The Sun. — London, England, 1840-05-27 00:00:00

i EVENING ED IT I ON. operation of these laws, the deficiency is now greater than it was ever known to be; and I think that there would he mach greater distress and disaster if we could not supply that deficiency from other countries. Another authority which has been referred to is that of a French Marshal, who was so strenuous an advocate for the principle of protec tion, that he declared he would rather see a Russian army in France than see her dependent upon other countries for food. The people, however, are become much too in telligent for all that sort of thing. They know that people don't grow wheat gratis, but for those who can af ford to pay for it, and it is well known that but fur the ma nufacturers, who are the best customers, one-half the pre sent quantity of wheat would not be grown in this country. These are all the arguments that have beers advanced on anything like public grounds for the maintenance of those laws, which strike every man, when he looks at them, as partial and unjust. I must make an observation with re spect to the last debate, in which I saw something like a perception of the real state of the case, and something like 4 conviction of the necessity of resorting to honest weapons in combatting on the occasion. I shall first allude to an Hon. Member who, after stating some facts connected with the labour and the revenue of the country—in both of which subjects he was decidedly wrong and I was right—for I have since referred to authorities—did, with perhaps more candour than discretion, say that he could not shut his eyes to the advantages which the aristocracy derived from the law, and that it tended to preserve that nice balance of power which contributed so much to the greatness and glory of this country. That is intelligible—that is far better than those false pretences which others put forward.—(Hear, hear, hear.) Whether the public may not think, however, that they pay too high a price for the balance of power is another question. But still the Hon. Gentleman was bold and candid in the view which he took of the matter. He was °followed by the Hon. Member for the North Riding of Yorkshire, and I could not but be struck between the difference of his arguments and those employed by his Colleague. The Hon. Mem ber had collecteda cloud of statistics, so that the House could hardly see the real state of the question. His Col league on the contrary had said, what I think was the pith of his argument, that the landed gentlemen wore not so soft as to give up the Corn-laws. That is perfectly dis tinct. The people and the aristocracy are thus fairly pitted against each other. We have a nice balance of power kept up by the Corn-laws, and the gentry will not be so soft as to give up that balance. That was the rea len assigned for maintaining the Corn-laws. But there was nothing inconsistent with that argument in the line followed by tle Right Hon. Baronet, the member for Tamworth ; for it struck me that the Right Hon. Gentle man had given up arguing the question on its own merits. I was asked by the Noble Lord the Member for Shrop shire, why I did not answer the Right Hon. Baronet the Member for Tamworth ? Ido not differ much with the Right Hon. Baronet. I suspect he agrees with me more than he does with the Noble Lord.—( A laugh.) The Right Hon. Baronet does not argue in favour of the Corn laws—he only fences with the advocates for the repeal, slid assigns a reason for his vote. I have not been able to collect from the speeches of the Right Hon. Baronet that he thought. the Corn-laws wise or just, or that he thought they could be maintained. I could hardly collect that if they did much more mischief, he would not be obliged to take notice of them himself.—(Hear, hear, and laughter.) I think the only difference between the Right Hon. Baro net and me is as to the precise amount of evil these laws inflict. The sum and substance of his argnment is, that the camel's back is not broken yet—that the animal is very buoyant, and who can tell but that it i, the burden he bears makes him so brisk—(Laughter)—and if his back should be broken, other backs have been broken before, and by burdens as light.—( Continued laughter.) I do Lot say that that is what the Right Hon. Baronet stated— t am (Ally illustrating his argument.—(Hear, hoar, from Sir R. Peel.) The Right Hon. Baronet began with all that order and precision which always distinguishes his addresses to this House, and he proposed apparently to analyse what had been stated on the other side. Ho told us he would repeat the sum and substance of our case—the derangement of the currency, the great fluctuations of prices, and the ruin to manufactures were occasion by the Corn laws. You say, said the Right Hon. Baronet, that the Corn-laws have disturbed the monetary system. I tell you the monetary system was disturbed before, and it was not said then that the Corn-laws had disturbed it. Coffee has fluctuated as well as corn, and other things have fluc tuated in other countries. That is my answer to the argu ment that the Corn-laws have aggravated all these evils. I could more completely illustrate the justice of my re mark, but it is now six weeks since that speech was de livered, and it has been mauled about in all the papers, and answered over and over again, so that I need not trouble.the House with any arguments of mine.—( Hear, hear, and laughter.) The Hon. Baronet then proceeded to show that the manufacturing interests were prosperous, in a way that was very convenient, by taking his own test. We argue that the people are bad off in this country, but the Right Hon. Baronet says, I cannot look at that—l have illy own test of the prosperity of this country, which is the amount of the exi orts. Look at the returns. I find the exports of this country last year exceeded those of the pre- Y r ed `ltg year, therefore you cannot be discouraged. — ( Hea r, "ear, from the Earl of Darlington.) The Noble Lord cileer so What would he think if any person was to in fer the prosperity of landed interest from the amount of Mortgages and auctions ? The case of the manufacturer Is, that these exports were forced. If you have a regular trade with regular exports, that is a great advantage to Your country--a permanent good ; but if your exports are extensive, and your internal consumption is diminished, it is "unanswerable conclusion that there is some extraordinary reason for it, and that there is distress in the country. The Right Hon. Baronet seemed to me to throw over the lwernises of the Noble Lord the Member for Shropshire, those who argued as to the great advantages of the waded interests of this country, and bow it was that they Inade the world go round. The Right Hon. Baronet sa;d, the third night of the debate, the law had nothing to do with the greatness of the country, but that its greatness Aser referable to another source.—( Hear, hear, from Sir R. Peel.) He did not exactly say those words--( Hear) --but don't talk such nonsense that you are all the source of greatness — it is the commerce, the industry, and maim factures, and not you, the idle and unproductive classes, that make this country great. But the Right Hon. Ba ronet evaded the proper way of arguing this question very i ngeniously. He said don't inquire into the source of your greatness—assume you are great, and don't do anything to disturb it. The Right llon. Baronet, I know, has made many speeches in which he himself has answered that argu- Mont. I remember being in this House many years ago, when the Right Hon. Baronet replied to some such argu ment that was advanced in opposition to Mr. Huskisson, when h e tr i e d to i ntro d uce som e reforms that redound highly to his honour. Somebody made an attack upon h ave Huskisson, and said, look at the greatness we attained, and do not disturb it. The Right l ion. Baronet then made a reply to that argument in much better words than I could express myself. " Mr. Secretary Peel reminded the House that the eyes of Europe 'ere upon them. He warned Parliament against reject -141,g the great and sound principle of commercial policy, ee trad e , proposed by his Right Hon. Friend, and im plored them not to yield to the fears of the timid or the re- P re sentations of the interested." Have we reached that Poin t of greatness that makes it hazardous to become seater. The Hon. Baronet in his last speech upon the Corn-laws, took us all over the globe—he pointed to [lin :l:tan, and th e res t o f our C o lonial possessions, and then, e n we did n ot k n ow whether we were in England or in those part s h e a ll u d e d to , h e sa id, h ow mons t rous wou ld it be ' f we were to attack this grandeur.—( A laugh.) The Right H on. B aronet knows very we ll , t h at w h enever h e h as assumed the character of a Reformer, (and I must !Ilym and the House knows, that that character suits him (loch better than the character he is now assuming)— 1 4 aughter)—he has been always assailed with this sort f argument.—( Hear, hear.) He was one time employed . 2 1 picking ou some of the orst spts in the criminal law, litdim I believe,t the head of w the law denounced him as a sireadful invader.—( Hear, hear, and laughter.) Again, When the Hon. Baronet reformed the police of this town, 'hat a cry was raised in favour of the old watch, the good °ld watch. In fact, 'tis the old hacknied argument that assails every man who attempts to reform abuses; but I 411 1 astonished that the Right Hon. Baronet should con descend to make use of it.—( Hear, hear.) Sir, I will just allude to the reasons he assigns for not voting for the motion I propose. He says that I have made a motion for the total repeal of the Corn-laws. I have not Made any such motion, and it is not that that you will decide when you go to the vote. I move only for the preliminary form of going into a Committee of the whole House to take the whole question into consideration. If I can judge from the countenance of the Right Hon. Baronet, he does not seem to assent to that interpretation of my motion. I will refer, then, to the authority of one of his own partisans, time Hon. Member for Lincolnshire, upon the motion I made last year. The Hon. Member began his speech by saying it was a very fair motion ; it *Was not a motion for total repeal; it was not a motion for %fixed duty, and that it was a fair motion on which to take the opinion of the House on the subject of the pre -lent Corn-laws.—( Hear, hear.) That was the Hon. Member for Lincolnshire's statement—that was the most - talons and ardent advocate for the Corn-laws.—.(Hear, t i l i a ‘t, hear.) By the way he would mention that 11 Member for Lincolnshire seemed more eager than yY other Member to uphold the Corn-laws. Th e Ri g ht (112 - Baronet stated that he had no encouragement to go fri t ° Committee with me, because I treated one of my wp ea de with great harshneas and asperity. I was ready to 2 . — let an apology to the Hon Member for Cambridge, if I anything that could be considered as offensive to him. t n j i i ss not aware till after ho had soken of what he had l athe House—that all his connections were bound up b R- t ;"the agricultural interests, and that he represented a olt in the very centre of agriculture. I certainly he-proposed a measure that would only be an advan while lie mae speec tkit 'to was•• te- aricultural int trade.—(Hear, headr.)a There erests, . h in favour of free iT t'hs Right Hon. that I will take the liberty of offering to Hon. Baronet. I would say to him and the .. i "ued interest, You can do what you please—you can re ;ha all change, or you can give us never so small a arl ge you make the public believe that you are irlitened to go into Committee.—( Hear, hear.) This 2 a very important question, involving as it does the corn- Ti ejee and economy of the country, and the general emonth -4021) of the people. I think it ought to he treated ""ewhat more respect, and that better reasons should be asai v . Pled for refusing to consider it.—( Hear, hear ) I C n not help thinking that the Right Hon. Baronet cannot 7 ‘ satisfied with the course he is pursuing on this f.ubject cannot think he can feel he is acting a candid part to tofkher side. He seems to me to be afraid of the agitation ti o h ° question, and to present obstacles to its determina aarl; He is confirming the friends of repeal in the justice Z ot itus opinion, and discouraging his friends ; and I can ,id_holp thinking he is incurring a vast responsibility, con ran ',rng the manner in which people in this country do v t his opinions and his authority. There arc thousands th u e o will not loak at this question—who pretend that a cannot comprehend it, or that they are unable to under itltaand it; but they say it is impossible to believe that one who „. so much experience and information could deliberately •; 41 ' 4 r after year recommend to the country and the licuse tue Taintai n t hi s l aw if h e t h oug h t i t cou ld be prmluctive of evils as he stated, and was not essential to the welfare •of the country. I beg to say that the Corn-law is different from any other question. It will not do to say, by and by, the time has come when we must repeal it. If the evils are such the time will then be gone by for remedy—when you have driven capital out of the country, and our artisans from nur shores, it will not do for you to say that you had been in error, and that you are ready to correct your faults. Before that time arrives the people will have endured great distress, and will be influenced by indignation. They will call for far more extensive changes than you will be willing to concede or able to resist.—(Loud cries of . 1 Hear, hear.") It will be useless to do then, as it has been too much the custom in this country to do, to resist to the last moment, and then give a lesson to the people that tumult alone can gain success.--(Cheers.) That is the lesson you have taught, and the lesson you have acted upon, in this question. You have told the people you will never attend to these complaints unless you are fright ened; you have offered a premium to agitation—that agi tation has commenced, and will not end till the object be accomplished. Sir, I implore the Right Hon. Baronet and others to consider whether there is not something in the aspect of our political affairs that deserves earnest and grave consideration, and whaler it would not be well for us to turn our thoughts to it. The bad condition of the people—their reflecting mind—their increasing intelligence —and their sense of oppression, will not allow them to endure, much longer, their grievances quietly. It would be well if we could appropriate our time so as to solve the question in what way we could improve their condition and allay their irritation. To deny the existence of these grievances, or to expect that they will :terminate without the removal of the cause, seems to me to be as idle as to expect that when your house is con suming by flames, those flames, will extinguish themselves. In my opinion, it is insanity to treat with indifference and levity the signs which warn us of those dangers. I do not say that Hon. Gentlemen are called upon to sacrifice their private interests to the public good, but, I think, if they come into this House, they enter into an engagement to postpone their private interests for the public good, and that we are bound to search the causes of this discontent with the view to their removal.—( Cheers. ) The people connect your laws with the present misery— that is their opinion. They are confirmed in that opinion by the deliberate judgment of men, the most estimable and enlightened in the country. That opinion they entertain, and it is not all the sophistry or abuse which you may heap upon them that will engender a doubt in their minds upon the subject.—(Cheers.) This feeling is entertained by increasing numbers from increasing dis tresses; and though you may term a manifestation of that feeling Chartism, be assured you will not remove that social bugbear until you get rid of the elements, and re move the causes. The people do not want confusion—it is opposed to all those habits of industry which have cha racterised them so long—they ire for better employment, and better reward for their time.—( Hear, hear.) They are ill-fed, overworked, and underpaid.—( Hear, hear.) They ask you to inquire into their grievances, and to remove their distresses; and I ask you has anything been done which will make the country more safe, or the people more satisfied? Do you believe it is merely in resisting inquiry that the grievances they com plain of, or do you believe it is adding burdens to their taxes, that will allay the feelings or improve the con dition of the people? Is it wise to pursue this course? Who knows when or how soon circumstances may arise in the world which may render it most important that we should all be united ? What has been the difficulties of Governments going to war? It has been the mistrust of the rulers in the great mass of the people—a mistrust en tertained by the confidence that they well deserved the hate of the masses.—( Hear, hear.) What was the answer of the poor peasant the other day, when he was asked whether he thought much harm could befal him by the re peal of the Corn-laws ? " Much harm," said be, " how can I be worse off?" That was the answer of the unfortunate man dragging on a miserable existence upon 7s. a week, with a wretched wife and throe children looking to him for support, and whom he still wished to keep out of the poor-house. There was evidence to show that this poor man was obliged to forego all essentials to health, strength, or even decency, in order to find a wretched pittance for his starving family. These arc the privations to which the labouring poor are exposed, and you are about to aggravate this condition by imposing ad ditional burdens. I say, Sir, this is worthy of our atten tion. It is in the name of those who love peace, who desire order, and who wish to avert confusion, that )ou are asked deliberately and gravely to go into the consideration of thisquestion--a question which tends to enhance the food of the wretched people whose discontent is gradually and constantly increasing. If you refuse to consider it do you suppose you can maintain it—a law so revolting to justice—pointed at by all mankind—the almost Saturn of a free Constitution ?—( Hear, hear.) Will you continue to make the experiment, in defiance of the order of nature, of confining the people within the limits of this island to what this island will produce?—(Hear, and cheers.) And you have the natural results of ?such a aw—you have discontent, disease and death. DO you hope ever to be able so to influence the minds of the people as to lead them to believe that this is a great curse, but that it comes from a source over which you have no controul—you never can. There is hardly a great name in our history, who either in his writings, or from his public conduct, has not denounced these laws. I may refer to Burke, Johnson and Chalmers. Burke said, " God had given the earth to the children of men, and he had given not a scanty but a liberal provision." Dr. Johnson, strangely enough, in a controversy with an ancestor of the very man who proposed the present Corn- laws—in a controversy with Sir Thomas Robinson, who argued against the policy of opening the trade between England and Ireland, the great Doctor said, " You talk the language of a savage; would you prevent our people from feeding themselves, if by any honest means they eau do so ?"—( Cheers.) I referred last debate to Dr. Chal seers—his language was, " These laws foul the air—they are a moral taint, and there will be no peace while they last." Seeing the wants of the people, and the general impression which is now abroad, let any one reflect calmly, and then say whether it is possible to maintain the laws much longer. I do, Sir, firmly believe that those who may try to keep them up will fail in the attempt. Thanking the House for the attention with which you have listened to me, and trusting that the House will now avail itself of the accident which has given it an opportunity of giving a se cond thought to the important subject, I trust a majority will agree with me in thinking that the House ought to go into Committee, with the view of considering the laws which regulate the trade in corn.—(Cheers.) Mr. STRUTT rose to second th'e motion of his Hon, Friend. It was always with reluctance that he presumed to trespass upon the attention of the House, and he was the more reluctant upon the present occasion, considering the length to which the arguments on the subject had gone, but as it was one of paramount importance, he trusted that he would be afforded the attention of the House for a very short period. His Hon. Friend had most justly ohm-yea that Hon. Gentlemen opposite used phrases in place of arguments. One phrase had been more used than any other—that was protection to agriculture. They spoke of it as a boon conferred on the landlords, without imposing any corresponding pressure upon another class. Now, In his opinion, protection was only another word or term for taxa tion.—( Hear, hear.) No protection could by possibility be given to one class of the community without taxing in a corresponding ratio some other class, and it rested upon the party claiming such protection to make out a case of absolute necessity for it. The Legislature, in affording protection, had usually given it by a fixed duty, and made no attempt to regulate the price of the article protected— that course had not been pursued in the case of corn. The Legislature had m a de an attempt, but a vain one, to - regulate the price of corn for the far mer. All such attempts must end in disappointment and delusion. Until they could set bounds to human in genuity—until they can control the seasons—until they could check the enterprise of commerce—until they could do all these things, it was utterly hopelsss that they could regulate the price of such an article as corn.--( Hear.) All such attempts merely delude and deceive the farmer, and aggravate his distress. These attempts have a most injurious effect upon them in another way; vv hen there comes a time of low prices, in place of increasing his assi duity and his industry, or having failed in all that, in place of expecting to make a new bargain with his landlord, he is taught to come to Parliament—that he has a claim to be relieved by means of Committees of Inquiry, or some other means than his own industry; he is placed in a worse situation, and a mischievous check is put upon im provement. It might be said that the sliding scale had made the price more steady than they would have been without it. Now he bad studied the question, and he had felt himself compelled to come to a contrary con clusion; and he had done so with considerable hesi tation, for he knew that high authorities were against him. He knew that Mr. — Huskisson, as well as the Right Honourable Baronet opposite, held contrary . - opinions, and he quoted the lattr the more readily, thtit in all the long speeches he had made upon this subject be had carefully avoided committing himself on any one point except the single one of the sliding scale. Supposing the Right Hon. Baronet were to„Ue Minister next Session, there was not a word in his speeches which would prevent him from coming down mid proposing a very extensive al teration of the Corn-laws.—( Hear, hear.) Still, not- withstanding these authorities' against him, he had been compelled to come to a very apposite conclusion, viz. that the sliding scale of prices had tended in any degree to maintain steadiness of prices. The sliding scale naturally rendered the trade of an importer of corn one of great hazard and unsteadiness, and being so with him it must naturally extend to the consumer. It was within his own knowledge that a wealthy manufacturer being anxious to enter into a speculation in corn was obliged to do it in the utmost secresy_to transact it by agents different from his own connections—be could not pay the money through his bankers, because if it were knoZinit would seriously affect his credit.—(Hear, hear ) What a state could that trade be in which an English mer- chant dared not acknowledge himself connected with I It might be asked what course was to be taken to prevent fluctuation. He thought it could not be altogether pre vented—(Hear, hear)—but it was the duty of the Legis lature to take all the means in their power to make it as small as possible, and that could only be done by tht, , eff:cts of commercial intercourse, the increase of commu_ nication by which the superabundance of one country supplies the deficiences of another.—( Hear, hear.) The' only means was to create a free trade as far as possible, throw open the ports to the world, and whether a small or a large fixed duty was imposed, we would have a sure sup ply. Then it was said w e wo uld be dependent upon Foreigners. He scarcely expected to have heard such an argument put forth in the present times. Dependent upon Foreigners we we:e now and must continue. Talk about dependence—where did our raw material for a manufac ture which, if stopped, must prove ruinous to the country, come from'? How then would we be more dependent than T were dependent upon th em f or a s ma ll supply o f corn f " rri i ?l3l the worst part of the system was, that now we were depCndent upon foreign countries, and that at the very worst and most critical periods—at the very momenta of scarcity.—( Hear, hear.) Another argument used against them was, that even supposing we weee carrying on this trade in corn, and there was no danger of starvation, still its effects must be injurious, because the corn must be paid in bullion. Supposing there was a real—not a fictitious an au swer to such an argument. trade, there was scarcdy any ne c e ssity for giving That was the crying evil of the present system—we, under it, were obliged to pay in bullion, because the demand for foreign corn was of a sudden, and there was no regular way of meeting it by means of our manufactures; a great quantity was hurried into the market at once, and no regular trade being kept up, or being possible to be kept up, the corn required must be paid in bullion. The Right Hon. Bas ronet had said, no doubt it deranges your currency, but it might be deranged by other means. No doubt of that-- who-ever denied it; but was not that another reason why they should take means so to regulate the corn trade as to prevent it baying any such effect. The sliding scale of duties prevents corn from coming to market until a rise has taken place—it cannot come in when it would be use ful in preventing a rise in price—the price rose, the duty was lowered—a great quantity of corn was poured in, and derangement of the markets was the necessary consequence. It was said protection was necessary, because protection was given to manufactures. Now if this was meant to ap ply to all manufactures, it answered itself ; for how could we be protected in the home market when they wanted, and complained that in consequence of these laws they were not allowed, to supply the foreign market. The manufacturers could hardly be said to require pro tecting duties for the home market, when their complaint was, that they were not able to compete in the foreign markets so well as without the Corn-laws—they could not help admitting that in some small degree the manufac turers did receive protection —numerous have been the pe titions from them, praying for the abolition of all such protections, and that all classes should be placed on a per fect equality. Gentlemen opposite had expressed great surprise at the question being brought on again, after being once decided in the present Session.—(Hear, hear, hear.) But they were very much mistaken if they supposed that their arguments or their majorities could put an end to this question.—( Hear, hear.) This was but the commencement of a great struggle of mighty principles—(Hear)—the termination of which he should be glad to see amicably arrived at, but of the ultimata issue of which he entertained no doubt whatever ; and it was because he believed that the cause must ultimately triumph, that he cordially seconded the motion. Sir C. BURR ELL said he did not believe that he could say much new upon the subject, but he felt it his duty to his constituents to say a few words. He was con vinced that if the Corn-laws were repealed, the manufac turers would not give the same wages as they did now to their labourers, whom they would wish to reduce down to the level of the artisans in foreign countries. It was idle to talk of disease having been caused by the Corn-laws. He believed that the disease which had occurred might be traced to other causes. It had been said that America had no restrictions, but the very reverse was the fact ; for there was hardly an article of vegetable or animal provi sion that was not protected by a duty on the importation of the foreign produce. An experience of forty years had enabled him to say that never was the agricultural interest depressed without also depressing manufactures.—( Hear, hear.) Mr. Rothschild had advised the agriculturists not to relinquish the Corn-laws. It was ridiculous to suppose that foreign nations would act on the principle of recipro city towards us in the admission of our manufactures be cause we made ourselves dependent on them for our corn. Mr. EA STHOPE remarked that the advice of the great capitalist that had been alluded to might have originated in a much more interested and selfish mo tive than the Honourable Baronet had supposed. Mr. Ricardo well knew that these revolutions, that con. fusion that was consequent on the derangement of the mo netary system was more under his own knowledge and constant perception than that of most other men, and no man knowing it better profited by it more constantly, no man could watch the progress of national distress with more sagacity, and no man being in the situation he was, was more capable of taking advantage of it for his own benefit. He ( Mr. Easthopc) would not attempt a refu tation of the political economy of the Hon. Baronet, but he was astonished that it should not have occurred to him to be an important argument in favour of the repeal of the present Corn-laws, that when they were repealed it would be impossible there should be any artificial and objection able protection to any other interest. He ( Sir C. Burrell) stated it in this way„--the landed interest of the country would be under no obligation. They did not want obliga tion of this kind—the real interest of necessity was its best security. He admitted with the Hon. Baronet there would be great difficulty in keeping- up protection and artificial restrictions, if these laws were abolished. But there was an observation of the Hon. Baronet, which was made important by his second reference to it. The Hon. Baronet had cheered les Hon. Friend, when he stated that the condition of the working classes could not be worse, and afterwards gave it as his opinion that the manufac turers sought the repeal of the Corn-laws, in order to de press the wages of their artizans, and still reduce their comforts by giving them lower remuneration. This had fallen from the [lon. Baronet in a manner not to be misun derstood. He wished he could take the Hon. Baronet to the town he had the honour to represent, and he would there present him to three or four thousand people, and ask him whether it were possible to increase their destitu tiou—to heighten their miseries—.to lower their wages— men who were in a situation in which they might be almost excused for being desperate, because their miseries could not be much greater nor themselves more wretched. He saw sitting behind the Hon. Baronet a Gentleman whose kindness and benevolence was often taxed to relieve their miseries, but they said to him, " We thank you for keep ing us from starving, but we want work, not alms. Give us work ; our complaint is that we are willing to work, but that legislation prevents us. We are obliged to thank you, but while we do so we blame you too." Those wretched men who had work (and there were up wards of three thousand without work at all) were not feasting on 12s. a week, as the Honourable Baronet describes his agricultural labourers to be, but were glad for full work to obtain Bs. a week. The best artizans in the place could gain but 125., while they formerly ob tained 183. ; but the general case was that those obtained Bs. who formerly received 12s. ; and not with any know ledge of political economy, but wish a knowledge of their own distress—pondering on its causes, w a t c hi ng i ts pro gress—inquiring how it has come, and with what appear ance it may again meet them. They asked their masters why they had no work ?—they were told there were no orders from America, and therefore they could have none. How was it, they then asked, the people of the United States did not use the things they formerly required ?—The reply was, they still desired them, but were unable to pay for them. The men said, " Why can't we have cheap corn from the United States, and re turn them cheap manufactures? We don't much under.. stand the theory of exchanges, but we do understand that bread is cheap in the United States, and that it is very dear in Leicestershire. Why not have corn from the United States in payment for manufactures we could make and do not make ? Do not tell us, for the sake of a pri vileged few, the price cf bread is raised, and to be kept up; these things we only understand in part, but suffi ciently to see,that our houses are stripped of furniture, which is gone to the pawn-shop—that our children are crying for bread, and that we have none to give them— that our wives are pining over their starving children, and that we have felt all the miseries of want until desperation has succeeded to contentment." They understand this ; and, understanding it, leads them to make strong speeches and unlawful intentions. Every man, knowing that despair must increase misery, must deplore, but could not wonder, if, understanding this, their present state of misery was succeeded by one of disorder and violence. Would not the crime be rather theirs who were better taught and instructed, than those who were made the instrument of the violence which was begotten by want ? He was sure that the House would pardon him if in contemplating this picture he bad used expressions which he could not have avoided with honesty to the constituents who had sent him there. Much had been said of the speech of the Right lion. Member for Tamworth, and he confessed he had heard that speech with any thing rather than displeasure. He considered that speech, whatever were its fallacies in reference to the position in which the Right Hon. Gentle man was placed, as substantially giving up the whole question. The Right Hon. Baronet stated that if the manufacturing interest of the country required the repeal of the Corn-laws, and if the existing Corn-laws were ever adapted to impoverish the manufacturing interest of the country, then he would tell the landowner that was too great a price to pay for any protection. Well, then, what did the petitioners who ap peared at the Bar state ? that they perceived the appear. ance of general decay—that they were not now beginning to suffer, but that suffering had been driven to the greatest extent to which it was possible, and was now coming to its own expiration. The last time he visited Leicester, a manufacturer, who usually employed about 4,000 men. was describing to him the state of trade, and said, " I shall be able to keep on the men I have till after Christmas at a loss of about 1,0001., and am therefore determined to discharge very few men." He happened to have lately made some purchases, and was one of the most skilful and industrious manufacturers in the country. With this 1,0001. he said he would keep these men on till spring, when, if things did not improve, he must discharge them, without knowing what would be the consequence. lie thought that was some explanation of the excess of exports—these gentleman manufactured at a loss to keep their men cm. plod ed, and therefore necessarily increased their exports. He was told this was only one of many similar cases.— ( Hear, hear.) But their benevolence had its limits, and they could not long carry on that kind of trade, increasing their expenses in proportion to the diminution of their profits. Rut for what was that state of things suffered to exist. The landed interest was not benefited to the extent imagined by artificial protection, but when told so they retorted " If not, what is the ob ject to you—how then can you be benefited by its removal ?" He thought nothing was more clear than the fact, that one interest could not long be depressed without depressing the whole, and that man was the greatest blunderer who set up his own interest above others, or thought there was not a community of interest between all the great interests of the State.—( Hear, hear.) The Hon. Gentleman then adverted to the observations that had fallen from Sir Robert Peel on a former occasion re specting the derangement of the currency, and contended that though the Right Hon. Baronet had shown shore were other causes—he could not and did not show that the Corn-laws had not very considerable effect in producing that derangement. He also deeply regretted the want of unity of opinion which existed on this subject among her Majesty's Ministers, and that a man so en lightened as he believed Lord Melbourne to be, should be so fettered by what he could not but think were anti quated prejudices. But the Government knew well that the landed interest in that House, and the prejudices on this question were so strong that it would be impossible to carry the measure if proposed; but carried it would ulti mately be, and, he hoped, without tumult or confusion. He had heard much of the extreme artifice which had been had recourse to in order to create an excitement upon this subject. It was natural that men labouring under a state of excitement on any subject should resort to ener getic measures in order to forward their views, and if they heard of petitions being got up by men who were almost in a state of starvation, to beseech the House to do that which they believed would put an end to their sufferings, it was not to be wondered at. He thought it was only per fectly natural ; but when he heard of the artifices resorted to by parties who were not suffering these privations—who were not labouring under want—who were not in a state of distress —when he heard of the artifices which had been resorted to to get signatures to petitions in favour of the Corn-laws, he trusted the House would permit him, as an act of justice, to expose them. lie had received a letter from Leicester describing the manner in which a petition in favour of the Corn-laws, which had been presented to the House by the Hon. Member for Leicestershire, had been manufactured. He had felt it proper to give the Hon. Gentleman information on the subject, and to inform him of the name of the gentleman from whom he had re ceived the information, as he intended to snake use of that information in order to set himself, and those who enter tained the same opinions that he did, right on the subject of the artifice and excitement in getting up petitions with which they had been charged. A petition had been pre sented by the Hon. Member for Liecestershire in favour of the present Corn-laws from Earle Shingdon, a populous village in Leicestershire. That petition had been sent to the free school of the village, and had been signed by six boys in the school. The names of the boys who had thus signed it were, Richard Rance, H. Prime, R. Garner, R. Buechel', W. Bluett, and J. Clapton.—(Hear.) The four first had signed as farmers, the fifth as a car penter, and the sixth as a grocer. Farmer farming in the free school I —(Cheers.) A carpenter keeping his shop, and a grocer retailing his groceries in the free school I— ( Cheers and laughter.) This was the petition in favour of the Corn-laws, from which the House was to suppose that the inhabitants of this populous village were content with their condition, and were desirous of a continuance of the present Corn-laws !He was not inclined to press this case too much ; he knew that in all cases things of that sort would occasionally happen ; but he thought that the accusation of having recourse to artifice and excitement to get up petitions against the Corn-laws so frequently brought against those whe agreed in opinion with himself on this subject, came with a bad grace from the Gentle men who made those charges ; but having proved this arti fice to exist in one case of a petition in favour of the pre sent Corn-laws, he surely had a right to conclude that the sane artifice had been had recourse to in other cases of which the House knew nothing. With respect to the fears entertained by some Gentlemen that en importation of foreign corn would reduce the price of the home corn so low that the agriculturist would leave off cultivating the land, and leave the country entirely dependent upon a foreign supply, he would like to ask the agricultural Gen tlemen at what period of English history agriculture was in the most improved condition—whether it was not during the time that corn was the cheapest—whether during that period a greater improvement in agriculture bad not been witnessed than in any other period of English history? Was he not entitled from that to deduce the conclusion that the importation of foreign corn, by lessening the price, would improve the agriculture of the country, and that increased production would be the consequence ? Who were those, be would ask, who were the most desi rous of this artificial protection? Was it the scientific agriculturist of Scotland or the bad agriculturist of Buck inghamshire ?—( Hear, hear.) In Scotland the agricultu rists said they needed no pretection.—(Cries of " Hear, hear, hear," and " No, no.") He understood such to be the feeling throughout that country.—(No, no.) He did not wish to misrepresent, and the Ho nourable Member for Lincolnshire said he was inclined to doubt his assertion, but he would beg his Hon. Friend to be as industrious in his inquiries into this branch of the subject as he was on every other, and he thought he would find that he (Mr. Easthope) had come to a rieht conclusion. He understood the general feel ing of the wealthy scientific agriculturists of Scotland on this subject to be, that the protection was not of so much value to them as it was detrimental to the general inte rests of the country. But, said the agriculturists of Buck inghamshire and the worst cultivated districts of England, why, they said, that if the protection was removed it would lessen their comforts, because they would have cheaper bread with less crops. Thus, the scientific agri culturist of Scotland had no fear for the repeal of these laws, while the unscientific agriculturist of Buck inghamshire looked up to them for protection. But if they had such a dread of a reduction, or rather of an equaliza tion of the price, he would ask, were they prepared to in cur the horrible risk which must arise from an increasing population, and decreasing means of employment ? The population of this country was increasing at the rate of 400,000 a-year--how did they propose to employ this in crease, so as to ensure contentment and happiness ? lie would ask, was Bs. a-week, which had been shown was the utmost that a hard-working labourer could earn in one of the most populous manufacturing districts, sufficient to sa tisfy all the wants of a poor man and big family? Were they likely to be in a better state with a poeulation increasing at the rate of 1,000 a-day with less employment for them, arid with the capitalist every year removing his capital, his knowledge, and his industry to countries in which corn was cheaper, for it was a proverb as old as the hills, that if they would not let cheap corn come here the people would go to the cheap corn 2—( Hear, hear.) He was astonished that gentlemen who considered the subject from that point of view, did not at once perceive the danger of continuing the present system. It acted in a twofold degree. There was a decrease in the demand for labour, while the increase in the population went on. It was astonishing that gentlemen could not perceive what must be the effect of a rapidly increasing population, only a thousandth part of which could obtain em ployment. In the town which he had the honour to represent there were 3,000 persons unemployed, and others who could not obtain more than Els. a week for their labour. Could such a state of things continue? They complained of Chartism, and they justly denounced many of its doctrines. But could they believe, while such a state of things continued, but that Chartism, under some form or other, must occur ? It was not occasional kind ness or occasional severity that could effectually keep it down, while the people were seffering from want, and be lieved that it would afford them a remedy. He be lieved that if the present state of things continued, the people, during the time of sonic deplorable calamity, would be found too strong for any force that could be placed over them. He bad that day presented a petition from 7,775 persons in Leicester stating that they believed it was of no use to petition the House on the Corn-laws; that after what had happened, and the improper manner in which the subject bad been got rid of on the last occasion an which it had been brought forward, they could no longer indulge any rational hope— that they despaired of the Reform Bill, and that nothing now was left for them but to reform the Reform Bill : 20,000 people had petitioned from that town for a repeal of the Corn-laws, and after a lapse of a few weeks in con sequence of the manner in which that petition had been treated, 7,000 of them came forward to say that they have no confidence in the House.—( Hear, hear.) That was a fearful state of things.—( Hear, hear.) These persons were not inconsiderate or rash men—not men who w ere unmindful or thought lightly of the preservation of social order, but men who entertained the greatest dread of the slightest approach to confusion. He implored Hon. Gen tlemen to consider these things before they placed the country in a condition in which consideration would not be called for, but in which the intensity of suffering would occasion celemities which he shuddered to contemplate.— ( Cheers. ) Mr. G. HEAT HCOTE seldom trespassed upon the attention of the House, and he should now trouble them only a short time. The Hon. Member had alluded to the county which he represented, and he could assure him that throughout that county the feeling was unanimous in favour of the present Corn-laws. The subject, he thought, had already, been sufficiently debated in the House.—(Cheers.) He could not but contrast the calm and temperate manner in which the subject had been discussed in the House, with the violent and abusive manner in which the discussion had been carried on out of doors.—( Cheers). He did not object to this on his own ac count, because he was satisfied it did his cause good, and the cause of the repealers harm ; but he did not like to see the minds of one class of the people provoked against an ether—( Hear, hear)—and party violence excited. With re gard to the different propositions which had been made, he ' was equally opposed to both—he considered the proposition for a total repeal, a most rash and violent proceeding, and with regard to the proposition of the Hon. Member for Cambridge, he thought it equally his duty to oppose it, as he thought it would have no other effect than to lessen materially the present protection. With regard to the fixed duty and the sliding scale, he thought the sliding scale was the best possible means that human invention could find out to keep a fixed price. It afforded the greatest pro tection when corn was low, and afforded the greatest faci lities for importation when corn was high. Now, a fixed duty was inadequate to the accomplishment of either of these objects. He was against all these propositions, and the feeling was equally strong against them throughout the whole of Lincolnshire.—(Hear, hear, hear.) There was but one opinion on the :subject ; high and low, rich and poor, landlords and tenants, were all united in support of the present Corn-laws. Hon. Gentlemen slid this was a landlord's question ; ho could assure them that the complaint of the tenants in Lincolnshire was, that the landlords did not put themselves sufficiently forward, but left the battle to be fought by the tenants.—( Hear, bear.) The tradesmen in the small towas and the labourers were equally in favour of them, and as the Hon. Member had referred to the answer of a labourer, who asked why he repeal of the Corn-laws,. he would signed petition for the by a I h Anc e coolnshlre labourer for tell him of the reason given said I signing a abandronn-laws he now get 2s. 6d. a-day, and you tho s e laws, 1 Petition in supportfoft know very well that I shall only ffet . Is. 6d. Upon these grounds, he ( Mr. H.) was . deterfmisnuerdrotondsetar_nd(bey h th e e e s r e s, la u w u s d . he would reject any idea o counter cheers) —he would not hear of a compromise— (Continued cheers)—because he knew those laws were founded in equity and justice, and, for that reason, unlik e the Hon. Member for Leicester, he he was of opinion that t h e y had rem_ ivedthe o. f epproba those laws would continue; because they . ‘ were so founded in reason and justice that. tion and support of a majority of both Houses Parlia ment, and in that House especially, of a majority of the constituents of the empire.—(Cheers). Ile would state as an additional reason for this support, that the agricultur ists claimed no exclusive protection—the manufacturers had equally great protection thTselves. The Hen. M em b er for Derby said they were willing to give up all p rotect i on to do so, why did they not come but if they were willing .. on ? he motion of th e forward with a specific propos al lion. Member for Wolverhampton saould not have been for a repeal of the Corn-laws. but for tire abolition of a ll protection. The fact was, free trade in the vocabulary of those Gentlemen meant protection for themselves and free trade for others.—( Hear, hear.) Even since the subject had been last debated the manufacturers had received additional protection. The Chancellor of the Exchequer in his recent proposition to thellouse had in feet proposed to give them an additional protection of five per cent, by im posing an additional duty of five per cent. upo n the im portation of every class of production , except up on corn. Ile would mention one or two cases in which the agrieultu ri,t was left without protection, chile a large protection was given to the manufacturer. The duty on the impor tation of foreign wool was only Id. per lb., while woollen goods were subject to a duty of 15 per cent. Linen, the staple production of the cast coast of Scotland, where th e feeling was strongest against the Corn-laws, was protected by a duty of 40 per et nal—and only as late as 1829, 300,0001. had been paid as bounty upon the exportation of linen. He could not but be amused at a petition w filch was presented from that district a few days ago, IP a) inn; not only that the duty should be repealed on corn, but that the duty should be taken off meat and all other provisions —in fact that protection should be taken off every thing put upon the dinner table, except the table-cloth.—(A laugh.) Those circumstances would show the extreme unfairness to which those gentlemen had recourse. There' was again the case of silk. A petition had lately been presented to the House from Members of the silk trade, praying for a protection for thei r own tra d e and for a repeal of the Corn laws. Again, commercial men were protected by the na vigation laws, the timber laws, and the monopoly of the coast trade. He hoped that the question would be brought fairly to issue, and that those gentlemen who came forward with free trade principles would move that if there were to be a free trade in anything it would be extended to every article. It was said that the aristocracy alone were inte rested in the maintenance of the present laws, and :ho Hon. Member for Wolverhampton had said that all the landlords of the country did not amount to more than 30,000. He (Mr. Heathcote) believed on the contrary that there were in this country hundreds of thousands of landowners, and there could not be a greater mistake than to say that the present was a landlord's question. He be lieved that the more they descended in the scale of soeiety the more would they find the people determined to resist any repeal of the preseat laws. There were some crochety Members of the higher aristocracy who wished for a repeal from the most benevolent though mistaken motives, but the yeomanry and the smaller proprietors felt that their inter ests were identified with the existing system. Whateve might be the agitation carried on with respect to the ques tion, he hoped that the great manufacturers would never attempt to advance their own interest! by producing what would be the greatest curse of this country, namely, a competition of wages between our labourers and those of the Continent. He would tell them to use all the advan tages which experience, habit, and machinery might give them, but he would tell them not to endeavour to gain any advantage by trenching on the wages of their own work men. With respect to the supposed increase of the foreign trade which it was said would follow from a repeal of the Corn-laws, he very much doubted whether such a result could be calculated on, as he did not think that Prussia and other countries would refuse to protect the industry of their own inhabitants. He thought that it would be found on the whole that the cheapest loaf in this country was that which could be made from their own corn. The fact was that at present one-half only of the price in the metropolis went to the corn-grower, and the remainder was divided between the miller and the baker. He thought that subject was one worthy of the consideration of the House, and he should be glad to assist in any investigation into the matter. It had been complained that the labourers at present lived on inferior bread, but he thought on the contrary, it was much superior to what it was fifty years ago, when the people lived on the coarsest bread, while at present, in his part of the country at least, the bread of the labourers was made of the finest wheat. It was also said that emigration had of late years taken place to a great extent in England, and that was attributed to the operation of the Corn-laws ; but in his judgment if they repealed those laws emigration would take place to a far greater extent than it did now. He would ask what would then become of the labourers on inferior lands throughout the country ? He believed that emigration would be the only resource of those parties. The Hon. Gentleman concluded by expressing his determination to oppose the motion of the Hon. Member for Wolverhampton. Mr. PACK E also opposed the motion. With regard to the petition from Leicestershire alluded to by the Hon. Member for Leicester, it was true that it had been signed by six boys, but they were of a certain age, and were the sons of respectable persons. Sir HENRY PA RNELL commenced by saying that with regard to the protective duties on linen and other articles alluded to by the Hon. Member for Lincoln shire, he could say, as far as his constituents in Dundee were concerned, they were ready to surrender such pro tection. With respect to the general question, his opinion was that if Hon. Merebers who were so anxious for the continuance of the present Corn-laws, would look more par ticularly into the facts of the case, they would abandon the hostility which they now felt to the motion of the Hon. Member for Wolverhampton. He admitted, that if is 1815, or for many years afterwards, a change was made in those laws, and if foreign corn was admitted into the country to any great extent, a large portion of our tillage land would be thrown out of cultivation ; but it should not be forgotten that since that period a great change bad taken place in the circumstances of the country. For in stance, in the seven years which followed the year 1815, the average price of wheat was 755., and for the next ten years the average price was 503., while in the years 1834, 1835, and 1836, the average price was only 445. Bd. It might be thought that land would have been let out of cultivation in consequence of this fall of prices, but no such result had followed ; and that was 'proved, because, during the period referred t o , t h ere was a sufficient quant i ty of corn grown in the country for its own consumption. From 1815 to 1837. the increase in the populati on was four and a half millions, and although during that period corn was down to 50s. a quarter, it was satisfactorily shown that no land had been thrown out of cultivation. The argument, therefore, that the repeal of the Corn -laws would throw land out of cultivation, and deprive the agri cultural labourer of employment, fell to the ground. At the end of the period to which he referred, their trade was flourishing, their manufactures extended, and their finances in a prosperous state, although prices bad fallen and con tinued low. There was, therefore, no ground whatever for the assertion that a low price of corn would be injuri ous to the trading, manufacturing, or industrial interests of the country. It had been argued, also, that the rate of wages depended to a great extent upon the price of provi sions; but all who had looked at the question of wages on sound principles, had come to the conclusion that the rise and fall of wages bore no ratio whatever to the high or low price of corn and depended almost and wholly upon the amount of the demand for labour. He was de cidedly of opinion that the apprehensions entertained on these points by Hon. Members opposite, were altogether groundless. If Hon. Members looked attentively at the question, and calculated the price which corn fetched abroad, and added the charges and expenses attending its shipment and import, they would find that it could not be sold in England at so low a price as they apprehended, and that it would not materially affect the landed interests. Independently of that, he would remind the House that when corn was at the low price of 50s. and 48s. per quar ter, there had been nothing heard of a reduction of rents, nor of the inconvenience and injury to landed property, which was now so generally put forward. He believed, under all the circumstance, that if the Corn-laws were re pealed at the present moment, the average price would not be much below what it was during the twenty-six years to which he had alluded. There was a great error in sup posing that rent depended wholly on the price of corn. If that were so, rent would be higher in England than in Scotland ; but they all knew that such was not the ease, although the price of corn was so much lower in the latter country that it was exported to England. Rent depended not only on the price of corn, but upon the systcn on which the land was managed ; and rent might be either increased or prevented from falling by introducing an improved system of cultivation, because every improvement which increased the arable produce, would admit of a higher rent being paid.—( Hear.) For instance, an extended system of drainage, a rotation of green crops, manuring, or other improvements of that description, would enable the farmer to pay a higher rent. The apprehensions enter tained on that head were therefore by no means well founded. It had been said that Ireland would be the greatest sufferer from the repeal of these laws, but the observations he had made were particularly applicable to that country, and he believed that an improved system of farming would in crease the value of land in that country 30 or 40 per cent. Looking at the charges which must necessarily attend the importation of foreign corn into the country, and the rise which an increased demand would occasion—looking also at the low rate at which corn stood for a very considerable period without injury to the landed interests of the coun try—he must say that he thought the apprehensions which were entertained on the subject of a repeal of these laws entirely without foundation.—( Hear, hear.) The subject had been already so fully discussed, that be would not further trespass on the time of the House, but would con clude by expressing his determination to support the mo tion of the Hon. Member for Wolverhampton.—( Hear.) Mr. BAILEY believed that people were now pretty well convinced that the jobbing and patronage which existed in the old Tory times were just as rife as ever. They also had discovered that the Reform Bill had thrown the political power into the hands of the middle classes. who had compelled the Chancellor of the Exchequer from time to time to reduce those taxes which affected their interests. He complained of the excitement which had been got up upon the subject of Corn-laws by paid ageators who were sent throughout the country. Er rors had been so industriously circulated on the subject that he would scarce be surprised if the people were induced to rise and endeavour to obtain by physical force the repeal of laws which they had been taught to believe were con trary to the laws of God, and devised for the purpose of robbing the poor. In addition to all that, they had a Ca binet Minister gravely telling the House that he could not with a clear conscience offer up a prayer for his daily bread if ha did not vote against these laws.—( Hear, hear.) He appealed to Hon. Gentlemen opposite, who repre sented large constituencies, and he asked them how, with a due regard to their interests, they could support a motion like the present? The people of England were beginning to discover that the repeal of these laws would confer no lasting or permanent benefit upon the working classes ; on the contrary, it was generally admitted that it would throw a large body of agricultural labourers out of employment. The House could not be too cautious as to how it made alterations in the fiscal regulations of the country ; and he would state one fact with reference to the district which he had the honour to represent. In conse quence of a reduction of the duty on barilla a few years ago, 60,000 persons employed in its manufacture on the west coast of Scotland were thrown out of employment and left completely destitute. It might be said that these people had found their way to the cities and large towns and obtained employment there. No such thing—they were left completely destitute. One large employer, who manufactured from seven to eight hundred hogsheads, still continued to do so at a very great annual loss, amounting to about 13s. per hogshead, and he did so merely to save from utter starvation some thousands of unfortunate persons. Now if such an amount of misery was occasioned by the alteration of a merely fiscal regula tion, what might be expected from a change of the whole course of cultivation ?—( Hear, hear.) Ho had found, from labouring c o n - ofth conditione corn-growing o f the t a r n ie e s x o a f m E in u a r t o i p o e n , o t f b t a h t e t s b t o ati a s u l t ic u s al classes was better in years in which the price of corn was low.—( Hear.) He had heard from Gentlemen oppo high, than in those years when the price of food generally site was that the effect of the present system of Corn-laws ssaa to give an advantage to the foreign capitalist in competition with the British. But the wages of labour and the profits of capital were much more affected by domestic than by capitalist and labourer would lose mo re b y the foreign competition ; and he was convinced that both tho nn faeturing depression lau of the agriculturists at home, than they could gain by an increased ability to compete with their rivals abroad.--(Hear.) He believed that no change in the Corn-laws would effect any improvement in the condition of the manufacturing classes, whilst the repeal would lee ruinous to the agriculturist, and he would theielore ops3ose the present motion.--( Hear.) Mr. JAMES assured the House that be had no inten- Lion to trouble it with a repetition of the arguments which had been so much made use of in the course of this discus sion. He thought that after the voluminous pamphlets which had been published, the lectures delivered, and the speeches made on this subject, it was not easy to say any thing new.—( Hear, hear, and a laugh.) But he was anxious, in giving his vote in favour of the motion, to state why he did not agree in all the propositions of his Hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton. If the im mediate, total, and absolute repeal of the Corn laws had been the avowed abject of that motion, he should vote against it, as it would be for the immediate, total, and absolute ruin of all those—( Tory cheers)—sv 1.0 had now the misfortune of being the possessors of cold, clayey lands, incapable of producing anything but corn.— ( Hear, hear.) He was willing to go into Committee, for the purpose of seeing what could be done to improve the present system ; which he believed was capable of such im provement as would render it beneficial to all classes, and injurious to none.—( Hear.) He was in favour of the in troduction of foreign corn at all times, at a moderato fi xe d duty. But the pr esen t system o f a fluctuating scale was beneficial only to a set of gamblers, as no regular merchant would enrage in the corn trade under it.—( Hear, hear, hear.) H e cou ld no t support t h e amen d ment o f his Hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge, and at the same time that he protested against the total abolition of all pros tection, which was fairly and honestly due to the present holders of land, he would vote for the Committee.—( Hear.) Lord SA N DON concurred in some of the observations of the Hon. Gentleman who just sat down, hut he could not concur with him in voting for the motion, because he thought that some change in the present system was de. sirable.' He could not upon th a t groun d agree to go into Committee under the guidance of the Hon. Member for Wolverhampton and those who supported him. If he could under the circumstances under which it was pro posed to go into the inquiry, vote for doing so, it would be more agreeable to vote for it, as it would have met the wishes of a large portion of his constituents.—( Hear, hear.) He was prepared to say with Hon. Gentlemen opposite that the present sliding scale was not ,a proper or efficient mode of protection—( Hear, hear)—and if Gen tlemen opposite would bring, forward a distinct proposition for a more perfect plan, and for a better mode of taking the averages, he would be prepared to consider it.—( Hear, hear.) He contended that the agricultural interest re quired, and was as much entitled to protection as the ma nufacturing, and he denied that the Corn-laws had any effect in causing an exportation of bullion, or in otherwise deranging the monetary system.-a-( Hear, hear.) When he heard it asserted that the Corn-laws were the cause of misery, destitution, and death, he referred to the state ments of Mr. Senior and others, who showed that the disease and mortality of the working classes of this coun try were far less than in any other country in the world. —( Hear, hear.) The comparison of the diet and hours of labour of the working classes in different coun tries, was also very much in favour of England.—( Hear.) It seemed to him to be proved by all the evidence on the subject, that the distress of the manufacturing classes was not to be attributed to the Corn-laws. The Noble Lord, after making a few further observations that were not heard in the gallery, sat down amid cries of .` Divide, divide." Mr. WA RBURTON would vote for going into Com mittee, and in Committee he would vote, rather than have no change at all, for a moderate fixed duty, believing as Mr. Huskisson said three weeks before his death, at the residence of a Noble Lord, a member of the other House, that that would soon be followed by the total repeal.— ( Loud cries of " Hear, hear," from the Opposition.) The Noble Lord who had just spoken had said that no writer upon the currency had ever said that the currency was affected solely and exclusively by a demand for corn. No one that he (Mr. Warburton) was aware of had ever contended that a sudden demand for corn was the only circumstance that could affect the state of the currency. The Hon. Gentleman quoted a passage from Mr. Jones Loyd's pamphlet, in order to show that the Corn-laws was the real circumstance which affected the currency in 1839. They did not say that it was the only cause, but it was a very striking one. The Right Hon. Baronet, at a former period, was not insensible to the effect of the Corn-laws upon the currency. I n 1827, w h en com b at i ng the raising of the price to 80s. he contended that the change would have a prejudicial effect upon the currency, and nothing would be so likely to cause a run ;upon the Bank as to change the standard. Although the circumstances were not now the same, they were only different in degree—the present scale of duties acted, when the price was high, as a prohibition, as much as when it was 80s., therefore, mutatis mutandis, the arguments used in 1827 were of the same force now. One cause of the derangement of the currency was the large advances made to the American merchants, for which no return could be made. Now was not the cause of those advances the l ow rate of profit obtained by agricultural pursuits, in consequence of so much poor land being put into cultivation ? The present laws did not give unifor mity to the prices ; on the contrary, he thought they were the best devised scheme for producing fluctuations.— (Loud cries of " Divide, divide.") A great deal had been said respecting the situation of the labourer under a rise of prices in the Corn-market. Upon that head he begged the attention of the House to a passage from the book of Sir H. Monteath on the Poor-laws, to the effect that with high prices the wages of labour must be depressed, unless the means of purchasing were proportionably in creased. It used to be insisted on by the opposite side, that the Corn-laws should be kept up to main tain the predominance of the landed interests, and as a means of keeping up their political influence. Whv had not that argument been used now ? He (Mr. War:. burton) believed it was because Gentlemen opposite knew well that the people required more political power, and • that such argument would not be acceptable to them. He had before expressed his opinion that the Corn-laws would never be repealed until the middle classes cordially co-operated pith the working classes. He retained that opinion still, and was convinced that the object never would be attained till the middle classes made concessions to the working classes, and till the working classes had made some abatement of their demands in regard to the Parliamentary franchise. -His advice to them would be, that they should act upon the principle of give and take, and then he believed success would crown their exertions. Mr. HANDLEY said, with regard to the manner in which this debate had been disposed of on the last occa sion, he believed that every one in the House knew that the Hon. Member for Bridport had completely outwitted himself—( Laughter)---although with great tact he bad afterwards claimed credit for it as a triumph.—( Hear, hear, and laughter.) He was willing to rest his support of the Corn-laws upon the speech of the Right Hon. Baronet the Member for Tam worth, which was unanswered and unanswerable—( Hear, bear)--and had only been ap proached by the Hon. Member for Wolverhampton with misrepresentation.—( Hear, bear.) The lion. Mem ber for Wolverhampton's speech on this occasion had been marked by a tone far less commendable than on former occasions.—( Hear, hear.) It was unjust in the lion. Member to speak of the supporters of the Corn-laws, as though they were indifferent to the sufferings of the people. But it could not be doubted that the rate of wages depended not upon the price of food, but upon the demand for labour, and hence the labouring population were better eif when food was high than when it was low. In Lincolnshire the wages were from 103. to I3s. 6d. a! week, when the labourer had to spend 3s. in bread, and his 7s. for other articles. When wages wore 13s. 6d. a week the labourer h a d t o spen d s s. in bread, and had Ss. 6d. for other articles, so that he was half-a-crown a week better off with high prices than low prices. He could not deny that great distress existed in the manu facturing districts, but this was the first time their oppo nents had pressed into their service the arguments of the home market.—( Hear, hear; Divide, divide.) They had oftimes had it pressed upon them, but had now only dis covered it on a sudden. It had been referred to, to show that increased exports were a proof of diminished home consumption, but, in his opinion, the argument had altogether failed. In the Report of the Chamber of Com merce, he found that the distress and misery which was stated to exist was not attributed to the Corn-laws, but to the mismanagement of the Bank of England. It had been said the Irish Registration Bill of the Noble Lord, although it bore that title on its back, was, never theless, a Bill for the disfranchisement of Ireland, and so he believed this motion, which professed to be an inquiry into the operation of the Corn-laws, was nothing less them a motion for their total repeal, and he therefore trusted the House would vote against it.—(llear, hear.) Mr. M. PHILLIPS rose amid loud cries for a division, that rendered him for some time inaudible in the gallery. We understood him to be requesting the indulgence of the House to one not in the habit of frequently troubling them. On a former occasion Le had been accused of pro phesying, but he thought the statements which had been made that evening were more prophetic than anything he had ever uttered.—( Hear, bear, "Divide, divide.") Ile had been present at a meeting of upwards of 5,000 ope ratives at Manchester-_a meeting such as few lion. Mere bore had perhaps had it in their power to attend, and which he would not attempt to describe, since his Hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, with all his power of language, had been able to convey but a faint idea of it. The feeling which pervaded that meeting was not confined to the, operatives, but he believed was now spreading among the agricultural districts. It had so happened that two Hon. Members for Lincoln had spoken in the course of the debate, and though they the subject was drawn to the dregs, they had nevertheless delivered speeches of some length.—( Cries of " Divide, divide," and confusion.) It was his misfortune during the debate of last year to have immediately preceded his Hon. Friend who had just sat down, and on that oceaion his Hon. Friend had made a statement to which he must allude ; he had said that the conduct of sonic of the mill-o` here in Manchester was inexcusable ; that t4ey had shut up their mills and began to work short time, merely for the purpose of inducing a state of distr ess among t h e operatives to get up a feeling against the Corn-laws. Now, of that state ment he utterly denied th e correctness.__( Loud cr i es o f " Divide, divide," and great confusion.) When capital wes absorbed and profits gone, the millowners were ob liged to work short time. Ile did not mean to say the millowners possess e d g reater sympathy for the distress of others than any other class of her Majesty's subjects, but he claimed, at least, an equal degree of it for them.— ( Divide, divide, mihgled with loud cries of " Bar ! bar !") When it was impossible to manufacture at a profit, the manufacturer had to calculate whether it was better that his machinery should stand still, and be consequently greatly depreciated in value, or whether he should go on manufacturing at a loss.--( Loud cries of " divide.") There was within three miles of his own resi dence a mill belonging to a relation of the Ri g ht lion. Baronet th e M ember for Tamwortb, a gentleman whose kindness of disposition to all those who were employed by biro NNas well known—that eentleman had been compelled towards the conclusion of last year to have recourse to working short time in the manner which had been so I severely ai.imadver ted upon by his lion. Friend.—( Cries of " Divide, divide," " Chair, chair," " Order, order," and great confusion, which lasted several minutes.) Manu facturers found it better even at a loss, to work their mills, for two or three hours a day, to keep them in order. Hon, Members might rest assured that however great they might suppose the profits of the manufacturers. When their capital was absorbed it was im possible they could do otherwise than dismiss those employed by them; but they did so with great reluctance, .EVENING EDITI and he knew' that among his own constituents there had been many an aching heart, occasions d by 614 cause, since this subject had last occupied the attention of - the House. --(Loud cries of " Divide, divide.") Referouee had been made to the Chamber of Commerce in Manchester ; but during the present Session he had presented a petition from that body on the subject i of the currency, in which they state it as their opinion that the recent derangements in the currency were attributable to the Corn-laws. He agreed with his Hon. Friend the Member for Bridpett, that the present system did not secure to us a proper supply in proportion to the demand. In support cf this opinion he would allude to a case, which he hoped was at that moment engaging the attention of her Majesmes Go vernmsat. In Naples in 1839, in consequence of the de mand for corn in this country, large refits were remised upon the importation of it. In consequence English merchants bought large quantities in the Neapolitan markets, but as the supply in that country was only limited, it raised the price there very considerably, and the conse quence was the King of Naples prohibited the exportation of any corn from his dominions; thus inflicting a double loss on the merchants, first, of the profits which they ant;- ell:sate:l realizing on its importation into this countre ; and next, as this quantity was suddenly thrown upon the Nea politan marker, a great fall immediately took place, and an actual loss to the :peculators was the consequence. This showed that our Corn-laws rendered us a nu:sauce in our dealings with other countries. lie hoped some means might be devised to regulate the importation, so as to produce greater regularity of 'imply and greater steadi ness of price. These laws had not even antiquity to re commet, d them ; they wore introduced in 1815, and in 1828 thcv were ebliged to be agein patched up.—(Loud cries of " Divide, divide," and considerable interruption, which occasioned the Honourable Member to proms for some tisane.' Attempts had been made to make the people believe that the Poor-law Bill had been introduced for the purpose of grinding the poor and making them live an a coarse sort of food. He denied that imputation, and always ern braced every occasion of doing se ; he had given his assista ace to the passing that law, and he solemnly de clared tha t such an idea had never entered his mind. But when Hon. Members sew that the operation of the Corn -!awe was to compel the working classes to Eve upon a poorer description of food, he though t that by support ing those laws they took upon themselves the responsi bility which it had been insidiously attempted to throw upon the supporters of the Poor-laws, Ne dreaded that general wa at of employment, which, he feared, must I.e the consegs tence of the present syreem- Allnufacturno who had 1 ost their capital would have no resource left but to th; 'CM their workmen out of employ. This would pres s still more severely on those who remained still in cxi: stence, and incapacitate them atilt more for competition with the foreign markets, and eventually the maintenance, of the persons thus thrown out of employ ment must necessarily become a national charge. He would not eletain the House any longer.--(leenical chemist from the Op position benches.) There were other pint' to which he should have wished to have alluded, but he should declir e doing so after the former discesssions which had taken Pace on the subject, and he wottld sit dovsn by expressisme his readiness to support the 'motion of the Hon. Member for Wolverhampton. Lord .1. RUSSELL—Sir, I can assure the House that I am extremely unwilling to address them en a subject already so much discussed as the present, not orsly in this but preceding Sessions.—(Hear, hear.) But still there are reasons, .both as respects the Government, which had been alluded to to-night, and as respects the motion it. self, which m ikes it necessary I should address a few Words to the I louse. An Hon. Gentleman who spoke to night, has cot aplained that the Governmut did net bring forward a mot - fon of their own on the present subject ; but I think that the conduct of the Government on nationaltn thatheoccaief occa sion has boon n . gu l ate d b y a d ue regard to interests as regt a r d e d th e su bj ect. I t i s my o on an occasion of any kind there was a general disposie tien to have at , alteration of law, that if ie is the general wish to have a question settled by some measure of the Legislature, eel ile there is a diversity of op inion as to the measure to be a dopted, it is my opinion that- in such a case the Government may usefully step forward, and frame such a measure: as it may deem most conducive to the ne. tional interest s. and propose that measure for the adoption of Parliament e thereby assuring to it a greater support than any individual measure could mset with. But such is not the can e with regard to tb.e Corn-laws. I con ceive that at all events a considerable majority of the House , composed of persons iitting on both sides of it, is of opinion that there should be no alteration 1Q .the exe isting system of Corn-laws. Now, Sir, if that be the ease s the introduction of a measure, on the part of the Govern ment, could only add to the general feelings, and to the general pr ejudiecs which influenced the opinions and vote,. of Memb ,ere on the subject—to lead to party strife and party cot itentions, would be not to promote, but t o re t ar d the m er .sure.—( Hear, hear.) In reviewing the coatstt not onle • of the debate to-night, but of the debates of for mer nil ;hts, I am happy to And that me have not interposed any ol estacle, but that, so far as I have gathered from the opinions of those who sit on the other side of the House, though they are not prep sred to enter into an immediate consideration of the ques don, they by no means pledge themselves to stand by the I present law as one which ought not, under any circuit)_ stein cos, to be altered. I allude to that determination—if that be the determination—because I think that with re spe el; to the Corn-laws, and those laws generally which af fect: 'the trade of the country, time and circumstances arc very often most important elements in the consideration of therm. Now, with regard to the question itself, I will give my me Me for the motion of the Honourable Member for Wolverhampton, conceiving as I do, that the House ought to go into Committee on the subject of the Corn-laws, and that those laws require alteration. But at the same time I must express my opinion that, both the evils which follow from them have bee n exaggerated, and that the remedy which the Hon. Mt ember proposes is not the remedy which I should have pr, sposed to adopt. I think, Sir, with regard to the evils wl eels arc attributed to the present Corn-laws, that thole evils are of a nature which it cannot be denied would exist with an alteration of those laws, but that they arc great! ,- agg-rsavated by them. Now, with regard to the deficiouci,:e of harvests, and the recourse to foreign trade, no oLe can deny that, owing to the fluctuations of the sane ens, you must constantly require importations of cort ~ and that sudden changes of prices mast eesuo os ring to miscalculations es to the amount of the i,harrest, at el other circumstances th a t may not h ave been calculated oa, and which affect this very important trade. No doubt t here fluctuations will take place after an alteektion in the ' corn-laws, Ilse the effect of the present law is to aggra • rate those evil by adding to the quantit y o f exports, and by creating a very great difference with respect to tine duty which the merchant has to pay, because by has to contentd not only with the change of p r i ce, but with, the change of duty, which varies very M y amounts, so that in addition to the loss -. 61 se. or Gs.i.n point of price, he has to contend with an increase of 10i., 125., or 14s. i n duty. By that means, when he introduces his commodity into the mar ket, ho feels himself unable to calculate 4 fair profit, and, therei;ore, the trade being naturally uncertain, the Corn laws addi to that uncertainty.—( Hear, hear.) Then, again, with respect to the derangements of the currency, there can he no doubt that in every deficient harvest you must make up for that deficiency by sending bullion abroad, and thus deranging the currency.—( Hear, hear.) The Noble Lord the Member for Liverpool, in stat ing that argument, relieved the Coin laws of the blame of adding to that evil, but I think the Noble Lord was quite mis taken in his assumptions on that point. }l,,r says that if under th e p resent system you requ i re three millions of quarters, you will have to pay for these; but if -you change feat system, and require six millions of quarters, you will have to pay for these also. But the Noble Lord should remember that the case wou ld b e ent i re l y a l tere d if trade were placed on a different footing. Other countries would 'tse in the habit of receiving your commodities, end of raising .corn for your use in proportion. Trade weeel not thus cause the same derangement in the currency es a tn ,de which an Hon. Member has justly described as one which proceeds by fits ands tarts, and which requires that yc u should derive an amount of corn you ere not prepare d for from other countries, from which you hese exclude d your own manufacture:;. I think, therefore, Sir, that, with respect to the derangements of the cur rency, the present Corn-laws add to that evil. I own, in Joe king at the various parties which are affected by thoem lames, I can hardly see any who arc permanently bene fit ed by them, and that most persons are very great 'leers in consequence. With respect to the capitalist, is ho manufactures—with respect to the inerchame, who is dealing with other countries, I need not say that they tare greatly injured by the laws in question. With re epect to the labourer or the artisan, I conceive they are I;keeise lessors ny these laws. It is said that wages wou.'d be' entainisbed by an alteration of the law, and tiro flon, Ittember for Lancashire seerrs to think that that is a Tea s. en why the labouring classes ; should feel no ittberest in the s abject. Now I very much. -doubt whether even the nomi eal wages would be dimi.mished by the alteration, but if nominal wages were dimini s h e d there would' be no diminution of the real wages of labour • for if there was a gerotmal demand for the manu factures of this country, ?he demand for labour w ou ld increase in Proportion, and the- labourer would benefit ac cordingly. With respect to th a farmer, 1 conceive that he is a loser as well as the manse 'ecturer, inasmuch as those laws make hi s trade to partak, 1 of the character of a monopoly, Without being able to regulate the pro duc e ; while in the course o. ' a year of an abun der.t harvest b e finds himscji t unable to dispose of hmeproduce at any profit--wfille he finds the market glutted with corn. We have co nsequentles found the farmers stating to this House their s tistress, and asking us to inquire i n t o t h e means o f re li ev i ng at , t h ey bei ng all t ' .:...1 time protected by those laws, which ;you say insure they prosperity. The only class which lel ink has even apie._ rently benefited by the present laws as that of those A i:o. receive rent. But I own I think that- they arc in reality as little benefited by the present system: .as any other elto!s. My belief is that what conduces to the g encrel prosper!ty of the country—what conduces to the general increeso of our trade—what conduces to the inereesse of our manufae tures and internal wealth, also contribumes most lle essent'ls y to the prosperity and wealth of the la ndowner s —(ll ear, hear) —they having the first and g reat to lvantage in basi n : a market close at hand, and i n h ty i ng to compet e with foreigners, with every circumstant a in their favour. Therefore the landowne rs wou ld not be '. ejured by an alto ration of the law, but b ene fi ted.—( Hear, hear.) Now r to the remedies pr o p ose d . The Hon. Memb er for Wol . ! verhampton , was for total repea l . Now the Right Hon . Member for famworth had j u stly sa id t h at on that prop; • sewn all othe r p rotect i ve duties must nio be con si d ere d, or else parties might come and represmit that they had never ask e d f ur t h e repeal of the Corn-lames, anal that to themh euitrogteoeliig ting duti es were b enef i cial.—(Hear, hear. ) to the length to which the Noble Viscount at . the he a d o f the G o vernment bad done in des c,rilente the t o t a l repea l propos i t i on, be (Lord John flannel!) svas decidedly opposed to that proposition. Tire present duties were founded on the system of Mr, Huskisson ploteetibn for prohibition. A sudden chotige would. by throwing away that protection have the effect of giving great disturbance to the most important interests in the country.-4 Hear, hear. ) What he should advise would be, a moderate, fixed dut y THE SUN, LONDON. WEDNESDAY, MAY 27, 1840 eu al I mo I ';' I