The Sun. — London, England, 1839-03-14 00:00:00

e l inion, could act he had ever yet heard propounded, because he considered that the Corn-laws, as they at present stood, afforded in times of adversity a price e hich the consumer could not fairly complain of, and also in times of plenty, yielded a fair remuneration to the farmer. He did not complain of the course adopted by the Honourable Member who had brought forward this motion, but he complained, and he thought title agriculturists had a right to complain, of the con• duet of her Majesty's Ministers. He had heard only a short time ago the Noble Lord the Secretary ~r State for the Home Department, state in that House that, ever since the formation of the Whig Cabia,;et, under Earl Grey, the question of the Corn !ewe was an open question in the Cabinet. It was ten rears since Lord Grey first formed his Administration, eild this was the first time the House had ever heard that statement.—(Hear, hear.) And though he did Lot doubt the sincer;ty of the Noble Lord in making that statement, yet it was A v e r y extraordinar y I circumstance that Earl Ripon, who at one time `) Leld the office of President of the Board of Trade, Iwho was instrumental in introducing into that House t the Corn-law in 1815, had declared that he did not un )eerstand the Cabinet of Earl Grey to have been formed co ,those principles ; and also that another Noble Lord, with eery different views, but whose object had also keen to rnPdifY itr repeal the Coin-laws) had declared fiat he did not understand Earl Grey''.` Cabinet to Lave been formed on any such principle....!ar.) Arguments in support of the repeal of these laws had been attempted to be drawn from the suffering state of 1 the band-loom weavers, but he maintained that if the corn- I iws were repealed the agricultural labourers would be re euced to a worse state. What was the cause of the hand -1 ioen weavers becoming distressed ? not the withdrawal I of protecti o n from our manufactures, but the application of machinery instead of manual labour to production, by i which means the master manufacturers were able to r nlize from 100 to 120 per cent. on their capital. If they were to apply the same principle to agriculture, and weie to enable him by some invention to grow twelve quarters of wheat onland which now only produced three --if they enabled him to cultivate a farm on which he was now obliged to maintain twenty horses and twenty labourers, with only one horse and one la bourer, then indeed some analogy might be made 1 etween the manufacturers and the agriculturists. But as long as the agriculturist was satisfied with the low rate of profit he now had, and as long as it was con s'dered expedient to extend protection to our manufac tarers, he contended that the protection afforded to t griculture was not greater than that afforded to the taanufacturers. The agriculturist had greater diffi -1 culties to contend with than the manufacturer. The i ianufecturer could at all times limit his supply to the Ic emend of the market, and the agriculturist was not caabled to compete with him on those terms. The agriculturist was dependent not only on the vicissitudes ( I the seasons in this, but on the vicissitudes of the seasons in other countries. He did not like to refer !,-) past speeches of Members of that House, but he would I j let me n ti on t h at w h enever i n d e b ate an attempt wasmade to draw an analogy between agriculture and manuftc hre, Mr. Huskisson stated that the analogy was sly thing but logical. The Right Hon. Gentleman, the President of the Board of Trade, disputed the posit on that the agriculturists had greater burdens to bear e an t ie manufacturers ; but he would allude to those b tr d ens which agriculturists had been subject to by B lls that had passed through that House, by which lc :al , t ixes amounted to more than the rent of land. In the county he represented the agriculturists were bound to maintain to an enormous extent drainage, embankments, a id, in addition to this, they had a larger portion of poors' rates, highway rates, and county rates, than the manufacturers had. In 1833 the poor rates in England and Wales amounted to 8,606,5011. The families, , according to the population returns, em poyed in agriculture in England and Wales, eamunted to 834,000. The families employed in t. ades and manufactures amounted to 1,206,000. and all the other families amounted to 848,000. Ile found that the land alone contrihuted to the poor rites out of 8,606,5011., no less a sum than 5,434,8001. --(Hear, hear.) He found that manorial rights (as we understood) contributed about 200,000 ; that dwell irgehouses contributed 2,605,267/. ; and that mills and f_stories contributed only 352,479.—(Hear, hear,hear.) So that the proportion which the land bore was 5 500,0004 while the mills and factories, adding to them ad the dwelling-houses, amounted to 2,900,0001. But if' they took the fair calculation, and gave half the houses to agriculturists, and the other half to mills and fac tories, they would find that persons concerned in agri e ilture contributed towards the support of the poor 6,936,0001,. whereas those concerned in manufactures contributed only 1,670,0001.—(Hear, hear.) Taking all the statements of the Honourable Member for Wol verhampton to be true (and not being acquainted with manufactures he would admit they were) ad mitting that manufactures were in a de clining state, and that a successful competi tion was curried on by foreign manufactures, he would ask was that a reason why they should repeal the Corn-laws and remove all restrictions on trade. The Pon. Member for Wolverhampton, if all his statements were true, ought to have asked the House to go into a Committee to review the whole system of taxation. I.' they depressed the agricultural labourer and the yeo man, they would compel that part of the population to sabsist on coarser food and to wear coarser and more dbarable apparel. Ho would now allude to an argument t iat had been adduced last night by the Hon. Member for the West Riding of Yorkshire (Sir G. Strickland), a id he was sorry that the Hon. Baronet was not in his 1 place, becau s e he had heard with pain those allu s i ons j w:tich he made to the landowners of England. If that Hon. Baronet chose to apply those allusions to himself or to any particular persons with whom he was ac quainted, be was perfectly welcome to give him s,lf and his friends the benefit of those expressions ; but he denied, so far as he was acquainted with the landlords of England, that those unmerited and unjust imputations which had been heaped on them applied to teat body—(Hear, hear)—and he was convinced there was not a tenant in the county which he had the honour to represent who did not reject the observations of the Hon. Baronet with indignation and scorn. The flop. Baronet had laboured to show that this was purely a landlord's question, and that the labourer ield the occupier were in no degree benefited by the C irn-laws. That it was a landlord's question to a cer tain extent he admitted, but that it was purely a land lerd's question he most positively denied. It was a ques tion that affected the small more than the great owner of land—that affected the occupier of a few acres more than the occupier of a large number of acres. ( Hear, hear. hear.) But he was convinced that the lower they descended in the scale of those who were employed in the cultivation of the soil, and who derived their support from the good cultivation of it, the more intense would their suffer ! ings be by the repeal. He did not wish to argue the question on the principle of supporting one interest ' t al )re than another, but he should be most unwilling to elathange the habits of our bold and independent I p Llsantry for those of the wretched, squalid, and i i liserable population of the large manufacturing towns. --(Derisive cheers from the Members for the manufac -1 t.Arin g commun i t i es. ) T o s h ow t h at i t was not a land lord's but a tenant's question, he begged leave to refer to a calculation which he held in his hand, by which he 1 t. ought he would be able to shew that the poorer i soils of this country—and he knew that the land in the et.uo ty he represente d never could be brought into culti I • L It:on even by anyof the best systems adopted in Scotland 1 --the calculation he was about to allude to was solely with reference tothe tillage and produce of four acres of arable i land on the most improved system of management. He deft out entirely the profit d er i ve d f rom th e growt h o f t corn; he took the price of wheat at 50s. a quarter, v , hicb was about the average price since the present 13111 came into operation, he took the price of barley at Sjs. a quarter ; a quantity of wheat produced per alre at three quarters ; the quantity of barley Ipva,, !d iced at four and a half quarters per acre ; and on th ese facts he begged to state th a t th e first cr o p to b e pro , d iced was turnips, the second barley, the third clover, 1 and the fourth wheat. The outlay, including the rent of land, to produce a crop of turnips on this land (and 1 ho had this from one of the most intelligent agriculturists , in England) would amount to no less than 6/.43.9d. an acre. :1 'l'h.e value of the crop was 2/. 10s. ; the expense of pre i paring the land for the reception of barley was 41. 7s. 6d., !, the value of the produce 6/. 15s. ; the expense for i ciover was 2L lOs. 6d. ; the expense for a wheat crop '' was 5/. 7s. 31, value of the produce 8/. Bs. During iCle whole period of that four years, the expense upon that acre of land amounted to 19/. 18s., while the value , of the produce amounted to no more than 201. Ss., leaving a profit of only ss. for the whole four years ; ! tl,e landlord during that period getting four guineas, I a bile the expense laid out upon the land amounted to 15/. 6s. That statement clearly proved that I SN here the remunerating profit was so small ! upon such lands, they inevitably would be thrown out of cultivation if forei gn corn wer e admitted I 1 into this country. The only way in which the farmer t i was enabled to cultivate that land was that he kept u)on it a large quantity of sheep and cattle—he was ?, unable to supply the consumer with corn—but he was ! e ,al l led to supply this immense metropolis with butchers meat, and the manufacturers themselves with the 1 coarsest species of wool. If Hon. Gentlemen would take p :in s to make themselves a little acquainted with agri , cultural affairs, as they evidently had done with respect to the manufacturing interest, they would find that it i would be imposssible to maintain one-tenth of the cattle I n.rm in thi s country upon th e l a nds, unl e ss cu lti vate d i n the manner he had stated. In the county which he had 1 ti e honour to represent there was raised annually no less t "n 2,700,000 sheep, no small portion of which never r ecved any of wh a t was ca ll e d na t ura l pasturage. In eider necessarily to maintai n th e l an d i n a p roper s t a t e , they must I the lsarly have a success i on o f crops : if t h e w h ea t an d t count y , i t barley crops were taken f r o m th e l an d s in that would be perfectly impossible for them to get a good an d proper supply of butcher meat ; he had not hard any one attempt to provide a remedy for the impe.. ' verished state to which the agricultural labouring 1P o u la- I ton would b e re d uced, would inevitably have beeor 0 3 duced, • &'r Wgir"."-'-"------•APFR CAr*,_....l :,',.j..,..=.\;fi.-•k,„ .v.t.:•-if.rw,. ~ c .... . `,... • A f-- /1 ~ /~/^ t'• 1' ~,. :~ ~. by the repeal of the Corn-laws. Some suggested that those thrown out of employment by the change, would betake themselves to manufactures ; but was it possible to believe that individuals having arrived at the age of 30 or 40, and having all their lives been used to a whole some atmosphere, who hadall their days earned their daily bread by the sweat of their brow,but in the open fields— was it possible to conceive that they would at once go into the vicious and noisome atmosphere ? Another class suggested that there should be a large emigration; but would the House of Commons, who, in passing the Reform Bill, had taken care that all should be repre sented but the agricultural labourers—(Cheers)—would they suggest such a vile scheme for getting rid of the nation's pride—a bold peasantry. Was that the reward the House of Commons would give to those who had so long and so often beaten the foe from our shores—who had, under our naval and military commanders, so fre uently planted our flag on the shores of our enemies ? They would never, he was certain, give in to such a sel fish systeni ?:-.zialation.—(Loud cheers.) Out of all the schemes that had beer; yet proposed he agreed most in that of the Hon. Baronet the Matrtber for Leeds, who wished for an entirely free trade; he could under stand that principle ; but if it was desirable to be car ried out, the motion ought not to be for a repeal of the Corn-laws, but for the repeal of all restricting duties whatever, either on corn or manufactures. He doubted whether his Hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade, or the Chancellor of the Exchequer, would '-see voted for such a motion—(Cries of " Hear")—be- House were to come to such a resolution o n cause, if they must alter t i ne whole financial policy of the coun try. How could they then get a revenue—how main tain faith with the pu'elig creditor—if they were to sweep away every Custom }louse and Excise Office. —(Laughter.) He did not believe that any person except the Hon. Member for Xilkenny thought that our establishments were too large—(A laugh) —he would be most happy to vote with that Hon. Member for the reduction of the office of Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, but most certainly the establishments of the country were anything but too large. The only other alterna tive would be a property tax, and the raannfacturers would themselves be the very first complain of such an inquisitorial system, which would expose their profits or their losses in some measure to the world. There was only another topic to which he would allude, and that was the danger of the population being de pendent upon a foreign country for their supply of bread corn. It was said that the interests of countries would be so interwoven by such free legislation, that we would secure constant peace. He would be most glad to see such a system established, but still he thought that it was dangerous to rely entirely upon the 'amity or good feelings of foreigners. It would be remembered what took place just two months ago, Corn was high in this I country an being admitted at only a duty of Is,—spe culators sent for corn to France—at Rochefort many cargoes had been purchased, but the people, being in a state of excitement compelled the King of France to put an end at once to the ex portation of corn.—(Hear.) This was in a time of profound peace ; how then would it be in a state of war ? Foreign countries would adopt a new species of warfare—they would only have to close their ports to carry famine and disease amongst the population of this country. They would have no longer to send a fleet or armies to fight us ; they would close their ports, and then this country would be compelled to yield to what ever demands they made. The Right Hon. President of the Board of Trade complained that there had been a fluctuation of prices under the existing law, but ac cording to a report which he had that day seen—a report made by a Government agent (Dr. Bowring), he found it laid down that Tuscany owed all its prosperity to there being established a free trade in corn ; accord ing to the averages of corn at Leghorn, according to the same report, the fluctuations there were nearly as great as they had ever been in this country. In 1826 the price was 28s. ; in 1827, 395. ; 1828, 41s. 10d. ; 1829, 465. 3d. ; 1830, 38s. 4d. ; 1831, 445., &c. ; making the highest price during the ten years 465. 3d., and the lowest 28s, certainly a con siderable degree of fluctuation. He resisted going into Committee for these reasons, and. because he thought the repeal of the Corn-laws would be inimical to all the best interests of the country. Mr. GROTE and several others rose at the same time —the ethers having given way, Mr. GROTE said, the Hon. Gentleman who had just sat down had spoken very warmly in denouncing the sordid and selfish principles of those who supported the proposition of his Hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton. Considering that the Honourable Gentleman was defending a law which raised the price of food to every man in the community, and that it put money in the pockets of the landlords—(Cheers)—he did not think the charge should have proceeded from him.--(Cheers.) The epithets sordid and. selfish could, with more justice be applied to those defending these laws. He had no doubt that his Hon. Friend would be beat by a considerable majority, but the question would not be set at rest ; other and better reasons mustbe given for the maintenance of these laws than any he had yet heard. They had never yet heard any one de fending the Corn-laws attempt to show the good effects which they had had on the cause of the farmers. The Hon. Gentleman said he liked the present system because it protected the grower against low prices, and ' the consumer against high prices. Now did the re turns on the table of the House show that it had done either the one or the other ? The Hon. Gentleman said thas the price of wheat a short time ago was 85s.—certainly a very high price ; a few years ago it was at 36L—certainly a very low price ; where, then, was the protection against either high or low prices? He never esteemed this question of so much importance as, after hearing the speeches of Gentlemen connected with the agricultural interests, because they represented that, if we admitted foreign corn, an almost unbounded quantity of land would go out of cultivation, and that the misery and distress of the agricultural interest would be extreme, and they said moreover that the whole of the agricultural property now embarked in the country, was embarked on the faith of the present Corn-laws, which had the effect of raising almost double nourishment for every man in the country. Now, could any reasonable man expect if this Corn-law had this effect that it could be either stable or permanent ?—(Hear, hear.) If that were the case, we should be reduced to the melancholy option, of either imposing on the community this tax, or of ruining all the farmers and growers of the land. If this were the case the conclusion which he should come to would be that the Corn-laws were founded upon prin ciples altogether untenable in practice, and that it would be our imperative duty to desist from so calami tous a policy, and to abstain from encouraging the investment of further agricultural capital on such a hazardous and perilous condition.—( Hear.) He did not believe the statements made as to the ruin which would be produced to the agriculturists if the Corn-laws were repealed.—(Hear, hear.) He believed that the mischievous consequences to them would be far less than they apprehended, but he would put it to their reasoning and understanding, whether they were likely to recommend the Corn-laws to the approbation of the community by using arguments which only tended to exaggerate the extent of the loss which it would in flict upon them ?—( Hear, hear.) It was not disputed that the effect of the Corn-laws was to raise the price of bread. This, in the farmers' language, was called protection—in he language of the consumer, it was called the imposition of a tax for the benefit of an exclusive class.—(Hear, hear, hear.) He had heard it argued, and with very great astonishment, upon the ground that it was not only a question of the landlord or of the farmer, but a question of the labourer —a question in which the interests of the labouring classes of the community, was justly concerned in having a high price of corn, in preference to a low price, He was very glad this question had been brought to this distinct issue. He agreed with the Hon. Member for the Nerth Riding of Yorkshire in his re mark last night, that on this matter the experience of the labourer himself was better titan any man's theory, and as he knew these debates would be road by artizans and a great number of the operative classes, persons ;would have an opportunity of comparing, from their own feelings and experience, which side of the House took the beet view of their condition and prospects. In 1835, the price of wheat was only 365. per quaftar, In Dec. 1838 it was 78s. How many of the artizans and journeymen in the metropolis would agree with Hon. Members opposite, that there had been anything like a rise in their wages since that period adequate to the difference between 365. and 785., and that they were now able to command the same comforts and necessaries of life as they were at that time ?—( Hear, hear.) This was a question which came home to the recollection and feeling of every artisan, and he would be able to test it by reference to his own household book and expenses. He had made many inquiries, but could not find that there had been any rise in the wages of any class of artisans in the slightest degree equivalent to so great a difference in the price of bread—(Hear, hear)—and be was convinced that where there had been any rise, it had been an exception, and not the general rule. With regard to the interest which it was alleged the labouring classes had in a high price * o f provisions in preference to a low price, he should have thought that the history and expe rience of the last twenty-five or thirty years of this country would have been sufficient to satisfy every one, that the very reverse of this was the case. Let them look at the price of corn from the year 1795 to 1800, and let them refer to the history of that time. Was it not at that time, that all the great and grievous abuses of the management of the poor had their com mencement ?—(Hear, hear.) \Vas it not at that time that the fatal allowance system, under which the country groaned till the passing of the Peer-law Amendment Act had its rise, and did it not rise out of the extraordi nary rise in the price of bread—(Hear, hear) —and the unwillingness of the farmers to raise the wages of the poor adequate to that rise in the price ?--(Hear, hear.) If Gentlemen would cast their eyes over the publica tions of that time, they would find it incorrect to assert that the working classes derived any benefit from the high prie of bread ; they would find that propositioxis of all kinds were made in the House of Commons with the veiw of alleviating the distress which existed, and that Mr. Whitbread made a proposition to fix the rate of wages by law. He would now, as a con trast to that period, call the attention of the House to the period when the allowance system ended—when the Poor-law Amendment Act passed. It was passed in the year 1834, and it was in that year the price of wheat was lower than for the last half-century ; and he would appeal to any gentleman's recollection, whether the price of wheat had the effect of diminishing the em ployment and of increasing the misery of the labouring classes in 1835 ? In reports of the Poor-law Com missioners for that year and for 1836, it would be found how materially their operations in first introducing the Poor-law into this country were seconded and fa cilitated by the ample employment of the labouring classes and by the low price of the necessaries of life.— (Hear, hear.) He found this topic dwelt upon by every person concerned in the administration of the Poor-law, and not only those who were favourable to it, but what were the arguments urged by the opponents of the Poor-law ? They said you never could have introduced a system so harsh and so full of pri vations to the labouring poor if you had not been assisted by the most favourable condition in that respect—by finding ample employment and low price of provisions when the law came into operation. Now, looking at the period when the allow ance system and the abuses of the Poor-law first took rise, and contrasting it with the period when they were put an end to, it was decidedly against those who main tained that the labouring classes have an interest, either in the shape of employment or otherwise, in a high price of wheat in preference to a low. If we looked at the records of our population—if we consulted " Milnes on Annuities," or Porter's book on " the Progress of the Nation," what did they find ? They would see the com parative comforts of the labouring classes during a year of low prices, and their discomfort during a year of high prices. This was attested by a great diminution in the number of marriages during a year of high-priced wheat.--(Hear,) 4nd if Gentlemen would look at the disastrous years of 1800 and 1801, they would find these records bore out the position which he had stated. Of the varioos reasons which had been given by Gentlemen for maintaining what they called this protection to the agriculturist, none of them appeared to him to be very conclusive, Muoh had been said about local taxation and general taxation. As to the general taxation of the country, the heaviness of our debt, and the other bordens, certainly left a memorable lesson for not im posing move privations than were necessary ; but he could not admit this was any reason for protecting one class of the community at the expense of anodier.— (Hear.) What he complained of was, that the protec tion which the Corn-laws afforded was special and ex clusive—that they protected the seller of corn at the expense of the buyer.—(Hear.) They might by giving to thejseller of corn a protection, make him more able to pay taxes than before, but it was only by taking so much out of the pockets of the buyer ; so that the seller and the buyer together were not a bit more able to pay than before. The aggregate resources of the country were in no way increased, but he maintained they were greatly diminished, because this transfer from the pockets of the seller to the pockets of the buyer, produced the effect of distributing unnaturally and erroneously the aggregate capital of the country.—( Hear, hear) Now, to take the matter on a small scale, Hon. Gentlemen would pot think that they increased the power of a parish to pay rates, by saddling one proprietor at the expense of the remainder, or encouraging one mode of employing labour at the expense of others.—(Cheers.) He was sure that doctrine would fiud no approbation anywhere ; and it was only from mystifying the circum stance, that it could impose upon so many acute and penetrating men, Then as to the local taxation of the country. What had been said by Hon. Gentlemen he could only understand to be an indirect censure on the way in which our taxation was distributed. If they could show that more than a fair and reasonable share was im posed on the agriculturists,let it be rectified. Agricultural gentlemen would find no reluctance manifested to re lieve them from such burthens, if they could be proved to exist, and be contended that that was the way to treat the complaints.—(Hear, hear.) If be (Mr. G.) were: assessed at a higher rate than others, he had a right to have the assessment rectified ; but, assuredly, no reasonable Judge would ever dream of maintaining the original vice of the assessment without alteration, and of giving him leave to reimburse himself at the expense of his neighbour?--(Hear, hear,) Yet that was involved in the argument of the agriculturists to pro. tect themselves from the introduction of foreign corn— the excess of their local taxation. Some Hon. Gent. had said a great deal about the evil of being dependant on foreign countries, and he admitted there was some thing terrific in the sound of the word dependence, of which they made quite sufficient use. But would our present Corn-laws emancipate us from that dependence. —(Hear, hear.) Were we not dependent upon foreign countries at this instant, and were we not likely to be dependant upon them hereafter, and did not the agri cultural Committee of 1833 say that England did not in ordinary years grow corn enough for her own consump tion ? But it was said we were only occasionally de pendent. So much the worse.—(Hear, hear.) For no one was so likely to be disappointed in his supply as the occasional buyer. Under our pre sent system of occasional dependence we did not make it the interest of any country to supply us. We therefore were regarded as nothing better than unexpected intruders upon a stock provided without reference to us.—(Hear.) It was not astonishing that fo reign powers should be reluctant to send their corn just at the time we wanted it—when we declined to take it when it could be of any advantage to them.— (Hear.) If it were desired to remove the chance of our being dependent for a supply, let there be a re gular trade, for it would be as much the interest of foreign powers to supply us as it would be our interest to buy corn of them. He was exceedingly happy to hear last night the Hon. Member for Yorkshire speak of the skill displayed in English agriculture-- (Hear, hear)— because he did expect rather to hear op posite language, seeing the side of the question which the Hon. Member adopted. They were told that Po land and Russia had abundance of unexhausted land, but that was their only advantage. To know whether their low price of labour was an advantage to the capi talist, he must also know what was the amount of work done by the labourer.—(Hear, hear.) And it had been stated over and over again by land surveyors that the work done by an English labourer in Middlesex at 2s. 6d. per day was cheaper than the work done by the Irish labourer in Kerry at 6d. He did not despair that the English agriculturist, if he made use of all the means within his power, would be able to compete with the foreigner so as to render the importation of foreign corn exceedingly inconsiderable in point of quantity.— (Hear, hear.) When he looked at the statements made relative to the condition of English agriculture, and of the extent of improvement yet to be resorted to by the English growers, he was the more confirmed in his position that the English agriculturists had not so much to apprehend from foreign competition as they imagined.—(Hear, hear.) He would appeal in confir mation of these views to a very valuable pamphlet pub lished in 1836, under the form of a letter to Earl Spen cer, upon the foundation of agricultdral associations, by the Honourable Member for Lincolnshire (Mr. Hand ley), It was most valuable and instructive—it parti cularly pointed out the difficulties existing in our agri culture, and the degree in which agriculturists might by their own means and exertions improve it. The Hon. Gentleman was no partizan of the doctrine of finality in agricultural management, which was very popular on other topics on both sides of the House. f-!e admonished them of the means within their reach to obtain an improved system, and of the duty under which they lay to provide themselves with those improvements. The pamphlet of Mr. Handley continued to state that it was impossible not to be disgusted with the bad state of farming, and the ignorance of cultivation in this country. In spite of the revolution which bone manure had introduced into farming, its use was still unknown in many dietricts. It was also clear from what the pamphlet stated, that high prices such as those obtained in war time, were not at all favourable to the develop ment of the science of agriculture. It stated that when prices were ao high that half a crop would remunerate the farmer, be he ever $o slovenly, the usual induce ments to industry and ingenuity were wanted ; and that when wheat was from six to eight guineas a quarter the only wonder was why the farmer did not exert himself less. That was his (Mr. G.'s) opinion also—whether as referred to war prices or to the high prices which it was the object of the Corn-laws to give, but which they could not maintain.—(Hear, hear.) But let us only have free competition in the trade of corn, and then, according to Mr. Handley, every species of improvement in farming would follow, and the evils now complained of would gradually be diminished. H e (Mr. G.) maintained that the agriculture of this country would never be on its true and just basis but on the principle of a free trade in corn—( Hear, hear) —that so long as we persevered in the present system of encouraging the farmer to make bargains to pay a heavy rent, on the supposition of a protective duty, the very time that this protection would be most wanted, it would be found to fail—that if we encouraged the pre sent delusive course, nothing like a steady price would be obtained, and the theory of agricultural prosperity would turn out to be all a fiction.—(Hear, hear.) He believed there were a great many erroneous notions abroad respecting the prices of foreign wheat imported into this country, if we had a free trade in corn estab lished. He had taken some pains to procure pre cise information on this point.—(Cries of " Hear.") From the best information he had been enabled to procure, he believed that when foreign corn should be imported in considerable quantities into this country, under the encouragement of free trade, the price would not be less than 455. a quarter.—(Laughter, and cries of " Hear, hear.") He would remind the Hon. Gentlemen, that in reasoning on those points, price and quantity must be taken together, for one de pended upon the other. Now, assuming that the quantity of wheat imported would be one million quarters, the price would not be less than 455. The agri culturists of England would then most cheerfully supply the fourteen millions of quarters which would then be Fe- quired. The whole struggle, then, turned between the one million and the fourteen-fifteenths, as far as the grower and consumer were coocerned. He would beg Hon. Gentlemen not to deceive themselves by referring to quotations of wheat at Dantzic. There was no encou ragement for importation at such times. The prices were very low, but then they were only nominal. They were not represented in anyreal transaction, for if there were Any considerable demand fro:n a foreign country, those lox prices would not exist a single day. Let them take the prices of wheat at Dantzic during the time of a reel demand, as in the years 1829, 1830, and 1831 ; they would find that the average of prices was not less than 455. a quarter ; there was then nothing alarming in the estimate he had made on the assumption that we should import one million quarters, and yet that importation would encourage cultivation abroad, and diffuse much advantage at home. But if he could show that corn would be imported here at 355. or even 255. a quarter, that would only make his case stronger.— (Hear, hear.) He was not disposed to exaggerate ; he was most anxious that the question should be regarded in its true point between the grower and the consumer, though he would admit there had been a great deal of exaggeration on either side.—(Hear, hear, and cheers.) The Hon. Member who spoke last, and the Hon. Member for Yorkshire who spoke last night in addressing the House on behalf the English labourer, asked whether he intended, by the importation of corn from Poland he proposed, •to degrade the English la bourer to the level of the Polish labourer ? Nothing could be further than such an idea from the wishes of any gentleman on his side the question ; in fact, ho was sure that there was in reality no connection between what Hon. Gentlemen regarded as cause and effect in this case. Had we not been importing wheat during thirty years from Ireland, and yet had we in cons,- quence degraded the English labourer to the level which unhappily prevailed in Ireland.—( Hear, bear.) He was sure that if such could be the effect, the English Parliament would never consent to a free trade in corn with Ireland, upon so unjust and unkind a principle ; but in fact there was no connection between the two points—the reward of labour in the two countries did not depend on the price of corn they might as well tell him that if we had a free trade in corn, that when in consequence flour should be imported into this country from America, that the condition of the English labourer would be raised to that of the American— but such would not be the case—(Hear, hear)—be cause there was not the least connection between the two points. He dared to say that if we had a free trade in corn, the condition of the Polish labourer would be improved by capital and the diffusion of in dustry ; but there was not the least foundation to ap prehend that the English labourer would be degraded to the condition of the Polish labourer.—(Cheers.) Another point dwelt upon by the Hon. Member for Yorkshire last night was, that if the free trade were per mitted, we should be inundated by foreign corn as if it had been hoarded up for the purpose of pouring into this country when the ports were opened. But there was no quantity hoarded up on purpose, and if the ports were opened and the free trade permitted, we should have a gradual supply,lbut no inundation. Now to remove all apprehensions on this point, to show that no immense quantity of corn would be all at once introduced, he would refer to Parliamentary returns, showing the quantity of corn that had been imported from Ireland, from the year 1800 to 1839. The free trade in corn with Ireland was established in 1806. if the argument of the Hon. Gentleman were sound, we ought by this time to have been inundated with corn from Ireland, and Ireland also was in the same rela tive condition with England as Poland would ba with this country if there were a free trade in corn—in Ire land as in Poland there was an abundance of fertile land, but a very low reward for labour ; now he would not trouble the House by reading in detail the return he had alluded to, in order to show how gradual had been the increase of corn imported from Ireland year after year, instead of there being a great quantity brought over to this country at once. The whole of quantity imported from Ireland now,.was three millions of quarters. He was quite certain that this question would never be at rest until they had sub stantially established a free trade in corn—( Hear, hear) —until that protection which the Corn-laws now gave to the seller at the expense of the buyer, should be substan tially at an end,—(Hear, hear.) The working of the Corn-laws was most mischievous. They seemed to have been framed with the worst possible intentions. They were cruelly unjust in practice, because they im posed on the mass of the community the painful task of purchasing their daily food at a higher price than they need otherwise give. They impeded the circulation of ce pital, by checking the exportation of manufactures, and above all, they had a mischievous tendency to lead to a sudden and an absolute demand for bullion, which might come on at the most inconvenient possible time.--(Hear, hear.) Now he would beg leave to ask Hon. Gentlemen what would have been the condition of the commercial community and the Bank of England if, in addition to the drains which were made upon the Bank in 1825 there had also been a bad harvest.—(Hear, hear.) He well re collected that calamitous period, and he was sure that, if there had been a bad harvest, the condition of the Bank would have been most painfully embarrassing. If there bad been a bad harvest in 1830, and also a run of bullion in addition, the position of the Bank and or the commercial community would have been most pain ful and embarrassing.—( Hear, hear.) Hon. Members ought to reflect now, for when such a time came it would be too late. He contended that the calls for bul lion, occasionally produced by fluctuating duties en corn, interdicted steady prices, and compelled us in seasons of scarcity to pay extravagantly for food. In the time of the French Revolution Robespierre compelled the seller of corn to take a certain price for it, without asking any more. This was of course unjust, but the principle of all such systems was not less unjust, for we protected the sellere against the buyers, though the latter were immeasurably the larger class. They might depend upon it that the feeling which was now extending itself against the unjust system of the Corn laws, though it may be comparatively quiet in times of abundance, would revive in times of scarcity in a tone of clamour and violence that would :be inconsistent with the peace of the country, and fatally sub versis e to the interests of the agriculturists. If the Legislature was determined to persevere in the support of a bad measure to keep one part of the people at the expense of another, and that a much larger one, they would be compelled to watch their enactments with drawn swords in their hands.—('Hear, hear.) Not only would clamour, indignation, and dis content be diffused against the agricultural interest, but a series of consequences, highly dangerous to the manufacturing and monetary interests would ensue. He was quite satisfied both for the stability of our agricultural interest and the safety of the capital in vested in land, and about to be invested in it, that it would be for the interest, not alone of the consuming community, but also of the farmers themselves, to con sent to this question being settled, on the only solid and true basis, on the permanent centre of gravity— he meant a trade in corn substantially free. The Earl of DARLINGTON said that be very sel dom ventured to trouble the House with any remarks of his, however being connected as a representative with the agricultural interest, he would take the liberty of saying a few words on the present important question. He should be one of the last persons to undervalue the importance of our manufacturing interests, well knowing that they contributed most es sentially to the wealth, power, and prosperity of the country, and such was his confidence in the enter prise and skill of British artisans that he was sure it would ever be impossible for foreigners to compete with them in quantity or quality ; but it seemed that the Hon. Gentlemen who advocated the cause of the ma nufacturers were not satisfied with this pre-eminence, they would have us, besides, manufacture for the whol e world, and would allow uo country to manufacture even for itself. But the British manufacturers had no right to do thin, and if they had they could not exercise it iu the present state of Europa. He would contend it on the ground of general policy. He did not see, moreover. why the manufacturers should be benefited at the ex pense of the agriculturists. He was perfectly willing to allow the manufacturers a full share of encouragement and protection with the agriculturists, but he would not allow the former to predominate. Setting aside the in terests of landlords, farmers, and labourers, he would say that if this were to become altogether a manufac turing country, it would be injurious to our national prosperity and wealth. The agricultural and manufac turing interests had been properly termed twins ; let them, th en , go h an d i n h an d, an d no thing would injure them. Each one was as essential to the interest of the other, as both were to the general prosperity of tke State. Having said so much, he felt sorry to be obliged to complain of the tone which the agriculturists had been spoken of throughout several manufacturing dis tricts. The landed interest had acted differently—their motto was " Live and let live." They would attack no one ; b u t w h en t h ey were attac k e d un f a i r ly, unjustly, and wantonly, they were fully prepared to defend them. selves, but would act solely in self-defence. The Speech of the Hon. Gentleman who had brought for ward this question last night had astonished him greatly. He went at l arge i nto the manner in w hi c h he consi dered this question would affect the agricultural interest, but dwelt b ut li tt l e upon t h e manner i n w hich the manu facturing i nterest would b e affected b y it. He had stated his conviction that this question would prove sub. stantially a landlord's question ; that the farmers had scarcely any interest in it, and that it would make eventually b u t very li tt l e diff erence to them. Now, would yield t o ascertaining o the the profits v i D wi a th oin a g l t l on d ) u oto deference say,that atiothotuhgeh hHoonourable Gen tleman, h e must allow bairn (the Earl o f ytbeet,kenoonwsilfieedrgioegofththeeopHpoonr.toGoietinetslewmhainoh he possessed o f ow ng on other subje c t s , ewansdofthefarm lossesof farming,s n he felt satisfied t his subject— o f that he Knew what was f or th e i n t eres ts of the farmers as well a s th e H on. Member for 'Wolverhampton. Before he went into th e statements laid before the H ouse by th e H on. Membe r f or W olverhampton last night, in b r i ng i ng f orward this questi on , he would take nooee of one point in the er o k §peeph of the Ife e . Member' for London, which appeared to him to involve a contradiction. In the early part of his speech he had said that the effect of the Corn-laws was, in point of fact, to keep up the price of corn beyond the means of the consumer to pay for it. In the latter part of his speech be had said that if a free importation of corn were per mitted to take place into this country, corn could not be imported at a less cost than 455. per quarter. Now, from 1833 to 1838, the average price of corn in England had not been more than 48s. per quarter—only 3s. per quarter more than the price that it would bear under a system of free importation. Now, he would like to know how this 33. could make such a difference to the labourer as to enable him . to increase his consumption to any considerable extent. In fact the latter part of the Hon. Gentleman's speech contradicted the former part of it. The Hon. Mover of this question last night had begun by stating that it was only now that this question had attracted that degree of public attention to which its importance en titled it. Who were those, he would ask, from whom the present movement came?-_( Hear.) Did it come from the people. He was ready to admit that the present high price of corn had been this year higher than it had been in former years, and that this might have created some slight sensation, but had the populace held any meetings on this subject ? Had they expressed any feelings in relation to it? No, but the Chamber of Commerce at Manchester brought forward this question, and had endeavoured to press it by every unjustifiable means in their power— ( Hear, hear)—by agitation.—( Hear, hear.) They had even endeavoured to rouse the populace to arm.—( Cries of " Ne, no," from the Ministerial benches, responded to by cheers from the Opposition.) He would contend that they had endeavoured to do so; it was true that they had not succeeded, because they were defeated upon this as they had been upon every other point. But he would repeat that they had done so.—(Hear, hear, hear.) Had these measures not been had recourse to this question would not have been heard of more this year than it had been fur some years previously, when it was never heard of except in occasional speeches of Hon. Members in that House. As a proof of this he would quote a few words from the speech of the Hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets last year in support of a motion on this subject. That Hon. Member distinctly stated that he could look for no support out of this House. He regretted the apathy that existed in the public mind on this subject, but he was forced to admit that this apathy did exist, and he regretted it the more because he felt that a repeal of the Corn-laws never could be ob tained without the pressure from without. He agreed with that Hon. Member that this apathy did exist, and although every means had this year been resorted to, to create that pressure from without on this subject, yetthose means had all signally failed. The next objection brought forward by the Hon. Member for Wolverhampton was that the high price of corn cast a great number of labourers into the market, and lowered the price of labour. He (Earl Dar lington) was at a loss to understand how the high price of corn could cast the agricultural labourer upon the market. The agricultural labourer was not a wanderer—he was chiefly domesticated on the spot where he was born, and in many circumstances might be considered as an heir-loom to the estate, and unless unfortunately he should be doomed hereafter to sell up and go into the workhouse, he could not see how he could be forced to go from his home. It was true when the farmer was poor he was not induced to employ labour to the same extent ; and although it would cost him as much in the end as if he had employed the labour, because what he saved by the non-employment of labour he would lose by a deficiency in his crops, and an increase in his poor rates—although this might be appli cable to a small extent, yet he could not admit that this would be such a loss of work as would produce the effect stated by the Hon. Gentleman, nor could he understand how the high price of corn could throw the agricultural labourer into the market, because he was fixed to the spot. The Hon. Gent. had also stated that the effect of the Corn laws was to keep the labourer out of employment. Did he mean to say that if the Corn-laws were repealed, and the land thrown out of cultivation that that would give the labourer more employment. He could not understand what the Hon. Gentleman meant by this, because he did not enter into any details on this subject. He trusted the House would not allow any lands to go out of cultivation. Ho would relate to the House an anecdote on this subject of a circumstance which fell under his own observation in the Highlands of Scotland. In that part of the country the valleys are in cultivation while the mountains are covered with heath and rock, but the climate is so bad that the crops almost constantly fail. In consequence of this he had suggested to a resident gentleman there whether it would not be advisable to give up the cultivation of these valleys and lay the lands down in grass. The gentleman answered that most undoubtedly it would be his interest to do so, but he asked what was to be done with the population ? They depended for their entire subsistence on the tillage of these valleys, and if they were laid down in grass instead of being devoted to the cultivation of barley and potatoes, on which they subsisted, the whole population would be driven out of the country. This was a strong reason, on the ground of hu manity alone, for retaining the present Corn-laws. The Hon. Gentleman had alluded to the number of 'labourers who had been thrown out of employment on the first intro duction of the threshing machines, and had stated 0,114 when these machines were first brought into use, there was a great outcry against them as throwing the agricultural labourer oat of employ ment, but that now these machines were generally employe I, the outcry on this subject no longer existed ; and had argued that if a free importation of corn took place and the land was thrown out of cultivation, the labourers now employed in agriculture, wonld find employment in various other ways, as they bad dune tin the introduction of threshing machines,. With regard to these machines, al though a great number were employed, yet still a consider able quantity of corn continued to be threshed by the flail, and therefore the introduction of these machines had not occa sioned such a difference as the Hon. gentleman imagined ; but the improvements which had taken place iu agriculture had led to the employment of more labourers than had been employed before the introduction of these threshing machines. The Hon. Gentleman had gusted that all the consumers of manufactures were not landlords. True, but all landlords ware great consumers ; in fact, they con 2umed the greater part of the manufactures. The gees tion was, which was the most desirable, thp home trade or the foreign trade ? Because if, in consequence of repeal ing these laws yon extended the foreign trade, you must diminish the home trade in a proportionate extent.—( Hear, ) Was it reasonable to suppose that when yon reduced the interest of the landlord and farmer to a considerable ex tent, that they could be perehasers to the same extent as they aro now ? He would ask, therefore, which was of the greatest value to the manufacturer, the home market or the foreign market ? The declared value of the total manufactures of this kingdom was 150,000,0001., of these 48,000,0001. to 49,000,0001. were exported, leaving to the home consumption upwards of 100,000,000/.—more then double the quantity of the foreign exports. Now, suppose that 50,000,000/. additional were exported, and the home consumption decreased by 50,000,000/. in consequence of a repeal of the Corn-laws, the only effect produced would be that of erepleying the labourers of foreign countries, instead of our own. The Hon. Gentleman had asserted that the landed interest was the only party opposing the repeal—according to his (the Parl of Darlington's) view of the case, three fifths, if not four-fifths of the population at lease were op posed to the repeal. The opponents of this question in cluded the landowners, farmers, the labourers, all those dependent on the landed interest—the shopkeepers —for the retail shopkeepers of all country towns were de pendent on the farmers—( Hear, hear)—and even the traders of this metropolis admitted that the landowners were their best customers. Under these circumstances how could it be said that all these persons must be in favour of a repeal of the Corn-laws ? But this was far from being merely a land-owner's question, for it was preposte rous to suppose the landholders and the farmers had sepa rate interests. It bad been attempted to be proved so, but it had been perfectly ascertained that their interests were so interwoven that it was impossible to disunite them, and he never knew an instance of the landlord being in pros perity and the farmer in adversity. The Hon. Member for Wolverhampton had stated that he had heard of agricultural distress, but although the farmer had suffered privations, the land-owners had not suffered—but if he had inquired on that point he would have discovered that he was mistaken ; who were the landowners? some of them were men of large property, but the greater part were not so; but take the case of a landowner of large property, say of 20,0001. a-year—he was obliged to make a great reduction—he had known a landed proprietor who had reduced the whole of his rents from 8 to 20 per cent., according to circumstances.—( Hear.) It might be said that he was a very rich man this did not make any difference ; true he would not be reduced te a state of poverty, but his income being red t lecd 8,0001. a-year made a difference in his estehlishlnent, he could not keep so many horses, or dogs, or other comforts. But it might be said that if the landlord reduced his rent it could make no, difference to the farmer, who would be just as well off if corn were at a low price as if it were el a high one. He would just compare the amount of rent with the amount of gross produce of farms in England. The amount of rent was never more than one-fourth. He would suppose the rent of the farm to be 2001., and the am mit of gross produce to be 800/. The gross produce was thus expended: one-fourth for rent, one-fourth for la. hour and expenses, and one-fourth for rates and dues. Now suppose the rent to be reduced from 2001. to 1001., and the gross produce from 800/. to 4001., how could it be said that the farmer was in as good cir cumstances as he had been before With re. Bard to the p resent Corn-laws it had been asserted by many Hon. Members that their original formation had no other object than to force up the high price of grain beyond its natural l eve l . If that had been the object , doubt it had failed—( Hear, hear)—beceetts they e l llkne n w o that since it had been in operation, now eleven years, they had had all sorts of price; -- very low prices, averacr- ' prices, and l ast year and the present they certainly had had had very high prices.--( Hear, heir.) ?Jut he maintained that when the Act was frerned, far front its being carelessly and negligently drawn up, there never was an Aet in which the frame rs t oo k more pains and evinced more anxiety to make such compromises as should be satisfactory, both to the producers and the consumers. The vedette interests likely to be affected by it had been been fully discussed, and there was a large majority of the House in favour of the measure. If the object had been to force up the price of corn, it had undoubtedly failed—( Hear, hear, hear)— but he denied that such was its object. The first object was to secure to the consumer, under all circumstances a supply of corn, and at such a price as would eosure to the grower a fair remuneration for his capital and labour, without making the consumer pay a higher price than he ought to pay. If the farmer had not on all occasions obtained a remunerating price, that was owing to a superabundance of corn ; and if these laws had not existed-..if the import of foreign corn had not been restricted by these duties, the superabundance would have been considerably increased. The object of the Corn laws was to encourage the horst° grower to provide such a supply es would enable them to do without the importa taeon of foreign corn. He contended that by a good mode of cultivation in ordinary harvests, as well as in abun dant years, more corn could be grown in that country than could be ceesuraed ; but in the abundant seasons, teltat remained over and' alma the consurAntioAl w a s per. chased by speculaters, laid RR ill Tgr-Cit 'Oilles, and • into ma r k e t its meta e eeisistif t IS see- - t only in inadequate _ _ _ seasons like the present that they were obliged to have re course to foreign corn. If they had enough to supply their population with the gorn grown in that country, unless in * deficient seasons, was it advisable that they should repeal these laws (because they had not worked admirably and had not in every respect realized the hopes and wishes of the farmers), and have recourse to the experiment of de riving their supplies from abroad, which must always be precarious ? The Right Hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade said, that even if these laws were re pealed, corn would not be much cheaper. Knowing how the system had worked up to the present moment--having observed how it protected the interests of the corn growers, it did not seem to him wise or good policy to risk such an experiment to suit the wishes of a few political theo rists. (The Noble Lord here turned round to re• for to some documents, and it being supposed that he had concluded his address, about a dozen Members rose to address the House, which occasioned much laughter. ) It might be said that the labourers were interested in the low price of corn, and no doubt, if they could be per suaded that they would have a loaf at half-price, with the same income, they would be great gainers; but would that be the ease? Was it to be supposed that the manu facture-a, who had created the present outcry against tha Coy - laws, for no other reason than because their profits were diminished, would continue to pay the same rate of wages? Unless that were done the operative would not be benefited, and in no case in which the question had been dis cussed by these parties had he heard it said that if corn could be obtained at half its present price would they keep the labourer's wages at the same rate. He contended, therefore, that the operatives had no right to join he ma nufacturers in their present demand for the repeal of the Corn-laws. With regard to the agricultural labourers they were all aware that their condition depended upon the condition of the farmers—the farmer depend° I upon the landlord, and the agricultural labourer upon the former for employment ; and when the farmer was in his best condi tion, he would employ labour to the greatest extent. It was always found that the agricultural labourer preferred high wages and dear bread, rather than cheap bread and low wages. The labourer's wages had always been increased in proportion to the price of corn.--( Cries of "Oh I") He was only alluding to the present year, because it was the first in which a deficiency had occurred. What was the case this year ? Speaking of Lincolnshire he found that the average wages of the common labourer varied from 10s. to 12s. per week. In the present winter they had been increased from 12s. to 155., being an average of 13s. 6d. per week, and that was in consequence of the high price of corn.--( Cheers.) He had given great attention to the subject for many years, and had formed the best opinion he could ; and at the same time he had no hesitation in saying that, although his opinion was strongly in favour of the present Corn-laws without any alteration, if be found the people of England against him in that respect, although it would be contrary to his own opinion, he would no longer support them.—( Hear. ) But convinced as he was that that was not the case—that the great bulk of the population were in favour of the present system—he should continue to hold the same opinion he at present entertained, for he would never suc cumb to the views of faction, or the schemes of crafty spe culators.—( Cheers. ) Mr. CLAY said from the interest he had taken in the present question the House would not be surprised that he was not inclined to give a silent vote ; otherwise, seeing the number of Gentlemen anxious to address the House, and having had an opportunity on a former occasion, when he brought forward, a few years since, a motion on the subject, of stating his opinions upon the policy of the Corn laws, he felt that he could add nothing what ever to the general views he had the honour of submitting to the House. He would content himself, therefore, on the present occasion with commenting on the principal ar guments which had been advanced by the Hon. Gentle. man who had preceded him in the debate. In doing so he assured the House that he would endeavour to compress his remarks into the smallest possible compass, and in order to do so he would confine himself more etrietly than some other gentlemen to the question before the House. What was the question ? " That the House do resolve itself into a Committee to consider of the laws regulating the im portation of grain." The subject, therefore, for consider ation was simply whether there was sufficient grounds for supposing that any alteration in these laws was necessary ? If sufficient arguments could be: advanced to indueo the House to go into Committee, then, as it appeared to him, would be the approprite time for discussing the subsidiary question of the nature of the change to be proposed. He therefore felt that his Right Hon. Friend, the President of the Board of Trade, was perfectly justified last night, although his epinion was met by somewhat taunting cheers _ e lse felt that his Right Hon. Friend was perfectly justified in saying that Hon. Members, who disapproved of the pre sent laws, might, with perfect propriety, vote for going into Committee ; because of those persons who asserted that protect:oil was required by the English corn-grower, there were many Hen. Members of that House who thought that protection might ho vouch more usefully and conveniently afforded in the shape of ' a direct fixed duty than by the ascending and descending scale of duty. Hon. Mernb,era so thinking might, with perfect propriety, go into Committee; they might then state the amount of pro tection they thought advisable; their views might be then more conveniently put forward, and with en opportunity of better contrasting them with those of the edvooates of a perfectly free trade. He confessed, therefore, that he thought all those details into which the Hon. Member for Lincolnshire entered, as to the degree in which local taxation enhanced the cost of growing corn in England —even the statements of his Hon. Friend the Member for Loudon, as to the cost of bringing foreign corn to England, and the details of the Hon. Member for the West Riding of Yorkshire, as to the cost of producing corn—all those details were, in his opinion, somewhat out of place on the present occasion. The question for them was this—bad the present Corn-laws so far answered their purpose as to hold out future advantage to the country, or, on the contrary, had they so completely failed in answer ing their object —did they threaten so much danger to the best interests of the country, as to call imperatively for their immediate repeal ?—(Cheers.) That was the simple question before the House, and to that he would confine himself. Before doing so he would advert to the animadversions pronounced by the Noble Lord, the Member for Salop, as to the agitation which had been created, and he would certainly say that last year there had been great apathy on the subject. The Right lion. Gentleman, the 'Member for Kent, had reprehended his Right Hon. Friend, the President of the Board of Trade, for approving of the parties who got up the agitation for the repeal of those laws. But he would ask the Right Hon. Gentleman and the Noble Lord what species of at tention the question had received from that House be foee the agitation had commenced ?—(Cheers.) Was it not met in the most contemptuous manner? Were not benches empty of the leaders he now saw upon them ? (Cries of " No, no.") But were there any of these distin guishod men to take a part in the question ? Was it not, to use a familiar, but expressive phrase, pooh-poohed out of the House ?—( Hear, and laughter.) Was it not well known that the landed aristocracy never yielded up their power—that they had never listened to the voice of argu ment—that they had never yielded but to pressure, nor had they yielded until the cession lost all its grace and more than half of its healing virtues ? He came now to the speech of the Hon. Member, the mover of the amendment, and he hoped he would not attribute to him any want of cour tesy if he said that it was not the course of his argument_ no, nor the pertinent nature of his facts, that induced him now to direct himself to it, but because it was perfectly clear that he was the selected advocate of those gentle men who especially represented the landed interest in that House. That Hon. Gentleman had been induced to with draw his amendment; and he was satisfied that Hon. Gen tlemen opposite were far too wise in their generation to permit the House to go to a division on that amend ment, because it much too truly stated the cause of the utter failure of the measure, and carried in its terms its own refutation. He was bound to say that the Honourable Gentleman's amendment was far more dangerous to his friends than formidable to his foes. The Hon. Member had repea'ed all those fallacies that had been a thousand times refuted and re-produced in that House On every debate on the question. The Hon, Gen tleman said that they ought not to depend upon foreign countries for their supply, but he (Mr. Clay) contended that they should be as dependent as possible upon foreign countries for their supply—( Hear and much laughter)—in the perfect assurance that these countries must be equally dependent upon Great Britain.—(Cries of " Oh, and cheers.) He maintained that the beeeficial intercourse of different nations which thet mutual depe n d ence cou ld create would increase 'eiedly feelinge, would promote the happiness of the hensan race, and render the miset a• war of a less formidable amount. Wile; was the next point of the Hon. Member's speech ? Why, that they could riot get high taxation out of low prices. He supposed his Right Hon. Friend, the Chancel lor of the Exchequer, always found the revenue better when the price of corn was high. Nothing in his opinion could be more preposterous than the supposition of the Hon. Member, In private families did they find that a man was better off because he paid highly for his baker's sad butcher's bills ? Was it to be supposed that there we:, any other surpl us f rom w hi c h taxation could be t. per. th an the net profits of the community ? and Were not the net profits of the commuttity larger with clear, food than dear ? —( Hear, hear.) But ther.: was another answer to the que;tion.,....let Hors. Members look back to the revenue for the last twenty-three years, and they would find that with the most extraordinary regularity and certainty, the prices of corn and the revenue bore an inverse ratio.—(Hear, hear.) When corn was dear the revenue fell, and when it was cheap the revenue rose. So far, therefore, from its being true that they got high taxation out of the high price of corn, it was exactly the reverse ; they had always a more flourishing state of the re venue when the price of corn was low than when it was high. What was the next point to which the Hon. Mem. bar had adverted ? Why, that if there was a free trade in corn, foreign nations would not take the manufactures of this country. Why, any schoolboy would be ashamed of such an argument.—( Hear, hear.) The Hon. Gentle man had asked the House in that part of his speech in which he talked of the time of the Edwards, the Henrys, and Elizabeth, coming down to the time of Anne—the Hon. Gentleman had asked, did the people of the country iive so well then as now ? Had the Hon. Member forgot ten the works that had been written on the Corn-laws? had he forgotten Smith's "Wealth of Nations ?" had he for gotten all that had been said ;when the people began to live well ? Was it not when this country changed from being an exporting to an importing nation—then it was that they began to live better. The Ho nourable Gentlemen who advocated the existence of the present laws had certainly dealt very fairly and honestly by them—he had uot attempted to get out of the real difficulties that surrounded them, he had stated that they were nosee attended to sustain the price of corn, and the Nclia Lord who was not now in his place, had stetesi nearly the same thing; for ho said, that they were only intend e d t o guar d the Brit i sh farmer against foreign competition. Now if that was not intended to sustain the price of ewe, (Mr. C.) could not tell what else it "" t ! • l':"1" o f :le suppositions of the Honoeraiale Membere— ,theastpwechiealnlyoothrnatw a o s f a the w H a o s n ( 3 )1 6 1 , r s . able Member for . - were gr L a i t n u c it o o l u n s , it might be reduced to Me by a great abundance of corn that there would b e a l arge i m p ortat i on o f f o 36 s. being sent f rom f ore i gn p ar t s . N ow , cou ld r i e t i te n n suz n po i s n e to s the country, when Its p r ice was as l ow a d .3o The Honourable Member f o r Li nco l n , h a d to candidly allowed that if th e f ramers o f t h e Corn laws intended that th e y s h ou ld k scp up t h e high prices, stated they hail ht i t ad failedwaa notorious in that that intention, aim and of the he e hado Corn ritaber vr thatwas to oh j p e r c o t d ? uce T s hi t e ca, R lis i . g e h is t of n price. Nor Baronet Now htandethmeeymehfreer forc,ied Pembroke had, u p on a prev i ous occas i on, advocated the Corn-laws because th e y h a d p ro d uce d a stead i ness o f price —would he advocate them on the same grounds now, when it was notorious th a t th ere h a d b een fl uctuations in the price of corn exceeding. 100 per cent. ? The Hon. Member for Lincoln admitted that the present Corn-laws had failed in their object—he admitted that they did not produce steadiness of price, but he had said " Show us a better ld points3' te s ( te l n l i r. ; lClay)etthe there ' , T a g r t e e t that d e he in could r prices. If by preventing an influx of corn from other coatt ail(' then inn.u"t t a h N f b .! reoet7l: s ys tem be the best chance for steadiness of tries, either be absolute prohibition, or by a duty so high as to amount to prohibition, they raised the price of corn above for e i gn countr i es, and forced extended cultivation, it was certain that as much capital would be employed in the production of land as the rate of interest would allow. It was certain that in ordinary years they would have corn enough grown fur ordinary consump•ion, but the growth of other years would be too much for an abundant year, and therefore the result would be that the price of all the corn in England would f a ll as muc h b e l ow the level of other countries as it had been attempted to raise it above it. What was the result? The farmers were either ruined or discouraged—there was less bread than corn sold, and the small grower, meeting with an unfavourable season, the price of corn rose again. If an attempt was made to kee, up the price of c orn a b ove t h e level of other countries ruinous cultivation was produced. In countries that always imported certain quantities the only fluctuation that took place was in abundant years, union they ceased to take the foreign supplies. If it was true that the Corn-laws could not keep up the prices above other countries, were they to consider them as useless; but that they did no harm to the country? He wouid not now go into the evils of the Corn- laws to the agricultural inte rests, because it was clear that the protection which the Corn-laws pretended to afford to the farmer was com pletely delusory, and caused great dissatisfaction to the agriculturists themselves. But, he would ask, did those laws injuriously affect the commerce of the country? Very much to his surprise those who had taken part in the pre sent debate had hardly touched upon that point, although it had been so much discussed in other places, and among the manufacturers themselves. He (Mr. C.) thought that the statements of the manufacturers on this sub ject were entitled to very great attention. Whtt ever credit the House might be inclined to give to the statements of the'manufacturers themselves there were in his opinion considerations not grounded upon detail or disputed evidence, but resting solely on the admission of the advocates of the present Corn-law themselves, which clearly showed the impropriety ni the maintenance of the present laws. The Corn-lawes were it was said intended at all times to limit the impertation of foreign corn,and at times to stop it altogether, now that was as badas if it had been to prevent Corn being grown in this country, for its own use, Corn was not like sugar, spices, or other articles of luxury—it was the principal article of human subsistence, and the House ought therefore to consider what vatt be nefits they were throwing away by preventing foreign cora from entering onr ports.__( Cries of Hear hear.) The whole of North and central Europe was well fitted for the production of corn, that vast region which was watered by the Vistula and the Elbe, was well calculated for the production of corn, but by the present Corn.law its cultivation there was put a stop to, because it could not import it when grown into this country. What sacrifices the . manufacturers of the country underwent in consequence of the regulations of the Corn-law ! But for those regulations the manufacturer would have a wider market for his manu factures. But for the restrictions of the present laws, the plough might t urn more furrows in Silicia, and the loom would work more briskly in Scotland ; the Bohemian pea sant would wear better clothing, and the English and Scotch artisan have cheaper bread.—(Hear, hear.) In consequence of the restrictive Corn-law, the manufacturers of this country could not compete with the Transatlantic manufacturers; such were the statements of the manu facturers.—(Hear.) Now what was stated by the parties who upheld the present laws? The manufacturers said that corn was fifty per cent. cheaper on the Continent than in this country. The advocates of the Corn-laws admitted that food was cheaper on the Continent, but then they said that the great capital and skill of this country more than countervailed that. It was a remarkable cir cumstance that the supporters of the Corn-laws appropri ated to themselves what was not their's, viz., the advan tage of the superior skill of the manufacturer. It was a most remarkable case of unjuft legislation that laws should be passed and continued which the great bulk of the corn community considered hostile to their interests.---( Hear, hear.) Up to this point, however, he (Mr. Clay) had only considered the Corn-laws as unjust. Were they not also—as was ever the case with injustice—really prejudicial to those interests for whose advantage they had been designed ?- -(Hear, bear.) Could any gentleman believe that those advantages which now enabled our manufacturers to com pete even in spite of higher prices, by means of capital and superior skill—to compete with the foreigner—that those advantages would always remain?_-( Hear, hear.) Those who were best able to judge averred that their ma nufacturing markets were already leaving them. But he (Mr. Clay) needed no evidence to convince him that these advantages our manufacturers could Not always retain.— Capital would always flow towards that spot at which there were highest profits. __(Hear.) Single workmen would emigrate to the land in which their labour secured the greatest enjoyment. __(Hear.) The great difficulty there was in transferring manufactures, and the reluctance to leave one's native land, might retard the process, but the result ,was inevitable.—( Hear, hear.) He believed that if, by maintaining the price of food in this country at a much higher rate than it was in other countries, profits were raised abroad—as compared with those realized in England —sooner or later our manufactures must be trans ferred to foreign countries. _(Hear, hear.) He feared thet he was wearying the House.—(" Hear," from the Opposition. " O r d er, " from the Ministerial Benches.) He was about to observe that whereas in agriculture the cost of the article, the produce of the soil, was regulated by the highest cost—the price of manufactured articles was regulated by the lowest cost.—( Hear, bear.) Wherever, therefore, the cost of the article was cheapest, there would be an influence on the manufacture of the article in other countries, causing it to languish and to decay. (Cri.'s of " Hear, hear.") If, where food was lowest, capital and skill were equal to our's, one of two things must happen. Wages must fall here, or we must lose our manufactures.—( Hear, hear.) He would now animad vert on a doctrine, which, to his great surprise, he heard broached the other night by the Right Hon. Baronet the Member for Tamworth—that the operatives, the labourers, had no interest in the repeal of the Corn-laws ; that it was a question only brought forward by the manufacturing capitalists, with a view to lowering wages._(" Hear, hear," from the Opposition.) He was glad to find from that cheer that this doctrine was acknowledged by the Gentlemen opposite. It proceeded upon the assumption that the capitalist had some power over the wages of la bour. Nothing could be more absolutely certain than that capitalists possessed no such power, for the rate of wages was regulated by the supply and the demand.—( Hear, hear.) If, where there is an advantage ous field for the employment of capital, capital abounded, the consequence would be, that the master-manufac facturers would have many orders to execute, and each would give wages as high as he could to obtain the ordi nary profits, If, on the other hand, there was a limited field for the emrloyment of capital, and the master manu facturers had many orders to execute, the workmen w o uld bid against each other, whatever was the price of food, down to the point of starvation.—( Hear, hear.) To say, therefore, that to render corn cheaper, by allowing its int -, portation, would be to lower wages, was to manifest te s ter ignorance of the laws by which capital was regula:sed ( Hear.) It was not that wages would fall in tht because corn was cheaper, but because, in the etktr:. dle with foreign manufacturers, it would be impossi4slo t eer our ma nufaeturers to pay higher wages, maineeinfee% any profit.-- (Hear, hear.) To repeal the Csree-lay.:s would mitigate the evils of that struggle to Viso ope:atives ; possibly, bY eiving a healthy impulse and a 'right direction, to manu facturers here and abroad, might entirely avert that strug gle.---( Hear, hoar.) To continue the Corn -laws would, antra beyond all doubt, anticipate and'aggravate the evils of that struggle.---( Hear, hoar.) Instead, therefore, of the r e peal of the Corn-laws having a tendency to lower wages, the immediate tendency of the repeal would be to raise wages, by producing a certain competition, among capitalists, while the price of foul was lowered ; b u t t h e consequence Cl corolmuing the Corn-laws, would be het to wer Wages, by reducing th e competi ti.cei 'een the capitali s t s f or l a/ , our, while the 'price of food was raised.—(Hear, hear.) The operative, therefore, was above all other classes interested in the question.__( Hear, hear. ) Now, in conclusion— (Hear, hear, from the Oppeelilon, with a call for Ques tion," and cries of " Order")—he would venture earnestly to appeal to the distinguished leaders of the party oppo site, who were considered especially the representa tives of the landed interests. He would entreat them to , consider whether it was prudent, year after year, to refuse to entertain this question._( Hear, hear.) He spoke obt as their enemy —for he was now altogether uninter e sted in the question, being unconnected either with -manufac tures or commerce. He would not at all deprecate the importance of the landed interests ; ou the contrary, b e considered those interests most essential to the pre servation of our mixed Constitv',lon, to the maintenance of that mild form of Government-_a limited Monarchy.- - which, above all others, he believed was but calculated for the freedom of person and opinion, combined with the supre macy of the law, the sanctity of property, and the highest degree of social happiness. __(Hear, hear.) But it was because he had this high sense of the great value of the landed interests that he looked with alarm to the pertins eity with which they clung to the useless, the wor se than useless, the disgraceful system of the Coro lawg.—( Hear, hear, hear.) It would become them to reflect whether they were not hazarding all these advantage s b y ma i ntaining the Corn-laws. The gro at increase of the manu f acturers, the wealth and t h e population of England, during the last thre e , quarters o f a century had been without parallel. And I by what cl ass h a d the chief benefit of this increase bee", reaped ? B y t h e l anded interests. Every extension of commerce, every improvement in manufactures, every amendment o f t h e steam-engine, every improvement 0 the spin n i ng Jenn i es, added to the value of their propertP, (Hear, hear.) The Hon. Member for Yorkshire, v,no moved the amendment, had said that there were 15,000,000/. invested in land.—(Cries of " cinestion" and " Order.") But that amount, it cod? . .. not pre- 1 tended, bad been invested by time present seal possessbrs of the ;it meant on l y t h at such was t'-, c va l ue of the l an d-- produced by the wealth, the eeMmerce , an d manuf a ctures best of the country. A hundred years best land was hut Si- s i u - a • and at this moment in of thcoun tries less auspicious t-e, * tllvi .eowners than England, rout was itgo the rack.rent EVE%;ING EDITION. THE SUN, LONDON, THURSDAY, MARCH l4, 1830 EVENI NG, EDITION