saumarez |
| Falmouth | Seaton |
| Stradbroke | Keane. |
| Paired off. | |
| NOT-CONTENTS. | CONTENTS. |
| Duke of Rutland | Earl of Scarborough |
| Marquess of Thomond | Earl of Thanet |
| Earl Charleville | Marq. of Normanby |
| Earl Howe | Lord Crewe |
| Bishop of Winchester | Bishop of Norwich |
| Lord Churchill | Lord de Mauley |
| Lord Delamere | Lord Bateman |
| Lord Forester | Lord Portman |
| Lord Fitzgerald | Lord Brougham |
| Lord de Lisle. | Earl of Erroll. |
§ Lordships adjourned.
§
The following Protest was entered against the decision:—
DISSENTIENT—
First, Because it appears to us inexpedient to reject a motion of inquiry into the effect and operation of an act which has not realized the declared intentions of its framers and of the Legislature, by diminishing fluctuation of prices, and securing the supply of imported grain in a manner consistent with the public interests.
Secondly, Because the evils admitted to be incidental to the Act of the 9th Geo. 4th, which it was proposed to remove in the last Session, are proved by experience still to subsist, and may, therefore, be traced to the principle of the sliding-scale, so unfortunately transferred to the 5th and 6th Vie., c. 14, from the antecedent Corn-law.
Thirdly, Because it has been proved, by the experience of the last twenty-eight years, that a scale of duties varying inversely with the price of corn, acts injuriously to the interests of the consumer, the British agriculturist, the merchant, the manufacturer, the banker, and the foreign grower: injuriously to the consumer, as inducing the owner of foreign corn to withhold his supplies from the market, whatever may be the public necessity, till the price shall have reached its maximum, and the duty its minimum; injuriously to the agriculturists, and more especially to the smaller farmers, as exposing them to a forced and unnatural competition with foreign grain entered for home consumption at the time of harvest, the period when such competition may be fatal to the British growers without being beneficial to the public; injuriously to the importing merchant, by rendering the trade in corn a gambling adventure, rather than a commercial enterprise, the sliding-scale augmenting the profits of a successful speculation, and aggravating the loss of a speculation which is unsuccessful; injuriously to the manufacturer, because a casual, restricted, and uncertain import of foreign grain cannot lead to a steady and permanent demand for repayment in the produce of British industry; injuriously to the banker, as producing violent derangements in the foreign exchanges, and sudden and dangerous exportations of the precious metals; injuriously to the foreign grower, because, without
869
the creation of a settled market, large supplies are frequently required from abroad, leading to fluctuations of price on the continent of Europe, consequent upon the fluctuations of price, the effect of impolitic laws at home, and in all cases rendering the reward of industry, precarious and uncertain.
Fourthly, Because a sliding scale of duty cannot be defended, either on the principle of a countervailing duty for the protection of an interest, subject to special or peculiar burthens, from which other classes are exempted; nor yet on the ground of a duty raised for revenue purposes, for supplying the exigencies of the State in a manner the least burthensome and the most impartial.
Fifthly, Because the refusal of all inquiry into the effect and operation of a law perfectly anomalous in its enactments, and inconsistent with the principles of commercial freedom, and at variance with other measures which the Legislature has of late years sanctioned, leads either to the continuance of an indefensible system, or to legislation, hasty and ill-considered by which, as in the act of last Session, the evil admitted to exist is sanctioned and continued.
Sixthly, Because it is to be feared that, so long as a system of Corn-laws exists, which is founded on principles practically discarded, and abandoned in our commercial and our fiscal legislations, there cannot be any such feelings of confidence and stability as shall promote fixed contracts between landlords and tenants, essential to the best interests of both these important classes.
Seventhly, Because, whilst no attempt is made to defend the principle of a sliding scale of duty, and yet all inquiry is refused into the alleged evils which it occasions, suspicions and jealousies cannot fail to augment between the agricultural and commercial parts of the population, to the grievous injury of both, and to the serious detriment of all her Majesty's subjects.
(Signed)
MONTEAGLE OF BRANDON.
§ The following Peers afterwards affixed their names to the said protest:—
| "CHARLEMONT, | "CLARENDON, |
| SUDELEY, | COTTENHAM |
| CAMPBELL | KENMARE, |
| LANSDOWNE, | AUCKLAND, |
| DUNCANNON, | ROSEBERY." |