The Sun.
London, England, 1840-04-03 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, FRIDAY, APRIL 3, 1840.

the Corn-laws, but as his sentiments were well known to
be in favour of a total repeal, and as he (Mr. Pryme)
could not go along with him in that, he had thought proper
to give notice of an amendment, which the Hon. Gentle-
man had termed an invidious one. Why it deserved that
term he did not know—anything invidious meant more
than met the eye, but his amendment was given in
plain terms, and was the production of one who was evi-
dently a favourer of a graduated scale of duty. He con-
tended the landed interest was entitled to protection on the
ground that it was taxed to a greater amount—he might
say that taxes pressed more upon what he might call the
manufacture of corn than upon the manufacture of any
other commodity. He was not contending against the
doctrines of free trade, of which he had always been a fa-
vourer, and he would give his reasons for thinking so. The
first tax which pressed upon agriculture was that of tithe—
it mattered not to whom the tax went, whether to the
parson, the lay impropriator, or the State—whether it
-rent to the Excise-office or to the parochial office—it was
still an imposition upon the land, from which other
manufac ures were exempt. The Honourable Gentleman
read a long extract from Ricardo to prove this position.
The other taxes which pressed upon agriculture almost
exclusively, were Poor-rates, County-rates, Highway-
rates, and Church-rates. These rates were imposed at a
time whan the monied interest and the funds were un-
known, when there was little property but the move-
ables of the nobility and the chapelries, and therefore the
land was the only ostensible property for taxation, and it
was taxed. It might be said that silk and cotton mills
paid those taxes also, and so they did, but to what amount ?
—( Hear, hear.) From all calculations ho had made
these four taxes were imposed upon one-fifth of the pro-
duce of land. To find out how much was paid by the
manufacturer was a most difficult matter to ascer-
tain, but he had made inquiries, and, from answers
given him by a retired manufacturer, he was led to
believe that the rent of one of the mills bore about the
ep
er
ro
dp
ihorgt i
teen
those of one-fiftietheale
ul calculations,
a oa,f
the it its
Iparaodd up caelt tehhe r
timesf r ,a c
more-
of those taxes than the manufacturing establishments, and
according to the principles of free trade, agriculture ought
to have some countervailing protection against the importa-
tionsaid
that
interest some; a
and
db
firstons
insurances
by ohfeefoaregigivneparotdoucteh.e
agricultural
r mighti
u might be mentioned that reduction made upon
tu rbael
by Lord Althorp, but what did it amount to?-3s. per
cent., which, upon a farm of 300 acres, did not amount to
one penny per acre. Then the Window and the House
Duty, buthe was ashamed to enter into such trifling details.
Mr. WARBURTON—The Legacy Duty,
Mr. PR YME was obliged to his Hon. Friend, but he
would ask what was the duty upon the transfer of 1,000/.
or 100,000/. of funded property? Then came the ques-
tion of amount. Was the present protection a fair one?
He contended that it was too much even for the landed
interest, because it gave rise to great fluctuations. There
were times of high prices which forced lands into cultiva-
tion ; and then low prices, which forced it again out of
cultivation, in a sort of pendulum fashion, which was alike
ruinous to the landlord, the farmer, and the consumer. If
they were to take a low figure in the scale of duty
he could not help thinking the fluctuation would not be
so great, and would be better for all parties. The present
price for the admission of foreign corn was 735., which
was too high. The Hon. Gentleman then quoted from
the evidence of several witnesses who had given evidence
before the Committes of 1833 and 1836, in order to show
that those well acquainted with the subject were of opi-
nion that the remunerating price lay between 565. and
645. The Hon. Member then proceeded to say that
though some parties might be anxious to go farther than
others might think fit, that was no reason for refusing an
inquiry into the subject, provided they thought it necessary
to make some alteration in the existing law. Mr. Can-
ning had formerly proposed a scale, of which he ( Mr.
Pryme) was disposed to approve. That scale was that
when the price reached 70s. tae duty should be Is., and
not when it reached 735. as at present. That scale of Mr.
Canning's had been formerly set aside, and the present
one had been adopted in its stead. The reason why he
adhered to that proposal was, it was the most simple
one which could be devised, and that it would not differ
from the present scale, except in amount. He believed
that a total change in the present system would be at.
tended with great inconvenience, and could not be safely
carried into effect. But some parties asked, why not have
a fixed duty? The objection which he (Mr. Pryme) had
to such a duty was, it would be impracticable when prices
were high. In the years 1814 and 1815 that had been the
case, and there was then practically no restrictions on the
trade in corn, for so great was the scarcity in those years,
that the Government of the day proposed to Parliament
that corn should be imported duty free. If a period of
such scarcity were again to occur, they would feel the in.
convenience of a fixed duty. It had been stated by some
Hon. Members that a complete exclusion of foreign corn
would be the best means of insuring abundant provision
at home. He thought that every thing showed the con-
trary. He contended that a permanent and regular
supply would be best secured by imposing on
foreign corn such a duty as would offer that protection to
the farmers of this country as the taxes imposed on land
rendered them fairly entitled to. No one could deny that
it was certainly desirable that we should import some por.
tion of the corn of other countries, in order that they
might take our manufactures in return.—( Hear, hear.)
The only inducement to the agriculturist to grow more corn
than he wanted himself, was the procuring of those com-
forts or luxuries which the manufacturers supplied ; and the
agriculturists depended more, on the mercantile interest
than they might suppose. The Hon. Member here referred
to some statements showing that in Birmingham soon after
the peace, when the greatest manufacturing distress pre-
vailed, the demand for agricultural produce diminished one
half, and it could not be doubted that the greater the com-
mercial prosperity the better for the agricultural interest.
---( Hear, hear.) The President of the Board of Trade had
stated that he did not think there was much prospect of fo-
reign States relaxing their restrictive provisions upon the
removal of our's. But he thought it was according to the
principles of human nature that those States should be wil-
ling to admit our manufactures if we received their pro-
duce. Different States finding themselves possessed of pe-
culiar facilities for the production of particular commodi-
ties, would inevitably find it to be their mutual inte-
rest to interchange each other's surplus commodities.
There were stages in the progress of every nation in
which the exportation of raw produce was prevalent.
Thus, for instance, in our own country, during the reign
of Elizabeth, it appeared we were great exporters of raw
produce, which we received,back from foreign countries in
a manufactured state. We had now changed places with
Continental States ; and there were such countries as Po-
land and America, in which, there being land in abund-
ance, there was every inducement to export their raw agri-
cultural produce, and of course it was for their advan.
tage to exchange the overplus for our manufactures.
It had been said that a reduction of the Corn-laws would
render us dependant upon foreign nations for our supply
of corn, and that in time of war that supply might be cut
off. But we had experience of the contrary. In a war in
which we had almost the whole world against us there
was no deficiency of foreign corn ; and when other na-
tions sent us their produce at that time, was it likely that
they would fail to do so when no longer under
the domination of France ? So long as we preserved
anything like a navy there was no fear that the nations with
which we were at war could prevent those with which we were
at peace from sending us their corn. He thanked the House
for the attention with which he had been heard. But he
feared he had incurred the hostility on the one hand of those
who desired the total repeal of the Corn-laws, and, on the
other hand, of those who were opposed to any alteration what-
ever. He had placed himself between two fires, and he ex-
pected to receive the shots of both.—(No, and a laugh.) His own
feelings were bound up with agriculture; but he thought that
timely concession was advisable. The " agitation" would not
cease, and if the dearness of food increased, the people would
demand greater concessions than would at present content
them.—( Hear, hear.) He concluded by moving as an amend-
ment that the words " with a view to reduce the average prices
on which the duties are imposed," be added to the motion.
The Hon. W. DUNCOMBE would not trouble the
House at that late period of the debate, but from the absence
of his Hon. Colleague, and that he himself bad presented, in
the course of the Session, 300 petitions against the alteration of
the present system. Those petitions were not, as had been
asserted, got up by the landlords ; and far from any change
having taken place in the opinions of the agriculturists,
he believed there was a general opinion amongst
them that the present Corn-laws could not be
altered without great danger to the country. The
lien. Member for the West Riding of Yorkshire had pre-
sented a petition from Doncaster, which he stated to be from a
purely agricultural district, and he said that a great change of
opinion had taken place among agriculturists on this subject.
He (Mr. Duncombe) had presented a counter-petition from
Doncaster ; every person who had signed that petition had also
affixed his residence, and he believed that petition was more
numerously and respectably signed than the other. He admit-
ted that numerous petitions had been presented from other
places, and that the numbers entitled them to respect and atten-
tion ; but how, he would ask, had those petitions been got
up? Why persons had been stationed with tables at the cor-
ners of the streets, and men and boys, as they went to their
work, were requested to sign the petitions ; and if they asked
what the petitions were for, they were told they were for cheap
bread. Under these circumstances, he was not surprised that
the working classes should have joined in the clamour which
had been, he would say, most unconstitutionally raised on this
subject throughout the country. He had also presented peti-
tions from manufacturing towns in favour of the
present Corn-laws, and in a note from a most respectable
gentleman, which had accompanied one of those petitions,
that gentleman had expressed the disgust which was felt by
many manufacturers themselves at the attempts of the Anti-
Corn-law League to sow dissensions between the farmers and
their servants, by sending paid agents amongst them to assert
falsehoods respecting the landowners. Paid agents had been
sent to propagate these defamations from town to town, to scat-
ter poison among the people, by inflaming their passions on a
subject, in treating of which the greatest delicacy and caution
were necessary.—(Cheers.) The motion of the Hon. Member
for Wolverhampton involved two distinct propositions ; first, a
proposition for a total repeal of the Corn-laws, which is said to
be the object of the majority of the petitioners on that subject,
and of the greater number of gentlemen on the other side of
the House. There was also the proposition which seemed to
meet with the approval of some of the Members of the Cabinet,
to the effect of substituting a fixed duty in lieu of the present'
sliding scale. (Hear, hear.) He had no hesitation
in saying that if the House should go into a Com-
mittee on this subject, he should, rather than support
the fixed duty proposed by the President of the Board of Trade'
see the Corn-laws totally repealed altogether—(Cheers)—that
had long been his decided opinion, and he had often expressed
it. The Right Hon. Gentleman had said that he thought a
fixed duty of 7s. or Bs. a quarter to decline rapidly after the
price reached 605., and to cease altogether when it should reach
705., would be a sufficient protection to the agricultural in-
terest. He was convinced that such a duty would be delusive,
and as a protection totally inoperative. The Right Hon. Gen-
tleman had alluded to the opinion of other persons as to the
advantage of a fixed duty. Now he would call the attention
of the House to the opinion of Mr. Canning on this subject.
In 1827 Mr. Canning had said that a fixed duty of 125., and
the same argument would apply to a fixed duty of 7s. or Bs.,
would be to press heavily upon the public when the price of
wheat was, say at 112 s. a quarter, and to afford no protection
whatever to the farmer when the price was low, say at 385,.
and that under a sliding duty they would have the best chance
of giving steadiness of price, and a due protection to agricul-
ture, without pressing heavily upon the public. In 1828,
when the present law was brought forward, Mr.
Huskisson had expressed his opinion against a fixed duty,
as likely to increase the general misery in periods of scarcity,
and of no advantage to the corn-growers, as giving him pro-
tection, or as guaranteeing a steadiness of price, The Right

Hon. Gentleman, in stating the advantages of a fixed duty
had said that great fluctuations in price had occurred under
the existing law. Now in America, where there was a fixed
duty, the fluctuation had been greater than in this country,
therefore a fixed duty afforded no protection whatever against
fluctuations in price. The fluctuations had been less under the
present system than under any former one, The average price
of wheat under the present law had been 575., while during
the preceding ten years, from 1818 to 1828, the price had been
61s. This showed that the average price of corn under the
present system had been lower than it was before ; he there-
fore, was of opinion that a fixed duty would by no means pre-
vent a fluctuation in the price of corn. The proposition
of the Hon. Member for Wolverhampton, if acceded
to by Parliament would involve the consideration of
of such a number of facts, that it would be impossible to enter
into the consideration of them unless the Government were
prepared to say that they would come forward with a proposition
for the total remodelling the whole taxation of the country ; and
unless they were prepared to do this, he would say that it would
be most hazardous and dangerous for the House to consent to a
proposition for the repeal of the Corn-laws. He did not be-
believe that a repeal of the Corn-laws would satisfy the work-
ing classes of the country. In another speech of Mr. Huskis-
son, he had stated that if a free trade in corn was to take place,
wages would fall, and the operatives would be injured. As he
(Drr. Duncombe) had said before, however dangerous the
repeal of the Corn-laws might be, he should prefer a total repeal
to the fixed duty proposed by the Right Hon. Gentleman oppo-
site. Silk, linen, hides, copper, china, and almost every article of
manufactures, had a protecting duty, and unless the Right
lion. Gentleman was prepared to give up those duties, on what
pretence of justice could he come to the landowners, and say
that he should take away from them their protecting duty ?
Were they, he would ask, to take off that duty, because some
gentlemen who held their parliament sometimes in Manchester,
and at others in Palace-yard, chose to agitate the country upon
the subject? Did they think that the landed interest were so soft
or so foolish as to put up with such treatment ? ilf they did, they
would find themselves deceived. Why did not Hon. Gentle-
men say what they want ?—(Hear. ) Why did they seek to
,get what they wanted by pretence ? He hoped, however they
deluded the people out of doors—but he hoped they did not think
they had deluded the landed interest in the House or
eut of it. He did not believe they were themselves
prepared for free trade in every thing.—(Hear, hear.) He
believed they wished to get rid of British agriculture for their
own advantage, and for conferring a benefit on one class of the
community at the expense of another. But let him tell them
any injury so inflicted would revert on every interest of the
community, and that they were deceiving themselves if they
thought any but the most disastrous effects would be the result.
For himself, he had no hesitation in saying he was at all times
most anxious to give his support to any measure which would
conduce to the improvement of the condition of any class of the
community, and more especially the working classes, on whose
welfare and prosperity must always depend the honour
and prosperity of the country.—(Hear, hear.) But be-
lieving, under present circumstances, that it would be the
greatest folly to adopt any measure to render this country de-
pendant on foreign nations—and that those countries which
flourished most in ancient or modern times were those who
had offered the greatest protection to the cultivation of land,
he felt obliged to give his vote in support of the petitions which
he had presented to the House in support of the present Corn-
laws. They had only two Ministers of the Crown who had
addressed the House on the subject ; whether the others agreed
with the opinions they had expressed he did not know, but they
knew those in the other House did not concur in them,
—(Hear, hear.) They had, however, made it an open
question, and justified doing so by appealing to the Catholic
question and others ; but he thought if there were one question
more than another which ought not to be made an open ques-
tion, it was this one. He would not detain the House longer
than to read to them an extract from a letter of the Noble Lord
(J. Russell) to his constituents on the present subject, after
which he would sit down, thanking them for the attention with
which he had been favoured.—( The Hon. Gentleman then
read an extract from a newspaper, which, however, was inaudi-
ble in the gallery. )
Mr. CLAY said the motion of his Hon. Friend the Member
for Wolverhampton was for a Committee to consider the sys-
tem of the Corn-laws, and their reply to it was, that there was
no occasion for it, that they were working particularly well,
and that there was no ground to induce th House to recon-
sider them. Now if it were true that the effect now flowing
from the Corn-laws was no ground to induce the House to re-
c,nsider them, then he was at a loss to conceive by what ur-
gency of circumstance the House could ever be induced to con-
sider any laws to require amendment. What, in the nature of
things, must be the character of truths which should induce
that House to consider any existing law, but that they had
failed in the object for which they were intended, end to give
contentment to the people? But he would ask which of those
desired proofs were wanting to demonstrate the evils of the
working of the Corn-laws. Had these laws answered the pur-
poses for which they were intended, which were two-fold—
First, to secure the steadiness of prices and to protect the
farmers on the one hand, and the consumer on the
other, from ruinous fluctuations, and again to render
was independent of foreign supply ? What has been their
effects? Fluctuations the most violent, variation in prices,
almost from year to year, amounting to 100 per cent. ; varia-
tions that at one time threatened the farmer with ruin, and
loaded the table with petitions complaining that the Corn-laws
did not give sufficient protection, while at another tome they
were such as to reduce the lower classes of landowners almost
to ruin. He observed in Hon. Gentlemen opposite a disposition,
first, to deny these laws produced fluctuations, and, secondly,
to assert there were greater fluctuations elsewhere. He
had great reluctance to address the House at all, but
still more to use arguments which he had already ad-
dressed to them. (Here the Honourable Gentleman
became inaudible, in consequence of the noise in the House.)
It was also asserted that fluctuations of prices were greater in
other countries than in this, and this statement was made on
the ground of papers recently laid upon the table of the House.
As to the laws rendering us independent of foreign countries, it
was enough to say that within the last two years we had im-
ported no less than four millions of quarters. Our greatest mer-
chants, our most extensive manufacturers, and all the commu-
nities in our largest towns, declared that those laws im-
pair ourhome as well as our foreign commerce, they narrowed the
markets for our manufactures, and while they enhanced the
prices of the food of the artizan they limited the chance of his
employment. He charged upon those laws the formation of the
Prussian League, even although the Hon. Member for Maid-
stone last night attempted to show that there was no connec-
tion between them. He charged also upon them the large and
sudden drain of bullion which had so deranged all the relations
of the country during the last two years, for those countries
who had nothing but corn we took care to exclude from all our
commerce, and when we were obliged to take their corn,
see were obliged to pay in gold, for they had
no market for our manufactures, nor was there then
time to create one. The dissatisfaction against these
laws was spreading far and wide, and was quite independent of
the peaceful, legal, and constitutional agitation now carrying
on by the League. Agitation never furthered any cause that
was not essentially based upon truth and justice. If these laws
were just and politic they would stand against all agitation, but
as they were in his opinion founded on injustice and impolitic
they must sink under it. Whatever the indifference which
lion. Gentlemen might feel as to the wishes of the nation at
large he (Mr. Clay) believed that it would not be possible to
maintain the existing law against the great commercial and
manufacturing interests of the country, and all the trading
towns of the empire against the opinion so widely
spreading that before a long period could elapse the
opposition to the system would be universal. He was glad
to find that the Right Honourable Member for Tamworth
was in his place, as he wished to cite a passage in his speech, on
the vote of non-confidence in Ministers, which bore upon the
present question. The Hon. Gentleman was proceeding to
read an extract from the speech he had referred to, when
The SPEAKER said that the Hon. Member would not be
in order in reading a passage from a printed paper.
Mr. CLAY said that he should in that case refer in gene-
ral terms to a passage stating the opinions of the Right Hon,
Member.—( Order, order.)
The SPEAKER said that as the Hon. Member had re-
ferred to the extract of a passage from a speech on the non-
confidence debate, any attempt to introduce it in another form
would be but a shallow disguise.—(Cheers from the Opposi-
tion benches.)
Mr. CLAY was again proceeding (amidst cries of " Order,
order") to comment on the opinions expressed on a former oc-
casion by the Right Hon. Baronet the Member for Tamworth,
when
Sir R. PEEL said that as the speech referred to had been
published in the form of a pamphlet, he had no objection to
any portion of it being read by the Hon. Member, but he pro-
tested against the Hon. Member giving his opinions with varia-
tions of his own.—( Hear, hear.)
Mr. HUME said that, under the circumstances, he thought
there could be no objection to the Hon. Gentleman being al-
lowed to read the passage in question.
Mr. CL AY then read the extract, in which the Right Hon.
Member for Tamworth stated that his opinions on the Corn-
law question remained unchanged, but that he could not posi-
tively refuse, under any circumstances to alter the existing
scale. 'Was not he (Mr. Clay) entitled to infer from that pas-
sage that he would not commit himself to the assertion that the
system was a perfectly good one; and, secondly, was he not
jvstified in thinking that the Right Honourable Member was
bound on the present occasion to express his opinion
on the subject. For his own part, ke should ob-
serve that he was entirely opposed to a sliding scale.
He believed that any alteration in the law which left un-
touched the machinery of the present system of averages and
graduated duties would leave untouched the most noxious ele-
ment of that system, and would be utterly nugatory.—( Hear,
hear.) For the evil of the present system was, that under the
guise of free trade, it rendered free trade for any beneficial
purpose impossible. No country on the Continent could grew
corn for us when we at one time required what would be in-
convenient to supply, and at another time allowed the
surplus commodity to perish in warehouses.—( Hear, hear,
hear.) He would not, however, object to a mo-
derate fixed duty. He thought it would be a great im-
provcrnent on the present system. He would now call upon
Hon. Gentlemen opposite to consider well whether it would
be wise any longer to refuse the demand for inquiry.—( Hear,
hear.) This was no political question, and
haidt
eovuegrh tb
ene ont
found
nb
de
treated as one—(Hear)—but it
was (
one even mere dangerous--a question
the interests of the)
It was a question ranging on oneesti.owside
landed proprietary, naturally identified with the highest. ranks,
, it was
and on the other side, the rest of the community
• and
every day drawing more clearly andis metly the line
.li)evedlitoe
no," frombutthaes Owphpaotshiteiobne
of demarcation.—(" No,
Of this, too, he was
was not stating this for his opiinniont:he
country.—(Hear.) He
be a rapidly rising impression ,
eartouths
ew
rhaetne
believed that a landed proupfrtthettear)na,tiion good condition, was most
n.
important to the welfare never be ros
manufacturing interests were distressed.
the commercial and
certain that this proprietary coo
that our population increased
Let it be remembered
annually' owwere they to be provided for
of half a million
hear.)
Could they be p
under a system rovided for
—( Hear, hear,
which limited the supply to our
own country.—
at
( Hear, hear.) believede that present very
beneficial results would flow from an alteration in the system,
and that every year as
it passed removed those results further,
of foreign nations.—(Hear, hear. )
and increased the alienationt,l re
_use
ray
such deference to the
Would the House then sa
iulto f t
the inquiry ? ( Hear. ) In that
general cry as not tog
middle term, some friendly compromise
inquiry, doubtless, some
might be effected, to remove theear evils of a system detrimental
to our best interests.—(Hear,
1 , • cor a m intake
of the
Mr. F. SHAW merely wisheti
s the ent he
Hon. Member for Wolverhamptonto rect
to statem
a made
t to this country every year.
that Ireland was sending less whew
to retus which controverted
lie referred the Hon. Gentleman
the capabilities of Ireland for
the statements he had made as to
and
• h corn. The Hon. Learned Gentle-
supplying England with
uantity of wheat exported
man then read returns of the q e „
from Ireland to England in each yar,
_ 18r37m
_the 3d of
January, 1800, to the 3d of January, fro m which
it appeared, that with the except io n
conti of the two years
1821 and 1828, there had been a nual increase,
but that in 1833 the quantity imported exceeded that of any
other year, and from that year to 1838 there was a falling off.
In the Report of the Railway Commissioners, also, a great in-
crease in the export of wheat from Ireland to this country was
proved. In 1895 the number of quarters imported into Great
Britain from Ireland was 283,240 ; in 1835 it was 425,522.
In 1835 the quantity of flour imported was three times, cr
nearly four times that imported in 1825 ; and there was a corres-
ponding increase in the imports of tea, coffee, cotton, and
other commodities from this country to Ireland. The Hon.
Member had referred to the opinions of the Hon. Member for
Dublin, and of Mr. Sharman Crawford, to show that the Corn-
aws were not beneficial to Ireland. But had he looked to the

reasons which those gentlemen gave for the repeal of those 1
laws? At a recent meeting in Dublin, Mr. S. Craw- I
ford said it would be better for Ireland not to export
any part of its agricultural produce, and that, therefore,
it was for the interest of Ireland that the Corn-laws should be
repealed. Mr. O'Connell's reason for advocating the repeal
was, that Ireland had no chance of recovering a part of the
wealth abstracted by absentees, until England should have a
free trade in corn, which would oblige them to come back.
In another part of Mr. O'Connell's speech, another rea-
son for its advocacy was to be found—" That there
was no Chartist in England more strongly imbued with
democratic principles than he was." Those two gentlemen
were entirely opposed to each other on political questions, and
the Hon. Member would find that the majority of Irish Members
would vote against his motion.—( Hear.) In this country the
labourer might find a transition from the wholesome pursuits of
agriculture to manufactures, but the Irish peasantry had no
such resource. There had been a great improvement
in their condition for the last two or three years,
but they were so near the verge of want it was fearful to con-
template the possibility of driving them nearer. It was said
that they would find employment in the manufactories of Eng-
land, but there was already too great an influx of them in this
country, and if the Corn-laws were repealed there would be an
inundation of them. He would not trespass on the House at
that late hour, and would content himself with saying that no
case had been made out for the alteration.
Mr. VILLIERS denied that he had misrepresented the re-
turns, which he said proved that there had been a falling off in
the supply of wheat from Ireland of late years.
On the motion of Mr. BROTHERTON, the debate was ad-
journed till to-morrow (this day).
The other Orders of the Day were then disposed of, and the
House adjourned at Twelve o'Clock.

HOUSE OF LORDS, APRIL 2.
Their Lordships met soon after Five o' Clock.
On the motion of Lord DUNCANNON, the Conso-
lidated Funds (8,000,0001.) Bill was read a third time,
and passed. _ _

CORN-LAWS.
The Earl of HADDINGTON presented petitions from
the county of Ross against the repeal of the Corn-laws.
Lord WHARNCLIFFE presented a similar petition
from Yorkshire.

Lord H ATHERTON presented a petition from West
Bromwich, in Staffordshire, signed by 4,500 persons,
praying for a repeal of the Corn-laws. The Noble Lord
presented a number of petitions to the same effect from
other places in Staffordshire.
The Earl of HARD \VIC KE presented several petitions
from places in Cambridgeshire, against any alteration of
the Corn-laws. The petitioners stated that the county cf
Cambridge was altogether an agricultural one, and was
also in a great measure artificial, its produce having
doubled during the last thirty years. They said
that the total repeal of the Corn-laws without any
substitute, would be ruinous, and they feared that
a fixed duty would be no essential protection.
He had petitions to present from the labourers of two
parishes in that county, respecting which he had to say, in
the first place, that the people o ad abstained
from urging their labourers to sign petitions ; and, se-
condly, that the petitioners stated that they were now
earning 16s. and 18s. a week; but that if the Corn-laws
were repealed, their employment would be greatly, if not
altogether, diminished.
The NOBLE LORD then presented, on the part of the
Earl of Cardigan, who had left town, several petitions
from places in Northamptonshire.
The Marquis of L ANSD 0 NVNE laid on the table
papers relating to mortality, which were a sequel to papers
previously printed on the same subject.
Lord MELBOURNE presented several petitions from
Forfarshire against Intrusion of Ministers. The Noble
Lord presented also a petition from the Provost and Town
Council of the Royal Burgh of Jedburgh, which he said
expressed great respect for their Lordships, but not quite
so much for the Clergy, and prayed their Lordships not to
pass any Bill that would increase the power of the Clergy.
The petition we understood to be generally in favour of the
existing system of patronage.
The Earl of ROSEBERY presented a petition, nu-
merously signed, from Forfarshire, against the law of
Church patronage.
The Duke of BUCKINGHAM, after presenting a
number of petitions from Cornwall, said he would take the
opportunity of expressing his regret at having seen what be
had said respecting the pay of tbc labourer mis-stated in a
Morning Paper. It was stated that he said he thought the
labourer was well paid at 9s. a-week. That was not his
opinion, and he had never so stated. The more the
labourer could get the better satisfied he should be. He
only hoped and trusted the Corn-laws would never be re-
pealed, for if they were the wages of the labourer would
be reduced to a very small pittance.
The Marquis of WESTMINSTER said the petitions
which had been presented in favour of the Corn-laws were
many of them not very numerously signed, and a great
many came under suspicious circumstances, as coming from
the same parts of the country, the petition he had to pre-
sent was of a different sort—it represented the opinions of
a large community of Liverpool. If their Lordships had
attended to the representations that had been given, they,
had heard that great distress prevailed in the manufactur-
ing districts.—[The Noble Marquis here read an extract,
as we understood, from a speech of Mr. Baring, now Lord
Ashburton, in opposition to the present Corn-laws.]
Lord ASHBURTON said, that if the Noble Marquis
had made a motion on the subject of the Corn-laws, he
should have been very glad to discuss the question with
him. The Noble Marquis, however, had attacked
hire (Lord Ashburton), calling him a " sentinel"
in the matter, while the Noble Marquis took care
that from day to day he should keep that sentinel
on the qui vive. The House would therefore excuse
him, if he offered a few words in reference to his alleged
change of opinion. In 1825, he had certainly taken a
strong part in the House of Commons, in a proposition
which was then made for augmenting what was called
the protecting duties on corn. Ho might have
used on that occasion expressions strongly indicative of his
apprehension of over-stretching such protection, and
he should observe, that the fashion of the House
of Commons, at that time, was to go into
extremes on such subjects. The question, however, at
that time was not a repeal but an increase on the protect-
ing duty of from 665. to 80s. Many Gentlemen in the
House of Commons even thought that 80s. was not suffi-
cient, and especially Sir Henry Parnell, who expressed
his opinion that 120 s. would be a fair protecting duty.
Sir Henry Parnell, however, he believed, was now in fa-
vour of an alteration in the existing laws. If he (Lord
A.) had also changed his opinion on the subject,
it would not be the first time that he had done
so on subjects of greater importance, and he should not
have the slightest hesitation in stating such change to the
House. If at any time he had thought that the protecting
duty which had been established was working iil for the
great interests of the country, he should be the first to
express such an opinion. He should be certainly sorry
to see an extreme protection on corn—he should be sorry
to see that protection raised beyond what it is at present.
If there bad been a proposition to take into consideration
any particular scale of duty, he would not say that he
should be unwilling to enter on the consideration of that
subject, but he was not willing to enter on the con-
sideration of it with persons who were totally hostile to
the protection of our agriculture.—( Hear, hear, bear.)
In the Committee he mentioned, as strongly as he could,
the necessity of bonding corn, although his opinion was
rather in favour of relaxing than of tightening the system.
But to deny the necessity for any protection at all, would
introduce such a change in the property of the
country as would tend to revolution. Wtien the
question came under consideration he would state
his reasons for maintaining the system as it is existed, and
for thinking that it had worked well, even for the manu-
facturers, who were represented as so much injured by it.
The Noble Marquis opposite had great objections to fluc-
tuation in prices, and he mentioned that as one of the
greatest evils of the Corn-laws. But it was proved
by a paper which had lately been laid before the House,
that from 1815 to 1838, the fluctuations in Prussia, Poland,
Westphalia, Sweden, Bourdeaux, Riga, and Trieste were of
double the extent of those in England during the same years.
The Earl of RADNOR said his Noble Friend must not
be angry if the great variations of opinion of a person of so
much talent, and who had taken so prominent a part in this
question, were much commented on. After the documents
which had been read by the Noble Marquis, his Noble
Friend could not be surprised at being put on the qui dive,
as he called it. He ( Lord Radnor) thought there were
most unaccountable alterations of opinion in his Noble
Friend since 1825. There were great discrepancies in the
very speech which he had delivered that evening. The
variations of opinion of his Noble Friend were of a most
extraordinary kind, for they wore not merely as to the
working of the law, or such as experience of the
measure might induce him to come to, but against the
very principle on which the Legislature wits called
upon to Act, and on which lie himself stated the
Legislature ought and must act. The Noble Earl then
read and commented upon extracts from the speeches of the
Noble Lord in 1815 and 1828. After which the Noble
Earl proceeded to say that he knew, on the best authority,
that the greatest distress existed in the country. He had
received a letter, describing to him cases of distress which
it would harrass their Lordships' minds to hear. It existed
to that extent that his correspondent, who had been ap-
pointed ono of a Committee to inquire into the state of dis-
tress, said that he had riot before the slightest con-
ception that any such distress did or could exist,
and added, that though the Newspapers said they
were improving he would tell him they were getting
worse. In that town he (the Earl of Radnor) had been
informed that a great machine manufacturer had discharged
250 workmen. It seemed to him that the ruin prophesied
in the speech of his Noble Friend was fast approaching.
The Noble Earl proceeded to say that a paper had been
put into his hand which contained details of great import-
ance. In the first page there was a list of the countries in
which the variations of prices had been less than in Great
Britain. But they should recollect that those differences
in other countries were owing to our own Corn-laws. The
variations of price here affect the variations in exporting
countries in a two-fold manner. Suppose the duty on
corn was Is. in this country, that would make a charge of
2s. in other countries. There would be a rise in the price,
and there would be an additional fall in the duty ; so that the
variation, as he had before stated, would be twofold.
(The Noble Earl here proceeded to read. an extract from
a speech of Lord Ashburton's in 1828, sieswinegthe
f the
opinions which he then entertsined on the
thought, subjectbe
Corn-laws.) His Noble Friend could not,
he
d d to explain the
shuardprhieseldd
hait fimsneldfinagt
aotfheerrins advocate
ertimethe opinions which he
.
Lord ASHBURTON again procee c
had never been an advocate for a total
v should not sanction
change in his opinions which had bereenpeaallluedfedthteo.cerinie-
laws, but he thought that thHosise
..hNalo‘bsl.e Fri e n
behad talked
lad been presented in
but it should tooremem-
of
thehigh
n protectiveuamher e f
petitionstyo e.
favour of a repeal of those a ,
orators were sent through the country for the purpose of
bored, that when delegates assembled, and when itinerant
showing that any law was the cause of suffering to the
le, there would be no difficulty in getting up petitions
peop
for its repeal. For his part, he certainly entertained
less respect for petitions so got up than for any others.
Why there had been a very able petition drawn up at one
time by the Chamber of Commerce, at Manchester,
stating their grievances, but containing no reference to
the Corn-laws.—( Hear.) No doubt the difficulties of the