The Sun.
London, England, 1846-05-26 00:00:00

—there was free trade in that article of consumption, there was
I no restriction on its importalon, and yet the price varied from
150 to 100 in the course of a single year. Let us take the.
price of upland cotton in Liverpool during the years 1836
and 1837—it was no sliding scale that then regulated the supply
—in January, 1836, it was 81d. p M
er lb. ; December, bid. per
H
lb. ;in November, it was id. per lb. ;in
arch it was 10i!l. ;
in May it was 5-a'-d. per lb. ;in December it was Bid. again ;
and in April it was down to s,td. again. Is there any fluctuations
to be compared with those in the prices of this article,
of which we had a regular and systematic supply? With re-
gard to another most impertant branch of operation in this
country, their Lordships would excuse him if ha adverted to
one particular point—the supply in a period of the greatest
exigency. You will recall to your Lordships' recollection what
was the state of the different countries of Europe at the. f
be-
ginning of the present year. There were
a scarcity, and measures were taken for their own protection.
represent
and security ; and that I may not be supposed
Lord of the
facts, I will read it from the statement of the First
fo
Septem-
ber, 9iprehensionso
Treasury. It stated that in Belgium, on the 24th o
countryg
imports of corn. The manufacturing portion of t
law, and
had materially increased since the operation of this
description'
the Chamber prohibited the exports, and encouraged 1 the
even trades and professions, of every
years.f
th
It is stated that it will defraud the trade and commerce
o
country; but, belonging as I do to a manufacturing county
had nearly doubled their profits of late
myself, and anxious as am to do whatever is calculated
to
advance the prosperity or to add to the comforts of the manu-
facturing classes of the country, I cannot think that the aban- ,
donment of the present system will be calculated to meet those
ends, but rather that it will be productive of great and serious
evil.—( Hear, hear.) What has hitherto been the effect of
the incautious development of our productive powers? We
have found prosperity succeeded by a glut in the market, ad-
versity follow upon a full demand. Do nothing to check the
prosperity of the country, or that is really calculated to serve
the interests of the manufacturing classes, but do not lead them
be an unwise system of legislation to depend for their existence
onlan unwholesome system—(Hear, hear)—in which, I be-
lieve, the interests of these classes themselves most seriously
involved. But if it is desirable to alter the present system for
the sake of the commercial interests of the country, it is not
clear to my mind that the repeal of the corn-laws will have
the tendency of increasing the manufacturing industry of the
country. If there is little or no variation in price, if there is to be
no great reduction in the price of corn, then no great increase in
the consumption of the article can take place, and the only
argument that remains is, the transfer will take place from
the home grower to the foreign corn raiser—substituting pne
class of corn growers for another. If her Majesty's Govern-
ment are to be believed on the present question, the price of
corn will rise instead of fall. I must say, if you believe that,
then will you believe as great a fallacy as was ever palmed on
the credulity of any body of men. Who ever heard of in-
creased competition raising the price of an article. Reason
was against it, and not only reason, but faets were against it.
True it is the reduction of a halfpenny a pound in the duty on
wool did not check eompetition in that trade. The demand
for the article went on increasing, and the supply was not able
to keep pace with it. What took place in 1825, when Mr.
Huskisson reduced the duty on wool ? In 1824 the duty im-
posed on that article was 6d., and he reduced it to Id. in 1825.
While the price of wool in 1825, before the alteration, was
Is. 4d. a lb., in 1830, just five years after the alteration was
made, the price was 10d., showing a reduction of exactly
the whole duty taken off---(Hear, hear.) Then the silk trade has
been referred to. While the duty has been reduced on manu-
factured silks, it must be admitted that the duty on the raw
silks imported has also been taken off, so that the alteration
made in this particular branch of industry is not to be taken as
a fair indication of the results of the tariff. While the two al-
terations I have referred to have somewhat balanced them-
selves, the various branches of the silk trade still had a pro-
tective duty on it, averaging about thirty per cent.—(Hear,
hear.) Take next the case of timber. The price of Baltic
timber has not fallen in proportion to the reduction of the
duty, I admit, but Canada timber has. But it is not to that
alone we must look. What compensation has been given for
the fall in the price of timber at home ? What is the price of
British timber now? Why the fifty cubic feet of timber that
was 103 s. before the passing of the tariff, has been since
91s. 3d., and last year it fell as low as 86s. Bd.—( Hear, hear.)
I see the Chief Commissioner of Woods and Forests in his
place, and if there is any doubts in the fall in the price of Bri-
tish timber, he can speak to its correctness, for in a
sale of timber last October, in the Forest of Dean,
all that was offered was but 41. 10s. a load, instead of 61. 10s.
Viscount CANNING—It was so.

Lord STANLEY—That does not alter the effect of the
price. I will not enter into the price of butcher's-meat, as your
Lcrdships are all aware of the causes that have led to the in-
crease in the price of that article ; but I calculate this year
that the number of sheep imported has been 7,01;0. Now, in
a single market—tbat of Smithfield—the supply of sheep this
year, as compared with last, has been 16,00) to 27000. There
can be no doubt that if this law is abrogated there will be a
considerable reduction in the price of corn. But before leaving
the tariff there is one point to which I will refer, as we have been
told a great deal of the effect it has produced on British shipping.
Great stress has been laid on the fact that the tariff has in-
creased in a large degree our commercial activity. Now, I
have got a table of the tonnage and number of ships empl, yed
in 1842 as compared with 1845 ; and bow does it stand ? The
tonnage, in 1842, was 3,619,000, and the increase in 1845 was
17,000 tons. If I go back to 1833 I find an annual increase in the
tonnage for each year, with the exception of one, and the total
amount is 985,000, or, dividing it into biannual periods, of
197,000 tons each period. This was the increase from 1833
to 1845, while all the increase since the passing of the tariff is
but 17,000 tons. —( Hear, hear.) Why, in one branch of our
sfrhoi p igtnhe
ttal
riei
fir e a haslt bg.
et
he een a la
r,
and
thisrg e increase r
branch
i a
sthanhad has e
no connexion
rsul ed
with the tariff, but has arisen entirely from agriculture. The
trade to which I referred is the guano trade, a trade which
only originated in 1841. In 1843 it was 4,560 tons, and
employed 202 seamen. In 1845 it amounted to 219,000 tons,
and employed no less a number than 11,434 seamen.
Thus from 1843 to 1845 the increase in the
guano trade has been upwards of 200,000 tons to
set against the 17,000 tons increase from the tariff.--
(Loud cheers.) I admit that the fall in the price of corn will
not be equal in all eases to the reduction in the amount of the
duty, but it will be so to a very great extent, and I reason
from the experience of the present tariff. I find when the
price of corn has been 555. a quarter large importations of fo-
reign corn have taken place. This has been when the duty was
15s. Therefere we may anticipate, if we take off the duty
there will be a large portion immediately brought into nur mar-
kets at4os. I have received a letter this morning from one of the
largest corn-dealers in England, who says that be hols two car-
goes of red wheat imported fromtthe Danube, which he bought
free on board at 145., and the freight to Liverpool was 9s. tjd.;
and the party in question had no doubt that he should at the
end of the three years be able to supply 5,000,000 of quarters
of foreign wheat at an average price at from 365. to 40s. per
quarter. If we go back to 1845, we will find we then im-
ported 140,000 quarters at 455. a quarter, which paid 20s.
duty, thus sheaving that it could be imported a price of 255.
or 2tis. a quarter. The reduction may not be so great as this,
still that will not reverse my objection to the measure, a., I
have no doubt corn may be supplied in such quantities,
and at such prices as will press most severely on the
English producers, who will be obliged to compete with them.
I have no doubt also that capital from this country to foreign
countries will facilitate the raising of supplies, and thus
operate in a very injurious manner, on all those
interested in the cultivation of the soil at home.
It is not the least of my objections to this measure that it en-
courages the foreign
grower,
ing degree the land at
are tole that if the price of corn falls then the manufacturer can
home wo ht i
ol ef i
et
ot h t
vo
awt si i
on a
Be our
tr ensopwo nwd
we
an outlet for his manufactures, because he can sell so much
more cheaply. Well, he sells them so much more cheaply !
How is this effected ? Why, if effected at all, it is;effected by
a reduction of wages._(
Hear, hear.) Now, my Lords, I
thought that that was a doctrine foreign to the Anti-Cern-
law League. I thought that the price of corn had nothing to
do with the rate of wages, yet somehow or other the anticipa-
tion is that the manufacturers will be enabled to produce their
goods more cheaply. I cannot understand how they can do so
except by paying their labourers lower wages. Now, my
Lords, I do not mean to say that in the manufacturing or agri-
cultural districts the rates of maees exactly follow the price of
cern. I say that wages do not'always follow the fluctuations
in the price of corn, because they were considerably regulated
by the proportion existing between demand and supply. I say
that although wages do net exactly follow all the fluctuations in
the price of wheat, yet those prices must be steady, whether
high or low, for if the markets oscillate the labourer, not ac.
customed to economise his wages when wheat is low, will be
correspondingly depressed when the price is increased. It then
surely becomes the duty of your Lordships to balance well
the advantages and disadvantages of this measure to the la-
bourer before you fully pass it into a law. Let your Lord-
ships suppose a man with a wife and family of three childen in
a manufacturing district—suppose for a moment that that fa-
mily, on a low calculation, consumes five quarters of corn in
the year--suppose also a fall of 10s. per quarter in the price of
wheat—and suppose that in consequence of that reduction
in the price of grain, the wages of one member of that famil:
is reduced one shilling per week, and that, I presume, is the
very lowest estimate we can take. The one shilling thus re-
tained from that family more than counterbalances the advan-
tages of the reduction in the consumption of five quarters per
year. But we were also told that if the price of wheat should
tall, we shall_ have a highly increased trade with foreign coun-
tries. We are led to believe that Russia and Prussia, and the
United States, do not take our manufactures because we do
not take their produce in return. Now there never was an
argument less founded upon fact than this. It is a fact, that
with regard to all the countries from which we draw our corn
at the present moment, our imports largely predominate over
our exports, and we consequently allow them much greater ad-
vantages than they give in return to us. Here
is the trade of the United States, for example,
and your Lordships may be surprised to learn that the amount
of value of cotton alone imported into this country, in one year,
greatly exceeds the value 01 the whole exports put together
that we sent in the same period to the United States. In the
five last years. the exports to the United States had been to the
extent of 7,500,0001. Yet, in the eighteen'years preceding,
the amount had been 7,500,0001. Your importation of cotton
alone, in the last five years, is not a less sum (assuming that
calculating the price at 4d. per lb. ) than 7,817,C90/. Now
we take four-fifths of our moan from trvheataelolnUev,nited States, and
what is the advantage that we shall receive from the United
States in return? I believe that you will receive no advantage
ofdotlhlaaelrusiben. United States.
from the passing of this measure. I find that in the last six
years an importation into the United States had been made of
253,000,000 dollars, while their exportation to this
theb
oTtrtehaes
rooryshuopoolnd
the past six years,.
favouroo9
balancecountry
of hadioi reached,oo,
o o
leaving
There has a
it
t Heree is
25
This,"ltca henc tec.hoeiamnds mdaoyeeudsnr, t
to make
o f
nso
ttheahkee
nominalSecretaryu )e
ateh heof
n
and, with the exception of 1839, in each
Odoll3asrs4fn 0,
of the last
years. Our export trade is annually increasin while our imports remain the same, and any modification made' in the
r
corn-laws of Great Britain, which will admit our bread-stuEs
on reasonable terms"—he does not calculate on this very liberal'
measure—" will give an immense impulse to the export trade.'
" On the other hand," says the Secretary for the Treasury,
"every improvement and increase made in our manufactures
establishes our ability to supply the home demand both in the
and cotton and woollen manufactures, tends to reduce our
mpor
tation from other countries." You are told here that as
soon can dispense with your assistance they will do so.
itahs
regard to Russia and Prussia, the case was the same. In
Russia, in the year 1838, Mr. M'Gregor stated that
their total exportations amounted to above 11,00,000,
while their average importations were only 6,177 000 showing a balance of some 5,000,009 in their favour.
And in Prussia the exportations amounted to 3,138,000, whilezr
the importations reached only 505,000. The duties charged
upon our manufactures by the United State were almost pro-
hibitory—they ranged from 45 up to 150 ; and in the article of
glass they reached 243 per cent. The tariffs of Russia and
Prussia are equally prohibitory. Mr. M.Gregor states that
the Russian duties are prohibitory, because the Government
there wished to discountenance the importation of any article
that can be drawn by the serfs from the mines or forests. Ac-
cordingly in the whole of Russia your manufactures are sub-
jected to an average duty of 65 per cent., while in Prussia
you are charged from 50 to 130 per cent. But the argument
is boldly put forward that our duties are equally prohibitory,
because we impose 25 per cent. on the article of corn. It is
pretended
that this duty prevents our taking the goads of other
countries, although these countries impose no less than five-
fold on the goods received from us. Dr. Bowring, who was
sent out by a Noble Lord lately in office,
held out
expectations that $ modification of the timber duties would be

beneficial to the country. They had now taken off some of
those timber duties ; they had taken off some of the duties on
cotton, and he should like to know whether the exports to
Prussia had increased, as it was expected they had not? (The
Noble Lord then read several statistical details in corroboration
of his argument.) Do we find that our shipping trade has been
improved ? No. Merchants, it is said, will not enter into the
corn trade, because it is a speculative trade, but all trades are
speculative, for all depend upon the seasons. and the markets'
of the country; yet it is said in this year that it is
hazardous to engage in any commercial speculation.
The Baltic trade in 1837 employed 612 British ships against
560 foreign. In 1845 the Baltic trade employed 609 British
ships against 1,845 foreign. In 1839 the Baltic trade em-
ployed 148,000 British tons against 147,000 tons foreign. In
1839 the Baltic trade employed 6,016 British seamen against
6,352 foreign. In 1845, the Baltic trade employed 5,375
British seamen against 17,169.—( Hear, hear.) Well, I have
done with the foreign trade, I have done with our foreign
prospects. I will admit to your Lordships,
that a large ex-
portation will produce a large increase in the imports, but only
for a time, during whichhnyeou)uff up trade to an extraordinary
When state of prosperity. that fails, when distress and diffi-
culty comes, the returns willfall off, and I rather think
my Noble Friend at the head of the Foreign
Department, in the event a war taing
place with the United States,
will findo,f that instead of our-
fifths, our country will only be indebted to the United States for
a small portion, indeed, of our supplies When war comes, then the markets upon which you have relied are closed ag •
you, while, in the meantime you have destroyed your against
markets ; and when you have destroyed your home market, and
the foreign market fails you, then comes the period of oppres-
sion and bitter suffering amongst your manufacturers—of bitter
expressions of feeling against those who are now deluding their
unhappy dupes with a prospect of increased wages and cheap
bread.—(Cheers.) Do not let your Lordships, do not let the
country undervalue the importance of this home
market.—(Hear, hear.) The estimates and statements
I see put forward with respect to it are most ridiculous. If we
are to believe these statements, the whole consumption of
the home-market in cotton goods amounts only to 1/4 of
the entire produce, and that amount will give you somewhere
about 4s. per head to every one of the population. Your
Lordships will be the best able to judge of the accuracy of that
statement when I toll you, that in the year 1840 the average
consumption of cotton goods by the inhabitants of the West
Indies was not 45., but li. 6s. per head. Now, can you be-
lieve,: if the West Indian negro consumes 1/. 6s. worth of cotton
goods, that the consumption of this country is only 4s. per
head ?—(Cheers. ) No, I do not. I feel that the home-
market in cotton stands to the foreign market in the proportion
of at least 14 to 17. In the year 1820 we exported 248,000
tons of cotton goods ; in 1844 the quantity was increased four-
fold, or 146 millions. In 1803 Mr. Huskisson estimated the
value of the cotton goads consumed in England at 32 millions
sterling. I find that the quantity entered for home con-
sumption was 73 millions in 1820 ; it has since increased
to 280 millions of lbs. of worked up cotton goods,
employing British labour and bought by the British con-
sumer. In 1844, the home consumption had increased four-
fold, not only in cotton, but in every other articles of British
produce, such as cotton-wool, linen, silk-yarn, hardware,
leather, cabinet-ware, and paper. These articles in the home
market produced 148,340,0634, while the whole value for for-
eign and home consumption was 280,200,0001. And this is
the market you are about to abandon—these are the customers
ycu are about to sacrifice in your blind zeal to promote the
export trade. Then lam told a reduction in the price of con
increases the consumption of other articles ; but, my Lords,
you must remember that cheapness and dearness are relative
terms, and not posite. Wheat may be cheaper in Poland than
in England, but the population in England, from peculiar cir-
cumstances, find their food cheaper than the people of Poland.
Now, my Lords, I have gone over a great part of this question.
I do not know how I have done it, but 1 must not leave the
details of the question without knowing where the loss must
fall. It will fall moat assuredly upon the majority of this
country. We have heard of the danger and the difficulty
of administering the affairs of Government, without
reconciling the conflicting claims of an ancient monarchy.
a proud aristocracy, and a reformed House of Commons. Now, my
Lords, I admit, that if you legislate for the interest of one class
against the interest of another—that is to say, if you materially alter
the social relation of different easses of the community, it is not in-
flicting a private injury, but a publlc wrong. 't here may, however,
be sane difficulty in keeping a balance in a reformed House of Com-
mons, but, my Lords, the difficulty will not be met, if for the proud
you substitute a pauper and a dependent aristocracy. If you break
down an ancient aristocracy, you demolish the firmest breakwater
that can possibly be established between a monarchy and a repub-
licanism.—(Hear, hear.) When I speak of an aristocracy, Ido not
speak exclusively or mainly of the body I am now addressing—l
speak of men, not ennobled in rank, many of them undistinguished in
life, but who, with their ancestors before them, from generation to
generation, have had centred in them or in their cifeles a sort of
prestige, conducting ably the business of their respective houses,
influencing the opinions of their respective neighbourhoods,
and exercising over their tenantry, who have a hereditary
claim upon their constituents, a useful and beneficial control.
My Lords, these are the aristocracy of this country. Reduce
these men and you inflict an irretrievable and irreparable injury
upon this country.—(Hear, hear.) You lower them in the scale of
society. God forbid, my Lords, that I should grieve that the suc-
cessful manufacturer, or that the princely merchant, should take his
place among the landed aristocracy of this country.—(Hear, hear.)
Such infusions add fresh vigour and fresh power to that class of the
community.—(Hear, hear.) But depend upon it If you sweep that
class away all at once, and all the old associations with which their
names, their histories, and the associations which they have acquired
to their families, and if you substitute a new body of capitalists, and
go amongst the tenantry where no associations ere connected with
their name, the expenditure will be a severe one—their moral in-
fluence in society is irretrievably lost to the country.—(Cheers.)
Bet, my Lords, I say I should not be satisfied if I were to believe
that the loss would mainly fall upon the landed proprietors of this
country ; but I tun satisfied, my Lords, there never was so great a
delusion as this. Why, the reduction of 10s. upon every quarter of
wheat is a reduction of 40s per acre of laud in this country, and that
will be accompanied by a corresponding reduction in the price of
articles of produce in this country. My Lards, my Noble Friend on
the cross benches has ably argued this question, and I will not pre-
tend to follow him. He has fully shown what will be the effect not
merely upon the landlords, but the tenant-farmers of this country.
(Hear, hear.) And the first step that these tenant-farmers will
take to relieve themselves will be to suspend all improvement of
their land.—(Hear, hear)--will be to discharge their labourers—
(Hear, hear)—will be to reduce wages—(Hear, hear)—will be to
pour:those unhappy labourers into the manufacturing districts, and
increase the competition there—(neer, hear)—for the lowest class
of employment in manufacturing labour. They will there go and
live in wretchedness, and pine away in the manufacturing towns,
and lower the wages of the manufacturing as of the agricultural
artificer.—(Hea • hear.) Why, my Lords, what will be the conse-
quence to the landed proprietors of this country? Assuming even
the case, that one of your Lordships is free from incumbrances,
although I do not know that that is the fact—(Hear, hear, and
laughter)—but I will assume it to be so. But what is the first thing
that he does? Why he dismisses a certain portion of his establish-
ment, which is a sacrifice of every comfort to him, he thus turns
upon the labour market a great number of fresh competitors.—
(Ilear, hear.) And, my Lords, whatever else may be said against
the landed proprietors of this country, 1 do not think this, at least,
can be la'd to their charge, that they are a class of men who accu-
mulate wealth, but do not spend their incomes, for I think they
spend them an fast as they receive them.—(Hear, and laughter.)
Well then they reduced the number of the employed, and now mind
my Lords what we are told ? Why we are told " True, but you
make no loss to yourselves—you have only to adopt the real prin-
ciples of free trade ?—(Laughter.) Well, my Lords, what are these
real principles of free-trade.—(Hear, hear.) They are to dismiss
" every useless and unprofitable hand. They are to employ no man
beyond what is absolutely required to make profit." They are
to have no consideration for tenants who may have been their de
pendants for the last fifty years—(Hear, hear) —for they say " Oh
it is more profitable to have one large than three small farms ; poor
tenants have not capital, tarn them off—(Hear, hear)—let them go
and starve.—(Hear, hear.) There are above 600,000 email farmers
—at least that was about the number in 1844. But your Lordships
must not stop at that—those are but as many drops in the ocean—
(Hear, hear)—and you must drive them away one and all in corn-
'silence with the wishes of the Anti-Corn-law League. The law im-
poses, however, the exclusive burden on the landowners of the coun-
try of maintaining all the poor manufacturers as well as agricultural
labourers. But, my Lords, I have too good an opinion of the land-
lords to think that they would act upon the principle recommended ;
by the free-traders. I believe that they would continue to give as
much employment as they could. I believe that they know that
they have to deal, not with stocks and stones, but with men—with
men filled with the same feeling, with the same attachment, and with
the same affection as themselves; and I do not believe that, were the
pressure of the most extreme description, the landlords of England
as a body will adopt doctrines of political economy prescribed
by the advocates of free trade.—(Hear, hear.) But, my Lords, if
this system is to be adopted in England, if you venture to recommend
this system in England, will you dare to advise that it should be put
into execution in Ireland ?—(Cheers.) In Ireland, my Lords, the
bulk of the population are small farmers, whose farms vary fram
twelve to thirteen acres at the largest ; they have little capital and very
little skill. They exhaust the land, I admit ; they do not pay you,
admit, but by the application of more skill and more capital you
might extract more from the land. Carry into effect in Ireland your
doctrines of political economy. The landlords are to suffer, but
they may recover themselves; the clearrnce system was denounced
as at the root of half the riots and half the bloodshed in Ireland,
but the doctrine of free trade will require yon to push forward the
clearance system. You may make much more money, you
may preserve yourself from all loss, turn off the farmers of Ireland,
turn off the tenants, give the lands to the capitalists, and the rest of
the population sent off to die of starvation. He would be
a bold Minister who would advise the experiment. He
would be a bold as well as a hard man who would act upon it.—
(Cries of " Hear, hear.") And, my Lords, to tell me the
measure, this repeal of the corn-laws, is brought forward as a measure
to relieve Ireland, of all countries.—(Loud cheers.) Yon may be
told that it is for the relief of England, and that it is for the benefit of
herpopnlatian. I doubt whether it may be so in the long run, but
Ireland is exclusively an agricultural exporting country ; and to tell
us that you are to benefit Ireland by reducing the value of their ex-
ports, by which alone she can obtain the comforts of life and the ar-
ticles of manufactures:which she receives from you ; and that you are
to benefit Ireland by reducing the value of her exports to the value
of a million and a half, or to two millions a year, is a proposition '
which I should venture to put alongside that increased com-
petition tendslto inrease the price of our article,—(Hear.) Lastly,
(and I am quite sure that your Lordships will be very glad to hear
that I am coming to a conclusion), I wish to speak of one branch of
the question, which is of the utmost importance, and particularly so
to me, from the situation which I had the honour to hold.—(Hear,
hear.) I mean the effect which is to be produced by the repeal of the
corn-laws, and the carrying out of the principle of tree trade, and the
doctrine of the removal of protection upon your colonies.--(Bear,
hear.) Now, my Lords, your foreign trade takes a very large amount
of foreign shipping, and a very small amount of British. I beg to
call your Lordships' attention in the first place, to the fact which ap-
pears in the returns of the House of Commons in 1845, namely, that
the tonnage of shipping in the colonies, was 1,273,395; whilst against
that there was entered not one single ton of foreign. Your colonial
trade, therefore, be it what it will, is exclusively carried on by British.
You employ British seamen. My Lords, I will not enter upon the
extent of that trade. It is certain that the number
of exports to your colonies amounted in 1844 to 1,427,0001.
You inviie them to trade with other nations—you tell them that
they may quit the country, and the moment they quit the shores 01
England and land in a British colony, you tell them, you are no
more to us than the Dutchman, the German, or the American.
Trade where you please; you are entitled to no favour from us. Wt
give you 1,0 protection ; we don't seek to impede your trade With
other countries; you are just as much connected with them as with
us. I have heard it put forward that thil measure will benefit the
Australian colonies. I cannot exactly see how this can be done by
this measure. The present duty on Australian corn is ss. a quarter,
and they have the advantage of buying or selling their corn in pro-
tected markets, which you take away from them. Then with refer-
ence to Canals, you passed a Bill last year on the faith of which the
Canadians imposed a duty of 3s. a quarter on American corn. Yor
encouraged her to commence great works, and you lent her money
to do them with, and you are now going to undo all that you hays
done ; you are going to destroy the great communication of the St. ,
Lawrence, and make New York, instead of Montreal and Quebec, the
channels of your trade, and it has been the policy of the Urtitefl
States to pass a Bill encouraging the trade In this direction.
I hope this will open your Lordships' eyes as to the
dangerous policy you are pursuing in attempting to pass this measure.
I hope your Lordships have read the dispatch of the Governor-
General of Canada upon this subject. The Noble Lord then pro•
ceeded to read extracts from the dispatch of Lord Metcalfe the Go-
vernor •General of Canada, which went to show the necessity 0,
continuing protection to the trade of Canada, in order to enable
them to flrhil their engagements with this country. Mr. Gregg
showed that our trade had declined in the various markets of the
world—that the cutlery of Sheffield was beaten by that of Alsace—
that the hosiery of Saxony was 25 per cent, cheaper than that et
Leicester, and that the stocking frames there had been diminished
from 4,590 to 250, and that the only way we could hope to compete
with foreign nations would be by cheapening food, in order to cheaper.
wages. That was the language of Mr. Gregg, and that was the
dangerous experiment they were about to try. Why one would think
the force of "folly can no further go."—(A laugh.) I trust your
Lordships will not be led away by these feelings. lam fully seu-
sible of the great length, and:of the feebleness with which I have
discharged my duties, but I hope that I have the credit of keepint
close to the question—(Cheers)—and that no observation which l
have made was calculated to wound the feelings of any person, but
before I sit down I must be permitted to say a few words to you'
Lordships, who, in your hearts, go with us in the argument, and dis-
approve of the measure at which you are alarmed, yet nevertheless
are prepared to give it your sanction, I can conceive many motives
which would influence highly honourable men. There may be those
who fear the authority of the Commons ; there were others influenced
by the opinions of the Commons, but I ask you how are you to col-
lect the opinion of the Commons? Where is it to be found—is it to
be found in 1842, 1843, or 1844?—(Hear, hear.) Why, I find that in
1843 this measure was rejected by a majority of 113; at anothez
time by 165 ; again by 114 ; in 1843 by 250 ; In 1844 by 209 ;
June, 1845, by 132.—(Loud cheers.) And I find that now a majority
of 98, composed of the same men who then rejected, have assented to
the measure. There were others who disapprove of the measure,
yet from personal feelings to the minister, supported it. I can sym-
pathise with those feelings, but I cannot assent to the justice of then,
—(Hear, hear.) The sacrifice would be ineffective, it would be made
in vain ; there never was a Government which could maintain
itself, when it existed on the sufferance of its opponents, with the
disguised support of ashamed supporters. There might be those who
hoped that it might put an end to agitation ; when was organised

agitation put down by concession extorted? The writer goes on to
say that they must have something more than free trade when the
corn discussion has taken place. An enlightened nation would ask,
what was the benefit of a continued system of taxation levied on the
trade o the country? They would soon ask if it would not be better
to abolish the custom-house system, and to have no excise. To
have boards placed at certain places, where customs were formerly
Lvied, declaring that all nations might land their produce there.
That the operation of the principle of free trade would be extended
to everything. He says, that the friends of free trade must remember
that they had yet got a House of Lords—the stronghold of the aris-
tocracy—who were struggling for something more. Hence the main-
tenance of the present commercial policy, after the settlement of the
free-trade question. The people would have more time to act for
the great principles of universal suffrage. If it was good for com-
merce to be free, it was good for man to be free.—(A laugh.) / beg
the attention of the Right Rev. Bench to what follows. The writer
stated that if it was good to inculcate free-trade in commerce, why
should they not have free-trade in religion?—(Laughter.) Why
should they continue under such a system of ecclesiastical despotism
as the one then prevalent in the country? He believed that the
time was not far distant when the Catholics would ask why should
tht church of Christ be attributed only to one sect ? Freedom of re-
ligion would be one of the laws of the country. Such are the opinions
of many of the advocates of free trade. I cannot conceive any
more unfit sentiment for a good man than the unworthy fear of
being suspected of a dishonouratle motive. De not, therefore, be
carried away by the consideration that your efforts may be attri-
buted to wrong motives. Do not be thrown back on this question
by the consideration or the fear that your endeavours may be
ascribed to a personal interest. You are trustees of far more than
the commercial utility of this question. You are the trustees for the
interests of the people—you are trustees for the constitution of this
country. My Lords, you are each and all of you concerned in la-
bouring for the good of the people. The people have taken their opin-
ions from you —your neighbours have taken the colours of your opin-
tescfcocrutrlalegebdentheftenit oifathtehe
I
opin-
ion, and have looked up to you with respect and deference. You have
after voting for the destruction of all protection, and°
country.o n thatcantyhoe
up present entamongst commercial. system
a result to those who have showur
hours
such
which you charge the Government. Hyatt consent to this measure
abrogating the constitution of you,.lle Be prepared to be looked upon as
to intimidation, and be prepared
to be You will have given in
of the constitution--as the registers aor
tridered a subordinate part
hear.) What Is the the decrees of the House of
of the formation of
Commons.—(Hear,
that House as a part of the constitution ? objectt st and salutary check and obstacle against rash aotidnipncesoen
have alwasisivantiiteldted
asiwstetieslecgmise-
lation. It was to protect the people against thecon :auences of their
expression o'
own imprudence. It was not to resist the continued
deliberate public opinion, for your Lordships
to the expression of such a feeling of enlightend public op
yours to protect the people against their own caprice and the
treachery of those whom they have chosen as leaders.—(Hear, hear.)
If you deliberate on an impartial principle—though you may not be
successful, yet you will not be quite put down. Yon may fail in
saving the people from the threatened evil, but you will have the
approbation of your friends, and the respect of your opponents.
Yon will give time for the intelligence of the nation to act, and sheuld
you happily be successful in bringing the people back to the wiser
counsels ofdeliberate wisdom, you will have the satisfaction of having
discharged the duties imposed on you. You will have performed
your duties, unalarmed by power, and unintimidated by clamour.
You will have saved the country from a serious and hazardous
experiment, and your reward will be the consciousness of having
done your duty ; and you will have another reward arising from the
grateful admiration of a people, who will exclaim with thankfulnees,
" Thank God we have got a House of Lords.—(Loud cheering.)
Lord BROUGHAM said, that he was quite aware it was an un-
usually late hour of the night. —(Cries of " Adjourn, adjourn.") He
should certainly take the sense of the House upon the question of
tile adjournment. They had heard a speech of singular ability de-
livered that evening. —(Cries of " Order, order," and "Adjourn.")
He could not go on with this confusion, for it was absolutely neces-
sary that in order to make others hear him he should hear himself.
Amongst many great advantages which his Hon. Friend enjoyed
over him—advantages which he would not stop to enumerate, he
had an advantage which outweighed all the others together, he had
obtained an influence over a large portion of their Lordships in a
long speech he had delivered. It was a long speech, and yet he
(Lord Brougham) did not feel if to be long, but the clock had shown
it to be long. What compelled him to arise and to address
their Lordships at 'that late hoar of the night was the great
advantage that his friend enjoyed over him. He should not address
himself to those who agreed with him in opinion, but rather to those
who differed from him, and therefore he entreated their indulgence.
He would go to the origin of the present law.—(Some manifestations
of noise being made by several parties at the bar of the House, the
Noble Lord turned round and addressing them), said, if any of the
Noble Lords who had so patiently listened to the Noble Lord
who had j
might ust sat down, were not disposed to hear him,
they • go elsewhere and taste those enjoyments
which he had no doubt they had left when they
came there ; he was persuaded that the House would go on per-
fectly well without them. For the observations he was about to
address to the Reuse, he begged the attention of the Noble Lord.
He (Lord Brougham) would proceed at once to the origin of the
present measure. It was said to have arisen from the :pressure:of
famine in certain districts in Ireland. He doubted the fact of any
general famine in Ireland, though he had heard it so stated, but that
there was a great scarcity in sonle districts could not be denied.
But, says the Noble Lord, this was no reason why they should do
away with protection or open up the ports. But he denied the fact
that such grounds should weigh in the present matter, and he was
ready to abide by the facts in reference to the origin of the present
measure. The Noble Lord said, it was the deceased potatces that led
to the introduction of the measure, but he (Lord Brougham)
said, it was perfectly immaterial what was its origin.
He might say, that in bringing in the bill Sir Robert Peel performed a
reels, impindent, and inexpedient act; that he ought net to have
brought it in in the present year ; and yet, however rash, imprudent,
and inexpedient the introduction of the measure may have been, he
(Lord Brougham) said, if the measure was a sound one, if its merits
were good, it ought to have their support.—(Hear, hear.) He spoke
thus to guard himself from the supposition that he supported the
measure on any extraneous or accidental ground, or that he thought
there was any real or substantial ones for supporting the measures.
But in respect of the rash, extraneous, and imprudent character of
the measure, what was the real cause? A vast number of
persons were reduced to great distress on account of the failure of
the potatoe crops; not only were potatoes bad, but the
people had no other means of paying for food. Were their Lordships
aware of what has happened since the introduction of the measure,
but which the Noble Lord had omitted to mention? The Noble Lord,
however, was surelyaware that one part of the Government measure
respecting corn had been inserted in the Customs' tariff, and by that
arrangement maize had been Imported as it the Corn Bill was passed.
This did not meet the evil of the diseased potatoe crop. The poor
peasants who had lost their usual supply of food, had thus been
supported by the importation. The Noble Lord admitted that he
would have been perfectly ready to open the ports to let in oats duty
free, but had that been done, would not the objection, as had been
stated to-night, that the price would be reduced, thus affecting the
employment of the peasant, of which he complained so much. But
the most successful part of the Noble Lord's speech was that in which
he said that IC they carried the present Bill, it would, while professing
to supply oats at a cheap rate to the peasantry, by competition, so
reduce the value of their own produce, that they would not have the
means of purchasing these cheapened foreign productions, and thus
the object of the measure would be defeated. But has the
Noble Lord forgot his own Canada Bill which he proposed two years
ago, add which he (Lord Brougham) supported at the time. That
was a free-trade Bill—a corn-law-repealing Bill—which reduced the
duty to 3s. per quarter, and allowed the whole of the United States
of America to take their grain into Canada, through which It was
brought into England, where protection still existed, and which was
represented to be so necessary to the welfere of the landed interest.
Thus for the payment of a small duty, without the operation of a
sliding scale, were they allowed to import corns from the
Canadas. Ife did not charge inconsistency to the Noble
Lord, as they were all apt to profit by experience, but
he brought forward this to show that the arguments for
the Canada Bill was applicable to the present measure. On the
proposal of that Bill, they were told of the rapid increase of the
population of every day, adding from 300,000 to 400,000 to the body
of consumers, and that if the measure was not passed, they could not
hope to supply with food this increasing population. The same argu-
ments applied to the corn-laws at all times, and therefore at all
times he and those with whom he acted had advocated this repeal.
He wished he could take the same view of the question as the Noble
Lord had done, as to the reduction that would take place, The
Noble Duke on the cross benches had asked his Noble Friend who
introduced this masa, what the effect of the corn-laws would be.
Looking to the produce of the country, he should have thought it the
most difficult question to answer that could have been propounded.
Why, how could his Noble Friend tell what the demand would be
for an article at the expiration of three years ? It would famish no
conclusion to arrive at to say that wheat was now selling
'in Dantzic at 338. a quarter, that 3s. would probably
be charged for freight, and 2s. for insurance, and that
therefore it could afford to be sold in the London markets at 40s. the
quarter. That was not the question, the question was what effect
the repeal of this law would have upon the Dantzic market? But,
i said his Noble Friend opposite, a great deal of English land would
' be thrown out of cultivation, while a proportionate quantity would
be cultivated in Hungary and other countries, and all this was to be
done in order that they might import into this country half a million
more than was already brought from the mouth of the Danube.
I Now let them consider the value of this observation. A quantity of
forest land would require to be cleaned, they would require to scrub
up the trees, to chain the roots, then to cut them to pieces. They
would require also to fence and inclose the ground, and after all this
preparation it was expected that at the end of three years they
would be enabled to pour into this country at least 5,000,000 quarters
of grain. He did not ask as to the population of Hungary, but he
did not suppose that they increased at the rate of 1,000 a day. And
where was the capital to come from ? In this country a considerable
sum was estimated for the cultivation of each acre, but then a
greatly increased sum would be required. He did not know who the
Noble Lord Liverpool's authority might be (perhaps Mr. Saunders),
but at all events he must have been a very sanguine gentleman to
'bresee an increase of 5,000,000 quarters on the immediate passing of
this Bill.
Lord STANLEY explained that he had stated that this quantity
would be brought into the country not immediately, but at the expi-
ration of the three years.
Lord BROUGHAM said that was the very thing he had said, but
he supposed his Noble Friend was exhausted in consequence of the
brilliant speech he had lately made in the House ; and he would,
therefore, excuse him, but when an opinion of this kind was given he
(Lord Brougham) expected that the person giving the opinion should
be not only a respectable man but a man of some common sense
ilso.—(Laughter.) It was an incredible assertion that in three years,
and he (Lord Brougham) would give three days also, that in three
years and three days 5,000,600 of acres was to be added to the cul-
tivation of that country for the purpose of deluging their markets
and destroying the cultivation of England. And one word with
regard to tenant-farmers. Much had been said of the injury
which had been inflicted on tenant-farmers. They were a class nor
whom the landowners expressed a very great consideration, and he
believed they were sincere in their desire to advance the position of
the tenant-farmer, and to ameliorate the condition of the agricultu-
ral labourer, but if their Lordships would take the trouble to examine
the opinions of those different parties in the agricultural counties of
England they would find that no apprehensions were entertained of
the result that would accrue from this measure. How did tenant
farmers show their alarm of this measure? why, It w,,,, by tsaing
more farms than they had at present, but perhaps it Wlll9 at
i rt reducedof
rents. No such tiring, 1, ing, but rather at increased rents. I p
cdP
fall he
the country he had heard of nothing, but of farms
isn Inbe.t.ng
degree were to the same effect. That prices would to acertain
had no doubt, but that would not take place yet; wheat would be
takenublic at in-
lints
prints
were rents, while he found that the statements
cheaper, bnt it would not be so low as to prove injurious
to the British farmer, while he looked forward to this
measure increasing our foreign trade in a very short period of time.
There never were, even in the years of scarcity, more than
2,250,000 quarters of wheat imported. In the years too and 1501
there were only 1,100,000 quarters, and if 250,000 quarters of flour
were added, the amount of importation would be at once seen. In
eeddi4eto ndthenist country,
oforen It
the year 1810, the greatest year of scarcity, there were 7 500 000
gthueayrtewrserline mad')
import
made
colvasunries
said,
t fhoorwtehveeirr,
supply
yl,t
this would be giving to those
countries the power of starving
them. To that assertion he would point to the year
1810, and he would conjointly ask, did the argument
after the consideration of the circumstances of that
year stand for a moment ? Did they not then See the continent under
the influence of a power which yielded a most despotic sway over
lt, who was influenced by a feeling of ruthless hostility towards
England. Talk to him of the petty sovereigns of Europe--talk to
him of Egypt, Belgium, Antwerp, and the Hague, refusing to supply
the necessities of this country in the day of need. Why,
Napoleon was not then the ruler of Prance merely,
but of every country in Europe, from the centre at Faris,
to the extremities of Europe, he could by his single edict, as he
thought, close the ports of Europe—yet notwithstanding this was so
dear to his heart, completely in accordance with that policy which
he always pursued towards this country—even he was unable to
carry out kis intentions and to deprive them of those supplies which
they required. What was the result ? Why, 1,514,000 quarters of
wheat were imported during the year 1810, and this supply did not
come from the outports nor from distant quarters, such as
Odessa, or Naples, or Sicily, the old granary of Rome—
but 110,000 of the quarters came from France itself.
That at once extinguished—for ever extinguished the argument about
dependence on foreigners.—(Cheers.) His Noble Friend had said that
the protection system was supported by universal consent, and he
had quoted statistics that had been made in the most ancient times ;
but really if he were to quote old statistics—(Laughter)—he (Lord
Brougham) could furnish his Noble Friend many such statistics, were
they not too ridiculous to quote. He could quote him some of the
most absurd provisions which the wisdom, or the ignorant and unex-
perienced wisdom, rather of their ancestors, to which his Noble
Friend had so eloquentlyjreferred. There was the statute against fore-
staller, which was one of the ancient statutes, and with the ab-
surdity of which their Lordships were no doubt acquainted. And
yet that law must have b en deemed by the legislature, by whom the
statute was enacted, to be the height of wisdom. Bat such things
were now abolished, and condemned by universal consent. The
system of protection was suspended in Belgium, in Holland, and in
Egypt, during the autumn of 1845; every one of those places suspended
the operation of the law of protection to native industry; and he
thought that that was but a commentary on the useless and absurd
attempts to interfere with the supply of the food of the people. If
the protective
laws were of any use at all, they must of course be
more useful in the times of scarcity than at any biker
er
time
minin trade nt.—
moms
of
the country be
(Hear, hear.) His Noble Friend then argued that
and
here
would seriously affected by this measure,
he must defend a . Noli his e Friend against himself.—(Hear, hear, and ,
undertake his defence against because
laughter.) He must
and, he
would
himself,
uncharit-
able—he h '
say, more nc
nothing more harsh, more cruel, . .
his treatment of
able—he had almost said more unchristian—than
himself could not have been uttered. He (Lordßrougham) really
pitied him when be was delivering
himself of arguments about the
•
person had so little
tariff: He could not have believed that any
in
his
bowels of compassion.—(Laughter.) The tariff (Lord
opinion, did not deserve the vituperation which it re-
ceived at the hand of his Noble Friend. It never was pretended by
any man that he ever heard argue—any rational man at least—no
such man ever could have arguee that by increased competition
among 'the producers of any article the price of that article would
fall. He . thought it was perfectly evident that increased Competi-
tion amongst the consumers of an article raised the price of an ar-
ticle. But the object of the tariff was to enable us to
obtain cheaper goods from abroad and thereby send our
gouda AdyautageeuSly to foreign markets,—(Seer, hear)