§ LORD REDESDALErose, pursuant to notice, to present two important petitions from two important counties, both complaining of agricultural distress, and praying for the restoration of agricultural protection. Parliament had now been assembled for six weeks, and in that time no notice had been taken of that most important question, and therefore it was that he now, having been entrusted with the presentation of these petitions, ventured to call the attention of their Lordships to it. On the first night of the Session the noble Marquess at the head of the Government in that House had given their Lordships the comfortable assurance that with respect to agricultural distress he trusted that the worst was past, as the importations of foreign corn were decreasing, and a tendency to a rise in prices had already manifested itself. So far, however, was the expectation then held out to the agricultural interest from being realised, that since that declaration there had been a continual tendency of prices downward, and there appeared at present little or no chance of their rise. As the interests of the landlord, the tenant-farmers, and the labourers were all involved in the rise or fall of the price of agricultural produce, he thought their Lordships should not allow the Session to pass away without attempting to find a remedy for that distress of agriculture which all of them admitted to be widespread. One of the petitions which he had to present, complaining of that distress, came from the county of Northumberland, and was signed by 4,700 persons, including in their number most of the landed gentry of that county, a large number of farmers, and, he was happy to add, a number of intelligent and respectable mechanics. The other came from the county of Worcester, and was also numerously and respectably signed. Both of the petitions came from parties principally interested in agriculture, and they attributed the depreciation of agricultural produce to the recent changes in the law, and contended that it must continue if a return to protection in some shape or other did not take place. In this he thought they 716 were right, for the principle of free importations had been rejected as injurious and unwise by all the continental nations of Europe, and had even been repudiated by the United States of America; and their Lordships would observe, moreover, that the assertions frequently made, that a return to protection was impossible, proceeded exclusively from those whose political character depended upon the fulfilment of their particular theories. Under such circumstances he rejoiced to see that it was daily becoming more and more unpalatable and unsatisfactory to all classes generally in this country. This was apparent from all the elections which had recently taken place. In all those cases the constituencies seemed to be convinced that protection in some shape or other must and would be restored. Indeed, the whole subject had been recently so treated as to lead one to think that no permanence in the late changes could be longer expected. If those changes were right, he did not wish them to be altered; but if they were wrong both in their principles and in their results, he hoped that there would be no hesitation on the part of the Legislature to remove them, and to give the country relief by a return to its old system. The interest of the people depended on their having good wages and plenty of work. Low wages reduced their income and the income of the country, and as you lowered the income of the country you increased the burden of taxation imposed upon it. He would refer to the operation of the malt tax in proof of this, showing that now, when the price of barley was low, it imposed a tax of 100 per cent on the operation of malting, instead of a tax of 75 per cent, which was imposed on it when the price of barley was higher. Throughout the country there had been a largo reduction of wages. Every class of the labouring community, from the engine drivers on the railways to the ploughboy, had been obliged to submit to work for less pay than before, some losing many shillings a week, and the day labourer seldom loss than two; and taking the average loss to the whole population of the kingdom, men, women, and children, it might fairly be estimated that not less than 10,000,000 of the inhabitants of this country had been exposed to a reduction of 2s. a week in their wages; and, if that were the case, there must have been a falling off of 52,000,000l. in the annual income of the labouring poor. There must, 717 therefore, be a corresponding falling off in the national income. A gentleman, who had taken a leading part in the anti-corn-law agitation, and who had therefore been selected by Her Majesty's Ministers to move the Address in the other House of Parliament on the first night of the present Session, had made use of a most extraordinary calculation to show that there had been an enormous increase in the wealth of the nation (an increase of somewhere about 90,000,000l.) in consequence of the lowering of the price of food by the repeal of the corn laws. That hon. Gentleman had taken the average price of corn in the years 1847 and the present year, assuming the average of 1849 as the basis for calculating that of 1850. He had compared the prices in these years, and had then said—"Here is a gain to the country in the price of food." But that hon. Gentleman had taken a famine year as his standard of comparison, although that was also a year of free trade in corn, for not oven the shilling duty was then levied, and had contrasted it with the present year. He (Lord Redesdale) would not take a famine year, but would take the price of wheat and other grain at the rate upon which Sir R. Peel had based his calculations when he altered the corn law, in 1842. That calculation would reduce the cost of wheat from 69s. a quarter, as estimated by Mr. Villiers, to 56s., and the saving in the price of wheat would then be not more than 16,700,000l., the saving in the price of barley would be only 4,000,000l., and in the price of oats would not be more than 6,400,000l. The saving would also be less on some other portions of agricultural produce; and the result of the whole would be that the saving to the labouring poor effected by lowering the price of food would not exceed 39,000,000l. or 40,000,000l.; whilst the loss which accrued to them by the falling off of their wages in the same time was not less than 52,000,000l. Now, as it was money that ruled, and not produce, and as money wages ought to be considered in the comparison, and not the produce of grain, ii was quite evident that the labouring classes must have sustained great loss by the changes which the hon. Gentleman had so largely eulogised. The doctrine laid down by the sect of political economists to which that hon. Gentleman belonged was, that you ought to buy in the cheapest and sell in the dearest market. Now, the labouring man began by selling; he had 718 nothing but his labour, and therefore, in order to buy largely, it was his interest to be able to sell it in the dearest market. But the object of the political economists was to make the labour market a cheap market for the manufacturer, though they appeared to entertain different views with respect to agricultural labour, for the moment agricultural wages became low, a "commissioner" came down from the newspapers, and made an outcry against the owners and occupiers of land for endeavouring to reduce wages to a starvation point. Putting aside for the present the abstract question of protection, he implored their Lordships to inquire into the causes of the distress of agriculture; and, in order to conduct that inquiry to a successful issue, they must consider what was the situation of that distressed interest. An attempt had been made to draw a distinction between the agricultural and manufacturing interests of the country as antagonist interests. Now, in his opinion, there was no such distinction between them. The growth of corn was a manufacture; and even pastoral agriculture in this country came strongly under the same bead, and must also be treated as a manufacture. The landlords too were not drones, as they had sometimes been represented to be, but were master manufacturers. He knew that many of those whom he then had the honour of addressing were equal to any master manufacturer in Yorkshire or Lancashire in the interest which they took in the commodity which they produced, in the improvements which they were introducing into agriculture, and in the feelings which they entertained for the labourers on their estates. There was, however, this difference between land and other manufacturers: the cotton manufacturer knew what amount of manufactured produce he could obtain from a certain amount of cotton. So, too, did the iron manufacturer know how much he could produce from a certain quantity of iron. Both of them could calculate exactly the amount of work they did, and the value which it would produce in the market. The great evil, however, arose when those parties manufactured too much. Then a glut occurred. What was the consequence? They either stopped their operations entirely, or they worked short time. In either case they threw their labourers upon others for support, and thus restored activity to the markets. But no agriculturist could foretell the pro- 719 duce of the seed he might place in the ground, and in this respect his position was materially different from that of the manufacturer. A glut of their produce in the market operated more mischievously against the agricultural interest than the manufacturing of iron or cotton. At that period the agricultural manufacturer could not stop his operations, or work short time, without throwing his labourer upon himself and his brother landowners for support; his outlay and his production must still be kept up during the continuance of this glut of his own produce. Lord Ashburton, in one of his speeches against the repeal of the corn laws, had distinctly shown the injurious operation of a glut in the corn market upon all parties engaged in the occupation and cultivation of the soil, and predicted that after the repeal of the corn laws there would be a perpetual glut in the corn market of England, inasmuch as the surplus produce of corn would be thrown into it from all quarters of the world, owing to its being at all times, and under all circumstances, an open market. Now, that was the very case at present. The cause of our present distress was a glut in the corn market, and would endure unless some change should take place in the duties on foreign importation. The complaint was, that nothing was now doing there. No man knew when he put his seed into the ground what its returns would be; it might be a hundred fold, or it might be nothing. It was, and it ever had been, the interest of every country to stimulate the production of corn. When the agriculturists said, "We are ruined by the glut which prevails," there came down upon them some pupil of the politico-economical school, exclaiming, "Grow twice as much more, and you will be saved." It was not the course which that school pursued in similar circumstances. When they had a glut, they did not produce twice as much, but they stopped production altogether. Now, it was the duty of Government to take care that the grower of corn should not suffer by the glut which Providence had given him, that glut being created by an agency over which the producer had no control. What he thought that the agriculturist was entitled to was, that whenever there was an extraordinary glut in the market created by the superabundant produce of our own land, he should have a restriction on all foreign importations into that market until the glut was cleared off. Our system was 720 working well when the recent changes were made in the corn laws, and if it had been left alone we should have been much better off than we were at present—nay, more, a larger amount of revenue would have been paid into the Exchequer, and would have been available for the benefit of the country. For these reasons he thought that a change back to our former system would be advantageous. It would not do to try the experiment of free trade too long. We must not wait in expectation of its success until all the important interests of the country were ruined. There was a heartless-ness in our present system which ought not to be persevered in, and would not be tolerated much longer. He wanted to have this question treated on its own merits, and not supported or impugned by mere party motives. He felt confident that a change was necessary. He believed that our present prosperity, so much vaunted of by the school of manufacturing philosophers, was not based on sound foundations, and that their Lordships would soon have to listen to a loud cry of distress from the small tradesmen of the country, excited by the loss of the custom of their best friends—the landlords and farmers of Great Britain. He now wished to put a few questions to the noble Marquess opposite. First, he would ask the noble Marquess to state his opinions as to the causes to which the present agricultural distress was attributable. Next, he would ask him what were his opinions or expectations as to its continuance? Could the noble Marquess tell their Lordships that there was any, and what, prospect of a considerable alteration in the present price of corn? The next question which he should ask the noble Marquess was this—supposing that there was no chance of a decided advance in the price of grain, did he think the present extent of land could be cultivated with any success? He (Lord Redesdale) was confident that it could not be cultivated at all. High farming had been recommended, but high farming was expensive, and could never be remunerative under the present scale of prices. The other question which he should propose to the noble Marquess was, whether Her Majesty's Ministers had been able to form any notion, or to frame any calculation, as to the future average price of corn under the new system? The noble Marquess, by his gestures, seemed to intimate that he considered it unreasonable to ask him to reply to such a question. He thought that there 721 was nothing unreasonable in asking such a question of the Government. Sir R. Peel had given an answer to a similar question in 1842, and had fixed it at 54s. to 56s. a quarter. The country was now working under a system which it was impossible to go on with, and trying a theory of which no one could calculate the practical results. Nine-tenths of the most intelligent farmers in the country declared that it must inevitably terminate in their ruin. He therefore trusted that their Lordships would either receive an assurance that there was some reasonable ground for entertaining a hope that there would soon be an improvement in the present state of things, or, if not, that Government was prepared to make some alteration in the present state of the law in order to bring about such improvement.
§ The MARQUESS of LANSDOWNEsaid, that he was not at all surprised that such petitions should have been presented, knowing, as he did, that distress existed in many of the agricultural districts. He was not one of those who, when he was induced many years ago to vote for a change in the corn laws, imagined that that change could be effected without any difficulty or any pressure on some classes of the community. At the same time, he was of opinion that that change was based upon sound policy, and that it was called for by a conviction that it would be impossible to maintain, by legislative enactment, a higher price of corn in this country than the price which regulated the general markets of the world. Whatever doubts he might have had at the time as to the period when that change ought to take place, and as to the possibility or impossibility of mitigating its effects by a temporary fixed duty, he had never hesitated to come to the conclusion that the abrogation of the corn laws was inevitable, and that ultimately it would be attended by beneficial consequences to the wealth, prosperity, happiness, and commerce of the great bulk of the people of this country. He must differ from the noble Lord in another point, for he thought that the capital of a country could not go on increasing without leading to a corresponding increase in its income. The true representative of the income of a country was the amount of luxury and comfort which that income could command; and if, under an alleged diminution of income, he saw a great increase in the consumption of such luxuries and comforts, he should be inclined to in- 722 fer that, in reality, the income of the country was essentially increased. The noble Lord had called upon him to answer questions relative to the past, the present, and the future average price of corn in this country. Now, he trusted that whilst he endeavoured to give the noble Baron a satisfactory answer on the first two heads of his question, the noble Baron would excuse him if he should be very cautious as to the last. He could not but recollect that, if there was one subject on which all persons possessing the same sources of information, and the same privileges and advantages of office with himself, had singularly failed in their prophecies, it was the corn laws of the country; and that failure had been notorious, not only on the part of those whom the noble Baron described as leaders of the politico-economical school, but also on the part of such of the advocates of protection as had ventured to predict the consequences of their own measures. Their Lordships were then discussing the question of protection in a House of Peers in which he had himself, with his own ears, heard it gravely stated, that without a fixed price of 80s. a quarter, it would be impossible to maintain the cultivation of the land. We were then told, as we were told again now, that high farming was a very expensive process, and that unless we fixed the remunerating price at 80s. a quarter, high farming must be given up, and all the farms in the country would be abandoned. That standard, however, had been given up, and the remunerating price was fixed at a lower figure; and what had been the consequence? In the face of these constant reductions in the price of corn, that cultivation, which many said must be abandoned, had materially increased, and at the present moment a much larger quantity of corn was raised in the country than had ever been grown at any former period. He should, therefore, be only misleading their Lordships if he should venture to say what the improvement which he expected would be, or to state any opinion as to the future average price of corn. The noble Baron, in the course of his remarks, had thought fit to advert to what had fallen from him at the commencement of the Session. If he referred to that discussion, he might perhaps take credit to himself for that power of prophecy which he had just disclaimed. He had then said that he considered it likely that the importation of foreign corn would diminish. For a month after the 723 time of his expressing that opinion, the greatest diminution in the quantity of corn imported had taken place which had been known for years. In the month of February, 1850, there was a difference of 200,000 quarters between the quantity of wheat then imported, and the quantity imported in February, 1849. In the latter year the importation during the month of February amounted to 380,000 quarters; in the present year, during the same month, it was only 180,000 quarters. He believed that he should also be justified in stating, that the amount of importation was also diminishing during the present month of March. He therefore said, that there was little cause to dread this great and formidable bugbear, which existed only in the fervid imagination of the noble Baron. He certainly was of opinion that the importation which had taken place had been one of the causes of the diminution of the price of food of which the noble Baron complained. If that was the sword of Damocles suspended over our heads for our destruction, as the noble Baron imagined, it was a very blunt and harmless sword indeed. The effect of that importation had been much less dangerous than the noble Baron imagined. It had only brought the price of corn in all countries of the world to a level with the price in this country. We had reached a state of things in which it was not worth the while of foreign countries to send corn here; and in France the agriculturists were as sick with their repletion as any of our agriculturists were in this country. Here let him ask the noble Baron, when he said that we were not taking example from others, and that others were not following our example, and when he complained that we were the only country in the world which regarded this system of free trade with favour and affection, here let him ask the noble Baron to consider from what countries the greatest and most unexpected quantity of foreign corn had been derived? It had come from France, which had adhered all along to the prohibitory system, and which still thought itself bound to adhere to it. He begged leave to remind the noble Baron opposite (Lord Stanley, we believe) how ineffectual that system had been to guarantee France from these calamities, if calamities they were, arising from the pressure of a great abundance of cereal food. The noble Baron had asked him to explain what he conceived to be the cause of the dis- 724 tress which existed in some districts of the country. He (the Marquess of Lansdowne) admitted that the importation of corn had had some effect on prices, but that was not all. The main cause was the apprehension carefully and sedulously propagated from one end of the country to the other, by parties whom he need not mention, that the repeal of the corn laws must of necessity lead to wide-spread ruin. If he might form a judgment from the stock of corn now in hand in this country, he should conclude that there never had been a time in the history of the corn laws in which the stock in hand was so low as at present. Another cause of the low price of corn was the recent political changes on the Continent; but he did not suppose that even the noble Baron would attribute those changes to the parties who had introduced the recent alterations in our corn laws. Those political changes had acted injuriously upon every interest in the world connected with production and wealth; increasing them, it might be, in one place, but diminishing them in every other—affecting consumption in one district, and demand only in another; but thereby introducing into all commercial transactions a state of uncertainty which at any rate was not attributable to the legislation on the corn laws. He requested the noble Baron to listen to him whilst he briefly explained the state of the stock of corn at present in hand. As far as could be collected from the returns made from the different warehouses in London and elsewhere, the present amount of stock was only 242,028 quarters. What was it at the close of the year 1848? It amounted to the large quantity of 1,354,000 quarters. It was followed up in February, 1849, by an importation of 384,000 quarters, which was more by 200,000 quarters than the importation of last February, and again in March of the same year by an importation of 623,000 quarters. Now, in this present month of March the importation, as he had already stated, was daily diminishing. But what was the effect of the importation which had already taken place upon foreign countries? He held at that moment in his hand a letter, which he had received that morning from Belgium. In that letter it was stated that so exhausted of corn had that country become, and so low had the price of corn fallen, that any party giving a commission for 4,000 or 5,000 quarters of corn would only be able to procure it by a sudden rise of prices. Was not that a proof that we 725 had no occasion to fear anything from the present chances of importation? He likewise knew that in the regions bordering on the Mediterranean such had been the increased demand for corn for the African market, that all the coast of that sea had been canvassed to supply it. In Franco they could not do it; for France was so drained by the great exportation to which he had alluded, that there was now hardly sufficient left for the subsistence of her own people. Their Lordships would also recollect that a great part of the late large supply had arisen from the fact of deficiencies in former harvests having given rise to increased energy and activity in production—efforts which had been crowned by the occurrence of a most plenteous crop. And the favourable harvest of the present year coinciding with a great variety of other circumstances, contributed to bring the prices of corn to their present level. The House also could not fail to be aware of the great influence which the events of 1848 exercised in lowering the prices of corn. But be the causes of that event what they might, it had long been felt as a matter of certainty that the change in the corn laws had greatly increased the consumptive powers of the country; and the information which he had on the subject led him to believe that in the particular places where wages had been most lowered there still was a great comsumption, an increased consumption of corn; and, taking the poorer classes of this country as a whole, he would say that there never had been a time when their consumption of wheat had risen to so high a point as at present. There could not be the least doubt that the aggregate consumption of the people of England had increased, was increasing, and would continue to increase, and that its influence must go on till its beneficial effects would be felt in every part of the country. Although he was not prepared to assign any exact period at which he might venture to foretell that every interest in this country must necessarily be in a prosperous condition, yet he would confidently venture to assert that the progress of England was not towards national poverty, but towards national wealth. He believed and trusted, moreover, that the time would come when the benefits of the present system would be felt to be not scattered and partial, but universal, applicable to all classes, and conferring as greats benefits upon those connected with land, either as owners or 726 occupiers, as it now undoubtedly bestowed upon the poorer sections of the community. The noble Lord had described the present system as an experiment. He (the Marquess of Lansdowne) trusted and believed that it would prove a successful one. It was now in the course of trial, and he denied that, so far as they could judge, it had failed in any respect. He could not, therefore, hold out any hopes that Her Majesty's Government would in any way interfere with the existing state of things as regarded commercial legislation. But while he said so, he was anxious likewise to state, that in every way and by every legitimate means, Her Majesty's Government, and he was sure he might say Parliament likewise, were inclined to aid the efforts and assist the industry of the British farmer.
§ The EARL of MALMESBURYcould well understand noble Lords on both sides of the House speaking of free trade as a fact accomplished; but it was perfectly unintelligible to him, who had been listening with deep anxiety to the speech of the noble Marquess, how the two sides of the House could take such different views—not of theories, not of fancies, but of accomplished facts. He would only detain their Lordships a short time, in making some observations in answer to the noble Marquess, and proving by documents that his rose-coloured speech was much misplaced. It was well known that considerable distress existed in the provinces of this country and the rural towns, and the noble Marquess in assuming the contrary was deceiving himself, and misleading their Lordships. The noble Marquess taunted that side of the House with having formerly demanded 80s. a quarter for wheat by a protecting duty. Though some time a Member of that House, he (the Earl of Malmesbury) was not old enough to recollect all the events of the period when the late corn laws were passed, but this he did know, that at the time the agriculturists got 80s. a quarter, the currency of the country had not been altered, and that 80s. then bore a just proportion to 60s. or 56s. now. The noble Marquess said, he considered that the recent great importations had ceased—that the deluge of foreign corn had abated. On this subject he would read a short paragraph which appeared in a Liverpool paper this week. In speaking of the circumstances which caused depreciation, the writer stated that 14,000 sacks of European, and 15,000 barrels of American flour 727 had arrived. This caused a decline in prices equal to 2s. a quarter. The noble Marquess said, the immense stocks of wheat were getting low in this country—that they were not so high as they were in February of last year. If he (the Earl of Malmesbury) remembered rightly, about this time last year the duty was taken off imported corn, and the accumulation had therefore taken place in consequence of the speculators keeping their corn in bond until it could be released free of duty. But however stocks might have diminished since, there was not at present the slightest appearance of increased prices. On the contrary, there was in the prices of agricultural produce a great reduction last week. He had listened with great anxiety to a declaration of the noble Marquess, which thousands and tens of thousands must have read with sorrow and pain, that the time had not yet come for the Government to do anything to alleviate the distress of the agricultural interest. The noble Marquess made that declaration early in the Session, and it had the effect of infusing discontent and despair into the minds of a great portion of the most loyal class in the community. He (the Earl of Malmesbury) was afraid the noble Marquess was urged to this course by an indifference to the state of the country. From the speech of the noble Marquess on the first night of the Session, he (the Earl of Malmesbury) could not believe that the noble Marquess was aware of the state of the county of which he was the lord lieutenant. If the House would bear with him (the Earl of Malmesbury) for a short time, he would read some documents furnished by persons whose authority was undoubted with reference to the present state of that county. The rector of Warminster, a large town in Wiltshire, in a communication, represented the union in which he resided as 20 per cent worse than it had been. Less labour was employed, the rates were 8s. in the pound, the savings bank deposits were steadily going down at the rate of 3,000l. per annum. Money was never so scarce, and the best ablebodied labourers could only obtain 7s. a week, inferior workmen not more than 6s. Another clergyman from Wear gave similar testimony. Those letters could not be gainsayed. It might be said that 6s. was a price too low for any farmer to give for a week's labour; but it should be considered that the loss sustained by the farmer is much greater in proportion than the reduction of the labourer's wages. 728 Wheat had been reduced from 7s. to 5s. a bushel—a reduction equal to 33 per cent. In some counties the proportion of rent to produce was one-fourth, in other places one-third; but whichever of those propositions was taken, it would be seen that the abandonment of the whole rent on the part of the landlord would, in neither case, be sufficient to compensate the farmer for the depreciation in price. If each of the three estates—the landlord, the tenant, and the labourer, have an equal portion of the depreciation—taking it at 33 per cent—then the labourer who received 9s. a week when com was 56s. a quarter, would only receive 6s. now when it is 40s. The labourer, therefore, when he received his 6s. in Wiltshire, was bearing his proportion of the loss which the landlords and farmers sustained by free trade. Although he could hardly expect that the noble Marquess would consent to restore protection, yet he (the Earl of Malmesbury) thought the noble Marquess too old a statesman not to be aware of the unjust position in which in other respects the agricultural interest was placed. The noble Marquess knew well that the heaviest part of the poor-rates in this country was charged on them—that in his own county the county rates had increased one-third in the last ten years, and that, along with a depreciation of 33 per cent on their productions, this tax was wholly borne by the agricultural interest. The Government surely might promise something in mitigation of their burdens in that respect. From the last report of the Poor Law Commissioners it appeared that public opinion was greatly increasing in favour of diminishing the burdens on agriculture by a national poor-rate. Certainly, the Government should give its attention to removing the burdens with which the agricultural interest was peculiarly loaded. The tenant farmers were always the most quiet and loyal people in the country. They always paid their taxes, and were the least discontented of Her Majesty's subjects. How, then, could the noble Marquess account for the agitation which they had carried on for the last six months? Did the noble Marquess think that, hardy as they were, it was any pleasure to them to attend meetings and vestries to attack Her Majesty's Government? It was not in their nature to do so. It was tiresome to them. Depend upon it that nothing but the greatest necessity could have induced these men to come forward in a manner so contrary to 729 their nature. But what had been the language used by their opponents? He would have thought that, in the hour of victory, they would have spoken with forbearance of their fellow countrymen who had been such severe sufferers. On the contrary, however, the language which had been used was of the most insulting and exulting description. He could imagine a country making great sacrifices for the prosperity of the majority; but he could not imagine a Legislature which often devoted a whole evening to inquire into the complaint of an individual who had suffered an injury by the running of a railway through his garden, permitting 200,000 persons and their families to be sacrificed in order to promote the welfare of another and inferior interest. The sufferings of the agricultural interests had been greatly aggravated by the language which had been made use of by the champion of the Manchester school, and whom they could not but believe the Government was intimately connected with. The language used by that man was, that the tenant farmers were eaten up by rents, and that the repeal of the corn laws would lower rents, give cheap bread, and save them from the hands of a "grasping aristocracy." He did not know what Mr. Cobden meant by a grasping aristocracy; but he was prepared to say that, out of the 41,000,000l. of rental which was received from England and Wales, not more than 3,000,000l. went into the pockets of that portion of the aristocracy which was composed of the Members of their Lordships' House. Whilst upon this subject, he could not refrain from reading a statement which showed at a glance the proportion which rent bore to the value of the 4lb. loaf. The calculation was one with which many of their Lordships might not be familiar:—
One acre of good wheat land, under good management, will produce five quarters, or forty bushels of wheat, that is, 1,800lb. of flour; 3½lb. of flour makes a 4lb. loaf, and one bushel makes fourteen loaves—ergo, 1,800lb. makes 560 leaves. Assume the rent of such land to be 40s. per acre, with average rates and tithes. It is plain that the landlord's profit is as nearly as possible ¾d. per loaf, because 560 pence are 2l. 6s. 8d., and the rent is 2l. On inferior land, producing thirty bushels, or 420 loaves, the rent at ¾d. per loaf would be 1l. 6s. 3d. per acre, which is above the average net rent received by landlords for such land.He believed that this answered the arguments of Mr. Cobden against rents, and he had detained their Lordships at some length in order to do so, because it was puerile to 730 deny that he possessed great influence with a portion of the public, and that he wielded no inconsiderable influence with Her Majesty's Government. But, recurring to Mr. Cobden and his addresses out of doors, he was not content to speak in exulting language of the agricultural interests, but he condescended to abuse that portion of it whose position ought to have protected them. To what an extent might we doubt the real philanthropy of the man, and call in question the value of his views with respect to the country generally, when we found him attacking the labourers, and calling them "horse-shoe dupes"—alluding to the superstition of nailing horse shoes over the cottage doors. He would like to ask him, however, whether there were not greater dupes than those who believed in the charm of the horse-shoe? and they were those who believed that the ruin of the master would produce advantage to the servant, or that low wages could bring prosperity to the poor man. He regretted to say that the language used by the Government with respect to the sufferings to which the agricultural interest had been subjected, was not that which might have been expected. In the Speech from the Throne, Her Majesty's Government appeared to treat the subject with indifference, and as if they looked upon the distress as merely temporary, and only in the light of a slight smart of which they ought not with justice to complain. It had been said, however, that, as a compensation for the state of the agricultural interest, the greatest prosperity had prevailed in the commercial towns, and that this prosperity was to be attributed to the low price of food. Upon this subject he was at issue, for he did not think that the prosperity which prevailed was to be traced to the operation of free trade. He did not believe that free trade could have brought about those results, because the time of its operation had been so short. If there was a charm in the low price of wheat at 40s. a quarter to stimulate prosperity, that prosperity ought to have been felt in 1835, when prices were analogous to those of the present time. In 1835 the average price of wheat was 40s. per quarter, and the declared value of the exports in the same year was 41,000,000l.; in 1836 the average price of wheat was 50s., and the value of the exports was 47,000,000l.; and in 1837, wheat was 57s., and the value of the exports, so far from decreasing with the high price of wheat, had increased 731 to 53,000,000l. It was therefore impossible to argue that the price of wheat acted on manufactures either way, and unfair to argue that the prosperity of Manchester was to be attributed to the low prices of corn. One thing, however, was certain, that the agricultural interests had great cause to complain. The prosperity of the manufacturing towns to attributed not to the low price of wheat, but to the great influx of commerce which the hurricane of the revolution which had blown over Europe had arrested, and which now the reaction of order brought back with accumulation. In consequence of those occurrences, the markets of this country were taxed to furnish supplies; but when the storm had subsided, and other countries could apply themselves to the peaceful occupations or industry, our prosperity would decline, and we would look at home for a market, but find it gone. He regretted being obliged to trespass on the House at such length, but before he sat down he wished to ask a question of Her Majesty's Government. When the noble Marquess declared that he was not ready to give the landed interest any alleviation at present, did he take from them all hope and chance that the Government would—he would not say return to Protection—but in any case remit some of their burdens, and place them, if not upon the same footing with the foreigner, at least upon an equality with other Englishmen who might live by their industry?
§ The MARQUESS of LANSDOWNEwas understood to reply that everything that was practicable would be done for the agriculturists.
§ LORD REDESDALEsaid, that the noble Marquess had termed the recent system of legislation "an experiment." He thought that was a most important admission. The noble Marquess at the same time said that it was an experiment which was most satisfactory. There he (Lord Redesdale) differed from him, for he thought it a most unsatisfactory and most unsuccessful one.
§ EARL GREYsaid, that if free trade were to be considered in the light merely of an experiment, he could only say that so far as it had gone, and they could judge of its results, it had been, in his opinion, in the highest degree satisfactory; and if any one considered what had been the condition of this country, and what it might have been if that system of legislation had not been adopted, he must be indeed proof against 732 all conviction if he denied that the experiment was a successful one. If their Lordships but considered for a moment what this country had passed through during the last four years—the destruction of the food of the whole population of one portion of the empire—the enormous efforts made to supply that population with provisions—the prodigious investments made in railways, investments which had proved ruinous to thousands of persons, for he believed the shares in which money had been invested a few years ago would sell now for about 100,000,000l. less than had been paid for them—if they considered the disturbance of the whole commerce of the world by the political events of 1848—if they looked at all those occurrences, and saw with how little of general suffering this country had now to contend, so little that the noble Earl who had just sat down was obliged to admit that our commerce and manufactures were in a state of unexampled prosperity, to confine himself to endeavouring to show that that prosperity was not owing to the low prices of corn—when such was the state of things, they must surely admit that the experiment was most satisfactory. No doubt there was distress amongst the owners and occupiers of land, which he deplored as much as any one of their Lordships. But throughout the whole course of the Session, had there, in either House of Parliament, been any attempt made as yet to take the opinion of the Legislature upon the question whether that distress arose from the recent changes that had been made in our legislation, and whether it might be removed by retracing our steps? Now, if noble Lords entertained the opinion that the remedy for that distress was to be sought in that quarter, he thought it was greatly to be regretted that they did not make some formal proposal, and state what it was they wanted—whether it was the law of 1842 or of 1828, or whether that of 1815, was what they desired; for that, perhaps, might be their panacea. Or whether, on the contrary, that measure, which, when it was proposed, was, he believed, universally denounced by every member of what was called the agricultural party—the fixed duty upon corn was what they most desired—that measure which they might have had, but that they, one and all, declared it would be ruinous. He thought it was most important that they should have the question discussed, and the opinion of Parliament taken, upon some measure 733 which the opponents of the present system said distinctly was that which they wanted. He could not but regret that he had not had the opportunity of meeting the arguments which might be brought forward in favour of some definite and distinct proposal. In the absence of such a proposal he could only deny that there was the slightest particle of evidence that the distress now existing amongst the agricultural interest could be traced to the late change in our commercial system. The noble Lord (Lord Redesdale) said that Parliament should be able to guarantee the farmers against a glut in the markets.
§ LORD REDESDALEdenied that he had said so.
§ EARL GREYbegged the noble Lord to allow him to remind him that he had stated that the great disadvantage under which the farmer laboured, as compared with the Manufacturer, was the great insecurity he had to contend with; for he could not tell, when he put the seed in the ground, whether it would return him a hundredfold or nothing; and what Parliament had to do was to prevent the farmer being ruined by a glut when there was a very large produce at home. Now he (Earl Grey) asked whether, under the old corn law, a series of good years did not produce a glut? What had happened in 1822 and in 1835 was just what was happening now. Was not the glut at present owing to the greatness of the harvest in 1849? [Lords REDES-DALE and MALMESBURY: No, no!] No doubt there had been a large importation of foreign corn; but in the south of England the harvest of 1849 was quite as large as any, if it were not indeed the very largest harvest on record. ["No, no!"] There was no doubt that this was the general impression in the south of England; and he could call the noble Earl who had spoken last as a witness of the fact. That noble Earl had said that the stocks of corn were not low in the farmers' yards; and he (Earl Grey) believed the noble Earl was right. But they knew from the Gazette that nearly 1,000,000 quarters of homegrown corn more than in the corresponding period of last year had been sold since the last harvest, in the towns from which returns are sent under the Act of Parliament, for the purpose of declaring the average. These returns, noble Lords were aware, include only sales of British corn, and if, since the harvest, nearly 1,000,000 quarters more had been sold than last year, while the noble Earl told them there was 734 an unusually large stock in the hands of farmers, it was pretty clear that the last harvest was a great one. But let them compare the condition of the farmer now with what it was in 1835. He had then a price for the whole year of 39s. 4d. the quarter for wheat. In 1849 the price for the whole year was 44s. 2d. The lowest price in 1835 was 36s., and the lowest in 1849 was 38s. 9d.
§ Earl GREYchallenged the noble Lord to go into the calculation. If he did, he would find that the quantity sold in 1849, was nearly double that sown in 1835. So that the farmer had received a higher price than in 1835, and sold a larger quantity. But did they mean to say that there had been no reduction in the cost of cultivation? Why, since 1835 they had had a most enormous reduction in the prices of all articles of artificial food for cattle. Was not the reduction in the price of linseed and of oilcake a most enormous advantage to the farmer? There had been an immense reduction also in cloverseed. One farmer in Northumberland told him that the reduction in the price of cloverseed, owing to the remission of the duty on foreign cloverseed, had nearly made up to him the amount of his income tax. Again, the improvement and reduction in the price of every agricultural implement was a very great advantage, and an impetus had of late years been given to progress of this kind, which had been attended with the best results. But, above all, draining, and a consequent increase of an impetus, had been given to production, which was most beneficial. Nor should the greatly increased facilities for bringing farm produce to market, and articles for farm use to the farmer's door, be overlooked. No man engaged in agriculture could be ignorant how much the increased facilities afforded by the extension of railways tended to reduce the price of carriage. Every article entering into the cost of production had thus been greatly reduced since 1835, and the expense of cultivation had also been lowered by the extensive system of drainage which, as he had already said, had increased the produce of the soil, and had been scarcely less beneficial in diminishing the expense of working the land. If, then, the farmer raised a greater crop, for which he got rather higher prices, whilst his cost of production was lower than in 1835, it could hardly be said that the removal 735 of protection had left him worse off than he was then. But the noble Lord said that what the farmer wanted was security from the very great glut which took place sometimes. He believed that this security it was out of the power of Parliament to bestow; but it appeared to him obvious that the tendency of the system of free trade was to diminish the risk of such gluts, because the natural course of things would be, that in years of scarcity there would be a considerable importation of foreign corn, which would take place earlier and with less risk than under our former law, and thus check the extravagant advance of prices, which was sure to be followed by reaction and a period of extreme depression. On the other hand, in years of plenty, the fall off price would be most felt by the foreign producer, who had to meet the heavy charges of transport, and there would be a falling off in the importation. Already that was the case to a great extent. The noble Marquess had shown the great falling off which took place in the month of February of this year, as compared with the importation in the month of March, 1849. He would not trouble the House with going over those details again; but he had with him a statement of the importation of foreign corn for the six months following the harvest of 1848, and the six months following the harvest of 1849. In the first six months there was a regular and progressive increase in the importation, while in the six months following the last harvest, ending on the 1st of March, the amount of importation was a million quarters of corn and flour less than the importation for the corresponding six months of the previous year. He must say, as one who was deeply interested in the prosperity of the land, that he had great cause to complain of the language so injudiciously held in many quarters, as calculated to create an unfounded panic among the farmers. He believed that nothing could be more mischievous to the farmers than the language so frequently used, which would lead them to expect permanently low prices of corn. If there were to be permanently low prices of corn in this country, it would arise in one way, and in one way only—from the improvement of the agriculture of the country. To what extent that improvement might ultimately go, it was difficult at present to perceive; but that prices should be lowered on account of the importation of corn from abroad, on the average 736 of years, seemed to him to be utterly impossible. Was it not obvious to every one that the corn trade for the present year was in an anomalous condition, and not to be taken as a guide for the future? Where had the great importation during the last year come from? Was it not from countries which they all knew in ordinary years did not grow enough for their own consumption? The first on the list was France. France, they all knew, required on the average of years about a million of quarters of corn in addition to that of her growth for her own consumption; and France, under a system of stringent protection was at this moment suffering infinitely more severely than the agricultural districts of England under free trade. What was the average price of wheat in France up to the period of the late revolution? The average price was 51s. 2d. per quarter, and it was now 33s. This was far below the average price of corn in our own markets at the present moment. Then he found that the average price of wheat in Belgium was 52s. 2d. per quarter, while the present price in this country was 38s. 6d.—clearly indicating that all over Europe there were not the general average prices which would be returned to after they got into a regular and steady course of trade after the changes of the last few years; and therefore the language which was held, and which tended to increase the panic among the farmers, in his opinion did great mischief. He admitted, with the noble Lord, that speculation was now at a stand—that there was a general reluctance among the farmers to enter into engagements binding them for a long series of years, and an equal reluctance on the part of the landlords to lower their rents; and it was these statements, he thought, which had given rise to the panic—the unfounded panic—that was created. When he rose he meant only to say a few words, but he had gone further than he intended. The subject was one in which he had long taken the deepest interest. His first vote was recorded against the principle of the corn-law in 1827, when he first had the honour of a seat in Parliament, and he had steadily voted in the same way from that time to the present; so that it was difficult for him, when he saw what he believed to be the complete practical success of all the views he had ever entertained—it was difficult for him to abstain from vindicating them from the imputation of being unsuccessful experiments.
§ LORD REDESDALEsaid, he had never stated anything so absurd as that Parliament should interfere to prevent a glut. What he did say was, that when a glut did arise, Parliament might, and ought to, interfere to prevent its being aggravated by the introduction of foreign corn, which Parliament did effectually in 1835, for no foreign corn was at that time admitted, and, therefore, though the price of produce was low, yet the farmer was paid for the quantity he had. But if foreign corn were admitted during a glut, that would make the glut larger than it was, and of longer duration, so that it would be more serious for the farmer to bear.
§ Petitions read and ordered to lie on the table.
§ House adjourned to Thursday next.