The Sun.
London, England, 1837-03-17 00:00:00

CORN LAWS.

Mr. CL AY presented numerous petitions, praying for the
repeal of the Corn-laws.
Mr. WALL ACE presented a similar petition from Douglas.
Petitions, praying for a repeal of the Corn-laws, were pre-
sented by Colonel THOMPSON and Mr. ROEBUCK; and by an-
other Hon. Member, whose name we could not learn.
Mr. CLAY, in rising to bring forward the motion of which
he had given notice, should express his regret at being
obliged to ask the attention of the House, after the very
fatiguing debate which lasted for three nights—but it should
be borne in mind that it was not always in the power of
a Member who had undertaken to bring forward an important
question to postpone its discussion. It would be further recol-
lected that he had twice given way on this subject, once in
1835, in order not to interfere with the progress of the En-
glish Municipal Reform Bill,and last year on the understanding
that he should get a Committee to inquire into the matter.
He was, however, amply repaid for the delay by the
important evidence taken before that Committee. Having
thus stated why he urged forward the debate on
this subject, he would at once proceed to its consideration.
He would only remind Hon. Gentlemen that in the early
period of the history of this country there was as great an
anxiety to prevent the exportation of corn, as latterly there
had been to prevent its being imported.—( Hear, hear.)
Up to the reign of Henry VI. corn was only allowed to be
imported at a certain rate ; from that time up to the reign of
Charles 11., no alteration was made in that law ; in the reign
of Charles 11., duties were first imposed on the importation of
corn. In 1773 the importation of corn was allowed with the
duty of 6d., when the price was but 48s. a quarter. Upon
that law, Adam Smith said that, with all its imperfections,
though not the best in itself, it was the best society would
permit of, and it might prepare for a better. He did not know
what that great man would have said if he had lived to see
the law as it at present existed. In 1815 an Act of Parliament
was passed, which prohibited the importation of corn until
the price reached 80s. That was signalised in its progress
through the Legislature by riot, and scarcely a night passed
that it was not necessary to protect Hon. Members going to and
from the House by an armed force. In 1828 that law was
repealed, without a single voice being raised in its favour.
The constant aim of the Legislature had been to regulate the
price, and he would ask by what right was it that the Legis-
lature made any such attempt ?—( Hear, hear.) The prices of
other commodities were left to the causes which might govern
the prices. Two principles might be recognized in our fiscal
code by the importation duty—the first was to raise a revenue
for the exigencies of the State, and the second was protection
against foreign competition_; but with respect to corn alone
a third might be recognised—namely, the fixing by a pe-
culiar mode of levying the import duty a price be-
low which it was not to fall—a principle widely dif-
fering from, and going far beyond, the mere imposition
of a protecting duty. The principle upon which the
duty on Corn was imposed was not applied to any other
a. z;cl,.. Tuku of Silk goosls,
for instance. The Legislature had assumed 30 pek cent.
to be the duty which would enable the English manufacturer

to
further eom compete
andte with
there
no l
av,,.
m manufacturers,akio bg
ut
em itdanout
ysfsa• went
or
manufacturer.
fall according. to the price of the home
nHvoeultdhoruiogthtreidtocworotnhge
pititicothoef
bread, although
stahyeythatortbne
conside-
rably reduced the amount of wages recCsived by
classes.—(Hear, hear, hear.) It
was
si?
legislated
charge brought against Parliament of haa:ng
ega that
without regard to the interests of the lower classes,
to
s cYcorn.
the laws, as they now existed, did not keep up the price • a
answer
He was willing to admit that a Legislature composed ).
the wtoktihe
great degree of persons connected with the agricultural 'lib'
tricts might have enacted the Corn Laws, under a ea)"
viction that they were doing what was right; but yet there w:s
that in human nature which gave to a body of men a bias iL
legislating on any particular subject connected with their own
interests, without a consciousness on their parts of any
such feeling.—( Hear, hear, hear.) He asserted that
restriction on the frequent importation of Corn must
have the effect of raising prices above their level in proportion
to the extent of population in any country, and that he be-
lieved was the intention of the framers of the Corn-laws.
Another object they had in view was to excite an extraordi-
nary degree of cultivation. It would not, he was sure, be
denied that cheap bread was an advantage to the commu-
nity, and dear bread directly the reverse-4 Hear, hear.)---
There were many fallacies upon that point, such as that 'OO
matter how dear corn was, it did not signify, provided per,
sons had money to buy it. But these were fast vanishing. It WO
evident that in proportion as any part of the earth's surface was
densely peopled, the verdant parts were occupied, and recourse
must be had to the worse parts, and greater labour bestowed
upon their cultivation ; awl the result must be, that in propor-
tion to the amount of food required, an additional amount of
labour will be required from the labourers and citizens for
their daily food. The character and object of the Corn-laws
were to restrict the supply in that way, and they were, there-
fore, unjust in principle, and dangerous and impolitic in t:2clr,
application. The Hon. Member went on to say—Sir, we an.
told of the value of the home market to the manufacturer.
But by whom are we told this? By those who would by their
own showing keep the price of corn here 100 per cent. above
the price abroad: Their attempt to alarm the manufacturer
by the prospect of losing a market in which his 100 pieces of
broad cloth produce him 100 quarters of wheat, when he is to
get in exchange a customer who will gladly give him 200
quarters, is reckoning, as it appears to me, not inconsiderately
on his credulity. Akin to these assertions of the value of the
home market are the professions of anxiety for the welfare of
the manufacturing classes by the same parties, and the earnest
declarations of their belief that the interests of those classes
and of the landholder are identical. It is high time that this
talk should be put an end to. The landholder and the manu-
facturer have a community of interest under a system of free
trade in corn ; they have not a community of interest under our
present system ; on the contrary, their interests are in direct op-
position ; our present system renders high prices necessary to
the prosperity of the agricultural classes, whilst low prices, at
least prices on a level with those of other countries, are es-
sential to the manufacturer. These respective classes, accord-
ingly, have never prospered at the same time since 1815. I bole
in my hand documents which completely prove this assertion.
But then, it is asked, how should we employ our agricultural
labourers if we eat cheap foreign cern instead of dear Eng'
lish corn? If their labour be at present wasted, we had bet,
ter maintain them in absolute idleness than employ them ill
wasting capital as well as their own time ; but in truth there
would be employment for them in the thousand channels which,
in a thriving community, and with rapidly increasing wealth,
are open to industry ; independently of the consideration that
the repeal of the Corn-laws would change the nature rather
than alter the amount of the demand for agricultural labour.
Again, it is said that high prices of agricultural produce are
necessary to enable us to bear the burden of taxation, and that
the Corn-laws, therefore, are wise and just laws, as producing
that effect. Never was there a mistake so gross, I had almost
said so ludicrous, as this. The power to support taxation de-
pends wholly on the net income of the community—on profits
that is, after defraying the cost of subsistence of the labourer,
and replacing the funds of the capitalist. A net surplus of in.
come is the only fund on which an individual can permanentlY
rely to endure any burden on his finances, and as the cost ni
his subsistence is lower, so will his surplus be larger. That
which is true of one man is true of a nation, and if we could
with a free trade in corn procure the amount of bread now
consumed in the empire by the labour of 500,000 fewer men,
we should add annually to the national resources the wholo
produce of their labour (a producellittle short probably, of
the interest of the national debt) now, on that supposition,
utterly wasted. But does this proposition rest on theory alone I
On the contrary, it is supported by the unalterable logic 01
facts. If it be true that high prices of agricultural product
are necessary to enable us to support taxation, then the reve-
nue would be flourishing when the prices of that produce were
high, and decay when they were low. How do the Pico
for the last twenty years agree with this hypothesis? The
revenue of 1815, from the four great sources of the income
of the State—viz., Customs, Excise, Stamps, and Assessed
Taxes, was £75,045,885
The revenue of 1819 from the same sources 54,257,06(

Being a diminution of
But in 1816, 1817 s 1818, and 1819, taxes were

20,788,82

• 7 -
repealed amounting to £17,862,848
Taxes were imposed amounting to 3,486,707 14,376,141

Actual falling off of revenue... .-C6,412,68'
Now, during the period in which the defalcation occurred, what
were the prices of corn ? Low, of course, if the hypothesis to
which I have alluded be sound. They were, on the contraryi
by very far the highest which have occurred since the peoc°'
and almost equal during a portion of the time to the highesl
price of the war.
The me '.n price of 1816 was 765. 2d. per quarter.
1817 94s. Od.
1818
1819
Mean price of the whole series 81s. 6d.
The prices of the next four years were as remarkably lori%
viz..—

....... .
1820
mean 535. .5 1 Oa,
13±2,
And during this period the condition of the revenue was as f°,
-,ii‘
lows :—Revenue of 1819, as above stated £54,257,!.),,.,'"
Ditto of 1823... 54,465,0
Being an increase of £209,76'1
But in the four years there had been
taxes repealed
Less ditto imposed ... 183,040 6,617,_........896

Real increase of revenue
So that, with a price of 81s. 6d. (the price, be it recollecteui
at which it was hoped, expected, and intended that tivhe
should remain under the law of 1815), the revenue fell
6,400,0001. in four years ; with a price of 535. 10d., it irri;
proved in a period of similar duration 6,800,0001. A colliP'a
rison of the state of the revenue with the prices of wheat duri°:,
the years since 1823 does not present results so striking 71
those I have already stated ; but it yet affords results wect
worthy of the attention of the House. Still, taking Peri°
of four years, the results are as follow :
Revenue of 1823, as above
N.

Apparent diminution

Ditto of 1827

Price of 1834, .625. Otl.
Taxes repealed, 7,528,825 ~, 0
1825, 665. 6d. 02v,- ::
Less imposed 307,832 7,-'
1826, 565. 11d..-----""
1827, 565. 9d. ----- ,99E
Real increase of revenue, £4,790
Mean, 60s. 6d.
-----
...------ A 4(
... £52,01.1,v-

Revenue of 1827, as above

Ditto of 1831

48,04,
,
Apparent diminution
Price of 1828, 60s. sd.
repeale 5,837,188
1829, 665. 3d.
Less Taxes d,
imposed 1,325,556 4,a >63%
1830, 645. 3d.
1631, 665. 4d. Real increase 516,1
of revenue
Mean, 645. 4d.
x 4 8,04.,96i
0
47,646>
Apparent diminution
Price of 1832, 58s. Bd.
1833, 525. I Id. Taxes repealed, 4,335,339 _
1834, 465. `2d.Less imposed 395,046
- -/_;
1835, 395. 4d. 040
Real increase of revenue x-,',""
Mean, 495. 3d.
It will be observed how invariably the revenue fluctuatediiield
versely as the price of wheat—rising as the price fell ,Corn
falling as that rose. The advocates of the existing Act
Laws have mainly relied on their tendency of the l'berie,
1828, that is, to produce steadiness of price ; their,
..ward
ficial effects in this respect were brought prominently, it'es,
in the Report of the Committee on Agricultural Do" °op'
1833. Sir, the Committee congratulated themselves °hell
what prematurely, the fluctuations since 1828 baviglB36'
from 755. 3d. in November, 1828, to 365. in JanuarY,
I will only now observe that the slightest variation li"d
price of wheat which this country has known for a P.er °tits/
1.10 years was from 1773 to 1791, the only time
period in which we have had a free trade. The favouriteii
gurnent, however, of thc advocates of restrictions 00,t
durni.g 517
portation of corn is, that we may be independent ei ;de."
nations for our supply of food. Now, if this inclePehe
hare reference only to natural causes—if it egsieti-e
tended to assert that we shall be more secure .11 t"ti,
the defects of deficient harvests by growing, it fto,,,
corn we consume than by drawing a portion ni its fejie,
other countries, the proposition is false, almost by
el into
terms. You ensure the regularity of any result precit.sw"ci yool
degree that you multiply the instances from . enoety
induction is drawn—one field will yield a leas eertala° coileo
produce than a whole farm, a farm than a countY'oetilleo
than a kingdom, a kingdom than a continent, a _cant 1,0
than the world. But if by independence be rather woo tri,
independence of the caprices of foreign governara re'f' tree
position, although not capable of so strictly logic of s•
tion, is to the full as untenable. Under a syste;isioe
or,
trade sonic portions of many nations, with every pd
riety of situation and of interests, would be engage°, le its
ing, corn for our use; it would not be wantonly, ,n,distresst to
that the Government of any one such nation would
nertiotly/
subjects by depriving them of a commerce se 'llilraneellit of
them. Is it conceivable that all would do so siniu
this tar
The very supposition is an absurdity. But, Sir, hers ?
independence is unworthy of us, either as philosliodioo to,
gislators.—( Cries of " Hear, hear.") As among' f tlit% of
and families, so among the greater familiesrY basibich
man race mutual dependence, which is the „v_e_ifi,gsv/ secl
the social compact, is the prolific source of the leisetence ;cob
elevate, and the enjoyments which sweeten, ot, it oo 41c•
precisely in proportion as nations are depend to'Our-
()Wei' the Lapp:iiess of all be increased, and
,taibele ocetbo
able calamities of war be rendered of less pNelttee to
ream But, Sir, if the Corn-laws do not col"

Revenue of 1831, as above
Ditto 1835

Welfare OF7"--------------------.he whole community, what has been their opera-
tn
io upon that portion of the community for the benefit of
for the protection of the landed interest ? Why, they have
tblgtn:,l,l,.v. failed. Taking the three great classes into which
the
soil, interest
may be divided, viz., the owners of
eir the farmers or capitalists, and the labourers, the only
As to which they have not recently worked injury are the
sahourees, and the labourers they have not injured precisely be-
cause they have failed in producing the effect which was de•
signed and expected by the framers of them. It is because
the Corn-laws have been lately inoperative in producing their
designed effect on prices that they have failed to injure the la-
bourer. We are furnished with decisive testimony by both
he Committees of 1833'and of last Session on the state of agri-
culture. The CommittCe of 1833 in their Report say, "Itis a
eonsolvion to your Committee to find that the general condition
tof the agricultural labourer, in full employment, is better now
mendt ar.3, former period, his money-wages giving a greater con- I
c over the necessaries and conveniences of life." Tho
that of ee of last Session made no report ; but I am sure
, I shall meet with the concurrence of every member of that
' eMmittee,, and, indeed, of every one who has read the evi-
nonce, in stating that, if there be one single point placed by
byOat evidence beyond dispute, it is the greatly-improved con-
ition of the agricultural labourer. More than fifty witnesses,
',occupiers of land, from all parts of England, Wales, and Scot-
land, were examined, and among them scarcely one expressed
even a hesitating opinion as to the state of comparative ease
and comfort of the labouring classes. All, or nearly all, said
in the strongest language, that the condition of those classes
Was better than at any period of their recollection, and all attri-
buted it to the cause assigned in the Report of the Committee
Of 1833, viz, that the money wages of the labourer gave him an
unprecedented command over the necessaries of life. This effect
is Precisely what experience would lead us to anticipate.
With respect to the farmer, these laws have not only failed to
confer on him the advantage it was asserted he would have de-
lrived from them that he would not have received had the Corn-
arss been effectual for the attainment of their
object—but they
'ay'', in many cases, worked his entire ruin, in all have been
Prejudicial to his interests, and must, in the long run, by a
process demonstrably inevitable, cause the entire destruction
of the farming capital of the country. The Corn-laws would
be valueless to the farmer even could they keep up the price
of corn; but what is their effect when, as is now or has been
recently the case, they fail to keep it up ? Why, that they
are the cause of his utter ruin : the temporary rise of price they
produce induces him to engage in a farm, in which his rent,
Itis mode of culture, his expenses arc all calculated on antici-
pations of a price of corn which he finds to be delusive ; and,
after a few years' struggle, in which part of his capital goes to
the landlord, and part is utterly wasted, he throws up his farm
a ruined and broken-hearted man. The farmer is merely a
capitalist. That which is alone really interesting to him is,
that the price of corn should be steady. But the landholders—
surely these laws, framed by them, and with a direct view to their
tdvinitage, must to them, at least, be highly beneficial. Sir,
1 arts satisfied that if there be one class of the community
ore deeply thaa all others interested in the abrogation of the
resent system, the landholders are that class. I rest this
assertion mainly on two propositions, both capable of complete
demonstration : first, that it is impossible, by any legislative
Penactments, permanently to keep up the prices of agricultural
roduce of this country considerably above its level in other
entries;t all that you can effect is to produce a ruinous fluc-
ation ; and, secondly, that the attempt so to keep it up in-
volves the risk not only of depriving the English landholders
dtthe, great advantages which they at present possess, but of
"Pressing their-condition as much below as it is now above
,•
conuition of the owners of the soil in any other part of the
World. The whole scheme of keeping up the price of native-
TR.:°,ll corn by legislative restrictions on the importation of
, feign corn—vebether these restrictions take the place of ab-
-nte prohibition under a certain price, as by the Act of 1815,
°l' of virtual exclusion by duties so high as to be prohibitory
Ita,li'er the present law, the whole scheme tests on the assump-
0n that we shall always be an importing country ; that we
,nall always grow less than we consume ; . that. there shall
*lsis ,
b, Is be a tendency to dearth. It is quite demonstrable
tb% 4 Priori reasoning that this is a state which cannot be per-
it -11,ent• In order that dearth may nut become famine
b 42 necessary that such an amount of capital should
0
Yea rs devoted to the cultivation of the soil as, in ordinary
shallproduce a supply equal to the consumption
ef 4,4
etii! kingdom.. This tendency-- of capital. to flow towards the
tivation of the soil is certain ; it will be attracted to that
C
ahs-r.°Yinent preferably to all others, because the demand for
„ogee:, of life is of all demands the least checked by
„,,Igo prices The consumption of articles of luxury very
ieeljejedilY diminishes' with advancing cost, but the demand for
a. u Must be satisfied and until, therefore, the ordinary pro-
t" of Capital cannot be obtained in raising corn, capital will
aboutto its production, whatever be its cost. What is
eVitable result ? The supply which in ordinary year was
the equal to your wants, with an abundant harvest exceeds
4,1e1n, and the portion which is surplus to the national con-
in mption must fall, not only to the price which it will fetch
fore'
def• ign markets, but as much below that price as will
jetral the cost of its transport. If a short harvest or two
disettrierene, a rise takes place to a famine price ; and whilst
a
are ss oecurs among the manufacturing classes, wild hopes
alai excited excited among the farmers, the growth of corn is
miserable
g iMprovidently extended, and you recommence your
tb erable cycle. Are these only speculative evils ? Do
11)0°,1 exist only in the imagination of theorists ? At this
tli"ent they oppress us ; twice since the Act of 1815 has
tai't'e succession of cause and effect, this ruinous alternation,
sons° Place. The framers of the Act of 1815, and the per-
aati_Fegaged in the pursuits of agriculture, almost universally
bet ciliated, as the consequence of that measure, a price of corn
bin avera -
gins less than 80s. ; in 1823 it was 38s. Mr. Can-
toriago'rk,etetiittlylB27, said, when introducing his resolutions similar,
so, to the provision of the existing law—" The
aien b t will assume such a steadiness, that instead of a fluctua-
bsati etvreen 112 s. at one time, and 38s. at another, the vi-
eir 1048, will probably be found to be limited within the small
beep tub from about 555. to 655." Now, has this prophecy
;us. InJfiiled ? In 1828 the price of wheat was 755. ;in 1836,
degre "hat becomes now of your grave discussions as. to the
of ~ e of protection to which the landed interest is entitled—
phiinotur laborious inquiries as to a remunerating price—that
elahet°l° which has always mocked your research ?—of your
sideeente scale of ascending and descending duties ? Pro-
file ° blesses us with abundant harvests, and sweeps away
!qual2llll,nY effects of that legislation which would obstruct the
tete_emstribution of its blessings. The real and permanent
be trhastt °f the landholder of this, or any other country, must
Ways • the community of which they form a part should al-
baittee InPort corn. The evidence given before the Com-
the c s.t Year affords proof, clear and indisputable, that
predef'uslasys have in this respect, viz., the tendency to
them `e great fluctuation, the effect I have ascribed to
(Hear, hear.)
ciarrea---There was a remarkable eon-
two roost
of opinion among almost all the witnesses as to
1634.""t It° nt
s th P tant points. First, that for some years, up to
large had been a perpetually increasing tendency to en-
had sse"' growth of wheat ; and, secondly, that in 1835 there
etear:_nurred a striking revulsion in the tendency. The de-
Year wag 1 the breadth of wheat sown in the autumn of that
tarid by by almost all the witnesses, stated as considerable,
igh4 sotne rated as high as twenty-five per cent., and even
been lb The reason of this change is clear. Wheat has
~In 5,0,14 tiemeessptecital favourite of our legislation ; it was supposed
r‘Kr the re_ to, be the great reliance of the farmer. " Wheat
Yet hi, in, it was said ; and accordingly it has been in a
zivsatapyuperrndteeegtiree than other grain the object of Pasha-
on.
f '' and 31s We have chosen to assume that 735.,
°- the cost •, are the prices that express the fair relation
sneer's of growth of wheat, of barley, and of oats re-
any 4'9., and the result shows how eminently absurd is
~,,,
es gislative int f
41q e nris_
.interference in such matters.—( Hear, hear.)
teiliti r ,eS did at no time perhaps express accurately that
of Mt ; but sin
irn husbandry, which
the introduction of the four-course system
aervements is lich dispenses with fallow, and those
s as applicabrileeultivation which have rendered the lighter
..0 ation of costs h
eel
to wheat as to barley and oats, this assumed
I,cssadation. ~„,.
aas become utterly erroneous and devoid of
, hereas by
your at
has been the consequence ? Why—that
sea?re than
bassb en during lY'
baste Ws
Y"
"Y
wheat shall be 78s per cent.
.and 1355. per cent. dearer than oats, it
above the • act Inconsiderable period about, or very little
ley. 'lt Price
theeriod wilithasinbehaelef cht,ts, and actually below the price of bar-
e centurYe
ing tn._
inpasEtnygelaarndc,heehaepacisrevthaenvenat
thanany
very mean Price of the
atop to which it lacalntries from which we import it. The
sill tiloat keep not oniv'hs. bee.n the darling object of your po-
tay dead°femit the p' e, high in price, but steady—which you
ked for Pigs,f it__has
fallen of England to eat unless they will
and rrirn P But this to a rate has made it an economial
0:
QIII. cure itself. Nois a temporary evil, it may be said,
_ admirable a doubt it is in a rapid process of cure.
Ystem hay' .
4,1_ the
,_ear, ovv successfull
unva h capital of the mg wasted an enormous portion
producers of corn, is now about to
:a hear, and eheeyrsit can afflict the consumer.--( Hear,
a bawl an extent by th ) Capital has been abstracted to
as.st this Year 0 unusual'
f e growth of wheat, that unless we have
prices befor
altar)", e the crop ef. Productiveness, we shall see
trit '", Produce rem 4138 can be reaped which will, I
„ 1 vela, . onstrances from the manufacturing dis-
prod"°W atidc different in tone fro the language in which they
uct, oss you. But setting from
the effect of monopoly to 1
Erarvests the fluctuations I have described, described, conceding that our
Bean are always to be of uniform produce admitting that
is succeed in
faroi,er to rise intomaintaining a state of Partial dearth which
abundanced.. on the one hand, or to sink into
siini4 °II the other iittting for a moment all these impos-
you thenel
ably ate); could
*Mild re the level of othereep
up the price of corn consider-
Year man0 itaPOSSihle. One countries ? Even then, Sir, it
weedlttiti
lbufacturing ea . of two things must happen : either
e Populat' pital would depart to other shores,
b . ton which it at
h.Yb emigration, or the Present supports must be re-
course' °me market for more dreadful process of misery,
4 _o., reduced ; or you woeridbei.ng thus limited, the price of
uand thus equally diminishediv your labourers to cheaper
ahatatusolute conditionofthe demand for wheat. It is
other he
ra,_
0. the existence of our manufactures
Le t wages should not
such that it c • be greatly above the rate in
such
tat it fs net g. countries and if theprice
for - l'imself t within the reach of the of. bread .be
their
a whao Potatoes. Where will thenoperative he will
the re,rneseurces t the condition of the humbler be your market
Pea t`," `serVatio against famine ? What willbe classes ? What
abe You cannot t ?rder, or the stability the chances of
ve the ot maintain of
.property ? I se-
tae Itch. average Price " permanentl
y a price of grain much
attetu t;ineye bY legisi • of other countries • the utmost you
Stsee;--stir alternataitire interference ie, tollpr'oduc miserable
Ivolacturer, and e 7 crushing into ruin the farmerea or the
the
.11 which co_
ra always in both. The erflowing
s
lap of R__Ta e_reC. and manufactures h poured into
,ve'er. that bi,:,% Ild, and the demand whichave the crowded
t ~kroduction of gti;ewn, uP at :their bidding afford for
Until e absolutel , e soil, confer upon land • this country
enraParativ j} unkoo'
in in
d
e Y a recent er country, an
periodunknownin n
our ow .

Ample proof of this fact is to be found in the
report of Mr. Jacob, who, in 1826 and 1827, visited, by
direction of Government, the great corn-growing countries
of Europe. Throughout Denmark, Prussia, Poland, Gallicia,
and Hanover—throughout the wide regions watered by the
Vistula, the Weser, and the Elbe,—either rent does not exist
at all—the proprietor being under the necessity of cultivating
his own estate—or it varies from ss. per acre to 15d per acre.
By the testimony of Locke, it appears that ss. per acre was a
rack-rent in his time in England. Not the smallest additional
development can be given to the operation of the steam-engine,
nor the least improvement can be effected in the loom, which
does not add to the value of every landed estate in the king-
dom. It is not in the higher price of corn alone that the ad-
vantages of the English landholder consist.—( Hear, hear. )
The admirable roads, the means of transport by canals and
railroads, the abundance of capital, the facility of credit, the
demand for those articles in which he never can he rivalled by
the foreign agriculturist—for animal food, for milk, for but-
ter, for esculents, for hay, for straw—all these are advan-
tages of which it is not easy to over-estimate the value.
The English landholder possesses a natural monopoly in
being proprietor of the soil in the richest and most densely-
populated country in the world. By attempting to add to
it an artificial monopoly, he may lose some of his present, but
can gain no additional advantages. I shall be referred to the
increasing amount of our exports as proof that our Corn-laws
are not inconsistent with the prosperity of our manufacturing
interests. It is with the full knowledge of the facts on which
such an argument may be grounded, that I repeat my deli-
berate conviction that our manufacturing and commercial su-
premacy trembles in the balance. Our Corn-laws affect our
manufacturing interests by a double process : first, by depriv-
ing our manufactures of extensive markets, which would be
otherwise open to them; and secondly, by disabling them from
successfully competing with their foreign rivals in those
markets to which both have access. You have already lost,
or are rapidly losing, your European markets. How long
will you retain those of the other portions of the world ?
On this point I beg to call the attention of the House to a do-
cumentrecentla circulated by the Cotton Association of Glasgow
and the West of Scotland, relating to the cotton manufacture,
by far the most important of all the branches of our national
industry. I find it there stated, that the consumption on the
continent of Europe of raw cotton was last year upwards of
600,000 bales—that the cotton manufacture of France has in-
creased in ten years 53 per cent., whilst ours has increased
only 50 per cent. ; but in the same time that of the United
States of America has increased 121 per cent. I find it stated
that the cotton hosiery is manufactured in Germany so cheap
that it is imported into this country, notwithstanding an import
duty—that of cotton yarn the importation is gradually confining
itself to the finer qualities, clearly proving that even in spin-
ning, that especial branch of the manufacture in which we have
been accustomed to consider ourselves secure from competi-
tion, the exertions of our continental rivals are daily becoming
more formidable—that in every market of the world, in
Mexico, in the Brazils, in China, in India, at Malta, at
Smyrna, and Constantinople, the heavy cotton cloths of the
United States of America enter into successful competition
with the produce of the English looms. I find it asserted that
in America the manufacturer gets his raw material cheaper,
that on the continent of Europe wages are lower than in
England, whilst in both water power supplies at a cheaper
rate the agency of steam. Now, I entreat of the House to
weigh attentively the object with which these representations
are made ; it is to induce the Legislature to take off the small
tax yet levied on the importation of cotton wool, five-eighths
of one penny per pound, amounting on the whole of the goods
manufactured to only two per cent. ; and it is the deliberate
opinion of the Association that the removal of even this amount
of pressure is essential to enable the British manufacturer to
endure the competition of his foreign rival. I hesitate not to
say that the Association is right, and that the duty must be
taken off. But I say further, that this relief will not suffice;
that wages, which form so much larger a component part of the
cost of manufactured goods, cannot in England permanently
remain much above the wages paid in similar branches of rna-
nufactere in other countries, and that such approximation of
the rate of wages here and abroad can only take place without
a convulsion by an approximation also in the prices of the ne-
cessaries of life. Of the amount of risk we should incur by
seriously endangering the loss of the foreign market for our
cotton goods the House will judge when I state that of the
cotton manufacture, which leaves for profit on capital and
wages of labour not less than 25,000,0001. per annum, and
employs or supports from two to three millions of individuals,
two. thirds, or perhaps three-fourths, find a vent in foreign
markets ; that under our present system these, the chief
sources of our national wealth and greatness, will be dried up ;
that if we do not abrogate the Corn-laws—those laws which,
whilst they exclude us from one-half of the markets of the
world, will render us unable to support competition in the
other—we shall sooner or later lose our manufacturing su-
premacy, I hold to be certain. My own opinion is, that the
epoch of that loss will not be long delayed—but, be its occur-
rence nearer or more remote—if there be truth in reasoning,
or certain anticipations to be drawn from experience—come
assuredly it will. In the issue of this great experiment the
landholders are more deeply interested than any other class of
the British people.—[There was here some indication of
counting the House.] The llon. Member observed that it
was a most unworthy mode of getting rid of the question with-
out the cognizance of Government.—( Hear, hear.) He con-
tinued :—I repeat that the landowners are more interested in
the issue of the question than any other class of the community.
Having now, Sir, stated to the House, however inadequately, the
amount and nature of the risk we incur by a prolonged existence
of the present Corn-laws, and the deep interest which all classes
of the community have in their immediate abrogation, it re-
mains for me to point out what regulations I would substitute
in their place. I would propose to sweep wholly away the
system of average and fluctuating duties, and to leave the im-
portation of every species of grain perfectly free, subject only
only to a moderate fixed duty. I would abolish the fluctuat-
ing duties, because, in whatever degree reduced, they would
still be destructive of the most essential element of a free
trade, viz., a certainty as to the amount of the charges on the
importation of Foreign Corn. I would have the fixed duty
of moderate amount, as a high fixed duty would, of course, in
proportion as it operated to the exclusion of Foreign Corn,
produce all, or nearly all, the evils I have ascribed to the pre-
sent system. The duty should be in amount an exact equi-
valent for the burdens which the agricultural capitalist has to
sustain beyond what is borne by the rest of his fellow-citizens,
and which enhance the cost at which his produce can be
brought to market. The amount of those burdens is clearly
the exact measure of the protection to which the agricultural
interest is entitled ; for whilst, on the one hand, it is both just
and expedient that the weight of taxation should be diffused
equally over the whole community, and not be permitted to press
more heavily on one branch of the national industry than another,
on the other it caniA be contended that the taxation which
is raised from the agricultural classes in their character, not
of producers, but of consumers, that taxation which falls only
on the rent of the landlord or the profits of the farmer, can
give a claim for peculiar protection. Having defined the rule
by which the new duty should be calculated, I might fairly,
perhaps, leave my motion in the hands of the House, and de-
volve on the Committee the task of applying that rule. I
feel, however, that the more open and candid course, although
not the best adapted for securing support to my motion, is to
state what in my opinion should be the amount of the perma-
nent duty. I should propose, if. the House accede to my mo-
tion, that the new law should come into operation on the Ist
of June of this year; that from that time to the Ist of June,
1838, the duties should be 10s. per quarter on wheat, Ba. on
barley, and 6s. on oats ; to the Ist of June, 1339, Bs. on wheat,
6s. on barley, and 4s. on oats ; and from that time perma-
nently ss. per qr. on wheat, 4s. per qr. on barley, and 3s. per
qr. on oats. The ground on which I fix the relation between the
different kinds of grain I have named; the duties to be fixed
on the less important sort I have not named will be matter of
discussion in .the Committee. I will now merely say that
the duties I have mentioned are more than a full equivalent
for the whole of those charges which press exclusively on the
landed interest, or enhance the cost of growing corn. Sir, it
may perhaps be expected that I should express some opinion
as to what would be the price of corn in England under such
a law as I have proposed. My own complete conviction is,
that with a free trade and a duty of 55., wheat could not, to
the extent of one fortnight's consumption of the kingdom, be
imported under 40s. to 455. per quarter ; that would, of course,
be the mean price of this country, and, minus the duty and
cost of transport, the price of every country with which we
have intercourse. A free trade in corn would restore those
friendly and intimate commercial relations with the nations
of the world, which our Corn-laws have interrupted—rela-
tiuns not to be shaken, because they would rest upon the na-
turnl wants and capabilities of every country, and be cemented
by the interchange of mutual benefits. A free trade in corn,
whilst it would re-open to our manufacturers the markets of
Europe, would, by insuring to them a moderate and steady
price of the necessaries of life, enable them to support com-
petition in those of the New VVoild.—( Hear, hear.) Nor is
there any sufficient ground for believing that these most im-
portant national objects would be gained at the price of any
considerable derangement in British agriculture. Ido not
believe that more than a very moderate quantity of foreign-
grown wheat could be laid down here at less than from 40s. to
455. per quarter, and Ijam altogether sceptical as to the Bri-
tish agriculturist being enabled to grow it atathat price. He
has enormous advantages over his foreign competitor, and
with the improved culture and more judicious application of
capital which would follow on the establishment of free trade,
I doubt whether more than a very small portion of the land
of England would be found incapable of producing corn at a
price to compete with the foreign growth. The great value
of a free trade in corn is, that it would indicate the precise.
point at which the aids to be derived from a dense population,
and the application of capital and science would cease to
counterbalance the effect of the mere fertility of soil in coun-
tries not possessing such advantages. I believe that period
to be yet remote. Ample support for this opinion might be
drawn from the evidence given to the Committee of last Ses-
sion, but I feel that it is totally unnecessary that I should tres-
pass on the indulgence of the House for this purpose. All
such considerations merge in the wider conclusion—( Cries
of Hear, hear, hear)—the grounds for which it has been
my main object clearly to lay before the House, namely,
that equality, or nearly an equality, in the price of the ne-
cessaries of life in this country, and those which are
our manufacturing rivals is the absolute condition—l will
not say of our prosperity--but of the security, almost
of the existence, of our social system. If it be really true
that wheat can be grown in otherrn echnodeuree a
nrstltinieaosrpaertieceear
tmaciuoncs
much
hwhich
ctraunl dI andamvei tnoafmietds being,th at factlai ndodol
vent of the ruin which I have predicted as the consequenlecoewadeo-rf
a perseverance in our present system. In conclusion, `Sir, I
would implore of the members of this House, more especially
of that large portion connected with the agricultural
interests
to weigh calmly and dispassionately that which I have laid be-
fore them. Mine hag been little more than the humble merit
of bringing into one view the overwhelming arguments which

bear upon this great question ; but to those arguments can
there be a reply ? I call on them as men of honourable feel-
ing to free themselves from the suspicion of legislating with
sordid views and for their own immediate benefit. I call on
them as statesmen, to expunge from our own statute-book
what are a disgrace to the intelligence of the age, which fur.
nish an excuse for every lingering error, for every absurd re-
striction, in our commercial code. I call on them as lovers of
their country, to avert the dreadful calamities which a perse-
verance in our present system will, at no distaat period, entail
on England. I warn them as prudent men, to delay no longer
the solving a question, on the wise solution of which, depends,
I venture to assure them, not the value only, but perhaps the
very tenure, of their estates.
On the motion of an HON. MEMBER the House was
counted, but there being more than forty Members present,
Mr. VILLIERS rose to second the motion of the Hon.
Member fur the Tower Hamlets. By this motion the industry
and commerce of the country pleaded before the Legislature,
and asked for liberty ; and however anomalous it might appear
in a commercial country boasting of a Representative Go-
vernment, for a quarter of a century they had offered up this
prayer to the House without success ; and it seemed that
those that maintained these laws raised the issue to the
country, whether it was to the skill and industry, the ma-
nufacturing and commercial enterprise of the country, or
to the virtues of the soil, or the owners of the soil, that
we were indebted for our greatness and consideration in
the world. The support of the Corn-laws raised this ques-
tion.—(Hear.) He (Mr. Villiers) considered that this
country owed everything to commerce and manufacture,
and those interests were sacrificed to the interests of an un-
productive class • and he now called upon the owners of
land who occupied entirely one House of Legislaturtioin this
country, and who greatly preponderated in another, to de-
clare in the face of the country and the world on what ground
it was that they passed and maintained laws for the advance-
ment of their own fortunes and to the injury of the rest of the
community. The question of Corn-laws was a clear one,
and needed no mystery; it was one of trade between a pro-
ducer and a consumer, and he contended that wo ought not
to consider the producer in any other than his commercial re-
lation with the rest of the community ; and if we compelled
the consumer to pay a higher price than necessarily required, it
was rank tyranny and injustice. He had referred to the dis-
cussions and defences offered upon previous occasions for this
system, and he had observed that three or four grounds were
usually taken, which were chiefly worth mentioning from
their frequent repetition : the first was that land was the basis
of all prosperity ; the second was that we ought not to de-
pend upon the foreign countries for supplies ; the third, that
we could not pay our public debt, or maintain our burdens, with-
out the Corn-laws to secure high rents to the landowners.
Now what was the meaning of the fact as connected with
Corn-laws, the effect of which was to maintain high prices and
to keep poor land in cultivation ? Now are we to be told that
England's glory wee to be traced to high prices paid for this
produce of poor land ? But it was always added that commerce
and manufacture only flourished when land was prosperous.
Now does this require a distinct inquiry into the way in which
manufactures added to the prosperity of this country'; and he
would ask if it were not by producing more than we consumed,
and by exporting the surplus? Was it not by the goods which
we imported in exchange for our exports that we added to the
stock of our wealth, that we became rich and increased the
sources of the revenue ? And yet what was the effect of the
Corn-laws but to raise price, and thereby limit production by
increasing the cost; and was it not evident that Corn-laws
were rather the means of misfortune than the basis of pros-
perity ? The next ground was perhaps the most puerile;
indicated want of thought and ignorance of human nature. II
supposed that we were in danger from depending upon the fo-
reign producer of grain, lest we should withhold supplies.
This involved two assumptions, one false and the other absurd.
In the first place, it assumed that we were now independent
of foreign supplies, when it was notorious that we had not
been so for forty years past; but the nature of our depen-
dence was precisely that which was most dangerous, for it
left the producer uncertain as to the time when we should re-
quire those Supplies ; and we know that at one time, in 1816,
the price of wheat was 113 s. a quarter, owing to the supplies
being inadequate. But do not persons see who urge this ar-
gument that it applies to commerce altogether, and that we
ought not to depend for any article on which the livelihood of
any portion of the community depended And this would
apply to the million of people who depended upon the impor-
tation of cotton wool for manufacture as others might do for
corn. And now what ground is there for another defence of
the Corn-laws, that it is necessary to keep up high rents to pay
our national debt? Why, what were the sources of our re-
venue ? Did not the House know that 72 per cent. of the re-
venue was paid by the customs and excise ; and what were the
duties of customs but the duties paid upon our imports in ex-
change for what we export. Does it not appear, therefore,
that just in proportion as we extend our commerce, so do we
improve in revenue, and that as Corn-laws raise price they
limit the foreign commerce and diminish the revenue ? Again,
can the landowners pretend that they pay more to the excise
than the rest of the community, when that depended upon the
public consumption, and that the cheaper people had to pay for
good the more they had to consume of other things ? Do
Gentlemen know who urge this argument that in one branch
of trade alone seventeen millions is paid in wages, besides what
is paid in every other trade; and if this principle is sound, why
should it not apply to all other interests as well as land ?---
( Hear.) And now, Sir, we come to the last ground usually
urged in favour of the Corn-laws—that the landholders have
exclusive burdens to bear, and therefore ought to be indem-
nified by Corn-laws. Now, Sir, in dealing with these exclu-
sive burdens I beg first to remark, that they are of that nature
that gives no one landowner the right to claim indemnity ; and
if' that were not manifest before, I might refer to the discussion
of the last three nights, when it was distinctly admitted that
the Church-rate was a charge upon the land, and that the land
had no right to be relieved from such a liability. And where,
he asked, was the difference between that charge and any of
those now in question? But again he would observe, that if
the Corn-laws were to be an equivalent for these exclusive
charges, why; there ought to be some adjustment of the charges
made upon the public on that account, for we hear of reduc-
tions of the poor-rates, of one-half of the county-rate being
fixed upon the Consolidated Fund, but we never hear a whis

per of any reduction in the duty on foreign corn. Again, with
respect to tithe, what the agriculturist had to complain of was,
that it prevented improvement and cultivation of fresh land ;
but the Tithe A.:t of last year prevented this in future, and
thereby raised the value on land. But is the duty on foreign
corn to be therefore reduced now for what the Member for Corn.
Berland calls the locus standi of the landed interest for the
Corn-laws? But with respect to this ground of resistance to
the repeal of the Corn-laws, he should like to remove it by re-
pealing the tax on malt, if the landowners would consent to
open the ports for foreign grain : be would vote for the repeal
of the malt-tax to-morrow if the Corn-laws were repealed.
Upwards of forty-five millions of quarters were consumed an-
nually in this country. Now, for every shilling a quarter paid
for more than was necessary the country lost two millions ster-
ling. Now, the landed interest objected to the fixed duty
proposed by my Hon. Friend, for it was said wheat would
fall Ss. a quarter. Now, according to their own calculation,
we have nearly twenty millions lost annually to this country.
Would the public not be gainers then by taking all these al-
leged charges upon itself? Now, if the agriculturists will
not accept these terms, what would the public think of
what was alleged in favour of the Corn-laws, that they only
gain an equivalent for their exclusive charges ? But did the
evil end there ? Was there nothing but paying twenty mil-
lions a year for the benefit of one class ? Have we nothing
to apprehend from what we see going on in the world in con-
sequence of our system ? Have we not provoked a confecLe
ration of twenty-s►x millions of people in the heart of Europe,
with a view to resist the introduction of our manufactures, and
to attempt to compete with us in the market, which we have
hitherto commanded ?—( Hear, hear, hear, and cheers.)
Do we not see attempts made in every quarter to oppose
what is called our " commercial despotism ?" When we learn
the fact, authenticated at the Board of Trade, that already we
have been successfully opposed by the manufacturers of Saxony
and Switzerland, by producing cheaper than ourselves, why
are we not to look with alarm at the prospect of success which
may attend their rivalry with our manufactures ? This was
really the most important part of the question. He (Mr.
Villiers) thought that we had the remedy in our hands by at
once acting upon that simple, sound, and just principle of
" free trade"—that which left to every man to dispose of the
fruits of his labour and his capital in the market where he got
the most in exchange for them.—( Cheers.)
The Marquis of CHAND OS felt it bis duty to oppose the
motion. -He complained that the manufacturers throughout
the country had formed Associations for purposes of hostility
towards the agriculturists. What would be thought of the
agriculturists, if they were to form Associations for the pur-
pose of putting down the manufacturers ? The agriculturists
wanted no monopoly:, all they wanted was that protection
against the foreigner which was enjoyed by the manufacturer.
He certainly thought it was the duty of his Majesty's Minis-
ters to state whether or not they wont along with the Hon.
Member for the Tower Hamlets in .his opinions. He ( Lord
Chandos) spoke the sentiments of a large body o findividuals,
among whom the avowal that it was the object to introduce
the principles of free trade into the affairs of agriculture would
create great alarm. From all which had been stated by the
Honourable Member for the Tower Hamlets he differed in
toto. " Live and let live" was a popular and an excellent
motto; but the maxim would be violated if the interests of
the agriculturists were wholly neglected, and those of the ma-
nufacturers alone cherished and protected. Was it fair to re-
quire a free trade in corn, when there was no free trade in
manufactures? He wanted no monopoly for the agricultural
interest, but he demanded for them equal justice. He wished
to maintain the present Corn-laws as they now existed ; and
if the tranquillity of the country should be disturbed by the
attempt to alter those Laws, let not Hon. Gentlemen put that
evil at the door of the farmers and landowners, but at the door
of those who had formed an association to secure the repeal of
the Corn-laws. Once destroy the Corn-laws, and they would
throw the farmers of this country into the deepest distress ; and
if they should throw the country upon the aid of foreigners,
God help them in their distress.
Mr. E WART, as a member of the Anti-Corn-law Associa-
tion, defended the proceedings of that Society, and urged that
it had been formed on the principle of self-defence; and
when the Noble Marquis adverted to the fact of the existence
of an Anti-Corn-law Society, let it be recollected that there
were two formidable Associations combined to support the
present system of Corn-laws—the one being the House of
Lords, and the other the House of Commons. The Noble
Marquis, however, admitted himself to be an advocate for
free trade in manufactures.

The Marquis of CHANDOS explained. He had said that
he was not opposed to the giving protection to,
.or granting
free trade to, the manufacturing intercsls ; but it these were
given, it followed (and be contended for it) that ihe agricul-
tural interest should also be protected.
Mr. EWART—Then the Noble Marquis vtish(d to esta-

THE SUN, LON DON, FRIDAY, MARCH 1/, 1837.

blish one ingenious complicated system of monopoly. The
present Corn-laws operated prejudicially in two ways—they
acted as a burden upon the consumer, and they prevented the
extension of the national wealth.
The Earl of DARLINGTON was opposed to an altera-
ration of the existing Corn-laws—not only because he felt
that it would deprive the agricultural interest of a protection
it had a right to enjoy—but, also, because it would awaken
hopes, in the minds of the manufacturers, which could never
be realised.
Sir W. MOLE SWORTH—I support the motion of my
Honourable Friend as a preliminary step to the abolition of all
Corn-laws. The question of the Corn-law, as an economical
question, is with reference to its effect on wages and profits.
I object to a Corn-law because it tends to produce low wages
and low profits. With low wages and low profits the bulk of
the community is uneasy, miserable, and discontented. nig
common objection to the Corn-law is that it makes bread
dear. But this objection in itself—separated from all other
considerations—is basally a solid one ; for it is evident, if
dear bread be accompanied by high wages, that dearness is a
matter of no consequence to the labourer. In the same
manner, if cheap bread be accompanied by low wages, the
labourer would not gain by that cheapness.—( Hear, hear.)
When the labourer is obliged to work hard for subsistence
—when he is obliged to exchange a large amount of
labour for a loaf of bread—then he suffers ; hut his suffering
arises from low wages. The important point is the case of
the community. The object to be attained is the happiness of
the people. The great economical means of producing that
result are high wages and high profits. Everything which
tends to produce low wages and low profits is injurious to the
well-being of the community. Labourers and capitalists both
suffer from hurtful competition, and hurtful competition is the
consequence of the field for the productive employment of
labour and capital being too small. Everything that tends to
make that field too small tends to lower wages and profits, and
is injurious to the well-being of the community. But there is
a tendency in labour and capital to augment more rapidly than
the means of employing them, and consequently to produce
hurtful competition. Augment employment for labour and
capital (for instance, by some agricultural improvement, which
renders productive a large quantity of land which had pre-
viously been sterile), then hurtful competition ceases, but only
for a time ; for population and capital will both grow up to
the new field of employment, hurtful competition will again
exist, and wages and profits will ultimately be lowered to the
former standard. These positions seem to me to show the
evils of the Corn-lags. Suppose the Corn.law repealed,
capital and labour then might increase to any extent. What
matters it provided food can be obtained ? With our perpetually
increasing and inexhaustible powers of purchase, our impor-
tation of food from other countries might go 061 increasing for
generations, so that with a great increase both of population
and capital there should be no hurtful competition. In this
country there is a hurtful competition between labourers and
between capitalists. Labour and capital are superabundant
compared to land ; consequently both wages and profits are
low. A free importation of Corn would be equivalent to the
addition of so much land to this country. Every person who
lives upon the interest of capital suffers from the Corn-laws;
and so do the professional classes, the demand for whose ser-
vices is limited by the Corn-laws. It would be difficult to
name the class or the individual who does not suffer from the
Corn-laws, with the exception perhaps of the landowner. For
all classes, with the exception of the landlord, a repeal of
the Corn-lavis would put an end to injurious competition.
With regard to the landlord, the repeal of the Corn-laws
would unoubtedly decrease the competition 4sr the use of
his land for the purpose of growing corn ; but in the increas-
ing wealth and population there would be au increased de-
mand for the use of Isis land for an infinite variety of purposes.
But there is another more pressing, if not wore important,
question. Since we passed a Corn-law, which sets a limit to
the employment of capital at home, our sneerss of making ca-
pital have prodigiously augmented. The cause of competi-
tion amongst capitalists has become more powerful than ever ;
and this is precisely the period we have chosen for limiting
the field in which competition takes place. The Corn-law,
by limiting the field for the employment of capital, limits the
field for the employment of labour. At the same time great
improvements in medicine, more especially in curing the dis-
eases of children, have augmented the rate of increase amongst
labourers, and consequently aggravated the competition be-
tween them. Hence the very severe competition between ca-
pitalists and labourers, which ever since the war, with the ex-
ception of the last two years (and this exception confirms this
position), has produced low wages, low profits, and political
discontent amongst the bulk of the people. Political dis-
content arose from low wages and low profits. During
the last two years great improvements in agriculture in
Ireland, and extraordinary harvests, have produced
the same effect as if the Corn-laws had been repealed. With
high wages and high profits the bulk of the people have been
contented and peaceable. This cannot last long. We must
soon return to that state of severe competition which has
existed since the war down to two years ago, and which pro-
duees political discontent. But a great moral change has
taken place in the people.—( Hear.) Education, such as it
is, has made the people what they never were before, namely—
politicians.—( Hear.) The change of the constitution of Par-
liament has given to the bulk of the people a great increase of
political power.—( Hear.) In any period of considerable ex-
eiterrsetit, the people, including the working classes, who are
unrepresented, will have great influence over the constitution
and decisions of this House.—( Hear.) Having the Reform
Bill and the Municipal Law to work with, I am convinced
that whenever the people shall feel again the pressure of
the Corn-law they will sweep it away at once—( Hear,
hear)—snd this period, I believe, cannot be far distant.—
( Hear.) But is it wise to continue this state of things till
the people again feel that pressure, and be in a state ol
political irritation ? Should we not rather legislate now,
when all is quiet, than wait for the storm which must arise?
—(Cheers.) Now the progress of popular opinions, and of
the power of the democracy, is certain and inevitable. In
order to make that progress harmless, in order to prevent po-
litical convulsions, the people must be at ease and contented;
for this purpose wages and profits must be high, and conse-
quently everything should be removed which tends hurtfully to
limit the field of employment. The first step to this desirable
result is a repeal of the Corn-law; and the repeal of this law
is required as one amongst the many means which are neces-
sary to render the inevitable progress of democracy in this
country as safe and peaceable as it is in America.—( Hear.)
Mr. HANDLEY was willing at once to abandon the Corn-
laws when it should be proved injurious to the general in-
terests of the country, and when it should be found convenient
and desirable to the State that all monopolies whatsoever
should be destroyed.—( Hear, hear.) But it was his firm
opinion that that period would not arrive for many years to
come. The Hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets had argued
that if the Corn-laws were repealed it would open new mar-
kets for British manufactures abroad ; but was the Hon. Mem-
ber quite sure that the serfs of Prussia and of Poland would be
rendered greater consumers of British manufactures if the duty
on foreign corn were repealed? He (Mr. Handley) thought
the history of merely agricultural countries demonstrated the
truth of this proposition—that poverty was at the highest and
consumption at the lowest in those countries where the corn
was cheapest.

Mr. dILBE RT lIEATHCOTE believed be spoke the
sense of all classes of agriculturists when he demanded of the
Legislature that they should be left alone. He was convinced
that from the largest landed proprietor to the smallest, there
was a general wish to be left to themselves. When the agri_
culturists complained last year and the year before of their
distressed condition, they were told that they must look to
themselves for relief, and they all hoped that the same lan-
guage would be used now. The proposition of the Hon. Gen-
tleman meant that a small duty should be imposed when the
price of corn was low, and that no duty should be imposed
whe❑ corn was high. If this change took place, was it to be
supposed that they would not have those frequent fluctuations
which were so much complained of ? Honourable Gentle-
men seemed to assume that fluctuations in the price of corn
occurred here but not in other countries ; but the fact was
that the fluctuations were greater in foreign states. Hon.
Gentlemen argued the question as if the landed interest in
England was a small insignificant body, but the fact
was, that it was composed of thousands of members of
greater or lesser interest. The interest of landlords and
tenants in this question was mutual; and while he was
willing to maintain the interest of the large landed proprietors,
be would also stand up for the smaller proprietors, as he would
not send them to the workhouse or the road, but would still
keep them in that independent state in which they should be.
Ile denied that a state of competition between English corn
and foreign corn would benefit the labouring classes. On the
contrary, the result would be that the rate of wages in England
would be brought down. In conclusion, he could not help
saying that the people of this country should rather look to
the price of bread than to the price of corn for a reduction.
Ile was satisfied that the price of bread was too high in the
metropolis as compared with the price of corn, and as a proof
of this he would refer to a letter written by Mr. Chadwick to
the guardians of the poor of the parish of Bermondsey.
Mr. D. W. II ARV E Y said it was curious that a debate
upon the Corn-laws always called forth more conflicting sen-
timents than any other subject, and gentlemen on this question
indulged in peculiar views, while they were silent on almost
every other subject. The Hon. Gentleman who spoke last
illustrated this observation, for he had told them that there
was a great difference between the price of corn and of
flour, and that while corn was comparatively cheap flour was
dear, and that the fault of all this was the bakers.---(Laugh-
ter.) The Hon. Member had even alluded to the bakers of
Bermondsey. He (Mr. Harvey) was not aware that in dis-
cussing this question lie should have been obliged to advocate
the interests of so large a portion of his constituency. He
was quite sure that the competition amongst that numerous
and respectable class would always secure the public against
monopoly. Now, he wished to ask the Hon. Member for
Lincolnshire, if a labouring man could only earn 6s. a week,
would it not be a great advantage for hint to have his bread 30
or 40 per cent. cheaper than the Corn-laws would allow him
to have it ? He wished to refer to evidence given that day_
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER called
the Hon. Member to order, as it was not competent for Mem-
bers to use the knowledge they had acquired as belonging to a
Committee, until the Report was in the hands of other
Members.
Mr. D. W. HARVEY continued by saying, that of his
own knowledge, lie was aware that men who earned but los.
a week were obliged to expend 93. of that in bread or flour.
It was, indeed, said, that if they had not dear bread they
would not have high wages. He denied the accuracy of that
position; the price of Corn did not regulate the price of
wages. It was, like every other commodity, regulated by
the supply.—( Hear, hear, hear.) Dear bread was of no
advantage to the labourer. He asked Honourable Gen-
tlemer, if they did not try to buy every thing as cheap as they
could ? Did they not buy French gloves and French silks,
because they were cheaper than the home manufactures ?
Why was not the labourer allowed to purchase the commodity

he most wanted in the same way ?—(Hear.) But then the
Hon. Member for Lincolnshire asked how were the gentry to
pay their mortgages, if the high price of corn was not main-
tained ? What benefit was it to the labourer to pay a high
price for corn that the gentry might meet their engagements?
--(Hear.) In his opinion, the best security against the fluc-
tuation in the price, which was so much dreaded, was to have
a free trade in corn. The advantages to the gentry from
the Corn-laws were infinite, while the wretched, living on the
pittance allowed them by the Poor-law, had to pay a high
price for what they most wanted. In conclusion, he said
that the poor man had to give 100 per cent. more of his time
to buy bread, and which he was compelled to give by a law
which, although a protection to the gentry. was pernicious to
him.—( Hear.)
Mr. SHAW LE FE VRE could not agree to the motion,
as he believed it would produce no good effect.
Sir J. TYRRELL could not concur in the motion of the
11.00. Member for the Tower Hamlets.
Mr. GUEST said, that the Hon. Member for Essex hav-
ing si...!:ed the manufacturers to state why the growers of corn
should Tho‘s- have a protection when they were protected to the
extent of 26 add .50 per cent. or more, he (Mr. Guest), being
concerned in the manufacture of iron, begged to inform him
and the House what ;-'as the state of the case in the iron trade.
is time about 91. per ton, and as the The price of iron was at I,!'
duty on importation was 1/. T-t-1.5', the protection was about 15
per cent., with which he begged -) contrast the duty upon a
,
few articles of agricultural produce. The duty on hops im
ported was 81. 11s. per cwt., equal to 200 p cent. at least;
on the importation of potatoes (one of the great nt:Pessaries of
lire) 2s. per cwt., or about 100 per cent. ; on the article of
bacon 28s. per cwt., or about 60 per cent. ; and, in addition,
the important articles of beef, mutton, and pork, were entirely
prohibited. He further begged to assure the Hon. Member,
that if he would consent to fix a fair and equitable duty on the
importation of corn, for himself he would say, and he thought
he spoke the sentiments of a large portion of the iron trade,
that they wanted only free trade without any protecting duty
whatever on the importation of iron.
Mr. G. KNIGHT must oppose the motion.—( Loud cries
of " Divide, divide.")
Mr. HUME said that it was the landed proprietor that was
interested in this tax, and not the farmer.—( Hear, hear.)
The landed proprietor paid no tax in this country.--( Loud
cries of oh, oh.) Every tax that bore upon the landlord had
been taken off, whilst the taxes of the rest of the community
remained.—(oll, oh.) It might be unpleasant to speak the
truth in that House.—( Loud cheers and laughter from the
Opposition.) He charged the Gentlemen opposite with at-
tempting to keep up the cruel and famishing Corn-laws.---
( Loud cries of oh, oh, and laughter.) The Poo}-laws were
grinding down the able-bodied men.—(Cries of oh, oh, and
Question.) That was the question. The Corn-laws and
the Poor-laws were intimately connected together. The Corn-
laws kept up the prices of food, and thus interfered, not merely
with the comforts but with the subsistence of the most valu-
able portion of the community. They endeavoured to keep
up the Corn-laws solely for their own benefit—(Hear)—and
for the purpose of crushing down the working popu-
lation.--( Cries of Oh, oh, and Question, and Divide.) If
he went to Holland—( Cries of Divide)—he had no doubt
some Hon. Gentlemen wished him at Holland. (Shouts of
laughter.)--If he went to Holland, to Russia, or Germany,
and other manufacturing countries, and compared the price of
corn there with the price of it in this country, he found it
eighty or ninety per cent. lower. The Corn Laws ground
the people down to misery. How was it possible that with
such prices the manufacturers of this country could compete
with the foreign manufacturer ? It was no doubt pleasant
for the rich man to fill his pockets, while the belly of the poor
man was empty.—( Shouts of Laughter, and loud cries of
Divide.) lie was unwilling to make the change suddenly,
because all sudden changes produced misery in the land ; but
the Legislature would not consult the interests of the country
if they did not effect a change.
Mr. RIC HA RDS rose, but the indisposition of the House
to listen to him prevented him from being heard for a consi-
derable time. lie contended that the reason why we could
not raise corn at so low a rate as in other countries was be-
cause of the cost of production, and that he attributed to the
pressure of the national debt. He disputed the assertion of
the Hon, Member for Middlesex that the farmers were
not lazed. They paid taxes on the iron, the leather, and
everything they used.--( Loud cries of Divide.) The Hon.
Gentleman, in proposing a fixed duty, gave up the whole ques-
tion. Why did he propose ten shillings a quarter, but because
he was aware some protection was necessary ?—(Continued
cries of " Divide.") He would wait till to-morrow morning,
if lion. Gentlemen would not hear him.—( Renewed cries of
" Divide.") To interrupt him was not only unkind, but un-
seemly.—( Loud laughter and interruption continued.) " I
insist on it, Mr. Speaker," said the Hon. Gentleman, " that I
will not be put down by half-a-dozen noisy gentlemen."—
(Great laughter.) The Hon. Member continued speaking,
but it was impossible to hear the consecutive sentences that lie
uttered.
Mr. CLAY replied, and the House divided--
For the motion
Against it

Majority -134
The motion wa3 accordingly lost.
INSURANCE DUTIES.
On re-catering the gallery, we found
Colonel SIBTHORP on his lags moving, pursuant to no-
tice, for the returns of the duties on fire, life, and marine
insurances paid iuto the stamp office in the different quarters
of 1836. The Hon. and Gullant Membcr observed, that
these duties were highly prejudicial and unjust, and he trusted
that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would provide for the
partial repeal of the duties on common insurances, and the
total repeal of those on hazardous insurances out of the next
surplus.

The motion was agreed to.
CITY IMPROVEMENTS.

Mr. Alderman WOOD obtained leave to brine in a Bi

to effect improvements in the cities of London and West
ininster, the borough of Southwark, and the counties of Mid
dlesex and Surrey ; and for the purchase of the interest of
the proprietors of the Waterloo and Southwark bridges, that
they may be open for the use of the public free from toll.
The Hon. Aldermau intimated that his proposition would be
to meet the expenses by an additional duty on coals.
SCOTTISH COURTS AND LAW OFFICERS.
The LORD ADVOCATE obtained leave to bring in the
following Bills : A Bill for regulating the sequestration of
estates of bankrupts in Scotland ; a Bill to amend the law of
Scotland in matters relating to bankruptcy, personal diligence,
arrestments, poindiug of goods, inhibitions, adjudications, ju-
dicial sales, and poindings of the ground; a Bill to regulate
tee constitution, jurisdiction, end forms of process of sheriffand
burgh courts in Scotland. The Hon. and Learned Gentleman
then moved that an address be presented for a return of the
total number and the names of all and each of the officers,
clerks, and other persons composing the several establishments
and offices after-mentioned in Scotland, including all who are
employed in or are deriving benefit from, the performance of
the duties thereof, viz., the keeper of the privy seal and wri-
tkr to the seal; the keeper of his Majesty's signet and his de-
puties; the lord clerk register and his several deputies and
clerks ; the director of chancery and his deputies and clerks ;
the clerk to the admission of notaries; the keeper of the ge-
neral register of sasines, &c., and his several deputies and
clerks ; the keeper of the record of entails and his deputies and
clerks ; the several keepers of the registers of hornings, inhibi-
tions abbreviates of adjudication, deeds, and inventories cum be-
neficio ; the Lyon Court, including the Lord Lyon and his de-
puties and clerks ; showing, in separate columns, how ap-
pointed, the amount of salaries, and the fees and emoluments
drawn by each, in the years 1833, 1834, and 1835, from what
source and by what authority, with the application thereof ;
the days of the year they are on duty, with the hours of atten-
dance ; the nature and extent of the duties they perform, and
whether performed in person, or in whole or in part by de-
puty ; also, whether they hold any other office or offices ; the
description and nature thereof, and the fees, salaries, and
emoluments belonging or attached thereto ; also, the amount
of any reductions made in any of the said offices since the ac-
cession of his late Majesty King George IV., distinguishing,
also, in separate columns, the savings which have actually ac-
crued, and those which are prospective and permanent. The
Learned Gentleman also moved that a Select Committee be
appointed to inquire into the nature and extent of the King's
printer's patent in Scotland, and to report their opinion as to
the propriety of any future grant of that patent.
Agreed to.