The Sun.
London, England, 1840-05-27 00:00:00

EVENING ED IT I ON.

operation of these laws, the deficiency is now greater than
it was ever known to be; and I think that there would he
mach greater distress and disaster if we could not supply
that deficiency from other countries. Another authority
which has been referred to is that of a French Marshal,
who was so strenuous an advocate for the principle of protec-
tion, that he declared he would rather see a Russian army
in France than see her dependent upon other countries
for food. The people, however, are become much too in-
telligent for all that sort of thing. They know that
people don't grow wheat gratis, but for those who can af-
ford to pay for it, and it is well known that but fur the ma-
nufacturers, who are the best customers, one-half the pre-
sent quantity of wheat would not be grown in this country.
These are all the arguments that have beers advanced on
anything like public grounds for the maintenance of those
laws, which strike every man, when he looks at them, as
partial and unjust. I must make an observation with re-
spect to the last debate, in which I saw something like a
perception of the real state of the case, and something like
4 conviction of the necessity of resorting to honest weapons
in combatting on the occasion. I shall first allude to an
Hon. Member who, after stating some facts connected with
the labour and the revenue of the country—in both of which
subjects he was decidedly wrong and I was right—for I
have since referred to authorities—did, with perhaps more
candour than discretion, say that he could not shut his eyes
to the advantages which the aristocracy derived from the
law, and that it tended to preserve that nice balance
of power which contributed so much to the greatness
and glory of this country. That is intelligible—that
is far better than those false pretences which others
put forward.—(Hear, hear, hear.) Whether the public
may not think, however, that they pay too high a price for
the balance of power is another question. But still the
Hon. Gentleman was bold and candid in the view which
he took of the matter. He was °followed by the Hon.
Member for the North Riding of Yorkshire, and I could
not but be struck between the difference of his arguments
and those employed by his Colleague. The Hon. Mem-
ber had collecteda cloud of statistics, so that the House
could hardly see the real state of the question. His Col-
league on the contrary had said, what I think was the pith
of his argument, that the landed gentlemen wore not so
soft as to give up the Corn-laws. That is perfectly dis-
tinct. The people and the aristocracy are thus fairly
pitted against each other. We have a nice balance of
power kept up by the Corn-laws, and the gentry will not
be so soft as to give up that balance. That was the rea-
len assigned for maintaining the Corn-laws. But there
was nothing inconsistent with that argument in the line
followed by tle Right Hon. Baronet, the member for
Tamworth ; for it struck me that the Right Hon. Gentle-
man had given up arguing the question on its own merits.
I was asked by the Noble Lord the Member for Shrop-
shire, why I did not answer the Right Hon. Baronet the
Member for Tamworth ? Ido not differ much with the
Right Hon. Baronet. I suspect he agrees with me more
than he does with the Noble Lord.—( A laugh.) The
Right Hon. Baronet does not argue in favour of the Corn-
laws—he only fences with the advocates for the repeal,
slid assigns a reason for his vote. I have not been able to
collect from the speeches of the Right Hon. Baronet that
he thought. the Corn-laws wise or just, or that he thought
they could be maintained. I could hardly collect that if
they did much more mischief, he would not be obliged to
take notice of them himself.—(Hear, hear, and laughter.)
I think the only difference between the Right Hon. Baro-
net and me is as to the precise amount of evil these laws
inflict. The sum and substance of his argnment is, that
the camel's back is not broken yet—that the animal is
very buoyant, and who can tell but that it i, the burden he
bears makes him so brisk—(Laughter)—and if his back
should be broken, other backs have been broken before,
and by burdens as light.—( Continued laughter.) I do
Lot say that that is what the Right Hon. Baronet stated—
t am (Ally illustrating his argument.—(Hear, hoar, from
Sir R. Peel.) The Right Hon. Baronet began with all
that order and precision which always distinguishes his
addresses to this House, and he proposed apparently to
analyse what had been stated on the other side. Ho told
us he would repeat the sum and substance of our case—the
derangement of the currency, the great fluctuations of prices,
and the ruin to manufactures were occasion by the Corn-
laws. You say, said the Right Hon. Baronet, that the
Corn-laws have disturbed the monetary system. I tell
you the monetary system was disturbed before, and it was
not said then that the Corn-laws had disturbed it. Coffee
has fluctuated as well as corn, and other things have fluc-
tuated in other countries. That is my answer to the argu-
ment that the Corn-laws have aggravated all these evils.
I could more completely illustrate the justice of my re-
mark, but it is now six weeks since that speech was de-
livered, and it has been mauled about in all the papers, and
answered over and over again, so that I need not trouble.the
House with any arguments of mine.—( Hear, hear, and
laughter.) The Hon. Baronet then proceeded to show
that the manufacturing interests were prosperous, in a way
that was very convenient, by taking his own test. We
argue that the people are bad off in this country, but the
Right Hon. Baronet says, I cannot look at that—l have
illy own test of the prosperity of this country, which is the
amount of the exi orts. Look at the returns. I find the
exports of this country last year exceeded those of the pre-
Yred`ltg year, therefore you cannot be discouraged.—( Hear,
"ear, from the Earl of Darlington.) The Noble Lord
cileerso What would he think if any person was to in-
fer the prosperity of landed interest from the amount of
Mortgages and auctions ? The case of the manufacturer
Is, that these exports were forced. If you have a regular
trade with regular exports, that is a great advantage to
Your country--a permanent good ; but if your exports are
extensive, and your internal consumption is diminished, it is
"unanswerable conclusion that there is some extraordinary
reason for it, and that there is distress in the country.
The Right Hon. Baronet seemed to me to throw over the
lwernises of the Noble Lord the Member for Shropshire,
those who argued as to the great advantages of the
waded interests of this country, and bow it was that they
Inade the world go round. The Right Hon. Baronet sa;d,
the third night of the debate, the law had nothing to do
with the greatness of the country, but that its greatness
Aser referable to another source.—( Hear, hear, from Sir
R. Peel.) He did not exactly say those words--( Hear)
--but don't talk such nonsense that you are all the source
of greatness—it is the commerce, the industry, and maim-
factures, and not you, the idle and unproductive classes,
that make this country great. But the Right Hon. Ba-
ronet evaded the proper way of arguing this question very
ingeniously. He said don't inquire into the source of your
greatness—assume you are great, and don't do anything
to disturb it. The Right llon. Baronet, I know, has made
many speeches in which he himself has answered that argu-
Mont. I remember being in this House many years ago,
when the Right Hon. Baronet replied to some such argu-
ment that was advanced in opposition to Mr. Huskisson,
when he tried to introduce some reforms that redound
highly to his honour. Somebody made an attack upon
have
Huskisson, and said, look at the greatness we
attained, and do not disturb it. The Right
lion. Baronet then made a reply to that argument in
much better words than I could express myself. " Mr.
Secretary Peel reminded the House that the eyes of Europe
'ere upon them. He warned Parliament against reject-
-141,g the great and sound principle of commercial policy,
ee trade, proposed by his Right Hon. Friend, and im-
plored them not to yield to the fears of the timid or the re-
Presentations of the interested." Have we reached that
Point of greatness that makes it hazardous to become
seater. The Hon. Baronet in his last speech upon the
Corn-laws, took us all over the globe—he pointed to [lin-
:l:tan, and the rest of our Colonial possessions, and then,
en we did not know whether we were in England or in
those
parts he alluded to, he said, how monstrous would it
be
'f we were to attack this grandeur.—( A laugh.) The
Right Hon. Baronet knows very well, that whenever he
has assumed the character of a Reformer, (and I must
!Ilym and the House knows, that that character suits him
(loch better than the character he is now assuming)—
14aughter)—he has been always assailed with this sort
f argument.—( Hear, hear.) He was one time employed
.21 picking ou some of the orst spts in the criminal law,
litdim I believe,t the head ofw the law denounced him as a
sireadful invader.—( Hear, hear, and laughter.) Again,
When the Hon. Baronet reformed the police of this town,
'hat a cry was raised in favour of the old watch, the good
°ld watch. In fact, 'tis the old hacknied argument that
assails every man who attempts to reform abuses; but I
4111 astonished that the Right Hon. Baronet should con-
descend to make use of it.—( Hear, hear.) Sir, I will
just allude to the reasons he assigns for not voting for the
motion I propose. He says that I have made a motion for
the total repeal of the Corn-laws. I have not
Made any such motion, and it is not that that
you will decide when you go to the vote. I move only for
the preliminary form of going into a Committee of the
whole House to take the whole question into consideration.
If I can judge from the countenance of the Right Hon.
Baronet, he does not seem to assent to that interpretation
of my motion. I will refer, then, to the authority of one
of his own partisans, time Hon. Member for Lincolnshire,

upon the motion I made last year. The Hon. Member
began his speech by saying it was a very fair motion ; it
*Was not a motion for total repeal; it was not a motion for
%fixed duty, and that it was a fair motion on which to
take the opinion of the House on the subject of the pre-
-lent Corn-laws.—( Hear, hear.) That was the Hon.
Member for Lincolnshire's statement—that was the most
-talons and ardent advocate for the Corn-laws.—.(Hear,
tilia‘t, hear.) By the way he would mention that
11 Member for Lincolnshire seemed more eager than
yY other Member to uphold the Corn-laws. The Right
(112- Baronet stated that he had no encouragement to go
frit° Committee with me, because I treated one of my
wpeade with great harshneas and asperity. I was ready to
2.—let an apology to the Hon Member for Cambridge, if I
anything that could be considered as offensive to him.
tnjiiss not aware till after ho had soken of what he had
lathe House—that all his connections were bound up
bR-t;"the agricultural interests, and that he represented a
olt in the very centre of agriculture. I certainly
he-proposed a measure that would only be an advan-
while lie mae speec
tkit 'to
was•• te- aricultural inttrade.—(Hear, headr.)a There
erests,
. hin favour of free
iT
t'hs
Right Hon.
that I will take the liberty of offering to
Hon. Baronet. I would say to him and the
..i"ued interest, You can do what you please—you can re-
;ha all change, or you can give us never so small a
arlge you make the public believe that you are
irlitened to go into Committee.—( Hear, hear.) This
2 a very important question, involving as it does the corn-
Tiejee and economy of the country, and the general emonth-
-4021) of the people. I think it ought to he treated
""ewhat more respect, and that better reasons should be
asai
v. Pled for refusing to consider it.—( Hear, hear ) I
Cnnot help thinking that the Right Hon. Baronet cannot
7‘ satisfied with the course he is pursuing on this f.ubject
cannot think he can feel he is acting a candid part to
tofkher side. He seems to me to be afraid of the agitation
tioh° question, and to present obstacles to its determina-
aarl; He is confirming the friends of repeal in the justice
Zotitus opinion, and discouraging his friends ; and I can-
,id_holp thinking he is incurring a vast responsibility, con-
ran ',rng the manner in which people in this country do
vt his opinions and his authority. There arc thousands
thueo will not loak at this question—who pretend that
a cannot comprehend it, or that they are unable to under-
itltaand it; but they say it is impossible to believe that one who
„. so much experience and information could deliberately
•;41'4r after year recommend to the country and the licuse
tueTaintain this law if he thought it could be prmluctive of
evils as he stated, and was not essential to the welfare

•of the country. I beg to say that the Corn-law is different
from any other question. It will not do to say, by and by,
the time has come when we must repeal it. If the evils
are such the time will then be gone by for remedy—when
you have driven capital out of the country, and our artisans
from nur shores, it will not do for you to say that you had
been in error, and that you are ready to correct your faults.
Before that time arrives the people will have endured great
distress, and will be influenced by indignation. They will
call for far more extensive changes than you will be willing
to concede or able to resist.—(Loud cries of .1 Hear,
hear.") It will be useless to do then, as it has been too
much the custom in this country to do, to resist to the last
moment, and then give a lesson to the people that tumult
alone can gain success.--(Cheers.) That is the lesson
you have taught, and the lesson you have acted upon,
in this question. You have told the people you
will never attend to these complaints unless you are fright-
ened; you have offered a premium to agitation—that agi-
tation has commenced, and will not end till the object be
accomplished. Sir, I implore the Right Hon. Baronet
and others to consider whether there is not something in
the aspect of our political affairs that deserves earnest and
grave consideration, and whaler it would not be well for
us to turn our thoughts to it. The bad condition of the
people—their reflecting mind—their increasing intelligence
—and their sense of oppression, will not allow them to
endure, much longer, their grievances quietly. It would
be well if we could appropriate our time so as to solve the
question in what way we could improve their condition and
allay their irritation. To deny the existence of these
grievances, or to expect that they will :terminate
without the removal of the cause, seems to me to
be as idle as to expect that when your house is con-
suming by flames, those flames, will extinguish
themselves. In my opinion, it is insanity to treat with
indifference and levity the signs which warn us of those
dangers. I do not say that Hon. Gentlemen are called
upon to sacrifice their private interests to the public good,
but, I think, if they come into this House, they enter into
an engagement to postpone their private interests for the
public good, and that we are bound to search the causes of
this discontent with the view to their removal.—( Cheers. )
The people connect your laws with the present misery—
that is their opinion. They are confirmed in that opinion
by the deliberate judgment of men, the most estimable and
enlightened in the country. That opinion they entertain,
and it is not all the sophistry or abuse which you
may heap upon them that will engender a doubt in
their minds upon the subject.—(Cheers.) This feeling is
entertained by increasing numbers from increasing dis-
tresses; and though you may term a manifestation of that
feeling Chartism, be assured you will not remove that
social bugbear until you get rid of the elements, and re-
move the causes. The people do not want confusion—it
is opposed to all those habits of industry which have cha-
racterised them so long—they ire for better employment,
and better reward for their time.—( Hear, hear.) They are
ill-fed, overworked, and underpaid.—( Hear, hear.) They
ask you to inquire into their grievances, and to remove
their distresses; and I ask you has anything been done
which will make the country more safe, or the people
more satisfied? Do you believe it is merely
in resisting inquiry that the grievances they com-
plain of, or do you believe it is adding burdens to
their taxes, that will allay the feelings or improve the con-
dition of the people? Is it wise to pursue this course?
Who knows when or how soon circumstances may arise in
the world which may render it most important that we
should all be united ? What has been the difficulties of
Governments going to war? It has been the mistrust of
the rulers in the great mass of the people—a mistrust en-
tertained by the confidence that they well deserved the
hate of the masses.—( Hear, hear.) What was the answer

of the poor peasant the other day, when he was asked
whether he thought much harm could befal him by the re-
peal of the Corn-laws ? " Much harm," said be, " how
can I be worse off?" That was the answer of the
unfortunate man dragging on a miserable existence
upon 7s. a week, with a wretched wife and throe children
looking to him for support, and whom he still wished to
keep out of the poor-house. There was evidence to show
that this poor man was obliged to forego all essentials to
health, strength, or even decency, in order to find a
wretched pittance for his starving family. These arc the
privations to which the labouring poor are exposed, and
you are about to aggravate this condition by imposing ad-
ditional burdens. I say, Sir, this is worthy of our atten-
tion. It is in the name of those who love peace, who
desire order, and who wish to avert confusion, that )ou are
asked deliberately and gravely to go into the consideration
of thisquestion--a question which tends to enhance the

food of the wretched people whose discontent is gradually
and constantly increasing. If you refuse to consider it do
you suppose you can maintain it—a law so revolting to
justice—pointed at by all mankind—the almost Saturn of
a free Constitution ?—( Hear, hear.) Will you continue
to make the experiment, in defiance of the order of nature,
of confining the people within the limits of this island
to what this island will produce?—(Hear, and cheers.)
And you have the natural results of ?such a aw—you have
discontent, disease and death. DO you hope ever to be
able so to influence the minds of the people as to lead them
to believe that this is a great curse, but that it comes from
a source over which you have no controul—you never can.
There is hardly a great name in our history, who either in
his writings, or from his public conduct, has not denounced
these laws. I may refer to Burke, Johnson and Chalmers.
Burke said, " God had given the earth to the children of
men, and he had given not a scanty but a liberal provision."
Dr. Johnson, strangely enough, in a controversy with an
ancestor of the very man who proposed the present Corn-
laws—in a controversy with Sir Thomas Robinson, who
argued against the policy of opening the trade between
England and Ireland, the great Doctor said, " You talk
the language of a savage; would you prevent our people
from feeding themselves, if by any honest means they eau
do so ?"—( Cheers.) I referred last debate to Dr. Chal-
seers—his language was, " These laws foul the air—they
are a moral taint, and there will be no peace while they
last." Seeing the wants of the people, and the general
impression which is now abroad, let any one reflect calmly,
and then say whether it is possible to maintain the laws much
longer. I do, Sir, firmly believe that those who may try to
keep them up will fail in the attempt. Thanking the
House for the attention with which you have listened to
me, and trusting that the House will now avail itself of the
accident which has given it an opportunity of giving a se-
cond thought to the important subject, I trust a majority
will agree with me in thinking that the House ought to go
into Committee, with the view of considering the laws
which regulate the trade in corn.—(Cheers.)

Mr. STRUTT rose to second th'e motion of his Hon,
Friend. It was always with reluctance that he presumed
to trespass upon the attention of the House, and he was the
more reluctant upon the present occasion, considering the
length to which the arguments on the subject had gone,
but as it was one of paramount importance, he trusted that
he would be afforded the attention of the House for a very

short period. His Hon. Friend had most justly ohm-yea
that Hon. Gentlemen opposite used phrases in place of
arguments. One phrase had been more used than any
other—that was protection to agriculture. They spoke of it
as a boon conferred on the landlords, without imposing any

corresponding pressure upon another class. Now, In his
opinion, protection was only another word or term for taxa-
tion.—( Hear, hear.) No protection could by possibility
be given to one class of the community without taxing in
a corresponding ratio some other class, and it rested upon
the party claiming such protection to make out a case of
absolute necessity for it. The Legislature, in affording
protection, had usually given it by a fixed duty, and made
no attempt to regulate the price of the article protected—
that course had not been pursued in the case of corn.

The Legislature had made an attempt, but a vain

one, to- regulate the price of corn for the far-
mer. All such attempts must end in disappointment
and delusion. Until they could set bounds to human in-
genuity—until they can control the seasons—until they
could check the enterprise of commerce—until they could
do all these things, it was utterly hopelsss that they could
regulate the price of such an article as corn.--( Hear.)
All such attempts merely delude and deceive the farmer,
and aggravate his distress. These attempts have a most
injurious effect upon them in another way; vv hen there
comes a time of low prices, in place of increasing his assi-
duity and his industry, or having failed in all that, in place
of expecting to make a new bargain with his landlord, he
is taught to come to Parliament—that he has a claim to be

relieved by means of Committees of Inquiry, or some
other means than his own industry; he is placed in a
worse situation, and a mischievous check is put upon im-
provement. It might be said that the sliding scale had
made the price more steady than they would have been
without it. Now he bad studied the question, and he had
felt himself compelled to come to a contrary con-
clusion; and he had done so with considerable hesi-
tation, for he knew that high authorities were against
him.

He knew that Mr. —Huskisson, as well as the

Right Honourable Baronet opposite, held contrary

. -
opinions, and he quoted the lattr the more readily, thtit
in all the long speeches he had made upon this subject be

had carefully avoided committing himself on any one point

except the single one of the sliding scale. Supposing the
Right Hon. Baronet were to„Ue Minister next Session,
there was not a word in his speeches which would prevent
him from coming down mid proposing a very extensive al-
teration of the Corn-laws.—( Hear, hear.) Still, not-

withstanding these authorities' against him, he had been

compelled to come to a very apposite conclusion, viz. that
the sliding scale of prices had tended in any degree to

maintain steadiness of prices. The sliding scale naturally
rendered the trade of an importer of corn one of great
hazard and unsteadiness, and being so with him it must
naturally extend to the consumer. It was within
his own knowledge that a wealthy manufacturer
being anxious to enter into a speculation in corn
was obliged to do it in the utmost secresy_to transact
it by agents different from his own connections—be could
not pay the money through his bankers, because if it were

knoZinit would seriously affect his credit.—(Hear, hear )
What a state could that trade be in which an English mer-

chant dared not acknowledge himself connected with I It
might be asked what course was to be taken to prevent
fluctuation. He thought it could not be altogether pre-
vented—(Hear, hear)—but it was the duty of the Legis-
lature to take all the means in their power to make it as

small as possible, and that could only be done by tht,,
eff:cts of commercial intercourse, the increase of commu_

nication by which the superabundance of one country
supplies the deficiences of another.—( Hear, hear.) The'
only means was to create a free trade as far as possible,
throw open the ports to the world, and whether a small or
a large fixed duty was imposed, we would have a sure sup-
ply. Then it was said we would be dependent upon
Foreigners. He scarcely expected to have heard such an
argument put forth in the present times. Dependent upon
Foreigners we we:e now and must continue. Talk about
dependence—where did our raw material for a manufac-
ture which, if stopped, must prove ruinous to the country,
come from'? How then would we be more dependent than
T were dependent upon them for a small supply of
corn
f "
rrii?l3l the worst part of the system was, that now we were
depCndent upon foreign countries, and that at the very
worst and most critical periods—at the very momenta of
scarcity.—( Hear, hear.) Another argument used against
them was, that even supposing we weee carrying on this
trade in corn, and there was no danger of starvation, still
its effects must be injurious, because the corn must be paid
in bullion. Supposing
there was a real—not a fictitious
an au-
swer to such an argument.
trade, there was scarcdy any
necessity for giving
That was the crying evil of

the present system—we, under it, were obliged to pay in
bullion, because the demand for foreign corn was of a
sudden, and there was no regular way of meeting it
by means of our manufactures; a great quantity
was hurried into the market at once, and no regular trade
being kept up, or being possible to be kept up, the corn
required must be paid in bullion. The Right Hon. Bas
ronet had said, no doubt it deranges your currency, but it
might be deranged by other means. No doubt of that--
who-ever denied it; but was not that another reason why
they should take means so to regulate the corn trade as to
prevent it baying any such effect. The sliding scale of
duties prevents corn from coming to market until a rise
has taken place—it cannot come in when it would be use-
ful in preventing a rise in price—the price rose, the duty
was lowered—a great quantity of corn was poured in, and
derangement of the markets was the necessary consequence.
It was said protection was necessary, because protection
was given to manufactures. Now if this was meant to ap-
ply to all manufactures, it answered itself ; for how could
we be protected in the home market when they
wanted, and complained that in consequence of these laws
they were not allowed, to supply the foreign market.
The manufacturers could hardly be said to require pro-
tecting duties for the home market, when their complaint
was, that they were not able to compete in the foreign
markets so well as without the Corn-laws—they could not
help admitting that in some small degree the manufac-
turers did receive protection—numerous have been the pe-
titions from them, praying for the abolition of all such
protections, and that all classes should be placed on a per-
fect equality. Gentlemen opposite had expressed great
surprise at the question being brought on again, after
being once decided in the present Session.—(Hear,
hear, hear.) But they were very much mistaken
if they supposed that their arguments or their majorities
could put an end to this question.—( Hear, hear.) This
was but the commencement of a great struggle of mighty
principles—(Hear)—the termination of which he should
be glad to see amicably arrived at, but of the ultimata
issue of which he entertained no doubt whatever ; and it
was because he believed that the cause must ultimately
triumph, that he cordially seconded the motion.
Sir C. BURR ELL said he did not believe that he
could say much new upon the subject, but he felt it his
duty to his constituents to say a few words. He was con-
vinced that if the Corn-laws were repealed, the manufac-
turers would not give the same wages as they did now to their
labourers, whom they would wish to reduce down to the
level of the artisans in foreign countries. It was idle to
talk of disease having been caused by the Corn-laws. He
believed that the disease which had occurred might be
traced to other causes. It had been said that America had
no restrictions, but the very reverse was the fact ; for
there was hardly an article of vegetable or animal provi-
sion that was not protected by a duty on the importation of
the foreign produce. An experience of forty years had
enabled him to say that never was the agricultural interest
depressed without also depressing manufactures.—( Hear,
hear.) Mr. Rothschild had advised the agriculturists not
to relinquish the Corn-laws. It was ridiculous to suppose
that foreign nations would act on the principle of recipro-
city towards us in the admission of our manufactures be-
cause we made ourselves dependent on them for our corn.
Mr. EA STHOPE remarked that the advice of the
great capitalist that had been alluded to might have
originated in a much more interested and selfish mo-
tive than the Honourable Baronet had supposed. Mr.
Ricardo well knew that these revolutions, that con.
fusion that was consequent on the derangement of the mo-
netary system was more under his own knowledge and
constant perception than that of most other men, and no
man knowing it better profited by it more constantly, no
man could watch the progress of national distress with
more sagacity, and no man being in the situation he was,
was more capable of taking advantage of it for his own
benefit. He ( Mr. Easthopc) would not attempt a refu-
tation of the political economy of the Hon. Baronet, but
he was astonished that it should not have occurred to him
to be an important argument in favour of the repeal of the
present Corn-laws, that when they were repealed it would
be impossible there should be any artificial and objection-
able protection to any other interest. He ( Sir C. Burrell)
stated it in this way„--the landed interest of the country
would be under no obligation. They did not want obliga-
tion of this kind—the real interest of necessity was its best
security. He admitted with the Hon. Baronet there would
be great difficulty in keeping- up protection and artificial
restrictions, if these laws were abolished. But there
was an observation of the Hon. Baronet, which was made
important by his second reference to it. The Hon.
Baronet had cheered les Hon. Friend, when he stated that
the condition of the working classes could not be worse,
and afterwards gave it as his opinion that the manufac-
turers sought the repeal of the Corn-laws, in order to de-
press the wages of their artizans, and still reduce their
comforts by giving them lower remuneration. This had
fallen from the [lon. Baronet in a manner not to be misun-
derstood. He wished he could take the Hon. Baronet to
the town he had the honour to represent, and he would
there present him to three or four thousand people, and
ask him whether it were possible to increase their destitu-
tiou—to heighten their miseries—.to lower their wages—
men who were in a situation in which they might be almost
excused for being desperate, because their miseries could
not be much greater nor themselves more wretched. He
saw sitting behind the Hon. Baronet a Gentleman whose
kindness and benevolence was often taxed to relieve their
miseries, but they said to him, " We thank you for keep-
ing us from starving, but we want work, not alms. Give
us work ; our complaint is that we are willing to work, but
that legislation prevents us. We are obliged to thank
you, but while we do so we blame you too." Those
wretched men who had work (and there were up-
wards of three thousand without work at all) were
not feasting on 12s. a week, as the Honourable Baronet
describes his agricultural labourers to be, but were
glad for full work to obtain Bs. a week. The best artizans
in the place could gain but 125., while they formerly ob-
tained 183. ; but the general case was that those obtained
Bs. who formerly received 12s. ; and not with any know-
ledge of political economy, but wish a knowledge of their
own distress—pondering on its causes, watching its pro-
gress—inquiring how it has come, and with what appear-
ance it may again meet them. They asked their masters
why they had no work ?—they were told there were no
orders from America, and therefore they could have
none. How was it, they then asked, the people of
the United States did not use the things they formerly
required ?—The reply was, they still desired them,
but were unable to pay for them. The men said, " Why
can't we have cheap corn from the United States, and re-
turn them cheap manufactures? We don't much under..
stand the theory of exchanges, but we do understand that
bread is cheap in the United States, and that it is very
dear in Leicestershire. Why not have corn from the
United States in payment for manufactures we could make
and do not make ? Do not tell us, for the sake of a pri-
vileged few, the price cf bread is raised, and to be kept
up; these things we only understand in part, but suffi-
ciently to see,that our houses are stripped of furniture,
which is gone to the pawn-shop—that our children are
crying for bread, and that we have none to give them—
that our wives are pining over their starving children, and
that we have felt all the miseries of want until desperation
has succeeded to contentment." They understand this ;
and, understanding it, leads them to make strong speeches
and unlawful intentions. Every man, knowing that despair
must increase misery, must deplore, but could not wonder,
if, understanding this, their present state of misery
was succeeded by one of disorder and violence. Would
not the crime be rather theirs who were better taught
and instructed, than those who were made the instrument of
the violence which was begotten by want ? He was sure
that the House would pardon him if in contemplating this
picture he bad used expressions which he could not have
avoided with honesty to the constituents who had sent him
there. Much had been said of the speech of the Right
lion. Member for Tamworth, and he confessed he had
heard that speech with any thing rather than displeasure.
He considered that speech, whatever were its fallacies in
reference to the position in which the Right Hon. Gentle-
man was placed, as substantially giving up the whole
question. The Right Hon. Baronet stated that if the
manufacturing interest of the country required the
repeal of the Corn-laws, and if the existing
Corn-laws were ever adapted to impoverish the
manufacturing interest of the country, then he would tell
the landowner that was too great a price to pay for any
protection. Well, then, what did the petitioners who ap-
peared at the Bar state ? that they perceived the appear.
ance of general decay—that they were not now beginning
to suffer, but that suffering had been driven to the greatest
extent to which it was possible, and was now coming to its
own expiration. The last time he visited Leicester, a
manufacturer, who usually employed about 4,000 men.
was describing to him the state of trade, and said, " I
shall be able to keep on the men I have till after Christmas
at a loss of about 1,0001., and am therefore determined to
discharge very few men." He happened to have lately
made some purchases, and was one of the most skilful and
industrious manufacturers in the country. With this 1,0001.
he said he would keep these men on till spring, when, if
things did not improve, he must discharge them, without
knowing what would be the consequence. lie thought
that was some explanation of the excess of exports—these
gentleman manufactured at a loss to keep their men cm.
plod ed, and therefore necessarily increased their exports.
He was told this was only one of many similar cases.—
( Hear, hear.) But their benevolence had its limits, and
they could not long carry on that kind of trade, increasing
their expenses in proportion to the diminution of their
profits. Rut for what was that state of things suffered to
exist. The landed interest was not benefited to
the extent imagined by artificial protection, but
when told so they retorted " If not, what is the ob-
ject to you—how then can you be benefited by its
removal ?" He thought nothing was more clear than the
fact, that one interest could not long be depressed without
depressing the whole, and that man was the greatest
blunderer who set up his own interest above others, or
thought there was not a community of interest between all
the great interests of the State.—( Hear, hear.) The
Hon. Gentleman then adverted to the observations that
had fallen from Sir Robert Peel on a former occasion re-
specting the derangement of the currency, and contended
that though the Right Hon. Baronet had shown shore
were other causes—he could not and did not show
that the Corn-laws had not very considerable effect in
producing that derangement. He also deeply regretted
the want of unity of opinion which existed on this subject
among her Majesty's Ministers, and that a man so en-
lightened as he believed Lord Melbourne to be, should
be so fettered by what he could not but think were anti-
quated prejudices. But the Government knew well that
the landed interest in that House, and the prejudices on
this question were so strong that it would be impossible to
carry the measure if proposed; but carried it would ulti-
mately be, and, he hoped, without tumult or confusion.
He had heard much of the extreme artifice which had
been had recourse to in order to create an excitement upon
this subject. It was natural that men labouring under a
state of excitement on any subject should resort to ener-
getic measures in order to forward their views, and if they
heard of petitions being got up by men who were almost
in a state of starvation, to beseech the House to do that
which they believed would put an end to their sufferings,
it was not to be wondered at. He thought it was only per-
fectly natural ; but when he heard of the artifices resorted
to by parties who were not suffering these privations—who
were not labouring under want—who were not in a state
of distress—when he heard of the artifices which had been

resorted to to get signatures to petitions in favour of the
Corn-laws, he trusted the House would permit him, as an
act of justice, to expose them. lie had received a letter
from Leicester describing the manner in which a petition
in favour of the Corn-laws, which had been presented to
the House by the Hon. Member for Leicestershire, had
been manufactured. He had felt it proper to give the
Hon. Gentleman information on the subject, and to inform
him of the name of the gentleman from whom he had re-
ceived the information, as he intended to snake use of that
information in order to set himself, and those who enter-
tained the same opinions that he did, right on the subject
of the artifice and excitement in getting up petitions with
which they had been charged. A petition had been pre-
sented by the Hon. Member for Liecestershire in favour
of the present Corn-laws from Earle Shingdon, a populous
village in Leicestershire. That petition had been sent to
the free school of the village, and had been signed by
six boys in the school. The names of the boys who had thus
signed it were, Richard Rance, H. Prime, R. Garner,
R. Buechel', W. Bluett, and J. Clapton.—(Hear.) The
four first had signed as farmers, the fifth as a car-
penter, and the sixth as a grocer. Farmer farming in the
free school I—(Cheers.) A carpenter keeping his shop,
and a grocer retailing his groceries in the free school I—
( Cheers and laughter.) This was the petition in favour
of the Corn-laws, from which the House was to suppose
that the inhabitants of this populous village were content
with their condition, and were desirous of a continuance of
the present Corn-laws !He was not inclined to press this
case too much ; he knew that in all cases things of that
sort would occasionally happen ; but he thought that the
accusation of having recourse to artifice and excitement to
get up petitions against the Corn-laws so frequently
brought against those whe agreed in opinion with himself
on this subject, came with a bad grace from the Gentle-
men who made those charges ; but having proved this arti-
fice to exist in one case of a petition in favour of the pre-
sent Corn-laws, he surely had a right to conclude that the
sane artifice had been had recourse to in other cases of
which the House knew nothing. With respect to the
fears entertained by some Gentlemen that en importation
of foreign corn would reduce the price of the home corn
so low that the agriculturist would leave off cultivating the
land, and leave the country entirely dependent upon a
foreign supply, he would like to ask the agricultural Gen-
tlemen at what period of English history agriculture was
in the most improved condition—whether it was not during
the time that corn was the cheapest—whether during that
period a greater improvement in agriculture bad not been
witnessed than in any other period of English history?
Was he not entitled from that to deduce the conclusion
that the importation of foreign corn, by lessening the
price, would improve the agriculture of the country, and
that increased production would be the consequence ?
Who were those, be would ask, who were the most desi-
rous of this artificial protection? Was it the scientific
agriculturist of Scotland or the bad agriculturist of Buck-
inghamshire ?—( Hear, hear.) In Scotland the agricultu-
rists said they needed no pretection.—(Cries of " Hear,
hear, hear," and " No, no.") He understood such to
be the feeling throughout that country.—(No, no.)
He did not wish to misrepresent, and the Ho-
nourable Member for Lincolnshire said he was
inclined to doubt his assertion, but he would beg his Hon.
Friend to be as industrious in his inquiries into this
branch of the subject as he was on every other, and he
thought he would find that he (Mr. Easthope) had come
to a rieht conclusion. He understood the general feel-
ing of the wealthy scientific agriculturists of Scotland on
this subject to be, that the protection was not of so much
value to them as it was detrimental to the general inte-
rests of the country. But, said the agriculturists of Buck-
inghamshire and the worst cultivated districts of England,
why, they said, that if the protection was removed it
would lessen their comforts, because they would have
cheaper bread with less crops. Thus, the scientific agri-
culturist of Scotland had no fear for the repeal of these
laws, while the unscientific agriculturist of Buck-
inghamshire looked up to them for protection. But if they
had such a dread of a reduction, or rather of an equaliza-
tion of the price, he would ask, were they prepared to in-
cur the horrible risk which must arise from an increasing
population, and decreasing means of employment ? The
population of this country was increasing at the rate of
400,000 a-year--how did they propose to employ this in-
crease, so as to ensure contentment and happiness ? lie
would ask, was Bs. a-week, which had been shown was the
utmost that a hard-working labourer could earn in one of
the most populous manufacturing districts, sufficient to sa-
tisfy all the wants of a poor man and big family? Were
they likely to be in a better state with a poeulation increasing
at the rate of 1,000 a-day with less employment for them,
arid with the capitalist every year removing his capital,
his knowledge, and his industry to countries in which corn
was cheaper, for it was a proverb as old as the hills, that
if they would not let cheap corn come here the people
would go to the cheap corn 2—( Hear, hear.) He was
astonished that gentlemen who considered the subject from
that point of view, did not at once perceive the danger of
continuing the present system. It acted in a twofold
degree. There was a decrease in the demand for labour,
while the increase in the population went on. It was
astonishing that gentlemen could not perceive what
must be the effect of a rapidly increasing population,
only a thousandth part of which could obtain em-
ployment. In the town which he had the honour
to represent there were 3,000 persons unemployed, and
others who could not obtain more than Els. a week for their
labour. Could such a state of things continue? They
complained of Chartism, and they justly denounced many
of its doctrines. But could they believe, while such a
state of things continued, but that Chartism, under some
form or other, must occur ? It was not occasional kind-
ness or occasional severity that could effectually keep it
down, while the people were seffering from want, and be-
lieved that it would afford them a remedy. He be-
lieved that if the present state of things continued, the
people, during the time of sonic deplorable
calamity, would be found too strong for any force
that could be placed over them. He bad that day
presented a petition from 7,775 persons in Leicester
stating that they believed it was of no use to petition the
House on the Corn-laws; that after what had happened,
and the improper manner in which the subject bad been
got rid of on the last occasion an which it had been brought
forward, they could no longer indulge any rational hope—
that they despaired of the Reform Bill, and that nothing
now was left for them but to reform the Reform Bill :
20,000 people had petitioned from that town for a repeal
of the Corn-laws, and after a lapse of a few weeks in con-
sequence of the manner in which that petition had been
treated, 7,000 of them came forward to say that they have
no confidence in the House.—( Hear, hear.) That was a
fearful state of things.—( Hear, hear.) These persons
were not inconsiderate or rash men—not men who w ere
unmindful or thought lightly of the preservation of social
order, but men who entertained the greatest dread of the
slightest approach to confusion. He implored Hon. Gen-
tlemen to consider these things before they placed the
country in a condition in which consideration would not
be called for, but in which the intensity of suffering would
occasion celemities which he shuddered to contemplate.—
( Cheers. )
Mr. G. HEAT HCOTE seldom trespassed upon the
attention of the House, and he should now trouble them
only a short time. The Hon. Member had alluded to the
county which he represented, and he could assure him
that throughout that county the feeling was unanimous in
favour of the present Corn-laws. The subject, he
thought, had already, been sufficiently debated in
the House.—(Cheers.) He could not but contrast
the calm and temperate manner in which the subject had
been discussed in the House, with the violent and abusive
manner in which the discussion had been carried on out of
doors.—( Cheers). He did not object to this on his own ac-
count, because he was satisfied it did his cause good, and
the cause of the repealers harm ; but he did not like to see
the minds of one class of the people provoked against an-
ether—( Hear, hear)—and party violence excited. With re-
gard to the different propositions which had been
made, he ' was equally opposed to both—he considered
the proposition for a total repeal, a most rash
and violent proceeding, and with regard to the
proposition of the Hon. Member for Cambridge,
he thought it equally his duty to oppose it, as he thought
it would have no other effect than to lessen materially
the present protection. With regard to the fixed duty
and the sliding scale, he thought the sliding scale was
the best possible means that human invention could find
out to keep a fixed price. It afforded the greatest pro-
tection when corn was low, and afforded the greatest faci-
lities for importation when corn was high. Now, a fixed
duty was inadequate to the accomplishment of either of
these objects. He was against all these propositions, and
the feeling was equally strong against them throughout the
whole of Lincolnshire.—(Hear, hear, hear.) There
was but one opinion on the :subject ; high and low,
rich and poor, landlords and tenants, were all united
in support of the present Corn-laws. Hon. Gentlemen
slid this was a landlord's question ; ho could assure them
that the complaint of the tenants in Lincolnshire was, that
the landlords did not put themselves sufficiently forward,
but left the battle to be fought by the tenants.—( Hear,
bear.) The tradesmen in the small towas and the labourers
were equally in favour of them, and as the Hon. Member
had referred to the answer of a labourer, who asked why he
repeal of the Corn-laws,. he would
signed petition for the
by a IhAnce coolnshlre labourer for
tell him of the reason given
said I
signing a
abandronn-laws he
now get 2s. 6d. a-day, and you those laws, 1
Petition in supportfoft
know very well that I shall only ffet. Is. 6d. Upon these
grounds, he ( Mr. H.) was. deterfmisnuerdrotondsetar_nd(bey
htheeesres,lauwusd.
he would reject any idea o
counter cheers)—he would not hear of a compromise—
(Continued cheers)—because he knew those laws were
founded in equity and justice, and, for that reason, unlike
the Hon. Member for Leicester, he he was of opinion that
they had rem_ ivedtheo.
fepproba
those laws would continue; because they.
‘were so founded
in reason and justice that.
tion and support of a majority of both Houses
Parlia-
ment, and in that House especially, of a majority of the
constituents of the empire.—(Cheers). Ile would state
as an additional reason for this support, that the agricultur-
ists claimed no exclusive protection—the manufacturers had
equally great protection thTselves. The Hen. Member for
Derby said they were willing to give up all protection
to do so, why did they not come
but if they were willing ..
on ? he motion of the
forward with a specific proposal
lion. Member for Wolverhampton saould not have been
for a repeal of the Corn-laws. but for tire abolition of all
protection. The fact was, free trade in the vocabulary of
those Gentlemen meant protection for themselves and free
trade for others.—( Hear, hear.) Even since the subject
had been last debated the manufacturers had received
additional protection. The Chancellor of the Exchequer
in his recent proposition to thellouse had in feet proposed to
give them an additional protection of five per cent, by im-
posing an additional duty of five per cent. upon the im-
portation of every class of production, except upon corn.
Ile would mention one or two cases in which the agrieultu-
ri,t was left without protection, chile a large protection
was given to the manufacturer. The duty on the impor-
tation of foreign wool was only Id. per lb., while woollen
goods were subject to a duty of 15 per cent. Linen, the
staple production of the cast coast of Scotland, where the
feeling was strongest against the Corn-laws, was protected
by a duty of 40 per et nal—and only as late as 1829, 300,0001.
had been paid as bounty upon the exportation of linen.
He could not but be amused at a petition w filch was presented
from that district a few days ago, IP a) inn; not only that the
duty should be repealed on corn, but that the duty should

be taken off meat and all other provisions—in fact that
protection should be taken off every thing put upon
the dinner table, except the table-cloth.—(A laugh.)
Those circumstances would show the extreme unfairness to
which those gentlemen had recourse. There' was again
the case of silk. A petition had lately been presented to
the House from Members of the silk trade, praying for a
protection for their own trade and for a repeal of the Corn-
laws. Again, commercial men were protected by the na-
vigation laws, the timber laws, and the monopoly of the
coast trade. He hoped that the question would be brought
fairly to issue, and that those gentlemen who came forward
with free trade principles would move that if there were to
be a free trade in anything it would be extended to every
article. It was said that the aristocracy alone were inte-
rested in the maintenance of the present laws, and :ho
Hon. Member for Wolverhampton had said that all the
landlords of the country did not amount to more than
30,000. He (Mr. Heathcote) believed on the contrary
that there were in this country hundreds of thousands of
landowners, and there could not be a greater mistake than
to say that the present was a landlord's question. He be-
lieved that the more they descended in the scale of soeiety
the more would they find the people determined to resist
any repeal of the preseat laws. There were some crochety
Members of the higher aristocracy who wished for a repeal
from the most benevolent though mistaken motives, but the
yeomanry and the smaller proprietors felt that their inter-
ests were identified with the existing system. Whateve
might be the agitation carried on with respect to the ques-
tion, he hoped that the great manufacturers would never
attempt to advance their own interest! by producing what
would be the greatest curse of this country, namely, a
competition of wages between our labourers and those of
the Continent. He would tell them to use all the advan-
tages which experience, habit, and machinery might give
them, but he would tell them not to endeavour to gain any
advantage by trenching on the wages of their own work-
men. With respect to the supposed increase of the foreign
trade which it was said would follow from a repeal of the
Corn-laws, he very much doubted whether such a result
could be calculated on, as he did not think that Prussia
and other countries would refuse to protect the industry of
their own inhabitants. He thought that it would be found
on the whole that the cheapest loaf in this country was
that which could be made from their own corn. The fact
was that at present one-half only of the price in the
metropolis went to the corn-grower, and the remainder
was divided between the miller and the baker. He thought
that subject was one worthy of the consideration of the House,
and he should be glad to assist in any investigation into
the matter. It had been complained that the labourers
at present lived on inferior bread, but he thought on the
contrary, it was much superior to what it was fifty
years ago, when the people lived on the coarsest bread,
while at present, in his part of the country at least, the
bread of the labourers was made of the finest wheat. It
was also said that emigration had of late years taken place
to a great extent in England, and that was attributed to
the operation of the Corn-laws ; but in his judgment if
they repealed those laws emigration would take place to
a far greater extent than it did now. He would ask what
would then become of the labourers on inferior lands
throughout the country ? He believed that emigration
would be the only resource of those parties. The Hon.
Gentleman concluded by expressing his determination to
oppose the motion of the Hon. Member for Wolverhampton.
Mr. PACK E also opposed the motion. With regard
to the petition from Leicestershire alluded to by the Hon.
Member for Leicester, it was true that it had been signed
by six boys, but they were of a certain age, and were the
sons of respectable persons.
Sir HENRY PA RNELL commenced by saying that
with regard to the protective duties on linen and
other articles alluded to by the Hon. Member for Lincoln-
shire, he could say, as far as his constituents in Dundee
were concerned, they were ready to surrender such pro-
tection. With respect to the general question, his opinion
was that if Hon. Merebers who were so anxious for the
continuance of the present Corn-laws, would look more par-
ticularly into the facts of the case, they would abandon
the hostility which they now felt to the motion of the Hon.
Member for Wolverhampton. He admitted, that if is
1815, or for many years afterwards, a change was made in
those laws, and if foreign corn was admitted into the
country to any great extent, a large portion of our tillage
land would be thrown out of cultivation ; but it should
not be forgotten that since that period a great change bad
taken place in the circumstances of the country. For in-
stance, in the seven years which followed the year 1815,
the average price of wheat was 755., and for the next ten
years the average price was 503., while in the years 1834,
1835, and 1836, the average price was only 445. Bd. It
might be thought that land would have been let out of
cultivation in consequence of this fall of prices, but no
such result had followed ; and that was 'proved, because,
during the period referred to, there was a sufficient quantity
of corn grown in the country for its own consumption.
From 1815 to 1837. the increase in the population was
four and a half millions, and although during that period
corn was down to 50s. a quarter, it was satisfactorily
shown that no land had been thrown out of cultivation.
The argument, therefore, that the repeal of the Corn-laws
would throw land out of cultivation, and deprive the agri-
cultural labourer of employment, fell to the ground. At
the end of the period to which he referred, their trade was
flourishing, their manufactures extended, and their finances
in a prosperous state, although prices bad fallen and con-
tinued low. There was, therefore, no ground whatever
for the assertion that a low price of corn would be injuri-
ous to the trading, manufacturing, or industrial interests of
the country. It had been argued, also, that the rate of
wages depended to a great extent upon the price of provi-
sions; but all who had looked at the question of wages on
sound principles, had come to the conclusion that the
rise and fall of wages bore no ratio whatever to the high
or low price of corn and depended almost and wholly
upon the amount of the demand for labour. He was de-
cidedly of opinion that the apprehensions entertained on
these points by Hon. Members opposite, were altogether
groundless. If Hon. Members looked attentively at the
question, and calculated the price which corn fetched
abroad, and added the charges and expenses attending its
shipment and import, they would find that it could not be
sold in England at so low a price as they apprehended,
and that it would not materially affect the landed interests.
Independently of that, he would remind the House that
when corn was at the low price of 50s. and 48s. per quar-
ter, there had been nothing heard of a reduction of rents,
nor of the inconvenience and injury to landed property,
which was now so generally put forward. He believed,
under all the circumstance, that if the Corn-laws were re-
pealed at the present moment, the average price would
not be much below what it was during the twenty-six years
to which he had alluded. There was a great error in sup-
posing that rent depended wholly on the price of corn.
If that were so, rent would be higher in England than in
Scotland ; but they all knew that such was not the ease,
although the price of corn was so much lower in the latter
country that it was exported to England. Rent depended
not only on the price of corn, but upon the systcn on which
the land was managed ; and rent might be either increased
or prevented from falling by introducing an improved
system of cultivation, because every improvement which
increased the arable produce, would admit of a higher
rent being paid.—( Hear.) For instance, an extended
system of drainage, a rotation of green crops, manuring,
or other improvements of that description, would enable the
farmer to pay a higher rent. The apprehensions enter-
tained on that head were therefore by no means well founded.
It had been said that Ireland would be the greatest sufferer
from the repeal of these laws, but the observations he had
made were particularly applicable to that country, and he
believed that an improved system of farming would in-
crease the value of land in that country 30 or 40 per cent.
Looking at the charges which must necessarily attend the
importation of foreign corn into the country, and the rise
which an increased demand would occasion—looking also
at the low rate at which corn stood for a very considerable
period without injury to the landed interests of the coun-
try—he must say that he thought the apprehensions which
were entertained on the subject of a repeal of these laws
entirely without foundation.—( Hear, hear.) The subject
had been already so fully discussed, that be would not
further trespass on the time of the House, but would con-
clude by expressing his determination to support the mo-
tion of the Hon. Member for Wolverhampton.—( Hear.)
Mr. BAILEY believed that people were now pretty
well convinced that the jobbing and patronage which
existed in the old Tory times were just as rife as ever.
They also had discovered that the Reform Bill had thrown
the political power into the hands of the middle classes.
who had compelled the Chancellor of the Exchequer from
time to time to reduce those taxes which affected their
interests. He complained of the excitement which
had been got up upon the subject of Corn-laws by paid
ageators who were sent throughout the country. Er-
rors had been so industriously circulated on the subject that
he would scarce be surprised if the people were induced
to rise and endeavour to obtain by physical force the repeal
of laws which they had been taught to believe were con-
trary to the laws of God, and devised for the purpose of
robbing the poor. In addition to all that, they had a Ca-
binet Minister gravely telling the House that he could not
with a clear conscience offer up a prayer for his daily bread
if ha did not vote against these laws.—( Hear, hear.)
He appealed to Hon. Gentlemen opposite, who repre-
sented large constituencies, and he asked them how, with
a due regard to their interests, they could support a
motion like the present? The people of England were
beginning to discover that the repeal of these laws would
confer no lasting or permanent benefit upon the working
classes ; on the contrary, it was generally admitted that it
would throw a large body of agricultural labourers out of
employment. The House could not be too cautious as to
how it made alterations in the fiscal regulations of the
country ; and he would state one fact with reference to the
district which he had the honour to represent. In conse-
quence of a reduction of the duty on barilla a few years
ago, 60,000 persons employed in its manufacture
on the west coast of Scotland were thrown out
of employment and left completely destitute. It
might be said that these people had found their way to the
cities and large towns and obtained employment there.
No such thing—they were left completely destitute. One
large employer, who manufactured from seven to eight
hundred hogsheads, still continued to do so at a very great
annual loss, amounting to about 13s. per hogshead, and he
did so merely to save from utter starvation some thousands
of unfortunate persons. Now if such an amount of misery
was occasioned by the alteration of a merely fiscal regula-
tion, what might be expected from a change of the whole
course of cultivation ?—( Hear, hear.) Ho had found, from
labouring
c o n -
ofth
conditione corn-growingo f the
tarnieesxoafmEinuartoipoen, otfbtahtetsbtoatiasulticusal
classes was better in years in which the price of corn was
low.—( Hear.) He had heard from Gentlemen oppo-
high, than in those years when the price of food generally
sitewas that the effect of the present system of Corn-laws ssaa
to give an advantage to the foreign capitalist in competition
with the British. But the wages of labour and the profits
of capital were much more affected by domestic than by
capitalist and labourer would lose more by the
foreign competition ; and he was convinced that both tho
nn
faeturing
depressionlau of the agriculturists at home, than they could
gain
by an increased ability to compete with their rivals
abroad.--(Hear.) He believed that no change in the
Corn-laws would effect any improvement in the condition
of the manufacturing classes, whilst the repeal would lee
ruinous to the agriculturist, and he would theielore ops3ose
the present motion.--( Hear.)
Mr. JAMES assured the House that be had no inten-

Lion to trouble it with a repetition of the arguments which
had been so much made use of in the course of this discus-
sion. He thought that after the voluminous pamphlets
which had been published, the lectures delivered, and the
speeches made on this subject, it was not easy to say any
thing new.—( Hear, hear, and a laugh.) But he was
anxious, in giving his vote in favour of the motion, to state
why he did not agree in all the propositions of his Hon.
Friend the Member for Wolverhampton. If the im-
mediate, total, and absolute repeal of the Corn-
laws had been the avowed abject of that motion,
he should vote against it, as it would be for the immediate,
total, and absolute ruin of all those—( Tory cheers)—sv 1.0
had now the misfortune of being the possessors of cold,
clayey lands, incapable of producing anything but corn.—
( Hear, hear.) He was willing to go into Committee, for
the purpose of seeing what could be done to improve the
present system ; which he believed was capable of such im-
provement as would render it beneficial to all classes, and
injurious to none.—( Hear.) He was in favour of the in-
troduction of foreign corn at all times, at a moderato fixed
duty. But the present system of a fluctuating scale was
beneficial only to a set of gamblers, as no regular merchant
would enrage in the corn trade under it.—( Hear, hear,
hear.) He could not support the amendment of his Hon.
Friend the Member for Cambridge, and at the same time
that he protested against the total abolition of all pros
tection, which was fairly and honestly due to the present
holders of land, he would vote for the Committee.—( Hear.)
Lord SA N DON concurred in some of the observations
of the Hon. Gentleman who just sat down, hut he could
not concur with him in voting for the motion, because he
thought that some change in the present system was de.
sirable.' He could not upon that ground agree to go into
Committee under the guidance of the Hon. Member for
Wolverhampton and those who supported him. If he
could under the circumstances under which it was pro-
posed to go into the inquiry, vote for doing so, it would be
more agreeable to vote for it, as it would have met the
wishes of a large portion of his constituents.—( Hear,
hear.) He was prepared to say with Hon. Gentlemen
opposite that the present sliding scale was not ,a proper or
efficient mode of protection—( Hear, hear)—and if Gen-
tlemen opposite would bring, forward a distinct proposition
for a more perfect plan, and for a better mode of taking the
averages, he would be prepared to consider it.—( Hear,
hear.) He contended that the agricultural interest re-
quired, and was as much entitled to protection as the ma-
nufacturing, and he denied that the Corn-laws had any
effect in causing an exportation of bullion, or in otherwise
deranging the monetary system.-a-( Hear, hear.) When
he heard it asserted that the Corn-laws were the cause
of misery, destitution, and death, he referred to the state-
ments of Mr. Senior and others, who showed that the
disease and mortality of the working classes of this coun-
try were far less than in any other country in the world.
—( Hear, hear.) The comparison of the diet and hours
of labour of the working classes in different coun-
tries, was also very much in favour of England.—( Hear.)
It seemed to him to be proved by all the evidence on the
subject, that the distress of the manufacturing classes was
not to be attributed to the Corn-laws. The Noble Lord,
after making a few further observations that were not heard
in the gallery, sat down amid cries of .` Divide, divide."
Mr. WA RBURTON would vote for going into Com-
mittee, and in Committee he would vote, rather than have
no change at all, for a moderate fixed duty, believing as
Mr. Huskisson said three weeks before his death, at the
residence of a Noble Lord, a member of the other House,
that that would soon be followed by the total repeal.—
( Loud cries of " Hear, hear," from the Opposition.) The
Noble Lord who had just spoken had said that no writer
upon the currency had ever said that the currency was
affected solely and exclusively by a demand for corn.
No one that he (Mr. Warburton) was aware of had ever
contended that a sudden demand for corn was the only
circumstance that could affect the state of the currency.
The Hon. Gentleman quoted a passage from Mr. Jones
Loyd's pamphlet, in order to show that the Corn-laws
was the real circumstance which affected the currency in
1839. They did not say that it was the only cause, but
it was a very striking one. The Right Hon. Baronet, at
a former period, was not insensible to the effect of the
Corn-laws upon the currency. In 1827, when combating
the raising of the price to 80s. he contended that the change
would have a prejudicial effect upon the currency, and
nothing would be so likely to cause a run ;upon the Bank as
to change the standard. Although the circumstances were
not now the same, they were only different in degree—the
present scale of duties acted, when the price was high, as
a prohibition, as much as when it was 80s., therefore,
mutatis mutandis, the arguments used in 1827 were of the
same force now. One cause of the derangement of the
currency was the large advances made to the American
merchants, for which no return could be made. Now
was not the cause of those advances the low
rate of profit obtained by agricultural pursuits,
in consequence of so much poor land being put into
cultivation ? The present laws did not give unifor-
mity to the prices ; on the contrary, he thought they were
the best devised scheme for producing fluctuations.—
(Loud cries of " Divide, divide.") A great deal had been
said respecting the situation of the labourer under a rise
of prices in the Corn-market. Upon that head he begged
the attention of the House to a passage from the book of
Sir H. Monteath on the Poor-laws, to the effect that with
high prices the wages of labour must be depressed,
unless the means of purchasing were proportionably in-
creased. It used to be insisted on by the opposite
side, that the Corn-laws should be kept up to main-
tain the predominance of the landed interests, and
as a means of keeping up their political influence. Whv
had not that argument been used now ? He (Mr. War:.
burton) believed it was because Gentlemen opposite knew
well that the people required more political power, and •
that such argument would not be acceptable to them. He
had before expressed his opinion that the Corn-laws
would never be repealed until the middle classes cordially
co-operated pith the working classes. He retained that
opinion still, and was convinced that the object never
would be attained till the middle classes made concessions
to the working classes, and till the working classes had
made some abatement of their demands in regard to the
Parliamentary franchise. -His advice to them would be,
that they should act upon the principle of give and take,
and then he believed success would crown their exertions.

Mr. HANDLEY said, with regard to the manner in
which this debate had been disposed of on the last occa-
sion, he believed that every one in the House knew that
the Hon. Member for Bridport had completely outwitted
himself—( Laughter)---although with great tact he bad
afterwards claimed credit for it as a triumph.—( Hear,
hear, and laughter.) He was willing to rest his support
of the Corn-laws upon the speech of the Right Hon.
Baronet the Member for Tam worth, which was unanswered
and unanswerable—( Hear, bear)--and had only been ap-
proached by the Hon. Member for Wolverhampton with
misrepresentation.—( Hear, bear.) The lion. Mem-
ber for Wolverhampton's speech on this occasion had been
marked by a tone far less commendable than
on former occasions.—( Hear, hear.) It was unjust in the
lion. Member to speak of the supporters of the Corn-laws,
as though they were indifferent to the sufferings of the
people. But it could not be doubted that the rate of
wages depended not upon the price of food, but upon the
demand for labour, and hence the labouring population
were better eif when food was high than when it was low.
In Lincolnshire the wages were from 103. to I3s. 6d. a!
week, when the labourer had to spend 3s. in bread, and his
7s. for other articles. When wages wore 13s. 6d. a week
the labourer had to spend ss. in bread, and had Ss. 6d. for
other articles, so that he was half-a-crown a week
better off with high prices than low prices.
He could not deny that great distress existed in the manu-
facturing districts, but this was the first time their oppo-
nents had pressed into their service the arguments of the
home market.—( Hear, hear; Divide, divide.) They had
oftimes had it pressed upon them, but had now only dis-
covered it on a sudden. It had been referred to, to
show that increased exports were a proof of diminished
home consumption, but, in his opinion, the argument had
altogether failed. In the Report of the Chamber of Com-
merce, he found that the distress and misery which was
stated to exist was not attributed to the Corn-laws, but to
the mismanagement of the Bank of England. It had been
said the Irish Registration Bill of the Noble Lord,
although it bore that title on its back, was, never-
theless, a Bill for the disfranchisement of Ireland, and so
he believed this motion, which professed to be an inquiry
into the operation of the Corn-laws, was nothing less them
a motion for their total repeal, and he therefore trusted
the House would vote against it.—(llear, hear.)
Mr. M. PHILLIPS rose amid loud cries for a division,
that rendered him for some time inaudible in the gallery.
We understood him to be requesting the indulgence of the
House to one not in the habit of frequently troubling
them. On a former occasion Le had been accused of pro-
phesying, but he thought the statements which had been
made that evening were more prophetic than anything he
had ever uttered.—( Hear, bear, "Divide, divide.") Ile
had been present at a meeting of upwards of 5,000 ope-
ratives at Manchester-_a meeting such as few lion. Mere-
bore had perhaps had it in their power to attend, and
which he would not attempt to describe, since his Hon.
Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, with all his
power of language, had been able to convey but a faint
idea of it. The feeling which pervaded that meeting was
not confined to the, operatives, but he believed
was now spreading among the agricultural districts. It
had so happened that two Hon. Members for Lincoln had
spoken in the course of the debate, and though they
the subject was drawn to the dregs, they had nevertheless
delivered speeches of some length.—( Cries of " Divide,
divide," and confusion.) It was his misfortune during the
debate of last year to have immediately preceded his Hon.
Friend who had just sat down, and on that oceaion his
Hon. Friend had made a statement to which he must allude ;
he had said that the conduct of sonic of the mill-o` here in
Manchester was inexcusable ; that t4ey had shut up their
mills and began to work short time, merely for the purpose
of inducing a state of distress among the operatives to get
up a feeling against the Corn-laws. Now, of that state-
ment he utterly denied the correctness.__( Loud cries of
" Divide, divide," and great confusion.) When capital
wes absorbed and profits gone, the millowners were ob-
liged to work short time. Ile did not mean to say the millowners possessed greater sympathy for the distress of
others than any other class of her Majesty's subjects, but
he claimed, at least, an equal degree of it for them.—
( Divide, divide, mihgled with loud cries of " Bar ! bar !")
When it was impossible to manufacture at a profit, the
manufacturer had to calculate whether it was better that
his machinery should stand still, and be consequently
greatly depreciated in value, or whether he should go on
manufacturing at a loss.--( Loud cries of " divide.") There was within three miles of his own resi-
dence a mill belonging to a relation of the
Right lion.
Baronet the Member for Tamwortb, a gentleman whose
kindness of disposition to all those who were employed by
biro NNas well known—that eentleman had been compelled
towards the conclusion of last year to have recourse to
working short time in the manner which had been so I
severely ai.imadver ted upon by his lion. Friend.—( Cries
of " Divide, divide," " Chair, chair," " Order, order," and
great confusion, which lasted several minutes.) Manu-
facturers found it better even at a loss, to work their mills,
for two or three hours a day, to keep them in order. Hon,
Members might rest assured that however great they
might suppose the profits of the manufacturers.
When their capital was absorbed it was
im-
possible they could do otherwise than dismiss those
employed by them; but they did so with great reluctance,

.EVENING EDITI

and he knew' that among his own constituents there had
been many an aching heart, occasions d by 614 cause, since
this subject had last occupied the attention of -the House.
--(Loud cries of " Divide, divide.") Referouee had been
made to the Chamber of Commerce in Manchester ; but
during the present Session he had presented a petition
from that body on the subjectiof the currency, in which
they state it as their opinion that the recent derangements
in the currency were attributable to the Corn-laws. He
agreed with his Hon. Friend the Member for Bridpett,
that the present system did not secure to us a proper
supply in proportion to the demand. In support cf this
opinion he would allude to a case, which he hoped was at
that moment engaging the attention of her Majesmes Go-
vernmsat. In Naples in 1839, in consequence of the de-
mand for corn in this country, large refits were remised
upon the importation of it. In consequence English
merchants bought large quantities in the Neapolitan markets,
but as the supply in that country was only limited, it
raised the price there very considerably, and the conse-
quence was the King of Naples prohibited the exportation
of any corn from his dominions; thus inflicting a double
loss on the merchants, first, of the profits which they ant;-
ell:sate:l realizing on its importation into this countre ; and
next, as this quantity was suddenly thrown upon the Nea-
politan marker, a great fall immediately took place, and
an actual loss to the :peculators was the consequence.
This showed that our Corn-laws rendered us a nu:sauce
in our dealings with other countries. lie hoped some
means might be devised to regulate the importation, so as
to produce greater regularity of 'imply and greater steadi-
ness of price. These laws had not even antiquity to re-
commet, d them ; they wore introduced in 1815, and in
1828 thcv were ebliged to be agein patched up.—(Loud
cries of " Divide, divide," and considerable interruption,
which occasioned the Honourable Member to proms for
some tisane.' Attempts had been made to make the people
believe that the Poor-law Bill had been introduced for the
purpose of grinding the poor and making them live an a
coarse sort of food. He denied that imputation, and
always ern braced every occasion of doing se ; he had given
his assista ace to the passing that law, and he solemnly de-
clared tha t such an idea had never entered his mind.
But when Hon. Members sew that the operation of the
Corn-!awe was to compel the working classes to Eve upon
a poorer description of food, he though t that by support-
ing those laws they took upon themselves the responsi-
bility which it had been insidiously attempted to throw
upon the supporters of the Poor-laws, Ne dreaded that
general wa at of employment, which, he feared, must I.e
the consegs tence of the present syreem- Allnufacturno
who had 1 ost their capital would have no resource left
but to th; 'CM their workmen out of employ. This
would pres s still more severely on those who remained
still in cxi: stence, and incapacitate them atilt more for
competition with the foreign markets, and eventually the
maintenance, of the persons thus thrown out of employ-
ment must necessarily become a national charge. He
would not eletain the House any longer.--(leenical chemist
from the Op position benches.) There were other pint'
to which he should have wished to have alluded, but he
should declir e doing so after the former discesssions which
had taken Pace on the subject, and he wottld sit dovsn
by expressisme his readiness to support the 'motion of the
Hon. Member for Wolverhampton.
Lord .1. RUSSELL—Sir, I can assure the House that
I am extremely unwilling to address them en a subject
already so much discussed as the present, not orsly in this
but preceding Sessions.—(Hear, hear.) But still there
are reasons, .both as respects the Government, which had
been alluded to to-night, and as respects the motion it.
self, which m ikes it necessary I should address a few
Words to the I louse. An Hon. Gentleman who spoke to-
night, has cot aplained that the Governmut did net bring
forward a mot-fon of their own on the present subject ;
but I think that the conduct of the Government on
nationaltn thatheoccaief
occa-
sion has boon n .gulated by a due regard to
interests as regt arded the subject. It is my o
on an occasion of any kind there was a general disposie
tien to have at , alteration of law, that if ie is the general
wish to have a question settled by some measure of the
Legislature, eel ile there is a diversity of op inion as to the
measure to be a dopted, it is my opinion that- in such a case
the Government may usefully step forward, and frame
such a measure: as it may deem most conducive to the ne.
tional interest s. and propose that measure for the adoption
of Parliament e thereby assuring to it a greater support than
any individual measure could mset with. But such is
not the can e with regard to tb.e Corn-laws. I con-
ceive that at all events a considerable majority of
the House , composed of persons iitting on both sides of it,
is of opinion that there should be no alteration 1Q .the exe
isting system of Corn-laws. Now, Sir, if that be the eases
the introduction of a measure, on the part of the Govern-
ment, could only add to the general feelings, and to the
general pr ejudiecs which influenced the opinions and vote,.
of Memb ,ere on the subject—to lead to party strife and
party cot itentions, would be not to promote, but to retard
the mer .sure.—( Hear, hear.) In reviewing the coatstt
not onle • of the debate to-night, but of the debates of for-
mer nil ;hts, I am happy to And that me have not interposed
any ol estacle, but that, so far as I have gathered
from the opinions of those who sit on the
other side of the House, though they are not
prep sred to enter into an immediate consideration of the
ques don, they by no means pledge themselves to stand by
the I present law as one which ought not, under any circuit)_
stein cos, to be altered. I allude to that determination—if
that be the determination—because I think that with re-
spe el; to the Corn-laws, and those laws generally which af-
fect: 'the trade of the country, time and circumstances arc
very often most important elements in the consideration of
therm. Now, with regard to the question itself, I will give
my me Me for the motion of the Honourable Member for
Wolverhampton, conceiving as I do, that the House
ought to go into Committee on the subject of the
Corn-laws, and that those laws require alteration.
But at the same time I must express my opinion
that, both the evils which follow from them have
bee n exaggerated, and that the remedy which the Hon.
Mt ember proposes is not the remedy which I should have
pr, sposed to adopt. I think, Sir, with regard to the evils
wl eels arc attributed to the present Corn-laws, that thole
evils are of a nature which it cannot be denied would exist
with an alteration of those laws, but that they arc great! ,-
agg-rsavated by them. Now, with regard to the deficiouci,:e
of harvests, and the recourse to foreign trade, no oLe
can deny that, owing to the fluctuations of the
sane ens, you must constantly require importations of
cort ~ and that sudden changes of prices mast eesuo
os ring to miscalculations es to the amount of the i,harrest,
at el other circumstances that may not have been calculated
oa, and which affect this very important trade. No doubt
t here fluctuations will take place after an alteektion in the
' corn-laws, Ilse the effect of the present law is to aggra-
• rate those evil by adding to the quantity of exports, and
by creating a very great difference with respect to tine
duty which the merchant has to pay, because by has to
contentd not only with the change of price, but with,
the change of duty, which varies very My
amounts, so that in addition to the loss -.61 se.
or Gs.i.n point of price, he has to contend with
an increase of 10i., 125., or 14s. in duty. By that
means, when he introduces his commodity into the mar-
ket, ho feels himself unable to calculate 4 fair profit, and,
therei;ore, the trade being naturally uncertain, the Corn-
laws addi to that uncertainty.—( Hear, hear.) Then,
again, with respect to the derangements of the currency,
there can he no doubt that in every deficient harvest you
must make up for that deficiency by sending bullion abroad,
and thus deranging the currency.—( Hear, hear.) The
Noble Lord the Member for Liverpool, in stat-
ing that argument, relieved the Coin laws of the blame
of adding to that evil, but I think the Noble Lord was
quite mis taken in his assumptions on that point. }l,,r says
that if under the present system you require three millions
of quarters, you will have to pay for these; but if -you
change feat system, and require six millions of quarters,
you will have to pay for these also. But the Noble Lord
should remember that the case would be entirely altered if
trade were placed on a different footing. Other countries
would 'tse in the habit of receiving your commodities, end of
raising .corn for your use in proportion. Trade weeel not
thus cause the same derangement in the currency
es a tn ,de which an Hon. Member has justly described as
one which proceeds by fits ands tarts, and which requires
that yc u should derive an amount of corn you ere not
prepare d for from other countries, from which you hese
exclude d your own manufacture:;. I think, therefore,
Sir, that, with respect to the derangements of the cur-
rency, the present Corn-laws add to that evil. I own, in
Joe king at the various parties which are affected by thoem
lames, I can hardly see any who arc permanently bene-
fit ed by them, and that most persons are very great
'leers in consequence. With respect to the capitalist,
is ho manufactures—with respect to the inerchame, who is
dealing with other countries, I need not say that they tare
greatly injured by the laws in question. With re epect to
the labourer or the artisan, I conceive they are I;keeise
lessors ny these laws. It is said that wages wou.'d be'
entainisbed by an alteration of the law, and tiro flon,
Ittember for Lancashire seerrs to think that that is a Tea-
s. en why the labouring classes ; should feel no ittberest in the
s abject. Now I very much. -doubt whether even the nomi-
eal wages would be dimi.mished by the alteration, but
if nominal wages were diminished there would'
be no diminution of the real wages of labour • for if there was a gerotmal demand for the manu-
factures
of this country, ?he demand for labour would
increase in Proportion, and the- labourer would benefit ac-
cordingly. With respect to th a farmer, 1 conceive that
he is a loser as well as the manse 'ecturer, inasmuch as those
laws
make his trade to partak, 1 of the character of a
monopoly, Without being able to regulate the pro-
duc e ; while in the course o. ' a year of an abun-
der.t harvest be finds himscji t unable to dispose of
hmeproduce at any profit--wfille he finds the market
glutted with corn. We have co nsequentles found the
farmers stating to this House their s tistress, and asking us
to inquire into the means of relieving at, they being all t'
.:...1
time protected by those laws, which ;you say insure they
prosperity. The only class which lel ink has even apie._
rently benefited by the present laws as that of those A i:o.
receive rent. But I own I think that- they arc in reality
as little benefited by the present system: .as any other elto!s.
My belief is that what conduces to the g encrel prosper!ty
of the country—what conduces to the general increeso of
our trade—what conduces to the inereesse of our manufae-
tures and internal wealth, also contribumes most lle essent'ls y
to the prosperity and wealth of the la ndowners—(llear,
hear)—they having the first and great to lvantage in basin :
a market close at hand, and in h tying to compete
with foreigners, with every circumstant a in their favour.
Therefore the landowners would not be '. ejured by an alto
ration of the law, but benefited.—( Hear, hear.) Now r-
to the remedies proposed. The Hon. Member for Wol.! verhampton
,was for total repeal. Now the Right Hon. Member for famworth had justly said that on that prop; •
sewn all other protective duties must nio be considered,
or else parties might come and represmit that they had
never asked fur the repeal of the Corn-lames, anal that to
themh euitrogteoeliig
ting duties were beneficial.—(Hear, hear. )
to the length to which the Noble Viscount
at
.the head of the Government bad done in des-
c,rilente the total repeal proposition, be (Lord John
flannel!) svas decidedly opposed to that proposition.
Tire
present duties were founded on the system
of Mr, Huskisson ploteetibn for prohibition.
A sudden chotige would. by throwing away that protection
have the effect of giving great disturbance to the
most important interests in the country.-4 Hear, hear. )
What he should advise would be, a moderate, fixed dut y