Sitting of 2 April 1840

MINUTES
Bills. Read a first time:—Canada Government; Lord Seaton's Annuity.—Read a second time:—Exchequer Bills.
Petitions presented. By Messrs. Halford, Bruges, Thorneley, Macaulay, Greg, M. Philips, R. Currie, Hawes, Hume, Brotherton, White, B. Wood, Horsman, Pattison, Wallace, Lords J. Russell, Morpeth, Fitzroy, Sirs G. Strickland, B. Hall, and Captain Pechell, from a very great number of places, for, and by Messrs. Young, Darby, B. Baring, Redington, Sirs C. Knightley, C. Burrell, C. B. Vere, J. Y. Buller, and J. Mordaunt, and Lord Hotham, from an equally great number of places, against the Total and Immediate Repeal of the Corn-laws.—By Mr. Palmer, from the Attorneys of Reading, for Removing the Courts of Law from Westminster, to a more convenient situation.—By Mr. Hawkes, from Stafford, against the Poor-laws By Sir C. Knightley, from Northampton, for the Liberation of Mr. Howard.—By Mr. Freshfield, from Leeds, against the Printed Papers Bill.—By Sir R. Inglis, from Durham, against the Opium Trade.—By Mr. A. White, from Sunderland, and Mr. Baines, from Yorkshire, against Church Extension; and
428
by Mr. W. Miles, from Somerset, in favour of the same.—By Mr. C. Lushington, from several places, for the Release of John Thorogood, and the Abolition of Church Rates.—By the Attorney-general, from persons at Glasgow, for Universal Suffrage, and Vote by Ballot.—By Sir H. Parnell, from the Medical Association of Scotland, for Medical Reform.—By Sir G. Clerk, from Stafford, for Church Extension; and from one place, for an Alteration in the Law of Patronage in Scotland.

CANADA.
Lord J. Russellin rising to move that the second reading of the Canada Bill be fixed for Monday se'nnight, wished to take that opportunity of explaining an opinion which had been expressed by him upon a former occasion, and which had been represented in a sense very different from that which he intended to convey, and might, so represented, cause serious misapprehension in Canada. He had in his opening speech on introducing the Canada Bill stated generally his opinion respecting the measure which had been passed in Upper Canada on the subject of the clergy reserves. This opinion of his had been stated as if he had expressed himself to be unfavourable to the general nature of this measure, and as if his right hon. Friend the Governor-general had acted with regard to this measure upon views of his own, which were not in accordance with the general views of the Government. Now, this was far from being what he (Lord J. Russell) had stated, and certainly very far from what he intended to state. The opinion which he expressed was, that it was a very different thing to devise a project upon one's own abstract notions, or with regard to what might have been feasible thirty or forty years ago, and to frame a measure adapted to the circumstances of the present day. He had not upon that occasion entered any further into the subject, though he had alluded to the general question respecting Church establishments and their utility, and the peculiar situation of the Protestant Church in Canada, and the necessity for making a due allowance for its maintenance. With respect to the measure which had been proposed to the Assembly of Upper Canada, it was necessary to state what had happened on that subject. It had been under consideration whether it were expedient to direct the Governor-general to propose a measure to the Assembly on the subject of clergy reserves, and endeavour, if possible, to settle the question at the lime when the union was proposed; but knowing the difficulties that attended the question, and had attended it for

429
many years past, the Government considered it better to leave it to the discretion of the Governor-general recommending him to take every opportunity in his power to afford an opening for a settlement of the question upon a satisfactory basis. In conformity with the views of the Government the Governor-general had made earnest inquiries into the subject, and in a private letter addressed to him, the Governor-general stated that any settlement of the question was hopeless, the views of the different parties being so extreme and so adverse to one another as to afford no prospect of a compromise. Further information, however, was afterwards received to the effect that the Governor-general had seen many Members of the Legislative Council, and that there were then some hopes of an accommodation, for that those who had declared that they would acquiesce in no proposition for making a provision for the ministers of religion had expressed their willingness to consent to a measure providing for Ministers of all denominations. The Governor-general had accordingly proposed such a measure, and it met with the general concurrence of the Legislative Council, and especially of that part of it which consisted of members of the Church of England, and after a debate it was carried by a considerable majority, considering the smallness of the numbers. The Bill was transmitted to this country together with a despatch, and had been laid on the Table of the House, and he should say, that the Governor-general had followed his instructions most ably and wisely. The Government had not wished to place such an obstacle in the way of the Governor-general as to direct him peremptorily to propose a measure of this description in the colony, but they had at the same time given him such instructions as not only authorized but required him to use every endeavour in his power to bring to a satisfactory settlement a subject which had caused so much discontent and dissension. So far, therefore, was the Government from disapproving of what the Governor-general had done, that it was of opinion that the measure would, if it did not meet with opposition in the Parliament of this country, be the means of re-establishing peace in the colony. He did not wish now to discuss the question whether it were necessary to pass such a bill, as his only object had been to correct
430
the misapprehension which had gone forth, but looking back to the declaration made by Mr. Fox in 1791, to the opinions which had been expressed by Lord Stanley, Sir G. Murray, and the Earl of Harrowby, in a speech in the House of Lords, to the evidence given by Lord Stanley before a Committee of the House of Commons, to the message of the Earl of Ripon to the Assembly of Upper Canada, and to the various transactions which had taken place since that time, and considering how highly expectations were raised in Canada that the Parliament and Government of this country were disposed to yield to the general wishes of the colony, he felt convinced that the course now proposed to be taken was wise and expedient, and he would beg those who were adverse to the bill well to consider all these things, and to remember how serious a matter it was, to oppose the desire of the loyal subjects of her Majesty who had agreed to adopt this measure.
Bill to be read a second time on Monday se'nnight.

OPIUM COMMITTEE.
Mr. J. A Smith, in the absence of Mr. Crawford, moved that the committee on the surrender of Opium in China should consist of the following hon. Members:—Mr. Crawford, Lord Viscount Palmerston, Sir R. Peel, Mr. C. Buller, Mr. Herbert, Sir G. Staunton, Mr. Cowper, Mr. R. Clive, Sir G. Grey, Mr. Hogg, Mr. J. Elliot, Mr. J. A. Smith, Mr. Parker, Lord Viscount Sandon, Mr. Strutt, Sir W. Somerville, Sir R. H. Inglis, Sir C. Lemon, Mr. E. Buller, Mr. Clay, and Mr. Horsman.
Viscount Sandondid not think the constitution of the committee was such as would ensure an unbiassed consideration of the matter submitted to it. It included four members of the Government and two hon. Gentlemen who were nearly connected with Ministers, Besides, fifteen out of the twenty-one were chosen from the other side of the House. There were two names which he had expected to see upon the committee—he meant those of Lord G. Somerset and Mr. Gladstone.
Mr. J. A. Smithsaid, that it had been wished to add the name of Lord G. Somerset, but Lord G. Somerset had expressed his wish not to serve on the committee.
Lord G. Somersetsaid, it was certainly

431
true, that owing to his other engagements he had expressed his desire to see his name replaced by that of some other Member on his side of the House.
Sir R. Peelwondered that the Government could not be contented with a smaller majority than that of three to one. But the fact was, that Ministers were so used to large majorities, that it was difficult to satisfy them. One would have thought nine to seven, or eight to seven, a very tolerable preponderance, but fifteen to six exceeded any limit which he ever heard of. He was anxious, for his own part, to be excused from serving on the committee on account of his engagements on the banking committee and others. He therefore hoped that his name would be withdrawn, and replaced by that of some hon. Member who would be able to give a more constant attendance than it would be possible for him to give.
Mr. J. A. Smithsaid, some of the Members of the committee, although they sat on his side of the House, did not agree with the Government upon this subject.
Sir R. Peelthought it somewhat unfair to infer that the six Members selected from the Opposition side of the House must oppose the Government upon this, which was not a party question.
Lord J. Russellobserved, that the objection was only good supposing this was a party question. The right hon. Baronet having stated, that it was not a party question disposed at once of his own objection.
Mr. Goulburnstrongly protested against the principle of giving such decided preponderance to one side of the House in a committee for the consideration of a most important national question, merely because, forsooth, it had not been made a party question.
Mr. Herrieswarned the House against putting itself into the hands of a committee chosen under such circumstances. It was impossible not to feel that the ultimate decision of the question whether these claims should be satisfied at the expense of the people must be greatly influenced by the report of the select committee, and therefore it was of the greatest importance that the House should look narrowly to its composition. The hon. Member for Chichester said his opinion, and that of two other Gentlemen on the committee, was opposed on this subject to that of her
432
Majesty's Government. What were the opinions of the Government? He had no doubt there had been a great deal of communication between the hon. Gentleman and her Majesty's Government. They no doubt understood each other very well. The Government had refused to pay the claimants, but it was a very remarkable circumstance that after this refusal they had willingly, and without any debate, consented to this committee. This had very much the appearance of an understanding between two parties.
Sir H. Hardingeventured to predict, judging from the face of this committee, that it would be impossible to place any confidence in the report; and he, therefore, suggested the propriety of postponing its appointment till to-morrow, in order that time might be given to make some modification in it.
Appointment of the committee postponed.

CORN LAWS.—ADJOURNED DEBATE.
On the order of the day for resuming the debate on the Corn-laws,
Mr. Wodehousewas understood to say, that he had seldom troubled the House with his sentiments on the subject, but he felt it to be his duty now distinctly to declare that his opinions were in favour of the existing laws, and to state the reasons why he held such opinions. He had never defended the Corn-laws, nor would he ever advocate them on any other ground than that stated by Mr. Huskisson. That the Corn-laws involved such immense interests in this country, and were closely connected with the well-being and comfort of all classes, and moreover, surrounded with peculiar difficulties, that they must be primarily governed by considerations connected with this country, and only secondarily by our relations with foreign countries. The present Corn-law had existed twelve years, and during that time wheat had been on an average 57 s. a quarter, while nine millions of quarters had been imported from foreign countries, and during the whole period the average duty had not been over 5s. Surely then the Corn-law could not have been productive of so much evil. If reference were made to the years 1799 and 1800, that, he said, was a great part of the case against the repeal of these laws,—because, in 1799, the King of Prussia availed himself of the circumstances of the period,

433
and declared openly and unequivocally that he would impose a high rate of duties on the importation of our goods when the prices of corn were high in England, but that if those prices fell his duties should be lowered. He (Mr. Wodehouse) put it to the people of this country whether, if the opportunity offered, the same course might not be resorted to again by the King of Prussia or by some other sovereign following his example; or whether that was not an important consideration, not merely for the landed interest but for every interest in the country. The situation of the country with respect to agriculture was materially changed within the last twenty-five years. Then the average produce per acre, did not exceed twenty bushels. The principle now in operation was one of great exhaustion. He was connected with a numerous body of men who were now dispersed throughout every part of the empire, under circumstances of peculiar distress—he meant the hand-loom weavers. In a publication lately put forth he saw it asserted that the laws, based in injustice and partiality as the Corn-laws were, could never be of long continuance. Now the question which he understood the House to be discussing was whether these laws were based on injustice and partiality. These opinions had been from year to year put forward by Lord Fitzwilliam, but had been most successfully met. In the third report upon the condition of the hand-loom weavers Mr. Mitchell stated the effect of the introduction of foreign corn, and he thought prices must fall; and with respect to a free trade in corn, he observed that no government could be justified in inflicting so much misery on the speculation of producing a certain degree of food. The difficulties of carrying into effect the Poor-law Amendment Act had been very great; but if, by the introduction of foreign corn a large body of labourers were thrown out of employment, they would never be overcome. Mr. Tooke, who had been already referred to, had recommended, twenty years ago, a fixed duty of 7s. or 8s. He said he had fair reasons for urging that amount of duty, but what those reasons were could not, by any inquiries, be extracted from him. It was singular that, after twenty years, the same proposition had been brought forward by the President of the Board of Trade; but if that right hon, Gentleman had intended
434
by his arguments to enforce and explain the reasons of Mr. Tooke, he (Mr. Wode-house) could only say, that the interpreter was the more difficult to understand of the two. In the report of Mr. Vivian, it was stated that the maintenance of the poor under the present Poor-law was attended with great difficulties, but that if a number of labourers were thrown out of employment (which must be the case if the Corn-laws were repealed), those difficulties would be very greatly increased. He was connected by representation with a very distressed class of the community, the hand-loom weavers; and he thanked Heaven, notwithstanding all the distress, they were proof against the remonstrances of all the itinerant orators who had been sent amongst them, to urge them to petition against the continuance of these laws. In the report of Mr. Chapman one of the assistant commissioners for inquiry into the condition of the hand-loom weavers, it was stated that there had been a decline of one-third in the rate of wages since 1814, supposing the certainty of employment to be now equal to what it was then; that was the consequence, he maintained, not of the Corn-laws, but of the substitution of power-looms for hand weaving; it was also said, that the Corn-laws had the effect of driving manufacturers out of this country, and making them spring up in other countries, but he believed, that it was the capital and skill of English manufacturers, and not the Corn-laws, which had produced that effect. He had been accosted the other day by a person who said, "We hope for better things, now that you gentlemen begin to read;" it was not reading, however, in which the country gentlemen were deficient, but they would not read with the eyes of the manufacturers. He said, that the insinuation that the gentry and the aristocracy of the country, because they were connected with land, were indifferent to the interests of the other classes of the community, was a gross and stupid libel. The protective duty was a principle which was acted upon by the Governments of Lord Liverpool, Mr. Canning, and the Duke of Wellington, and he trusted the House would pause before they embarked on the wide, wide sea of progressive reform, and commit to the mercy of the winds and the waves the ark of our hallowed constitution.
Mr. Richcontended, that the duties on

435
the importation of corn should be no higher than on other articles that came from abroad. If they existed at all they should be imposed for the sake of revenue, not for the sake of protection; and he thought the present the most fit time for the application of this principle. When the Chancellor of the Exchequer was coming down with fresh taxes, it might be a consideration whether by making a moderate and fixed duty on corn fresh taxes might not be avoided. He was of opinion that such a duty would serve the State and satisfy the people. He would not enter into the question how it bore on agriculture or manufactures; it was sufficient for the argument against the corn-laws that the manufacturing interests were seriously depressed. That such was the case could not be denied, nor that there was a great mass of population depending upon manufactures, no matter what proportion the number might bear to the numbers of those depending upon the agricultural interest. What were the objects proposed by the original founders of the corn-laws? What were the ends they had in view? What were the benefits they were to confer, and what were the evils they were to avert? If these objects had been brought about, they would be obliged to admit to those who supported the Corn-laws that they had the advantage of experience; but if, on the other hand, they found that every one of these objects had failed, then those hon. Members themselves should in all candour hesitate before they pronounced so very positively what would be the consequence of a change of system. With a view to ascertain this, he would not go further back than 1815. In that year Mr. Robinson introduced those noted resolutions on which the present system was founded. Mr. Robinson promised a full and plentiful supply, so plentiful as to make this country independent of foreign markets. He further promised, that that plentiful supply should produce those prices which should render permanent the relationships between landlord and tenant; and promised that those prices should be moderate. It was by these promises that Mr. Robinson gained the consent of the country. And how had these promises been fulfilled. In order to ascertain this they must find some test to guage them: that test was given between the years 1773 and 1790, when the trade in corn was free, or might be called so, foreign corn being
436
admitted at 48 s. a quarter, and 6d. duty. Was the country able to meet the sudden reaction of a peace after a war which had doubled the national debt? It so happened that that period was precisely the time when this country made most marvellous strides. That was the very period selected by the right hon. Baronet (Sir R. Peel) last year, when he said this country enjoyed comparative ease and great prosperity. And what was the special effect which it had on agriculture and on prices? There never was a time where there was such little fluctuation. The lowest price was 34 s., and the highest 53 s. a quarter. The average of the first five years was 41 s. a quarter; of the second five years, 45 s.; of the third 43 s.; and of the fourth, 47 s.; making on an average 44 s. During that period at least, prices were stable and moderate. Hon. Gentlemen might say this might be all very true, but under this moderation the agricultural interest pined away. They might tell them that this low price threw all the poor lands out of cultivation, and threw all the labourers out of employ. The answer to that was contained in the plain fact that there were 500,000 acres of waste land enclosed during that period. This was the state of the country during the free trade in corn. Let them apply this test to the state of the agriculture of the country under the protective system. First, with regard to the "full and plentiful supply." There were imported into this country between 1815 and 1822, the period when the Corn-laws were again under restrictions, on an average 700,000 quarters of wheat per annum. The fluctuations between the years 1815 and 1822 exceeded 200 per cent. In January, 1817, the price of wheat was 113 s. a quarter. In June, 1817, it was 120 s. In three short months under this felicitous protection it fell from 120 s. to 74 s. In three months it was up again to 90 s.; then again it was down through the whole of the year 1818 to 75 s. Continuing to fall to 1820 and 1821 it tumbled down to 55 s., and in October, 1822, they found it at 38 s. Why did not hon. Members draw from memory and not from imagination, and tell them what was the state of the farmer—what was the real palpable misery which the first seven years of the introduction of the Corn-law inflicted on the agriculturists. The tenants were in arrear for rent, and the table of the House

437
groaned with petitions from the ruined agriculturists—the men who now stupidly and insanely cry out, "the Corn-law for ever." What was the state of the labourers when farms were given up, when stock was sold and distrained upon for rent? In one quarter he was tempted with bread extravagantly cheap, and in another thrown into the poor-house by bread extravagantly dear. Why whould not Gentlemen who advocate the Corn-law draw rather upon their memory than their imagination, and tell us what was then the state of the farmer and the labourer? Such were the effects—the first fruits of the system of which Squire Western, now Lord Western, was one of the most able advocates—such was the system which was to render food cheap. Why, a state lottery for bread could not have been more ruinous in its effects than this mockery of a law. They might be told that those were the errors of a first legislation, and that experience enabled legislators to correct those errors of 1815 by the law of 1822. But the law of 1822 was utterly and entirely inoperative. For five long years it drew its slow length along—useless and inoperative. If further evidence were wanted of the mischievous effects of the law, it was to be found in the opinion of one of the most able men who ever sat in that House, and who from his talents and official situation was well calculated to form an opinion—he meant Mr. Huskisson, who declared in his place that he "lamented from the bottom of his soul the national evil, and misery, and destruction of capital, which that law in the course of twelve years had produced." But, uninstructed by the past, the landed interest still bore the sway, and accordingly they had the law of 1828. But it was no change of system, though a modification and a relaxation. This law was encumbered by a graduated scale of duties. They were told that this graduated scale was to do every thing, but such was its effect that all stable merchants were driven from speculating in corn. The consequence had been, that when we most wanted corn, it had not been found in our bonded warehouses. This had rendered necessary a rapid application to the nearer ports of the Baltic, which had caused a rapid rise in the price of corn, so that we had had to pay much more bullion for it than we otherwise might have got it for. The paying of this bullion had brought distress on
438
the commercial world. Thus the graduated scale had added only to the mischiefs which existed, and made bad worse. Thus, as to the agricultural working of the system, it was an utter failure. Then, as to the "full and plentiful supply." Why, from 1828 till now there had been imported on an average 1,000,000 quarters of wheat alone a year. These importations had gone on for years, therefore proving, after the experience of a quarter of a century, the utter unfulfilling of Mr. Robinson's promises. Then, with regard to the fluctuations—since 1828 they had exceeded 113 per cent., accompanied with the stimulus of a famine. He blamed hon. Gentlemen who supported the corn laws for pertinaciously adhering to a system the fallacy of which had been fully proved and established. Returns had been much dwelt upon last night by the noble Earl the Member for Shropshire, as showing, that though there had been fluctuations in prices in England, still there had been also fluctuations in prices abroad; but the returns upon which that statement had been made had been proved by the right hon. the President of the Board of Trade to be incorrect. He (Mr. Rich) repeated, that the only time when prices in this country were stable was the period at which the trade in corn was free—a period when, instead of labourers being out of employ—when, instead of land being out of cultivation, it was capable of proof that upwards of 500,000 acres of waste land were enclosed. Looking at the results which experience exhibited, there had been greater distress amongst the agriculturists under the present system, than had ever before existed. From 1815 to 1822 the distress of the agriculturists was general and uninterrupted. From 1822 to 1828 there was a gleam, or rather a glare, of sunshine; but from 1828 to the present time the agricultural interest has undergone more of distress than prosperity. Since 1822 the distresses of the agriculturists had no less than five times been alluded to in speeches from the throne. In 1836 a committee had been appointed by the House of Lords to inquire into the subject. That was after two or three years of successive abundant harvests, after taxes on agriculture had been reduced considerably, and when the country enjoyed tranquillity within and peace without. But what, even then, was the state of the agriculturists, as shown by the report of the

439
committee communicated to the House in the year 1837? The evidence contained in that report, comprising the testimony of land-owners, farmers, land-surveyors, and country bankers, in agricultural districts—all individuals connected with agriculture—
—"They best can paint them
"Who have felt them most:"
all these Gentlemen concurred in proving that the state of agricultural distress was extreme. The hon. Member at considerable length, read extracts from the evidence of Mr. Cayley, Mr. Spooner, Mr. Thurlow, Mr. Benett, Mr. Blamire, and several other witnesses from farming districts who had been examined before the Lords' committee in 1836. Then turning to the hon. Gentlemen on the Opposition benches, he said, Now, Gentlemen of the landed interest, these are your own witnesses—this is the picture which they draw of agriculture in 1836—this is the work—this is the glorious, the satisfactory, the patriotic result of your system of restriction. What has it produced? Insolvent farmers—desperate rick-burners—turbulent labourers; and this, too, at a period when the commercial and manufacturing interests were prosperous—when the seasons for agriculture were good, and the harvest abundant. He would ask them, the hon. Gentleman proceeded, whether there must not be something radically bad in a system which was framed professedly for the benefit of one class of the community, yet had the invariable effect of depressing that class when the rest of the community rose, and of raising it when the other classes of society sunk. He maintained, that the system had signally and palpably failed—that it had not fulfilled one of the promises that it held out—that it had produced distress, not advantage, to the farmer. Driven from the higher ground upon which they originally founded their arguments, the agriculturists now shifted their position and assumed an humbler tone: they said, "The land is burthened with tithes, with poor-rates, with county-rates, and with the land-tax; and, in compensation for these burthens, which press exclusively and most injuriously upon us, we claim the protection of the Corn-laws." But he should like to know whether the liability to tithes, to poor-rates, to county-rates, and to the land-tax, was considered by the Legislature in 1815, as an equivalent
440
on the part of the landed interest for the burthen imposed upon the rest of the community by the Corn-laws. Did not these liabilities exist long prior to that period? And did not the agriculturists contrive, in 1815, to slip the property-tax off their own shoulders at the very time that they placed the yoke of the Corn-laws upon the neck of the rest of the community. In point of fact, the agriculturists, in 1815, obtained the Corn-laws, not as a protection against any new burthen then for the first time imposed upon them, but as a compensation for liabilities to which they had been subject from time immemorial. But if the landed interest persisted in arguing that they had a right to special protection, in consideration of special burthens imposed upon them, he would ask whether, since the last adjustment of the Corn-laws, in 1828, those special burthens had not been much diminished; whether a considerable portion of the county rates had not been transferred to the consolidated fund; whether the tithes had not been commuted upon a scale of prices much below the present averages; and whether the poor-rates had not been reduced by something like 3,000,000 l. sterling? If special protection were to be given for special burthens, did not this diminution of the burthens upon the land entitle the rest of the community to look for an equivalent relaxation of the Corn-laws? It had been argued, that, in order to enable the country to meet its burthens, and to keep faith with its creditors, it was necessary to protect agriculture. To support that argument, it must be proved, that an acre of land could be so cultivated as to be productive of more wealth than the busy loom and smoking factory. Then it was said, that the country, to be independent, must grow its own corn. Then why did we not try our hand at tea, coffee, and cotton? Twelve years ago the right hon. Baronet declared that this country could not grow corn enough for its own supply. What, then, were we to do now that the population had increased by three or four millions? How were we to go on? Were we to persevere in arraying one half of the population against the other, for the sake of keeping up a system that was bad in principle, and had completely broken down in practice. Surely it would be wiser to abandon such a system at once. For these reasons he implored the House

441
to consider the position in which the country at present stood. Whilst everything was apparently prosperous in the higher ranks, no one who looked to the subject at all could conceal from himself that all below the middle classes were pinched with want? Who would say, that the labouring classes, those who gained a livelihood by the sweat of their brow—those who constituted the great bulk of the nation, and for whom they (the House of Commons) were bound to legislate with all tenderness, and with a total absence of selfishness—who would deny, that these large and useful classes were at the present moment over-worked and under-paid? Necessity pressed so hard upon them that neither old age, nor extreme youth, nay, even not infancy itself, was exempt from hard labour. When these things were known, would the House refuse to consider whether the dearth of food might not have tended in a great degree to produce these sad results? It was this dearth, pressing upon all around, that was driving the people down to a lower and a baser food—to a lower scale of existence. This it was that led them, from sheer necessity, to substitute potatoes for wheaten bread. A population increasing at the rate of a thousand souls a day, could not be fed from their native soil, the produce of which increased only in a very inferior ratio. He would not trespass further upon the patience of the House than to remind them that this was the proper time to consider the subject. Now, whilst there was patience and comparative prosperity in the country, was the most fitting time to enter upon a moderate compromise. Would not the landed interest accept of a moderate fixed duty? He would warn them that this was their East Retford, and that it would be well for them to be wise in time, and not to abide the crash that a dogged resistance to moderate demands must inevitably bring before many years elapsed.
Mr. Hamiltonsaid, that it was not his intention to trespass long upon the attention of the House by entering upon that detailed discussion which had taken place for several successive years on the subject of the Corn-laws, or to follow those hon. Members who advocated their repeal, as he was aware that there were many hon. Gentlemen in that House far better qualified than he was to refute the elaborate statements of hon. Gentlemen opposite;
442
but he was desirous of being permitted very briefly to state that he gave his vote against the proposed resolutions, not because he represented those who might be supposed to be interested in agricultural prosperity, or to uphold that interest, but from a particular conviction he had ever been impressed with, that any change in the existing Corn-laws would have a most injurious effect upon the whole community. He was quite ready to admit, that some of the hon. Members who contended for this repeal made out a case—a good one, too, as far as their own side of the ledger was concerned. The account looked square, and was, no doubt, correctly cast up, but little notice had been taken of various items to be carried up from the debit side," such as one-third of the land now under tillage to be thrown out of cultivation, ruined farmers, unemployed labourers, non-payment of taxes, road-rates, poor-rates, and the latter, as a matter of course, enormously increased. All this, he said, was kept out of view, or slightly touched upon, and yet what he stated would, in the opinion of almost every practical person, inevitably be the result of the proposed change in the duties now paid on foreign corn. He knew that it was once stated in that House what was the supposed amount of mortgages on land in this country. Now, he was not contending for the present duties on foreign corn to enable bankrupt landlords to keep their heads above water; though he believed, that many insolvents looked forward to getting rid of the Corn-laws and their debts at the same time. But he did contend and maintain that this was a question that affected the mortgagee as deeply as the mortgagor, the fundholder as the landowner; for, how could they expect the interest on landed securities to be paid the mortgagee, or taxes raised for the purpose of keeping their engagements to the fund holder, if they deprived the owners and occupiers of land of the means of doing either? He did not advocate either high rents or high prices. He wished for neither, and was free to confess that he regretted the present high prices of corn. But were hon. Members prepared to show that cheap bread would necessarily follow free trade in corn? That the cultivators of all poor soils, now yielding a moderate competency to the occupier, and labour to thousands, would be completely thrown upon their backs, and ultimately driven

443
to the union workhouse, he was perfectly ready to admit; and who could gainsay it? But he was by no means prepared to allow that cheap food and low prices must follow. If that were a matter of course, how came it that the four pound loaf in Paris was a penny dearer than one of the same size in London—and that five times more troops of the line were marched to the south of France to put down Corn-law riots there, than were required to capture the Whig-Radical magistrate and his followers in South Wales? They professed a wish to get rid of the monopoly which they said was now enjoyed by the British farmer, and what, might he ask, were they going to substitute? Why that of the Jew—or, perhaps, what was worse, the Christian contractor, who would contrive to regulate and keep up their prices of corn as they now did the money market. He totally denied (and the most intelligent of the working classes bore him out in opinion) that an alteration in the corn duties would benefit the condition of the mechanic and labourer. An immediate advantage would be taken, notwithstanding all the assertions that might be made by interested parties to the contrary, by great master manufacturers and farmers, to lower the scale of wages—and, as "man could not live by bread alone," and, as their families required other articles as well as cheap bread, the comforts, and, by them considered, luxuries of life, would be totally denied the operative classes. If this was not the case, half their argument in favour of free trade went for nothing. But he would ask hon. Members whether they had really made up their minds to place this country at the mercy of Prussia and Russia, not only for a great proportion of our supply of grain, but of straw also? Would hon. Members be so good as to state how they proposed to supply us with the last-named most essential article of agriculture and domestic use? For, by the proposed change, they not only would uproot our corn, but the stubbles also. He had always understood it was an axiom that no country could maintain a high position in the scale of nations, and at the same time be dependent on any of them for a great supply of food, and yet this must be the effect of forcing, as they inevitably would, our poorer soils out of cultivation. He would further venture to ask, whether our relations, with these exporting grain coun-
444
tries were such as to warrant the dangerous experiment we were now so urgently called upon to try? The hon. Member for Kilkenny had frequently, and in very melancholy strains, expressed his regrets that the result of the Reform Bill, as regarded financial economy among the representatives of the people, and more particularly that portion of them from whom very different conduct was expected, had most grievously disappointed him; and he doubted whether a similar mortification did not await the hon. Member if ever this, one of his great care-alls, was to be made the law of the land. Did hon. Members maintain that a reduction in the price of corn, even to the fullest extent anticipated, would enable the manufacturer so far to reduce his wages that he could afford to undersell the foreigner? He contended, that it was not the price of corn so much as the amount of taxation that crippled the manufacturer; but even admitting that to a certain extent this would be the case, would that make amends for the enormous defalcation and falling off that would infallibly ensue by the altered condition of his home customers—the owners and occupiers of land, and those dependent on their prosperity? It was stated that the manufactures consumed in this country amount to little short of 250,000,000 l. annually, and would the loss of a considerable portion of this ready market be made up by the increased demand from abroad, or was it certain after all that our manufactures, instead of our gold, would be taken in exchange for their foreign corn? When hon. Members talked of laying down poor soils in grass, and maintained that this change would be attended with advantage to the country, they must be totally ignorant of all agricultural affairs, or wilfully blind to the real state of the case. It was well known, that for many years cold lands and poor soils, let let them be ever so carefully and expensively laid down, were worth little comparatively to the occupier, to say nothing of the vast evil of throwing so many hands out of employment. A gentleman, who he believed was well known to the right hon. Gentleman in the chair, informed him a few days since, that should there be any alteration in the present corn-laws, and which, undoubtedly, would compel him to convert a considerable portion of his arable to pasture land, whereas he now employed forty labourers upon his farm,

445
which, it was not necessary to add, was an extensive one according to his calculation, fifteen men would be sufficient to carry on the labour that would then be required. What, then, he begged to ask, was to become of the remainder of the surplus labourers and their families, dependent on them for cheap bread? When he asked this question he could give the oft-repeated answer—they must seek employment elsewhere. This was easy enough to say, but not quite so easily reduced to practice. Were they to migrate to the manufacturing districts, to be returned upon their parishes upon the first stagnation that might occur in any particular branch of trade? Were they to be sent, at a great expense, to the Canadas or colonies? Or would any political economist recommend their taking the place, and becoming substitutes for the Hill Coolies? No; all this might sound well in theory, but hon. Members who, like himself, had been for several years chairman of a poor law union—and he had had the honour of being re-elected yesterday—well knew that it was difficult to reduce these statements to practice—at all events with any certain beneficial results, or on any extended scale. On the contrary, they would arrive at the same conclusion with him, that ultimately the union workhouse would be the refuge for the destitute labourer, and where in al! probability he would have the satisfaction of being associated with his former master, the farmer; at all events in those cases where the occupier was not possessed of sufficient capital to enable him to meet the change that a new system would render necessary. He was convinced the statement he had made was not overdrawn; the proposed change was admitted on all sides to be a great experiment, and unfortunately it was one that could not in the first instance be referred to a committee of those patriotic Members of that House, who were its able advocates, and who, after making the trial on their own estates, might report to the House the result, not only as affecting their own interests, which of course they did not now consider, but as regarded their tenants, their labourers, and the community generally among whom they resided; but as this could not be brought about, and as the experiment must be tried on the whole body of British farmers, and that, too, against their will and recorded judgment; and as it was an experiment very doubtful and hazardous
446
as regarded all retail dealers, and those engaged in the home trade, he for one, and without any hesitation, would oppose both the original motion, and the amendment of the hon. Member for Cambridge, as most injurious to all the best interests of the country. The proposed change, in his humble opinion, would ruin many and benefit but few. Like the operation of the penny postage, he admitted it might increase the resources, or rather, diminish the outgoings of the great manufacturer and capitalist. But he denied that the result would be equally advantageous to those who were termed the productive classes, and whose interests should most undoubtedly be one of their first considerations. On the other hand, the owners and occupiers of all poor soils would be ruined, or brought to the greatest distress. They would soon cease to be consumers of manufactures to any extent, and the peasantry (badly enough off at present) would be driven from their homes to another market for their labour. The demand for their labour would be greatly decreased, and the market contracted. The scale of wages would be necessarily lowered, and this must lead to ruin and moral degradation. Discontent and disaffection would follow, and thus the measure they pro posed—though specious in itself, and apparently justified on a first view by the common law of nature—would, in the present state of society, and of this kingdom in particular, when brought into operation—and when, in all probability, it would be too late to retract—prove a source of ruin and misery to those whom they professed it was their wish and intention more particularly to benefit.
Viscount Morpethsaid, that through, out the lengthened discussion which this question underwent last year, he abstained from expressing any opinion upon it, and he certainly should on the present occasion refrain from making anything like a formal or protracted speech, not assuredly because he did not feel the very great and surpassing importance of the question itself, and its close and intimate bearing upon the dearest relations of the whole community, but because he did feel, that upon a subject which had been so long before the public, and of which all the relations and bearings had been so amply canvassed, and deliberately weighed, it did seem to him superfluous and almost impertinent for any one to obtrude upon

447
the time of the House, who was not prepared to state any new grounds on which this great question rested, and who had not sufficient leisure and opportunity for, and whose peculiar avocations did not lead him to the examination of, those statistical details and collateral sources of information which was necessary at this time of day to throw any additional or new light on the great subject at issue. Neither was he one of those who thought that it would be most desirable if the view he entertained himself as an individual could have been brought forward as a substantive measure even by an united government. But he did not believe that an united administration—prepared to carry out the views he himself entertained upon this question—could, in the present state of parties, in any way be formed; and he certainly preferred a divided and undecided ministry to an united cabinet prepared to act upon the basis of opposing any alteration of the Corn-laws. Feeling, therefore, that he was not able himself to furnish any collateral sources of information on the subject, and not being prepared to state the fact of his being a member of an united government on the question, he should have been contented to have given a silent vote on this occasion, had he not felt that the expression of a short and decided opinion on his part was due to a constituency who, in the variety of interests affected, or in the deep, intense, and almost passionate interest felt, yielded to no other constituency in the united empire. He had presented a great number of petitions from different parts of the district which he represented, where the inhabitants were wholly taken up in agricultural pursuits, and who now, for the first time, entered upon the consideration of this question. No later than yesterday he presented a petition from one of those bodies, whom he should regret to see mixing themselves up in merely political questions, unless under the sense of some very strong and overwhelming duty, or necessity—he meant from the poor-law guardians of one of the most densely peopled unions, and which embraced, for the most part, a district that had hitherto been a perfect hive of manufacturing industry—the union of Dewsbury. In their petition they stated that the stagnation of trade had brought the people of that district to a state of starvation. After being called upon by such varied bodies of men,
448
and in so urgent a manner, he owned he should have felt it difficult to have resisted a motion for a committee of inquiry, even if his views upon the subject had been the very reverse of what they really were; and he should have hesitated to have refused undertaking the solemn consideration of the question with which they had to deal. At the same time it was always his wish, that to no cry or clamour, however loud, general, or urgent, if not also founded upon justice and substantial policy, that House should ever yield. The question which he had to consider before voting in support of this motion, or against it, was this, were the complaints and demands of these and other countless petitioners really founded upon justice and sound policy? "Now, my belief is, (said the noble Lord,) if ever there was a cry which either rose to man or heaven that was essentially just, and exclusively politic, it is that which now calls upon the supreme Legislature to take measures to facilitate the access to, and increase the quantity of, food in this country, for the sake of its vast, and hard-worked, and, I fear, most inadequately fed population." He had no misgiving as to the force of those arguments which had already been adduced, and which no doubt would be further adduced, to prove that the present Corn-laws were not only unwise, impolitic, and unfair to all the other branches of labour; but that they were even ill-calculated to effect the object which they professed to have in view. He owned, however, that his own objection to these laws struck more deeply. He did not wish to introduce any thing like cant or bigotry into this debate, and it was far from his desire to cast any imputation on any other person or party, or class or interest in this country. On the contrary, he knew that there were numbers belonging to what might be termed the agricultural party who would feel quite as kindly for the privations of their fellow-creatures, and quite as ready to make any sacrifice for their real good, as any body on that side of the question which he espoused. Still he must estimate the real tendency of any law or system by his own view of it. And the result he had arrived at was this, that if they were not prepared to consent to some alteration of the present Corn-laws, with the views he now entertained, they could not, even for a day after, without inconsistency, put up that

449
petition to heaven which they were instructed to use, for their "daily bread." He did really think that the whole scope and tendency of the present system was at variance with the apparent spirit and obvious design, as far as they might without presumption attempt to scan and determine them, of the ordinary dispensations of providence—those dispensations which had varied the growth of every clime, and the staple of every soil, and thus appeared to invite every kingdom of the earth to the fullest and freest interchange of their respective produce; and which made it as much a duty to exclude monopoly from the family of nations, as it was to exclude selfishness and ill-will from the families of individuals—in one word, which made patriotism and philanthrophy the same things. He was told, that from the arguments used, and the language held, by those who espoused the same views as he himself did, they showed that they were not disposed to stop short of a total repeal of any protecting duty. This was no doubt true. But he was himself aware that no great change could be made in any settled system without much being done in the way of compromise and concession on each side; and if it were desirable—into which, however, as he considered it a perfectly abstract question, he did not wish to enter—but, if it were desirable, he conceived it would be obviously chimerical, in the present state and feeling of parties, to entertain the notion of repealing the present Corn-laws without leaving a verge for some remaining fiscal duty—call it for the purpose of revenue, or of protection, or whatever they would. If the House should consent to resolve itself into committee, and bravely face the question, and determine to deal with the existing Corn-laws, then the amount of duty to be retained would form an essential subject of consideration, and one which he would not shrink from discussing and deciding upon; and so with repect to the question of preference between a fixed and sliding scale. He did not think that the question would be affected by the House agreeing to the motion for going into committee; though he was ready to admit, as far as he was able to weigh the force of the respective arguments addued on either side, that it did appear to him, with a view to protect trade from excessive fluctuation, and from continually recurring speculations, and with a view also to encourage
450
not a capricious but a more uniform growth and supply of foreign corn, and to lighten the pressure on the country, occasioned by a sudden drain of specie and consequent disturbance of the currency, that a fixed duty of moderate amount was preferable to a sliding scale. There was one complaint which had been brought forward by Gentlemen on the other side of the question, which did seem to him at once the most preposterous and the most hopeless of remedy that could enter into the mind of man. He alluded to the complaint of "the continual recurrence and agitation of this question." Why, if that were an argument on either side, it was certainly an argument on his side of the question; because, as long as the law respecting the importation of corn remained in its present state, it was quite chimerical to expect that the question would cease to be agitated. It was with this question the same as it was with the catholic question, and the questions of slavery and of the slave-trade; there was no other way of putting an end to agitation except by removing the grievance. If the people of this country were suffering—or, what upon this point was the same thing, if they thought they were suffering—from any particular cause, did hon. Gentlemen think that they could stop their complaining? If the people felt that they were starving, how could that House prevent their cry for food? They were told that
"The flesh will quiver where the pincers tear,
And blood will follow where the knife is driven."
This complaint of the constant recurrence of the agitation of the question put him in mind of nothing so much as what they read of the indignation of the parish authorities, in one of the tales of one of the most consummate describers of every-day life, where they were told that "the whole board-room was in a state of consternation, because Oliver Twist has asked for move." This demand for more on the part of the people, he believed, was one which could not be stayed or circumscribed. It was a demand that was coming from almost every quarter where industry resided. It came from the factories and from the workshops, and, in his belief, the evil that gave birth to that demand was fast travelling to the remotest villages and hamlets of the land, and that it would ere long visit every cottage. He had now sufficiently stated the reasons which would

451
govern his vote upon this debate, and it required, he thought, little sagacity to augur that that vote would not on this night be given on the winning side. This demand, however, had still obstacles too formidable to surmount, and prejudices too strong to overcome. But looking at the increasing power and prevalence of this demand, and considering the justice and policy, and even the religious obligation upon which he conceived it to rest, there was nothing of which he felt more confident than of its ultimate success. Having lived to see the freedom of religious opinion established, the personal freedom of every British subject vindicated, and even the freedom of trade day by day more, and more allowed to various articles of foreign commerce, he did entertain a most sanguine hope and expectation that at no very distant period a freer and more unrestricted access of foreign corn to these shores would more amply repay the efforts of our domestic industry, and secure and extend the harmony of nations.
Mr. H Gaily Knightspoke to the following effect:—The noble Lord who has just sat down offers us the consolatory prospect of a fixed duty; but, before the House consents to go into committee on this subject, I think we must look a little to the wishes and declarations of those, for whose satisfaction the proposition i s brought forward. We must look to the speeches which have been made out of this House, as well as in this House—to the petitions on that table—to the delegates who have been sent to watch our proceedings; and if we do so, we shall find that nothing would give satisfaction to those persons short of a total abolition of the Corn-laws—that any reasonable alteration any slight modification, would be treated by them with contempt. It appears to me, therefore, that to go into committee would only excite hopes that would not be realized, would be an idle waste of time, and end in nothing but disappointment. We must also look to the spirit in which the abolitionists have acted—to the expedients to which they have resorted in order to collect their forces for what they pleasantly call their sessional campaign against the agricultural interest—and, to do them justice, it must be allowed that nothing has been neglected—nothing, from the splendours of the Manchester banquet, down to the hedge-side calumnies of the itinerant delegate. The noble
452
Lord says, that abolition of the Corn-laws is the genuine voice of the people; but in this opinion I do not concur. No, it is a partial cry, got up by that odious resource, which I was sorry to hear the noble Lord defend—the resource of agitation, agitation, agitation. By newspapers devoted to that sole object, petitions cut and dried, circulars, tracts, addresses, hired lecturers, apostles of discord sent about to set the towns against the country, the labourers against the farmer, and to denounce the landed proprietors as the curse and bane of society. In the course of last autumn, in the town nearest to which I live, appeared one of these hired lecturers, and, because he did not meet with the reception he expected, on leaving the town he shook the dust from his shoes, and published a letter in the newspapers, in which he held up all the aristocracy of the neighbourhood to the hatred of the people, and pointed out one nobleman as the author of his discomfiture, who happened to be some hundreds of miles distant from the spot, and knew nothing about the transaction. And it is by such means and such instruments, that it has been attempted to induce the people to rally round the standard of abolition ! Not always with success. I regret to say, that a great political economist, the habitual agent of the Government, was hooted out of a public meeting at Nottingham—a meeting which had been convened for the consideration of the Corn-laws; and though the hon. Member for Sheffield presented, the other day, a petition against the Corn-laws, very numerously signed, what sort of reception did he meet with in the town which he represents? The people have not been deluded so successfully as might be wished. The people are beginning to see, that, as usual, they are made the stalking horse. The people are beginning to see, that it is not for their sakes that all these efforts are made—that it is not they who would profit by the change—but that the effort is made by those who are intent upon nothing but their own advantage. The people are beginning to know that they cannot have cheap bread and high wages at the same time. That the market for labour would only be reduced, if a famishing crowd of agricultural labourers were to flock in and compete with the operatives of the towns; that the only result would be—the only result which is really meant—namely, that

453
the master manufacturers would be enabled to grind their workmen down even lower than they do at present. This is their real object. The abolition of the Corn-laws is not the cause of the community—not the cause of the people, but the cause of a class, the class of master manufacturers, who seek to increase their gains, by depreciating the price of labour—who seek to increase their gains at the expense of the operatives and the landed proprietors. There are bounds to human patience. A man can endure being vilified to a certain amount; but at last, he feels an honest indignation, especially when those who attack him are little entitled to throw the first stone. For how do the master manufacturers act towards the people? Is it they who are the friends of the working classes? I know there are exceptions—but, generally speaking, do not the master manufacturers grind the bodies of their operatives, and neglect their souls? take advantage of their necessities, whenever there is a moment of pressure, and make them work for miserable wages? turn them off by hundreds of a morning, if profit falls off in the least? Is there a kindly feeling in any manufacturing town between masters and men? No, there is not, and the reason is what I have stated, and because the operatives see that their masters regard them as nothing but money-making machines—that their masters take no concern about them the moment they are out of the factory—that they treat them as the beasts that perish—make fortunes out of their bones and sinews, and have no regard for their moral or spiritual welfare. They provide them with no schools; they provide them with no churches; and thus it is that masses of Chartism and Socialism, and Heathenism grow up in the large manufacturing towns. And now, I ask, whether the master manufacturers, or their delegates, are justified in denouncing the landed proprietors? and whether it is for the sake of the master manufacturers the landed proprietors deserve to be sacrificed? No, let us not regard this question as it would affect a class, but as it affects a whole community. Let us enquire whether any thing has happened which should make it the duty of this House to affirm this year what it negatived last year by a large majority? What new event has taken place to justify the change of opinion? To be sure, the old arguments which were knock-
454
ed down last year have been set up again this year, as if they had never been refuted. Mischief, it seems, has more lives than a cat. But what new event has taken place? and what is there now to be said? There is one novelty which I behold with the greatest regret. This year almost the whole of her Majesty's Ministers are arrayed against the agricultural interest; and because they are not altogether unanimous, they have recourse to the high-minded expedient of the open question! This is a novelty indeed, and one which the country beholds not with indifference, and not without alarm. There has been, also, since this question was last discussed, such a season as the oldest man scarcely remembers; and, at this moment, trade is depressed. No man can regret it more than I do. But, with reference to the motion now before the House, the fair question to ask is, whether the Corn-laws are to blame? They will not, I suppose, be charged with having brought the bad weather; but they were able to mitigate its effects; for the graduated scale, yielding, as it always does, to the pressure of the moment, permitted, as it always will in the hour of need, a very great quantity of foreign, corn to flow into the country, sufficient for the occasion, but not overwhelmingly destructive to the progress and prospects of domestic agriculture. The last season appears to me to have afforded a proof of the efficiency of the graduated scale, when exposed to the rudest test. The only wonder was, that corn never was dearer, and that high prices were not of longer duration. No doubt there was a moment of pressure, during which the home market may have been affected, and gold may have gone out of the country; but this arose from such a season as is seldom likely to occur. Laws must not be made or changed with reference to a single year, but with reference to the ordinary course of things; and looking back upon a series of ordinary years, and taking into consideration the constant improvements which agriculture is making—improvements which have kept pace in a remarkable manner with the rapid increase of population—we have reason to believe, that under the present system, inconvenience will be the exception, and corn, at a reasonable price, the rule. But trade is depressed; admitted—but not by the Corn-laws, but from the state of the money market in the United States—in part

455
from the improvement of foreign manufactures, and the jealousy of foreign powers. And, I must say, that perceiving these to be the causes of the present depression, I am disposed to place a still higher value than I did on the home market. For when I see how little dependence can be placed on the regular demand of those countries over which we have no control, I think it must occur to common minds, at least, that it would be prudent to hold fast by that upon which we can rely. But free trade is the true principle; and if we let other countries sell us their corn, they would take our manufactures in return. Free trade may be the true principle; but in the words which were used the other day by a person of some consideration, other countries will not adopt it. If they will not adopt it, neither can we; and if we think that by anything we can do, we can check the improvement of manufactures abroad, we must believe that peace and prosperity do not produce the same effect in France and Germany, as in other places, and that the Germans and the Swiss are made o; different materials from ourselves. Foreign countries will make what they can, and take what they want—neither more nor less; and if the Corn-laws were abolished, neither should we obtain so much more extended a sale for British manufactures as we expect, nor much cheaper bread. Because foreign governments, once in possession of the market, would impose duties on all the corn that might be exported, and would only keep it just low enough to ruin the British farmer. In considering this subject, we should do well to recollect that we are more admired than beloved. Observe the Prussian commercial league—look at the conduct of Portugal—observe the policy which is but too apparent in France—proofs of jealousy—signs of aversion, which show us, if we will not shut our eyes, that it would not be wisdom to make this country dependent upon others for bread. Is it to be believed, that with such dispositions, foreign countries would let us go on ruining their manufactures, and would themselves go on regularly supplying us with as much corn as we wanted at a moderate price? It appears to me that a milder notion never entered the brain of even a political economist. And granting that I under-rate the probable increase of foreign demand; granting that
456
the assertions of the abolitionists are founded on truth, and that the destruction of the agriculturists would really be followed by a rapid and unlimited extension of foreign trade, allow me to ask whether the consequent immense increase of the manufacturing population of this country would make this country a happier land? Is it not quite difficult enough to govern the manufacturing masses already? What would it be if the numbers were indefinitely increased, and the quiet agriculturists swallowed up in the new system? Upon the whole, therefore, I consider it for the interest of the community at large, that the land of this country should remain in a state of cultivation, and the agricultural labourers of this country should remain in employment. I was much struck by what the hon. Member for Maidstone told us last night, about the situation in which the Dutch found themselves when there was a short crop in those countries upon which they depended for a supply of corn. Famine was at their doors. The same calamity might happen to us were we to suffer our domestic agriculture to decline. In that case, should there be such a season abroad as there was last year at home, to what privations might not the people be exposed? Looking, then, to a distant quarter of the globe for support—depending on the winds for life, and the winds, perhaps, obstinately fixed in an adverse direction. Does not any prudent tradesman insure his premises against fire? He may grudge the annual outlays, but, on the whole, he prefers it to the chance of absolute ruin. Protection and domestic agriculture may be considered in the light of a national insurance against the terrible chance of a famine. And I would have that protection in the shape of a graduated scale—by no means in that of a fixed duty—for in times of pressure it could not be maintained, and once taken off' would never be re-placed. Rather than have a fixed duty I would have no protection at all. Hon. Gentlemen have said, that the present system has not fulfilled its promise; but I confess it does not appear to me that what they pointed out afforded any substantial reason for making alterations, for all they shewed us was that the consumer had had a much better bargain than he had any right to expect; which, on their side, appeared to me a singular complaint—and, if nothing

457
is to be satisfactory which does not prevent fluctuations, her Majesty's Ministers must begin with bringing in a bill to regulate the seasons, uncharter that libertine, the air, and contract for a just proportion of sunshine and rain, for until the seasons are regular, with Corn-laws or without Corn-laws, fluctuations cannot be avoided. But when I say I am for a graduated scale, I do not mean to say that the scale as at present constituted, is absolute perfection—that the system is incapable of improvement—that there might not be a better method of taking the averages—but this I do say, that, when the enemy is knocking at our gates with the cry of no compromise, it does not appear to me the proper moment for going into committee, to consider alterations which would only be treated with contempt. If I cannot understand how disinterested Englishmen can vote for a repeal of the Corn-laws, I can much less understand such a course in any patriotic Irishman. For, under the present system, Ireland is, I am happy to think, the granary of England. Abolish the Corn-laws, and Ireland would lose her advantage. Can it be necessary for me, or for any one, to say, Irishmen, remember Ireland? I have stated how the Anti Corn-law agitation has been raised, and what is its real object, and I think I have shown that the working classes, and the community at large would not derive any commensurate advantage from a change; but I observe in many of the petitions that our opponents say they should not so much regret the present state of things if the Corn-laws really answered the purpose of protecting the agriculturist. With every sense of obligation for so much kindness and goodwill, I must be allowed to remark that, on this point, I think the agriculturists may be permitted to judge for themselves. They declare that they are satisfied with the present state of things. They desire no change—much less such change as that which is proposed—and I trust this House will continue to them the protection which it has bestowed, and confirm it to them by at least as large a majority as we had last year.
Mr. Prymesaid, that as the Member for Wolverhampton had brought forward his motion, if not at the instance, at any rate with the concurrence of those who wished for a total and immediate repeal
458
of the Corn-laws, and as he did not agree in any such opinion, he had thought it his duty to move, by way of amendment, the direct converse of such a proposition, and he did so wishing to retain the principle of a graduated scale. The hon. Member for Wolverhampton had called his motion "insidious;" by insidious was meant something more than met the eye, and he would, therefore, put it to the candour of the hon. Member himself, whether those who could not go the length to which he was supposed to go, ought not to propose a more moderate step. He contended, that the agricultural interest was entitled to protection, and it was so entitled, on the ground that there were taxes which pressed on what he might call the manufacture of corn, greater than those which pressed on the manufacture of other commodities; and in thus contending for protection to agriculture, he was not contending against the doctrines of free trade. The father of the doctrine of free trade, Adam Smith himself, said that there were two cases in which encouragement should be given to domestic industry—the one was by the navigation laws, and the other was when any particular home product was taxed, and then a tax of equal amount might be imposed on foreign produce. Adam Smith, after demolishing the system of prohibiting duties, and establishing by arguments which have never been shaken, nor, as far as I know, attempted to be grappled with, the general doctrine of free trade, proceeded to say:—
"There seems, however, to be two cases in which it will generally be advantageous to lay some burden upon foreign for the encouragement of domestic industry. The second case is, when some tax is imposed at home, upon the produce of domestic industry. In this case it seems reasonable, that an equal tax should be imposed upon the like produce of foreign industry. This would not give the monopoly of the home market to domestic industry, nor turn towards a particular employment a greater share of the stock and labour of the country than what would naturally go to it. It would only hinder any part of what would naturally go to it from being turned away by the tax into a less natural direction, and would leave the competition between foreign and domestic industry, after the tax, as nearly as possible upon the same footing as before it,"
One of the taxes which pressed peculiarly upon agriculture was tithes, and it mattered not to whom they were paid.

459
They were a tax, too, upon improvements, for if particular land could give 100 quarters of corn, and if for a particular outlay, that same land could be made to produce 120 quarters, the farmer would only get eighteeen out of the twenty additional quarters to remunerate him for his extra outlay, the other two would be payable in the shape of tithes, and be to that extent an additional tax on the land. Suppose, then, that in any other manufacture an increase of outlay would raise 120 instead of 100 yards of yarn or woollen cloth, or whatever it might be, and that two out of the twenty additional yards were taken in the shape of a tax, would any one say, that it was consistent with the principles of free trade, that foreign yarns or cloth should be imported without a duty? That such would not be consistent with those principles was clearly laid down by one of the deepest thinkers in the country—one whose prejudices certainly were not with the landed interest, and who had spent the greater part of his life in the money market or in commerce—Mr. Ricardo: Mr. Ricardo said:—
"Tithes are a tax on the gross produce of land, and, like taxes on the raw produce, fall wholly on the consumer. They differ from a tax on rent, inasmuch as they affect land which such a tax would not reach, and raise the price of raw produce, which that tax would, not alter. If land of the best quality, or that which pays no rent, and which regulates the price of corn, yield a sufficient quantity to give the farmer the usual profits of stock, when the price of wheat is 4l. per quarter, the price must rise to 4l. 8s., before the same profits can be obtained after the tithes are imposed for every quarter of wheat the cultivator must pay 8s. to the Church; and if be does not obtain the same profits, there is no, reason why he should not quit his employ, when he can get them in other trades. Tithes, however, may be considered injurious to landlords, inasmuch as they act as a bounty on importation, by taxing the growth of home coin, while the importation of foreign corn remains unfettered; and if, in order to relieve the landlords from the effects of the diminished demand for land, which such a bounty must encourage, imported corn were also taxed in an. equal degree with corn grown at home, and the produce paid to the state, no measure could be more fair and equitable."
Another species of taxes, which pressed most strongly upon land, was the poor-rates, the county-rates, the highway-rates, and the church-rates. These taxes were placed upon land where there was little
460
property except land, where the funds had no existence, where mortgages were, rare, and where there was little personal property except the furniture, and the splendid jewellery and dresses of the Lords or of the gentry. In those times the land seemed the only property on which these taxes could be placed; on land accordingly they were imposed, and on land they still continued, although the aspect of the times had completely changed. It might be said, that property in mills and other manufacturing buildings paid parochial taxes; and so it did, but what was the proportion paid, by the different parties? The land paid to those four taxes at least one-fifth of the whole amount of profit; but how much was paid on a manufacturing establishment? This was difficult to be obtained with accuracy; but he was told, that he could not err very far if he said, that the renter of a manufacturing establishment did not pay towards these four taxes more than a fiftieth part of the gross amount of profit. If so, the the land paid about ten times as great a proportion as the manufacturing establishments; and if this were correct, there ought to be, according to the principles of free trade, some countervailing duty on the agricultural products that came from foreign countries, which were not subject to such duties. There was a third tax to which the farmers were subject, and which did not apply to factories—the window-tax; for their dwelling-houses the manufacturers and the farmers both paid, but whereas the farmers had, in consequence of doors communicating between their houses and the dairies and cheese-rooms, to pay window-tax for the latter; the manufacturers were not in the habit of having doors communicating with their factories, and therefore the factories were altogether exempt from the duty. And, lastly, there was the ad valorem duty upon all transfers of land, whilst there was none on the sale of goods; and the amount on bills, and other securities that do not affect lands, was very small. Having stated the grounds on which, as he conceived, the land was entitled to protection, they came to another question, what that protection ought to be. The present and former systems had for many years produced successive fluctuations, which had proved most injurious to the farmers. They had first experienced ruinously high prices, and then ruinously low prices; and what could

461
be more injurious to the landowners, the farmers, and the manufacturers, than this state of perpetual oscillation? He believed that this oscillation would be less, that the fluctuations would be less, and that the interests of the landowner, of the farmer, and of the manufacturer, as well as of the consumer, would be benefitted by a graduated scale of duty of lesser amount. There were many reasons for such a change. Some of the charges on land had been lately diminished, the poor-rates had been much lessened, and the tithe, when it came into the shape of a corn-rent, would have many pf its most objectionable points taken away. Besides the price at present, which gave a free trade in corn, was 73 s., and he could quote the evidence of persons examined before the committees in 1833 and 1836, which showed that the average price was less than the 73 s.; same estimated it at 56 s., and others at 64 s. Mr. Robert Hughes, a land-agent of Salop, was asked in 1833,
"You have stated that the scale you now value at is 56 s. for wheat, and 30 s. for barley, and upon that basis you think the present rents could be maintained? Answer: I think so, where they are not strained to a very high value. All my answers must be taken in a general point of view."
Mr. Adam Murray, land agent and surveyor, said on the same committee,
"What do you consider the present price of grain?—Answer: I saw some very fine wheat from Somersetshire, that weighed 61lbs., sold for 43 s. 11 d. a quarter. Instead of 43 s. 11 d., it ought to bring, to remunerate the farmer, fully 64 s."
And, before the committee of 1836, Mr. Thomas Bennet, the steward to the Duke of Bedford, stated,
"The produce of lay land, eighteen bushels an acre; light land, 25 bushels."
And then being asked,
"Do you think that either of those descriptions of land can continue to grow wheat at the present rent, receiving 5s. a bushel?" replied, "Looking at the prices of the ordinary productions of the farm, I think they can. The wheat is the larger proportion of what they sell; they have other things. Various witnesses make it 56 s. to 64 s."
Therefore it was that he proposed a gradual reduction from the average price of 73 s., and he thought that such a reduction as he proposed would have the effect of keeping prices steadier, and of prevent-
462
ing that over-cultivation which high prices produced, for he found, by the return of wheat sold at Mark-lane, that as the prices declined the quantity sold became considerably less. The present scale had succeeded after a short interval a scale proposed by Mr. Canning. That scale went on the principle, that when the price was 60 s. the duty should be 20 s., and that the duty should decrease 2s. for every rise of 1s.; so that they would come to a nominal duty of 1s. when the wheat was at a price of 70 s. The alteration which he would propose, therefore, was, that the duty which was now paid when the price was 73 s. should be paid when the price should be at 70 s., and that the duty which was now paid when the price was 72 s. should be paid when the price should be 69 s. He proposed, therefore, a graduated scale, because a fixed duty was objected to, and the ground of that objection he took to be, that it was impracticable to continue it when corn was high, and that when corn was very low it would be nugatory. During a certain interval of time it might be maintained; but why should they adopt a plan which, in the two extreme cases, would be entirely useless? There were evils also, and great fluctuations under the old system. In the years 1794 and 1795, or 1796, there was practically a free trade, that is, the restrictive price was below the ordinary market price, and the corn came in without restriction; but soon afterwards, in 1799 and 1800, the price was so high that Government, on their own responsibility, did away with the duty; and he would ask how, in periods of such difficulty, they would be able to deal with a fixed duty? But some said that there might be a fixed duty, which should cease if corn should rise above a certain price. If this were the proposal, what manœuvring would there not be to get the price just above the fixed amount? There were those also who said, that by a complete system of exclusion, we could best procure a permanent supply. But there had been almost an exclusion, and they had recently seen that corn had accumulated in warehouses which was let loose by the owners, rather than keep their money longer locked up or the corn injured, but there was no such thing as a permanent supply. The best way to obtain such a supply was, in his opinion, by an open trade, protected only by such a. duty as should cause the producers of corn to be

463
fairly remunerated. The greater the extent of the district from which they looked for a supply, the greater the probability was that they would have an average crop or a regular supply. The produce of a single field was different in parts of it, the produce of a single farm was not uniform, there was less difference in the average produce of a whole parish, still less in the average produce of a country, and there was yet more certainty of equality in the produce if they took as their field any number of countries accessible to each other by commerce. In this larger field they would have a more uniform production. The years in which a crop failed in one country were generally those in which the produce of others was greater than usual. The climates and the same yearly seasons in Poland, in America, in the Mediterranean, and even in England and Scotland, differed materially, and it was scarcely possible to find either a redundant or a deficient harvest throughout the whole world. We had come also to that state of manufacturing progress in which it had become desirable to have a regular import trade in corn, which we might get in exchange for our manufactures. It had been said by the noble Earl (the Earl of Darlington) who spoke last night, that the agricultural and the manufacturing interests were not opposed; it was not in the nature of things that they could be opposed. The prosperity of the agriculturists must necessarily in a great degree depend upon that of the manufacturing and working classes, and if the House wished to have something more than a theoretical argument on which to ground their belief of this fact, he begged to refer them to the result of an inquiry which had taken place in Birmingham upon the subject. That town had suffered much between the years 1818 and 1820, in consequence of the cessation of employment, which was the effect of the establishment of peace, and an inquiry was instituted, the result of which was stated by Mr. Spooner to a Committee of this House. The first four months of each of those years had been selected, when a much greater degree of distress had existed than in the corresponding months of the two proceeding years. The town was divided into districts, and the weekly return and the result which was given was ascertained from every butcher and baker. In 1818 the number of cattle slaughtered
464
was 5,100, and in 1820 it was 2,700; so that it had diminished nearly one-half. In 1818 the sheep slaughtered were 11,400 in number, and in 1820 the number was 8,200. He asked then, whether this did not distinctly support his argument? The quantity of bread stated by Mr. Spooner to have been consumed was about the same which had been before disposed of, and for this reason—the operatives were prevented from consuming so much meat, and the extra quantity of bread which they took only compensated for the decreased consumption by those who were of a class even inferior to themselves. He had heard doubts expressed whether, in the event of an alteration being made in the Corn-laws, favourable to the introduction of foreign grain, there was any probability that the governments of the continental states would make any new regulations as regarded their relations with Great Britain in this respect; but he apprehended that whether any such new regulations were made or not, this country would still be placed in a better position. Because, if corn was produced in other countries at a lower rate than in England, it was obvious that when the door was thrown open to its introduction, the producers would have no hesitation in availing themselves of the opportunity afforded them. This country had completely changed its character in the course of some centuries. In the reign of Elizabeth we were producers of the raw material and exported it to other countries. It was to be collected from the contemporary writers that we sent out wool and skins, and brought them back in the shape of cloth, gloves and other manufactures; and that this was done, although there was a small duty imposed each way, on their going out and coming back. So lucrative was this trade in the raw material, that even rags were exported, and the paper brought back. Russia, Poland, America, were in that state now, and we were in a condition to take a portion of their raw material, and to give them a portion of our manufactures. During the war with France, no difficulty had been experienced in obtaining supplies of corn from foreign countries. During the whole of the continuance of that war a regular importation had taken place. The price was occasionally high, it was true, but still there was a continued and regular supply. If, then, the corn-growing countries of the

465
continent had, under such circumstances, and in such a state of things, brought their corn to this country, he should say that in ordinary times, and under ordinary circumstances, they would do so to a still greater extent. But even supposing there were any difficulty with respect to the grain countries of Europe, still there were other corn-growing countries in the world, and while a proper and well regulated system of protection was afforded to commerce, they need be under no apprehension that there would be any falling off in the supply. He would warn hon. Members who were connected with the agricultural interest, of the danger of refusing to make some concession to the wishes of the people. It was not likely that the present agitation, as it was called upon this question, would subside unless something were done. While the people were suffering under the pressure of high prices and consequent scarcity of food, that agitation would continue. He called upon them to recollect "Nescit plebes jejuna timere," and trusted that they would adopt the prudent course which he had pointed out. The hon. Member concluded by moving as an amendment to the motion of the hon. Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. Villiers), that these words be added, "with a view to the reduction of the average prices specified in the table to that Act annexed, according to which the respective duties are imposed."
Mr. W. Duncombesaid, that he should not have felt it to be his duty to arise to address the House on this occasion, but for the fact of the absence of his hon. colleague, who was more accustomed to take part in the debates of the House than he was, and of his having had the honour to present a great number of petitions praying that no alteration of the existing Corn-laws should take place—a prayer in which he most cordially concurred. It had been suggested that the sentiments of the people of this country had changed with regard to this question, but he begged to say, that the opinions which had been expressed by his constituents were strongly confirmed in the view which they had expressed, in opposition to the repeal of the Corn-laws. He imagined that it was impossible to overrate the mischief which would be likely to arise throughout the country in the event of the motion of the hon. Member being acceded to; and he for one should give his most cordial
466
opposition to it. It was true that many petitions had been presented, the effect of which was to favour this motion; but he begged to ask, how those petitions had been got up? In some instances, he was credibly informed that signatures had been obtained by labourers, both men and boys being compelled to affix their names, by their masters, on their going to, or returning from work; and however numerous the signatures might be to these documents, he conceived that they ought not to be considered to counterbalance those which had been presented on the other side, and which came from the more respectable classes of the community. With respect to this motion of the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, he thought that it involved two propositions—first, the total and unqualified repeal of the Corn-laws, which was the view taken by the hon. Member himself, and the great proportion of those gentlemen who surrounded him, besides a large body of petitioners; and secondly, the adoption of a fixed duty—a proposition in which the hon. Member was joined by a Member of her Majesty's Cabinet. With respect to the adoption of fixed duties, he confessed that if he were in the position of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade, he would much rather support a total repeal, than a fixed duty of 7s. or 8s., for he was certain that such a duty would be inoperative as affording any protection to the agricultural classes. He found that Mr. Canning, in the year 1827, had expressed himself decidedly opposed to such a duty, and in the year 1828, Mr. Huskisson, too, had declared that it was impossible to adopt such a project. It was obvious that the hon. Member thought that the great advantage which would arise from a fixed duty, would be the prevention of fluctuations in the price of corn, but he must beg leave to remind him that in instances where fixed duties had existed, more fluctuations had taken place than under the present system. As to the first proposition which he considered to be involved in this motion, he thought that the working classes would not be satisfied with the repeal of the Corn-laws; but that to adopt such a course would be to embark in a sea of troubles and difficulties of the most dangerous character. He said if there was to be a free trade in corn, let there be a free trade in every thing else—let there not be protecting duties upon

467
anything. Upon silk there was a protecting duty of from 30 to 100 per cent.; on soap there was a protecting duty of from 3l. 10 s. to 4l. 10 s. per cwt.; upon linen, upon iron bars, upon hides, upon glass, upon cotton (when made up, and when not made up), and upon a great variety of articles, there were protecting duties. He asked the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade did he mean to give up all those protecting duties? If not, why did he say to the agricultural interest that he would no longer give them that protection which hitherto they had the advantage of? He said that a protecting duty on corn was not a protection for the few, but the many; it was not for a class, but for the entire population. The question was, whether they would have the land cultivated and the people paid, or give up these advantages because certain gentlemen had thought proper to spread agitation throughout the country by means of hired lecturers? Did these agitating gentlemen imagine that the landed proprietors would foe so soft as to give up their protection because of their agitation? For himself he would say, if it was the wish of Parliament and of the Government to extend the repeal of protecting duties to all those other articles he had referred to, and to give a free trade in every thing, he would willingly agree. [Cheers.] If they were willing to go that length, as from that cheer be understood they were, why had they not Specified it by their motion? Instead of confining the motion to the Corn-laws, why not say what they mean? Why seek to get a vote under one pretence when they really meant another? Why not take Off all taxation upon those imports? He believed the reason was to be found in the object they had in view, and that object he believed to be to get rid of the Corn-laws for the purpose of their own aggrandisement at the expense and injury of Others. If such a principle were once suffered to. creep in, they might rely upon it that it would recoil upon every other class of the community. Hon. Gentlemen opposite were mistaken if they imagined that their course of policy would not teem with the most disastrous effects to the country. He was anxious to support all measures which he believed to have a tendency to improvement and to the amelioration of the condition of all, but more especially the lower classes, throughout
468
the kingdom; but he could not believe that any such effect would be produced by compelling- them to rely upon foreign countries for food. He should upon that occasion give his vote in accordance with the petitions which he had recently had the honour of presenting to the House. Before sitting down he would observe, that if there was any one question which should not have been made an open question by the Ministers of the Crown, it was that of the repeal of the Corn-laws. He would advert to a passage contained in a letter from the noble Lord the Secretary to the Colonies to the electors of Huntingdon, which was to the effect that there were in that House a set of political economists who were anxious to have cheap bread at any sacrifice, but in seeking for this consummation they were endeavouring to obtain a fallacious panacea for the evils of the country. He wished the Government had adopted the sentiments of the noble Lord, instead of making an open question of a subject of such vital importance to the country.
Mr. Clay.—The motion of his hon. Friend was for a Committee to consider of the present Corn-laws. The reply is, there is no consideration necessary—the Corn-laws work well, and there are no grounds for any alteration. If this be so, then he must say he could not conceive by what urgency of circumstances or cogency of proof the House ever could be induced to view any portion of our code as susceptible of amendment. What is the nature of the proof? What are the circumstances which ought to induce the legislature to consider of the amendment of any law? That it had not answered its intended objects? That it affected injuriously some great national interest? That it failed to give contentment to the people? Which class of these desiderated proofs was wanting to the evil working of the Corn-laws? Did any laws ever more completely fail to fulfil the avowed intention of the framers? Two main objects, were announced as the justification for the enactment of these laws. They were to keep the price of corn steady, and thus to protect the farmer from the ruinous effect of great fluctuations., and they were to render us independent of foreign sup ply. These were to have been their effects. What have been their effects? Fluctuations the most violent, variations almost from year to year of 100 per cent.

469
—prices so low as at one time to threaten the farmer with ruin—at another so high as to drive the humbler classes of consumers to despair. On this point he had not intended to say one single word—he had thought it impossible that the tendency of the Corn-laws to produce such fluctuations could, after the experience of the last few years, be disputed; it was Otherwise, it was denied that those laws have such tendency, and it was said that the variations in the price of corn elsewhere were greater than here. It was with great reluctance he troubled the House with a repetition of arguments formerly used—the subject was exhausted. No ingenuity can find a new argument; and if, therefore, old fallacies were repeated, they must be met by the old refutation. If by prohibition or prohibitory duties they prevented the importation of corn below a price that would in ordinary years permit enough corn for our consumption to be grown at home—they rendered absolutely certain enormous fluctuations above and below that price. The breadth of corn, enough in ordinary years, is too much in years of abundance. What is to be done with the surplus? It cannot be exported, for we have taken pains to raise our prices above the level of all other countries; it hangs upon the market, and, according to a well known effect of the principle of supply and demand, beats down the price in a far greater ratio than it bears to the whole year's consumption. What is the consequence? Ruin or discouragement to the farmer—less breadth of wheat is sown the smaller growth is coincident with a bad season—the price rises as much above as it fell below its ordinary level; again, the growth is stimulated, and they recommence their miserable cycle. This argument he had stated to the House four years since; and, prices being then at their very lowest level, had predicted what had occurred. He would now venture on another prophecy. Previously to the harvest of 1839 a very greatly increased breadth of wheat was sown. There was no reason to think it was diminished last autumn. If, again, they should have one or two favourable seasons in succession, they would again see wheat at a price at which it would be used as food for cattle. But it was now discovered that the fluctuations of price were greater elsewhere than in this country. On this assertion he would observe, first, that at all the ports whence our sup-
470
plies of corn were drawn, the price must of necessity vary from a rate below our lowest prices, when there was no import to this country, to a rate only Jess than our highest price by the cost of transit; and, secondly, that by the document on which the inference was grounded, it appeared that the least fluctuation was where there was perpetual importation, viz. Holland. Again we were to be independent of foreign supply. Why, within two years, to avert the famine which stared us in the face, we have imported somewhere about 4,000,000 quarters of wheat. Do they interfere with the development of the national energies—do they cramp the enter-prize of the merchant—narrow the market of the manufacturer—and enhance the course of the subsistence—while they diminish the employment of the artizan? To this point they had the testimony of every class—of almost every man in the kingdom, capable of forming an opinion on the subject—they had the calm, deliberate opinions of the greatest merchants and the most extensive manufacturers—they had the unanimous voice of all the great commercial towns of the kingdom—they had, above all, the unanswerable argument of facts—almost the whole of northern and central Europe have combined to exclude our manufactures on the express ground of the Corn-laws. With the countries lying nearest to our own shores, and with which our commercial relations should be naturally the most intimate, we have the least trade; among people disposed by identity of origin, and similarity of interests, to be the most friendly to us, our selfish and capricious legislation is fast generating hostile feelings. We are fast converting those who should be our best customers into jealous and angry rivals. An attempt was certainly made last night by the hon. Member for Maidstone, if he (Mr. Clay) rightly understood him, to show that our duties on corn and timber had no influence on the commercial code of the corn and timber-growing countries; but, as he could not avoid supposing that the hon. Gentleman made his speech rather with a view of showing how ingeniously he could support a bold paradox, than in the expectation that the House could agree in his views, he would not occupy the time of the House in refuting a proposition, which was as obviously opposed to all probability, as to the mass of evidence

471
that was at hand as to the fact. There is, again, the derangement of our monetary system. With respect to that system there are many different opinions; very opposite doctrines are entertained both as to its defects, and the remedies for those defects; but there is no theory on the currency, as far as he was aware, which did not allot to the recent large importations of corn the chief share in its late alarming derangements. The House might be assured, that no monetary system, not even a system wholly metallic—certainly not one consisting partly of paper money—could be otherwise than most injuriously effected by the necessity of a large and sudden demand for the export of the precious metals. The abstraction of a large portion of the circulating medium, even when unattended by the further diminution which the panics incident to a vicious system create, must of necessity be accompanied by a lessening of the usual banking accommodation, a derangement of the money market, and a general fall of prices, ruinously affecting all the great interests of the country. We were in this absurd position, that when, from a failure of our own harvests, we required corn from abroad, we could only get that corn from nations with whom we had taken the greatest pains to limit or destroy our commercial intercourse; and where, of course, there could be no market prepared to receive the produce of our manufacturing industry. What was the result? They will only take our gold; the abstraction of this lifeblood of our circulation paralyses the productive energies of the country, which languish, until, by some slow and circuitous process, we regain the sum of the precious metals necessary for the healthy state of our monetary system. Now these things were notorious; the facts to which he had referred could neither be gainsaid nor explained away, and yet hon. Gentlemen said the Corn-laws worked well, and there was no necessity for change. They might be quite assured such was not the feeling of the people. The contrary conviction was every day spreading more widely. Let the House look at the present state of the question as regards public feeling and opinion, contrasted with what it was only twelve months back, and see what hold it has taken of the public mind. The call for repeal has doubled in strength since last year, nor was this to be attributed (as had
472
been asserted by the hon. Member for Nottinghamshire and others) to the exertions of the itinerant lecturers, not to the speeches at public meetings. He did not deny that the efforts which had been made to diffuse information on this great question, might have had some effect in exciting public attention; but, without the lessons which events have taught, orators might have spoken, and lecturers lectured in vain—such means of excitement were efficacious as adjuncts to the sterner schooling of experience—they were but of slender potency, unless, by circumstances, the public mind had been fitted for their reception. But whatever might be the effects to be ascribed respectively to various causes in producing the present state of public feeling, the fact was certain, that there was an intensity and accordance of feeling and opinion among great classes of the people as to the repeal of those laws which had never yet existed. He believed, that, ere long, the universal opinion of the public, with the single exception of the comparatively small number who believed (erroneously, as he thought), that they had an interest in keeping up the price of corn, would be in favour of the repeal of those laws. He would ask of the advocates of the Corn-laws whether, under these circumstances, they really thought those laws could be maintained? Supposing them to deny the force of the arguments against the policy and justice of these laws—supposing them to set but little value upon a free commercial intercourse with other countries—supposing them to be willing to encounter periodically the grave inconveniences of a deranged currency—did they believe that they could maintain laws against which the whole commercial and manufacturing interests, and all the greatest cities and towns of this country protested almost with one voice? He did not believe that such an opinion was very confidently entertained. There were symptoms, not very equivocal, of a doubt, at least among the most powerful supporters of the Corn-laws, whether, in the existing form, those laws could be maintained. He would beg leave to refer to a very significant passage in the speech of the right hon. Gentleman, the Member for Tarn-worth, on occasion of the recent debate on the motion of a want of confidence in Ministers. The hon. Gentleman was proceeding to read an extract from the

473
speech in question, when he was interrupted by
The Speaker, who said, that it was not in order to allude to any debate which had taken place in the course of the present Session.
Mr. Claysaid he supposed he might read what he had met with in a certain publication, and which reminded him very much of what he had heard fall from the right hon. Baronet on a certain occasion. The hon. Gentleman was again proceeding, amidst cries of "order, order," to read from a paper in his hand, when
The Speakersaid, the hon. Gentleman must be aware that he could not allude, either directly or indirectly, to speeches made in the course of the present session, and that it was a very shallow disguise under which he was now attempting to do so.
Mr. Claysaid he supposed, then, that he might be allowed to state what his impression of the right hon. Baronet's arguments were in reference to this subject, and was proceeding to do so, amidst some confusion and murmurs, when
Sir R. Peelrose and said, that what he had really said, he believed, appeared in the form of a pamphlet, and under these circumstances he did not know how far this quotation might be allowable; but he did protest against the hon. Gentleman's giving his own version of his sentiments. Personally he had no objection to the hon. Gentleman's reading the passage he referred to.
Mr. Clayproceeded to read the extract, which was as follows:—
"On that great question, my opinions remain unchanged. I adhere to those which I expressed in the discussion of last year. I did not then profess, nor do I now profess, an unchangeable adherence to the details of the existing law—a positive refusal, under any circumstances, to alter any figure of the scale which regulates the duty on foreign corn. I did profess, and I now repeat that I consider a liberal protection to domestic agriculture indispensable, not merely to the prosperity of agriculture, but to the general interests of the community—that I think a graduated duty, varying inversely with the price of corn, far preferable to a fixed duty; that I object to a fixed duty, first, from the great difficulty of determining the proper amount of it on any satisfactory data; but, secondly and chiefly, because I for see that it would be impossible to maintain that fixed duty under a very high price of corn, and that, once withdrawn, it would be extremely difficult to re-establish it."
474
He did not wish to extract from the passage he had read any stronger meaning than the hon. Gentleman himself would avow, but he thought he was entitled to draw from it this inference, that the right hon. Gentleman did not feel quite confident that the corn-laws, in their present shape, could be maintained. Thus much, at least, however, was clear, that the right hon. Gentleman avowed his preference of the sliding scale. But he thought the right hon. Gentleman should go further, and state to the House what was the alteration of the rates of duty he would, if in his judgment any change were necessary, be disposed to make. He (Mr. Clay) thought this the more incumbent on the right hon. Gentleman after the declaration of opinion as to the amount of a fixed duty made by a member of the government, his right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade, last evening. He did not of course mean that his right hon. Friend spoke the language of the government—his right hon. Friend had expressly stated he spoke only as an individual—whether, however, the right hon. Baronet would be disposed to follow the example of frankness set by his right hon. Friend, of this at least he was glad, that the two great principles of free trade, with a moderate fixed duty on the one hand, and the present system of the sliding scale and fluctuating duties on the other, stood fairly in contrast with each other; and that it was mainly by the great party—the Liberal party to which he had the honour to belong—that the former principle was espoused. He felt perfectly certain, that, despite the powerful opposition of the right hon. Baronet, the day was not far distant when that principle would be sanctioned by the overwhelming weight of public opinion. He was completely opposed to the alteration shadowed out in the speech of the right hon. Gentleman, and embodied in the resolution proposed by his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Cambridge. Any mere reduction of the duty, any change which should retain the principle of the sliding scale, would leave untouched the most noxious element of the present system. The great evil of the present system was, that under the semblance of a free trade, it rendered any really free trade impossible. No people could grow corn for our use under a system which at one moment admitted the produce of their fields, and at another condemned it

475
to rot in their granaries. No government could be expected to relax its exclusion of our manufactures in return for a commercial intercourse, so contrived as to inflict injury rather than confer advantage on its subjects. Any alteration of the Corn-laws, therefore, which did not sweep away the whole machinery of the present Corn-law, and substitute for the averages and the sliding scale of duties a trade really and honestly free, on clear and intelligible principles, he should hold to be completely nugatory. The House would observe, that in the observations he had made, he had gone but slightly into the general question of the Corn-laws. He had felt that the subject was exhausted, and that as regarded himself, he could add nothing to the arguments which by the indulgence of the House he had on former occasions advanced. He should, therefore, abstain wholly from trespassing on the time of the House, by entering on the wide field of argument which a consideration of the whole question of the Corn-laws presented, but content himself with earnestly requesting of those hon. Gentlemen who more especially represented agricultural interest in that House, to reflect whether it were consistent with a wise policy any longer to refuse a reconsideration of our present system. This request he would address equally to both sides of the House. This was not a party question—it was a question of classes, but only the more important and dangerous on that account. It was more and more felt every day to be a question between the class of landholders, identified not unnaturally or unjustly with the highest and most powerful classes, and the rest of the community. He had never argued the question in a spirit hostile to that class; on the contrary, he had more than once said, that in his opinion, if there were one class more than another deeply interested in the repeal of these laws, the landholders constituted that class. The wealthy capitalist, the skilful artisan, might quit our shores, but they must remain and partake the good or evil fortunes of their country. Whilst the country continued to prosper, and its wealth and population to increase in an equal ratio, to suppose that the value of landed property could decrease to suppose even that it should not increase, appeared to him the idlest and most chimerical fear. But if, unhappily,
476
whilst our population increased, our means of employment should be stationary or decrease—if capital, finding no profitable employment, should be abstracted or extinguished, then indeed a time might arrive when the possession of extensive estates might confer something very different from wealth, or influence, or happiness on the possessor. Nor was this a question safely to be postponed or trifled with; our population increased at the rate of half a million a year. Did hon. Gentlemen not feel that one fact to involve the most awful consequences? Did they really believe it possible much longer to maintain a system which prevented our people from drawing their subsistence from a wider portion of the earth's surface than is comprehended within the limits of the British islands? At present a change in our system would have most beneficial results; but every year the chance of securing those results become less, inasmuch as it would become more difficult to establish sound commercial relations with other nations, and as a feeling of alienation and disgust should spread more and more widely through the great bulk of the people of this country. For these reasons he would implore the House at least to show such respect to the strong feeling that existed on this head, as to accede to the motion of his hon. Friend and go into committee. When in committee, some middle term—something approaching to friendly compromise—might be suggested. He was himself of opinion, as he had repeatedly expressed, that the agricultural interest need have no fear of a free trade unshackled by any duty; but would not conceal his opinion that a free trade, with a moderate fixed duty, if such should be insisted on, would be an improvement of the greatest value on our present system, and have effects on the best and most permanent interests of the country, of which it would be difficult to over-estimate the value.
Mr. Shawdid not rise at that late hour to trespass long upon the attention of the House, but as he saw the hon. Member for Wolverhampton in his place, he was anxious to disabuse the House of one or two misrepresentations which the hon. Gentleman had, he was sure, unintentionally made in respect to the manner in which the interests of Ireland were affected by this question. The hon. Gentleman had said, that of all the shallow pretences

477
which had been advanced in support of the Corn-laws, the case of Ireland was the shallowest and the boldest. He was exceedingly astonished to hear the hon. Gentleman make that statement, but still more so to hear the reasons the hon. Gentleman assigned in support of it. The hon. Gentleman stated, that from 1832 to the present time, Ireland had been exporting less and less corn than before. [Mr. Villiers: Wheat.] The hon. Gentleman said wheat. Now, he would beg to refer the hon. Gentleman to the return made last year, on the motion of the hon. Member for Sligo, of the quantity of corn imported from Ireland from the year 1800 to the 3rd of January, 1839; and first, with regard to corn generally, it appeared that in 1832 there had been imported 2,990,767 quarters of corn, whilst in the year 1838, there had been 3,474,302 quarters imported. Of wheat there had been imported, in 1832,790,000 quarters, in 1833 844,000 quarters, in 1834 779,000 quarters, in 1835 661,000 quarters, in 1836 598,000 quarters, and in 1837 534,000 quarters. [Mr. Villiers: That's a falling off.] It was a falling off as compared with the year 1833, but as compared with a former period since the Union it was a very considerable increase. In 1815, for instance, the quantity imported was 189,000 quarters. He would refer to the opinions of two Gentlemen of opposite politics, which were contradictory of the view taken by the hon. Member for Wolverhampton. The first was Mr. Sharman Crawford, who said that "it would be better for Ireland that she should not be an exporting market, and, therefore, the continuance of the Corn-laws could not be looked to as a means of advancing the prosperity of Ireland." The next was Mr. O'Connell, who said that "he considered that this country (Ireland) had no chance of recovering any portion of that wealth which had been abstracted from it, until the English market was thrown open to foreign corn, and the absentees made to return to Ireland." Now, if the hon. Member for Wolverhampton would be bound at all by the statements of those who were supposed to know most about the interests of Ireland, he thought he could not but admit that those opinions which he had quoted went directly in support of the fact that the Corn-laws did tend to promote and encourage the importation of corn from Ireland; and,
478
therefore, the hon. Gentleman would not be surprised if he found a good number of Irish Members, of all politics, voting against his motion. He was sorry to be obliged to say that, in his opinion, it was but too true, that the people of Ireland were so low that it was impossible they could descend lower in the scale of human enjoyments. The hon. Gentleman said, he would find employment for them in the manufactures of England; but he could not hear that there was any want of hands in England; and if the Corn-laws were repealed, how many agricultural labourers would be driven to seek employment in the manufacturing towns? Why, if they were to repeal the Corn-laws, they would have, instead of an influx, an actual inundation of the people from Ireland, seeking food and employment. Upon all these grounds, therefore, he should give his cordial opposition to the present motion, or to any other of similar tendency.
Mr. Villierssaid, that having been directly charged with misrepresentation by the hon. and learned Member, perhaps the House would allow him to say a very few words in explanation. What he had said last night was, that of late years the importations of wheat from Ireland had been diminishing, and the hon. and learned Gentleman, by the returns he had read to the House, had precisely confirmed what he had stated. With the single exception of the year 1834, the imports had been decreasing every year since the year 1832.
Debate again adjourned.

MINUTES.
Bill. Read a third time:—Consolidated Fund.
Petitions presented. By the Marquess of Westminster and Lord Hatherton, from a great number of places, for, and
398
by the Duke of Buckingham, the Earls of Hardwicke, and Haddington, and Lord Wharncliffe, from an immense number of places, against, the Repeal of the Corn-laws.—By the Earl of Rosebery, and Viscount Melbourne, from two places, against the Present System of Church Patronage, and against Granting any further power to the Clergy.—By Earl Delawar, from Heathfield, against the Grant to Maynooth, and for Church Extension.—By the Earl of Fitzwilliam, from Bilston, against Church Extension.

CORN LAWS.
The Duke of Buckingham, after presenting a number of petitions from Cornwall against any alteration in the existing Corn-laws, said, he would take the opportunity of expressing his regret at having seen what he had said respecting the payment of the labourer, misstated in a morning paper. It was stated there, that he said he thought the labourer was well paid at 9s. a week. That was not his opinion, and he had never so stated it. The more the labourer could get, the better satisfied he should be. He only hoped and trusted the Corn-laws would never be repealed, for if they were, the wages of the labourer would be reduced to a very small pittance.
The Marquess of Westminstersaid, the petitions which had been presented in favour of the Corn-laws, were many of them not very numerously signed, and a great many came under suspicious circumstances, as coming from the same parts of the country, the petition he had to present was of a different sort—it represented the opinions of a large community of Liverpool. If their Lordships had attended to the representations that had been given, they must be aware that great distress prevailed in the manufacturing districts. It was clearly predicted in 1815, by the noble Lord opposite (Ashburton), that such would be the result, and he was sorry to observe that the noble Lord had changed his correct opinions after his prophecies had been fulfilled. In 1828, the noble Lord (then Mr. Baring) said, that such a law would drive our manufacturers into foreign countries, and cause much distress at borne. He regretted that the noble Lord had now changed his opinions.
Lord Ashburtonsaid, that if the noble Marquess had made a motion on the subject of the Corn-laws, he should have been very glad to discuss the question with him. The noble Marquess, however, had been pleased to talk of him (Lord Ashburton)as a "sentinel," and the noble Marquess took care, that from day to day he should keep that sentinel on the qui

399
vive. The House would therefore excuse him if he offered a few words in reference to his alleged change of opinion. In 1825 he had certainly taken a strong part in the House of Commons in a proposition which was then made for augmenting what was called the protecting duties on corn. He might have used on that occasion expressions strongly indicative of his apprehension of over-stretching such protection, and he should observe that the fashion of the House of Commons, at that time, was to go into extremes on such subjects. The question, however, at that time was not a repeal, but an increase on the protecting duty of from 66 s. to 80 s. Many Gentlemen in the House of Commons even thought that 80 s. was not sufficient, and especially Sir Henry Parnell, who expressed as his opinion that 125 s. would be a fair protecting duty. Sir Henry Parnell, however, he believed, was now in favour of an alteration in the existing laws. If he had also changed his opinion on the subject, it would not be the first time that he had done so on subjects of greater importance, and he should not have the slightest hesitation in admitting such change in the House. If at any time he had thought that the protecting duty which had been established was working ill for the great interests of the country, he should be the first to express such an opinion. He should be certainly sorry to see an extreme protection on corn—he should be sorry to see that protection raised beyond what it was at present. If there had been a proposition to take into consideration any particular scale of duty, he would not say that he should be unwilling to enter on the consideration of that subject, but he was not willing to enter on the consideration of it with persons who were totally hostile to the protection of our agriculture. When the question came regularly under consideration he would state his reasons for maintaining the system as it existed, and for thinking that it had worked well, even for the manufacturers, who were represented as so much injured by it. The noble Marquess opposite had great objections to fluctuations in prices, and the noble Marquess spoke of that as one of the greatest evils of the Corn-laws. But it was proved by a paper which had lately been laid before the House of Commons that, from 1815 to 1838, the fluctuations in Prussia, Poland, Westphalia, Sweden, Bordeaux, Riga, and
400
Trieste, had been double the extent of those in England during the same years. He would now only apologise to the House for having so long detained them.
The Earl of Radnorsaid, that when an individual of the eminence of the noble Lord gave expression to such a variety of opinions—to such unaccountable alterations of opinion—it was no wonder that he should be kept a little on the qui vive. The noble Lord said, that he thought the existing laws had worked well, and he said also, that he should have no objection to canvass the question, if some proposition were brought forward by parties who were not hostile to all protection to agriculture. If the noble Lord thought that the Corn-laws had worked well, what was the necessity for canvassing them? But the noble Lord had previously entertained very different opinions on this important question. In 1815 he had delivered a speech which contained the expression of opinions entirely opposed to those which were now advocated both by him and by the whole body of the supporters of the present Corn-laws. One of the principles laid down in that speech was contained in the following sentence:—" No Government ever went on so absurd a principle as to force an independent supply." Now, in the course of the remarks made by the noble Duke (Richmond) the other night, in which he attempted to inflict a severe castigation upon him, he had expressly stated, that that was the very thing the advocates of the Corn-law wanted. Other opinions expressed by the noble Lord (Ashburton) in 1815 were directly opposed to the opinions which he now held. In 1828, also, the noble Lord had expressed himself very strongly opposed to protection. He then said, "that he could not think how it was possible that any reasonable man could talk about protection to corn, wool, and other articles, when the difference in the price of bread between this and other countries varied from 25 s. to 64 s." He also said, that the experience of Holland ought to have given a lesson to this country. But now the noble Lord entertained very different opinions and talked in a very different manner. He was in the constant habit of receiving letters which detailed to him the lamentable distress which prevailed in the manufacturing districts. The accounts of such distress, he was sure, would harass the minds of their

401
Lordships. A small tradesman of Manchester, who frequently communicated to him on the subject, and whose letters, though their writer was entirely a self-taught man, were very interesting, told him plainly the state of things which then prevailed. This man, in one of such letters, had said, "The newspapers will tell me that things are getting better; I will tell you that they are getting worse." He also stated facts which spoke for themselves. He told him that "machine-makers were beginning to work half-work," and also, "that lately in this town a large manufacturer had dismissed 250 men." The noble Lord (Ashburton) had formerly stated, that the principles which he then supported were founded on reason and experience, and he then predicted a state of things which have since come to pass; and, having done so, how could he now get up and say those arguments were fallacious, and that on the whole the present Corn-laws had worked well? Let them look to the accounts from the manufacturing districts, and let them see how the present system had worked, and then say whether it had worked well. He would say one word respecting a paper which had been put into his hand since he had entered the House. It was a paper which demanded a good deal of inquiry and consideration; but he thought that even at first sight, he was able to answer the arguments which might be deduced from the facts which it unfolded. From this paper it appeared that there was only one country in which the variations of price were less than in this country. He would tell their Lordships that the variations of price, even in other countries, were owing to our system of Corn-laws. It was not to be supposed that their effect was only felt in England. Every country with which they carried on commercial intercourse—every nation having a commercial connexion with ourselves, suffered from their injurious effects. The majority of these countries, too, in which there was so great a fluctuation of prices, were exporting countries. The only country in which the variation was less was a country which never thought of exporting at all, and that country was Sweden. It was evident—and this fact was in a great measure attributable to our present fluctuating Corn-laws—the more a country exported, the greater were the variations
402
in its prices. He thought that he had explained the grounds why this country was not so fluctuating in its prices as others, and he felt assured that no argument in favour of the present Corn-laws could be drawn from that fact.
Lord Ashburtonwas sorry to detain the House on any matter personal to himself, and regretted that any opinions which he might have delivered years ago should occupy their Lordships' attention; but as a serious charge of inconsistency had been brought against him, he felt bound, in justice to himself, in justice to his own opinions, and injustice to their Lordships, to answer, as shortly as possible, the charge then made. He, in the first place, did not hold himself answerable for the reports of the speeches which had been read by the noble Lord; but this he would confess, that he believed, that in 1815 he had used some such arguments as those referred to against any increased protection upon agriculture. He believed that on the introduction of the bill of 1815, in the House of Commons, he had then felt it to be his duty to speak and vote with the minority—a minority of about thirty to nearly 600—against what was called "over-protection." He, however, did believe that he had used such expressions as had been quoted in 1828. This, however, he would confidently say, that neither when the present law was introduced, nor at any other time—and on this point he felt quite confident—had he ever expressed any opinion adverse to the principle of protection. The noble Lord had rather misrepresented his present opinion on the Corn-laws. He never had been, nor was he at the present time, a person of extreme opinions as to protection. He looked with extreme anxiety on the question, watching, at the same time, the effects on commerce and our manufactures which protection had and was likely to produce. He was sorry to detain the House on the subject, as he did not in any measure set himself up as an authority upon it, but he had been compelled to answer the personal charge brought against him. He was quite ready to listen calmly and dispassionately to a proposal of any alteration. For his own part, be would have no objection to go into committee with the opponents of the present Corn Laws and consider the facts and arguments drawn from them which they might bring for-

403
ward. But still he must express his opinion that the measure had, on the whole, worked well. As to the petition which had been presented by the Noble Marquess, he would say that he had habitually a great respect for petitions from the people, but that respect was in a great measure diminished on the present subject, considering the agitation which had aroused the country. Every means had been used to procure petitions and to obtain from the body of the people expressions of opinions adverse to the present system. Lecturers were sent through the country, meetings were held, the distress of the mercantile world exaggerated, and these unfair and unconstitutional means were adopted for the purpose of loading the tables of Parliament with petitions against the Corn Laws. Petitions thus obtained could not be expected to receive that consideration and to bear with them that weight to which they would be otherwise entitled. The commercial distress which existed might in a great measure arise from the derangement of the currency, but such distress had been much exaggerated. The manufactures of this country had during the last few years much increased. In 1839 the exports had increased to the amount of two millions; and the cotton manufactures, which were represented to have suffered so severely, had increased a million in the course of a year. The facts, therefore, failed his Noble Friend, and with him, all the opponents of the Corn Laws. Looking also at the steadiness of prices in this compared with other countries, it was impossible to say that the system had not worked well. The paper referred to by the noble Lord, which had been produced, not by an agriculturist, but by those entirely opposed to all protection, clearly established this. He felt called upon again to express his regret at having thus detained their Lordships, and in conclusion moved for some returns showing the average prices of wheat, oats, and barley in this and other countries, and for some other papers connected with the subject, the details of which did not reach us.
The Earl of Haddingtonsaid their Lordships need not fear that he should prolong this discussion. The great importance of this question was-a reason why it ought not to be discussed in this desultory manner. It was unfair to the question itself, and inconvenient to the House, to pursue the
404
present course. If any noble Lord thought it desirable that a formal discussion upon the corn laws should take place, why not give notice of a resolution, or adopt some other mode of bringing the subject regularly before their Lordships for debate? No doubt the natural course would be, supposing that there was any expectation of a bill on the subject coming up from the other House, to wait for that bill; but, in the non-arrival of such a bill, he saw no reason why their Lordships should not discuss a question of major importance like this. He must, however, protest against the present mode of discussing it, because he perceived that night after night great inconvenience was occasioned by it, and that noble Lords could not in this way do justice either to themselves or to their opponents. The noble Marquess opposite, on a former night, read a speech to convince his noble Friend that he was guilty of some inconsistency in his opinions, and that night he had read a great deal out of a newspaper 25 years old—[The Marquess of Westminster. A newspaper of 1828.]—He begged the noble Marquess's pardon, the paper was only 12 years old. But no sooner did his noble Friend state what his opinions were now, and the different situation of matters now, than up got his other noble Friend (the Earl of Radnor,) and proceeded to read a long debate on the corn laws, from a newspaper printed a quarter of a century ago, in order that his noble Friend, whose opinions were of the greatest importance on this as well as on other subjects, might be convinced that he has altered his opinions. If there had been any change or opinion on the part of the noble Baron on this subject, he thought the great weight and support of his authority should hardly have led the noble Earl to believe that change or modification could have been lightly made. A noble Earl, who had sat some years ago for the borough of Downton, then voted against Parliamentary reform, but afterwards in that House he was an eager supporter of that measure. He was not aware that the noble Earl was or ought to be attacked on that ground, but it might serve as an answer to his attacks on others for changing their opinions.
Petition laid on the table.

ANGLO-SPANISH LEGION.
The Marquess of Londonderrysaid that, having given notice of his intention to bring this

405
subject before the House, he now rose to perform that duty, to which he had been appointed by the officers of the Spanish legion. The officers of that much-injured body had appointed him, who, humble an individual as he was, felt deeply interested in their affairs and had always watched narrowly over their interests, to present the petitions which laid open their grievances, and which asked for the kindly consideration of their Lordships; and he thought, considering the deep interests involved, that the House would forgive him for pressing the case of these officers on its most serious attention. He held in his hand two petitions from the officers of the British auxiliary legion—those officers who had in vain endeavoured to obtain their rights—who had so long continued to struggle against those grievances into which they had treacherously been led, and for which they were now unable to obtain compensation or redress. He could not better state the views of these officers than by reading their petitions, which he would now have the honour of laying upon their Lordship's table. Of these two petitions, one was signed by 300 officers. The signatures to this one were affixed by an agent, who had been intrusted with powers of attorney for the purpose. The other petition was signed by 180 officers, who had each attached his own name. They were both, however, signed by officers of the highest rank, by brigadier-generals, captains—in fact, by all the officers of various ranks, from the highest to the lowest in the legion. The petition stated as follows, and he would claim at their Lordships' hands, after the reading of the petition, an answer to the question whether one single point could be urged against the demand which was made by these unfortunate officers, and whether they had not a clear and decided claim upon those Ministers who had urged them into the service, who had pressed them to engage in the conflict, by promises of present encouragement and future reward, and who, according to his opinion, stood in the position—if they were unable to compel the payment by the Spanish Government of these just claims—of being themselves bound, by every sense of justice and honour, to make them good. If a Government once gave a guarantee, they were bound on every consideration to carry it into effect. The present Administration had induced these men to engage in this
406
unfortunate service, and they were strictly bound either to exercise their influence with the Spanish Government immediately to meet the just demands of these deluded men, or themselves to satisfy their claims. The noble Marquess here read the petition, which, after giving a detailed statement of the claims of the petitioners, concluded by asking redress at the hands of their Lordships. That was the petition from the officers who had signed through the agent, by means of the power of attorney. The other was a petition to the same effect, signed by those officers who had affixed their own names. He would not trouble their Lordships with reading it. He was very unwilling to detain the House on this subject at any great length, but the circumstances of the case pressed themselves on attention, and demanded a full and fair inquiry into the claims which were set up, He was most desirous too, of bringing the subject before their Lordships, as a gallant Officer had come forward in another place, and had stated his intention of introducing the question. That gallant Officer to whom he referred, had not previously intended to bring the question forward. No doubt acting under the influence of a very refined delicacy, he had been desirous of allowing the question to remain undisturbed, but now, as stated, believing that the government of Spain was in a more organised condition, he had determined to bring it forward. Why he had thus long held back—why he so long refrained from urging on the Government the just claims of his fellow-officers, it was not for him to say. He would read to their Lordships a letter from Sir De Lacy Evans to the general officers of the legion, and their Lordships would then see that the grounds which had been stated, and the arguments urged by him four years ago, were now borne out by the facts which were then stated. Reading that letter, and hearing those facts, it was impossible for noble Lords to look at the case fairly and with justice, and to deny the claims of these officers to the pay, and the gratuities which they demanded. This letter, which he would read, was a very remarkable one, for it stated the opinions of the writer; and their Lordships must recollect that the writer was no less a man than Sir De Lacy Evans. On the whole service—a service which, however contemptible, and of which nothing remained but its wreck,

407
would still live in the remembrance of Englishmen, not willingly inclined to forget how improperly the service of their countrymen had been directed, and how basely the army of their country had been disgraced. That was a letter addressed by Sir De Lacy Evans to all the general officers under his command, and it was dated in 1836:—
(Copy.)
"Head Quarters, San Sebastian, Nov. 1836.
"Sir,—I beg to acknowlege the receipt of your letter, representing to me the distressing state of our officers and men from the long accumulating arrears of pay due to them—the painful wants they are exposed to—the pre-cariousness of supplies in our present isolated position, and the dangerous and discreditable results which may be apprehended from a continuance of these circumstances.
"It is impossible for you to feel more poignantly on this subject than I do, and it is but justice to myself to take this opportunity of stating, that I did not accept of the appointment proposed to me of forming and commanding the corps, until I had received earnest and repeated assurances from the Spanish Ambassador, General Alava; the Minister of Finance, L. Mendizabal; the then Minister of War, the Duke Ahumado; and the Prime Minister, Count Toreno, that the engagements towards the troops in regard to their pay and allowances should be 'most exactly and religiously fulfilled,' and with 'rigorous punctuality,' and also that magagines of provisions should be formed exclusively for the legion at Bilboa, Vittoria, and San Sebastian. Such were the strong assurances and unqualified promises under which I was led to undertake this (to me at least) very arduous task.
"If, then, the officers or men complain of being disappointed or deceived, I have not been less so; doubtless, however, a part of this failure of engagement must be attributed rather to the unforeseen political difficulties of the country than to intentional want of good faith. But it must still be a matter of surprise or regret that we should have been subjected to so much greater privations and neglect than the national army, which could so much better have borne them, than young, but especially young British troops.
"It is now nearly a year during which the legion has been abandoned to this condition of distress; inefficiency, disease, disorganization, desertion, retirement of numerous officers, and even mutiny have been amongst the consequences. No efforts on my part, which my humble ability could suggest, have been wanting to obtain relief—at one time the deplorable destitution of the legion, at other times, the scarcity or precarious supply of provisions or clothing, have been sources to me
408
of constant anxiety. Her Majesty's successive Ministers have, no doubt, been annoyed and disgusted with my unceasing importunities, nor have I been less so with myself, in being forced to adopt a course so foreign to my feelings and habits, so irksome, and I must almost say degrading. In these unavoidable remonstrances I have even incurred the personal displeasure of her Majesty, the Queen Regent, but there was no alternative. Thus situated, I have no personal motive for continuing my own services in this country, or for endeavouring to persuade others to do so. In fact, with regard to myself, I have frequently declared my inability to contend with these difficulties, and as frequently have submitted the expediency of selecting some one to replace me, more capable of executing this duty, for I have felt, and continue to feel, my position as a most painful and thankless one; suffering from neglect, with little support, exposed to an unprecedented and rancorous political hostility, and with a peculiar responsibility, imposed on me, heavier than any Government has a right to expect any individual to bear.
"Finding my constant applications by letter unavailing, I have several times sent officers to Madrid to remonstrate personally, but each of these missions has failed, and the last more signally than any of the preceding. The royal decree issued on the occasion, indicating the sums of money to be remitted, remain in fact a dead letter, not more than a mere fraction of the amount having reached us, consequently we are nearly one thousand pounds more in arrear than when the last application was made.
"But, if I have encouraged the troops by assurances of my belief that justice would be done them, thus, perhaps, incurring some additional moral responsibility, it was not merely from the assurances given by the Spanish Government, but from the conviction that the responsibility eventually and really rests with our own Government, under whose auspices, and at whose desire, and that of our own Sovereign, we have entered this service. This has appeared to me obvious, and that an an appeal to this quarter as the last resort, to cause the past claims of the troops to be satisfied, and the future to be guaranteed, would be acceded to; and especially to secure the compensations for wounds, and the pensions of the widows of those killed in action.
"We have also to solicit assistance in regard to a supply of rations, and of fuel and lights for the coming winter, a failure in which, even from day to day, we are menaced with from the commissariat having no funds.
"It is therefore obvious that the time has fully arrived for making this appeal to the British Government, it being no longer possible to place the smallest reliance on the promises on which we have hitherto counted.
"I therefore proceed to represent to the

409
proper quarters this final view of our situation, nor can I doubt of its favourable result, since the amount in question is quite inconsiderable, in a national point of view, and the British Government cannot have the slightest difficulty in securing the repayment, for instance, on the revenues, or a colony, whoever may form the Ministry or Government of Spain.
"I have thought it but fair, in my own justification, and for your full information on the matter, to remind you of these circumstances, in reply to your letter. I have the honour to be, Sir, your most obedient and most humble servant,
(Signed) "De L. EVANS.
"To Brigadier General—."
That was the mature expression of Sir De Lacy Evans's opinion on this subject to the unfortunate officers who were now suffering from the injustice of the Spanish Government, and who had been encouraged to enter that service by him as well as by the noble Earl, the British ambassador, by Colonel Wilde, and her Majesty's Government, to expect that these claims should be fully satisfied. But these officers and men were not politicians; they could not judge whether the Government had a right to give such a guarantee. Those officers had entered the service only anxious to "brave the battle and the breeze;" and he had been one of them who in that House had protested against the employment of these troops; but that was no reason why, now that he saw them abandoned and wronged, he should not stand up and humbly endeavour to advocate their just claims. If the Government still assured them that they were exerting their influence with the Spanish Government for the purpose of obtaining redress, he would answer that by reading to their Lordships an extract from a letter of a high authority at Madrid, whose signature he could give if it were necessary, but he was quite sure that the noble Earl, if he heard the name, would admit that the letter came from a very high authority, with respect to these particular claims. The noble Marquess read the extract, in which the writer said,
"That the Spanish Government, he was persuaded, did not intend to liquidate the claims of the legion; it was a child of Mendizabal's; that party was now out of power, and with those who were in it, was anything but a favourite. Did he imagine that they cared one straw for the legion's claims? If so, he was mistaken, and might abandon that idea altogether."
410
That document came from Madrid, and in the face of such communications, it was not possible that he could credit the assertions which were made. But the noble Viscount came down to that House and moved a vote for the high services of that admirable officer who served her Majesty in Canada; and he could assure the House, that no man felt more strongly how well that vote was deserved than he did; but if the noble Viscount was obliged to admit that these officers and men, whose claims he now pressed upon the House, had been employed in a service not less difficult, and attended with much greater misery and deprivation, it was almost impossible to conceive that he should allow them to remain without the pay which they had so hardly earned. The sum certainly was not large; and though it might be said by some of his noble Friends, that there were then claimants who deserved precedence, he replied, that there were none who had exposed their lives as those men had upon the faith of assurances given by their own Government. If the noble Viscount became security for another who afterwards was unable to pay the debt, the noble Viscount, as an honourable roan, would think himself bound to pay. Ought he not, then, to carry into effect the guarantee which virtually the Government had given; or if they had no right to guarantee the payment of those claims, was he not bound to press them with determination upon the Spanish Government? It was impossible that the noble Viscount should say that the Spanish Government was unable on account of its poverty to liquidate these demands. That would be absurd, because they had seen what the Queen of Spain had said in her speech, and there was nothing at all about a want of means there. They had voted to Espartero God knew what—something like an annuity of 10,00 l. That must be charged upon something, and yet the troops of this Duke of Vittoria had not done or suffered half, of what had befallen these unfortunate men. He could not believe that General Alava himself could be perfectly happy and satisfied with the present state of this question, seeing the soldiers bringing day after day their petitions before Parliament as the place of last resort in which they could hope for justice. He had taken up this subject from a paramount sense of the fairness of these claims. Many noble

411
Lords did not feel the same interest in it—they had not served with these officers as he had done—they could not enter into the feelings of a British soldier as to this deprivation of their pay. Many might say that they had been well served for entering into such a service, or that the Government could not guarantee to them the payment of their debt, and that the House of Lords had nothing to do with the matter; but they were obliged, with reluctance, to appeal to that House and to Parliament, as a tribunal of justice of the last resort. They had attempted in vain to obtain redress elsewhere, and information now had been handed to them that none would be given. They appealed, therefore, to that House, and that was an appeal which they could not resist; nothing could be said against their demand. The time had now arrived for pressing their claims, Sir De Lacy Evans having at length come forward with his letter, and intimated his intention of introducing a motion on the subject. When that gallant Officer did that after Easter in the other House, he certainly should second him in that House, either by moving an address to her Majesty, praying her to give effect to these claims, or in some other mode; and it was impossible, in his view of the matter, that the Government, or any noble Lords around him, could resist so just a claim. The noble Earl (Clarendon) might think him tedious, but there was another point to which he was anxious to allude. He had a case to make out; that case must go before the public; and though it might not be deemed of interest in that House, he would tell the noble Earl, that when the whole case was submitted to the public, and when it was known that four hundred British officers could not get their pay, a very general feeling would be excited in their favour, and the greatest disgust would be felt at the course which her Majesty's Government had taken. He could tell the noble Earl, that he would hear through that ordeal and that channel, which was a pretty good signal generally of the feeling of the country, how this transaction would be viewed, and that the injustice of it would be deeply felt, he had no doubt. He believed that the proceeding throughout, and especially that commission which had been appointed, would be regarded most properly as a mere manœuvre, utterly despicable, and unworthy of the Spanish Government, and
412
of all who had been connected with it. The noble Earl had on a former occasion challenged him to say why he had not sent to Mr. Dundas or to General Alava for his information, but it was not natural that he should send to them; but he had gone to an individual who was as well able to give him the information, and whose testimonials were unexceptionable. And, with reference both to those testimonials and to the statement which he had delivered to him (the Marquess of Londonderry), he ventured to say that nothing could be said against Mr. Bradburn. However, as the matter was of some importance to that gentleman, he would read to their Lordships a copy of a letter to Mr. Bradburn from Sir De Lacy Evans:—
"Copy of a letter from Lieutenant-General Sir George De Lacy Evans to Thomas Bradburn, Esq., dated Bryanston-sqnare, Dec. 19, 1838;—
"Dear Sir—In reply to your request, desiring my opinion of your fitness for the office of Secretary to the Artesian Company, I cannot hesitate in assuring you of the high sense I entertain of the exertions, ability, and intelligence you have displayed in promoting the claims of the numerous officers of the British Legion for whom you have been agent, and that from what I have witnessed of your conduct, your clear knowledge of business, influential address, temper, and high integrity of character, would render you a most valuable acquisition as secretary to any public body engaged in a commercial enterprise.
"Although I should much regret that anything should withdraw you from the business you have now in hand, in which your services are so justly appreciated, be assured that anything to your personal advantage will be heard of with much satisfaction by, dear Sir, your very faithful and obedient servant,
(Signed) "De L. EVANS.
"Thomas Bradburn, Esq., 30, Eaton-street, Pimlico."
There was another testimonial which he would read to their Lordships; it was a letter from Dr. Williams, the physician to the Spanish embassy:—
"From Dr. Williams, Physician to the Spanish Embassy, to Thomas Bradburn, Esq.. dated Dec. 8, 1838.
"Dear Sir—Although any opinion of mine may not have much weight in the obtaining of your wishes, perhaps that of General Alava, the Spanish Ambassador, may; I therefore feel no hesitation in staling, that his Excellency has expressed himself in the most favourable terms towards you in relation to your exertions in favour of the legion claimants, and has given good proof of his confidence by

413
desiring me to announce to you, that he intends appointing you his private agent should he require one. This from a man of the General's rank and high character is a compliment indeed, and one to which I believe you are very justly entitled, for to your perseverance arid activity we are much indebted for the commission appointed to examine and adjust the claims.
"Believe me, dear Sir, yours, &c, (Signed) "THOMAS WILLIAMS, M, D."
He hoped that he might be permitted to receive information from a gentleman who was introduced to him with such testimonials, without being liable to the charge that he went to the high-ways and by-ways for his information. He had not sought the trouble of advocating these claims; but he had not chosen to refuse his humble exertions in their cause, because it would have been ungenerous to do so. In discharging that duty, however, he went not into the high-ways and by-ways to get his information; he was not one of that class. The individual came to him, laid his statement before him, and produced his testimonials; and when the noble Earl said, that that was not creditable information for him to use as a Peer of Parliament. [The Earl of Clarendon: What is the date of General Evans's letter?] It was dated the 19th of December, 1838. He had submitted these testimonials to the House, because the matter was of importance to the individual; and because they showed that he had good grounds for relying upon the information which he had received. Now the statement of Mr. Bradburn was this:—
"Military and General Agency Office, 30, Lower Eaton-street, Pimlico, March, 1840.
"My Lord—Having been the principal, if not the only, agent employed by the legion claimants on the Spanish government, I am compelled to take, as applying to me, the observations made by the Earl of Clarendon, in a recent debate in the House of Lords, on the occasion of your Lordship bringing forward the case of the claimants; but, with permission, I feel quite confident, that I shall be able not only to show, that the character so truly drawn by the noble Earl is not one to which I have the slightest claim, but, unfortunately for his Lordship's information, it so correctly describes the parties whom he has taken under his protection, namely, the Spanish authorities, their commission, and the commissioners' clerk or interpreter, as to leave no one at all acquainted with their acts in doubt; for, unless I on the one hand
414
completely exonerate myself from any of the charges, and on the other fail to prove that the parties I have now alluded to are those with not much knowledge but with a large infusion of the spirit of mischief, who for the sake of their own paltry emoluments, are most anxious that the labours of the commission should not be cut short'—(those were the words of the noble Earl himself in that House)—your Lordship shall be at perfect liberty to withdraw that confidence which you have hitherto reposed in my statements.
"When your Lordship did me the honour to make inquiries as to the claims of the legion, you must be aware, that all the information required, I immediately and freely afforded—not certainly from any factious motives, as implied, but solely for the purpose of benefitting my unfortunate clients, and of putting your Lordship in possession of important facts, I at the same time remarking, that I did not blame Viscount Palmerston for the apparent apathy exhibited by his Lordship, feeling certain that he had not been informed of the disgraceful conduct pursued towards the claimants by the commission. I am equally confident, that your Lordship will do me the justice to admit, that at the lime I furnished the list of superior officers rewarded by her Majesty's Ministers for their services in Spain, in connection with the legion, that I did so as an evidence that the Government having in such a manner noticed those services, they were equally bound to see justice done to the subordinate officers and men, by demanding from Spain an immediate settlement of their so hardly-earned claims.
"Under the circumstances stated, it was, therefore, with deep mortification and astonishment I heard from Lord Clarendon, not only a disclaimer of the several charges which I had considered it my duty to make through your Lordship, but such a statement of the constitution and working of the commission in every way so directly contrary to truth, that I should be forgetful of what is due to you, my Lord; to the public, which has always sympathised with us; and to myself, did I omit to notice and to refute such statements. Not that for a moment I mean to insinuate, that my Lord Clarendon had intentionally given any colouring to the transaction, his Lordship did not conscientiously believe he was warranted in doing from the information he had received, nor can I remain much in doubt from whence that information emanated, namely, from either the Spanish authorities or the commission.
"In the teeth, therefore, of Lord Clarendon's statements and disclaimers, I solemnly reiterate the charges made by your Lordship.
"1stly. I state that contracts have been agreed to or broken as it suited the purposes of the commission.
"2dly. I state that pensions, medical boards, and compensations for wounds, have been re fused without just grounds.

415
"3dly. I state that decisions of the War Office in favour of several of the claimants were kept back, and not acknowledged until the truth was forced from the commissioners, by dread of exposure through the public press.
"4thly. I state that pay has been allowed to some officers who had no claim to it, and withheld from others who had the British regulations to support them in their application.
"5thly. I state that gratuity has been denied, to several who had done good service, and given to others who had been dismissed, or retired without leave. And I now as unequivocally deny (having documentary and other indisputable evidence to produce in support of my assertion) the following statements made by Lord Clarendon:—
"1st. I deny that the accounts of the legion were of a complicated character.
"2d. I deny that the commission had proceeded in the examination of these accounts with the most complete good faith.
"3d. I deny that the commission considered that no more claims would be brought forward when they issued an order for its closing.
"4th. I deny that any advertisements have ever been inserted in either Ireland or Scotland (where the greater number of the men of the legion were raised) announcing the sitting of the commission, although, strange to say, a small number of placards were sent to those countries for distribution, giving a few days' notice of its close.
"5th. I deny that no remonstrance was made by any of the superior officers of the legion, as the protest which I considered it my duty to make to Sir De Lacy Evans against the closing of the commission on the 6th of September, was by that gallant officer immediately forwarded to Viscount Palmerston, and the means of causing its extension to the 30th of the same month.
"6th. I deny that Mr. Rutherford Alcock was selected or appointed by the legion, or possesses in any way the confidence of the claimants.
"7th. I deny that the Spanish commissioner has been long a resident in London, or is at all acquainted with the English language, or our mode of conducting business, in corroboration of which he has been obliged to employ a clerk or interpreter, a Mr. Castaneda, to whom many of the obstacles and annoyances experienced by the claimants are to be attributed.
"8th. I deny that every point on which the referees decided was submitted to the War Office.
"9th. I deny that the commission has given satisfaction to the great majority of the claimants.
"10th. I deny that the commission was open at the time stated by Lord Clarendon.
"Nay more, my Lord, I charge the Spanish Authorities with having had an intention of
416
defrauding all those whose claims were not presented before the 30th of September, 1839; which intention they would have carried into effect, had it not been for my humble endeavours to prevent it, in which I was ably supported by Sir De Lacy Evans, who I have no hesitation in referring to for the -truth of the statements which I have made, the documents in support of several of which I had submitted to him long since. Should, therefore, the Government, Lord Clarendon, the Spanish Ambassador, or the commission require me to prove what I have advanced, I am quite ready and willing to enter the lists with any of them, or all, and with truth and justice at my side, backed by your Lordship's support and public sympathy, I little fear the result.
"In order that your Lordship may be aware of the steps which have been taken to keep open the commission and protect the interests of the unfortunate claimants, I take leave to enclose copies of the correspondence which passed at the time between Sir De Lacy Evans, Mr. Commissioner Alcock, and myself; and your Lordship will now be enabled to judge whether I am deserving of the epithets intended to apply to me by Lord Clarendon, or entitled to some consideration for having suggested that (through Sir De Lacy Evans) which his Lordship is so very desirous to give Viscount Palmerston the entire credit of doing; at the same time that I should be guilty of injustice to the noble Secretary for Foreign Affairs, and my own feelings, did I not acknowledge that on every occasion when I have had to address his Lordship, suggesting any points having for their object the interests of the claimants, I have always been met by a general desire to assist, and remove, as much. as possible, any obstacles which presented themselves towards an arrangement of the claims."
That letter concluded with a compliment to himself, which it was not necessary that he should state to their Lordships. He had been furnished with a variety of documents which corroborated every part of that statement. He would hand over those documents to the noble Earl that he might look over them, and that they might be published, and the grounds be known upon which the statement was made. It might be necessary also to produce two other documents—one, a warrant signed by Colonel Wylde and General Tena, and the other a declaration of the officers of the legion as to the guarantee which had been given by the British Government. The warrant was this:—
"We, the undersigned commissioners, acting for and on behalf of her Most Catholic Majesty Isabella 2nd., do hereby authorise

417
Captain and Paymaster Maher to estimate, and draw pay (according to the British regulations), for each and every officer of the late British auxiliary legion, who was borne on the strength of the Royal Irish regiment, on the 10th day of June, 1837, and to continue to estimate for and pay the said officers, wherever they may be, according to their respective ranks, in the aforesaid regiment, up to the date on which the Spanish government shall finally arrange the liquidation of their claims, either by negotiable bills of exchange, payable in London, or cash payments (saving and excepting such officers as have re-entered her Most Catholic Majesty's service in the new legion). And we further authorise the sum of nine pounds sterling to be credited to such officers who may not be able to procure a free passage from San Sebastian to England. In witness whereof we affix our signatures.
(Signed) "JUAN TENA,
W. WYI.DE, COL."
"Dated San Sebastian, July, 1837."
He would now read to their Lordships the declaration of the officers:—.
"We, the undersigned officers of the late British Auxiliary Legion of Spain, do affirm that we were present at a meeting of officers, held in San Sebastian, in or about July, 1837, when, to the best of our knowledge, Colonel Wylde assured the meeting, ' in his double capacity of British commissioner, as well as a member of the Spanish commission then sitting, that the claims of the officers should be fully satisfied, if they would remain quiet.' This assurance having been held out to the officers, they immediately ceased their importunities, feeling convinced that the honour of the British Government was pledged to see full justice and satisfaction rendered them."
The noble Viscount had stated on former occasions, that the Government would make every exertion to secure the payment of these claims, but mere words and declarations would not feed these unfortunate men or support their families; and, after the delay which had taken place, he should feel bound to submit some motion on the subject, but he would not do so until after Easter, because he supposed, that the declaration which the noble Viscount had made in that House on the part of the Government was founded on some documents; and he trusted, that there would be no objection to produce them if he moved for them.
Viscount Melbourne: Yon must give notice. I can't accede to it now.
The Marquess of Londonderry: I'll read the motion, and then I do not think there can be any objection to it.
The Earl of Clarendon: You must give notice.
The Marquess of Londonderrythought that it was one of the things that passed as a matter of course. The motion would be for copies of any correspondence between her Majesty's Government and the Court of Madrid, expressing the anxious solicitude of her Majesty's Government, that the claims and arrears, due from the Spanish government to the British legion should be liquidated.
Viscount Melbourne: I can't give them.
The Marquess of Londonderry: Then I give notice that I shall move for them to-morrow, and I hope that the noble Viscount will not object to produce them.
Viscount Melbourne: Yes, but I do object to it.
The Marquess of Londonderrysaid, that he would now conclude by expressing his regret, that he had so long; detained the House; but he had felt it his duty to lay the case as completely as possible before the country, and to intimate his intention at a future day of pressing these claims upon their Lordships' sense of justice, so that at all events the public and the country might be made acquainted with the real nature and character of the transaction.
The Earl of Clarendonsaid, that notwithstanding the importance ascribed by the noble Marquess to the details with which he had favoured their Lordships, he could not but think, and he believed that most of their Lordships would be of the same opinion, that the time of the House was too often needlessly taken up by those matters, with which in reality their Lordships had very little to do, and for the settlement of which they could do very little. He would certainly admit, that some degree of consideration should be shown to the motives of the noble Marquess in bringing the subject before them, because a short time ago he voluntarily supplied an answer to the charge which he thought their Lordships resolved on making, as to the dogged consistency, if he might use that phrase, with which the noble Marquess had persevered in bringing forward those matters, when he assured their Lordships, that it was entirely owing to the irrepressible gratitude which he had received on a recent occasion from the Spanish authorities and the Spanish people, not excluding, he supposed, the fair inmates of that nunnery at Seville into

419
which the noble Marquess had told their Lordships on a former occasion, that be had obtained admission. He was only sorry that the noble Marquess would not have an opportunity of paying the last instalment of his debt of gratitude, for the noble Marquess had just informed their Lordships, that it was his intention to second the motion which was to be brought forward next month in the House of Commons by Sir De Lacy Evans. [The Marquess of Londonderry: I said that I would bring on a similar motion here.] He was sorry to hear that, both for the sake of the House and for the sake of the people of Spain; for they were so blind to the object of all the noble Marquess's efforts, that they absolutely considered him as the inveterate enemy of Spain, all but the Carlists, who, he was inclined to think, would not, after his speech of that night, any longer consider the noble Marquess as their champion. However, let the motives of the noble Marquess be what they might—whether the noble Marquess meant to do good to the Legion, or whether he meant to do harm to her Majesty's Government—still he imagined that their Lordships might think that some answer ought to be given to the noble Marquess's remarks. He felt, that he should consult the patience of their Lordships best, not by following the noble Marquess point by point through his long list of denials, but by narrating the important facts of the case as clearly and concisely as he could. He should like, however, in the first place, to know on what terms the noble Marquess now came forward as the advocate of the Legion. He should like, he repeated, to know on what grounds he came forward as the representative of the interests of its officers and soldiers? For though he had had no personal communication with them, he could not think that the officers of the Legion could be so forgetful of all dignity and decorum as to consent, after the extraordinary terms in which they had been vilified by the noble Marquess, to select the noble Marquess for their advocate and champion. He could hardly conceive it to be possible, that they would have so little of the esprit de corps about them as to place the representation of their grievances in an individual who had exhausted all his powers of rhetoric in censuring and abasing them. The noble Marquess had described the Legion as the
420
refuse of society in England, as the sweeping together of all that was evil and dissolute and disorderly in our large towns, and as drunken, cowardly, and cruel, upon service. Yes, the noble Marquess had asserted that, in return for the exemplary mercy with which they had been always treated by the orders of Don Carlos, they had absolutely murdered—ay, murdered was the word—130 Carlist prisoners in cold blood. He could not believe that the officers of the Legion would have made the noble Marquis their advocate in that House, unless the noble Marquess had made a retractation of the charges which he formerly brought against them; and, if he had made them any such retractation, then their Lordships had a right to have the benefit of its being avowed. But if the noble Marquess had not made an apology to these officers, and was in communication with those whom he had so heavily stigmatised, then he must ask the noble Marquess whether he had himself inquired into the truth of the present charges, or whether he believed them on the authority of men whom he had denounced as utterly worthless? If the Legion were the utterly worthless gang which the noble Marquess had described them to be, did it never strike the mind of the noble Marquess that it was not wonderful that the Spanish government should be slow in paying up the arrears of a corps which had done it signal mischief? The noble Marquess was fond of putting questions to the members of her Majesty's Government, and of demanding what he called categorical answers to them. Now, he would take a leaf out of the noble Marquess's book, and he would ask the noble Marquess to give a categorical answer to the questions which he had just put to him. It really was "too bad" for the noble Marquess to come down to the House with letters and scraps of newspapers, and at one time to stigmatize the officers and men of the Legion as the most worthless of mankind, and at another to make what he considered a touching speech as the advocate of their grievances. It really was "too bad" for the noble Marquess at one time to state that the commission was closed, and that owing to its being closed thousands were defrauded, and at another to admit that the commission was still sitting. It really was "too bad" for the noble Marquess at one time to read a list of 36 officers—[The Marquess

421
of Londonderry, "56,"]—and to represent them as individuals who had received promotion or places from the Government for the purpose of stopping their mouths, and at another to see him engaged in a correspondence whereby he was obliged to except a great number of them from his list. It really was "too bad" to hear the noble Marquess at one time charging General Alava—the gallant companion in arms of the noble Duke opposite, whose integrity required no proof—of trafficking in the bonds of the commission, and of defrauding hundreds of their due; and at another to hear him not only attacking the integrity of that soldier without reproach, but also grudging him the hospitality with which he was welcomed in this country. He would not pursue these topics further: it was unnecessary; for there had been only one feeling among their Lordships I when the noble Marquess preferred these attacks against General Alava. He felt that he should best economise the time and patience of the House by not following the noble Marquess through the set of denials which he had read to the House, and which he (the Earl of Clarendon) could not pretend to remember, coming as they did from the gentleman who, on this occasion, had furnished the noble Marquess with his brief, and who began his letter, if he recollected it rightly, by stating that he furnished it in consequence of the inquiries made of him by the noble Marquess. He had better commence by stating how the commission had been formed, and what it had done. It had originally been the intention of the Spanish government that the commission should sit at Madrid; but that government subsequently yielded to the strong reasons which were urged by his noble Friend at the head of the Foreign-office, and consented to have the commission transferred to London. His noble Friend had stated, with no less truth than force, that the interests of the Legion could be better watched over in this country than in Spain, and that its claims could be more easily adjusted here in accordance with the rules of the British service. One commissioner was appointed by each side. There were to be two referees, whose decisions were to be final, unless they disagreed, and when they did disagree, the points in dispute were to be referred to the two governments. All matters in dispute as to the practice of the British service
422
were to be referred to the War-office, and its decision upon them was to be final. No commission could have been more honourably formed, nor could any regulations be better framed for accomplishing the ends of justice. Shortly after the commission was appointed, the officers of the Legion had, or fancied that they had, some reason to be dissatisfied with the commissioner whom they had appointed; and requested General Alava, in consequence, to allow them to appoint another. General Alava might have refused their request, but so determined was he to allow everything that was favourable to the Legion, that he acceded at once to the appointment of another gentleman as commissioner, who had watched over its interests with a zeal and devotion which had earned him the gratitude of almost every soldier in it. The commission, as he had said on a former occasion, had intended to close its labours in August last, and they gave a month's notice that it would be closed at that time. His noble Friend at the head of the Foreign-office had suggested that fifteen days more should be allowed, and in consequence of his recommendation the commission was prolonged to the 30th of September. Due notice to that effect was given in England, Ireland, and Scotland, and particularly in those places in each country where the Legion was originally recruited. He knew that the noble Marquess had denied this; but there existed among the records of the commission the affidavits of the Spanish consuls at the respective places that such notice had been given. On the close of the commission the commissioner of the Legion addressed to the officers of it an account of the mode in which it had proceeded to examine the different claims, and of the mode in which he had performed his duties. He would, with the permission of their Lordships, read a few extracts from it. The noble Earl proceeded to read the following extracts:—
"In all instances the opinion of the Secretary-at-War has been scrupulously adhered to, with these exceptions:—1. Four men who had lost their arms above the elbow, and whose pensions were fixed by the War-office at 9d. a-day, the commission amended it to 1s. per diem, such sum having been previously given by the decisions of the Secretary-at-War to others of the Legion who had suffered similar injury.—2. After a negative had been given upon Lieutenant-Colonel Wyatt's claim to a pension, we again submitted the

423
special circumstances of the case to the Secretary-at-War, and the final result was the award of a pension. These were the only exceptions. The second instance in which a decision of the previous commission was reversed or departed from, affected heads of departments and paymasters, whose certificates of pay had been withheld until the Legion accounts should be examined; it was resolved, June 5, that such certificates should be issued to them, as to all the officers. These two acts of justice, having somewhat of a retrospective character, were done without delay. The next step was to settle (in the only way in our power—viz. by certificates) all arrears of pay and pensions due to widows, wounded officers, and men."
The commissioner, after some details, into which it was unnecessary for him to enter, proceeded in the following words:—
"Many important general questions were referred to the Secretary at War, and invariably whatever he recommended favourable to the interests of the Legion was either adopted, or, if otherwise, a difference of opinion between the commissioners made it necessary to send the point for the decision of the referees. The result of these references affecting principles of decision and large classes of claimants was highly advantageous to the Legion, as may be demonstrated by reference to the resolution fixing the principle for deciding on the disallowances on paymasters' accounts. In the sitting of August 9, 1839, the following minute was made:—' In conformity with the opinion expressed by Lord Howick, the Secretary at War, July 29, in reference to the final audit of the accounts of the paymasters—Resolved, ' That in cases where errors exist in regimental paymasters' accounts, and have been disallowed by Assistant-commissary-general Dunwiddie, such error shall not be finally carried it against their credits under the following circumstances:—When by the act of the Spanish Government or its agents recovery of the sum is impossible, and no personal profit seems to have actuated or accrued to the said paymasters, nor evidence of fraudulent intention, save and except, however, when such errors shall have arisen from evident ignorance or negligence of their duties; grave cases still remaining open to special consideration.' Upon this principle the commission acted, and the result was, that more was allowed as due to the regiments than Deputy Commissary-general Black had claimed for them, and less charged against the paymasters; in addition to which, pay and gratuities were allowed to all paymasters for the period they could prove detention in Spain on duly after the 10th of June, and various amounts of compensation were awarded by the commission for time lost and duty performed in England at subsequent periods. With respect to the widows, all that the warrants of the British War-office could be found
424
to sanction has been awarded; and in reference to the wounded, so anxiously have their interests been guarded, that it will be found Lieutenant-colonel Wyatt owes his pension to the steps taken by the commission in soliciting a re-consideration of his case by the Secretary at War. In another case, where the law of the land had condemned an officer, and thus stripped him of legal claims, his pension was awarded, extenuating circumstances having been considered, and moreover made payable to the person with whom he left a power to receive it, although the commission was by no means bound to acknowledge this transfer, which in law could not be enforced. These facts must prove, that the just interests of the Legion were not allowed to suffer. With respect to the general labours and results of the commission, it will be found that all claims brought before it have been adjusted or referred. Among the former were between 200 and 300 disputed claims, more than two-thirds of which were decided favourably to the claimants. In settlement of the claims, 4,315 certificates have been signed, amounting to 244,330 l. 1s. 3½d.; while the abstracts of individual credits not yet claimed, which have been deposited with the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Viscount Palmerston), further provide for and specify the claims of nearly 1,500 individuals, and (o the amount of about 9,000 l.—this being independent of a list of 1,400 wounded, many of whom have not yet claimed compensation, and a list of deceased men (without credits, but with claims for gratuity), not yet completed, which will add to this number probably 500 more."
Now, as the original claim of the Legion was for 280,000 l., and as the certificates issued were for 260,000 l., and as abstracts of individual credits not yet claimed, and for dead men had been deposited in Lord Palmerston's office, amounting to somewhere about 9,000 l. more, he thought that it could hardly be said, that injustice had been done to the Legion. It was a proof also, that the claims of the Legion were not unjust, and that the commissioners had done their duty. However unsatisfactory this might be to those who sought to profit by a paid agency, and to those who were not able to support the claims which they had brought forward, it was most satisfactory, not only to the men, but also to all the superior officers of the Legion, who wished nothing but justice to be done between them and the Spanish Government. He had now only to state, that as the commission had closed its labours, and as the amount of debt due from the Spanish Government to the Legion had been agreed upon, his noble Friend at the head of the

425
Foreign-office had brought the necessity of settling it energetically before that Government. Although the embarrassments of the Spanish Government were great, and although the civil war was not yet brought to an end, he was convinced that the Spanish Government would look upon it as a sacred debt, and would to the utmost use every exertion to pay it.
The Marquess of Londonderryobserved, that although the noble Earl had jeered him not a little harshly for interfering in this matter, he would shorten the rejoinder which he had intended to give to the noble Earl, owing to the satisfaction which he derived from what the noble Earl had said at the close of his speech. The noble Earl had told them that the Legion claimed 280,000 l., and that certificates had been granted for 260,000 l. Would the noble Earl also tell them what those certificates were worth? Would anybody take them even at a discount of 50 per cent. The noble Earl had likewise told them that the Spanish Government would do its utmost to pay these certificates. He should like to know what its "utmost" was. Was it anything like the "utmost" of the noble Viscount, which generally meant nothing? Four years had elapsed since this debt was contracted by the Spanish Government, and he supposed that four years more would elapse before it was paid. Why would not the noble Viscount insist, as he ought to do, that it should be paid at once? The noble Earl had asked him for an answer to this question—"Why was he the advocate of the officers, whom he had abused, and why did he bring forward their claims for redress after reviling them as he had done in that House?" Now, if the noble Earl would look at the number of signatures attached to the two petitions which he had presented, he would at once see the reason. He had also another reason. The former friends of the Legion had deserted it, and thrown it overboard, and therefore he, thinking that they ought not to have entered the service in the first instance, was nevertheless of opinion, that as they had entered it, they were entitled to be paid according to the terms of their contract. He had never disparaged the courage and bravery of the officers. He had always blamed the service, but he had never said one word against the conduct and bravery of the officers of those troops. The noble Earl
426
had censured him for attacking the hospitality shown in this country to General Alava. Now he had a great personal respect for General Alava. He had also a great personal respect for the noble Earl; but though the noble Earl had jeered, and might again jeer him, for doing his duty, he would maintain that General Alava, who made this contract with the Legion, was imperatively bound in honour to see it fulfilled. The noble Earl had likewise said that he had spoken from a brief that had been furnished to him. Why, he had once had at home a pile of letters two feet high, from officers and men who had served in the Legion, and, not knowing what to do with their complaints, he had sent them to—whom? To the individual who had the agency of all these officers, and who, therefore, was best acquainted with the truth or falsehood of the statements made by the parties in their letters. Was not that the best way of proceeding? The agent had in consequence given him the information which he had stated to their Lordships; and then the officers had called upon him to make their claims on the British Government. He thought that he had now given the noble Earl a sufficient answer on all the three points which he had put to him in so jeering a manner. His object in reading the names of the fifty-six officers of the Legion who had been promoted either in the army or in the civil service of the country, was not to object to their promotion, but to urge it as an additional reason why the rest of the officers ought not to be neglected. He would excuse the noble Earl's jeering and jocularity, because he had given him a renewed promise that the Legion should be paid—a promise which he hoped that the noble Earl would keep better than the guarantee which he had given for the Spanish government four years ago.
The Earl of Clarendon: I never gave any guarantee, I never could give a guarantee, that the Spanish government should pay money.
The Marquess of Londonderrybelieved that the noble Earl had stated in a letter that he would see the arrears due to the Legion paid by the Spanish government. He looked upon that as a guarantee. He would remain satisfied with what had transpired till after Easter; if he then found that the matter was still trailing on, he would bring the subject once more before their Lordships.
The Duke of Wellingtonwanted to know whether the paper which the noble Earl had just read was in an official shape, and could be laid upon the table of the House. He thought that the noble Earl had stated that the commission was issued under the authority of the Spanish government; that there was a commissioner on each side; and that there were two referees, one named by the Spanish, and the Other by the British Government. This brought the commission to be a commission under the government, and he rather thought that the Secretary of State must have had a report upon it. That report would throw much light on the subject, if it were laid upon the table of the House. He could not anticipate any objection to its production.
Viscount Melbourne: The commission is thus constituted,—One commissioner is appointed by the Spanish government, and one by the officers who are claimants upon Spain.
The Duke of Wellington: There are two referees, one of whom is named by the Spanish, and the other by the British Government. The business of the commission was thus brought before the Secretary of State, and might be considered as in his hands. He would suggest the propriety of laying a copy of the report of that commission upon their Lordships' table.
Viscount Melbournewould produce the report, but only on the consideration of its production not being objected to.
Subject at an end.