The Sun.
London, England, 1830-03-30 00:00:00

CORN LAWS.

Lord KING rose to move a series of Resolutions on the
subject of the Corn Laws. He wished to place upon
their Lordships' Journals a statement of the views which
be took upon that most important subject; and whether,
at the present time, they agreed with him or not, be felt
confident, that at no distant time they would feel the
justice of those principles which he advocated, and be com-
pelled to adopt them ultimately, with a view to the wel-
fare of the people. In approaching this question, it was
at least satisfactory, that it had been cleared of one of the
difficulties which stood in its way. It was now universally
admitted tbat one great cause of the existing distress was
the too great pressure at present weighing down the pro-
ductive industry of the country. Mr. Huskisson—he
might mention that gentleman's name, as he did not tell
the place wherein the language attributed to him was de.
livered—bad said, and he was a great authority upon such
subjects, that it was the too great burthen upon the
productive industry of the people which was the
great cause of the existing distress—not the occasional,
but the habitual and permanent pressure upon the
productive industry of the people. Such being the
admitted state of the case, he mutt complain of the
Right Honourable Gentleman for deserting his own
principles—why did he not carry the matter to its
full and legitimate extent—why did he not at once
say, that the Corn Laws were the grand source of that
pressure ? It would be easy to prove that everything else
which affected the productive industry of the people was
not in the aggregate equal to the weight of the Corn Laws
alone. They affected the enjoyments of the people at least
to the extent of twenty to five-and-twenty per cent., fur
without them the cost at which corn could he obtained
would he about 50s. During the ten years between the
French and American wars, the usual price was 48s. A
Right Hon. Gentleman had said in another place, that it
should he the policy of the Government of a great nation
to place the people committed to its charge in such a situa-
tion as that their own soil should produce their food. For
his part, he could not conceive any policy more lame or
timid, or one more calculated to retaid the progress of
society. True policy demanded that none but good land
be cultivated. He could not imagine anything more mon-
strous than to hear it asserted that the people of this
country should not get their corn from Poland, from
Russia, or from any other place, wherever it could be
found cheapest, rather than front Hampshire or from other
places in which its quality might be inferior and its price
higher. He knew it might lie said that we ought to ren-
der ourselves independent of the support of other countries
said WM A convenient cry to litist—it would form an.

imposing inscription upon a banner—but what compensa-
tion would it prove to a population half fed. It might he
said; that if we allowed ourselves to become dependent
upon other countries for food, they might at a most critical
moment stop our supplies, and that by discouraging the
growth of corn, in this case we drove matters to that state
in which a small supply would necessarily become the ha-
bitual state of the corn market ; but what danger would
there be of that prohibition so long as the interests of all
foreign nations led them to supply us with all that we were
willing to take off their hands, as well as to supply them
all the manufactured goods which they could possibly
desire. After adverting to the Bill of 1815, and the im-
possibility of adhering to the scale of duties and of ave-
rages there laid down, he proceeded to contend that the
present distress arose from the low rates of profit and
the inadequate remuneration of labour. With a greatly
increased quantity of trade, there might be a much less
amount of net profit : thus, if the raw material of a piece
of calico were 2a. 6d., and it formerly sold on the Con-
tinent for 10s., the profit upon it would be 7s. 6d. ; but if
the value of the raw material were lowered to is. 6d., and
the piece of calico sold for only 55., the profit would only.
he 3s. 6d. upon each piece ; and if two pieces were sold in-
stead of one, the profit would not equal what it had before
been upon one piece. How, then, were we still able to
compete with the foreigner ? First, by being satisfied With
reduced profits ; secondly, by having to pay greatly re-
duced wages ; thirdly, by the substitution of machinery.
The consequence was the most miserable remuneration for
labour, and the most inadequate return for capital, re-
acting on the landed interest, and occasioning the present
want of demand for farms of all kinds, but especially for
grass lands. It had been stated in another place that
at present one-third less meat was consumed in Bir-
mingham than in prosperous times ; and accounts of
the same description from Manchester and other manu-
facturing places would, no doubt, present the same re-
sult. Profits were the criterion of prosperity, and how
were they affected Ly the corn laws ? In several
ways :-1. By the cessation of that demand for manu-
factures and produce, which would exist if the coin laws
did not exist. 2. By the different level of prices occa-
sioned by the corn laws making corn dear in this coun-
try, and cheap abroad. Rival manufacturers were thus
created in foreign countries, who availed themselves of the
low rate of wages there, and were enabled to enter into
successful competition. 3. By employing labour oa the
cultivation of poor land, on which the return for capital
was of court e much less than on good land. The level of
profit on all capital was determined by the return for capi-
tal employed in the cultivation of the least productive soils :
if, therefore, bad soils were cultivated, the profit on capital
was reduced. What then were the disadvantages to
which the country was exposed by the corn laws ?
In great Britain coals, machinery, and capital, gave
great advantages ; and the produce of four English-
men might be said to be equal to the labour of
eight Russians. Why not, then, exchange the produce
of the labour of the four Englishmen for the produce
of the labour of the eight Russians ? If, on the other
hand, English labour were exhausted upon the culti-
vation of bad soil, the result must be less beneficial in pro-
portion to the badness of the soil and the quantity of labour.
He (Lord King) was satisfied that if English landlords
knew their true interests, they would admit foreign corn
without restriction, tied allow everything fair play. It
was said, indeed, that the corn laws were established for
the protection of the landed interest ; but if that word
" protection" were followed through the history of this and
other nations, it would he found that it meant only oppres-
sion and checks to industry. _ In France industry had been
checked from the time of Colbert to the present. The his-
tory of Spain was nothing but a history of oppression,
miscalled protection. Little Holland was the only country
where the system had not been adopted, and where, accord-
ingly, industry had met its just reward. England had
been injured by supposed protections ever since the reign
of Charles 11., and the Corn Laws had been a most fruit-
ful source of folly. For many years• a bounty existed on
the importation of corn, till it was found that it enabled
other countries to eat corn at our expence. Then the sys-
tem was completely altered, and Ministers turned round
at once and said that it was impossible for the landed in-
terest to thrive without a restriction on the import of
grain. In this point only the opposite systems resembled
each other—that both were adopted at the expence of the
people. When we wanted manufactures, they were ex-
eluded—when we wanted corn, it was prohibited. He
might be asked whether it would be possible to admit the
principle of free trade? He begged to inquire whether it
was possible for the country to go on without ? He was
persuaded that the prosperity of this country depended
upon restricted commerce. What was free trade but a
saving of labour ? And what was restriction but a waste
of it? The principle of the prosperity of a country was
the perfection of the economy of labour—producing the
greatest quantity of goods with the least amount of
labour. That state of things could not be established
without admitting foreign produce in return for our
manufactures, and at this moment we were competing
with the foreigner, who had cheap corn on his side,
while on our side we had machinery and capital.
Capital was daily increasing abroad, and machinery in
the course of introduction ; so that unless we had corn
as cheap as our neighbours, we must in the end be
beaten in the contest. After ridiculing the decrees of
the Pope, which forbad the use of iron instruments for the
cultivation of the soil, his Lordship proceeded to answer
the question whether it was fit to sacrifice the capital em-
barked in the cultivation of poor soils ? He anwered, that
the country would be better without such capital so em-
ployed than with it. If he were asked, why he did not
leave the question at rest, his reply was, that it would
never be at rest while the Corn Laws were in force, which
inflicted so much injustice, and occasioned so much dis-
tress. The subject was well understood out of doors, if
not in Parliament, and the people were well aware of the
contrast presented by the last fifteen years of peace and the
ten prosperous years which followed the American war
and preceded that with France. The Corn Laws put the
prosperity of the country as it were in Chancery : it could
not advance : it was like the motionless person described
by the Poet under the power of a wiz ird—

" He strove to move, while waved the wizard o'er,
But though he strove, moved not one inch the more."
The country was like an unhappy suitor in Chancery—
within the power of a wizard and unable to move. As
long as the Corn Laws existed, the country could not ad-
vance. It hail been said by somebody, as his Lordship
saw by the Newspapers, he did not mean to impute such
nonsense to the Noble Duke (Welington) that " the Corn
Laws worked well—that the crops had been deficient ; but
that no blame could be imputed to the Corn Laws." Ile
did not know in what way it could be truly said that they
worked well when the " neat post waggon" of the State,
instead of running on the nail, was imbedded in mud up to
the nave. Was it a proof that the Corn Laws worked
will, that three millions and a half of taxes had been just
repealed He had never heard of the repeal of taxes, while
the machinery of Government worked well. During the
ten years preceding the war of 1792, Corn was admitted
in large quantities, at a nominal duty of sixpence per
quarter, and the country was then under, the adminis-
tration of Mr. Pitt. He, for one, preferred what some
might call the ignorant simplicity of Mr. Pitt to the
elaborate net-work of the Noble Duke. The Noble
Duke might value himself upon the perfection of the
machinery of his Government. It was, no doubt,
very complete ; but, like the air-pump, its very per.
fectness was the destruction of the unhappy animal con.
fined in it. Some other person, in the course of a late
debate (not the Noble Duke), had admitted that " ma-
chinery was to a considerable degree injurious to the
working classes." This was not by any means the first
time it had been said that machinery produced distress ;
but the true reason why the lower orders were
out of work was the existence of the Corn Laws.
The invention of the steam engine, instead of throw-
ing people out of employ, had been the cause
of the employment of thousands and tens of thou-
sands. This result had been produced by correspond-
ing demand ; and if now we took corn in ex-
change for goods, the means of feeding the po-
pulation would instantly be afforded. The Noble Duke
on a former occasion had talked of the necessity of giving
religious peace, and by an alteration of the Corn Laws, he
would produce peace from discontent arising from distress.
Before he moved his Resolutions, he begged to remark that
in them he had made no allusion to any fixed duty, be-
cause it was necessary, in the first instance, to agree upon
the principle of an alteration. A Noble Earl (Malmesbury)
on a former day, had objected to stirring the question ; but
why was it not to be stirred ? and sure he was that it would
not be allowed to rest as long as the people were suffering
tinder the infliction of a system so injurious and oPpressive.
The Noble Earl had lately shown a strong disposition to
nibble at the averages, yet, in whatever form the subject
was brought forward by others, lie objected to its discus-
sion; if upon petition it was interlocutory, and if in the
form of a regular motion, it was injudicious. His Luril-
ship concluded by reading and moving the knowing
Resolutions :

" That all regulations, duties, and prohibitions, which
prevent the admission of corn, and increase the prices of
that necessary of life, are impolitic and unjust.
" A regulation of the trade in corn, for the pretended
benefit of the public is a most impolitic interferencet of
Government in. the management of the most importtn of
all trades, which Government is wholly incompetent to

diteet, and which it never can attempt to regulate, with-
out the greatest detriment to the public interests.
" A duty levied upon corn for the purpose of raising a
revenue is the worst of all possible taxes—being, in effect,
not less destructive than a curse of sterility inflicted on the
soil.

" An absolute prohibition subjects the consumer to the
most pernicious and the most odious of all monopolies.
" That Great Britain, by the abundant supply of coals,
by the advantage of machinery, by the accumulation of ca-
pital, and by superior skill and industry, possesses the rare
and inestimable advantage of being able to make the labour
of her people more efficient and more valuable than that
of any other nation in the world. More efficient, because,
when that labour is applied in directing the powers of steam
and of machinery, it produces more goods than the same
quantity of labour can produce elsewhere; and it is more
valuable, because that produce will exchange for the pro-
duce of more labour in any other country, and in this man-
ner it highly contributes to the increase of public wealth
and individual enjoyment. That it is therefore the true
policy of England to encourage the full development of her
most productive industry, to avail herself of all her great,
natural, and acquired advantages. That it belongs only
to the most perverse ignorance, and to the most culpable
misrule, wilfully to preclude the country from the fullest
enjoyment of these benefits, by prohibiting, under heavy
duties (unless when at a famine price), the admission of
corn from foreign countries, whose labour applied to more
fertile soils can supply that article of first necessity at a
far cheaper rate than British labour, when applied to the
least fertile soil under cultivation in this kingdom can
produce.
" That since the enactment of the Corn Laws in 1815,
the whole of that long period (a period also of uninter-
rupted peace) has been marked by an unusually low rate of
profit in all trades, by an inadequate reward of labour, by
the frequent recurrence of distress in the manufacturing
districts, and by the heavy pressure of poor rates in the
agricultural counties—a state of things the most opposite
to the increasing wealth and comfort which so eminently
distinguished the ten prosperous years succeeding the
peace of 1782, when foreign wheat was, =without any
interruption, admitted, at a nominal duty of sixpence the
quarter.

" That great and flourishing manufactures, by the supe-
rior reward of labour which they are able to afford, tend
most materially to improve the condition of all the labour-
ing classes, by the constant demand for the increasing po-
pulation of their own, and of the agricultural districts ;
they provide also the best market for every kind of agri-
cultural produce; they furnish the most ample and the
most profitable employment for the new accumulations of
capital ; they afford the means of promoting to an indefi-
nite extent, the general prosperity and wealth of the
country ; or if there be any limit, that limit is only deter-
mined by the returns of raw produce which the great
market of the world is enabled to supply.
" That the impediments which have been interposed
by law to the admission of foreign corn have impaired,
and, in some degree, destroyed the advantages which nature
and industry had bestowed upon us ; they have checked
the demand for our produce ; they have greatly repressed
the rate of all profits, because the rate of profits in every
country must be regulated by the return of that portion of
the national capital which is employed in the cultivation
of the least fertile soils ; they have prevented our labourers
from receiving their just reward by confining them nearly
to the home market, when a cheaper supply could be pro-
cured elsewhere; they have rendered almost unavailing the
advantages which must otherwise have infallibly attended
the improvements of machinery, and the superior facilities
of manufacture; they have checked the prosperity of the
country, impoverished all the productive classes, and by
the most perverse policy compelled our natural customers
to become our competitors, our rivals, and almost our
enemies."

The Earl of MALMESBURY denied that he had de-
precated the discussions on the present corn laws : he had
opposed them originally tooth and nail, but nevertheless
he did not intend to move for the repeal of them, for a
very powerful reason, stated in one of the interlocutory
discussions on a petition on a former night, viz., that im-
perfect protection was better than constant alteration ; for
while nothing was fixed and settled, landlords and tenants
could come to no definite and clear understanding. He
was quite aware that the march of intellect out of doors
had rendered people competent to understand and discuss
all matters of State and Government, and among them
the corn laws : he was glad of it, because he should have
an opportunity of reasoning with them. The foundation
of the Noble Lord's resolutions was entire prohibition,
but the introduction of corn was not prohibited, and he ap-
pealed to documents on the table to show that, within the
last two years, a very large quantity of grain had been im-
ported, notwithstanding the existence of the corn laws.—
Within the last eighteen months no less than 2,200,000
quarters of foreign v.• heat had been imported—that was our
prohibition, that was our system of monopoly. But besides,
there hail been a new description of importation—he meant
horn Ireland, from which place during the last two years
4,600,000 qrs. had been imported. When he recollected these
things, he really was astonished at Noble Lords talking of
prohibition. Nearly three million quarters of foreign grain
had been imported within the two last years. Now, supposing
be had imported three millions of shoes, what would the
shoemakers say ? Would not their trade be affected, and
would not they cry nut for protection? With respect to
the averages, he thought Ireland ought to be included in
the calculations on which they were made Up. It was
said that these importations gave a boon to the English
landlords of ss. per quarter, but he contended that it was
the reverse, and that not one-tenth of the grain really im-
ported was calculated among the averages. Their machi-
nery for taking the averages was imperfect, and he con-
tended they ought to see that these averages were properly
taken. He thought our present distresses ought not to
have been attempted to be fathered upon the Corn Laws,
which bad no mote to do with them than the man in the
moon. The Noble Baron had appealed to the authority of
a Right lion. Gent. He (Lord Malmesbury) respected
the talents of the Right Hon. Gent., and knew him to be
a most amiable man in private life ; but on this subject he
was the last person to be referred to as an authority. He
well remembered who presided in 1825 at the Board of
Trade; he recollectel the attack then made on the agricul-
tural interests—an attack continued up to the present time.
In that year, when a great degree of distress prevailed at
Manchester, the Earl of Liverpool was asked whether he
would give the people there any money to relieve them ?
The Noble Earl answered no, but said he had the panacea
in his pocket, and that was to let the foreign corn out of
bond. From that time to the present, the two great inte-
rests of the country had been arrayed against each other__
they were wrong in this, the welfare of each depended on
the other, and live and let live ought to be their mutual
desire. When the Noble Baron talked of six Russians
producing corn which could be purchased by the manu-
facturing labour of four Englishmen—if he meant to take
the corn from the former, he should be prepared to go to
them, and to ask them to pay the pours' rates and the land
tax, which now weighed heavily en this country, and the
latter of which could not be repealed. The Noble Baron
had referred to the Prussian liberality, but surely he ought
to have recollected the fragment of a dispatch, which
looked like a threat from the Prussian Minister of fearful
consequences, if we did not let in their corn. But if we
should afterwards go to war, and his interest lay the other
way, he might refuse to let us have corn, so that we might
he deprived of a supply of the primary article of life.
Under all these circumstances, was it not better to be in-
dependent of foreign powers for the supply of this neces-
sary of life ? It did not follow from this that he was a
ftiend of prohibition—there was a point between that
and unlimited introduction of foreign corn, to which, fur
the benefit of both the great interests of this country, it
was desirable. Noble Lords seemed generally agreed that
60s. was the point that would afford a fair remuneration
for the growth of grain. That was not for the protec-
tion of the landlords. When he heard such stuff as that
rent was the surplus profit of the land, he could not
forbear asking what would be the effect of doing away
with all but the profits of the occupier ? What would be
the effect of such a state of things? Every land-owner
must cultivate his own estates, and as it was not likely
he would actually cultivate them in person, but would em-
ployno tthat
a bailiff,h e ane
the
evil
yeomanrym aa notwould
an bi
independent e destroyed.
ten
. Would
one of the finest bodies of men in any country? In his
opinion it was, and it would be a great
evil to destroy them,
rdtiry
and leave none but landlords, middlemen, and peasantry.
The Noble Baron had talked of monopoly. That word,
like liberality, free trade, and reciprocity, had many mean-
ings. What monopoly was it to admit, as we had ad-
mitted fewyears, eight millions of quarters
of Lordships would calculate that at
grain within? If the
their last
60s. for wheat, 325. for barley, and 40s. for peas and
beans, they would find sixteen millions of foreign produce
brought into our market to compete with our own pro-
duce. If there was free trade there ought to be free
labour; but lie believed that if the Noble Lord went to
his tailor or shoernak,r and s tel that his coat or shoes
ought to be cheaper because the tax on leather was re-
&lost], and bcc .use there was no duty on the importation
of for vigil wool, he would be told that their ariicles could
not be NOill cheaper, for there was a combination among
the workmen, who would not work for less than the
present wages, and who would not let others work.--
But there was no such thing as free labour. No one
could work in the City of London (which bad lately

sent up a petition clamouring for free trade) except lie
was a freeman. Was that freedom or monopoly? Why
was the manufacturing interest distressed? Why, but
because the agricultural interest, who were their best cus.
toiners, were distressed. The manufacturing interest had
not to bear the same burdens as the agricultural interest,
who paid eight-tenths of the poors' rates and were sub-
jected to all the vicissitudes of bad seasons. In all quar-
ters of the world a duty was imposed upon the importa-
tion upon foreign corn. At New York the duty was 10s.
per quarter, which, considering the circumstances of the
country, and the little amount of public debt and taxation,
was very great. Even in Holland, ever since that coun-
try had been united to an important agricultural district,
a duty had been imposed upon foreign grain. France
acted upon the same principle; and the arguments of the
Noble Baron were applicable only to an Utopian state of
things. When their Lordships could reduce to nothing
800 millions of debt—when they could take off the poor
rates, they might talk of free trade in corn; but till that
time they must adapt themselves to the circumstances of
the day. He thought it cruel to impute the present dis-
tress to the landlords. He repeated that all nations
adopted systems of restrictions, and he called on them so
far to act on the same principle as to preserve our inde-
pendence of other nations with respect to the production
of the first necessary article of life.

Lord MOUNTCASHEL did not agree with the Noble
Baron, as to the waste of labour in the cultivation of poor
lands : for he had seen such lands maintain thousands of
persons in Ireland, who, but for them, could not have
found the means of subsistence. Other countries culti-
vated their lands to the fullest extent. In China, he had
heard that the highest tops of the mountains were culti-
vated, and why should not our waste lands be cultivated ?
The Earl of ROSEBERRY entirely differed from the
Noble Baron—not only because that Noble Baron's opinions
were speculative, but because the peculiar circumstances of
the country had, for some time past, required the protec-
tion of our domestic industry. He thought an ascending
and, descending duty, as now established, most beneficial.
If a free trade in corn was established, he was convinced,
that as the price became less, the rate of wages would fall,
and the poor man would gain nothing. The object they
ought to have in view was that stated in the King's Speech
at the close of the Session of 1828—namely, to prevent
fluctuation in prices, and to protect domestic agriculture,
so as to ensure a sufficient supply in years of scarcity, and
a remuneration at all times to the growers. Ile objected
to what was called a fixed duty, for he was sure it would
be of all others the most variable, for Parliament must
always reduce it; whenever the season, as in 1828, threat-
ened a scarcity, no such rate of duty could be adhered to.
On the principle of justice the British farmer was entitled
to protection. In all other commodities the person who
produced had the utmost benefit of any scarcity of the
article, and might make his profit accordingly, but the
Legislature would not allow that with respect to the first
article of life, but would always adopt measures to prevent
the price from being so high as to produce the effects of
famine. He should not allow himself, from any private
feelings, to be influenced in this question; and indeed he
was well convinced that no class in this country could be
individually advanced without deteriorating the rest. He
was most anxious to come to such a ccnclusion as should
most tend to the public advantage; but he would ask their
Lordships whether theme were not some latent feelings
mixed with this as with most other questions? Under all
the circumstances, however, he did not feel that he should
he justified in voting for the Resolutions of the Noble
Baron.

The Earl of CAERNARVON—Though this was a
question that well deserved the attention of Parliament, he
hardly thought that the present was the right time to
urge it ; but in order at any time to produce arty thing
like the desired effect, it was necessary that there should
be mutual concessions between the two extremes. This
would probably produce something permanent.
The Duke of WELLINGTON—I agree with all the
Noble Lords who have preceded me in wishing for cheap
corn, because cheapness of provisions must add to the be-
neficial state of the country, and improve the condition of
the people. But I wish to see this accomplished by plenty
of provisions—by the great prosperity of the agriculturists
—by improvement in the agriculture of Ireland, and by
the continuance of it in this country. If we can obtain
cheap provisions by these means, it will tend to the pro-
sperity and happiness of the country. But I go further,
and say that cheap prices can in no other manner be fairly
obtained, and to prove this I need only refer to the returns
which lie on your Lordships' table, in the shape of reports
from different Committees. I will also refer to the long
period between the years 1791 and 1815, during the
whole of which periods the ports were open ; and, though
there was a duty of 245. on corn when the price was be-
yond 50s. (and afterwards in 1804 when it was beyond
609.), was there one year in which we had cheap corn ?
On the contrary, the price was never below that at
which the high duty was to take place. During the last
years the importation, as stated by my Noble Friend, was
eight millions, but did this contribute to diminish the
price ? No ! The price still continued the same, and I
therefore have a right to contend that the measure I intro-
duced worked well. It was granted to the agriculturists
of this country a protection for the price of their corn,
during the time that the produce is sufficient for the con-
sumption, at the same time preventing the price being ex-
orbitant, by permitting the introduction of foreign corn.
At no time has this measure brought the price of corn
below 745., and, therefore, I say that the measure has
worked well. Now let us look at the price of corn at
Dantzic after the admission of it to this country. In the
year 1826, in the course of the different months in that
year, the prices were 18s. lid., 19e. 3d., 275. sd. 255.
7d.; 225. 44., and 225. 9d. After that it rose, and in
December, 1928, it was 575. Bd.—(Hear, hear.)—But
was that owing to any deficiency of corn in Poland. No,
but to the increased demand in this country. Certainly,
if we are to pay high prices, I wish that those prices
should be paid into the pockets of the English or Irish
agriculturists. In addition to this, this Act has had the
advantage of being carried into execution without inter-
ruption ; all the previous Acts were infringed upon at
the end of one or two years, by the Government admit-
ting corn to the disadvantage of the agriculturists of
this country. The Noble Baron has thought proper
to ridicule the idea of any duty being levied abroad
on corn to be imported into this country ; but did the
Noble Lord never hear that Bonaparte levied an impost
of 20s. per quarter, on all corn licensed for exportation ?
and on examination it will be found that Bonaparte levied
as much from this country in the shape of licences, as he
did from Austria and Prussia, when be was in possession
of their capitals. If this course succeeded with Bona-
parte, what is to prevent the King of Prussia or the Em-
peror of Russia from pursuing a similar course? The
corn must come from or pass through their dominions,
and therefore why are we to rely on their forbearance?
But the Noble Baron contended that the profits of the
manufacturer will increase abroad, in proportion to the
quantity of foreign corn imported here. Now, the cause
of their want of profit is the low price which their manu-
factures produce. In some countries there is a positive
prohibition of their goods—in others there is a high duty
—and in all they have to contend against the strongest
competition. I say, therefore, that if we were to buy up
all the corn in Poland, it would not serve to introduce one
more article of our manufacture into Germany, Prussia,
or Russia. The Emperor of Russia would only say, they
want my corn, and therefore I will not take one article of
their manufacture in payment. But if the Noble Baron's
arguments are correct, must there not lie the same ad-
vantage in purchasing the corn produced in this coun-
try ? Of our cottons two-thirds are disposed of in
our own markets, and of woollens and silks the whole. Is
it not, therefore, an advantage to take from a market
where we know there will be a demand in return ? lam
persuaded of this, my Lords, that the more we discuss
ti's subject, the more we shall see that the interests of all
are alike.—(Hear, hear.)—What we must look to is, to
produce the greatest quantity of provision and at the lowest
price; and it is by doing this that we shall most effectually
secure the prosperity of the country.
Lord KING replied. He contended that the Noble
Duke was wrong as respncted cottons, as not above one-
third was consumed in this country. The price of corn
was certainly high when the ports were open during the
war, but did the Noble Duke intend to say that the price
would not have been higher if the ports bad been shut?
The Earl of ROSSLYN said that the King of Prussia
was petitioned to lower the duties, but that his answer
was to the effect that it roust depend on the price in Eng-
land, which went to show that that Sovereign was in-
clined virtually to follow the example set by Bonaparte,
as quoted by his Noble Friend.
The Resolutions proposed by Lord KING were 'then
negatived without a division.
Several Private Bills were forwarded a stage.
Adjourned at Nine o'clock.

HOUSE OF COMMONS—(LIST NIGHT.)
Mr. ASTELL brought up the report on the Tanjore
Commissioners Bill. The Hon. Slember stated, in answer
to a question from Mr. Trant, that the Carnatic Commis-
sion bad closed its labours—had made its last report—and
that the salary of 3001. a year, which the Tanjore Com-
missioners enjoyed as co-Carnatic Commissioners, had, as

a consequence, terminated, reducing their salary to 1,500/.
from 1,800/. a year.
Mr. JEPHSON presented a petition from Whitechurch,
in the clunty of York, against the Sub-letting Act.