HL Deb 15 May 1849 vol 105 cc474-94
THE DUKE of RICHMOND

said, that he had given notice of his intention to present petitions upon agricultural distress—petitions which were numerously and respectably signed—for the purpose of bringing that distress, which prevailed most severely in most parts of England, under the distinct notice of their Lordships. He did not wish to be considered as an alarmist; but he felt some anxiety when he saw large bodies of his countrymen suffering from severe pressure—when he recollected that at present there was a greater number of agricultural labourers out of employment than ever had been out of employ since the enactment of the new poor-law—and when he knew that there were hundreds and thousands of agriculturists who were looking to Parliament for relief under the heavy pressure which they were then enduring, and who would be compelled, if that relief were not given, to discharge the labourers now in their employ, because they would not be able, from the reduction of the prices of agricultural produce, to pay them at the week's end. The petitioners whose interests he was now advocating, lived in different parts of the country. The farmers did not combine: they were ever loyal to their Sovereign; they had used every exertion on all occasions to carry out the laws; and they thought, and he thought with them, that because a knot of free-trade cotton spinners of Manchester deemed it right to agitate the country, and to raise large sums for the purpose of agitation, they were not compelled to submit to their dictation. He did not mean to say that those free-trade cotton spinners had collected any large sums from their Lordships, but he did recollect that a noble Lord, who was then a Member of the other House of Parliament, and was now one of the Ministers of the Crown, had sent them the munificent donation of a 5l. note. These persons were egged on to the completion of their designs by the money they received. They called public meetings, but they never allowed any persons to enter within their halls of assembling without a ticket. They told the operatives whom they employed in their mills, "If you join in our cry you shall have your corn cheap, your wages shall not be reduced, and we will give you your Ten Hours Bill;" but, as soon as the corn laws were repealed, by the cowardice of some and the treachery of others, they turned round on their operatives and opposed the Ten Hours Bill, which they had pledged themselves to support. That Bill was, however, he was happy to say, passed, by the assistance of the Protectionists. He understood that the millocrats of Manchester were now playing tricks and trying to get rid of its provisions; but he told them frankly, that that object they would never obtain, as that House would stand up manfully, as it had ever done, for the rights of the poor. Did any man now doubt the extent of agricultural distress? He was sure that Her Majesty's Ministers had doubted of it at the commencement of the Session, or else they would have mentioned it in the Queen's Speech. But was there such a stoppage of the approach of all truth to Downing-street, that Her Majesty's Ministers still doubted as to the existence of that distress? If they had still any doubt, he would refer them to the trade circulars issuing from the city of Manchester—for every now and then it happened that one learned a little from one's opponents. One of them was couched in these terms:— It may be unnecessary to remark that the disordered relations of political matters on the continent of Europe have engendered much distrust, and are again exercising a very prejudicial influence, not only upon the trade of this district, but upon that of many other manufacturing localities, as well as upon commerce generally; and that so long as they remain unadjusted their effect will become more injurious. Another important drawback arises from, and is consequent upon, the comparative absence of purchases of any magnitude for the country trade, which is generally admitted to be in a very depressed condition, owing principally to the very low prices obtainable for agricultural produce. Why, he had always told them that they were the greatest fools in the world to cry out for free trade, as they would not export any more of their produce, and would render the landed interest unable to purchase their goods. This had turned out to be the case. The circular went on to state:— Valuable as low provisions unquestionably are to the great mass of the community, in purely agricultural districts the consumption of manufactures cannot be otherwise than at present materially interfered with. It is proverbial that the drapers who have been in the market during the month have purchased very sparingly. Their complaints are uniform. The retrograde movement in prices has likewise not been without its effeet, operations have been limited to existing wants. Allowing for these drawbacks we look upon the aggregate transactions as being very ex- tensive. Prices, as you will have observed, of nearly every staple article have again declined. Stocks of goods generally, if we except those of domestics and one or two other descriptions, are very light. Some descriptions of yarns, too, are heavy; but these are matters which will be best ascertained by a reference to the details. This, be it observed, was the circular issued by Messrs. M'Nair, Greenhow, and Irving, of Manchester, on the 3rd of April last. He would now read the circular issued, about the same time, by Mr. Mand-ley, of the same place. It was entitled Mandley's Manchester Trade Circular, and was to this effect:— The comparative suspension of business for these branches of our European trade, it may be inferred, has operated injuriously on demand; at the same time, our home trade has received a check from the uncertainty as to the course of prices, and also from the cold and ungenial weather which has prevailed until within the past two or three days, and rendered operations in the spring fabrics somewhat doubtful. The low prices of food, although leaving a larger margin from income for expenditure in clothing than when they rule at higher rates than are now current, yet they are not at present such a source of unalloyed advantage, nationally considered, as when they are the result of abundant home harvests. In the present case, the consumer alone profits, and that only partially, at the expense of the cultivator, who is impoverished by unremunerative returns for his produce; whilst, in the case of good harvests, all interests are enriched by the bounties of Providence. Hence our home trade, at the present moment, does not present that aspect of prosperity which we have witnessed at former periods when food ranged at its present low prices. Now, he did not care one straw for the opinions of the writers of these circulars; but the circulars themselves proved that the agricultural distress now existing was very severe, and that the manufacturers were feeling it in the diminished demand for the articles which they manufactured. The farmers said, that if the country would have free trade, to which they entertained the most decided objections, the local taxation of the country, of which they also complained, must undergo great reduction. But they had no hopes even from such an alteration; for they said that nothing would do them good until we re-enacted those moderate import duties which we had unwisely taken off. The distress was so great now, that many landlords had had their farms thrown upon their hands already, whilst many others had received notice that at the end of a given time their farms would be thrown upon them. The knowledge of that fact made him feel that if the Legislature did not give them protective duties, it ought not at any rate to overtax, as it did, the occupying tenants, and the agricultural interest in general. The mass of tenant farmers were now suffering deeply; and he asked, was it either wise, just, or expedient to turn a deaf ear to their requests, when in humble terms they addressed Parliament to discover and apply a remedy to their distresses? Through him they told their Lordships, that if that remedy was not applied soon, the great body of tenant farmers would be swept from their occupations. He should deeply regret to find that the time had arrived when those intelligent men would be seeking to obtain the most they could for their stock, in order to emigrate with it to foreign countries. Many tenant farmers had already emigrated; and they were the sort of men which the country could least spare. It had been said, that if the present tenant farmers went, we could take the manufacturing population to our farms. But he held that it would be utterly shameful to banish men from their country who had hitherto been its pride and its ornament, and had done all that Christian men could do to improve and benefit their labourers. If their Lordships went to Manchester to seek for tenants, they might obtain them from the ranks of the operatives, who had allowed their savings to accumulate; but Her Majesty would not have so many loyal men engaged in the cultivation of the soil, or so many gallant men prepared to devote themselves, if the occasion arose, to the service of their country. Many of the petitions which he was then presenting prayed for the repeal of the malt tax—a prayer to which he did not expect that their Lordships would be ready to accede. He was of opinion that that tax was unjust in its principle and unfair in its operation. Whether the country had free trade or not, that was a tax which ought to be swept out of the Statute-book. Notwithstanding all the increase in our population of late years, the amount of revenue derived from the malt tax had not increased—a fact which decidedly proved that the tax was a bad tax. Why were the proprietors of land to be prevented from giving their labourers home-brewed ale? Why were they to be compelled to buy foreign oilcake to fatten their beasts, when they could fatten them so much better upon home malted barley? The country, it was true, had got free trade, but what had been the result? The farmers had taken their leases under the old system of corn laws; and he recollected that, when that system was repealed, he had proposed that all the tenant farmers throughout the kingdom should have the power of throwing up their leases within a given time, on account of the depreciation which he expected would ensue in every branch of agricultural produce. And upon this point, as it was the fashion of that House to refer on all occasions to the judgment of the right rev. bench, he would ask the right rev. Prelates opposite, whether they remembered that the Tithe Commutation Act was a bargain to prevent the mischief which arose, both to the clergy and to the tenantry, from unseemly bickerings on that subject? He asked those right rev. Prelates whether, if the price of agricultural produce remained as low as it was at present, they expected that the tithe, which was valued on the supposition that the price of corn would be 56s. a quarter, would be paid, when that price was not more than 45s. a quarter? The right rev. Prelates might depend upon it that the farmers, if they were not justly treated, would petition, and combine to get rid of the tithes altogether. If they did, they would be joined by Bright and all who hated the Church, and all who wished to see all our institutions swept away, and the Church along with them. He thought that the averages for tithes should be taken every year, in order that the farmer might not pay a commutation for his tithe estimated at a higher price than that which he actually received for his produce. The Legislature had been wrong in the beginning, and the sooner it retraced its steps the better. He would not go into statistics on this subject, because he could not do so without referring to the blue books of the Board of Trade, and it was five years ago since he said that he did not believe a word in them. Another great injustice perpetrated on the farmers was, that they were compelled to pay the income tax, as though they realised a profit, whereas they made none whatever. If the same thing were done in Manchester, what a flame would arise! A rather curious fact had come to his knowledge. A miller had taken a contract to provide a certain workhouse with flour, and he did not go into the English market to buy corn, but bargained with a miller in France for a supply, so that positively the paupers in Brighton union were fed on French flour. When such things took place it was not surprising that the English farmer felt indignant, and looked forward to the future with feelings of alarm. The farmers had been told by a great statesman that they must not rely upon their wheat crop, but must improve their farming and keep more stock; but the fact was, that most persons who had sold out stock this year, had sold it for less than they bought it for. Added to this, the free trade in foreign cattle had been the means of introducing the small-pox amongst our stock. Free trade in the small-pox they had; but they refused free trade to the farmer, who was compelled to bear the expense of repairing roads and bridges, and on whom fresh taxes were heaped day after day. He did not say that this had been the case lately; for it was too well known that any additional taxes would not be paid. They had done all this, and why? He would venture to say, that if their Lordships had voted by ballot there would have been a tremendous majority the other way. But, said the Government, they could not now retrace their steps. Then, said the farmers, why not get rid of the Government? He wished to Heaven they could. A measure was not, in fact, carried on its merits, or rejected on its demerits, now-a-days; but there was a certain number of gentlemen, and ladies too, who went about saying, "Oh, you must not vote against the Government, or they will resign." He wished they would resign. But it was said, if they resign, they knew not who might fill their places so that, however much they might dislike their measures, they could not vote for ousting them from office. Now that appeared to him to be the worst argument which could possibly be used. Those who resorted to it, admitted that great danger would ensue from the repeal of the navigation laws, and from a continuance of the mad theory of free trade, and yet they hesitated to incur the minor danger of a change of Ministry. He spoke entirely without the bias of any personal feeling on this subject, for every one knew that no power on earth would induce him to accept any office in any Administration; but he thought it would be very hard if sixteen or eighteen men could not be found in this country honest enough and able enough to undertake the task of forming a Government. He had spoken of the effects of free trade in England; but what had been its effect in Ireland? A pretty state they had brought that country to. Was it free trade to the Irish farmer to say, "Your land is very suitable, and you could grow tobacco, but you shall not; for I will pass an Act of Parliament to prevent it." And this was free trade! If so, Ireland was unable to comprehend it, and so was he. He warned their Lordships not to turn a deaf ear to the petitions which he had presented. These petitioners up to the present time had remained loyal; they had refused to coalesce in the slightest degree with the republicans who were, unfortunately, to be found in their counties. But let them beware lest they pressed them too far. Let them not believe, when a man found his capital hourly sinking, with no prospect of being able to maintain his wife or children but in the workhouse, that some would not be found who would give way; and though he trusted the great body of the yeomanry would remain true, still they had no right to make such experiments when such large bodies of men were concerned. It was not the tenant farmers alone whose interests were affected, but the agricultural labourers. Every one of the free-trade measures, in short, tended to give employment to the foreigner, and take it from the British labourer. It was owing to these measures that workhouses were filled, that so many were in receipt of outdoor relief, and that throughout every one of their villages there were to be found from ten to thirty ablebodied young men of 21 years of age who only asked for employment, that they might honestly earn their livelihood. These congregated together and mixed with worse associates, and were often led to commit breaches of the law. This, again, the farmer had to pay for in the increase of county rates. But he would take the question on higher grounds than any connected merely with money. He held that the industrious agricultural labourer should not be deprived of the means of earning his livelihood for the purpose of employing the foreign labourer. He had described the British agricultural labourer as honest and loyal, but he would not long continue so unless he was employed. He knew that in many villages at the present moment labourers were employed only two days in the week, at wages of 2s.—a very small sum to enable a man to live honestly. He wished the petitions which he had had the honour of presenting had been placed in the hands of one more capable of expressing the views of the petitioners; but he declared to their Lord-ships and the country that if something were not done—unless the circumstances he had stated were taken into the serious consideration of Parliament, for the purpose of relieving agricultural distress—he looked forward with feelings of the deepest anxiety as to the results which might he produced upon the peace and tranquillity of the country.

The EARL of WINCHILSEA

said, it was with great reluctance that he trespassed at any time on their Lordships' attention, and prevented them from listening to other noble Lords whose observations would be much more worthy of their consideration; but he could not, in justice to his own feelings, or to the honest tenantry and labourers of the county with which he was more particularly connected, who had ever shown towards him the kindest regard—he could not in justice to them or to his own feelings remain silent upon that occasion. His noble Friend who had brought that question under their consideration—a question so deeply affecting the peace and tranquillity of this country—had always been the consistent advocate of protection to the productive classes of this great country and in her numerous colonies; and his noble Friend thought as he (the Earl of Winchilsea) thought, that in dealing with those interests we had of late years pursued a most fatal course of policy. For his part, he believed that if we had encouraged the producers in our home markets and in our colonial markets, those two markets would have consumed all the articles that the manufacturers of this country could beneficially have produced. Indeed, he had always held that it was a matter of indifference whether or not we lost our foreign trade. He had always been aware that it would have been impossible for us to have preserved that trade for any considerable period, because it was manifest that foreign countries must soon have felt it to be their duty and their interest to encourage the growth of native manufactures, and by that means give employment to their own population. He had never ceased to advocate protection to the English agriculturists in particular, on the ground that they were more heavily taxed than the agriculturists of other countries. In considering that question, their Lordships should not forget, that while the manufacturer could stop his machinery and diminish his expenditure in various ways in periods of declining trade, the agriculturist had to incur, under all circumstances, fixed and unvarying burdens, and was dependent on the goodness of Providence for a return for the labour which he spent on the soil—whether he sowed wheat or barley, he must depend for a crop upon the seasons. But what, he would ask, was the present condition of the agriculturists of this country? Why, he found that, in that great county in which he resided, the average produce of wheat last year had but little exceeded two quarters per acre; and even that quantity had been of inferior quality, while the farmers could get no better prices than if their land had produced five quarters per acre. Now it was manifest that under such circumstances our agriculturists must be exposed to severe and unwonted disadvantages. And neither could he see any prospect of a return of prosperity to that class under a continuance of our present policy; for he believed that the great influx of foreign corn into this country would never allow prices here to rise above an average of their present amount. He could not help thinking that prices would even be depressed hereafter below their present level; because it was well known that the plains of America might be made to produce more corn than could be consumed by all Europe, after having supplied their own population. That was a question in which the peace and happiness of this country was deeply involved. Their Lordships might depend upon it that the people of England would not tolerate a system of continued injustice. He gave credit to noble Lords opposite for having supported a free-trade policy from a sense of duty; but he would remind those noble Lords that that policy had been adopted as an experiment; and as that experiment had been proved to be a failure, he should never cease to demand not only for the agricultural interest, but for every other interest in the country, a return of that protection to which they were fairly entitled. He said, that the people of England had been unjustly dealt with; and if they wanted an honest, although a feeble leader, in him they would find one. The free-trade policy had been introduced by a Minister who, although possessed of great ability, was deficient in moral courage, and who, in giving way to a worthless faction, and abandoning those principles of protection which he had advocated during a period of thirty years, had inflicted incalculable injury on the agricultural interest of this country. He (the Earl of Winchilsea) had warned their Lordships at the time of the passing of the Bill for repealing the corn laws, that that measure was the act of a revolutionary faction, anxious to ruin the present landed proprietary of this country. Under the existing system, the cultivation of land had become deteriorated, and the land itself had necessarily declined in value. He would tell their Lordships, that under those circumstances many of the landed proprietors of England were placed in a position of great peril; for in the cases of estates encumbered with debts the mortgagees would foreclose the mortgages, and the present holders would be compelled to part with their properties. The faction which had obtained the repeal of the corn laws held a large portion of the mortgages in this country, and their object had been from the beginning to bring down the value of land; and, after it had been diminished to the lowest possible amount, to foreclose their mortgages, and to become themselves the owners of encumbered estates. He looked upon the whole system as a direct attack on the best interests of the country. It would be vain to attempt to defend the free-trade policy by stating that it would make bread cheaper; for what, he would ask, would be the use of diminishing the price of bread, if the people could not earn the means of purchasing it? He would tell their Lordships that a fearful and an increasing state of distress prevailed in Sussex, Essex, Hertfordshire, and other agricultural counties. That distress was, in some respects, far more serious than that which had prevailed in the year 1822; because, in that latter year, although there had been low prices, there had been an abundant harvest, while at present prices were unusually depressed after a very deficient harvest. Under these circumstances he would earnestly implore their Lordships, if they found they had been wrong in the course they had recently pursued—and all men were liable to adopt an erroneous policy—he would earnestly implore them to retrace their steps, and to restore to every interest in this great country a fair and a moderate protection—the only protection which they demanded. If they were convinced that our agriculturists could not compete with the agriculturists of foreign countries under a free-trade system, he called on them to abandon that system. They had an increasing population, and, thank Heaven, they had also a loyal population; but if that population were to become the victims of continued injustice, he could not help feeling that an awful responsibility would rest on those who had inflicted on the country a state of things to which no good citizen could look forward without alarm. He denied that the system of free trade they had recently adopted was in any sense a fair one. He found that under that system the English agriculturist could not convert his barley into malt, while the foreigner might so use his barley if he should think proper. Now, it was well known that no article was so valuable as malt for feeding cattle, and the result of our present legislation was, that foreign cattle so fed were unfairly brought into competition with those of the English agriculturist. In conclusion, he implored of them, if they valued the peace and prosperity of the country, to abandon a course of policy fatal to her best interests.

THE DUKE of RICHMOND

begged to be allowed to add that he wished to ask Her Majesty's Ministers whether they admitted the existence of agricultural distress; and, if so, whether they were prepared with any remedial measures?

EARL GREY

said, he did not think that this was a fitting occasion for a discussion on the principles of free trade, upon which they were not now called upon to express any opinion; but he could not allow the two speeches which had just been made to pass by without an answer. And, in the first place, in answer to the noble Duke, he could assure him that both his noble Friend near him (the Marquess of Lansdowne) and himself were aware of the existence of agricultural distress in this country, and that they deeply deplored it. At the same time, Her Majesty's Government were not ready to offer any measures to the consideration of Parliament for the relief of that distress. This was not the first time that their Lordships had heard complaints of agricultural distress; and when the noble Duke and the noble Earl told them that the mere fact of the existence of agricultural distress ought to be taken as a conclusive proof of the failure of the system of free trade, he could not but remind their Lordships how frequently similar complaints had been made under the system which formerly prevailed. He had the curiosity to ascertain, from the Journals of Parliament, how often this subject of agricultural distress had been brought under the consideration of Parliament since the passing of the corn laws in 1815. In 1816—the very year afterwards—petitions were presented to Parliament complaining of agricultural distress; and the same thing took place in subsequent years. In 1817, 1819, 1820, 1821, and so on for every successive year till 1825, similar petitions were presented. Then came an interval of six years; but in 1830, 1831, and from 1833 till 1836 inclusive, the case was the same. Nor was that all. In fourteen years out" of the thirty-one, during which a protective system prevailed, strong complaints of agricultural distress were raised; and he found that the distress was so intense in some of those years, that it was mentioned in Speeches from the Throne on three different occasions; and that in six years out of the period Committees of one or other House of Parliament sat to investigate the causes of that distress. When they were told that that distress had arisen entirely from free trade, let him remind their Lordships what had been the report of the Committee of the House of Commons in the year 1833, as to the state of distress which had then prevailed under that very system of protection to which they were called upon to return. He should observe, that the report in question had been drawn up by a right hon. Gentleman, who, although he was at present a convert to the doctrines of free trade, had been at that time a distinguished supporter of the principles of protection, and that that report had always been referred to as an exposition of the doctrines of the protectionist party. He found in it the following passage:— The Committee of 1821 expressed a hope that the great body of the occupiers of the soil, either from the savings of more prosperous times, or from the credit which punctuality commands in this country, possessed resources which would enable them to surmount the difficulties under which they laboured. But your Committee, with deep regret, are bound rather to express a fear that the difficulties alone remain unchanged, and that the savings are either gone or greatly diminished, credit having failed, resources having been generally exhausted; and this opinion is not formed on the evidence of rentpayers, but of many most respectable witnesses, as well owners of land as surveyors of land. Such was the account which had been given, in the year 1833, of the consequences of eighteen years of a protective system. Now, he could not think that that account afforded an encouragement to return to that system. He should further remark, that, great as the distress at present undoubtedly was, it was not very difficult to account for it. They all knew that in the south of England the last harvest had been a deficient one, and that it had been very badly secured. And that this was the main cause of the existing distress was admitted both by the noble Earl and the noble Duke. The noble Earl said, that the average produce in his county was only two quarters of barley to the acre, and that, too, of an inferior quality. He would ask the noble Earl, who, at the eloquent close of his speech, had pointed out the dangers of popular discontent, whether it would tend to allay that discontent, if the population of this country had been confined to the scanty produce of the last harvest? The arguments which used to be employed to show the beauty of the sliding-scale never failed to point out that, whenever there was a bad harvest in this country, there was not the slightest obstacle to foreign corn coming in. When, therefore, the noble Duke said that the maltsters would not buy English barley this year, it being notorious that in good years English barley was always bought in preference to foreign, it appeared to him to be not a subject for regret, but for congratulation, that under such circumstances as befel us last year, and with the staple food of the population of Ireland destroyed, we had, by the blessing of Providence, and by that change in the law which was most timely accomplished three years ago, been enabled to obtain so large a supply of food from abroad. Greatly as he was in favour of the measure of 1846, and strongly convinced of its absolute necessity—not for the interests only, but for the safety of the country—the experience of the last three years had satisfied him that we owed a debt of great gratitude to that statesman who introduced and carried the measure, for having averted from this country a calamity by which it would otherwise have been visited. He believed that it was owing to the fact that the corn law was repealed in 1846 that timely provision was made in foreign countries to supply our wants; and he believed, also, that, under Providence, we were indebted to that circumstance for having passed through the current year without a greater amount of suffering than had been endured. He had risen, not to argue the question, but merely to state his own opinion; still there were one or two points which had been touched upon which invited some observations. The noble Duke adverted to the tithe rent-charge as being a great burden on the tenant farmer. But since the change in the law, he believed that most proprietors, let their farms tithe-free; otherwise they exposed themselves to the risk of being liable to the payment of the rent-charge, if the tenant did not pay it during his occupation. That was the course which he pursued himself, and such, he believed, was the general practice. In the same way their Lordships were told that the farmers should have the benefit of free trade, as well as every other class, and that the malt tax should be repealed. Since, however, the corn law had been repealed, he did not know any person less interested in the repeal of the malt tax than the farmer. He could conceive no possible object which the farmer could gain by the repeal; for when they were told that malt was the most fattening food that could be given to cattle, he must say that the experiments tried on malt by scientific men against other kinds of food, first theoretically, and then practically, showed that malt was not the species of food which, if the duty on malt were taken off, would be given to bring cattle into condition. Looking, also, at the whole circle of taxation, no article that was taxed occasioned so little inconvenience as malt. But then it was said that it was unjust that the farmer should not be allowed to grow tobacco. Now, if foreign tobacco were allowed to enter this country free of duty, our climate was so inferior in point of warmth—and tobacco not only required a hot climate, but was also a very exhaustive plant—that there was not the remotest possibility of this country entering into competition with foreign countries in the production of that article. Cuba and some of the States of America must always, if their produce were admitted on equal terms, entirely prevent the cultivation of tobacco in this country. Then it came to this, that the present law was merely a law for revenue, and not to prevent the farmer from obtaining the best return from his land. If there were any possibility of his growing tobacco on equal terms with foreign countries, he conceived that there would be no sort of objection to allow tobacco to be cultivated here, in the same way as beet-root sugar, which might be manufactured in this country upon payment of the same duty as was paid upon the sugar from our colonies. The noble Duke also said that farmers ought to be allowed to give up their farms in consequence of the Act of 1846. Now, his (Earl Grey's) belief was, that whenever tenants really desired it, they had no difficulty at the present time in getting their farms taken off their hands. He was not aware, as far as his experience went, that when a farmer desired to give up his land, it answered the purpose of his landlord to desire him to retain it. He had heard of persons who complained of the effect of the corn laws, and asked to have their farms taken off their hands; but when they found that no difficulty was made in acceding to their request, they expressed a wish to reconsider their decision. A friend of his, a noble Duke not then present, who had large estates in Bedfordshire, finding one of his tenants complain very much of the effect of the corn laws on his interests, said that he had no wish to hold him to a losing bargain, and that he might give up the farm. Now, his noble Friend was a very good landlord; and when the question was put to the tenant in that practical shape, he asked for time to consider; and after consideration he did not persevere in his application for leave to surrender the farm. He confessed he deeply regretted to find, from the speeches which he had heard, and which were no doubt made in all sincerity, that there existed what he believed to be a most unfounded panic in some parts of the country. His own interests being entirely connected with the land, he did not hesitate to say that he had no doubt that it would hereafter see better days. In some parts of the country, at least, this panic did not prevail. He saw a noble Earl opposite who was connected with Scotland; and he had observed it stated very lately in the Scotch newspapers that a number of farms had fallen out of lease, and that in every one of these cases these farms had let either on the old or on advanced terms.

THE EARL of MANSFIELD

That is not the case with my farms.

The DUKE of RICHMOND

Nor with mine.

EARL GREY

had seen these statements made with great particularity, and therefore thought there must be some foundation for them; for instance, there was an account of a farm in Ayrshire which was let at 5l. the Scotch acre, instead of the old rent of four guineas. The noble Earl (the Earl of Winchilsea) had spoken of the country going out of cultivation; but as far as his experience went, nothing seemed to have checked or damped the spirit of agricultural improvement; on the contrary, it was going on more rapidly than at any former period. Some months ago he had occasion to come up by railroad to London from Northumberland, and he remarked that he had never before seen lying on both sides of the line so large a number of draining tiles, which he considered to be a pretty good proof that the spirit of improvement was not asleep. He had gone perhaps farther than he intended, and he would only end by assuring the noble Duke that he was quite aware of the existence of great distress in the country, and sincerely deplored it; but that, at the same time, it was his firm conviction that any measures for attempting to remove causes that were beyond our control would do more harm than good.

The EARL of MALMESBURY

said, it gave him pleasure to hear the noble Earl who had just spoken acknowledge the distress which had for some time existed in the agricultural districts of this empire, and express his sympathy for its pressure; but the satisfaction which he felt at that acknowledgment was lessened by the announcement which the noble Earl had made—that Government were not prepared to take any steps for the relief of that distress. It was, certainly, in the power of the Government to consider whether that distress might not be alleviated. The noble Earl had misrepresented the meaning of his noble Friends, when he stated that noble Lords on that (the Opposition) side of the House attributed the whole of the present agricultural distress to the free-trade measures of the Government: no doubt they thought that the carrying out those principles into practice had been one of the main causes of that distress, but they did not mean to assert that it was entirely owing to those measures. There had been a very deficient harvest in the south of England, and some of the distress now existing in that part of England might be attributed to that deficiency; but what the agricultural interest complained of was, that the present distress was immensely increased and aggravated by the free-trade measures; and what was worse, those measures had taken from the agricultural classes all hope for any improvement. When, on previous occasions, the agricultural interest was in a state of distress, that distress arose from other causes than those which led to the present state of things. When those causes were removed, the farmers, who were not easily cowed or disheartened, might, at least, entertain the hope that a better day was coming. But if the free-trade measures should answer in the sense in which they were intended to answer by those who originated them, the present distress must become immeasurably aggravated, instead of being diminished. The noble Earl (Earl Grey) had made some quotations from Parliamentary returns, for the purpose of showing that this was not the first time that complaints about agricultural distress had been brought under the notice of the Legislature. But as he (the Earl of Malmesbury) had already said, the causes of that distress in the years named by the noble Earl, were entirely different from the causes which had led to the distress which now existed. If he understood correctly the meaning of free trade, it contemplated neither more nor less than to drive down the price of corn to the lowest possible figure; and if that was the object of free trade, the agricultural class could only look to its continuance as an aggravation of their present difficulties. The noble Earl (Earl Grey) had alluded to the year 1816, as one in which complaints had been made of agricultural distress. That was a year in which there had been a very bad harvest. In 1819, there was Peel's Currency Bill; and in 1822, the results of that measure were felt throughout the country in the breaking of so many banks. In 1836, the agricultural distress arose from the abundance of the harvest, which brought down the price of corn. So that the causes of the agricultural distress in the years to which the noble Earl had alluded were very different from the causes which had led to the present distress; and it was not fair to say that the causes were analogous. In addition to the former burdens on land were now added those arising from the operation of the new poor-law. The noble Earl had said that this distress was confined to a bad harvest in some of the southern counties of England; but their Lordships' table had groaned under the weight of petitions from every part of England, as he need not tell their Lordships there was not a place in the country which had not suffered from the free-trade measures. The noble Earl had declared that Her Majesty's Government did not intend to bring forward any measure to remedy the present agricultural distress: did that amount to a declaration of this nature, that the agricultural interest was not in a position to deserve the attention of Her Majesty's Government? Did the noble Earl mean to say, that the agricultural classes did not carry burdens from which they might be relieved? He (the Earl of Malmesbury) believed that the agricultural distress which at present prevailed throughout this country, was not owing entirely to free trade, but likewise to a bad harvest; but it had also been caused by a constant, gradual, but certain increase of the local taxation of this country. On that point, at least, he thought that the agricultural interest deserved the attention of Her Majesty's Government; and on this head he thought the agricultural interest might be relieved without acting unfairly towards any human being in this country. He could not help reminding their Lordships that the local taxation of the country had been considerably increased of late years by the imposition of the property and income tax; and there was this injustice attending the levying of that impost, as far as the agricultural interest was concerned—the landlord was assessed at the amount which his property was worth before the existence of the present distress; so that the farmer had to pay for profits which he did not make out of his capital, and the landlord had to pay for income which he did not derive. Did not such a state of things aggravate the existing distress? This point of the income tax was the sorest of which the agricultural interest had to complain, and it was one which the Government were bound to consider. He would now briefly call their Lordships' attention to the effects of the income tax and free trade upon the position of the British farmer. By free trade he understood a bargain entered into between two persons on terms of perfect equality, and without any restriction being put upon one of the parties to which the other was not liable. But was that the state of things as regarded the English and the American farmers? He would not make use of the old argument about the English farmer being more heavily taxed than the farmer of any other country; he would suppose that the excess of taxation paid by the English farmer as compared with the American was merely equal to the expense to which the American was put in bringing his wheat to the English markets, though he believed that it more than counterbalanced the whole of that expense. Let their Lordships suppose that the American and English farmer stood side by side at a stall in Liverpool. He would take the case of an English farmer, who paid a rent of 400l.: he went to a stall at Liverpool and sold 200 quarters at 40s., thus realising his rent of 400l On that amount the landlord's income tax would be 12l., and that of the tenant half that amount, or 6l.—making together 18l. The American farmer sold his 200 quarters at 40s., and obtained 400l.; on his 200 quarters he paid a duty of 1s. per quarter, amounting to 10l., whilst the Englishman paid 18l. on the same quantity of corn, being 8l. more than the amount of duty paid by the American. Again, he would suppose that from some cause or other the price of corn had arisen to 60s., and that the landlord's rent was 500l., and the American and Englishman came to the same stall with 200 quarters; the Englishman sold his corn at 60s. a quarter, and obtained 600l.; the landlord's income tax would amount to 15l., and that of the occupying tenant to 7l. 10s., making in all 22l. 10s. The American, however, sold his 200 quarters at 60s., and obtained 600l.; the amount of duty at 1s. a quarter was 10l., so that the amount which the American would have to pay into the Exchequer would be 12l. 10s. less than the amount payable by the Englishman. These were points of great hardship; and he (the Earl of Malmesbury) thought it was the duty of Her Majesty's Government to take them into their serious consideration. He had heard a great deal from noble Lords, the advocates of free trade, on the inexpediency of differential duties; but there was a system of differential duties pressing upon the English in favour of the American grower. Now, he thought if that state of things were properly considered, it would be found to be very harsh. And if he were asked how that could be remedied, he would answer it was a matter easily to be met. A fixed duty of 5s., would put the English farmer on a par with the American trader. The working clergy of the country were among the greatest sufferers from free trade. A fall of 20 per cent in incomes which seldom exceeded on an average 250l., was a great hardship to men who had no other resource. He was glad to learn from the noble Earl opposite that he had been able to let his farms, because he had been told on good authority that there was some difficulty in letting farms in the noble Earl's neighbourhood, and that even his finely-cultivated lands had not found tenants so readily as in former years. But whatever might be the case in the north, nothing could exceed the panic among the farmers in the south of England, where it was a difficult matter to let a farm on fair terms to a respectable tenant. The noble Earl was never more mistaken than in supposing that farms could generally be let with facility throughout England.

The DUKE of RICHMOND,

in reply, stated, that the reason why a respectable farmer, referred to by the noble Earl (Earl Grey) opposite, refused to give up his lease when the matter was left to his own option was, first, because he had expended 1,800l. in the improvement of his farm; and, in the next place, because he was advanced in years, and would be very sorry to leave a place in which he had spent the best part of his life. That gentleman was a real good specimen of an honest upright English fanner; for although he was the tenant of a Liberal landlord and a freetrader, he was not afraid of attending public meetings everywhere, and freely and candidly expressing his opinions. But why did this man refuse to surrender his lease, it might be asked, if by holding it he would be a loser? Because he had a well-grounded and reasonable belief that the people of England would soon oppose themselves to free-trade laws which had already proved so injurious. He believed that a great reaction would soon take place. It was rather ungenerous to taunt the Protectionist party with not moving for a repeal of free-trade laws. Experience taught them that such a movement would be altogether unnecessary. They knew that the House of Commons and the House of Lords were the last places in which a reaction was likely to manifest itself; for it required some considerable time for any public man to get up in his place and acknowledge that he had been entirely wrong upon any great question. He (the Duke of Richmond) believed, however, that the people of England had such sterling good sense that they would not suffer a great wrong to remain long unredressed. He did not say that they would demand a return to the sliding-scale; but he did say that the time would come when, whether Parliament liked it or not, they must return to a protective system—when the people of this country would call upon Parliament to put on a duty on imported foreign corn for the purpose of revenue. Those who were opposed to free trade were now backed up in their views by the opinions of the most experienced men—by shipowners, merchants, bankers, and the hardy men of Birmingham—and, more than all, by the great body of the operatives in the manufacturing districts, who, to their cost, had found that free trade meant "half a day's work, and quarter of a day's. pay." Heaven only knew whether the time might not soon come when their Lordships' House might be destroyed. If that were the case he should go to the hustings of a county as a candidate, and if he did not get the support of many of those who were now free-traders he should be very much disappointed.

Petitions ordered to lie on the table.

House adjourned to Friday next.