Sitting of 14 March 1843

MINUTES.
BILLS. Public.—1° Coast of Africa.
2° Mutiny; Marine Mutiny.
Private.—1° Birmingham and Gloucester Railway; Leighton Bussard Inclosure; United General Gas light, Company; Milne Free Shool.
2° St. Pancras Churches; Bourn Drainage.
Reported.—Newcastle and Darlington Junction Railway. Littleton Enclosure
3° and passed:—Cambrian Iron and Spelter Companny
PETITIONS PRESENTED. By Mr. S. Crawford, from Callan, for altering the Law relative to Landlord and Tenant.—
870
By Sir William Clay, from St. Leonard's (Shoreditch). against the Income-tax.—By Mr. Denison, from Dorking for the Repeal of the Malttax.—By Mr. Darby, from Lewes, against the Parochial Assesment Act.—From the same, and from Beverly, against the Ecclesiastical Courts' Bill.—From Dublin, against the Municipal Corporations (Ireland) Act, and for altering the Law regarding the Local taxation of Dublin City.

LAND ALLOTMENTS TO THE POOR.
Mr. Stanton, in rising to move a resolution on the subject of setting apart portions of the common lands, when inclosed, to be let out in allotments to the labouring population, observed that the subject had already been so favourably entertained by the House, that he did not consider it necessary to occupy any great portion of their time in recommending his motion in substitution for the present standing order, No. 89, upon the same subject. It must be the wish of every one to afford the means of employment to the increasing working population of this country. The system of inclosing common lands, without apportioning a part of them not merely for the exercise and recreation of the poor, but for the profitable employment of the labouring population, was one which he had long regretted. Nothing was more desirable than to furnish the half-employed labourer with a resource of healthful occupation, by which he would be enabled to bear up against the calamities that otherwise pressed upon him. For this reason he very much wished to assign to the parish-officers certain portions of the land, not for the purpose of giving it to the poor, but of letting it out to them in allotments. It was far from his wish to interfere in any way with vested rights, but he was fully convinced that the improved condition of the people, which must follow the adoption of the system he now suggested, would amply repay the land-owners for any sacrifice of property they might make on their behalf. He wished the Government of the country would pass some general measure for inclosing land, at the same time enabling the officers of the parish in which the land was situate to set apart certain portions of it to the purposes be had mentioned, without the necessity and expense of an act of Parliament. It would be the means of very considerably reducing the poor-rates. In the borough he had the honour to represent there were 800 acres of land unenclosed, and left in a state that produced no advantage whatever to the landed proprietor. If this were enclosed

871
upon the plan he suggested, the poor-rates, instead of being 10 s. an acre, would not be more than 5s. The appeal he now made to the House was on behalf of the working classes of the country, whose privations at this moment were admitted by all parties. It was from their labours that the other classes of society derived all their comforts, and he hoped, in return, that those who owed so much to them would do what was in their power to relieve the necessities and increase the comforts of the distressed, but industrious, population. He could mention many instances illustrative of the extreme facility with which this could be accomplished, to the great benefit of all. He would take the single case of the Littleton Private Inclosure Bill. The parish contained a population of 135 souls, and there were 244 acres of common land; now if only ten acres were appropriated in allotments to the labouring poor, the whole population of the parish might be made comfortable. He would now move that the standing order, No. 89, be rescinded, with a view to substitute the following resolution in its stead:—
"That in every bill for inclosing lands, provision be made for reserving a portion of the land to be inclosed to be let in allotments, not exceeding a quarter of an acre each, to the labouring population of the district, and for leaving an open space in the most appropriate situation, sufficient for purposes of exercise and recreation of the neighbouring population; and that the committee on the bill have before them the number of acres proposed to be in. closed, as also of the population in the parishes or places in which the land to be inclosed is situate; and that they then fix the quantity to be reserved; and also do see that provision is made for the efficient fencing and draining of the allotments, for the investment of the same in the churchwardens and overseers of the parish in which such allotments and open spaces are reserved, who shall be empowered to let the allotments so reserved, at rents not exceeding the average rent at which the adjoining lands are let, and to receive the rents for the purpose of applying the same in aid of the parish rates, and for the efficient making and permanent maintenance of the fences in such parish; and that in any case where the information hereby required is not given, and the required provisions are not made in the bill, the committee on the same do report specially to the House the reasons for not complying with such order.
The question was put that the standing order 89 be repealed.
Lord Granville Somersethoped that in
872
opposing the proposition of the hon. Gentleman he should not be considered as being inimical to the adoption of any plan that would give healthy and profitable employment to the labouring poor. On the contrary, he thought that nothing could be better than the adoption of some judicious plan by which the labouring poor should have certain portions of land to cultivate. But he did not think any advantage would be derived from the proposition of the hon. Gentleman, because he was afraid that if it were to be carried out universally in the manner proposed, the result would be, that the poor would be entirely under the control of the parish officers, who would substitute these allotments for relief that should properly come out of the poor-rates. The form of the motion of the hon. Gentleman induced him to hope that he would not press it upon the House. The present standing order was at the time of its being passed much considered. If the system proposed by the hon. Gentleman should be carried out, he could conceive various instances where the rights of parties would be very considerably infringed upon. The churchwardens would avail themselves of it to relieve the poor-rates without any benefit to the poor themselves.
Mr. Sharman Crawfordwould give his most ardent support to the principle of the proposition. A system had long prevailed of depriving the poor of their rights to a share of the common and unenclosed lands. It was plain to him that there was no other mode of decreasing the demands of the poor rates, and of increasing the comforts of the labouring population, than by giving them a portion of land to cultivate.
Lord John Mannersthanked the hon. Member (Mr. Stanton) for bringing this subject before the House. If the Legislature devoted their attention rather more frequently to such questions as this, they would do more real benefit to the country than by debating matters of a merely party character. He had received a communication from Mr. Wills, the founder of the Labourers' Friend Society, in which he represented the allotment system as having been adopted with very great advantage to the agricultural population. He was convinced that by enabling the labouring poor to employ themselves in the cultivation of the land, and to resort to healthy recreations and manly

873
out-of-door sports, they would do them more real good, and do more to improve their morals and promote their happiness, than by founding half a hundred philosophical institutions. The people never would or could avail themselves of those learned societies and Mechanics' institutions, unless they were also enabled to enjoy those health-promoting recreations which, he was happy to say, were encouraged in different parts of the country. In the committee on this subject Mr Monk said that:—
"Since the inclosure acts had become so frequent, he thought some places should be provided for the exercise and recreation of the working classes, and especially for their children. In his own parish the labourers had their cricket matches, their quoit playing, and their revels; the poor had been accused of ingratitude, but he had found them the most grateful people alive."
He had received many communications upon the subject from all parties—from clergymen, merchants, and resident gentlemen—all tending to the same opinion, that the system of affording the labouring poor the opportunity of healthful out-of-door amusements would greatly improve both their physical and moral condition.
Mr. Darbythought it would be a very bad plan indeed to assign any portion of land to the exclusive control of the overseers, to be allotted to the poor; for the inevitable result would be, that instead of the industrious man having the land it would be given to the worst men in the parish. As far as his experience went, he was satisfied that the best system to pursue would be, to let the land to the industrious labourer, in order that he might add something to his wages. He highly approved of apportioning spots of land for the exercise and recreation of the people; but as for the allotment system, that required the most careful supervision and strict regulation.
Mr. Ormsby Gorethought the wishes of the noble Lord (Lord J. Manners) ad been already in some degree complied with; for there existed an act of Parliament by which no inclosure could take place without a portion of land being set apart for the use of the people.
Mr. Ferrandtendered his sincere thanks to the hon. Gentleman for bringing this question forward. If Parliament would enclose the waste lands in the north, lands which merely wanted breaking up to make
874
them equal to the best arable land, it would confer a great benefit upon the people. The working classes in the north of England were in a state of starvation for want of labour; but if the waste lands there were brought into cultivation, they should hear no more of the distress and discontent of the labouring population. He would take the present opportunity of stating that it was his intention to ask for leave to bring in a bill upon the subject.
Mr. Humesaid, that if the hon. Member was anxious to forward the object contemplated by the resolution of 1837, he would recommend him to look at the returns called for three years ago, and see how that resolution had been acted on. He would find that although in some cases one acre, two acres, three acres, or four acres had been set aside, yet very inadequate provision had been made for the poor. He recommended the hon. Member to withdraw the motion, and move for a committee to see how the order had been acted on.
Mr. Stantonwould adopt the suggestion of the hon. Member for Montrose, and withdraw his motion, trusting that some more experienced Member than himself would take it up; otherwise he must leave it in the hands of her Majesty's Government, whom he believed to be desirous of doing all in their power to promote the public welfare. His only object was to benefit the poor, and he trusted that this object would be attained.
Motion by leave withdrawn.

SANITARY REPORT.
Mr. D. Maclean, referring to the report of Mr. Chadwick, relative to the sanitary condition of the labouring poor begged to ask his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, in consequence of that report, her Majesty's Government contemplated introducing, during the present Session, any measure to carry out its recommendation, or to proceed with the bill which had been introduced in a former session.
Sir James Grahamhad already stated to the House, and he would then repeat, that with reference to that report, it was the intention of her Majesty's Government to introduce a bill for the regulation of building within the metropolis, and his noble Friend the Commissioner of the Woods and Forests would soon introduce

875
that bill. It had been thought desirable to confine its provisions, in the first instance, to the metropolis, and if it should succeed there, it would be very easy to extend it to the large towns. He hoped that the bill would be laid before the House next week. Upon a full consideration of the subject, it was thought that the bill of a former Session could not be adopted, and that it was not calculated to remedy the evils complained of. The subject was most intricate and difficult; it was connected with the right of drainage in large cities, and the dealing with the rights of owners: it was a matter which required scientific knowledge and practical experience; and, on the whole, her Majesty's Government had thought it best to refer the report and its recommendation to a commission.

TREATY WITH PORTUGAL.
Mr. Wallacewished to ask a question as to the progress of the commercial treaty with Portugal, as great anxiety was manifested to know whether there was to be a treaty or no treaty?
Sir Robert Peelreplied, that he was sorry he was not able at that moment to give any information as to a final arrangement. He would, however, tell the hon. Member the state in which the negotiations stood. Some time since it was intimated that the negotiations should be brought to a close, and they informed the government of Portugal of their views as to the mode in which there could be increased commercial relations between the two countries; they stated also that to the propositions then made they must adhere substantially. They had received a reply making considerable advances, but they were not deemed satisfactory. By the last mail they had intimated to the government of Portugal, that they adhered to their former terms, and he apprehended that by the next mail he should be able to give a definite answer to the hon. Gentleman's question.

CUSTOM HOUSE FRAUDS.
Mr. Wallaceheld in his hand a provincial newspaper, which stated that 180,000 l.. had been given as hush-money by parties recently engaged in smuggling into the port of London, and that one of the Custom-house functionaries had realized a fortune of 80,000 l. He mentioned the subject in thorough conviction that, there
876
was no truth in the rumour, and in the hope that the report of the commissioners would contain all the names of the delinquents.
Lord Granville Somersethaving received notice of the intention of the hon. Member to ask the question, had communicated with the authorities at the Custom-house, and he could assure the House that there was not the slightest degree of truth in the first allegation alluded to. Several prosecutions had been instituted against persons supposed to be implicated in defrauding the Customs, and he could state that no proposal for a compromise had been made, or if made would be accepted. As to the sum of 80,000 l. having been realised by an individual, the hon. Member would see that he had no power to make himself acquainted with the fact either way. All he would say was, that, as far as the Government was concerned, the inquiries and the proceedings would be prosecuted to the utmost.

THE GOVERNOR OF ST. KITT'S—TREATMENT OF A MIDSHIPMAN.
Sir Charles Napierrose, to ask a question of the noble Lord the Secretary of the Colonies on a subject which he had mentioned to the noble Lord last evening, and which he would repeat. About two months ago one of the mail packets to the West Indies had delivered its mail at St. Kitt's, and had gone about five miles from Basse-terre, when a gentleman went up to the captain and asked where they were going, and on being told to St. Thomas's, stated that he was the Governor of St. Kitt's, and that it was impossible for him to go on, and that he must be landed at Basse-terre. The captain said, that it was impossible that he could go to Basse-terre, but that the gentleman could be landed at the point. Accordingly, a boat, with a midshipman and four or five men, was launched, and was pulling towards the point, when the governor insisted upon being landed at Basse-terre. The midshipman told him that he had orders to the contrary, and could only go to the point. An altercation took place, and the governor told the midshipman that if he did not go to Basse-terre he would fling him overboard, suiting the action to the word. The boy swam round, laid hold of the rudder, and was hauled into the boat. The governor again insisted on being landed at Basse-

877
terre, and declared if the midshipman did not take him, he would fling him over board again. The youngster said he should do no such thing, but should land him on the point. The strokesman then interfered, told the gentleman, "We know no governor here, our only governor is that youngster, and if you attempt to throw him overboard I will cram this oar down your throat." The consequence was that the governor was landed on the point, but the steamer was gone. Finding this the youngster landed, got some bread and some water, and a sail: be gallantly stuck up his sail and ran up 200 miles to St. Thomas, and picked up the ship. He (Sir Charles Napier) had this report from the highest authority, and if this act had been done by the governor, he thought it highly necessary that he should be unshipped. Had the noble Lord inquired into the truth of the statement?
Lord Stanleysaid, that no information had been received by the Government of these circumstances, or of anything like them. In consequence of what the gallant officer had stated last night he had made inquiry whether there was any official report; but, as he had told the gallant officer last night, if the gallant officer would give him his authority for the statement, he would take care that no time should be lost in ascertaining the facts.
Sir Charless Napierhad told the noble Lord that if, when the vessel came home, a regular report was laid before the Directors, and if the noble Lord would send for the managing Directors of the Company, he would learn all about it.
Subject at an end.

PECULIAR BURTHENS ON LAND.
Mr. Wardrose to bring, for the second time, under the consideration of the House, a motion, which, whether he looked to its intrinsic importance, or to the indisputable justice of what he asked, must, he was convinced, have met with a very different reception on the part of the House, from that which it experienced last year, but for the disadvantageous circumstances under which it was introduced. These words implied a censure upon himself; for, as the originator of the motion, it was his duty so to have framed it both as to form, and time, as to ensure to it the largest possible amount of support. He meant to do so; but, upon calmer reflection, he was willing to admit that however just and reasonable
878
it might appear to him, and to those who sat on that (the Opposition) side of the House, that inquiry should precede legislation, nay more, however unjust, and unreasonable they might think it that parties interested should assume that, which was not only the proper preliminary, but the only admissible basis, for any legislation affecting the free importation of foreign corn; when once the die was cast, and the Government had made up its mind to consider the question of right as settled, and that determination had been confirmed by large majorities in that House, he had no right to suppose that the right hon. Baronet opposite would consent to suspend the progress of a measure, which, he was certain of carrying, in order to go, with his opponents, into an inquiry which might have delayed indefinitely the passing of the New Corn-law Bill. The right hon. Baronet hit this blot, as in general he hit every blot that his adversaries gave him an opportunity of hitting. He touched lightly and cursorily upon the merits of the motion, but he dwelt largely, and with great force, upon the time and circumstances, under which it was brought forward. The right hon. Baronet said that,
"It might or might not be proper to appoint a committee to inquire into the peculiar burthens on land, but it was most improper to do so, if the consequence were to be that Parliament must leave the landowners, the tenantry, all who derive their income from the production or the sale of corn, in a state of utter uncertainty as to its intention, until the termination of an inquiry which might be protracted for two or three years."
Some of the Members on his own side of the House took the same view, and among them, the noble Lord, the Member for Sunderland (Viscount Howick) and they took it upon intelligible grounds. They said that the Corn Bill of last Session, though a bad law, was a better law than that which we had before it. It was a step in the right direction, and they took it with the firm determination of taking another step as soon as they could. He ventured to dissent from this opinion. He thought that where a change of such vast importance to all parties concerned was contemplated, the first thing to look to was stability—something that would satisfy the country—that would last; and he felt convinced that nothing could prove either satisfactory, or lasting, that did not begin with a searching inquiry into the two subjects comprehended in his motion,—the pe-

879
culiar burthens, and the peculiar exemptions, of land. To legislate without this, was to build a house without a foundation—to construct a machine of tremendous power for evil, or for good, upon a false principle; and it was no answer to those, who said that the principle was false, and offered to prove it, to tell them, wait until the machine is finished, and then we will inquire. He was glad, however, that he had now got rid of this whole class of objections. He was glad, that he could now bring forward a substantive motion. He conceded nothing in doing so. He did not believe that there existed any burthens upon land, and he did believe that there were exemptions in favour of land without a parallel in the history of the world. But those who had always founded their right to protection upon certain burthens which were supposed to exist, could not shrink from the inquiry which their own acts and speeches had provoked. That was the ground for the motion with which he should conclude that night. It was for others to prove that the grounds on which Parliament had legislated for a number of years, to the detriment of the country, as he conceived, were just grounds. He supposed he might assume, as an abstract principle—and it was the only assumption he would ask of them; that a Corn-law per se was a bad thing; that it was an evil in a country like this, in which the territory was limited, and the population increased at the rate of 1000 a day, that the Legislature should step in between the people and the supply of food. The main body of the people of England were the consumers, and not the growers of corn; and therefore, whatever sacrificed the larger to the smaller body, the many to the few, must be justified upon special grounds. He had high authority for this. The right hon. Baronet (Sir R. Peel) in introducing his Corn-law on the 9th of February, said:—
"You are entitled to place such a duty on foreign corn as is equivalent to the special burthens which you impose on agriculture; and any additional protection to agriculture can be vindicated only on the ground that it is for the interest of the country in general."
Yes, but the right hon. Baronet had defined what was the interest of the country. He said:—
"To buy in the cheapest market, and to sell in the dearest, is the interest of the country."
But was the right hon. Baronet singular
880
in his opinion? The right hon. Gentleman the Vice-President of the Board of Trade had developed the same idea, not only in speeches in that House, but he had done so also in the hours of his official relaxation in a work which he supposed might now be ascribed without hesitation to the right hon. Gentleman's paternity, which he had read with great interest, and which the hon. Member for Dorsetshire, and many hon. Gentlemen on the Ministerial side of the House, might read with great profit; he alluded to an article in the Foreign and Colonial Quarterly Review. The right hon. Gentleman's first position was,
"That the industry of this country has nothing to fear from the steady and gradual increase of the importation of all commodities from abroad, which can be produced there at a less cost of human labour and capital than amongst ourselves; but that it has everything to fear from the cessation or decline of that mighty course of operations whereby benefits—benefits only of this world, it is true, but yet in their proper place and nature real, if inferior benefits—are exchanged between the several families of the human race."
The right hon. Gentleman developed this idea afterwards. He worked it out still further; and in another part of the same paper he (Mr. Ward) would also recommend to the attention of the House, he said:—
"There may be good and valid reasons for the maintenance of protections; but they are not to be defended by any such caricature of the general principles of trade, as the notion that, by purchasing from foreigners that which they can produce more economically than ourselves, we are diminishing our own means of purchasing from one another that which we can produce more economically than foreigners. The home trade and the foreign trade are likely, on the whole, to flourish conjunctively, not disjunctively. One and the same principle of beneficial exchange—exchange beneficial to both parties—is the foundation of commercial dealings, whether they be carried on between an Englishman and a Frenchman, or between an Englishman and an Englishman. And laws obstructing, or restraining such exchange, are to be justified in all cases where they are justifiable, by reasons drawn from other sources, not by reference to the rules which common sense and experience supply for our conduct in the mere augmentation of wealth."
This was the principle on which they ought to proceed. He wanted to have the principle better laid down—he was willing to adopt it. But where such important matters were at stake, there must be no

881
begging the question on the part of the agriculturists, and he must say that they had done nothing else but beg it since 1815. He could only explain this peculiarity on the part of Gentlemen who unquestionably had the good of the community at heart, on the principle on which Lord Ashburton had explained it in 1815, namely, that it was natural that the owners of land should take a narrower view of matters, in which land was concerned, than they did of general political questions; and that a very peculiar interest must be taken in the value of land in a House where the whole of its Members were sworn to be landed proprietors. He (Mr. Ward) was afraid that Lord Ashburton was right; for their narrow views—this excessive tenderness for land—had become more marked in the proceedings of Parliament as landowners had felt their strength there, and as Parliament itself had asserted its independence of the Crown. The first systematic attempt at a Corn-law was made just after the Restoration; under a monarch, a Ministry, and by a parliament, of which no man of the present day could pretend to speak with respect. The first bounty for exportation was passed in the Convention Parliament of King William 3rd, at a time when the King could not quarrel with men who had just placed the crown on his head. A double tax was imposed on the community by this bill, for there was first, the tax to pay the bounty, and next, the increase of price, caused by the forced exportation at home. From 1693 to 1783, the direct payments were 6,237,1 76 l. while in the year 1750 alone, the amount was 324,176 l. But there was one redeeming point in the proceedings of this Parliament. There was no humbug, no mystification about them. If they looked at the Journals of the House, they would find that this bill was founded on the report of a committee appointed on the 4th of May, 1689, for the express purpose of "considering the reason of the fall of rents, and of bringing in a bill for the remedy thereof." The spirit of legislation on this subject had always been the same; it had always been the object of the Legislature to consider the reason of the fall of rents, and to bring in measures for the remedying thereof; but we had had no such candid admissions as those which had been made in 1793; we had had no such candour in 1815; for on looking at the debates of that period, it would be found that the subject of universal comment and complaint were the peculiar bur-
882
thens to which the land was subjected. This was the constant theme with every one; and although the amount of protection given to land was enormous—al though the price at which importation was to be allowed was fixed at 141s. by the committee of 1814, and was only reduced afterwards to 96 s. and then to 80 l. men were found who got up and said that even at these prices the landed interests were not sufficiently protected, considering the vast burthens imposed on them. One gentleman there was, Mr. Lockhart, who had endeavoured to make out that the national debt was a peculiar burthen upon land. He concluded that that gentleman had never heard of the duties of Customs and Excise, or of the purposes to which those duties were appropriated, or he thought that he could hardly have advanced such a proposition. His argument was this:—
"Who paid the dividends which the stockholders received? Beyond a doubt the landowners. So let those gentlemen look to it, who were disposed to sacrifice the interest of the landowner, and with it their own, to save a paltry penny in the price of the quartern loaf."
He hardly thought that the hon. Member for Dorsetshire, who had given notice of a motion for this evening, by way of amendment to the present proposition, would go so far as this. Other Gentlemen pleaded the immense capital embarked in land; but he must do the Parliament of that day the justice to add, that this line of argument was not much dwelt upon after the speech of Mr. Charles Barclay. Mr. Barclay said—
"The principle of the bill was this: The landowners claimed from the House and the country, compensation for the capital which they had employed in the improvement of their own estates. Surely, by the same rule, the manufacturers would have the right of claiming compensation for new machinery, and for all the costly improvements in their trade. But no body of men, however respectable, ought to expect a compensation for the capital they expended for their own benefit, or for the taxes they paid in common with other bodies of men, according to their several circumstances in life."
Since that time, the landowners, as a body, had improved, they had profited by this lesson; for their constant plea since then, and up to the present day, had been, that they were not taxed properly, according to their circumstances in life—that they were over-taxed—that they were kept as a sort of milch cow by the State,

883
and that they had a right to expect some compensation for the undue burthens with which they were saddled for the advantage of the community at large. In 1827, when the subject was next talked of in that House, Lord Clive moved a resolution, in which he declared that all that he asked from the House was a protection amounting to prohibition for a certain term of years; but he founded this claim upon very reasonable grounds; for he said:—
"Now, all he asked of the House was protection, amounting to prohibition, for a certain term of years. He considered such a protection indispensable. At what precise price it might be provided, he left the House to determine; but he defined his demand by supposing that it should be a protecting duty amounting to a prohibition, continued, say for two years, during which interval the Government might repeal taxes at present bearing upon the agricultural interest to such an amount as would enable them to raise their corn at a much less expensive rate, so as to give them some chance of competing with the foreign grower."
How was this met? He was asked by the then Chancellor of the Exchequer—
"Had not his Majesty's Ministers been steadily employed since 1821 in reducing the taxes? And what had been the result? Twelve millions of taxes had been repealed since that period. Whatever difficulties, therefore, the farmer suffered from the effect of the taxes, those difficulties were now by so much less."
The right hon. Gentleman added,
"To hear hon. Gentlemen talk of the Corn-law of 1815, which they hugged to their bosom with all the fatuity of misplaced affection, one would think that in this law were locked up all the good things that farmers could desire; yet prices had fluctuated under it from 112 s. to 38 s."
This was a subject which was worthy of remark, that, whenever a New Corn-law passed, they always found a disposition on the part of the Government to admit all the evils which the late law had inflicted on the country; but then past experience never deterred them from taking the very same steps, and acting on those very principles which their own observation had condemned. In our more recent discussions, some small variations had been introduced by the noble Lord, the Secretary for the Colonies, and by the noble Lord the Chief Commissioner for Woods and Forests. The latter noble Lord, in his speech at Newark, in terms which they did not frequently hear in that House, but which, perhaps,
884
were not inconsistent with the heat of a controverted election, thus addressed the constituency on the 6th of July, 1841. He said:—
First, let me congratulate you that the country has refused to be cajoled by the latest fabrication from the workshop of Whig trickery and delusion. The cry of cheap bread is scouted from one end of England to the other. Even the towns and boroughs have scorned to be caught by this party claptrap—this fugitive humbug of a dying political faction. They see that the agriculturist is burthened with taxes, from which all other classes are wholly, or nearly exempt. Does he not chiefly bear the burthen of poor-rate, church-rate, highway-rates, and tithes. (Great Cheering)."
Would the noble Lord, he asked, repeat the question here? Or would he venture to express a deliberate belief of the existence of the facts to which he had appealed? The conclusion of the speech of the noble Lord was a confession de foi, after the example set the noble Lord by the right hon. Baronet at Tamworth. The noble Lord, the Secretary for the Colonies, however, was not satisfied with adopting the same course; for after quoting Mr. M'Culloch to prove that the agricultural interests were over-taxed—a proposition, by the bye, which Mr. M'Culloch had never proved—he diverged into a much wider field of discussion, and argued,
"That it was necessary to keep up prices and rents, for the sake of the farmers, the landlords, but, above all, the humbler classes, who would be the first and greatest sufferers, if the gentlemen of England were compelled to reduce their establishments—to curtail their pleasure-grounds—to limit the number of their gardeners, or to turn off one or two grooms, which the Corn-laws enabled them to keep." [Marks of Dissent from Lord Stanley.]
He (Mr. Ward) was certain that he was not misrepresenting the noble Lord's argument, for he had read it over very recently, with the greatest care; and the noble Lord had wound it up with the words
"It is for the labouring classes of this country to consider, whether that which diminishes the income of the landlord, and the profit of the farmer, is likely to be productive of advantage to society or to them."
Did the noble Lord really mean to give the country this as a reason for maintaining the restrictive system on the introduction of foreign corn? Why, for every liveried menial which the noble Lord or his class were thus enabled to maintain, he could show the noble Lord 100 starving artizans. Did the noble Lord mean to

885
place the comforts of the nobility in comparison with the ruin of such towns as Sheffield and Bolton? It was a most unworthy argument to advance—it was an argument which could not be sustained, but it was an argument of the party—it was a part of the system, which was to take by the bucketful, and to dole out by the spoonful. He had seen an advertisement of a Friendly Union, formed in Lea denhall-street, under the patronage of Lord Lyndhurst, Sir Robert Peel, Lord Liverpool, the Earl of Aberdeen, and many others, the object of which was to give employment to the industrious artisan, by inducing persons to take tickets for the purchase of various articles of manufactured produce; but he maintained that the poverty of nine-tenths of these persons was the result of the Corn-laws. The noble Lord, however, justified the present state of things by talking of the general policy of the country. He said,
"The general policy of this country required that agriculture should be protected, and though protection might have a tendency to raise the price of corn above its natural level, it prevented those extraordinary fluctuations which were common in other countries,"
Now, let them compare this argument with the facts. He had quoted the speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer of the year 1827, to show that the fluctuations of price had been between 112 s. and 38 s. under the law of 1815; and our own experience taught us that under the law of 1827 they had been between 84 s. and 85 s., and yet the noble Lord ventured to say that protection prevented fluctuation. Upon the question of general policy he would not enter, but he would venture to say that there was no term in the English language on which there had been so much nonsense fathered as this—it was the common drudge of every party, and was made an apologist for every purpose. His text was, and he would stick to it, that land had no claim for exemption of any kind, except upon the ground that it contributed more largely to the wants of the country than other property; and this was a question which must be decided upon a reference to facts, and not by the assertions of interested parties. He knew that upon this subject he had high authority opposed to him. The right hon. Baronet (Sir R. Peel) opposite, in 1841, before he had come into office, for he had given no such opinion since then, had said,
886
"The proposition of buying corn in the cheapest market is certainly a tempting theory; but before you determine that it is just, you must ascertain the amount of burthens to which land in other countries is subjected, and compare them with the burthen imposed on land in this country."
No one was disposed to speak of the right hon. Baronet with more respect than he was, but he could not help expressing his opinion that this expression exhibited a complete confusion of ideas. The question was an English question, and not a Polish or a German question, and it must be decided with reference to the taxation of different classes in England, and not with regard to the difference in the amount of taxation in Germany, or Poland, and this country. If it was established that there were burthens imposed upon land in England greater than any other class of property, then they might inquire on what terms German or Polish wheat should be admitted; but if it were not, to enter into any discussion upon the subject, would be merely to beg the real question. Then what were the burthens on English land? And first, he would get rid of the rubbish which was introduced into these debates, and would say what in his opinion were not burthens to which land was peculiarly exposed. Some persons had told him very gravely that before he could think of removing the existing restrictions, he must look to the expenses of management of land, and all the incidental cost of buildings, drainage, repairs, &c. This, he thought, must be classed under the title rubbish, be cause there was no business in which capital could be invested which was not liable to some such outgoings, and in the case of a manufacturer it could hardly be disputed that the same observation applied, or that he was not as much entitled to consideration for the expense of machinery and building as the landowner. He laid it down, then, as a first proposition, that no ordinary outgoing could be considered in the light of a burthen upon the land. Nor could any fluctuations in the value of produce be considered in that light. Mr. M'Culloch told us that the value of cotton cloth in 1839 was one quarter of its value in 1814, and he had no doubt that many Gentlemen would be glad to get the same price for such goods now as they had obtained in 1839. Iron, in 1836, was sold at 12 l. per ton; it was now 6l. 10 s. only, and he believed that there were iron-masters keeping open their works at a loss of

887
1,000 l. per week. But he had never heard of any proposition of a measure to indemnify such persons for their losses, and he could not discover any reason why, in the case of losses to which all were equally exposed, any distinction should be drawn. But then he had been told that the Income-tax was a burthen, to which the land was peculiarly subject, for that this was an impost from which there was no escape. He could not help thinking, however, that the hardship was quite the other way; for the House had taxed income derivable from uncertain sources—from professions and trade, at the same rate at which the tax upon secure and fixed incomes from land and other sources was laid. He came back, then, to the aboriginal list of burthens, which the right hon. Baronet opposite had proclaimed at Tamworth, and which all his supporters had maintained through the country, namely, poor-rates, county-rates, highway-rates, and tithes—the land-tax had been omitted, for good reasons. He had gone over this part of the subject so recently, that he should press as shortly as possible upon the attention of the House on the present occasion, and trouble it with as few figures as possible. With regard to the subject of Poor-laws, he must express his heartfelt obligations to the hon. Member for East Norfolk (Mr. Wodehouse), who, wishing to demolish the present motion by anticipation, had made out the very case which he desired to bring before the House. He had procured a letter to be addressed to him—he meant nothing offensive to the hon. Member—which contained an analysis or estimate of all the returns upon this subject, and an attempt to compute them for the last hundred years. He would take the figures of this estimate—he would not dispute its averages—he would admit, for the sake of argument, that its result was correct. In this letter it was stated, that the total sum paid in ninety-four years for poor-rates and county-rates was 404,065,983 l. That of this land paid, 255,150,063 l.; houses,123,716,217 l.; mills and factories, 16,547,390 l. Now, the result of this was, that the money which was actually levied on house property, on factories and mills, was considerably more than half that levied on land. His argument had always been, not that the land did not pay something more than the house property, but that it did not pay more than it ought to pay, with reference to its intrinsic value, and he thought that this case was clearly made out. He found, upon
888
reference to the financial statement of the right hon. Baronet of last year, that the rent of land was taken at 39,400,000 l., and the rent of houses at 16,260,000 l.; house property was, therefore, considerably less than half the value of land, and yet houses were called upon to pay much more than half the amount of poor-rate exacted from land. Was this a reason why landed property should come to that House and demand to be reimbursed for peculiar burthens? He thought that all would agree with him, that these facts made out a strong case against the landowners. But how stood the case now? The rent of land was taken at the same amount—39,400,000 l., and the rent of houses was calculated at 25,000,000 l., because it was said that the number of houses had increased from 2,231,000 to 3,460,000, all of which were assessed to the poor-rate. The result of this was, that land now bore considerably less than half the charge levied for the relief of the poor, and that all the arguments which had been advanced, as showing the right of the landed interests to protection, upon the score of poor-rates, were completely negatived. There was not a tittle of evidence to show that the landed interests were entitled to a 1s. duty on foreign corn, much less a 20 s. duty, which would amount to a prohibition; but, on the contrary, every thing showed that house property had from the earliest period paid its full share of rate. The result of the late measure had merely been, as the right hon. Gentleman the Vice-President of the Board of Trade had himself expressed it, that the Government had got rid of the "surplusage of odium" which attached to the maintenance of the old law in its terms, and nothing more. But there was another point of view, also, which showed that so far from land suffering by change, it was constantly gaining by the improvement of other property. He alluded to the subject of rating railways, as affording evidence in support of this proposition. It was calculated that a mile of railway covered eight acres, but that mile was assessed in many cases at such a sum as paid one-half of the rates of an entire parish. In one instance a mile of railway was assessed at 1,500 l., which was the largest amount he knew of; in another at 600 l. Now taking the ordinary case of eight acres of land, he begged to ask what they would produce in the shape of poor-rates under ordinary circum stances; and whether it might not eventually be expected that when the traffic on

889
railways was extended, as he believed it would be, by far the largest portion of these rates would not be thrown upon those who made use of these lines of communication? If this was so, and he thought it could not be doubted, here was another source of relief to the owners of land. But there was another circumstance to which he would refer—he meant the fearful responsibility which was now devolving upon land from the aggravation of the common burthens arising from the stagnation of trade. He had on a former evening shown that the payments of poor-rates to casual poor in Sheffield had risen from 13 l. 15 s. per week to 503 l. per week; that in 1840 the payments amounted to 26,000 l., in 1841 to 35,000 l., in 1842 to 52,000 l., and in 1843, if we may form a judgment from the first ten weeks of the year, they would reach 64,000 l., and that was the amount anticipated by men of the greatest experience. Who, he asked, was answerable for this, but those who stood between the industry of the manufacturing towns, and the legitimate outlet of the produce of our manufactures? The towns had claims on the land for compensation a thousand times greater than any claims of the land upon towns. With regard to the county-rate, he would only remark that one-half of it now fell upon the consolidated fund. The highway-rate was one, of which least of all landowners should make any complaint. Roads were indispensable, and were for the advantage of the landowner and his tenants. They were recognised by the statute law of the realm, and their maintenance was treated by common law as a prædial obligation—as the condition of proprietary rights. The first thing which a tenant sought, upon his taking land, was a road to communicate with it; and it was the first thing which the landlord was compelled to provide. The land could, with as much justice, call upon the public to support its roads, as the City of London could tax Cornwall for paving Cheapside. The maintenance of roads was, according to his view, a matter of peculiar and not of common interest; and it was as well the interest as the duty of the land to secure early access for its produce to market. Then, with regard to tithes and Church-rates. The right hon. Baronet opposite, in the course of last year, had declared that nearly the whole of the maintenance of the Established Church was charged upon land. The Church-rates of the country amounted to 506,312 l. per annum,
890
of which amount two-fifths were paid by the towns, upon a rental of thirty-nine and a half millions. The right hon. Baronet had said,—
"The Dissenters have no right to complain of the payment of Church-rates, because they have purchased their property with a full knowledge that it was subject to such an imposition."
But every one who was possessed of property was furnished with the same knowledge; and surely the landed interests could not complain of the application of this principle to their rental. The argument, however, was much stronger with regard to tithes; because tithes were antecedent, not only to the Corn-laws, but to the very existence of proprietary rights. It was one of the old proprietary rights of the Church—it preceded the conquest—it was part of the conditions on which estates were then granted, and it could not be shaken off. He recollected in 1838, on the debate on the Irish tithe question, the noble Lord the Secretary for the Colonies had told the Irish landlords, that if tithes were abolished the next day, they were the last persons who should ever profit, with his consent, by one fraction of a farthing of the amount. And he agreed with the noble Lord, because tithes were matters entirely distinct from proprietary rights, and on which landlords could never have any claim. Mr. Burke, in reference to this, had said,—
"From the united considerations of religion and constitutional policy, this country has incorporated and identified the estate of the Church with the mass of private property, of which the state is not the proprietor, either for use or for dominion, but the guardian only and the regulator."
And he recollected a right rev. Prelate in another place laying a much greater stress upon them than this. Speaking of tithes he said,—
"These last endowments he placed upon the altar of the King of kings. Touch them if you dare; and may God not visit upon you his curse for the sacrilege."
They were told, however, that tithes were a peculiar burthen upon land, and the right hon. Baronet had quoted Adam Smith, to show that he had considered them in that light; and Ricardo, who thought that if they were burthens on the land, the Corn-laws must be maintained. If tithes were taken in kind, he should agree in this proposition; but we had a commutation, and the claim of land for

891
compensation in respect of this alleged bur then was one which could not be deemed to be borne out by any semblance of right. He thought, therefore, with Mr. Deacon Hume, that the gentlemen of England must learn to be contented with their estates, and that they must not make the possession of those estates the plea and the means of throwing the charges to which they were legally subject upon others. Before he proceeded to the peculiar exemptions of land, he would say a few words upon the subject of land-tax, which was in appearance the only distinct charge to which land was subject. The land-tax, he believed, was granted as an indemnity to the Crown for the loss of its feudal rights; it was a burthen exclusively upon the land, and was, in fact, the condition on which all land was held. The masses of the community had nothing at all to do with "aids," "relief," "primer seisin," and "wardship," or "maritagium," "fines for alienation," or any other of the conditions on which the feudal tenants of the Crown obtained their estates. These were obligations which it was fit should be abolished; but was it not equally equitable that those who had obtained the relief should bear the burthen which necessarily resulted from that relief? By the Convention Parliament of 1660 the burthen was transferred from the landlords of the country to the people, for they granted to the King a perpetual excise instead of the court of wards, the measure being carried by a majority of 151 only over 149. Some Members predicted the consequences of the measure, and Mr. Annesley said,
"If this bill were carried, every man who earns his bread by the sweat of his brow must pay excise, and excuse the court of wards, which would be a greater grievance on all, than the court of wards was to a few."
Mr. Prynnesaid, that the excise would make all householders tenants in capite to free the nobility; but the bill passed, and it was not altered until the year 1689, when the House reverted to the system of direct assessment on property in the shape of a land-tax. At this time the tax was directed to be at the rate of 4s. in the pound on real property, "according to the full, true, yearly value thereof;" and there of 1689, 1692, and 1696, declared most unequivocally that the valuation upon which the rate of 4s. was to be levied should be the "full, true, yearly value at the time of making the assessment." Parliament had since decided that the land-tax should
892
be levied upon the valuation of 1692, although since then rents had quadrupled, and even in some cases centupled; and, besides this, Parliament had contrived by statutes, worded with intentional obscurity, to impose a part of this tax on personal property—making real property the subsidiary or accessory fund, personal property being rendered liable, in the first instance. He need not point out the singular inequality with which the land-tax was assessed in various parts of the kingdom: in some parts it was only one farthing, and in others five farthings in the pound. He admitted that here and there the land-tax was heavy, nearly 4s. in the pound, and this inequality showed the evil of the present system most strikingly. Looking at the enormous increase in rental, it was ridiculous to talk of the land-tax as a bonâ fide tax. He held in his hand the advertisements of two estates now upon sale in Scotland; one of these, the estate of Mayen, consisted of 1,439 acres, at a rental of 801 l., and it was stated that the burthens, including land-tax, did not exceed 62 l. per annum. The other estate was that of Cronberry, the rent of which was 430 l., and the burthens, including land-tax, no more than 17 l. per annum. He was aware that it was too late in the day to revert to an assessment of 4s. in the pound; no government would venture to make such a proposition, yet it was no more than land paid in almost every country of the continent. Mr. Pitt, when dealing with the land-tax, did not pretend to justify the system under which it was levied, but urged that after the lapse of more than 100 years, it would be unpopular, unwise, and impolitic," to deal with it as it deserved; but if to-morrow 4s. in the pound were to be levied, the land would not be more heavily taxed here than in many foreign countries. He would compare the Austrian budget of 1837, with that of Great Britain in 1841, when the indirect taxation in Customs and Excise produced 38,000,000 l., the land-tax amounting to 1,181,243 l. In Austria, taxation in the Customs and Excise, in 1837,was 36,000,000 florins, and the land-tax alone produced 37,599,496 florins. In France, the land-tax, in 1838, produced in sterling money 10,474,110 l., amounting there to one-fourth of a revenue of 42,000,000 l., while in this country it was only one-twenty-fifth of the revenue. There were other exemptions in favour of land: there was no tax on farm houses, husbandry, horses, servants, farm house windows, drainage tiles, insurance on

893
farming implements and stock, on tax-carts, dogs, and several other items; for, let it be what it would, care was always taken that nothing should be taxed. All these advantages the landowners in Parliament had, in fact, awarded to themselves. The plea of poverty was not alleged, because among the servants exempted were stewards, bailiffs, overseers, managers, and clerks under them. Among the horses were those occasionally ridden by farmers of 500 l. a-year rent, and those used by bailiffs representing the landowners by whom they were employed. In 1836 the hon. Member for Montrose (Mr. Hume) had put into a tabular form the saving that had been made by the landlords between 1816 and 1834, and it amounted to no less than 12,929,577 l.; but even this was nothing, in comparison with the advantage gained by the land in the exemption from probate and legacy duty, now given up as indefensible by common consent. Supposing the land to have paid since 1797, when the duty was imposed, an equal amount to that actually paid upon personal property, the land of England had enjoyed an absolute exemption to the extent of 55,128,466 l. Add to this sum exemptions from other taxes, amounting to 12,929,577 l., and it made a total difference in favour of the land to the extent of 78,058,043 l. This, too, without the land-tax, which had been 4s. in the pound, and was reduced to 4d. and with out indirect taxation, more insidious, but not less real, imposed upon the community in the shape of a tax upon food, which by Mr. Deacon Hume had been calculated at 36,000,000 l., and which Mr. M'Gregor conceived to exceed the whole public taxation of the country. Having gone through these details, he put it to the House whether he had not made out his case, whether he had not shown that it was utterly impossible for the House to resist the motion with any regard to public opinion, or to its own character. He had proved that the power of the landowners had been systematically applied to the reduction of taxation, as regarded themselves: it was like the elephant's trunk—nothing was too heavy to be moved by it—nothing too small to be picked up by it. From the gigantic fraud of the land-tax, and the wholesale exemption of themselves as a class from the probate and legacy duties, they had stooped to their bailiffs' horses and their shepherds' dogs. Could the House, then, refuse to inquire?—and when, at the end of his speech, he should submit his motion for
894
inquiry, how was it to be met? No doubt the hon. Member who had given notice of an amendment (Mr. G. Banks) was as honest in his opinions as he (Mr. Ward) was; but he must pardon him for saying, that he had met the motion with an amendment so singularly inappropriate, both in time and object, that he could hardly conceive it had originated in a man who was confident in the justice of his own cause. It was in these terms:—
"That it is expedient, as a remedy for a state of anxiety embarrassing and unfair to the agriculturists, and injurious to commerce, that the attention of this House be directed to the continued existence of associations, which, in matters affecting agriculture and commerce, pretend to influence the deliberations of the Legislature, and which, by their combination and by their proceedings, are at once dangerous to the public peace, and inconsistent with the spirit of the Constitution."
That was a perfectly legitimate motion; it was not one of which any man who sat on his (Mr. Ward's) side of the House was afraid, but it had in truth no more to do with the motion than it had to do with the gates of Somnauth. It might just as well have been appended to the recent proposition of the hon. Member for Northampton, on Lord Ellenborough's proclamation. What was his motion? For inquiry into the conduct of by far the most power full-combination that had ever existed: and how did the hon. Member meet it? By a proposed inquiry into the conduct of another association—another combination totally different in its objects and views. In short, the hon. Member for Dorsetshire seemed to wish to make a perfect Babel of the debate, for one speech was to be directed against the Corn-law League, and another to apply to the grave subject which he (Mr. Ward) had introduced. He had endeavoured to submit his proposition in a fair spirit, and in decorous terms. He entertained strong feelings on the subject; he hated injustice, and he believed that great injustice had been done by Parliament to the people, and he put it to the right hon. Baronet whether he would give him a committee to inquire, or whether he would resist it? Would he consent to institute a searching examination into the subject, conducted by the ablest men on both sides of the House? If the hon. Member for Dorsetshire had even the slightest confidence in his cause, if he believed in the soundness of a single ground on which he rested his amendment, he would not mix up two incongruous subjects, but would agree in a

895
motion which only went the length of investigation, and might go far to restore the character of the House in the estimation of the country. He, therefore, begged the hon. Member to think seriously before he persevered in his course, and opposed an obstacle to the appointment of a committee. He offered the hon. Member for Dorsetshire every opportunity of proving his assertion, that the land was unduly taxed; he challenged him to establish that proposition. Would the hon. Member accept the challenge? If he would not, it was because he knew himself unequal to the contest; if he would, instead of opposing, he would second his (Mr. Ward's) motion with an honest intention of not shrinking from the task, but of prosecuting the inquiry for the ascertainment of truth. The hon. Member concluded by making the following motion:—
"That a select committee be appointed to inquire whether there are any peculiar burthens specially affecting the landed interest of this country, or any peculiar exemptions enjoyed by that interest, and to ascertain their nature and extent."
Mr. Williamsseconded the motion.
Mr. G. Bankesrose to move an amendment. He would endeavour to imitate the candour and temper displayed by the hon. Member for Sheffield, for all must agree that the claim he had put in on this score was well founded. If he had not been prepared to meet the motion with a decided negative, he should not have taken the opportunity of bringing before the House another subject, to him, individually, more interesting. He resisted the motion, not merely with respect to times, but circumstances; because, although he agreed in the general proposition that inquiry ought to precede legislation, he was most unwilling, at this moment of anxiety to the landed interest, to promote a proceeding which would tend to countenance the belief that further legislation was contemplated. He was quite certain that no Member would be found to assert that any addition to the prevailing alarm must not be detrimental; for however people might differ as to the cause, nobody would dispute that uneasiness, anxiety, and panic, did prevail. Inquiry would not only be injurious to the landed but to the commercial and trading interests, which sympathised with the prosperity or distress of the landed interest. Were the House to consent to
896
the proposed inquiry, not only would there be no cessation of the panic, but the alarm would be increased to a degree attended with the utmost danger to the community. For this reason he objected to the motion in point of time; but circumstances also forbad him to concur in the motion: he was not, nor ever should be, ready to consent to a motion so framed. He could not consent to it, because he was of opinion that the Corn-laws were to be defended as a benefit to the nation at large, and he never would consent that the landed interest should be thus separated from the rest of the community. If the House wished really to inquire into the taxes and exemptions applicable to land, let the motion be preferred in proper terms, with reference to protection as well as burthen, but he strongly objected to this invidious mode of singling one peculiar class, and turning the eyes of the public upon, and directing the ringer of scorn and odium against them. As one portion of the community, the landed interest was willing to sustain its due share of burthens. Some Members might concur in the opinion of the hon. Member for Sheffield in the doctrine that all protection ought to be abolished; but if so, the landed interest was not the only one which ought to be stripped. Why was the proposition shaped in a way to include one and omit all other classes? He had recently seen in the public journals a letter from a personage of high rank and station in the country, but who was known perhaps for nothing so much as for his adhesion to the Anti-Corn-law League—he meant Lord Kinnaird: that letter contained the following passage:—
"I find that our views are not rightly understood by many landowners, who imagine that what we contend for is the abolition of the Corn-laws alone, instead of our advocating that as being the first step to the abolition of all duties imposed for the purpose of protection."
He objected to be the first stone—he objected to the appointment of a committee by which the agricultural interest was to be the first to be deprived of protection. On that ground, if on no other, he should resist the motion of the hon. Member for Sheffield. That hon. Member had applied himself to him individually, when he expressed an opinion that even he should not be so bold—perhaps, so obstinate—but, at all events,

897
so firm, as to contend that the poor-rates and the national debt were burthens, especially affecting the land. After that sort of warning, he should be alarmed at advancing anything on his own authority merely, and he was therefore happy to be armed with authority of much more weight with the hon. Member. He alluded to a statement by a Member of considerable power in the House, but of greater influence out of it. the hon. Member for Stockport. That hon. Member had said,—
"The landowner is tethered fast to this country; he cannot carry his acres abroad with him; the law of England gives the poor of England the right of subsistence on its soil; and that is the first mortgage upon the landlord's estate."
He should not have ventured to state it so strongly himself; and the same high authority went on to say—
"But the landowner is not only pledged to the poor, but to the national creditor also."
After this point the hon. Member referred to the deficit of about five millions in the revenue, and proceeded thus:—
"The acres of the landowners are always there, and the Government, if hardly pressed for an increase of the public income, must take from the estates of the landlords ten shillings in the pound."
These were the words of the hon. Member for Stockport. If, therefore, such a committee as that now proposed were unhappily appointed, it would end in nothing but a conflict of talent between hon. Members opposite, for they would, in fact, dispute about the meaning of words. The hon. Member for Sheffield, who denied that there were any burthens peculiar to land, had shown, at all events, that there were burthens peculiarly pressing upon land, and which fell with a heavy and undue weight upon land. He had alluded to the land-tax—a very usual topic among those who were opposed to the landed interest—and he had argued that it was light here compared with other countries. The hon. Member had shown considerable research upon this point, and had enlightened the House with a good deal of information, but he had forgotten to mention to what purposes in those countries the land-tax was applied. He had not stated that it included what are called county-rates, and some portion of what with us were known as poor-rates. I
898
the county-rate and the poor-rates were added to the land-tax, it would be found that Great Britain could compete in this respect with any foreign country. He ingenuously owned that he was not able, and did not mean to speak with particularity and certainty upon this point; but he believed that the reason why the land-tax seemed heavy abroad was, that it in truth included several other imposts. He had now to request the peculiar indulgence of the House while he made a statement that respected himself personally. He hoped that the peculiar circumstances of the case would plead his excuse, and that the Speaker would be induced to relax in some degree the strictness of the rule which allowed of no reference to a former debate. When last the question of the Corn-laws was before the House, some particular observations were directed to him respecting his concerns, to which at the time it had been absolutely impossible for him to reply. He was happy to see the hon. Member (Mr. Cobden) who made those observations in his place, and for once he would ask that hon. Member a favour, perhaps the only one he should ever have occasion to request, it was this—that when he attacked him again, he would not do it at so late an hour of the night, and would not, at the same time, attack the Prime Minister ["No, no"]. What he meant was that the hon. Member would not call up the Prime Minister, and he assured the House that he had no other meaning. According to usage, any Member must give way when an individual high in authority rose, and however anxious he might have been to reply, however severely he had been vexed, he could not compete with his right hon. Friend in claiming the attention of the House. The hon. Member for Stockport had imputed to him what, if true, must be considered a very severe charge; and as the hon. Member belonged to an association accustomed to use hard words, such as "robber," "plunderer," "selfish monopolist," &c, the hon. Member no doubt thought he dealt mildly with him in the censure he passed. The charge was, that he had given wages below what he ought to have paid and was able to pay, and from that he was anxious to relieve himself. He had, therefore, taken this, the earliest opportunity when the subject of the Corn-laws was again introduced, and he was

899
now prepared to make a statement which he apprehended would satisfy even the hon. Member for Stockport that he had been misled. He could not suppose that the erroneous statement was intentional; and he trusted that the contradiction he was now about to give it, would operate as a warning to the hon. Member not to rely too implicitly or easily on the information he received, for even though it were paid for, it did not follow that it was accurate. The hon. Member had stated that the highest wages he paid to agricultural servants in his employ was 8s. per week; the hon. Member went on further to say that, and assert, and the hon. Member dared him to the proof of the contrary, that the peasantry in his neighbourhood was the worst paid, the worst clothed, and the most illiterate of any peasantry in England. It would not be matter of surprise that he had provided himself with a refutation of the assertion; and he had brought with him the names of all the tenants on his estates, and he had also in his possession a number of letters, principally dated on the 20th of February (for he had written down to the country immediately after the accusation had been made), which he was ready at any time to place in the hands of the hon, Member for his scrutiny, or for that of any of the agents he might think fit to employ. The first letter was from a tenant of 1,200 acres, who stated that the wages he paid were,
"Carters 8s. a-week, many of them having cottages and gardens rent free. They also had 1l. extra for harvest time, and fifteen perches of land for potatoes. The thrashers who were on task-work received from 10 s. to 11 s. a-week during the winter months, and in summer 15 s. with beer. The shepherds' wages were 11 s. 6d. a-week."
The writer addedߞ
"That the labourers were in a more comfortable condition than they had been in for years past, particularly as they could get employment if they were disposed to work, and that in 1830 and 1831 there were twenty-five to thirty labourers out of employment (where the writer resided) at the present season, and that now there were not more than ten out of work, and they were not men of industrious habits."
He might here premise that when he wrote to these tenants he had given no reasons for his application, nor were they aware that he intended to make use of their answers. The next letter which he
900
should refer to was from a tenant holding between five and six hundred acres, and this was also dated the 20th February. The writer said,
"Sir—In reply to your request I beg to state:—Six regular labourers as thrashers and mowers earn about 10 s. 6d. per week during the winter, and from 15 s. to 20 s. the haymaking and harvest. Fifteen perch of potatoe land each. Shepherd, 9s. per week, cottage free, and from twenty to thirty perch of potatoe land; and his keep during the lambing season,—about one month. Three carters, 8s. per week wages each, 2l. each extra for the harvest month; cottages rent free, and twenty perch of potatoe land each man. Two labourers, as job men, 8s. per week each. The man that makes the ricks and hedges on the farms earns about 10 s. per week per year. Three under carters from 4s. 6d. to 6s. and 7s. each. This account given is precisely the same as I have been giving my men for years past; But I beg to say, if the price of corn and stock continues at the present prices, I shall not be enabled to support my labourers as heretofore."
The next letter was also dated the 20th of February, and was to the effect,
"I received a letter from Mr. Robson wishing me to inform you the earnings of my labourers. My carters have 8s. per week, and 2l. the end of the year, and house and large garden free from rent. The shepherd much the same as the above. The barn men, I give them—for wheat, 1s. 4d. per sack; for barley, 1s.4d. per quarter. They have earned during this winter rather more than 12 s. per week. They pay 1s. per week house rent. I allow them to thrash all my corn by task work, and allow them a bushel of wheat for 6s., the same as I make use of in my own house. The last few years they consider it very much to their advantage; but I never compel them to have it. I am sorry to say you will find but few labourers in this parish have this chance. We are giving in Shaparck by the week 8s., and many other adjoining parishes have reduced them to 7s. I am very sorry to say we have a great many hands out of employ. I should have very much liked to have seen you personally "
The writer added,—
"That in the adjoining parish, the workpeople were not so well paid."
He might observe, that he had no land in the latter parish. The Member for Stockport had been pleased to say, that he was not an agriculturist; if, by this, the hon. Member meant only a person who derived a profit, or the means of subsistence from cultivating land, it was true; but if the hon. Member meant the ob-

901
servation to apply to the employment of labourers in agricultural pursuits, he was mistaken. He did employ labourers in such pursuits, although certainly the number was not great. He had made inquiries, and he found that on this property in question he employed thirty-one labourers. The lowest class of labourers were paid 9s. a-week each, the next class 10 s., the next 11 s., the next 15 s., and so on up as high as 25 s. These, be it recollected, were all out-door labourers, and the latter class were chiefly composed of carpenters, who were employed in fencing and such kind of work. He might observe, that the labourers' wives and children were allowed to gather fire-wood one day in the week in his park. This was often of great advantage to them, and had been particularly the case during the present season, for in one of the gales that took place nearly half the avenue of trees were blown down. He had received a letter last week from one of his tenants, in which it was stated, that the hon. Member for Stockport had been down to his estate, and had visited every cottage in the village; at any rate, if the hon. Member was not down there himself, some one whom he had delegated for the purpose had gone to the place, and had told the peasantry how miserable they were, and left at each cottage a parcel of pamphlets, sent out by the Anti-Corn-law League, and this had created considerable alarm in the neighbourhood. Now, because his park was not in exact accordance with those lordly and stately manufacturers, who built up walls round their residences, to prevent any prying eye from breaking on their privacy—and because he preferred the seclusion of a quiet and rural village to this stately loneliness, he did not see any reason why these persons should go down to create ill-feeling in his neighbourhood. He must complain that the inhabitants of this quiet peaceful village should be mo-Jested in this way by the proceedings of a body of which the hon. Member for Stockport was a member—if the hon. Member himself was not the person who went thither—for it was beyond all doubt that persons from the Anti-Corn-law League did go from cottage to cottage throughout the village, and endeavoured to excite discontent. To prevent any charge of secresy, he had stated what was paid in this village to the labourers, and he could go into much fur-
902
ther detail if it were necessary; or if the hon. Member for Stockport required more letters from tenants on his estate, on this subject, he should have them. He might here add, however, that if the hon. Member for Stockport had not better grounds for his charges on this point than any he had hitherto given, he (Mr. Bankes) should feel himself justified in applying stronger terms to his conduct than he had hitherto applied. He would refer to another communication which he had received from a tenant on his property, on the subject of wages. This person occupied a farm of three hundred acres, and employed seven labourers. The three principal of them were threshers, and earned 10 s. a-week; the shepherds 9s. a-week; and the carters 8s.; while they were each allowed to obtain corn at 6s. the bushel; and the shepherds also received 2l. extra during the lambing season. The hon. Member had employed an agent to obtain information on this subject. [Mr. Cobden: I told the hon. Member so.] He did not think that such an interruption was justifiable. He did not think that such proceedings were suitable in the society of the House of Commons; and, however much it might be adapted to the habits of the society of which the hon. Member for Stockport was a member, it was not customary in that House. He should speak to the hon. Member as a Member of Parliament, and in such a manner as the hon. Member had a right to expect from him as the representative of an important community, and also from that common courtesy which was in conformity with the usages of that House. He would here revert to the subject he was speaking on. The whole of the villagers had the privilege of cutting as much turf for firing as they chose, and this was no trifling advantage, as it made a most excellent fire: indeed so good, that he preferred it himself to a coal fire. Again, the whole of the labourers on his property in that part of the country occupied cottages rent free. Now he admitted, that to a person going from the manufacturing districts, or from the environs of the metropolis, these cottages might not appear the most desirable kind of residences, but it should be recollected, that the cottages were very often regarded as the property of those who occupied them, and that they went down in the same families from father to son for generations, and if any attempt was made to interfere with

903
them, it might be attended with great mischief. In the next parish to his own resided the occupier of a large farm, who had addressed a letter to him on the subject of the observations which the hon. Member for Stockport had been pleased to make respecting the condition of the Dorsetshire labourers; but as this letter had been published in the newspapers, he did not know that it would be necessary for him to read it. The farmers of Dorsetshire were so pleased with this letter, that they had had it printed; but the title which they had affixed to it was so offensive, that he would not give it; but it was considered in his neighbourhood as a most able and correct answer to the statements and allegations put forth by the Anti-Corn-law League. The person who wrote this paper signed his name to it, which was Thomas Hunt, and he was well known in the country as a good farmer and a man of very considerable talent and information. He stated in this letter that the statements which had been made by the hon. Member for Stockport as to the condition of the labourers on his (Mr. Bankes's) estate, were decidedly the reverse of the fact. He went on to say that he occupied a farm of 600 acres, within two miles of the residence of the hon. Member for Dorsetshire, and that he was well acquainted with the situation of the labouring classes, and that he could deny that they received less wages than other labourers. Taking them throughout none received less than 8s. a week, and in addition they occupied cottages rent free, and each had a portion of land for potatoes, which was ploughed for them without charge. They also were enabled to purchase corn at 6s. a bushel, whatever the price might be in the market. This was with reference to the wages paid to labourers in constant employ; but those who were engaged at piece-work obtained great additional advantages. He would not go into further statements on this part of the subject, unless he was called upon to do so by the hon. Member for Stockport. Another charge which was made respecting the labourers on his estate by the hon. Member for Stockport was, that the labourers not only were the worst paid, but that they were the most neglected in the neighbourhood, both in point of clothing and medicine, and that they were the most ignorant. Now, if he felt a difficulty in speaking on the former charge, that dif-
904
ficulty was greatly increased when such an accusation as that just made, was brought forward. He was as fully sensible as any one could be of the bounden duty of those who possessed the means, and when placed in the relative situation in which be was with respect to these persons, to devote any superfluities that he might be possessed of to the alleviation of the condition, and to the promotion of the best interests of those with whom he was thus connected. He was fully aware that if our charity lost all its grace, it was when the bestower chose to make known his bounty; but he trusted that the House, under the peculiar circumstances in which he was placed, and after the charge which had been made against him, would allow him to say a few words in explanation. He could assure hon. Members that nothing should have induced him to have uttered a word on the subject, had he not felt himself imperatively called upon to do so by the observations which had fallen from the hon. Member for Stockport. He would state to the House what happened last autumn; and he could assure it that it took place, not from any contemplated attack on him by the hon. Member for Stockport or the Anti-Corn-law League, for at that period nothing had occurred which could lead him to believe that any attack would be made on him. In November, he left an estate on which he was stopping, and went to the place where the principal part of his property was situated, and he did so because he believed that an early and severe winter was about to set in, and he was anxious to be on the spot to superintend the distribution of relief to the poor in his neighbourhood. Immediately on his arrival on his property, he desired his steward to prepare lists of every poor person, and of every poor child on his estate. He was greatly pleased to receive such a list on the next morning from his steward, who had prepared it in anticipation. Immediately after this, every one of these poor persons was relieved by the ladies of his family, who went personally round to relieve them. Now, if in the month of January, when the hon. Member's spies and informers visited his estate, the clothing of the poor in his neighbourhood was in so bad a condition, it was greatly to the discredit of Manchester, because it chiefly came from that place. At the same time he must add, that it did not

905
follow that he followed the maxim of the Gentlemen opposite, and bought at the cheapest, market, but the various articles required were bought of the small traders in the country towns, who, he conceived, had a right to look for a proper share of patronage from those who lived in their neighbourhood. If the hon. Member pleased, he would place a list of the articles so purchased and distributed in the hands of the hon. Member—he would not state the amount thus given away; but he might observe, that the number of those who did so obtain relief was not far short of some hundreds. As to what the hon. Member said, as to these labourers being the worst educated in the country, he could only say, that if the person who sent such an account from his district, made any such statement, that person must have perverted the truth or concealed it, for great efforts had been made for a long time for the purpose of promoting education in his neighbourhood. He held in his hand the list of the subscribers to two schools on his property, and at the head of one of them was the name of the individual whose duty it chiefly was to support it, who was a subscriber for 250 l.; now this certainly could not be said to be given as a county Member. In the next place, it was stated that the same individual had lent the further sum of 500 l. without the payment of interest, to the building fund of the school, and this without the slightest prospect of return. He might say, that nearly the same circumstances were connected with the other school. He would only add, that he was an annual subscriber to six schools in that neighbourhood. There was a seventh; but that it might be said he subscribed to as one of the county Members. He was extremely reluctant to mention these circumstances, but they were almost extorted from him. He did not pretend to say that, in what he had mentioned, he had even done his duty, or that he was perfectly satisfied; but he repelled the charge of the hon. Member for Stockport, that the peasantry of his neighbourhood were grossly ignorant, and that nothing had been done for the promotion of education amongst them. But was it to be borne that even if the peasantry were in a state of ignorance greater than was to be met with in other districts, that any member of this society
906
which had so much agitated the country, should make a charge of this kind, heavy and severe as he should have felt it to be if it had been in any degree true? It had struck him with some surprise that, subsequent to the former debate, when large bodies of persons thought it tit or necessary to congratulate the hon. Member for Stockport as to the figure which he had displayed in that House, and on the impression which he had made, that it was rather infelicitous that the first ground of congratulation to the hon. Member was on his stern regard to justice. Was it, he would ask, from a stern regard to justice that the hon. Member proceeded to censure before he collected even the evidence? Was such a proceeding consistent with any equitable or Christian feeling, or was it a way in which the debates should be carried on in that House, involving such serious charges against the characters of individuals? If such were the hon. Member's notions of a stern sense of justice, he hoped that it was a description of justice with which he should not often be brought into contact. He hoped that he had now said sufficient to vindicate himself from the mistakes into which the hon. Member had fallen, for still he should feel himself bound to suppose them to be such. He begged, however, once more to guard the House from supposing that in what he had done he claimed any merit to himself; for all that he wished to show was, that the labourers in his part of the country were not precisely in the situation in which they had been described to be, or that they were worse educated than in the surrounding districts. He did not, however, pretend to say that they were in a better condition than in other parts. He had been told that in some parts of the county wages were higher than in his neighbourhood: he hoped that this was the case, and that they would continue high. He flattered himself that he had now sufficiently disposed of all these charges; but there were still a few other points with respect to which he wished to make some observations. As for the line of conduct taken by the hon. Member for Stockport, who had been elected by a large constituency, and who was distinguished for his eminent talent, he would only say that he felt called upon to give an answer to all the questions which applied to the situation of his property.

907
There was one question which the hon. Member, however, had put to him, which he did not think was altogether fair, he meant when the hon. Member asked him what he would say at the next agricultural dinner at Blandford. In reply, however, he would observe that he could not exactly tell, for the hon. Member for Stockport might be there himself. The hon. Member had said in his speech on the former occasion, that at the next dinner one black sheep would be there, and he had told the House what he would say. Now he would just state what he would say in answer, if the hon. Gentleman did make his promised observation. The hon. Member had alluded to what he said about the sun gilding the spire of the church, and the dome of the palace, and the thatch of the cottage; and the hon. Member added, that the black sheep he alluded to would get up and add, that it also shone on the chimney of the landlord. Now, if he heard any such observation at that dinner from the hon. Member, he would say yes, and the factory chimney too—that tall, gawky, ugly chimney, which poured forth volumes of smoke—that chimney to which might appropriately be applied the lines,—
"The ' tasteless' column pointing to the skies, Like a tall bully lifts its head and lies."
It might be his duty, as chairman of that dinner, to propose a health. He might have to say he had to propose a toast in honour of a distinguished individual who was present, and who was no personal friend of his, but as he was the son of a farmer, and was descended from a long line of Sussex yeomanry, he came among them in sheep's clothing. The hon. Member had also said that he would put the agriculturists on their defence, and should call upon them to show the benefit which protection had conferred on agriculture. His answer was, that protection had brought thousands and thousands of acres into cultivation, which never could have taken place but for protection, and the labourers who tilled it, therefore, never could have been employed. The culture and enclosure of waste land had been going on rapidly for years, until the present check was put upon it, and until means were found of inspiriting the agriculturists with confidence, a stop would be put to its progress. He recollected travelling from his father's
908
house to London, which was about 100 miles, at a time when there was forty miles of waste land to be seen, and now there was not ten miles. No land could have formerly looked more unpromising and more hopeless than this land in Dorsetshire, Hampshire, and Surrey, but in travelling this road now, it would be seen that villages had sprung up, and thousands of husbandmen were employed on it. If the hon. Member had been in Dorsetshire, he must have been much struck with surprise at the desolate state of some of the land on the entrance of that county, but it was not worse than much of that now under profitable cultivation. In the union in which he lived, he knew that a few weeks ago there was not a single able-bodied labourer on the rates, and this was the effect of the enclosure of waste lands, which it was the object of the hon. Member for Sheffield's motion to put a stop to. To-morrow night that dangerous body the Anti-Corn-law League were to remove to a larger scale of agitation, and were to appear at the first theatre of the town. On that occasion, the hon. Member for Stockport was to take his benefit, and was to be the lion of the show. He wished to call the attention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to the money collected by this body. He should like to know where it was lodged, as it would enable the Chancellor of the Exchequer to apply for the income-tax. They were told, that this year the fund collected was 50,000 l., and next year it would be 100,000 l. which, taken at the medium of the two years would give 75,000 l. to be rated to the tax. With respect to associations generally, he would not give any opinion of his own, but would refer to some expressions which he found on the subject in a debate which took place in 1825. The first quotation was—
"The House would bear in mind that this association, though a public body, differed from most public meetings in this point—that they were all of one mind. There was no competition of opinion; no opposing voice was heard. Every speech was previously arranged, and every decision was unanimous. Indeed, if any unhappy adversary had the hardihood to present himself, he would most probably get a reception which Would prevent any repetition. Formed as such a body was, there was a danger in the indefinite qualities of its constituency, and in its indefinite duration. Under different circumstances, the fickleness of the multitude might operate as a

909
check to the probable evil results of such an association; but he was compelled, with regret, to say, that a most influential body, whose duty it was to impart religious consolation, and to keep themselves apart from political contention, not only encouraged, but assumed a part of its powers. Next, in upholding that association were to be found men of disappointed ambition and considerable talents, who exerted themselves, no matter whether on real or imaginary grievances, in exciting the public feeling against the Government; and in inflaming the population against the laws, and what they described a prodigal and corrupt administration of them."
And again, subsequently was the following passage:—
Now, he thought that no man who understood the constitution of the country, could contemplate the levying of money upon his Majesty's subjects by an irresponsible body, to be applied to objects not previously defined, but at the discretion of the self-constituted authority by which such money was called for, with any other feeling than that of unequivocal disapprobation."
This was the language of his right hon. Friend, the present Chancellor of the Exchequer, in introducing the bill against illegal associations in Ireland. The next opinion he should quote was that of the right hon. Baronet now at the head of the Governmen:—
"He would first notice an argument that had been made use of, in the course of this discussion, by an hon. Member, the effect of which, if it were well founded, would be to take away from Government, or from Parliament rather, all right of interference in the case of associations that might be deemed illegal. The hon. Gentleman had expressly said, ' he would not vindicate the acts of the Catholic Association; he thought them to be, in many respects, indefensible, and he could not stand forward as their advocate.' But still that hon. Gentleman conceived, that the hands of the House were tied up—that these people laboured under such a grievance, as took from the House all right of interference with their proceedings; those proceedings being admitted, by the hon. Gentleman himself, to be indefensible. Why, if this were so, there was an end of all their deliberations in that House, on this or any other subject. If that doctrine was to prevail, it must follow that the subjects of this country, if they should imagine themselves to be suffering under a grievance of this or any other kind, might resort to unconstitutional measures for their redress; which measures, however, Parliament Could not interpose to check, until those grievances should have been first removed. Now, he maintained, that from the moment Parliament recognised such a doctrine as this, they
910
would abdicate their legislative functions altogether. It seemed necessary to approach this argument in the first place, before he proceeded to any other observations; for if the principle were once accepted, where was its application to terminate? Where were these associations to end? There were many persons who considered the representation of the people in Parliament to be so bad and imperfect, that a large portion of the people were deprived of their rights. Now, that might be considered a grievance, and a grievance of a very heavy kind; and, if the argument he had alluded to was to be admitted, why might not the country expect an association for the purpose of obtaining Parliamentary reform. [Cries of "Hear, hear."] What would be the consequence of such a system he knew not; but he called upon the hon. Gentlemen, who expressed by their cheers their willingness to have such associations, that if they admitted the principle in one case, they must expect associations for the removal of every real or supposed grievance; and if Parliament should afterwards think of putting an end to them, the answer would be, that the subjects of the country, and not its Legislature, were the proper judges of those grievances, and of the propriety of the measures to be taken to redress them. That, however, was not his reading of the law. He conceived Parliament to be the sole constitutional judge of these matters, and if the Parliament thought a law ought to be continued, those who fancied themselves aggrieved by it must not resort to unconstitutional measures to procure its abolition. They might petition—they might represent their grievances to Parliament, and their petitions and representations would be taken into consideration: but Parliament would abandon its duty, if it allowed any body of men to act independently of its authority, and only according to their own free pleasure."
These were the words of the right hon Member for Tamworth in 1825, and they exactly described the association now in question [Cheers]. The noble Member for Sunderland cheered; in reference, perhaps, to the circumstance that the association thus censured by Parliament in 1825 did in the end succeed. He would beg, then, to recall the recollection of the House to another association, which did not succeed in the end, though it produced great excitement and popular commotion in its progress. In 1778, there was another association—not a Catholic but a Protestant association, which consisted of amiable and religious persons, but attracted little observation until it chose Lord George Gordon as its head. In 1779 they directed their attention to the repeal of a particular law, and they chose Lord George Gordon as their head—ac-

911
cording to the account given of the matter by Mr. Kenyon, afterwards the Lord Chief Justice—because they thought that as he was a man of high character, of blameless life and conversation, of moral and religious habits, their having him at their head would give weight to their deliberations; and if he carried their representations to the foot of the Throne, he was sure to be attended to. The transactions of 1780 he need not particularise. The course which that society pursued was to meet at different large halls within the metropolis—Coachmakers' Hall being their chief place of meeting; but it never occurred to them that it would be legal for that purpose to hire a theatre—they never hired Drury-lane Theatre for their meeting—but when they became too numerous for the size of their buildings, they met in the open air, in St. George's Fields, and the reasons for which they met were remarkable. The resolution appointing that meeting was as follows:—
"Resolved—That this association do meet on Friday next, the 12th of July, to consider the most prudent and respectful manner of attending their petition, which is to be presented on that day to the House of Commons."
That was very different from the tone adopted by the Anti Corn-law League. The results were but too well known; the Solicitor-general, at the subsequent trial of the rioters, stated that during a considerable part of that afternoon there was not one of the Members in that House who could feel confident that he would leave the House alive. The Lords and the Bishops were also attacked. In the night, some of the Catholic chapels were attacked. Still the Government did nothing. On the Saturday all seemed to be quiet, and the Government almost congratulated itself that it had done nothing. On Sunday, however, it broke out again, and for a week from that time the whole of the metropolis was in the hands of the mob. The King was in his palace; the Commander-in-Chief was at Whitehall; but the only man, he believed, who showed any personal courage, and even common prudence, on that occasion, was the Sovereign, whom the Anti Corn-law League described in one of their papers as "Stupid George the Third." The Anti Corn-law League was pursuing the same course now, which had been pursued by the Association of 1778 in its outset; meeting
912
in large rooms, and collecting petitions to be brought with great effect before the House; but the present association was certainly going much beyond that of 1778, in thus announcing a public meeting in a public theatre. He would put it to the House and to the Government, whether this was not a subject fit for the consideration of Parliament, seeing, as they did, that from day to day some new attempt was made, some new expedient for getting up public interest and public excitement. Public excitement was what the League professedly and publicly desired; their complaint was, that hitherto they had not been able to produce this excitement; and, accordingly, first one scheme and then another was resorted to, and now they were about to try a public theatre. One thing was quite certain, that until they had produced it, they would not come before the House practically with a proposition as to the Corn-laws. It was the absence of the required excitement that had occasioned the postponement of the hon. Member for Dumfries' notice; it was this that had caused the postponement of the hon. Member for Wolverhampton's motion on the Corn-laws; for the League were conscious that at this moment there was no feeling in unison with theirs throughout the metropolis, and very little throughout the country at large. He could not refrain from humbly submitting to his right hon. Friends that this was a matter not unworthy of their consideration, and as far as regarded the subject publicly, he was quite content to leave it entirely to their opinion. As to matters affecting those who, like himself, desired to live quietly and safely among their tenantry in the country, the Ministry had not the power of knowing, as he and other gentlemen in the country had, the enormous extent of mischief which might be produced—which was attempted to be produced, at this present time, by the emissaries of this League. He did not complain that the emissaries of this League, in his own neighbourhood, had endeavoured to shake any influence he might have there, or taken steps to prevent, if possible, his future return. He cared not for that, and he would further tell the hon. Member for Stockport, that if he could influence public opinion against Gentlemen who differed from him, there was no seat so much in danger as his (Mr. Bankes') own; for his seat depended entirely on public

913
opinion, and he desired to retain it only so long as public opinion went with him. He had no reason to seek for any Ministerial support in the county which he represented; but he looked to Ministers for the peace of his private life—for the comfort, happiness, and welfare of the peasantry who lived around him. He looked to them to drive away, by some means or other, this new mode of sending emissaries throughout the country, paid emissaries; for such were avowed and boasted of by the hon. Member for Stockport. It was of this he complained; and it was from this he intreated the Government to protect the country; as one of their fellow citizens, as a faithful and dutiful subject of the Crown, he asked, he besought, he demanded this at the hands of her Majesty's Ministers. The hon. Member concluded by moving,
"That it is expedient, as a remedy for a state of anxiety, embarrassing and unfair to the agriculturists, and injurious to commerce, that the attention of this House be directed to the continued existence of associations, which, in matters affecting agriculture and commerce, pretend to influence the deliberations of the Legislature, and which, by their combination and by their proceedings, are at once dangerous to the public peace, and inconsistent with the spirit of the constitution."
Mr. Cobdenwas very sorry that for a single moment, he should divert the attention of the House from a question of paramount importance to one which bore much of a personal character. The hon. Gentleman who had just sat down, had totally misunderstood him, if he thought for one moment, that he (Mr. Cobden) was so bad a tactician, even were he not restrained by a sense of justice, as to make this great national question a mere vehicle for personal altercation. He had told the hon. Member for Dorsetshire what the labourers in his county—what the labourers, indeed, on the hon. Gentleman's own estates there—were paid; but he had not charged him with giving them less wages than other people did. Did the hon. Gentleman suppose, that they who employed labourers could give what wages they pleased? He had heard such a doctrine at agricultural dinners from those who were occupying the chair, but in the part of the country from which he came, such a doctrine would not be listened to for an instant; it was not there imagined, that
914
those who lived on the profits of labour had the power of dispensing to their labourers just what amount they pleased. He had meant no attack personally on the hon. Member; but when hon. Gentlemen came down to the House to support laws which they had passed professedly for the benefit of the labourers on their estates, and of the whole class of agricultural labourers, he and those who thought with him, had a right to tell these hon. Gentlemen and the country at large, that these labourers were, in point of fact, getting less wages than were being paid in the manufacturing districts, for the same amount of labour. It was not the hon. Gentleman he had attacked; it was not him he spoke against; it was the system supported by the hon. Gentleman which he assailed, and upon which he charged the great evil that the agricultural labourers were not better paid than they were. It was this system which was destroying the trade of the seaport towns, for instance, in which the men of Dorsetshire were immediately interested. There was Poole, which might be a flourishing seaport town, and ought to be so, and which, f it were so, might give greatly increased impetus to the agricultural industry of the country, how had its trade been injured by the operation of this miserable law, and how had Dorsetshire itself, altogether, which, from its superior maritime position, ought, under a proper state of things, to be one of the most flourishing counties in England, suffered from this same law? As to the declaration of the hon. Gentleman respecting wages, he was sorry the hon. Gentleman had not told the House something on his own authority. Why had not the hon. Gentleman, if he would persist in making this a personal matter, told the House, on his personal authority, what wages were actually paid on his own estates! But no; the hon. Gentleman had read various letters, telling them what was paid for certain descriptions of labour; now he was, as the hon. Gentleman had observed, a farmer's son, and he knew that it was a most fallacious thing to rely upon what particular men were earning in particular places, under particular circumstances. What they wanted to know from the hon. Member for Dorset was, what were the average wages of labourers in Dorsetshire? and, in the absence of information from the hon. Gentleman, he would now state to him, and

915
to the House, and to the country, that in what he had said some time ago, as to the payment of labour in Dorsetshire, he had overstated the real amount; for, whereas he had said, that the average of wages was 8s. a-week, he had since been informed, on the best authority, that wages there varied between 6s. and 8s. a-week, for able-bodied labourers; the average being not 8s. but 7s. a week, the year through. This he stated in the face of the House and of the country; and were he disposed to deal with the hon. Gentleman personally, he could tell him that he had documents in his pocket on which he could rely, that would show that there was a district on the hon. Gentleman's own estates in a condition very different from anything he had described to the House. He could show, that people there were living in huts more like rabbit-holes than houses, that these huts had been complained of by the surgeon of the union in which they were situated; that there had been remonstrances against them, as being calculated to produce diseases, and to injure the public health, but that notwithstanding all this, they had not been removed or altered. He spoke of a district in the Isle of Purbeck, with which no doubt the hon. Gentleman was acquainted. The hon. Gentleman spoke of him in connection with Dorsetshire; he had not been in the county yet, but he had received a great many communications from thence, differing widely from what the hon. Gentleman had told the House. There was, at all events, one fact, standing unimpeached on official authority which the hon. Gentleman had not grappled with—namely, that, in Dorsetshire, one out of every seven of the whole population was a pauper. This the House had on Parliamentary evidence. How, then, could the hon. Gentleman get up and read letters from farmers here and there, setting forth that there was no want of employment, and that no man who chose to work, but might have employment? How, with such facts staring them in the face, could hon. Gentlemen come down to the House and advocate the Corn-laws as a benefit to the labourers? How could they, with their own estates in such a condition, seek to maintain a law which, while it ruined the manufacturing interests of the country, threw one out of every seven in an agricultural population into a state of absolute pauperism, and gave the
916
rest 7s. a-week as wages? The hon. Member, after waiting three weeks, had given in his conned speech, but a very poor answer to the opponents of the Corn-laws: his dull jokes about chimnies were but a sorry answer to facts. The hon. Gentleman had made it a charge against him, that he sent emissaries into the hon. Gentleman's own district. It was difficult to know how to deal with the hon. Gentleman. One moment he quarrelled with the League for wishing to make a public demonstration in the metropolis, in Drury-lane theatre, which did not suit the hon. Gentleman, as being a violent proceeding; and the moment after, he quarrelled with the League equally for sending quiet, solitary individuals into the country districts, to distribute printed tracts. As to the meeting in Drury-lane, he had to thank the hon. Gentleman for having so efficiently advertised it. And he would promise, the lion. Gentleman, in return, that if he would condescend to come and look at them, with any of his Friends who had been cheering him on that night, they should have, not, perhaps, the Queen's box—for that might be shut up, but any Other public one that could be obtained; and he was sure that any Leaguer who might have a previous claim would willingly resign it in favour of the hon. Gentlemen. As to the question before the House. The hon. Member for Sheffield had brought forward this motion for the purpose of giving hon. Gentlemen opposite the opportunity of explaining to the public what were those exclusive and heavy burdens which the land bore, and for which the whole of the population were called upon to support the bread-tax. One objection to the proposed committee had been assigned by the hon. Gentleman opposite; he said, that if the committee were granted it might produce an impression in the country that the Corn-laws were going to be altered, and, therefore, for that was what it amounted to, he would not attempt to justify the Corn-laws at all! What the objections might be which hon. Gentlemen opposite and the Ministry had to the question, he did not pretend to say, and, to speak honestly, he was very indifferent about the matter. The country at large looked at these things in a broad and intelligent way, and when the people saw that this motion had been brought forward on such able grounds as had been set forth by the

917
hon. Member for Sheffield, when they saw he had substantiated his case in so clear and unanswerable a manner, and when they found that hon. Gentlemen opposite refused this reasonable challenge, they would at once decide that the men who refused it knew that they could not refute the charges to be made and proved against the law in committee. What other objection was there to going into the committee? There was no business, that he was aware of, before the House of any sort of importance; nay, he had heard it whispered, that already Government wished to get rid of them altogether, and for his part, he should not be surprised at the Government, when they had got all the money they wanted, sending them all about their business any time after Easter. There was nothing at all for the House to do which could interfere with this committee. The Somnauth discussion, which the country did not care at all about, was now over, and left no sort of excuse for them. No, no; depend upon it, if the supporters of this law felt they had anything of a case, there was nothing which would more delight them than to bring forward that case now, when so heavy a suspicion had fixed itself in men's minds against them—there was nothing would so delight them as to come before the honest, truth-loving, fair-dealing people of this country, who were generally becoming convinced that they had not been fairly dealt with by their legislators, and prove to them, if they could, that they had been honestly treated. But did they think they should escape the public condemnation? Did they think that any amount of sophistry, come from what quarter it might, would protect them from that censure and indignation at the hands of the country which they so richly merited? The hon. Member for Sheffield had brought forward this question so fully and so ably, that he had left nothing for him to add on the subject. As to the Anti-Corn-law League, he hoped that no hon. Gentleman would think it worth his while to defend the League from the attack of the hon. Member for Dorset. On the contrary, he was much obliged to the hon. Gentleman for what he had said about it; and when they had had a little more of the kind of attack which they had had lately—when they had been charged with a few more crimes, a few more sins; and these charges were at-
918
tended with the same reaction, of which reaction public men should always have a wholesome dread—there was no doubt the League would really be as powerful as it had been described to be. After all, what was this League? They might call it what they pleased, but it was nothing more than the organisation of public opinion—men rushing together to protect themselves from a common wrong, not by violence not by brute force, but by that which hon. Gentlemen opposite more dreaded—intelligence. Their system was the offspring of short-sighted ignorance, and the League would pull it down by knowledge. It wanted no other means than those quiet missionaries, those tracts that were sent throughout the country to overturn the system; and it was because every freeholder in Dorsetshire had got a budget of those tracts, that the ire of the hon. Gentleman had been so much excited; that was the secret of all the indignation he had directed against the League. The hon. Gentleman was quite welcome to entertain his feelings of indignation. He expected in every county to be made the object of similar attacks. Like the dashing of the water against the bows of a vessel, it showed the progress they were making. The public would not be satisfied that the League were expending the 50,000 l. to advantage if hon. Members did not make an outcry. He should have to-morrow many additional subscriptions sent in, as a reward for the manner in which they had succeeded in exciting the hon. Member for Dorsetshire. He assured the hon. Gentleman that the farmers were taking the most lively interest in this question. Yesterday he spent a most delightful evening at Southampton, where a large deputation attended from Portsmouth and Gosport, and a great many farmers who came from a distance of between thirty and forty miles, who dared not attend such meetings in their own districts, were present to hear him. He assured the hon. Member for Bridport that he would shortly be in Dorsetshire. He had already fixed for Taunton, and he had no doubt he should have the half of Somersetshire to listen to him. This was the way to carry any public question in England. It was not by hiring people to appear in false colours, as the party opposite had done,—hiring poor abject men to assume the character which did not

919
belong to them, for the purpose of defending their starvation code. He had proofs against the party opposite; they had been going on in an under-hand mole-like manner. Hon. Gentlemen might fancy they had something wherewith to threaten the League in their blue books; he had a green bag against them. Yes, he could bring some facts that would startle them. He had facts that would implicate some of the highest in rank in this country for lending themselves to a system bordering as near as possible on assisting the mob in downright force and violence. But the League repudiated all such means, they never resorted to them. Their course was to get as many electors about them as possible; they looked out for the most influential audience they could find, and when collected together they always managed to convince them, which was more, he believed, than the hon. Member for Dorsetshire could say. Having upon this occasion satisfied the hon. Gentleman that he was not at all displeased with the attack which had been made upon him, and disavowing, as he did most sincerely, having had the folly to charge upon him individually all the evils of a system which the hon. Member upheld in ignorance, he would leave the merits of the question on the arguments adduced by his hon. Friend the mover of this resolution.
Mr. Wykeham Martin: Sir, I am anxious, before the time arrives at which those who are more in the habit of addressing the House are accustomed to rise, to make a few observations on some points in the Speech of the hon. Member for Sheffield, which has reference to a subject which has accidentally come very prominently under my notice. I mean the Poor-rates. The hon. Member seems to think that when he has shewn that the land bears a certain proportion of that burthen, and the house property another proportion, he has fully stated the whole case between the landed and the commercial portions of the community. But I think I shall be able to shew, even to the hon. Member himself, that the case is widely different. It appears to be his idea, and that of many other persons, that there are two great interests in the country—the landed and the commercial—and that justice will be done if each of these bears the half of whatever burthens may be imposed in the way of taxation. But it will, I think,
920
be found, that whether we take the test of population, or whether we take the test of property, the landed interest do not constitute more than one third of the community, and that therefore one third, and not the half is their share of the national burthens. It is perfectly true, as he has said, that the house property, does bear a considerable share of the burthen of the Poor-rate—in fact the house property and the landed property between them, bear the whole of that burthen. But there is an immense mass of property besides these which bears no part of the burthen whatever. If we take the estimate made by the right hon. Baronet, the Member for Tamworth, for the income-tax, we shall find that the landed interest is estimated at 39,400,000 l.; tithes at 3,500,000 l.; and mines at 1,500,000 l.; making together 44,000,000 l.; but the railroads, canals, &c, are stated at 3,429,000 l., and the houses at 25,000,000 l., making in the whole 72,829,000 l. Whilst, on the other hand the funds are 30,000,000 l., the income from trades 56,000,000 l., that from public offices, &c, 7,000,000 l., and the tenants rents 26,000,000 l., making in all 119,000,000 l., without saying anything of mortgages, which do not contribute one farthing towards rates of any kind. We may further illustrate this by taking as an instance the case of a person who derives an income of 5,000 l. a year from land, and one who has the same sum in the funds. The landowner, through his tenants, is taxed to the rates for every farthing of his income. The fundholder probably lives in a house rated at 300 l. a year. The landowner, at 2s. in the pound, pays 500 l. a year to the rates. The fundholder, at 2s. in the pound, pays 30 l.; and a difference of this kind will be found to run throughout the whole. And further, it is not upon the landed interest generally, but upon the property of the owners of land that this tax falls, viz., upon the 44,000,000 l., exclusive of the rents of the tenants, and therefore the property so taxed will be found to be something less than a third and more than a fourth of the whole income of the country. The hon. Member quoted some returns signed by Mr. Rowbotham and he appears to have made a mistake in stating the results. He said that the whole amount paid in a series of years amounted to about 404,000,000 l., that the landed property had paid somewhat more

921
than 200,000,000 l., and the house property about 150,000,000 l. and that the house property had paid rather more than half the whole amount paid. He must have intended to say, though, if I caught his words correctly; he did not say it, that the house property paid more than half of the amount paid by the land. I think probably that this was about the correct proportion, but we must not forget the immense mass of property before specified which pays no rates at all. The hon. Member also laid great stress upon the amount paid by the monied interest as legacy and probate duty. But he omitted to state that the land pays a large amount upon transfers in the shape of a stamp duty upon deeds. In the year 1838, the duty upon deeds was 1,452,334 l. In 1839 it was 1,482,651 l. In 1838 the duty on legacies aud probates together was 2,079,894 l. In 1839 it was 1,890,539 l. In 1841 the duty on deeds was about the same sum, viz. 1,476.737 l., and, on the other, 2,024,671 l. Now, if we try these amounts by the test specified above, viz. that the proportion of the land should be one third, I think that even on this—the strong point of the hon. Member for Sheffield—the two interests will stand very fairly. I am perfectly aware that a portion of the duty on deeds is levied on commercial deeds. ["Hear," from Mr. Williams.] But the hon. Member for Coventry will find that leasehold property in land, and the portions of younger children charged on land, are subject to the legacy and probate duties; and if we set off these last against the commercial portion of the stamp duty on deeds, which I think we may fairly do, the proportion will still continue much the same. I have also to request the attention of the House to the observations of the hon. Member for Sheffield on the subject of the land-tax. He asserts that that impost was a substitute for the burthen of the feudal tenures. Now, that assertion was made in this House last Session, and, in the interval, I have made it my business to refer to the Act of Charles 2nd, by which the feudal tenures were abolished, and to that of William and Mary, by which the land-tax was imposed. The hon. Member was quite correct in saying that the excise and not the land-tax was the substitute that was imposed by the Act of Charles 2nd. And the reason assigned in the preamble of the act is not such as it has been repre
922
sented to be, but because those tenures, &c. has been found by experience much more burdensome, grievous, and prejudicial to the kingdom than they have been beneficial to the King." And doubtless they were a burthen to all there classes as well as to the land; for the towns themselves, when the feudal system was in its full vigour, were obliged to pay contributions to the powerful persons in their neighbourhood for their protection. But the hon. Member ought to give to the landed interest in this case the benefit of the corresponding principle to that which he has applied against them in the case of tithes. He said, in that case, and he said justly, that there was no proprietor whose title to his property was so old as to be prior to the commencement of tithes; and that, therefore, we had no right to complain of tithes as a burthen. That we had bought or inherited or acquired our estates subject to that deduction, and that it was a portion of the property that we had never possessed. Now, in the same manner it might be said, that the landed proprietors of the present day had acquired their properties free from the feudal burthens. If inquiry were made it would be found that a very inconsiderable fraction of the landed interest could trace back the possession of their properties to the feudal times. Few could even date so far back as the act of 1660, when the feudal tenures were abolished by Charles 2nd; or rather to 1645, when they were abolished during the troubles; for the Act of Charles 2nd. was only a confirmation of what had been done during the Commonwealth. And the hon. Member must be aware, from his knowledge of history, that the feudal system was practically at an end, that it was extinguished and effete long before that time. But it has occurred to me at this moment to observe, that even with respect to those who could go back to the feudal times, the law had long established against them the same principle that they claimed against the Crown. The manors they had originally received had been granted out upon rents, which, though adequate at first, had become wholly different from their real value by the change of times; and yet the law allowed no charge of the rents upon copyhold tenures; though every one who knew anything of those tenures was aware how perfectly nominal were the quit rents by which they were still held. And as to the Act of William

923
and Mary, in 1692, by which the land-tax was first imposed, the preamble had no allusion to the feudal tenures as the reason of its being enacted. On the contrary, it assigned a totally different reason. It ran thus:—
"We your Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects the Commons assembled in Parliament, having seriously considered the great occasions which engage your Majesties to many extraordinary expenses for the necessary defence of your realms, and the prosecution of a vigorous war against France, have cheerfully and unanimously given and granted unto your Majesties the rates and assessments hereafter mentioned."
And after the statements which has been made, to the effect that that impost applied solely to the land, the House would probably be surprised to hear what the enactments of that statute really were. The second section imposes 24 s. for every 100 l. estate in ready moneys, debts, goods, wares, or merchandise, stock upon lands, goods used as household stuff, &c, which be it observed is a tax of 4s. in the pound upon money at an interest of 6 per cent. The third section imposes 4s. in the pound upon salaries, pay of officers, &c, and the fourth section imposes 4s. in the pound upon lands, tenements, mines, tithes, manors, &c. Thus it would seem that the act of 1692, instead of being a mere tax upon land is, as nearly as possible, a facsimile of the income tax imposed in the last Session of Parliament. I have one more observation to make before I sit down. The argument of the hon. Member for Sheffield is evidently directed against the Corn-laws. Now I for one have never rested the defence of the Corn-laws upon the burthen borne by the land, but upon grounds of general policy. I believe that we have a fair right to expect the principle to be adopted in our case which has been universally recognised in all our legislation, namely, that when any change would occasion wide-spread misery and destitution amongst large masses by the disruption of the channel of employment, the rest of the community have either forgone the change altogether, or introduced it so gradually as to diminish or to obviate the misery likely to be occasioned by it. But admitting his principle for argument's sake, I think the calculations he has quoted from Mr.
924
Deacon Hume, Mr. Macgregor, and others, as to the tax imposed on the manufacturing community by the enhancement of the price of corn, are very much overstated. It appears to me that the agriculturists and that portion of the manufacturers who depend upon the home market are one section of the body politic, and that their interests are identical. It matters not to that portion of the manufacturers whether they buy dear of the farmers and sell at a high price to them, or whether they buy cheap and sell cheap. Now the whole of this body pay as consumers their own share of the burthen caused by the augmented price of corn. It is therefore only the portion consumed by the exporting manufacturers that ought to be taken into the account; and if we take them and their dependants at 7,000,000 persons, consuming a quarter of corn each annually, and state the enhancement of the price by the protective duties at 10 s. a quarter, we shall have about 3,500,000 l. as the sum which they have to pay. I do not know what should be added for oatmeal and other kinds of corn, nor do I pretend to give these figures as an accurate representation of the results of the protective duties; but I do think that they are sufficiently near the truth to justify me in believing that the statements that have been made on this subject are erroneous in principle and very considerably exaggerated. I have only now to thank the house for the patience with which they have heard me.
Mr. Williamssaid, that the two hon. Members who had spoken on the other side, whose speeches he had attentively listened to, had not answered a single point of the arguments which had been brought before the House in support of the motion. His hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, had stated the case so clearly and so fully, that he had left but little for any one else to say. If his arguments were capable of being answered, the hon. Member for Dorsetshire, and the hon. Member for Newport (Mr. W. Martin) would have answered them, but they had completely failed to show that the landed interest were subject to any peculiar burthens. The hon. Member for Newport had indeed started a new doctrine, and attempted to make it out that the landowners paid their share of the high prices caused by their own monopoly. [Mr. W. Martin had not said the land-

925
owners, but the landed interest, including the farmers and the labourers.] The hon. Gentleman had referred to the landed interest, and had endeavoured to show that they paid the tax caused by their own monopoly. Who, he would ask, occupied the larger portion of this metropolis? Who, but a population which lived chiefly on the produce of taxation? Including the Church revenues. [An hon. Member: and the Poor-rates.] He was coming to that—a large portion of the people of this metropolis lived on the 52,000,000 l. of taxes, which were chiefly spent in the metropolis. The traders who occupied houses paid all rates and taxes, the same as the inhabitants of the agricultural districts. Looking at the returns laid on the Table last May, he affirmed that the whole landed property of the country was not assessed to more than 1,000,000 l. above the dwelling houses. Again, the amount of the county and poor-rates was 6,300,000 l; and of that sum the land paid only 200,000 l. more than the dwelling houses. He could not see in those items any proof that the landed interest was more burthened than any other interest. The landed interest including the rich classes, had always had the power of levying taxes—and they had invariably taken care of themselves. He would refer to the mortgage duties as one instance. If a shopkeeper wanted to borrow 50 l. to improve his shop—if he borrowed it on mortgage, he had to pay a duty of 20 s., but if a landowner borrowed ever so largo a sum on mortgage, he paid only a duty of 25 l. The highest mortgage duty was 25 l. on all mortgage deeds for 20,000 l. and upwards. He had heard of a great, landowner who had mortgaged his estates to one of the great companies for 300,000 l. and he had paid only 25 l. while, if he had been taxed in the same proportion as the shopkeeper, who borrowed 50 l. on mortgage, his tax would have amounted to 6,000 l. The taxes on conveyancing which were said to be paid by the landed interest, were paid on the conveyance of houses, and were paid by the town people as well as the landowners. It was the case, too, that the tax on a conveyance of only 20 l., was 20 s. while the highest tax of that kind levied on conveyance was 1,000 l., and an estate conveyed of the value of 1,000,000 l. paid no higher duty than the sum of 1,000 l. If they looked through the whole of the stamp duties they would find, that the same proportions as he had shown prevailed in all. With respect to the
926
burthens borne by the land, lie denied that tithes were a tax. They were a portion of the property of the soil appropriated to the clergy; they were public property, and could never be allowed to go to the landowners. Should even the voluntary principle be adopted, the landowners would not get the tithes, and if they hoped they would, he hoped that the Lord Chancellor would prrovide for their monomania in his new bill. He had looked at the general taxation of the empire, and divided it into four classes. Taking it at round numbers, it was in all about 51,500,000 l. The first class, about 25,300,000 l., consisting of the taxes on British and foreign spirits, on malt, on corn, bricks, tiles, timber, &c, he contended was almost exclusively paid by the middle and working classes. The second class, amounting to 11,000,000 l., consisting of the taxes on sugar, molasses, coffee, &c, was paid in much larger proportions by the poor and middle class than the rich. The tax on sugar and molasses was 5,300,000 l., and the same duty was levied on the coarsest sugar, consumed by the poor man, as on the best refined sugar, consumed by the rich man. The poor paid in fact, from 50 to 70 per cent, more tax on the value of the article consumed than did the rich. The tax levied on tea amounted to 4,000,000 l. and the poor man paid the same tax of 2s. 2d. on his tea, the price of which was 1s. or 1s. 2d. per lb., as the rich man paid on the tea which was selling at 4s. or 5s. per. lb. without duty The poor man, then, paid from four to five times as much tax in proportion to the value of the tea as the rich man. It was the same with coffee, the coarsest kind of which consumed by the poor, cost 100 per cent, less than the finest kinds consumed by the rich, but it paid an equal duty. On soap the poor man paid as heavy a tax on his common soap as the rich man paid for the finest scented soap, which was six or seven times as high priced. On all these articles, the landowners, in common with the other opulent classes, did not pay nearly as much taxation as was paid by the poor. The next class consisted of 12,000,000 l., the taxes on currants, silks, newspapers, paper, windows, &c. &c., was paid as much by the middle as the rich. The next class of 2,600,000 l., consisting of the land-tax, the auction duties, and some others, were principally paid by the opulent classes, including the landowners. That was the only class of taxes which fell

927
almost exclusively on the rich, who having had the power, had always saved themselves, and threw the taxation on the industry of the country. He admitted that the opulent classes paid their share of the income-tax but the Prime Minister had found out that the taxes on articles of consumption and on labour had reached their highest point, and to that circumstance alone we were indebted for the income-tax. Nothing more could be obtained by taxing the working classes. Having said so much of the revenue, he would now turn to the expenditure. After deducting the half-pay and pensions of the private soldiers and sailors he found that at least 14,000,000 l. per annum went to placemen and pensioners. Those sums were all in the gift of the Government, and were appropriated to the upper classes or to the rich class. Thus, while the middling and working classes paid the taxes, the opulent classes, including the landowners, who had great influence over the Government, expended and enjoyed them. If there were peculiar burthens on land, they were more than made up for by the amount of public money distributed amongst the aristocracy. The burthens imposed by the landed interest on the community were enormous. The average price of wheat in France for the last seven years was 50 or 60 per cent, lower than in this country. He thought the country ought to be made distinctly aware of the nature and amount of the charges on land, which served as an excuse for the Corn-laws, and would, therefore, support the motion.
Mr. Wodehousesaid, that as the hon. Member for Sheffield had referred so particularly to him, he begged to offer a few words by way of reply. As he should vote against the motion, he would say that he was perfectly ready to meet the imputation of shrinking from inquiry. His opinion was, that the appointment of a committee of inquiry could lead to no good, and would only be made an arena for theoretical discussion without any practical result. He would say also, that whenever the hon. Member or any of his Friends should bring forward a motion for the repeal of the Corn-laws, he (Mr. Wodehouse) would meet it, as he always had met such motions, on the ground that if those laws were not defensible on general principles, they were not defensible at all. With respect to the burdens on land, if the calculations of Mr. Row-
928
botham were to be depended on, as he believed they were, he would assert that where landed property paid 1l. he defied the hon. Gentleman to show that commercial capital paid 10 d. It ought to be remembered, too, that the accumulation of commercial capital of late years had been going on at a rate that was unparalleled in the history of the world. There was another consideration. That morning a new edition of Mr. Spackman's Tables, which were referred to by the right hon. Baronet at the head of the Government in his speech on the Income-tax, had come out, from which it appeared that while of the population of the United Kingdom there were 7–9ths dependent on agriculture, there were only 2–9ths dependent for their welfare on manufactures. Now, God forbid that the House should be indifferent to the happiness of the 5,000,000 in the one case; yet they ought not to forget the other 20,000,000, on the other hand, whose interests were dependent on agriculture, and with the care of whose interests they were equally charged.
Mr. Cochranesaid he thought the House was much indebted to the hon. Member for Dorsetshire, for directing its attention to the conduct of the Anti Corn-law Association, and its influence upon the peace and interests of the country, was a question well worthy the attention of Parliament. The precedents of 1826 and 1829 might be cited, at which period two separate acts were passed to put down the Roman Catholic Association, and he could not bring himself to imagine that legislation was less necessary now than it was at that time, or that the proceedings of this Association were less violent than theirs. Putting out of view for a moment the immorality of such combinations, the pernicious doctrines promulgated, the treasonable speeches uttered, it behoved the House to remember that, in a military point of view, the results were much to be apprehended. There could not be a doubt that the machinery of such an association might be applied to insurrectionary purposes. The Irish rebellion was prepared through the medium of the Association of United Irishmen, for it contained within itself all the elements and discipline of war. Still he was not one of those who considered that all expressions of popular feeling were to be despised, and that all combinations and associations for the promotion of political objects were to be

929
regarded in the same point of view; there had been conspiracies and insurrections against the established Government which must command respect, from the deep conscious feeling which called them into existence, however much he might lament the instruments made use of, and the use to which they were applied, he was by no means prepared to deny. We might lament the conduct of the Jacobites, the conspiracies which darkened the first half of the last century; but who could avoid sympathising with the devotion and the energy of those gallant spirits, who endured all, and sacrificed all, from a pure instinct of loyalty? All right-thinking men were opposed to the Roman Catholic Association, which sent its heralds of sedition into the remotest districts of Ireland; but the men so agitating at least preached a great principle, and the man who erred in judgment and made himself amenable by overt acts to the laws of his country, might yet stand acquitted to God and his own heart. But the association to which the attention of the House was now directed, what had it in common with the religious impulses of an earnest people? Without passion, then, but as a duty, he denounced such associations. He would not say that the League might not contain within it some men of good faith, who really had the welfare of their country at heart, while they were the mere tools of party or faction; but now that the leaders had been unmasked, let them leave to ignominy men who had not the courage to execute deeds which they dared to conceive—men to whom might well be applied the language of Sir James Mackintosh, in his character of Judge Jeffries—
"He once had that reputation for boldness which many men preserve so long as they are personally safe by violence in their councils and their language—if he feared danger, at least he never feared shame, which much more frequently restrains the powerful."
It could not, surely, after the events of the last few weeks, be difficult to open the minds of men to the dangers which threatened them if these associations were not put down. If no other argument would be attended to, surely that of self-preservation must avail. "Oh," but men exclaim, "we must act with prudence." Prudence ! Why prudence consisted in adopting means to ends, and in not weakly debating when energetic action was required. It was a sad thing to peruse the
930
factory reports recently laid upon the Table; and to see what fearful masses of ignorance and misery existed in this country, upon which the leaguers could act. These great manufacturers created the evil under which we were suffering by over production, and then proposed to remedy it by the instrumentality of the very victims which their own avarice had called into existence. With them "increase of appetite grew with what it fed on." Instead of proportioning the supply to the demand, they appeared to imagine that the demand would always keep pace with the supply; and now finding themselves in a state of manufacturing plethora, they called for a repeal of the Corn-laws; not in order that the poor might have cheaper bread for they would take good care that the wages should be lowered in proportion to the fall of prices, but in order to find some outlet for their manufactures. Now in spite of his objection to holding out inducements for fresh speculation and increased excitement, he should still be happy if the present surplus could be got rid of; but the overthrow of the agricultural interest was too great a price to pay for such a boon. He admitted that England owed much to her manufacturing prosperity. He would even concur in the opinion of the hon. and learned Member for Bath, when he exclaimed
"What was it broke the alliance between Alexander and Napoleon? Was it the force of British arms? No, it was the power of her manufactures; and who then can say that she would become dependent upon others by stretching the mighty arms of her commerce from pole to pole!"
He admitted this truth, so eloquently developed, but did we, on this account, owe gratitude to the individual manufacturers? When they embarked in speculations, was it for the sake of profit, or the good of the country? Why, it was the lust of gain which stimulated them, and this by a fortunate combination of circumstances, turned to good. If they rescued the State they did so unintentionally, as the geese when they cackled saved the Capitol by accident, and not by superior-instinct. On a former occasion he had alluded to the evils of over speculation, and he repeated it was over speculation which was the ruin of the country. Had not this evil been seen in the case of China? Although the treaty was barely signed, yet what quantity of ships were

931
now crossing the sea to find fresh markets; and if this treaty should not last, as indeed he doubted much whether it would, so opposed was it to all the prejudices of that people, then what misery must be the result? What, he asked, was the great original security of all debts, public and private? Why the land. Destroy or even weaken this security, and how long would commerce alone keep faith with the national creditor? What said Mr. Burke in an eloquent paper of his written in 1795:—
"It is a perilous thing to try experiments upon the farmer. The farmer's capital, except in a very few instances, is far more feeble than commonly is imagined, and the trade is a very poor trade, it is subject to great risks and losses. The capital, such as his, is turned but once a year—in some branches it requires three years before the money is paid. It is very seldom that a farmer makes twelve or fifteen per cent, on his capital, and now I am speaking of the prosperous. I have seldom known any who died worth more than paid his debts, leaving his posterity to continue the same equal conflict between industry and want in which his last predecessor and a long line of predecessors before him lived and died."
But the House may doubtless say that since that period we have improved in machinery. Yes; but how had that benefitted the labourer? When you laid down the flail and applied steam power to thrashing corn, how many hands were thrown out of employ? He believed that what people termed improvements in machinery were the greatest curse to this country. His noble Friend the Member for Dorsetshire, told him the other day, that he had seen numerous factories in which a regular inventor was kept, whose only duty was to find out and adopt improvements, every one of which turned some two or three persons out of employment. He would admit the deep distress the numerous bankruptcies that prevailed but it would not benefit trade to ruin the agriculturists. There was a call for equality: yes: but what equality? Equal beggary, equal want, equal wretchedness. It was frequently said, why do you require laws to protect the aristocracy, it existed long before the introduction of protection in 1463? That the nobles were most powerful prior to that period was true; but what had this to do with agriculture? Did we not know that at that time land was almost uncultivated, or existed merely in pasture, while the authority of the princely nobles was dependent on the
932
personal services of their followers, who lived according to the rudest system of mountain hospitality. He knew how many there were who looked back to those periods with satisfaction; but he was very doubtful if they were not led astray by romantic notions, and if the state of society—the serf and villien system—was not most deplorable. It was only when protection was introduced and agriculture improved, that the villien began to pay rent instead of personal service. With the progress of agriculture civil liberty, and the distinctions between villien and freemen were abolished. In stating this he did not overlook the influence of towns and the assertions of municipal rights. He knew they added greatly to the march of freedom; but if he granted this, the advantage of the protective system must not be denied to him. As early as the days of the prophet Samuel, we learn who were those anxious for change, "those who were in distress, those who were in debt, those who were discontented." He would then say that such were the men who sought to propagate every passion, who appealed to every prejudice, who enlisted every selfish interest under one banner, whose one watchword was "the people." "The people !" what miserable delusion is it that you alone have the interest of the people at heart, or rather that the interests you represent are the only ones that ought to be respected. Am I not speaking for the people when I call upon you to protect those who afforded you assistance in the times of danger—the great founders of your civil liberties—and who therefore bring time-hallowed associations to strengthen their personal claims? Am I not speaking in the name of the people when I call upon you to protect the vested rights of those who have ever rallied round the throne and the constitution, and to whose hereditary loyalty you are indebted for the benefits of a mixed and equitable Government? I know how powerless is every appeal made to you in favour of vested rights and ancient associations, and that, in this age, it is sufficient that a thing is old to have it thrown aside; but I will quote the language of one whose opinion in this House can never be lightly esteemed—I mean the great Judge Blackstone. He says:—
"It is by a due regard to vested interests we have at last obtained a constitution, in theory the most beautifal of any, in practice

933
the most approved, and I pray (let us all join in that prayer) in duration the most permanent."
A constitution which the Roman historian imagined only to doubt the possibility of its being realised, and which every continental writer since the age of Louis XIV. has regarded with mingled feelings of envy and admiration—a constitution which has survived many and great shocks—which, with majesty and equal law, has overridden the Wilkses, the George Gordons, the Hunts of the past, and will override the mob leaders (it were unparliamentary to name them) of the present day—a constitution which will never fail, if we are only true to ourselves, and if the middle class, who stand as a barrier to the encroachments of popular violence on the one hand, and monarchical despotism on the other, will not sacrifice their own rights, and those of their children and descendants, by supineness, indolence and neglect.
Mr. Gibsonsaid, I quite concur in what fell from an hon. Member below me, that the amendment of the hon. Member for Dorsetshire is extremely inappropriate at the present time, and that it ought not to have been moved with the view of interfering with such a definite and legitimate proposition as that which the hon. Member for Sheffield has submitted to the House. That proposition has nothing to do with associations, or agitation, or with anything of that kind. It is a simple request that the House will appoint a select committee to inquire into certain alleged burdens pressing peculiarly on the landed interest. But although I think the amendment extremely inappropriate, yet, as it has been submitted and supported by a lengthened speech, containing grave attacks on the Anti-Corn-law Association, and calling on the Government to take steps to put down that association, I think the House is bound to express an opinion upon it and I hope it will be disposed of by a distinct vote before we come to the motion of the hon. Member for Sheffield. Why has not the hon. Member for Dorsetshire suggested what he wishes to have done? He calls on Parliament to take into consideration what the hon. Member calls a dangerous association, which he says threatens the public peace and the security of life and property. Why has he not mentioned the course to be taken, if his proposition is acceded to? Does he wish for a suspension
934
of the Habeas Corpus Act? Is the Government to imitate Lord Castlereagh, and bring in a bill to put down seditious assemblies? Why does he call on the House to assent to an abstract resolution, and not point out the precise plan for putting down the association? The hon. Member for Bridport ventured to hope that the right hon. Baronet at the head of the Government would vote for this amendment. I hope he will not. I trust that no man who values the freedom of discussion, or the importance of the right of holding public meetings openly, to petition the Legislature for redress of grievances, will assent to the doctrine that meetings are to be put down by law. Let me ask, is there no Corn-law League, as well as an Anti-Corn-law League? The hon. Member for Nottingham, in his able speech in favour of a fixed duty, said fairly that he objected to a Corn-law League as well as an Anti-Corn-law League. There was a time, not very long ago, when a Corn-law League assembled in Palace-yard, and the present President of the Board of Trade spoke of country gentlemen coming up as delegates for the purpose of intimidating the Legislature. This Corn-law League combined was not for the purpose of relieving the country from a yoke, but in order to impose a yoke on their fellow-countrymen. If the House will permit me, I will read an extract on the subject from the Annual Register for 1822. It says,
"The beginning of the present year was marked chiefly by the clamours of farmers and landowners. Numerous meetings were held in the agricultural counties and districts for the purpose of deploring the distress of this part of the community, and voting addresses to the Legislature, calling upon it to apply a remedy. The usual nostrums were lauded. Foreign corn was to be excluded, and that exclusion was to work miracles; for these politicians were ignorant that, if there is any truth in official documents, it was long since anything but the produce of our own soil had been sold in our markets."
It then recites the nostrums, and what were they?—
"The abolition of tithes, and a forcible reduction of the interest of the national debt. The last of these was spoken of with a complacency, and listened to with a toleration, which a few years ago would have been incredible. Country gentlemen, of moderate politics and of consequence in their own districts, were not ashamed to allude to this wild and wicked dream of rapine as a measure which might soon turn out to be most necessary and most prudent, and to hear with ap-

935
proving silence, or, at the most, with faint and hesitating dissent, the virulent rhapsodies of political bigots and incendiaries who recommended its immediate adoption. It was a melancholy thing to see how effectual pecuniary embarrassment had been to delude many of that class, in whose soundness of principle and understanding England had long reposed confidence with a forgetfulness of justice and policy. Beginning to feel the temporary pressure of distress, they dared to raise and foster the cry, 'Plunder all, in order that we may live at ease.'"
This course you took in 1822. When you were distressed, not by the importation of foreign corn, but by your own policy, you proposed to relieve yourselves from inconvenience by plundering the public creditor; and Gentlemen sitting opposite to me, and now talking of violent language and improper proposals, were themselves then parties to that proposal for robbing the public creditor. Will you believe me when I say, that this same proposal to rob the public creditor is at this very moment going on. The honorary secretary of the Central Agricultural Society, now having the Duke of Buckingham as its president, and containing among its Members Lord Mountcashel, and a great many distinguished supporters of the Corn-laws, has written a letter which I now hold in my hand, a copy of which was received by the secretary of the Anti-Corn-law League, in which it is proposed that the Anti-Corn-law League should desist from agitating for the repeal of the Corn-laws, and should quietly unite with the British Agricultural Protection Society in a crusade against the public creditor. The proposal was nothing less than that the Anti-Corn-law League and the Central Protection Society for British Agriculture, should join in a co-partnership for the plunder of the national creditor. [Cries of "read."] I will read. The letter is from Mr. R. Brown, honorary secretary to the Central Agricultural Society. It is dated December 27, 1839, 21 Wigmore-street, Cavendish-square. The paragraph I wish to call attention to runs thus:—
"Permit me (says Mr. Brown) to take this opportunity of bringing under the consideration of the Anti-Corn-law League, and the Corn-law repealing party in general, the better policy of aiding this society in its endeavour to obtain the repeal of those laws which make money dear and Corn-laws necessary."
What does that mean? Why it means, and the project aimed at is simply this: to
936
issue an unlimited amount of bank notes, by which the debtor may pay the creditor pieces of paper of a certain nominal value of the debtor's own fixing. I therefore say, that you do not come into court with clean hands, and complain of agitation on the part of the Anti-Corn-law League. ["Oh, oh!"] Do you deny that these have been your objects formerly, and that they are your objects now? ["Oh, oh !"] I am not aware of its being denied. An hon. Member behind me says, that it is only a section of the agriculturists, but I have already stated, that the Duke of Buckingham is the president, and that the names of many of its members are the names of those who represent the great body of the agricultural interest of this country. At the head is his grace the Duke of Buckingham.
An hon. Memberon the Ministerial side of the House rose and exclaimed, "I rise to state that that circumstance is not true."
Mr. M. Gibsonproceeded to read the names of several other noblemen who were vice-presidents of the society, among whom were the Earl of Darlington, the Earl of Winchelsea, the Earl of Tankerville, the Earl of Airlie, the Earl of Hardwicke, the Earl of Delawarr, the Earl of Tyrconnel, and the Earl of Mountcashel; there were also the names of many Members of Parliament; but I do not (said Mr. Gibson) see the name of the hon. Member for Dorsetshire, though I do see the names of the two hon. Members for the county of Suffolk, one of whom I recollect did once say something bearing pretty closely upon a scheme for robbing the public creditor. Now, I am prepared to say, that if the Anti-Corn-law League should ever use improper means for effecting its object, that, however good I consider that object to be, I would not be the man to support it. Let the best end fail, if it cannot be supported by proper and just means. Therefore, I am no party to support any association, whether having a public or a private object to promote, if it propose to take means which I do not think are consistent with justice and propriety. But, I contend, that the Anti-Corn-law society have done nothing more than attempt to instruct the great body of the people to spread throughout the country information upon commercial subjects, and to teach those very principles which the right hon. Baronet himself expounded in this House. The worst that you can possibly say against the Anti-Corn-law League is, that it has applied hard words to the landed proprie-

937
tors. You may fancy that to accuse the landed proprietors of having appropriated to themselves what was not strictly their own, is a hard expression, and one calculated to wound the feelings of the landed interest of this country. But let hon. Members reflect one moment, that if the policy of the right hon. Baronet last Session was a sound and wise policy, then you are convicted, by that very policy, of having been in possession of what you were not entitled to. The right hon. Baronet deprived you of certain protection which you enjoyed previously. He told you that protection was not consistent with the welfare of the public at large. You gave him your support by your votes, and, therefore, you agreed with him in the proposition that you had been, up to that time, plundering the community. To show that I do not take a very extraordinary view upon this question, I will quote the report of the committee of Cambridge and the Isle of Ely Agricultural Association upon this subject. I believe I have used almost the very words of that association. The report says—
"They were astonished, they were mortified, to witness the vast majority of the landowners of this country giving the Minister their support, and so virtually becoming every one of them members of the Anti-Com-law League. Entrapped into the admission that the protection they received was immoderate, and, therefore, unjust and indefensible, what have they to complain of in the conduct of the Acklands, the Smiths, and other travelling demagogues who go about the country preaching against them, except the use of a few hard names, which for the most part they deserve, if they are sincere in their vote upon the vital subject of the law of protection? If they believe that the interest of the country and the common good do not require the protection they have enjoyed, how can they deny the justice of all the absurd abuse which has been made against them?"
It is impossible to contest the truth and the justice of these remarks. But for a point of form, I should have presented a petition this evening, from a number of agriculturists, who having observed the motion proposed to be made by the hon. Member for Dorsetshire, and feeling regret at any attempt to impede the progress of the Anti-Com-law Association, the object of which is to spread information throughout the country upon the mischievous tendency of the Corn-laws, have petitioned the House on the subject. As I was not allowed to present the petition, I will take
938
the liberty of reading it to the House. The petition is signed by several eminent agricultural occupying tenants—men paying large rents themselves, and entirely subsisting by the profits of agriculture. The petition comes from near Alnwick, in Northumberland, It runs thus:—
"TO THE HONOURABLE THE HOUSE OF COMMONS IN PARLIAMENT ASSEMBLED,
"Showeth—that your petitioners are agriculturists, and belong to that class called ' occupying tenantry.'
"That your petitioners have observed, that a motion is about to be submitted to your honourable House, with the view of inducing Parliament to impede the operations of a certain society, called the 'Anti-Corn-law League,' in order, as is alleged, to confer a benefit on the agricultural classes.
"That your petitioners believe, that the proposal embodied in the above motion, emanates from, and will be supported exclusively, by persons styling themselves 'farmers' friends.'
"That your petitioners being themselves farmers, cannot consider those parties as 'farmers' friends,' who seek to put down the Anti-Corn-law League, inasmuch as the object of that League is to abolish a system of legislation which has frequently deceived the occupying tenantry, and been the means of involving great numbers of industrious and enterprising agriculturists in the loss of their capital, and in utter ruin.
"That your petitioners pray your honourable House to receive the statements of the parties calling themselves 'farmers' friends 'with great caution; for your petitioners have reason to believe that those persons, being themselves landowners, are actuated rather by a desire to keep up the rental of land than to confer any benefit on the occupying tenantry, or to promote the welfare of the community at large.—And your petitioners will ever pray."
Three of the persons whose signatures are attached to this petition pay together a rental of not less than 5,000 l. a-year; and one of them alone pays 1,800 l. a-year. I take the liberty of calling the attention of the House to this petition, which in point of form does not allow me to present. I shall not dwell upon the subject of associations any longer; but I will take the liberty of trespassing upon the attention of the House for a few moments, in reference to the motion of my hon. Friend the member for Sheffield, which ho has submitted to it with so much ability. In the first place, I will reply to that objection made, as I thought with some force, by the hon. Member for Dorsetshire. He said,
"If you really are sincere in wishing for free-trade, if you really desire to abolish the

939
protective system, why do you frame a motion which seems specifically and entirely pointed at the landed interest?—why do you not come forward with some proposition to abolish all protection?"
The hon. Gentleman said that he, as a landowner, objected to be the first upon whom the experiment should be tried—he should like others to be participators in the experiment. There is force in the hon. Gentleman's remark. I assure the hon. Member that I am authorised, on the part of the manufacturers, most distinctly and unequivocally to declare that they are willing to abandon every title of protection; that they desire protection to be completely abolished, and that they feel that in attacking the Corn-law they are attacking the key-stone of the monopoly system; and that until they shall have abolished the Corn-laws, they shall never get the assistance of the most powerful party in the state for abolishing all other monopolies. They know perfectly well that when you are deprived of the protection you enjoy, you will assist in abolishing all other monopolies. With regard to the motion, I for one do not consider that the repeal of the Corn-laws is to be made a condition upon lessening the burthens upon land. My hon. Friend stated the same thing. He said—You have allowed that the burthen of taxation is unequally distributed, and that you bear a greater portion of the charges of the country than the rest of the community; we (said my hon. Friend) will give you the opportunity of proving the amount of this excess. We will afterwards ask Parliament to equalize taxation, and put you upon the same footing as the rest of your fellow-countrymen. That I understand to be the proposition before the House. It is a very just proposition. If hon. Gentlemen on the other side are really sincere in their statement, that they do labour under an excess of taxation, what can be more desirable than to prove the excess before Parliament, and call upon Parliament, as you will be entitled to do, in a manner which cannot be resisted for a moment, to equalize the burthens, and to put you upon the same footing as the rest of the community? With regard to the Corn-law question, I cannot consider the duties on foreign corn or restriction upon trade as a proper mode of compensating the landed interest for any excess of burthens they may bear. As regards the importation of foreign corn, I should rather say this, that if you prove
940
the existence of any great amount of exclusive burthen—if you show that there is something in your system that prevents you from cultivating your land to any considerable extent—that is rather a reason for admitting foreign corn from those countries which can produce it cheaper. If you cannot grow corn, in consequence of your burthens, is not that a reason why others should import it? We cannot starve because you have chosen to take upon you a greater burthen than you are bound in justice to pay. You must complain and ask Parliament to remove those burthens, if they be in excess; but you cannot show that because you bear certain burthens beyond what your fellow-countrymen bear, you are therefore entitled to restrict trade. It is not a question as between the burthens imposed on land in foreign countries, and the burthens upon the land in this. It is a question as between the burthens upon different classes in this country. But whether you view it as a question of burthens on foreign and on English land, or as a question of burthens on agriculturists and manufacturers, in this country only, in either point of view, you can never make it a reason for imposing restrictions on trade. If you make it a question as between the burthens upon land in foreign countries and the burthens on land in this, and if you adhere to a Corn-law to equalize the difference of those burthens, then you must have a different Corn-law for every different country with which you trade; because there are different charges on the land in different countries; and thus you become involved in a perfect absurdity. Then, with reference to the burthens on manufactures being smaller than on agriculture. Supposing the burthens upon the county of Norfolk are greater than in the county of Essex, is that a reason why the people of Norfolk should demand that Essex should only have corn brought to market under a duty? What have I to do with the burthens of another man I If his burthens are greater than they ought to be, it is his business to complain of them, but it is no compensation to him to make me suffer. Because the manufacturers are legs burthened than the agriculturists, that therefore there should be a restriction on trade is to me a perfect mystery. I will put it mathematically to the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Gladstone), who is a mathematician, and will ask him how he will solve this problem:—"Given the burthens on land, given the burthens on manufac-

941
tures, what is the state of the sliding-scale on corn which will represent the difference?" That is what you profess to do. You have actually professed to have found out a sliding scale in corn which will be the exact measure of the difference between the burthens on land and the burthens on manufactures. I must confess that the right hon. Gentleman's acuteness is what I cannot boast of possessing. The right hon. Baronet, I must also say, is justly charged with having stated that his Corn-law was a compensation for the excessive burthens on land; and the right hon. Baronet did, in his speech, strengthen the prejudice in the country, that because the land owners paid tithes, land tax, and a variety of burthens, therefore it is right and proper that traders should suffer also. The right hon. Baronet certainly has assisted in spreading what I cannot help thinking he must now feel is a prejudice. I must also say, that the right hon. Baronet gave an impulse to his party which shows itself on the present occasion—namely, in speaking sneeringly of the manufacturing industry of the country. Did not the hon. Member for Dorsetshire sneer at the tall chimneys of factories, and did he not draw a picture calculated to leave on the minds of hon. Members an unfavourable impression as to the manufacturers as a class? The right hon. Baronet is clearly subject to the responsibility of having given that impulse to his party. Did he not first sneer at the manufacturing system, when he talked about the dull succession of manufacturing towns connected by long lines of railway? Did he not draw a picture about the happy peasantry, the honeysuckles winding around their cheerful cottages, and what not? Did he not say, that he would not repeal the Corn-laws, because he did not wish to sec this country one dull succession of manufacturing towns connected together by railroads? The same sneering spirit was exhibited the other night, when, he asked, is there nothing but manufactures to be cared for? I do, therefore, complain that any attempt should he made on either side of the House to sneer at any particular branch of industry of the country. All industry is valuable, and I think this question can be discussed without any sneering at particular individuals or classes, or drawing any comparison between the humanity of the landowners and the manufacturers. The hon. Member for East Norfolk has made use of a most extraordinary argument. He says
942
a Corn-law is justifiable, because there are more agriculturists than manufacturers—that is to say, a large number of people have a right to oppress the smaller number. Surely, there is such a thing as justice in the world. It is not because there may be numerically a larger number of agriculturists than manufacturers that, therefore, the Corn-laws are justifiable. Such a proposition must, on reflection, appear to the hon. Gentleman himself to be palpably inconsistent with the first principles of justice. I will not trespass on the House any longer. I will sit down by simply calling upon the House to deal with these two propositions as separate and distinct. Upon the first proposition the House is bound to come to a decided vote. It raises a great principle. It raises a principle which I thought was extinct in this country, after the death of the late Lord Castlereagh; and I trust the House will not feel satisfied without coming to a distinct negative upon that proposition. Then, as to the motion of the hon. Member for Sheffield, I hope the House will be induced to give its assent to it. It has been brought forward with no other motive than to show what are the burdens said to exist on the land, and with no desire to create a panic among the agriculturists, because whether you prove an excess of burdens or not, we are entitled to call upon you for a total and entire abolition of the laws which restrict foreign trade.
Sir Robert Peelwished to take the opportunity, before the debate closed to state to the House the course which he meant to pursue, both with respect to the original motion of the hon. Gentleman, and with respect to the amendment upon that motion, moved by the hon. Member for Dorsetshire. He so far concurred with the hon. Gentleman who had last spoken, that he thought the hon. Gentleman who had made the original proposition had a fair right to expect that the House should decide affirmatively or negatively upon that motion. It was not in his power to give his assent to the proposal of his hon. Friend the Member for Dorsetshire. He could not be called upon by the forms of the House to give a direct negative to that amendment. The manner in which the question would be put from the Chair he apprehended would be this, whether the motion of the hon. Member for Sheffield should stand part of the question. The vote which he (Sir R. Peel) would give would be that it should stand part of the

943
question. He should, therefore, if the majority concurred with him in opinion, indirectly negative the proposal of his hon. Friend. He should negative it upon these two grounds—he thought it had no immediate connection with the motion of the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Ward). He thought that the proposal of a resolution that certain associations were dangerous, was not a proper amendment to move upon a motion that a select committee be appointed to inquire into the burdens on agriculture. He thought there was no such necessary connection between the two as to make it a fitting amendment upon the original proposition. He rather thought his hon. Friend must entertain an opinion not very different from his, because his hon. Friend's original intention was to move it as an amendment, not upon the present motion, but upon a totally different motion, of which notice was given by the hon. Member for Dumfries; but it happening that that motion would not be brought forward so early as was expected, his hon. Friend transferred it to the motion now before the House. Upon the ground of its not being an appropriate amendment, he was prepared to express his dissent from it. But there was another ground on which he was also prepared to signify his dissent from this amendment. He decidedly objected to the House of Commons dealing with any acts which it might reprobate, or with any association which it might consider dangerous by way of resolution. How could they affect the acts or the associations by any resolution they might come to? A resolution of that House constituted no part of the law of the land. There was no obligation on individuals or on associations to defer to the resolutions of the House; and if the resolutions were not deferred to, and the country be induced to disobey them, the passing of them would have a tendency to exhibit rather the imbecility of the House than its power. Although the association had not been distinctly pointed out by his hon. Friend, yet there was no doubt what association his hon. Friend meant; but if there were any associations in this country which transgressed the law, and which were so far dangerous that the law ought to be enforced, then it was the duty of her Majesty's Government to apply the provisions of the existing law. If it were thought that the Government was remiss in performing its duty, it was competent
944
for the House of Commons to address the Crown, praying the Crown to enforce the existing law. That was a course implying certainly, some reflection upon the Government; but it was perfectly consistent with, and perfectly open to, the House of Commons to take that course. If, on the other hand, the law were defective, the House of Commons had a perfect right to do that which was within its own province for the amending the law, namely, to introduce a bill to remove the defects of the existing law, Either of these courses was open to the House of Commons, but he objected to the course proposed of passing a resolution which would not have the power of a law, and had no binding obligation upon their fellow subjects. Upon these two grounds he must dissent from the proposal of his hon. Friend. To the proposition of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Sheffield he should also give a decided negative. He could not acquiesce in the propriety of appointing the committee which the hon. Gentleman proposed. He was sorry to hear a portion of the speech which was delivered by the hon. Member for Manchester. Nothing was more unfair or more ungenerous than the attack which the hon. Member made upon those Gentlemen connected with the landed interest, who, in the course of the last Session of Parliament, showed a disposition to support the proposal for relaxing the duties upon corn and other articles. They supported him in his proposal to reduce the duty on Corn, and to repeal altogether prohibitions upon the importation of foreign meat and cattle; and what was the acknowledgment which the hon. Member for Manchester made for this? He said to those Gentlemen—by the very support you gave to those proposals, you proved that you were conscious of possessing what you had no right to possess; and yet, in the course of the same speech, the hon. Gentleman said he could assure the House, on the part of the manufacturers, that they were perfectly prepared to part with the protection they now enjoy. Now, if he and those hon. Gentlemen whom the hon. Member for Manchester so unjustly assailed, were to turn round upon the manufacturers and say,—Because you are willing to part with the protection you now have, you impliedly admit that you have been robbing the public by maintaining duties which were not for the benefit of the public, but for the benefit of yourselves,

945
would not the hon. Gentleman himself have been the first to rise and denounce so unjust an imputation upon the manufacturing interest, and have resented it as most unwarrantably making an attack upon the manufacturers of having plundered the people? If he had ever indulged in sneers at the manufacturing interests, such sneers would have come with a peculiarly bad grace from him; with a bad grace as a Minister of the Crown, and with peculiarly bad grace as an individual who owed all that he possessed to that interest which he was bound to hold dear. In the course of the debate, and in repelling some argument advanced against him, he might have used terms which any one wishing to take advantage of him might have turned to some such purpose, and which might have rendered him open to the misconstruction of the hon. Gentleman; but he assured the hon Gentleman that he did him gross injustice, if the hon. Gentleman supposed that he was unmindful of the deep obligations he owed to the manufacturing interests; or if he had indulged for an instant in a sneer at the tall chimnies of the manufacturers to which he owed all of wealth that he possessed. He therefore protested against the construction which the hon. Gentleman had put upon any expression of his. The question between the hon. Gentleman and himself was not whether any information which could throw any light upon this subject should be withheld, but whether a select committee was the proper tribunal to come to a satisfactory decision. Suppose that the hon. Gentleman's committee should be appointed—that he should acquiesce in it—he would claim that his own side of the House should be fairly represented upon it; and if the committee were to represent the opinions of the House, he should be entitled to claim a majority. If so, would the report of the committee be perfectly satisfactory to the hon. Gentleman. [Mr. Hume: It might take evidence,] What would be the nature of the evidence? It would only consist of conflicting opinions as to whether the land bore a greater or a less share of the burdens. The facts he had no objection to give in the shape of returns. Now with respect to the amount of taxation, the landed interest was subject to public taxes, and also to local taxation; and as some contended, it was subject to a peculiar burden in the support of a church
946
establishment. The land had to bear almost exclusively the maintenance of the church establishment in the three portions of the United Kingdom, in England, Scotland, and Ireland. In this country, likewise, it had to bear a large proportion of the expense of maintaining the sacred edifices, for he apprehended that a great proportion of the church-rates fell upon land. Then, with respect to public taxes, Whatever return should be called for to show the proportion of the taxes borne by the land, and which could be produced from any office, he would have no objection to give. The hon. Gentleman opposite had called for a return of the amount of the taxes borne by the land in the other countries of Europe; he did not think that the returns were very satisfactory, but as far as the Government could procure them they were given. The hon. Gentleman was in possession of them. Then let him take the case of the legacy and probate duties. The hon. Gentleman contended, that the land was altogether exempt from any charge for legacy or probate duty. He denied the assumption of the hon. Gentleman. He said, in the first place, that the land did bear a considerable portion of the legacy and probate duty. All the leasehold interests paid the duty. How then was the question at issue between them to be met? Not by the appointment of a committee, but by voluntarily giving all the returns that might be called for. The hon. Gentleman said, that the land paid no equivalent for exemption from the legacy and probate duties. He said, that land contributed almost as much as personal estates to the exigencies of the state by the payment of the stamp duties on conveyances. There was a material difference between him and the hon. Gentleman; that difficulty also needed not a committee to clear it up, it might be done by returns. A motion was made last year for subjecting land to the legacy and probate duty. He had opposed it himself; it had also been opposed by Members of the late Government; and the Chancellor of the Exchequer of the year 1840, when pressed so to subject it, had showed, first, that the land did contribute to these taxes; and next, that it had paid 1,600,000 l. during the year for stamps on deeds and conveyances of land, whilst the total amount of the legacy and probate duty during the year was little more than 1,700,000 l. The hon. Gentle-

947
man had totally omitted this charge, which was considered by the right hon. Gentleman equivalent to the probate and legacy duty. The hon. Gentleman said, that stamps were used for marine insurances and other purposes unconnected with land. Let the returns make every distinction. Let the House see what amount was contributed by the land to the legacy, probate, and stamp duties; and then let them consider, in the House, and not in a select committee, whether there were any peculiar exemptions. Next, there were the local taxes. The first great charge to which the land had to contribute was the poor rates and the county rates. The hon. Gentleman denied, that these were unduly charged upon land. Here, again, let him call for returns. The hon. Gentleman referred to the policy of the ancient law. He referred also to that law, as showing, that when these burdens were originally placed upon land, the same statute expressly provided, that the profits upon trade should be subjected to the tax. That was the policy of the law. Recent decisions in the courts of law had so determined; but the Legislature passed an act exempting the profits of trade from the poor-rate. They found it difficult without a process of inquiry'—to which they did not like to submit—to ascertain the profits of trade, or the amount at which they should assess stock in trade: and they had exempted stock in trade and profits of trade; but land was tangible, the profits were easily assessed, and they had made the land contribute to make up the deficiency. Let the House have the whole case before them, and all this would be easily ascertained. If they had a committee composed of seven Gentlemen on one side, and seven on the other, their opinions would have been made up before they began; and he did not expect that any investigation they could make, or any expression of opinion, would materially weigh with the House. An inference was to be drawn—it was to be drawn from public documents, and not by such an inquiry as the hon. Gentleman demanded. Then as to the charges for high-ways. The hon. Gentleman said, that these high-Ways were essential for communication between different properties, but highways were equally necessary for communication between towns; and if the charge for high-way rates did fall in an undue proportion upon land, surely it was not un-
948
fair to consider it a peculiar burden. But this was a matter for public discussion, on which hon. Members were perfectly competent to form a decision, and no one would be influenced by the report of a select committee. That opinion would be greatly influenced by facts, but those facts could be as well ascertained by returns as by a committee. Then with respect to tithes, the hon. Gentleman denies that they are a burden upon land. He drew a distinction between tithes of an uncertain amount to be determined at the caprice of an individual, and tithes paid by way of commutation, and he said,
"There has been a commutation of tithes of late years, which alters the whole question, because formerly the amount of tithe was uncertain, and varying from year to year according to the quantity produced, whereas it is now comparatively fixed and certain; therefore, whatever the opinion in former times may have been, it is now clear that tithes no longer constitute a burden upon land."
He did not deny that variable tithes were a greater burden on land than a commutation; the question, however, was whether tithes paid for the maintenance of the Established Church were or not to be considered a peculiar burden on land. As he had said last year, Adam Smith and Ricardo had settled this question. Would a committee elucidate the facts, and determine whether the hon. Gentleman or Adam Smith and Ricardo were right; or was it not rather a general inquiry into which every man was capable of entering for himself. Adam Smith said:—
"When, instead of a certain portion of the produce of the land, or of the price of a certain portion, a certain sum of money is to be paid in full compensation for all tax or tithes, the tax becomes in this case exactly of the same nature with the land-tax of England. It neither rises nor falls with the rent of the land. It neither encourages nor discourages improvement. The tithe, in the greater part of those parishes which pay what is called a modus in lieu of all other tithe, is a tax of this kind."
The opinion of Mr. Ricardo, a gentleman opposed to the Corn-laws, was decided upon this point, and on that of tithes being a burden on land. Notwithstanding the origin of tithes, the claims of the Church to tithes, he was willing to admit, were equal in force to the claims of the landlords to their estates; yet both Adam Smith and Ricardo were aware of this when they considered that the land in England was en-

949
titled to protection; they both said that the English land was subject to burthens to which foreign lands were not, and they both agreed that, for the burthens tending to increase the price of the production of the corn here above the price of production on the continent, the land was entitled to protection. Then the hon. Gentleman laid it down that they should only consider the comparative protection of the produce of land, and the produce of manufactures in this country, and that we had no right, in dealing with the agricultural protection afforded in this country, to consider whether other countries would produce their corn free from these burthens. There again Mr. Ricardo and Adam Smith were both at issue with the hon. Gentleman. Mr. Ricardo said, "a tax that falls exclusively on any commodity tends to raise the price of that commodity;" and that if it did not so raise the price, the producer would be subject to a disadvantage, for "he would no longer gain the ordinary profits of trade." [Cheers.] The noble Lord cheered. No doubt Mr. Ricardo disregarded altogether the comparative expense of production between this and foreign countries, unless the greater expense arose from peculiar burthens. Mr. Ricardo said that unless the extra expense of producing here arose from special taxation, the land was not entitled to protection; and he, therefore, dissented from the report of the agricultural committee of 1821. But let them observe the practical conclusion to which Mr. Ricardo came. He thought that Mr. Ricardo did distinctly say that tithes did operate as a burthen on land, and that they had a tendency to raise the cost of producing corn; and the practical conclusion of Mr. Ricardo's writings in 1822 or 1823 was, that until corn should arrive at the price of 70 s. there should be an exclusion of foreign produce; when corn arrived at that price he proposed that there should be a duty of 20 s.; that the duty should then diminish annually by 1s. till it reached the fixed duty of 10 s.; and that afterwards this duty of 10 s. should remain permanently, as he considered 10 s. was the protection to which, in consequence of the superior cost of the production of corn in this country, the producer was entitled. These were his exact words:—
"If the importation price of Wheat were 60 s. a quarter in England, and it was 60 s. a
950
quarter on the Continent, and in consequence of the burthen of tithes, wheat was raised in England to 70 s. a quarter, a duty of 10 s. ought also to be imposed on the importation of foreign corn,"
Here Mr. Ricardo showed a decided difference of opinion from the hon. Gentleman. He said that if a tax were in operation here there ought to be protection. He (Sir R. Peel) was assuming that tithes did operate as a tax. Not only did Mr. Ricardo say that if tithes did operate as a tax there should be protection, but he admitted that tithes in this country did operate as a burden upon land. [Viscount Howick: Hear.] The noble Lord could not possibly deny that Mr. Ricardo called tithe a tax. He therefore said with respect to the three burthens of public taxes, of local taxes, and of tithes, that he was perfectly prepared to produce all the returns which could be required, and let the House determine whether they were or were not actually burthens on land. He never did, however, rest the claims of the land to protection on the ground exclusively of these burthens. He had contended as Mr. Ricardo had contended, that after protection had been afforded for 150 years, and after large masses of capital had been invested in land under that protection, any rash or hasty withdrawal of that protection, throwing open the produce of this country to the unlimited and uncontrolled competition of foreign countries, would not be judicious, and he had not spoken of the interests of agriculture exclusively, but the general interests of the community: he had contended that they should deal with agricultural produce as they had uniformly dealt with manufacturing interests, to make any change with great caution and great care. He never could exclude from his consideration not only the amount of capital embarked in agriculture, but that a great proportion of the population of this country was employed in it: and if they rashly disturbed those laws, although their principle might be unwise, yet after their long endurance, not only would the landed interest be injured, but the great interests of the community at large would suffer. When hon. Gentlemen quoted his expression "that a country ought to buy in the cheapest and sell in the dearest," and said that he laid down this as the general principle to which the law ought to conform, they

951
ought in fairness to couple that quotation with his declaration that in a state of society so artificial as this, and after these laws had endured so long, although such a principle might be sound, yet they should abstain from a rash and unwise manner of applying it without due consideration. He would read to the House the very words he had used last year, upon this subject, on the motion of the hon. Gentleman. He had thus contended last year:—
"I rested the claims of the land to protection, not upon its peculiar burthens alone, but upon other grounds. I said, that protection to the produce of the soil had been afforded for the last 150 years—that large capital had been invested on land under that system of protection—and that nothing, therefore, in my opinion, could be more unwise than to risk the disturbance of the interests embarked in agriculture by the sudden withdrawal of the protection which had so long been afforded to them, under which the existing relations of society had in a great degree been formed, and in reliance upon which so much wealth had been directed to the cultivation of the soil."
That was the language which he held last year, and when hon. Gentlemen quoted his statement of the principle which ought in the mail to guide their legislation they ought in fairness to refer to the qualification with which he had announced the application of that principle. He confessed he was rather surprised that the hon. Gentleman should have made this motion. Did he think, that this inquiry ought to be completed before there was fresh legislation on the Corn-laws? If he had acceded to the appointment of this committee, and had, in addition to the seven gentlemen selected by this hon. Gentleman, named seven on his own side of the House, to consider the peculiar burthens on the land—and if their labours should continue for the same period as similar inquiries had done—did the hon. Gentleman intend to postpone all legislation till those labours should be concluded? The hon. Gentleman had referred to the possibility of the inquiry lasting two or three years, and he had known inquiries last that time. Now, did not the hon. Gentleman, if he got this committee, still intend to go next week for a total repeal of these laws? Would he not say, "Although you have appointed a committee, its inquiries are all beside the question; for even if you show that there are pecu-
952
liar burthens on land, the hon. Member for Manchester says, and I agree with him, that there ought to be no protection on that account." [Mr. Gibson: You should equalise the burthens.] The hon. Gentleman said, that they ought to equalise the burthens, and not to grant protection. If this motion were carried, might not the hon. Member vote after Easter for a total repeal, leaving the agriculturists to trust for protection to the equalization of the public burthens. He had been charged with producing uncertainty by his proposition, and the hon. Member for Dumfries had given notice of a motion on that account. Perhaps he would not persevere in the motion. At any rate, he was happy to see that the hon. Member thought it of so little importance, that he need not pay particular attention to the debate, [Laughter, Mr. Ewart being asleep.] He was sure that the hon. Member would not be indulging in repose, if he did not know that the great question of the Corn-laws must be decided by the House of Commons, and that the proposal of a committee might be a very proper subject for debate, but that it need not occupy much vigilant attention. The hon. Member thought his attendance necessary for the purpose of his vote, but that attention to the arguments was not absolutely required. On Thursday next, however, the hon. Member meant to move.
"That, it having been acknowledged on the part of the Ministry of this country, that the present Corn-law is not a settlement of the question, and there being reasonable grounds for believing that the existence of such law will be of short duration, it is just and expedient that a state of uncertainty, embarrassing and unfair to the agriculturists, and injurious to commerce, should be put an end to, and measures of a settled and final character adopted without further delay."
The hon. Member said, that this uncertainty was unfair to the agriculturists and injurious to the interests of commerce, and he, therefore, called upon the House to settle the question of the Corn-laws on a principle of finality; but what sort of a settlement could there be if the House of Commons referred this inquiry to a committee whose labours should not be concluded? He advised the House to act on the suggestion of the hon. Gentleman's motion. The question was too vast and comprehensive to be disposed of by a committee. If the law were to be altered,

953
let them go at once to the consideration of the alteration; let a motion be made. An opportunity would be afforded him of discussing the policy of the present law on the motion of the hon. Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. C. P. Villiers), and he would not then enter upon it. He would examine the operation of that bill, and when he should be called on, he would enter upon the various and comprehensive considerations involved in the question of the Corn-laws. He admitted, that it was of the utmost importance that the people of this country should know what were the intentions of the Legislature with respect to these laws, land his belief was, that the appointment of a committee would more than anything else contribute to create uncertainty; it would be infinitely better if the House of Commons were prepared to make a change, to make that change at once, rather than devolve an inquiry upon a committee, which, if it meant anything, meant that they ought not to legislate till the result of their labours was known. It was not fair to give a committee, when, if it were granted, they might next week proceed at once to the repeal of the Corn-laws. The right hon. Baronet concluded by saying:—"I have no other object than to do justice between all parties whose permanent and comprehensive interests are intimately united, although I know that there may be an immediate conflict between them. In the proposal which we made last year, and which was made without reference to any party or political consideration, I did attempt what I deemed most consistent with justice, and most conformable to the interests of the country. It was impossible to touch those great questions without great embarrassment. We could not remove the protection afforded to cattle and meat, and reduce the duty on foreign corn, without disturbing the minds of the agricultural body. There has been an undue panic affecting them, not warranted by the change in the law, which had created a great evil, disturbing the application of capital, and suspending or diminishing employment. A continuance of doubt will be pregnant with evil consequences. I know that it is impossible for any Minister of the Crown—I know it is impossible for the House of Commons to give any sort of guarantee for the permanency of a law of this description.
954
I have already, for myself, refused to give such a guarantee. I say that I will reserve my opinion as to the necessity for an alteration of the law; and I say that no false sense of consistency, if I am convinced that this law is injurious, shall prevent me from advising against its further continuance. But although there must be a certain degree of uncertainty as to laws of this nature, whether we take a graduated or a sliding scale, do not increase the difficulty by sending it for the consideration of a select committee, to publish contradictory evidence day by day; not elucidating, but rather tending to conceal the facts. The agricultural body have a fair right to expect from me at least a maintenance of the law, till I am convinced that it is wholly objectionable. [Viscount Howick : Hear.] If the noble Lord thinks that I am making any reserve for party purposes, he is decidedly mistaken. On the one hand, I have seen nothing in the operations of the law to change my opinion as to the result; but, on the other hand, I never will give a guarantee that if, after an experience of the working of the law, a better can be substituted, I will not adopt it. Although I am the author of that law, I would so act, whatever may be the consequence, and even if I were to lose power to-morrow. But I will maintain the law till my opinion undergoes a change; and it would not be fitting for me, after passing this law, in which I received the assistance of a great majority of the agricultural interests, acting, of course, for the public interests, but on the implied condition entered into, that so long as my opinions as to its working shall not be changed, there should be no alteration, to disturb the minds of the agricultural interests, by agreeing to the appointment of this committee.
Viscount Howickthought that the right hon. Gentleman had made out even a stronger case in favour of this motion than his hon. Friend near him. In the first place the right hon. Baronet admitted that it was important in deciding on the policy of the Corn-laws to decide whether the land was exposed to any peculiar burthens or not. The right hon. Baronet said that he had never rested his defence of the Corn-laws on the exclusive burthens affecting land; yet in the very next sentence he admitted that he did lay considerable stress

955
upon that point. Here, therefore, was a point which the inquiry of a committee would clear up, and it was most proper that before the discussion of the Corn-laws, one by one and step by step, doubts should be removed and fallacies exposed. If the land were subject to peculiar burthens, they ought not only to be ascertained but to be removed. A large body in the country denied those burthens, while another large body believed their existence, and between the two it was most fit that the truth should be ascertained. What had been the next admission of the right hon. Baronet? "Move (said he) for returns—for as many as you like, and I will show you from them how the case really stands." Yet, just after he had made this offer, the right hon. Baronet turned round and complained that one part of the case had been mis-stated—that the land was not entirely exempted from the legacy and probate duty, inasmuch as leasehold property was liable to it. Here, then, was another obvious question for a committee—was the land, Or was it not, exempted, and how far? He wanted to see the exemptions fairly stated on one side and the burthens on the other, and the balance struck between the two. Returns might be moved for ad infinitum, and they would still be insufficient; how was the case to be made out, on one side or on the other, by returns; and how did the proposition of the right hon. Baronet in favour of returns tally with the rest of his argument? The right hon. Baronet contended that two or three sessions would be consumed by an inquiry before a committee, in order to settle the question. But how long a time would it not occupy to inquire and settle the question by returns? The table might be loaded with a complication of figures out of which either party might prove anything they liked—but appoint a committee to obtain facts, and to make a distinct and authentic report and something important would, indeed} be gained towards the settlement of the question. The right hon. Baronet said that after all the settlement might not be final. His answer was that be was ready to accept a report even from Members exclusively on the other side of the House. He should like to see their report—to read the evidence they would collect, and to see how they made out their case of peculiar burthens. So far this would be an approach towards a final settlement. Whenever there was a dispute on matters of fact and detail, the proper mode of deci-
956
ding it was to take evidence upon the point. He thought the case in favour of inquiry unanswerable. It was true that last year he had objected to such a motion, and why? Because it was brought forward in the shape of an amendment to a measure which he (Viscount Howick) thought would shake the whole principle of the monopoly in corn. Now, however, the case was widely different: the motion was a substantive proposition, and compliance with it would, in his view, be attended with important advantages. The right hon. Baronet had alluded to a cheer given by him (Lord Howick) when mention was made of the opinion of Mr. Ricardo. The right hon. Baronet had stated, with perfect correctness, the principle laid down by Mr. Ricardo. The object of that Gentleman's book was, to show the impolicy of fiscal regulations which disturbed the natural application of labour and capital. Holding this opinion, Mr. Ricardo had said that if there were any peculiar charges upon any species of production those peculiar charges ought to be removed or countervailed. In that opinion he entirely concurred; but it did not at all make out the case it was brought forward to prove, because Mr. Ricardo was only putting the matter hypothetically, and assuming for the sake of his argument that there were peculiar charges upon corn in reference to tithes. At the time when Mr. Ricardo wrote tithes were to a certain extent a charge upon production; but the Commutation Act had made all the difference, and they were now no charge whatever upon production. There was one more point which he was anxious to notice. The right hon. Baronet had said, that one great argument against the motion was, that to carry it, would create an uncertainty as to the continuance of the Corn-laws. He would like to ask the right hon. Baronet whether he really thought that anything at this moment would increase the prevailing uncertainty in the public mind as to the continuance of the Corn-laws? The very amendment of the hon. Member for Dorsetshire, stated that there existed at this moment, a state of great anxiety embarrassing to agriculture, and injurious to commerce: in his speech, too, the hon. Member described in much detail, the miserable effects of the present state of uncertainty. He was persuaded that the statement was correct, and what was the fair inference to be drawn from it? He asked the landed in-

957
terest seriously to consider the situation in which they stood. Did they really think that they should gain anything by the temporary existence of the present Corn-law? He believed that no man expected that it would last long. Perhaps a single rotation of crops would be longer than the existence of the present law. In such a state of things, how could it be supposed that capital would be laid out in the improvement of land? Was not this state of things well worth the consideration of the landed interest? Was any advantage that might be gained from the temporary existence of the present law to be set against the check thus given to the spirit of enterprise and the progress of improvement? He did not mean to say a word in defence of the Anti-Corn-law Association; on the contrary, he thought its existence a great evil, but it was a consequence of the greater evil of the Corn-laws. He would appeal to the right hon. Baronet, whether the effect of the policy pursued towards the Roman Catholic Association in 1825 was very encouraging? Did legislating against the association, instead of passing the Emancipation Bill, accomplish so much good as to induce the right hon. Baronet to repeat the experiment? He asked the right hon. Baronet to look back at the fatal consequences of the line of policy then adopted. Did he not deeply regret, and bitterly lament, the incalculable evils arising out of resistance to the claims of the Roman Catholic Association. How much better would it have been for the empire if the Roman Catholic Relief Bill, with what were called its two wings, had been passed as a concession to justice, instead of the measure passed in 1829, as a tardy submission to fear. Surely this example of resistance to an association was not encouraging, and he hoped that Parliament, grown wise by experience, would not now be guilty of a similar error. He was happy to be able to infer from what the right hon. Baronet had this night said, that he was prepared to deal promptly and efficiently with the Corn-laws, and that he would not again fall into the fatal mistake which he formerly committed by legislating directly against the agitation which arose from an intolerable grievance, and which, to use the strong and eloquent words of Lord Plunket, when speaking on the Emancipation Bill was, "the spawn of your own wrong."
Sir R. Peel, in explanation, said, s an hon. Member opposite had referred to an
958
opinion quoted by him last Session on the subject of the burdens on land, he begged to read the passage. It was as follows:
"On the subject of these peculiar taxes, such as tithes, poor-rates, and perhaps one or two other taxes, all of which tend to raise the price of corn and equally of other raw produce, in the degree in which those taxes press upon the production of corn here, ought to be the tax on its importation."
Mr. Blackstonerose for the purpose of rebutting an assertion made by the hon. Member for Manchester (Mr. M. Gibson). The hon. Member said he had received a letter, purporting to come from a Mr. Brown, secretary to the Society for the Protection of British Agriculture, in which he invited the Anti-Corn-law League to join the society in a joint crusade against the public creditor, the letter being dated Wigmore-street. Now, he had been a member of the society from its first formation, and a member of its committee, and he solemnly assured the House that the Mr. Brown referred to never was in any way connected with the society, either as a member or as its secretary. He believed, however, that he could state to the House that on the formation of the society a few years back, Mr. Brown did intrude himself on the society, and did, for one day, put himself forward as acting secretary of the society. That, however, was an intrusion—he was told that he was not wanted, and not appointed, and that he had better retire from the room. It was very likely that that gentleman might, after his expulsion from the society, have gone to Wigmore-street, and might have written that letter; but the rooms of the society were in Regent-street, and they never had any connection with Wigmore-street. Whatever letter, therefore, Mr. Brown might have written from Wigmore-street, was on his own authority and not by order of the society. He was glad the right hon. Baronet had taken occasion to-night to tell the House, as far as he could understand what had fallen from the tight hon. Baronet, that it was his determination to maintain the present Corn-laws. He (Mr. Blackstone) had had some experience out of doors, and he felt assured, that that declaration of the right hon. Baronet would be most satisfactory to most of the agricultural interest. He trusted, too, after that declaration, that there would be no more tampering with the law this year, and that that slight threat which had been

959
held out with respect to a free importation of American wheat through Canada would not be followed up.
Sir R. Peelsaid, the last few words of the hon. Gentleman made him very anxious to guard himself against misapprehension. With regard to the Canadian duties on American wheat, his noble Friend the Secretary for the Colonies had stated what the intention of the Government was with regard to the Canadian duties on American corn, in case the answers to certain queries which had been put to the Canadian Legislature should be satisfactory. Of course, in what he stated regarding his determination to maintain the existing Corn-law, unless proof were afforded of a necessity for its alteration, he had said so with a full reservation of the intention of the Government with regard to Canada, as expressed by his noble Friend.
Mr. Milner Gibsonsaid, the hon Member for Warrington had risen to contradict and rebut what he had said as to the Society for the Protection of British Agriculture. He scarcely thought the word "contradict" could be properly applied to what had fallen from the hon. Member. He adhered strictly to his original statement, which, even on the showing of the hon. Member himself, was perfectly accurate. What he said was, that a letter had been received by the Anti-Corn-law League, signed by Robert Brown, the secretary of the Society for the Protection of British Agriculture, in which letter it was proposed that the Anti-Corn-law League should join the Agricultural Society in a joint crusade against the fund-holders. The hon. Member himself admitted that Brown had, as he stated it, intruded himself into the society. Now, did any man ever hear of such a thing as a person intruding himself on a society as their secretary? He believed that the letter had been put forth as a sort of feeler.
Mr. Brothertonsaid, that as several hon. Members were desirous of addressing the House on this subject, he begged to move the adjournment of the debate.
Colonel Rushbrookewas understood to say that a person of the name of Brown had been employed as secretary to the Agricultural Protection Society, but he was the most refractory secretary they ever had.
Lord Hennikersaid, the hon. Member
960
for Manchester (Mr. M. Gibson) had stated that the Members for Suffolk entertained similar opinions to those promulgated by Mr. John Brown. He wished to know what authority the hon. Member had for making this statement?
The Speakerput the question that the debate be adjourned.
Mr. Humesaid, that after the discussion which had taken place, and after the speech of the right hon. Baronet opposite, it would be a waste of time to adjourn the debate. During three parts of the evening the benches had been comparatively empty, and hon. Members who wished to take part in the discussion ought to have been there earlier. Although the subject had not been discussed in the manner he had expected, he thought the debate ought not to be adjourned.
After some conversation, Mr. Brother-ton's motion was withdrawn. On the question being put,
Mr. C. Villierssaid, that as the hon. Member for Manchester had appealed to him to vouch for the accuracy of certain statements which he had made with reference to the proceedings at a public meeting in the county of Suffolk, he would do so. Complaints were made of some misrepresentations on the part of a person named John Brown, but he thought he could shew that John Brown had not been very well used by some hon. Gentlemen, and especially by the hon. Members for Suffolk, who repudiated his connection and opinions. He had, as his hon. Friend, the Member for Manchester, had said, informed him of certain things which had occurred at a time when the price of wheat was low, and when agriculturists were angry in the county of Suffolk; and if he had time, he might acquaint the House with what had been said and done by certain other agricultural Gentlemen, Members of the Conservative party, who now attacked the Anti-Corn-law League. But he would reserve that for a future occasion. He would only inform the House of certain projects entertained under the circumstances to which he referred by the East Suffolk Agricultural Association to improve their property. [Several hon. Members: When?] When? when wheat was low. What he was about to mention, took place at a period when, on the average for the whole year, wheat was 39 s. per quarter. The East Suffolk Agricultural Association then held a pub-

961
lic meeting, at which Sir C. B. Vere presided, at which it was proposed to send delegates to London, to meet the delegates there to be assembled from all the agricultural associations. And what took place at that meeting? He could tell the House what was said by the secretary at that meeting. [An hon. Member: What is his name?—John Brown?] He did not know the secretary's name, but he dare say it was John Brown, for he stated on the part of that meeting:—
"That the agriculturists had petitioned Parliament so often, and received so little attention, that they began to entertain but one feeling—that petitioning alone would not do."
This meeting was held in June; and as prices, he presumed, did not improve, another meeting was held in July, at which a petition was agreed to, and resolutions were passed that the Members for the county should be instructed to move, that the supplies be stopped until her Majesty's Ministers adopted some measures for the relief of the agriculturists. To shew, however, that this spirit was not confined to Suffolk, he would read an extract of a letter from the secretary of the Central Association in London, addressed to the Corresponding Association, with which it was affiliated. He told them:—
"That they must effect a change in the present system of acquiring wealth, a system abounding in fraud. The productive classes must be compensated for the capital which the currency measure of 1819 had been the means of unjustly abstracting from them: they would no longer consent to contribute to the supplies of the Stock Exchange; they would not uphold a system which had preyed on the vitals of the country for twenty years, and made the industry of the country the means of impoverishing itself, while it had enriched the speculator."
That was the language of this refractory secretary, as he was called by the gallant Colonel, and whose views were so indignantly repudiated. He should like to know how the dividends were to be paid if the supplies had been stopped? He did not know why the agricultural gentlemen had quarrelled with their secretary; he appeared to him to be a very faithful one. What his hon. Friend, the Member for Manchester had said, then, must go forth uncontradicted, that there was a plan, when agricultural Gentlemen and Members were uneasy and suffering under
962
low prices, for tampering with the currency if not for dealing with it in a manner by no means consolatory to the public creditor. Therefore, without detaining the House further, but referring to the amendment before the House, he would just advise the hon. Member for Dorchester, before he attacked the much more innocent Corn-law League again, to look at home. That seemed to be the proper answer to his motion. With respect to what had fallen from the Government upon the motion of his hon. Friend, he must observe, that while reference was made to those peculiar burdens which had always been alleged as the grounds upon which alterations in the Corn-laws were resisted, there was another part of the motion, of which not a word was said—namely, that relating to exemptions with which the interest had favoured itself, and which seemed to him to be a subject that might be made a matter of instant inquiry before a committee. No doubt the right hon. Baronet felt, that when he confined what he said to the inquiry into the burdens, he said not one word about the exemptions, which were wholly indefensible and only to be accounted for, by that House having the power to help themselves, and acting as people generally do who enjoy that prilege.
Mr. H. Fitzroysaid, that John Brown never was connected with the Agricultural Society as secretary, or in any other capacity; he never attended any meetings of that society, and the society would utterly repudiate any such sentiments as those ascribed to him.
Mr. Darbyamidst cries of "Divide!" begged to confirm what the hon. Member for Lewes had said, expressed himself to the same effect.
Mr. Wardwas of opinion that the hon. Member fcr Warrington thought of nothing but protection The right hon. Baronet said a committee was not necessary, and that the object could be accomplished by official returns; he differed from the right hon. Baronet, and preferred a committee. He wanted to obtain such information as would hasten the conviction of the right hon. Baronet that the laws must be altered, so that he might fulfil his pledge that no false consistency should prevent him from acting upon that conviction.
Mr. Bankes'samendment was negatived without a division.
The House divided on the original ques-

963
tion:—Ayes 133;Noes 232:—Majority 99.

List of the AYES.

Ainsworth, P.

Horsman, E.

Aldam, W.

Howard, hon. C.W.G.

Armstrong, Sir A.

Howard, Lord

Bannerman, A.

Howick, Visct.

Barclay, D.

Hume, J.

Baring, right hon. F.T.

Hutt, W.

Barnard, E. G.

James, W.

Berkeley, hon. H. F.

Johnstone, A.

Berkeley, hon. G. F.

Labouchere, rt. hon. H.

Bernal, R.

Langston, J. H.

Bernal, Capt.

Lascelles, hon. W. S.

Blake, M. J.

Leader, J. T.

Blake, Sir V.

Lemon, Sir C

Blewitt, R. J.

Macaulay, rt. hon. T. B.

Bowring, Dr.

Mangles, R. D.

Brocklehurst, J.

Marjoribanks, S.

Brotherton, J.

Marshall, W.

Buller, E.

Mitchell, T. A.

Busfeild, W.

Murray, A.

Byng, G.

Napier, Sir C.

Byng, right hon. G. S.

Norreys, Sir D. J.

Cavendish, hon. C. C.

O'Brien, J.

Cavendish, hon. G. H.

O'Conor Don

Childers, J. W.

Ogle, S. C. H.

Christie, W. D.

Oswald, J.

Clive, E. B.

Paget, Col.

Cobden, R.

Paget, Lord A.

Colebrooke, Sir T. E.

Palmerston, Visct.

Cowper, hon. W, F.

Parker, J.

Craig, W. G.

Pechell, Capt.

Crawford, W. S.

Philips, G. R.

Dalmeny, Lord

Philips, M.

Dalrymple, Capt.

Plumridge, Capt.

Dashwood, G. H.

Ponsonby, hon. J. G.

Denison, W. J.

Protheroe, E.

Denistoun, J.

Pulsford, R.

Duff, J.

Ricardo, J. L.

Duke, Sir J.

Ross, D. R.

Duncan, Visct.

Russell, Lord J.

Duncan, G.

Russell, Lord E.

Duncombe, T.

Scholefield, J.

Dundas, Adm.

Scott, R.

Ebrington, Visct.

Shelburne, Earl of

Ellice, right hon. E.

Smith, B.

Ellice, E.

Smythe, hon. G.

Ellis, W.

Stansfield, W. R. C.

Elphinstone, H.

Stanton, W. H.

Evans, W,

Staunton, Sir G. T.

Ewart, W.

Stuart, Lord J.

Forster, M.

Stuart, W. V.

Fox, C. R.

Strickland, Sir G.

Gill, T.

Strutt, E.

Gore, hon. R.

Tancred, H. W.

Grosvenor, Lord R.

Thorneley, T.

Hall, Sir B.

Traill, G.

Hallyburton, Ld J. F. G.

Tufnell, H.

Hanmer, Sir J.

Turner, E.

Hastie, A.

Villiers, hon. C.

Hay, Sir A. L.

Vivian, J. H.

Heathcoat, J.

Wakley, T.

Hill, Lord M.

Walker, R.

Hindley, C.

Wall, C. B.

Holland, R.

Wallace, R.

964

Wilde, Sir T.

Wood, G. W.

Williams, W.

Yorke, H. R.

Wilshere, W.

TELLERS.

Winnington, Sir T. E.

Ward, W.

Wood, C.

Gibson, M.

List of the NOES.

Acland, Sir T. D.

Davies, D. A. S.

Acland, T. D.

Dawnay, hon. W. H.

A'Court, Capt.

Denison, E. B.

Acton, Col.

Dick, Q.

Adare, Visct.

Dickinson, F. H.

Adderley, C. B.

Douglas, Sir H.

Allix, J. P.

Douglas, Sir C. E.

Antrobus, E.

Douglas, J. D. S.

Arbuthnott, hon. H.

Dowdeswell, W.

Archdall, Capt.

Dugdale, W. S.

Arkwright, G.

Duncombe, hon. A.

Ashley, Lord

Duncombe, hon. O.

Astell, W.

East, J. B.

Attwood, M.

Eastnor, Visct.

Baillie, Col.

Egerton, W. T.

Bankes, G.

Egerton, Sir P.

Baring, hon. W. B.

Eliot, Lord

Barrington, Visct.

Emlyn, Visct.

Baskerville, T. B. M.

Escott, B.

Beckett, W.

Estcourt, T. G. B.

Bell, M.

Farnham, E. B.

Bentinck, Lord G.

Feilden, W.

Beresford, Major

Fellowes, E.

Bernard, Visct.

Ferrand, W. B.

Blackstone, W. S.

Filmer, Sir E.

Blakemore, R.

Fitzmaurice, hon. W.

Boldero, H. G.

Fitzroy, hon. H.

Borthwick, P.

Flower, Sir J.

Botfield, B.

Forbes, W.

Bradshaw, J.

Fox, S. L.

Bramston, T. W.

Fuller, A. E.

Broadley, H.

Gaskell, J. M.

Brownrigg, J. S.

Gladstone, rt. hn. W.E.

Bruce, Lord E.

Gladstone, Capt.

Bruce, C. L. C.

Glynne, Sir S. R.

Buck, L. W.

Gordon, hon. Capt.

Buller, Sir J. Y.

Gore, M.

Bunbury, T.

Gore, W. O.

Burroughes, H. N.

Gore, W. R. O.

Campbell, Sir H.

Goring, C.

Cardwell, E.

Graham, rt. hon. Sir J.

Castlereagh, Ld. Visct.

Grimston, Visct.

Chapman, A.

Grogan, E.

Chelsea, Visct.

Hale, R. B.

Chetwode, Sir J.

Halford, H.

Cholmondeley, hon. H.

Hamilton, Lord C.

Christopher, R. A.

Hampden, R.

Chute, W. L. W.

Harcourt, G. G.

Clayton, R. R.

Hardinge, rt. hn. Sir H.

Clerk, Sir G.

Hardy, J.

Clive, hon. R.H.

Heathcote, G. J.

Cochrane, A.

Heathcote, Sir W.

Collett, W. R.

Henley, J. W.

Colvile, C. R.

Henniker, Lord

Compton, H. C.

Hepburn, Sir T. B.

Corry, right hon. H.

Herbert, hon. S.

Cresswell, B.

Hervey, Lord A.

Cripps, W.

Hodgson, R.

Darner, hon. Col.

Holmes, hon. W. A'C.

Darby, G.

Hope, hon. C.

965

Hope, A.

Pennant, hon. Col.

Hope, G. W.

Plumptre, J. P.

Hornby, J.

Pollington, Visct.

Hughes, W. B.

Praed, W. T.

Hussey, T.

Pringle, A.

Irton, S.

Pusey, P.

Jermyn, Earl

Reid, Sir J. R.

Johnstone, Sir J.

Repton, G. W. J.

Johnstone, H.

Richards, R.

Jolliffe, Sir W. G. H.

Rose, right hon. Sir G.

Jones, Capt.

Round, C. G.

Kemble, H.

Round, J.

Knight, H. G.

Rous, hon. Capt.

Knight, F. W.

Rushbrooke, Col.

Lawson, A.

Russell, C.

Lennox, Lord A.

Russell, J. D. W.

Liddell, hon. H. T.

Ryder, hon. G. D.

Lincoln, Karl of

Sanderson, R.

Lockhart, W.

Seymour, Sir H. B.

Long, W.

Sheppard, T.

Lopes, Sir R.

Shirley, E. J.

Lowther, J. H.

Shirley, E. P.

Lyall, G.

Sibthorp, Col.

Lygon, hon. Gen.

Smith, A.

Mackenzie, W. F.

Smollett, A.

Mc Geachy, F. A.

Somerset, Lord G.

Mahon, Visct.

Sotheron, T. H. S.

Mainwaring, T.

Spry, Sir S. T.

Manners, Lord C. S.

Stanley, Lord

Manners, Lord J.

Stewart, J.

Martin, C.W.

Sturt, H. C.

Marton, G.

Sutton, hon. H. M.

Master, T. W. C.

Taylor, T. E.

Masterman, J.

Tennent, J. E.

Maunsell, T. P.

Thompson, Mr. Ald.

Maxwell, hon. J. P.

Tollemache, J.

Meynell, Capt.

Tomline, G.

Mildmay, H. St. John

Trench, Sir F. W.

Miles, P. W. S.

Trevor, hon. G. Rice

Mordaunt, Sir J.

Trotter, J.

Morgan, O.

Turnor, C.

Murray, C. R. S.

Tyrell, Sir J. T.

Neeld, J.

Vivian, J. E.

Neeld, J.

Waddington, H. S.

Neville, R.

Walsh, Sir J. B.

Newdigate, C. N.

Wellesley, Lord C.

Nicholl, right hon. J.

Wilbraham, hon. R.B.

Norreys, Lord

Wodehouse, E.

Nothland, Visct.

Wood, Col.

O'Brien, A. S.

Wood, Col. T.

Ossulston, Lord

Worsley, Lord

Packe, C. W.

Wortley, hon. J. S.

Pakington, J. S.

Wyndham, Col. C.

Palmer, R.

Young, J.

Palmer, G.

Patten, J. W.

TELLERS.

Peel, right hon. Sir R.

Fremantle, Sir T.

Peel, J.

Baring, Mr. H.

PLAYERS OF INTERLUDES.
Mr. T. Duncombe Mr. T. Duncombe moved for leave to bring in a bill to repeal so much of the 10th George 2nd, c. 28, as relates to common players of interludes, and to make other provisions in lieu thereof. He had framed his bill partly on account of the severity
966
with which the statute of George 2nd had been lately enforced at Liverpool. The same thing had been done here twenty-two years ago, when the proprietors of the patent theatres summoned the managers of the minor theatres to Bow-street, where the magistrates refused to inflict the penalties, but upon application to the Court of King's Bench, Lord Ellenborough said, that the magistrates had no discretion under the act, and that the full amount of penalties must be inflicted—that was to say, 50 l. for every night that an actor acted without a license, or six months' imprisonment; one-half of the penalty to go to the informer, the other half to the parish. At present the magistrate had no discretion, but must inflict the whole of this very heavy penalty, nor had the Crown any control as to the imprisonment. He proposed to give the magistrates some discretion, and the Crown some control.
Leave was given.
The House adjourned at a quarter past one o'clock.

MINUTES.
BILLS Private.—1a Cambrian Iron and Spelter Company; Townsend Peerage.
3a and passed:—Earl of Leicester's Estate; Caswell's Disability Removal.
PETITIONS PRESENTED, By the Duke of Richmond, from the Male and Female Workers in the Carron and other Collieries, for Altering the Mines and Collieries Act.—By the Earl Fitzwilliam, from London, Weymouth, Leeds, Hull, Battley, and Sheffield, against Lord Ellenborough's Proclamation By Lord Willoughby D'Eresby, from the Rev. John Jordan, Carnarvon, Abererch, Llandwrog, Llanfair-feichan, and Arllechwedd, against the Union of the Sees of St. Asaph and Bangor.—From Market Lairagton, and Dumfries for the Total and Immediate Repeal of the Corn and Provision Laws.—From Pentre Voelas, for Church Extension.

TOWNSHEND PEERAGE.
Lord Brougham Lord Brougham

779
laid on the Table the bill of which he had given notice with respect to the Townshend peerage. Upon so grave a matter he was anxious that ample time should be given to all the parties interested to bring forward whatever objections they might entertain, either of principle or of fact, to the measure as he proposed it. He was quite sensible that it was a measure that ought only to pass upon the gravest consideration. He should propose, therefore, to read the bill a first time now, and to fix the second reading for the first Tuesday after the Easter recess. In the meantime he begged to move that the usual notice be given to all the parties interested in the bill.
Bill read a first time.

CORN-LAWS.
Lord Monteaglerose, pursuant to notice, to bring under their Lordships' consideration a question of no common magnitude. But before he applied himself to the question itself, he was anxious to set himself right with their Lordships with respect to the time which he had fixed for the discussion of it. He could assure their Lordships, with perfect earnestness and perfect sincerity, that he had felt no want of anxiety with respect to the presence of his noble Friend the President of the Board of Trade (the Earl of Ripon); and unless he were controlled by other circumstances which he deemed most essential to the beneficial discussion of the great question he had undertaken, he should most willingly have postponed it to a future day. He had already postponed it more than once, at the request of the noble Lords opposite, and of their request he did not complain; he wished it however to be distinctly understood that if he persisted in bringing it forward that night, it was not from any motive of convenience either personal to himself or to his political friends, but simply and solely because he was convinced that a further postponement would be injurious to the question itself, which he was bound to regard as of primary importance. Much as he regretted the absence of his noble Friend the President of the Board of Trade, he yet could not persuade himself that the question, on that account, would fail of being discussed in the manner which its importance deserved; for he perfectly recollected that the Act of 9 Geo. 4th, (which had been the law of the land, prior to the passing of the act of last year), was carried through
780
their Lordships' House by the noble Duke (Duke of Wellington) himself; not only without the assistance of the noble Lord, who was now the President of the Board of Trade, but, to a certain degree, at least subject to the opposition of that noble Lord. He felt, therefore, that upon the present occasion the question would not suffer any disadvantage; but on the contrary, would derive the greatest benefit from being left in the hands of the noble Duke, the representative of the Government in that House. If the absence of other noble Peers were referred to, he could not proceed without stating that he very deeply felt the absence upon that occasion of a noble Friend of his, to whom those who sat with him on the Opposition benches had been accustomed to look up for counsel and advice; and if upon any occasion the presence of that noble Lord were deemed of importance, it could never be more so than upon a discussion like that which he was about to introduce. He might mention, however, that the motion he meant to submit to their Lordships had been brought under the notice of his noble Friend, and had received his full concurrence. In asking their Lordships to embark in a discussion upon the question of the Corn-laws, he regretted that they were obliged to approach it subject to the disadvantage to which the political events of later years had given rise. The proposition he was about to make did not necessarily involve any party consideration. A more simple proposition—one more entirely connecting itself with the principles of financial and commercial law, could scarcely be presented to their Lordships. It was but a few nights since that they had had occasion to consider the question of the Irish spirit duties. He believed that no noble Lord who took part in that discussion considered it as a question between the two sides of the House. The only consideration that governed them was, how the object sought for might most readily be attained. Such, also, was the spirit in which the Corn-laws had been discussed in former times; but, unfortunately, of late years the question had become mixed up with the party feelings of the country, and the words, "sliding scale "and "fixed duty," were considered by many men to be as strong indications of party, as whether noble Lords sat on this or on the other side of the House. There was never a greater or more unfortunate mistake, in reference to the great interests of the

781
country, than this conversion of the Corn-laws into a party question. There was nothing more important or more necessary towards a satisfactory adjustment and settlement of the question, than that it should be approached in a calm and dispassionate manner. Looking back to the history of Corn-law discussions, it would appear that they had, to a certain extent, been characterised by features of calmness, which he should rejoice to recognize in the debates on the subject of the present day. Without going further back than 1815, he found that in the vehement discussion which then took place upon the Corn-laws, the question was considered in every other light rather than as partaking of a party character. The late Earl of Leicester and several others connected with the opposition of that day were amongst the strongest supporters of the Government measure; and, if his recollection did not greatly deceive him, one of the individuals who took a prominent part in opposing the bill of 1815 was the late Mr. George Rose, who at that time was treasurer of the navy, and consequently in immediate connection with the Government. Again, in 1822, when the Act of 1815 was condemned, there was a similar absence of anything like party feeling in the discussion which then took place, Lord Londonderry taking one side of the question, and Mr. Huskisson moving a counter resolution. Undoubtedly matters afterwards assumed a different aspect, when in 1827 Mr. Canning introduced his bill, and from that time might be dated the unfortunate state of things which had since connected the subject of the Corn-laws with the great party questions of the day. This unfortunate result had been completed by the last change of administration, and the events of the general election. His object in thus referring to what the practice in former times had been, was to impress upon their Lordships how sincerely anxious he was to consider this question as wholly abstracted from any party consideration whatever; to consider it as if he were discussing the duty on any other article—as if he were discussing a question of economical science, or of commercial law, bearing upon any other branch of industry, and as if party strife and party consistency were not in any way connected with the proposition. Before he proceeded further, he wished to set aside certain considerations with which, perhaps, his proposition might be sought to
782
be identified in the course of the debate, but which had, in fact no connection with it. In the first place, he protested altogether against any attempt to connect the motion which he should offer to their Lord ships with the proceedings of certain parties out of doors, who were called the Anti-Corn-law League. With those parties his motion had no earthly connection. He believed that it would not meet the views of many of them; but, at all events, it was perfectly distinct and separate from the Anti-Corn-law League, and no argument derived from the proceedings of that body could, or ought, in any degree, to influence their Lordships' judgment upon the present occasion. But, perhaps, he might take the liberty of asking in passing—Was there no apprehension derived from the existence of the Anti-Corn-law League? Did their Lordships disapprove of so large a confederacy extending over the whole country, collecting money, disseminating information to further its own views, exercising a wide and general influence over the minds of men? Did their Lord ships disapprove of this kind of proceeding? If so, then he (Lord Monteagle) must remark, that if there were any one step that their Lordships could take that would more add to the influence of those who sought extreme measures, it would be by the rejection of propositions which were moderate and reasonable in themselves. It was not for him to pronounce whether the proposition he was about to make was moderate and reasonable; but this he would take upon himself to say, that if in the minds of the mass of the public it should appear reasonable and moderate to ask their Lordships to consider the effects of a bill which they had recently passed, and which affected the interest of the great bulk of the community—if such a proposition were considered reasonable, and their Lordships rejected it, then their Lordships would be doing more to countenance, more to support, more to encourage extreme opinions, than could possibly be done by any other course that could be adopted. He prayed their Lordships to consider that associations similar to that of the Anti-Corn-law League were not peculiar to the present or to any one particular time. The Legislature had had to encounter them upon former occasions and in reference to other subjects; and, as far as his knowledge went, the Legislature had never found any mode of dealing with the questions, so forced upon its attention, so

783
effectual for putting down associations of this nature as that of removing the causes which had led to them. He wished also to protect himself from the supposition that, in dealing with this question, he was giving encouragement to any very exaggerated expectations with respect to the result which an alteration of the law would produce upon the price of corn. He recommended their Lordships to go into committee to consider whether an alteration of the law should not take place; but he should be acting uncandidly if he did not say that he considered that any alteration that might be made in the law regulating the introduction of foreign corn into this country, would have but little effect in reducing the price of grain in the British market. But though the price of grain were not reduced, a great benefit to the community would nevertheless be obtained; because the great benefit to be sought for in respect to this subject, was not so much the lowering of the price, as the ensuring such a steadiness of price as would do justice to all parties—the grower of corn, the consumer of corn, the British merchant, his foreign correspondent, the Bank of England, and all classes of the community. It had been said (this was an example of the exaggeration which he only referred to for the purpose of disclaiming) that a given amount of duty placed upon a commodity which was partly produced abroad and partly produced at home, would have the effect of raising the whole price of the commodity in the amount of the duty which was imposed. A more singular mistake, a more totally incorrect application of a scientific principle, it was scarcely possible for any one to encounter. Suppose, for instance, that the quantity of corn annually consumed in this country amounted to 12,000,000 of quarters—that of that 12,000,000, 2,000,000 were imported from abroad, that upon the 2,000,000 so imported a duty of 5s.a quarter was levied, the gross amount of duty so levied would be 500,000 l."But," said the parties to whose views he was referring, "you must multiply the 5s. duty, not by the 2,000,000 of quarters, but by the 12,000,000 of quarters, and thus it will be seen that there is a duty imposed upon the corn consumed in this country not of 500,000? but of 3,000,000 l. sterling." It was utterly absurd to suppose that any such result could take place. The consumer could only pay this duty by an increase of price, and such increase of
784
price could only be produced by a limitation of the supply. If the demand and the supply remained unaltered, the price would continue the same. It was a contradiction to the most obvious facts which any man who directed his attention to the subject might collect for himself. He referred to these exaggerations merely for the purpose of repudiating them. He wished also to explain to their Lordships the exact sense in which he should employ the term "free-trade" in the arguments he was about to advance. By what was called freedom of trade, he was not absurd or inconsiderate enough to suppose that a freedom from all duty was necessarily implied. No such thing. If that were the case, no country upon earth that had a revenue to raise could possess freedom of trade. True freedom of trade was perfectly consistent with the payment of any amount of duty (properly apportioned) levied for the purpose of revenue. It was also perfectly consistent with any countervailing duty, which was laid on for the purpose of affording protection to any one class which was subject to burthens that did not belong to other classes of the community. The English maltster, being subject to a heavy duty upon the article he manufactured, it was perfectly consistent with the principles of free-trade that foreign malt should not be admitted, except upon the payment of a countervailing duty. In the same manner, if it could be shown that the landed proprietors were subject to exclusive and peculiar burthens, it was perfectly consistent with freedom of trade that a countervailing duty, equal to the amount of these exclusive and peculiar burthens, should be imposed for the protection of English agricultural produce. This, he said, would be consistent with the principles of freedom of trade; but he was not saying whether it would be expedient or not. And here he must take the liberty of observing, that as long as the agricultural interests resisted all inquiry as to the amount of the peculiar burthens which they said were imposed upon them, the public at large, and he, in common with the public, must be forgiven if they entertained great doubt as to whether any such peculiar burthens existed at all as fairly entitled them to claim a countervailing duty for the protection of their produce. Let it not be said that they were entitled to this countervailing duty, because the agriculturist in England was more highly taxed than in other countries.

785
That was no earthly ground for any countervailing duty. It was only saying that one part of the community should be taxed twice over for the benefit of another part which was only taxed once. To be entitled to a countervailing duty, the party claiming it must show that he is subject to peculiar burthens, bearing exclusively upon himself, and not in any way shared by the rest of the community. Apologising for having occupied so much of their Lordships' time with these preliminary observations, he would now proceed to the proposition which he wished to bring under their consideration. His motion was this—that their Lordships should grant him a committee to consider the effects and consequences of the Corn-law of the last year. He knew not how the proposition would be met by her Majesty's Government. It was probable he might be told that the bill of last year had not yet had a sufficient trial. "Wait awhile," it might be said: "by re-opening the question you will disturb great existing interests." [The Duke of Richmond: Hear.] It, was obvious that his noble Friend, whom he always listened to with pleasure, was likely to take that ground. Well, then, what were the great interests of the country that were about to be disturbed? He would apply himself to the subject in the strictest manner of demonstration; and if it could be shown that the great interests of the country were in a condition of prosperity, of repose, of peace—above all, if the noble Duke (the Duke of Wellington) himself had such an unqualified confidence in the permanence of the existing state of things, that he could put his hand upon the Corn-law of the last Session, and say, "It has received the approval of Queen, Lords, and Commons; I believe it to be the Magna Charta of the farmer; the permanent law that will properly protect the landlord, and justly secure the interests of the tenant." If the noble Duke could do that, then, no doubt, he would be justified, logically and morally, in coming forward and saying "Do not disturb this state of peace, repose, and happiness—waive these committees of inquiry—content are we with the present state of things—confident are we that the 5th and 6th of Victoria, unlike its predecessor, the 9th of George 4th, will not be consigned to an early legislative grave, dug for it by the very hands which assisted at its baptism—do not ask for any inquiry—we believe in the per-
786
manence of things as they now exist." If the noble Duke could say this, it would undoubtedly amount to an answer to his motion. But he did not believe that the state of the country was such that an inquiry into its condition would do any possible mischief to any one of the great interests that existed in it. On the contrary, he believed that it would not be "hope deferred," but "despair created," if without those walls it should be inferred that their Lordships were indifferent to the feelings and interests of the great bulk of the community. This part of the subject was so material that he begged their Lordships' permission to go into it a little closely and accurately. Was the communication from the Throne, at the commencement of the present Session, such as to induce their Lord ships to believe that all was repose and peace, tranquillity and happiness, within the length and breadth of the land? No such thing. This communication from the Throne, referring to the failure that had occurred in the revenue, stated, that the cause of that falling-off might be
"In part attributed to the reduced consumption of many articles, caused by that depression of the manufacturing industry of the country which has so long prevailed, and which her Majesty has so deeply lamented."
The speech alluded to manufacturing distress; but were noble Lords prepared to say, that the agriculturists of the country were in a state of contentment, happiness, and prosperity? If noble Lords were prepared to say, that, they ought to resist his motion, but if they were assured, as many of them were, that the distress of the manufacturing districts had extended itself to the agriculturists, he should like to know the ground on which they would refuse inquiry into the operation of the act of the last Session. Let them examine the matter a little closely, and ascertain whether the condition of the country was such that a parliamentary inquiry was likely to produce much mischief. First, there was the failure in the revenue. He did not attribute blame to the noble Lords opposite or to the Government on that account. It was sufficient for him to say, that the difference between the annual income and expenditure had increased from a deficiency of 1,593,000 l. in 1840 to no less a sum than 3,977,000 l. in 1842, shewing an increased deficiency of no less than 2,386,000 l. When the amount of this deficiency were analyzed more closely it was still more

787
alarming. In three years the falling off in the gross amount of Customs' Duties had amounted to 874,000 l. or deducting the Corn Duties, the falling off had been from 1840 to 1842,1,261,000 l. or between 1841 and 1842,1,748,000 l. The decrease in the net duties of Excise had been as follows:—In 1840,14,785,000 l.; 1841,13,328,000 l.; 1842, 12,517,000 l.; or a decrease of 2,268,000 l. between the first and the last of those years. He had himself suffered so much from the injustice which attributed results, infinitely less alarming than these, to the Finance Minister of the day, that he was far from stating these melancholy facts as proving misconduct in the Government. He made the statement in proof of the distress of the people, as evidence of their want of power to consume exciseable articles, and to obtain that ordinary remuneration for their labour which the working classes are entitled to expect, and which they would receive under a better system. The total amount of Customs and Excise revenue stands as follows:—In 1840, 37,644,000 l. 1841, 36,674,000 l. 1842, 34,115,000 l. exhibiting a decrease of 2,559,000 l. since 1841, and of 3,529,000 l. since 1840. He only used these facts for the purpose of showing that there was great, and, indeed, universal distress throughout the land, and it behoved them to consider from what cause that distress might have originated, and whether it could not be remedied. He must remind their Lordships, that in the receipts for the present year there was no less a sum than 1,112,000 l. derived from the duties on corn. Now, a noble Lord connected with Kent, and a noble Earl, when this matter was previously discussed, had abjured the Corn-law being made a matter of revenue. They had seemed to consider that revenue derived from corn was an accursed thing, that should not be allowed to enter the Treasury. They had called it an odious bread-tax. Yet it appeared now, that the only means of bringing the revenue and the expenditure something nearer to an equality was a sum derived from that very source, the duties on corn. If those noble Lords were consistent, they would now apply that sum to some nobler purpose than placing it in the national purse—either to the relief of agricultural or manufacturing distress—after having disclaimed corn as a source of revenue. If they did not, persons might doubt either their sincerity or their wisdom; and as he
788
preferred bringing an intellectual to a moral charge against them, he would consider it as a want of the latter rather than of the former. What was the state of the foreign trade of the country? The declared value of British produce and manufactures exported had fallen off in 1840 by the amount of 3,221,000 l. and in 1841 by the sum of 4,171,000 l. Cotton manufactures had fallen off 3,657,000 l. since 1840. The falling-off in woollen was less, but still to an amount greatly affecting the interests of those engaged in the trade; it was, from 1840, 128,000 l. and thus in the two great staples of cotton and woollen there had been a falling off unexampled he ventured to say in the history of our manufactures. The value of linens exported has during the same period, diminished very nearly one-third, or from 3,306,000 l. to 2,360,000 l. It might be said, that this was the effect of foreign competition, of adverse tariffs, and that therefore it did not represent the actual state of the manufacturing industry of the country. But he would bring forward another test more accurate and more severe. Had the raw produce introduced into England for the purposes of manufacture increased or diminished? That fact would nearly correctly represent the progress of those manufactures. Taking the years 1840,1841, and 1842, there was a falling-off in the cotton wool introduced into this country of 53,370,000 s. Between the years 1840 and 1842, the importation of wool had decreased from 50,000,000 to 44,611,000 lb s.—a falling-off of 5,389,0001b s. There was also a falling off, but in a lesser degree, in hemp and flax. There had been an increase in silk; and it was interesting to consider the cause of that apparent anomaly. If there was any one branch of our manufactures to which, under the direction of Mr. Huskisson, the principles of a just commercial policy had been wisely and early applied, it was to the silk trade of the country, and we now found, in the midst of pressure and calamity, the silk trade seemed to have been less affected than any other branch. The increase in silk imported was 76,000 lbs. He alluded to these questions not as affecting the amount of the national wealth, but as bringing forward the question of the happiness of the people; for when he named the articles he had enumerated, he did so as the implements, as it were of the people's remuneration, and as indicative of the amount of their command over

789
the comforts and enjoyments of life. Now, had there been a decrease in the comforts and necessaries of life accompanying, the diminution in the means of employing the people? In respect of the article malt, he knew that the adducing that as an instance was open to some objection; still he could not see a large reduction, amounting to 6,605,000 bushels between 1840 and 1842, without feeling sure that it indicated a very large amount of distress. It appeared by the papers on the Table that there were other articles connected with the comforts and necessaries of the poor the consumption of which had fallen off; but there was more direct evidence still in the return of the Poor-law. Comparing the years 1839 and 1842, he was not able to compare the amount, raised for the relief of the poor, because the accounts were not yet completed; but the number of paupers had increased from 1,136,000 to 1,429,000, and had increased in a progressive rate, from 1,136,000 to 1,199,000–1,300,000 to 1,429,000, or 25 per cent. In Sheffield, the increase of rate for the relief of the poor between 1840 and 1842 was from 31,846 l. to 52,086 l. In the three months ending January, 1841, the rate amounted to 7,571 l. and in the three months ending January, 1843, it was 17,925 l. From Stockport, the accounts were yet more lamentable. Three thousand houses were untenanted. Between 1840 and 1842 the number of paupers relieved has increased from 3,481 to 14,839; the rates have augmented one third, besides an expenditure of 7,000 l. raised by voluntary subscription. In Leeds, the number of paupers had greatly augmented. Let not the agricultural Gentlemen imagine that even if distress were confined to the manufacturing districts, it could exist without re-acting on the agricultural. Not but that he was fully convinced, even if it could so exist, that the feelings of the gentry and farmers of this country would equally sympathise with the distresses of their brethren. But, at the same time, let the agricultural interest see how the distress operated upon themselves. In seasons of manufacturing prosperity the surplus agricultural population was absorbed into the manufacturing districts, and found employment. Now, by the operation of the same principle, of which the agriculturists had no right to complain, the manufacturing districts were sending back into the agricultural districts
790
those persons whose labour they did not require. Take the agricultural union of Settle, in Yorkshire, from whence, during the manufacturing prosperity, many agricultural paupers were withdrawn. Now, in 1841, the number of paupers relieved was 832. In 1842 the number had risen to 1,637. Of these persons, one-fourth were removed from the manufacturing districts. There could not be anything more clear than that the home market and manufacturing market, those great hives of industrious men, were the causes of national strength, and, above all, the causes of our agricultural prosperity. It is mainly to their distress that is to be attributed the fall of many articles of agricultural produce. There is, indeed, an admission made in her Majesty's speech. It had been stated in Parliament, on a former occasion, by the head of her Majesty's present Government, that, let the agriculturists look where they might for protection, there was nothing legislation could give them that was of half the importance to them as the prosperity of the manufactures and commerce of England. In that sentiment he cordially agreed; and if the present Corn Bill or any other law had a tendency to strike at the root of the commercial and manufacturing prosperity of the country, and thereby inflict a more deadly and irreparable blow upon the agricultural prosperity of the country than any blunder that could be committed in direct legislation on the subject of agriculture, the agricultural Gentlemen, he thought, could not refuse to consider the question. He would not say there was reason for despairing or doubting of the future prosperity of a country like this, but there was sufficient of evil abroad to make it bad logic, and a misapprehension of facts, to exclaim against inquiry, lest the prosperous state of things which at present existed should be disturbed. The moral he drew was this: here was a state of things which might by possibility be improved by inquiry; but it required more ingenuity than could be brought to hear upon the question to show that the state of things could be injured by inquiry. He only asked for inquiry; he asked them not to condemn, although he admitted, as far as he was concerned, he was himself, as an individual, ready to condemn. Was an inquiry of this kind unusual, or, taken up on the present occasion, was it likely to do permanent harm? Their Lordships had had no hesitation in inquiring into agri-

791
cultural distress whenever they had been asked so to do. In 1814, 1820, 1821, 1822, 1833, 1836, and 1837, they had inquired into agricultural distress, and not only into corn-laws, but into the currency, the poor-laws, and the whole general system of general and local administration which bore at all upon agricultural interests. Now, if they had been willing to grant inquiry one way, were they determined, or if they were, was it wise to refuse it on the other side? Was that just, was it impartial? Was it a judgment the public at large would ratify? It might be said the cases were not analogous, and it was also said that they did not know what arrangements they might disturb by agitating the question, what leases were about to be granted, and so forth. Some years ago a committee was granted, which, if ever there had been one calculated to disturb great existing interests, that was the committee. He meant that upon import duties. The present Government had taken their measures from the report of that committee, had founded their bills upon the testimony of witnesses before that committee, and surely that Government could not complain of a motion for inquiring into the effect of one act of Parliament, when they not only approved, but took credit to themselves for founding measures upon an inquiry which had extended into 1,100 acts of Parliament? It might astonish his noble Friend now sitting at the Table (Lord Ashburton), who had left this country when the tide was setting strongly against the import duties committee, to find that the report of that committee had formed the groundwork of legislative measures. There was a story in the writings of Washington Irving, which strongly reminded him of the position of his noble Friend. It was to be found in the history of New York by Knickerbocker, one of whose heroes, Rip Van Winkle, upon waking, after a sound and protracted sleep, was utterly astonished at the new state of things he beheld on opening his eyes. Now, from the cross benches his noble Friend had attacked the import duties committee, had reprobated the testimony of the principle witnesses;—and, upon waking like Rip Van Winkle, he must have been wonderfully surprised at finding legislative measures founded upon the report of that very committee and the evidence he had so strongly reprobated. If that committee had been
792
found so harmless they had no right to turn round and refuse him inquiry into a single act of Parliament. But there was another precedent. Government brought forward their budget last year, and introduced a duty upon Irish spirits. Objection was taken to that duty in the course of the Session. A committee of inquiry into the operation of that act was moved for and granted. That committee sat and reported, and he only asked them to do that in the present Session in relation to one act of Parliament which they had done last year. But would any Peer contend, that there was so much confidence felt in the permanence and stability of our present Corn-laws, as to render an inquiry into their effect and operation, dangerous and inexpedient? What was their experience on this subject? Had the conduct of Parliament been steady and consistent, in dealing with that branch of law? Why, of all subjects of legislation none had exhibited such a system of change and variation: In what other case had measures been so rashly taken up on one day, and so unhesitatingly condemned on another, and that most frequently by the very persons who had first propounded them. The act of 1815 had been praised as loudly as the present law. He went back to 1815 because it was the commencement of evil; it was the introduction of a bad principle, it was the foundation of the sliding-scale, which he took upon himself to say was the root and foundation of the evil. But the popularity of the act of 1815 was not of long duration. In 1821 there was more corn legislation, but he would not read the Parliamentary altercations of the day, but the authoritative language of Mr. Huskisson's report, which said—
"The system is certainly liable to sudden alterations, of which the effect may be, at one time to reduce prices, already low, lower than they would have been under a system of free trade; and at another unnecessarily to enhance prices already high. On the one hand, it deceives the grower with a false hope of monopoly, and by its occasional interruption may lead to consequences which deprive him of the benefit of that monopoly when most wanted. On the other hand, it holds out to the country the prospect of an occasional free-trade, but so ill regulated and desultory as to baffle the calculations and unsettle the transactions both of the grower and dealer at home. The occasional prohibition of import has a direct tendency to contract the extent of our commercial dealings with other states, and to excite in the rulers of those states a spirit of permanent exclusion."

793
Much of that might be applied to the present law, but he had read the extract to show that this permanent security, this Palladium of 1815, framed by the ministry, and, with some few honourable exceptions, by almost all the opposition, and which had passed by as great an union of all par ties as could be in the then state of affairs, was condemned in 1821. He would pass by the occurrences of 1827, giving thereby the best proof of a disposition to consider the subject calmly and without asperity. In the year 1828, however, a bill was introduced by the Government of the noble Duke opposite, and of which bill the noble Duke had the conduct in that House, and upon introducing it the noble Duke expressed his disapproval of the act of 1822. The act, then, of 1822 had been condemned by the amendment of 1827, and the noble Duke was reported to have said:
"It was undoubtedly true that from 1815 to the present time the system of prohibition had been found exceedingly inconvenient. Indeed, on a variety of occasions it had been found necessary for the Government to interfere to introduce corn by proclamation. The various interruptions it had been found necessary to give to the old system of Corn-laws had been equally inconvenient to the Government and to the corn growers. They occasioned great complaints on the part of the people at large—occasioned great jealousy on the part of agriculturists, and no small remonstrances from foreign powers."
There could be no stronger bill of indictment against any measure than these expressions of the noble Duke, and a noble Earl not now present, whose absence all must regret (the Earl of Ripon), not then acting in concert with the noble Duke, but speaking on the occasion in coincidence with him, said—
"He would defy any one to state a case in which there had been such fluctuations as since 1815."
The bill of which year had been introduced by the noble Lord himself—the noble Lord thus affording a very happy subject for some one of those artists who were in the habit of caricaturing public men, for a study of Saturn devouring his children. The noble Lord, in his capacity of a legislator was driven by duty to the painful act, if not of eating his own words, at least of devouring his own measures. But it would be far better if their Lordships would give the people something to devour, than to devour their own blunders and mistakes. He was justified in saying, that
794
there never had been a case in which less of permanency had been shown than in Corn-law legislation. The act of 1828, condemning preceding acts, had in turn been condemned by the present Government who were its framers, and he begged the House to observe their reasons for condemning it, and decide whether those reasons did not apply with equal force to the present law. But they had other reasons for doubting the stability of the present law. Measures had been introduced, and declarations made by the Government, which had left even the most credulous without faith in the permanence of the present Corn-laws. But other measures had been introduced and other declarations made. They had had declarations for the abolition of all protective duties whatsoever. They had been told by high authority that they ought to buy in the cheapest and sell in the dearest markets. That declaration might be rather loose in terms, but it could not be made by a class maintaining at the same time the doctrine of permanency. Nor was that all. There was a publication to which he had a right to allude, inasmuch as it had been named in the presence of the party to whom the authorship was attributed, and it had not been denied. It was a publication by a right hon. Gentleman, a member of the Government to which he alluded, and he alluded to the publication as a high honour to that Gentleman. And there could not be a greater proof, both of his wisdom and sincerity, than the publication alluded to—a publication universally ascribed to the right hon. Gentleman, the Vice-President of the Board of Trade. In that paper were the following expressions:—
"We shall urge that the trade of foreign countries is essential to England, and that the trade of England is essential to foreign countries. We shall urge that foreign countries neither have combined, nor can combine, against the commerce of Great Britain; and we shall treat as a calumny that they are disposed to enter into such a combination. We shall urge that the industry of this country has nothing to fear from the steady and gradual increase of the importation of all commodities from abroad which can be produced there at a less cost of labour and capital than among ourselves; but that it has everything to fear from the cessation or decline of that mighty course of operations whereby benefits are exchanged between the several families of the human race."
It was impossible for any free-trader to declare the doctrine of freedom of in-

795
tercourse between state and state more strongly, or more clearly. There was a reservation in regard to certain articles of agricultural produce; but in what mode was the reservation made? He would ask whether it were done in a way calculated to re-assure the agriculturists with respect to that permanent state of things which his harmless, innocent motion was considered so likely to endanger. The paper proceeded thus:—
"With respect to many other articles, such as butter and cheese—indeed, with regard to all articles to which the simple and essential interests of the revenue will allow the rules (of the late tariff) to be applied, it has been declared that they are only temporarily exempted from the operation of those rules; and it is well understood that no time will be allowed to pass, except such as is necessary, before the work is completed."
That appeared to be pretty good notice to the gentleman of Leicestershire, Yorkshire, and Cheshire of a disturbance in that happy state of things which his motion was considered so likely to disturb. Observe, he did not complain of these expressions; on the contrary, he approved of them—he was delighted with them. He should be glad to hear the whole Government repeat these admirable principles. After discussing the inapplicability of protection to manufactures, the right hon. Gentleman adds,—
"The question may be deemed more dubious as regards agricultural produce. There is the old vexed question of burthens on land, there is the admitted superiority of the soils in some competing countries. But on the other hand, British agriculture is imperfectly developed. Our manufacturers have thriven under the stimulus of competition. We think it can hardly be said that of late years this principle has been sufficiently brought to bear on the growers of agricultural produce. To say that they require to be stimulated—to say that unless stimulated they will not use their utmost efforts to economise and sell cheaply, and that the stimulus they can afford to one another cannot be sufficient, is but to say that they are men, and subject to the infirmities of me…No man who com pares the progress of our population and our supplies of food, can deny but that our economic laws must be regarded—indeed, have they not been regarded—as mutable, according to time and circumstance?"
So here was a stimulus declared to be wanting, a stimulus promised to be applied to the agriculturists. How did they relish this anticipation? His motion did
796
not go quite so quick, or quite so far, as this excellent author. He did not ask their Lordships to agree to the application of this stimulus, at once and without investigation. His proposition was more moderate; he asked that House to inquire into the effects of the present law, thus to ascertain whether the promised stimulus was necessary, and how it should be applied. Nor were they left in doubt with respect to the nature of this promised, or threatened stimulus—the stimulus was that of foreign competition, the stimulus was the increased importation of foreign grain. He adopted Mr. Gladstone's statement, but, before its adoption by the Legislature, he entreated their Lordships to inquire into the whole subject. He was far from mistrusting or discountenancing the argument, by moving for a committee. But he must say, that with respect to men who had laid down these enlarged general grinciples, which prepare the public for great future changes, it was the greatest of all inconsistencies to refuse an inquiry, on the ground of any possible disadvantages such inquiry can produce.
Lord Wharncliffeasked what was the paper to which the noble Lord had referred?
Lord Monteagle: The statement he had read was from a periodical publication, (the Foreign and Colonial Review,) and had been attributed to a right hon. Gentleman in another place, without any disavowal or disclaimer by the party concerned, or by any one on his behalf.
Lord Wharncliffe: But it goes no further than the one individual.
Lord Monteagle: The right hon. Gentleman was a member of the Government, and if the noble Lord the President of the Council would avow the same principles, he thought it would be highly to his credit. If all the cabinet would put their hands to this anonymous publication he did not think they could do anything to raise them more in the estimation of the public; or attach the people more to them. To shew that they were capable of holding such wise opinions, and recommending them in such forcible and eloquent language would be delightful to the people. On a former occasion those who pressed the state of the country on the attention of Government had been told that they were not justified in talking about the Corn-law, because there were so many other sources from which the general distress might proceed, and with which

797
the phenomena of the present condition of England were manifestly connected. There were, it was said, the banking laws; but the Government said they were satisfied with them, and did not mean to amend them. There was also the bullion in the Bank of England; the currency might be disturbed, and the Bank embarrassed in its operations with the Exchequer; but the Bank at present had no apprehensions of that kind. Again, it was stated that much of the distress might proceed from foreign loans being contracted, which drew the capital out of the country; but no foreign loans had lately been contracted for. Others said that it was owing to the sale of foreign securities in our own markets; but such sales did not now take place, foreign securities having been in great part, for some reason, withdrawn. It was plain then that to none of these causes could the distress and the commercial embarrassments which existed be justly ascribed; and he thought he was justified in saying that any argument derived from the supposed inconvenience which an enquiry would produce on any of the great interests of the country was totally and entirely inapplicable to the existing state of things. They cannot well be more unsettled than they are, and this in the absence of all these other causes; and they are not likely to be less unsettled so long as the question of corn is left in a state which has become notoriously provisional. Now, let them examine what were the precise evils described by Government as inherent in the act 9 Geo. 4th, and see whether those evils were still found to exist in the act now in force, which was passed last Session. It was stated that the act 9 Geo. 4th, gave too high an amount of internal protection; that a protection beyond 20 s. was an absurdity in it self, was entirely inapplicable, and brought odium on the agricultural interest, without being calculated to do them the slightest benefit. So far as that went, he admitted that the new bill was an improvement, because the duty in no case exceeded 20 s.; but if all the evil previously done by the higher amount of duty continued under the existing duty, he had not much gratitude to waste on the Government or the Legislature for only repealing an inconvenience which did nobody any harm, while they continued all the hurtful and disadvantageous provisions of the former law. Whether life was taken away by a snipe shot or a bullet, was perfectly immaterial; they had diminished
798
the bullet to the size of a snipe shot; but he should be able to show their Lordships that the mischiefs inherent in the new system were precisely those mischiefs which its authors condemned in the old law, and against which they wished to guard by introducing another measure. The principal objections to the old system were the great fluctuation of prices which it produced, and also the admission of great quantities of foreign wheat at the time of harvest, when an additional importation of corn was not needed by the consumer, and was highly prejudicial to the interests of the growers. The late hill was described, and described accurately, as working evil both ways; on the consumer it inflicted the evil of inducing the holder of corn to withhold it up to the very last moment, and to admit it, not when the price was actually rising, but when it showed indications of a fall. The evil to the grower was, that just at the time when the farmer had thrashed out his grain, he was subject to the forced and unnatural competition of all the foreign corn, which was taken out at the last moment. He must call the attention of noble Lords opposite to the injustice with which the law operated on the different classes of farmers. In some districts the farmers were poor; in others they were rich. The operation of this happy and blessed law was to raise the price very considerably towards the end of spring, summer, and the approaching harvest, especially at the time of gathering the harvest and immediately after it. How did this act on the poor farmer, and on the capitalist? Why, the large farmer might venture to hold his grain; he could stand the competition, and need not thrash it out just at the period when the foreign grain was admitted; he could take his chance of the market, but the poorer class of farmers, who lived from hand to mouth on the produce of their tillage, were compelled to thrash out their grain, and must enter into competition with the foreign grain which was admitted. It was on their heads, therefore, that the evil of the law chiefly fell. These evils were admitted to belong to the last Corn-law in the discussions of last year; it was now his purpose to show that this evil existed under the present law, and to fully as great a degree as before. Let him not, however, be suspected of blaming the act passed last Session; on the contrary, he thought it an amendment of the previous law. He had

799
accepted it as such; he had voted for it, and not only did he admit the bill to be an amendment of the former law, but it went far to strengthen his argument. For if Ministers had introduced a bill, intending, as he believed they did, in good faith, to amend the law, and stating the reasons which induced them to attempt that amendment, and if they found that that evil remained in undiminished magnitude, he would attribute that result, not to any want of skill, knowledge, or sincerity on their part, but to some evil principle which was common both to the bill they introduced and the bill they attempted to amend. He found that the principle of the sliding-scale was common to both measures, and rather than attribute the unfavourable result of which he complained to the Legislature, he ascribed it, as he was bound logically to do, to that principle. He did not ask their Lord ships to accompany him without examination to this conclusion; he only asked that they would inquire whether the effects were as he had stated them to be. He was sensible that he was intruding at an unwarrantable length on their Lordships' time; if he had any chance of getting his committee, he would not trouble them with these details, but having no chance of that, he was bound to make out his case. If the committee were granted, their Lordships would be saved much trouble; but he was obliged under the circumstances to make out his case, and he would do so. He would venture to say, that a more complete demonstration could not be made out than that which he would offer that the present Corn-law contained within itself all the elements of mischief which were admitted to belong to the former bill, passed in the 9th Geo. 4th. He would refer to a publication which was issued from the great corn houses in the country, for the benefit of the whole corn trade, and which contained all the information required regarding the weather, the state of the supplies, and the market prices. He held in his hand important extracts from the circulars of the corn trade before and after the passing of the present law. He would take first the year 1838, and would read some passages which would show the operation of the law in lowering the duty at the most unfavourable season for the home grower. They would prove that the effect of the old law was to cause English wheat to be neglected, and to encourage jobbing in the
800
averages, in order to get the duty on foreign grain down to the lowest point:—
"August 31.—The weather very fine for several days past, and the bulk of the crops saved in the neighbouring counties. Yesterday's general average proved 77 s. and the duty 6s. 8d. Next week the duty would be 2s. 8d., if not 1s. and there is still the chance of the duty coming down to Is. a quarter for the two following weeks. English wheat was neglected owing to the fine weather, and the near admission of foreign wheat at a low duty."
"Sept. 3.—The weather favourable for harvest the last week, and the great bulk of the wheat crop in the neighbouring counties saved, and, with this weather, harvest will soon be general in the north. The duty on wheat declined."
With these prospects the price ought to have fallen, and the duty to have risen; but, by the operation of the sliding-scale, the effect was exactly contrary, for the duty on the whole declined. As long as they clung to the sliding-scale, they would cling to an instrument which would produce endless frauds. It would be seen that as the prospect of a good harvest became more certain, the duty became lower, and the prospect of undue competition increased:—
"Sept. 12. The weather very fine for the last three or four days. From a calculation made of the returns, there seems no doubt of the duty on wheat being 1s. to-morrow.—Sept. 14. The week's average proved 48,906 quarters at 70 s. 2d. six weeks' average 73 s. 2d. consequently foreign wheat may be cleared for a week at 1s. duty. The duty will probably advance to 2s. 8d. next return.—Sept. 17. Duty 1s. expected to advance next return. Wheat cannot be cleared at this duty after two o'clock on Wednesday; nor can a vessel be reported inwards till past Gravesend, and till furnished with a quarantine certificate."
He would now refer to the year 1840. It was said under date of August 3:—
"Weather the last two or three days fine and favourable for harvest, which has generally commenced in the south.—Aug. 7. Weather uninterruptedly fine for harvest this week. Decline of duty on wheat 3s. a quarter.—Aug. 14. Quality of new wheat fine and heavy; growers speak favourably of the yield.—Aug. 21. Our trade is mainly governed by the weather. Tuesday stormy, and on Wednesday several hours rain. Duty declined 4s.—Aug. 28. Weekly average 72 s. 7d. Every reason to expect the duty down to 2s. 8d.; it is questionable whether it will remain for more than one week at 2s. 8d.—Sept. 4. Duty declined yesterday to 2s. 8d. at which rate the wheat and flour in bond, fully 1,000,000 of quarters, will be cleared. The

801
duty is not likely to remain at 2s. 8d. more than a week. The duty will rapidly advance to 18 s. 8d. per quarter."
There was the statement. This was the way in which we carried into effect reciprocity treaties. This was the way in which we placed the United States on an equal fooling with Rotterdam and the ports just across the Channel. A single week might make the difference of gain or great loss to one country or another, and this was the state of the law—a state which placed the trade at the mercy of the weather, to which noble Lords professed their determination to adhere. In the year 1841, he found that the state of matters was as follows:—
"August 18. Weather now very fine for harvest; duty expected to decline a stage on wheat, barley, &c.—August 25. It is thought the duty will decline 5s. to-morrow.—Aug. 30. Weather exceedingly fine for the last four or five days, and favourable for harvest, which has the usual effect at this season, of an unnaturally great stagnation and panic in sales.-—September 1. The weather continues exceedingly fine for harvest; bonded wheat held over for the low duty next week,—September 3. There is little doubt but that the duty will further decline from 6s. 8d. to 2s. 8d. next week; holders hang back from selling till the duty reaches the lowest.—September 15. Arrivals of foreign wheat unexpectedly large, 116,300 quarters in two days.—September 17. Yesterday the duty declined to 1s. on wheat."
The result was, that in 1838, out of 1,818,000 quarters imported, 1,513,000 were imported in September; in 1840, out of 2,282,000 quarters imported, 1,105,000 were imported in September; and in 1841, out of 2,388,000 quarters imported, 2,144,000 were introduced in September, and 1,800,000 in one week. Such was the state of things before Sir R. Peel's Corn-law; I proceed to shew that it remains unaltered under the act of 1842. He held in his hand the circular of the trade for the last year; he would read its statements, and then he would ask the noble Lords opposite to say whether the evils which had been shown to exist, and which they admitted to exist in the former law, did not exist in undiminished force under the present act? There was one distinction between the last year and former years; by the mercy of Providence our harvest was earlier, but for that we had not to thank noble Lords or the Legislature. He knew that once, when somebody had asserted that great thanks
802
were due to the Government, Sheridan said, "Yes, and especially for the late abundant harvest." He did not carry either his sarcasm or his credulity so far; he admitted that Government had effected an improvement by the Corn-law of last Session, and he thanked them for that, but he did not thank them for the harvest. The statements of the circular for 1842 were as follow:—
"July1. Copious rain, benefiting the growing crops generally; duty declined to 9s. per quarter.—July 4. All spring corn benefited by the rain.—July 15. Weather exceedingly fine this week; duty declined yesterday 1s.—July 18. Weather continuing fine, English wheat 2s. to 3s. cheaper.—July 20. Arrivals of foreign wheat since Monday very heavy.—July 22. A further considerable arrival of foreign wheat.—July 25. Weather exceedingly fine: arrival of foreign wheat large; harvest general—Aug. 1. Weather favourable; sample of new wheat fine; factors had to submit to a reduction of 4s. to 6s.—Aug. 8. 300 quarters of new wheat, all superior, weighing 63lb. to 651bs. the bushel.—Aug. 12. There seems no doubt that the duty on wheat will advance on Wednesday; we expect a very large quantity of foreign wheat will be cleared in the interim. Aug. 17. Wheat is clearing at 8s., in the expectation of its being 9s. to-morrow Aug. 19. The quantity of foreign wheat cleared at this port this week, at 8s., previous to the duty advancing to 9s., is 600,000 quarters, besides 130,000 cwt. of flour, and since May 881,000 quarters."
The result was, that out of the year's import of 2,755,000 quarters, the import in August was 2,186,000 quarters. It might be said that this wheat had been cleared at a duty of 8s. instead of 1s. He admitted, that that was a benefit, but the merit of it could not be claimed by noble Lord's opposite, who rejected altogether the idea of deriving any benefit to the revenue from a duty on corn. This was merely an additional ground on which they ought to be ashamed of themselves. They levied 7s. too much duty, because the price obtained by the farmer in the market, for home grown corn, would have been exactly the same had there been no duty at all. The price was not regulated in August by the amount of duty paid on foreign wheat, but by the quantity of wheat in the market, compared with the means of the buyers to purchase. He argued this point against the Gentlemen friendly to a free trade in corn, when they said, last year, release the grain from bond, and we shall

803
get the benefit of it. This benefit to the consumer he then denied, and still denied. The duty repealed would have gone into the pocket of the owners of the grain; for unless the quantity brought to market was increased, the price to the consumer would not have fallen. He admitted, however, on his principles, that the 8s. duty was a great benefit to the State; but it was a benefit to which noble Lords opposite could lay no claim, inasmuch as they repudiated the principle of levying a revenue on corn altogether. One great anomaly of the act of last Session was the introduction of what were called rests; that was, a fixed duty with respect to certain important parts of the scale which regulated the price. He hoped the noble Lord opposite would tell the House on what grounds these rests had been introduced. They must be either better or worse than a sliding-scale. They were not the same thing, but perfectly different in principle; then why did noble Lords introduce those rests? They were introduced because they were considered to be an improvement, and he thought them an improvement also, and he was glad to see the principle of a fixed duty admitted. That principle was admitted in another measure, which had a direct bearing on the question of the permanency of the great charter of the agriculturists—the Corn-duties. It was well known that it was the intention of the Government to introduce a bill of very great significance to the admirers—if such there were—of the sliding-scale. He very much doubted that any person would tolerate that system from any other motive than necessity. The people might ride a very bad horse, because they had no other, but a more vicious, ill-conditioned horse, one more galled, maimed, lamed, spavined, that would not be shown at Tattersalls', and that no one would be found to warrant, was not to be found than the legislative cheval de battaille he was now considering. When noble Lords opposite altered, last year, the duty on American corn, they must have a sliding-scale with it. Formerly, under the 9th George 4th, there was a fixed duty, or what was almost the same thing, it being 5s. in all the contingencies likely to occur, and 6d. under other circumstances. Noble Lords were resolved to have their sliding-scale applied to the colonial duty, like the man who painted red lions, and painted them every where. He could not but wonder that any article in the tariff of last year escaped the
804
application of the sliding-scale. Wherever ministers could introduce it, they had done so; but he presumed that they had discovered the vice of the principle, else why did they now wish to change it? They were about to introduce a bill to allow American corn to be brought into this country subject to a fixed duty of 3s. There was, however, a difference between the manner in which noble Lords opposite applied the principle and that in which it was proposed by the late Government to apply it. The late Government thought that a fixed duty would be advantageous to both producers and consumers—to the farmer and the merchant—but they thought that it would be right that the revenue it yielded should be applied to English purposes. But noble Lords opposite wished to show that they rejected all idea of a duty on wheat, and they said, let it go for the benefit of the colony, we will not touch a farthing of it. Fluctuation of price, he contended, with its attendant evils, was equally inherent in the late and in the present Corn-law. He had prepared a table which would exemplify the unjust and partial operation of the law on the interest of the agriculturists. He took the years from 1837 to 1843, and compared the total amount of foreign grain admitted to home consumption in each year, with the amount admitted during the harvest-month; and in order to bring the matter to a simpler test, with the amount admitted during a single week of each year. He thought the farmers would see that nothing could be more prejudicial to them than the importation of a great quantity of foreign wheat at the most critical period of the year. The necessary consequence of a sliding-scale was to pour the great bulk of the foreign grain into the market as the harvest was about to be gathered in. The table was as follows:—*
If it were possible for the ingenuity of man to set himself on devising the system that could do his interests most injury, it would be that which he was now describing. So far was this evil from being remedied, that it was scarcely lessened by the act of the last Session. Last year, out of the whole quantity imported, 79 per cent, was admitted in a single month, and 55 per cent, in a single week. Again, taking the weekly averages for the harvest months of the last four years, it would be found that the flue-
See Table (as note) following page.

805
tuations had been higher in the last than in any of the preceding. They were as follow:—

1839.

Highest price

72 s.

3d.

Lowest

65 s.

6d.

6s.

9d.

1840.

Highest price

72 s.

7d.

Lowest

62 s.

5d.

10 s.

2d.

1841

Highest price

76 s.

1d.

Lowest

61 s.

6d.

4s.

7d.

1842

Highest price

65 s.

8d.

Lowest

50 s.

9d.

14 s.

11 d.

For fourteen years preceding the passing of the act, the fluctuation was less, on the whole, than under the act of last Session; from 1828 to 1842, it was less in nine cases, greater in four, and equal in one. In the weekly London averages, from 1831 to 1842, eleven years, the fluctuation was less than under the present act in seven cases, and greater in four cases only. It

Year.

Total Wheat and Flour entreat for Home Consumption a Year.

Enter at Harvest Month.

Proportion percent-of Month's Admission to Year's Admission.

Year.

Wheat Largest quantity entered in one single week.

Duty on such admission

Proportion percent, of the week's admission to the whole year's admission of
Foreign Wheat.

s

d.

Per. Cent.

1837

210,000

163,000

78

Sept. 8,1837

98,000

28

8

47

1838

1,818,000

1,513,000

83

Sept. 7,1838

1,261,000

1

0

73

1839

2,698,000

812,000

30

Sept.20,1839

701,000

6

8

28

1840

2,287,000

1,105,000

48

Aug.28,1840

1,217,000

2

8

60

1841

2,647,000

2,1748,000

82

Sept.10,1841

1,852,000

1

0

83

1842

2,777,000

2,186,000

79

Aug,11,1842

1,453,000

8

0

55

Not including flour.

806
might be said, that you never could obtain steadiness in the price of grain The fact was, that it was a question of more or less; those who said out of doors that by a free trade in corn you would get rid of all fluctuations in price, asserted what was contrary to the plainest dictates of common sense. What he asked was, that the Legislature should not increase the mischief beyond what was inevitable. The real principle on which the present act was founded, was, that a Legislature could control the elements and the seasons. They pretended to say, that they could give plenty when the Great Master of all things had decreed scarcity, and that they would create a scarcity when he had ordained that plenty should reign. They were legislating with respect to prices, as they had done in barbarous days with respect to wages, forgetting that prices were, like wages, beyond their control. They had a better and more rational Corn-law before 1773—a rated duty, which was open to objections no doubt, but free from the glaring absurdities and mischiefs of the sliding-scale. The fluctuations then were much less than half what they were under the present, system, as the following table would show:

FLUCTUATIONS OF SIX WEEKS' AVERAGE PRICE OF WHEAT, FROM 1784 TO 1789.

Years

Highest Six Weeks' Average.

Lowest Six Weeks' Average.

Difference

s.

d.

s.

d.

s.

d.

1784

48

2

41

10

6

4

1785

37

5

34

6

2

11

1786

36

2

33

10

2

4

1787

41

10

36

1

3

9

1788

45

1

42

9

2

4

1789

54

11

47

0

7

11

The effect of the sliding-scale clearly was to make the speculators bring their corn to market at the time most unfavourable to the home grower, and when the public would derive least advantage from it. It increased the profits of successful speculation, and the risks and losses of unsuccessful speculation, and made the trade more of a gambling character than before. It stood to reason that the fluctuations of price must be greater under the sliding scale than under any other system. If they made the state of the duty such as to lead the merchant in Dantzic to speculate on the fall of duty, they were, in point of fact, doing that which had a tendency to put money into the pockets of the men at Dantzic. He (Lord Monteagle) had compared the prices at Dantzic and in England during a succession of years,

807
and that comparison brought him to a curious result:—

Years.

Difference between heights and lowest at Dantzic.

Difference between heights and lowest London Weekly average.

Difference between heights and lowest six Weekly average.

Wheat and wheat flour imported.

s.

d.

s.

d.

s.

d.

Qrs.

1833

4

4

9

0

5

7

183,000

1831

4

10

10

6

8

1

109,000

1835

5

3

9

5

6

2

43,000

1836

13

4

26

9

23

10

234,000

1837

9

11

10

5

7

1

544,000

1838

25

2½

27

10

23

3

1,355,000

1839

38

4

14

10

12

11

2,862,000

1840

23

9

19

10

12

5

2,234,000

If it was said that the fluctuations had, during the years 1838, 1839, and 1840, been greater in Dantzic than in England, how had it been in the years from 1833 to 1837, when the importation had been scarcely worth speaking of? If this document, which he (Lord Monteagle) had just read, was not sufficient to persuade their Lordships that free-trade was less liable to fluctuations than a system by which the Legislature sought to tamper with prices, he was at a loss to think what demonstration would be held sufficient. If he were not unwilling to detain their Lordships, he might refer to similar tables respecting St. Petersburgh and Odessa. The following table was extracted from Mr. Hubbard's excellent work on the Corn trade:—

AVERAGE PRICE OF WHEAT FREE ON BOARD.

Years.

Dantzic.

Petersburgh.

Odessa.

England.

s.

d.

s.

d.

s.

d.

s.

d.

1831

52

8

56

11

30

0

66

4

1832

39

6

33

7

26

10

58

8

1833

31

6

32

0

31

4

52

11

1834

27

4

32

1

33

2

46

2

1835

26

0

32

3

25

7

39

4

1836

28

6

35

0

22

0

48

6

1837

31

1

32

8

22

10

55

10

1838

41

10

40

11

24

11

64

7

1839

51

9

39

9

30

0

70

8

1840

46

6

42

11

30

10

66

4

Average

37

7

36

0

27

9

56

11

Highest price

52

8

36

11

33

2

70

8

Lowest price

26

0

26

0

22

0

46

2

Difference

26

8

10

11

11

2

26

6

But he would invite their attention to a letter from Mr. Horner, and to a better authority it would be impossible for him to refer. Mr. Horner in a letter dated the 12th of February, 1815, wrote thus:—
808
"My theory respecting fluctuations would be, that upon the whole nothing would contribute so much to make prices steady as leaving our own cornfactors unfettered by regulations and restrictions of our own making; and without embarrassment from that source, to make their own arrangements for bringing corn when it is wanted, from the various large and independent markets of which in the present circumstances of the world they have their choice."
This was just what he said. He now wished to prove to their Lordships that these fluctuations were necessarily incidental to the sliding-scale. From the passing of the 9th of George 4th, the sliding-scale, strictly so called, had been in force with respect to every description of foreign grain; but with respect to colonial grain an entirely different system had been in force. On colonial grain the duty had been 5s. in some cases, and 6d. in others. During seven years, however, the duty had been constantly 5s. Now, if it was found that the supply of colonial corn was governed by an entirely different principle to foreign corn, their Lordships ought to ask themselves to what that difference was to be attributed? It could only be traced to a difference of system—to the existence of a sliding-scale in the one case, and to the existence of a fixed duty in the other. He held in his hand a paper showing the proportion between the colonial corn introduced during the harvest month, and during the whole year, and he found the proportion just reversed from that which existed in the case of foreign corn. The colonial corn, instead of coming into the country in sudden gusts, came in according as the demand arose, and consequently the introduction of the colonial corn was attended by beneficial consequences to all classes. In the one case they had the sliding-scale, and in the other a fixed duty. There was the difference. In the one case we are shewn the effect of the sliding-scale, and in the other that of a fixed duty:—* The table exhibiting these distinctions deserved a very minute examination. In 1839 it was true that the foreign trade exhibited some proofs of steadiness. But why was this? Because during four months the duly was fixed, and during that period the supply became more gradual and regular. On the contrary, whenever the colonial duty passed, or had a
* See Table (as note) following page.

809
tendency to pass from 5s. to 6d., then the fluctuations incidental to the sliding-scale manifested themselves. On a subject of commerce or finance he could not conceive a more conclusive demonstration than was afforded by these facts. Now what was the state of things produced by this state of the law? Let them ask those interested in agriculture—let them ask those interested in manufactures, whether the state of things produced had been a satisfactory one. Had it been satisfactory to the merchant importer? He would take it on himself to say, that at no time had such wide and devastating ruin been brought upon any other class of the community, as had lately been the case among the importers of foreign corn. He was sure that he spoke within bounds, when he said that their losses had amounted to somewhere between two and three millions sterling, and these losses had literally been the consequences of the sliding-scale. The wide-spreading ruin by which the town of Wakefield had been overtaken

WHEAT AND WHEAT FLOUR ENTERED EOR HOME CONSUMPTION IN THE YEAR, AND IN THE SINGLE HARVEST MONTH.

Year

Foreign Wheat and Flour.

Colonial Wheat and Floor.

Total year's entry.

Single month's entry about harvest.

proportion percent. Between months & years entry

Total year's entry.

Single month's entry about harvest.

Proportion percent. Between months & Years entry.

1837

210,000

163,000

78

33,300

8,100

24

1838

1,818,000

1,513,000

83

29,600

6,600

22

1839

2,698,000

812,000

30

12,700

5,100

40

1840

2,287,000

1,105,000

48

113,700

26,600

23

1841

2,647,000

2,178,000

82

259,123

123,000

47

1842

2,775,000

2,186,000

79

214,334

53,634

25

*Duty on Foreign wheat stationary for four months at 1s. in 1838 and 1839.

From 1832 to 183f the duty on colonial wheat was 5s. invariably, the amount of corn admitted at harvest was about 12 per cent.
810
would not have occurred if a fixed duty on corn had been in existence, for the people there would have known that they were not likely to gain anything by withholding their supplies from the market. Yet he could prove to their Lordships, if they would grant him the committee he asked for, that there was a fair prospect that corn would have come in at a duty of 1s. in which case the transaction would have been one of considerable profit. But, by making the trade in corn so ruinous a one, they drove out of the market all men who were not desperate gamblers. As an instance of the ruinous effects of the speculative trade produced by the sliding scale, he might quote a case that came before the Court of Bankruptcy last October. The bankrupt's name was Baker. He had failed in consequence of speculations in corn, and his balance sheet, a very voluminous document, showed debts to the amount of 588,727 l.and this man, it appeared from the same balance sheet, had introduced into his business a capital of only 5,974 l. And yet the case was one that excited no exasperation among the creditors. No exceptions were taken to the balance-sheet, and the bankrupt was allowed to pass without any farther question being asked of him. They drove men of capital out of the corn-trade; but by so doing they inflicted a most serious injury on agriculture, independently of depriving the corn trade of its legitimate character. And in making these remarks to their Lordships, he wished it was possible for them to forget that "fixed duty" and "sliding-scale" had ever been made words of party warfare. At all events, he would entreat them to consider the question entirely on its own grounds, and abstracted from all previous contention. He felt that he must have wearied them by so long an address, but he thought he had succeeded in making out a strong case for inquiry. However, he would see if he could not strengthen it yet more. A noble Friend near him reminded him of one important difference in the importation of colonial and foreign grain. The foreign grain was admitted just at the time most disadvantageous to all parties concerned. In the year when the proportion of foreign corn imported in the one month amounted to 78 per cent, of the importation of the whole year, the importation of colonial corn in one month amounted only to 24 per cent, on the

811
whole year. In the year when foreign corn was 83 per cent., colonial was only 22, and so throughout; and he would undertake to prove that, in the one instance, they had a regular supply just when the country wanted; in the other instance, they had sudden and large importations at a time when they were least needed by any class. He would, with their permission, call further witnesses to this fact. Here was the opinion of the late Mr. Ricardo:—
"Although a duty on the importation of corn would not be so wise a measure as the approach to that system which he had suggested as the true principles of a corn trade, yet he did think that a permanent duty on importation would be a much wiser measure than that which had been advocated. Let them have a certain moderate duty, which should have a tendency to produce a price of corn that would not be very variable."
A few years later (1825) a noble Friend of his (Lord Brougham), then a Member of the House of Commons, said:—
"It was now time to sweep away that system of averages, which was liable to all the objections made to the system of prohibitions. It was now time to get out of what had been called the sliding-scales, only laying on such a protecting duty as would enable the agriculturist to grow his produce on such terms as to stand the conflict with the foreign grower."
In the report of the committee of 1821 he found the following statement:—
"Your committee are the more anxious to impress on the attention of the House the real state of the corn trade between 1773 and 1814, as it appears to them, in connection with the progress of general prosperity in the country, and more especially with the great improvements in agriculture, and its highly-flourishing condition during that period, to suggest to Parliament, as a matter highly deserving of their future consideration, whether a trade in corn, constantly open to all nations of the world, and subject only to such fixed duty as might compensate to the grower the loss of that encouragement which he received during the late war, from the obstacles thrown in the way of free importation, and thereby protect the capitals now vested in agriculture from unequal competition, is not, as a permanent system preferable to that state of law by which the corn trade is now regulated."
That was the opinion of the committee of 1821. He now came to the committee of 1822, and these were the expressions which he found in its report:—
"If the circumstances of this country should
812
hereafter allow the trade in corn to be permanently settled on a footing constantly open to all the world, but subject to such a fixed and uniform duty as might compensate the British grower for the difference of expense at which his corn could be brought to market, such a system would in many respects, be preferable to any modification of regulations depending on average prices, with an ascending and descending scale of duties, because it would tend to prevent the effects of combination and speculation in endeavouring to raise or depress those averages, and render immaterial those inaccuracies which have occasionally produced mischievous effects on the market. Your committee look forward to such a system as fit to be kept in view for the ultimate tendency of our law, rather than as practicable in any short or definite time."
He would call on their Lordships to say whether a definite time had not passed away? Twenty years bad since elapsed, and he would ask whether it was not now high time that the Legislature should have arrived at years of discretion? These opinions of the committee were fully confirmed in a roost important letter from Mr. Solly, an experienced merchant, submitted to the committee of 1821. That gentleman stated in May 1821:
"The experience I have had in the corn trade has confirmed the opinion that it would be more for the interest of the grower at home and in Prussia, if the importation into this country was at all times allowed at a certain fixed rate of duty, which might be so regulated as to compensate for the greater expense of cultivation of the British farmer. By the present system the surplus wheat of the Baltic is hoarded to the extent of two or more years export, to be poured into the market at once. The period at which the opening of the ports generally takes place, is about or soon after harvest time; not because the new harvest is deficient, but in consequence of the prices of the past weeks having, from the circumstance of diminished supply, risen to a given height. If the surplus foreign corn might be imported at all times at a fixed duty; it would be brought in or kept out of the market in proportion to the price, and would be gradually absorbed in the consumption and stock of the country."
Mr. Solly's evidence was corroborated by a letter addressed to the late Lord Londonderry in the same year, by Mr. Mellish then Consul General at Hamburgh.
"On the opening of the ports in August last for oats, an immediate rise of 30 or 40 per cent, took place. The shortness of the time allowed for importation occasioned shipments to a much greater extent than would have been the case, had the ports remained open; from

813
the rapidity with which shipments were made, to arrive in time, many persons were induced to send their grain to England, who would not have done so had they had time to ascertain the quantity shipped from other quarters. Had the English ports been open for a year it is probable that the importation would not have been much greater, but it would have been move gradual, and consequently not so ruinous. A moderate advance on the Continent, and a moderate reduction in England would have taken place."
If their Lordships would refer to the papers on the Table, to the evidence taken in 1821, in 1833, and in 1836, to the reports of Mr. Meek, and the foreign tariff of Mr. McGregor, those papers would prove how complicated, as well as how extensive was the mischief produced by the sliding-scale. He had not as yet alluded to the shipping interest. Let him refer their Lordships on this subject to the evidence of Mr. Hedley and Mr. Young of Newcastle on Tyne, and South Shields—
"If there was a fixed duty on Corn", ob served the former of these witnesses (Evidence, 1833, Question 8282), "it would give very great increased employment to British shipping instead of foreign in the early part of the year; at the present moment, when any prospect of bad weather occurs during the harvest, or even in the spring of the year, orders are sent out so quickly that there is not time to send English vessels out, and the foreign vessels are taken up forthwith. Now if there was a fixed duty there would be none of that speculation, and we should have a supply of corn of superior description; there would be a regular import instead of a fluctuating one. I think if there were a fixed duty British shipping would become carriers of nearly all the corn."
The examination of Mr. Young was equally important, their Lordships will find it as follows in his reply to Questions 7294, 7295, 7296, in the Report on Manufacturing Distress, in 1833.
"7924. Do you think that having a larger portion of the carrying trade in corn would be beneficial to you?—Yes, it would. If there was a fixed duty on corn I have no doubt it would be beneficial to us; for at the present time, if the ports are opened, orders go out to foreign ports; the foreign ships are at home and get freighted, and before the English ships can get out, the principal part of the orders are filled up, and the freights get lower; we are therefore disappointed when we get there.
"7925. Is not that in consequence of the short period for which corn can be imported a low duty under the existing law?—Yes.
"7926. So that the foreign merchant is
814
anxious to lake the first opportunity to ship his cargo, which would not be the case if there was a fixed duty?—Yes.
"7927. Do you consider that an alteration from a fluctuating to a fixed duty would be the means of giving additional employment to British shipping?—Yes, it would."
Our Consuls, during the last year, collected most valuable evidence to the same effect, and it was with peculiar earnestness that he invited attention to the reports of Consul-general M'Gregor, which contain the soundest and most practical information. The following extracts from the consular correspondence deserved attentive consideration.
"Rotterdam.—If England continues the sliding-scale, it is probable that Holland would still continue a depot for foreign wheat, but if a fixed duty be adopted, that country would cease to be a depot.
"Stetten.—Corn would certainly be imported to be kept in depot in England. The injury to which wheat corn is exposed in a low damp country like Holland is very great.
"Elsinore.—If the trade was made constantly open (subject as appears from the context to a moderate fixed duty) the natural consequence would be, that the English merchant would again become the principal agent for the regular supply of his own country with corn, directly from the place of its growth, and that British shipping would be employed to a much greater extent than it is at present, in the carriage of grain under the present system.
"Kiel.—In 1818, the butter exported from Kiel did not exceed 1,000,000 lbs., at present it is four, owing principally to less corn being grown, and more land converted into pasture; the fluctuating nature of the corn duties in England rendering it more advisable to keep cows and make butter, where the profit is moderate, and the demand steady, than to incur the risk and the uncertainty of the Corn Market."
Looking at the effect of a fixed duty more generally, their Lordships would find themselves led to the same results. Mr. Tooke, one of the greatest authorities in economical science, nearly exhausted the subject in 1821. Mr. D. Hodgson, an eminent merchant of Liverpool, gave most practical evidence; before the committee of 1836 (p. 107), he states,—
"I think an 8s. duty would produce less fluctuation; any unvarying plan that would admit such quantities as might be wanting from time to time on a fixed duty, I think would tend to render the price more certain and steady at home.
"P. 110, I think the effect of the former

815
system of fluctuating duties is to lower the price in times of plenty, and unnaturally to increase the price in time of dearth."
If it were objected that this was merely the evidence of mercantile men, he would refer to the examination of Mr. Bell, a considerable farmer in Berwickshire, and in quoting this witness, he took care to include that portion of his evidence which made in any degree against his argument.
"I am not sure (observed this intelligent but cautious witness) that a fixed duty would not ultimately be the most satisfactory; but it is a difficult question, because a fixed duty in scarce seasons would not be submitted to. I would make no alteration in the present law, unless an alteration to a fixed duty. By the present Corn-law, wherever the price approaches near to the rate at which foreign corn can be brought in with a profit, prices may be run up by artificial means; then a great quantity of corn would be improperly liberated and thrown upon the market, and thus might probably depress the market for a whole season. Now at a fixed duty this could not take place."
From the midst of the improved agriculture of Norfolk similar testimony was obtained:—
"I should be for a fixed duty, (observed Mr. Tyson of Thetford), beginning with a high duty and going down annually 1s. a quarter, and I should be disposed to fix 5s. a quarter on wheat ultimately."
The witness was then asked, (Question 12681).
"Do you think that the farmer with a protection of 5s. a quarter, could grow wheat in competition with the grower of corn on the Continent?—Yes, with the increased intelligence which is abroad; and the impulse that will be given to agriculture, in consequence of the Poor-law Bill. I do not contemplate that our prices are to go down to the prices of the Continent, but that the prices on the Continent will more nearly approximate to our prices. I will state a fact which illustrates what I have just advanced, and it is this. There are two articles of agricultural produce which are not protected by high import duties, rape seed and wool, and both these articles are selling, and have been selling at a fair price. The duty on rape seed is only 1s. a quarter."
Nor were these opinions confined to British merchants; with more or less modification (some of which modifications greatly confirm the general argument) the same principles prevailed on the Continent as might be learnt from the Consular Re ports. They learn from Elsinore, that—
"In the event of foreign corn being admitted
816
for consumption in England, on payment of a moderate duty, the immediate consequence would, most likely, be a general rise of prices at the places of production. This would, however, soon again find its level; and although, on the whole, prices may perhaps be kept 10 to 15 per cent, higher than the average prices of the last ten years, yet it may reasonably be expected that they will be more steady, and less subject to fluctuation than they have hitherto been. Nothing will tend more to stimulate the energy of the Danish landowner than the opening of the British markets for the permanent sale of his produce, on the payment of fixed and moderate duties."
From the consul at Lubeck we receive some curious information, showing how far selfish interests may interfere, and give a direction to mercantile opinions:—
"The merchants at Lubeck, Rotterdam, Bremen, and Hamburgh, are desirous that the Corn-laws of England should remain unaltered; but they admitted, at the same time, that it was for the interest of England, as well as of foreigners, that some modification should take place, in order that speculation might be diminished, the trade rendered more steady, and the country relieved from the great drain on its treasure to which it was occasionally and suddenly exposed. If England should adopt a fixed duty at too low a rate, they were afraid of the competition of Odessa and of America."
But the evidence and reasoning which he had ever been inclined to consider the most valuable, and, in almost all points, the most accurate, was that which bore the high authority of Mr. S. Jones Loyd and Mr. Senior; and it was the more important, as it refers to Mr. Canning's bill of 1827, and not to the act which he had been discussing.
"It is clear, (observed the hand-loom weaver commissioners,) that this plan is affected by nearly all the vices of the present law. Like the present law (4 Geo. 4th.,) it endeavours to keep corn at an artificial price. Like the present law, it must prevent any steadiness in the corn-trade. A duty rising as the price of the commodity falls, and falling as it rises, that is to say, diminishing as the value of the article increases, and increasing as the value of the article diminishes, is a monster of fiscal legislation reserved for the corn-trade. Such a measure might have been supposed to be intended for the purpose of excluding from the trade all men of capital and prudence, and tempting into it the gamblers of commerce. The two great evils of average high price and fluctuation, would probably continue if Mr. Canning's bill, or any other measure, founded on its principle, were adopted, though, of

817
course, in proportion as the scale of the duty were lowered, those evils would be diminished in degree."
Such was the class of witnesses whom he should propose to examine, if their Lord ships could but be induced to grant his motion. And who would be the witnesses on the other side? Would they venture to call a man of the knowledge and ability of Mr. Horsley Palmer, one of the Bank directors? Would they summon Mr. Hubbard, belonging to the same corporation? Would they examine Mr. Lyall or Mr. Masterman, members for the City of London? Or would the Government produce any country gentlemen who would declare that the effects of the law had been found satisfactory to them and to the farmers? He doubted whether this would be done. He had had to hail many conversions, of late, on this point among country gentlemen, and it was singular that when any alteration in opinion took place, it was the doctrine of the sliding-scale that it was abandoned. Never, in the course of his experience, had he heard of an instance of a man who, once opposed to the sliding scale, had ultimately become a convert to its expediency; but they had known many who, having been advocates of the sliding scale, had, after more mature reflection, abandoned it. He felt satisfied the time was not very far distant when the great bulk of the landed interest would recognise the soundness of the opinions in favour of freedom of trade entertained on this subject by the present Lord Spencer, the late Lord Leicester, and by many others eminent, not only as landed proprietors, but as practical farmers. The progress of opinion, which was thus manifested, practically decided the question.
"On entering into any negociation (observed Talleyrand) I always inquire whether time is for me, or against me, and act accordingly."
The Legislature would do wisely to take the same course, for they might well be assured that where the sliding-scale was daily losing support, and a more liberal system was gaining in numbers and strength, the battle was not only fought, but the victory was won. Time, to use Talleyrand's words, was clearly on their side. He fully believed, that every hour this question was postponed, its solution was less likely to be satisfactory to the landed gentry. He would not repeat the te and worn-out illustration of the Sybil's
818
books, but he was convinced, that every day the adjustment of this question was delayed, the more difficult would any compromise become. It would be unfair, after using the name of Mr. Huskisson, in favour of a fixed duty, in consequence of his Report on Agriculture, in 1821, if he were to conceal the opinion pronounced by that Gentleman at a subsequent period, in favour of a sliding-scale; but if noble Lords on the other side, claimed the benefit of Mr. Huskisson's change of opinion on that occasion, he, on the other hand, must ask, what was the opinion ultimately pronounced by Mr. Huskisson? In 1830, in the maturity of his experience and knowledge, what had Mr. Huskisson said, or rather written, on the subject? In a letter written on the 25th of March in that year, he thus expressed himself:—
"It is my unalterable conviction, that we cannot uphold the existing Corn-laws, with our taxation, and increase the national prosperity, or preserve public contentment. That these laws might be repealed without affecting the landed interest, while the people would be relieved from their distresses, I have no doubt whatever."
He referred to these opinions, not as conclusive reasons why Parliament should now and at once repeal this law, but as powerful arguments in favour of his motion for inquiry. Depend upon it, they could not adhere to the present law with a constantly increasing population. After an addition of 8,000,000 made to the population of Great Britain since 1800, it was utterly impossible for any rational man to doubt, that they must soon be compelled to make a change in the law. They could not any longer contend that they were independent of foreign supply. A foreign supply they must have; and on that point he would refer them to the conclusive opinions contained in the report of the committee of 1833. Of that committee, Sir James Graham, now Secretary of State was the Chairman—
"After the most full inquiry and the most careful consideration of the evidence, the committee are of opinion, that the stocks of home grown wheat in the hands of the farmers and dealers at the time of harvest have gradually diminished; that the produce of Great Britain is, on the average of years, unequal to the consumption; that the increased supply from Ireland does not cover the deficiency; and that in the present state of agriculture, the United Kingdom, is, in years of ordinary production, partially dependent on the supply of wheat from foreign countries."

819
Such being the case, ho must remind their Lordships that he only entreated them to consider how a foreign supply, admitted to be indispensable by all parties, could best be attained. It is vain to think of the possibility of making a great and prosperous nation independent of foreign supply. To talk of independence of foreign supply, was to reject civilization. The naked savage, while he remains a hunter in the woods—clothing himself with skins, and eating his food raw—may boast of his independence of the tailor, the butcher, and the cook; but, with civilization, such independence cannot co-exist, and those who talk of the expediency of making England independent of all foreign supply, must wish to see their country retrace its steps and return to barbarism. Mr. Gladstone disposed of that stupid fallacy in a triumphant manner. His words are as follows:—
"We feel it is unworthy of the character and position of England to deny or stint the acknowledgment that we are dependent to a very considerable degree on the demand abroad for our commodities, in order to ensure the sustenance and comfort of our people. But the same considerations demonstrate, that the regions with which we trade stand in the same predicament. Both, as producers, are dependent upon their consumers for the employment of their labour; both, as consumers, are dependent on their producers for the supply of their wants."
But this most fallacious argument is capable not only of being refuted but of being turned against their opponents. But he would maintain that the present Corn-law, instead of making the country independent, made it fatally dependent on foreigners. The sliding-scale, instead of inducing other countries to grow corn for the supply of England, discouraged such a course altogether as a general rule; but the time came when we did want a supply from them, and then we went to ask them to give us a portion out of their own poverty, when, if foreign governments felt themselves strong enough to do so, they might make us most painfully dependent on theme. But no government could interfere to do so. In the height and magnitude of the power of Bonaparte, England, when she needed a supply, was able to obtain it from France. When Napoleon was at the zenith of his power, and attempted to withhold the supply which the British market required, an Insurrection in France was the conse-
820
quence. In short, the idea of making ourselves independent of foreign supply was mere trumpery, and the attempt to carry out the idea tended to take us exactly in an opposite direction from that which we intended to take. He recollected the first Canadian corn bill. It came up to their Lordships in 1827, and its progress was thus described in the House of Commons, by Mr. Frederick Robinson, then Chancellor of the Exchequer:
"The Canada corn bill was surrounded by every principle of justice and sound policy, yet it was received at first in that House with the highest degree of alarm. It was opposed on the ground that, if passed, this country would be deluged with Canada wheat. When it reached the House of Lords, there terror took its stand. Those worthy persons, with many of whom he was nearly connected, got dreadfully alarmed. They had never heard of the like: they threw out the bill. But let the House recollect the result. In the first year an importation of 70,000 to 80,000 qrs., in the second 30,000."
Such was the result of one experiment, from which the ruin of the agricultural interest had been predicted. Mr. Canning, in 1822, proposed what was called the grinding clause, and great alarm was occasioned by the proposal among the landed interest, so much so that Mr. Canning was unable to carry the clause. Our rash inovators of the present day had undertaken the grinding clause, and, more fortunate than Mr. Canning and Mr. Huskisson, had succeeded in prevailing on Parliament to adopt that clause. And what had been the result? Was there any Gentleman connected with agriculture who now felt any alarm as to the effects of the grinding clause? In the meantime, however, powerful interests had been created at Hamburgh, at Dantzic, and at Copenhagen, and those interests were able to maintain an active opposition against us, and the measure, however correct in principle, had been rendered comparatively worthless, in consequence of the opposing interests thus created by our own delay. He would ask them to compare the present condition of our foreign commerce with that in which it would now have been, if at the time of the treaty of Vienna we had negotiated reasonable treaties of commerce with other countries. With respect to many of these tariffs, he could not, however, think that they would

821
be successful. They would fail as being selfish and impolitic. Manufactures created and supported by artificial protection were not likely to prosper permanently. They were more likely to waste capital, than to realize profits. These tariffs would also be counteracted, in many cases, as our own impolitic laws had been counteracted, by the smuggler. View for instance the extensive frontier of the United States, their sea coasts, their boundary line with Canada and Texas. Was it possible to believe that the import of British commodities could be prevented? Indeed, he derived too from these tariffs a further consolation. We may detect and condemn in them faults, which our self-love made us unwilling to recognise in our own imperfect laws. The exhibition of folly on the part of other nations might give us some self-knowledge. It is related of the late Mr. Canning, that finding himself exposed to that severe trial—a wet day in a country house—a trial which it required all his wit and brilliancy to overcome, for want of other amusement he took up a treatise on the protection of British wools, by the late Lord Sheffield, and with the help of a knife and a pen, wherever he found the word wool, repeated in the essay, he altered the letter W into F. The leading sentence thus amended, read as follows:—
"We have no doubt that with due protection the production of British fools may be rendered sufficient for our national wants, so as to render the importation of foreign fools wholly unnecessary."
Now here he differed from the altered version of Lord Sheffield's tract. Re was very favourable to the importation of foreign fools. They sometimes furnish the best means of enabling us to judge fairly of our own. The exhibition of folly and prejudice made in the tariffs of other countries, might teach us to blush for the prejudice and folly contained even in our roost recent statutes. In trespassing so long upon their Lordships, he hoped he had not said one word—and if he had, he begged to apologise for having done so—but he believed he had not said one word calculated to place the question on party grounds. In the interest of the agriculturist, in the interest of the consumer, in the interest of the merchant, he would beg their Lord ships to divest the trade of its gambling character, and not withhold the supply
822
actually in the market at the moment when it was most wanted. He would beg them to make the trade one in which an honest and prudent man might engage. All he asked for, in short, was an opportunity of showing, by sufficient evidence, whether the principles he contended for were founded in error or in truth. The noble Lord concluded by moving,—
"That a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into the operation and effect of the 5th of Victoria, c. 14, entitled 'An Act to Amend the Laws for the Importation of Corn.' "
Lord Wharncliffegave the noble Lord credit for the candour which had characterised the Speech which he had delivered in support of his motion. He was quite ready to admit the truth of the greater part of what the noble Lord had stated with respect to the distress which prevailed in many parts of the country, but the question was whether an alteration of the Corn-laws, at the present moment, would relieve that distress. If he and his noble and right hon. Colleagues were satisfied that the evils under which the country was suffering were really owing to the measure passed last Session, they would have the manliness to come down to Parliament and call for its repeal. He must say, however, that all the arguments of the noble Lord and his friends had failed to convince him that the evils in question were imputable to the present system of Corn-laws. He was not one who thought that the present corn-law was perfect; but the question was whether it were not, in the balance of difficulties, the best, that under all the circumstances, could be devised. It could not be denied that the total and immediate repeal of the Corn-laws would have a most pernicious influence on the agricultural interest, and would reduce the farmer and the agricultural labourer to an infinitely worse condition than they were in at the present moment. The result would be that agricultural distress would be added to the existing manufacturing distress. Under these circumstances, it behoved their Lord ships not to take any step which was calculated to induce a belief that they were about hastily to abolish a system under which the country had existed for a long time. He conceived that much of the distress to which the noble Lord had referred was owing to the gambling spe-

823
culations which had taken place in corn, and in other commodities. On them was based a system of credit, and where they failed, they fell, and carried ruin to all around them. It was perfectly true, as the noble Lord had stated that the speculators in corn had suffered severly; but that was a circumstance naturally to be expected: because one of the objects contemplated by the law of last Session was to check the ruinous spirit of speculation he had referred to. The law it was clear, was not responsible for them, for long before that measure was introduced these gambling speculations were carried on. There were circumstances in the condition of this country which made the trade in corn a much greater question now than it formerly was. As the noble Lord said the population of the country had rapidly increased, and in consequence of that increase we were so far from being independent of foreign supply, that it had become necessary of late years to import considerably—in some years as much as between two or three millions of quarters. The question, then, was reduced simply to this—Does the sliding scale of duties, or a fixed duty, furnish the best means of obtaining the supply from abroad which was necessary to make up the deficiency in the amount of the home-grown corn? The great object was to admit foreign corn in such a manner as would be compatible with keeping up agriculture in this country. It was well known that under the system of protection agriculture had improved, and the quantity of corn produced had increased to a much greater extent than most persons had any idea of. It was frequently said that agriculture would benefit by competition, as some branches of manufacture, particularly silk, had done. There was, however, no analogy between agriculture and manufactures. Competition benefited manufactures in this way—that it caused the manufacturers to produce a good article instead of a bad one. What would be the case with respect to corn? True, more might be got out of the land by better cultivation; but that would be a work of time, and if the price should be reduced below the equivalent arising from the increased production, agriculture would never be able to sustain the competition. In manufactures, again, the power of machinery could be increased, and in six months an enormous augmentation of
824
manufacturing produce would be obtained. The case was different as regarded agriculture. It was necessary to wait a considerable time before the results of improved modes of cultivation could be realized. The man who grew three quarters of corn would see many years pass before he could add another quarter to the amount of his produce. It would be most unwise to withdraw protection quasi protection from agriculture before the real effect of the existing law had been ascertained, and the appointment of a committee, as proposed by the noble Lord, would only shake the confidence of the public on the stability of the present law, and excite hopes and expectations which could never be realized. The noble Lord, by the way, was himself an advocate of a species of protection, for although the noble Lord proposed an 8s. duty for purposes of revenue that must necessarily increase the price and operate as a protection. The noble Lord indeed had not admitted that a fixed duty would afford any protection. But he argued that a fixed duty of 8s. would operate as a partial protection. Such being the fact, they ought to consider what would be the effect of that duty when corn had reached certain prices. In case of very high prices induced by a a bad harvest here and in other countries it would be impossible to maintain the principle of a fixed duty. This was admitted by the Members of the late Government, who proposed a fixed duty of 8s. ["No."] He understood that the late Government finally proposed that when the price of corn might reach a certain amount, the Queen in council should have the power of remitting the duty altogether. In the case of an universally good harvest, on the other hand, could any man believe that the price of corn in England would not under a fixed duty be beaten down and overwhelmed by foreign importation? For his own part, he was persuaded such would be the result. It was to avoid such inconveniences that the Government last year introduced the bill which was now the law. They saw that in certain cases the duties were provokingly—nay, uselessly high. They saw that a 20 s. duty was at certain prices quite as efficient to exclude corn as a 37 s. duty; and he was prepared to contend, that so far from the duties fixed by the bill having done no good, they had proved most beneficial in their past effects, and were calcu-

825
lated to operate still more beneficially in future. But it should be recollected that 1842 was by no means a fair year in which to test the operation of such a bill. Up to the end of April or the beginning of May there was nearly 1,000,000 quarters of wheat in bond. It was supposed that we should have a short and bad harvest, and a general impression to that effect remained unaltered until May, if not indeed up to a later period of the year. When it began to be discovered, or rather to be supposed, that we should have a better harvest, corn was brought to market in larger proportions than it was ever known to be brought to market at that particular period of almost any previous year. He held in his hand a return of the corn entered for home consumption in 1841 and 1842; and he found that, in May, June, July, and August, 1841 (the harvest being in September), the quantity of corn entered for home consumption was 316,081 quarters; in 1842 the quantity entered for home consumption in the months of April, May, June, and July (the harvest being in August), was 624,821 quarters, being nearly double the quantity of the preceding year. The harvest last year, was an early one; and, besides this, there was another circumstance, the result, be it observed, of the bill itself, which operated most powerfully on the averages. He alluded to the operations of those persons who were formerly accustomed to tamper with the sliding scale; but who, after this bill passed, speedily made the discovery that, from the addition to the number of towns at which the averages were taken, it was quite useless for them to attempt to put in practice such schemes as those they had previously carried out successfully. He himself had heard one of those parties say "Peel has done us:" meaning thereby, that the measure of last year had thrown so many difficulties in his way, that it was impossible for him now to put his plans into operation. It was worthy of observation, too, with regard to this bill, that the duty was last year never below 8s. instead of falling to 1s. as under the old law, and the great supply furnished in August last year came in at the duty of 8s. He thought this was a convincing proof that the new law prevented corn from being imported at those very low figures at which it was supposed that injury would ensue to the agriculturalists.
826
Now with respect to the fluctuations. When their Lordships looked at the range of prices, he did not think they could come to the conclusion that prices had undergone under the new law very great fluctuations. The average price was very soon reduced from the very high rates of 1841 and the beginning of 1842, to 51 s. or 52 s. and, having reached that point, it did not descend lower than 47 s. 9d. during the whole year. Under these circumstances, and considering that the bill had only been in operation nine months, he did think it was somewhat early to call on their Lordships to decide so dogmatically against it as the noble Baron would have them decide. It was his firm belief, that if the measure were allowed to go on, not only would existing evils be lessened, but much steadier prices would be secured. At all times steadiness in the conduct of the Government of a country was essential to its interests, and more especially was it so when the great commercial and agricultural interests were implicated. [Lord Monteagle, hear.] The noble Lord meant to say that legislation on this subject had not been steady, he admitted that; but still it had not been so unsteady as the noble Lord proposed to make it. At all times and with reference to all corn bills the House had taken time to discover their faults and to provide for their amendment. He could see no reason why this bill should be excepted from the general rule, and, believing that the House would act most unwisely if they permitted a notion of the unsteadiness of the measure to go abroad, he should conclude by entreating them not to support any motion which, like that before them, would have so evil and injurious a tendency.
The Earl of Clarendonsaid, it would be unnecessary for him to trouble their Lord ships with many observations, for much of what he might have intended to address to the House had been anticipated by his noble Friend (Lord Monteagle) in his most able, comprehensive, and, altogether unanswered speech. The noble Lord opposite, indeed, had not attempted to answer his Noble Friend, the task would have been obviously hopeless, and it was no wonder the attempt was not made. He must, in the first place, express the satisfaction with which he had heard that his noble Friend (Lord Monteagle) had brought forward his important motion, with no object hostile

827
to the Government, for in his (Earl of Clarendon's) opinion, that man would give little proof of comprehending the gravity of the circumstances in which the country was placed, who sought to discuss these questions in a spirit of party, or who was not prepared cordially to co-operate with the Government in any measure they might contemplate for the relief, or at all events the alleviation of the distress which had now become universal. The speech of the noble Lord opposite had, however, destroyed all hope of any such remedial measure, although he was at a loss to conceive with what object the distress of the country had been adverted to in her Majesty's Speech, if it were not to direct the attention of Parliament to its relief. He believed it was not in the power of language to exaggerate that distress, and it was most melancholy to think, that the various classes now labouring under its pressure had not yet reached the limit of the wretchedness they were destined to endure. The state of the revenue was a fearful indication of the condition of the labouring classes. Those who knew what constituted—first the luxuries, next the comforts, and then the necessaries, of the working classes, must be aware what a world of misery was indicated by any serious defalcation of the revenue. What availed it to admit the existence of distress and commend the resignation with which it was borne? The time for words had passed. Of what use was it to tell a starving man, surrounded with starving children, that before six months passed, his condition would be bettered? What he wanted was the means of assuaging his present sufferings. If the present state of things were one of those crises to which manufacturing countries must occasionally be exposed, the noble Lord might be justified in saying that the worst was over, and that better times were at hand; but it had now lasted for years—it had gradually increased—it was progressively increasing still—and it was rapidly approaching that point, beyond which human endurance must find its limit, and which will shake our social fabric to its foundation. He was aware that this distress had been attributed to a vast variety of causes over the greater part of which, however, Parliament would exercise no control, such as the bankruptcy of the United States—the rapid increase of population—over pro-
828
duction—over speculation—the too great extent of machinery, and many others, all of them doubtless more or less affecting the circumstances of the country, but none of them coming within the reach of legislation; were they on that account, however, to sit still and do nothing? Could they, in times like these, when more employment for our people and fresh markets for their industry were imperatively demanded by our necessities, so indifferent to our restrictive commercial code, at the head of which for cruelty and injustice prominently stand the Corn-laws. Would they turn a deaf ear to the cry of distress at their doors, and vote that night as the noble Lord called upon them to do, that nothing could be added to their stock of knowledge, and that inquiry was but a useless waste of their time? What had the House to do? This was the beginning of the Session, and they had not yet entered on that scramble of legislation which had been so often reprobated by his noble and learned Friend on the Woolsack, and which would take place a few months hence, when they should have to pass the bills sent up to them from the other House. What were their Lordships in that House for? They were there in the exercise of their hereditary rights it was true; but which rights would be valueless when they ceased to be respected, and they would cease to be respected when their possessors renounced the power of doing good? What, he would repeat, were their Lordships there for; if they were not prepared to devote their energies to the consideration of questions vitally important to their fellow subjects. The noble Lord opposite said, that if the House should enter into the proposed inquiry, they would shake confidence and raise hopes and expectations which could not be realised. That was the old and stale argument against inquiry, and, in the present instance, was singularly inapplicable. Did the Government suppose they had not raised expectations by recommending her Majesty to announce that she was aware of the distress of her subjects; and did the noble Lord think that the people would not be disappointed at finding that not only were no remedial measures proposed, but that an inquiry into one of the causes to which most persons attributed the distress was peremptorily refused? Let their Lordships but grant this inquiry, and they would excite only hopes of their justice and

829
expectations of their unselfishness; and for his part, he could conceive nothing that would be more becomingly occupy their time—nothing that would be more gratefully viewed by the people—nothing that would be more creditable to the House of Lords, than for their Lordships honestly and without fear for the result, to investigate the operation of a law in which individually and collectively they were believed to be interested. The Corn-law was the key-stone of our whole commercial policy: place that on a sure basis, and every necessary reform would follow as an inevitable corollary. Then would the distress of the country be brought within the grasp of legislation, and England by establishing a sound system of commercial policy, would compel other countries to follow her example. He agreed with his noble Friend, that up to the present time, we had certainly acted an unwise part with regard to our commercial negotiations, and that if, at the Congress of Vienna, we had better understood our real interests, and taken our stand on a different ground, other countries would have followed our example, and a free system of trade would now have prevailed, to the general benefit of all the nations of the world. But it was not yet, he hoped, too late to adopt a wiser course. Foreign governments might tell us to expect nothing from them, and that they could not alter their policy; but if we produced cheaply what other countries wanted in exchange for the productions they had to offer, and that that exchange was prevented by their own restrictive systems, there would soon be manifestations of discontent, which the governments of those countries would not dare to disregard. The complaints of the wine growers of Bourdeaux were already beginning to alarm the French government. The same thing was going on at Oporto. The noble Lord the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs recently stated, that he hoped to conclude the commercial treaty with Portugal that had been so long pending, but if he did, the noble Lord well knew he would be indebted for it, not to the Government, but exclusivel to the clamour which the landed interest in that country had raised against the Portuguese commercial system. In Spain, too, the same thing was taking place; the government of that country had admitted that their commercial system—the absurdest, perhaps, in the whole world—had succeeded in effecting only two things, namely, the
830
ruin of the revenue and the demoralization of the people. In Russia the landed proprietors were universally complaining of their prohibitory tariff. The Zollverein was producing general discontent in the eastern agricultural provinces of Prussia. The tariff of the United States of America, which had been framed for financial objects only, could not be maintained; and there was another country in which nothing was wanting but a greater degree of pressure properly applied to cause the restrictive system to be abolished, and that was our own. Oh, but then it was said, we shall get no advantages by adopting a more liberal system; other nations will not take our productions, and we shall be compelled to pay for them in gold and silver—the fallacy however, of gold and silver not being as good as any other commodities for the purposes of exchange was now too generally exploded to be deserving of notice—we must have obtained gold and silver somehow—Mexico and Peru did not make us a present of them—an equivalent must have been taken in exchange, and that equivalent must have given employment to capital and industry. He could state of his own knowledge, that the persons who were the principal upholders of monopoly in foreign countries dreaded nothing so much as to see the principles of free trade fairly carried out by us. The amount of exports must always depend upon the amount of imports, for our merchants could not send domestic products abroad unless they were permitted to bring foreign products back in exchange. In dealing with questions of this nature it was only necessary to act upon the doctrines of common sense—as he rejoiced to find the right hon. Baronet the Secretary for the Home Department had called the principles of free trade and we should benefit, not only ourselves but other nations—we should advance the cause of civilization and human happiness, and be constantly adding to international securities for the preservation of peace. Looking at the subject in this point of view, and not into the narrow and selfish object of keeping up rents, or raising the profits of manufacturers, he declared it was in his opinion the greatest and most important question that could engage the attention of the Legislature. He accordingly thought his noble Friend had done most wisely in confining his proposed inquiry to the Corn-laws, knowing, as his noble Friend well did, that until they were

831
placed on a sound and permanent basis every other interest would remain stagnant and unthriving. And could his noble Friend have given to his motion a more modest or unexceptionable form? An inquiry into the operation of the law ! Why if the noble Lord was sincere in his belief, that the law was working beneficially, this was just the motion which, if the Government did not originate themselves, they should be grateful to his noble Friend for bringing forward. The noble Lord probably spoke from the information he had received from his noble Friend the President of the Board of Trade, the cause of whose absence that night he sincerely regretted, and that information was doubtless derived from those various sources to which he had access. He must, of course, during the last eight months, have been in communication with landholders and farmers, bankers, merchants, corn-factors, and custom-house officers, and the most intelligent too, of these various and conflicting classes. Now, if this were so, and he supposed it was, because it ought to be the case, let all these witnesses be summoned before the committee, and he saw no reason why every member of it should not be brought to the same conclusion. Let him convince the noble Baron now sitting opposite (Lord Ashburton) in the same way; for he feared, from that noble Lord having gone over to the other side, that his mind was not yet made up on the question. [Lord Ashburton had a few minutes before moved from the Opposition to the Ministerial Benches.] His noble Friend near him (Lord Monteagle), who had long been connected with the finances of the country, though he had not been President of the Board of Trade—whose long official experience made him a most competent judge of the operation of any law affecting the material interests of the community, and whose industry in collecting facts, and great ability in reasoning clearly upon them, he was sure their Lordships must that night all have admired—his noble Friend, thus qualified to state an opinion, declared inquiry to be necessary The noble President of the Council, taking his opinions as those of the Government, was of a contrary opinion. Could there be a better mode of arbitrating between them, and ascertaining on which side lay the truth, than by the appointment of a committee such as could be selected in that House, and whose verdict should be enti-
832
tled to the confidence of the country? This would be a straightforward, manly way for the Government to act, and a way in which, if they thought themselves justified in upholding the law, they ought to act, when thousands of our fellow-subjects believed that the evils they were suffering under were attributable to this measure alone, and when it should be the duty of the Government to make plain to them, that they were in error, and that to other remedies, they must look for relief. For his own part, he could only say, that if the noble Lord (Lord Wharncliffe) granted the committee, and convinced him that the Corn-law was a beneficial law, he would abandon all his previous opinions, and publicly do penance for them in that House. But if the noble Lord shrunk from this inquiry, he would do more to damage the law, and to impair public confidence in its durability, than anything that happened even during a late debate in another place, which was full of most important admissions. He spoke from memory; but he saw reported of the right hon. Gentleman, the Vice-President of the Board of Trade, of whose distinguished abilities he meant to speak with all respect, that there was no abstract principle involved in the Corn-law; that it was regulated by the same principles as those which applied to cattle, or any other commodity; that our exports depended on our imports; that the law must be temporary; and that of all classes connected with the land, the least affected by a change would be the landlords. He saw, also, that the right hon. Secretary for the Home Department said the doctrines of free-trade were those of common sense, and that without commercial prosperity, our landed interest must decay. And, lastly, that the right hon. Baronet at the head of the Government was reported to have said, that protection could not be defended as the permanent system of this country. There was, then, no material difference between the Government and its opponents. Why, then, not carry out the admitted principle to its legitimate results? That the difficulty of dealing with protected interests were great, he admitted: but were they likely to diminish? On the contrary, would not their tendency be to increase? for parties always wax strong as Governments grow weak, and this Government, like every other, must expect to see its power decline, indeed, it had done so already. The longer necessary reforms were delayed, the greater

833
will be the difficulty of carrying them out, and the greater the danger of their arriving too late—of arriving too late, also, in more ways than one—for the time may come when the excited passions of the people, and the threatened institutions of the country, may exact from them that which prudence and foresight should have prompted them to grant. It was far from his intention to use or encourage the use of the language of intimidation, which it was not his habit to indulge in, and which he knew would not be tolerated in that House; but he thought it a most pernicious system not to precede and guide public opinion, not to minister to admitted necessities, but to wait, as in the case of Catholic Emancipation, until impending civil war compelled them to grant not only all that had before been strenuously refused, but more even than had been asked. He thought it a most pernicious system, as in the case of Parliamentary Reform, to reject every improvement, to refuse the abatement of acknowledged nuisances, and to goad the people into saying we will, to those who declare you shall not. Let their Lordships look to the present state of this question as compared with that in former years, when it was but little understood; it had now grown in public importance, and was now the topic of every public meeting connected with the industry of the country. It had been said, that facts and arguments took a long time to soak in this country; but when once they were imbibed, they sprung up in convictions and produced results that could not with safety be disregarded. What if the harvest of last year had been like that of 1839? What if the winter had been severe, instead of the extraordinarily mild season we had just experienced? Noble Lords would have had reason to take a very different view of the effects of the law. But the noble Lord had said, that there had not been time enough to test the law; that would be true if it had contained any new principle, if it were likely to settle anything, if it prevented speculations and fluctuations, or if it were such a law as to enable the people to take it as the basis of future and permanent arrangements; but it did not. And how could it, when they were told upon the highest authority, that it possessed no abstract excellence, and that its existence would not be guaranteed for a single year, and that the answer to all inquirers must be considered as a temporary one—why, what
834
dreadful trifling was this with the Most important interests of the country! He did not ask whether it were wise, or straightforward, or statesmanlike to pursue such a course, but he did ask whether it could be for the interest of those whom this wavering conduct was intended to serve? Could any temporary increase of rents compensate for the depressing uncertainty of the present system? He asked their Lordships whether the evils of the present system did not prevent good tenants from taking land? [Cries of "No, no."] He asked whether the state of the law did not prevent that application of capital to improvements which the present state of agriculture rendered more than ever necessary? Surely then it was better to know at once, that which in another year or two we must inevitably come to. At all events those connected with the land had a right to inquire of the Government why the law is a temporary one, and if the Government cannot tell them, they have a right to know what was that pecular operation of the law and state of the country which would justify further change? For his own part, he thought the present operation of the law and the state of the country not only justified, but demanded further change; and, until he was convinced by somewhat stronger arguments than he had yet heard, he should consider the sliding-scale as one of the greatest evils which could be inflicted on a country, and the protection of the farmers from the importation of foreign corn, one of the most fertile sources of those vicissitudes to which they were exposed. And here he was disposed to ask, why that class of producers, which was protected more than any other, and that at the expense of their fellow producers, and in violation of every sound commercial principle, had been, on their own showing, more often and more grievously distressed than any other in the community. The Corn-law was based on the absurd assumption, that it was in the power of Parliament to secure a fixity of price. He wished to know whether corn had ever maintained, or indeed, hardly ever reached the price on which the farmer had been told he might calculate, and according to which, his arrangements were made? The noble Lord said the fluctuations were not very great. But within three months after this last experiment in legislation was made, the price of corn fell from 62 s. 6d.

835
to 51 s. 7d. and it was now at 48 s. 7d. that was 15 per cent below the 56 s. upon which the farmer was assured he might reckon as a remunerating price, but not more, for his capital and labour. He would not follow his noble Friend through the details which he had so comprehensively laid before their Lordships; he hoped their Lordships would bear well in mind the proofs of the absurdity and mischief of the present law that had been adduced by his noble Friend. His noble Friend had shewn that the sliding-scale rendered the farmer most obnoxious to competition when he was least able to bear it; and that more corn than was wanted was frequently brought in under it. Indeed there were now 500,000 quarters of duty-paid corn still in warehouse, waiting for a market and depressing the price of British corn. His noble Friend had stated the enormous losses suffered by the corn-importers under the present law. The ruin he knew of these individuals was often heard with indifference, or even with satisfaction. They were likened to men who had suffered from gambling. Now, he looked on those importers as great public benefactors. Without their speculations, the country would constantly be exposed to the horrors of famine prices and the dissolution of social order; but it was the law which prevented this most important of all trades from being placed on the same sound principles as those which regulated other commodities; it was the law which prevented prudent men from embarking their capital in it, it was the law which compelled others to speculate and gamble—it was the law—it was the protection with which the landowners had surrounded themselves, that rendered the importers of corn from abroad the curse and the terror of those who produced it at home. He was far from seeking popularity by the avowal of the sentiments which he had addressed to their Lordships. The little property he possessed he derived exclusively from land, and he spoke therefore as one deeply and personally interested in agricultural prosperity; but at the same time, feeling as certain as he could of anything that had not occurred, that the agricultural interest was about to enter on that crisis which now pressed on the manufacturing, he thought it their duty, by every means they could devise, to drag labour into employment, and to enable manufacturers and artisans to become
836
consumers of agricultural produce. The only means to effect this was by giving a general impulse to our export trade, which, by the capital and labour employed in it, necessarily affected the agricultural interest. We have a redundant population, the land cannot maintain more than it already does, and the excess must therefore look to manufacturers and commerce for support, and unless 150,000 pair of fresh hands could be employed every year in trade and manufactures, they must seek relief from the poor-rates, which fell heavier on the landowners than on any other class. It was yet in the power of the Government to give relief. Last year they had it in their power to carry the largest and most beneficial measures of reform, and the right hon. Baronet at the head of the Government ably demonstrated what they should be. He declared it was the bounden duty of the Government and the Legislature to remove pressure from off the springs of industry, to render the necessaries of life more accessible to the labouring classes, and above all to enable the people to sell in the dearest, and buy in the cheapest market. Had the right hon. Baronet fulfilled any of those conditions? Had he performed his promise of rendering the Income-tax imperceptible by the reduced expences of living? Had our foreign commerce been extended or the wages of labour increased? The state of the revenue afforded melancholy proof of how ill the right hon. Baronet had adopted the means he possessed to the end which he professed to have in view. The Parliament had been assembled six weeks, and this was the first time the portion of the Queen's Speech relating to distress was considered. God forbid that he should despair of the rallying power of the country, or think that the capital, and courage, and industry, and skill of our people should be destined to prove unequal to the difficulties by which we were encompassed; but if our downward progress was to be arrested it could only be by the Government and the Legislature boldly facing the difficulties we had to encounter. No one could deny the critical position in which we were placed; no one could deny that apprehension every where existed; that men's minds were unsettled; that all existing arrangements had been interfered with but not adjusted, and that what had been done could only lead to further changes. Amongst various classes, various opinions

837
of course obtained, but all whatever be their class, were agreed that there ought to be no more bit by bit legislation, that the torture of uncertainty should be put an end to, and that laws affecting the most vital interests of the community should be rendered permanent by being made just. He thought, that the Government, whose duty it was to collect facts, and ascertain the true state of public opinion would admit that this was no exaggerated picture of the feeling which existed upon matters far too momentous to be dragged into the arena of miserable party strife, for if ever there were questions which could be called national, and upon which men of every shade of political difference might cordially unite for the common good it was, those which involved not the prosperity, not the well-being only, but the very existence of the labouring classes. And here he was, that if the Government now used the power they still possessed (unquestionably less though it was than last year), they would secure the support, and earn for themselves the gratitude of every well-wisher of his country. It was because he thought that the appointment of this committee would be the precursor of a sounder policy, and an earnest of better measures that he should cheerfully support the motion of his noble Friend.
Lord Ashburtonwas quite sensible that no party was so sure to be heard with satisfaction as those who complained of distress, when it unquestionably existed in the country. It was quite natural that men should be heard in such a state of things to say, "Take our nostrum, it is sure to put an end to all your difficulties." Such professions, however, should be listened to with some distrust, particularly when they emanated from those who were not responsible for public measures. It was undoubtedly true, that the distress was great; it was admitted by all, and it had been of considerable duration. If he were to give an opinion, he should say it was not increasing, but rather subsiding things had a tendency to come round and settle, rather than to produce an aggravation of existing evils. That was his impression, though he confessed he spoke on that point with little more authority than any of their Lordships. Undoubtedly, if their Lordships should be persuaded by the arguments of the noble Lord who had opened the debate on this subject with so much ability and good temper and calm
838
reasoning, and believe in the statement of the noble Earl who had just sat down, that any thing their Lordships could do would alleviate the existing distress, it was their duty to do it; and if they were convinced, with the noble Lord who had opened the debate, that the distress arose from the want of a fixed duty on corn; or if they agreed with the noble Earl who had just sat down, that the whole system of protection was a nuisance, and the cause of the existing distress, he was quite sure that their Lordships would at once seriously consider this important question. He had listened with very great attention to the extensive details of the noble Lord (Lord Monteagle), but had come to a very contrary conclusion from them. Instead of taking the first remedy that was suggested, because distress existed, they ought to be well convinced that the remedy proposed was suited to the occasion, and, more particularly, that it was not one which would aggravate the distress. In his view the manufacturing distress was simply occasioned by the failure of the American market, and by that only. The noble Lord who had opened the discussion had stated, that there had been a great falling off in woollens, and cottens, and different articles of manufacture. It was perfectly well known that the American market had failed to the extent of 5,000,000 l. in the course of last year, and that was quite sufficient to account for the distress which prevailed in our manufacturing districts. The same distress was prevalent in America; ships were rotting in their docks, and fortunes were reduced one-half, and all those symptoms of distress which were visible in this country, were to be seen there, with this difference, that in America there were not those large masses of population collected together which made the distress so painful as it appeared in this country. But the question which their Lordships had now to determine was, had they heard from either of the two noble Lords who had addressed them any arguments to show that the distress arose from the state of the Corn-laws; more particularly had they heard that it arose from any difference in the system of protection between a sliding scale and a fixed duty? Had any one argument been offered to their Lordships which tended to prove that fact? If there had, and the argument was satisfactory, he then admitted, that there was sufficient

839
ground on which to appoint a select committee to look into the question. He warned their Lordships from being led away by their ordinary Parliamentary tactics in Parliamentary discussions, by appeals them such as "who could object to inquiry? He should say, on the contrary, that if no proof had been shown that the existing distress was to be altered by any alteration in the Corn-laws their Lordships must see that they ran the risk of adding the distress of the agricultural labourers to that which existed amongst the manufacturers by re-commending any such alteration. When a few years ago the farmers petitioned their Lordships for an inquiry into the causes of their distress, it was perfectly true, that at that time an inquiry was made, but it had resulted in the conviction of the House, that nothing could be done for them, and that the crisis should be left to take its own course. The noble Lord opposite cheered the fact of a committee having been appointed on that occasion. He had sat upon the committee, and was perfectly convinced at the time, that the remedies proposed were hopeless and useless, and there being in fact no remedy things were left to right themselves, as they would if they did not impose measures which, under the appearance of being remedies, were, in fact, constant impediments to a return to a better state. The noble Lord had dwelt very much upon the sliding-scale—upon its defects and consequences, but had left their Lordships entirely in the dark, whether he was one of those who concurred with the late Administration in their view of the 8s. duty as the proper duty to be imposed for the regulation of the corn trade, or whether he was a convert to the principle of no protection which the noble Earl seemed to consider to be proper. He did not deny, that the whole question of the Corn-laws was one upon the discussion of which men might very well differ, and upon which honest opinions might vary; he could not deny that, when he saw opposite to him noble Lords, from whom some thirty years ago he had had the misfortune to differ exactly in the opposite sense in which he now did. When, in 1815, propositions had been made to raise the protective duty, he had objected to any such increase of the protection; and he certainly had objected to any re taxation of the protection in the discussion
840
of the law last year. With respect to what was called finality on this question, nothing could be more absurd than to say that the law on this question never should be altered, or should never alter with the varying circumstances of the time. He at least should be always ready to listen to suggestions from men in or out of Parliament as to the operation of such laws. He did not at all quarrel with those who held even extreme opinions on this subject, provided they were honest. But at the same time that he believed that no sensible person could come to the conclusion as to the precise degree of protection that should be invariably upheld, he was sure that nothing was more dangerous than a constant fluctuation from year to year in the measures of Government, the consequence of which must be that individuals must be left in doubt as to the manner in which they could safely apply their industry and capital. There should be no change but from a grave necessity, and he did not think either of the noble Lords who had spoken had established such a ground for fresh legislation. The noble Lord who introduced the motion left it in doubt whether he meant to uphold a fixed duty, or whether he agreed with the noble Earl (the Earl of Clarendon) that all restrictions should be abolished. The whole tenor of his noble Friend's speech went to abstain from touching on the point as to whether he held an opinion favourable to the fixed duty scheme or that of total repeal, But taking one view of the case or the other, what proof, he would ask, had his noble Friend given that the existing distress could with propriety be attributed to the operation of the present Corn-laws? In the first place a Corn-law was no novelty among them; they had had Corn-laws in various shapes since 1670, laws which had raised the price of corn more than did the present. And under these laws manufacturing prosperity had grown up; in fact they had existed in different forms as long as the country had been a manufacturing one. Yet, out of doors it was the fashion to talk of the law, as having been imposed in 1828, or in 1815, while, in point of fact, every alteration made since the former period had been an alteration of relaxation in the tightness of the system. It would, also, be supposed, from other arguments which it was the fashion to use upon the subject, that this country alone

841
maintained a Corn-law, while Corn-laws in reality existed in different shapes in every part of Europe, and also, he believed, in the United States of America. In the latter country, a duty of twenty-five percent, was levied upon the importation of corn. Some countries had their Corn-laws in the shape of sliding scales, others in the shape of fixed duties, but in some shape or other the principle was recognised in almost every civilised country in the world. He did not mean to say that that was at all a conclusive argument why we should keep up our own Corn-laws, but it was a reason why the burthen of proving them evil should lie with those who called for their repeal. What benefit would accrue to manufactures from the abolition of the Corn-laws? Nobody would say that, since last year, the price of food had been such as to be very pressing. Manufacturing depression did not arise from that. On the contrary, the prices of food had not been more moderate for years than they now were. He believed that the present price was about 48 s. But if they took the years from 1655 to the end of that century, they would find the average price not less than 44 s. And during the next fifty years it had amounted to about 52 s. per quarter. He mentioned these facts for the purpose of showing that at present there existed no prices so high that the prevailing distress could be attributed to them. Further, let them look into the working of these laws. They were told of derangements of the currency arising from them; but since the alteration of the law they had received 1,200,000 l. revenue from the corn laws, and instead of the circulation at present showing any symptoms of distress, the bank abounded in the precious metals—the circulation was perfect and abundant, and although nearly six millions had been paid for corn, sending the money out of the country, had produced no injurious effect. There were no outward and visible signs of anything in the condition of the country, which could induce their Lordships to believe that the late alterations in the Corn-laws had produced the present state of distress, or that it had in any degree prevented a return to commercial prosperity. He would not follow the noble Lord who had opened the debate into all the details into which he had entered, but he did feel that many of that noble Lords arguments
842
were most fallacious. They could not complain of the present price of food. There had been no extensive fluctuations in prices. Considering that corn was an article most liable to fluctuation in price, it had been remarkable how steady its price had lately been. They had continued the system of protection in a moderate degree to the home growers, and at the same time allowing, at certain prices and under certain regulations, foreign corn to come in. He repeated again it was remarkable how well the system had produced steadiness of price. If they looked at the figures, they would see that in no country in the world had the price of food for the last few years been more steady than in Great Britain. They might, indeed, be told, of the prices of corn at Dantzic and other parts, but let them look at the prices of rye, the principal food of the people of those countries, and they would find infinitely more fluctuation there than there was here. With respect to foreign markets, every one admitted, that if British manufactured articles were allowed to enter at all, that they would undersell all competitors. We had sent iron to form the railway from St. Petersburgh to Moscow, though Russia produced iron in abundance. But we could not make laws for other countries or prevent them from making laws to protect their own manufactures. If their Lord ships would consider the circumstances of many continental nations, enjoying a lengthened peace, they would admit that it was natural that manufactures should grow up in them, especially when protected by their own laws. He did not say that in these cases these protecting laws were wise ones; he wished that they had not existed, but still they had had the effect of fostering the manufactures of the countries in which they were enacted. Notwithstanding all the restrictions of foreign countries, had we not, he would ask a fair share in the manufactures and trade of the world? In the article of cotton this little island of Britain took nearly, if not completely, the half of the whole amount grown. Surely they had no reason to complain that they had not a fair share of manufactures. But he did not believe that foreign countries would be induced, by an alteration in our Corn-laws, to make exceptions in their restrictive codes in favour of our manufactures in return. He knew so well what was

843
passing with respect to this subject in foreign countries, that he was assured that such would not be the case; and that, although they were to make a sacrifice to the total derangement of the commercial code and the destruction of the Corn-laws, by so doing they would not advance commercial and manufacturing prosperity. When they came to this beautiful free-trade what did they find? Why, the Norwegians could carry coals from Newcastle to the Thames cheaper than British vessels, merely because they lived cheaper. They had heard much ridicule of the notions of independence of foreigners, but they saw how other nations sometimes behaved to them. They saw how the French gave bounties to their fishermen, and how their large fishing-boats were in the habit of driving away our own fishing-vessels on the coast of Scotland during the herring fishery. This was contrary, no doubt, to every principle of fairness—to every principle of political economy; but the commerce of this country was a system which could not be fairly put upon perfect principles of political economy. If they quarrelled with the Emperor of China, they might do without tea; but they could never do without bread. The people must be fed; that must be the first consideration. Noble Lords proposed to accomplish it by means of free-trade. He denied that that was the way. In the first place there was a difficulty arising from political circumstances; and though they had heard something about riots in France because corn was not allowed to be exported, he could tell them of insurrections which had occurred because corn-merchants wished to ship corn for this country. An insurrection of this sort had taken place on the Loire, and from the very circumstance that corn had been prevented from being shipped, whether by despotic command, or irregular popular interference, it became a grave question whether, as respected that article of all others which they could do least without, they should be dependent upon foreigners. If his noble Friend had any doubt of the quantity grown in this country, let him read the pamphlet of that acute-minded man, Mr. Huskisson, upon foreign supplies, written in the year 1815, in support of the bill of that year. The question of in dependant supply must rest very much upon a question of degree. If they con-
844
sumed 12,000,000 quarters and grew only 8,000,000 or 10,000,000 they might look to other parts of the world for the other 4,000,000 or 2,000,000. But if they lowered their agriculture, which no one doubted a material sacrifice of the Corn-laws would do, and made still greater the bloated mass of manufacturing prosperity—a prosperity which he believed to be essentially false—supposing they did do all this, they would remain in a state of miserable dependence, and expose themselves to insults and calamities of every kind. His views had been adverse to an extraordinary degree of protection, but favourable to that moderate extent which would give fair encouragement to the agriculturists, and repay them for the particular charges made upon them. That peculiar burthens lay upon the land, no candid man would deny. No man would deny that they were considerable, and required consideration. By protection was not meant taking money from one class to enrich another; it was a compensation for peculiar charges which, from certain circumstances, were best left upon the land. The noble Lord opposite had stated that this was a question to be considered divested of party feeling; but he really thought it was a question with respect to a sliding-scale on which one Government slid in and another slid out of office. Their Lordships had heard no arguments to show that the present law had worked ill. He was sure that if they were induced by mere hackneyed arguments to enter into a consideration of the causes of the existing distress, that the only result would be to aggravate that distress which they all so deeply deplored, to aggravate it not only by drawing the agriculturist into its sphere, but by still further injuring the manufacturers themselves.
The Duke of Richmondwould not have addressed their Lordships had it not been for a statement of the noble Lord opposite, to the effect that Earl Grey's cabinet had been a divided one on the subject of the Corn-laws. The noble Earl had said, that the first Lord of the Admiralty had voted one way upon the subject, and that the Vice-President of the Board of Trade had voted another. Now, he had nothing to do with the Vice-President of the Board of Trade, who was not a Member of the Cabinet, but he said that Earl Grey's cabinet were united upon the subject, that Earl Grey, in the name of the Cabinet, recommended the

845
noble Lord, now absent (the Earl of Ripon), to get up and resist a motion for inquiry into the Corn-laws made by his noble Friend opposite. He was anxious to relieve himself from the supposition that he had staid for one moment in a Cabinet which could entertain notions of changing the Corn-laws every day, or of acceding to motions such as the one now before their Lordships' House. He certainly, for one, deeply deplored the distress of the manufacturing districts. He deplored it not only from the individual cases of misery which it gave rise to, but because he had been one of those who had always felt it to be impossible to sever the great interests of the country without doing injury to them all. He had no sympathy with the Anti Corn-law League, who tried to set these interests in hostile array against each other—the men who did so were no friends to this country. But he had confidence in the uprightness, the integrity, and the intelligence of the agriculturists, and also on the respectable portion of the manufacturing and commercial classes, and he believed that those gentlemen who sought to lead them astray would meet with the reward that demagogues usually received, and would be despised by every true Englishman. He was delighted to have heard it said by the noble Lord who spoke second that when manufacturing distress existed, agricultural distress existed too. He was delighted to hear him admit that that distress threw manufacturing operatives upon the poor-rates, and that the poor-rates were defrayed by the landed interest. The fact that the landed interest was so much pressed by public and local taxation was one of the reasons why the agriculturist did not use so much machinery as the manufacturer. If he used a thrashing machine, for instance, its operation threw people out of employment, who directly became chargeable to himself as inmates of the workhouse. This, he said, was one of the reasons why the farmers of England could not compete with farmers abroad. He himself had had a property abroad, for which he did not pay one fourth of the taxation to which it would have been liable at home. There was one sentiment uttered by a noble Friend of his, which he was surprised to have heard him make use of. He had said that he recommended the House to alter the corn duties, because, they might depend upon it, that agitation would go on until these laws
846
were repealed. Now, it was very extraordinary that such a sentiment should come from his noble Friend. If he recollected right, the noble Lord was no friend or advocate for the repeal of the union. But had there been a subject on which a greater degree of agitation had taken place—and was he on that ground prepared to vote for the repeal of the union? No! Neither was he prepared to vote for any reduction in the extent of protection to be given to the British agriculturist. He agreed with the noble Lord who had just sat down, and he thought that those Gentlemen who had tried to force unduly the export of manufactures had been grasping the shadow and losing the sub stance; for by reducing the value of farm produce, they had prevented the fanner from purchasing one half of the amount of manufactured goods which he had formerly been able to buy. He thought that there never could have been an act more unbecoming of a public man than if the Government of the country had come forward this year: and, indeed, if they entertained even now—unless circumstances should become very much altered—any intention of proposing any further change in the Corn-laws. The country had been told by a great authority in the other House of Parliament, that he believed that alteration in these laws had been necessary for the consumer; but that it would not be hurtful to the producer. He had said there that he thought the probable average price, of corn under the new system would be 56 s.; but since the alteration the price he believed, had never risen to that amount. Well, then, would it not be an act of the greatest injustice to the agriculturists, after they had most nobly agreed to give way, and refrained from agitating the country upon the subject of the late changes—after they had professed themselves willing to see whether they could not give away a little of that protection which was their due—would it not be most unfair and unjust if, after all this, Government were to advance and propose to make still greater changes in these laws? He was delighted to have heard that there had been no intention on the part of Government to make any further changes. He took it that his noble Friend did not say what might or might not happen with respect to the Corn-laws during the next twenty years if he was in office so long; but he had said that he thought they had

847
worked well, and he had admitted that the English farmer was entitled in justice, equity, and policy to some degree of protection.
Earl Fitzwilliamthought, that it was unnecessary for his noble Friend to assure the House that he would not have been a friend to Earl Grey's Cabinet if they ever entertained any intention of repealing the Corn-laws. His well-known character, opinions, and honourable feelings would have been sufficient to disprove such an imputation, even if he had not made the speech to which he had just given utterance. Now his noble Friend had derived satisfaction from the assurances of the noble Lord the President of the Council, that it was not the intention of the Government, of which he was a Member, to interfere with the Corn-laws; but his noble Friend had omitted to supply that to which the noble Lord had limited his assurance. That noble Lord had stated that it was not "at this moment" the intention of Government to make any such change. He did not think "at this moment" that any such change would be necessary.
Lord Wharncliffe: What I said was, that I could not consent to the appointment of the committee asked for so quickly after the late enactment had become the law of the land. I said I thought that it had not as yet been allowed time for a fair experiment, but if at any future time I should be convinced that an inquiry into the effect of these laws was necessary, that then I should have no objection to its institution.
Earl Fitzwilliamcontinued: Well, an experiment had been made. It was found necessary to alter the Corn-laws as they lately existed; and he wished to know what great difference there was in principle between the law which now existed, and the law which Ministers had condemned by repealing? He admitted that a slight improvement had been effected. The law, as it at present stood, embraced the principle of the sliding-scale, with certain rests, which rests were made valuable as affording an intimation of the opinion of Government, that they were in truth desirous of having foreign corn introduced under settled rules—that was to say, of adopting in a certain degree the principle of a fixed duty, rather than that of a sliding-scale. Unless such was the object of the introduction of the rests, he con-
848
fessed he could not see why they were introduced at all. But his noble Friend opposite had stated, that if he were convinced that any good could arise from the appointment of the committee moved for, he would be the last man to oppose it. Now, for his own part, he confessed, that if there was a committee of twelve noble Lords to examine the witnesses which it would be necessary to call before them, he was inclined to believe—he spoke for himself—that he should acquire a great deal of information from such a committee which he was not able to obtain in other ways; and, therefore, if that information would be valuable for the purpose of enlightening their minds, he thought good would arise from the appointment of a committee which would produce that information. The noble Lord opposite (Lord Ashburton) had said, that proposing a committee was one of those hackneyed modes of appealing to Parliament which it was known that persons who wished to make a motion without specific purpose generally had recourse to, and he warned their Lordships against being captivated by the noble Lord's proposal. Now, the warning of his noble Friend against this proposal was quite as hackneyed a warning as the proposal itself, and, therefore, he did not think that their Lordships would pay more attention to the warning of the noble Lord opposite, than that noble Lord thought ought to be paid to the proposal. The noble Lord had said that he had no nostrum for curing the distress of the country, implying thereby, that his noble Friend (Lord Monteagle) had a nostrum for that purpose. Now, if the noble Lord had no nostrum for curing the distress which unhappily was so prevalent, he at least had one to account for it; because the noble Lord said that the whole of our commercial and manufacturing depression was caused by the loss of the American markets. He very much agreed with the noble Lord that the loss of those markets was one of the great evils which they had to contend with. It was to him extraordinary, that when the noble Lord attached so much importance to the American market, he would not vote for an inquiry as to how that market might be affected by the maintenance of the Corn-law. He was sure the noble Lord could not have forgotten the despatch of Mr. Addington, in which it was stated that the unfavourable character of

849
the American tariff was to be ascribed to the Corn-law. That remarkable despatch he was convinced could not have escaped the memory of the noble Lord, who was so well able to call to mind so many other passages. He thought that the House had some little reason to complain that the noble Lord endeavoured to lead them to the belief, that the distress that prevailed was one only affecting the manufacturing and commercial interests of the country; at the same time, he would say, that it was a considerable satisfaction to find that the noble Lord on the present occasion, was not advancing that doctrine which he had put forward on other occasions, namely, that the distress which was felt in the country, was merely the effect of fluctuations in their commerce. He thought that the noble Lord would abandon that position, and be obliged to acknowledge, if he did not state it in so many words, but indeed his speech was a complete acknowledgement of it—that these were not mere fluctuations, but that a gradual and permanent decline was perceived in the interests of British commerce. The question then was, how had that arisen? If the Corn-law had the effect, which it was stated to have had, by a predecessor of the noble Lord, in producing the American tariff, was it not also possible that the continuance of the Corn-law had led to the more unfavourable character of the recent American tariff, as well as in the tariffs of other countries? The noble Lord had said, truly enough, that if they repealed their Corn-law, foreign countries might not alter their tariffs; but then were their Lordships quite sure, that if they persevered in their exclusive system, that the tariffs of other countries might not be made more severe against England. That was the point which they had to consider. Foreign countries might not be inclined to retrace their steps in consequence of this country altering its system. Foreign countries were beginning to allege of this country when it showed a disposition to relax its commercial code, that it did so from no liberality of feeling towards foreign nations. They were beginning to ascribe even the late alteration in the tariff not to any increased liberality of feeling in this country, but to the apprehension of increasing distress and suffering. It was on that account that any alteration in these Corn-laws now, would not lead to an alteration
850
in other tariffs; at the same time, if this country persevered in its exclusive system, the tariffs of other countries might become more severe. But then it had been said, that if they made any considerable alteration in the protection that they gave to British agriculture, that an inroad would be made on it, and that the land would not be cultivated so extensively as it was at present. This was the opinion of many noble Lords; but were not the same apprehensions entertained in 1815, when that Corn-law came into operation, and had not agriculture been able to meet it successfully. There could be no doubt about it; and the same arguments were then used which were now employed. He might, too, be allowed to ask, whether the anticipations were not as fearful, when the temporary alteration was made in 1822 or 1823, and he asked whether that alteration had done any great mischief to British agriculture? He might ask too, whether the alteration in 1828 had effected any greater injury to British agriculture? Was not agriculture as successfully carried on from 1822 to 1842, as between 1815 and 1828? There could be no doubt of it. Everybody recollected, that it was. There were on all occasions, the same foolish and the same groundless apprehensions. From the law of 1828 great evils were anticipated, but that no effect in driving land out of cultivation was felt. Thus it was with the law of last year. He wished to know would any one say—but, above all, would her Majesty's Ministers say, that the law of last year had operated injuriously to British agriculture? He wished, that on this occasion his noble Friend (the Earl of Ripon) were present. His noble Friend was President of the Board of Trade—he wished that he were present, for he was sure that his noble Friend would not acknowledge that British agriculture had suffered in consequence of that law. He anticipated no injury from an alteration in the Corn-law. He was supported by experience in affirming that such injurious consequences would not be felt from a further alteration of it, and he was sure his noble Friend felt with him, that in a few years circumstances would call for its alteration. His noble Friend was too well acquainted with the circumstances of the country not to perceive that the change was inevitable. He was sure his noble Friend knew that circumstances must change, and that this

851
law must be changed with them. For four or four years he had anticipated the change in the last law, and changed it was; and as to this law, he also said that changed the law would be; and as to agriculture, the change then would be as innocuous to it as all former changes had been. The truth was, that the British farmer derived very little advantage from the law. His noble Friend (the Duke of Richmond) had said at the conclusion of his speech, which, like every thing he uttered, came from his heart, "Do not withdraw protection from the British farmer;" and this he said when he saw what had happened that the present law had pretended to hold out to him one price, when it only gave him another. Was not, and ought not, he asked, that to be a useful lesson to him. [The Duke of Richmond: Yes; never to make another change.] Yes; until they come to a law, in which there could be no further change; and to that he said they must come. When he had been accused and calumniated as an enemy of the British farmer, because he had said, that they must come at last to that state of circumstances when they should have done with their wretched system of protection, he recollected what had occurred at the time, for which he was more sorry than for any other act of his political life, when he supported the law of 1815. He remembered, that then the farmer was promised a protection of 80 s. he had got but 40 s.; that the law of 1828 told him he should have a price of 62 s., and yet it went down to 39 s.; and by the very last act of Parliament the Prime Minister assured them they should have 56 s. and his noble Friend (the Duke of Richmond) complained, that it had tumbled down to 46 s. Ought not, then, his noble Friend and the House to see that they ought to have done with this wretched system of legislation—that they were attempting to establish an artificial price for food, which was beyond the power of man I The true system was that to which they ought to adhere, it was that which had been so justly described by the Prime Minister, when he said, that the advantages derived by agriculture from protection, were not for one moment to be compared with that which it received from the thriving state of the commerce and manufactures of this country. That was the true source of agricultural prosperity, and it was to that
852
they were to look. Agriculture would not flourish if the commercial property Were fluctuating—agriculture must decline if manufactures were distressed. It was by sustaining both, and not unnecessarily interfering with either, that they could secure and perpetuate the true interest of their country.
Lord Broughamfelt himself, however reluctantly, compelled to present himself to their Lordships after the various proposals he had made upon this subject—unfortunately with no varying success—and a fate not likely, he feared, to be varied on the present occasion. He could not avoid remarking that never had a question affecting such vital interests, and exciting out of doors such violent animosities, been brought forward in Parliament with more ability, and—at a time, too, when those animosities out of doors were strongest—with more entire absence from party feeling; nor could there be a greater contrast than on this occasion had been afforded between the manner in which this question had been treated out of doors by those who affected to be the leaders of the people, but whom the people did not think it becoming to follow, and the manner in which it had been discussed by their Lordships. "Justice requires me to note (continued the noble and learned Lord)—justice to those whose cause is injured instead of being served by the arts of which I complain, because those arts do but obscure the truth and obstruct its progress,—justice, I say, requires me to observe on the arts that have been used by certain parties to the perversion and the obstruction of truth. A considerable step was taken by the Government—approved of by some, condemned by others—towards the introduction practically of what we deem the sound, wholesome, requisite doctrines of free trade. Well, how was this received by the zealots who assumed to "lead the people?" Did they thank the right hon. Baronet for converting an eight and-twenty shilling duty into an amended sliding-scale? an alteration insufficient, I admit—lamenting its smallness, but yet highly approving of and rejoicing in nay, I will add, exulting in it, as a step towards the full development of principles I have ever maintained—a step in the right direction—nay, when the still further step of the Tariff was taken, which some years ago would have been deemed not a step but a stride from the exclusive to the liberal system—.the zealots of free-trade who

853
assume to lead "the cause"—who affect to be leaders of "the people," but whom the people will not follow, being much too rational and sensible—what say these blind guides—blind through factious passions? What is their reception of those measures? The object of their fiercest attacks is the very statesman who made those steps, and who found himself in this extraordinary predicament—that the zealots of monopoly on the one hand, and of free-trade on the other, equally attempted to run him down. And another class, my lords—the really factious men—the true partisans—those who are only actuated by party zeal—who have no honest zeal for free-trade at all,—I supposed the former to have at least the excuse of blindness arising from the excess of honest zeal, which obscures and misleads; but the men I am now saying a word about have no such excuse. Animated purely by personal and party rancour, they were more enraged, more impatient, more intolerant towards the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government, when he "took a leaf out of their book" (as they called it), than they were with the most determined of their agricultural opponents. They actually appeared to complain of the steps taken towards free-trade. "Take a leaf out of our book! Why, it's flat plagiarism, it's theft, it's piracy! What right have you to these principles? What right have you to talk of free-trade? Talk of 'selling in the dearest markets and buying in the cheapest!' Why, that's ours. You have no right to any such doctrines—you must not use our principles;" and thus, my Lords, I heard last Session greater praise bestowed by those persons (not in words and sentences perhaps, so much as in action and in clamour) upon the men who opposed all change than upon the statesman who was occupied in working out some of their own favourite doctrines; not here, not within these walls was this attempted, or it would have been demolished in the twinkling of an eye; but out of doors, the constant cry—the burthen of the song in every factious, every party speech, and in every party print, was "Government is doing the very thing their predecessors (in vain) attempted!"—spurning thus the objects of which they had formerly been so much enamoured—longing for the very things they had cast away—boiling over with impatience at seeing their own opinions
854
adopted! their own principles worked out! their own measures executed! changing all this through very caprice, pulling down because others had built up; building up because they had pulled down; making their whole lives one scene of inconsistency, self-repugnance, contrariety, and contradiction to the course of all ordinary rules of conduct and all the received order of life,—but most of all, inconsistent with, and repugnant to themselves! But a very different course (the noble Lord continued) had been pursued in their Lordships' House on this occasion. His Friend, the noble Baron who had brought forward this subject, had been satisfied with making the progress, and urging the extension of his own; principles, in promoting which he (Lord Brougham) went even further than his noble Friend; not being content to allow of the continuance of any corn duties at all; considering they formed a tax of the worst description, the evils of which he had often pointed out, and which, at so late an hour, he certainly should not at present further allude to. But, now, to meet the objections of his noble Friends, the noble Barons (Wharncliffe and Ashburton); he must, in the first place, observe that if the merits and success of this sliding-scale were so palpable, it was strange that there should be so much reluctance to exhibit them in an inquiry. Certainly, it was no bad test in trying the merits of a controversy—that of readiness for or reluctance to investigation. The language of one party was "We are right, and challenge you to prove us wrong;" that of the other was, "We are right, and care not to give you the opportunity of proving us wrong." Sir Walter Raleigh said that, when you saw two men wrangling, and did not know the merits of their dispute, you might very safely pronounce him to be in the wrong who first lost his temper. So when opinions are very confidently urged by conflicting debaters and assertions made of fact on either side, depend upon it he is sure to be in the right who courts inquiry. His noble Friends the President of the Council and the late Minister to Washington objected to the appointment of the committee, because it could lead to no result. How did they know that? The object of inquiry was to find a result, and until they had inquired it was impossible to know whether any would be found or not. The painful distress which was now so prevalent throughout the country appeared to him to dispose of the question. But as his feel-

855
ings had been harassed and deeply pained in preparing himself for the motion he brought forward last Session upon that distress, and as he had then harrowed the feelings of their Lordship, he would not then go further into that most afflicting subject. He would merely call their attention to one fact, but it was one of an alarming nature. They had heard it stated that the deficit in the revenue was 3,000,000 l. Supposing it were so, the fact was appalling enough; but it sank into utter insignificance when compared with that inevitable consequence, which did not at first seize on the attention upon hearing the statement made—what was the per centage of that deficit in the returns from the Customs and Excise? Take it at 5 per cent, as an aver age. Then, the 3,000,000 l. deficit indicated neither more nor less than a deficit or falling-off in the expenditure and consumption of the poorer classes of this country of 60,000,000 l. sterling in one year; or take it at 10 per cent., and still there was a falling-off in that expenditure upon comforts, nay, upon necessaries, for customable and exciseable articles had now became necessaries, to the enormous amount of 30,000,000 l. a-year. He would not enter into the question of the Corn-law being quite satisfied to rest upon the statement of his noble Friend behind him (Lord Monteagle), but he must be permitted to say a word upon a subject which he had broached on the first night of the Session. He deemed it his duty now to renew a subject on which he had formerly said he should take the liberty of making some remarks connected with, or growing out of, the agitation for the repeal of the Corn-laws, when a recent trial should be disposed of. He had then thought it his duty to state that he had never accused a respectable member of the league, he had never accused the league as a body, of the atrocious statement and wanton crime, of which he had made a very general and very vague mention on the former occasion. When his noble Friend behind him (Lord Radnor) had misunderstood what he had said, his noble Friend, he was sure, would do him the justice to remember that he at once got up and stated that he never meant to have charged those offences on the league. But he had been astonished to find that since he had taken that course, since he had made that disclaimer, since then he had never been able to discover that his example had been followed by the league itself. He had
856
searched for an acknowledgment for a disclaimer out of doors, which he, in charity had made in that place. On the contrary, he found that he had been himself the object, and so had others, of the most rancorous abuse, and by far the greatest falsehoods, in point of statement, that he ever yet remembered to have seen (and that was a large assertion to make, and a wide comparison to offer) on any former question by any party in this country. And, in order to show how much confidence was to be placed in those men, he meant those out of doors—those fierce and factious men, and the body of agents whom they employed, and upon whom the money which they levied was expended—he had now to state to their Lordships, what had occurred, which he was bound to do in his own vindication, because the greatest and grossest breach of privilege had been committed with respect to the statement that he had made. He thought that he had already stated that it was most reluctantly he had made the motion which he had brought forward in the month of last July. All his friends were aware that it was with heartfelt reluctance he had lent himself to the motion on the distresses of the country. He had seen a deputation of nine gentlemen, including in that nine one hon. Gentleman who was known to him—it was presided over by a very respectable Gentleman, Mr. Stansfield, of Leeds. They had attended twice in that place, and brought him a letter of introduction from another friend. He went out. He interrupted a cause, that was then being heard, for an hour; but he refused to bring on a motion such as he was requested to make. He told the deputation that he declined it, because he felt that it would be useless, and that it could lead to no good. It was pressed upon him to bring forward the motion, on account of the distress prevailing amongst his former constituents in Yorkshire, as well as in Lancashire. All he agreed to was, upon the earnest entreaty of the delegates, to reconsider his resolution; not to make his refusal final. He saw them again, and he told them he could not make up his mind to do as they desired; but he said that if they would apply to his noble Friend behind him, or to the noble Marquess, (Clanricarde) or the noble Earl who sat near him, and that if either of them would forward a motion he would support it. They then prevailed upon him to present a petition, and he then said, on being again

857
pressed, that if on presenting the petition, which he said he would present, that if on presenting their petition, he found any encourangement in the temper of the House, it was possible he might give notice of a motion. These were the facts, and they had taken place within the walls of that House. He thought it right to make this statement, which he did with great reluctance, because he had seen in a newspaper, the professed organ of the Anti-Corn-law League, and called the Anti-bread-tax Circular, a statement relative to this transaction, which was false and unfounded, and he hoped all other statements contained in it, were not of the same character. He used the terms false and unfounded advisedly, and for the purpose of avoiding a shorter and more vulgar expression, more applicable to the thing, but which respect for his audience prevented him from uttering. But he hoped all the statements in that paper were not as false as this:—"that it was astonished when it found him speak of his reluctance because he had pressed his services upon the league! that he had volunteered the bringing forward of the motion! and that he did this, when they would have preferred the motion being made by another." Now, if anything so opposite to the truth had ever before been uttered or printed, he had yet to learn where, when and by whom. A grosser breach of the privileges of that House had never been committed, than to say that a Peer of Parliament had told an audacious untruth. He had made his assertion in presence of their Lordships and of the nine delegates. It might be said that it was only assertion against assertion, and that proof must be given as to which of the two assertions was the correct one. But, was it likely that nine men, forming a deputation, would come down to that House to see a Peer for the purpose of asking him not to make a motion? What was meant by his pressing his services—by his volunteering to make the motion—by his insisting on taking the matter into his own hands? Had he any necessity to ask the League for leave to make a motion? Why, he did not even ask such leave of their Lordships. Every Peer of Parliament had a right, when it so pleased him, to make a motion in that House. So here was a falsehood of so gross a description, that if any one looked at it only for one moment, he could not fail of seeing that it bore internal evidence of being untrue.
858
The funds so liberally subscribed by his noble Friends near him, and by the public out of doors, to the League, were used in circulating the paper containing these falsehoods: for they sent six or seven copies of it to him, that he might not fail to know how shamefully he had been aspersed, how audaciously the plain truth had been violated. The untruth had been circulated all over the country, had been commented upon in all the country papers, and in all the meetings of the supporters of the League. A more foul and daring untruth never was coined by the spirit of party, and anonymously promulgated by persons who were afraid, in their own proper names, to utter so atrocious a falsehood. He had written to Mr. Stansfield, the respectable chairman of the great meeting of the League, and he had in his pocket the copy of the letter which he had sent to that gentleman, containing a statement precisely similar to that which he had now made to their Lordships, and he had received a reply from Mr. Stansfield, assuring him, in the most distinct and emphatic terms, that his (Lord Brougham's) account of what had taken place, was perfectly accurate. This assurance he had instantly received from Mr. Stansfield, who was the chairman of the late great meeting for the repeal in London, and by far the most respectable man amongst them all. When he said this, he did not intend by any manner of means to deny the respectability of others of the deputation that had waited upon him. Very much the reverse. He acquitted them of this falsehood. They were not the authors of it; but the paper which they supported and maintained, their Anti Bread-tax Circular, as they called it, was at once the author and the disseminator of it. He had desired that paper to be searched for the last four weeks, and to this day it had contained no explanation or contradiction of the falsehood to which it had given birth and currency. However, as he had already stated, he had received Mr. Stansfield's assurance of the correctness of his account of what had taken place, and so there was an end to the falsehood altogether. But no doubt it would be repeated, and others added to it. They lived in an atmosphere of these falsehoods. They lived in that kind of atmosphere which long habit did not render more easily respirable, but against the effect of which long habit certainly case-hardened those who were found to breathe its hateful fumes. He had before said that he disclaimed for the respectable Members of the League all fel-

859
lowship in the foul assassination speeches of a clergyman in Yorkshire. There was no distinction of party amongst these men. They objected just as much to his noble Friend near him (Lord Monteagle) and to Lord John Russell as they did to Sir Robert Peel, and the gentleman, as he was called by the Yorkshire clergyman, the gentleman who talked of drawing lots for committing murder would just as readily (if the lot had fallen upon him) had put an end to his noble Friend near him (Lord Monteagle) as he would to the right hon. Baronet at the head of the Queen's councils, because those people abhorred a fixed duty as much as they did a sliding-scale. Therefore, they were perfectly impartial; but was it not a most marvellous thing that no pains were taken by the respectable Members of the League to sever themselves from such unclean pollution as that to which he had adverted, and which revolted and disgusted the feelings of all mankind. They had abundant opportunity of doing so, and how had they availed themselves of it? He had heard with utter astonishment that at a meeting of the League, consisting of 1,500 persons recently held at the Crown and Anchor, and presided over by the respectable person to whose letter he had alluded, the only disclaimer that was made—at least the only one that had reached him through the information of a gentleman who wag present, and upon whose statement he could entirely rely—was in a speech full of ribaldry and jest, turning the thing into a subject of humour—talking of assassination as a matter of merriment and joke, and endeavouring to run down his right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, with taunts and jeers as absurd and invidious, as the charges made against him were futile and flimsy. The demeanour of the right hon. Baronet had been made the subject of jest and jeers, as if he had shown a want of nerve and want of firmness, from having his feelings excited by the tragedy of which he had been the intended victim. Gracious God! did any man—did anything breathe in the form of man—with the feelings of human nature—with a heart throbbing in his bosom—who would think the worse of the right hon. Baronet for having felt most deeply, most painfully, most acutely, a sentiment of horror and dismay at the dreadful accident (as he must now call it, after the verdict of the jury) by which a friend, and a public servant in employment under him—a man whom he esteemed and loved—had lost his life by
860
being mistaken for the right hon. Baronet himself. He hoped to God that he himself should never speak otherwise than the right hon. Baronet had done if he knew that any dear friend of his had lost his life by having been mistaken by the murderer for himself, because he should feel incapable of severing himself from some sort of share in the accident. He should be unable to dismiss from his mind the notion that he had been the occasion, though the innocent occasion of the catastrophe which followed. That was the origin of Sir Robert Peel's feeling upon the subject; and that man must have a mind callous to all feeling, or a mind utterly perverted by personal or factious fury, who could doubt for one instant what the origin of that feeling was, or who would refuse to say that such feelings did honour to the bosom in which they arose. He would now very shortly trouble their Lordships with a few words by way of comment upon the only argument which appeared to him to have been employed by his noble Friends on the Ministerial side of the house, in opposition to the main point of the question introduced by his noble Friend near him. His noble Friend opposite (Lord Ashburton) had said that there was a great difference between the commerce in grain and the commerce in any other consumable articles, because grain is a necessary of life, and all other articles are merely luxuries, the use of which might be dispensed with. Therefore, said his noble Friend, "We must not allow our selves to be dependent upon other countries for a supply of grain, although we may afford to do so in respect of other articles." He was at issue with his noble Friend upon that point, and if their Lordships would consent to the appointment of a committee to inquire into the whole matter, he pledged himself to satisfy his noble Friend from facts, from returns, from the records of the Custom-house in this country, and from the information derived from our foreign Ministers during the last thirty or forty years, that there never was a greater delusion than to suppose that any particular state of affairs could obstruct, much less cut off, or even temporarily impede, the fulness of foreign supply. As this was the most plausible argument used against the proposition for a free-trade in corn, he intreated their Lord ships to bear with him for a few moments whilst he put an end, as he thought for ever, to that plausible but hollow argu-

861
ment. For this purpose he must pray their Lordships to cast their looks backwards, and to ask themselves whether there ever was a period in the history of this country in which the shutting all the ports on the continent, and the preventing all issue of grain to this country was ever so near possibility as it was during the late war with Buonaparte? In other wars we were at peace with Prussia, if we crossed the sword with France, or we had Austria for our ally if France was our enemy, or we had Russia with us if we had Spain and the Turk against us—and in other wars the powers and resources of the hostile countries themselves had infinitely less force—infinitely less stringent efficacy to shut their ports against us, than we unfortunately found that the great Emperor possessed. He begged their Lordships to look back to the years 1809–10 and 11. When were we ever again likely to see such a state of things as existed in those years, when all Europe was leagued against us under the iron sceptre of the Emperor—when the whole coast—the iron-bound coast of Europe—was under his entire, and absolute, and despotic control—when his armies were counted by hundreds of thousands, and his naval force by myriads—when the greater powers of Europe had become petty principalities, trembling at his nod, eagerly watching his beck, and moving as his finger pointed—when such was the organization of his force—when so perfect was all its structure when so prevailing was the central influence of its immense, gigantic military power, that from the centre of Paris, he could issue his orders into the east, west, north, and south, and, it might almost he truly said, without a figure of speech, that every pulsation of the great heart which resided in the capital of France was felt and made to quiver the remotest fibre of the vast European frame. That was the awful, the unparalleled state of things under Napoleon in the years 1809, 1810, and 1811. Were the ports of Europe shut against us? Did no foreign grain then find its way into this country? Did the gigantic force of the Emperor succeed in cutting off our supply at the time when we most wanted it, and when he was most eager to stop us from having it? Why, the fact was undeniable; and it for ever put an end to this part of the question—for ever broke down and destroyed this only remnant of plausible argument against free-trade. The fact was undeniable and notorious, that during
862
those three years a greater importation of grain took place from Europe to this country than had ever been known at any one preceding period in the history of this country. The authority upon which he made this statement was the speech of his noble Friend himself (Lord Ashburton) delivered in the year 1815, when the question of the Corn-laws was under the consideration of the House of Commons. He heartily agreed with those who had no fears about the dependence of this country upon other countries for a supply of grain. He had no respect for the argument which insisted upon the necessity of each nation making itself, as far as possible, independent of all others. Good Heavens! a nation independent of all others? As if the very bond of national existence was not of necessity, and must not ever of necessity, be mutual dependance of one nation upon another, as if the bond of human existence is not the necessary dependency of man upon his fellow-man! As long as one country produced grain, and another wine—as long as one country produced timber, another spice, and another iron, they who had these things must supply them to those who wanted them.
"Hic segetes, illic veniunt felicius uvæ,
"Arborei fœtus alibi, atque injussa virescunt
"Gramina; Nonne vides croceos ut Tmolus odores,
"India mittit ebur, molles sua thura Sabæ,
"At Chalybes nudi ferrum."
So it always was, so it ever must be, so it ever had been since the waters of the deluge retired, and left the earth which they had made their prey, a prey to the labour of man, that labour, stimulated by mutual wants, and partial abundance, on which all the plenty of the world depends.
"Continuò has leges, æternaque fœdera certis
"Imposuit natura locis, quo tempore primum
"Deucalion vacuum lapides jactavit in orbem."
Such was the eternal and irrevocable decree of Providence, recorded in the great book of nature, a decree to which all must yield obedience, and which will for ever mock the impotent attempts of human folly. These were his principles—they were the principles of men who had been much misunderstood and still more misrepresented—they were the principles of the advocates of free-trade. They did

863
not say that no article of importation should ever be made the subject of duty; but they said, that revenue and trade, were two separate and distinct matters; that it was lawful to levy revenue upon articles of importation, but that it was unlawful to levy revenue for the purposes of protection. These were the principles of the advocates of free-trade, and, standing by those principles, he maintained that they were fixed upon a rock which could not be removed or shaken; and endeavouring upon the present occasion to work them out in some small degree, he should give his hearty support to the motion of his noble Friend.
Viscount St. Vincentwished to make an observation with respect to that part of the noble and learned Lord's speech, in which he had spoken of the coast of Europe as having been sealed against this country during the dominion of Napoleon. With permission, he must be allowed to correct the noble Lord upon that point, since there never was a period when the emperor maintained a naval supremacy. There was one other observation that he wished to offer. It appeared to him that what was called a duty of protection and a duty for revenue was little more than a distinction of terms, and that if corn alone were exempted from the payment of that duty (by whatever name it was called), it would operate in future as a bonus to every other object of trading or manufacturing industry in preference to growing corn, the produce of agricultural industry, and, consequently, would so far operate to withdraw capital from the land and transfer it to trade and manufactures. One other word, and he would trespass no further on their Lordships' patience. "A burnt child dreads the fire." He had heard a great deal about the advantage of free labour in the West Indies, as well as about the advantage of free trade in corn. Whatever advantages (and he would not dispute them) might have accrued to the labouring population in the West Indies, there was scarcely a proprietor in those islands who had not been brought into a state of distress and beggary. He mentioned this as a caution to the agricultural interests in this country, and he warned them to take care how they yielded to abstract ciples, however plausible they might be, apon the subject of free-trade.
Earl Mountcashelspoke amidst general
864
cries of "Question." His Lordship was understood to admit the distress of the manufacturing classes; but, at the same time, to contend, that the agricultural classes, by the concessions already made, were reduced to a state of equal suffering.
Lord Monteagle, in reply, adverted to the manner in which the noble Lord opposite (Lord Ashburton) had spoken of the manufacturing classes. When the noble Lord referred to them as a bloated mass of population.
Lord Ashburtoninterposing, said, that he had not so described or so spoken of the manufacturing classes. The argument that he had advanced was this: that if it were possible (which it was not) to raise a bloated mass of population without the means of supporting it, it would be one of the most distressing positions that a country could be placed in. When the noble Lord stated that he (Lord Ashburton) had spoken generally of the manufacturing population as a bloated mass, the noble Lord entirely misrepresented what had fallen from him.
Lord Monteagle: I regret, my Lords, that you are about to decide against a proposition which you must surely have deemed to be moderate and reasonable. Inquiries, like that which I have proposed, have frequently been granted, in other times, greatly to the advancement of the public good, and to the contentment of various classes of her Majesty's subjects. I shall not do more than allude to Lord Wallace's Committee on Foreign Trade; to the Inquiry into the Silk Trade; to the Committee on our trade with the East Indies. On all these, legislative measures of improvement have been founded. Before I sit down, I must call your Lordship's attention to the following sentence from the Report on the Hand-loom Weavers, which appears to me deserving of the utmost attention from those who undertake the responsibility of deciding against me. The words are as follows:—
"The Government of this country resides in a minority—and a narrow minority of the people—the owners of land. A very small portion of the community constitutes, almost exclusively, one House of Parliament, and forms a very large majority of the other. Such a Government can be safe only so long as it is popular, and popular only while it is believed to be impartial. Its first prudential duty is to avoid the appearance of selfish legislation. We are aware that many of those who support

865
the Corn-laws, believe that to alter them would be injurious to the whole community, and though dissenting from that opinion, we respect its sincerity. But we feel that no such respect is felt by the manufacturing population, who, from their concentration, their union, their numbers, and the rate of their increase, are now the most powerful of the labouring classes, and are becoming more so every day. They find the direct effect of that law is to raise the price of food, and the indirect effect is to lower wages, and they refuse to listen to any reasoning that would prove that such legislation is impartial."
These were the opinions of no ordinary men, but of individuals entitled to every respect and deference from your Lordships and the public. The report bore the names of Mr. S. Jones Loyd and Mr. Senior, men of the highest abilities and the highest character. And what may not lessen Mr. Jones Loyd's authority in the eyes of your Lordships, is that he is not only a great capitalist and a sound philosopher, but a great landed proprietor, and one whose management of his estates, and whose transactions with his tenants render him, as I am informed, a model for imitation to all country gentlemen. Thanking your Lordships for the patience and attention with which you have favoured me, I conclude by the motion of which I have given notice.
Their Lordships divided.
Contents—Present 31; Proxies 47:—78—Not-contents—Present 82; Proxies 118:—200.—Majority 122.

List of the CONTENTS.

MARQUESSES.

Duncannon.

Lansdowne

BISHOPS.

Clanricarde

Ely

Headfort.

Hereford.

EARLS,

BARONS.

Cowper

Camoys

Charlemont

Campbell

Clarendon

Colborne

Ducie

Cottenham

Fitzwilliam

Dinorben

Kenmure

Foley

Lovelace

Hatherton

Radnor

Lilford

Rosebery

Langdale

Auckland.

Monteagle

VISCOUNTS.

Strafford

Ponsonby, of Imo

Sudeley

Torrington

Teynham.

Proxies.

DUKES.

Norfolk

Sussex

Somerset

866

Devonshire

Craven

Bedford

Albemarle.

Sutherland

VISCOUNT.

Leinster.

Melbourne.

MARQUESSES.

BISHOPS.

Anglesey

Durham

Westminster.

Lichfield

EARLS.

Worcester.

Spencer

BARONS.

Suffolk

Lynedoch

Gosford

Godolphin

Fingall

Methuen

Burlington

Stanley, of Alderley.

Besborough

Cloncurry

Bruce

Kinnoul

Effingham

Vivian

Fortescue

Mostyn

Belfast

Talbot, of Malahide

Carlisle

Berners

Zetland

Dormer

Fitzhardinge

Stuart, of Decies

Sefton

Dunalley

Gainsborough

Clifford

Uxbridge

Poltimore.

Minto

List of the NOT-CONTENTS.

Duke of Cambridge

Wicklow

Lord Chancellor.

Clare

DUKES.

Bandon

Richmond

Rosslyn

Beaufort

Wilton

Buccleuch

Verulam

Wellington

St. Germains

Buckingham.

Beauchamp

MARQUESSES.

Sheffield

Salisbury

Eldon

Abercorn

Somers.

Exeter

VISCOUNTS.

Camden

Sydney

Cholmondeley.

Hood

EARLS.

Strangford

Essex

Middleton

Shaftesbury

Gage

Jersey

Hawarden

Home

St. Vincent

Haddington

Lake

Galloway

Canning

Dalhousie

Lowther

Selkirk

Hill.

Aberdeen

BISHOPS.

Dunmore

Bangor

Orkney

Chichester.

Hopetoun

LORDS.

Oxford

De Roos

Dartmouth

Willoughby de Eresby

Aylesford

Beaumont

Warwick

Colville

Hardwicke

Rolle

Delawarr

Middleton

Bathurst

Boston

Beverley

Southampton

Carnarvon

Kenyon

Liverpool

Wodehouse

Egmont

Northwick

Clanwilliam

Farnham

Mountcashel

Redesdale

867

Rivers

Feversham

Colchester

Tenterden

Bexley

Templemore

Wharncliffe

Ashburton.

Proxies.

DUKES.

Dunraven

Marlborough

Amherst

Dorset

Cawdor

Northumberland

Ranfurly

Cleveland

Ripon.

MARQUESSES.

BISHOPS.

Winchester

St. Asaph

Huntley

Carlisle

Tweeddale

Rochester

Hertford

Gloucester.

Bute

VISCOUNTS.

Downshire

Hereford

Donegal

Arbuthnot

Ely

Strathallan

Ailesbury

De Vesci

Westmeath

Doneraile

Ormonde.

Melville

EARLS.

Sidmouth

Devon

Lorton

Denbigh

Exmouth

Westmoreland

Beresford

Lindsey

Combermere

Stamford

Canterbury.

Winchilsea

LORDS.

Sandwich

Clinton

Cardigan

Willoughby de Broke

Abingdon

St. John

Plymouth

Saltoun

Poulett

Sinclair

Morton

Reay

Moray

Dynevor

Lauderdale

Walsingham

Airlie

Bagot

Leven

Grantley

Balcarras

Rodney

Seafield

Montagu

Tankerville

Braybrooke

Macclesfield

Douglas

Buckinghamshire

Bayning

Egremont

Dunsany

Guilford

Blayney

Talbot

Clonbrock

Malmesbury

Crofton

Mornington

Alvanley

Roden

Ellenborough

Longford

Sandys

Mayo

Manners

Enniskillen

Castlemaine

Donoughmore

Harris

Onslow

Prudhoe

Romney

Glenlyon

Clancarty

Ravensworth

Powis

Downes

Manvers

Gifford

Lonsdale

Cowley

Harewood

Stuart de Rothesay

Brownlow

Skelmersdale

Bradford

Wallace

Glengall

Wyndford

De Grey

De Saumarez

Falmouth

Seaton

Stradbroke

Keane.

868

Paired off.

NOT-CONTENTS.

CONTENTS.

Duke of Rutland

Earl of Scarborough

Marquess of Thomond

Earl of Thanet

Earl Charleville

Marq. of Normanby

Earl Howe

Lord Crewe

Bishop of Winchester

Bishop of Norwich

Lord Churchill

Lord de Mauley

Lord Delamere

Lord Bateman

Lord Forester

Lord Portman

Lord Fitzgerald

Lord Brougham

Lord de Lisle.

Earl of Erroll.

Lordships adjourned.
The following Protest was entered against the decision:—
DISSENTIENT—
"First, Because it appears to us inexpedient to reject a motion of inquiry into the effect and operation of an act which has not realized the declared intentions of its framers and of the Legislature, by diminishing fluctuation of prices, and securing the supply of imported grain in a manner consistent with the public interests.
"Secondly, Because the evils admitted to be incidental to the Act of the 9th Geo. 4th, which it was proposed to remove in the last Session, are proved by experience still to subsist, and may, therefore, be traced to the principle of the sliding-scale, so unfortunately transferred to the 5th and 6th Vie., c. 14, from the antecedent Corn-law.
"Thirdly, Because it has been proved, by the experience of the last twenty-eight years, that a scale of duties varying inversely with the price of corn, acts injuriously to the interests of the consumer, the British agriculturist, the merchant, the manufacturer, the banker, and the foreign grower: injuriously to the consumer, as inducing the owner of foreign corn to withhold his supplies from the market, whatever may be the public necessity, till the price shall have reached its maximum, and the duty its minimum; injuriously to the agriculturists, and more especially to the smaller farmers, as exposing them to a forced and unnatural competition with foreign grain entered for home consumption at the time of harvest, the period when such competition may be fatal to the British growers without being beneficial to the public; injuriously to the importing merchant, by rendering the trade in corn a gambling adventure, rather than a commercial enterprise, the sliding-scale augmenting the profits of a successful speculation, and aggravating the loss of a speculation which is unsuccessful; injuriously to the manufacturer, because a casual, restricted, and uncertain import of foreign grain cannot lead to a steady and permanent demand for repayment in the produce of British industry; injuriously to the banker, as producing violent derangements in the foreign exchanges, and sudden and dangerous exportations of the precious metals; injuriously to the foreign grower, because, without

869
the creation of a settled market, large supplies are frequently required from abroad, leading to fluctuations of price on the continent of Europe, consequent upon the fluctuations of price, the effect of impolitic laws at home, and in all cases rendering the reward of industry, precarious and uncertain.
"Fourthly, Because a sliding scale of duty cannot be defended, either on the principle of a countervailing duty for the protection of an interest, subject to special or peculiar burthens, from which other classes are exempted; nor yet on the ground of a duty raised for revenue purposes, for supplying the exigencies of the State in a manner the least burthensome and the most impartial.
"Fifthly, Because the refusal of all inquiry into the effect and operation of a law perfectly anomalous in its enactments, and inconsistent with the principles of commercial freedom, and at variance with other measures which the Legislature has of late years sanctioned, leads either to the continuance of an indefensible system, or to legislation, hasty and ill-considered by which, as in the act of last Session, the evil admitted to exist is sanctioned and continued.
"Sixthly, Because it is to be feared that, so long as a system of Corn-laws exists, which is founded on principles practically discarded, and abandoned in our commercial and our fiscal legislations, there cannot be any such feelings of confidence and stability as shall promote fixed contracts between landlords and tenants, essential to the best interests of both these important classes.
"Seventhly, Because, whilst no attempt is made to defend the principle of a sliding scale of duty, and yet all inquiry is refused into the alleged evils which it occasions, suspicions and jealousies cannot fail to augment between the agricultural and commercial parts of the population, to the grievous injury of both, and to the serious detriment of all her Majesty's subjects.
(Signed)
"MONTEAGLE OF BRANDON."
The following Peers afterwards affixed their names to the said protest:—

"CHARLEMONT,

"CLARENDON,

SUDELEY,

COTTENHAM

CAMPBELL

KENMARE,

LANSDOWNE,

AUCKLAND,

DUNCANNON,

ROSEBERY."