The Sun.
London, England, 1838-03-16 00:00:00

AMERICAN BOUNDARIES.

Sir R. PEEL begged to ask whether he could now re-
ceive any answer to the question he had put a few nights ago
relative to the North American boundaries? Tho Noble Lord
was aware that a series of papers had been moved for by the
Noble Lord, the Secretary at War, which had turned out not
to be the ones that were required.—(Hear, and laughter.)
Lord JOHN RUSSELL had thought that his Noble
Friend (the Secretary for Foreign Affairs) had given a satis-
factory account to the Right Hon. Gentleman.
Sir R. PEEL said the Noble Lord the Secretary for Fo-
reign Affairs was so very much occupied, that it was not
easy to catch him in his place at the questioning time, other-
wise he should have put the question to that Noble Lord.
Mr. PEASE—But I did not get an answer to my question.
Lord JOHN RUSSELL said that the question referred
to by his Hon. Friend the Member for Durham was fit for the
consideration of the House ; he had agreed to the proposition
that the Bill should go on, but that proposition did not meet
with the approbation of the House, and the Bill was ordered
to be read a second time that day six months.
Mr. PEASE—Am 1 to understand the Noble Lord leaves
it to private individuals to bring in public Bills.
Lord JOHN RUSSELL—No. We brought in a public
Bill but it was thrown out.
POOR-LAW COMMITTEE.

Sir F. BURDETT inquired when it was likely the Poor-
law Committee would make their report, as he was extremely
anxious to know whether it would be made before Easter.
Mr. FAZAKERLEY said the intention of the Corn-
mittee was to continue to hear evidence until they were satis-
fied they could make a satisfactory report. When they were
so satisfied the report would be made.
CORN LAWS.

Mr. GROTE presented petitions from Ayr and other
places, in favour of a repeal of the Corn Laws.
Mr. D. W. HARVEY presented petitions from two places
in the county of Essex, on the same subject.
CORN LAWS.

Mr. VILLIERS then rose to bring forward his motion
for the House resolving itself into a Committee of the whole
House, to consider the propriety of repealing the Corn Laws
immediately, observing, that of all the wrongs perpetrated by
an unreformed Parliament, the most injurious and shameful was
the law which limited the supply of the main article in human
subsistence.—( Hear, hear.) Thousands were daily with-
drawing their confidence from the Legislature, on account of
the manner in which it treated all questions affecting the gene-
ral interests of the community, and especially upon this question.
And they were waiting for the time when (said the Hon.
Member) " that may be extorted from your fears which you
deny to justice." The interest of the class which prevailed
in the Legislature was preferred to that of the whole commu-
nity. It had been said that this was not a fit time to
bring forward the question, because there was no excite-
ment on the subject. But lie thought that it was not
wise to postpone the consideration of so important a question
until there would be neither calmness nor leisure to discuss it.
He considered this a seasonable time to bring forward this
question, when funds were raised for enabling labourers to
emigrate to countries where they might obtain the food which
they could not obtain at home. When in Parliament and out
of it, so many were standing forth as the advocates
of the oppressed poor and the enslaved factory child-
ren, ho called upon all those to support his motion. He
could not believe that those who had obtained their seats in that
House, and consideration out of it by professions of sympathy
with the poor, under the rigours of the new Poor-law, would
now shrink from sustaining their cause. He would now proceed
to state the grounds on which he believed the Corn Laws
oppressive and injurious. He would first enquire into the
purpose and principle of the Corn Laws. He believed that
their purpose was protection to the landed interest, and that
they were only justified on the ground of expediency. It was
alleged that the British farmer could not compete with the
foreign grower without protection. Now, what did this pro-
tection mean ? If security against danger, he would readily
assent to the definition; but that was not the case. What
then was it ? Why an evil to the community at large, though
an advantage to the landed interest, and it was against such a
principle that he had to contend, because he thought it not
only indefinite but unjust. The effect of machinery had been
considerable in the way of production ; but he believed all
those discoveries which went to economise labour were at-
tended with ruin, inconvenience, and distress to those who
were superseded by such means in their employments. They
had not received any protection or compensation for the
injury done to them, though they had given rewards
and encouragement to those who invented machinery for
economising labour, with a view to reduction of prices of
articles of manufacture. Was this fair ? Did not the argu-
ment applicable to machinery equally apply to all cases where
employment was superseded ? There was, he believed, no
instance, where human employment had been superseded in
which great distress was not occasioned. He might mention
many, but he would only take that of the press. Now, what
was the effect produced in Paris by the application of ma-
chinery to the business of printing ? Why, that six thousand
persons were rendered destitute. No doubt the use of ma-
chinery had led to the employment of sixty thousand persons
in that business, but because that was the case, did it follow
that the 6,000 persons whom it had deprived of employment
were not injured ? It was well-known that men experienced
great difficulty in passing from one employment to another.
The truth of this observation was strikingly illustrated in the
case of the hand-loom weavers, who had remained in great
distress ever since Dr. Cartwright's invention came into use.
That machine superseded their employment. He might be
told that private inconvenience must yield to public good, but
he should like to know whether, if the people were sufficiently
powerful, they could not insist upon protection in this or any
other instance ? Suppose, for example, there was a majority
of hand-loom weavers in that and the other House of Parlia-
ment, would they not, in such a case, prohibit the power_
looms, or, at all events, enact that, until the cloth produced
by hand labour had reached a certain price, that produced by
power should bear a fluctuating amount of duty ? He could
see no difference between the case of the hand-loom weavers
and that of the land-owners, and he thought that the argu-
ment applicable to the one, was equally applicable to the other.
Suppose a plan for heating their chambers without the expense
of coals were invented, he should like to know what would be
said by the coalowners ? Would they not call for protection,
like the landowners, and would they not support their claims
by arguments equally strong ? Happily, however, they were
only a small body,. as the disposition in favour of monopoly,
which they had evinced, showed what they would do if they
were as powerful as the landowners. If the House would .re-
solve itself into a Committee, he should certainly move for a
repeal of the whole duties on corn, nor would he be deterred
from doing so by the argument, that one object of the protec-
tion which they afforded was the keeping up of the revenue of
the country. It would be unjust and unwise, where the home
article was taxed, to allow the foreign article, which was not
taxed, to compete with it; but he denied that the Corn-laws
operated as a protection to the revenue. Now, with respect
to the glass trade, he would admit that it would be unjust to
allow untaxed glass to come into competition with glass which
was taxed, but the question was very different when they came
to the question of land. Land was of different fertility.
Some land would produce only one bushel the acre, while
other land would yield as much as 30. The taxation, there-
fore, fell very differently, and they should take care that they
were not giving a bounty to some as well as a protection to
others. He was prepared to contend that the revenue de-
rived an advantage from this protection, and that it relied more
upon imports and exports than upon the amount of taxation
paid by the landowners. He thought the Noble Lord oppo-
site could not deny this. With respect to the Customs and
Excise, did they not give three-fourths, or 72 per cent., of
the whole revenue ; and could it be contended that those
branches would sustain any diminution if the monopoly of the
corn laws were abolished ? He thought it could not. He
wished to show to what extent the country was indebted to
the landed interest relatively to the commercial inteic:t

with respect to their contributions to the revenues of the coun-
try. In the cotton manufacture alone it appeared that them
were upwards of seventeen millions annually paid in wages ;
and a hen this amount was paid in wages to the consumers of
other predace by one branch of manufactures alone, could it
be any longer said that we are indebted to the corn laws for
the maintenance of our Excise revenue? Now with respect
to the assessed taxes. He would ask, did the landlords pay
moan of the assessed taxes than the commercial and industrious
classes of the community ? No such thing, for, on the con-
trary, the landowners and agricultural classes were relieved
from many kinds of taxation which other classes in the coun-
try had to pay. They were relieved from the house tax, from
the window tax, front the horse tax, front a tax on dogs, and
they all knew that where land passed by descent that, on the
contrary, the inheritors of personal property were subject to
the payment of the probate duty and taxes of that nature. He
contended that these landowners in whose favour these corn
laws were maintained did not contribute equally to the support
of the revenue with other classes of the community The rela-
tion which they bore to the other classes was supposed to be
twenty-eight per cent., though the usual calculation was that
the relation was one-fourth. He would be glad to hear a
statement to the effect that the corn laws should be main-
tained as an indemnity to the landed interest for, the share that
they contributed to the support of local charges. But these
charges were charges that were fixed on visible property, and
on other property besides land. There were many cases in
which the land was exempt from the eliarges for which the
small tradesmen were heavily taxed. Witain the last five
years relief to a very great extent had been given to the landed
interest. The malt tax was another ground on which the
friends of the landlord claimed the continuance of this mono-
poly, but surely any other class might on as fair a ground
claim an exemption. It was argued in favour of the reduction
of the malt tax, that if it was reduced, the landholders would
grow more barley; but surely the same argument might be
held by any other manufacturer, that, if they reduced taxation
consumption would be thereby enervated, and he would be en
abled to produce more of that which he manufactured. The
landowners and their advocates told the manufacturers that they
wished to act only on the principle, Live and let live ;" but
he would say that the principle they wished to act upon was,
" Take and let's take." But Hon. Members at the other side
of the House said that they only wanted the same protection
for the landed interest that was afforded to other interests in
the country. He contended that the merchant and the mane-
facturer did not require any protection at all. He referred
on this point to a petition some time ago presented from a
body of merchants in the city of London, and to a pe.tition
presented front the Chamber of Commerce in the city of
Manchester, the centre of one of the most important districts,
in the world, and in these petitions an opinion was expressed
against all protection. The only ground on which they at all
claimed protection was on account of the continuance of the
Corn-laws. Those who supported the continuance of the
Corn-laws argued about them as if they were an institution of
the country, and interwoven with our whole system ; but it
was unnecessary to say anything with respect to the fallacy
of such an opinion. He did not think that if it was satisfac-
torily shown that those Corn-laws were continued merely for
the good of the landed interest, without any compensatini
advantage whatever to the public, any one would conten
that they ought to be continued merely for the benefit
of the landed interest.—( Hear, hear, hear.) If that if"'
rest was to be paid and supported by inflicting a bu;
then upon the public unnecessarily and imperiously .1n
it be done in the legitimate way. Let them aPPen6rl
in the Estimates along with the army and the navy, 31
let the public know what they had to pay ; but let not an in-
direct and heavy burthen be kept up upon the public by roe,,,ah;
such as these—by continuing a taxation of this kind. I.'"
quantity of corn produced in the country was generally calety-
lated (as we understood the Hon. Member) at fifty-two million
quarters of grain annually, at the present duty of 1/. 125' Per
quarter. Now lie would suppose the agricultural consumption
to be twenty-six millions of quarters, and that there were brought
into the market for public competition twenty-six millions °`
quarters. Now he would take the lowest estimate of reduc-
tion at 12s. per quarter, and this would leave a loss to tul
public of 13,600,000/. annually. He could not understandt
how the loss of the public by the Corn-laws could be calculate('
at less than fifteen millions annually. Let them look at the it'd'
crease of expense on this account with respect to the army
ire
navy, and to the salaries paid to public officers, which "'eh;
fixed in relation to the price of the necessaries of life. In t s
victualling department alone the country suffered an innnetts-0
loss annually. Why, he asked, would they consent to continual
to subject the people of the country to this enormous aannh„
loss ; and, with respect to the victualling department,
not allow ships to be provisioned at the cheapest ra.rux...
When the Right Hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the ic"
chequer stated that he could not afford to make any reline,
tions at present, why, he would ask, should he not mak:trb
at
ductions by supplying the army and navy with food boubb
the cheapest market? But the evil was not confined tfontsie-
enormous loss that he had stated. When they ca those into-
der the portion of this loss which was suffered by,ali our
rests which he had looked upon to be the sources 'in„ and
power and all our wealth, he meant the manufactuhra pLeca
commercial interests—when they considered all that n
achieved by these interests for the good of this
ought to be careful how they maintained a system
ill:di wed upon
the prosperity of those interests, so far as they depended Pof
foreign countries as a means of increasing the resourc.
the country, and augmenting its wealth and power, his
.13_
jection was that the corn laws were inimical to our foreigu
trade. He thought that the policy pursued for the last
twenty-five years most inimical to the interest of this coun-
try in respect to its foreign trade. We had paid six Itun-
dred millions in fighting the battles of Europe, and Inad
laid every country in Europe under obligations to this
COUntryleall;
to
coun-
try. But the great foundation and productive principle °,l
.
the wealth and commercial greatness of this country wa7
that enterprise and superiority in our manufactures which"
enabled us to keep a monopoly of all the markets in
ati.
world. It was impossible to conceive how these interests
ca-
great sources of our wealth could have continued to be ei„
neglected by the Government of this country. The effect ot
continuing the Corn Laws, and thus interfering with chchd
ness of production, would be most materially to injure
cripple our foreign trade. This had happened already. Prui,„
sia and the United States had remonstrated against our 6hYaa
tem, and those countries, from having been customers, a,_
been converted into rivals. The effect of this had already
been felt in our own manufacturing districts. In I'l°ttitngo;
hamshire the trade of that couuty had been to a great ex
the
ruined by foreign competition within a period of less than
in the
last ten years. There was twenty per cent. difference rico
cost of producing hosiery in Nottinghamshire and the eery
at which they were able to import manufactured heislYane
from Saxony. Consequently it was found more BUof
tageous to import foreign hosiery. The consequonoath
this was, that we lost a branch of trade which Was two
two
nine hundred thousand pounds annually, and, in then 000
counties of Nottingham and Derby, not less than sivitide,
persons had within a few years back been employed in this Ottid
which was nearly ruined. The capitalists of this country evtivo
not compete with foreign manufacturers, from the comparnoa
dearness of living in this country, and the consequence for
the extensive introduction of machinery as a substituteds.
human labour, and the great increase of unemployed tit
This was particularly the case with the cotton trade ; but
must necessarily extend to the rest. In France, in Swl _o
° at
) land, and various other countries, the manufacturers wer 'the
successfully competing with England in consequence T hort
cheapness of food and of production, and would in a ts,
time completely exclude us from the Continental inaradeing.
There were five millions of people in this country deren,tt a
on the manufacture of cotton goods, and nearly as
gibersg
number on the hardware manufacture. Could Hon. Me cit.
treat their interests lightly ?—( Hear, hear.) Several l_eat
nesses from Sheffield lied proved that manufacturers to a 61:0,
extent had left that town and established themselves snce`i3o,
fully in the Rhenish provinces of Prussia ; and why ?
cause bread was there only lid. a pound, and beef 3'the
whilst the corn monopolists of this country maintained the
prices of one of those articles at 7d. and Bd. ; this was r
reason we were beaten on our strongest ground.--(11e0%:
hear.) From all these circumstances he was perfectly co,
vinced that we must make up our minds to one of two alttho
natives—either to give up our foreign trade or repeal the
Corn-laws.--( Hear, hear.) He wished to knols. to what` fits
opponents cf that repeal would turn as illustrating the bet; the
of the present system. Was it to the prosperous state ("in a,
landed interest, which for twenty-four years had beeniasses
state of depression ? Did the state of the labouring er pair-
dons their beneficial results? Had not the House had rais-
nons and debates without number on the subject of the
_ere
tresses of all these classes? And did not such facts fortnticcats,
elusive evidence of the evil tendency of those laws ?--(1% to
hear.) They had the experience of the last ten Yenre of
prove that nothing had been more unsteady than the Pr'c was
corn under the present system. The design of the lar'ttaia
to cause it. What did it promise? To maintain ace lied
price ; but it took no means to secure that price. It prom the
what it could not perfor. It promised 70s. a quarter te.iod
fro but it took no means of realizing it—no means to P
the farmer against the fluctuations of the seasons. They 1f to
mised a certain price for wheat, 755., and it afterwards Tvent,
365. ; the consequence was that the farmers became ins° the
—( Hear, hear.) The great outcry against the repeal op on
Corn-law was on account of the labour, but if a discusslldia
the question had taken place in 1830, would the then euefit?
tion of the labourer be adduced as an evidence of its belie hO
Why at that time the labouring classes were pronounce" t was
in a state of pauperism. —( Hear, hear.) Another argeniningrol
that it would throw the land out of cultivation, and unnrider
the labour. Did the upholders of the present system °tea/ti-
the labourer in other matters? He had heard of the sof la-
plough. If that succeeded it would throw thousands for
pourers out of employment, but he did not expect or carCl•f>
alanhniddeetandeititatbeHroeuesrte
labourers—and
were the interests of that class would prevent its adopticf.) the
as the '2- I,a
nni,cinTmo
ceraoolvntelody
the
one
eactro
remaining
branchesintnwaioianNiv.nsg_
wth laws---the
o c
coup incr..
la not "-
holder. He could show that the landholders wow, -
injured by the repeal, but he would not take that groundb;cini'g,
asked for it as a repeal of a great public wrong; and' nous
such, the greater the injury to individuals the more stream to
would be his advocacy.—( Hear.) But he called on thuscud
consider the position of this country : he would recoMincau.,l
them to contemplate her position, and review her hisst ny
and he would ask them as politicians whether there p•
wisdom in maintaining laws which were opposed to theviinidtenll(l);
Bence and interests of the people at large ? They c" e and
stop the progress of events, and it became them to nsill.,ated
consider whether they could maintain their present 'whether
position by means other than moral influence, and
they would not be more likely to fall beneath the pres!nrc 0f
it.
public opinion than to maintain themselves by resisting of
He did think that this was a question in which the inteeres.
er.
t
were on one se and those of the commu nnity
lie knew it was one id
which had been artfully and unnecessawr.tly
mixed up with others with which it had no connection— Itn
o th b

questions of radical changes in the Constitution of the otin-
try ; but there was a great difference bossy= proposing
the repeal of a system which was proved to be unsound
in principle and bad in practice, and of measures the ad-
7antagcs of which were merely speculative. But if they
withheld what he now demanded, and which NTOF., just, they
would be furnishing the advocates of what was unjustifiable
with an argument in favour of their purposes. Every friend
of the country should raise his voice for the repeal of those
laws, and for the establishment of commercial freedom, which
was as essential to our prosperity as the civil and religiius
liberty for which we struggled in former times.---( Hear,
hear.) We fought for and won the latter ; and is was now
the duty of public men to use their best efforts for the
emancipation of our commercial interests.—( Hear, hear.)
They should look to the welfare of the industrious classes of
the community, and enable them to fulfil the designs of na-
ture, and by the exchange of their toil with their fellow-men,
to obtain an adequate reward for their industry. He would
now move that this House do resolve itself into a Com-
mittee of the whole House to consider the Act of the 9th of
George IV., c. 60, relating to the importation of corn. He
had put his motion in this form to avoid offending the
prejudices of any person. He did not hope that Members
would pledge themselves to repeal the Corn-laws, but he
hoped that they wovld admit that the law as it stood at present
was defective, and would vote for a Committee.—( Hear.)
Sir W. MOLE SWORTH in seconding the motion, said the
tendency of the present system was to produce discontent and
very great evil amongst the people. The statutes which he pro-
posed to repeal prevented the growth of wealth, which would
be without parallel were it not for this preventive action. He
(Sir W. Molesworth) considered the present system a na-
tional wrong. The wealth and civilisation of a country de-
pended on the amount of its disposable population, and of
course everything that tended to increase the amount of the
disposable population was a benefit, and anything tending to
the contrary effect an unmitigated evil. That was the effect
of the present Corn-law.--( Hear, hear.) It was asserted by
the advocates of the present system that its repeal would leave
us dependent en foreign countries for a supply of corn—
(Hear, hear)—hut the answer to this was that we were at
this moment, to a great extent, dependent on foreign coun-
tries—that any cessation in the supplies of foreign grain pro-
duced the greatest distress, and sometimes famine. Another
evil resulting from the present system was that the dearness of
food produced by it obliged the working classes to labour contin-
ually, and thus excluded them from intellectual improvement. If
food was cheap they would have leisure for the cultivation of
their intellects, and thus the highest interests of society would
be advanced by tho cheapness of food. If the Corn Laws
wore repealed wages would improve, as they depended, of
course, on the facilities for the employment of capital. Let
the Corn Laws be repealed, and new markets would be
opened for the labour of this country, at the same time that
our capital would find out new sources of profitable employ-
ment. Our trade in its various branches was overstocked, in
consequence of the competition which the presence of the Corn
Laws rendered inevitable, and even our professions were af-
fected by the same evil. If the Corn Laws were repealed
land would become more valuable, as it would be purchased
for other than agricultural purposes.
The Marquis of C HANDOS was sorry to perceive the sore
feeling in the speeches of the Hon. Mover and Seconder with
respect to the class which he (the Marquis of Chandos) re.
presented. That class had never on any occasion put forward
claims which could at all be construed as in opposition to the
interests of the manufacturing classes.—(Cheers.) It was
obvious, from the manner in which the question was now taken
up, that nothing would be satisfactory but the total repeal of
the Corn Laws.—(Hear, hear, hear.) He agreed with Hon.
Gentlemen opposite that steady prices would be of the greatest
advantage to the farmer; but he denied that the repeal of the
Corn Laws would produce this result.—(Hear, hear.) In
his opinion, it would produce a result quite the contrary.—
(Hear. ) If the Corn Laws were repealed, the artisans would
soon find out to their cost that the present high rate of wages
could not stand. It ought to be remarked that within a year
and a half a considerable importaticn of corn had taken place.
By the returns upon the table it appeared that 14,209 quarters
of corn had been imported. What would be the state of this
country if the English farmer had to compete with the Con-
tinental ones? Baltic wheat could be sold at Hamburgh
for 313. the quarter, and this same wheat would be imported
into Hull at the additional expense of Is. 3d. per quarter.
---.(Hear, hear.) If, indeed, we were to begin again, and
that we could reduce the taxation of the country, the system
of Corn-laws might not be requisite ; but, situated as the
country at present was, the repeal of the Corn-laws would be
an act of injustice to the farmer, and would operate with
great severity against the whole agricultural interest. It was
evident, from the state of the House, that this question could
not be invested with much of novelty. With respect to Minis-
ters, there was but one solitary one present, and lie was
quietly taking his evening's siesta, after having wearied him-
self with the fatigues of office.—(Laughter.) He was satisfied
that the House would decide the question by its vote, and put
an end to all the hopes entertained by the Hon. Gentleman
who brought forward the question.—( Hear, hear.) It had
been stated, fair, honestly, and openly, that the object in
moving for a Committee was to procure the total repeal of
the Corn Laws, and those, therefore,:who voted for the Com-
mittee must be presumed to go the whole length of those who
moved for it.—(Cries of " No, no," " Yes, yes.") The
Hon. Member for Wolverhampton said he first wanted a Com-
mittee, and would then move for a total repeal. Hon. Mem-
bers should therefore be careful how they took the first step.
i".-(Hear, hear.) The Hon. Baronet who seconded the mo-
!°11 had been severe on Gentlemen at his (Lord Chandos's)
/3tdc of the House. He had charged them with being returned
3. the votes of a servile tenantry. Neither he (the Marquis
or Chandos) nor those who acted with him deserved that
taunt.—( Hear, hear.) Those by whom he was returned were
(Has free as the persons who returned the Hon. Baronet.—
ear, hear.) The farmer only asked the protection which
was afforded to all other classes. They wanted no monopoly.
They looked for nothing more than single-handed justice ; and
he felt that in claiming this they would not appeal in vain to a
britash House of Commona
Mr. G. BERKELEY ..—( Cheers.).
thought it was impossible to separate
the interests of the agricultural classes from those of the ma-
nufacturing. The cry of overthrowing the agricultural in-
terests was one raised merely for electioneering purposes, and it
could have no weight with those who knew that all interests,
!agricultural and manufacturing, must be raised or depressed
by the same causes.
Sir 11. PARNELL thought the Corn-laws were highly
Impolitic. Indeed, in the Committees which he had attended
;•an they had been numerous—the general opinion appeared
bedhat all protections were injurious, and that their aboli-
Stlo_nh /N.." every instance favourable to trade. It was a
athat in every discussion of the question the landlords were
Y_s kept out of view and the farmers alone were taken into
treslieration. The policy of retaining these laws was always
sl,d_en the interest of the farmer. This was a delusion prac-
r?( for the purpose of raising a feeling through the country
Hiss
the repeal of there laws. Now no one gained by these
1„,,v(53 hut the landlord.—( Cries of " No, no, " Hear, hear.")
The landlord gained by them in consequence of the non-leasing
sYstera,
fnt, r which was almost universal.—(No, no.) It was, at
ih.Jt, ate, very general. The farmer who had no lease had no
!.eni •rest in the high prices of corn. The question
as to a subsis-
!a;e to be derived from his labour and a return for his capital
,hlereference not to the price of corn but to the rent of land.
farmer as well as others had an interest in his prices as a
hconsumer. Corn, in consequence of these laws, was ss. a guar-
u more to the consumer, and all this to benefit some few
_rnred thousands of landlords. Taking the consumption of
rent Britain at fifty millions of quarters, if these were raised
five shillings each in cost it would give a sum of twelve mil-
`,Tus and a half per annum more than if there had been no
Corn rthlaws. But for the Corn-laws that sum would remain in
tt_t' pockets of the people, who would be thus better enabled
Pay their taxes, or convert the money to some other use.
The Earl of DARLINGTON was never in his life more
astonished than he was at the speech of the Right Hon.
,J 3 axonet who had just sat down.---( Hear, hear.) Who would
ave supposed that the Right Hon. Member would have so
auddenly changed his opinion after his return from Dundee?
Who would have supposed that the Right Hon. Baronet, when
those laws were introduced in 1813, was the very first to ad-
vocate them ?—( Hear, hear, arid laughter.) The Right Hon.
Baronet did not propose the total abolition of Corn-laws when
the price was up to 603. His opinion was then in favour of
the Corn-laws. Why that opinion had undergone such a
change since the Right Hon. Baronet had been returned for
Dundee he would leave the House to determine. He wished
for no exclusive privilege for the landed interest—all lie de-
sired was that justice should be done them, and that they
should be paid as much attention to as other interests. Corn-
tnon justice, in fact, was all they required, and to that he con.
eived they were entitled. He asked it as much for the
landed proprietors of Ireland as for those of England.
Sir H. PARNELL explained the difference between his
l.l.tesent and his former votes on this subject. The cause of
the former was the war, when the price of corn and all de-
`l_7i_ption of provisions was at its highest; but since the peace,
with the change in prices, he had seen the necessity for a
changei in his opinions.
r. CLAY deplored the apathy which existed within and
lout the walls of Parliament on the subject of the Corn-
, Ws.---s Hear, hear.) Ile was satisfied, however, that the
rkesent system of Corn-laws would not last much longer, and
beevrise that the people of England would, in a voice not to
intsunderstood, sweep them for ever away. In cense-
tnlce of their operation we had now a healthy trade with no
01_('Ign nation but one—that was America. The Prussian
froMrnereial league had completely excluded our productions
peopleni market in which there were twenty-five millions of
tei' We would not take their corn, and they had deter-
nnot to take our manufactures. It had been his (Mr.
tiee, ss intention to have proposed an amendment to the mo-
ts to the effect that a fixed duty should be substituted for a
Changeable one, but he had foregone it by the advice of some
'lends near him. However, if the motion were
earl,
for 'e,d, and if the House should resolve itself into Committee
the consideration of the subject, he should certainly make
Motion to that effect in the Committee.
hot
or. 1):ISRA ELI contended that the Prussian league was
tern_icleasioned by the English law, but by the French Cus-
osi • °llse- He stated that the protective system in America
Reghtnated in 1790, and was occasioned by circumstances alto-
tirjr independent of our Corn-laws. It arose out of a tariff
AilP by General Hamilton, at the desire of the Congress.
the the Continental nations were now successfully pursuing
to
ipornorle_ctive systems in their own.defence, for England could
the longer expect to remain the Birmingham of Europe and
00
w:?r,ss.shop of the world. He really could not understand
agrie"elt‘tlruasit grounds the outcry bad been raised against the
interest.
Mr• CAYLEY believed that the present Corn-law was the
hest that fasmehad ever been devised, both for the advantage of the
The r and the protection of the manufaeturer and the public.
oow
zalanufacturers could not, under its equable operation,
Ilecced in agitating the people against the Corn-laws.