The Sun. — London, England, 1840-04-02 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, THURSDAY, APRIL 2, 1840. only, who h e . d b een enabled to w i thhold their stocks f rom the market ; but the sudden fall depreciated the property of all the fare ;era in the kingdom. These, Sir, are facts which have.. occurred. But, Sir, there is one other prin ,ciPle which th e a d vocates o f t h e C orn -l aw h ave a lways orought !forward in its favour—they say that it not only secures ;a steely remunerating price to the farmer, but it givesthe public, oczase to the p u bli c of complaint, as it secures to whenever necessity requires it, an ample supply of corn. from a b roa d .—( H ear , hear.) Now on this sub - - fries l at _ be „feet I w ill quote a gentleman, w h o h as pa id ver y g attention to the subject, and who, I imagine, considered a s a n authority by all those who arc 'ries idly t o a C orn- l aw, as ho h as t h e s t ronge st predilection in favour of a Corn-law, and has proposed a higher rate of Protection than even many connected with the land would deem requisite. Now this is his view of the scheme of 1828 . --(The Hon.Gcntleman here read an extract from a work which stated that if the object of the present shifting scale of duties was to produce firmness of price, prosperity to the farmer, and a proper supply to the public, they had signally failed; for that during their existence the farmer bed suffered great privation, and prices had varied to a treater extent than had been ever known; that the risk of !ass was so great to persons engaging in the corn-trade that their ga i ns must b e proport i onate —t h at every f a ll o f, d uty was for the benefit of the speculators, and that, consequently, their object always was to advance the price to the utmost; that if an importation were made when the Price you was s ee s. , there would be a duty of 205., whereas, if' I ll y e t o 1e rise, 1 pricesi svere forced up to 735., the duty would only be P so th a t b y f orc i ng up t h e pr i ce h e no t on ly ga i ne d 6 s . but 20s. by the duty ; in all, making a gain of 265., 1 ;i:1 s: i n fact, the d ut y operate d as a bounty for a rise in price. • o u t ' si p i m s the be operation of the present law, ; it is a law that is said to be for the interest of the farmer. The law is n al , y a law giving protection to the farmer, but it is a , -Iv giving protection in a peculiar manlier, and in a r'Y which many persons in the House are anxious to up_ °l d• It is a law, I say, injurious both to the public and lawfarmer. N ow , having examined the operation of the upon all the se p o i n t s , w hat, I would ask, are the pros pects befo re us ? We are now experiencing the effects of two .. bad sea sons, and I wish to know whet h er we h ave a p ros p ec t of a better season this year? Some people say that we ha ve ; they say t h e sow i ng season has been good ; that the wind has been in the east; and that there is every Prospect of a good harvest. Supposing that to be a t °s what i s i t to the fernier, for then is the si r " when he is suffering the most distress ? • ‘herefore the operation of the law seems to be this, You must either ruin the farmer or injure the public. You cannot escape, for this vou have either the prospect of the c onsumer being injured or the agriculturist ruined. That is t he operation of this Bill, and then, because we advo cate its repeal, we are told that we wish to destroy the agricultural interest and convulse the country. All this is Bfti cl against those who only say this law has not worked Fell, and th at i s a ll I want t h e H ouse t o sa y now.--( Hear, hea r.) Having, I hope, said something to show that the agri cu l turist has not an interest in the ma i ntenance o f th i s law, is and wi s h es t o k now who is interested, the question then arises who are the parties interested in the main tenance of the Corn-laws? We'are told they are main tained to keep the agricultural labourers employed, and a great horror is professed about theowing land out of era tivation, and we are told that wages rise in proportion to t he price of produce. It is called a labourer's question, and one would infer from the language of the supporters of the Corn-laws that. they exist solely for the labourers. will this be repeated ?-1 Hear, hear.) I hope not. I do n't think it creditable. I knot , it is not, true.—( Cheers.) lt aPPears to me almost cruel to urge it. Does an yb o dy believe that the wages of labourers tire increased in pro portion to the price of produce ? .f he. Earl of D A RL IN GT ON. —( H ear , h ear .) ‘ 11% VILLIERS—I presume the Noble Lord means to ;s' , %l that to b e t h e case . I s h ou ld b e g l a d to l earn f rom i n , ' or any other Member, that the rise in labourers' wages ilia Proportioned to th rise in the prce of prodce.—( ear, lis e ar o -) It would be e interesting to t the public to learn H it— 'eY have not received the information yet. In some .I,lgricultural districts wages may have risen slightly, but I 4 2 v e . yet to know that they have risen in proportion to the 71 at th e price of food ; and yet more, that they have so thatitirl consequence of the rise in the price of food.— (Crie s of " Hear, bear.") I think it will be found has principallyi een those labourers who were likely to come upon the parish who have had 1 11 1_ 4. "wages a little increased. This at all events I know, zat whereas the price of food has risen 80 or 100 per e, ce nts, the utmost advance in wages has been 20 or 30 per ' n t.--( Hear hear. i But what a principle would this establish, supposing it to be true ? for whenever the price ( _ ) .t food rose, labourers were better off. It teems to me that this would lead to the conclusion that the higher the P r ice of food is, the better off the labourer is—on that principl e he ought to pray for famine.—( Hear, hear.) liut ho w can this principle be estebtished ? Is there ono _ ins tance in th e hi story o f t hi s coetotry in which the price of food has been high in which the labourers and the lower classes were well off?—(1 - 1cer, hear.) I say, on the con ttarY, in every case th e y ',lave been badly off and discon tented.-_( Hear.) The or i g i n of that pauperism which was t hc object of inqui;. ) , sonic years ago, is to be traced to th e period of high prices in 1797—,the labouring a en were Feat upon the parishes to avoid paying higher wages. So It was in 181 G ; so it was in 1817 ; so it was in 1830, and s° i t is now,—(Hear, hear, hear.) In 1830 prices the hi"',,, and, according to the agricultural theory, e late 'a ~ te " tented ji ought the; to have been well off, and con• • t wheas it was well known that such was , a. discontent and turbulence, that there was not corn - ise security for property.—( Hear, hear.) A statement waas made last Session that agricultural labourers 'were well off, in consequence of prices being high, and : daat en this account the Corn-laws might be called the protection of native industry; and a Noble Duke (Buck ii ingharn) at a public dinner, had stated that so long as the labourers maintained the Corn-laws they would be well off; but that if they agreed to the repeal of the Corn laws, they would bring ruin upon themselves and their country. Now, 1 have here a statement, Sir, which I have taken some trouble to verify, regarding the state of the agricultural labourers in Wiltshire. The labourers there get Gs. a-week, and one of them within the last fortnight, had summoned a farmer at Darnford, near Salisbury, for refusing to pay him Gs. Gd. a-week, at which the bench of Magistrates expressed great surprise, and well they might ; and they adjudged the defen dant to pay the amount, and compensate tho com plainant for his loss of time.—(Hear.) Then again at Rushall, in the same county, the highest wages of the able bodied married labourer is 9s. a week; and single men, though equally able-bodied, had but ss. a week. Now what is the reason of that distinction? Either the able-bodied single men ought to have the 93. a week, or 4s. a week Was paid to the married men instead of a poor rate to sup- Port the children.—( Ilear, hear.) In these districts the agricultural labourers generally have one meal a day, and that meal is often potatoes and salt. Sir, can it be doubted that the labourers are against the Corn -laws? I myself have presented a number of petitions praying for a repeal. It is in evidence beyond all doubt that the agricultural la bourer is never so well off as when the prices of produce are low. When, for instance, the price of wheat was at 365. a quarter, the labourers were never so well off before.— (Hear, hear, hear.) I know many think the law Ought not rashly to be changed, and many who admit the injustice or the law—for, say they, what are you to do with tlee labourers ? That is a very natural a sh n u el w a t t h 'e a r t y th p e ro ,i n A e b r o feeling, and therefore it is important to There ' ulti al.' urers would be benefited by the repeal. many well worthy of remark, that there never were fi so ls onerra applications for assistance to emigrate.— 'Jeer, hear.) It is said, indeed, that this will f mrstely be a benefit to the country—( Hear, hear) — or • , b shat the emigrants will establish colonies hereafter, to e. beneficial to the mother country. And certainly if you f will not l e t t h em h ave t h e pro d uce o f t h e l an d h ere , th e y c s ittneust go f or t h e produce of the land elsew h ere—( H ear , ar)—in such a case perhaps, it is a merciful provision thet they can go where the produce of the land w ill b Thilable to t h em. B ut why should they go ?—y rs " ear . ) , „ e ! advant age o f poster i ty i s no reason whs . ; they should u driven from th e l an d o f t h e i r birth,___(Hear.) The , people need not go.—(char, hear:, I n 1 8 3 6 t h ere was ample e fi e ld f or labour—they were able th e n t o ge t employ ment. nt. Th ey are driven away by high prices.—( H ea r, e ar-) Yet we are toad that they are interested in the maintennace of tar; Corn-laws I—( Hear.) One of the i greate st curses 'of the Corn-laws is, that it makes land d aats and zamvents the labourer from obtaining any of it. - -(Hear, hear)—and the labourers are always better off . when they can get a little land.—( Hear, hear.) Now, it lis said that the "agricultural interests" have an advantage in the maintenance of the Corn-laws. These " interests" I suppose, it will be admitted, include the owners of the land. But do they derive any advantage front the Corn laws ? lam of opinion that no class in the community can derive any real advantage against the interest of the other classes.—(Hear, hear.) The landowners, however, do derive a slight temporary advantage from the Corn laws, though in the long run, it must be an injury ; that advantage being, that owing to foreign competition in corn being prevented, they arc able to keep up in cultiva ton inferior soils, which otherwise they would not culti elAbe ; and thus they are a bl e to ra i se a ll rents. _ ( H ear. ) I: is evident, then, that the landowners alone are interested in keeping up the Corn-laws-1 have already shown that neither the farmers nor the labourers arc. Now lam not one of th ose w h o j o in i n th e i n di scr i minat i ng outcry and u enurnsiation against the landowners as a class. There are " r t ncasg them many of great honour and hi g h f ee li ng. Ther e are some who do not think it is their interest to keep I %p the Corn-laws. There are some of generous and liberal spirit, w h o, t h oug h thi n king it is their i n t erest, yet do not wish to keep them up.—( Hear.) Some of the best names in the House of Lords are egainst the Corn-law s .— (Cheerin g .) Still the landowners, as a body, are, I do believe, the real obstructors of a repeal of the Corn la,ws• Ido not believe that our farmers throughout tue country would object to the change if the landowners agreed to it ; the farmers would say, " We have nothing to do with it, if the landowners assent to the repeal, we are ready for it; but we fear that they would expect from us the same rent as before."—( H ear , hear.) It is ins- N e 'tant, Si r , to fi x upon the right parties the responsibility °` supporting this law.—( Hear, hear.) Now, I ask what ground for such a law can the landowners allege? In any any other country but this, they mi... lit affirm that they had exclusive burdens to bear, and that therefore they ought to have an artificial value to land given by such a law. . 8 , But can they make that statement ? Will they allege tthhia_t_th)ere is r. any particular burden pressing exclusively upon 1. them • la ill they go into the inquiry ?—( Hear.) I be lieve, on the contrary, they are exempted from many taxes thatai bear on other classes. They say, however, that by the mission of foreign competition in corn land will be thrown. out of cultivation. Supposing that to be so, are the interests of the community to be sacrificed to the cultivation of land?—(Hear hr ) Why what is that Claim but the very one set ' hear.) ylthe handloom-weavers and other artisans, who cry out —a doing eg n a i r a s, c o l: in cry, and are derided as ignorant by Y'ounutfearg Say it will displace labour.hbeeaera,usehetehre.y) You do tax the machinery —you tax the h produee of the better soil. You tax the produce of at which would Com e to us cheaper, and you maintain th t laqiee f or ,h, purpose of, ~ 0,vi,,,, ~,,,, i e . old soil in occu ,.:.iit tell me there is any differe h i er. No one B ut, Sir, before I leavc; theagricultural einPri p a a o L' f o t r be po qt y s: isessaaaa___ tion, perhaps I may refer to that which doubtless will be urged in the course of this discussion, in support of Corn_ laws—viz., that Iceland is an agricultural district, and that it,„ie chiefly for the advantage of Ireland that this law ,Aield be mainteined. I should be extremely sorry to say any thing that could offend any person connected with that country. God knows offences and injuries enough have been heaped upon Ireland, but I must say that of all the shallow—of all the groundless—of all the unworthy pretences for supporting this law, that of Ireland seems to be the worst. Ireland 1 fifteen counties of which out of the thirty-two actually do not produce wheat.—( Hear.) Ireland ! that since 1832 has sent us gradually less and less wheat. Ireland 1 where literally the people know nothing of wheat—they do not consume it—they are too Poo:. There is no country on earth where the landlords take so much of the produce in the shape of rent as they do in. Ireland. There is no country in which they absent themselves so constantly and regularly from the roil. There is no country that would be so materially bene fited by not cultivating wheat as Ireland. There is no country that could be so materially benefited by the pros perity of manufactures. Whenever manufactures have prospered in this country there has been a demand for Irish labour. How will Ireland maintain its poor-law, if the people of this country cannot give them employment ? That is something for the Irish landlord to consider. There is the opinion of every witness almost that was given before the Agricultural Committee, to which have referred, that wheat does not suit the soil of that country. I trill not enter into the reasons why, but that is the result, and \ ou, Sir, have stated that, as the conclusion to which you arrive in the Irish evidence, in the address to which I have re. ferred, that when Irish gentlemen had prospered, it was by abandoning the cultivation of wheat, and devoting the land to other purposes.—( Cries of " No, no," from the Conservative benches.) That is the result : therefore I trust gentlemen will well consider the subject before they bring forth the plea of Ireland. Ireland would cer tainly have great influence with me ; but when I see all the evidence on the subject, and when I see those who possess the confidence of the great mass of the people— not only those agreeing in i politics, but those who differ, alike denouncing the Corn-laws as the bane of Ireland— I allude to Mr. O'Connell, as well as Mr. Sharman Crawford, who do not agree in politics, bet who both agree on the subject of the Corn-laws when I see both denounce the Corn-laws as that which makes land dear, prevents manufactures prospering, and as that which pre vents the employment of capital more than anything else, I cannot consider that Ireland can be benefited by the Corn-laws.—(Hear, hear.) Perhaps, Sir, I have now stated enough as to the justice or policy of this law as re gards the agricultural part of the question. What the com munity will expect from this discussion is to learn the dif ference to them whether they pay a high or a low price for food in this country ; because, in discussing this ques tion with respect to the agriculturalists, I have not con sidered the great principle involved in the question—l have merely considered whether it has answered the purpose est;ich the framers of the law professed. But theee now comes to be considered the great prin ciple on which any law ought to rest, namely, whether it is for the benefit of the community at large—( Hear, hear, from both sides of the House.) I am glad to hear the Noble Lord opposite (the Earl of Darlington) cheer me. It reminds me of generous sentiments uttered by him, namely, that if he believed this law was injurious to the community at large, he would be the first to repeal it.— ( Hear, from Lord Darlington.) I am glad to find that many persons have during the agitation of the Corn-laws directed their minds and attention to it ; and with respect to the particular point to which I am now proceeding to direct the attention of the House, I would refer to the very intelligent and able work publ:shed by a gentleman of the name of Wilson on the subject of the influence of the Corn-laws.—( Hear.) Certainly, he seems to me to have approximated nearer to a faithful calculation on this point than any other person. He proceeds in this manner —he takes the amount which the people pay for their food in this country, with a view to show how much they lose or gain by paying more or less. He takes the average of the last seven years of the price of wheat in this country, and he finds it to be 525. a quarter. He then adopts the estimate which almost all persons agree upon as to what is now the present consumption of wheat in this kingdom, that is, 16,000,000 quarters. We thus have the precise amount, upon an average, which the people expect or may expect to pay for food in this country, and that is 525. per quarter, on 16,000,000 quarters and the whole amount would be 41,600,000/. That is the average cost of wheat which the community would have to pay in this country for one year. It therefore follows as a consequence that whenever the people pay more than 41,600,000/. or less, there is a loss or gain to the community. Hence it becomes interesting to observe what the public have paid in past years, or arc paying at present for their corn. The author of this work has referred to the different prices of food at particular periods, and I will refer to those years he has specified. He imagines that 41,600,0001. would be the average of what the people of this country might reasonably expect to have to pay for their food. Then he refers to the cheap years and the dear years, with a view to see what the community have paid more or less : In 1834, 36,000,000/. was paid for food. 1835, 31,000,000/. 1836, 38,000,000/. 1837, 44,000,000/. 1838, 51,000,0001 , 1839, 56,000,000/. I will take the last two years in order to make the thing clear. In the beginning of 1838, and until the autumn, we find the price of wheat was at the average rate at which it has been estimated, 525. Iu the autumn it rose from 525. to 755. 16,000,000 quarters a year is 300,000 quarters a week. Therefore in September, 1838, this country was suddenly called onto pay 300,000/. more for food than it had for the six months before, and if we look to 1835 we shall find it was 450,000/. a week more, so that there was a sudden abstraction of capital that, under the existing ar rangement, commerce and society might have usefully em p'oycd—an abstraction of 300,0001. What is accompa nied also with high prices of food, is a large importation of corn, and we, a corn-growing country, are obliged to ex port for that corn, not goods, not manufactures, but bullion —( Hear, hear, hear)—and therefore we have to consider what is abstracted front our currency to pay for the amount imported from abroad, aid that will be the difference be tween the amount that it was possible to pay in bills, and that which it was necessary to pay in bullion. Well, then, we find these two things occurring at the same time, a cer tain abstraction of the national wealth for the purpose of paying an additional price for food, and a certain abstrac tion from the currency of the country through the medium of exchange for the purpose of paying for that which was not grown in this country. These are two important circumstances in a commercial country like this. We have to consider what results attended the great change that occurred in the year 1838. On referring to the same author, I find in a table that has placed in diffe rent columns the additional sums paid for wheat, the amount of bullion in the Bank of England, and the amount of deposits. Now it seems there is a close correspondence and connection between the additional amount we are ob liged to pay for food which we import from abroad, and the deposits and bullion in the Bank. of England. They are so close that it is utterly impossible to disconnect them, for we find, that gradually as the price of wheat rises in this country, and that gradually as we import wheat from abroad, that the bullion and deposits of the Bank of Eng land decline. —( Hear, hear.) Now the person to whom I have referred does not confine his reference to last year, but from 1817 up to the present time ; and it does appear, that whether we have paid for more food here, or have been obliged to pay for it from abroad, there has ' ,„ren a gradual decline both of bullion and deposits AOW that there should be a decline in t he bullion, 0; the Bank of England does not seem to be extr....ordinary, because if we are to export gold for th , payment of grain, it is natural that the Bank of r agland should feel the offects of it ; but the of the sinking of i ire deposits seemas to indicate that the community are suffering from this increase of payment for their food. Now, this is the opinion of a mercantile man. The customers of the Bank, when they have any surplus capital, pay it into the Bank. We may take the deposits of the Bank of England as an indication of the deposits in the banks in other parts of the country. He says, " When money is every where abundant, the re sources of the Bank of England must be very great. At such times the surplus of every man's capital rinds its way to the Bank, and the deposits are considered an index not of the wealth and capital of the Bank of England, but of the wealth of the people." Therefore, we may take the deposits in the Bank of England as indicating the surplus capital of the country. My reason for referring to that is, that whenever extraordinary payments are called for from the community, it is reasoable to expect this surplus capital would diiminish ; therefore, we find that whenever there is a greater amount to be paid for food, that the deposits in the country banks or in the Bank of England diminish. Now, it is worth observing the the connection between the diminution of bullion in the Bank of England with the rise in the price of food, from the beginning of 1839, till October 1839, you find a gra dual diminution of the bullion in the Bank of England; and you find a corresponding rise in the price of food. Now it is impossible to suppose that this could occasion an ab straction from the currency, to the amount necessary for the payment of food without a contraction of the currency. I ant not one of those who hold the Bank of England to blame for every derangement of the currency, because the Bank of England ie guided by certain rules in its conduct, but it cannot control circumstances like these which must operate on it ; and what I am seeking to show is, that this fluctuation in the prices of food is the real cause of the great fluctuations in the amount and value of the currency, end particularly in this case, where we find that the con traction of the currency has immediately followed upon the abstraction of bullion from the Bank, and the diminution of deposits; and therefore all the evils that may be said to follow from that abstraction, and of which the mercantile and commercial classes have complained, may be traced to the operation of the Corn-laws. But, Sir, the reason why this contraction of the currency has been so much com plained of and remarked upon is, the effects it has pro duced ; and it becomes, therefore, necessary to inquire— having ascertained that there has been this contraction of the currency, and that there has been this rise in the prices of food—what have been the effects upon the commercial transactions of the country? Now if any person with any knowledge of business, should reason on this matter, he would naturally infer certain things from what I have stated. If people are obliged to pay more for their food—if they have greater difficulty in getting money—if there be less demand for their productions, the natural consequence that any person would expect, would be that there had been distress in the manufacturing districts, and that home trade would Le injured ; that people would be obliged to consign their pods to some foreign country, and that among the labouring population there would be great distress. It becomes us, therefore, to inquire whether these results have followed.—( Hear, hear.) I have seen a return which has been made to this House, and 1 refer to this, because / know it is not an unusual argument in defence of the Corn-laws, to contrast the home trade with the foreign; and you will now have an opportunity of judging what is the effect of high prices of provisions upon the home trade. I will first allude t, the cotton trade in thia couenn the feels new stated prove that there has been it greater export of manufactures, and ess home consumption last year, than in the year be- fore. The quantity of exports of cotton wool is etaied to have been, in 1838, 270,00000 lbs ; in 1839, 262,000,000 lbs: t being a deficiency to the amount of 7,000,001 lbs. The quantity consumed in our home manufacture was, in 1838, 155,000,000 Bee. ; in 1839, 122,000,000 lbs. ; being a deficiency of home con suinption of 33,000,000 lbs. The next article to which I wil refer, as indicating the cepacity of our home con sumption, is wool. The consumption in la3B was 36,000,000 lbs, ; in 1839, 53,000,000 lbs. ; being a deficiency of con sumption of 6,000,000 lbs. Now with respect to flax, the quantity for consumption in 1838wa51,625,830ewt. ; in 1839 1,22ae894. In silk, in 1838, 4,380,0001b5. ; in 1839, 4,700,0001b5., being a deficiency of home consumption of 29,000,0001b5. Therefore, what was entered for home con sumption was considerably less, while there was a great increase in the exports of our manufacturers. But, Sir, I shalt only advise those persons who refer to the tables of our exports, as a proof of the prosperity of the country, to refer to our manufacturing friends, or any person ac quainted with business, and they will learn that they can hardly consider an increase of exports a sure indication of the prosperity of the country. But in order to show this consignment, in consequence of the diminution of con sumption at home and not from the demands from abroad, I will read an extract from an American correspondent, who says, " I with to give a hint to those British manu facturers who continue to send over goods to this country to be sold at forced sales at any price they can get, that if the practice is continued, the loss will be enormous." Then Mr. Biddle, a gentleman well known in America, addresses a letter to this country on the commercial affairs of the United States, and also as to the quantity of foreign imports there, in which he says, " there remains to De added the last question of foreign trade—the supply of imports in the present year is far beyond the produce of our exports." This seems to correspond with the opinion of those who hold there is no just sign of prosperity but the indication of home consumption, and therefore I think it a sign of depressed manufactures that the home manufacturers failed ; and the conclusion to be drawn from the evidence of the returns affords no argument of the prosperity of the country during high prices, but pre cisely the contrary. Now consider, with respect to the home consumption, which is boasted as better when prices are high, the evidence afforded by the revenue. I believe the point at issue is, whether the people have more power of consuming the necessaries of life when the prices are high, than when they are low ? In looking at the returns of the revenue, I find they cor respond precisely in proving that when a person is obliged to pay more for bread, he is obliged to pay more for other articles. In the year ending 1838-1839 (this is only made up to January, 1840—the evidence would be much more striking could it be given up to the sth of April) a great falling off took place in the consumption of hops, malt, soap, and spirits, things which the great mass of the com munity consume. I find, with respect to hops, the re turns for the United Kingdom, for 1838, were 298,0001. ; in 1839, 280,000/. In malt, in 1838, 5,200,000/. ; in 1839, 4,300,000/. Soap, in 1838, 1,047,0001; in 1839, 782,000/. In spirits, in 1838, 451,000/. ; in 1839, 542,0001. As far as the returns of Excise afford evidence, it seems to me con clusive that there is a greatly diminished home consump tion of those articles on which taxes are raised. I cannot help supporting my views on this subject by the authority of an intelligent and enlightened author, whose name, I am sure, is held in great respect in this House, that the cause of this depressed state of commerce is the effect of the Corn laws. I now refer to a pamphlet of Mr. Jones Lcyd, whom I know to be a very cautious person, and who would not express himself unless he had great confidence in the soundness of his views. —(The Hon. Gentleman then read an extract from Mr. Loyd's pamphlet, but we were only able to hear the latter part of it, which was to the effect that the present system made derangements of the mone tary and commercial departments the inevitable conse quence of the misfortune of the seasons—thus throwing the poison of policy into the fiendish cauldron of injustice.) I am not referring to a person likely to express himself rashly upon any subject—( Hear, bear)—not to a person who, like myself, has, in the opinion of those who oppose me, no stake in the country, but of a person probably the possessor of more property,than any, or perhaps altogether, of those who will take part in this discussion ; a person who possesses property of every description, not only monied, but extensive landed property, and who holds more property of another description than any person 1 can name ; yet he, who is famed for having thought deeply on this subject, expresses himself thus warmly in this pub lication; therefore I back my opinion with the authority of this gentleman, as to all our commercial and monetary embarrassments having their spring from this very law. —( Hear, hear.) I am seeking to repeal—having some rather startling results of what I consider to be the fluctuation of the price of provisions under the oppresion of the Corn-laws; it becomes useful to learn what is the effect on the working-classes of the country of this influ ence on our manufactures. We find that when the pro ductive power of the country is suddenly checked,it greatly disturbs all the arrangements of commerce, and the ar rangements for production which existed at the time, and therefore it is important to know what is the effect with which the sudden contraction of the currency and manu factures is attended. I have obtained the result of an inquiry from one of those manufacturing interests, which I would not quote if it did not afford a proof of what is now generally the case throughout the manufacturing interests of the country. It is the result of an inquiry made in Bolton a few weeks ago : " The people of England are paying about fifty millions a-year more for food than they did in 1835. How does this affect 13olton ? The population of our union, a dis trict comprising a surface of 45,695 acres, of which Bolton is the centre, contained, according to the census of 1831. 83,369 inhabitants. It must now be more than 90,000 Suppose them to pay only teripence per head per week more for food than in 1835 (and this is a very moderate calculation), this makes for the last twelve months a sun of one hundred and ninety-five thousand pounds. But ac cording to the theory of the landowners, wages should have risen with the price of food. Have they done so? On the contrary, the rate of wages, in every instance, is lower without exception. In the cotton-mills alone, abon' ninety-five thousand pounds less have been paid during the last twelve months. Many of the mills have been en tirely stopped for all or part of the time; and with onl) two exceptions, all have worked short time for a consider able portion of the past year. Including the millwrights and engineers, machine-makers, colliers, hand-loom weavers, joiners, bed-quilt and counterpane weavers, and all the other trades required by a population of 90,000, 1 have made a very careful calculation from extensive per sonal inquiry, and assert most confidently, that altogether there roust have been at least 130,000/. less paid in wages in the Bolton ,oo o.m Union, or N e f r add the 1 e o w3 r o e ,O i s a total lo 00/. less ins sto wages i the 15 food, andth Bol ton of 325,000/.1 What arc the consequences ? There art now in Bolton 1,126 houses untenanted of which about 50 are shops, some of them in the principal stt-oetn. Here is a loss to the owners of 10,0901. to 13,000/. a year. The shopkeepers are almost ruined by diminished returns and bad debts. There were, a short time ago, three sales of the effects of shopkeepers in one days Distraints for cot tage rents occur daily. The e.rrears of cottage rents, and the debts to shopkeepers are incalculable, bait th ey must amount to many thousand pounds The pawnbrokers' shops are stowed full of the clothing, furniture, and even bedding of the destitute poor. PeV c r i s alAo i3re';alenl - . Mr. S. R. Kay, one of the inedieak °tot-I.s of the Union, and a young practitioner or gr ea t promise, lately took the in fection of malignant typhus, and last week fell a victim to his harassing cit t: te s. lie had latterly worked almost night and da:; A short time ago 500 persons were relieved by t the Poor-law Guardians in one day, in amount varying from six to eighteen.pence per head - per week. In man) cases two or three families are crowded into one house. In one ease seventeen persons were found in a dwel ling about Ave yards square. In another, eight persons with two pairs of looms and two beds, in a cellar six feet under ground, and measuring four yards by five. There are scores of families, with little er n 5 bcddin t having lite rally eaten it, pawntcl, or Sold it for food 1 The out-door relief to the poor is three times greater in amount than on the average of the thice years ending 1838. I have no means of esetetaining the cutout to which the revenues of the Public Gas and Water Companies have been diminished—the proprietors will know to their cost, when they come to make their dividends; several thou sand pounds at least, have been lost by them during the past year. The Bolton and Liverpool Railway has also suffered severely—some thousands of tons less of raw cot ton, timber, Irish produce, groceries, &c., &c., must have Passed over it , South of Bolton, four miles, a large spinning establishment, givin. , employment to 800, and subsistence to 1,300 persons, has been entirely stopped for nine months. The proprietor lies upwards of 100 cottages empty, or paying no rent, and although possessed of im mense capital, finds himself unable to continue working his mills to advantage. Entering 13olton from Man chester, another mill, requiring 180 bands, has been en tirely standing for eighteen months. In the centre of the town another, 250 hands, stopped several weeks. North of Bolton, one mile, a spinning, manufacturing, and bleaching establishment, on which 1,200 persons were dependent for subsistence, has been entirely standing four months. Several machine-makers and engineers are now employing one to two hundred hands less than usual, at wages varying from fifteen to forty shillings a week. A public subscription, amounting to nearly 2,0001., has just been raised to mitigate, in some degree, the sufferings of the destitute poor ; in fact, to deal out a scanty pittance, just sufficient to keep them from actual starvation, to a body of workmen, who possess perhaps greater skill and industry than any population of similar numbers on the face of the globe; but who are forbid, by the inhuman and fiendish policy of our landowners, to exchange the pro. duce of their labour for food in the open market of the world." This is what may be realized in any manufacturing dis trict. It is not confined to a cotton district. In the neigh bourhood with which I am connected it is precisely the same. From many other places you might get the same report. Is it, then, unreasonable to bring these things under the consideration of the House ? For if this dis tress is, as I maintain it is, resulting from the law, I say it is not only the duty, but in the power of the Legislature, to afford instant and permanent relief. These persons are suffering for want of a supply of the article of food. Lower the price of provisions, and you extend prosperity to the country at large ; but what is the nature of the effect of this system on our present relations with the United States? This country is largely the creditor of the United States, and now many orders arc sent over to persons who cannot execute them, because they are not paid the debts owing to them, while at this moment a large amount of good food, from America, is lying in bond, which we must not touch, but which, if we were allowed to do, th e bills would be paid for. It is consigned to Americans in this country, and those merchants who are creditors of America would be paid if the flour were allowed to come in, and the consequence would be that instant employment would be given to persons who arc starving. I s i t t h en unreasonable to ask for the repeal of a law which prevents this ? But it is not only that they can give this instant relief, but I say what the country requires now is that commerce be extended—that those restraints be removed which now press upon it, and prevent the in crease of the people—the people of this country —many of them depend for existence on foreign trade, and many think it ought not to he extended—but whether to do so could be wise or fo , ,lish, it is too late now to teak etyma. We have brought into existence millions of persons for the cypress purpose of supplying that trade, and it is so essential now—it is part of a system which we cannot weaken without inflicting great distress, and destroying the interests of the country. Sir, it is, in my ooi , tion, the business—the ditty of every statesman, a every man in public office to attempt, by every means he eau, to extend the commerce of this country, and improve our commercial relations with every part of the world. This is the mode in which to give employment to the in dustry of the country, an d enable the manufacturers to ob tain a profit. Ido not b e li eve it t o b e t ru e that it is impo? - sable to extend our commerce—that it is impossible to nego tiate with other countries ) I believe all evidence is in favour of our being able to extend those relation!. I have hardly had time to look into the Report of Dr. Bowling, but I do believe, if proper steps were taken to produce a commerce more favourable to the interests of this country with the united Stages in the Commercial League, it would be successful.—( Hear, hear, and cheers.) You may say he is not trustworthy, but I am of a con trary opinion. Ile says, " I am able to state clearly that the Prussian Government no t on ly cons ent, but desire to cuter into negotiations to lower the tariff of both coun tries." Now, what attempts can be made to effect this as icing as we maintain these laws ? They say they know the people are ready to do so, but the Aristocracy arc too strong to be beaten, and that the Legislature of the coun try will not sanction any change. It is not right to say they arc not willing to negotiate. What did the late Pre sident of the Board of Trade (Mr. C. P. Thomson) state last year? 110 not only quoted a statement in a setter, but said he had other letters from different Minis ters stating that their Governments were willing to nego tiate with us. Why, there have been public meetings to petition the King of Prussia to interfere to induce them to alter the duties, and such was the effect of this fact in the House of Lords, that a Noble Lord asked the head of the Government if it were correct, and his answer was in the affirmative. What ground then had a ny person for saying they were not rea d y to nego tiate with us ? That was a subject which was of great importance at the present moment. You have lost many other opportuni ties, and I believe there is one left to you, and it is of the greatest importance to the people of this country to know what course is to he adopted at this crisis. Is it true that, in 1842, the League in question will be settled for the twelve years following, so that it cannot be altered afterwards? I wish to know whether - that will be the case also with the United States? America is the best market we have at present, and, at the expiration of 1842, it will be impossible to negociate with that country. The time for doing so will have passed. There is, then, but a mo ment left for entering into a treaty with the United States ; and we are suffering each successive year, for want of a wider field for the capital, the industry, and the skill of the inhabitants of this country. The people arc gra dually declining for want of extending their markets. Are we to allow the present moment to pass by, and is this motion to be treated with indifference ?-or is it to be rejected as if it were of no importance to our com merce, while the existing Corn-laws are undoubtedly a great obstacle to our trade with other nations ? I will ex pect in the course of the discussion the public will be in formed whether the opinion I have alluded to is correct—. whether we have now an opportunity of entering into com mercial negotiations with other countries—and I am desir ous of seeing whether the question will be treated as it has hitherto been treated—with indifference and contempt.— " Hear, hear," and " No, no," on the Opposition benches. ) I say that last year the question was treated with contempt. After seeing the dissatisfaction which the Corn-laws create —after seeing the number of petitions that have been pre sented for their repeal—you have refused to take the sub ject into consideration.—( Hear.) Do you mean to say that that was not treating the people with contempt ? ( Hear.) Our object should not now be merely to extend our trade, but to prevent its decline. It had was last year that there were grounds for some fear on that tread. We had formerly been told that such was the superi ority of British capital, skill, and industry, that no other country could maintain a competition with us. Last year, however, we had heard a different doctrine. It had been admitted that the commerce of other States now flourished, but it had been said that this was naturally to be expected, eid that we could not wish to have a monopoly of com merce to ourselves. What we complain of, however, is that we are placed under great disadvantages in our com petition with other nations—( Hear, hear)—and the people say that if they are to run a race of rivalry they should be allowed to do so unfettered. We are now in great danger of losing the trade which we at present have, and there are many countries in which it has been .Iready lost. The exports of this country have been en irely changed : we used to export manufactured goods to States where we now export the means of manufacturing them. We certainly export more coals, iron, and raw ar ticles in cotton than we formerly did, but in past times we exported ready-made goods; and if we compare our pre ‘ent exports to corn-growing countries, such as Russia and Prussia, to what they once were, we shall find a most strik ing difference. There was a decrease between 1832 and 1838 in our exports of cotton, linen, silk, woollen, and hosiery amounting to 609,000/. There had been an increase of population which rendered that decrease in commerce still ,nore striking, With respect to countries whose produce NC receive there has been an increase of 1,236,0001. With regard to the raw material exported to corn-growing countries there had been an increase in coal, iron, and steam machinery to the amount of 233,0001., showing the consequence of our not maintaining a trade with them. As A German writer has expressed it—we have driven them Crum their fields to their fabrics.—( Hear, hear.) That is the common language in that country. They say they should be happy to take our manufactures, but they could not pay for them in money, and they were therefore obliged to try to manufacture for themselves. They say they re gret extremely they cannot have an intercourse with us, founded on mutual advantages, and that they would much prefer confining themselves to agricultural pursuits, so far were they from entertaining any disinclination for the ex tending their relations with us. They say, however, that our Corn-laws prevent the extension of these relations. There is one circumstance I must not forget to mention in referring to the effects of these laws—it is this, that they raise the price of all articles purchased by Government contracts. The returns laid before the House show that in those contracts wheat has risen 28 per cent., malt 36 percent., biscuits 20 per cent., flower 40 per cent., oat .neal 14 per cent., meat 38 per cent, beef 18 per cent-, and :ea 94 per cent. We have heard a good deal this Session about a deficiency in the Revenue. An attempt may be made to meet that deficiency by imposing new taxes on Ale people ; but if you tax them on one article, you mast xpect a falling off' in something else. The people may t ray anew tax, but they cannot continue to pay so much as they now do in the way of indirect taxation. If there is A deficiency in the Revenue, from what Sources can you xpcct to supply it ? That is a matter for very serious consideration. I must say that, in my opinion, it is impos ,ible to impose ft esh taxes on any necessary article of con sumption of the people at large. To what, then, arc you to look ? I think that is a subject that cannot be too soon considered. There must be some revision of our present taxation. If the people arc to be taxed, not only for ex cisable articles, but lot food, and that fluctuations occur A hick compel them to pay mote for the necessaries of lite, it is quite clear that the llevenue cannot but suffer.— (Hear, hear, hear.) I believe there is no prospect of a diminution of prices in corn, for the next eighteen months to come. I may be mistaken, but I believe there will be no material change in our harvests between the presetit and last year, and that you cannot hope for a good one until the year 1842. When is it, then, that our manufacturers can look for an improvement in trade? God forbid that I should sanction anything like a breach in public faith, but it seems to me that so long as the Corn laws Continue, there is but one re source to which we cab resort, and that is A tat on pro perty.—( Hear, hear.) That scents to Me i tindet all the circumstances, to be the most just means of proceeding, and it would certainly be but a fair indemnity to the country that such it tax should be imposed. In the year 1330 we were in a difl l erent condition from the present, although the price of food Was high and the home trade was as bad as it is now: Mr. Huskieson at that time reviewing tire state of the Country, trade dint of his most able speeches, and it was one of his last, to the tiotisti. It was quite clear, he said, that if things were to go on as they then did, and if they could only collect the same amount of revenge; and if our trade did not improve, that we had no other aitcfnatilio but tbitt of irtiposing a tax on property. He also stated in that speeeli the etrongcet grounds for recommending such a tax. He called the attention of the House to three or four facts connected with the taiatioti Nf the country: He stated, first, that no other country in Europe had eo late° a o roportion of taxa tion bearing directly on the incomes or the laticitifing and productive classes; and next, that in no other country of the same extent is there so large a mass of income be longing to those classes who do not roduc h e— d (Hear, hear)—and thirdly, that in no other co a so large a portion of its taxation been mortgaged and, fourthly, that in no other country doestsoc.lrarignecortmroepsoarbtirocnntd).f the non-productive classes consumeb h we . re taxed, P l:u r- t said that those Ile added that he knew it might sons could witholrait their A t a t it could not be o mortgag,u n•, , the fact was that it was s property ° if; taken out of this country . He conti nued to Say that there ea; great danger to , FrodUctive capital mieght apprehended, and that was, that I b n fro this coUntr to I do not believe in the policy I raw o ther states.—. 4 H ear , hear.) be even thoughthe to me to be impossible of having recourse to newa it seems people should submit to it; d any other means than a tax on exhausted the patience of the House, revenue by to improve our property. Having quiltthe attention they ales iven me. I must thank them for before t do however, help expressing s wn, a I cannot, w h o arc opposul to any change hope that those persons in the Cern-la", will pause before they come tu a deci sionquestion. I wish to ask what they on the present . laws ? If they think we are expect from theldexi s v ti e ng us an opportunity of correcting wrong, they should class g of persons who bad never before' our opinions. - spoken or allude d to the present subject , have lately come t he repeal of the Corn-laws. Let forward as advocates for oh th House cautious me call the attention who residep over the that commercial and conservative c lass, and let • me ask you when yo u interests of this metropolis,have found them calling for a change until now ? The laws are inj ur i ous to y positively declare tha t the existing all the interests wit h which they arc connected. You have now a greater number of the wo rkin g classes turning rat i on of the subject than you ever had before under t themselves to the cons id circumstan ces. 1 want t o k now a mere rude re j ecti on of the present motion? To t what you can expect fromba that mot i o n a direct negative has been moved. I do no t know whether I ought the more to admire that bold injustice P or the insidious ro- Member for C fro p rn l yrn ed position of the fl ono urabe M a- m r. re.) bridge.—(" Hear, hear , bear,"e forward pged Many individuals h ave for the future. That is the best to agitate the question I know . no surer sign that test of their earnestness, as st than when they sacrifice their Englishmen are in earnest present motion, what will be money. If you reject the will home • return satisfied the consequence? Why, they that they arc right, and tha t you will not do t h em justice. Will that settle the What prospect does that offer yo question—will that facilitate yo ur views, or will i t do any- th ing to quiet the public min d on the q uestion ? What is I..crc ;0 suc'i x P r ,eccding to induce people ?v :,dmit that they are wrung? They cannot find that they arc better off in consequence of these laws—they will still find that no season passes which does not bring some fresh proof of the disadvantages of the present system. We have heard of no distinguished writer coming- forward in defence of those laws.—(Hear, hear, from the Opposition benches.) I only state what I rnyeelf remarked, and if there had been any able publication on that side of the question I should have read it with the greatest iaterest: Ihope the House will pause before they come to a deci• stun not to take the subject into consideration. I will not put forward any particular views I may have as to the per tieular change which it might be advisable to pursue with reTect to these laws. I have only attempted to point out the evils which have resulted from the present sys tem.—( Hear.) In what I have stated to the House I heve appealed to all who may agree with me in thinking the present laws do not work well. Suppose the House should decide against me, do many of those who now feel pre pared to vote in such a way, feel convinced that they v, ill not vote another way in a very short time ? That is the reason why I wish the House to consider what prospect there is of setting tile question without sonic inquiry. It is no matter whether the Government propose the question or not, and it is of no consequence that I am for a total repeal, and that you are not; in considering the nature of the present less, the motion is made by one who is en titled to make it, and if you vote against it vou with be considered a friend to the existing law.—(Hear, heir. ) And do you think you will be able to maintain the law?— ( Hear, hear.) You have the power to do so for the position, but you will have to look to a diff, rent practice for the future. This is not a question between the manufacturer and the landowner.—( Hear, hear. ) It is but a weak invention of the enemy; it is but a way t o bring discord into the question. The subject is one which interests the whole community, and not a portion of it,— (hear, hear.) As far as I have been able to collect the opinions of those great masses of intelligent people called the working classes of this country, they have brought for ward their claims to be entitled to the suffrage, on the grounds that their interests are not at present sufficiently attended to ; they put forward the indifference of the House on the present question as an argument most fa vourable to their claims; and, as far as I have been able to collect their views, this question is a sort of test of the constitution of this House,which they will point to hereafter. Now, who act with them ? The class immediately above therr e —( Hear, hear.) The lower classes say to the middle, " The House of Commons will never do you juts Pee . ; until it is reformed." The middle classes reply, " Allow us to petition the House, and point out the evils of the present, and do not believe that they will refuse us justice until eve have tried ; but if they do not do so this time, we will never petition again." Every one who went round with the petitions said;that the general expres sion was, " This is the last time we will petition for this; the next time we will petition for something else."—( Hear, hear.) Do you not think, then, that there will be a cor dial and hearty union between the middle and lower classes, if you refuse even to inquire what may be done on this question ?—( Hear, hear.) At Manchester I met 5,000 people of the working and middle classes at a dinner, at which they were assembled to celebrate their union on this question, and it would have been a striking sight to any one who was accustomed to disparage the working classes, to observe their demeanour on that occa sion. Do you think they will again assemble to declare that they had only met on that day to make fools of them selves ? I ask you what will you gain by exposing your selves to the odium of your countrymen ?—( Hear.) The House ought to look to this. You cannot persuade the • people that the law, which so many able and good men have denounced, is not pernicious ; and yet I fear that there arc many in this House who come determined to oppose even the consideration of the subject.—( Hear.) But they ' cannot escape from the responsibility of whatever disaster may follow--whether social or political. It will lie at the door of every man who opposes the consideration ; and I believe that the disasters occasioned by this law are the cause of discontent and disaffection amongst the people. will not trespass further upon the time of the House.— ( Hear, hear.) I hope I have expressed myself without undue warmth.—(Hear, hear, hear.) I think that lam in the right, and that it would be wise to adopt the views which I have stated—( Hear, hear)—and I thank the House for the patience and attention with which I have been heard.—( Hear, hear, hear.) Sir GEORGE ST R. ICKLA ND seconded the motion. He would not go into Parliamentary and statistical details, which had been so ably stated by his Hon. Friend. His endeavour should be to point out the different circum stances under which this great and momentous question presented itself now from last year. Throughout the country, amongst the landed proprietors, mer chants, and manufacturers, there was a strong im pression that the happiness of the people and the preservation of property required that a termination should be put to the agitation of this question.—( Cheers, and counter cheers.) Every person who attended to the peti tions which had been presented on that side (and he had presented many), must observe that there was a greater earnestness in them than in former years. The petitioners were more strongly impressed than ever with the injustice of the Corn-laws The excitement was increased and in creasing ; and the time had arrived when the Honse could Hot safely or prudently evaded the consideration of the sub ject.—( Hear, hear.) The restriction upon the importa tion of foreign corn was a bonus to our Continental and other rivals in manufactures, and embarrassed and dis tressed the commercial and manufacturing relations of the country. By raising the price of food, they disabled the labourer from suppling himself and his family with other necessaries. A few nights ago he ( Sir G. Strickland) had presented a petition from Ripon, the centre of an extensive agricultural district in the East Rid ing of Y. orksime, where manufactures were hardly known, and ten others from Doncaster, and the agricultural district of which it was the centre. The Hon. Member then read a letter which accompanied the peti tions, and stated that there was a strong feeling amongst the af..;riculturists in favour of the repeal. Looking to the body of manufacturers who were interested in that repeal, he found that in the cotton manufacture, in hardware, and cutlery, the numbers employed were 2,200,000, and (as we understood) the aggregate annual value of their manu factures was 86,000,000/. These were the persons who told the House that they were distressed, and that their distress was occasioned by the Corn-laws- They only asked the house to permit them to show what were the effects of those laws, and to prove the disadvantages to which they are exposed.—( Hear.) They wished to show that Germany and America were willing to take our manufactures in exchange for their produce. The Ame ricans, notwithstanding their natural disadvantages, were underselling us in the West Indies, and in South America. —( Hear, hear.) They wished to show that those laws had established Switzerland as a manufacturing country, and Saxony exported stockings even to this country. !u the five years, from 1832 to 1837, our exports to Ger many had diminished one-half. Great distress at this moment prevailed in the manufacturing districts. In Leeds alone, to the great honour of the inhabitants, 5,000/. had been subscribed recently for the relief of the unemployed ; and in Bradford 3,0001., notwithstanding the great increase of the poor-rates. In Sheffield the Union workhouse was sometimes entirely filled, and it was neces sary to give out-door relief. A manufacturer in Halifax, who employed some thousands of persons, declared that if some relief were not speedily given to trade, he would be obliged to discharge a great portion of his workmen.— ( Hear.) It was in vain to contend that because there was an increase in the capons this year that there was an in crease in the prosperity of the manufacturer. The tact , was, that the increase was chiefly in the export of the raw material and the implements of manufacture. The increase of those exports was a further proof of the ten dency of the Corn-laws to depress the manufacturers. In the year ending the sth January, 1835, the declared value cf the exports was 16,000,000 i. ; in the last year it was I 7,6K000/. But in the former year the amount of manu factured cotton exported was 460,000,0001'05., and in the last year only 355,000,0001b5. So, likewise, in woollens, there was a decrease in the exports from 56,000,0001hg. to 53,000,000165. This was not a labourer's question ; but it woe a great national question—(Cheers)—because so long as a vast majority of the people thought that the Corn-laws were the cause of their distresses how could they expect that they would not continue to approach that Houso with their prayers, asking the House either for a repeal of the Laws, or full inquiry/ During the continuance of the Cern-laws, and the restriction on importat ion, the p rice of wheat had 'fluctuated to the most ruinous extent. lie could easily show that during former periods -when those restric tions did nut exist—when there was no duty on foreign corn —that at that period those great fluctuations did not take place. From 1771 to 1 7Sl—in those 10 years when the duty on foreign wheat was only GA.—during those years the highest price was 2/. I2s. Bd. and the lowest 1/. 13s. Bd. being a fluctuation of only 19s. the quarter, but in the eight yearn from 1815 to 1823 prices varied from 41. 14s. 9d. to 2/. 4s. 7d., being a fluctuation of 2/. 10s. 2d. or 503. a planer instead of 193. ; and was the case when there was only a very small duty. Sad e:Terience had shown to the labouring population that high prices in corn did not bring along with it a propor tionate increase of wages. There was great dissatisfaction on this subject in several parts of the country, but he be lieved that at that moment the people were bearing their distresses and privations with unexampled patience. Would. that House then, when they were bearing themselves so patiently, turn e deaf car to their prayer, or would they not say that the time had come when they ought to change the course of their proceedings. In heavy taxation the country was now paying the penalty of long and deso lating warfare. It had been maintained that the Corn laws had been passed to enable the country to bear it more easily, that was to say, protection, was to he given to the landed proprietors, at tile expense of the people. Monopoly and restriction, it had been invariably found, brought poverty and not afiluence—( Hear) —and taxation could only be paid by the rich and d empl l oy w e, and lot by an impoverished people. — ( Hear, hear.) as the great body of the middle and labouring classes of the food, or adducedhadbeen advanced, a society which approached that House asking for inquiry ; be the merchants and manufacturers asked for "iictions protec tion, they asked only for a removal of all re_s a t s r t few days. ( Hear, hear.) They had heard wi d th . in the 1 p from la n i h n i g g ho of ts a authority, nn u that a a e o l a n n ; d e nt ba i tl n e t i e tno r e cs s o t enl 15 7 hg r eu e iern c lea o en m od i : this the landed proprietors werck..o suchan d thea statets , .nan t fw things, s n , o b t e r i s „, k t d o n a g s k a , c o o n a g t l a e aut a the s ii ,oca and what t . n t n i l u c i a r Aisne,t eyhti.eoa rr.e)m ei.tyoubi:uatdbyb : e n a ve t s o t l i dg aiiquiry i t n be tl p m u t bli l c ioi better employed than in - listening how that House could be Douse business.would N b o e w , t he b e u wouldre e c o o f a cl o u b d s e t r b u c v t i a o s n k s t g a pble—than in giving them an y . alleviating their distresses after the very length ened andat ° i> abundant n h r d e e a d n r t e prayerssssuipnigsl theiryooff five nights, j and after evewyargumenndt rrh d e i s E c u a s l i fn DARLINGTON, which g r the ev seoeudtl could had eree an lundergonereally declared h ardlyhave a a y v s e t a Si ma jorityi n e Ses sion, that i h n n d oft t h h e a n t soe u nl n es d se e s rotfht than nh e el v 4H o 7 r o Y uhs s ec a m circumstances, and in the could in a debate possiblyof Same Parliament , t he q uestion should have a g ain been brought for ward in the succeeding Session. —( Hear, hear.) Such, however, seas the case, although he must say ec I eerily believed that it was not with the Consent c.r eNeo bation of the Hun. Member himself that was brought for- ward.—( Hear, hear.) Yet so necessary did it seem to the pay ty he advocated in that House that the agitation should br kept up—so great was the pressure from without, that the Delegates, in holding their petty Parliament, bed in some instances resorted to the expedient of having some of their speeches published in order to circulate over the whole country.—( Hear, hear.) This question had been fully discussed in the last session, and he could not, in the vvlTole speech of the lion. Member, discover any new ar guments. The Hon. Member stated that his opinion re mained unchanged, and he ( Lord Darlington) begged leave to sav that nothing had been brought for ward by that lion. Gentleman that would induce him to change his. He denied altogether that the li use of Commons had come last year, after a five nights' debate, to a hasty or incon_ sid , :trate conclusion; be believed the question had been fairly discussed and deliberately considered, and he was ready to admit that he had no stronger arguments to pro duce than had been brought forward last session. He should be sorry to waste the time of the House,but he must be allowed to say that be should feel more sorry if he the trght the fate of the landed interest depended upon an)- thin so shallow as his own arguments.—( A laugh.) Intl e last Session there were arguments brought forward in favour of the landed interest which had placed it upon a rock ; he alluded particularly to the speeches of the Mem ber for the North Riding of Yorkshire and the Right Hon. Daronet the Member for Tamworth. With the latter speech the Hon. Member for Wolverhampton had not a . - tempted to grapple, as be knew it was unanswerable. The Corn-law opponents could not have a more able advocate than the Hon. Member, but if the cause was unsound in principle and rotten at the core, it would fail, however ta p lented its advocate; it was far from his wish, when he statad that the subject Imas divested of any new argument, not to concur with the Hon. Member for Wolverhampton, that this subject had assumed a very different shape to what it had done in former years. At one time it was considered a question of conflicting interests, but it was between the country gentlemen and the manufacturers. In many instance; the fundholder, be cause he was told that he should have cheap bread, had been found readily inclined to lsten to the arguments of the Corn-law opponents, forgetting that at the very same time they were loosening those very bonds on which they held their securities. It was now a question between the nation at large and the landed proprietor ; every sect was now invited to take part either on one aide or .the other. They all knew the active exertions that were made by the Corn-law League, and he was afraid that in some instancee they had not been been very scrupulous as to the ans as to high they resorted. In many of their publica dens most scurrilous language was resorted to, and bills of every description were disseminated through the manufac turing districts, and itinerant preachers were sent there to preach to the people against the Corn-laws, and to poison their ears with every species of filth and abomination.— (Ironical cheers.) He could not but regret that men of such character as many of the millowners of Manchester should, for a small pecuniary advantage, and a present temporary gain ' lend their aid and their influence to the spread of such doctrines. Many of' the arguments of the Hon. Member for Wolverhampton had surprised him, and they only showed to what shifts Gentlemen were driven to uphold their cause. Although the exports of this country had increased latterly upwards of two millions, those who advocated the repeal of the Corn-laws saw that that was not a proof of the prosperity of the country but of - its distress, because the quantity of raw material was less than in previous years—( Hear, hear, bear) — but he had yet to learn that that distress, such as it was was attributable to the Corn-laws. There had been a very remarkable document put into his hands within the last few days, emanating from the debates on this subject in the De legation in Palace-yard. It was entitled, " National dis tress proved by increesed exports combined with diminished production." It appeared to be a speech delivered by Mr. Edward Baines, the son, he believed, of a Member of that House—( Hear, hear)—and who appeared from his speech to be a very ingenious, clever young rnan.—( Cheers.) His speech appeared to have given such satisfaction to the gentlemen assembled there that they had directed it to be printed as a separate document, and caused a copy of it to be sent to every Member of Parliament.—( Hear, hear, hear.) Although he admitted that his ar guments were very able, yet he must be permitted to say that they were not quite conclusive. The gist of his argu ment seemed to be that although he admitted there was an increase in the exports, yet, in consequence of the importa tion of the raw material having diminished, this increased exportation, instead of proving the existence of prosperity proved precisely the reverse. Alluding to the returns of exports, lie said, " that official documents shows that a larger amount of British manufactures was exported in the year ending January 15, 1840, than in the year 1839, the increase being nearly two millions on the declared value. I shall shortly prove from the very docernent thus ad duced, a case not of extending, but of declining trade and manufactures. But before Ido this I cannot help clefiress sinr, my surprize that any document or any figures could induce men who have the use of their eyes and ears to believe that trade was good, or that the present condition of the country was not one of severe and fearful suffering." , So far he agreed with Mr. Baines that trade was not good, and that the condition of the country was one of severe and fearful suffering ; but if it was said that this was attributable to the duty on corn he would deny the as sertion—it might just as well be contended that it was owing to the duty upon timber —( Hear.) Now as he liked to hear effects attributed to their true causes, he would express his opinion as to the causes of the severe distress under which the country was at present suffering. The lion. Member for Wolverhampton had, in the course of his speech, alluded to the withdrawal of bullion from this country for the purchase of corn last year, and he had said that if they looked at the returns of the withdrawal of bul lion, and of the importation of foreign corn, those returns ould be found to correspond. This proved that corn was not to be purchased to any great extent for the use of this country except for bullion.—( Hear.) Six millions had been paid during 1839 for the purchase of foreign curie and the consequence was the withdrawal of this bul lion out of the Bank had obliged them to contract their issues—they had been compelled to do so for self-preservation. They were on the verge of bank ruptcy, and he had heard it asserted last September that the Bank Directors were in possession of an Order in Council, authorizing them to suspend cash payments when ever they might choose to make use of it. The demand for bullion had obliged them to withdraw their i-sues, ehich was a great cause of distress, and to double the rate of ciiscour,t. What had been the consequence? Why, that many master manufacturers, being deprived of that accommodation which was necessary to them, had been obliged to shut up their mills, and great distress amongst their workmen was the consequence. There was another cause, which had been almost altogether overlooked, and that was the system of over-trading.—( Hear, hear.) He remembered that in 18'25 Mr. Eluskisson attributed the eistress and panic of that year solely to over-trading. The e ears 1823 and 1824 had been the greatest years of corn iercial prosperity that had ever been known in country, and the consequence was, that in el 4 factories were built, and families were ad- vertised to come and work in the manufacturing, districts The consequence was overtrading, and the panic followed, If that was the consequence in 1825, considering the im• provements which had since taken place in our machinery and the increase in the manufacturing population, wha must be the present state of things, when the manufacturers assert that they can manufacture, not only for all parts of the world, but for a new one also, if a new one could be discovered ? lie thought that, in consequence of over trading, the extent of our machinery and our nianufactur ing population, so far from being an advantage, was the greatest possible evil. He had intended stating the an nual amount of exports since 1829, with a view of show ieg their increase; but, as the details were admitted, he ould not trouble the House on the subject, but would only allude to the iron trade, the increase in which, since 1829, had been most remarkable. The exports of iron had amounted in 1829 to 89,338 tons 1832 1835 1826 1837 1838 Mr. Baines, in the course of his speeech, said, " Again we have seen that there was an increase in the exportation of hardwares and cutlery, but on turning to the raw mate rial, namely, the finest quality of iron which we import from abroad, and which, therefore, is contained in this list of imports, it appears that the quantity of iron entered for home consumption, instead of increasing, declined." Now, no one who knew the state of the iron trade in this country could wonder that there was no great importation of foreign iron. Gentlemen, perhapa, were not aware how iron was protected. It was a general opinion that corn was protected by a higher rate of duty than any other article, but iron had a still higher protection. There were three different qualities of iron, the duty on the importation of tile first quality, iron bars, was I/. 10s. per ton ; on the second quality, it was 5/. per ton; but on the hoop iron, which was the finest quality, it was 231. 15s. per to% se so d that if three tons of iron of different q ualities were purchased fur 30/., adding the three duties t o g ether they would amount to more than 301., so that iron was, in the aggregate, t. pro tected by a duty of mor e than 100 npterencento say, have leca,ri hear, hear.) Mr. Baines then w have been assured b y gentlemen e who have late]) immense returned from Am erica, that goods either rem ain in the bands of quantities of r ' the consignees, or e have been forced to sale at a tremendous sacrifice." Now he thought that every o n e who knew America must k now that that count r y was is a state of bankruptcy ; he was surprised that more goods should be sent out th ere, and h as long as tha t was the case, e was not surpri se d at dis tress being the consequence. This young gentleman, in alluding to our present distress, had attributed it to a failure of the demand for home consumption. He had a lways understood that the manufacturers considered the demand for home consumption as nothinr,s compared with foreign exportation, and it was stated that this decreased demand was owing to the inability of the people to pur chase in consequence of the operation of the Corn-laws. Now, he would ask, who where the great home con sumers? Why, the landowner, the labourer, and the small shopkeeper—these constituted four-fifths of the home customers—and if the consumers were diminished, by a repeal of these laws, where would they find new home customers? if a farmer having 2001. complained that he could not lay out as much as he wished in manufactures, cas it reasonable to say that if his income, by a repeal of the Corn-laws, were reduced to 1501., he would, somehow or other, find means to purchase more manufactures out of his diminished income?—( Hear, hear.) Although farmers were not famed for the quickness of their percep tions, yet they could not fail to see through the fallacy of that argument. Mr. Baines proceeded to say— I wish to offer a plain illustration, which may convince even an agri culturist that increased exports may , under certain of fain exigency. circum stances, be a proof not of prosperity, but Suppose a farmer, whose land yields on the average one hundred quarters of coru, of wh ich he sends 60 guar ers nd ether expenses, to market in order to pay his rent and keeps 40 quarters for the sup.epaorrtaof his family. Sup his farm only yields pose that in an unfavourable ) 90 quarters instead of lon, but that, owing to increased nocessit,os 'lie sends 65 cvqiidiaeintteroslatofthicsoirun t, , market instead of Go quartcr' .—it 1 ' crease of his sales, wh ich I may call his exports, is not ; EVIJI,N IN G EDITION EVENING EDITION proof of prosperity, but of present need ; it take; place in spite of diminished production, and it leaves for the con sumption of his faeriiy, trot 40 quarters, but only 25 quarters. Now, if the firmer only sold his wheat at the same price per qusrtcr eliee he rold 90 quarters as when he sold the 100 quarters, which it seemed to be the object of the Core-law repealers to force him to, he would cer taini y would suffer a loss ; but if he did, as he ought in un- few:Li:able seasons, olitaie a higher price for his diminished pa:du:lion, such would not be the case. He would not trouble the House with any more extracts from this speech, upon which he believed the delegates res:ed their case, as they had put it forward with so much oventation as their manifesto. He would not detein the House longer than to eilude to a docu ment which only appeared that morning. It was one great i s i t reument against the Corn-laws that they caused a con flmuncutfiaraettiuorneri n . t i h i e e l: rr i r c e e e s d to t t ll li e injury alike r f ) . t the farmer turYn to he adhered to as much' as poi Bible.. that Everysteadiness o o n epr acquaintedlought with the subject must know that it was impossible to sup- I pose that the prices of corn, or of any other artir;le . which I teas the produce of the earth could tt:s remain alike. But on this subject be would refer the valu able document he held in his hand. It consisted edto of a onsiste tables. lowest c; 3teiraer prices pltsie ie o ss f The first teas a return of the highest aed wheat, and the difference nt tsb of various countries in Europ i 7 r e ee t m .e. . tip to 1838; end front this return it appeared that of all the countries in Europe the fluctuation b ee n less ill England than in an y other country.had Te e same tables showed that between 18 . '9 and 'e England was again the lowest in point of fluctuation with the exception of one, and, taking the weekly averages, she was the lowest of all. In saying that he did not wish for a moment in any manner to disparage our manufactures, but it must be remembered that in former times a man of straw, by his ingenuity or otherwise, might, in a very short time, amass a very large fortune. Those profits were now gone, and the manufacturing interest wished to raise themselves upon the ruin of the agriculturists. S e long as he had a scat in that House he would raise his voice against so unjust a doctrine. It might be supposed that he seas biassed upon the question from the tact of his representing a large agricultural country—such was not tire case, for so long as he had sat in that House he had always considered that he sat there for the purpose of legislating for the benefit of the whole couirtry—( Hear, hear) —and under these feelings he had always done his duty to the best of his judgment. He might be again told that manufactures and agriculture could not flourish to-, gether, but if so he would answer, as he had done before, that in former times they had done so, and he saw no rea son why they should not do so again.—( Hear.) But if he was to be told that they could' not, that agriculture must degrade manufacturers—(No, no)—then he would say, " Perish commerce, flourish agriculture."— (Hear, hear.) But he would not use any such harsh ex pression. Thanking the House for their attention, ho would conclude by enforcing upon the House that if they took that protection away from agriculture which she had enjoyed, from that moment her prosperity would diminish —from that time they might say England's sun had set, her glory sunk for ever. Mr. G ROTE quite agreed with one sentiment which was put forth by the Noble Lord, that a Member of that House was the representative of the interests of the whole country—to that sentiment he would give its full force and significance, and he hoped that in the division which was ' about to take place, they would find that sentiment acted upon by a large majority of the House. The Noble Lord expressed some astonishment that the resolution was again offered to the House, after what he called the final decision of last year. If he (Mr. Grote) could admit that a large majority, that numbers were to be taken as an exponent of all the reasons and arguments of a case, then he would adroit the Noble Lord and those on his side had been tri umphant ; but the people out of doors were often very much indisposed to be content with the wisdom of a majority of that House.—(Cheers.) The Noble Lord had also said that the Hon. Member for Wolveihampton had not brought forward the question of his own free will, but had yielded his own judgment to the pressure from with out. Now, from whom did that pressure come but from the people, a large body of whom were dissatisfied with the decision of last year ?—( Hear, hear.) The Noble Lord had admitted that there had existed during the last year a state of extreme distress in the country. He (Mr. G.) was rejoiced at that admission, because it brought the two parties on that question nearer to an agreement, for last year a great deal of the discussion turned upon the degree of distress existing, and that which would justify the proposed measure. That distress had now been acknowledged by the first gentlemen who had spoken in favour of the Corn-laws.—( Hear, hear.) It was true, as the Noble Lord had said, that after the dis cussion which the question had undergone, it was impossible for any one to bring forward any new argument upon the subject, however both the friends and the opponents of the measure laboured under the same difficulty ; and ho would proceed to state his reasons for the motion, even although they might have been stated before. What had taken place within the last year, had placed within their reach a great number of new facts as to the working of the Corn-laws, and he would be surprised indeed if the Noble Lord or any other favoerer of the present laws could bring from the eircum etances of that experience anything in favour of the Corn lawe, On the contrary, he thought it would not be diffi- , cult to bring forward many things to discredit them.— ( [Lear, hear.) He would particularly allude to the re erarkahle drain of hullion—( Hear hear)—the consequence of which was to disarrange the whole of our monetary, and as a consequence of our mercantile and manufacturing system. The Noble Lord and his friends now saw that that which was a mutter of prediction in 1839, was a matter of 1 history in 1840. The Noble Lord would remember that what had taken place had been foretold in time discussion of the motion last year. The Noble Lord did not know so well as those delegates whom he held so lightly—. vntlemen who were deeply engaged in trade— the conse quence:, of severe pressure on the money market . ; they I amounted to a much more formidable catalogue than the 1 Noble Lord was at a l l aware of, and ramified I themselves throughout the whole trading community, and 1 if all these consequences, evil as they were in their na- I ture, could be traced in any way to the Corn-laws, that constituted a ground for inquiry which the House could not longer resist. The Noble Lord said that the drain of bullion was not owing to the Corn-laws, and he said fur ther that corn could never be bought without an exporta tion of coin. He (Mr. G.) did not see how corn differed from any other commodity. If they wanted on a sudden any large quantity of any commodity, it must be paid for by that which was received in all countries as a means of exchange, viz., bullion ; but if they could conduct their trade upon a regular and established footing, upon their correspondence systematically from year to year, would an y man tell him that they would be called upon to pay gold for cern any more than they would be called upon to pay gold for cotton, tea, or any other commodity they might want? The drain upon the Bank last year was an example of the working of the Corn-laws upon the exportation of the 1 precious metals. The harvests on the Continent in 1838 and 1839 were abundant enough to supply our wants w:th out any drain upon the resources of those countries if our trade had been upon a regular footing. The Noble f Lord attributed the distress of last year to over trading,land assimilated it to 1825. He would appeal to any Gentle man in that House or out of it if that were the case. As far as his experience led him, during that year there was an unusual absence of all oyeadrading—( Hear, hear) —and he fully believed that there would have been no drain upon the Batik nor any of that distress which both he and the i Noble Lurd lemented, had it not been for the sudden de- 1 mend for gold in order to pay for the corn required for the sustenance of the country. The great and primary evil of the Corn-laws was their aggravation of the price and the still greater aggravation of the fluctuations in the price of the prime necessaries of life. He knew he would be told that the present scale of duties was intended to keep the prices steady ; but so long as they accumulated dangers and difficulties in the ,way of merchants , those dangers and difficulties operated as an enhancement s of prices, in as sure a manner as a tax upon the amount of sale or purchase, or as if a positive duty was imposed to the same amount. The first object of the Legislature ought to be to give the prime necessary of life to the , English consumer at the lowest ccst of produation— ( Hear, hear)—rhe other that there should be as little fluc tuation as possible in the price of that article. These matters could not be disjointed in ractice, for if prices were raised to an unnatural level, t hey must become un naturally unsteady. It might be possible, by some means or other. so to force agriculture in this country, as to enable the home grower to supply the population, but it must be at an enormous cost and suffering, and still, had they attained such a length, they would at times have corn i enormously high, while at other times, the farmer would ' suffer more than he did in 1834 or 1835.—( Hear, bear,) o f p f they ent h e wished deorto to t ne t makefree ee t i h tn e price pertu of corn tien ef corn rn steady, frn m all h lit temcoun tries. It would be a most singular instance in commercial affairs, if, when they made the Corn-laws the greatest matters of gambling and uncertainty, that prices should remain steady. As an in s t ance , the difference between 635. and 735. was n o t th e diff erence o f a d b w e as en ac te tu re a d lly in a tu 3 nde ss. r such an What calculations ut y of 10s. , but could difference with safety of u artificial system as that ? Now it wo u ld b e sa id t h at t h ere was a change in the law in 1828 ; but the only difference between the law then established and that of 1815, was the slight difference between 735. a quarter as the importing price, and 80s. And the certainty of the price rising to 735. if there was any scarcity, was as great now, as under the former law, the certainty of the price rising to 80s. when a foreign supply was needed. But the Acuity, as respected the importer, was greater under the present than under the former law. For though, under the law of 1815, the only loss accruing to the mistaken importer when the price did not rise, according to his inclination, to 80s., was that the corn was unsaleable, under the present law there was a duty payable if the price had not reached 735. That the practical difficulties admitted under the law of 1815 had increased un der the present, would further be seen, when it was reflected there was a ll the range for fluctuation between 365., the price it would be recollec ted a year or two ago—and 735. !. and there was no security now that the price might not fall be low 365 .—( Hear, hear.) As to steadiness of prices, in deed abstract reasoning would be sufficient to prove that the best means for securing that steadiness would be to open the door for competitien in the widest and most ex tensive manner.—( Hear, hear.) It was sometimes talked of as an indulgence to the consumer to let foreign corn in at a lower duty, as the price increased. But the mis chiefs of fluctuating prices led to endless speculations, and cons tantly brought heavy losses on th e i m p orter , who un onTfihneedprtauctthicealperffiieceascbyetowf e t e h n e present t e s , I , y a i f: lel of i duties an I c y r a r s o r e . 60s. and 735. For when they fell below the lowest of these two, they amounted to a prohibition against importa tion. But above 60s. up to 735. the variations and the risk were fearful, the uncertainty to the importer, and the danger to the consumer, were equally great.—(Cries of " Hear, hear.") Undoubtedly a fixed duty would be a great remedy for this uncertainty—but it was impossible to give an opinion on that point without knowing the exact figures of the fixed duty to be proposed. The question as i to tire amount of the fixed they was much more important I !hail the question between a fixed duty and a fluctuating ione. The Right Hon. Baronet the Member for Tam- _ the ►ain-- I