The Sun.
London, England, 1839-03-15 00:00:00

It 04, was never in practical operation, nor was the law of
1790 for excluding the import of foreign corn by means of,
a high duty ; and if not, that law might as well not be on
the statute book, and the people enjoyed the advantage of
having a free trade in corn. Therefore he said that in 1815
was the first time at which it entered into contemplation of
the Parliament of England to endeavour to benefit the landed
interest by excluding foreign corn, and the attempt has
most signally failed. Now, it was said by his Noble
Friend that the object of this law was not to raise the
pi-lee of' corn, but to regulate it; but if not, why were
ttostisailds of petitions presented in favour of the Corn-
'Uwe. It was quite clear from all the evidence given on
'the subject that the real object was to raise the price of
'corn.--(" No, no," from a Noble Lord.) Then he
clsimed the vote of that Noble Lord to night.--(Hear.)
He was satisfied there was a feeling in the country that
this question must be re-considered—that there were ele-
ments at work in the political and social frame of this
country, which if not in this Session, would at no distant
day force the matter upon their Lordships' consideration,
and convince them that ,it was impossible to go on
with the system of prohibition under the cir-
cumstances of the _country.—( Hear, hear.) Though
this was called a law for regulating the price, it was a pro-
hibition on the grower of foreign corn. At 635. there was
a duty of about 245., and it was well known that no person
ever imported at a duty of 245. It was therefore perfectly
clear that at 635. they had a prohibitory duty. Probably
635. was as serious to the consumer now as 80s. in 1815.
But now, with respect to this rising in the price of corn—
why were they to have an act to raise it ?—what were the
grounds upon which it rested ? A very favourite one was,
that because there was a great revenue raised in this
country, it was therefore necessary to raise the price of
corn. This appeared to him a must extraordinary
foundation on which to rest an argument.—(Hear.)
What was the law that raised the prices, but an additional
tax on the people ? If, by the operation of an Act of Par-
liament they kept corn up at 745. when it otherwise would
have been 61s„ a hat was the extra 10s. paid for every
' quarter, but a taxation on the people of this country to the
amount of 10s. a quarter ; and if the consumption which
took place was from 12,0G9,000 to 14,000,000 quarters per
annum, a tax would be levied on the people of 6,000,0001.
or 7 000,0001. per year. Now it apppeared to him the
most extraordinary thing in the world to justify the impo-
sition of one tax by affirming that there were a great many
others. But this argument rested upon another, which
he was ashamed to hear from landed Gentlemen ; they
talked as if they paid the whole of the taxation, and
they made that circumstance the foundation upon
which to lay an additional tax on corn. But all those
things had failed ; they had failed of securing rent to the
landlord and profit to the farmer ; and they had failed in
securing good wages to the labourer.—( Hear, hear.) He
was in a public meeting the other day, which was attended
by merchants, bankers, and country gentlemen ; and it was
said that a certain law which was discussed in that meeting
was for the benefit of the labourer. It would have done
their Lordships' hearts good to have observed how all the
landed gentlemen applauded that expression. He (Earl
Fitzwilliarn) confessed that he was astonished to hear it,
and still more was he astonished to hear it said that that
law was a law for the labourer. Their Lordships would
be surprised if the law of which he was speaking was a law
to raise the price of food—a law to raise the price of corn—
a law to raise the profits of the farmer—a law to keep up the
rents of the landlords ; and yet that was the identical Corn-
law which was now under discussion. To tell an assembly of
well educated men that this Bill was meant for the la-
bourers would be an insult upon their understandings. If
he were to devise a Bill for the benefit of the labourer, he
should so frame it, as that the effects of it should be that
there should be the greatest possible difference in the con-
sequence of that Bill between the price of food which the
leheurer consumed and the amount of food which he re-
ceived. But the result of this Bill was directly the con-
trary. The prioe of corn during the last few months had
risen to ahe so alarming that it had been necessary to
raise the wages of the labourer; but the rising wages had
not at all kept pace with the increased charge brought on
him be the rise in the price of corn. But there was another
object which it was said it had in view, and that was to
Supply the people with a sufficient quantity of corn ; but it
had failed of that, for we had been under the necessity of
having large importations.—( Hear, hear.) It was
manifest that the population had been outgrow-
ing the power of the production of the country, and indeed
of being an exporting country, we had necessarily become
an impor!ing country. Why were we an importing na-
tion? B cause the wealth and prosperity of the country
had increased in such a degree, that we had not the means
of supplying ourselves at home. He would not now go
into the more extensive question of how the Corn-laws
oherated on our foreign trade, for this had been very re-
cs. tly sufficiently dilated upon by his Noble Friend, Lord
Brougham ; but undoubtedly it was one from which, he
treated, their Lordships would not divert their thoughts.
There was, however, one point to which he must draw
their Lerdshipshattention, and that was, that though there
had been no deficiencyin the exportation of the manufactures
of this country, and thought an argument had been founded
upon that, to show that exaggerated effects were imputed to
the Corn-laws, nevertheless there were circumstances con-
nected with the peculiar character of them, which led
him to look at them with less satisfaction than if he merely
looked at the figures which represented them. The cir-
cumstance to which he alluded was this, that though there
had been no deficiency in the exports of manufactured
goods generally, there was a great falling off indeed in
the export of these manufactured goods into the price of
which manual labour entered the most ; and the obvious
conclusion to be drawn was, that in all those manufactures
into which the wages of labour entered more minutely and
directly, the operation of the Corn-laws was most injurious,
because it was obvious that the reason why there was a
f, lling off in the export of their particular goods was, that
there being a large quantity of manual labour entering into
the price of them, the wages for that manual labour could
nut be afforded by the manufacturer, so as to enable the
labourer to earn those wages which were necessary for him.
The inference to be drawn from these circumstances, was
one of serious importance, because if they were able to
compete with foreign nations only, in those articles which
depends d upon machinery to a great extent, and those
which comprehended works and manual labour, entirely to
u great extent, they would not he able to maintain in em-
ployed labour, that vast population that was now engaged
in the manufacturing districts, and a very large number of
those persons would be driven to get support under the
Poor-law Act. These were circumstances of such a
nature, as to induce their Lordships to reflect most seriously
upon the effect which the Corn-laws had upon the Foreign
Commerce of the country. The great ground upon which
he asked their Lordships to reconsider this question was,
that it imposed most burdensome taxes on the people
of the country, and there was no class upon whom those
taxes fell with greater severity than the agricultural classes
themselves. The agriculturist was a great consumer of
corn—he etas a great consumer of what was manufac-
tured from corn. He was injured by the present law in
the produce of his seed-corn he was injured by the in-
crease of wages, which he was necessarily obliged to give
to his labourer, and he was also injured in the consumption
of beer. It therefore appeared to him that the small
capitalist suffered more under the present law than the farmer
himself. But then he was told that the price of corn
must be raised in order to enable the farmer to bear all
the burdens that were imposed upon him. Now he saw
no longer ago than the present morning an account in the
newspapers in favour of the present Corn-law, and in that
account what did their Lordships think was the tithe and
the rent of land that produced only three quarters of wheat
an acre. He thought that their Lordships would think
that that was not very fruitful land ; why, in that account,
the rent was ono guinea an acre, and the tithe was
ten shillings an acres (Hear, hear, hear.) When
people came forward with such calculations as that, he
thought that very little attention ought to be paid to them.
If such calculations as those were to be the ground upon
which they were to proceed they must have not the Corn
Aet of 1828, cr the Corn Bill of 1813, with its prohibitory
clauses, but they must have a minimum upon the price of
corn—they must go back to the time of the Tudors and
the Plantagenets, if they were to proceed upon such cal-
culations. Such being the case, he would unhesitatingly
assert that this was not a labourer's bill or a farmer's bill,
but it was a landlord's bill—a short-sighted landlord's bill—
a bill of landlords, who had not the permanent prosperity
of the country at heart—a bill of well meaning, no doubt,
but mistaken landowners, who thought that, by means of
the measure they could raise the price of corn, and thereby
keep up the rental of the land in England. Most unfor-
tunately for them, they had got into their bead a scheme
in which they would ultimately be defeated—the ground was
I now going from under their feet, and he asked if they were to
be defeated, would it not be much better for them to make
up their minds to consider the present question with sin-
gleness of mind and perfect sincerity, and with a deter-
mination not to look fur truth in one direction or another,
but to find it wherever presented to them by sound argu-
ments and true representation of the state of the country ?
He said this, because if Parliament was to be actuated and
influenced by such calculations, it was clear that it would
be impossible for them to come to any sound conclusion.
The particular point, as connected with the interest of the
agricultural classes, to which he desired to advert mgr©
particularly, was the mischievous fluctuations that had been
occasioned by the present law. He. had shown their Lord-
ships that subsequent to 1833, instead of a fluctuation
of 45 per cent., there bad been a fluctuation of upwards
of 120 per cent., and during the five years that a Committee
, of the House of Commons was congratulating itself that
there had been little or no fluctuation during those five
years in the ports of Holland. At Rotterdam, where there
was a free trade in corn, the fluctuation had not reached
that point without which the English House of Commons
had boasted they had been able to keep corn in England.
During those periods, the fluctuation was 45 per cent, in
England, while at Rotterdam it was only 40. Now, if
any thing would show the mischievousness of the present
law it was that. He admitted that the difference between
40 and 45 was not very great, but still it showed the neces-
sity of seriously considering the present law. If a com-
mittee was appointed to inquire seriously into the subject,
he was sure that it would be found that the fluctuations that
had taken place were attributable alone to the present sys-
tem. If their Lordships would look back to the evi-
dence which bad been given by farmers and land-surveyors
Lefore the Committee which sat in 1821, they would find
that it was the habit of the land-surveyor to reckon the
rent upon the supposition that the price of corn was 80s.:;
under the present law 80e. had not been realized, and what
was the result ? why the farmer could not pay his rent.
and then came the struggle between the landlord and the
tenant, a truggle lustier which the tenant was sure to go
to the wall. Such was the effect under the law of 1815,
and under the law of 1823 the same class of witnesses told
them that they looked to the price of corn at 645. as the
ground upon which they measured their rents ; that amount
however, had not been realised. In September 1835, the
lowest average was 40i. and the highest was 675. The
average of tl e broken pert of the last year since Oct. was
705. 4d., while in 1835 it was 40s. 7d. He thought that he
l nOW ret.y c'early demonstrated that there had been a
e g
laweeg h, ulatdon. He thought such being the state of the
r Rigg in saying that if any class suf-
Wise s wWeAlltibtal class suffered the worst

F=~ n~

he commercial classes he
Namination—the mischief

done to them was not so much an immediate mischief as the 1
iesult of the course in which they were engaged. He would
abstain from going farther into its results with respect to
manufactures, his chief wish being upon the present occa-
sion to draw the attention of their Lordships to the effect
of the law upon the price of corn in regard to the fluctua-
tion, because he apprehended that that was one of the great
grounds upon which it was asked to attack the present law.
He had fixed upon fluctuation, because that was a point
upon which the signality of the failure of the measure was
the greatest, and that was the point which the law professed
'to remedy. Under these circumstances he would conclude
by moving that the Act of the 9th of George IV., the chap-
ter he did not recollect, but that could be put in after-
wards, haft failed in securing that steadiness in the price of
corn, which was essential to the best interests of the country.
The Duke of BUCKINGHAM felt bound to oppose
the present motion. The Noble Lord, in the course of
his address, had stated that the present Corn-law Bill was
a landlord's measure, tending to the injury of the labourer,
He denied that it was any such thing. Noble Lords were
doubtless aware of the opinions entertained by the Noble
Lords opposite ; but those opinions he would venture to
say were not the prevailing opinions of the greater portion
of the country.—( Hear, hear.) No ono could doubt that
the distress of the farmer caused the labourer to suffer. If
the farmer could not get his price, the result was that he
could not pay his labourer, and therefore the latter as well
as the former became distressed. The Noble Lord had
stated that the Corn-laws, as they now existed, did not
make the price of wheat steady. Now he (the Duke of
Buckingham) would ask, in answer to that statement,
whether their Lordships had ever known any Act of Parlia-
ment have the effect of steadying prices? The agriculturist
did not thank parties for the agitation they had caused, as it
was said for their good, all that they asked was to be left
alone ; but the Noble Lord opposite would not leave them
alone.—( Hear, hear.) The agitation that had taken
place had led to great difficulties and ill blood, and if
Ministers gave sanction to that agitation he would not
pretend to say what would be the end of it. The agri-
culturist did not wish to interfere with the manufacturer,
and why should the manufacturer interfere with them?
What had the present Ministry or the present party in
power done for the agriculturist? Nothing. It was true
that a Noble Lord, when Chancellor of the Exchequer,
had taken of the tax on sheep-dogs—( Laughter)—and,
respecting as he did that Noble Lord, he was sorry that he
should have left such a memorial of his official duties.
with regard to the present important question, it was im-
possible for the House not to be aware of the agitation, the
dangerous agitation, that had been going on out of doors.
He (the Duke of Buckingham) deeply regretted that the
manufacturers should have lost sight of the great object
they ought to have had in view, namely, the general benefit
of the country. If the agriculturist and the farmer were
thrown into difficulty and distress, the manufacturer would
rue the day when that took place. The greatest abuse had
been thrown upon the agriculturist and the farmer, and
though the parties who cast that abuse upon them, would
be foiled in their attempt, yet they seemed determined to
go on in their agitation. If that agitation was proceeded
in, it would be dangerous to her Majesty's Government,
and they would have to blame themselves for having al-
lowed this question to be an open one. If the present
Corn-laws were repealed, the land of the country would
go out of cultivation, but if the farmer was protected there
would be a stimulus for him to endeavour to bring bad land
to a profitable purpose ; but if the farmer was tampered
with, land would never be cultivated as it ought to be. He
was as anxious as any man that the manufacturer
should have protection, but that protection ought not
to be afforded at the expense of the agriculturist,
Unless they were enabled, as farmers and occupiers, to
give a proper remuneration to their labourers, they would
bring upon them the greatest penury, and bring them into
a state of degradation which English labourers never ought
to be in, and which he hoped to God they never would be
in.—(Cheers.) He should give the motion his most de-
cided opposition in every way he could, and take the sense
of the House upon it by moving the previous question.—
(Cries of " Move a negative—a negative.") He should
move a negative.
The Earl of RIPON said, though there were certainly many cir.
cumstances connected with this question which might have induced
him to have gone more at length into the general question than he
should be disposed to do at present, yet he could not abstain from
making a few remarks on the speech that had fallen from his Noble
Friend. In truth he should think himself wanting in courtesy to
his Noble Friend, who had in so willing a manner invited
him to take a part in the present question in consequence
of the part he had taken in 1833 and 1515, if he
did not trouble their Lordships with a few observations. He had
no desire to go into anything like a history of the Corn.laws that
had been passed in this country—as to whether they had or had not
been more or less restrictive, or more or less favourable to importa-
tion ; it was not necessary that he should go into that for the present
view of the question ; still he must say a word on the law of 1815.
On more occasions than one he had taken the liberty of stating,
whatever might be the demerits of that law, that it never had the
object of raising corn to 80s. as a minimum. His Noble Friend had
said that an expection had been held out to the farmer that he was
to have the benefit of 80s. as a minimum.
Earl FITZ WILLIAM said, as we understood, that lie had stated
that as the opinion of witnesses.
The Earl of RIPON was not bound by the opinion of any of those
witnesses, and he totally dissented from any such opinion. He
could not give his Noble Friend a greater proof of Isis sin-
cerity in that respect than to state what he himself did im-
mediately after the passing of that Act. The first thing he did was
to reduce his rents under a perfect conviction that the farmer could
not realize 80s., and he bad continued that reduction ever since,
living in perfect harmony with his tenants, who had paid punctually
their rents from that time.--(Hear, hear.) What surprised him in
the argument of his Noble Friend was, that it was an argument that
had no conclusion. He did not point out to their Lordships what
they were to do. He said this law was ruin to the agriculturist—
starvation to the labourer, and destruction to the manufacturer—
but he did not give to the House the slightest idea what
to do. He admitted that it wax not the duty of his Noble Friend as
an individual to point out a law as a substitute for the law he de_
aired to abrogate, but it was the duty of certain persons to do so.—
(Hear, hear.) In the first place, it was the duty of a wise and pru-
dent Government, before they admitted such a proposition as his
Noble Friend's, which was calculated to excite and alarm, without
having made up their minds upon what they meant to propose as a
substitute.—(Hear, hear.) But it would appear that the Govern-
ment had not made up their minis. If they had made up their
minds, it was their duty to propose the subject to the Legislature
before they admitted a proposition calculated to overturn existing
laws and excite great agitation. New, what were the alterna-
tives presented to their view if they repealed this law and did nothing,
getting rid of all protection upon principle, as his Noble Friend sug-
gested the ether night ?—he said upon principle they sheuld have no
protection to anything. He said he spoke on behalf of some of the
petitioners, who were prepared to come to their Lordships' bar and
giveup all the protection they had; but that was nothing. It would be
utterly impracticable to legislate upon that. On behalf of whom
did those petitioners speak, or on behalf of whom slid his Noble
Friend speak ? Did he or they speak on behalf of the woollen ma..
nufacturers in Yorkshire—on behalf of the linen manufacturers of
Dundee—on behalf of the linen manufacturers of Ireland—on behalf
of the cotton manufacturers of Manchester ?—or did they or did he
pretend to speak on behalf of any of those? He would be glad to
see such a preposition proposed by the Board of Trade, but he would
not like to be the President of that Board to undergo the badgering
that he would be subject to on account of such a proposition, were
such a proposition submitted to the House. But it would be im-
practicable in reference to the revenue.--(Hear, hear.) Their Lord-
ships could not do that without overturning the whole system of re.
venue. The revenue was founded upon the principle of protection.
—(Cheers,) What would the sugar growers of the West Indies say?
And if the principle was not to be uniform it was no principle at all.
If in the first case that could be mentioned it was to be said that that
was a case of exception, where was the principle? He should like
to know, if they were to get rid of all the difficulties that arose from
duties which existed for protection, what the cultivator of
the West Indies would say, who might feel grievously oppressed if
not named? What would he say if there was to be a free trade i■
sugar with all other parts of the world ? Would he not naturally
say, why was not his produce to be introduced into England on the
same footing, and on the same footing, too, as that en which corn
was placed ? There were other persons besides agriculturists who
whould have something to say on the subject, and who would not
be very ready to consent to the reduction of the duty on rum to
that which existed on British spirits. What would the President
of the Board of Trade, who by the way seemed to rejoice so much
at this agitation—(Cheers)--have to encounter, suppose he, in fur-
therance of this principle, were to say he was prepared to lay down—
and which from some of his speeches, if not in the House of Parlia-
ment, elsewhere, might be inferred—suppose he was to say to the
distiller in the West Indies, the principle on which he went was
universal, but that certain cases he proposed should be exceptions ?
Why the effect would not only be clamour, but whether those persons
would be ruined or not, the system would produce an entire
convulsion of that principle on which our trade and commerce
was carried on.— (Considerable cheering.) In respect to
the revenue, there were two articles alone from which
the revenue derived above a third of the whole of our customs
revenue. He meant tobacco and sugar. Now in order to enable
the Government to raise that revenue, amounting to above
6,000,0001. a year, they were obliged to prohibit both the manufac.
ture of tobacco here, and the manufacture of beetroot into sugar.-
-(Hear, hear.) He did not know to what extent the making of
beetroot into sugar might be carried on here, provided there was no
restriction upon it, but it was prohibited expressly to prevent the re-
venue being injured. The restriction of manufacturing beetroot
into sugar was an act of only three years standing, and he dared to
say that the President of the Board of Trade actually brought that
Act in.—(Cheers.) He (Earl Ripon) took theliberty of objecting to
that Act, and what did his Noble Friend the President of the Coun-
cil say on that occasion in answer to him ? He said if he (Earl Ri_
pon) would give him 4,000,0001. for the revenue that was derived
on sugar, he would not be one in favour of imposing this restric-
tion on the manufacture of beet-root. That was a very good
reason, but it cut up the whole of the proposition,
for settling this question upon the abstract principles which hail
been put forward.—(Cheers.) But he had been led to digress. The
great principle which his Noble Friend seemed to insist upon was
this ?—That this law had not produced a steadiness of price. Before
that quest;on could be settled they ought to understand what was
meant by a steadiness of price.—( Hear, hear.) Ire did not suppose
his Noble Friend could think that those who introduced the law
in 1828 could intend to secure a uniformity of price—that would
have been guarding against accidents by weather and accidents in
the animal creation—from the moment at which the seeds were put
into the ground until the produce came to the maturity—which
nobody could ever pretend to.—(Hear, hear.) The utmost they
ever intended was as much steadiness of price as in the nature of
things it was possible to expect--(Cheers.) But be would show
the House what the fluctuation in corn had been, and then he would
show what the fluctuation had been in other articles, the importa-
tion of which, into this country, was followed by no law or
duties, but came here in immense quantities from other parts;
and if he could show that in the same years there had
been as much fluctuation in those other articles as in corn, he
thought he would establish that it was preposterous and absurd to
say the fluctuation in corn was to be attributed to this law.—
(Cheers.) The fluctuation was owing to the laws of nature, which
that House could not contravene. His Nob:e Friend had referred
to a paper on their Lordships' table, but he had not referred to a
paper which he (the Earl of Ripon) had moved for, which had been
printed. There was something in that paper to show there had
been an habitual variation under this law. In reference to corn
during the first year that elapsed af er the act of 1828 was passed,
the highest price during that year was 755. 3d., and the lowest price
511 s. 3d. The paper to which he referred was headed "An Account

of the Aggregate Averages of Wheat," by which the duty on foreign
wheat was regulated in each week for the last ten years, up to the
latest period. He admitted there was a great difference between
565. 3d. and 755. 3d, but it would not do to take two several weeks.
They must take the general rate extending over the weeks gene-
rally

There was but one week in the whole series of weeks in

_ -
that year in which this average amounted to 745. 11d., and the
week in which it was lowest it was 565. 3d. During the whole
of the remainder of the year it fluctuated between those
two points. They were the two extremes, but the
real average of all the intervening weeks was a fair medium between
the two. In 1830 the price fluctuated between 725. I Id. and
365. hl. But there again the high price and the low price was
between two weeks,—the high price being close upon harvest, when
probably the prospect of the state of the harvest had a considerable
effect upon the market, as it often had. In the following year the
fluctuation was from 78s. sd. to 601., less, therefore, than the
Thriller year, In 1832, the fluctuation was reduced. This seas ,

beginning at the time on which his Noble Friend relied as proving
his case, though rather curious it was it proved his (Lord Ripon's),
because in that year, instead of its being between 735. sd. and 605.,
it was between 555. sd. and 495. 10d. ; se in 1834 the fluctuation
was between 495. 6d. and 41s. sd. In 1835 it was between
425. 10d. and 365. 8(1. Jn 1838 the fluctuation was more consi-
derable-it was between 60s. 3d. and 365. 3d. In 1837 it was be.
tween 595. 7d. and 525. 6d. In 1838 it was higher, owing to the then
peculiar circumstances; but to draw the argument from that, that
it arose from the result of the last harvest was preposterous, be-
cause the harvest was not only deficient here last year, but it was
so all over Europe and all over America-but he chewed that out of
six of the ten years the fluctuation had been nothing but a few
shillings between 505. and something, and 40s. and something.
That was quite inconsistent with what his Noble Friend thought he
had proved, but if their Lordships would take the fluctuation as
operating over a more extended period, viz., from the Ist of
January, 1832, to the 3d of January, 1834, they would find that
the price ranged between 635. sd. and 495. 10d. There was a con.
siderable difference there certainly-rather more than 20 per cent.
fluctuation on those two years. Then, again, on the two and a
half years from the 3d of January, 1834 to the 17th of June, 1836,
the fluctuation was from 625. 11d. to 475. Bd., being rather more
thtsn 25 per cent., but how could that fluctuation in reason be
ascribed to this law ? He did not say the price would have been
exactly the same-he did riot say the variation would have been
exactly the same if there had been no such law, but his Noble
Friend must prove that the fluctuation was the consequence of the
law.-(Hear, hear.) He would now come to those other articles
to which he had referred, and their Lordships would see that what-
ever fluctuations had existed in corn, equal, if not much greater
fluctuations had taken place in other articles, respecting which there
were no restrictions. He had documents with him, which he did
not mean to say were official documents. He had no means of pro.
curing official documents, but they were from very good authority,
and he would undertake to chew that in reference to the article of
hemp and flax, which came here from every part of the world where
it was produced, and the produce of which he believed at one time
was protected, though it was not now, that the fluctuation in it far
exceeded the fluctuation which he had shewn to exist in the price of
wheat; so again, with respect to china, raw silk of different sorts
which, for twelve or fifteen years past, had been relieved from all
duty, the same extraordinary fluctuations took place, which could
riot be ascribed to the operation of any such laws as the Corn-laws,
but to natural causes, which could not be controuled. In January
1825, the price of one particular species of raw silk was 255. 6d., it
got down in the following year to 17s. That was a greater fluctua
tion than appeared to have taken place in the price of wheat, during
the period to which he had referred. Their Lordships would find,
again, that in 182 S it was at 225. 9d., and in 1829 at 18s. 2d. In
1833 it was at lEs., in 1634, 21s. In 1836 it got up to 245, In
1837 it was down to 235., and in 1838 it was up again to 245. So
also as to cotton-that showed the same fluctuation. He then came
to an article which was of peculiar importance in reference to the
present question-that of wool, because wool was in the same
situation, in one sense, as corn. It was not in the same situation
as those articles, of which we had ne production of our own ; but we
grew an enormous quantity of wool, and the importation of it was
perfectly open, which importation had gone on increasing immensely.
He was one (as we understood) who opposed the removal of all re-
strictions upon the importation of wool. He had been for a very
reduced duty upon it, but it had been thrown perfectly cpen, and
had now been so far many years. Yet their Lordships would ob-
serve that the fluctuation in the price of British wool had
been far more remarkable than any his Noble Friend had
been able to shew in reference to the price of wheat.-(Hear.)
Between 1826 and 1827, there was a fall of 25 per cent. Between
1829 and 1830, there was a rise of more than 50 per cent. Be-
tween 1829 and 1833, there was a fluctuation in the price of British
wool of no less than 150 per cent-that was to say, in 1829, the
price was 9d., and in 1833, it was 2s. So again in the next year
it fellB per cent. Then as compared with 1825, it fell 25 per cent.
Then it rose 20 per cent Then it fell from 36 to 37 more than
83 per cent. Then in 1837 and 1838, the rise was from Is. 3d. to
Is. 10d,-an alteration of ups and downs far greater
than had taken place in respect to the price of
corn independently of any restrictive law whatever.-
fie would not inquire into whether that was a landlord's, a tenant's,
or a poor man's question.-(Hear, hear.) Much vulgar abuse had
been thrown out upon what was called the aristocrasy, upon this
subject. He disliked the name of aristeerasy ;he would call them
the landed proprietors of the country. It was not necessary for
their Lordships to defend themselves from the low and vulgar abuse
which had been heaped upon them-their acts spoke for them. Be-
fore sitting down he would advert for a moment to the way in which
it was said this law interfered with our ccmmerce with other coun.
tries. The argument used was, that as we by our system of corn.
laws, rendered it necessary for other nations to exclude our manu-
factures, and in consequence of them,also the manufactures of other
countries, had greatly improved, and had driven our manufactures
out of markets we formerly served. The fact that foreign menu_
factures had increased, he did not deny; but he denied that such
increase was caused by the Corn-laws of this country. After a war
of 25 year's duration, and several years of peace, a man
must indeed be very short-sighted who did not take for
granted, that the elasticity of human industry would naturally
cause' manufactures to grow up where before they had
never been thought of.-(Hear, hear.) And he for one did not
think it was any evil. Why should we grudge to other nations
their fair share of trade and commerce. Some markets might be
closed against us, but that must be highly beneficial to all nations,
and as much to us as to any other. But what were the facts of the
case ? They were told that the manner in which the Corn-laws
worked made labour dear in this conntry, and the consequence was
that Belgium was supplying other countries with cloths, whom we
used to have for customers. But those who argued so forgot that
Belgium had a Corn-law.-(Hear, hear.) A most absurd and ini.
-quitous law, but still they had Corn-laws. And again, with re.
spect to France, the French had certainly made very great advances
in the manufacture of cottons ; the beauty of their colours, and the
neatness of their patterns, gave them great command in markets,
which we used to supply. The increase of that trade had led many
good artisans to France, and the cottons were almost all
.made by
our machinery, but that was not at all to be attributed
to the system of Corn-laws existing here, because there were
Corn-laws existing in France even more absurd and
iniquitous than those of Belgium. Then, again, came the cases of
Saxony and Switzerland; they were told that great improvements
had taken place in the manufactures of Saxony, which had been
put forward ; but that improvement could not at all arise from our
system of Corn-laws, What corn, he would ask, did Saxony grow
for exportation ? They grew none at all : how, then could our
Corn-laws hava anything to do with the increase of their manufac-
tures ? Then, with respect to Switzerland. He did not know that
the Swiss grew any wheat at all.
The Marquis of LANSDOWNE-They don't eat wheat.
The Earl o!' RIPON was aware of that, but they did not grow
it, therefore It could not be because we did not take their corn, they
having none, that therefore they were compelled to resort to
manufactures. But then it was said because we prohibited the
importation of corn from other countries, those countries
were compelled to resort to Saxony or to Switzerland
for their manufactures. He did not know where Saxony took her
goods to. Did they take them to Bavaria ? Now, what corn was
grown its Bavaria ? None. Did they take Oita goods to Wurtem
burg ? He had heard a story told of a Wurtemburg Minister telling
an Englishman, " Oh dear, we cannot allow your manufactures to
come into our country, because you won't take our corn Now,
he must have been a very excellent mystifying diplomatist, because
he concealed that Wurtemburg grew no corn.-(Cheers.) Then
take the case of Austria, with its 30,000,000, or 40,000,000 of po-
pulation. Were we excluded from supplying that large population
in consequence of our Corn-laws ? He was not at all sure that
Austria had not a Corn-law herself; nor was he aware that Austria
gave any advantage to the introduction of the manufactures of
Saxony over our own ; but at all events there had lately been con-
cluded with Austria a much boasted-of Treaty, which was to do
wonders, not only politically but commercially. It did not at all
appear that Austria had made any objection to the system of our
Corn-laws in concluding that Treaty.--(Hear, hear, hear.)
That lead him to the great consumption of Prussia. The
argument is, that because we don't take her corn, she would not
take our manufactures, and consequently we were on the high road
to ruin. That was a most extravagant proposition. No doubt, Prus-
sia imposed a duty on our goods, and so she had a right to do. But
the Noble Viscount opposite (Melbourne) had suggested that though
this was the case, the motive was not to retaliate, because of our re-
striction upon the importation of corn. The fact was, that every
power in Europe had been striving to encourage by artificial means,
their own manufacture and industry, and that by means of exclud-
ing all others. He thought that his Noble Friend (the Earl Fitz.
williarn) in ascribing a greater effect to the Corn.laws as
inducing fluctuations in prices, had entirely failed in
establishing that fact-(Hear, hear)-that he had entirely
failed in making out the proposition he called upon
the House to support. It was a question of very great difficulty
and great delicacy, and he could assure his Noble Friend that he
was less blotted upon the coin question than many persons. He
thought that the system of 1815 was a decided failure, and if any
one could convince him that the present system had equally failed
and had created mischief, he could assure the House that without
taking into consideration his own interests, as he was sure the
whole of their Lordships would, for the benefit of the public, at
once agree that they should be abolished. But, thinking that the
public would not be benefited by the repeal, but that it would pro-
duce incomparable confusion amongst great interests, he thought
their Lordships could not do better than stop his Noble Friend on
the very threshhold.
The Duke of WELLINGTON-After the lucid speech of his
Noble Friend who had just sat down, he could do little more than
give the same recommendation as that with which his Noble Friend
had concluded. But above all, that which he recommended
to their Lordships was, that they should pay no attention
to that part of the Noble Earl (Fitzwilliam's) speech in which
he held out threats to their Lordships.-(Cries of " Hear.")
He was sure that their Lordships would attend to everything that
fell from the Noble Earl, but he (the Duke of Wellington) re.
commended earnestly that they would treat with something very
different from respect those parts of his speech which held out
threats to them. They were to take the question into consideration
on the grounds in which it stood, and vote for the motion on its
merits, or vote for the motion of his Noble Friend (the Duke of
Buckingham) which was to reject the former. The resolution
before the House embraced only a very small part of that important
question, for let their Lordships observe, that if that resolution was
carried, they would be called upon probably not by her Majesty's
Ministers, but by others to go forward, and they would ground
themselves on that very resolution. The Noble Earl had stated
that the prices bad not been steady under the: operation of the
present system of Corn-laws, but he contended that by corn.
parison prices had been more steady under these laws than in
this country under former laws or in foreign countries
where no Corn laws existed. He would venture to assert, without
fear of contradiction, that during the last century the Corn-laws of
this country had been carried into execution for the encourage
meet of agriculture. Under such encouragement it had made such
a progress that we were now enabled to grow as much food as satis-
fied the annual consumption of the country. Let them remember
that in Engler(' at least, every one, even the lower orders of the
people subsisted upon wheat-(Hear, hear)-which was not the
Case in any other country that was known -(Hear, hear.)
He intreated their Lordships to reflect what would be the effects
of the measure proposed by the Noble Lord upcn this progressive
increase of our home produce, and also upon many other national
interests. They should not lose sight of those effects. He, there.
fore, begged of them, if they should take a step upon this most
important question, to do so s ith their eyes open to all the results
that might ensue to all those interests which that House and the
other House of Parliament were bound to cherish and promote.
He had already stated that the corn produced in this country had
so much increased as to be almost equal to the consumption of the
inhabitants-and he was happy to feel confidence in asserting that
in proportion as our home produce increased the price for it would
also decrease-and with this must also come naturally the decrease
of their prices. And herein he thought would be found
a solution of all the difficulty in the present case.
He was most anxious to impress those views on the
attention of their Lordships. Now, he would say a few words on
the supposed operation of the prices of foreign corn on the prices
of this country. Now, wheat at home being 735. a quarter, the
duty on foreign wheat was merely nominal, being but Is. a quarter.
Was there, in consequence, such an influx of foreign corn, that the
prices at home were lowered ? Not at all. When the ports were

I : open, the merchant was influenced by the same motives as the
' farmer. The spcculator, therefore, would not sell his stock at less
than the current price of the day. He would refer to the state of
things in the time of the late war. Wheat was then from 70s. to
150 s. in the home markets. Did the speculators in foreign corn,
sell their stock at Is. a quarter less, in consequence ? Let their
Lordships reflect upon the state of things that must naturally ensue.
From the discouragement of agriculture wished in the motion of the
Noble Lord, would the master manufacturer, or the exporter of
corn gain by it?—(Cries of " No, no.") Foreign States then
would put an export duty at pleasure upon corn, which the manu-
facturer, the labourer, or the purchaser, here would have to pay in
wages, earnings and purchases. Suppose now we were competing
with Russia or Prussia in manufactures, and that our Corn.laws
were repealed. Were we to expect that if we relied upon the people
of these countries—that they then being our rivals in particular
branches, and we depending on them for a supply of food—would
hesitate to lay a duty on exports of corn which would still oblige our
manufacturers to charge higher prices ? He (the Noble Duke) ob.
jected to any measure which would make this country depend on