The Sun. — London, England, 1834-03-07 00:00:00

of befog . O , Insufficiently provided. That was the only appa rently loud argument "urged by the agriculturists. He , di d not believe it valid, nor could be think that the wiie they agriculturist's themselves believed it valid, other certainly would not take the course which they ursued. For if they really wished the manufacturing Population of this country to be independent of foreign foreign of food, why did they resist the importation of e i tveign I ldev, and there by prevent the barley lands of this ifilitt,,try fron.i being emplove - d in the cultivation of corn ? i they ready wished that the manufacturing population Ide IN be independent of foreign supplies of food, why did they Object to the free introduction into this country of Near and molasses , to be used instead of malt, and ler ehy to increase the quantity of land at liberty to be cultivated for food ') In one breath they declared that an independent supply of food was necessary tor our ma , ufacturing ~ Population, and in the next breath they r an i t n ued for those restrictions which occupied the •.' n the cultivation of those super fl uities, and prevented "afficiant fitiant't f food from being raised in the "ntrY itself. Th e for the agricultural interests artiserted that the hum market was the best market for the th, 'nuf ' et urer• He ° would turn that argument against hostagriculturists themselves, and contend, that if the market was the best market for the manufacturer, pilei,llo,w_ea,surthe Iltst market for the agriculturist. The th e ar i t ' ie , e er o f muslin was enabled by the lightness of Profi. but ' , to g o to a foreign market, and sell it at a t e ,.• ' the great bulk of the produce of the _ague' ul h . •'st Prevented him from going to a foreign market with a , 'hnilar object and expectation. If, therefore, it was ti'arart.lie interest of the manufacturer to have a domestic ieei. t,, i, k t eti it was still more for the interest . of the agr f the w otici to hav e a domestic market. This histo ry o f r.. n i i indeed, proved that there never was a rich g i :Ic-.taral country which did not owe its wealth to the 111:teesa,..7.ecti.n it of great manufacturing towns. Now, if 511 ta m lans on importation of food were abolished,. and vvl l i eh le son th e raw material repelied, the great increase trie t that would occision in the man ufacturing die d a nd h in the whole c learly b y conseque nce markets,. would interest e of the utmost benefit to the agricultural t 4 ay , bY augmentieg the j.otnestic other and, if tilluediestrietions on the importation of foo d were con. levipd a nd the taxes on the raw material were still delve• -''' the e ffect wou ld be to lower profit and wages, to the and thereby to dep,i, ma nufacturer into other countries, . • tie f e tbe a griculturist of the benefit of his presence in the 'c' e rn „ e market. Let the house consider what . would be . ntr e fa 'fi ,, — ; uPen the rent of land in this country if the ma Mil et- :; n g Po ul t' n were doubled. Let them consider r ect t Uf •" 4ll be P `he increase of the rent of houses, of the th -' building ground, of the rent of garden ground, h o dee er , p 4 t t i °_f pleasure ground, and of ground of ever . y other n flh e 2" , lle sincerely believed that if such an increase Ivsto'mufacturin population were to take place it th e ," dcuble the rental g of the kingdom. If, therefore, . erernsPerity of the manufacturer would produce this . in. thei sl 'e ,, e l the domestic market for the agriculturist, let Peri,,: e et that it was in vain to expect that that pros tio,' would be chet jibed by the continuance of restric . - coasird monopoly. Again, let him entreat the house to of I 01 what would be the effect on the value and ren , and f . . ' , Q,j,, 1 some dyastrous event shou'd cause a great sip po et npn of the manufacturing population. Let i f d ttict,, .ted that the country should require a tenth less oo h .fdi 01tf r‘rire,,l, at present; let . it be supposed . that a toy ..," manufacturing population were to fall into de er,,,e Lne a gricultur e of the country would then supply e a sa, !quantity of food than was necessary for the con helti°,ll of the co untry ; and England would then become Wh, t th enad formerly been, a corn exporting country. gag e ,' , Would be the value of rents, the value of mort lree,n; a nf the v a l ue of estate's ? England would then in g h:,,hat P o l and now was, and instead of even becom 'lvy 1 ,,,'"' in the market, it would, of necessity, become li l e lueii lowe re 1 . Y et this was the danger to which t h e io: t: Proprietors LOW exposed themselves by endeavour b° ma tt ) „ bn !'ter Up the present system. The commercial s F itt, 1": 4 ' the manufacturer, might fly to other co untries 44 Vey 1 ,1 capital, but the landlord iinti.t remain at home Maned,.. ''''' desulaion which his own conduct had . occa- , tli e i n ite maintained, therefore, that it was evidently , q i l ,'erest c o I the. landlords themselves to abandon . the witl; in g sYstein. 11 , had hitherto argued the question eff ect 4fe.rence to the landlords ; with reference to the rtlin,,,whinthert,hset,doefeision upon it must have on the Per - the I .i . n t ' agriculture. But he would now ask ininienV geinlemen if they conceived it possible that the tulet,te t ;' ne 'ses of our manufacturing population would bee, d e 'e continuance of the existing system ? It had of f, jeMonstrated over and over agiin, that as the price ii1ini,,,,1.. nerleased, the amount of profit and wages di- ti on () Il i . d an Vas . it to be suppost d, that t he large populti . ,- feet diitinetlint'tlllgeat manutacturing town, having . this taral interest t 'e b, f°re t beir eyes, would allow the agricul -110 would tell t° go on lowering profit and wages . ? there to d' • them that th,-., towns would not permit 1 41 11 : a ir tut genera ti t l i7 . n lie woul d advise them to he wise in , , and agree to some safe and wholesome it possibl e wni ch might evert such an extremity. How was thir me that the landed proprietors could stand upon pre,,_Pr.esent ground s ? Vas there one among nt te t n: turfs to to ni:- 01 the argument, that the great m t by an g Interts:s of the country ought to tae unshackled 1. iNYeir,e4trictiun upon the supply of their food ? However . • t „,:g"l' however versed in science, however highly g eo 'f ,,W er i_rt ' genius, he defied any one of them to deny the n a , lt , 'e of the proposition . which he had jest stated, of 'Y, that as the price of food diminished, the amount of 14 °4 and wages increased. While the demonstration int,. th ' t fact remained unshaken, be challenged any one 1 , N9t, ( l s„ , in apiculture, either in that house, in the other I ' 4 ' (), P arliament, or in the country, to show that the t tl ' i 'triet i°r , s on the importation of food ought not to be at',...tintied. If they could not do this, how could they t , ,i 'Mpt to persevere in the present system ? Did they alie 'lk that the intelligent people of England would long t ' N them to do so ? Vainly would they endeavour to tuti'l.titiue it against the irresistible progress of . knowledge, h 0 "... against the o mnipotence of truth. He hoped the toil', Inoettibers for Ireland would be ready to support the , li4tL ~..,olition of the corn laws.—(No, no.) No, no . pl e : , 11 , 1,,e• memb er acted consistently with his own prin7 1 , h. I I e • w ould do so.— ( N o, no. ) Y es, yes !—(A hhish ~/ He would show the hon. member why. The 1 05 ( 11 "'Me ,t present complained loudly, and not more Y tle", • tiodqubt Justly, of the great evil of absenteeism, and If ~ ,,,e dlY One great cause of the poverty of Ireland was If 110,164ei Proportion of rent drawn from it by absentees. n ,°ant t ' e ° lo were let into Ireland, the rents of that iu s d a Z Would fall, and a greater number of Irish land theorniclulti remain at home to help the people. Food blftig ileaper, labour would become cheaper. Ma lieing 0 es W oUld be established, and their produce, there • IY • oZP"r rat es, and labour abundant, would eventu . - 4'41: a n , ? o ii , : the rent of land. But putting all this tuait:ti,,(•'),Mog to the real question, was it possible to was I,' n t " , Present corn laws ? He contended that it 144 th u ' bi e• If his lion, friend opposite could nit ef tie 't wages and food would not fall in coasequence i4 telli g 4 o b t elit i°4 of the corn laws, his enlightened and t 't ; e--- nand must admit that their continuance was t1i,,,, 'lrable• Never, iii the history of the world, was 'net,t: T HI rY so blessed as England with all the ele ,\v,4% th e 0 ,, • • Pr'Verity. One of its principal advantages ‘" 1, r't "al, more valuable than gold, spread all over t t i l u s t ee n t ' il n, :uf,t e W t u l e h r : l T an in , e d stirnable gift of Nature, ail that was cheap corn. Let them with th t ' 00d " foteigner would be able to compete no lu nc , eln • Let them have that, and goods would be Aianehber manufactured more cheaply in Saxony than at ' 0 1,1, d 'r. It was the high price of food which a lone thq , • "•°41i,1, m anufacturers of the advantages which to e :I°'l,l thjoy if food were cheap. It was said by h eveu t o'f't then Would not fall much in this country in not t e ;e1,, t , ,... . repeal of the corn laws. He cared it 171)01,1 r . , it (lid or not - . If it did not fall in England, . t "ler v ,,: e , i C o ti,! Continent and the English mi.inufii.c khiqita )4'' 11) Linger be in ' the state of comparative dis to f und, " 'o which he was at present placed with respect r ebulti, wi 'de he would te chconnue to enjoy all the bene ts th erefot g e fioni plentiful and eap fuel. He repeated, pro v , iit , , that th ere could he no possible limit to the tor„ ) of Enamd, if they would only open the ports Int o '?" eon:, 1 - ;• • corn imported f ° '''' co . ''' ,l y quarter of foreign °- English'untry, would be paid for with some article our trail manufacture. Our trade with Russia — of t i,,, 1., " with Ainerica—our trade with all other parts ii, ~,d,,7rbli would b.com e snore and more extensive. L e i pprptulatia,tit;tinawtioutlei 50 ` 1 lin.' 1, eye ch "P food and the untaxed raw material, ould s,t no bound to the glorious pros °Pen before us. Our manufacturine atit "tion '' o7 ° , l4 'd go on a ra pidly increasing as the con in twenty:ev"l7'44 U4tt"les U+ 1t d s tate ' Year s . •il, Woplel permit, and be doubled , oause i g or h was it that the people of the as t h e America were in so happy a condition ? of the count P°Pulation increased it spread over the face W 4 S it that t r i 3 l c: havi ng abundant food for its supply. . Why 4 t i ew alitio n 0 h aving of this country were not in as baPP) ) eY Wer e II th e People of the United States? Because whio, eset hy restrictions on the supply of food, t i , " Prevented lahour from receiving its due reward. Let , ",*e re' t rittte t i a , . ions be removed; let the taxes on the ran c 5, ,,,, :,. be removed, and the results would be, high ge ' e t ' at n i l i g n h Pofi's, a rapid increase of population, and a Le sp._ Provernent throughout the country ; greater, was persuaded than his imagination could conceive, and greater, therefore, than he could attempt to describet What the house might determine to do be knew not. Ar all events the landed proprietors of England were on theie trial. Unless they c .uld show to demonstration that tber was some inherent f.ilacy in that which the philosophy of the present day had declared to be incontrovertible, the public judgment would declare against them. They must show that dear fond was compatible with high wages, and high prices, and that cheap food slid not contribute to either. They must prove what in fact was a physical impossibility. He repeated that the landed interest was on .its trial. Argument alone could serve their cause. Declamation would not do.—(Hear, hear.) The hon. member for Essex, who cheered so loudly, must show that, by continuing the d. ar price of corn, they did not decrease the value of labour and manufactures; or that, by diminishing the price of corn, they would not increase the value of labour and manufactures. If the hon. member for Essex, or any other hon. member, would show him that, he would vote against the motion he had just seconded.—( Hear, hear, hear.) Sir JAMES GRAHAM observed that the gallant officer who bad just spoken had stated that the landed interest were on their trial. He (Sir James Graham) was so satisfied of the strength of their case, that he had not the slightest apprehension of the issue of that trial.— (Hear, bear, hear.) He was prepared to maintain that the continuance of the corn laws was advantageous to all the interests of the country. Before proceeding any fur ther, he would observe that there were two or three parts of the speech of his bon. friend the member for Middlesex in which he entirely agreed. In the first place, he con tended, as his hon. friend had contended, that in coining to a determination upon this subject the house was bound to consider what would be beneficial to the interests of the whole community. For he should never have taken the view of the question which he did take, if he were not pet feed) , satisfied that to concur in maintaining the conti nuance of the corn laws, was to do that most calculated to promote the interests of the community at large. His honourable friend had also said that he had nu personal interest in the question. He (Sir James Graham) could not go quite so far as his honourable friend on that point; for candour compelled him to allow that all his interests were connected with the land. But at the same time, he must observe that he had the honour to represent a county which contained not only valuable agricultural, but valuable manufacturing interests; and he was perfectly satisfied that the opinion which be was about to express that night was the opinion of an over whelming majority of his constituents. His hon. friend had also admitted that it was exceedingly difficult to draw a line between the interests of the agricultural and the interests of the manufacturing body. Nothing could be more true. It was not a truth, however, which lay on the surface of the subject. But although in the first blush there might seem to be a variance between the interests of the landed proprietor and the interests of the manufac turer, yet upon further investigation it would prove to be so impossible to draw a line of separation between them, it would appear that they were so inseparably blended together, that it would be impracticable to give a death blow to the landed interest, consistently with any attention to the prosperity of the manufacturing interest. He cordially agreed with his hon. friend in wishing that the question should be settled. But then, in the course of his speech, his bon. friend asserted that it was impossible to settle it in any way but one, namely, giving up the corn laws. To give up the corn laws was inconsistent with the preservation of the landed aristocracy.—( Hear, bear.) But even if that were considered of no importance, he was prepared to contend that the destruction of the farmers, and the annihilation of the occupation of an im mense body of agricultural labourers, must inevitably fol low. His hon. friend had dwelt on the great inconve nience and evil of perpetual change on this subject. His remedy for that inconvenience and evil was a singular one. What was the course which hia hon. friend recom mended ? To obviate the evil and inconvenience of change, his hon. friend proposed a succession of changes. His hon. friend did not propose one change once for all. He did not propose either to establish a fix, d duty, or to permit a free trade in corn, but he proposed precisely that which he had before condemned. He proposed a reduction of duty by a scale of shillings, until at last the duty should be altogether extinguished. The difference between the plan proposed by his hon. friend and the immediate abo lition of the corn laws, was the difference between a lingering dissolution and sudden death. If he must die, he (Sir James Graham) should prefer to die at once, and in the face of the day. His hon. friend had said that a perfect freedom in the trade of corn would cause a great increase in population ; and yet, almost in the same sen tence, had pointed to the surplus population as an evil.— (Mr. Hume, we believe, expressed his dissent to this statement.) If the increase of population was not an evil —if the increase of population was good, it must be re collected that that increase had been co-existent with the corn laws. It was a remarkable fact, that the charge against the corn laws, of being injurious to the manufac turing interest, was brought forward at a time when the manufacturing population of the country was , in full em ployment; and when the only part of the population unemployed—willing to work, but unable to obtain work to do—was the agricultural. But his hon. friend bad not treated the subject merely as a British question ; be had treated it as a European question. What was the object which his hon. friend proposed? Tullis (Sir James Gra ham's) great astonishment, not to lower the price of bread iu England. His hon. friend repudiated the vulgar doctrine, that cheap bread in England alone would be he , neficial, but spoke of the advantage of equalizing the price of bread throughout Europe. The landed interest of Eng- I land, threfore,was to be sacrificed—not for an English ob ject, but to produce an effect on the price of corn in Europe. His hon. friend was prepared to drag us through the greatest dangers—not for an English object, but to effect a large scheme of European policy ; everything in England remaining the same. In the first place, he would not admit that Lis hon. friend's views of European policy were sound ; but even if they were so, he thought it would be much better to keep England as it was, and, throwing aside all considerations of European policy, treat this as a British question only. His hon. friend had observed, that during the last six years the protecting duty had averaged only six shillings and eight pence a quarter, and bad added, that if his proposition were acquiesced in, the duty would be higher, and the levenue would gain. That would be a very good argument if the subject under con. sideration was fiscal regulations ; but they were deliberat ing what was the best mode of protecting corn ; they were deliberating whether for that purpose his hon. friend's proposition was beneficial.—(Hear, hear.) It was very extraordinary that bath Lis hon. friend and the gallant member who seconded his hon. friend's motion ap peared as the friends of the agricultural interest. They talked of the proposed change not only as the best course that could be pursued for the interests of agriculture, but as indispensable for the preservation of those interests. They declared that the adoption of their recommendation was all that the case of the agriculturists required. Now, with whatever stigma the philosophy of the present day might think proper to mark the understandings of the agticultural interest, he certainly thought they might be allowed to judo for themselves on this subject; and un doubtedly they would not depute either his hon. friend or the gallant member to speak for them. The value of al products most undoubtedly depended on the state and con dition of the labouring classes. If they were not content— if their condition was not a happy one—if employment was not plentiful and regular, be admitted there was no safety for the agricultural interest; and where this safety did not exist, there could be no security for the other branches of national industry. He could assure the house that he, as a I aided proprietor, would not advocate any restriction on the importation of corn—or any pro tection to the landed interest; he would not advocate any measure whatever in behalf of a particular interest, if be were not conscientiously satisfied that by so doing he was protecting or advancing the interests of all.—(War, hear.) One of the first points urged on time house by the hon. member for Middlesex was, that if they ceased to glow corn to the extent which they then did, the land would be converted to other and equally profitable pur poses, and would produce the same amount of rent as before; but it so happened that the experience of former years proved to the contrary. Besides, the hon. gentle• man made no provision for those who would be thrown out of employment; that important point was not,taken into his calculation. The lion. and gallant cfficer, the member for Bolton, who seconded the motion, had stated that the question had been always argued in that house specially, and that hon. members always regarded a secret interest under the garb of protecting the interest of the entire community. Now, it was an established fact, that no country in Europe, from the most wealthy to tha very 000resi, consumed anything like the same quantity of Wheat as the inhabitants of the United Kingdom. There_ ' fore, in his (Sir James Graham's) opinion, it was of the very highest importance, nay, it was absolutely necessary to our safety, that our supply of wheat should be constant and _abundant, so abundant as to leave out time possibility of scarcity, so constant as not to put it in the power of a , foreign country to injure or annoy us.—( Hear, hear.) Ott this subject lie should quote an authority, which the gallant officer himself would admit to be a high one—an authority, indeed, which was indisputable, one to whom economists ever bowed—the Coryphreue of the science— , whose opinions were the corner-stone of it, and whose ~ memory would ever be held in the highest possible respect so long as talent was valued in that house. It did so happen that be was about to quote the opinions of a man who was generally looked upon as one not very friendly to the lauded intrest—be meant the lamented Mr. Huskis,on. —(Hear, hear.) That right hon. gentleman had stated in a pamphlet— " The history of the country for the last one hundred and seventy years clearly proves, on the one hand, that cheapness produced by foreign import is, the sure forerunner of scarcity; and on the other, that a steady home supply is the only safe foundation of steady and moderate prices. During upwards of one hundred years, up to the year 1765, the import of foreign corn was restrained by very high duties. What was the state of the country during those one hundred years ? That in ordi. nary seasons our own growth supplied a stock of corn fully ample for our consumption ;—that in abundant seasons wehad some to spare, which we exported ;—that in bad seasons we felt no want, and were under no apprehension ;—that the price cf corn seldom varied more than a few shillings per quarter,— that we had no years of inordinate gain to the farmer, and of starvation to the consumer ;—that prices, instead of rising from year to year, were gradually diminishing, so that at the end of this long period of a century, during which we never imported foreign corn, they were actually one-fifth lower than at the beginning of it. Would to God that we had continued this salutary system But in 1765 it was most unfortunately abandoned. What has been the result ? Precisely the reverse of the former system. Instead of a steady supply, aftbrded at steady and moderate prices, we have witnessed frequent and alarming scarcities. Every year our dependence on foreign supply was increasing, till the war came, and, by interrupting that supply, greatly aggravated all our evils, for a country which depends on enemies of rivals for the food of its people is never safe in war. In the first eighteen years of this war, we were forced to pay sixty millions of . money (to nations, every one of whom has, in the course of it, been an enemy) for a scanty and inadequate supply of foreign corn ; and when for this purpose we had parted with all our gold, and even our silver currency, combined Europe shut its ports against us, and America co. operating, first laid an embargo, and then went to war." Now what did he say further on this subject?— " In peace, the habitual dependence on foreign supply is dangerous. We place the subsistence of our own population, not only at the mercy of foreign powers, but also on their be ing able to spare as much corn as we may want to buy. Sup pose, as it frequently happens, the harvest in the same year to be a short one, not only in this country, but in the foreign countries from which we are fed—what follows? The ha.. bitually exporting country, France for instance, stops the ex port of its corn, and feeds its people without any great pressure. The habitually importing country, England, which even in a good season has hitherto depended on the aid of foreign corn, deprived of that aid in a year of scarcity, is driven to distress bordering upon famine. There is, therefore, no effectual se curity, either in peace or war, against the frequent return of scarcity, approaching to starvation, such as of late years we have frequently experienced, but in our maintaining ourselves habitually, independent of foreign supply. Let the bread we eat be the produce of corn grown among ourselves, and I for one care not how cheap it is ; the cheaper the better. It is cheap now, and I rejoice at it, because it is altogether owing to a suf f iciency of corn of our own growth. But in order to insure a continuance of that cheapness, and that sufficiency, we must insure to our own growers that protection against foreign import which has produced these blessings, and by which alone they can be permanently maintained." _ _ This was in 1815, the period when the heavy restric tive duties were imposed. Mr. HUME—Did he not change his opinions 2—(Yes, and No, no.) Sir JAMES GRAHAM—When? Mr. HUME—Why, in 1821. Sir JAMES GRAHAM—Change his opinion ? Mr. HUME—To be sure he did. Sir JAMES GRAHAM—Then I join issue with the bon. member. He (Sir James Graham) held in his hand the report on agriculture, drawn up in 1821, and from it he could certainly draw no such conclusion as that Mr. Huskisson had changed his opinions. Let the home re- mark that he was now about to quote from a report which was drawn up by the lamented gentleman himself. Now what were the remarks : did they show any departure from the general principles I mid down ? The report said, " Your committee are not insensible to the importance of securing the country from a state of dependence upon other, and possibly hostile, countries, for the subsistence of its population."—(Hear, hear.) The terms were almost the same, and, if they were not, he could assure the house he would not for the of obtaining an advantage in debate, have quoted one word) if he thought that, by so doing, he exposed the memory of that great statesman to the slightest taunt. The measure which then regulated the corn trade of the country, and which the hon. gentle man found such fault with, was the measure of Mr. Huskisson. Mr. HUAIE—No, no. Sir JAMES GRAHAM—WeII, be would appeal to the right hon. gentleman's colleagues—to hon. members right and left—whether it was not a measure which he particu larly favoured : whether the duty, as it now stood, was not his own suggestion ; or, More correctly speaking, whether the scale of varying duties was not suggested by him, in direct contradistinction to a fixed scale, on the ground that a fixed scale was highly dangerous and wholly inapplicable when the landed interest most required protection—the season when the crops might happen to fail. In his judg tnent, the great excellence of the present law was, that as the price rose the duty declined, thus giving both relief to the consumer and protection to the agriculturist. The next was, t p l o ie in n t o t s o tr w um hic p h re le s i cr ( ib S e i d r Jamesby the hon. Graham) should a r A l d d d e l esex, the ultimate effect of which would be an absolute free trade in corn. It was a hardship that, in debating im. portant matters, terms were thoughtlessly, and sometimes flippantly, used, which ought never to have been used at all ; and he should contend, that, as the hon. gentleman applied the words " free trade," they could have no mean• ing ; such a thing as " free" trade did not exist. 3.1 r. Huskisson himself never contemplated such a state of things ; be never made any attempt at 4‘ free" trade ; he never applied the term " free" trade to his measures, but spoke of them as they really were—a substitution of protecting for prohibitory duties. What course did Mr. Huskisson take with respect to the silk trade ? Did he make, or attempt to make, what was called a "free" trade in silk ? He laid a duty of 25 per cent., or rather the minimum was 25 per cent, on silk, which as far as certain goods—gauzes, he believed, were concerned—was after wards raised, and was at the present time little below 40 or 50 per cent. Now, this was what was called free trade. And what were the grounds on which Mr. Hue • kisson defended the imposition of these duties ? Expressly that as our manufactures were burdened by taxation, a protection as against France was not merely advisable, but absolutely necessary. Now be (Sir James Graham) would show, that in addition to the general, there were also special burdens pressing on agriculture, which required that land should have a similar protection. Then as to the argument of the hon. gentleman (Mr. Hume) that the existing corn law, compared with that of 1815, was in comp itible with the commercial prosperity of the country, he would show that a greater fallacy could not be enter taimd. He desired the particular attention of the house to this, as he did not wish to be misunderstood, and his argument was very capable of misrepresentation. He would show, that under the present law there had been a considerable increase of exports to those countries which were the chief corn-growing countries, such as Russia, Denmark, Prussia, Germany, the Netherlands, the British North American colonies, and the United States of Ame rica. The whole exports to those countries (and be in cluded all articles of whatever kind) in the year 1823, amounted to 27,472,0001. official value, and in 1832, 35,216,0001., being an increase of one-sixth during the period that the present corn law had been in existence. But perhaps it would be fair to state the British and Irish exports only, and the hon. gentleman might have the de cla-ed or official value, or bath, just as he liked. Mr. HUME—The official. Sir JAMES GRAHAM—Very well; the official. In 1828, the of f icial value of exports of British and Irish produce was 21,275,0001.; in 1832, the value rose to 28,031,0001.: showing an increase of three millions, during the time that these decried laws had been in opera tion.—(Hear, hear.) Now, he really thought that the bon. member for Middlesex had understated the case which might be made out on behalf of the landed interest; for the hon. gentleman actually asserted, that he knew of no tax which bore directly on the land. The hon. gentleman had wholly—he had entirely overlooked one little tax, called the " land" tax—(Cheers)--which at the present time amounted to not less than two —(Hear, hear.) The hon. gentleman 'had expressed a doubt, too, on the subject of tithe—whether or not it bore exclusively on the land. Wishing t resolve the doubts the hon. gentleman, he would b'g leave to quote an authority of some considerable standing on the subject. Mr. Ricardo said thus : "The growers of corn are subject to some of these peculiar taxes, such as tithes, a portion of the poors' rate, and perhaps, one or two other taxes, all of which tend to raise the price of corn, and other raw produce equal to these peculiar burdens. in the degree then in which these taxes raise the price of corn, a duty should be imposed on its importation. If from this cause it be raised ten shillings per quarter, a duty of ten shil lings should be imposed on the importation of foreign corn, and a drawback of the same amount should be allowed on the ex. portation of corn. By means of this duty and this drawback, the trade would be placed on the same footing as if it had never been taxed, and we should be quite sure that capital would neither be injuriously for the interests of the country attracted towards, nor repelled from it. The greatest benefit results to a country when its government forbears to give en couragement, or oppose obstacles in the way of any disposition of capital which the proprietor may think most advantageous to him. By imposing tithes, &c., on the farmer exclusively, no obstacle would be opposed to him, if there were no foreign ompetition, because he would be able to raise the price of his produce, and if he could not do so, he would quit a trade which no longer afforded him the usual and 'Ordinary profits of all other trades. But if importation was allowed, an undue en couragement would be given to the importation of foreign corn, unless the foreign commodity were subject to the same duty, equal to tithes or any other exclusive tax, as that imposed on the home-grower." The lion, gentleman Rarely could not be doubtful now on the subject of tithes, or assert that land was not subject to direct burdens. There was tithe to pay— there was the land tax, simply two millions—the malt i!uty, no very trifling impost—(Cheers)—county rates, which, in fact, put the landed,proprietors in the place f public prosecutor—(Loud cheers)—these were the burdens resting solely on the land.—(Hear, hear.) But he would only refer to tithe an 1 poor ri , e, of the amount of which he happened to have an estimate, which had ben given him in some degree as an award by the Icgis, latnre, and which set these burdens down at three and thirty per cent. on the amount of rental— Mr. HUME—Three and thirty on the rental ? . Sir JAMES GRAHAM repeated, the amount was three and thirty, and as the hon. gentleman seemed to be taken by surprise, he would call his attention to the time and circumstance when the award, as he termed it, had been male. At the time that the property tax was im posed, Is. 6d. in the pound was charged as the farmer's share. Scotland remonstrated against this, on the ground that tithe and poor rate were both computed in their rent, which was not the case in England, and the consequence was, that after a fair consideration of the question, the tat was reduced to Is. in the pound far her farmers, and maintained at Is. 6,1. for ours. Therefore. as lie before stated, the legislature had decided the amount of tithe and poor rate at 33 per cent. on rental. Now the hon. gen tleman seemed to entertain considerable hopes of relief from a commutation of tithe and an amendment of the poor law system—but he should recollect that the commu tation would still leave a charge on the land, and so would the poor law, however shaped.—(Hear,. hear.) The hon. member for Midllesex had stated that his motion for a " fixed" duty was only a step towards an entirely free trade in call. Now, in a journal of considerable talent, and still greater influence—which, by the way, was fre quently supposed to speak the sentiments of the party to which the him. gentleman belonged—a " fixed" duty on corn was thus spoken of. The language, he must pre mise, was much stronger than he would have dared to use, and was as follows :—" As to a fixed' duty, it is neither more nor less than a fixed evil—a fixed discou ragement of manufactures—a fixed robbery of the consumer by the producer —a fixed imunty upon foreign industry, to the detriment of British—a fixed aggravation of the burden of the 'poor laws.' 4 " Now the hon. member far Middle sex had overlooked the remaikible fact, that the substi tution of a free trade in corn did not produce the effect of levering prices. It was only a few nights ago the hon. gentleman had stated that the effect of a free importation would be a rise in the price of corn. Mr. HUME—No, no. Sir JAMES GRAHAM—It did so happen, however, and it was a remarkable coincidence, that the effect for a series of years of a free trade in corn was to raise the price of that coinmodity.—(Cheers.) Mr. HUME—Aye ; but not in this country. Sir JAMES GRAHAM—In this country.—[The right honourable baronet here read a statement in proof of his assertion, but in too indistinct a tone, and too much across the table, for us to catch two consecutive figures.] Now there was another point, that while it was yet fresh in his memory, he would just touch upon. While hon. gentlemen argued on the vast importance of the foreign, they seemed wholly to undervalue the great conse quence of the home demand. Yes, indeed, they should take into account the home demand ; and one of the first effects of the hon. member for Middlesex's motion, if carried, would be to throw a large number of the agricul tural labourers out of employment; they would then cease to be consumers . ; cease to be dealers with the petty shopkeepers : the call, in consequence, for manufactured goods would be lessened, the manufacturers themselves could not so extensively purchase the raw material. Fo reign trade, it was true, would he increased at the ex pense of the manufacturers of Britain. He (Sir James Graham) did not desire to be considered es anxious to undervalue foreign trade, but one limit ought to be put to it, the limit of their own industry.—(Hear, hear, hear.) That was the only statesmanlike way in which to view it. The foreigner should only be encouraged when native exertion was dormant—importations ought not to super sede the produce of home labour.—(Hear, hear.) He opposed the motion of the hon. member for Middlesex on that ground—on that ground he would nut fear to take up his , position of defence.—(Hear, hear.) An hon. member had strongly appealed to the Irish representatives. He (Sir J. Graham) would also make a like appeal.— (Hear.) He rejoiced that the market for Irish corn was open in England. Ile would be glad to find the returns from that country even greater than they were at present. The prosperity of Ireland was of the utmost importance to the empire in general ; and it was only by encouragement, and giving it the benefit of our great consumption, that that union, which be wished to see perpetual, could be preserved.—.(Hear, bear.) Look at the price of wheat in Ireland for the last two years, and then would the house desire, in the present state of that country, that it should be further reduced ? The priCe of wheat in Ireland at present was from 365. to 38s. per quarter. He held in his hands returns prepared by the right hon. the Secretary for Ireland. Their accuracy was undoubted—their details of the first moment. They gave the prices of wheat for the last twenty-two years, in the provinces of Leinster, Munster, and Connaught, and they ought to be duly weighed and consideree. The average price of wheat in 1833 was 41s. 6d. ; Barley, 20s. '7(l. ; and oats 12s. 6d. the English quarter. In the present year wheat was only 375. 41.--(Hear, hear.) Without taking the European view of the question which the lion. member for Middle sex had done, he would maintain, that the interest of our colonies ought to be considered. They were vents for our superabundant population. In them English, Scotch, and Irish enterprise found a wide field for its display. It was employed and fostered, and we were bound in return to take from them the produce of their industry.—(Hear, hear.) The question had been well and briefly stated. It so far was in a nutshell.---(Hear, hear.) Would they prefer Europe to Ireland and their North American colo nies The present average prices the hon. member for Middlesex had declared, were most injurious to the manu facturing interests. How would lie be borne out when his statements should be tested by facts ? If estimated by the then standard value of money, the average prices would be found not to have much varied within the last century. Fifty shillings was the average in 1792, when the standard of William the Third was renewed, and the then average was 48s. 11d., a shilling less than at that period.—(Cheers.) The averages had not increased, and the hon. member's complaints would not find support by their minute and particular investigation. Under the existing law, care was taken to provide for a supply in times of scarcity ; then foreign corn was admitted under a graduated scale of duty. The system was found to work well, and to answer the exigency of such times. The opening of the ports was permitted when the state of the country required it. These facts were better than theory ; they could be direc•eil by the voice of experience; they ought rant to be led away by projects, that he was convinced, if adopted, would be ruinous at once to a great and influential interest. The committee, of which he had the honour to be a member, were most desirous to come to some fixed settlement ; they intimated there should be something like a final arrangement, and, under existing circumstances, he considered the house should pause be fore it pro9eded to di s t ur b an d di s l ocate t h e ex i st i ng system. They were a deliberative assembly ; they ought to weigh well—to mark—te observe—before they passed the threshold and embarked upon the great and turpid sea of change—(Hear, hear)—a sea on which their fairest and brightest hopes might be wrecked.—(Efear, hear.) As the organ of the committee, he was celled upon to state, that steadiness of purpose was in their minds a point to be carefully considered. To descant upon the existing law, it was necessary to refer to their report; and, first, as to the ',edition in price. The variation between 1792 to 1800 was 220 per cent. From 1817 to 1821, 9a. 3d. per quarter. In 1815 the price was '74s. to 755. fid. per quarter ; and the variation 143 to 82 per cent. The current variation was 74 per cent. for the last five years. From 1822 to 1826 it was 82 per cent. ; and for the last four years 61 per cent. ; 49 per cent. being the principal variation. This he could prove to ain ithematical demonstration. The market of Rotterdam—the best regulated market that he knew-- should not be forgotten on the present occa-ion. Its then state should be considered. Its variations were 91 per cent.—(Hear, hear.) The hon. member for Middlesex would proceed to say, that the corn market was at the moment disturbed ; bat what would be the extent of its disturbance if dependent on the fluctuations of a foreign supply? The present was said to be the landlord's ques tion ; he denounced so confined and narrow a v:ew of it ; it was the labaurer's as well as the landlord's ques tion. Ile need scarcely refer to the report of the cern inittee—a ponderous volume then before him—to substan tiate his statement; but lie could not avoid referring to the evidence of Mr. Oliver—(Hear)—a most intelligent • Sir James Graham did not finish the sentence, which the Reporter considers it his duty to give—" a fixed monopoly of subsistence against the hungry multitude." witness, who was examined at considerable . length. He Ives asked whether the rent of land and the prices of 'eon, as they then stood, did not make the question a landlord's one? He replied he tho►►ght they did. He was closely pressed, and ratter abated in the direct tendency of his answer. He respired to he re examined, and said he had maturely considered, and was of the firm and de cided opinion that the labourers were as much interested in the question as the landlords.—(Hear, hear.) He stated, that if 3,000,000 quarters of corn were imported into the country, the number of labourers who would be thrown out of employment must of course depend upon the number of acres of land necessary to produce so much marketable corn, and the inutility of the land so thrown out of culture. In a former part of his evidence he stated, that 12 bushels for each acre producing corn was required for seed and feeding of farm-horses, and, conse quently, the marketable corn was the excess of the gross produce over 12 bushels per acre. If, then, it were sup posed that land producing 18 bushels per acre would he thrown out of cultivation, it followed that the extent would be one acre for each six bushels of the quantity assumed to be imported, which would give in round num bers 4,000,000 of acres. If the average produce of the whole land be taken at 36, and that of the portion likely to be thrown out by the supposed importation, it would have no room to doubt the correctness of his calculations. Assuming, then, that the land to be thrown out of culti vation in the case put, be equal to the production of 24 bushels per acre, the extent thrown out would be 2,000,000 of acres ; and if the gross consumption of the empire, or the gross produce, at the usual esitnate of 50,000,000, be divided by 36, the estimated average number of bushels produced. per acre, it would give 18,000,000 acres as the land annually producing corn_ The quantity of land thus rendered unsusceptible of cul ture by the annual importation of 3,000,000 quarters, would be 2,000,000, or about one-ninth part of the land now under corn crops, and according to the proportion of the population dependant on agriculture, as ascertained by the last census, it followed that between 900,000 and 1,000,000 of individuals would be deprived of their pre sent means of subsistence, of whom about one-fourth part, or say from 200,000 to 250,000, might be considered labourers.—(Cheere.) After that statement, he (S:r James-Graham) would confidently ask the house, was that a landlord's question which he advocated ?—(Hear.) He was strongly persuaded that the motion, if carried, would ruin the agricultural interest ; and could one trade, he would ask, be henefitted by the absorption of another? The hon. member for Oldham was a great authority on rural subjects. In fact, no individual knew more of the ,gricultural population of the country. He had mixed with them; he had studied their wants; he had narrated their wishes; he knew for what sort of labour they were fi , ; and he should call upon him to be the judge between him (Sir James Graham) and the political economists.— ( Hear, bear, and laughter.) Would it not be tl►e grossest absurdity to send an agricultural:labourer to spin—(Hear, hear)—to manipulate cotton—to steep his bands, his hardy hands, in vessels filled with colouring compositions? —(A laugh.) Did they want them to depart foom the in struction of their youth—the practice of their age? Second nature was often stronger than nature itself. If these new plans were carried into execution, nature would tebel, and their enactments would be set at nought.—(Hear, hear.) He felt he bad trespassed too long on the indul gence of the house.—(No, no.) He could not, however, avoid glancing at another subject. He alluded to depriving artisans of the chance of employment who were now out of work, by the introduction of a new portion of appli cants. If artisans were employed they would justly enjoy a command over the necessaries of life, that they could not then do. Was that class to be neglected ?—(Hear, hear.) Against the argument of the necessity of a resto ration to the former standard value of money, he was bound in candour to dissent, and to say that such a re eurrence would depreciate and injure trade.—(Hear.) The hon. mover had spoken of the cost of provisions at the present time. He would carry the hon. gentleman's attention to some statements which he then held in his hands, and which would be found to furnish the fullest refutation of the positions he had advanced. —(Hear.) In the time of war there was necessarily a great demand, and an interview was sought, and obtain ed, with the Lords of the Admiralty 'by the Masters, when a new scale of prices in bread and pork was adjusted. In 1813 the adjustment took place. In 1813 the wages of Ihe men were 1/. 17s. 10d. a week, with an allowance of two quartern loaves and seven pints of beer a week. In 1816, U. 155., with 10s. 31. for bread and beer. In 1819, V. 16s. 2d., and 9s. lid. for bread and beer. In 1825, 11. 18s. In fact the charge of bread and beer, from 1813 to the present period, had fallen from 14s. 2d. to 7s. Bd.—(Hear, hear.) Statements so conclusive, he thought, should weigh forcibly with the house. He should then sit down, satisfied with the case already made; but he could not avoid referring to the political considerations of the question.. The relations between landlord and tenant, master and servant, which were ties of the greatest importance, existed at the present moment in a state cf comparative laxity. He should deplore to see them fur ther dissevered ; one false step then made would be ruin ous to the landlord, and cause the whole frame of society to receive a shock, which he felt the country was not pre pared to encounter.—(Hear, hear.) A restoration to the standard of valise bad caused results which he anticipated, and would to God he had been mistaken. The hon. Member for Essex—(Here the right hon. baronet al lowed his voice to fall: so low that we could not catch another wool of his sentence.) The landlord had made reductions equal to the altered standard of value. No admission was, however, made. In matters of currency, time was everything ; thus, that which in 1826 might be good, would be ruinous in 1833. He should, therefore, give his fullest support to maintain the present standard of value. He was bound as an honest man to re-as sert, and to declare that, in any decrease, rent would fall 20 per cent. If the present motion wire wiled, two-thirds of the land would be brought into the market. It would be a confiscation equal to an agrarian law. It would be bought in_ masses: a gradual sale might be compatible with the safety of the country. If the house proceeded as it was called upon to do—that which would be gradual would become sudden—that which was safe would become irregular—it wondi lead to an agrarian law—ore common ruin would be the result : it would not only destroy one class—not only impoverish a co►n munity—it would ruin the state itself.—(The right hon. baronet concluded amid loud and long continued cheers ) Mr. F. O'CONNOR—Although he should oppose the motion of the hon. member for Middlesex. agreed with that hon. member that the question ought to he im mediately settled. If foreign corn were admitted free of duty into Ireland, it would do the greatest injury to that country, which was essentially an agricultural one, and would throes nut of employment immense numbers of per sons engaged in aericultural pursuits. The people of Ire land were now but poor consumers, but if they were thrown out (tithe corn market, they would be still proper consumers both of English and Irish natural or manufac tured produce. Irish exports, such as butter, pork, &e., were, upon an average, one-third less in price than they were during the war. They were told that this measure would give cheap food ; but what was the use of having bread at sd. the quartern loaf instead of I Id. if people should be thrown out of employment, or their wages re duced in the same proportion as the cost of bread ? It had been said that the Irish members would be unanimous in support of this measure, but he would say that they would, or they ought to be, unanimous in opposing it. He considered that he was expressing the opinion of the great body, of Irish members when he stated that the agi tation of this question in that house would cause great mischief in Ireland, particularly if it was found in that country that the present motion was not resisted by a great majority of that house. Mr. RICHARDS, owing to his having spoken from under the gallery, was nearly inaudible during the short time he addressed the house. He did not think that the present measure would be the cause of procuring cheap bread, and be was of opinion that circumstances might arise with respect to foreign countries, by which this country would be placed in a very dangerous position, if it depended upon those countries for a supply of corn. The hon. member concluded (as we understood) by say ing that he would certainly oppose the motion. Mr. HEATHCOTE had hoped that the hon. member for Middlesex would not have brought forward the present question. But as the hon. member had thought proper to bring it forward, they had no other alternative than to meet it in the best way they could. It had been said during the debate, that the corn laws were for the benefit of the few, and not for the benefit of the rainy' If that assertion was merely applied to the whole of the great towns it might be true ; but they should take into account the inhabitants of small towns— the proprietors of land, yeomanry tenants and labourers, the small mechanics in country towns, and then it Would be found that these laws consulted the benefit of the many rather then of the few. He might gn further, and make a still stronger assertion —namely, that the country gene rally was satisfied with those• laws as they now existed. The fact was, that a great change had taken place among the agriculturists respecting a fixed duty on corn, since they Ittpw thAt a fixed duty Iva,. no duty at all when the price of corn was low —and tiles also knew, as well as Mr. M'Cullocb, that when the price was high—that is, when it was a remunerating one— there was iikovise no duty ; 51 that in both these ex treme cases the result was the same. Last year the host member for Middlesex contended for a fixed duty of 15,. to be reduced to 10s., and now he seeks for a fixed duty of 10s. to be reduced according to circumstances to 55.; nd hon. gentlemen say that this alteration will not lower the price of corn. If it don't lower it, if it have not that effect, what is the use of trying the present experi ment? But if it lower the price of corn, the agricultu ri•ts are now so situated as to be totally unable to bear it. It was argued generally in that house that this question was one between landlord and tenant ; that it was a mere affair of rent. Very well—that species of property should Le attended to as well as every other species of propeey. In his county, there were thousands of small renters, and when he considered their situation, how their property teas mortgaeed, and how they were other wise embarrassed,lie thought it imperative on the house to consider well the situation of these persons, and not to :liter laws, by which alteration they would make paupers ie the villages of those who were before respectable and independent proprietors. He bad a fe.v words to say upon one point, namely, about the everlasting cry of protection being peculiarly afforded to the landed interests. Why net ? He would ask the house whether every other spe cies of interest had not protection extended to it? Was not protection extended to the woollen trade, to the cotton trade? Was not the shipping interest protected ? Why, at this present moment, the shipowners were petitioning on this subject ; they wished to be let alone, and he could scam the house that all the agriculturists wished for was to be let alone likewise. He would not further tree pa. on the house. The quetion had been so well treated by his right bon. friend opposite, that it was scarcely neces sary for him to say more than that he opposed the motion. Lord MORPETH considered he was not coining for ward inappropriately to express the grounds why he should vote for the motion of the hon. member for Mid dlesex. Ever since he had commenced his political career—when be was the representative of an agricultural b wough—ewhen liberal opinions upon this matter and upon others were less popular than they were now, because they were less understood—when he went out of that house one of the sixteen that had supported the lion. member for Middlesex on a former occasion upon this subject—he proved that his opinions were made upon this point—and that he supported then a similar motion to the present on the same grounds, and with the same con sistency, that he would support it now, when lie hoped to q sit the house that night with a large body of supporters. Though he might be accused of having vulgar notions, e confessed be was one of those who were desirous of making food as cheap as they could for the people.—. (Hear.) He belonged to an agricultural connexion—he resided in the midst of them—he knew that great misery and great distress prevailed among them at the present period ; but be was sent there not as the representas ties of one interest, but he was sent there as a legislator for the whole community, and in that capacity he was unable to refuse his assent to the demonstrations and to the arguments by which the hon. member for Middlesex had supported his motion, and proved that a free trade in corn was necessary. The noble lord contended that as long as the nation was compelled to resort for articles of subsistence to one shop when 'lt might get them cheaper' at another, so long was that nation cheated. Whilst he trusted that that House would take some steps to diminish the burdens of the agriculturists, be saw no reason why :t should oppose a revision of the corn laws. He was sure that the hon, member who brought forward this motion had dune so not to add to agricultural distressrs; and he felt con vinced that the hon. member would take them into full account, and make adequate allowances accordingly. When the distress of the agriculturists was acknowledged—when it was re-echoed on all sides—it would seem harsh in them to advocate measures tending to increase that distress. But was this measure to be taken in that view ? For his own part lie felt that it ought not, and he confidently denied that the present measure would have the effect of increasing in any way the burdens or the distress of the agriculturists. This was, then, the argument which the agriculturists might bring forward—do not tdce away that protection under which we are suffering; do not give us that absence of protection under a filch all ether classes flourish. He (Lord Morpeth) was of opinion that the greatest mischief of the present system was in its in stability, insecurity, and fluctuation.—( Hear, hear.) And as the present system could not continue unassailed—as the consumers of corn would not abide contented under a system which pressed so heavily upon them, so the pros pect of a settlement of the question, and the prosperity which might reasonably be expected to follow such a set tlement, could only be realized by that settlement being founded upon a basis which the great body of the people would admit to be just to all parties. He admitted that depression would ensue to the agriculturists,—would follow from any change in the corn laws. But since it was said, and that with truth, that the agricultural inte rests were much depressed, was this not the time to make the alteration, when the shock would be less than it could have been at any former period, or might be hereafter? The protective prices were at present so low, that unpro tective prices could not be much lower. Now that wheat was at 48s. a quarter, it was surely the time for the agri culturist to take the opportunity of striking his bargain, Since the unprotected corn could not be much lower. His right h.nn. friend had stated that the agricultural population was in so distressed a condition, that they muss he protected, and that, therefore, the repeal of the corn laws could not be effected. But was his right hon. friend not aware that the trade, manufactures, and shipping of the country absorbed a large portion or the agricultural population, when the agricultural classes were in distress ? Aud if it were admitted as it was, that the mental - tic:urine classes would be relieved by this measure, ani more em ployment given to manufacturers, did it not follow that the manufactures an d nsuenc,pdait t autiun r ,no:a a lude d tstefntia e coleatoan t ityn t r: , uce o anroil u eiiir i nnnse d gu h eiabsorbacttiso. nation. stillN Note Tw g h ea r y e l l a Itneri thesegph portion sego. uv n e. of the agriculturists than they did at present, at least in ha proportion to the extent to which they were extended? Would not the change give employment to those miserable and half-starving wretches who now could find no employment under the chilling wing of protection?.— ( Hear, hear.) He would not eater into details of the arguments brought forward by the right hon. baronet, nor attempt to refute the calculations which he had made. That duty he would leave to more experienced and more able advocates than himself. He was himself inclined to support the doctrine of free trade—(flear)— but it seemed absurd that that doctrine should be ad vocated with success in all other articles; and that they should stop at corn alone.—(Hear.) If our tnanufar,. turers were to compete with the manufacturers of other countries, it bocame the duty as well as She in terest of parliament to extend to them every sort of protection. Tare were already too many drawbacks on their industry. In their competition with foreigners, they bad not only to support the expenses necessary for their security and protection, but the burden of an enor mous debt. All these were disadvantages which could not be availed, but let them not add to the burdens by broughtd f present state a r t w e a or the ntuat be to h but i esh, very s et j u at rynbrye.iewtul ehetsTeseslii giving protection by partiality to a certain class of the com munity. He knew that it was said that all classes of the cunt triunity were bound together so closely, that any measure which was oppres,iye to one class must be injurious to all. True it was that the interests of all classes were. bound together, but it was not equally-true that one class would benefit or suffer in exact proportion with all others in consequence of a measure which, as a community, was injurious to all. The fact was, that the links whiain bound all classes were those which were for the general good of the nation, and which would give general relief, not those which went to the benefit of any partioniar class. So it was with the corn laws. The repeal of them would be of advantage to the whole of the industrious classes. It would be of advantage not only to the capitalist, and the person in receipt of large wages, but to the poorest labourer. It would promote the industry and increase the manufactures of the nation, not only by decreasing the price of the necessaries of life at home, but by approx• itnat ing the condition and expense of the labourer in this country with that of the foreign labourer, with whom he came into competition. There were other argutruaatts, n r p, say at to it so, that t at ' tit ell : laborious, manufacturers--that i ‘ r discontent iv te t:t u y els a s tl bof awi and egtlui disaffection—.that, the e laws Ico t i lf u as f edep t t sv b r h o:O u v i cuf otno9vl maintained s ta.i and a a l° " to o t h f the ar present e tu r s s system, s tem should but be they p r outd trueoe w cef te et r ootd e n bphn n ieoe, o , yta agriculturists, repepinpeectu depended applicable it thh the ntts l les They s l say, able som e a i s wnw , D i e n " ati had Now, u p obn i wr n do, i e o urta n to , ah l i oa. t t t r l dts e :ii t :n o pe agricultu rale ken s. w V t b a i e l l c y t i l :o a e f r a p c o tr t Tempe, , a ,f t which had neither foreign connexions nor a national debt ; but a great nation, and to support that character we hal to► wale wars —make conquests_—and support wide-spreading dom them we could no longer support the character to which NV we should hoe commerce and manuf i a t et w u ' r ' e s s n ; :e fo7 a w lY itl t io h u a t t aspired. As well might those who inhabited the ks of the Scheldt, or had villas on the bordersof tsel3rente, cell their couratres agricultural countrie , , and claim protection against the iuhabitants of Venice and Amsterdam), as we e p o re o t i e co n o d o t; o b o e h a n wthheilen7,,e.huail delft e debt ly ::f i ,:dritt:in abort, they are In his opiuioar