Star. — London, England, 1830-03-30 00:00:00

OM in TAW material 2r. 6d. leaving a profit for labour and skill of 7s. 6d. Now the piece sold for be. its raw material was le. 6d. and the profit applicable to labour and skill on two pieces now was only 71. Then came the necessity with our smaller profits to compete with the fo reign manufacturer, and this had hitherto been done by the effect of machinery, so unjustly in his mind decried, and a constant lowering of the wages of labour. The result of low wages was soon ex plicated by a re-action never dreamt of, and the landowners found no consumption for the produce of the land. Orase.lande for feeding became lower and lower in rent, which was the far larger propnrtion of most men's estates ; and this secret was disclosed lately by the returns from Birmingham, that the consumption of butchers' meat had fallen off already one-third, and was continu ing to fall off. The question of probable profits must be the criterion of how far we are affected by the corn laws. Profits were aft; eked by the non-importation of corn to supply the markets as cheaply as the manufacturers of the continent, by the difference of the prices of corn making wages cheap on the continent and dear in England : and, finally, profits were affected and determined by that portion of the worst sort of land, which was unwisely employed in t" is country in the growth of corn. The larger the quantity of this 1..,rd so employed in agriculture, the less would be the profits of c .pital generally. because there would always be a general tendency in capital in all countries to seek the same level. This country, as manufacturing country, possessed great advantages in having abundant coal, excellent machinery, an enormous aggregate of ca pita, and pre-eminent skill in the application of its industry.— r,uppoaine the produce of the labour of four Englishmen, aided by t t.eir machinery,equalled only the produce of the labour of 8 Russians -11 ployed on the soil in the way of commerce, it was clear we should .entuin the whole of the labour of those eight persons by barter or trade tor the produce of the labour of four Englishmen. Thus in foreign corn it was obviously on this principle proved that it was the inte rest of England to admit by all means foreign coin, in order to .:e Irish and give fair play, by cheap food, to the industry of our own manufacturers, as well as other classes of society. If fair play had been, in this way, given to the productive industry of this country, the landed interest would not have to deplore the present depressed state in which it was: and he would assert, without fear of being refuted, that whilst the great manufacturing interests of the country were depressed by this system of high prices of corn, to the extent of any given sum, the landed interest was benefitted oniy one. fifth of the amount of this unnatural exaction. (Hear, hear.) For his own part, he never wished to live under what was termed a system of privilege or protection. The rolls et protection had been the parent of every species of op France had been oppressed by it, under Colbert; S was the victim of monopoles and protections, which beggared her, whilst Holland, little Holland, showed the great Powers that a country insignificant as she was could not only do without them, but grow rich and affluent by abandoning the antiquated and falls. cious principle of protection. Of all parts of the history of pro-' tective measures the corn laws was the most fertile in folly and mis chief. At one time a bounty was given upon taking our corn— other countries were enabled to eat our corn at our expense. They were paid, in fact, fur being as good as to eat our food. Since then circumstances were changed, and we were turned round com pletely. We now found that we could not possibly go on with the bounty system, or persuade other countries to eat our corn, and therefore restrictions were imposed upon the importation of foreign corn. He was bound, however, to say, that there was this resem. blance between the two opposite principles—that they were both carried on at the expense of the people of this country. At the time when we wanted manufactures, manufactures were excluded : and now, when we wanted corn, we excluded corn. So much, then, for protection. He should have done with that subject for the present. But he would probably be asked whether be thought it possible at present to admit of a free trade. He would ask, in return, was it possible to gdesn without it ? He said the prospe. rity of the country was inseparably connected with free trade. (hear, hear.)—We were prosperous in proportion as we admitted and acted upon the principles of free trade, and the country sunk into difficulty and embarrassment as we denied them. Free trade, according to his notions, was the saving of labour, and restrictions were the waste of labour. The principle of our national prosperity was the productive efficiency of our labour. Free trade was the perfection of economy, since it obtained the greatest quan. tiny of goods for the least amount of labour. And how were we to have this without admitting foreign produce ? In the contest which was now carried on between our manufacturers and the in dustrious classes of other countries, the foreigner had the benefit of cheap corn, while our advantage consisted in machinery and capital. But time and circumstances were giving these two advantages to other nations, and we never could keep up the contest if we ex cluded their produce. When they should acquire capital and ma. chinery, it requited very little foresight or sagacity to see that we should be beat in that contest. Those who denied he principles of free trade, if they meant any thing intelligible, meant that every country should do every thing for itself. According to their prin ciple, America, instead of turning her industry to the cultivation of her fertile soil, should apply it to the making of cottons and bard. ware. France, instead of encouraging the growth of wine and oil, and other productions of her soil, should employ her labour and industry in making iron, without either fuel or the means of pro ducing the ore. England, instead of employing the power of steam and machinery in making goods, should devote her resources to the cultivation of the worst of soils. If this principle were pushed to the extent which it would admit, it would have the worst effects it would prevent the division of labour. But, foolish as this prin ciple was—and it was exceedingly foolish—it was nothing in com parison with the practice of wheelie would call a young statesman of threescore—he meant his Holiness the Pope. His Holiness the Pope best all the sages of this country in one respect. He issued a de cree at one time to prevent the importation of all iron implements for the purposes of agricultural tillage. His Holiness might, no doubt, have boasted that, by such a regulation, he very much in. creased the quantity of manual labour in the Campagna of Rome, since, by denying the facility of the necessary tools for cultivation, be augmented the trouble and the labour; but his Holiness omitted, as sonic statesmen in this country seemed to omit, the consideration that labour so bestowed was an entire waste of labour, not having the labourer's worth for it. It was like the memorable receipt of digging holes in the earth, and then filling them up again. It was labour that had no result. He might be asked if he would abandon all the capital employed in the culture of bad soils ? He said, in reply, that that was useless capital—that the possessors would be better without it. Perhaps these who would be disposed to put these questions to him would allow him to ask them, in rerun, of what use was agriculture? If they gave an intelligible answer, they would say it was to have corn. Was that the use of it ? Theo he would say that theirs was an invention not to have corn. If this were so, he was sure those gentlemen were too wise to sacrifice their capital in cultivating a bad soil, and he would point out to them that they could get their corn cheaper from abroad. There wens some who, perhaps, would ask him why not leave this question at rest ? The question never could be left at rest while such injustice was entailed by the law upon the many who were suffering so moth from It. The q6estion sever could be left at rest while die sou law, by its impolitic provisions, kept down the wealth and pros. perity of the country. It never could be left at rest while the whole question was so well understood out of doors.— If It was not well understood in Parliament, it was too well understood out of doors, ever to be suffered to rest in its present condition. But it might be asked " why not leave it ust. touched at least now, while the country is improving ?" To this he answered, how many times within the last 16 years had be not beard of these improvements taking place ? At least 16 times as many as there were often years since the Corn Bill bad come; into effect, and as he had seen a recurrence to distress and ember. raiment; and such would ever continue to be the case while these laws existed as they stood at present. The corn laws had put the prosperity of the country into Chancery. He remembered a passage describing a certain wizard and his suitors . And they moved on while he waved it o'er ; But they never moved on one inch the more. So the country was like the suitors in that Court of Chancery. It continued to move on with great toil and labour, but still :made no progress. He should now beg to advert to a topic to which he should not have alluded, were it not for some observations made by the noble duke opposite, in reply to some remarks made by a noble lord upon a speech of the noble duke in a former debate.. The noble duke had said—at least be begged pardon, the noble duke could never have said any thing so absurd, but, some one had said, and it was stated that the noble duke had said—that the corn law worked well ; that the state of the country afforded evidence, and that the petitions which had been presented for the last two years testified, that the law'" worked well." NOw he would say that for a time when things were " working well," we had as heavy a year as he had ever trimmed. We were still in the slough, and were not at all likely to get out of it, although the system " worked well." The wheels did not run smoothly . ; they were deeply bedded in the mud. If the noble duke had ever =dm* 'an observation—if he bad ever said that the system '" worked well"—it must have been before he found out the news alt., of a reduction of taxation. • There must have been *Srabe , change in the opinion of whoever it was that said the 'yawn a" worked well," because there were three millions and a half of taxes taken off, and he had never known three.penny worth of taxes taken off when things were going on well. This we fact he thou& worth all the assertions of those who said that the law " worUd well." Whenever he heard this phrase of " working well," he could not help contrasting the state of the country with a corn law, and its condition without a corn law. He could not avoid sow wing the condition of the country for the 15 years since the ash WII, Ind eandition for the 10 ptvaperons and happy years—the • Mlle that this country had eves witnessed—between the gibstise Allen ksin war and she beginning of the French war... . the whole of that time; corn was admitted fkom abroad b lempe fiseeddee, led et a aonilesl •deity W od. the quarter. 21116 Ira be piggy et Mr. Pitt. For his own part, be was one of dine who poodwrid what some pilled the simplielty or the • isms* Of Mr. Pitt to all the elaborate network of the noble duke. The noble duke, or some of those who acted with him, had framed a law which was to be looked upon as the perfection of legislation—the duty varying a shilling, up or down, according to circumstances. The valves of this machinery opened and shut to perfection. It was as good as the air-pump, and equally destructive to the animal which came within its influence. The nobk'duke (he begged par don again, the noble duke could never have said any thing so ab surd,.-but some person had said, that the spread of machinery was the great cause of the distress, since it had thrown such num bers of the working classes out of employment. Why, who had ever heard of the invention of machinery being the cause of distress in former times ? But machinery had thrown these people out et work since the corn laws were in operation, and there was no cor responding demand. But if the corn laws bad not been in existence there would have been a nding demand. Did they not all recollect the spinning jen c n7 e Xich had dispersed a greater quantity of manual labour than any other invention ? and did they not re member the various improvements in frame-work and other machi. nery ? But these things, instead of throwing persons out of em. ployment, added tenfold to it, because there was a demand for our goods on the Continent, and we sold our manufactures there, and got their corn instead, which afforded the means of subsistence to our population, and also furnished a source of profit. It was the corn laws then, he said, which were the cause of machinery throwing the industrious classes out of employment. Machinery certainly had not now the good effects which it had produced formerly, but that was in consequence of the effect of the corn laws. The noble duke had certainly great merit in having given religious peace to the country. He wished the noble duke would now give peace from distress and discontent by an alteration of the corn laws. Let him thus secure the peace and tranquillity of the country. This was now become essentially necessary from the state of the country. — (Hew, hear.) .Before he proposed his resolutions, he would say that he had not in the resolutions made any allusion to a fixed duty, or to any other duty; and for this reason.—that, before they talked of duty, he would have them agree as to what change should be made in the principles. Let them first consider whether the prosperity of the country could be ensured without an alteration of the corn laws. He was convinced that, if they did not agree to it now, not many years would pass over before they would fled them. selves obliged to make a great aheration, if not a total change of the laws. But before they talked of duty, let them see whether they were prepared to agree to that alteration. Now as to stirring this question, as something had been said about the inexpediency Obis stirring it at present, he would ask if he was not to stir it, why should the noble earl opposite (Malmesbury) stir it? The noble earl had stated the other night that he was inclined to nibble at the averages. Was not that altering the law ?—(The Earl of Malmesbury said No, no.) The averages were not taken high enough for the noble earl's notions. He would have them fixed higher, in order to shut out foreign corn still more. He (Lord King) had once been desired not to stir this question by what a noble lord, not now present, called interlocutory debates. He was told—" Bring on your case, and argue it regularly." Well, now he did so: he brought it forward, and called upon their lordships to entertain it. But he should now be told—" Oh, the question is now at rest, and you must leave it so; you must not stir it ; the law works well." Thus it was. If he called the atten. tion of the house to it on the occasion of a petition, he was told that it was interlocutory; if he brought it regularly forward in this way, it was at rest, and he must not disturb it. He should not now detain their lordships further, but should conclude with pro posing his resolutions.—The noble lord then read the following re solutions : That all regulations, duties, and prohibitions. which prevent the admission of corn, and increase the price dame necessary of life, Ire impolitic and unjust. A regulation of the trade in corn, for the pretended benefit of the public, is a moat impolitic interference of government in the ma. nagement of the most important of all trades, which government is wholly incompetent to direct, and which it never can attempt even to regulate without the greatest detriment to the public interests. A duty levied upon corn for the purpose of raising a revenue is the worst of all possible taxes—being, in effect, not less destructive than a curse of sterility inflicted en the both An absolute prohibition subjects the consumer to the most perni cious and the most odious of all monopolies. That Great Britain, by the abundant supply of coals, by the ad. vantages of machinery, by the accumulation of capital, and by supe. riot skill and industry, possesses the rare and inestimable advantage of being able to make eth labour of her people more efficient and more valuable than that of any nation in the world. More efficient, because when that labour is applied in directing the powers of steam and of machinery, it produces mote goods than the same quantity etlehoor can produce elsewhere; and it is more valuable, because that produce will exchange for the produce of more labour in any ether country; and in this manner it highly contributes to the in. green of public wealth and individual enjoyment. That it is there. tore the true policy of England to encourage the full development of her most productive industry, to avail herself of all her great, na. tura, and acquired advantages. That it belongs only to the most perverse ignorance, and to the moat culpable misrule, wilfully to preclude the country from the fullest enjoyment of these benefits, by prohibiting, under heavy duties (unless when at a famine price), tbs admission of corn from foreign countries, whose labour, applied le more fertile soils, can supply that article of first necessity at a far cheaper rate than British labour, when applied to the least fertile soil under cultivation in this kingdom can produce. That since the enactment of the corn laws in 1815, the whole of that long period (a period also of uninterrupted peace) has been marked by an unusually low rate of profits in all trades, by an in. adequate reward of labour, by the frequent recurrence of distress in the manufacturing districts, and by the heavy pressure of poor rates in the agricultural counties—a state of things the most opposite to the increasing wealth and comfort which so eminently distinguished the ten prosperous yearssucceeding the peace of 1782, when foreign wheat was, without any interruption admitted at a nominal duty of libiCper quarter. r great and flourishing manufactures, by the euperiorreward of labour which they are able to afford, tend most materially to prove the condition of all the labouring classes, by the constant do. and for the increasing population of their own and of the agricul. total districts ; they pro vide - also the best market for every des of agricultural produce ; they furnish the most ample e the most profitable employment for the new accumulaticwo ef capital ; they afford the means of promoting to an indefinite aro tent the general prosperity and wealth of the country I or if then be say limit, that limit is only determined by the returns of raw pro. duce which the great market of the world is enabled to supply. That the impediments which have been interposed by law to the admission of foreign corn have impaired, and, in some degree, dm. *roll the advantages which nature and industry had bestowal upon us; they have checked the demand for the produce; they have greatly repressed the rate of all profits, because the rate of profits in every country must be regulated by the return of that portion of the nation capital which is employed in the cultivation of the least fertile soils ; they have prevented Our labourers from re wiring their just reward by confining them nearly to the home market, whoa a cheaper supply could be procured elsewhere ; they have nodered almost unavailing the advantages which must other wise have inidliby attended the improvements of machinery, and the superior facilities of manufacture; they have checked the pros perity of the country, Impoverished all the productive classes, and, by tits most perverse policy, compelled our natural customers to become our competitors, our rivals, and almost our enemies. The Earl of MALBIESBURY said that he had not intended to upon their Lordships' attention. but the Noble Baron op ts made so direct an appeal to the humble individual who now the honour to address their Lordships, that he felt it =upon him to say a few words in reply. Perhaps it was foe the Noble Baron that be did not find himself in the dtuadoo of him (Lord Malmesbury) and others who stood up as advocates for the landed interest. The Noble Baron had indeed, on a foresee occasion, wished to see their bands and legs tied. All he would say at present was to assure the noble baron that his (Lord Malmedsory's) tongue should not be tied on tite subject. . He should net now trouble their lordships with any laboured argument wpm the Corn Laws, but he felt it necessary to explain some cheer. widows of his on the subject of the averages, to which the noble boron had Tainted. The noble baron said that be (Lord Malone. bury) demisted discussion upon the corn laws. Now he did no snob gd.g. What be said was, that he would not support a repel etas sent bi 11... lie bakopposed that bill tooth and nail, and he the table baron supported it—..(Lord King said "No.") the the Noble baron was not with him in op it. He plight net bow hew present. But although be ) had oppoisillhe MB, he would not DOW alter the law. Many straw Teases, fit be urged* for this determination, and amongst them was an wlllAit hid been already used in that house—namely, that it wasYls to remain with a dubious and Inadequate protection tlsanto Udinwintly altering the law ; for while that was done it wait ingeoopilo Ise the tamer to improve his stock or his farm, or the bland to bow whoshis . prointy was worth; therefore be milt That kg woill Bat 'seta* a repeal of the law. But, if the noble, bona tint kW a Mallilna of the subject now , _ so far was be from baviug r fkiss ea Ili subject , that, although it might be goat la Lim,' he felt quite ready to meet the noble baneb, or any other arguments that could be used He Was aware that the marsh of intellect had done mu t hat this quads. was understood so will out of door s as there. He was glad of it t - fko it was by adkossing himself to, the reason of the crandsegralagwith thslr iddisnas, that he should wish l i t s t ila The noble bow would say that the country ion eggigieed with what lie calls a prohibition. Now he woolitiiirior the noble Wow wilt Could t h e Da m e bum f who was so dissiiea ear mosNIW hive looked at the aims of tits im Of footholds Ho tile law two can ? 'ea 0101 l be disa wpm Simard wit& it siseladta which bad for its ' boa proolopiot of proitibidoo ? He haw that di noble ba. fief Undiallillig was of a very high sedie..llln it was superior to that of many out of doors, and of sane in that home; but he could not help saying that he was astonished at this view of the no ble baron. It was not for hint to say what the motives of any noble lord were, but certainly the tendency of the noble baton's resolu • tions—as well as he understood them—was to direct the public feel. inr, in a year of distrait, to what he (Lord ltlalmesbury) main tamed was not the cause of that distress. He admitted, indeed, that the corn law was an aiding cause of the agricultural distress, because it afforded an inadequate protection to the landed intetest. He would tell the noble baron what had been the quantity of foreign produce imported within the last eighteen months—.for that, he be lieved, was the time that the new Bill had been in operation. The quantity entered for home consumption—for that was the fair way to view it, not taking merely the amount imported—the quantity was 2,200,000 quarters of foreign wheat within eighteen months. There was prohibition—there was monopoly for you. It was such as he had never seen in his life. He would now come to a new description of importation, which was not much attended to in dis cussii.g these matters, but which really told upon this market in the same ratio as the foreign corn—he meant the Irish importa tion. The returns which he had upon this subject were Im perfect, but, as far as he could come at the result, the quan tity imported within the two years was 4,650,000 quarters of grain from Ireland. Was it possible that any market should not suffer from this new competition ? He bad men tioned only the foreign wheat, but the quantity was 3,200,000 quarters of foreign grain of all kinds. Now suppose he were to import 3,200,000 pairs of foreign shoes,what would the shoemakers say ? A great deal had been said about the deficiency of the har vest, but he said that the supply from abroad was much more than made up the deficiency. A had season altered the quality of the produce more than the quantity. The last season was a productive one rather than otherwise. But he would come back to the ave. rages, and meet the noble baron on that ground. What he (Lord Malmesbury) had stated was this. He did not look foe an ahem. lion of the averages in order to procure some little additional pro. tection to the agriculturist ; but he would say, " Let in the foreign grain when you want it by instalments." He said nothing of the lauty. He wished the regulation to be like a safety valve to let in I the supply when it was requisite, sad to shut it out altogether when it was not needed. He did not want by a side-wind to procure a shilling or two additional protection. With regard to Ireland, he said that the supplies from that country ought to be taken into the average. He believed that, of the many hundred thou sand quarters which came in from Ireland, not the one-tenth' part came into the averages. lie had suspected that this would be the case, and for that reason he had moved for these papers. Now he only asked that the machinery applied to corn should be perfect. He thought it would be a very fit subject for a committee of their lordships to inquire, whether the averages were taken properly, according to the intentions, not of him or of the noble baron, but of the legislature. He must beg leave to say a few words in answer to certain observations of the noble baron, in which he had endeavoured to father the distresses of the country upon that which, certainly so far as his observations went, was no more the parent of them than the mover. The noble baron had quoted a right honourable gentleman for whom he (Lord Malmes. bury) entertained the highest respect, because he knew him to be possessed of first-rate talents, and, in private life, to bear a most amiable character. But on this subject that right honourable gentleman was the very last man to whom he should look as an authority ; for he very well remembered who, in 1825, presided at the board of trade; and he remembered that at that time, and down to the present day, he had seen a series of attacks upon the landed interest continued with an inveteracy and a pertinacity which were astonishing—(Hear, hear, hear.) The right honourable gentleman said that free trade must prevail in all branches; but that in all others it would be of no avail if it were not adopted, above all, in corn. In that year the noble lord at the head of the government (Lord Liverpool) had been asked by him (LordMalmes. I bury,) in his place, whether be intended to make any alteration in the corn laws; and he answered—and, indeed, he believed he had a letter from him to the same effect—that he did not. Well, by and by came distress at Manchester—very severe distress indeed; and when the noble lord was asked whether the government would advance any money to relieve the distress, he said 'No, no ; lbws got the panacea ; I have got in my pocket a plan which I eausive will diminish the distress, if not entirely remove it." And what was this plan ? It was to let out the foreign corn in bond. Even at that time the most fatal results had manifested themselves. The two great classes of the community had been ever since at Issas. They were now impressed with the persuasion that while the one class was prosperous the other must be depressed in the same pro portion—and this they justified by referring to the authority of a minister of state ; the public opinion had gone on spreading front that time to the present; and he was afraid that the time would never come when this prejudice would wear away—for prejudice, assuredly, it was. The two interests ought to act on the maxim of " Live and let live ;" foe the prosperity of the one was inseparable from the welfare of the other. The noble baron had founded an argument upon a comparison between six Russians and four En glishmen. On that point he should only my, that when the land of this country was thrown out of cultivation by such a principle and those four serfs let in in the room of our industrious a rt isans, he would go to Russia, and ask the Russians to pay our poor rates. He would then call upon them to pay our land tax or rather our property tax, for such, in fact, it was, amounting to five per cent. upon the income of in d ividuals. His noble friend bad stated that Russia bad behaved in a generous and liberal man ner. He did not know whether their lordships recollected a letter for which he had moved on a former occasion; but he did perfectly remember moving for a fragment of a despatch from the present minister, in which there was something very like a threat from that liberal monarch if we did not let in his corn. Sup posing that this great necessary of life were at any time hereafter wanting, and that we could only get it from this most merciful mo narch, he left it to their lordships to judge what would be our situ ation if we could not meet whatever demands he might think it proper to make. He maintained that protection ought to be given to every article; but, above all, to that primary article of consump tion—corn. He did not want a prohibition ; he would have a regu lation by which the consumer should never be called upon to pay more than a reasonable price, while the grower should never be so depresied as to be unable to produce it. Let the legislature settle the rate. Many noble lords who had spoken on this subject seemed to agree that somewhere about 60s. would he the price which would give a fair remuneration ; he did not mean for the worst lands, but a gene ral average price. The noble baron must be aware that there were lands now thrown out of cultivation which had been made productive 60 years ago. The bargain which he (Lord M.) would make was of the description he had mentioned. But when he heard such stuff, for such he could not help calling it, about rent being a mere sur plus, which could be dispensed with, he must ask why should the lispital invested in houses be viewed in that light more than the ca -1 pital in land ? If the philosopher (he might be mistaken in calling the gentleman who originated this doctrine, a philosopher,) but be understood that it was principally inculcated by a gentleman flan the northern part of the country, if he would take the trouble to eirsmine the result, he thought he would see reason to alter his opi aims. What would be the case if we were to do away with all the milts of land ? except allowing the mere interest of the capital in voted. The effect of this would be to destroy not the landlord, but the yeomanry and the tenantry ; foe in that case every landlord must ano the cultivation of his own land. As he did not possess the qua of übiquity, he mustof course place the land in the hands of ser vants,and then there would be nothing but lendlords,middle-men,and peasantry. What than would become of the independent tenantry? And, after all that could be said, he would maintain that an in dependent yeomanry was the most important class in the oninosnity. A great deal was said about monopoly—but that Pied, as well as the weeds " liberal" and " reciprocity," had lat terly received a very different signification from that which they •osi#onllybece. What sort of monopoly was that when the amount e(r Nada of gain imported within two years was eight millions at gearters. Taking wheat at 60s. barley at 325. and pas and beans at 40s. this would furnish an average of 40e. and Isere was a sum of sixteen millions brought into the market to compete with the British grower. When free trade was very much talked of a silk bill was introduced. He looked into the subject and he found that a lady had to pay 2L I7s. in Francs for her bonnet —more, Indeed, than he thought at the time a bonnet was worth. Formerly, • Illaral man was one who made allowance for the opinions of ' Wien, and gave them credit for conscientiousness and just prim. Shen they differed from him ; but now, a liberal wan aa~ all those who differed in opinion from him corrupt, bigoted, Y There was one point connected with free trade to dilt s t i k wa neeseary to advert, particularly as the wale IS= had several petition, from the artisans el this metropolis the subject—all these petitions were framed in the same language which the noble baron used, and all complaining . Maw he (Lord lialmesbury) said if there were fiefi s sestle ought also to be free labour. Let the noble baron p, tailor or his shoemaker, aid ask him why he kept up the prim !elt a cost Of a pair of shoes now, when the duty was partly takes of !:Jeober—although not to the extent it ought to be, and whoa Wee in free of all duty ; the tradesmen would answer, " It is sue the materials are cheaper, but there is a combiostiost . agile pt our workmen; they won't work under certain prise, nor let others work. •Is the city of Leads' s. which exclaimed In the Nam aseirous expose*, aildhlt the City itself, he believed-4f a pose Impala ems up wi his tools from the country, toil ashavoetiei as wash his labour. he would be prevented ; be must be a heneed. be could mercies his lawful calling. Now that was as mobs as any thing he had ever bawd oE To be sure the be bought, but that did not alter the character of 411111,. tars as theme tbe ay agshat ca4l. (Hear, hear.) —With respect to what the ej li b ill ae as to the profits of labour, be should not ems Into the at any length; 'dot, beams be Will not sure that hit understood the noble boson very distinctly ; and, next, beam it was desirable not ~, . to occupy more than was necessary of their lordships' time. He would only say that in his view the profits of the manufacturer must always be in the same ratio as those of the agriculturist. The manufacturers would declare that the agriculturists were always their greatest customers. The noble baron said a great deal about the combined effects of machinery and the corn laws. Let it be recollected that the manufacturers were free from many visitations to which the agriculturists were liable. They need not fear any bad seam to spoil their calicoes, nor had they eight-tenths of the poor est= to pay. He would beg to ask the noble baron were there no Imes regulations in other countries ? At New York there was a duty upon foreign wheat of something like 10s. a quarter. Now he considered that as being very near a prohibition, considering the sir. cumstances of the country. With respect to Holland, it was only when that country contained a number of cities, and no land ens. ployed in cultivation that she dispensed with corn laws. She now found it necessary to adopt them. And as to France, she had the strictest code in the world. France depended upon the land as, the basis abet prosperity. He here used the language of his Mo. jesty, in his speech in 1822, when he said that the landed interests formed the basis of the prosperity of the country. It was absurd, then, to say that if other countries adopted corn laws we should be without them, particularly when we were in an artificial state, as compared with them. All the arguments of the noble baron, and dimie who maintained the same side of the question with him, could apply only to an imaginary and Utopian state. Let them first get rid of our debt, and of that burden which pressed so unequally upon different classes..-the poor rates—and then their principles might admit of practical adoption ; but, until then, it would be much wiser not to indulge in these ideal speculations. All that he regretted in the Noble Baron's motion was, the direction which he gave to the distress,. Be (Lord Malmesbury) did not consider the corn law, as at present existing, to be the cause of the distress of the landlord and tenant. We must look to the internal resources of the country for our prosperity. We should always find other countries ready to deal with us when it suited their interest, but where that was not the case, all our free trade regulations, and our reciprocity system, would be found good for nothing. The Earl of MOUNTCASHEL said, that however cheaply some noble lords might hold the poor lands, be knew thousands of families who would be idle and who would starve without the waste lands ; therefore be thought that was a proof that the poor lands did not prevent industry, and that their cultivation was so far good. He would ask, why should not this country be like China—where he was informed, the tops of the highest hills were cultivated ? He should be glad to see the peasantry obtain em ployment in way rather than become a dead burden upon the country. The Earl of ROSEBERY said he had long formed an opinion upon this subject, from which nothing that he had yet heard bad induced him to recede. That opinion was, that a permanent pro. testing duty for the agriculturist, to be regulated by parliament upon the principle of an ascending and descending duty, would be the most beneficial to the community at large. He was not dis posed to go into the question very fully, but the first objection which lay in his mind to a free trade in corn was, that he was convinced, after many years of trade in corn upon that prin. ciple, can would not be cheaper than it now was, whilst the rice of labour might be depreciated greatly out of proportion rn the mean time.—(Hear, hear, hear.) It was not, therefore, a measure by which the poor man would ise benefited. Another ob. jection was, that in years of scarcity the greatest fluctuations would take place in the price of corn, which could not be remedied by H. lying upon the foreign supply, for foreigners might give it to us in what quantities they pleased, regulating the supply either by hostile feelings, or making a source of revenue by placing high duties upon the article. The true state of the question was properly set out in the king's speech in 1828, when he recommended to par liament to place the corn laws upon such a principle as " would bestow proper protection upon domestic agriculture, and se. cure a sufficient supply in years of scarcity." For the great object of the corn laws was not to raise the price of but to give employment, and to provide permanent good for the poor. Looking at the subject in this way, he was asienished to hear it said that the repeal of the corn laws would benefit the poorer classes. It seemed to be agreed upon all hands that some protection equivalent to the disadvantages under which the English agriculturist stood, as compared with the foreign grower, should be afforded. The calculations as to the exact amount of this sum were various. Mr. Ricardo esti. mated them at 105. a quarter. He also thought that the duty ought to be fixed at that sum. But it would be impos sible to keep up a duty at that creamy sum. Last year, for instance, when corn rose to 745. and a fraction, government could never con. tinue to impose a fixed duty of 10s. for, in fact, foreign corn wu pouring in In great quantities at a nominal duty of Is. From the pe culiarity of the British grower's situation, he was entitled to a pro. tectioa, for corn was unlike any other com modity. In other articles, when a scarcity took place, the manufacturer was allowed, and did raise his prices, as a matter of course, but can being a necessary at. tide of life, parliament bad interfered in a way which they did not on any other occaaon, and tied down the price to such a sum as that it should not be distressing to the consumer. If the happiness and con. fort of the people were the only consideration in this case, nobody would vote for the repeal of the corn laws more readily than he, for he bad these considerations very much at heart. And if he thought that the repeal of those laws would benefit that class, al. though he was one of those who were said to be most interested in keeping them up, he would gladly vote for their repeal. The community, however, he was sure, could never be benefited by the depression of any one particular interest. These interests could not be separated • the manufacturer could not be benefited at the expense of the agriculturist. (hear.) The noble lord then pro. coded to say, that nothing was more to be deprecated upon this subject than inflammatory speeches and writings ; for if it was true that a strong prejudice existed in the minds of the landed proprie tors in favour of the corn laws, It was no less true that an opposite feeling was kept up against them—a feeling too much fate a and encouraged, he must say, by the public press of the country. For all these reasons he should oppose these resolutions. The Earl of CARNARVON protested against a free trade which was not universal. If the petitioners had asked for a free trade is all trades and manufactures, as well as corn, they should have had his support. He was one of those who would be glad to see a free trade universal ; but such a state of things, though very desirable, was very impracticable; and he should therefore oppose the when that withdrawing protection from agriculture, at a time too that interest happened to be very much distressed. But, in sup porting the ors laws, he snugly hoped that they would not be Immanent. _ _ . - The Duke of WELLINGTON—My lords, 1 feel it necessary to say one void, and one word only, upon this subject. I entirely agree with the noble baron opposite in his wish to see cheap corn here. I think we ought to have cheap provisions, because it would improve the condition of the people of this country ; but I wish to see them cheapened by having a greater plenty of provisions—by the prosperity of agriculture—by the improvement of Ire. —and by a continuance of the improvement of this country. I think if we have cheap provisions here, they would add to the prosperity and happiness of the country ; but I think 1 can prove to your lordships that they cannot be made cheap in any other manner than I have stated. To prove this, 1 refer your lordships to the returns which have been laid before you by the different coin. mitten of both houses, upon this subject—returns extending from the years 1701 to 1815. Your lordships will see, that during th e whole of this period the ports were open, and yet was there a single year in which corn was cheap ?—Not one. Oa the contrary, you will find the price, up to 1824, at 50s. and after that, rising to 60s in feet, never below the rate at which it would be necessary to close the ports. (Hear, hear, hear.) You will also see that during the last year corn was as high as 745. although, as my noble Mend below me (Lord Malmesbury) told you. there were imported into this country, from Ireland and abroad, during, the time, 8,000,000 quarters of corn, of which 3,000,000 or 4,000,000 were wheat. You will see, also, that though in one week no less than 400,000 quarters were imported, the price was not diminished, so that it is pretty clear, from these documents, that foreign importation does not necessarily bring down the price of corn in this country. I now, my Lords, proceed to the charge which the Noble Baron has made against me, of having said that the bill which 1 had the honour to introduce to this house worked well. I say, my Lords, that it did. It did this—it gave to the agri culture of the country a protection, so long as the produce of that agriculture was sufficient for the consumption of the country ; and when it was not, it prevented the commodity from rising to an exorbitant price, after the necessity for opening the ports bad ceased, by providing that it should not exceed 71 01 . This is what the last corn bill has done. I will now all your lord ships' attention to another view of this corn question t to returns of the prices of corn at Dantsic during the years that corn was wanted in this country. These returns reach from 1801 to 1815. In Jan. 1826, wheat was at Dantsic 18s ; in June, 195.3 d t Dettrahtli 275 ' 3d; Jan. 1827, 25s 7d ; June, 22s 4d ; lec. 22s 911 ; after which it began to rise. In Dec. 1828, it was 57a Bd. Did this arise from say de• ficleney of the harvest in Poland ? Certainly not; for you will see it was owing to the increased demand from this country. instead of cheapening corn by opening the ports, you make it dearer. In Jan. 1829, wheat was Ws. Bd. at Dantsic ; but in June it fell to 455.8 41 . and then the harvest here begins to be thonOt not so bad, and there is a fall immediately in the price of corn at Dantsic. In Dec 1829. we find it at 30s. 811. the price declining all the doe from the Fn' ceding June, because the demand from this country was becom in g more slack. What conclusion then do I draw from this ? Why, that our custom has the effect of raking . the price of cern at Dantsic, and that, if we have their corn, they wW take we that we have ft at a high prios. Well than, my lords, if we must hey our can as a high , price, why not set well pay this high price Into the pocketed the English or Irish as of the Polish or Prussian grower? (Hear.) It is upon this principle that I say the bill worked well. It has our agriculture against she Polish agriailnuts, and, whoa that is not L wanted, it prolate that the prim of English can shall not be to. ■ ~~ Ft