Sitting of 18 April 1842

MINUTES.
BILLS. Public.—1°. Excise Duties; Compounds; Roasted Malt; Property Tax. Private.—1° Mieville's Divorce. 2° Kington Roads; Camberwell and Feckham Lighting. Reported.—Weston-super-Mare Improvement and Market; Southwark Improvement (No. 2).
PETITIONS PRESENTED. By Lord Dalmeny, Mr. Craig, Mr. Sharman Crawford, Mr. Wakley, Sir Thomas Troubridge, Mr. Thomas Duncombe, Mr. Colville, Mr. Mac-kinnon, Mr. Hutt, Sir John Hanmer, Mr. Barnard, Lord John Russell, and other hon. Members, from Ross, Athlone, Edinburgh, Rochdale, St. Austell, Leeds, Windsor, Stroud, Rochdale, Gateshead, Northallerton, Littlebo-

639
rough, Stirling, Norfolk, South Shields, and other places, against the Income-tax.—By Sir R. Inglis, from Prescott, and Twyning, against any further Grant to Maynooth College.—By Lord Francis Egerton, and Sir Thomas Freemantle, from Bolton, and Rye, in favour of the Government Financial Measure.—By Mr. C. Berkeley, from Guardians of the Poor in Thornbury, and Chipping Sodbury, that Railway Companies may be compelled to Contribute to the Maintenance of the Poor in those Parishes through which they pass By Mr. Wakley, and other hon. Members, from Shoemakers in Nottingham, Winchester, Reading, Eton, Portsmouth, and other places, against the proposed Alteration in the Import Duty on Foreign Boots and Shoes By Mr. D. Jackson, and Sir R. Bateson, from Rincurran, Killowen, and other places, against the National Education System (Ireland). —By Sir Robert Bateson, from several places in the county of Antrim, for an Alteration of the Law of Marriages (Ireland).—By Mr. Beckett, from Attorneys at Leeds, and Derby, for Repeal of the Duty on their Certificates.—By Mr. Hardy, and Lord Francis Egerton, from Bolton, and Oakham, against the New Poor-law Amendment Act.—By Mr, Blackstone, from Baydon, Wallingford, and the Western Division of Norfolk, against the Importation of Foreign Cattle.—From St. Mary*s, Lambeth, for the Redemption of the Tolls on Waterloo, and the other Metropolitan Bridges.—From Pembroke, against the Removal of the Mail Packet Stations from Milford and Waterford.—From Ratepayers of Strabane, complaining of the acts of the Poor-law Commissioners.—From the Catholic Inhabitants of Armagh, complaining of the proceedings of the Law Officers of the Crown at the North East Circuit of the late Assizes.— From J. J. Stockdale, for substituting Solemn Declarations for Oaths.—From W. Carson, praying that an Inquiry may be made into his plan for Heating and Ventilating the New Houses of Parliament.—From Edinburgh, and Chippenham, for, and from Batheaston, against the Repeal of the Corn-laws.—From Aberdeen, for a Fixed Duty on Corn.—From R. E. Varely, for Compensation to Corn Inspectors.—From Aberdeen, against Reduction of Duty on Foreign Corks, and against the Exportation of Labourers from British India.—From W. Robinson, praying that a Tax may be levied on all Property in Great Britain and Ireland for the Discharge of the National Debt,

DRAINAGE.
Mr. F. Maulewished to put a question to the right hon. Baronet the Secretary of Slate for the Home Department with respect to the Drainage Bill. The right hon. Baronet must be aware that there were two bills under the consideration of the committee up stairs. He was anxious to know from the right hon. Baronet when he would be able to introduce the Drainage Bill into that House.
Sir J. Grahamcould not, at present, name any particular day, but he begged to assure the right hon. Gentleman that the bill was in a forward state of preparation.

EXPORT-DUTY ON COALS.
Mr. Ricewished to know, whether coals taken on board foreign ships for the ship's use merely, or be placed in depot on foreign stations for the use of steamers, would be subjected to the duty intended to be imposed upon the exportation of coals?
Sir Robert Peelcould not at present give an answer to the question. The subject was under consideration.

THE TARIFF.
Mr. Huttwished to ascertain from the right hon. Baronet, the First Lord of the Treasury, in what order he proposed to bring under the consideration of the House the different measures adverted to in his financial statement. The right hon. Baronet had stated the other evening, that after the Income-tax Bill had been read a second time, he would bring the tariff under consideration. His question was this:—Did the Government intend to take the tariff in precisely the same tabular order in which it stood in the printed paper? or was it intended to consider, first of all, those questions in the tariff which related to the supplies of the year, and afterwards questions of a purely commercial nature?
Sir Robert Peelsaid, that the statement he had made was, that he wished to be certain that the Income-tax Bill would be adopted by the House before he proceeded with the consideration of the tariff. It was of great importance that the House should decide upon the question of the Income-tax, as, if it sanctioned the principle, there would be many details to be settled as to the mode of collection. He hoped, however, that the discussion in committee would not be very protracted, but he could not bring forward the tariff until he felt pretty well assured that the Income-tax would pass. When that should be the case, he would be perfectly willing to proceed with the tariff. He was as well aware as any hon. Member could be of the importance of taking the tariff into early consideration; and he trusted that the House would consider that measure as a whole whenever it should be submitted to their consideration. He saw no reason why the tariff should not be submitted to the consideration of the committee in exactly the form in what had been laid upon the Table of the House.

INCOME-TAX—FIRST READING.
Sir Robert Peelthen brought in the Income-tax Bill.
On the question that it be read a first time,
Lord John Russellsaid, the House would remember that there had been no division in the House upon the question of the approbation of the Income-tax. The

641
resolution had passed in the Committee of Ways and Means without a division. Afterwards when the report was brought up, he proposed to the House not a simple negative to the proposal for an Income-tax, but a resolution containing what he thought was the plan that ought to be pursued. The question, therefore, upon which the House had then decided, and upon which many hon. Members did not concur with him, was whether the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman should be accepted, or whether some other alternative should be approved of instead. After that division, it being a late hour of the night, and the House, being fatigued by the discussion upon the general question, he thought with the right hon. Gentleman, that it would be the more convenient course not then to take a division upon the question of agreement with the resolution. He therefore came now simply to that question only, without having any alternative to propose, but viewing the case only as an ordinary one of moving to bring in a bill against which he entertained a decided and insuperable objection. Having already troubled the House at length upon the question, he would not again go over the general arguments against the proposal, but he must say, that at the conclusion of the debate last week, those arguments remained entirely untouched by the right hon. Gentleman and his supporters. The general argument which he had intended to establish, and in which several of his hon. Friends had followed him, was, that this tax ought not to be imposed except at a time of extreme necessity—that a case of extreme necessity had not arisen, and that there were no circumstances in the general state of the country which justified the measure, and that financially speaking, there were other and less objectionable measures that might be adopted. The other evening, he had found, that the general course of the argument which he had adopted, had not only been shared by those hon. Members with whom he had, in general, the happiness to act, but that it had been forcibly stated some years ago by the right hon. Gentleman himself against the very same measure which the right hon. Gentleman, as the organ of the Government, proposed now to bring in. He had not, on the last occasion, been aware of the manner in which the right hon. Gentleman had stated his argument
642
before, but if he had been, his own arguments could not have better tallied with that of the right hon. Gentleman. If the House would allow him, he would read to them what the right hon. Gentleman had said in 1833. In speaking of the conduct of Lord Althorp, (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) the right hon. Gentleman was reported to have said—
" He thought likewise that the noble Lord had done well in not proposing an income or a property-tax. Nothing but a case of extreme necessity could justify Parliament in subjecting the people of this country, in a time of peace, to the inquisitorial process which must be resorted to in order to render that impost productive; and to have recourse to such a machinery for the purpose of raising 2 or 3 per cent, would be most unwise."
So it would appear, that with a sort of prophetic foresight of what was to happen in 1842, the right hon. Gentleman, in 1833, had fixed upon his present proposition, and declared it to be most unwise. Therefore he did not think it could be justly ascribed to that disposition, which it was alleged existed on his part, to find fault with everything that was proposed by the Government, that he had ventured to make some opposition to a proposition which was now represented to be so harmless, as an Income-tax. The right hon. Gentleman went on to say—
" Such a tax was a great resource in time of necessity, and therefore he was unwilling, by establishing the offensive inquisition with which it must be accompanied, to create such an odium against it as might render it almost impracticable to resort to it in time of extreme necessity."
That was also an objection he had ventured repeatedly to make. He had not, ventured, perhaps, to express it in such strong terms, but he had ventured to say, that the infliction of this tax upon the country, at a time when there was no necessity for it, would give the country such a distaste against that tax— that it would become so unpopular, that it would be a barrier in the way of any Government which, in time of urgent necessity or peril, might find it necessary to establish it. One of the arguments used in reference to this tax, and upon the effect of which the right hon. Gentleman relied for its popularity, was, that it only affected persons possessed of income above 150 l. a-year; and the right hon. Gentleman relied upon this argument, in order to put down the petitions of those who felt themselves ag-

643
grieved by the tax being placed upon them. He thought, that that course was unjustifiable, because the persons directly affected by this tax, although they might have more than 150 l. a year, were persons who ought to be as much the objects of consideration to that House as any class whatsoever. There were clergymen, physicians —men of various professions—who struggled with almost as much difficulty as a labouring man, in order to maintain their families in that state of decent respectability which became men of education, who were accustomed to the comforts of life. He had stated, moreover, that although the proposed tax might, perhaps, be said only to affect persons of income directly, yet that it did indirectly affect the labouring classes, who would lose employment thereby. On that point, the right hon. Gentleman had said,
" With respect to a tax upon property, as distinguished from a tax upon income, he very much doubted whether it would promote the interests of the labouring classes, because it would diminish the funds at present appropriated to the encouragement of industry, and the promotion of labour, and it would ultimately be found, that the tax did not affect the* person who paid it, so much as the labourer, by diminishing his means of employment."
That was the wise and considerate sentiment expressed by the right hon. Baronet in 1833; and were they now told by the right hon. Gentleman, as a member of the Government, that an Income-tax was advantageous—that it would fall only upon the rich, and not upon the labouring poor. The House might depend upon it that, so far as regarded the effect of the tax upon the labouring poor employed in trades and manufactures, the opinions expressed by the right hon. Gentleman in 1833 were wise and sound. There was another question with respect to this tax, of which little notice had been taken in the course of the debate, but which was considered of importance in 1833, when Lord Althorp and the right hon. Gentleman spoke upon the subject. It was that portion of the tax which related to Ireland. He was glad that Ireland was to be exempt from the operation of the tax; he deemed it an inquisitorial, oppressive, and unjust tax, and rejoiced that any portion of the United Kingdom was to be free from it, and if other parts were to be exempted also he should rejoice yet more. But he knew not how it could be argued — and that was one part of the plan which he never could understand to
644
be justifiable—that it was not desirable to have an Income-tax in Ireland, but that it was desirable to have taxes upon stamps and articles of consumption. They had pursued a reverse course in these cases to the course they were adopting on the present occasion. If the proposed principles of taxation were good and right, apply them to Ireland as well as to England. If, on the other hand, the course pursued towards Ireland was right, as he believed it was, why not adopt it as towards England and Scotland? It had been said that machinery for the collection of the tax was wanting in Ireland. But the right hon. Gentleman proposed to lay a tax upon the landed property of absentees, and there must be some machinery in order to find out what that landed property was, and the income arising from it. It was said that the machinery under the Poor-law Act was to be applied to that purpose: if that held good with respect to absentees, it was quite clear that the same machinery might be applied to the other purpose. He could not, therefore, discover that that was the chief reason for not applying the tax to Ireland. But what had the right hon. Gentleman said in 1833, with respect to the application of the tax to Ireland? Lord Althorp having said, that he did not see how he could exempt Ireland from the pressure, the right hon. Baronet observed:
"The application of the tax to Ireland would be attended with extreme difficulty. He really believed that this circumstance formed the main obstacle to the establishment of the tax. It hardly could be contended that, if a property-tax were established, Ireland should be exempted from its operation. He wished to see Ireland as much favoured as possible consistently with justice; but to impose a property-tax upon England and Scotland, and to exempt Ireland from its operation, would, in his opinion, however unpopular that opinion might be, be exceedingly unjust."
He was satisfied with that declaration of the right hon. Gentleman. He could understand the argument that the tax might be inexpedient and oppressive in 1833, but that in 1842 circumstances might be such, that what was inexpedient then might be expedient now; but how that which was unjust in 1833 could be just in 1842 was, he owned, past the limits of his comprehension. He found that the other parts of the right hon. Gentleman's speech, from which he was then quoting, treated of other subjects; but if there were any passages in which, after having said the

645
tax was unjust, the right hon. Gentleman had proved it to be just, it was, of course, in his power to quote them. He was quite aware of the right hon. Gentleman's ingenuity—of the ability with which, according to the statement of one of his Colleagues, he could dress up a statement for that House; but it would be difficult for even his ability to prove that just which he had shown to be unjust. The speech of the right hon. Gentleman appeared to contain the pith and substance of all the arguments they had heard during the late debate, and it was satisfactory to him to find that, without being aware of it, the objections he had offered to the proposed tax were founded upon grounds precisely similar to those that had been assumed by the right hon. Gentleman in 1833. The book from which he had quoted was a book called Hansard's Debates٭—a book certainly very familiar to hon. Gentlemen on the other side; but he was told, that in another report of the right hon. Gentleman's speech, namely, that in the Mirror of Parliament, epithets still stronger were ascribed to the right hon. Gentleman. There the right hon. Gentleman was made to use the term "disgusting inquisition." Now, supposing the tax to be of that nature, how was the second part of the proposition made out—that the circumstances in which the Government was placed were so extraordinary, and the peril so great, as to induce Parliament to agree to the imposition of the tax? He had indeed heard many attempts made by Members of the Cabinet to paint in darker colours the situation and prospects of the country, and to represent her inability to meet her enemies in less favourable terms than he could have wished to hear. Those expressions had indeed awakened the indignation of his right hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, but he thought they had signally failed of success. In a review of the state of the country, let them not omit from their consideration those parts of the empire which they were accustomed to regard in relation to its domestic and foreign position. Take the whole United Kingdom. England and Scotland were tranquil; Ireland was tranquil; the law which at present prevailed in that country was no exception at law, different from that of the rest of the kingdom. Ireland was under no insurrection act, no coercion act; and
* See Vol, xvii., third series, p. 344,
646
he trusted the noble Secretary for Ireland would feel proud of the tranquillity which prevailed there. Something had been said with respect to Canada. What had been the state of Canada for a number of years? For some time that colony had had a popular assembly. They represented certain grievances, which were remedied; but fresh demands were made, which rendered it necessary for the Legislature to insist upon what was probably an infraction of a constitutional principle, and an insurrection was consequent upon that act. The events, then, from 1832 to 1837, were unsatisfactory and dangerous in regard to Canada; but now an assembly or Parliament was constituted there, the great majority of which were well affected to the Crown and the interests of the British empire. Therefore, with respect to Canada, there was no danger which called for an extraordinary measure. With regard to our foreign relations with the principal powers of Europe, he could see no immediate danger. An hon. and learned Gentleman had certainly pointed out the means by which the fortunes of this country might be affected, and the circumstances which might lead to war, and he had not failed to observe the eagerness with which that statement was seized by the other side. Everything that looked like a prospect of war was caught up as an argument in favour of the Income-tax. But when, he would ask, had a Minister of this country ever imposed an Income-tax for a future contingent and prospective danger—a danger which he earnestly trusted would never fall upon this land? With respect to the melancholy reverses which we had experienced in India, and the calamities which had befallen our troops there, it had been said, and truly, that as a matter of finance they were to consider how far those misfortunes would be a drain upon this country; and, considered in that light, it had been shown by an hon. Gentleman, who had addressed the House particularly on that branch of the subject, that the present state of India did not require the imposition of a tax allowed to be oppressive, inquisitorial, and unequal. Much had been said about our relations with China, and one of the members of the Cabinet had spoken in terms which might have been used if the Emperor of China had been the Emperor Napoleon, and the fleet of junks at Canton had been the flotilla at Boulogne, If

647
the dangers of 1804 and 1805 had been encompassing us, no Minister could have painted them in stronger colours than those used by the right hon. Gentleman in reference to the war with China. He had no such apprehensions with regard to that war as those expressed by the right hon. Gentleman. It was a war thus distinguished from other wars, that the whole expense was confined to the expense of the expedition itself. If we had been at war with one of the great powers of Europe, or with the United States, it would have been thought necessary to strengthen our colonial possessions, and so to order matters, that neither by sea nor land should the enemy gain advantage over us there. In the present case there was no such necessity. Nobody expected the Emperor of China to capture Jamaica, or to attack Gibraltar. It had been said there was no prospect of peace, but he thought the reverse. If it was meant that we could not compel the Emperor of China to sign a treaty of peace with this country, acknowledging our Sovereign as an equal monarch, there might be some ground for the assertion; but there was an alternative. But, supposing that not to be the case—supposing that it were not possible without incurring a much greater expense than would be advisable, to bring the Supreme Court of China to the terms which England would dictate, even then it would be in the power of this country to hold possession of some part of the Chinese territory—of the island of Hong Kong, or of Chusan, or of some other convenient point from which we might carry on our trade more securely than we had done of late years, and without the danger of having our Superintend-ant insulted or our trade suspended at the caprice of the Chinese. Therefore, with regard to China, he owned he could not see any such danger or ground of apprehension as seemed to influence the minds of the members of her Majesty's Government. That was his opinion of the general state of our relations with China. But supposing that he were mistaken—supposing that this country were annually compelled to pay a sum of 500.000 l. to defray the expense of an expedition against China for some years to come, even that, in his estimation, would be no excuse for the imposition of an Income-tax. The second part of the question, upon which he apprehended they would have frequent opportunities of speaking hereafter, and
648
upon which, therefore, he should not enlarge upon the present occasion, was the which related to the tariff. He had no objection to the principle upon which the proposed alterations in the tariff were founded, for he was one of those who advised her Majesty, after stating to Parliament the necessity of considering some means of improving the revenue, to say in the speech delivered by the commissioners, on the opening of Parliament in the August of last year:—
" Her Majesty is anxious that this object should be effected in the manner least burdensome to her people, and it has appeared to her Majesty, after full deliberation, that you may, at this juncture, properly direct your attention to the revision of duties affecting the productions of foreign countries. It will be for you to consider whether some of these duties are not so trifling in amount as to be unproductive to the revenue, while they are vexatious to commerce. You may further examine whether the principle of protection, upon which others of these duties are founded, be not carried to an extent injurious alike to the income of the State, and the interests of the people. Her Majesty is desirous that you should consider the laws which regulate the trade in corn. It will be for you to determine whether these laws do not aggravate the natural fluctuations of supply, whether they do not embarrass trade, derange currency, and, by their operation, diminish the comfort and increase the privations of the great body of the community."
Having given that advice when he was a Minister of the Crown, he could not now object to the principles upon which the present changes in the tariff were proposed; but he begged to say, with regard to those changes that he thought it would have been far easier to have carried them through Parliament, and that they would have produced much less of the panic which was now understood to prevail in many parts of the country, if the right hon. Baronet (Sir Robert Peel) had last year stated that these were the principles upon which he proposed to undertake the Government. Differing as the right hon. Baronet did from the late Ministry upon many points of policy, and declaring as he did that they were unworthy of the confidence of the House of Commons and of the country, it would still have been competent to him to have stated clearly and explicitly that with regard to the principles upon which our commercial tariff was at present founded, he thought there were many articles upon which the existing duly might be reduced to a mere nominal amount, and that there were other ar-

649
ticles in respect to which the principle of protection was carried to an excessive and prejudicial extent. Had the right hon. Baronet done this, the people of the country, and especially the farmers of the country, who liked plain dealing upon subjects of this kind, would have understood what the right hon. Baronet meant to do; and seeing that both the great parties in the country, and the leaders generally on both sides of the House, were agreed upon these great principles, they would have had time and have taken means to consider whether they would not concur in those principles as proposed either by the one party or the other. But, even now, when the right hon. Baronet adopted these principles, it appeared to him that the right hon. Baronet had a hesitation in saying that which was the only proper thing to be said upon the subject. He had always said that the carrying of those principles into execution might at the first moment occasion inconvenience, might occasion injury, might occasion loss to many interests directly involved in the existing system; but that that injury and that loss would be repaid, and more than repaid, by the future and general prosperity of the country. But the right hon. Baronet did not say this. He was continually saying, with regard to corn and to articles of agricultural production, that the alteration in the tariff was to do two things. Whenever he spoke to the country generally he pointed to the revised tariff, and said, "This will diminish the cost of living—this will lessen the cost of articles of subsistence, and thereby the general welfare of the labouring and middle classes will be improved"—but when the right hon. Baronet spoke to the producers of these articles—when he addressed himself to the farmers, and to persons interested in agriculture, he said— "Prices will not be diminished—no material alteration will take place—your produce will be of the same value in the market." It was needless to remark that the right hon. Baronet in making these adverse statements was placing himself in an untenable position. As a matter of arithmetic it was plain and palpable, that this, which was to cost less to the consumer, could not be sold at the same price by the producer. The right hon. Baronet could not by possibility achieve the two things of which he spoke. He might accomplish the one, or he might accomplish the other. But the accomplishment of the
650
two being impossible, would it not be much more frank and fair, much more like plain and honest dealing, if the right hon. Baronet, instead of shuffling between the two great interests of the country, were to tell them boldly and candidly what he really contemplated as the result of his proposition? If the right hon. Baronet adopted sound principles, let him be prepared to avow them. Let him not shrink from the truth—let him not be ashamed to own that he was acting upon sound principles of trade and commerce; upon principles which all the most enlightened writers upon these subjects had generally agreed, and which he (Sir Robert Peel) would not blush to own nor fear to defend, if they were called in question. For his part, when these questions came under discussion, he should act according to the principles he had always professed. He might probably think that with respect to certain articles the right hon. Baronet proposed to take off the protection rather too suddenly; with respect to others, he might think that the principle of reduction was not carried far enough; but generally, and as a whole, the principle which pervaded the proposed tariff was such as met with his approbation and would receive his support. He would mention one instance, in which he confessed he thought some explanation would be necessary. Hitherto there had been a heavy duty upon the importation of foreign copper; but the smelting of foreign copper in this country was not forbidden. The consequence was, that very considerable quantities of foreign copper ore had been brought here for the purpose of smelting, and the persons engaged in smelting it had afterwards sold that copper at a much lower price than British copper in foreign countries. A few years ago, when there was great activity in the dock-yards of this country and of France, he remembered perfectly well, that copper went from England to France 15 percent, cheaper than it could be obtained in the dockyards of thi3 country. That was a part of the absurdity of the old law. The right hon. Baronet proposed, and very properly proposed, to change that law. But if the right hon. Baronet proposed to alter the restriction which had hitherto affected the importation of foreign copper, the right hon. Baronet must abandon the argument that he had urged, with respect to the importation of foreign sugar; because, in the proposed change with respect

651
to copper, the right hon. Baronet was favouring the mines of Cuba. Mines worked by slaves. The right hon. Baronet would be giving an advantage not hitherto enjoyed to the producers of copper ore in a colony where the mines were worked by slaves, slaves subjected to the hardest and most oppressive kind of labour. How could the right hon. Baronet reconcile these inconsistencies in his proposition. If the principle upon which he proposed to act in respect to foreign copper were right, then why did he not stand to it in respect to foreign sugar. The two cases were exactly analogous; then why apply two different principles to them. With respect to the tariff, then, all that he would now say was, that whilst he approved generally of the principles upon which it was founded, he hoped that in some respects the right hon. Baronet would reconsider it, and that in others he would extend and enlarge it. He had stated at the commencement of his speech, that he had now no proposition to offer to the House. The question with respect to corn and some other articles had already been decided in that branch of the Legislature, Upon those topics, therefore, he should now be silent, but he conceived that in any view of the subject, the Income-tax was at this moment unnecessary; and that, if not based on the ground of great public necessity, it would be attended with all the disadvantages which were so ably pointed out in the year 1833 by the present Prime Minister of the Crown. In his opinion, it would tend to weaken the resources of the country in time of real emergency: it would teach the people, at a time when the impost was not imperatively necessary, to find out all the objections to which it was justly liable, and would lead them to resist or evade it in the hour of absolute emergency, when no other resource might be left to the Government. He could conceive that in a time of great peril, even though the people might see their way to an evasion of the tax, yet that they would be governed by too much of public spirit and of patriotism to avail themselves of it, and would consent to pay to the very last farthing that they were justly chargeable. But what was the testimony of the right hon. Baronet himself to the feeling of the country with respect to the Income-tax at the present moment? The right hon. Baronet said, that although he thought it generally approved of, yet that every class wished to be exempted from it, or to lay
652
some ground of favour in respect to it. In his estimation there could not be a stronger proof that this was not the moment to propose such a tax. Take fifty of the persons who declared themselves to be generally in favour of an Income-tax, and he (Lord John Russell) would venture to say that forty-nine out of the fifty would differ as to the mode in which it should be carried into execution. No stronger proof could be offered to show that this was not the time for such a tax. Let the hour of absolute necessity arise, and the country would submit to the imposition without raising so many grounds of exemption or modification. He was fully persuaded that there were other sources from which the present wants of the Exchequer might be supplied. Looking at the taxes which had been reduced since the year 1830, he ' was persuaded that there were ample means of replenishing the Exchequer without having recourse to this unjust and inquisitorial tax. With that feeling upon the subject he should conclude by moving as an amendment that the bill be read a first time that day six months.
Sir Robert Peel: The noble Lord had felt it incumbent upon him in the discharge of his public duty to take the very unusual course of resisting the first reading of the bill which he had brought in, in conformity with the resolution of the House. The chief part of the argument upon which the noble Lord justified that unusual course of proceeding had been rather general—a sort of argumentum ad hominem, addressed personally to him; and in which the noble Lord very fairly and candidly said that, having had some difficulty in discovering any valid and sufficiently satisfactory arguments against this bill, he had done him the honour of referring to a speech made by him in the year 1833, in which he found the arguments against a property-tax much stronger and much better put forward than any that he had yet heard. He confessed that, up to this period, he had thought that all the arguments advanced against the present proposed Income-tax were exceedingly weak and inefficient, and he did not think, when the circumstances under which the speech of 1833 was made were considered, that the noble Lord had much strengthened his case by referring to what he then said. When an authority was quoted, it was always of great importance to refer to the period and to the circumstances under which that authority spoke. When he

653
stated his strong objection to the imposition of an Income-tax in 1833—objections, the force of which he felt at the present moment—what, at that time, was the financial position of the country? According to the statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, there was then a net surplus of 1,500,000 l. Lord Althorp proposed a considerable remission of taxes upon articles of consumption, amounting to a loss of revenue to the extent of about 1,000,000 l. The immediate loss to the revenue would be greater; but Lord Althorp calculated upon an increase of consumption which would make up a part of the deficiency, and that the total loss that he would sustain by the proposed reduction of taxes would still leave him a net surplus of about 516,000 l. That was the financial position of the country when he was called upon to deliver an opinion upon a projected tax upon property and income. Proposals were made to reduce the malt-tax, the house-tax, and the window-tax; and it was proposed to impose a property-tax by way of commutation for the house-tax and the window-tax. He decidedly objected to the imposition of a property-tax to effect that commutation. And even now, if the Exchequer were in possession of a surplus of 500,000 l., and a proposition were made to reduce the malt-tax, the house-tax, and the window-tax, and to substitute in lieu of them a property-tax, he should offer to such a proposition the most strenuous opposition. He stated in 1833, that the house-tax and the window-tax partook of the nature of a property-tax, and that, having at that time a surplus of 500,000 l., he would not consent to the imposition of a direct property-tax —which he admitted to be open to many objections—with the view of relieving the country from a corresponding amount of charge upon houses and windows. What was the course which he took in 1833? Lord Althorp had lost the malt-tax. Lord Althorp asked what course he thought ought to be pursued. He replied,
"You may rely upon my support in the maintenance of the public credit; and if you come down to rescind the vote by which you have lost half the malt-tax, you may depend upon my support in utter oblivion of all political considerations."
He felt it to be his duty, under any circumstances, to maintain the public credit. He accordingly voted with Lord Althorp in rescinding the resolution of the House with respect to the malt-tax, and assisted
654
him to the utmost of his power in upholding the public credit. And he begged to tell the noble Lord, that it was mainly in consequence of the assurance so derived from him that Lord Althorp took the strong and decided measure of calling upon the House to rescind the vote it had previously given upon the subject of the malt-tax. What was the vote in reference to a property-tax that Lord Althorp at that time asked him to join him upon? It was proposed to take off part of the malt-tax and part of the house-tax and window-tax. Lord Althorp met that proposition by another proposition. If the malt-tax, the house-tax, and the window-tax were reduced, this was the way in which Lord Althorp proposed to make up the deficiency that would be occasioned in the revenue— all this, be it observed, was in a time of profound peace, and when the only ground for the proposition was one of financial emergency—this was the way in which Lord Althorp proposed to proceed:—
" That the deficiency of the revenue which would be occasioned by a reduction of the tax on malt to 10 s. a quarter, and by the repeal of the taxes on houses and windows, could only be supplied by the substitution of a general tax on property, and would occasion an extensive change in our whole financial system, which would at present be in expedient. "
Four days after Lord Althorp moved that amendment he gave his vote in favour of Lord Althorp's proposition. When the noble Lord referred to his opinion, with respect to Ireland, he had done him an injustice in quoting only a part instead of the whole of the opinion he had expressed. He was willing to admit that Ireland had no claim to an exemption from a property tax to which England and Scotland were subject; but his reason for exempting it now was, because there was no machinery in Ireland, by which such a tax could be collected. He proposed, however, to raise a corresponding sum by an additional amount of taxation upon stamps and spirits. From those sources, the latter of which partook in some degree of the nature of a property tax, he calculated upon obtaining an equivalent for a general property tax in Ireland. When the noble Lord charged him with having changed his opinions upon the subject of the property tax, perhaps it would have been more fair if he had read the opinions which he expressed on the occasion. His words were these:—
" He repeated, that the repeal of the half

655
of the malt duty carried with it the repeal of the whole; and if the whole duty were repealed, and the house and window-tax were repealed, they would not be able to satisfy the public creditor; for it was a perfect delusion to suppose that the deficiency could be made up by increased consumption and by a reduction of expenditure. The only alternative, then, was a property-tax, to which he was decidedly opposed. He would not pledge himself beyond the present occasion; but he would say that, in the present circumstances of the country, and at the present period of the Session, either a property or an Income-tax would be a great calamity." *
Those were the opinions which he expressed in 1833, admitting the inquisitorial character of the tax, and objecting to it, by way of commutation for other taxes, at a time when there was a clear surplus of 1,500,000 l. in the Exchequer. But he asked whether the condition and circumstances of the country were not now so different as to justify him in taking a different view? The noble Lord said, that the Income-tax was one that would excite discontent, and even disgust in the country, as soon as it should come into actual operation. He admitted that it was not likely to be popular. But if he were to encounter so much of disgust, dissatisfaction, and unpopularity—if he were to be met by all the difficulties and obstructions which the noble Lord had pointed out, and some of which, perhaps, he could himself foresee —what reason could he have in proposing a measure which would bring these consequences upon his head, except a firm belief that it was absolutely necessary to maintain the public credit, and a conviction that that credit could not in any way be. so well maintained, or in a way so little oppressive to the country generally as by a property-tax. The noble Lord said, that there was no such pressing necessity which warranted the imposition of a property-tax. Why, at the end of the present year the deficiency upon the last six years would not be less than 10,000,000 l.; and upon the current year, ending April, 1843, the deficiency, exclusive of any expenditure that might be rendered necessary by the course of events in India, the deficiency would be at least 3,000,000 l. In addition to that, he calculated upon a loss of 1,200,000 l. from the reductions proposed upon the tariff, so that the gross deficit for which he should have to provide would not be less than 4,200,000 l. After all that had been stated in the course of the
* Hansard Vol, xvii. third series, p. 815,
656
long and protracted debates upon the subject, he owned he could not see how he was to raise such an amount of revenue as would enable him to meet that large deficiency, without having recourse to such a tax upon income as that which he now proposed. Considering that they might confidently expect that the revival of trade and additional consumption would enable them to relieve the country from this tax, he thought they would much less disturb the industry of the country and the application of capital, by imposing a tax on property, than by trying to revive the taxes on such articles as salt, malt, and leather, which would have to be paid by all those whose condition they were so anxious to improve. He was firmly of opinion that he was consulting the interest and security of those who owned property, by the imposition of a property-tax, far more than he would have done had he subjected the great masses of the working classes to indirect taxation. Considering the manner in which property had accumulated, and considering the emergency in which the country was placed, he felt, that he was perfectly justified in the proposal which he had made to raise a deficit of 4,200,000 l. from the incomes of the landed aristocracy, and from the profits—for where no profits were made there would be no taxation— of those engaged in trades and professions, and he felt firmly convinced that his proposal was not only consistent with justice, but also with the interests of those by whom property was possessed. He believed, that among the consumers there was a feeling of satisfaction with his proposals, and a conviction that by the alterations proposed in the tariff they would be compensated for the inconvenience to which the tax would subject them. Notwithstanding the opinion which he formerly expressed, and which he still retained —that, with a surplus of 1,500,000 l., an Income-tax would be most unjust; and not denying its inequality or its inquisitorial character—still, from the result of the debates, and from the communications which he had received from various parts of the country, he was confirmed in the strong opinion which he had previously entertained when he opened the question to the House—that his proposal at the present emergency was both called for and just. He had not, in discussing the question, travelled beyond the limits which the noble Lord had prescribed. He had confined himself to answering the speech

657
of the noble Lord, particularly that part of it having a personal reference. He thought it inconvenient to enter upon any discussion at the present moment in respect to the tariff. He thought he should be able to show, when the proper time came, that they might confidently rely on a reduction of price on the articles of subsistence, and that that reduction could be made consistently with the promotion of the interests of the producer as well as of the consumer. He would, however, take the present opportunity of stating, that he should propose two modifications in the measure, for the purpose of remedying the objections made in the course of the debate. One was, in reference to the position of tenants in Scotland, which had been stated, and truly stated, to be differing from the position of tenants in England. The tenant in Scotland was not subject to any payment on account of tithes, nor was he subject to any of those payments which in England usually fell on the occupying tenant, but which in Scotland were borne by the landlord; and this was the reason why, in the act of 1806, a distinction was made—apparently, but not in reality—in favour of the occupying tenant in Scotland. He wished to place the tenant in Scotland on the same footing, or as nearly as it was possible on the same footing, in this respect, as the tenant in England. If the English tenant occupies land tithe-free, he will be entitled to a deduction of one-eighth from the amount of assessment. That was clearly a deduction to which the tenant in Scotland was entitled. Again, supposing the landlord of the English tenant paid the usual charges, and this he almost universally did, the tenant in that case would be entitled to a remission. When he came to compute the amount of these deductions, he found that substantial justice would be done by charging the Scottish tenant on about one-third, instead of one-half of his rent, making him liable for 2½d. instead of 3d. in the pound. He believed that this would place the tenantry in the two countries on nearly the same footing. He thought it better to do this than to call on the tenant in Scotland to make a return of the amount of his exemptions. In regard to the other modification which he had made, he was aware that one great objection to the tax was its inquisitorial nature. It was said, and said with great force, that it was unfair to subject the trader, or any other person liable to con-
658
tribution under schedule D, to the inquisition established by the act of 1806; and it was further said, and no doubt justly enough, that the case of a trader or of a professional man differed from that of the landed proprietor or of the person possessing funded property, whose incomes were generally very well known. The arrangement which he proposed to make respecting the property in schedule D was to leave the act of 1806, in reference to this point, as he found it—namely, to permit those who preferred it to go before a local commissioner, appointed by parties independent of the Government; but in case any one objected to go before the local authority, and this might happen where the commissioner was a competitor in trade or a rival in manufactures, or where the disclosure of a person's income before a particular commissioner might be prejudicial or vexatious—if, then, any person objected going before the local commissioner, it was proposed to give the party the option of either doing so or of sending a return of his income to a sworn officer, the inspector of stamps. He proposed also that surcharges should be brought before that officer, with an appeal to a special commissioner, and that any person should have the option of disclosing his affairs to a special com-missioner appointed by Government, with the same power as the other commissioners. He had attempted to reconcile as far as possible these two objects, the impartial and just imposition of the tax, and the prevention of evasion and fraud; he sought to apply a remedy to those special evils, which were alleged to arise from an inquisitorial examination of the concerns of the trader or professional man. He hoped that he had removed at least some part of the objection by the remedy which he had proposed. His belief was, notwithstanding the predictions of the noble Lord the Member for London respecting the disgust with which the tax would be hereafter viewed, and the unpopularity which would visit those who had proposed it, —notwithstanding this prediction, he must say, that there were indications throughout the country generally of a strong prevalent impression that the maintenance of public credit required the adoption by Parliament of some vigorous and decisive course—his belief was, that among those parties who possessed property—and he spoke of property em-

659
barked in trade or manufactures, as well as property of a more permanent character —among such persons he believed there was a strong prevailing opinion, that if they were to raise 4,200,000 l. for the purpose of maintaining the public credit, it was perfectly consistent with justice, as well as policy, to impose the burden on property, rather than to curtail the comforts and enjoyments of those who constituted the great mass of the working classes. He would not enter any further into the discussion of this subject. He did not know whether the noble Lord opposite would feel it his duty to take the sense of the House on the present occasion or on the second reading. If, considering the peculiar circumstances of the discussion, the season of the year, and the immense importance to the trade and manufactures of the country, that the sense of Parliament should be ascertained and the question settled—if the House, considering all these things, should think it advisable to make a temporary relaxation of those rules which confined their discussions on this subject to two days in the week, he would willingly propose to devote more than two days to the consideration of the Income-tax and the tariff.
Mr. Villierssaid, that the right hon. Baronet had in one respect, he thought, made one of the most important speeches which he had delivered since he announced his financial scheme, for it had done what his former speeches had left undone, in giving the country some insight into what were his general views and intentions with respect to the peculiar tax which he was about to impose on the country. His scheme had been so ingeniously contrived, and his speeches so cleverly composed, that up to this moment he had succeeded in leaving many, and particularly those who were opposed to him in doubt, as to the course they should pursue. There were many, and he was among the number, who were far from satisfied with the justice and operation of our present system of taxation; who thought it was oppressive to the poor and partial to the rich, and who were strongly in favour of transferring from poverty to property the burdens of the State. There were many who saw nothing to approve in the particular purpose of this tax and the occasion selected for its imposition, but who yet thought that it was the recognition of a sound principle as regarded taxation, and that it would be wise
660
to endure its inconvenience, with the view ultimately to its general application; always assuming, however, that this was the view taken by the right hon. Baronet; and that, alive to the evils of which they complained, as to many of the taxes, Was not wanting in will to apply the remedy. The speech they had just heard, however, will dissipate this illusion at once, and enlighten the country as to the right hon. Gentleman's views of the object of a property-tax—for, called upon tonight to vindicate his consistency for opposing a property-tax in the year 1833, the right hon. Baronet candidly tells us that the ground of his opposition then was one that he would maintain now; that a property-tax in lieu of those indirect taxes which existed now, of which the people complained, was one which the right hon. Baronet would join any party in opposing. No man should be found more firm in opposing any substitute for the duties on malt, on soap, or any of those indirect taxes which now existed; and the right hon. Baronet had distinctly said, that all which he proposed the Income-tax for now, was as one means of maintaining the public credit, as a means of getting more revenue, and with no intention of ever proposing it as a substitute for any other tax, and much less for any indirect tax then pressing upon the people. This, then, was candid and intelligible, though calculated a little, he thought, to influence that impression to which the right hon. Baronet had alluded as prevailing in the country in favour of his plan, but which he (Mr. Villiers) thought had been produced by the vague, uncertain, and inconsistent things which had hitherto been said upon this subject of taxing property, and which pervaded every speech the House had heard from the right hon. Baronet, in which he seems to mark out the rich as the proper objects of taxation, and expresses sympathy for the necessities of the poor. It would be clear, however, hereafter, that this is a tax now imposed not in lieu of any other, not in any spirit of benefitting the poor, but in aggravation of every other, and because other means are not resorted to for getting the money; and it ought to settle those doubts now floating about on this side, as to whether evil should not be supported that good might come; for, certainly, now, the right hon. Baronet had confirmed the view which he had entertained

661
from the beginning, that the financial difficulty which it was intended to remove resulted from the commercial and financial system maintained so long and opposed so long in this country, and that this tax was really to meet for its necessary consequences. It was that peculiar system which placed the people of this country under the twofold contribution of paying taxes to the State and taxes to particular classes, which had caused our present condition; and as one of that party, who had long since deprecated the principle and predicted the effects of that system, he would only consent to relieve the difficulty by removing its cause. The fact was, that that peculiar system of finance which made the revenue dependent upon the general condition of the people was now breaking down, and its failure was caused by monopoly in their food and restraints upon their trade; the former, in exhausting men's means by enhancing the cost of subsistence, and the latter by narrowing the field for employing their labour. The revenue now began to feel its effects, and the struggle was really between the means of maintaining public credit and maintaining monopoly. The real question the House had to examine was, whether we would uphold public credit by abolishing monopoly or by imposing fresh taxes; and he was glad to think that this year, at least, those who took that view of the influence of monopoly upon revenue were spared the trouble of proving what they had so often said, for as a fact it may this year be numbered with those many admissions on which the noble Lord, the Member for North Lancashire, had declared there had been such unanimity. Last year he was tauntingly asked what the Corn-laws had to do with the budget, and when he replied that they were not only a heavy tax imposed upon the community for a class, but inasmuch as the article corn was essential to life, it was the first tax that people had to pay, and it depended upon the amount of it what was left for the State, it was treated as a vision of the free-trade party, and one of course to be neglected; this year, however, we hear of the influence of the cost of living upon the value of an income, and the connection between harvests, which means the cheap-ness and dearness of food, and the revenue derived from customs, and excise, and notwithstanding all the vulgar tirades they had heard against commerce and manufac-
662
tures, they now heard of solicitude expressed for the languor of commerce, and the importance admitted of easing the springs of industry. It was well that it should be so. It was time the old note should be changed; but the thing that the House had now to see was, that these admitted truths should be acted upon and applied. He for one had yet to suspect that they were not very earnestly entertained, or they would not, he thought, have seen such a Corn-bill as had been passed—nor have had such a tax as that on income proposed, nor would so small an instalment of what was due to the people have been offered as in the proposed tariff. And, indeed, he thought it incumbent upon those who had proposed this tax explicitly to declare to what they ascribed the declining tendency of our revenue, what they thought of its cause, and its character, for upon that turned the prospect the country had of its duration, and also of the proportion of the burden not being increased. For it was not because it was a direct tax that he opposed it; that was not the objection that he had, or that his constituents had to it, many of whom thought, and justly, as he considered, that property was a good test or evidence of a man's ability to contribute to the State, and he had received a memorial from those politically opposed to him to this effect, approving of the principle of the tax quà property-tax, though greatly objecting to the rude and reckless manner in which it was proposed to be applied— assessing, as it was intended, all income without reference to its origin, or its liability. But it was not because property was directly assessed that he or they objected to it; on the contrary, they were ready for the application of that principle when an equivalent advantage was to be gained by it, or necessity required it. But it was not enough to say, in the present state of our finances, that the deficiency occurred under the late Government, and that the supporters of the late Government could not, there-fore, object to supply the deficiency in the way proposed. That was not the view that satisfied those who stood aloof from both parties. They believed all the harm that Whigs said of Tories, or that Tories said of Whigs, when those charges had reference to matters of which they had no other cognizance; the people were, he believed, nearly satisfied as to what class have so long had the manage-

663
ment of their affairs. They had enquired in whose hands the Government had been placed, that had brought them to their present state. And, if he mistook not, her Majesty's commissioners, on the hand-loom weavers, a short time since, satisfied that question in their report upon the condition of that unfortunate portion of our fellow-subjects, and whose state they were led to connect with the operation of our commercial laws, and they seemed to have been led into a reflection upon the character of the Legislature in consequence, and they reminded those who ruled this country that the Government of this country dwelt in a small minority of the community, who occupied entirely one branch of the Legislature, and who greatly preponderated in the other, and whose interests were entirely identified with one description of property, and cautioned them on the importance of their acts being above the suspicion of partiality, as such a Government could only rest upon public opinion, which would not sanction legislation observed and known to produce the misery and sufferings of the masses of the people. This, then, was announced on authority to be the real Government of this country, and the people being neither Whig nor Tory, were disposed to think, that the monopolies springing out of what they termed class legislation, had so far exhausted the means, and restricted the energies of the people, as to be answerable for the decline of this great industrial nation. The people, too, would soon learn, that the tax now proposed to be imposed on income was only a mode of escaping one of its temporary, but necessary consequences of the system. The people were not so dull and not so easily deluded as hon. Members opposite thought, when they supposed that they believed that this tax was favourable to them, because it apparently fell upon those above them. He had heard the opinions of many of them on the subject, and they said, "We shall take no part in the matter, but we are not deceived by the notion, that so far as we are dependent on the capital possessed by those above us, but if that is taxed or diminished, we must feel it in the diminished demand for our labour, but with regard to a means of extending our political power we are not blind to the effects of making the middle classes discontented. They believed, thoroughly, that the resources of this country have been wasted
664
by those monopolies, and those arguments which are used in favour of part of this scheme, when the importance of reducing the cost of living is dwelt upon, leaves them no doubt of what has hitherto been lost to this country by that means. This, then, being the 'case, if permanent improvement is intended, why has the root of the evil not been avowed and struck at? What hope was there of ever discontinuing this tax, or making the others productive without that being done? And why has a tax been resorted to, which of all others, if the deficiency springs from the poverty of the people, must aggravate the evil. And at least, why have you not looked round to see if those who profit by those monopolies, contribute their due and fair proportions to the State. That source should at least have been exhausted before you resort to a tax that all must admit is oppressive to men in trade, and unequal to those who live by personal exertion. And is there not yet a fund untouched in these unequal taxes? It was but a few weeks since that I enumerated myself nearly one million that had been taken off the landed classes, and out of pure favour to them. Has any body denied that they were exemptions favourable to that interest, and that if the House were to re-impose them under the present increased value of real property, they might probably yield more than that million now? Has any satisfactory reason been assigned for that duty which is imposed upon the descent to personal property, not attaching to the succession of freehold property. Some subtlety was employed, he knew, the other night, to make it appear that some landed property was assessed for this purpose, but could any man doubt that a very large sum might be annually derived from this source; and can any man doubt that it is foregone merely to favour the landed proprietors. But the right hon. Baronet said to-night, that in spite of all that had been said, we had a deficiency to make up, and that there was no certain way within his knowledge, but that of taxing the income of the people. But the right hon. Baronet precluded himself from making that statement by an admission that he made himself, though not called upon the other night—the right hon. Baronet said what of course is true, and is well known, that there might immediately be collected a very considerable revenue on foreign sugar, now almost prohibited by lowering

665
the duty on it; this hitherto had been met by the taunt that this was one of the theories of the political economists, of getting revenue by reducing duty. The right hon. Baronet knows, and now admits, however, that it is the fact, and that to-morrow, if he chose, the coffers of the Treasury might be replenished, if he would suffer the people to consume foreign sugar. He would like to place the necessity and the policy of an Income-tax, as explained this evening before the country, and let the sensible and humane people of this country judge fairly upon this issue, whether the expectation of preventing slavery in a foreign country, by not consuming their produce, was sufficiently well grounded to warrant the policy of precluding the people of this country from the advantage of a cheap necessary, and for imposing a fresh and heavy burden upon this community. He had seen a comment upon this policy in a foreign paper, which he really thought just, and they called it the laughable hypocrisy of the English; and under all circumstances he thought the description just, for few people believed it would succeed, and most people believed it was insincere. Why, if there was any sincerity in this talk about slavery, the real sacrifice to make was not to send goods to a slave producing country; for it was to buy goods that sugar was produced. It was to get those goods that men were retained in slavery, and it was notorious that these slave-holding communities was now becoming some of our best markets; and that if they were to refuse our goods, or to raise these duties unfairly against us, we should be more disposed to go to war with them on that account, than commend them for adopting this means for preventing slavery. He, however, was not indifferent to the opinions of many benevolent men, who were of opinion that dealing with slave countries was a means of encouraging slavery, but he knew many, who no less benevolent, no less zealous or serviceable in that cause, were of opinion that this partial restraint on the trader with such countries was calculated rather to do harm than good. For instance, let them see how this policy might work for the continuance of slavery. What did you practically tell the West-India proprietary? Why, that as long as slavery continued in other countries their monopoly was safe. Why, then they had a strong interest in maintaining slavery; and
666
they had something else, they had very great influence over the British Government, they always have had, and it continues; how then can any Government better secure the adherence of these partisans than by not remonstrating effectively with these slave states as they now are professing to intend to do? The West-India influence may and will depend probably upon their not doing it. Again, it was said with great justice, he believed, that if those countries saw, that sugar would be produced by free-labour more cheaply than by slave-labour, and that our markets were supplied by those countries, which they might be, in which there were no slaves, it would be more likely to influence those countries who, it is said, are now wavering about slavery, than by any impotent threat or feeble remonstrance on our part to withdraw our custom, more important to ourselves than to them. Was it not notorious that the sugar grown in those parts of the world where labour is free, is brought to the European markets as cheaply and as good as that from Brazil? There is the sugar from Manilla, from Java, from Siam, from Cochin China, all produced by free-labour, all supplied to different countries at one-half, or less than one-half of the price of our plantation sugar. You say that we are bound by treaties with Brazil, not to let in the sugar from those countries on better terms than it is introduced from Brazil. But that is the reason for opening our ports to all. The only country where there is a chance perhaps of getting any terms for slaves is in Brazil. I know in that country there are districts, or provinces, where the proprietors question the importance to themselves of maintaining slavery, attended as it is with expense and insecurity. But they are a minority in the legislature of that country, and if you succeed in making them abolish slavery, you cannot let in their sugar unless you get the people of Cuba to do the same, of which, as you know, there is not the remotest chance; they profit too much by it from the manner in which the slave-trade is carried on; and I believe that by treaty you are bound not to show favour to trade with Brazil more than you do to Cuba. What a fancy, then, is it if it is an honest speculation at all, that by refusing to allow their produce to come out of the warehouses of this country, (for it is a fact that you allow it to come into the country and export it refined, and receive payments

667
for other manufactures by means of other slave produce sent here or to other countries on your account), that you can abolish slavery in those countries, and what vast sacrifice you are making for this purpose, at all times, and in particular at this moment, when you are about to visit the trading classes with this odious assessment, sooner than get revenue without the addition but by the remission of the duty on this article. He really should wish the question to be rested upon this issue; for it is an obvious, easy, advantageous manner of supplying the revenue. For the purpose of maintaining the credit of the country immediately there were, he believed the ready means in the equalization of the stamp duties, and other duties which were now imposed with the view to favour the landed class, and by the reduction of differential duties on tropical pro. duce, for what he said of sugar applied to all differential duties, which implied that the same article was brought to this country at different prices from the countries where it was produced, the very object of which was to preclude the community from consuming the cheaper article, but which if they were allowed to do they would consume more extensively, and the duty being collected upon the whole amount, would add to the revenue, while it lowered the cost to the consumer. Looking, then, at the right hon. Baronet's whole scheme then, he objected to the Income-tax, part of it as mischievous, uncalled for, and not imposed with the admission of or with the view to remove the real cause of the deficiency, and therefore likely to be continued beyond the time now intended. He did not, however, underrate the importance of those changes in our wretched commercial system which were proposed by the right hon. Baronet. He liked the disturbance of the system, and expected that it would lead to a far wider and more beneficial change than was yet proposed, He, for one, must say, he should like to see more changes made in the spirit in which the timber duties were altered; that was, he was satisfied, a very beneficial change, and one he thought, that was underrated at present in the country. He did not speak altogether in ignorance on the subject, for he had once called the attention of the House to this matter, and upon that occasion he had made a very full inquiry into the case, and he was really surprised to find the extent of the evil produced by the timber duties, and the vast importance to an old, cleared, densely-
668
peopled manufacturing country like this, of a cheap and abundant supply of wood. Next to food, he really believed that there was not one thing that the circumstances of this country rendered us so necessarily dependent upon other countries for, and that it was such an object to have in abundance. He might be wrong, but he doubted if there would be so great a sacrifice of revenue as people imagined from the change, for the same quantity of timber which used to come from Canada, and which came (though bad) on account of the differential duty, will now come from the Baltic, and pay 25 s. instead of 10 s. There would be then an increase of duty of 150 per cent, upon that portion of the timber; and he might mention another circumstance that he thought would secure to the consumer the full advantage of the remission of the duty, which some said they would not have, in consequence of the price rising in the Baltic countries. He thought this rise would not occur if those countries had again to apprehend the competition with Canada, which, with the duty entirely re-remitted there would be, and he thought, therefore, that would be an increased supply from the Baltic without addition to the price. In saying this, however, with regard to the advantage of the remission of the duties on timber, he said nothing in favour of an Income-tax proposed under the present circumstances. He was speaking of the change in a commercial point of view, and he should say generally, that if a temporary deficiency of revenue is occasioned by making some beneficial change in our commercial dealings with other countries, with the prospect of recovering the loss both by improved commerce and in revenue, he said that was a case in which a loan by issue of Exchequer-bills or otherwise, to meet that deficiency would be justifiable, provision being made upon the success of the experiment for the repayment of such loan. He did not think loans justifiable in time of war, where the money was certain to be never recovered, and the debt was rendered permanent. But when changes were made in this spirit, and with the purpose of the reduction now proposed in the timber duties, the country would justify and approve a loan. This, however, was really the only case that he knew of where any great sacrifice of revenue was expected in this tariff for a commercial purpose or with the view to benefit the consumer; the tariff

669
is said to be the boon in return for the tax, yet most of the alterations in the tariff were, as the right hon. Baronet had told the House to-night, changes from prohibition duties to those that could be collected; and, in fact, the tariff, so far from making a sacrifice, was really an application of that principle which recognises the revenue to be dependent on the easy access of the consumer to the articles that are taxed, and which is the only sound principle to apply as long as we continue the present system of indirect taxation, and while taxes fail on the articles that the general consumer demands, and this was the fault that he had to find with the scheme of the right hon. Baronet, that he did not carry this principle out, and that by this tax he would even diminish the ability of the people to consume those articles on which the revenue depended. If the revenue sinks because the people are poor, the object should have been to have increased their means, not to have added to their burdens. They would now no longer deny the connection between the cost of living and the ability to consume; it had not been recognised certainly in the Corn-bill, but it was their argument in support of the tariff, which made, however, the anomaly more striking of a scheme which purports to relieve the consumer, and add to the revenue, and yet does nothing to reduce the price of that which he must first pay for and consume, before he can touch any other article, and where the connection between the price of corn and the amount of revenue was established beyond a doubt, and while they were seeking to supply a deficiency, to do nothing to cheapen that article, the cheapness of which seems to determine the state of the revenue! He believed that he could demonstrate that by an extract from official returns. The hon. Member then read the following document:—
A Comparison between Price of Wheat and Produce of Revenue, in 1835, 1836, and 1837; contrasted with 1838, 1839, and 1840:—

I.WHEAT AVERAGE.
In 1835–7 the average of the three years was

47 s.

10 d.

1838–40 the average of the three years was

67

2

The price of wheat, therefore, rose 40 per cent. during the last three years.

II. TOTAL REVENUE.
The gross revenue of the United Kingdom amounted, in the aggregate,—

In 1835–7 to

£159,851,000

1838–40 to

159,240,000

Decrease

£611,000

The population increased at least 4 per cent. between these three-year periods. Had the revenue increased in like ratio, it would have been, in the last three years, 166,205,000 l., or 6,965,000 l. more than it was, being at the rate of 2,321,000 l per annum virtually lower than in the former period.

III. CUSTOMS AND EXCISE.
The gross revenue for Customs and Excise in the United Kingdom was,—

In 1835–7

£117,333,000

1838–40

116,996,000

Decrease

£337,000

The total Excise duties decreased, in the same period, from 47,117,000 l. to 46,610,000 l. Had the Excise and Customs revenue increased with the population, it would have produced 122,025,000 l., or 4,692,000 l. more, by which amount it virtually fell in the latter period.

IV. MALT, BRITISH SPIRIT, TEA AND SUGAR DUTIES.
These are the four articles which produce the largest revenue. They produced,—

In 1835–7

£51,830,000

1838–40

49,289,000

Decrease

£2,541,000

That showed a decrease of nearly 5 per cent.! Had these duties increased with the population, they would have produced 53,903,000 l., or 4,614,000 l. more than they did, being a virtual falling-off of 1,538,000 l. per annum. From this, then, he deduced the fact that concurrently with the rise in the price of wheat, there had been a virtual falling-off in the revenue to the amount of 2,321,000 l., nearly the same amount as that of the actual deficiency which had occasioned the Income-tax. This falling-off of revenue had taken place, notwithstanding an increase of duty paid on the importation of foreign corn to the amount of 1,477,000 l. during the last three over the former three years; and above one-half the falling-off had taken place on articles most used by the industrious classes. He would show this by another paper. The hon. Member read the following Tables of the Separate Items quoted above in Gross:—

I. GROSS REVENUE OF UNITED KINGDOM (ORDINARY).
1835

£52,589,000

1836

54,973,000

1837

52,287,000

1838

£52,979,000

1839

53,345,000

1840

52,916,000

GROSS EXCISE AND CUSTOMS REVENUE.
Excise.

Customs and Excise.

1835

£15,229,351

£38,378,000

1836

16,587,992

40,747,000

1837

15,300,406

38,208,000

1838

15,493,310

38,714,000

1839

15,488,248

38,996,000

1840

15,628,818

39,286,000

MALT, BRITISH SPIRITS, TEA AND SUGAR.
1835

£16,844,000

1836

18,366,000

1837

16,620,000

1838

£16,658,000

1839

17,341,000

1840

16,290,000

Here, then, it was established that the revenue of this country was necessarily connected with the cheapness and abundance of corn—and what was the remedy? —to secure a constant, regular, abundant supply, with the view to plenty and cheapness—thus to improve the ability of the consumer, to consume the articles on which you expect your tax? Do the Ministers come forward with a full and ample admission that the law which has made food dear and scarce, and has given monopoly in other articles of general use, was at the bottom of our commercial embarrassment and financial difficulties, and that preparation must be made for a total change of a system so fraught with evil, and though some inconvenience might be expected at first, yet that a permanent advantage being in view, reason and good sense called for the endurance of the evil for a while? No such thing. They brought forward a Corn-bill, not professing to relieve distress, not admitting the evil it had produced, asserting the advantage of such a law, and denying the injustice of our present system of indirect taxation, pledging themselves to its continuance, and proposing to diminish every man's means of expenditure by a certain proportion that taken from his income, with the view, as they say, of maintaining public credit, call upon people to support it, because it is a tax upon property, which is a just tax. Why this does not raise any question of a property-tax, such as many men would wish to see, and that many here would support to-night—a property-tax, in lieu of taxes pressing upon industry, upon the poor and on the productive capital of the country, and that fairly
672
placed the burdens of the Slate on those best able to bear them. The present was a plan for providing for one of the consequences of a constant cause of evil, thereby endeavouring to relieve those who profited by the system of their only difficulty in its continuance, and which, while it continued, made the necessity as constant for the continuance, if not augmentation of this tax now imposed, in addition to every other. The people of this country are now increasing; no provision is made for the increase of the food which they must consume; each year their difficulty to consume other articles will increase, and by the imposition of this tax, the other taxes will become less productive. The people wanted more food, more trade, and fewer taxes, and what has been done for them? You have preserved a Corn-bill, which will make food scarce; you have done nothing to extend trade with the two best customers which England now possesses, namely, the United States, and Brazil. You refuse to take the slave produce of one, and you will only take the slave produce of the other, and thus you leave this country seeking fresh markets for her industry, her people unemployed, without any improvement of her foreign trade; and you impose a tax on income, which must embarrass the trade at home. He said this to show that there was no reason for any man to expect any immediate advantage from this change, which, at present, he could look at as little more than a fanciful disturbance of an old system, and a very capricious application of a better principle; if he did not despair of any advantage from the change, it chiefly arose from the hope that the right hon. Baronet would see the importance of going forward and making such further changes next year which he had repudiated this year, as he had recognised principles this year which he had hitherto resisted.
Mr. Hardysaid, that he had hoped that the House would have come to an early decision upon the question then under consideration. The noble Lord had, however, thought it necessary to enter generally into the subject of the Income-tax, and all the points incidentally associated with it, and thus the measure had been obstructed in its progress. He would ask hon. Members who were now so loud in their opposition to this measure of the Government, why they did not oppose the resolutions when they were first pro-

673
pounded to the House by the right hon. Baronet? On the first night of the introduction of the measure nothing was advanced against it. If the Income-tax was so odious, unjust, and oppressive as was represented by hon. Members, surely the perspicacity of hon. Gentlemen ought to have enabled them to have perceived this immediately after the right hon. Baronet had developed his plan to the House. But it was not until after the Opposition saw that the country was disposed to adopt the measure of the Government—yes, it was not until they saw the country disposed to support the proposition of the right hon. Baronet, that a meeting was called at the Reform Club, with a view of organizing a factious opposition to the bill—it was not until then that hon. Members opposite rose, one after another, to stigmatize the proposal of an Income-tax as a most monstrous, odious, and unjust proposition. The principal object which hon. Members appeared anxious to demonstrate was, that the Income-tax would press heavily upon particular classes, upon those who came within schedule D. What tax, he would ask, was not unequal in its operation? It was not fair that this tax in particular should be selected and denounced on the ground of its probable inequality. All other taxes were open to the same objection. Look at the condition of the poor man with regard to the tax upon an article of almost general consumption, upon what might also be considered a necessary of life; he alluded to tea. If a poor man paid 4s. a pound for his tea, 2s. of that was duty. He therefore was taxed with respect to tea to the amount of 100 per cent. The rich man, who paid 8s. per pound for the same article, paid only 33 per cent. Here was a great inequality. What was true with respect to tea was equally so with regard to other articles of subsistence which he could mention. It did certainly appear strange that whilst the hon. Member opposite objected to the Income-tax, he at the same time urged upon the right hon. Baronet the necessity of a tax upon sugar, with the view of increasing the revenue. It had, again, been said that the Income-tax would be inquisitorial in its character. He thought that the right hon. Baronet, had satisfactorily answered that objection. He did not think that the objection was well-founded. If a man made an honest return of his income, he would escape all
674
the inconveniences of the inquisitorial nature of the tax. But the same objection might be urged against all other taxes. Any person by paying a shilling could go to Doctor's-commons, and thus acquaint himself with the private affairs of his neighbour. Again, by paying the same sum any one might go to the register-office, and inform himself of the mode in which estates had been conveyed. Yet to this no objection had been urged. Hon. Members, and particularly the hon. Member for Dungarvon, had objected to the Income-tax on the ground of the immorality which it was asserted it would give rise to. The same objection was applicable to all proceedings in law, not only in this House, but in courts of justice, and in cases of adjudication between one party and another. Frauds and perjury will be committed under circumstances the least favourable for the perpetration of such moral offences. Men, to maintain their own interest, will misrepresent the facts of the case. Such proceedings are of frequent occurrence in courts of law, where the evidence of the parties themselves is admitted as is provided in all the acts establishing Courts, in the nature of Courts of Request. They could not altogether guard against the commission of immorality; but he did not think that the Income-tax would be productive of more immorality with reference to fraud and perjury than other proceedings of a public nature were liable to. With reference to the alleged injustice of the tax with regard to particular individuals and particular interests, he would ask, did not the House pass private acts of Parliament which gave rise to complaints of injustice, and yet law after law of the same character was constantly enacted? He did not think that the House ought to consider the measure on such grounds. It should be recollected that a financial necessity had arisen, which rendered the adoption of an Income-tax indispensable. It had been maintained that the tax was a war tax, and ought only to be had recourse to under such circumstances. If an Income-tax were as cruel, oppressive, and unjust as it was represented to be, then, indeed, it would be oppressive and cruel to add such a tax to the calamities of war. He would rather see such a tax adopted in a time of peace. It would then be in their power to see how the tax would operate with

675
respect to individuals, and its inequalities, if there were any, could be easily obviated. It was not just to designate it a war tax. It had been urged that the right hon. Baronet had brought forward his measure with the view of benefitting the landed interest. He thought that the right hon. Baronet had adopted a strange mode of pleasing the landed interest, by proposing a tax which they could not by any possibility avoid. Hon. Gentlemen opposite also affirmed that the measure of the Government would eventually bring disgrace and discredit upon the right hon. Baronet at its head. He should have thought that such a consummation was the very thing desired by hon. Members opposite. He thought that the country was in favour of the measure of the Government. He had presented to the right hon. Baronet a memorial, signed by all the respectable inhabitants of Rochdale and its neighbourhood, in support of the plan of the Government; and in that petition the right hon. Baronet was urged to go on with the measure, as the memorialists thought that it would not only conduce to increase the revenue, but to permanently benefit all the interests of the country. As he thought that such would be the effect of the measure, it was his intention to give it his unqualified support.
Mr. E. R. Ricefelt it his duty to state why, after the vote that had been come to upon the resolutions previously proposed by the noble Lord, the Member for the city of London, he could not throw any obstruction in the way of the first reading of the bill. He did not hesitate to say that he should much prefer the then measures proposed by the late Government for the reduction of the duties Upon corn, sugar, and timber, to the propositions of the right hon. Baronet. But these measures had been rejected, and the alternative was now, whether they should have recourse to direct taxation, or to other taxes that would press more heavily upon the industry of the country. He objected to that part of the plan which placed the same amount of tax upon incomes derived from trade and professions, and incomes derived from real estates; and if the right hon. Baronet did not amend this part of his proposal, he should, at a proper time, namely—on the third reading—express his opinions upon the subject. Another of his reasons for not offering any opposition to the first
676
reading was, that there would be no more likely means to maintain peace than by showing that the resources of the country were amply sufficient to meet any struggle, whether warlike or otherwise, which, under certain circumstances, might become necessary to the assertion of our power and dignity, and by showing, further, that the more opulent classes were willing to refrain from throwing burdens upon the poorer and industrious classes. Upon these grounds he should not by his vote offer any opposition to the first reading of the bill. If the measure was amended in the manner he had suggested, he should then support it; otherwise he would oppose it upon the third reading.
Mr. Fox Maule,after having heard the speech of his hon. Friend (Mr. Rice), must say, that there appeared to him to be no necessity for his hon. Friend to reserve his vote to the third reading of the bill, because the right hon. Baronet (Sir Robert Peel) had already distinctly declared, that he would not make those modifications which his hon. Friend required. His hon. Friend might as well, therefore, vote against the hill now as on the third reading. He was anxious to say a few words before the question should be put, because his course respecting this tax had been much misrepresented. It had been stated in that House, but he could not find upon what authority, that in having voted in the minority for postponing the decision upon the resolutions of the right hon. Baronet till after Easter, he had followed a course founded solely upon a factious opposition to her Majesty's Government. Now, he would appeal to the recollection of the right hon. Gentlemen opposite, and to the House, as to the course which he took upon those resolutions. He stated distinctly, when they were first brought forward, that he considered sufficient time had not been given to the people of Scotland to consider their nature and bearing; and that, in voting in the minority, it was his distinct object to gain further time to enable them to do so. And when he was taxed by the hon. Member for Lincoln with voting for delay, his answer was, that he believed that that vote had been given agreeably to the opinions and wishes of his constituents; that he should soon meet those constituents, and hear from them whether they objected to his vote or not. Now, how did the right hon. Baronet (Sir J. Graham) deal with and turn about those simple facts? The right hon. Baronet stated that he had ap-

677
peared among his constituents, and had sounded them upon the propriety of holding a public meeting, in order to discuss the resolutions of the Government; but that he had been induced not to call a public meeting, because he knew that if he had done so, those resolutions would have been approved of; and therefore he left the town and those whom he represented in Parliament without having the courage to call a public meeting on the subject. [Sir J. Graham: I did not say anything about it.] He understood the right hon. Baronet's words to convey exactly that meaning to the House, and he stated at the time that the right hon. Baronet entirely misrepresented him. Now he had since found that the only source whence the right hon. Baronet derived his information was an anonymous letter in a newspaper. On comparing that letter with the speech of the right hon. Baronet, no one could be at a loss to see that the right hon. Baronet had trusted entirely to the information there given. He wished to state to the House that he never went among his constituents with the slightest intention to call a public meeting; he never meant to convene a meeting on the subject. But he learned sufficient while among his constituents to know that those shopkeepers and merchants who would be affected by the bill of the right hon. Baronet (Sir Robert Peel) most entirely disapproved of it. They complained of its inquisitorial character, and he should have to say a few words upon that point presently. They complained of its injustice and inequality; and not one of those with whom he conversed had a word to say in favour of an Income-tax. He was quite ready to admit, that in the town of Perth, and in all other towns, there was a class of persons whom the right hon. Baronet had captivated by his measures; and no doubt the right hon. Baronet had obtained their approbation to a very considerable extent. But, let me tell him (continued the right hon. Gentleman) that the day may come when he may find that those classes on whom he now trusts for the support of this measure, will have their eyes opened, and the veil that at present obscures their vision removed. Let me remind him that not many weeks since the agricultural interest thought they could confide in him for the protection of their interests; but are those who belong to the agricultural interest now confiding for protection in the right hon. Baronet? I will not use a hard word which has been objected to in
678
another place, but I will say, that the right hon. Baronet has disappointed the expectations of the agricultural interest, that the country has, from one end of it to the other, expressed that disappointment at the manner in which he has treated them by the measures he has brought forward. Let me warn the right hon. Baronet, that although he may experience much inconvenience from this discovery on the part of the agricultural interest, yet it is nothing to that which he and the country will experience when it shall be the case, as I think it will be soon, that the masses shall discover that this imposition of an Income-tax, coupled with the assertion that they were not to be affected by it, was a deception. The re-action which will follow from that discovery will be dangerous, not simply to the Government, for that would not concern me so much, but dangerous to the stability and peace of this country. My opinion is, that it is utterly impossible to inflict a tax of the nature of this tax without, in a very great degree, affecting the working classes. You affect all who have an income down to 150 l. a year; and in doing so, you affect those upon whom the working classes depend for employment. The hon. Member for Knaresborough has stated that already, in anticipation of the effect which this tax would have upon commercial transactions, many of the manufacturers in the north of England have declared, that they shall be compelled to turn away a great number of their workmen. I have no doubt, that this will be the case, however much you may deceive the working classes at this moment by persuading them now to come to your aid for the purpose of upholding this tax. You may rely upon it, that when they shall discover that they have been cheated into giving you their support, the reaction will be dangerous to the peace of this country. But why do they come to your aid? why do these working classes whom you invite to attend public meetings to consider the Income-tax, give you their assistance; and why does that great body appear at and disturb the proceedings of other public meetings called to consider other questions — the Corn-laws, and the various other monopolies in this country? Why do the classes I have named do this? It is that they may get the blow struck at the middle classes who, they imagine, stand between you and them as a hindrance to their gaining the great object they have long been aiming at—Universal Suffrage.

679
The lower classes may for a time appear satisfied with the scheme of the right hon. Baronet, because the effect of it will be to bring down the middle classes to their own level; but the result will be the injury and depression of both, and in time the combination of both will be irresistible. He thanked his noble Friend for giving him this opportunity of recording his opinion; the hon. Member further said, that opportunity had not, in fact, until now been afforded, and although it had been said, that the course was unusual, it was to be recollected, that the occasion was, at least, as unusual as the course. He should give his vote against the Income-tax upon the very grounds stated by the right hon. Baronet in 1833, for he could not concur in the explanation attempted by the right hon. Baronet this night, that his words were to he construed with reference to a conditional Income-tax in times not at all like the present. The right hon. Baronet had asserted, that
" The effect of an Income-tax must be, if it were properly collected, to expose men's businesses to a rigorous inquisition. It was a tax which would encourage immorality, fraud, and perjury, and it would discourage industry, which, in a country like this, was highly inexpedient."
Such had been the opinion of the right hon. Baronet some years ago, and such was his opinion at the present moment. Upon that plain and simple ground, he should rest and record his vote, and it was a ground which the country would understand more clearly from the distinct terms of the right hon. Baronet, than if he were to talk for months. The right hon. Baronet had alleged, that he was supported by a great many commercial bodies in the three kingdoms. He knew only of one corn-commercial body which had supported the right hon. Baronet—the Chamber of Commerce of Glasgow. He had heard this fact with some surprise, because not more than twelve months ago, the same Chamber of Commerce of Glasgow had passed a resolution approving of the resolution of his noble Friend (Lord John Russell) for a fixed duty on corn. Of whom, then, did the Chamber of Commerce at Glasgow consist? Of about 400 individuals, represented by thirty-six directors, of whom six retired annually. These directors, on their own responsibility, without concert or consultation, passed a resolution supporting the financial measures of the present Government. Of whom did these directors consist? The great majority were men
680
deeply involved in East and West Indian monopolies—men whose interest it was to maintain the duty on sugar. Therefore he must take leave to doubt the impartiality of the decision of the Chamber of Commerce of Glasgow. He did not find that the Chamber of Commerce of Edinburgh had come to any such resolution, and some other bodies of the same kind had recorded their disapprobation of the scheme. He should most cheerfully record his vote against, the first reading of the bill, because he was satisfied that this was not a season for imposing a tax upon the country, which ought to be reserved for a greater emergency, and because he was convinced also, that the lower orders would find ere long, that the pretence that it did not touch them and affect their interests was a mere delusion.
Mr. M. Milnesapprehended that the right hon. Member who had just sat down was the only man in the House, and would be the only man in the country, who was not convinced by the explanation of the right hon. Baronet with respect to the passage from a former speech which had been read by the noble Lord opposite (Lord John Russell.) The right hon. Member had omitted the important point of the altered circumstances of the times out of which the present measure in fact grew. As Cicero had remarked of a law in his time, " est invidiosa lex, veruntamen habet excusationem, non enim videtur hominis lex esse sed temporis." This Income-tax was not the law of the right hon. Baronet, but of the times upon which he was thrown. He objected to the practice of raking supposed jewels out of the rubbish of by-gone debates: mere recrimation could never convince, and he should rejoice to see this practice disused on either side of the House. He denied that the right hon. Baronet had uttered one word of despair or even of despondency when he introduced his plan; he had taken a just view of the state of the country, and had wisely adapted his measures to the emergency, but he had never uttered a syllable to unnerve the hand or dispirit the heart of a single Englishman. Allusion had been made on a former night to the testamentary disposition of the late Government, and it reminded him of the will of a celebrated literary man, who, having three sons, left to one of them his faith, to another his patience, and to the third his courage, but not a single shilling in money to any of them. So the late Go-

681
vernment at its decease left behind them many virtues, many good intentions, but not a single shilling in money. As to the late disaster in India, he hoped that nothing would be said or done at present to expose the circumstances which led to it; for if they were injudiciously disclosed, the effect might be to derange, confuse, and complicate our diplomatic relations with some of the great powers of Europe; yet, he must own, that to him the troops on the west of the Indus were as much objects of public interest as on the banks of the Douro or the Garonne, and the fleet in the Chinese seas as the fleet in the British Channel. In reference to the present posture of the country, it became the House to consider what was the condition of our connections with France and America. The full consequences of the unhappy treaty of the 15th of July, 1840, were only now beginning to make themselves apparent. The anti-English feeling in France was rather increasing than diminishing; France looked with suspicion at every act and intention of this country, and seemed almost to distrust her honour. Whatever we did we seemed to be inevitably misunderstood. Thus situated, it became the right hon. Baronet to take care that he had such a command of the purse of Great Britain as would enable him, should the occasion arise, at a moment's warning, to rouse the energies and apply the resources of the empire. He doubted whether he should have risen tonight, if he had not wished to express his unwilling dissent from one portion of the measure before the House. The right hon. Baronet had given such a large exemption to the labouring classes, that it required more than all the ingenuity of his opponents to pervert and misrepresent his intentions; but what he wished was, that the right hon. Baronet should afford an exemption to the labours of the head as well as to the labours of the hand. Trades and professions ought not to be taxed in the same proportion as funded and landed property, and he thought that some modification might yet be introduced into the bill which would make a distinction of I or 1½ per cent, in favour of skill, learning, and intellect. He pleaded for some distinction between labour and ease, between the fruits of toil and the enjoyment of superfluities. But whether this concession were made or not, he was well persuaded that if this bill were passed, the
682
right hon. Baronet would, ere long, be able to come down to the House and declare, that the difficulties with which he had contended had been overcome, and that the country was in the enviable condition of being able to enjoy peace, if Providence so granted, or to undertake war, if forced upon her, and to accomplish all the great objects which lay within the reach of this great country, directed by a strong, and honest, and enlightened administration.
Mr. Raikes Currie:I ask for a few moments of that indulgence, which I believe the House never refuses to one who addresses it with reluctance and with sincerity. I may be supposed to address it with reluctance, because having had the honour of a seat here for five years, I have scarcely troubled it with as many sentences; with sincerity, because I fear that my sentiments will find little acceptation in this focus of party spirit. I feel it my duty, after the best consideration I can give the subject, to support the propositions of the right hon. Baronet. I am by no means insensible to the serious objections to an Income-tax; — I am by no means blind to the defects and short comings of the tariff: but, taking the Government propositions as a whole (and as a whole I think we are called on to consider them), they appear to me bold, honest, comprehensive; required by the circumstances which they are brought forward to meet; and, at all events, not more objectionable than any substitute equally effective which could be carried in the existing constitution of Parliament. I think this measure a bold measure, because, in the tariff some powerful and protected interests are boldly dealt with, because in the discharge of public duty the right hon. Baronet braves the odium of imposing a tax which, whatever it may seem to be at present, will become doubtless peculiarly unpopular with that middle class who form the bulk of your constituencies; its inquisitorial attributes will secure for it their extreme aversion. I think it an honest measure, because, while we impose no direct burden on the working classes, on the great body of the people, we severely tax ourselves. No other impost would hit so hard, the class to which I belong. You take 3 per cent from funded capital, and 3 per cent from profits—no small inroad, let me tell you, on a large commercial and banking business,

683
I think this is a comprehensive measure, because, while you take money from the public, you do something at least, something in the right direction, to unfetter commerce, and to invigorate and expand trade, the source of all revenue. I believe, that those who most strenuously oppose the measure, acknowledge that it will be effective for the purpose it professes. But then it is not required by the exigencies of the public service. This, indeed, is a most weighty argument; for, if this be true, your tax is downright spoliation and injustice. I cannot come to this conclusion. When I see our expenditure annually exceeding our income, till a deficit of ten millions stares us in the face— when I see the miserable expedients to which we have resorted—when I remember the paramount duty, I will not say of upholding public credit, for that no one will deny, but of placing all your financial provisions above the shadow of suspicion, I can-not think that you have made too great an effort. When I look across the Atlantic, and see the shameless course which men who spring from our race, speak our language, and suppose that they have improved on our institutions, have pursued. I feel more than ever that this country is called on to exercise her high vocation as a teacher of all nations, and that the best teacher is example. Then I turn from financial to political considerations, and I confess I do not think that you have overstated the emergency. Your Indian wars would not alarm me if we had a righteous cause; but based, as they seem to me to be, on the most horrible injustice, I tremble at the wonderful arrangement of retributive justice which all history shows us does overtake the proudest and the mightiest, who become unprincipled oppressors. But there is enough in Europe to call on us to set our house in order. War appears to most of us such folly and such monstrous wickedness, that we can hardly conceive that a civilized nation would wantonly engage in it; but those who are acquainted with the irritation which exists in France, who know what a fearful part the effects of wounded vanity have played in the drama of the world, may well wish this country to be prepared for all contingencies. Thus, Sir, for the maintenance of credit, for the maintenance of European peace, for the vigorous termination of those struggles in which you are unfortunately engaged, I believe that an increase of re-
684
venue is necessary—and granting this, I own I have listened with respect and attention to the substitutes rather hinted at than propounded by the noble Lord, without any conviction of their adequacy. But, say some of my hon. Friends to me, will you vote for an Income-tax in order to maintain abuses? Will you lay fresh burdens on the people, when you see that by freeing trade and maintaining duties, not for purposes of protection, but for purposes of revenue only, you might replenish the Exchequer and absolutely relieve the people? I reply to them, God forbid, if this were the real alternative before us; but while I cordially acknowledge that all this is theoretically possible, that it is undoubtedly the course of abstract justice, is it possible at the present moment, with the present distribution of political leaders, that it can be accomplished by any man with the instrumentalities with which he has to work? There seems to me a strange hiatus in all Whig argumentation on this subject—you conveniently forget that the instrument of legislation is a monopolist Parliament, the legitimate product of that distribution of political power on which you have stamped your approbation. The hon. Member continued to say, that he had looked forward to protecting and enlarging the suffrage as the means of righteous legislation when he first came into Parliament in 1837. How had his hopes been met? By a manly and candid declaration from the noble Member for London, that the Reform Act, advisedly and with premeditation, gave the preponderance of power to the landowners of the kingdom, and that if any changes were to be made in it, he could be ho party to them, as he considered the measure a final settlement of the question. But then all history shows that no dominant class ever voluntarily surrendered that which they deemed profitable to their own class-interests. Thus the friends of liberal principles and of free-trade were placed in a complete dilemma. After four years, not very well spent, the noble Lord came forward with his attack upon monopoly in a parliament of monopolists, and however chivalrous his self-devotion, the crusade was hopeless. He repudiated the only agencies which could win the victory, and then rushed into the battle. The noble Lord, in his lighter moments, was wont to smile at the impracticabilities of specu-

685
lative radicals and abstract politicians; men who would be great statesmen if the world were a chess-board and human beings pawns, and all this might be very just, but did they ever undertake anything more visionary, more chimerical? One of his political friends had said of the noble Lord, that he was a man ready, at five minutes' notice, to take the command of the Channel fleet, or to build St. Peter's. The noble Lord under took —a far more arduous task—to build the temple of free trade out of the hewn stones of monopoly; and the result was that the building tumbled down, and the noble Lord and his friends remained struggling and mutilated under the scaffolding and fragments, Here we are a helpless, hopeless opposition; not so for want of leaders, for the noble Lord has the character and ability to lead any party and to conduct any Government,—but because we present the miserable spectacle of a soi-disant popular party, without a solitary puff of popular sympathy to fill our sails. What, then, remains for me, who most sincerely think that free-trade, the gradual abandonment, not of prohibition only, but protection, is absolutely essential to the welfare of your population, and, therefore, to the security of property, and to the safety of the state? What ought to be the course of the opposition? I will tell you what it ought not to be. It ought not to give a factious resistance to measures which they had advocated when sitting on the Ministerial side of the House. How could Liberal Members advance their views? By Whig instrumentality? He thought not. Were they to organise an agitation for Universal Suffrage? He was not prepared to do so. How then was the chasm to be bridged which the noble Lord had created, when he slammed the door of the constitution in the face of the unrepresented? What should they do? They ought to make the best use of any measures which showed that the right hon. Gentleman opposite desired to do justice to the people. And upon all these measures he would take the liberty of judging for himself. He had not been an inattentive ob-observer of what had taken place during the last five years. He had seen the right hon. Baronet conduct an opposition with great ability, and he believed, on the whole, with fairness. He found him now charged by hon. Gentlemen on that (the
686
Opposition) side of the House with errors the most opposite, and labouring under accusations the most contradictory. At one time it was said that he had betrayed the aristocracy; and, at another, that he had pleged himself to uphold all monopolies; and we looked at the right hon. Gentleman on this side of the House, through the smoked glass of faction, and so fancy him as black as we wish. But the right hon. Gentleman two years ago, had made a pregnant declaration. "I consider the manufacturing interests of the country of more importance to you the agricultural interest, than any protecting law." The right hon. Baronet had said also, "I will never be a Minister to carry out other men's opinions." Coupling, therefore, these two opinions together, he (Mr. Currie) was sanguine enough to see in them the germs of a better system. He was sanguine enough to believe, that through his instrumentality, if, instead of hounding him on to take up with those who were ultra-protectionists, they (the Opposition) pursued an impartial course, viewing, if they pleased, his proceedings with suspicion, but still doing him justice, they would gain some good. He knew of no other agency by which they could do justice to the people. He told the right hon. Baronet, that he must do this justice, and that he must unfetter trade—that the days of legislation for class interests were numbered. It remained for the right hon. Gentleman to choose whether justice and mercy should issue forth in peace from the portals of our ancient monarchy, or whether they should be enthroned hereafter, at some doubtful, distant period, upon the wreck of all our institutions—under those institutions, he confessed, that he would wish to live and die. He would say to the right hon. Baronet in the words which he himself used the other night.—" Elevate your vision"— look beyond the sordid and party interests by which you are surrounded— look forth on the suffering, starving, but patient millions. In an old and densely - peopled country, where your chiefest care should be to make food cheap and plentiful, your party desire to maintain arrangements to render it scarce and dear. You cannot be the dupe of the shallow sophistry to which you sometimes condescend; follow your own free will. You know—you must know —that expanding trade offers the only

687
hope for the existence of your increasing population, and for the safety of the state. You cannot be frightened by the childish bugbear of national dependence. You know that this country never can be wholly independent. You know, that while casual and occasional dependence is a perilous thing, full of danger to our monetary system, constant dependence is the handmaid of commerce, and the only sure cement of peace. If you say that protection is a political and social question, you cannot forget that the despair of starving millions may merge all politics and all society in one overwhelming ruin. You have the power to do justice to all classes. What a fearful responsibility that fact announces! Will you not, by timely concessions to the claims of justice and humanity, avert that fearful union of the starving workmen and their ruined masters, when they shall merge their mutual animosities in one fell cry for vengeance, and bury you and your monopolies under the ruins of the constitution? He would say to the right hon. Gentleman—and he spoke with all sincerity and respect—he would say to him once more, in his own emphatic language—" Elevate your vision"—look forth beyond a few feverish evanescent years, beyond the tiny segment of time with which we are personally conversant— when all the familiar faces which haunt these precincts have departed— when every pulse which beats within these walls shall have ceased for ever—when my name and the names of nine-tenths of those who hear me shall be utterly forgotten, or remembered only as household words, cherished by children and descendants—you will then be spoken of—for you there is no oblivion—you belong to history. You will be spoken of as an astute and able Minister—as a statesman fertile in expedients—as a debater perhaps unrivalled—as one who achieved pre-eminence in a field of the intensest competition. All this your enemies and detractors must admit. Will you not claim a higher and more enduring eulogy? Will you not enter among a far scantier and more glorious band, among those master spirits who have achieved supreme power, and used it like gods, to do justice to mankind —who have stamped their impress on the age in which they lived, and given an impulse, large, continuous, and abiding, to human happiness and human virtue? You stand on the loftiest summit of ambition;
688
as you look forth from that dizzy height upon the millions of this mighty empire on that multitude, of all people, nations, and languages will not your heart be stirred within you—will you not acknowledge a constraining and diviner influence, enlightening and controlling you, like the Chaldean seer, to bless and not to curse them.
Mr. T. Duncombesaid, that if half the compliments which had been just paid to the right hon. Baronet and the Gentlemen opposite were true, every one in that House who had heard them, and every one out of it who read them, must be satisfied that the nation at the present moment was the most favoured nation on the face of the earth— that we had arrived at that point at which our political millennium was certain, and that we ought to bless the hour, and praise the day, when we saw the finances of the country regulated by the right hon. Baronet the Member for Tamworth— when we saw the forces paid by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Kent—and when we saw the magistrates appointed by the right hon. Baronet the Secretary of State for the Home Department (Sir James Graham), the Member for the great, and independent, and numerous constituency of Dorchester. These were, indeed, days in which we ought to fall down upon our knees and worship these gods upon earth. The hon. Gentleman had talked about living and dying under the institutions of the country; he would be the last individual who would wish to prevent his hon. Friend's living and dying under any institutions he might think proper. He hoped that he would long live, that the day of his death would be long deferred, and that, at any rate, it would not take place during the existence of the Income-tax, or of the Government that now oppressed the country. He differed, however, from the hon. Gentleman in the opinion he entertained of this measure. The hon. Gentleman said it was a comprehensive, a bold, and an honest measure. He admitted, indeed, that it was a comprehensive measure, for he believed it was a measure that would entail universal distress and every sort of hardship upon the country. But he denied that it was a bold measure or an honest measure. The hon. Member for Pontefract (Mr. Monckton Milnes) had said that nothing but a strong Government could have proposed such a measure. He agreed with him that nothing but a strong Government could have ventured upon a

689
measure so obnoxious, so disgusting, and so repugnant to the feelings of the country. They were a strong Government; but in what consisted their strength? They were strong in numbers here, but were they strong in the public confidence? He knew that the right hon. Baronet was supported by a majority, who avowed that no amount of political inconsistency should prevent their adhesion, who declared that there was no profundity of political dirt they would not submit to be dragged through to support the right hon. Baronet; and then they told him that this was a strong Government. The hon. Member for Pontefract said, that he would like to see a dissolution at that moment; so should be. He should like to see the right hon. Baronet taking the sense of the country upon this question by a dissolution of Parliament. The right hon. Baronet, however, was too good a judge to appeal to the people. Restricted as the franchise was, he dare not appeal to the people. With regard to the question itself, the chief point in the speech of the noble Lord near him (Lord John Russell) had not been answered. The whole measure had been declared to be a juggle, and the noble Lord asked, what had been often asked before in debates of that House, "whom the measure was to benefit?" For they had heard much of the benefit it would afford to the working classes. Directly any hon. Member on that (the Opposition) side of the House complained that the Government were picking their pockets by an Income-tax, hon. Gentlemen opposite got up and said, that with the other hand at all events, the right hon. Baronet presented the people with a great quantity of beef, mutton, and other articles, so that the cost of living will be so cheap, that what was taken out of the pocket would not be felt. These allusions, however, created great uneasiness on the other side of the House, and up would get some greasy grazier, and assure his agricultural friends that there would not be the slightest danger—that there would be no cattle and no sheep imported, and not a foreign beast would appear to alarm the English agriculturist. The same arguments were repeated by the hon. Member for Durham (Mr. Liddell), who said that a large supply of horned cattle was perfectly visionary; that he agreed with the right hon. Baronet in opinion that the alarm was wholly unfounded, that the demand from France was far beyond the supply. And the hon. Member agreed also
690
with the right hon. Baronet in thinking that there would be no beef and no mutton; and that if the cornucopia, of which hon. Members were afraid, existed, he could not find it. Then came the noble Lord the Secretary for Ireland, and he repeated nearly the same words. Now, what did all this mean? Who was right and who was wrong? He said it was a juggle between them, and the longer the debate continued the more perfectly would the film be removed from the eyes of the people. To the House of Commons the Government said, that they would obtain the tariff only at the price of the Income-tax, and to the working classes they said, that they were free from the Income-tax, but they must pay for their freedom by the distress they would experience from the tariff. They would not, however, be able long to hold out this delusion to the working classes of the country, who were beginning to see that the Income-tax would be the cause of that distress which would send thousands upon thousands to the workhouse. Let them look at the trades which would be flung out of employment by the tariff. Let them take the leather trade as an example. There were in the metropolis 30,000 families dependent upon the boot and shoe making and the leather trade of this country; and the tariff reduced the duty to such an extent, that it would be impossible for the English workmen to compete with foreigners; and they said, and said rightly, "If you remove the protection from us, remove also the protection granted to the agriculturists, and relieve us from the bread-tax." And if the argument of the hon. Baronet were true as to the small effect of the tariff upon food, he said that the measure was not an honest measure with regard to them. Then, again, let them take the cork-cutters. The whole trade would be brought to certain ruin by the reduction of duty on manufactured corks, and he did not believe that there was any set of persons who were more deserving the protection of that House, or the respect of the public. In that trade it was the pride that no single individual received support in a workhouse; they supported and they buried their own poor. A few days since, in consequence of the failure of their last hope, the amended tariff of the right hon. Baronet, which, though it raised the duty, did not in fact offer them any better protection, they were in despair. Then there were the straw-plait manufacturers of this country. He believed that there were

691
150,000 females employed in the straw-plait manufactures; and he had received several communications, not only with reference to the straw-plait manufactures, and the boot and shoe manufactures, and the cork makers, but from other trades which would be injured materially by the tariff. He would give a sample of what was going on from a letter of one of the straw-plait manufacturers in Suffolk, whose petition he had lately presented to the House. He said—
" I cannot consider the Government proposition otherwise than awfully cruel to our own poor, unless they would first give us free-trade in bread corn. So convinced are the manufacturers in this neighbourhood that the proposed tariff will destroy our home trade, that we are all discharging our hands as fast as we can, and the wailings of the poor women are already heart-rending."
How did the right hon. Baronet prove that this measure would benefit the working classes? Only satisfy him that it would benefit the working classes, and as far as his vote went he would give his support to the right hon. Baronet. It was never maintained in the old days of the Income-tax, or of the property-tax, that it could in any way benefit the working classes. The noble Lord (Lord John Russell) had already quoted part of the speech of the right hon. Baronet in 1833, but he had not read the concluding portion. It was well worthy of especial notice. The right hon. Baronet said:—
" With respect to a tax upon income without property, I very much doubt whether it would promote the interests of the labouring classes, because it would diminish the funds at present appropriated to the encouragement of industry and the promotion of labour, and it would ultimately be found that the lax did not affect the person who paid it so much as the labourer by diminishing his means of employment;"
Again, in 1835, on another discussion for referring the question of the general taxation of the country to a select committee, the present Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Goulburn), in answer to the hon. Mover, Mr. Robinson, said, that although it had been agreed, that the property-tax had been opposed principally by the wealthy classes, this was all a mistake. He went on to say—
" Hon. Members appear to me to have entirely forgotten the circumstances under which the former property-tax was imposed, and afterwards repealed. The hon. Member for Tynemouth has contended, that when the question of the repeal of that tax was under the
692
consideration of Parliament, the repeal was carried solely by the influence of the wealthy portions of the community. Now, is it true, that the opposition to the tax at the time of its repeal proceeded from the aristocracy? Quite the contrary. I well remember, that the agitation of that question did hot originate with those who are usually termed the aristocracy, but with an individual who avowed himself, and was generally acknowledged to be, the warm, perhaps, the extravagant, advocate of popular interests—I mean the late Lord Chancellor of England, Lord Brougham—who took up the question, and opposed the tax expressly on the ground of its tendency to fetter the industry of the country. The hon. Member (Mr. Robinson) was not then in Parliament, and of course did not hear as I did the speeches then made by the noble and learned Lord, against this tax, week after week, month after month, in which the consideration of the interest of the rich entered but little, if at all, into the arguments employed. What he insisted on was, the inquisitorial nature of the law—that it threw impediments in the way of trade and commerce, and interfered most injuriously with the industry of the labouring classes. The hon. Member, therefore, is wrong in supposing that the clamour for its removal at that time came from the rich, or that its abolition took place in deference to their wishes. Whether it be right to re-impose it, I do not now say; but I fully concur in what has been observed upon the present occasion, that if imposed again it must apply alike to all parts of the empire—to Ireland as well as to England."
What right had the right hon. Gentleman, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, to say that he was now bringing in a measure to benefit the working classes, which in 1833, as well as in 1835, was stated to be a tax of such a nature, that it must fall more heavily on the working classes than on any other? He asked why they did not apply this measure to Ireland? Ireland benefitted as much as any other part of the empire by the measure which was the immediate cause of the present deficiency; of the penny post, had not Ireland as much as England the benefit? But what did they propose to do? They put on a small tax of 200,000 l. on spirits, whilst they put an Income-tax of 4,000,000 l. upon England. [An hon. Member: "The stamp duties also."] The right hon. Baronet, in truth, admitted a great part of their case. He admitted that it was an inquisitorial tax. Did the public know the consequence of this inquisition? He would just give a few of the questions that were asked by that inquisition, the last year before the property-tax was repealed. The hon. Gentleman who had just spoken said, that the tax was popular with

693
the commercial interests. It certainly was not popular in the city of London in the year 1815. In the last year there were 11,000 surcharges in the city of London alone. What had occurred upon those surcharges? Four thousand had appealed against the surcharges; three thousand of these appellants succeeded, and one thousand surcharges were confirmed. Seven thousand persons submitted to the surcharge without complaint. Well might it be argued from this what was the state of things when seven thousand surcharges were submitted to. Either this large number of a great commercial community were prepared and did absolutely evade the assessment, or they shrunk from exposing their circumstances. It was then said what a pestilential effect such a tax must have upon the morals of the community: yet the right hon. Baronet told the country they must submit to this inquisition. What Were the questions put to the professional men, the tradesmen, and the victuallers? They had been collected and laid before the House: and when it was proposed to keep them as records of the tax, Lord Brougham said that the only course to be taken with respect to these documents was to have them burnt at the hands of the common hangman, and burnt they were by persons appointed for that purpose in every part of the country. And well might they be burnt when such question's as these were asked of the professional men, the merchants, and the traders. Of the traders it was asked:—
" What is the amount of goods sold or business done in the three years preceeding 1814? Upon what principle do you calculate your gross profits, either by percentage or any other mode, specifying the manner? Are you subject to any deduction for interest of money for capital or money borrowed, and if so state the amount? What is the amount of the salaries or wages of persons employed by you?"
Was such an inquisition to be treated as nothing? He would only next turn to the licensed victuallers, and of them it was asked,—
" What is the amount of money taken in your house in the course of one week, month, or year? State the particulars of your trade, whether beer, wine, spirits, or eating? What is the quantity of beer drawn per month? Is there any interest paid by you to the brewer, or to any other person, for money for the purposes of business, if so, state the amount? Have you, besides your trade, any income from money in the funds or houses, or any other species of profit whatever?"
694
And not only were they obliged to make these answers, but they were obliged to swear to theft truth. Hon. Gentleman talked of the support the measure obtained, but he confessed he could not find any individual out of the House who was in favour of the tax; and he believed that if the House could possibly be converted— he feared it was almost impracticable— into a Palace of Truth, the right hob. Gentleman would find that the hon. Gentleman sitting behind him, when the question was put, aye or no, would say "no" to this most obnoxious tax; He had, however, another objection to this tax. It was said that it favoured the landowner and oppressed the tradesman. Under the present Reform Act every borough elector was bound to pay, before the 20th of July in every year, all the Queen's taxes, and assessed taxes made previous to the 6th of April before he could be registered. The county electors were hot forced to make any such payment. This, therefore, would give another great and important power, under which the myrmidons and spies of the Government were to be let loose on the country. He had already brought the rate-paying clauses before the House; they would be now giving a further power to the government to intimidate the voters by means of their agents, the tax-collectors, who would no doubt act in perfect harmony with the 364 magistrates for boroughs lately appointed by the right hon. Baronet. He knew that the rate-paying clauses were a convenience to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. They were the Chancellor of the Exchequer's clauses, and they reversed the true order of things, for they made taxation precede representation, instead of allowing representation to go before taxation. He had no doubt that this would be a most productive tax to the right hon. Baronet. No one disputed that; but he told the right hon. Baronet it was a tax which could only be collected amidst the heart burnings and dissensions of the people. It was possible that the opponents of the measure might be defeated, but at any rate they had the satisfaction of knowing that when this nefarious machinery should be in full operation, they had warned the country of its danger, and although defeated they had done their best to pre-vent the plunder and persecution of the people.
Mr. Roebucksaid, that it appeared, that any hon. Gentleman who chose to act for himself upon his Own sense of what is

695
right, and not to do that which might be pleasing to those shining lights who sat about him, was to be subjected to an ordeal by no means pleasant, nor much, he thought, for the honour of those who practised it. It seemed, that those who sat on the Opposition benches assumed to themselves the right of saying, that if any one among them did what they did not like, he was to be marked out as the enemy of the cause, and, it therefore, became the duty of those who did not share in such views to state fully and energetically what were their real sentiments, and what induced them to depart from the bright lights who sat around them, and follow the small candle of their own intelligence. He should endeavour to do this for himself. A few words which he had addressed to the House on a former occasion had given rise to much observation; but he was glad to have had a defender in one (Mr. R. Currie), who had made a much more eloquent defence than he could have made for himself. That hon. Member also had spoken of the boldness, the honesty, and the straightforwardness of the right hon. Baronet's measure; so that he was not quite alone in his opinion of the bill, and he had the eloquent defence of the hon. Gentleman to fall back upon. In addressing himself to the question he would take all the elements involved in it, and having combined them into one whole, he would compare the two systems— namely, that proposed by the right hon. Baronet, and that proposed by the noble Lord the Member for London. In justice to himself and to the right hon. Baronet, he was bound to lake this course—to consider the whole of his proposition together, not to take any part as a unit, but combining the tax and the tariff, to compare the whole measure with that of the noble Lord. He would also take the whole proposition of the noble Lord, and having stated the exigencies of the time, he would analyze both plans, and then put it to the House to say, which was the best under the peculiar exigencies of the country. If he satisfied the House, that the exigency was such as to require a searching remedy, and if he could show that the proposition of the right hon. Baronet was the most complete and effectual, he would assume, that he had made out his whole case. He would first call the attention of the House to those points in which the plan of the right hon. Baronet and that of the noble Lord agreed, and thus the value of each
696
would be more easily appreciated. He should also point out in what degree he differed from both, as to the remedy which the present juncture required, and failing to induce the House to concur in his opinion, he would give reasons for falling back upon the plan of the right hon. Baronet as the better of the other two. The noble Lord admitted, that at the present moment there was a great deficiency of the revenue to meet the expenses. This was equally admitted on the other side. The noble Lord allowed, that the deficiency ought to be provided for out of the current income. Upon this point also both parties were agreed. They further agreed, that the deficiency could not be saved out of the expenditure. There, however, he differed from them both. In his opinion, the proper mode of meeting the present emergency was, not by imposing further burdens upon the people in their present distressed condition, but to reduce the expenditure to the level of the income. The House, however, he was satisfied, would not agree to this course, and if he should press any such proposition to a division, he did not believe more than half-a-dozen Members would go out with him upon it. He did not think it an unfair assumption to say, that any proposal to meet the deficiency by saving from the expenditure would be almost universally resisted by the House. If, as had been threatened, the constituency complained of this tax, he would say, they had no just right to complain. It was they who elected the majority, well knowing that the persons whom they sent to Parliament would vote against any plan for making up a deficiency by saving from the expenditure; and they had no right to complain of that which was the work of their own hands. Those who were entitled to complain were, the persons not represented in that House; and he hoped, that they would complain, not of the right hon. Baronet, but of the noble Lord who spoke of the finality of the Reform Bill. That doctrine was the root from which all the evil sprang. The blame of the present exigency rested on both parties, but on none more than on the noble Lord who moved the amendment to the proposition of the right hon. Baronet. The noble Lord had followed out his system for more than eleven years, and the consequence was, that he and his party had fallen from a height of popularity which no Minister had reached for a long time previously, and he was now

697
left in the hopeless condition in which he would find himself at the end of the division. The unrepresented classes were the persons who should feel just indignation at the course which had been pursued, and that indignation ought, properly, to fall to the share of the noble Lord. It was granted, that there was a deficiency, that the deficiency must be provided for, and the question then was, what were the best means of meeting it? It was not to be met by those charges and recriminations too commonly indulged in, which had the effect of making one debate to spring, phoenix-like, out of the ashes of another. It would not do to take up a volume of Hansard at one side and pitch it across the House at the head of an hon. Member on the other, who would retort by pitching another volume of the same work back at his assailant. It would not do, like two angry scolds, to deal in accusations and retort, such as "It was you who did it".— "No, it was not, it was you." Such was the course hitherto pursued. When it was asked who caused the deficiency? the right hon. Baronet said, "We did not. Look to Canada, and see there the smouldering ashes of a smothered war." The right hon. Baronet said this, as if he had no share in the proceeding—as if he had not stood at the back of the noble Lord and hounded him on. If there was to be a war expenditure, both parties must admit their share in the proceedings which led to it. There was no use in idle talk and recrimination; there was no use in flinging Hansard in each other's faces. The people knew the share which each party had in reducing the country to its present exigency, and might justly say with Mercutio, "A plague on both your houses." Both were equally guilty, and both were justly exposed to the indignation of the country. The right hon. Baronet had to raise a sum of from 2,000,000 l. to 3,000,000 l. to meet and cover the expenditure of the year. This he could not effect by any alteration of the tariff, and here it should be remarked, that the noble Lord in all his propositions never once said, that he could raise the required sum by any of his plans. This was a curious fact. The noble Lord never pointed out as a man of business any plan which would clearly go to provide for the deficiency. There was still another point. The noble Lord had stated, that he could provide for the deficiency, but contented himself by saying, that his plan would produce a cer-
698
tain sum of money. One of the modes was by an 8s. duty on corn, which, it should be remarked, was not simply for the purpose of revenue but for protection also, and on the point of protection the noble Lord again agreed with the right hon. Baronet. The country should understand, that; when there was so much talk of relieving the working classes, and so much indignation expressed at the imposition of an Income- tax, which it was said, would press upon capital and thus prevent the employment of labour,—the country should remember, that notwithstanding this indignation, the Leader of the Opposition united with the Leader of the Government in keeping up the tax upon corn. How, he should like to know, would hon. Gentlemen who professed their desire to remove all restrictions on the importation of food, reconcile their votes for a total abolition of the Corn-laws with the imposition of an 8s. duty? How would they reconcile to themselves and their constituents their support of an 8s. duty on the first article of life, or what excuse could they give when (he hoped he should be pardoned the expression) for party purposes they went in direct opposition to their former votes? With respect to the tariff of the right hon. Baronet, the noble Lord concurred in that also, as far as it went, though he condemned it as not going far enough with respect to certain articles. He also agreed in thinking, that it did not go far enough, for he was desirous of doing away with the whole of the discrimating duties. As far, however, as the noble Lord and the right hon. Baronet were concerned, it would not be difficult to bring them into equilibrio upon this point. If the noble Lord went further in the article of sugar, the right hon. Baronet made amends in other articles of provision; and here the measure of the right hon. Baronet was of the utmost importance to the working classes, and it was well for the country to find a Minister who was bold enough to make such a proposition, notwithstanding the opposition which it was calculated to create amongst his own supporters. Protection to the landed interest was the cry usually raised for paltry purposes, whilst it was obvious that the whole lives of parties in that House were spent in a disgraceful scramble for power. [Cheers from the Ministerial benches.]He was glad to hear that cheer, but who, he asked, were those who used the Poor-law for electioneering purposes,

699
professing to be the friends of the poor, and then turning round to the farmers, assured them that they would look to the protection of agriculture? These courses were adopted for party purposes, and night after night that House exhibited disgraceful scrambles for power both on one side and on the other. What was there in the proposition of the right hon. Baronet to quarrel with, when there was so much of agreement between him and the noble Lord? The difference between them was this:—They both agreed that there was a deficiency, which the right hon. Baronet proposed to make up by a direct tax, which the noble Lord never, as it appeared, intended to provide for. ["Oh, oh."] If he was in error, let it be shown. If the noble Lord proposed to make up the deficiency, let it be shown that he had done so. It had not, however, yet been shown. It was true the noble Lord said, that by his plan some monies might be gained from lowering the taxes, but it was not attempted to be shown, that a sum would be realized sufficient to meet the deficiency of revenue. The right hon. Baronet the Secretary for the Home Department adverted to this, and put the question as to what tax could be re-imposed—whether any of the proposed alterations of the noble Lord would make up the required sum, and, if not, how was that sum to be supplied? This question the right hon. Baronet distinctly put, and had any answer been given to it? The question was pertinent and pithy. Why had it not been answered? Simply because it could not. Much had been said of political economy, much sympathy had been expressed for the poor, and complaints had been made that employment would be curtailed by the defalcation of capital. The noble Lord argued that revenue should be raised, not by putting on, but by taking off taxes, which would lead to a larger consumption of the several commodities thus relieved. But out of whose pocket would the larger sum come? Somebody must pay it. [" No, no. "] No, no! If 2,000,000 l. were to be raised, somebody must pay it; and would not this be a defalcation of capital? But even then it was admitted that the whole of the deficiency could not be raised in that way. If so, what else remained but direct taxation? There must in any event be 2,000,000 l. taken from the means of employment, to meet the exigencies of the State. If done directly the people
700
would know how it was taken; if indirectly, it would amount to the same sum. He defied any political economist to take 2,000,000 l. of money from the people without thereby diminishing their means of enjoyment. He could show from the writings of the most eminent political economists that all taxation fell upon capital, wages, rent, and profits. That which fell upon wages was bad, as was also that which fell upon capital. The question for a statesman to consider was whether more was taken in the way of taxation than the people could reproduce annually; for if there was not a reproduction the tax then began to fall upon capital, which would then be reduced. It would then be a statesman's duty to act as one would act in private life, and reduce his expenditure to the amount of his income. Now, if a proposition were made which would have the effect of so altering our fiscal regulation as to give to the people what they ought to have, and if an instrument were provided for carrying such a proposition into effect, would the noble Lord vote for it? No, he would not unless it afforded protection to agriculture. Taking, therefore, the House as it was, and judging between the leaders of both parties, seeing that the total abolition of these duties could not be effected, and that the House was not prepared to make such fiscal alterations as would give the people their rights, opposed as such a proposition would be by the noble Lord and the right hon. Baronet, what was to be done? Was the country to be left in the financial state in which it would remain if the noble Lord's resolution were carried— a state in which no man of forethought, honour, or courage would allow it to remain, Under such circumstances every man was called on to make a sacrifice, and he was not to be daunted by the cuckoo note of inquisitorial. All talk of that kind would quickly fade away in the result of actual experience. For his own part he should vote in the way which he thought right, and if his constituents thought he was wrong, they could give an intimation to that effect in the proper way. He should not be frightened from his propriety by the alleged inquisitorial nature of the tax. As to the idle taunt of a war-tax it was beneath an answer. What meant a war-tax? A tax which was to be spent in war. Was not money expended in the war in Affghanistan? Was not

701
money spent in the war in China? This money was raised by taxation, and so much of it as was spent thus was a war-tax. People talked of a reserve in time of need. Was not this a time of need? We wanted more than we had. We had acted like careless spendthrifts for more than ten years, and it was high time that we should make up our accounts and pay over the counter. The money must be had somewhere, and if it pressed upon the industry of the people, they had the remedy in their own hands. It was in the power of the constituency to turn out any man who voted against the imposition of taxes. As regarded the present proposition, he concurred in the opinion that a direct tax was the least expensive, at the same time that it gave to the people the advantage of knowing what they had to pay. He hoped that he should not be ranked as an enemy of the people in taking the course which he considered the best. He might be wrong, but guided by the light he had, and weighing well the two propositions, he was prepared to advocate the plan which let the people know what they had to pay, and imposed the tax in the cheapest manner. He should, therefore, vote for the proposition of the right hon. Baronet, and he hoped he should be able, hereafter, to persuade him to alter what was crying and unjust in the measure when it went into committee. ["Oh, oh."] Yes, he would oppose in committee whatever he considered unjust in the measure, and, he believed, that means might be adopted for making it press more equally. It was in the power of the House, by votes, by arguments, by addresses to the Crown, to alter what was obnoxious in the measure, and if these failed, not on those who made the endeavour to amend the bill, but on those who resisted it, let the odium fall. He would vote for the right hon. Baronet, because he alone of the two statesmen who had made their several propositions, had really adopted means equal to the exigency. He had fairly met the difficulty in the face, and had stated it to the full extent in which it ought to be exhibited. He had met the case honestly, and had plainly stated it without circumlocution. He had not indulged in any shuffling expediency, and was therefore more worthy the confidence of the people than those who were now his opponents.
Mr. Wallacedeclared he never heard a
702
more illogical speech than that which had just been delivered by the hon. and learned Member for Bath. It was a speech of cleverness, but in no respect applicable to the matter in hand. The hon. Member proved that he knew nothing about the subject on which he had undertaken to enlighten the House. The hon. Member told the right hon. Baronet he approved of an Income-tax, and assigned various reasons for the support he intended, giving to what most other people considered a most odious imposition, that is, he would give him his support at the present stage, but when it appeared in Committee he was oppose it on the ground of professional income not being a fair subject for taxation, in other words, the hon. and learned Member was prepared to oppose when the shoe pinched himself, but allow it to full with all its weight on others. But the people also felt for themselves, and, if he knew any thing of them, he should say they would not submit to the imposition. At any rate Scotchmen or Irishmen would not. All he could say was, that if any Scotchman tamely submitted to it, he must be one of the few noodles which Scotland produced. He would tell the promoters of this detested Income-tax, that they were bringing an old house about their ears. Distressed as the people were from one end of the kingdom to the other, they were not prepared to let the Government take away still further from them the means of giving employment to the working classes. For his own part, he was resolved to take every opportunity of opposing this Tax, for the purpose of putting it off long enough to allow the whole agricultural population to see whether the promised tariff was likely to be productive to them of good or of evil. And now he felt bound to call upon hon. Members on the other side, who represented agricultural constituencies, to exert themselves, for the purpose of inducing the right hon. Baronet opposite to show in what manner he could 'benefit the consumer without loss to the landed interest. The truth is, the country must get the tariff, or refuse the Income-tax. It was not every hon. Member in that House who could recollect the working of the Income-tax in former times, but he was old enough to possess some acquaintance with that subject. He believed the present generation had not an idea of the oppressive and

703
annoying character of an Income-tax. It was every thing that could be odious and disgraceful to a free country. He should oppose it to the utmost of his power, and give the proposition of the noble Lord the Member for London his most cordial support.
Mr. Sharman Crawfordhaving heard it stated by the hon. Member for Bradford, that a memorial had been presented to Government from a numerous and respectable body of Rochdale, in favour of the right hon. Baronet's proposal, desired to say, that he had taken pains to inform himself of the feeling in that town by calling a public meeting. At that meeting, which was numerously attended, the opinion expressed, without a dissentient voice, was, that the Income-tax ought to be opposed. He felt bound, therefore, to consider that the opinion of the people of Rochdale was opposed to the plan of the right hon. Baronet. On the last division he had abstained from voting because he would neither give his support to the proposition of the noble Lord, nor that of the right hon. Baronet, but on the present occasion he should feel it his duty to vote against the right hon. Baronet.
Mr. Cobdensaid, that there were other taxes quite as unequal in their pressure and as unjust in their operation as any Income tax could be. He did not therefore oppose the Income-tax as an Income-tax. He opposed it as he would oppose any other tax to be laid on under the present circumstances of the country, because, in the first place, when trade was suffering and while every private establishment was compelled to reduce its expenditure, economy ought to be carried into every department of the Government, from the most illustrious person in the land down to the humblest. He could not agree with the hon. Member for Bath that, because he did not see a majority ready to support him, he must therefore go over to the other side and swell a majority already too large. In the second place he opposed an Income-tax, because he believed the country was paying taxes to classes and to individuals which, if repealed, he had the highest authority for stating there would be an abundant revenue accruing to the State. He would say, then, abolish monopolies first; and then, if the expenses of the Government could not be met, would be the time to talk about imposing fresh taxes. The right hon. Baronet and his followers would
704
not admit that the Corn-laws and the restrictions upon trade had anything to do with the distress that prevailed; but when the budget was brought forward they proposed what was called a grand system of tariff reform. Then it was suddenly discovered that commercial restrictions caused the distress of the country, and then the noble Lord the Member for Lancashire, who for three years had opposed all the attempts of the free-traders, said it would be a crime of the highest magnitude to delay for an hour measures which were to restore prosperity to the country. There was a new-born zeal for commercial reform, and these raw recruits actually child and snubbed the old veterans in the cause of free-trade, who for years had been vainly knocking at the doors of that House and asking for relief. For three years the manufacturers and traders had been showing what in their own opinion was the remedy for commercial distress. Petitions had been sent up to that House with five million signatures, and a thousand meetings had been held all over the country— all those proceedings tending to one point —the repeal of the Corn-law. The right hon. Baronet had come down with what he called a tariff, but it was not a tariff, for it excluded the most important article of commerce. The right hon. Gentleman excluded corn from his list of marketable commodities. He said emphatically that the right hon. Gentleman would not allow the corn that was wanted to come in, for by his new proposal he placed as complete a barrier against a regular trade in corn, as there was under the old system. The traders and manufacturers had applied for one sole remedy for the grievances of which they complained. He did not mean to say that all advocated a total repeal, because a very large section were favourable to a fixed duty, but had any body of merchants, manufacturers, or traders, presented petitions to that House in favour of a sliding-scale? ["Question."] That was the question. They brought forward what they called a tariff, from which they expunged the article, not of corn only, but of sugar also. Those two commodities were essential to the trade of this country to both the New and the Old World. There was now sugar in this country, from the Brazils and Cuba, lying in bond, which might be had for half the price which was obtained for the article imported from our own colonies. What, after all, was this

705
tariff? Take cattle, the most important article it contained. ["Question."] It was the question. Why the right hon. Baronet himself had told them they were to take the two subjects together. The most important change, then, in the tariff was the introduction of live cattle. Now, he admitted the importance of that feature as the concession of a principle. But there could not be a great trade in cattle—it must be principally restricted to the nearest parts of the Continent. Then if there was no great importation, there could be no great export of goods, and no great consequent increase of employment for the people. But if there was a large import of cattle, that would be no deterioration of the revenue, for cattle had hitherto been prohibited, and it was manifestly unfair to put forward as an excuse for an Income-tax that which made no reduction in the revenue; but, on the contrary, increased it. He found no reduction in this tariff upon articles of general consumption—no reduction upon tea, sugar, or butter. There was a reduction of 4s. per cwt., it was true, upon salted meat; but he doubted much whether much salted meat could be consumed by the people of this country without injury to their health. There was no reduction upon the article of cotton, though there was a duty of 5 to 6 per cent, upon the raw material. Much had been done in trifles, but the articles most essential to the trade of the country the right hon. Baronet had passed over. These were the things to cause a defalcation of 1,200,000 l., and these were the excuses for the Income-tax. There was a reduction in the article of timber at a time when the people could not afford to build houses, and when the merchants could not build ships. The Government allowed the importation of beef at a time when the people were reduced to a potato diet and wanted bread; they admitted French boots and gloves, to compete with our own artisans at a time when they hindered them from the advantage of a free-trade in corn. He denounced them for thus appearing before the country in the guise of free-traders, and beginning their operations at the wrong end. The Income-tax was not necessary to carry out the principles of free-trade, and as a free-trader he utterly repudiated it. The articles in which they desired free-trade were those which yielded no revenue to
706
the State, but only put money in the pockets of individuals. The free-traders did not wish to touch the Queen's Exchequer at all. A free-trade in corn would be of ten thousand times more importance than all the right hon. Baronet had proposed. Allusion had been made to the petitions that had been presented in favour of the tariff, and he was ashamed to say, that the persons most active in promoting those petitions were the clergy of the establishment. What had been the conduct of the clergy when they were asked to join their dissenting brethren in opposition to the Corn-laws? They refused, on the ground that they could not interfere in party politics. No sooner, however, was the Corn-bill secure, than the clergy had come forward as partisans and supporters of the Government; and so rash and hasty had they been in so doing, that they had actually signed petitions for the whole tariff before the amended tariff had come out, and had prayed that the whole might pass. Thus, then, they had petitioned for the first tariff with all its errors, and now he supposed they would have to petition again for the amendments. [Interruption.] He assured the House that he did not intend to trespass further upon its patience. But, representing as he did a constituency desolate and wretched as the people of Stockport now were, he conceived that he had not intruded their wrongs and sufferings upon the attention of the Legislature more than they deserved. When the right hon. Baronet (Sir Robert Peel) brought forward, a proposition which was to be a panacea for all the ills of the country, he thought that as the representative of a large and suffering portion of the community, he occupied a position in that House, which warranted him in expressing an opinion as to what the probable effect of the right hon. Baronet's proposition would be. He was bound to say, that he thought the right hon. Baronet and his supporters were entirely deluded as to the result of the measures now proposed. He believed that under the operation of those measures, the right hon. Baronet would not find such a revival of trade as would give him an opportunity of removing the Income-tax. He could not see from what such a revival was to arise. The remedy had been delayed too long. For years past the right hon. Baronet and his party had resisted all amelioration.

707
For years past trade and commerce had been allowed to languish and decline— no helping hand had been extended to them; and now that a remedy was at length proposed, he feared it came too late. During the last six months there had been a reduction of the wages of the working class, equal to an annual sum of 5,000,000 l. sterling. Think how that would act upon the Exchequer, and upon the trade of the country. Think of this mighty reduction in the earnings of the people, and then consider what must be the prospect of a country so situated — a country, the prosperity of whose trade and commerce, nay, whose very greatness in the estimation of the world, depended upon the industry of the working classes of its community. Let the House consider this, and then ask itself whether, having so long delayed the application of remedial measures, it believed that the homœpathic system now proposed would be sufficient to effect a cure. Three years ago, the Gentlemen opposite refused to believe that the manufacturers were in distress. Two years ago they shut the doors of the House against them. Twelve months ago, when the representatives of the manufacturing classes went into statistical detail, and brought forward statements of figures to show that they were in distress, the right hon. Baronet told them that they were not in a state of suffering. All remedy bad been left alone until the symptoms of distress and poverty were felt in the Exchequer. Now the question of trade and commerce was taken up —now the principles before stigmatised as something atrocious and not to be tolerated, were taken into consideration with the view of being acted upon; and now the Government came forward to propose an Income-tax as a remedial measure for the great interests which had been suffered to fall into decay and ruin. He told the right hon. Baronet that he would fail in his policy unless be went further. Hitherto the taxation of the country had been derived from its manufacturing industry. The manufacturers had been the beasts of burden who had sustained the expenses of the country's wars. The right hon. Baronet knew the importance of the manufacturing world to the revenue of the State. The right hon. Baronet had now the remedy in his own hands. He might
708
now relieve the consumers of the country, and give them an opportunity of bearing the expenses of the State, which they could well do, ay, better than the people of any other country on earth, if free scope were given to the exercise of their industry. Let the right hon. Baronet do this, and he might have revenue and prosperity yet. Let him fail to do so, and he would soon find that he had exhausted the energy of the working bee—that the honey was consumed— that there was nothing but the honeycomb to feed on;—let them see how long that would last. Arkwright, when he had finished his invention, said the country need not care for the war which then raged, he would pay the expenses; and he had done so. It was the cotton trade, despised as it was, that had enabled the country to pay the enormous interest of the debt the war had heaped upon her. If they destroyed that trade, as they were trying to do, destruction would come sooner upon them than they were aware of.
Mr. Muntz:I am as much opposed to the Income-tax as the hon. Member, or any man in England. But the right hon. Baronet dared not to have proposeda property-tax without one upon income also. At the same time I am so anxious to see a tax upon property, that I would rather vote for a tax upon both than lose it. The hon. and learned Member for Bath says the House was about to come to a party vote. I will not give a party vote —I never will—I am going to vote with the right hon. Baronet, because I think it would be for the benefit of the people at large [cheers]—I say to the interests of the people at large—not to the interests of the elector—not to the interests of my supporters—that is no consideration to me [laughter and cheers].If my vote does not please my constituents, they know what to do in the case. I wish them to do as they please; but I am sure I am voting for the interests of the great body of the people, when I place the burden of taxation upon those who are not only competent to bear it, but who are the framers, the regulators, and the directors of the law. Now, I object to the Income-tax. [Laughter.] I don't quite understand that laugh. I said before, that I object to an Income-tax as much as any man in England, and I was going to assign a reason why I object to it. I object to it,

709
because it is exceedingly inquisitorial, because it falls with exceeding weight upon those unfortunate tradesmen, who in times like these, dare not let their circumstances be known to the public, and who for that reason are obliged to declare and pay upon an amount of profits which they do not realise. I mention this, to show that I am well aware of the working of an Income-tax. I remember the last Income-tax, I was then in business and felt the operation of it, but I do not consider that these privations imposed upon the tradesmen constitute a sufficient reason for my objecting to the property-tax, which now appears to me to be necessary. If I believed that the proposals of the former Government, if carried into effect, would render unnecessary the imposition of an income or of a property-tax, I should feel bound to vote against the present proposition of the right hon. Baronet; but I do not believe that those proposals would have realised the views of those who introduced them. I am ' totally at variance with the Members of the late Government upon that point. I believe that their measures would have failed. In the present state of the country some remedial measure is required; and I do not wish for longer delay. I go further than this, and say that I do not believe, that the measures proposed by the right hon. Baronet and his supporters will relieve the distress of the country, and therefore it is that I wish they may be laid on, because they will show the people that other measures are necessary such measures as neither party in this House have yet proposed. The only object I had in rising was to say these few words to justify the vote I am about to give. [Laughter.]I have not the slightest objection to Gentlemen laughing. I feel that the reasons I have assigned are sufficient. I wish to lay the burden upon the Government and upon those who are able to bear it. I have no more to say upon the subject.
Mr. Rundlerose amidst loud and general calls for a division, He merely wished to state that he purposed to vote against the proposition of the right hon. Baronet, for the very reason assigned by the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down, as inducing him to vote in favour of it; and that reason was, that he wished to see the burden of taxation laid upon the lawmakers, whom he conceived to be the landed proprietors of the country. He thought that
710
a legacy duty ought to be imposed on the descent of real property. Until measures of that kind had been resorted to, he did not think they would be justified in imposing an Income-tax upon the country.
The House divided on the question, that the word "now" stand part of the question:—Ayes 285; Noes 188: Majority 97.

List of the AYES.

Acland, Sir T. D.

Carnegie, hon. Capt.

Acland, T. D.

Charteris, hon. F.

A'Court, Capt.

Chelsea, Visct.

Ackers, J.

Chetwode, Sir J.

Acton, Col.

Christmas, W.

Adare, Visct.

Christopher, R. A.

Adderley, C. B.

Chute, W. L. W.

Alford, Visct.

Clayton, R. R.

Allix, J. P.

Clements, H. J.

Antrobus, E.

Clerk, Sir G.

Arbuthnott, hon. H.

Clive, hon. R. H.

Archdall, Capt.

Cochrane, A.

Arkwright, G.

Cockburn,rt.hn.SirG.

Ashley, Lord

Codrington, C. W.

Astell, W.

Colvile, C. R.

Attwood, J.

Conolly, Col.

Bagge, W.

Coote, Sir C. H.

Bagot, hon.W.

Corry, rt. hon. H.

Bailey, J.

Courtenay, Visct.

Bailey, J., jun.

Cripps, W.

Baillie, Col.

Currie, R.

Baird, W.

Damer, hon. Col.

Balfour, J. M.

Darby, G.

Baring, hon. W. B.

Dawnay, hon. W. H.

Barrington, Visct.

Denison, E. B.

Baskerville, T. B. M.

Dickinson, F. H.

Bateson, Sir R.

Douglas, Sir H.

Beckett, W.

Douglas, Sir C. E.

Bell, M.

Douro, Marquess of

Bentinck, Lord G.

Dowdeswell, W.

Beresford, Capt.

Drummond, H. H.

Beresford, Major

Duffield, T.

Bernard, Visct.

Duncombe, hon. A.

Blackburne, J. I.

Du Pre, C. G.

Blakemore, R.

Eaton, R. J.

Bodkin, W. H.

Egerton, Sir P.

Boldero, H. G.

Eliot, Lord

Borthwick, P.

Emlyn, Visct.

Botfield, B.

Estcourt, T. G. B.

Bradshaw, J.

Farnham,E. B.

Bramston, T. W.

Feilden, W.

Broadley, H.

Fellowes, E.

Broad wood, H.

Ferguson, R. A.

Brooke, Sir A. B.

Ferrand, W. B.

Brownrigg, J. S.

Filmer, Sir E.

Bruce, Lord E.

Fitzroy, Capt.

Bruce, C. L. C.

Fitzroy, hon. H.

Buck, L. W.

Fleming, J. W.

Buckley, E.

Follet, Sir W. W.

Buller, Sir J. Y.

Forbes, W.

Bunbury, T.

Forester, hn. G. C. W.

Burroughes, H. N.

Fuller, A. E.

Campbell, Sir H.

Gaskell, J. Milnes

Campbell, A.

Gladstone, rt.hn.W E.

Cardwell, E.

Godson, R,

711

Gordon, hn. Capt.

Lyall, G.

Gore, M.

Lygon, hon. General

Gore, W. O.

Mackenzie, T.

Gore, W. R. O.

Mackenzie, W. F.

Goring, C.

Mackinnon, W. A.

Graham, rt. hn. Sir J.

Maclean, D.

Granby, Marquess of

M'Geachy, F. A.

Greene, T.

Mahon, Visct.

Gregory, W. H.

Mainwaring, T.

Grimsditch, T.

Manners, Lord C. S.

Grimston, Visct.

Manners, Lord J.

Hale, R.B.

Marsham,Visct.

Halford, H.

Martin, C. W.

Hamilton, W. J.

Martyn, C. C.

Hamilton, Lord C.

Marton, G.

Hampden, R.

Master, T. W. C.

Hanmer, Sir J.

Masterman, J.

Harcourt, G. G.

Meynell, Capt.

Hardinge, rt.hn.Sir H.

Miles, P. W. S,

Hardy, J.

Miles, W.

Hawkes, T.

Milnes, R. M.

Hayes, Sir E.

Mitchell, T. A.

Heathcoate, Sir W.

Mordaunt, Sir J.

Heneage, G. H. W.

Morgan, O.

Henley, J. W.

Morgan, C.

Hepburn, Sir T. B.

Mundy, E. M.

Herbert, hon. S.

Muntz, G. F.

Hill, Sir R.

Neeld, J.

Hillsborough, Earl of

Neeld, J.

Hinde,J.H.

Neville, R.

Hodgson, F.

Newry, Visct.

Hodgson, R.

Nicholl, rt. hn. J.

Hogg, J. W.

Norreys, Lord

Houldsworth, T.

Northland, Visct.

Holmes,hon.W.A'C.t

O'Brien, W. S.

Hope, hon. C.

Ossulston, Lord

Hope, A.

Owen, Sir J.

Hornby, J.

Paget, Lord W.

Ingestre, Visct.

Pakington, J. S.

Inglis, Sir R. H.

Palmer, R.

Irton, S.

Palmer, G.

Jackson, J. D.

Patten, J. W.

James, Sir W. C.

Peel, rt. hon. Sir R.

Jermyn, Earl

Peel, J.

Jocelyn, Visct.

Pigot, Sir R.

Johnson, W. G.

Planta, rt. hon. J.

Johnstone, Sir J.

Plumptre, J. P.

Johnstone, H.

Polhill, F.

Jolliffe, Sir W. G. H.

Pollock, Sir F.

Jones, Capt.

Praed, W. T.

Kelburne, Visct.

Price, R.

Kemble, H.

Pringle, A.

Kirk, P.

Pusey, P.

Knatchbull, right hon.

Rashleigh, W.

SirE.

Reade, W. M.

Knight, H. G.

Reid, Sir J. R.

Knight, F. W.

Repton, G. W. J.

Law, hon. C. E.

Rice, E. R.

Legh, G. C.

Richards, R.

Leicester, Earl of

Roebuck, J. A.

Liddell, hon. H. T.

Rolleston, Col.

Lincoln, Earl of

Rose rt. hon. Sir G.

Lindsay, H. H.

Round,C. G.

Lockhart, W.

Round, J.

Lopes, Sir R.

Rous, hon. Capt.

Lowther, J. H.

Rushbrooke, Col.

Lowther, hon. Col.

Russell, C.

712

Russell, J. D. W.

Trench, Sir F. W.

Ryder, hon. G. D.

Trevor, hon. G. R.

Sanderson, R.

Trollope, Sir J.

Sandon, Visct.

Trotter, J.

Scott, hon. F.

Vere, Sir C. B.

Seymour, Sir H. B.

Verner, Col.

Sheppard, T.

Vernon, G. H.

Shirley, E. P.

Vivian, J. E.

Sibthorp, Col.

Waddington, H. S.

Smith, A.

Welby.G. E.

Smollett, A.

Whitmore, T. C.

Somerset, Lord G.

Wilbraham, hn. R. B.

Somerton, Visct.

Wodehouse, E.

Stanley, Lord

Wood, Col.

Stuart, H.

Wood, Col. T.

Sturt, H. C.

Wortley.hn. J.S.

Sutton, hon. H. M.

Wyndham, Col. C.

Tennent,J. E.

Young, J.

Thesiger, F.

Young, Sir W.

Thompson, Mr. Ald.

Thornhill, G.

TELLERS.

Tollemache, hon. F. J.

Baring, H.

Tomline, G.

Fremantle, Sir T.

List of the NOES.

Ainsworth, P.

Cobden, R.

Aldam, W

Colebrooke, Sir T. E.

Anson, hon. Col.

Craig, W. G.

Archbold, R.

Crawford, W. S.

Armstrong, Sir A.

Dalmeny, Lord

Bannerman, A.

Dalrymple, Capt.

Barclay, D.

Dashwood, G. H.

Baring, rt. hon. F. T.

Dennistoun, J.

Barnard, E. G.

Drax, J. S. W. E.

Bell, J.

Duff, J.

Bellew, R. M.

Duncan, Visct.

Berkeley, hon. C.

Duncan, G.

Berkeley, hon. Capt.

Duncombe, T.

Berkeley, hn. H. F.

Dundas, Admiral

Bernal, R.

Dundas, D.

Bernal, Capt.

Dundas, hn. J. C.

Blackstone, W. S.

Easthope, Sir J.

Blake, M.

Ebrington, Visct

Blewitt, R. J.

Ellice, E.

Bodkin, J. J.

Ellis, W.

Bowring, Dr.

Elphinstone, H.

Bridgeman, H.

Evans, W.

Brocklehurst, J.

Ferguson, Col.

Brodie, W. B.

Fielden, J.

Brotherton, J.

Fitzroy, Lord C.

Browne, R. D.

Forster, M.

Browne, hon. W.

Fox, C. R.

Bulkeley, Sir R. B. W.

Gibson, T. M.

Buller, C.

Gill, T.

Buller, E.

Gordon, Lord F.

Busfeid, W.

Gore, hon. R.

Byng, G.

Granger, T. C.

Byng, ft. hon. G. S.

Grattan, H.

Cave, hon. R. O.

Grey, rt. hn. Sir G.

Cavendish, hn. C. C.

Hall, Sir B.

Cayley, E. S.

Harris, J. Q.

Chapman, B.

Hastie, A.

Childers, J. W.

Hatton, Capt. V.

Christie, W. D.

Hawes, B.

Clay, Sir W.

Hay, Sir A. L.

Clements, Visct.

Hayter, W. G.

Clive, E. B.

Heathcoat, J.

713

Heneage, E.

Power, J.

Hobhouse, rt.hn.SirJ.

Protheroe, E.

Holdsworth, J.

Pulsford, R.

Howard, hn. C. W. G.

Redington, T. N.

Howard, hn. J. K.

Ricardo, J. L.

Howard, Lord

Roche, E. B.

Howard, hn. E. G. G.

Rundle, J.

Howard, P. H.

Russell, Lord J.

Howard, hn. H.

Rutherfurd, A.

Humphery, Mr. Ald.

Scholefield, J.

Hutt, W.

Scott, R.

James, W.

Scrope, G. P.

Jervis, J.

Seale, Sir J. H.

Johnston, A.

Shell, rt. hon. R. L.

Labouchere, rt. hn. H.

Shelborne, Earl of

Lambton, H.

Smith, B.

Langston, J. H.

Smith, rt. hon. R. V.

Leader, J.T.

Somers, J. P.

Macaulay, rt.hn.T.

Somerville, Sir W. M.

M'Taggart, Sir J.

Stanley, hon. W. O.

Maher, V.

Stansfield, W. R. C.

Mangles, R.D.

Stewart, P. M.

Marjoribanks, S.

Stuart, Lord J.

Marshall, W.

Stuart, W. V.

Marsland, H.

Strickland, Sir G.

Martin, J.

Strutt, E.

Maule, rt. hn. F.

Tancred, H. W.

Mitcalfe, H.

Thornely, T.

Morris, D.

Towneley, J.

Morrison, General

Traill, G.

Morrison, J.

Troubridge, Sir E. T.

Mostyn, hn. E. M. L.

Tuite, H. M.

Murphy, F. S.

Turner, E.

Napier, Sir C.

Villiers, hon. C.

Norreys, Sir D. J.

Vivian, hon. Major

O'Brien, C.

Vivian, J. H.

O'Brien, J.

Vivian, hon. Capt.

O'Connell, D.

Vyvyian, Sir R. R.

O'Connell, M.

Wakley, T.

O'Connell, M. J.

Walker, R.

O'Connell, J.

Wall, C. B.

Ogle, S. C. H.

Wallace, a.

Ord, W.

Wason, R.

Oswald, J.

Wawn, J. T.

Paget, Col.

Williams, W.

Palmerston, Visct.

Winnington, Sir T. E.

Parker, J.

Wood, B.

Pechell, Capt.

Wood, C.

Pendarves, E. W. W.

Wood, G. W.

Philips, M.

Worsley, Lord

Plumridge, Capt.

Ponsonby, hn.C.F.A.C.

TELLERS.

Ponsonby, hn. J. G.

Hill, Lord M.

Powell, C.

Tufnell, H.

Bill read a first time; to be read a second time.

SUPPLY.
House in Committee of Supply.
Sir George Clerk,in the absence of his right hon. Friend, the Chancellor of the Exchequer moved, that a sum not exceeding 8,253,000 l., be granted to pro vide for outstanding Exchequer-bills during the ensuing year.—Agreed to.
714
On the motion, that the sum of 60,000 l. be granted to defray the charges of civil contingencies, for the year 1842,
Mr. W. Williamsbegged to be informed what the question or business was, which was before the House. Something relating to supplies had been brought forward, amidst the greatest noise and confusion, which prevented him from hearing a word of what was passing. This might be a very easy way to obtain votes of the public money, but it was not the proper method of proceeding.
Sir George Clerkexplained, that the present motion was, that the sum of 60,000 l. be granted towards defraying the charges of civil contingencies for the year. The vote was necessary for the public service. The amount required would be 130,000 l., though only 60,000 l. were at present asked for.
Mr. W. Williamshaving learned, that a sum of 8,000,000 l. or more, had been voted away during the confusion, must say, that when such large votes were to be proposed, notice should be given of the intention to propose them. He should have had some remarks to make on the motion, but could not hear a single word that passed. If the hon. Gentleman meant to confine the present motion to a vote on account, he should not oppose it.
Vote agreed to.
House resumed.

MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS.
On the Order of the Day, for going into Committee on this Bill,
Mr. Leaderobjected to the measure. He should have opposed it at an earlier stage, but no discussion had taken place and he had not at first been aware of the extensive manner in which the bill would affect the rights of the new corporations. Unless the bill had been considerably altered, he should feel it his duty to oppose it, as no good reason was assigned for some of the clauses.
The Attorney Generalwas surprised at the opposition of the hon. Gentleman, as he held certain clauses in his hand, the insertion of which, he had understood, would meet the objections of the hon. Gentleman. The bill was intended to protect from penalties those persons who, holding leases under corporations, had accepted the office of town councillor, on the understanding, that such leases did not come within the meaning of the law

715
which prohibited persons who held contracts from corporations, acting as members of such corporations. When the clause in question passed, it was the undoubted opinion of the law officers of the Crown, and of legal men on both sides of the House, that the word contract did not include leases held from corporations. They had all agreed—and two of the gentlemen who concurred with the opinion now held seats on the Bench—that a person holding a lease did not come within the terms of the prohibitory language in the 28th section of the act. That reading of the law was acted on for four years, when somebody raised a speculative point of law, A quo warranto information was moved for against a town-councillor of Bridgewater, for having acted in that capacity while holding a lease from the corporation. Pending the trial of that information, he (the Attorney-general) had drawn the attention of the then Government to the circumstance. The opinion was unanimous, that the information could not be sustained. Scores of persons holding leases of the same kind had taken the office of town-councillor, and the noble Lord (Lord John Russell) answered, that he had information, that there was not the least chance of the decision going against the party complained of—that the point was quite clear. The result, however, was, that the information issued, and, to the surprise of every one, the Court gave judgment in favour of the information. He (the Attorney-general) did not mean to impugn the decision of the learned Judges. He bowed to that decision. But it was only an act of common justice to give to these persons who had taken office, under the opinion of the House, indemnity against any penal consequences which might ensue from that course. The object of the bill was to prevent the penal actions from going on, which, in consequence of the circumstances that had taken place, might be brought forward in hundreds. Provision was made by the bill for paying the costs of any actions brought up to a certain time. Provisions were likewise introduced with regard to actions brought after that given time had expired, and for securing those persons who had been elected to offices. The bill was a short one. It provided, in the first place, that the word "contract" should not be taken to extend to a lease, purchase of lands, or loan of money. It
716
was further provided, that persons who had already incurred penalties under the decision of the Judges, might apply for indemnity as to the penalties and the costs. He had had various communications from various quarters, and his invariable answer was, that the object of the bill was to do an act of justice, and, therefore, that he could not admit any other matter into it. But it being considered, that the bill was defective without some provision for the prevention of jobbing, he had admitted the clauses which had been drawn up by his hon. Friend, the Member for Worcester. He wondered, however, at the opposition of the hon. Member for Westminster, as the hon. Member had given his concurrence to the clauses on the subject being mentioned to him.
Mr. Leaderexplained. He had only mentioned to the hon. and learned Gentleman, that there would be less difficulty in carrying the bill, if such clauses Were introduced; but he had never seen them in a formal shape. He, therefore, suggested, that they should be printed, because the bill as it stood, repealed the 38th section of the Reform Act; and it was necessary for hon. Members to know the provisions which were to be introduced.
Sir F. Pollocksuggested, that the bill should be suffered to pass through the committee pro formâ, and that the clauses might be printed, and added on bringing up the report. He declined, however, to make it a declaratory act, as had been suggested.
Sir R. Fergussonwished to know if the provisions of the bill would be extended to Ireland
Lord Elliotsaid, he was sure his hon. and learned Friend would have no objection to do so with his bill, if it was deemed necessary.
Sir F. Pollockthought it would be more regular to confine the operation of the measure to England, as it was in England alone the mischief had occurred.
Mr. Bernalsuggested a short bill to be applied to Ireland.
Sir R. Peel: If the words of the English and Irish Municipal Acts are the same, and the principles identical, surely, it would be much better to introduce the amendments as regards Ireland into the present bill, than to bring in a separate bill for the purpose. I think the unneces-

717
sary multiplication of acts of Parliament a very great evil.
Sir F. Pollockwould, as he had stated, go through the bill that night; and when it was reported, he should move its recommittal. The amendments ought to be printed between those periods, and, in the meanwhile, he should consider some clauses as regarded the extension of the measure to Ireland.
Mr. Hodgsonsaid, that having attended several nights to propose the amendment of which he had given notice, that the words, "office, or place of profit," in the bill, should not extend to the office of sheriff, he should certainly press its adoption upon the committee, unless some objection were stated to it.
The Attorney Generalsaid, that he must object to the clause, not as improper in itself, but as opening the door to the introduction of all sorts of amendments of the Municipal Corporations Act, into a bill which professed to have no such object.
Bill went through committee pro formâ, and was reported.
House adjourned.

MINUTES.
BILLS. Public— 1a Mutiny; Marine Mutiny. 2a Corn Importation; Lunacy.
Reported.—Indemnity; Public Works.
Private.—2a Fieville's Naturalization; Benecke's Naturalization; Wakeyhill Inclosure.
Reported.—(specially) Cottenham Inclosure; Brandling Junction Railway.
3a and passed:—Bradford (York) Waterworks. PETITIONS PRESENTED. By Earl Fitzwilliam, and Lord Brougham, from Gisbro, Huddersfield, Leicester, Leeds, Arbroath, and St. Mary's, Newington, against the Income-tax.—By the Earl of Stanhope, and the Duke of Buckingham, from Farmers in Chapham, Gillingham, Kent, Banff, Forfar, Surrey, and a great many other places, against any Alteration of the Corn-laws.—By Earl Fitzwilliam, the Duke of Rutland, and the Earl of Zetland, from Kirkburton, and various places, in favour of Free Trade.—By Earl Fitzwilliam, from the Shoemakers of King's Lynn, against the Alteration of the Duty on Foreign Boots and Shoes.—From Corn Millers in Mayo, against the Importation of Foreign Flour into Ireland.— From the Grand Jury of the County of Mayo, against the Scale of Duties on the Importation of Oats.—From Callander, against the Importation of Foreign Cattle.

CORN IMPORTATION BILL.
The Earl of Riponmoved the Order of the Day for the second reading of the Corn Importation Bill. The order, having been read, the noble Earl addressed their Lordships as follows:—My Lords,—Although the measure to which your Lordships' atten-

573
tion is about to be called has become from not unfrequent discussion familiar to you, and although the bill, the second reading of which I am about to press on your attention, does not proceed on any new principle, but is only a modification of the existing law, I feel I should not fully discharge the duty which has devolved on me, if besides briefly laying before your Lordships the provisions of the bill, and the grounds on which it has been submitted to Parliament, I did not also make a few observations of a more general nature. My Lords, I have always felt, and I still continue to feel, that the present is one of the most—if not the most — important questions which Parliament could be called upon to decide. It relates to a subject in which are involved the prosperity and contentment of the people and the safety of the State, for what can be more important to a nation than an adequate supply of the necessaries of life at a reasonable rate? The question before us involves, as I have just said, great interests,—the interests of agriculture, of manufactures—the interests of those who naturally seek to derive profit from the employment of their capital. Each of these is important in itself—I know that they all are important—but, my Lords, I think that, however we may estimate the separate or aggregate importance of these, there is one consideration which rises above them in importance, and that is the consideration by what means the people may be most easily fed. At the same time, as this consideration is of so much importance to the nation, so much the more difficult will be the decision as to the means proposed. I am well aware, my Lords, that some of the highest authorities as statesmen have differed as to the mode in which a measure of this kind should be carried into effect. Men of the soundest views—of the greatest practical knowledge—differ as to the means by which the people may be most easily fed; but, my Lords, the question is so mixed up with an eager sense of supposed clashing and conflicting interests at one side and the other, that it is almost impossible to impress on either the real identity of those interests. It is so mixed up with violence—with charges of ruin which it is feared will be brought on as one or another mode is adopted, that it is almost impossible to come to any satisfactory discussion of the question. There is, however, one inference which your Lordships
574
will allow me to draw from the paramount importance and difficulty of the question-that in proportion as the subject is important and its difficulties great, it behoves us so to discuss it, as not to share in or excite those angry feelings without which it has hitherto seldom been debated. In this feeling, which I now humbly venture to recommend to your Lordships, it shall be my endeavour to lay my views of it before your Lordships, and if in the course of my remarks I should be led aside by such considerations as I now deprecate, I hope your Lordships will intimate to me in some very significant manner that I have departed from my own rule. My Lords, in considering how the question (by what means the people may be most easily fed) is to be legislatively brought about, I find I have to deal with two great antagonist principles—one, that all restrictions on the importation of foreign corn should be removed; the other, that the importation should be regulated, and restrictions partly retained. Let me for a moment, my Lords, advert to the first of these principles, let me for a moment consider the fitness, the propriety, the justice, of this principle,—of abandoning all protection to corn of home growth, of abandoning all restriction on the importation of foreign corn. My Lords, I am ready to admit, that there are considerations which would appear at first to recommend this principle in many points of view. It has kind, generous, charitable feeling in its favour. There is something very gratifying to the poor man to be told that if Providence should shorten his supplies at home, be has the whole world open to him, and that the injury which might be feared from an unproductive season here will not be severely felt by him, as he is sure to be supplied by the surplus of other countries. This theory is plausible, and, as I have said, has many things apparently to recommend it, but, my Lords, the more attentively I have considered the subject the more I am convinced, that no principle is more fallacious or more likely to mislead those who would force it on the attention of Parliament or the public. My Lords, I have always said that, this question is one of a choice of difficulties; and if I could be persuaded by fair argument that the people could be fairly and cheaply fed by the withdrawal of the protection now given to agriculture, I should not be found amongst those who would continue the restrictions on foreign corn; but, my

575
Lords, I hold it a great evil to adopt a plan which I am convinced would have just the opposite consequences. My Lords, the great evil which I anticipate from the adoption of the principle that all restrictions on the importation of foreign corn should be withdrawn is this, that the people of this country would be compelled to depend on other countries for their supply of corn—not to meet an occasional deficiency, but to depend altogether on other countries for the main part of their annual supply — that such dependence would be leaning on a broken reed, and that they would be habitually in danger of the failure of that supply. No one doubts, my Lords, that the progress of agriculture in this country has for many years past been most remarkable. That progress has been such as to keep pace with the demands of the people (not entirely, for that was impossible) but has been such as to supply—not entirely, but almost—the wants of our greatly increased population, and that with very little addition from foreign countries we may be said to be able to rely on our own resources. From many causes, into which it is not my intention, nor is it necessary, to enter, the cost of agricultural production in this country has become higher than in other countries of Europe. It is quite clear, from what I have said, that the amount of our agricultural produce has been brought nearly equal to the demand; but this could not have been done unless capital had been applied to the land, and obtained such a return as induced the capitalist to continue his investment; but if you take away the protection which has been given to our home produce, you will cause the withdrawal of some of the capital from the land, and, of course, the produce will be less; and you will then have to depend on foreign supply, not only for the amount you were in the habit of getting, but also for the amount you would lose by the withdrawal of a portion of the capital heretofore invested in the land. I may be told that it is the better land, and not the poor land, which would go out of cultivation; but that does not alter my argument, for I contend that the introduction of foreign corn consequent on the removal of protection to our home growth, would make us dependent on foreigners for our supply just in proportion to the amount of the foreign corn introduced, in addition to the amount which we were annually in the habit of importing. Now, my Lords, if
576
this be the case, and if the production of our own soil shall be materially affected, as I contend it will be by the removal of all restrictions on the importation of foreign corn, let us see what prospect we shall have of an adequate supply from other countries. This is a part of the question not often referred to in discussion. My Lords, it appears to me that if we diminish the amount of the home produce by 10 per cent. on the whole, it will be a matter of doubt whether we shall be able to get an adequate supply from any part of the world. I do not know of any country in Europe from which we can expect any such increased supply. From several documents which have been laid on the Table relating to this subject, your Lordships will find that there are only two states in Europe from which we could expect any material addition to the amount of our present supply from them. These are Denmark and Mecklenburg. In the papers to which I have referred it is stated distinctly, that notwithstanding the encouragement which would be held out by the repeal of the Corn-laws, the utmost supply upon which we could rely from foreign countries in Europe would not exceed 2,250,000 quarters of wheat; but if your Lordships will examine the returns on the Table, you will find that this is an exaggerated statement. From Palermo there is no export of grain; Warsaw is included in the Dantzic account. For the last thirteen years the average of our imports has been about 1,500,000 quarters of wheat; if to this you add 2,500,000 of quarters, the diminution of your home growth, the difficulty will be greater to supply the deficiency. I am aware, my Lords, that this argument cuts both ways; for if the amount which we require be so small, and the difficulty of supplying it great, it will operate favourably, at least less injuriously, to the home grower. It certainly will show that the fears on one hand will not be realised, nor the hopes on the other prove well founded. But, my Lords, in making those remarks my object is to show that the abolition of protection to the home grower will not secure a steady and certain supply from other countries. The papers before us show that we cannot get any large supply from Prussia. The answer to the questions put by Government as to whether an increase of a regular and steady demand from this country would not increase the supply in a short time will show how far that increase may be relied

577
on. The question was put as to St. Peters-burgh? And the answer was—No. Riga? —No. Odessa?—No. We cannot calculate on any material addition to the amount heretofore got from these sources. We might get some, but it would be small. The same question is put as to Dantzic? —No, Konigsberg?—No. Stettin?—No. Memel?—Yes, The increase would here be about one quarter on the supply obtained heretofore; but, then, let it be remembered that the whole amount from Memel was 5,000 quarters, and the addition of one-fourth would go a short way in filling up the deficiency of our produce. From Elsinore I find that we should have some small increase, but it would be very trifling compared with what we should require. From Hamburgh we should get but little, as the greater part taken to that place would be from the Prussian states. My Lords, I do not say that the means of supply in all those places would not be increased after a series of years, but then it must be by the application of capital to the land, which a steady demand for the produce at a remunerating price would insure; but, my Lords, what would then be the consequence? We should then have to pay a high price instead of a low one, and the only advantage we should have gained would be, that if we did get an adequate supply, we should have it at a high rate, for, no doubt, my Lords, the foreign grower would pay himself for the application of his capital, or, which was the same thing, he would make us pay him, and we should have no alternative, for by throwing our own land out of cultivation by want of encouragement we should be at his mercy, and if we did not give his price, we should not have his grain. Let me now, my Lords, say a word as to Russia, on which some of the advocates of no restriction are disposed to place great reliance for a large supply of corn. But, my Lords, a few facts will show that we can place no firm reliance on Russia for a permanent supply. Russia at some times exports largely, at others she suffers grievously from a defective supply. Taking only the last nine years into consideration, six of them were years of bad harvest, and in three years she suffered from actual famine, to such an extent, indeed, that she was obliged to suspend the import duty on foreign corn. My Lords, when we talk of the effect of our Corn-laws and the effect of our partial
578
restrictions, we are apt to forget that other countries have also their Corn-laws. My Lords, it is a great mistake to suppose they have not. Russia has a duty of 13 s. 4d. the quarter on wheat and 4s. per quarter on rye, which is the food of the people. Indeed, all European states have some Corn-laws or other, except Prussia and Denmark. My Lords, we hear it constantly urged that it is uncharitable, that it is unchristian, that our artisans should be called upon to compete with the inhabitants of countries which have no tax on corn. This, however, is an erroneous assumption. Prussia has a tax of 12 s. the quarter on the consumption of wheat, and bread is dearer at this moment at Berlin than in London. This tax is not directly levied on the wheat, but is commuted for a kind of poll-tax on the consumers; but it is in this way a heavy tax on consumers. But, my Lords, I have, and so have many of your Lordships, heard the United States of America referred to as a country from which we might derive supplies of corn. A little examination will show this opinion to be greatly erroneous. The price of corn in many of the States is not much lower than with us. Take, for instance, the average prices in Philadelphia for the last twenty-four years, and you will find that in ten years out of those twenty-four, the price of wheat was higher than in England; and if we include the carriage, we shall find that it was higher there in twelve years out of those twenty-four. I would here refer your Lordships to a publication on this subject in the United States, to show what are the feelings of Americans themselves as to the capacity of their country to afford an extensive supply of corn to other countries. The noble Earl here read an extract from the publication, which was in substance, that,—
" The cultivation of wheat in the states for the last fifty years was carried little beyond the wants of the people and the small amount exported, which export was occasioned by the unusually high demands for it in other countries. The wheat raised in the time mentioned was within that section of the country occupied by the old states, and was about equal to the home consumption. Any surplus shipped to foreign countries or sent to the Canadas was produced by the states north and west of the Ohio river. Now, it is a striking fact that the corn so imported is produced in that section of our country the most remote from our Atlantic ports, and with the aid of

579
all artificial communications, it cannot reach those ports except at a very considerable additional charge."
That goes, I think, to show that from the United States you cannot hope to derive that great supply which the sanguine anticipations of those who are for no restriction at all lead them to expect. I should say, however, that in many parts of the old States of the Union cultivation has exceedingly diminished, and that much of the land now growing corn is very scanty in its production. The paper continues:—
" Extensive as has been the increased cultivation in wheat, the consumption at home ' has kept pace with it, and there is little apparent improvement on the average of any ten years in the course of the last fifty years."
So far then we may safely conclude that any idea of relying upon the United States to make up any material deficiency of our home supply would only lead to extreme disappointment. If that be true, this scheme would go to disturb, to interfere with the successful application of capital in our own country to this most important object, and all for no purpose— without attaining its end; and it would, therefore, be running an unnecessary risk; indeed, be a sort of insanity to attempt it. The inference one must draw from these facts is, that it is much wiser, much safer, to rely essentially upon our own produce; and that in order to assure the safety of that reliance, we ought to give protection to that produce. That inference is a fair one; and the next question we come to is, what ought to be the nature and extent of that protection? It is obvious that protection can only be effectually given by some system of duty. That may be either a fixed duty or a duty fluctuating inversely as the price. I am not upon this occasion about to enter into a comparison between those two kinds of duty. My noble Friend opposite (Lord Melbourne) has given notice of his intention on a future stage of this bill to move some amendment which will have the effect of raising that question, and I am therefore absolved at this moment from the necessity of arguing, as otherwise I should be prepared to do, against that scheme, which, I think, like the former I mentioned, could only end in disappointment. I will now proceed to discuss, as ' shortly as I can, the remaining part of the subject, that is, the principle of protection by a fluctuating duty; and I will
580
then explain to your Lordships the nature of the bill which now lies on the Table. My Lords, with respect to a duty that fluctuates in the inverse ratio of the price, whatever objections may be made to it, whatever defects there may be in the existing law in applying it, and however desirable or necessary it may be, as I think it is, to modify the application of it by a new law, I cannot conceive that there is anything in the slightest degree inconsistent with equity or justice, if we are to have protection at all, in adjusting that protection in such a way that when there is no longer any necessity for protection to the producer, it should diminish so as to give the benefit of lower prices to the consumer. The principle of an ad valorem duty which presses according to the higher price of an article, is doubtless unjust; but surely the principle itself of a duty fluctuating inversely as the price, is one that is only just; and the simple question is, whether you can so arrange the scale, and so deal with the application of it, as to prevent the recurrence of those evils to which it may have been and may be liable. I know, my Lords, that it is said that we have had thirteen years' experience of the principle, and that it has totally failed, and that therefore some other principle ought to be resorted to. I confess I cannot see how it has failed. I don't say that there is no defect in it— nothing to be remedied—that it cannot be improved; on the contrary, I think it can; but I cannot admit that the scale, as a principle, has failed. What was the principle of it? It was to give you foreign corn when you wanted it; but to keep it out when you did not. That was the principle of it, and in that way has it been applied during the last thirteen years. It is true that you have imported 1,000,000 of quarters in a year; but that has happened in those periods of the thirteen years when your own supply was not sufficient for the demand, and not when the supply was sufficient and your own prices were exceedingly low. So far, then, from having failed, it proves that the principle has worked according to the views of those by whom the law was enacted. But then I certainly may be asked "If that be your opinion, why do you propose to alter it?" That I admit is a very natural question, and a question that one is bound to answer. But if I am right at all in the view I have

581
stated upon this subject, it is one to which the attention of Parliament must from time to time be directed with the utmost vigilance. My Lords, the interests concerned in if are too mighty to permit the Legislature to abstain from taking, when necessary, an enlarged view of all the circumstances of the case. It does not at all follow that the extent of the protection necessary at one time is as a matter of course necessary at another; and I think it would not be difficult to show, and I will endeavour to show, that the protection which the law now gives is beyond the necessity of the case; but there are other circumstances which must be taken into the consideration of this question. Your Lordships are aware of the great increase in the population of this country since the present act passed. During the last ten years there are upwards of 2,000,000 additional consumers of food—that is the increase in the population; and although it seems to be perfectly clear that the produce of our country has not only not fallen off during that time, but has actually increased, and therefore supplied a considerable portion of the food necessary for that increased population, yet it is also clear from the importation of corn for consumption that has taken place, that it has not supplied the whole; and if there is any truth in the doctrine that the tendency of population is to press on the limits of subsistence, then it is also clear that the circumstances of the case. are already altered by that increase of population, and may be still further altered in time to come if that increase goes on in the same ratio. It is right, therefore, to consider this question at an early period, in order that we may not be taken by surprise when the necessity may come. But, my Lords, there is another point which appears to me to make a difference in regard to this case from the period when the act passed. At that time it was assumed and supposed, and reasonably enough I think,—I am speaking of wheat only—that the quantity of wheat which this country might derive from Ireland would not only be very considerable, but would increase. That has not turned out to be the fact, because during the first six of the last thirteen years, the amount of wheat and flour imported from Ireland into this country was, on an average, 658,000 quarters, a very considerable part of our supply, being nearly one-third
582
of the largest quantity of any foreign corn imported; but that quantity has, during the last seven years, diminished on an average to 427,000. That certainly, is a very important feature in this case, and your Lordships will recollect that one of the most strenuous supporters of the principle of the Corn-laws in this House (a noble Lord who is now engaged in the service of the country elsewhere (Lord Ashburton) said last year, that he considered that point of Ireland to be a material circumstance in the consideration of this subject. Now, what does that alteration in respect to Ireland arise from? It has arisen, my Lords, from two causes; —the one I believe to be this—that it has not been found notwithstanding the high prices of corn in this country, that would appear to offer a never-ending stimulus to the agriculturist in Ireland—it may arise from climate, or from some other cause, I know not but it has not been found so profitable in Ireland to grow wheat for this country as oats. But, my Lords, there is another cause. The consumption of wheat in Ireland, although the production of wheat there is in some respects diminishing, for at all events the surplus is diminishing, is in many parts of the country greatly increasing. It is, my Lords, a most fortunate circumstance. Who can regret that in that country, which has suffered so many evils, the comforts of the people should be increased, and the quality of their food be so much improved It certainly cannot be considered a misfortune; but it does tell upon this country. Some of your Lordships will recollect the time as I do, when a great portion of the people of this country were not supported on wheaten bread, but lived upon bread of barley or rye. That has been greatly altered. The consumption of wheat is much more general amongst the people, and we may naturally think that the same process will go on in Ireland, until at last, in all probability, there will be little or no surplus to export to this country. I say that that is a matter which justifies us in taking the subject of this law into consideration at the present time. I am perfectly prepared to admit that in the working of this law there are defects which ought to be corrected, and the correction of which, so far from inflicting any evil upon any class of the community, above all, so far from inflicting any evil on the producers of this country, will tend to confer the

583
greatest benefit on them. ["Hear."] My noble Friend, Lord Stanhope, perhaps does not agree with me in that, but he will excuse the liberty I take in stating how I think that is established. One defect of the present act is, that which I suspect my noble Friend thinks one of its beauties, viz., that the protection is most extravagantly high. What can be the advantage of a higher protection than is ever brought into operation? The only effect it can have is to injure the principle of protection itself. If you attempt to establish a protection which is not necessary, you go far to injure the principle itself, and destroy the advantage you should derive from it. My Lords, I have reason to know, and so as any one who has had any communication with persons who are competent to form an opinion upon this subject, that there is a general opinion in this country, that the protection of the present law is too high, and not necessary. That defect, in my opinion, should now be remedied. Then, my Lords, there is another objection, and a very strong one, I believe, to the present law—viz., the rapidity with which the duty varies. Your Lordships will recollect, that in the bill which came up to this House in 1827, into which this principle of a graduated scale was first introduced, but which, from circumstances to which it is not necessary to advert, did not pass into a law, the fluctuations were not so rapid as in the law as it now stands. I had the honour of proposing that bill to your Lordships' House. It was very vehemently opposed by some noble Lords, but the House acquiesced in the principle of it, and all the details except one. There was a clause introduced which, though it did not affect this question of the amount of duty, did affect another part of the bill, and which led to its not passing into a law; and on the following year the present law was passed. But that which has been described by some as a jumping scale is undoubtedly a great defect, because when the prices are rising towards the ultimate point, the difference of duty becomes so great, and the temptation to wait until the low duty price is reached is so strong, that the holders of corn are induced, for the sake of greater gain, by getting their corn out at 1s. duty instead of a duty of 10 s. or 12 s. to keep it until the last moment. It also induces persons to try what effect they can pro-
584
duce upon the average prices which regulate the amount of duty, by operating on them in different markets of the country wherever they think that that dealing can be carried on with any chance of success. I think that that unquestionably is a very considerable defect in the existing law, and the way to correct it is to correct the great inequality of duty at certain points of the scale, and to make the fall much more gradual, thereby taking away almost the only temptation to hold corn until the price arrives at the ultimate point. Your Lordships will find in the papers before me that with regard to wheat, very little comparatively has been taken out for consumption when the prices were rising, and that that has been the consequence of the great difference between the points of the scale to which I allude. But this same jumping scale does not apply to barley and oats; and with respect to those kinds of grain, you will not find the same result. In those grains the highest point of the scale has never been reached, except in one or two instances, and therefore in that case the principle of the existing law operates much more advantageously than it is proved to do with respect to wheat. I have alluded, my Lords, to the question of the averages. That certainly is a point upon which there is always a great deal of sensitiveness exhibited, and perhaps with some reason, though not so much as may appear to some persons. No doubt this system of averages is liable to objections, cogent objections. But I think they have been over-estimated, and that by the mode in which we propose to deal with that subject, they will be entirely removed. The first and best mode of removing them is by removing the temptation that now exists with regard to them; and I think that the new scale which we propose will take away that temptation of raising the prices to the highest point in the markets in order to obtain the lowest amount of duty. In the next place, we propose that they should be taken by a different class of persons, by which I think greater security will be given to transactions of business, and more care taken that frauds, or whatever else they are called, may not be so easily committed as they have been up to this present time. And then, my Lords, we propose what I think is a most important improvement,—namely, the extension of the number of towns from which the

585
averages are taken. It is quite clear, that the wider you make the basis from which the averages are taken, the difficulty of effecting fraud is the more increased, because the progress is of this kind:—it is attempted solely in great markets, where the quantity returned is generally very large, the prices generally high, and the application of the quantity and price to the formation of an average must be effected by an artificial addition to the prices returned. The question has been asked as to what is likely to be the effect on the prices in consequence of including these new towns. I cannot see very well how any sensible effect can be produced, unless the quantity and price in the new towns are mainly higher or lower than in the present towns. For instance, if it were supposed, that the effect of these new towns would be to raise the price 5s. in order to bring about that additional price, the total amount of price in the new towns must exceed the price in the old towns by not less than 10s. Suppose they were pretty equal in number, and the quantity sold in the new towns was pretty equal; then, in order that these new towns should affect the prices of the averages, it is necessary that the additional price beyond that of the old towns should not be less than 10 s. That objection, then, has obviously no foundation at all, and, I think, it is generally admitted, that no such effect is likely to be produced. If that be correct, we should gain the advantage of a just statement of the actual sales of corn throughout the kingdom, without introducing any principle to which any objection can possibly be made. I am afraid I have trespassed too long on your Lordships' time in these preliminary observations; but I thought I should not be doing my duty if I had abstained from making them, in order that your Lordships may better understand the proposition I am about to make, and see how far anything I have stated or the reasons I have given may support the adoption of that measure. The proposition, then, which I have to make to your Lordships is this, that instead of the duty increasing to any amount not defined, the highest amount of duty in the importation of wheat shall be 20 s., and shall attach whenever the average price of corn in this country shall be under 51s. It is proposed also, that it shall diminish 1s. for every 1s. increase in price, with two ex-
586
ceptions in the course of the process —that is, that when it arrives at52 s. and is under 55 s., embracing three stages at each, of which the price will rise 1s.,then the duty shall be the same—namely a duty of 18s.; because, assuming 56 s. to be about a fair remunerating price for wheat, this was considered to be a fair advantage to give to the producer. After which it is proposed that the duty shall diminish 1s. as the price rises 1s. till the price reaches 66 s., when it is proposed to make the duty 6s, embracing three stages, the object being to diminish the temptation to hold back corn till the highest point is reached, and to induce persons to abstain from holding back under the expectation of gaining a greater benefit. Now, as to the remunerating price: my Lords, it is a difficult thing to say absolutely what is to be considered a remunerating price; but some aid may be gained by considering the price which wheat has reached, combined with our own opinion, for the last thirteen years. Now, for the last thirteen years, the price has been something more than 58 s.; so that something between 56 s. and 58 s. or 60 s. would be likely to be a price that will afford a reasonable remuneration, and the maintenance of which is necessary for the protection of the agricultural interests of the country. I have reason to believe that as to wheat, the price is considered to be a fair one, and I do not find it has been a subject of material complaint, and I think it may be presumed to be satisfactory to the country; but I am aware that with respect to barley and oats, a different opinion is entertained, and it is supposed that the protection is very inadequate for these two important grains. Now, the principle we have endeavoured to observe in fixing the duty on barley and oats is to adhere as nearly as we could to the principle of the existing scale. Wheat being at 50 s., the duty is 1l.; barley being at 25 s. the duty is 11 s., rather more than half. Formerly it was supposed that the duty on barley might be taken at half, and therefore we considered that the making barley equal to about one half, in proportion to wheat, would be sufficient. And, on the same principle in a part of this scale wherein the average price of barley is 27 s. and under 30 s., the duty is proposed to be fixed at 9s. Now, it is supposed that this duty on barley will expose our agriculturists to a most ruinous competition with

587
foreign barley. I confess that, looking at the facts, I cannot see any grounds for entertaining that apprehension. I am afraid, my Lords, I weary you by these details; but they will be necessary at some stage of the discussion, and, perhaps, they are better entered into now. It appears, with regard to barley, that it has been assumed that it could be put on board ship in a foreign port at 19 s, 6½d. per quarter; but before it could be brought here, there must be an addition to that price, of freight and charges of many descriptions, and it is impossible to take these at less than 4s. 6d. or 5s.; so that the total amount of the charges would raise the price of the foreign barley to 24 s. or 25 s. It is clear, therefore, that if this be the case, the protection given by this scale is sufficient up to any price short of 31 s.; and I cannot see anything to induce me to think that the protection is not an adequate one, looking to what we before considered a sufficient protection to barley. But the whole bill proceeds upon the principle of diminishing protection; and, therefore, the question must be urged by those who object to the whole scheme, and cannot be an objection in the opinion of those who are disposed to admit that a reduction of protection should take place. In the bill of 1827, which did not pass into a law, the protection proposed, though a great deal higher when the prices were low, at this point did not differ very materially from that now proposed; from 31 s. to 32 s., the duly was to be 8s. 6d., whereas, by the present bill, it is only 7s., being a reduction of only 1s. 6d. a quarter. I cannot, my Lords, see that that this scale of duty can give rise to any well-founded apprehensions. I have heard a great many people say, that we shall have a large quantity of foreign barley brought into the country; but, my Lords, I have not heard any part of Europe named whence an increased quantity of barley is likely to be imported, except the small country of Denmark. But Denmark is a country of extremely limited extent and capacity, and whilst her power of production is limited, her population is increasing, so that her own demand is augmenting; and it does not appear to me that any apprehension need be entertained, even supposing that a few thousand quarters of barley may be brought from this small country. It is clear, if the effect of this bill be, as we
588
expect, to produce an increased demand, that it will increase the price of barley in the country. It is not improbable, supposing that there is any weight in the argument as to the effect of the bill, that there will be an increased demand, which will lead to an increased price; so that the protection would not be inadequate, but, on the contrary, under the circumstances, will be found quite sufficient. With regard to Germany, whence also some barley is expected to be imported, the grain in the north of Germany is by no means of a superior quality, and from the nature of the soil is not likely to be increased in quantity; and it is stated that Prussia could not grow good malting barley, if at all, without going through an expensive process of improving the soil. In south Germany they do not grow barley for exportation; the consumption of it is very great for beer. Immense quantities of barley are grown in Bavaria; but there is no chance of any being sent into this country thence, the expense, besides the duties, of sending it down the Neckar to the Rhine, and from the Rhine to Holland, whence it has to be shipped, affording an ample protection, in addition to the duty, to our agriculturists. Much the same observation may be made with respect to oats. I think all apprehensions as to the quantity of oats likely to be imported, and the thousands and thousands of acres that will be thrown out of cultivation, are entirely groundless. Under the most favourable circumstances there could not be more than 800,000 quarters introduced; once the quantity has been 900,000 quarters, sometimes 500,000 and 600,000, and sometimes none at all; and when I find that the quantity of oats consumed in this country is 15,000,000 quarter!, arid that it has a protecting duty of 6s. up to 23 s., I cannot conceive that this is hot an adequate protection to those whose industry is employed in this branch of cultivation. I believe I have now stated to your Lordships enough to show the nature of this measure; I have laid before you many of the grounds on which I think it to be a measure which you will do well to pass; I have stated the reasons which induce me to believe that the fears' entertained of it are all chimerical and fallacious, and I do not think it necessary to do more than express my confident belief and hope that the measure will work

589
beneficially for all classes in the country. This is the sole object which those who framed it have in view, and if they could have been guilty of the crime of endeavouring to deceive the people of this country upon this subject, I can only say, that they would be guilty not only of the most miserable, as well as the basest, political offence of which a Ministry could be guilty, but they would commit an act of inconceivable folly. The people of this country are too quick-sighted and too enlightened to be so deceived; they are capable of judging of measures and of the motives of those who bring them forward, and with a firm reliance upon their sense of justice, and upon their construction of the motives which actuate the Government and the Legislature, I am convinced that this bill will be received by them as a satisfactory adjustment of this great question. We, my Lords, have done our duty in preparing this bill, and Parliament will, we hope, do its duty in passing it.
Earl Stanhopesaid, it was singular that some of those who had originally recommended the existing Corn-law, and had stated that it was perfectly unexceptionable in its mode of operation, should now come forward to propose what they themselves admitted (he quoted their words) to be a very considerable reduction of the protection which the Corn-law afforded to agriculture. The sliding-scale was no part or parcel of the principle of the Corn-law; it was only one of the modes—it might or might not be the best—of executing the principle of the Corn-law—that is, of affording protection to agriculture: he would show presently what sort of protection was now offered—a sliding-scale equally pernicious with a fixed duty. He concurred in the opinion which the noble Viscount opposite (Viscount Melbourne) had expressed in his speech in 1840:—
"My noble Friend carefully abstained," the noble Viscount observed, "from saying what it is that he means to do—whether his object is to have a fixed duty, or a diminution of the present ascending and descending scale; but whichever of these alternatives be his plan, as I see clearly and distinctly that the object cannot be carried without a struggle—without causing much ill blood, and a deep sense of grievance—without stirring society to its foundations, and leaving behind every sort of bitterness and animosity. I do not think the advantages to be gained by the change are worth the evils of the Struggle by which, your
590
Lordships may depend upon it, the change could alone be effected."
An appeal had been made to the country on this subject, which had returned a most triumphant majority, exceeding the most sanguine expectation of the party opposed to the noble Viscount, and pronouncing the opinion of the majority of the country to be in favour of protection to the agricultural as well as other interests. The conservative candidates bore on their banners that they were friends to agriculture; the defence and preservation of the Corn-law were the watchwords of the party; promises and pledges were given in profusion, and, on the eve of the election, the right hon. Baronet now at the head of the Government, in addressing his constituents at Tamworth, said:—
"I deprecate a struggle on the subject of the Corn-laws, because I think, as Lord Melbourne did last year, the advantages are not sufficient to counterbalance the risk, and I ask your free suffrages with this frank and explicit declaration of my opinions."
Frank and explicit! He saw no frankness here, for he never recollected to have read a sentence that had less. He did not mean to make any verbal criticism, but what was to be understood by "advantages"? Were they the advantages of maintaining the present Corn-laws, or of altering or abandoning them? It was utterly unintelligible if it was meant the advantage of altering or abandoning the present Corn-laws; it was inconsistent with all the right hon. Baronet's previous opinions. If it was meant the advantages of maintaining the present Corn-laws, what was intended by their not being "sufficient to counterbalance the risk?" What risk did the right hon. Baronet incur with an immense and overwhelming majority in both Houses of Parliament ready to support the Corn-laws? He deprecated a struggle—with whom? With the Corn-law league? With the landed interest? It would have been very convenient if the right hon. Baronet had been a little more frank. He need not have informed his constituents at Tamworth what his plans were, but if he had only given them a hint that he intended to make a very considerable diminution of the present protection to the home grower—that the importation of cattle was to be encouraged—it would have had the effect of relieving himself and his Colleagues of the cares and anx-

591
ieties of office. He saw before the close of the last Session of Parliament, clear and unequivocal symptoms of a determination to make a considerable alteration in these laws. [Lord Hardwicke: "Why did not the farmers see it?"] They did not; if they had seen it, things would have taken a different course. Those who had prepared this plan, who had given every possible encouragement and excitement to clamour, had now produced disaffection and discontent amongst the whole agricultural class, and they had lost, and for ever, the attachment of their own political adherents, who might continue to support them, not from attachment, but in order to exclude another party from office. He should not waste the time of their Lordships in saying anything of some of the Minister's adherents; he resigned them, without comment, to the castigation they would be sure to receive from their constituents, whose interests they had deserted, and whose confidence they had betrayed. The noble Earl who had last spoken had avowed, that no satisfactory information had been obtained on the subject, that alone was a sufficient reason for obtaining it by means of a parliamentary inquiry, and till it was obtained no step should have been taken. There was a misapprehension as to the prices of corn abroad. Some supposed because of late years prices were usually high on the continent, as in this country, those prices were to be considered the ordinary prices. There was no precise information since 1827. According to the returns of the British consuls, the average of the prices in 1825, at eight ports in the north of Europe—namely, Copenhagen, Memel, Hamburgh, Konigsberg, Embden, Libau, Rotterdam, and Dantzic, was 18 s. 7d. per quarter. He had a petition presented from the Holderness Agricultural Society in 1827, which stated that at Hull, good wheat in bond was sold at 24s. per quarter. Mr. J. Sanders, of Liverpool, stated, in 1836, before a committee of the House of Commons, that he had seen wheat for eight or nine years together, during the last twelve years, produced at 18 s. or 20 s. a quarter, and he added—
" If the foreigner had always access to this market, no man can say at what price he will not grow wheat."
Mr. Hayne stated, that at Odessa wheat might, in May last, have been purchased at 14 s. to 16 s. per quarter, and that the
592
freight thence amounted to 12 s. per quarter, making the total expense 26 s. or 28 s. per quarter last year. He had imported "as tine a cargo of wheat as possible," which, including all expenses of freight, &c, cost 27 s. per quarter. That statement exactly corresponded with the opinion recently given by two eminent corn-factors at Liverpool, who stated, that under the proposed law, after one or two favourable harvests, the average prices would be 46 s. or 48 s. per quarter. In the speech of the noble Earl he had admired the ingenuity with which he glided over the most important parts of the bill connected with the reduction of the duty, There was a decrease of duty between the prices of 55 s. and 65 s. of no less than 1l.4s. 8d. a quarter. The present average duty from 55 s. to 66 s., both inclusive, is 1l. 16 s. 8d.; it is now proposed to reduce the average duty between these prices to 12 s., being a reduction of 45 per cent., and which could not be made without most injurious consequences to the agricultural classes. He denied that the present protection was extravagantly high. A letter from Mr. Gladstone, dated the 26th of May last, states, that—
" In the last and present month large quantities of foreign wheat have been freely imported and entered for consumption at Liverpool and elsewhere, paying a duty of 22 s. 8d. per quarter, and leaving a fair profit to the importer."
It was now proposed to reduce the duty from 22 s. 8d. to 8s.; and it was said that this would inflict no injury on the agriculturists, and that they ought to look upon it as a considerable boon and advantage! His noble Friend in speculating on the probable consequences of the present measure, supposed, without condescending to give the slightest ground or reason for his supposition, that the proposed sliding-scale would have the effect of giving a protection up to a point when the price of wheat should be between 54 s. and 58 s., say at 56 s. He should very much like to know the grounds of this supposition: for he declared that the proposition was utterly untenable. So far from this proposed measure giving the farmers a protection up to 56 s., which, as he should presently show, would be inadequate, it would not after favourable seasons give a protection up to 50 s. Their Lordships were bound to consider what was a remunerating price to the British grower. This was a point

593
which his noble Friend had passed over with perfect silence, as if it was a matter of no consequence. He would not detain their Lordships by reading agricultural details about ploughings and barrowings; but he knew, that in a part of Buckinghamshire, and that not the worst, corn would not bring a remunerating price unless it was sold in the market for 60 s. per quarter. The proposed measure, therefore, would have the ultimate effect of annihilating rent; and with the cessation of rent there would be a cessation of consumption and expenditure; and he would leave their Lordships to judge what effect this would have on the other classes of the community. He did not believe that the land would go out of cultivation. Whether prices were reduced to 50 s. or 40 s., he did not believe that the land would relapse into a state of nature. It would be cultivated for the consumption of those who owned, occupied, or tilled it; and any of these three classes, if they wished to have other articles not produced by that land, would procure them only by barter. The consequence would be the entire subversion of the whole system now established, the annihilation of all public and private trading, and at no distant period, a national bankruptcy. Another assumption of the noble Lord was, that the present protection afforded by the Corn-laws was extravagant, and that it might be diminished without inconvenience or injury to the agricultural interest. His noble Friend had not, however, supplied the House with the smallest proof, or shadow of a proof, of this assertion. It might have been fair to argue in 1828, when the present law was introduced, that a less amount of protection was requisite then than in 1815; and for this obvious reason, that that monstrous and destructive measure known by the name of Peel's Bill was not in existence previous to the latter year. When that measure was brought forward, a statement was made that it would lower prices 3 or 5 per cent.; and the author of it either had not the wisdom to learn or the candour to avow the consequences it had produced. However, another individual, who was looked to as a great authority by a class of persons for whom he had no respect, viz., the band of political economists—he alluded to the late Mr. Ricardo—had the manliness to avow that the fall of prices, instead of being from 3 to 5 per cent., had been from
594
30 to 50 per cent., and if he had known that, no power on earth should have induced him to support such a mischievous measure. But there had been no measure since 1828 which had diminished what was considered the remunerating price, which was admitted on all hands to be for wheat 60 s. the Winchester quarter, or 62 s. according to the new fashioned or imperial measure. He was aware that improvements had been introduced in agriculture; but by whom? By the landlords or the tenants; and those improvements might have been accompanied by considerable expense, which had been provided for out of the pockets of the landlords and tenants. With what show of justice, then, could they attempt to reduce the price of wheat and the profits of the agricultural classes, without any reference to those expenses. He most earnestly exhorted their Lordships not to trample on the rights or disregard the interests of others, if they expected their own rights and their own interests to be respected. His noble Friend had stated the average price of wheat at 58 s. per quarter during the last thirteen years; but his noble Friend could not certainly be aware that from 1833 to 1836 the price of wheat in this country was so ruinously low that, there was a Parliamentary inquiry into the cause. If his noble Friend separated from those thirteen years the three years from 1833 to 1836, when the price of wheat was respectively 46 s. 2d., 39 s. 4d., and 46 s.6d., or, on an average, 44 s. 8d., which no man would be bold enough to maintain to be a remunerating price,—he would find that the average price had been since 1828, 62 s. 7d. per quarter. His noble Friend at the commencement of his speech seemed to argue that an entire free-trade in corn would be an advantage if it were practicable, and that a low price of corn was per se a benefit. He would answer his noble Friend with his own words. To use the language of Holy Writ, "Out of thy own mouth will I condemn thee." His noble Friend could not have forgotten the joy and exultation he expressed —naturally enough—at that universal prosperity and satisfaction which pervaded the country in 1825. Would to God that other Sessions of Parliament might open under similar auspices! His noble Friend was one of those Ministers who advised the King in 1825 to address the Parliament, assuring the Members of the Legislature,

595
" That there never was a period in the history of this country, when all the great interests of the nation were at the same lime in so thriving a condition, or when a feeling of content and satisfaction was more widely diffused through all classes of the British people."
Some persons might naturally inquire, What could have been the price of corn when his noble Friend advised such a speech to be delivered? and might conceive it must have then fallen below 40 s. per quarter. This was not, however, the caste. At that time the average price of wheat Was above 66 s., and had during the preceding year been 62 s. per quarter. The encouragement proposed to be given by the Government measure to agriculture was comparatively much lower than had formerly been given by the patriotism and wisdom of their ancestors to the cultivation of the soil. He would refer to the statute the 22d of Charles 2nd, cap. 13. The average price of wheat for the ten years preceding the passing of that act was 44 s. 9d., being a higher price than was presented by the average price of the years 1834, 1835, and 1836; and a considerably better price when the comparative value of money and the weight of taxation was considered. This statute of Charles 2nd, was passed professedly for the encouragement of agriculture, and it enacted that when the price of wheat was at 55 s. per quarter and under, the duty should be 16 s. 6d.; and the duty now proposed at 55 s. was 17 s.; so that the only increase of protection which the noble Earl and his Colleagues now thought necessary for agriculture, notwithstanding the enormous, unparalleled, and almost incredible amount of the burdens of the country, was but an additional sixpence on the quarter. His noble Friend having evaded the question bf what Was a remunerating price, had endeavoured to establish the principle of a maximum price for corn. what was this but the enactment in a different form bf the maximum law Which prevailed in France? Many of their Lordships might be old enough to recollect, and they all knew from history, what were the consequences of this maximum law. The farmers did not, would not, could not send their corn to market where it must be gold, according to law, at a price at Which it was ruinous to produce it. They refrained as much as possible from frequenting the markets in towns,
596
and there arose in that unhappy country a long-continued famine, which by infuriating the populace was the prime moving cause of all the atrocities which disgraced and desolated that country. And here he asked the noble Earl who opened the present debate, or any of his Colleagues, for a frank and explicit answer to this question—under the operation of the proposed law, did they or did they not expect large importations? Did they or did they not expect a large or a small reduction of price? He would meet them on either alternative. If they expected small importations and an inconsiderable reduction of price, what then would be the advantage to the consumers, if that class must be considered separately? If, on the contrary, they expected large importations, which would be very profitable to the re-venue and very acceptable in its present dilapidated state, had they considered what must be the necessary effects produced, not only on agriculture, but on all the other branches of productive industry, which have all one common interest in preventing the competition of foreigners in the home market? Had the Government at all contemplated the effects produced by enormous importations of foreign corn, either under the present law or any other law? Had they not seen that the effect of a considerable importation of corn was a considerable exportation, not of manufactures, but of specie? Even under the present Corn-law—under that extravagantly high protection, as it was now represented to be—the treasure in the Bank had been reduced from 11,000,000 l. to 3,000,000 l. or 4,000,000 l.; and it was very inconsiderable at present. If this state of things were continued, and the effect increased by the passing of the proposed Corn-bill, and the new tariff, it would be utterly impossible (and he referred on this point to the evidence of those who thought free-trade "a consummation devoutly to be wished") for the Bank to continue payments in specie under such circumstances. The proposed measure was not, as the noble Earl said, considered a fair arrangement as respected wheat. All who were practically acquainted With the country knew that the scale as regarded wheat would be destructive of their interests. But then they were told in homely language, that "half a loaf was better than none," and that it would be advisable for them to accept the proposed terms.

597
What reason was there to hope that these terms, bad as they were, would be final? Any such expectation must be destroyed by the declaration made by the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for the Home Department, who took occasion to state more than once that he desired it to be understood that the proposed measure should hot be considered as final. The farmers were told they must accept these terms, as they would get no better. He Should like to know on what grounds the agricultural class were to be considered as criminals, and why they should be glad to accept any commutation of their sentence? He rejected altogether all overtures for compromise, and he would say, "No surrender," as had been said by another person in another place—by a noble Duke who had shown his patriotism and public spirit at a time when both were nearly extinguished in this country, by preferring principle to place, and whose consistency in opinion and conduct would for ever en-ear him to the country. If they could prove that the protection was excessive, let it be diminished; if they could prove it unreasonable and unjust, let it be entirely withdrawn. He, for One, solicited and accepted no compromise on principle. He was not One of those who advocated the doctrine of expediency. There were cases, and the present was one, where extremes met. The farmers were not to be deluded into the notion that by the operation of this bill prices would be kept up to 56 s. or 58 s. Let them have a free-trade, ac companied, as the noble and learned Lord opposite had argued, by a free-trade in all manufactured articles. He threw down the gauntlet. He dared them to the attempt, Let them try it, and there would be raised in the country such a storm of fury, indignation, resentment, and vengeance as would scatter to the winds, annihilate, and destroy the advocates of free-trade. When he said "destroy," he did hot, of course, mean physically—he did not; of course, mean to offer his noble and learned Friend to the physical vengeance of the mob. It might be said, if these observations were well founded, why had not many petitions been presented in their support? But from the contempt with which those expressions of public feeling were treated in that enlightened and patriotic assembly—the House of Commons, and the neglect with which they were treated even by their Lordships, the
598
people had become weary of petitioning. There was also another reason which had been avowed as a sort of apology for listlessness under the deplorable and unexpected change in the conduct of those now in power, and that was this—the farmers were unwilling to petition or openly oppose these measures, lest they should overwhelm the present Administration, and reinstate their political adversaries in the government of the country. He must; however, observe, that when a man was sentenced to death, it did not much import to him whether the executioner were A Whig or a Conservative; and to carry the simile a little further, if he should be sentenced to have his head cut off, whether the instrument employed for that purpose should be a guillotine or an axe—a sliding-scale, or a fixed duty. As far as the agricultural interest was concerned, judging from the experience they already had, he should wish to know what worse could befal them if the former Ministers were restored. He took it that any Houses of Parliament that would reject the present Corn-law upon the ground of not affording sufficient protection to agriculture would resist as effectually the alternative of It fixed duty or free-trade in corn. He was grieved to say that nothing but mischievous measures had yet been propounded by the present Government, and he should steadfastly resist not only the Corn Importation Bill, but also the new tariff. He hoped it would not be thought that silence indicated consent. A distinguished statesman in another place observed, with reference to the silence of the agriculturists, dumtacent clamant; but if they were silent, and he spoke not unadvisedly, or without sufficient authority, their silence proceeded from a conviction which every day grew deeper, and with which he himself Was conscientiously impressed, that they were, according to the celebrated expression of Prince Talleyrand, "at the beginning of the end," and that the end itself was not far distant. The signs of the times we're written in such large and legible characters that those who ran might read them. It had been upon several occasions his painful duty earnestly, though perhaps weakly —sincerely, though ineffectually—to warn their Lordships Of the inevitable consequences of the system which had been so long pursued in this country under Tory, Whig, and Conservative. The end was not far distant; it would be accelerated

599
and aggravated by such measures as that now under their Lordships' consideration. He would entreat them once more, at this twelfth hour, to ponder the consequences of their conduct, and to consider whether if they should be found to be the tree that bore bad fruit they would not be hewn down and cast into the fire—whether, if they thought that their duty consisted merely in registering ministerial edicts, the example given in the Commonwealth would not be renewed—again voting them an useless body, and one that ought to be abolished. Whatever might be the result, he believed it would be far more fearful than many of their Lordships anticipated; in his conscience he believed it was now at the very threshold of their doors; and the first French revolution, with all its confiscation and atrocities, would afford but a feeble and inadequate representation of its horrors. He, through good report and through evil report, and if with weak talents, at least without any objects of personal ambition, would as heretofore endeavour to do his duty to his country— neither asking, wishing, nor wanting anything which any Government could give. He now moved that the bill be read a second time this day six months.
The Earl of Hardwickefelt that in addressing their Lordships on this occasion he was altogether inadequate to do justice to the subject, and he did so more for the purpose of justifying the vote he was about to give, than in the hope of being able to add anything new to the arguments and illustrations which had formerly been adduced on the different occasions when this most important topic was discussed. He was not one of those who, in advocating this measure, was influenced by those feelings of apprehension alluded to by his noble Friend, lest their rejection of it might overthrow the present Government, and reinstate noble Lords opposite, who, however estimable in private life, could not, from the democratic character of their supporters, conduct the Government as they might wish. He supported this measure from no such fear. He supported it because he thought it a good measure—because he thought it just— and because he thought it would do no injury whatever to the agricultural interest. His noble Friend who last addressed their Lordships had, in the course of a most discursive speech, travelled a little out of his way to assail a right hon.
600
Gentleman, the Prime Minister of the country, charging him with what would undoubtedly have been a most grave offence—namely, deceiving the people for the purpose of getting possession of power.
Earl Stanhope:I made no charge whatever of that sort. I commented on the address of the right hon. Baronet to his constituents; and if the noble Earl had done me the honour to attend to those observations, he would have found that they might have been interpreted in both ways. I do not deny that the general impression in the country arising from the right hon. Baronet's previous declarations was, that he was a zealous and true friend to the existing Corn-laws; how he may now be considered so, I have no doubt my noble Friend will be able to explain.
The Earl of Hardwickewas very glad he had given way to his noble Friend, for undoubtedly if his former statement had gone forth to the public as the deliberate opinion of a person of his distinguished talents and high rank, it would unquestionably have done great injustice to individuals; but it would have operated prejudicially rather to the noble Earl himself than to the character of his right hon. Friend. The noble Earl said the expressions which had been used might be interpreted both ways; but he would venture to assert there was only one way of interpreting them—namely, that his right hon. Friend was determined to adhere to the broad principle of the sliding-scale, reserving to himself, however, the power of making any alterations he thought fit. Nay, more, he believed this was well understood throughout the country—among the farmers themselves. In the county with which he was more immediately connected, the agriculturists felt that the Corn-laws were in an unsettled state, and were considering the changes which it would be fit to make in them. He himself had propositions made to him by Gentlemen whom the noble Earl knew perfectly well, having presided over them in the town of Cambridge—propositions, too, which reduced the duty by the sliding-scale; therefore it was not only by the Government that the notion of a change was entertained; the country generally felt that some alteration in these laws had at length become necessary. He did not mean to trouble their

601
Lordships with any observations relative to the effect of the existing Corn-laws in contributing to the welfare and independence of the country; he did not mean to say one word with regard to the fluctuations caused by the sliding-scale; but he would say this, after the decision pronounced by the House of Commons, their Lordships were not left to form an opinion as to whether they would alter the Corn-laws or not. They might reject this bill, but the question as to alterations in the present system was settled and determined by the voice of the country. No Corn-law could be so bad, no protection could be so inadequate, as that which was always questioned and debated. That which was always agitated was never satisfactory; and, although it might afford some protection, it was not the sort of protection he wished to uphold. For this reason it had been thought right to endeavour to modify the present law in such a way as might render it more acceptable to all classes of the community, —the superfluous protection that unquestionably existed being brought down to something more consonant with the views of the consumers and the degree of protection to which the agriculturists were entitled. If the present bill passed into a law, they would get rid of all the odium which attached to the present system, and the agriculturists would have a better protection, because the community would be better satisfied; while in the actual working of the law no material deterioration would take place. With regard to the bill itself, he was prepared to show that no deterioration in the price of agricultural produce would be the result. He would not support the present measure if he were not perfectly satisfied in his own mind that it would make no difference whatever to agriculture. The average price of corn in this country from 1660, including those years in which the Corn-laws were altered, which were always years of depression, although at times the price had been 45 s. and under, still the average was 57 s. 1d. This satisfied him that even supposing a very material alteration in the Corn-laws to take place, so great a change in the price of the article as by some was apprehended could not be the result. For himself he believed that no deterioration would take place. Thus, when the price of corn was 56 s. the duty on importation
602
would under the present bill be 16 s., and the price at Dantsic, the cheapest port, was 40 s., which, with 4s. for expenses of shipment, made the price of foreign wheat 60 s., without reckoning the charges in this country arising from landing, carting, and perhaps redressing. But at 60 s. the importer would loose 4s. per quarter when the price of English wheat was 56s., and therefore he would not come into the market at all. Again, when the price was 57 s. the duty would be 15 s. The price at Dantzic was 40 s., + 15 s. duty, + 4s. charges = 59 s. Here, also, there would be a loss of 2s. per quarter on the introduction of foreign wheat, and the importer would not come into the market. In fact, the present law protected the farmer up to 66 s. per quarter. It appeared from the Parliamentary papers, that the quantity of foreign corn imported into this country during the last thirteen years was 11,322,000 quarters, of which 9,500,000 had been admitted when the price stood at 70 s.; eighty quarters out of 100 had come in at a duty of 6s. 8d, He did not see anything in the present bill which would alter this arrangement; he did not see why the corn-dealer should not do just the same thing under the new law as he did at present—that was, hold back his corn until the price became high, and he could introduce it at a moderate duty. It was his conviction that the alteration in the law would make no change injurious to the farmers; the effect would remain exactly the same as regarded their real interest; but the surplus and absurd protection which existed under the old bill would be got rid of. That was his reason for supporting the measure. With regard to barley, the selling price of that grain in this country was 30 s. a quarter. The duty by the new bill would be 9s. at that point. 9s. + 19 s. 6d., the price of the foreign grain, + 4s. for charges on importation, would bring the price at which it could be imported to 32 s. 6d., so that the importer would lose 2s. 6d. It was not necessary for him to trouble their Lordships with more calculations of this kind; the same principle would be found to hold good throughout; but he would ask their Lordships to observe, that in making the calculations he had read to them, he had wholly omitted all charges which would be incurred in this country. There would be in addition the expense of unloading the vessel, of carting the corn

603
to the place at which it was sold, and, he thought most likely, of re-dressing it, besides the profits of the importer. Therefore, he thought he answered that opinion of his noble Friend with respect to the ruin that would be inflicted on agriculture by the bill before their Lordships in a manner as full and as satisfactory as could be thought desirable. He perfectly well knew that in speculative matters precise and exact calculations were out of the question, but at the same time he believed their Lordships would not be led much astray by using the documents before them, and it was a very great satisfaction to him to find himself able to give his warm and earnest support to Government on this measure, not from the fear that anybody else would take possession of their power and places, but from the firm belief he entertained that agriculture was entirely and perfectly protected; so much for this portion of the enactment, which was the most important one. He should like to say a, word on a subject passed over by his noble Friend who opened the debate— the effect that would be produced by a fixed duty of 8s. a quarter—and he would take the same data for his calculation as in the former instance. His objection to a fixed duty was chiefly and simply this— that he did not think it a maintainable duty. In times when a bad harvest made prices high, he was perfectly sure that it would be swept away; no protection at all would be left, and the agriculturist would he at the mercy of the Executive Government, to be dealt with as they might please, A clamour for the repeal of the duty would be raised through the country, and no government would be in a position to maintain it—not because they would not wish to do so, but because they would not have the power. In times of pressure, in short, there would be no protection at all. Taking the price of corn in this country at 56 s., and the duty at 8s., the price of imported corn would stand thus: 8s. + 40 s. the price at Dantzic, + 4s. for charges of freight, would bring the price to 52 s., giving to the importer a gain of 4s., when the home price was at 56 s. At that point, therefore, there would be no protection with a fixed duty. He remembered that the farmers of Cambridgeshire stated in the petition to which his noble Friend had adverted, that they could not possibly live unless they were certain of 60 s., a price which they had never ob-
604
tained at any period of their lives, for they never had had 60 s. under any averages. He could say that a people more regular in their habits and more satisfactory in all their dealings did not exist, but they never had a higher price than 56 s. 11 d. a quarter. Therefore, he said, although 60s. was claimed as indispensable, he was, for his own part, perfectly satisfied in the belief that on an average of years 56 s. was the price which they might hope to obtain for the great article of our agricultural produce. With respect to the averages it was quite unnecessary for him to say anything after what his noble Friend bad stated so much more ably than he could hope to do, in introducing the bill to their Lordships' notice. He could not help feeling that in this, branch of the subject also there was a decided improvement. Under the present bill the difference in the duty was so great between the points of the scale, that by raising the averages at once from 66 s. to 73 s. which was not very difficult to accomplish, the importer would realise a profit of 26 s. It was easy for speculators to raise the prices to this extent, when they conspired for that purpose, by a system of fictitious purchases and sales, which never reached the farmer's pocket any way, as might be easily proved. Now, under the new bill if the same game were attempted to be played, it would be necessary to raise the averages from 59 s. to 73 s., a much greater distance, before they could realise a profit of 26 s. As it was perfectly well known that all those sales by which the averages were so much raised were carried on in London, he could not help thinking that the addition of a great number of towns to the former list by which the averages were determined— and he should have been glad if the number had been even increased—was a very great improvement in the law. That could be shown in a very satisfactory way from the data furnished in the papers before their Lordships. It appeared that, with London included, the duty would stand at 10 s., but if London were struck out of the list, the duty would be 6s. The sales were carried on with a view to influence the duty between corn-dealers and corn-factors, not between the grower and the dealer. He thought the more easy slope of the averages, and the additional number of the towns were great improvements in the present plan, which would tend

605
much to cheapen the food of the people, at the same time that they would protect the real agricultural interest—that was, the interest of the grower. He believed he had now stated nearly all that he intended with reference to this bill, and he was afraid not without fatiguing their Lordships. He might venture to add, that no one could be totally inattentive to the language which was held out of doors on this subject, of which his noble Friend (Earl Stanhope) seemed to be the mouthpiece. It was said that statements calculated for deception were addressed to the people of this country by persons now in power, who endeavoured to delude them. This was an assertion which possessed no manner of foundation in truth, and he would challenge anybody to state under what circumstances, when or where, any statements of this kind had been made. He himself must plead guilty to being one of those whom his noble Friend had attacked for the line of conduct he had taken on this question; he had marched under the banners of protection to agriculture, and he was satisfied that the course he was now adopting would be infinitely better calculated to protect that interest than the course taken by his noble Friend. No protection would arise from the sort of speech which had been delivered by his noble Friend—no protection would be willingly granted if such language were to be generally held, but if the case was fairly stated to the people of this country, they were intelligent enough to understand what was set before them, and he believed they would not, for they could not, when the matter was understood, doubt for a moment that their best interests had been preserved. That party which was now in power had on their accession determined not to act either for party or class interests. He believed that that party, on taking power, had looked down from the eminence on which they were placed, and, haying viewed and considered the state of the country had come to the determination of putting aside all class interests and party considerations, and using every means in their power to promote the welfare of the people, and to support those great interests in this country and abroad which were now in some measure jeopardised. He believed that for that reason they were supported in Parliament, and that they would continue to be supported; he believed that
606
the honesty and loyalty of the people of this country, under all circumstances, and at all times, would know how to appreciate the value of those who, putting aside all such motives of action as he had mentioned, determined to do their best to promote the great interests of the country.
The Duke of Buckinghambegged to be excused for a few moments, if he offered some remarks on this important question. He agreed with his noble Friend that a more important question could not be brought under their Lordship's notice. It was necessary that he should offer his observations at the present moment, because he was given to understand that according to the forms of their Lordships' House, it would be impossible for him to propose any alteration in this bill in committee, and therefore he felt compelled, in this early stage of the measure, to state the grounds on which he meant to give his vote against it, The question was. whether the bill should be read a second time now, or on this day six months. He looked on this bill with deep feeling of alarm. He looked on it as a measure produced no doubt from the best of motives, but, in his humble judgment, calculated to do harm to the agricultural interest. If their Lordships looked at the progress made by the agriculture of this country for a number of years past, it was impossible not to rejoice at the state of excellence to which it had been brought. But if by this bill the protection hitherto secured to the farmer should be greatly reduced, as he believed it would be, he feared it would be found that the spirit of enterprise which now animated the agricultural interest, would, ere long be extinguished, and the consequence of forgetfulness and neglect as to the soil of the country would be, that our fields would no longer be maintained at that high pitch of cultivation to which protection to the British farmer had brought them. He looked on the bill with alarm, inasmuch as he saw a prospect of the foreign farmer being enabled to enter our market at a price at which he thought pup own farmers should be protected; knowing the capabilities of foreigners for producing a large supply of grain, his fear was, that if you gave capital and a market to the foreign farmer, he would, ere long, be enabled to meet the English farmer in our own cities, and to overpower his competition. Not many years ago, the country was placed in such a situation as to be

607
obliged to lean greatly on the progress of agricultural improvement for support in a contest of unexampled difficulty. He trusted it might be long, ere such a crisis again occurred; but if there were a possibility that it would happen at some future time, and if once they pauperised the agricultural interest, they would take away one of the chief sources of support, and by so doing, increase incalculably the danger to the country. If they depended solely on foreign supplies of grain, and the ports were closed against them, they would then be unable to obtain the necessaries of life, and might be placed in a situation which it was fearful to contemplate. Believing that the measure would be injurious to agriculture, and that it would impede the progress which agriculture had made of late years, he must deplore the probability which existed that their Lordships would be induced to pass it. It was proclaimed that this bill was to be an adjustment of the differences existing between two classes in this country. He avowed himself, as he had done before, the friend of the present Corn-law. However he might incur the displeasure, anger, or violence of others, he hoped he might be allowed to express his free and unbiassed opinion, and take that course which he honestly thought most conducive to the interests of the country. The bill, in his opinion would not satisfy the expectations of either party, or lead to the adjustment of the differences prevailing. He felt, and indeed, his noble Friend had shown, that it would not satisfy the manufacturers, who called for a total repeal; and he could assure their Lordships on the part of a great body of the agriculturists of this country, that it would not satisfy them. In giving up what they had then, they were giving up a law which, in his humble judgment, had worked beneficially; they were risking more than at the present moment they were aware of, and ere long, they would be called on to yield a little more. It was not for him to point out to their Lordship's what might ensue if the clamour for repeal were continued—suffice it to say, he viewed this measure with more alarm, the more he reflected on those consequences which might be expected from it. It did not grant that protection which the farmer had a right to expect; On that ground, he took his stand, and he should give his vote in support of the amendment of his noble
608
Friend. He regretted many of the remarks which had fallen from his noble Friend, in which he could not go along with him, but he completely agreed with him that the bill would be highly injurious to the interests of the farmer. He shared those deep feelings of anxiety for the welfare, happiness, and comfort of his fellow-countrymen which ought to animate every Member of their Lordships' House; and he would be ready to go any lengths in trying to reconcile the agriculturists to this measure, if he believed it for their good; but he would ask their Lordships, if they consented to pauperise the agricultural interest, and drive the cultivators of the soil from those pursuits in which they were engaged, might they not be placed in the same difficulties and distresses by which the manufacturers were now afflicted? He would call on them to pause ere it was too late to retrace their steps, and feeling it his duty to support the existing law, and to protect the farmer, as he had always striven to do, he could not but view this attack on his interests with the greatest apprehension. His noble Friend who had just sat down, had attempted to show that the new scale would be equally beneficial to the farmer as the old, but the foreigner would now be enabled to import corn at 58 s. instead of at 68 s. or 69 s. as formerly. It had been said that few petitions from the farmers had been presented, and that they had not been forward to state their grievances. It was not for him to say what the reasons for thus acting might be, but he must express his regret that the farmers had not been more alive to their own interests. Be that as it might, he felt he must adhere to the opinions he had repeatedly expressed on this subject, and he should sit down by giving his cordial support to the motion to postpone the second reading of the bill for six months, as a measure prejudicial to the farmer and subversive of the agricultural interest.
The Earl of Winchilseaexpressed his satisfaction that a measure which had excited so much discussion, and which had so important a bearing on the tranquillity and prosperity of the country, was now about to be brought, as far as human prudence could foresee, to a final settlement. He contended that the agitation which had prevailed in the country on this question had produced great evils. There was no question on which it was so easy to excite the labouring classes of this country

609
as the price of bread, although he was prepared to maintain that it was one on which the great body of the labouring classes were quite unqualified to come to a just and accurate conclusion. Limiting their views only to the present moment, they were unable to grasp this great question, and to enter into those prospective views which had influenced the Legislature in its wisdom to secure to the agriculturists of this country that protection and encouragement which the importance of their avocation to the public welfare demanded. It was sound policy to guard from injury capital and interests of such immense value as those vested in the cultivation of the soil, and the legislation of this country had been directed to this end, and to the prevention of great fluctuations in price, and of those occasional rises from which the labouring classes were the first to suffer. The agitation of this question had shaken the confidence of the agricultural classes in the continuance of that prosperity which was secured to them by those laws on the faith of which they had invested their capital, and had, within the last two years, considerably retarded those great improvements which had been commenced chiefly in drainage and the use of artificial manure, by means of which thousands of acres, in Lincolnshire for instance, which formerly produced nothing but water now grew the finest wheat, he might say, in the empire. Indeed, such was his confidence in the capabilities of the soil and the effects of those improvements, that he did not hesitate to express his conviction, that if they proceeded with the same rapidity for fifteen years to come as they had done for the fifteen years that had passed away, England would become, instead of an importing, an exporting country, more than able to supply the wants of her increasing population. There was no country which offered greater facilities for the extension and improvement of agriculture, or which more invited the investment of English capital, than Ireland. Few noble Lords, he presumed, were prepared to contend for a free-trade in corn, looking to the burdens imposed on agriculture for the support of the poor, for the maintenance of the high-roads, and the preservation of the public peace. Those were the three great national burdens, and they certainly fell very heavily on the agricultural interest. If this were a new country, and if we were
610
free from such burdens, he, for one, might advocate free-trade in corn, and indeed free-trade in every article that entered into human subsistence. But if they were to bear these burdens, then they must have a Corn-law to enable them to sustain them. There were now in effect two propositions before the House—the proposition of the Government for a sliding-scale, and that of the late Administration for a fixed duty. Now, in his opinion, the fixed duty was altogether a perfect fallacy. If the price of wheat was at 36 s,, as it was a few years ago, what advantage would a fixed duty of 8s. be to the agriculturist? If the price were to rise to 80 s., what Government, let him ask, could maintain such a duty? Besides the agriculturists must have protection. They were liable to all the variations of seasons. They were not, like the manufacturers, able to carry on their occupations without consulting wind or weather. If they had not protection, therefore, agriculture must fall into decay, and this was a statement which he made advisedly, and after due deliberation. Now, it had been said in that House, and the sentiments had been echoed by a cheer, which was erroneously attributed to him; it had been said, that her Majesty's present Government had most grossly deceived the agriculturists. Now, he was prepared to say, that that was a gross misstatement. They went to the country on the dissolution. That dissolution was forced by the late Government — a Government which took a step, in his opinion, alike discreditable to themselves as an Administration, and calculated to disturb the peace of the country. He referred to the agitating cry of "cheap bread," which they had raised for a mere party and factious purpose. That cry was as delusive as it was agitating, for, as the people well knew, cheap bread meant low wages, and in some cases, no wages at all. Well, it was said, the party at present in power went to the country pledged to maintain the existing Corn-law. Now, he denied, that they had done any such thing. They were not pledged to any particular scale of duties whatever. To the principle of the present law, they certainly were pledged, and he contended, and did say most emphatically, that the Government had maintained that principle. And with regard to the change in the scale of duties he was prepared also to express an opin-

611
ion, that the agriculturists would sustain no injury from the alteration of the duties on wheat. There were a variety of emendations in the system which would prevent them from sustaining any injury. The list of towns in which the averages were to be taken was to be altered; he only wished they had been so altered as to exclude Mark-lane, to which market, after all, the frauds and fictitious averages were to be traced. But in extending the system to a number of other towns, he thought the Government had rendered a great service to the public. To the agriculturist, also, they had given an important benefit, by so altering the scale, as to render it a jumping instead of a sliding-scale. And having thus candidly expressed his opinion, he must make one statement in addition. Although closely connected and bound up with agriculture, he had ever viewed this question with reference solely to what he considered the interests of the great mass, the vast labouring population of this country. He trusted, that for their sakes, the present measure would settle the question; and, at the same time, he hoped, that its result would be, to give bread to the people at the lowest price at which the English agriculturists could afford to sell, and to so obviate all necessity for resorting to the dangerous expedient of drawing supplies of corn from foreign countries whenever we might be left entirely unsupplied in the event of war. He would also say, before he sat down, that he could not but regret the course taken by the noble Earl (Earl Stanhope) on the present occasion; and, more than all, that he regretted the noble Earl should have attributed to persons of high character and of high standing in the country, opinions and motives of action, which, he was sure, that noble Earl would, on after deliberation, much regret having laid to their charge. He would ask the noble Earl to consider attentively what possible interest such parties could have in acting as he would lead the House to suppose they had acted? Those parties were as closely connected with agriculture as the noble Earl himself, and he would venture to add, quite as anxious for its prosperity. For his own part, he believed those parties had pursued a conscientious course, and he earnestly hoped and believed, that their measures would tend to put the question on a firm footing, and to further the general inter-
612
ests of the country, manufacturing as well as agricultural. Entertaining these feelings and opinions, he should very cordially give his vote in favour of the second reading of the bill.
Lord Westernsaid, he had listened with great attention to the noble Earl (the Earl of Ripon) who had introduced this bill, and who, in his speech, had said so much to shew the impossibility, or, at all events, the improbability of any overwhelming importations of foreign corn, that he appeared to be advocating a free-trade, and that he (Lord Western) should be also obliged to be a convert in its favour. He should indeed, be infinitely delighted to be able to give a vote in support of that unrestricted importation of corn which is so much desired by great numbers of the people; but he was of opinion, that the aggregate taxation of the country pressed with such weight, mediately, if not immediately, upon the produce of agriculture, indeed, upon all other products of industry, that it would be impossible to sustain a competition with comparatively untaxed foreign countries. The price of corn was compounded of taxes and cost of productions, labour being the chief ingredient of the cost part; upon a forced reduction of the aggregate price, the labour must give way, for the tax part would remain untouched; and the diminution would fall upon the cost parts of price, and thus would the labourers be in fact the chief sufferers. Besides which the wages of labor would fall as they always do when the price of corn falls, reducing the farmer's means of paying their men and thus lessening the demand for their labour; this was always the case, though perhaps the wages did not so invariably and immediately rise upon the advancing price of corn, no theory was necessary to establish this truth, practice unfortunately proved the fact, and wages had already fallen. The noble Lord then proceeded to shew the probable injurious effects of such reduction of the protecting duties which were intended in the bill, and which he thought would be very seriously felt in all the agricultural districts. He should, therefore, support the amendment moved by the noble Earl (Earl Stanhope) which if carried, would leave the law as it stood at that time. He would now take leave to say a few words as to the conduct of Government upon this subject. The present Administration had come into office upon the strength, and in the confi-

613
dence of their determination to support the protective principle by which the Legislature had so long been governed. It was universally believed, that a Conservative Government would conserve the existing institutions of the country, and its policy as regarded the agricultural interests. He was sure, that there was no supporter of the right hon. Baronet (Sir R. Peel) who did not entertain that full conviction. It was, therefore, with astonishment and regret, they saw the contrary course he was now pursuing, particularly as respected his proposed tariff of reduced duties; who ever expected, or could have suspected such a tariff from such a quarter? They might have expected a measure of the sort from his noble Friend at the head of the late Administration. From that noble Lord he did anticipate such a tariff. He did anticipate, that sooner or later his 8s. duty would be followed by some such extension of free-trade, and that apprehension induced him to withdraw his support on that occasion from his noble Friend, which he was very reluctant to do, and should be even more so again after discovery of the total want of confidence to be placed in the views of the right hon. Baronet at the head of the present Conservative Government—what popularity he (the hon. Baronet) was to gain by his present course, or who to please, he could not imagine. It could not be his old Conservative agricultural Friends. He was sure the hon. Baronet must have lost much of their confidence and attachment. He might still have their votes, but he must have lost their hearts. It was not in the nature of things they could approve his present policy, the expectations many had formed were wholly disappointed; They considered themselves deceived; they never thought of his making dangerous experiments upon the agriculture and trade of the country. They would not know what to expect next. It would be almost better to have a free-trade at once, having began upon the free-trade principle, where was the hon. Baronet to stop?—a free-trade in corn at once would be preferable, the great energies of the people would thus be called forth to their utmost efforts, and it is impossible to say what they might not accomplish if freed from the burthens of taxation to the enormous extent now carried, they would almost surprise themselves with the powers they possess. There was no reason why with their capital, skill, and industry, with a climate and soil suited to
614
the growth of wheat, they might not produce it as cheap, if not cheaper, than any other country in the world; or if the revenue would not hear a large reduction of taxes, if a sufficiently extended currency to meet the taxation, instead of that miserably contracted and ever-vary-circulation we now labour under, was established by Parliament, the nation would rise again over all difficulties and distresses. Here he said he was led to a consideration of the state of our commerce and manufactures, which were weighed down by the operation of our monetary system established in 1819, and under which our circulating medium had become so uncertain, so fluctuating, and so insufficient. He felt deeply interested in reference to these new measures of experiment upon our agriculture, but if possible he felt even more alarm in contemplating the depressed condition of our commerce and our manufactures, and the wretched, destitute, almost starving state of their operatives in these districts. Was it not to our commerce and manufactures that our agriculture owed much? that the value of our land had been increased? was it not to our commerce and manufactures that England owed her greatness and her superiority? Why, then, allow such existing distress to continue and prevail? the remedial course was obvious, as was the cause of the misery. The violent and continued contraction of the currency after a delusive expansion, was evidently the cause. The general circulation of the country had been reduced at least a fifth of its aggregate amount. A sudden reduction by the Bank had, in 1837, produced the most tremendous losses to the commercial world,—losses to the extent of forty millions sterling in that one year. These were facts that could be proved; he would be prepared to prove them, if allowed, and why was this contraction done or suffered. This was a point that required explanation. It was requisite under our present monetary arrangement that the Bank should hold a certain amount of bullion in her coffers, supposed to be not less than nine or ten millions. She was also to assist commerce by temporary loans, discounts, and such means, but was to guard her bullion carefully. It might, however, unfortunately be reduced by various means, and if to a great and rapid extent, she became alarmed, in that case what was to be done? Why the Directors distinctly told both to the Commissioners of the House of Lords and Com-

615
mons they had no means of replenishing their coffers but by reducing the circulation, thus throwing down the price of all commodities. This was the real secret of our distress, and if it were to continue he should look forward to more fatal consequences. He could not imagine why the leading men of both parties determined to leave this question of the currency untouched. He warned them that the time had now come when if they did not deal with it soon, and that energetically, they would regret their conduct to the last hour of their lives. He apologized for having been led away from the subject of the Corn-law, but really he felt deeply the depressed state of our commerce and manufactures, and the frightful distress of the laborious classes. He considered that the evidences of prosperity, wealth, and power in the country were redundant, and that if our currency was not so contracted and insufficient, we might have an overflowing Exchequer, instead of a miserable deficit. In regard to the Corn-laws, he thought the people were completely mistaken in their views. He should like to gratify their wishes if possible, but under the actual circumstances of the country, particularly under our monetary system, as it was worked at present, it could not be safe to comply with any material alteration of these laws.
Lord Fitzgeraldthought the noble Lord who had just sat down was inconsistent in his observations, and in the course which he had declared it was his intention to take. The noble Lord had at first declared that he would vote in support of the second reading of the bill, and then in a few minutes proclaimed his intention to support the amendment of the noble Earl from whom he was separated in council and in party—a course which he believed would not be followed by the noble Lords immediately around him. Had any one who heard the statements of the noble Lord in the first part of his speech heard the latter part, wherein he dilated with much propriety and justice upon the advantages of commerce and manufactures to this country; and when he told their Lordships that to those sources chiefly this country owed its sources and its power; and also, when he dwelt on the necessities and privations of the labouring classes; a person having heard all this would be ill-prepared to arrive at the conclusion to which the noble Baron had come—namely, that he would, with the noble Earl (Earl Stanhope),
616
maintain fully the present system of Corn-laws, without any alteration whatever. He would leave the noble Baron to explain this conduct to his friends. He would also decline to follow the noble Baron through his arguments upon the monetary system of the country. The noble Baron had declared that he was ready and anxious to open the ports of this country to a free trade in corn, were it not for one slight difficulty—the pressure of taxation under which this country was, he said, sinking. When the day arrived that the noble Baron would be able to point out the way of alleviating the heavy burdens of the country, he, and he believed numerous other noble Lords who had the welfare of the nation at heart, would be ready to go into the whole question anew, in order to settle it on the most advantageous footing. The noble Earl on his left (Earl Stanhope) had complained of deception, and on a former night of disappointment, and had reiterated the same assertions more than once. This part of the noble Earl's speech however, might be left as having been answered by the speech of his noble Friend, who, at the opening of the debate, most successfully vindicated those who introduced this measure from the charges brought against them, and who desired not to he separated on this occasion from the right hon. Baronet, to whom the noble Earl had applied language which he thought himself justified in using, and who, moreover, on the part of the right hon. Baronet, denounced the charges made by the noble Earl against him. The right hon. Baronet had never done anything to justify any of the impressions which the noble Earl had formed of his conduct. It was said that the agriculturists and the Friends of that great body had been disappointed, because they expected from the right hon. Baronet an adherence to the protective principle. But had that principle been abandoned? On the other hand, was it not said that this principle had been maintained to too great an extent? The noble Earl had said that the language of the right hon. Baronet justified him in believing that the Corn-law was to be maintained as it stood, without any deviation from it.
Earl Stanhopehad stated that he saw clear and unequivocal symptoms before the last dissolution of Parliament that there would be considerable deviations from the existing law, but he also understood, that the right hon. Baronet was in favour of the Corn-laws as they stood.
Lord Fitzgeraldsaid, it was difficult exactly to understand this last statement of the noble Earl. The noble Earl said, he believed that there would be considerable alterations in the Corn-laws notwithstanding his impression that the right hon. Baronet was in favour of their maintenance. Now, in the debate on the Corn-laws in 1840, the right hon. Baronet was arraigned by Mr. Clay, a Member for the borough of the Tower Hamlets, who made a charge against the right hon. Baronet, the very reverse of that made by the noble Earl, and on the authority of a speech made in the House of Commons, which the right hon. Baronet, though present, did not repudiate, and the quotation was this—
"On that great question (alluding to the Corn-laws) 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."
The right hon. Gentleman then clearly declared his adherence to the protective principle; and he would ask the noble Earl whether that quotation justified the opinion he had formed with regard to the intentions of the right hon. Baronet? In the same debate the right hon. Baronet being taunted with not revealing his opinions—and this was before he resumed the reins of Government—made this statement—
" Many hon. Gentlemen opposite have expressed a wish to hear me repeat what I have said before, that nothing can be so absurd as for any man to declare his inviolable adherence to details. I say I prefer a graduated scale to a fixed duty; but to say that the details of the bill are an actual protection, and that I would not listen to modifications, would be a declaration utterly unworthy of me to make, or the House to accept."
He did not intend to enter into the general details of this question; in fact, as yet no argument had been urged against the bill, except from those who were anxious to maintain the present law. It was true that there were other Members
618
of their Lordships' House, who would argue the question upon entirely different grounds, and in quite another manner; some noble Lords who were amongst the most able debaters in that House, and whose opinions were not consonant with those of the supporters of the measure before their Lordships, nor with those of the noble Lords who opposed it upon the present occasion, and whose only complaint was, that sufficient protection would not be given to the agriculture of the country; but he did not think it necessary to enter further into the details of the measure after the speech of his noble Friend who opened the debate that evening. He trusted, and believed, however, that their Lordships would not blame him, or think him presumptuous, because he had been anxious to vindicate those with whom he acted, and above all to vindicate from the charges cast upon him one who, of all public men that had ever united in one person the confidence of his Sovereign and his country, was the last man who for political advantages to himself or the party with whom he was connected, or even in support of the principles he maintained, would be capable of the unworthy conduct charged upon him—that of deceiving the people of England; a man who would repel with indignation the aspersions cast upon him by the noble Earl, ay, even in the hearing of every man to whom the noble Earl had addressed himself that night.
Lord Beaumontwas most unwilling to intrude upon the attention of their Lordships, but considering how strongly he felt on the subject, he could not consistently with his duty do otherwise than throw himself upon their indulgence while he gave utterance to a few observations upon this important question. He would bring no charge against her Majesty's Government of abandoning their principles; he would make no criticisms upon public declarations of individual Members of Parliament. If he were disposed, he might quote from the speeches of noble Lords who supported this measure, for the purpose of contrasting their past assertions with their present conduct. But he would not do so, because he had foreseen that when once a change was proposed to be adopted by the late Government with regard to the Corn-laws, however certainly that proposed change might prove a fatal rock to that Ministry, it would be inevitable that their successors must take up the subject, and revise the system, and

619
enter into some arrangement, in order that the wishes and expectations of the country might at least meet with attention. But though he did not charge her Majesty's present Ministers with an abandonment of principle, and though he expected from them a revisal of this measure, he little thought that they would propose a plan which at "one fell swoop" would take away one-half the protection of wheat, and two thirds of that of barley and oats, and leave the agricultural interest and the farmers labouring under accumulating difficulties and exposed to probable ruin. There was another extraordinary circumstance attending the progress of this measure. It was kept so secret, that no opportunity was given to those interested properly to examine it; they were totally taken by surprise; they had not time to calculate its effects before it had passed the other House. Nay, at least prior to the recess, there was no opportunity to consider the resolutions, and to compare the different prices of foreign markets with their own; and consequently those concerned remained without petitioning their Lordships' House, and were perhaps more silent than their interest in the measure could well justify. But what was the case now? What had been the effect which the short period of the recess had produced? Had not the agriculturists now begun to declare their opinions? Had not Lincolnshire spoken? Had Essex made no protest? Had there been no meetings in Buckinghamshire? Was Berkshire quiet? And there were other counties with which he was more or less connected or acquainted, in which the agriculturists had looked upon this mea-sure with dismay, and when he reflected on the support which Ministers had received from the landed interest and then turned to the sweeping measures now proposed for their Lordships' adoption, he might well say, that the first act of her Majesty's Government was to amputate the arm that raised them to power. In fact such had been the conduct of those now in power towards the agricultural interest that the latter might well apply the Italian proverb to their former friends and say—
" Da quel che Io fido quardami Dio.
Da quel che non Io fido quardero Io."
With regard to the frauds on averages, it was certainly incumbent on the Government upon the introduction of a new measure to take means to prevent the recurrence of such frauds; but he
620
thought they had adopted a plan which would not answer the proposed end. The fraud was committed in this manner —at least he knew it was so in the East Riding of Yorkshire and part of Lincolnshire, and some other counties,—in every town in which an average was taken there was an agent, and the agent understood the right time to raise the prices and to make sales, and when to hold back so as to produce an effect in the market. Moreover, wherever there was a miller, there was an agent, and they were both interested parties. They managed the markets, and the common complaint was, that the public were in the hands of the miller and the factor. Now, in all the new towns he presumed there was a miller; and, therefore, there would be an agent, so that by increasing the number of towns for taking the averages they were only increasing the number of rogues. Would it not be better to take the averages at once from the grower? In Scotland the average was taken from the grower and factor conjointly; and there the system acted well, but the object of the average was different in Scotland from that for which it was intended in England. And therefore the motive for falsifying the return did not exist there as it did here. In one country it was for the purpose of fixing the rent, in the other for fixing the duty. In Scotland, therefore, it might be well to take it from both; but in England it ought to be taken from the grower, and the grower only, and then they would get at the true price at which the grain was produced; and this would prevent the prices from being forced up at a period when the farmer had no corn to thrash, in order that the miller and the factor might make their profits. Again, the trade in corn would be more steady, and not subject to those sudden puffs as at present, if they had the averages taken from the first and best source, for then the duty would be regulated by the amount of supply and not by the dictates and interests of the speculating merchants. The freight also was unjustly considered as additional protection, for it cost as much to send corn from Yorkshire to London as from Hamburgh to London. With regard to wheat, taking 56 s. as the remunerating price, what was the difference between the protection afforded by the present scale of duties above the proposed one? More than half. If it had been that hitherto that the present protection was a little too

621
much, surely the diminution of nearly one-half must have the effect of exposing the wheat-grower to competition with the foreigner, and throwing out of cultivation the poorer soils. These poorer soils, though they made the least return, employed the most hands in cultivating them, and they were often rented by the poorer class of farmers, because the rents were lower, and it was the wheat produced on these thin soils and cultivated by these poorer farmers, which in consequence of its quality would come most directly into competition with foreign corn-growers. Where poor land had been improved and cultivated, there had grown up small villages and towns in consequence, where lived blacksmiths and small shopkeepers, and traders to supply the wants of the farmers, spread over the surrounding district. If the effect of this measure were to throw these poor lands out of cultivation, these villages and their populations must be sacrificed. Their Lordships must know, that 58 s. was no remunerating price for wheat grown on these poor lands, on many of which they had expended enormous sums in draining and improving for the purpose of giving employment to the poor. Was it fit that those lands should be abandoned, and those villages and homes rendered desolate which had been raised partly by individual exertions in redeeming waste soils, but more by the happy operation of their wise measures in protecting corn? By these measures they had reared a happy and contented peasantry; they had planted cities, and raised villages and hamlets. This had been greatly the case on the worlds of Yorkshire and the extensive commons of Lincolnshire. What then were they about to do? They were about to drive that population to emigrate, to cause those lands to be forsaken and restored to what they were a few years ago—to rabbit warrens —and to be tenanted by grouse and wildfowl. The richer class of these farmers would then come into competition with the farmers on the richer lands, and thus this measure would tend to raise the rents of these lands. The demand for agricultural labour would be considerably decreased, and the labourers thus thrown out of work would be driven to the towns in search of employment, and forced to change their usual habits and accustomed pursuits; their healthy homes and well-tilled fields for the dingy streets and gloomy workshops of Leeds and Manchester, and increase the already too great supply of labour in those
622
towns. He had no doubt but by this measure a momentary impetus would be given to the exporting of manufactures from this country. But the exporting manufacturers did not generally, he believed, work from orders given, but on speculation. In a short time there would be the recoil; the tide would ebb; and what would be the consequence? The demand for labour would cease, and this unhappy population, whom they had driven from the agricultural districts into these towns, would be left stranded and unsupported. They would then be thrown back on the rural parishes from which they originally came, and the poor-rates increased by the expense of removals, appeals, and the support of this unemployed population would swamp those parishes on which they were thrown. This, he believed, would be the consequence so far as those lands were concerned in which the proposed protecting duties would afford no protection for wheat. If such were the consequences as to wheat, he asked what would be the consequences as to barley and oats, on which there had been made an uncalled-for reduction, as these grains did not constitute the food of man; and in the rotation of crops now introduced in the improved mode of agriculture, it was necessary to grow these products? He alluded particularly to the high lands of Yorkshire, where an immense expense had been incurred in the use of bone-dust, and to the large tract of warp-lands on the banks of the Trent and Ouse, which would feel the effects of this measure more than any others, owing to the importation of barley and oats from Denmark to Hull. If he might allude to the tariff in this instance, he would add, that foreign potatoes would be brought into competition with the home produce, there having been a reduction from 2s. to 2d. per cwt. in the duty imposed on their import. The expense of cultivating potatoes on warp lands in manure was 10 l. 10 s. an acre, and this crop was looked to as the only one in some places to give employment to the people, as it afforded employment to those who were unfit for any other work. Here, by the tariff, they cut with a two-edged sword. They had raised the duty on bird-manure. The noble Earl (Earl of Ripon) shook his head. He hoped it was a misprint; but there was 5s. duty on that manure, where there was none before. This duty would increase the expense of raising the crop, and yet they took away the protection afforded it. He would now come to that

623
portion of the subject which regarded the importation from abroad. To some noble Lords it was a brilliant and a happy idea that they should seek the cheapest market for their goods; that they should go to rich lands which did not cost an hour's labour, and get their produce from it. He believed it was the opinion of the noble Earl (Earl Fitzwilliam) that it was not advisable to scratch our barren rocks to force them to produce grain; that we ought to go to those countries whose lands were the richest, and where the cultivation of the soil scarcely demanded an hour's labour. On the same principle they ought to look for their velvets to Genoa, and for their silks to Lyons. To protect cultivation or force manufactures was to oppose the laws ordained by nature, and instead of preserving in an artificial state the indifferent lands of this country, we should allow them to return to their original sterility. But if this principle were adopted, we should be nearly altogether dependent on the Continent for corn, because he could not agree in the statement of the noble Lord, that we in England could grow corn as cheaply as it could be grown on the Continent. He was so certain on that point, that if all the taxes in England were taken off, he was convinced we never could compete with the richer soil, and the better climate, and the cheap labour of the Continent. The measure of the Government was a step halfway towards abrogating protection, and would tend to make us more dependent on the Continent than hitherto. During the continuation of peace we might rely upon a supply, but what would be the result if we were again to be engaged in war So long as we were dependent for food on other countries, we should be like an army without a commissariat. He therefore thought that we were bound to force cultivation in this country in self-defence. On this principle we had for a long time acted, but in his opinion, he thought the present measure involved the practical abandonment of this principle. They had enclosed waste lands, and brought them into cultivation, and had accustomed the people to use fine wheaten bread down to the poorest person by the operation of the existing law. He would ask them, then, if it were not hazardous to attempt to alter by one-half a measure of that kind? And would the measure they were attempting to pass, do away with many of the mischiefs which
624
now existed—with joint-stock bank credits, and men of straw competing with the manufacturers, and by this competition lowering prices, and reducing all to one common level of ruin? They would not stop that system by this measure, and he believed, that that was the system which had caused most of the distress in the manufacturing districts. But there was another evil with regard to this measure. The producer of manufactures for the home market would, of course, be a loser in the same ratio, as they reduced the home market by reducing the comforts and luxuries of the agriculturists. He had heard some manufacturers say, and he believed the assertion to be true, that the prosperity of the agricultural districts, which prosperity depended chiefly on the present Corn-laws, was the best friend and most certain support of the great manufacturing interests. And again, what assurance had the exporting manufacturers that the foreigner would take their goods in return for the increased quantity of corn imported? They had no guarantee that he would. On the contrary, had the Emperor of Russia made any reduction on the import duties on English manufactures into Russia? We had taken hides, and tallow, and raw materials from Russia, and Russia in return for this had not taken our manufactured goods; but our imports from Russia had greatly exceeded our exports, and our exports had not been manufactures but yarns. They then came to the Zollverein. Had Prussia encouraged them in this measure? On the contrary, the German states were manufacturing, and going on most prosperously. The manufactories of Saxon v and Germany said, "Take our corn, do what you will, we, the League, will never admit your English manufactures." If they reduced the import duty on corn here, an export duty on it would be imposed in Russia, sooner than they would damage their home manufactures by importing our manufactures in exchange. And could we blame them? No; it was natural for all countries to do this. Did not France pursue this course, perhaps, more than any other country? It was natural, because all countries had increasing population, and they must create manufactures even at a loss, or they would be swamped with their pauper population. But what was the difference in the result of encouraging manufactures, and encouraging agriculture? Every improvement in agriculture—in draining or in bringing

625
into cultivation the poorer soils, had tended to increase employment for the poor; it was the same even in Macadamizing the roads. By therefore giving an "unnatural" protection to agriculture—if they pleased so to call it—they gave employment to an immense number of the poor. But when the genius of this country was brought to occupy itself with the manufactures, and invent and find out improvements, what was the result? We admired the invention, but it reduced the number of hands employed, and while it added to the gains of the wealthy manufacturer it produced famine amongst the poor. Improvements in agriculture increased the demand for labour; improvements in manufactures decreased that demand. The only way to counteract this result was by an immense increase in the number of mills to give occupation to the number of hands that would be otherwise thrown out of employment; but an unreasonable increase in the number of mills had hitherto been the cause of the ruin and the depression of the trade, because the demand for goods had not kept pace with the amount of production. To have remained silent whilst the present measure was going through the House, would have been a dereliction of his duty. Before he sat down, he would say one word as to the bouquet of measures which had been proposed—the tariff and the Corn-law. That they were bold, candid, and impartial measures, and had not spared any interest, he could not deny. They had treated the manufacturer in the same manner as the agriculturist—they were both embarked in the same boat. It had exposed the free-traders to the operation of the principle they advocated, for the law had been applied to them—even-handed justice had turned the poisoned chalice to their lips, and the cry now was, "No free-trade in gloves, no free-trade in shoes, no free-trade in straw-plait, but free-trade for everybody save us." Those who were the loudest in favour of the principles of free-trade, must now abandon the arguments they formerly found so persuasive amongst the shoemaker and strawplait manufacturers of the country for, if he had understood the noble Earl who had presented several petitions from those trades in the early part of the evening, it was no longer free-trade, but protection for home-made gloves, protection for Northampton shoemakers and high protective duties on strawplait that now formed the burden of
626
their prayer. He would now apologise to their Lordships for having occupied so considerable a portion of their time, and thanking them for the great attention they had paid him, conclude by repeating that he could not in duty refrain from protesting against a measure which he considered both dangerous and uncalled for.
Lord Broughamsaid, that though he did not intend to trouble their Lordships at any length on the present occasion, yet if he delayed longer in offering a few things for their Lordships' consideration, he did not see how they could come to a division with a clear understanding of the question before them. It was necessary that he should first state what he considered to be the true position of the question as it now stood, upon which, if the House, without further explanation, proceeded to a division, various noble Lords entertaining very different and very conflicting sentiments, would find it exceedingly difficult and inconvenient to express any opinion by their votes. Their Lordships had before them a motion that the bill be now read a second time. Upon that motion an amendment had been moved by a noble Earl which went to a direct negative, and in the ordinary Parliamentary form affirmed a complete, entire, and uncompromising refusal of the measure. If, then, he was called upon in the first instance to vote for the amendment moved by the noble Earl (Earl Stanhope), in what position did he find himself placed, if he neither agreed with the noble Earl in wholly opposing the measure, nor, on the other hand, altogether agree to the whole extent of the measure which the bill embodied. He was reduced to the alternative, either with the noble Earl to reject the bill altogether, or to adopt the bill without any difference as to the opinions expressed by his noble Friend the original mover. Now, neither of these courses would be in accordance with his opinions. It was true, that he considered this bill as a considerable change; and that it was a change in the right direction. As compared with the existing law, he approved of the law proposed. He held the proposed measure to be an improvement—but, he would not exaggerate — no very great improvement upon the existing Corn-laws. He lamented that the bill proceeded no further, but still the change it made was not only considerable, but in the right direction; and therefore, upon the whole, he was in favour of the mea-

627
sure. On the other hand, he should presently state to their Lordships why he did not think it went by any means far enough, and why he also felt it his duty to move by way of amendment to the amendment of the noble Earl opposite (Earl Stanhope), that which he considered to be the assertion of a right and just principle, namely, the total and absolute repeal of the duty upon foreign corn. Now, in the first place, he begged to ask why was the proposed measure denied to be an improvement on the existing law? It was perfectly true that the change would be wholly ineffectual when the price of corn was down to 50 s., because it signified nothing whether the present duty of 36 s., was retained, or there was substituted in its place 20 s. 8d.., which was the highest rate of duty according to the present measure. [The Earl of Ripon: 20 s. would be the highest rate of duty.] Certainly: the highest duty answering to the lowest price, which would be 50 s. Some doubt existed as to what would be the result if this country took a supply from foreign markets. Dantzic, Odessa, and, he believed, Amsterdam, had been referred to, but with regard to Amsterdam he would exclude it, because there the prices were extraordinarily high. But take Dantzic, for instance, where corn, he would suppose, could be bought at 45 s. 6d. on board, or 40 s. on board, adding 5s. 6d. for freight, carriage, and insurance to this country; but take it either way, it was material, as regarded the lowest price and the highest duty, because, adding 20 s. 8d. to 50 s., would give 70 s., a price which was almost prohibitory; precisely in the same way, if they took high prices and the lowest rate of duty, they would then come to 72 s. or 73 s., and then there would be under both scales a 1s. duty; so that the difference would be nothing between the new plans at the highest and at the lowest prices. But when they came to intermediate parts of the scale, to a price varying from 53 s. to 65 s., a very material difference a rose between the existing scale under the statute of the 9th of George 4th., chap. 60, and that now proposed by his noble Friend. He would now take the price at 62 s. Under the existing law, the duty would be 24 s. 8d., while by the proposition of his noble Friend it would be 10 s. Now, taking the price at Dantzic or in the Baltic, to be 40 s., adding to that 5s. &d. for bringing the commodity over to this country, and then making the further addition of
628
the proposed 10 s. duty, they would have 55 s. 6d. as the price at which it could be sold in the markets of this country. But. by the existing scale, the duty of 24 s. 8d would bring up the price to 72 s., and, therefore, it would be absolutely impossible under that scale, to import a single bushel of corn; while, with a 10 s. duty, as proposed, it would not only be possible but easy to import abundance. For these reasons, he thought the measure now under consideration was a considerable improvement upon the present law, and also a removal of the obstacles which existed under it. He was ready further to admit that, to a certain degree, the trafficking and jobbing in the averages would be rendered more difficult, and that the temptations to those pernicious operations would be less under the proposed measure than under the existing law. In the third and last place, of these changes he entertained a considerable doubt in one material respect; he was by no means certain that the addition of 150 towns would have the effect expected. He was apprehensive that the addition of those towns for the purpose of the averages might have a prejudicial influence, because they were at a greater or less distance from the chief corn markets of the country, and the result might be, that the averages of price would be very considerably lowered, and the duty in proportion raised. It was possible for his noble Friend to take some steps, which he thought ought to be done, either by a separate act of Parliament, or by the introduction of a clause in the bill before the House, first to try the experiment of these 150 towns, and strike them off if found hurtful or unessential. For the various reasons he had stated, however, he was, upon the whole, impressed in favour of the proposed measure over the existing law, of which it was a mitigation; and wishing to see as speedily as possible the existing law put an end to, and the trade in corn thrown entirely open, being persuaded not only that it would be a just, expedient, but also a safe course for all interests concerned. He could say that it was an improvement, at all events a mitigation of the existing evil, and so far and to that extent he approved of it and was prepared to support it, provided he could not get a better. But as, on the other hand, he preferred a fixed duty he should be prepared to vote with his noble Friend (Viscount Melbourne) to-tomorrow night, though, he repeated, he

629
should infinitely prefer the entire and absolute freedom from all imposts on the importation of corn. He came now to the eulogies which had been pronounced upon this bill as a final measure. Now, the measure seemed to him to present no appearance of finality; it carried in its bosom the seeds of further change, and he could not help thinking that the measure was but a step in that direction which would open the gates to further alterations and to the adoption of what he must hold to be a safer legislation — namely, that which would give this country the entire, free, and unrestrained access to the corn markets of the world. He fully agreed in the argument —one of the principal arguments in favour of an entire and complete abolition of the Corn-laws—that a worse state of things could not be imagined, than the temporary and continual fluctuations in the price of corn. If those changes and fluctuations operated injuriously to the trading interests, they worked still worse, if worse were possible, upon the agricultural interests. The agriculturists were most interested in having the question settled once for all. He would call the attention of those noble Lords to the extraordinary fact, that thousands on thousands, nay, millions sterling, were kept locked up in their coffers by prudent capitalists rather than adventure their property in the purchase of an article of which no man could safely estimate the value. According to the general opinion which had obtained in men's minds, that the rent of land did depend upon the state of the Corn-laws, while those laws were not fully settled and defined, those capitalists would not invest their capital in the purchase of land. He did not take the same view as some persons in regard to the effect which the repeal of the Corn-law would have upon the rent of land; even if they gave every scope to their imagination, leaving leases and time-bargains out of the question, the anticipations of the mischiefs which would arise from the largest possible change in the Corn-laws to the cultivator of the land —the practical farmer—were altogether without foundation. The farmer was like other traders, he produced like other traders, he found wages as they did, and if the depreciation of prices should result, which those who felt the most alarm anticipated, it was clear that the practical farmer had no interest which could be injured. Noble Lords had been arguing as
630
if there was now, and at all times, in all the great ports of continental Europe—in every harbour, in every creek, on every strand, and in every half-navigable river—from the Baltic through the Channel, from thence into the Mediterranean, round the Levant and up to Odessa, mountains of grain ready to be shipped and sent into our harbours, the moment Parliament should have removed those restrictions which now existed on the corn trade; but it was no such thing. Where were these large quantities of grain? There was not more grain grown in the corn countries than was sufficient to feed their people and to supply those two or three countries which were in the habit of constantly importing corn—Holland being, he believed, the principal of those importing countries; but in no one country in Europe was there more corn grown than was sufficient for the purposes he had stated. Then, by opening the markets here, you of course add to the demand upon those corn-growing countries; and see the first and necessary effect of that. A paper had been laid either before their Lordships, or the other House of Parliament, affording, he thought, a sufficient test of what would be the price of corn in this country if the Corn-laws should be repealed to-morrow. He did not mean the substitution of one sliding-scale for another, or of a fixed duty for a sliding-scale; but the total and entire repeal of the law. The return referred to the island of Jersey or Guernsey, one, in short, of the Channel Islands, in which the corn trade was free, and it stated what had been the average price of corn in that island; almost all of which, be it remembered, was brought across the sea. But the freedom of importation being absolute and perfect, the average price for the ten years ending 1840 was shown by the return, to be 51 s. and some odd pence— the average price in this country during the same period having been under 57 s. or 58 s., being a difference of 14 s. or 15 s. per cent.; therefore, the apparent risk which the corn-grower would run by this country being placed upon the same footing in respect to the trade in corn with our Norman Channel Islands, was no more than 14 to 15 per cent But, then, would corn remain at the same price when you added to that demand, which now kept it at 51 s. in Jersey? Would corn continue to be sold there at that price, if we, by opening our ports, increased the demand upon those countries from which Jersey was

631
supplied? Assuredly not, unless it was contended, that the consequence of opening our markets were that no increased demand would result. If there would not, then his proposition, that no risk was run, and no harm could be done, was proved in another way. One of two consequences must follow from opening our ports— either that the increased demand being nothing, the price would not be raised, and, consequently, no harm done to any one; or that there being really a demand upon the foreign corn markets—in which case alone could there be any risk—the price must necessarily rise; and instead of corn remaining in Jersey at an average price of 51 s. 6d., it probably would be 55 s. or 56 s. a-quarter; making a difference probably of 2s. or 3s., even if we admitted the most unlimited supply we could obtain from the foreign markets. There were undoubtedly some noble Lords, who had considered the question most deeply, such as his noble Friend, the noble Earl, who was largely connected with the county of Northampton (Earl Spencer), his noble Friend, and others, who were deeply interested in the prosperity of agriculture, and in the maintenance, not merely of the farmers' profits, but of the landlords' rent, those noble Lords believed that the total repeal of the Corn-laws, and the opening of our markets to the Corn-growing countries of the Continent, would not have any effect whatever in lowering the price of corn. This opinion was also expressed last August by another noble Peer, in moving the Address in answer to the Queen's Speech. He also was one of those who looked forward to the advantages which the country would derive in the increase of its commerce and manufactures from the repeal of the Corn-laws, rather than to any reduction in the price of corn. Looking at the position of the foreign corn-grower, and the state of those countries from which we should obtain our supplies if the trade were thrown open, it was impossible that any very considerable increase could suddenly take place in the amount of grain grown in those countries, unless a much larger quantity of land was thrown into cultivation—a matter of some difficulty in countries which had not made any great advances in civilization, like those in the Ukraine and the Vistula—not on the banks, but at some distance from it—districts which grew corn, and brought it down that river to the ports of shipment. The land in those countries was for the most part
632
forest land, covered with wood or heath, capable when well laboured, successfully-treated, and amply manured, of producing large crops; but the bringing of such lands into cultivation could not be done by a thought or a wish, or by the mere magic of an English act of Parliament abolishing the duty on the import of corn, and throwing open our ports to the foreign grower. He must have hands to cultivate, and although in this country the population was rapidly increasing at the rate of 1,000 a-day, and the demand for corn increasing at the same rate, he believed that in those distant countries of which he spoke, the increase in the population during five years was little more than nominal. He did not say that the improvement in commerce would not benefit those countries as well as ours, nor did he say, that the number of inhabitants would not increase—that their lands would not be better cultivated and their crops improved—but this was not the work of a day; and he was not at all certain that even when all this should be achieved, there would be any very formidable or alarming abundance in the supplies from those countries. It was almost as chimerical to suppose, that anything like a glut would result in ten years after the introduction of a free-trade in grain, as to suppose that such a change in the law would immediately make an important difference, if any difference at all, in the supply. As the condition of the people improved they became greater consumers—and as the numbers of the people in the Ukraine, in Poland, and other corn-growing countries increased, and they advanced in civilisation, their circumstances would improve, and they would become greater consumers of their own produce, and to such an extent as to make the export of that produce much less in proportion than it was at present. Their. Lordships might see an example illustrative of this argument in a country near this, and with which they were all acquainted: he alluded to Ireland. Great Britain had imported thence, for the three years ending 1835, not less on an average than in each year 761,000 quarters, whereas the average for the three years ending 1841, was only 216,000 quarters. This was, he devoutly hoped, or rather, he doubted not in the least, owing to the improvement which had taken place in the condition of the Irish people, who had thus consumed more than previously of the necessaries of life. A noble Lord had referred the national distress, not to the

633
Corn-laws, but to the currency; but then the noble Lord had reckoned that pernicious influence since 1835 only. But how could it be said that a measure passed twenty years before that period could have caused the existing distress. How could the Bank be said now to have the power of unduly influencing the currency; since, as the gold standard was established, the moment a single note was issued over what the currency really required, that note would speedily be returned on the Bank. So long as the conversion of Bank paper into gold was compulsory, there was no danger of the recurrence of such depressions as might have been the result of a system under which the market price of gold was so much above the Mint price, that it was 5l. and even 5l. 10 s. and an ounce instead of 3s. 17 s. 10½d.; and under which a bank note for 1l. passed only for 14 s. For all these things, there had been a clear reason,—viz., the non-convertibility of the paper into gold; and now that this convertibility had been completely established, no such things could possibly be apprehended from the currency. Notwithstanding which, he regretted that at the time of this settlement there had not been some arrangement as to the public creditor. The noble Lord had said, there ought to be more paper. Why, would the noble Lord wish Government assignats to be issued? Would not the noble Lord be at all apprehensive of the return of the system in this country under which, in France, 20,000 francs in assignats had been given for a pair of gloves. He did not expect to induce their Lordships, now, to agree to the total repeal of the Corn-laws; but he hoped the day was not far distant when the people would open their eyes to the necessity of that great change. If, on no other ground, such a change was desirable as a final and conclusive settlement of the question—a measure which would quicken trade, and which would revive commerce and manufactures, by opening fresh markets for our energy, enterprise, and industry—putting an end meanwhile to the dissensions between different interests. He altogether rejected the notion, so often urged, of the labourer's having an interest in this question by reason of low prices (as it was alleged) producing low wages, though it was admitted that high prices did not always produce high wages. He needed not remind their Lordships, that the price of labour depended upon the demand for it, and the
634
supply of it in the market. Whatever might be the price of provisions, the price at which labour would be sold must depend upon the amount of it brought to the market, and the amount of it demanded. Was a reason for this required? Here was one. When food was, from any cause whatever, dear or scarce to the working man, he would naturally work harder, and during more hours of the day, which, by producing an increased supply of labour, would tend to keep the market down. But lower the price of food, or by any means provide the working man with more of it than he then has, and you necessarily lessen the pressure which induces him to work, and you raise the price of labour in proportion as it is less brought into the market. If they wanted a fact as evidence of his proposition, look to America. There food was cheaper, but was the price of labour lower in consequence? No; the price of labour was as a dollar there to 2s. a day compared with the price here; while the price of grain was as 40 s. there, and 60s. here. It was very well for a noble Lord behind him to remind him of the difference of population, and that the supply of labour in America was less. He ought to have also added, that America is an uncleared country, and that therefore the demand for labour was greater. That precisely made out his case. It was because there was a less supply of labour, and a greater demand that the price of labour was higher, though food was cheaper. Perhaps he ought to apologise to their Lordships for repeating the arguments against this oft-refuted fallacy; but it was only in the repeated refutation of it that there lay any hope (slight, he admitted) of its ultimate abandonment. He felt also, that he ought to apologise for having detained the House so long; but he had deemed it his duty to state his objections to the existing system and to the present measure, and also the reason why he proposed a resolution different from either. Situated as he was, not wishing, by voting with the noble Lord, to condemn a" measure which, after all, he admitted was an improvement, and, on the other hand, not wishing to record an unqualified support of the present measure, he felt that he had no alternative but to take the course which he had already indicated. In the event, then, of the amendment of the noble Earl being negatived, he should move as an amendment to leave out all the words after the word "that," and to insert these

635
words "no duty ought to be imposed upon the importation of foreign corn of any description."
The Earl of Shaftesburyvery much doubted whether it was competent to the noble and learned Lord thus to move a general resolution as an amendment upon the second reading of a particular bill.
Lord Broughamentertained no doubt whatever on the subject. It was competent to him to move such an amendment even on the question that the bill be read a second time.
The Earl of Shaftesbury:Not an amendment of any sort or description.
Lord Broughamsaid, it was quite consistent with Parliamentary usage to move an amendment on an amendment. It was customary in the other House of Parliament, and the first vote was taken on the second amendment. That was done in the Duke of York's case when it was before the other House, as the noble Lord (Lord Canterbury) on the cross benches would, no doubt, remember.
The Earl of Riponsaid, it seemed to him very doubtful, whether the amendment could be put, because the first question to be decided was, whether the noble Earl's amendment should be agreed to. If that were decided in the negative, the bill would be read a second time, and then be did not see how the noble and learned Lord's amendment could be put at all.
Lord Broughammaintained, that the first question would be put on his amendment.
Lord Canterburyapprehended the noble and learned Lord was quite mistaken. The first question to be- put, would be on the original motion. The amendment of the noble Earl would be stated to the House, merely as an inducement not to agree to the original motion. Unless the original motion were negatived, the question would not be taken on the amendment; and if the amendment could be put at all, then the second amendment, that of the noble and learned Lord must be put first.
Earl Fitzwilliamsaid, the House would give him credit, he was sure, for having no intention to discuss this question; but, at the same time, considering the importance of the subject and the course which he intended to pursue, he should be sorry to give a silent vote. It by no means followed, from the course he had taken on former occasions with regard to the question involved in the amendment of his noble and learned Friend, that he should
636
take the same course now. Seeing as he did, that the existing law was one of which it was exceedingly desirable for them to disencumber themselves, he could not help entertaining considerable gratitude towards those who, if not the first to take the lead, had at least mounted very gallantly the gap made by others. He should vote for the second reading of this bill, not because he thought there was anything of finality in it, but because he thought, in accordance with his noble and learned Friend below him, that it carried in itself the seeds of future amendment. He held it to be impossible for any one to believe, that the right hon. Baronet, who by propounding this bill and the tariff in connexion with it proved, that he was not the nominal head merely of the Government, but its real head, did not see much further into this question than those Gentlemen who thought it would be a final settlement. A final settlement of this question there could be but one, and that was by the adoption of perfectly free-trade. Not that he understood by free-trade the principle contained in the amendment of his noble and learned Friend, that there must be no duty whatever on foreign corn, but, that there should be no duty levied for the purpose of regulation. And the tariff seemed to him, as far as it went, to be in accordance with what he conceived to be the principle of free-trade, so far as that the duties levied appeared to be for revenue, and not for the purpose of regulation or protection. He looked upon this bill as being a step in advance. Whether it would have the fourteen years' life of its predecessors he did not know, but his own opinion was, that it would not last quite so long. Believing as he did, that its introduction had depended upon the last harvest, so he thought its duration would depend upon ensuing harvests. In now voting for the second reading, he was not involving himself in the responsibility of hereafter supporting it, nor did he say, that he might not at once attempt to produce some modification of it.
Viscount Melbournesaid, although he had nothing to say on the question that had not been said over and over again in the course of the debate, yet to prevent misunderstanding he thought it right to state his reasons for voting as he should do on the present occasion. From the opinions he held, the propositions which he had already brought forward, and the course which he had taken in regard to the ques-

637
tion, it must be already well known to their Lordships that he could not approve of either the principle or the general provisions of this bill. At the same time he concurred in the opinion that had been already expressed, that it was a considerable improvement on the existing law; and, therefore, though he should in the course of its progress through the House attempt to prevail on their Lordships to adopt a principle which he considered to be more prudent, wise, and fitted to the best interests of the country than those embodied in the bill yet, at the same time, he should not take a course which would deprive them of the advantages which the measure was calculated to confer on the country. With these views he should vote for the second reading.
Their Lordships divided on the question that the word "now" stand part of the question — Contents 119; Not-Contents 17:—Majority 102.

List of the Not-Contents on the first division.

DUKE.

LORDS.

Buckingham

Hastings

Willoughby d'Eresby

MARQUESS.

Camoys

Clanricarde

Beaumont

Kinnaird

EARLS.

Lilford

Orkney

Rayleigh

Tankerville

Godolphin

Stanhope

Western

Malmesbury

De Freyne.

Yarborough

The question again put that the bill be now read a second time,
Lord Broughammoved as an amendment to substitute these words. "No duty ought to be imposed on the importation of foreign corn."
Their Lordships divided on the question that the words proposed to be left out stand part of the question—Contents 109; Not-Contents 5:—Majority 104.

List of the Not-Contents on the Second division.

MARQUESS.

LORDS.

Clanricarde

Kinnaird

Brougham

EARL.

Vivian.

Radnor

The following protest against the second reading of the bill was entered,
Dissentient—
1. Because no alteration in the existing duties upon foreign corn ought to have been proposed without having previously endea-
638
voured to ascertain by a Parliamentary inquiry at what prices, and in what quantities it could be imported; and also whether the remunerating prices of corn which is grown at home continue to be the same as they were when the present Corn-law was enacted.
2. Because the protection which agriculture now enjoys is not greater than is requisite, is advantageous to all classes of the community, and could not be diminished without extreme injustice to those who, under the faith of Parliament, have invested their capital in the cultivation of land.
3. Because the proposed alteration of the Corn-law would "cause a very considerable decrease of the protection which the present duty affords to the home grower," as was allowed to be the case by the Minister who recommended that alteration.
4. Because a "very considerable decrease" of the present protection would discourage British agriculture, might render this country dependent upon foreigners for a supply of the first necessary of life, and might, in the event, of unfavourable seasons, expose it to the horrors of famine.
5. Because a "very considerable decrease" of the present protection might produce a permanent depression in the prices of British corn, a corresponding diminution of consumption and expenditure, and a corresponding increase of the distress and discontent which now unhappily prevails.
6. Because the discouragement of British agriculture would be very injurious to the labourers who are now employed in tillage, and might reduce their wages, which, in many districts, are already much too low to provide for their comfortable subsistence.
7. Because it is the bounden duty of Parliament to afford due protection to those who are employed in agriculture, as well as in any other branch of British industry, all of whom have a common interest to prevent the competion of foreigners in the home market.
STANHOPE.
MALMESBURY.
BEAUMONT.
Bill read a second time, to be committed the next day.
Adjourned.