The Sun.
London, England, 1839-03-13 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, WEDNESDAY, MARCH 13, 1889.

and that alone was the cause of the insubordination that I landed interest were to have protection at all, let them
had been adverted to. The Hon. Mover had stated as I have it in reality. The farmers and landlords were dc-
true that the higher food was, the higher also were rants. , cidedly in favour cf the present Corn-laws—they objected
He had stated that it was surprising to him how any one 1 to a fixed duty because it would never be high enough to
could advocate the Corn-laws, when it was notorious that ' protect them, or the moment it became so there would be
since they had been in existence the farmer had been in a cry raised for its immediate repeal. —( Cheers. ) There-
distress. The Corn-laws, in his view, were never fore he and farmers generally were in favour of a gra-
expected to fix the price of corn; all that the Corn- cleated scale of duty. If the House meant to protect the
laws were expected to do was to prevent foreign agriculturists, then they could not protect the public by a
produce from coming in collision with the produce fixed duty; and the moment that the publicwere protected—
of this country. It was unjust to say that the Corn-laws unless it were by a graduated scale--a scale rising when
increased the price of produce—the cause of that increase prices fell, and tailing when prices rose—the agriculturist
was the change in the value of money. Then with regard must be left entirely without protection. lie perfectly
to the state of the farmer when corn was free, beginning agreed with the Hon. mover, that scarcity was no advare
in 1773 and ending in 1793, the Hon. Mover had stated tage whatever to the corn grower.—( Cheers. ) If there
that the farmers were never in so flourishing a condition as was a deficiency during one, tee), or three years, it was
at that period. Now what was the real fact? Why if impossible that the grower could be compensated, unless
ever there were two periods when the farmers were there was a rise of prices. It was stated that there was a
distressed it was during the American war and at the considerable deficiency in the years 1829-30 and 1831.
conclusion of the late war. It was easy to argue other The average price which, for ten years before, had been
wise, but the fact was not so. The Hon. Mover had al- in France 405., rose in those years to an average of 515.,
luded to the speech of the Hon. Baronet the Member for a proof that in France the deficiency was as great as in
Pembroke, and had designated it as one of the this country. It was said that this fluctuating scale gave
most intellectual that had been made on the subject. rise to great fluctuations in the price of grain. Now he
lie (Mr. Cayley) trusted that they would be favoured contended that no one could ever pretend to fix the
with a similar speech on the present occasion from the price of grain.—( Cheers.) The principle of the present
Right Hon. Baronet. The Hon. Mover had stated that scale was to keep the prices of grain as nearly equal as
in the course of that speech the Hon. Baronet had relied possible.—( Hear.) But was there no fluctuaiion in the
on the local rates. He believed that a careful perusal prices of other articles besides grain? He held in his
of that speech would show the contrary to have been the hand a document showing the fluctuation in the prices of
case. Now he ( Mr. Cayley) put his defence for the pro- various articles from 1820 to 1837. The fluctuations in
tection of the agricultural interest—first, upon the local wheat during that period amounted to 113 per cent.,
taxes; 2dly, upon the general taxation ; 3dly, upon the cochineal 231 per cent., coffee 90 per cent., cotton 90 per
employment of agricultural produce towards large masses cent., sheeps' wool 300 per cent., currants 209 per cent.,
of the people—to the custom which the large masses indigo 165 per cent., sugar 95 per cent., tea 65 per cent.,
would afford to the artisans and tradesmen in villages ; tobacco 207 per cent.—( Hear, hear.) Besides all these
and, last of all, the property which was invested in arguments he would contend that there ought to
the soil.—( Hear, hear.) The question of property be a protection on the production of wheat, so that we
seemed. to him to have been lightly entertained, he knew might not be disappointed of a supply in consequence of a
not upon what ground, because estimating the property in general blight, which might exist throughout the north of
the soil at 50,000,0001., that was too large a sum to be Europe. A very eminent writer had stated that between
lightly dealt with. The Hon. Member for Wolverhamp- the 45th and 50th degree of latitude we were liable to the
ton had made some allusion to tithes, and had stated that same winds and droughts, so that we might at any time
they were not to be taken into consideration because the be deprived of that of which it was a matter of prudence
landlord had invested his capital, keowing that the and security to insure, if possible, a sufficient supply. If
tithes existed. Now if that argument was good, might it we were obliged to depend upon foreign countries, might it
not with equal truth be asserted that the manufacturers had not happen, as it had this year in Russia, Prussia, and
laid out their capital knowing that the Corn-laws existed ? France, where there had been a very deficient supply ?
The present motion, although it professed only to have the This country had always prohibited the exportation of corn
object of obtaining a Committee, was, in truth, for the when it rose to a certain price, but that prohibition was
purpose of enforcing a repeal of the laws altogether. not for the protection of the corn-growers but of the pub-
The Honourable Mover might attempt to show that such lic.—( Hear, hear, hear.) Whenever the time came—he
was not its object, but he would take upon himself to assert trusted that it never would—but should England
that repeal, and nothing else, was the object in view. ever be dependent on a foreign nation—if there
Not only the speeches in that House, but elsewhere, went should ever be a great deficiency in England,
to that. Now he (Mr. Cayley 1 would assert, that if the then would the King of Prussia and the Emperor
present Corn-laws were repealed, property would be de- of Russia follow the example set by Frederic of
I preciated upwards of a fourth. With regard to the present Prussia—impose a heavy tax or prohibition upon the ex-
I question, he had had intimation from both sides of the portation of corn, so as to give a decided protection to
House of an indisposition to receive his amendment.— the manufactures of his own country. —( Hear, hear.)
( Hear, hear.) When he said that parties were indisposed The question of property was a material one, although it
to the amendment, he alluded to both sides of the House, seemed to have been but little entertained. His Hon
who all agreed that the agricultural interests of the country Friend, the Member for the West Riding of Yorkshire, said,
demanded some protection. Now, the course he intended " You protect the landowner—why the landowner is
to adopt on the present subject was this: he should move the most secure of any man in the country in his pro-
that the present motion should be met with a direct negative, perty." What security had he, when they were
and at the same time he wished, it could be done—for he about to take from him the very basis of the value of
still held himself to the first resolution—if it could be done his property ? The landowner had embarked 1,500/
he should wish to take the discussion on the present ques- capital in the soil, and had been contented to receive
tion, and take a substantive decision upon the resolution, upon the faith of the absolute security to which his Hon.
immediately after the present motion had been decided, friend had alluded, two and-a.half and three per cent for
either in the negative or the affirmative. Having stated his money; while other parties, who had not the real and
that in justice to himself, he felt bound to say that when be substantial security of law, but only a paper one, or chose
proposed to negative the motion he did so not from any in• to venture their money upon , trade risks, and so to ven-
difference as to the condition of the manufacturer, or from tore their property for great risks, with the expecta-
any hostility to any part of that body. For himself he tion of deriving a higher profit in consequence, these
respected them for the skill which they had displayed, and parties rho had been receiving in higher profits
no one felt more strongly than be did the real identity of the risks they run—( Hear, bear)—were to have
interest that existed between the agriculturist and protection when they bad been receiving 20,
the manufacturer. He meant those parties who were 30, or 40 per cent., while the landowners, who had re-
willing to deal with :one another. The agriculturist and ceived only 2i or three per cent., were to be curtailed of that
the manufacturer were as identified with each other as the very absolute security on which alone he consented to receive
buyer and the seller. The farmer bought from the artizan, that small sum. Although he stated at the outset that the
and the artizan from the farmer. There was an identity of Hon. mover had made this much more a ease of the farmer
interest, but if the artisan or tradesman of a village could and the labourer seeking for the repeal of the Corn-laws, yet
afford to go to other places to buy corn and neglect the upon this question did he wish the House to believe that he in-
farmer,tended it to have reference to the state of our foreign manufac-
fore then the identity of interest ceased to exist. There-
Manchester and Liverpool, as long as they dealt with tfi7rreeisc; Nmoawnu,fawchtuarteswwas cotnhtaetndoetdherfocrouwnitthrie respect to our
this country for corn, were identified with it, but the mo. us so'hard in the race of ams'anufacture that Russias,wLreitrzerla'n,,
moot they went across the Water and ceased to employ the Prussia, Saxony, Belgium, and France, were competing very
English labourer, the English farmer, and the English nearly with us; and he found in a speech made by Mr. Smith,
landlord, then the identity of interest ceased. By those who the President of the Chamber of Commerce at Manchester, cer-
held the opinions of the Hon. Mover, an attempt had been tain statements with regard to the falling off of British manufac-
made—a kind of delusive opinion had been put forth, that tures in particular parts of the Continent. He would ask
the land of England was poor and not well cultivated, and when the Continent began to manufacture? Every
that it was not so good as land in other countries. Now one knew th.hialltinuait was at the time of the passing
what had Mr. Jacob said in his tract on the corn trade? of the Milan and Berlin Decrees, and when once they began
Manchester,tl'ey w.eie
n n
Why, he stated that the average returns of barley and oats thaesmthuep again.
exMor.rtßerarotfon,,aronf
in other countries was as four to one, while in Britain it from this counwtryn, sntil
tated thayt was
1812 greatesthe was in') Russia —that
was eight to one; that, therefore, was an answer to the he had cotton yarn at Moscow and Petersburg—that in conse-
opinions entertained by Hon. Members, that the land of quence of the retreat of the French he was obliged to carry off
England was bad. He spoke from confident authority when his cotton yarn in 700 waggons from Petersburg, and 1,500
he stated that the land of this country was superior to that from Moscow. What did that prove? Why, that it had been
of other parts of the world; and although great progress taken there to be used in manufactures in Russia. Did the
had been made in the manufactures and commerce of the persons who exported the yarn from this country imagine that
country—although great progress had been made in the it was not to be used abroad—that they were to have the menu-
building of ships, the constructing of railroads and canals, facture of the yarn, and the export to foreign countries, and the
and other branches of industry—although this country weaving of it here as well ? It was impossible to suppose that.
Now, in answer to the arguments that the Corn-laws had
had rendered herself eminent in works of that
Produced this great competitionour manufactures, of he con
kind, she was more eminent for the advance tended it was the export of yarn that hadproduceditinflnitely-
she had made in agricniture. He did not say more. A friend of his, who lived in the neighbourhood of Man-
that in every respect she was superior to other countries, chester 20 or 30 years ago, took the liberty of telling the
because it was well known that Holland was more expe- exporters of yarn, " You may rely upon it, by the system of
teemed in draining, and Belgium in horticulture. In exporting yarn, you will allow the foreigner to get between you
some things, too, Italy and Switzerland surpassed this and the market, and deprive you of your trade." What was
their answer? It will last our day." And it lasted their day.
country ; but in the feeding of cattle and all operations of
the dairy, England stood pre-eminent.—(Hear, bear.) Those who had listened to no remonstrance then were the
He was glad to hear that Hon. Members concurred with e yarn exported in 1815 was 141834,,0001b5. ; 1824,
parties who were now seeking the repeal of the Corn-laws.
h,OOO
him in the opinion he had expressed relative to England ;
2 6000,0001b5. ; 1329, 60,000
and he would ask how it could be said, with all the past 1837, 100,000,0001b5. ; 1838,0001b5. ; 51000,0001b5. ;
115,000,0001b5. It was sent
resources this country had, with the great efforts she had
made in argriculture, that her land was poor ?—( Hear. ) to Russia, certain parts in the Baltic, Germany, Belgium, Hol-
land, France, Spain, Portugal, the ports of the Mediterranean,
there were several local taxes that bore heavily on the agri- North and South America ; and in 1834 there were
culturists, and there could be no doubt but that the malt sent to India and China, 5,000,0001b5. It was ab-
tax was a tax on the cultivation of the land, because it pre- surd to say the Corn-laws had been the cause of foreign
vented the consumption of the article produced. The manufactures flourishing. As the Right Hon. Baronet,
mistake that a great many fell into was, that they dealt with the Member for Tamworth, had stated—when peace came
the labouring classes as consumers only, whereas the la- and left foreigners to pursue their peaceful avocation, it was not
bouring classes were ten times more deeply interested in what likely they would deprive themselves of their manufactures, and
they produced than in what they consumed. Tithes also bore
it
us.—(Hear, hear.) One thing which had conduced verywas undobtedly most likely that they should seek to compete
heavily on the cultivation of land in this country, while there with
much to the manufactures on the Continent, was the great fall
was no such burtben on the cultivation of land in foreign which had taken place in theprice of raw cotton. Now, what
countries,and when gentlemen talked about the legacy duty, was the price of cotton yarn, 0 hanks to the lb. ? In—
they forgot to take into consideration the tax that was paid 1786 the price was ... 3Bs. Od.
on the transfer of land.—( Hear, hear.) Then, as to local 1790 .
taxes. He would appeal to the evidence of a most intelli- 1796
gent witness (Evan Davey), who was called before the 1809
Agricultural Committee of 1836, who spoke from his own 1806
books, and from his father's books, and which showed the When the raw material fell in price, it gave the foreign manu-
condition of the former with respect to local rates in 1834 him
facturtoer the facilities—thatgreat‘evritt.usand
u with
manufactures
wageitenatled
ought
t obe stated
and in 1790—before the war. He came, then, to the consi-
deration of the next ground on which he rested his defence that the exports of woollen woollenantllinen yarn had
not
t increased compete
exactly in the same proportion cs cotton yarn.
of protection to the agricultural interests, namely, its comps- But if we repealed the Corn-laws, were Honourable Members
retire magnitude. He did not wish to state this inviduously, certain that it would have the desired effect of inducing foreign
but other people had stated this was amere landowner's ques- manufacturers te give up their manufactures, and to send their
tion. The Hon. Member had stated that evening this was corn and take our manufactures in exchange ?—( Hear, hear.)
a mere landowner's question ; he wished to show it was The argument was put forth that the Prussian Corn-laws sane-
not. It had been stated elsewhere that the landowners tioned this proceeding, and were for carrying it out. That if
were a monopolising body—that they consisted of about we would take their corn, they would endeavour to repress
30,000 persons, and that all this taxation and all this their manufactures ; but it was quite certain that there was a
money was taken out of the pockets of the people to sup. determination, on the part of foreign potentates, to manufac-
port 30,000 landholders. He begged to state that this ture for themselves. This might be seen in the protection
Y t whichlen iloktflimeyanafferded manufacturers on every occasion—take the
was a mistake in the outset. By the property-tax return
Belgiumft for instance. He being anxious to introduce
it was shown that the landowners were very nearl
manufacture Belgium,utzisntcoounta oaffteenretdoretenof our largest
600,000.—( Hear, hear.) He would show that it was not manufacturesu
a landowner's question, but a tenant's question, a labourer's would set himself up therye. &-14 single factin showed
question, and a tradesman's question.—( Hear.) He had the determination there was on the Continent to encourage
stated elsewhere, that according to the census of 1831 the manufacturers, and that no act of ours would detain or retard
population of England, Scotland, Ireland and Wales con- them. What had happened in Russia? Our artizans had gone
sisted of Agricultural Occupiers
Agricultural Labourers 4,800,000 competition by foreign manufacturers with us in point of profit,
Money Interest
powers ; and he might mention one fact, that an Englishman,
named Wilson, had received the rank of Major-General, for
superintending a manufactory at Bruges. The Hon. Member
then alluded to the statement made by Mr. Rawson relative to
Saxon hosiery, and stated that he had received letters from the
Continent, the details of which totally contradicted the whole
of Mr. Rawson's statement--(Hear, hear)—and showed that
a year or two ago Saxon stockings were patronized,
but they had been found so bad that they were obliged to
return to the English manufacturers. But after all the question of
the Corn-laws, was a question which affected wages. The
Hon. Member here went into a variety of details which were
' perfectly unintelligible in the gallery—we undorstood him
au of
the
rative. fifteen
sthoillsinaygs tahitituathrteer,prtaTeasticaalhoeufftecsitx,
peannetel
aths.,yeetkax
Did any man contend that a reduction of sixpence
per week would enable the English manufacturer to com-
pete with the foreign manufacturer.—(llcar, hear.) Now
what were the wages of the foreign manufacturers, as compared
with those of this country. The wages here averaged ten or
twelve shillings a week, but in France the wages in the
cotton manufactories were ss. Bd. a week, in Switzerland,
4'. lid., in Austria, 45., in Saxony, 3s. 6d., and on the Rhine,
2s. 6d.—the average being 4s. a week.—(Cries of Hear,
hear.) Now this was the statement of Mr. Greg.
Unless we were to recede from the advances we had made,
having given our labourers wheaten bread when they had been
used to rye and barley—unless we desired to bring them back
to the labourers' state two years ago—he defied the advocates of
this measure to argue this as a labourer's question.— (Hear,
hear.) He placed yery little confidence in columnso_f
_figures,
for they had often deceived that House; but it was well known
tant;lefothree dthise-
ttastswohfenthteheagdrisictruelstsuroafl the
population
was weaversbroagh
House, they were always referred to the increase in the ex-
ports. In iB2O, in the midst of the agricultural distress that
prevailed, Mr. Huskisson said it was sense consolation that the
of the menu-
eeeriltayr,a,tion was re-
peated.:,gfieanxccaptriouenrrastistsne
ihadninoiunlrcsr3a exportss increased.
r nlpnopurl
oreotfOt
ofTt hhteohmes aspomrnoe
prosperity
Look at the
iotei Thomsonnlarpe.dp.ePian.retdhethoautt
chrye
16 millions.. ; in
then refe'rred were the very parties who now
interests."
else: tss.. "B
y tThheeCpuasrttoi ems sto
declared value of their exports in 1820
1832 it was 20 millions ; and in 1836 it was 24 millions. In
for home*
1838 the total quantity of cotton yarn entered
it,con-
sumption was 378 millions of lbs., and in 1839 was 463 mil-
lions of lbs., being an increase of nearly 100 millions of lbs., in
the course of one year. It appeared that the quantity of cotton
wool entered for home consumption in ISOI was 54 millions of
lbs., and in 1814 the quantity was 53 millions of showing
Returnswonlw a s
that the consumption was precisely the same at the e end as at
the beginning of the war, and he believed that during that pe-
riod the cotton manufacturers enjoyed very great prosperity.
If the increase of trade was any proof of prosperity it would
pear that the number of power-looms in 820 was 14,00 Q ; lq
1830 it was 55,000 ; and in 1833 it was 100,000 being an
Igoin-
crease of fell 700 pet cent. since - - The Noble Lord '
+I, -
Member for North Lancashire had alluded to t 4e increase pf f4e-
tory mills in 1834-6 ; but one of the Duce -law Cnilireissioeersho
given them more precise information, and had stated that iq July
14,33 there was 3,743,000 e being laid gut in mills and factories in
Lancashire and its vicinity. Did not that account for the reduction
which had taken place in the profits of the manufacturers ? It
was evidently as much the result of home as of foreign mime_
tition. In fact a manufacturer had told him tttat they
peted
with gne another as ranch at home as the -fOreigner"clia
}-11411 ttiein :thread. • • ft appeared, Iraq returns which he held in
his land; that of 26' millieni of cotton goods mehefeettiree
millions had been ertperted; ot,e4 Y4hie of 17(4)161
gods Matlefaciered, 4' TpilliOrn 110 sea eiportea ni 14 giit2
ions of yarn and hosiery manufactured, 3 milliups and a half had
been exported; of iron and hardware there had been 88 mil-
lions produced, and 2,800,0001. exported; of brass and
' •nr.f., • .
copper there nau ueen Pr°"ueee, anti 961,000/.
sent abroad. If that was the state of their foreign
and home consumption it would be seen at once how

Making altogether 6,900,000
Manufacturers

Millers, Bakers, and Butchers 900,000
Builders 600,000
Shopkeepers and others

Making in all 6,400,000
tt;
‘hui
rer
a.r
1,
:‘wpi aoasrpseuhnl
aatlti
population
nl yvosahfl
uut
athboi
this
out
ct
oodufi
digest
daesr
statedast._i o6ntth.hsa ft
While Ireland, which was an agricultural country altoge-
to
w
loeft
hftoehueang,dvrili it,co ul
e.
The number of the cotton-spinners, who made this outcry,
, had been greatly exaggerated. It appeared that in 1835
there were 1,262 cotton factories, and that there were
220,134 persons employed in them—that there were
about 13,130 wool-factories in England with about
61,800 persons employed in them—that there were
238 silk-factories employing 30,000 persons ; 423 flax-
factorie,,, employing 33,000;persons. The total number of
those four factories was 3,236, with about 355,000 persons
employed in them. He did not wish to under-rate or under-
estimate their importance, but when persons out of that
House talked of 30,000 landowners,under-estimated as that
number was, it should be borne in mind that the millown-
ers were not more than 3,236. In opposing this motion
he wished it to be understood that he had not the slightest
feeling of hostility towards the manufacturing body, and he
did not wish to undervalue that body in any particular,
Allusion had been made in another place the other night
by a Noble and Learned Lord to a letter written by the
Noble Lord, the Secrectary for the Home Department, to
his constituents in the year 1520. He had not that letter by
him now, but so far as his memory served, he agreed in every
sentiment it contained, and he trusted that if the Noble
Lord intended to oppose the motion, that he would do so
upon the ground therein stated. After referring to a speech
' made by Mr. Hume (as we understood) in 1820 upon a
motion made by Mr. Holme Sumner, he said a suggestion
had been thrown out that the growers of corn in this coun-
tryhad nothing to apprehend from the competition of foreign
growers; it was stated that corn would rise in price abroad"
in consequence of the demand created for it here. The
argument used was, that the demand fur corn in this coun-
try from foreign nations would cause a cessation of their
manufacturing industry, but he did not believe that that
would be the case at all events ; he was not content to sa-
crifice the landed interest upon such a speculation. It
would not at all follow that we would send our manufac.
tures abroad in exchange for corn ; they would send their
gold and silver to Poland and other places from
whence they took corn.—( Cheers.) He understood that
cheer—it meant that we must buy our gold and our
silver by our manufactures, but it did not seem that that
would at all follow. The manufacturers of this country
would inundate foreign markets with their goods in order
to purchase that gold and silver—in order to purchase the
corn from Poland and other places. There was another
danger to be apprehended. He was informed that the dis-
tt•ict beyond Odessa extending to upwards of 1,000 miles,
that 4istriet luing between the Danube and the Doe, was
Ling line country; and was &here nt:4 dier.d to by erite;:7
tallied of an inundation ?—( Hear, hear.) Then how was the
corn grown in that country to be brought down ? It
down
,by the farmer in a temporary
was broub... at a shilling a
- growrt
waggon to Odessa. it hroken
bushel ; being carrried to Odessa, the waggon
up and sold. The wheat at Odessa cost 245. a quarter,
and there was nothing to prevent that wheat from being
landed in this country at 355. per quarter. Now, if the

much more English manufacturers depended upon home
consumption than upon the foreign trade, and it behoved
them to be careful how they passed any Act in that
or the other House of Parliament, which would tend to affect
the interest of that large class of consumers. He trusted in
the observations he had made, he had not shown any hostile
feeling to that large portion of the community by whom the
question was I,rought forward, and for whom he entertained the
highest possible respect. If anything he had said had given
the slightest degree of pain, he certainly had not intended it.
To hear the language that had been used by some parties who
advocated a repeal of the Corn-laws, one would imagine that
their island, with all its beauty and industry—with all the
energy and independence of centuries—had sprung into exist-
ence but yesterday. Was not England, in the days of their
Alfreds and their Harolds—in the days of their Cressys and
their Agincourts—in the days of their Elizabeths and Crom-
wells, Williams and Anne, as much as in those latter days of
Wellington and Grey ?—( Hear.) He trusted that that House
would never place the exertions, and industry, and employment
of their countrymen, on so treacherous and uncertain a basis as a
Foreign trade, which was daily diminishing. By whose advice
were they acting in that way ? By the advice of those who
stated that they held no allegiance to the soil of that country.
If so, he hoped that far, far distant would be the day when they
and their schemes would preponderate in that House. Give
him the broad lands of England andlreland on which to rest the
solid and lasting foundation of their national greatness.—
(Cheers and laughter.) He hoped that the people of that
country would remain contented under the fostering influence
of the landed interest, who, by attention to the comforts of the
agricultural classes would diffuse peace and goodwill to all
around them, and who formed the noblest and strongest bul-
wark against external invasion or internal aggression that ever
existed in any age or country. He begged leave to withdraw
his amendment.—( Hear, cheers, and laughter. )
Mr. POULETT THOMSON said he would not say at that
ea, ly period of the night, but at that early stage of the debate
which was not likely to terminate that night—(Hear)—and
he would throw himself upon the indulgence of the House,
assuring them that he would endeavour to compress what he
had to say into as short a space as possible. It seemed to him
difficult to say anything new upon the question which had been
so much disceeeed and debated. He owned, however, that he
did rejoice that the question was at last brought before the
House in the manner in which it had been by his Hon. Friend
the Member for Wolverhampton—that it was to be discussed
upon those grounds alone on which he thought it ought to be
discussed or debated, namely, with reference to the general
interests of the country.—( Hear, hear.) He had never dis-
guised his opinion from these gentlemen who much to their
credit, had began agitation upon the subject.—( Cheers,
and cries of 6' Hear, hear.") He had never disguised
his opinion that they had rather injured their own cause than
promoted it by narrowing so much the ground on which they
placed it. He was not surprised that feeling as they did their
own interests immediately and seriously affected, they should
have so narrowed the ground ; but he had never treated the
subject in that way. He had always wished to see it discussed
on its general bearings, with reference to the general interests
of the country and all the interests likely to be affected by it.
He was glad to think that his Hon. Friend the Member for the
North Riding of Yorkshire was inclined (at least so he had told
the House) to meet the question in a full, fair, and manly man-
ner. He had, it was true, yielding to the advice of others, flinched
from the proposition which he had enunciated to the House.—
(Hear, hear.) Actuated perhaps by very prudential considera-
tions, he had receded from his position, and he had told them
that he intended to meet the motion by a negative, but not to
test it by the resolution which he had laid before the House.
Perhaps he could understand why his Honourable Friend had
withdrawn his first resolution, considering the eifficulty be
would have in finding many Honourable Members to support it;
but with regard to his second resolution, namely, that the
Corn-laws had worked well, and had answered the purpose for
which they were enacted, although that had been equally with-
drawn, yet he presumed that all those Gentlemen who were
inclined to vote for the negative of the other proposition, must
be equally determined to assert that proposition. He
knew of no grounds on which it was possible to
refuse to go into a Committee with a view to change
these laws, unless they were prepared to say that they were the
best that could be made.—(Opposition cheers.) He (Mr. P.
Thomson) was prepared to contend the exact contrary of that
proposition—he was prepared to show that these laws had
worked ill for all the interests in that country, and it was for
that reason, and with a view to change these laws, that he
agreed to the proposition of his Hon. Friend, the Member for
Wolverhampton. Now a word with regard to that proposition.
His Hon. Friend, the Member for the North Riding of York-
shire, stated that the object of his Hon. Friend must undoubt-
edly be, when he got his Committee, to repeal at once the Corn-
laws. He heard nothing from his Hon. Friend to that effect.
(Cries of " Oh!") That weight be the view of his Hon.
Friend, but that was not the view with which he (Mr. Poulett
Thomson), taking a more practical view of the subject, should
go into Committee. If he was asked whether it would not be
beneficial for the interests of the country that there should be
a free trade in corn, he answered at once that it would
be so.—( Hear, hear.) But he knew well there were
considerations—he knew well there were interests—he
knew well that these interests could not be either
lightly dealt with, or, whatever change was proposed, they
should be fairly considered. He, therefore, taking the more
practical view of the subject, would say at once that he did not
go with that view, but to ascertain in what manner they would
be enabled to introduce such a practical change in the system
of Corn-laws as would be beneficial to all parties, and not in-
jurious to any existing interests. That was the view he took
of the subject, and he considered that all those who were not
prepared to support the present Corn-laws as the best that
could be framed were bound to ge into Committee with him.
—( Hear, and cries of " No, no.") There they might propose
their schemes if they pleased.—(Hear, hear, and ironical
cheers.) He asked his Noble Friend who cheered so
loudly if it was possible to propose any alteration in
these laws without going into a Committee of the
whole House ?—( Hear, hear, from Lord Stanley.) There was
no course left for them but to go into a Committee, and there
they would be enabled to discuss the various plans which
might be submitted. He (Mr. Poulett Thomson) was pre-
pared to submit a plan himself, and there let him be dealt with
as to the House might seem best. Having said thus much
with regard to the motion of his Hon. Friend, he must say
there were some points on which he did not agree with him.
He wished he could go along with him, especially with
regard to what he had stated about the price of corn.
And now for the statement of the Honourable Member
for the North Riding of Yorkshire ; and he must say
that one part of his statement struck him with some surprise.
Some attempt had been made by the Hon. Gentleman opposite
to separate the two laws, but both were in practice the same.
The present law- professed to produce the same effects as those
of 1815 or 1822. Its object was to place the trade in corn on
the same footing as that in other commodities. Its object was
to allow importation, not merely when corn was at a print when
there was prohibition under the old system, but to allow impor-
tation when the prices were far below what should have been the
point of permission before. But the present law produced the
same effects as the old one : instead of corn coming in when it
was wanted, corn now came in in the same manner as when
prices rose under the old system, until there was either no pro-
hibition or a famine price. He would refer to docu-
ments to illustrate that. He found from a paper which he
held in his hand that, from July, 1826, to the 31st
of December, 1838, there had been imported into
this country 6,788,000 quarters of corn. Now we often had
corn very dear during that time, and we had a stated price some-
times for months together ; and if the law had operated accord-
ing to the intentions of its framers (i. e. admitting corn in
times of scarcity at a moderate duty), it was higher than when
the first law had fixed the importation point at 705., which the
Hon. Gentleman opposite then considered the famine price.
One would suppose that a considerable quantity came in during
the latter time; but of the 6,788,000 quarters already men-
tioned, 5,089,000 came in and paid day at less than Os. Bth,
which was the rate at which prohibition ceased before. Thus
25 per cent. of all the corn imported during the 10 years came
in, when the price was 70s. here, and only 25 per cent. at the
other prices but it was reasonable that it should be so, as any
gentleman who had watched the corn-market, and the operation
of prices, must know when corn rose to 60s. or 655., the specu-
lators who had it in bond would not take it out and bring it
into the market—pay 155., or 163., or 20s. duty; but they
would keep it in bond, still causing it to operate upon the
market, until the price became yet higher, and that then they
would bring it out for sale when they had only a duty of Is. to
pay.—(Hear, hear.) Was this a benefit expected by the
framers of this law ?—( Hear, hear.) Now, he would ask,
what was the intention of the framers of the present law ? The
Hon. Gentleman opposite was, perhaps, upon the Committee
for the year 1621 ; that Committee said, that the great object
to be secured was a steady price for corn, free from fluctua-
tions.—(Hear, hear.) The admirable report of that Com-
mittee, which was framed by Mr. Huskisson, and which was
introduced to the House under the auspices of the Chairman—that
report was so clear and convincing as to the real objects which
any Corn-law should have, that his (Mr. P. T's) only
surprise was that in introducing the scales of 1827-28, that
report was not more implicitly followed up. However, the
views of those scales were in conformity with the report, viz.,
to prevent fluctuation in the price of corn. He had in his hand
a document with which he must trouble the House, as tieing of
great importance in connection with this question. It was an
extract from a speech made by Mr. Canning, the introducer of
the 13111 of 1827, and upon which the Bill of 1828 was in a
great degree founded. iMr. Canning said—" It seems desirable,
if we are to have a trade in corn at all, that it should be on the
principle of other trades, and proceed in a sober and regular
course, and not be liable to perpetual risks and reverses rising
out of extraordinary cases.—( Hear, hear.) If re proceed to
permit the importation of foreign corn, we must take care that,
while it shall be a security against famine, it shall not lead to an
inundation of the whole market ; that while it regulates the supply
it should not overload our market; that it should give the
supply a character upon which one might calculate, instead of
permitting it to be, as now, a perpetual source of alternations
between dearth and plenty—instead of the prices fluctuating,
as has been lately the case, between 112 s. at one time, and
38e. at another, making them graduate, perhaps, between 555.
and 65s."—(During the reading of this and other documents
the Speaker was several times obliged to call out " Order at
the bar," which was almost entirely blocked up by Members
and strangers.) Now what he (Mr. P. Thomson) wanted of
the Hon. Gentlemen opposite was, that while they supported
the present Corn-laws, they would tell him whether the views
of their framers had been fulfilled ?—(Hear, hear.) On the
contrary, must not every one admit, after a moment's considera-
tion of the case, that the direct contrary of those expectations
had been the result ? He held in his hand a statement
of the highest and the lowest prices of wheat
during ten years from the year 1828. In 1828 the highest
price per quarter of wheat was 76s.—the lowest was els.
making a difference of 49 per cent. In 1829 the highest price
was 75s.—the lowest, 555., making a difference of 38 per cent.
In 1830 the highest was 745. 11d.—the lowest was 555.,
the difference, 35 per cent. In 1831 the difference was 26 per
cer.t. In 1832 the difference was 24 per cent. In 1833 it
was 14 per cent. In 1834 it was 23 per cent. In 1835 it was
22 per cent. In 1836 the highest price was 60s. per quarter—
the lowest was 305., the difference was 68 per cent. Ie 1837
the highest price was 60s.—the lowest, els„ the difference,
17 per cent. In 1838 the highest price was 78s.—the lowest,
525., the difference, 49 per cent. Between the
year 1836 and 1839 the difference between the t•
and the lowest price was so much
' - - eighest
116 per cent ?
(Hear, hear.) Now he would Hon. -6
ite
whether the object of Mr. Cannineeis
when he introducedentlemen opposite h
Bill had been borne out ?—e(i.eeer, treer.) He had also ano-
ther return, eis'eiessk kin would not trouble the House, which
would Oi!ow that erig;,r another state of the law the fluctuations
fleleleg ten years were" 'not by two and a half, or much less, so
much as they were now, Ilet his Hon. Friend had said that
ltl un4ertukiu4 this question it ought to be considered with
reference to three important classes—viz., the labourers, the
tenants, al-0 the landlords. Now he would do so, and he
welsh' salt, was it possible that a tenant meld be otherwise
than injured under the fluctuations qe & system which diffused
so much uncertainty thretegh all its transactions ? ( Hear. )
Why would the flee, eeeetlereen opposite make corn different
from e•ii,k,A, clibcr. article ? W 0 had not a fluctuating scale in
eetten ens wine, or all the OW articles which were imported
Into this Coentry, eed why should we have it upon corn ?
( Hear, hey.) Nckw, with reference to the relation between
landlp,rds and tenants, as effected by the Corn-laws, instead of
aegseng tq show that under the present system they were
mutually ireiered rather than served by the present system,
as asserted by the Honourable Gentlemen opposite, he
would refer to a series of documents, the authority of
which he was sure would not be disputed or controverted.
The Hon. Gentleman opposite had said- that under the present
system the agricultural interests hack esejoyed unexampled pros-
perity. Had it?—(Hear; hey. ) Ale Would new refer to a
tier rq 9f §,M9I,Af4 frefe the ''prone. He found that during a

few years since 1828, in no less than five King's speeches, the
depressed condition of agriculture was dwelt upon, and the ear-
nest attention of the House was directed to it, with a view to
introduce some remedy.—(Bear, hear.) In February, 1830,
his Majesty lamented that, notwithstanding the improve-
ment of our commerce, distress at the same time existed
in some portion of the agricultural and manufacturing
district. That speech was put into his Majesty's mouth by
the Right Hon. t ientlernan opposite.—( Hear. hear. and laugh-
ter ) But even that was not strong enough ; an amendment
was carried to paint the distress in higher colour. In 1831,
his Majesty's speech lamented that distress afflicted mar.y parts
of his dominions at home and abroad. In 1833 there
was no mention of agricultural distress, but a Committee was
appointed to inquire into it. In 1834 his Majesty's Speech la-
mented the continuance of distress among the proprietors
and occupiers of land. In 1835 his Majesty said, " I
deeply lament that the agricultural interests still con-
tine in distress." In 1836 his Majesty again lamented
that one class of his subjects, viz.. the agriculturists, were in
deep distress, and trusted that Parliament would introduce
some measure for its alleviation. Here there were one, two,
three, four; five King's speeches, and a Committee of the
House, when there was no King's speech at all, complaining of
::gricultural distress, and calling out for a remedy.—( hear,
' hear.) Was he to be told, then, that the present law worked
well for the a,ricultnrist ?—( Hear, and cheers.) Really he did
not know how posterity might read history, but he thought
it must seem hereafter that those gentlemen who so recently
complained of their condition, and then boasted that the law
under which they suffered was the best, must have committed
some great mistake. He confessed he could not understand the
reasoning in his Hon. Friend's speech ; but he was persuaded,
however, that the condition of the labourer would be greatly
ameliorated by a fixed duty. if foreign corn were to displace
home corn, the labourer must be employed in the production of
other articles.—( Hear, hear, and No, no.) But his argument
was, that under a repeal of the Corn-laws there would be a
greater importation of all kinds of commodities, and a greater
export. The demand for labour would then increase ; labour
would produce a higher price, though the capital might re-
main the same; as for food, he did not mean to say that it
would be always cheaper than now, but the prices would be
more equal.—(Hear, hear.) It', therefore, there was one man
who, more than another, would be interested in having a steady
price for corn, that man would be the labourer. He had heard
the Right Hon. Member for Tamworth state that the wages
of labour did not follow prices rapidly, but in 1835 and
1836, when the prices of corn were low, and when the
supply of labour was greater than the demand, the rate
of labour was reduced to the minimum scale of sub-
sistence, and now the wages of the labourer, in many
places, were still calculated at 7s. or Bs. a week, though
corn was now double its former price. He repeated, therefore,
that the labourer was, of all others, interested in having a
steady system.—( Hear, hear.) He regarded it as most
preposterous, that his Honourable Friend should assert
that the object of the change was to reduce the wages
of the agricultural and manufacturing labour to 4s. a week.
His object was, on the contrary, to improve the condition of
the labourer, and he had no doubt that that condition would
be improved under a change, for when foreign corn was
admitted, the wages of labour must be increased with ,it.
To attempt to compare the variations of the prices of articles.
depending on many minute and complicated causes, was beside
the question. His Hon. Friend had said that after all the
home trade was the trade on which our manufacturers were
chiefly dependent, and that he would not sacrifice the country
for the sake of the foreign trade. Nor would he (Mr. P.
Thomson) ; but at the same time he must say that it was now
too late to talk of this country not being dependent upon foreign
trade.—( Hear, hear.) That might have been said a hundred
years, or even seventy years ago, but the time for it
was now past. And a, large portion of our population was
wholly dependent on foreign trade. We import now scarcely
anything but raw material, for manufacturing—part certainly
for home consumption, but chiefly for foreign consumption,
and we import, to the extent of thirty millions, the raw ma-
terial.—( Hear, hear.) We had by the Corn-laws raised
against us many enemies, who complained not indeed that we
would not take their commodities at all—for we took their
corn when we were obliged to do so—but that the greatest un-
certainty was produced in the trade by the Corn-laws.--
( Hear, hear.) Coi respondence had been moved for and would
be presented to the House, showing the propositions which had
been made by foreign nations as to their willingness to treat
with us, if we did away with the Corn-laws. 1-iox could we
ask them to take off their prohibitions when we refused corn,
the only article they could offer us?—( Hear, hear.) It was
said that protection was necessary. He (Mr.i P. Thomson)
was willing to give that fair protection which was required
by those burthens which pressed particularly upon the land,
but he quarrelled with the mode in which that protection was
administered, tending, as it did, not to the advantage of the
landowners, and at the same time to the detriment of the other
parties.—(Hear.) The Hon. Member for Yorkshire had
stated that there were 690,000,0001. invested in land. He
_ _

(Mr. P. Thomson) could not understand that calculation, nor
the exaggerated statements which the Hon. Member had made
as to the burthens which rested on land. He was ready to ad-
mit that there were burthens pressing upon the land. At the
same time they had been much reduced ; and there were others
which bore as exclusively upon other interests. He thought it
would be fair to examine what the particular burthens were for
which allowance ought to be made.—( Hear.) Now, with re-
gard to the Poor-rates, by the returns of 1833 it appeared
that the proportion paid by the land was 65 per cent., and by
other interests 35 per cent. And then it ought to be considered
that there was the legacy probate duty, amounting to 2,400,000/.
a year, and which pressed exclusively upon other interests,
and which ought, therefore, to be taken into account.—( Hear.)
The Hon. Gentleman had alluded to the malt tax as a burden
which pressed peculiarly upon the land. He (Mr. Poulett
Thomson) could sot but regret that the Right Honourable
Baronet, the Member for Tamworth, was not in his place in the
Howe to answer that objection of the Honourable Gentleman.
He would quote the authority of the Right Honourable Baronet
in opposition to the Honourable Gentleman. He recollected
that he had on the occasion alluded to, voted with the Right
Honourable Baronet, who, in one of the most convincing
speeches he had ever heard delivered, had incontrovertibly esta-
blished the fact, that the malt tax was not a tav exclusively on
the land, but was a tax that was paid by the consumer.--( Hear,
hear.) That the malt tax in its operation was partially injuri-
ous to the land--(Hear, hear, hear, from the Opposition)—
he was willing to admit, because it affected profits
to a certain degree ; he would admit that it was a
grievance to that extent, but it was absurd to call it a tax
upon the land, because it was in fact a tax paid by the consumer.
Hewould ask them why then did they refuse to make an altera-
tion in the Corn-laws ? What were they afraid of? Did they
fear that the effects of any alteration would be to produce a great
lowering of the price? His own opinion was, and this was not
the first time that he had stated it, that the price on an average
would not be much lower than it was at present. He knew that
many were afraid that during ordinary years the averages would
be reduced as low as 325. per quarter, but he was of opinion that
if there was a regular demand for corn, with a constant supply,
if we took a supply steadily, it would be impossible to ship wheat
for the supply of this country under 465. or 475. per quarter.
Hon. Members should recollect that the further we went from
the banks of the river, the further we went from the
means of communication to procure our supply of wheat, the
greater would be the expence accruing on it ; an expense not
increasing according to common progression, but in a progres-
sion that was almost impossible to calculate. He knew of a
place in Russia through which he had passed in his travels,
where wheat was ss. per quarter. Gentlemen opposite would
be horrified at the bare mention of such a price, but that very
wheat at a distance of a hundred miles from this village fetched
from 20s. to 255. per quarter in consequence of the enormous
expenses of transporting it. It was a most unfair practice of
Hon. Gentlemen opposite, to quote the prices of corn in the
interior of foreign countries, at the time when the ports in this
country were closed. This was a practice that was inconsistent
with anything like sound argument; but if Hon. Gentlemen
entertained any fears on this ground, let them go hack a
few years, and consider how little their fears had been realized,
in a case somewhat similar to the one now under considera-
tion. He alluded to the case of wool. Who did not recollect
that when it was proposed to admit the importation of foreign
wool into this country it had been decried in that House, and
a Noble Lord had stated in another place that in consequence
of that measure the sheep farmer of this country would be
utterly ruined—that it was impossible for him to compete with
the foreign sheep farmers, with their immense flocks, and he
was led to believe that the price of wool was incredibly cheap
abroad.—( Loud cries of " Order," " Bar," occasioned by the
noise of Members at the Bar, which frequently drowned the
voice of the Hon. Member.) What had been the result ?
Why, the sheep farmer was at this moment receiving a higher
price for his wool than he had before the alteration. This had
been the natural consequence of the exchange of com.
modifies which had taken place, and what reason was
there for supposing that, if the Corn-laws were repealed,
a similar result would not follow. He held in his hand a return
of the price of Leicester long wool at different periods--in 11125
it had been 28s. ; in 1e27, 245. ; in 1828, 245. ; while during
the last three years the prices had been as follows :—ln 1836,
345. ; in 1837, 375. ; and in 1838, 38s. He would not say
these cases were exactly parallel, but the same fears had been
entertained on this subject as were now expressed regarding any
alteration in the Corn-laws. He would now come to the last
argument urged by his Hon. Friend.—( Order ! order ! Here
the confusion became so great that Mr. P. Thomson was obliged
to appeal to the gentlemen at the bar not to continue their inter-
ruption. The Speaker having in some measure succeeded in
restoring silence, Mr. P. Thomson proceeded amidst loud
cheering.) The last argument urged against any alteration
was the injurious consequences to this country resulting from
being dependent upon foreign nations for a supple
of
food in the event of these alterations being
made ;
but that argument was brought forward too late to be of any
importance, for the fact was we were now dependent upon fo-
reign countries for a supply even under the existing system of
Corn-laws—and foreigners did not now like to afford us the
supply we needed, they shut their ports against any exportation
of corn, because we had no fixed and regular trade with them,
and are not regular customers. (Loud cries of " Hear,
hear.") But foreigners might be made as dependent upon
this country for the sale of their corn, if we were once to esta-
blish a regular and fixed demand, as the Americans are now for
the sale of their cotton. It might be said that cotton was not a necessary of life, bet vet there were 150,000 persons in
this country dependent for their living on the supply of cotton
being received from America. It was the inevitah7e effect
of trade and commerce to make each oeutstry dependent
upon others. The fact was in the present state of the question
foreigners looked upon our demand fur corn as an absolute
nuisance. How did it act on foreigners--it deranged the state of
the markets, after they had grown as much corn as they thought
sufficient to meet the demands likely to be made upon them.
This corn might be sent to our ports—it might lie year after
year in the warehouses, the merchant losing the i,,torest nf
money besides his capital being locked up, and a sudden change
taking place it is let out of bond, with a loss to the merchant;
although the consumer has to pay a hid'. price ail the art
tional price being consented by charges, still th;-
and capital is 1 just
as tench thrown away
,
interest:
9
been thrown overboard into the as. • if the corn had
brought into poulart,r - Now if instead of having been
to become reg
ce demand for foreign corn were
manner
and steady, instead of fluctuating in the
'
winch it now fluctuates--if we were to become re-
suer and steady customers to the foreign producers, we should
be no longer subject to these sudden alterations in price, and
the supply of corn would become regular and fixed. He would
not detain the House longer, but he could not avoid expressing
his opinion that the present system of Corn-laws was injurious
to the landowner, as it produced uncertainty as to the amount
of his rental—that it was injurious to the tenant, as he never
could know exactly what course to pursue—that it was injurioue
to the labourer as depressing the rate of wages—and that it was
injurious to the trader as it fettered his industry and induced
foreign competition. In conclusion, he trusted the House
would go into Committee on the subject, as it. was there, and
there only, that the case could be established which it was
wished to make out. He implored the House not heedlessly
and thoughtlessly to reject a motion upon which depended
the welfare of the industrious classes of the country.
Sir E. KNATCHBULL felt perfectly aware of the difficult
task he had to perform in following the Right Honourable
Gentleman, but there were some parts of his speech which
called for special observation. The Right Honourable
Gentleman had said that there was nothing novel in the
present ; question
' that might be so or it might not,
but he thought there was a good deal of novelty in the course
pursued by the Right Honourable Gentleman. He heard
with astonishment and surprise from a Minister of the Crown
that he was prepared to act upon the principle of agitation._
( Hear, hear, hear.) What was it that the House was asked
to do ? Why to go into a Committee of the whole House to
consider the Act regulating the sale of corn. After the decla-
rat on which had been made by the Right Honourable Gentle-
man, he thought that the House was enti: Id e to expect that