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

GROUP LVI.

The Select Committee appointed to consider the merits of the Bills
comprised in this group re-assembled at the usual hour this morning,
Mr. Stuart in the chair.

LONDON AND CROYDON (THAMES JUNG
TION CANAL).

The clauses in this Bill were settled, amended, and passed by the
Committee.

LONDON AND BIRMINGHAM STATIONS.
The next case taken was that of the London and Birmingham
Company, who were the promoters of a Bill for improving and en-
larging their stations at Camden-town and Euston•square.
chief
The Bill was opposed by several holders of land and houses, whose
property it isT
t wasE
Bir-
mingham Company, stated to the Committee the inconvenience
which was felt at present from the platforms of the Euston-square
i fpNrospooNs!dthteo
erg
ien forengineer-in-chief
i then Purposes of the improvement.
. of the London and
being so restricted that very often some of the arrival trains were
longer than the platform itself. The Bill was for power to remedy
the defect, as well as to enable the Company to erect new offices and
a new departure station for the norther.
Passenger traffic. The im-
provement of the Camden-town station was a couple of slips for
accommodating the goods' traffic.
The Committee declared the preamble to be proved, but the con-
sideration of the clauses was deferred till to-morrow.
The Committee adjourned at four o'clock.

LONDON AND CROYDON RAIL
WAY COMPANY.

A special meeting of the proprietors, shareholders,
and scripholders of this Company took:place yesterday,
at the London-bridge terminus, in compliance with the
sessional orders of the House of Commons. Tho chair
was taken by W. A. Wilkinson, Esq.
The SECRETARY read the advertisement convening
the meeting. _ _ _

The CH—AIRMAN said that they were assembled in
consequence of the resolutions of the Houses of Parlia-
ment. The meeting was merely a formal one, as at a
former meeting the proprietary had decided that the
measures proposed by the Directors were most desirable.
He would therefore propose the three following Bills for
their adoption:—
" A Bill to consolidate and unite the London and
Brighton, and the London and Croydon Railway Com-
panies, and the undertakings belonging to them :"
" A Bill to enable the London and Croydon Railway
Company to construct a Branch to Deptford, and a Wet
Dock and other works connected therewith :"

" A Bill to enable the London and Croydon Railway
Company to make a Railway in extension of the Croy-
don and Epsom Railway to Dorking, in the county of
Surrey :"
The Bills were carried unanimously.
An Um PROPRIETOR wished to know whether the
Duke of Richmond would oppose them?
The CHAIRMAN said, he was not in the Duke of
Richmond's counsel. He had opposed them last year,
but he did not get much by it; so he considered
that he had enough of it. Besides, he considered
he had already as much as he could do on his
hands in another quarter.—(Laughter.)
The CHAIRMAN said that with respect to the third
Bill before Parliament they had been opposed by
the Grand Surrey Canal, and by certain road
trustees, the consequence of which was they were
obliged to omit that part relating to the wet docks. How-
ever it was a matter of no consequence, as they had
made private arrangements with the dock proprietors
which would fully effectuate their objects.—(Hear.)
Mr. SAMUDA then made a statement to the pro-
prietors respecting the atmospheric line. He said,
that since he had last the honour of appearing
before the proprietory, the Company had increased
the number of trains from thirty-two to thirty-nine. The
present expenses of the Company were almost 4/. 4s. a mile.
By the arrangements he was carrying out it would be re-
daced much further. The statements made in the House
of Commons that their cost of working the line was 2s.
10d. a mile was quite false—it was only ninepence and
a fraction, and in the course of a few months
it would be reduced to sixpence. The pro-
gress of the line had been most satisfactory.
In the first fortnight of the year 1843 they had carried
8,500 passengers ; in the first fortnight of the present
and chairman, the meeting separated.
n

Shortly after five o'clock this evening Lord Melbourne
entered the House of Lords, and took his seat in his usual
place on the Opposition benches. His Lordship had not been
in the House two minutes
before. the Duke of Wellington
crossed over and shook hands with him. The Duke and
Lard Melbourne were in conversation a short time.

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.
HOUSE OF LORDS, May 25.
Their Lordships met at ten minutes before Five o'clock.
The House was crowded to excess in every part, and the
greatest excitement appeared to prevail with respect to the
all-absorbing topic—the repeal of the corn-laws.
The Duke of BUCKINGHAM presented a petition from
several occupiers of land in the county of Berko in favour of
the Ministerial measure. The Noble Duke also presented
five petitions from landowners in the county of Yerk and
one from Orkney to the same effect.
The Duke of RICHMOND presented a petition from the
landowners, farmers, tradesmen, and others, in the county of
Norfolk, against the measure that stood for a second reading.
Also a petition from the society for theprotection of agriculture,
signed by the chairman, and two petitions from the county of
Stafford to the same effect.
The Earl of ERROL (as we were informed) appeared and
took the oaths and his seat.
The Earl of RADNOR presented a petition signed by 90,000
of the inhabitants of Yorkshire, and another from Aberdeen,
praying their Lordships to pass the Ministerial measure without
delay.
Lord CAMPBELL presented a petition signed by 26,000 of the
inhabitants of Edinburgh, praying that their Lordships would
pass the Corn-law Abolition Bill, but at the same time ex-
pressing to their Lordships a wish that they would alter their
Bill, because they said that the postponement of that mea-
sure for three years would be extremely dangerous to all
classes of the community. Now he (Lord Campbell) presented
that petition with the greatest pleasure, and further, he might say
that he concurred in the opinion which they expressed, that it
would be better to have the immediate abolition of the bread-
tax than to wait until the expiration of three years; bat he
must at the same time express his humble opinion that it would
be much better to take the Bill with all its imperfections as
they had received it in the House of Commons, than to have
no such measure at all passes by their Lordships.
Earl GREY presented. petitions in favour of the Bill from
Shields, signed by 40,000 persons ; nine petitions from Sun-
derland ; also a large number from Stockport, Bury, and other
towns in Lancashire.
The Earl of HADDINGTON also presented petitions in
favour of the Bill, from Stockport, and from several towns in
Cheshire.
The Marquis of BREADALBANE also presented petitions
in favour of the Bill from Glasgow, Kinros, and other places
in Scotland.
The Duke of RICHMOND presented forty-four petitions
from the county of Wiltshire against the Bill.
Lord LYTTELTON presented a petition from the Rev.
W. Mallett, of the parish of Yardley, in Herefordshire, com-
plaining of the distress brought upon that parish by the measure
which had lately passed their Lordships' House in reference
to tithes.
Lord CHARLEVILLE presented a petition from a place,
the name of which we did not catch, against any alteration in
the corn-laws.
Lord LONDONDERRY presented a petition in favour of
the measure now before the House with reference to corn.
The inhabitants of Stockton-upon-Tees stated that they
would not support any candidate for the county unless he was
pledged to free trade principles.—( A laugh.) With respect
to their petition, which had been presented by the Noble Duke
on the cross benches, he would be glad to say a few words on
it, but as he believed that their Lordships were not willing to
have any observations made on petitions, he would in the
course of the evening take an opportunity of stating very
shortly his opinions upon the subject.
BIRTH OF A PRINCESS.
The Duke of WELLINGTON then rose, and said—My
Lords, I have to announce to your Lordships that her Majesty
was safely delivered of a Princess this day at three o'clock in
the afternoon, and, according to usual practice, I now, my
Lords, move that an humble address be presented to her
Majesty, congratulating her Majesty on the birth of another
Princess, and assuring her Majesty that every addition to her
Majesty's domestic happiness affords the highest satisfaction
to the House of Lords.
Lord MELBOURNE seconded the motion.
It was then put and carried nemine eontradieente.
RAILWAY LEGISLATION.
Earl FITZ WILLIAM said they were now very close upon
the recess, and he was desirous of inquiring of her Majesty's
Ministers what course they intended to take with respect to
railway legislation. Their Lordships would recollect that
some weeks ago resolutions were passed and an Act
of Parliament was proposed, with a view of
what might be called thinning the railways. As far as he had
been enabled to observe, these measures had produced very
little effect. He was, therefore, very desirous of knowing
whether her Majesty's Ministers were prepared to bring in any
measure which should be more efficient. If they should fail to
do so, he should feel it his duty, after the recess, to propose to
their Lordships some measure which he thought would be more
effective. The measure which he should suggest to their
Lordships would be—he was not quite determined • upon it at
present—but what he thought he should recommend would be,
for their Lordships to postpone the third reading of every rail-
way Bill which might be in their Lordships' House, until the
whole number of railway Bills which might come up from the
other House of Parliament should be waiting for a third
reading, in order that their Lordships might take into their
consideration the whole mass of those measures and select
such as they might deem desirable to sanction.
The Duke of WELLINGTON'—My Lords, my Noble
Friend the President of the Board of Trade not having had
any notice of the question is not at present in the House, and
lam unable to give any answer myself. I will let my Noble
Friend know of the notice which the Noble Lord has given.
CORN IMPORTATION BILL.
The Earl of RIPON, in moving the order of the day for
the second reading of the Corn Importation Bill, said,—My
Lords, I am desirous, as much as possible, to compress within
the smallest compass the observations which it will be my duty
to address to the House upon this important question. But,
my Lords, I fear that the very importance of the
question as well as some circumstances of a personal character
connected with it, and applying in some measure to myself, will
compel me, however reluctantly, to trespass longer upon your
Lordships' patience than it is usual for me to do. For thattpa-
tience I ask your Lordships. Ido not, however, ask for your
Lordship? indulgence, because it might have the appear-
ance of fault, or might indicate that I was about
to do something for which I was bound to make excuses and
apologies. But, my Lords, lam happy to say such is not the
case. I have a public duty to perform, and one of which lam
deeply conscious of its policy. I have, therefore, no apologies
to make, but I think I know enough of this House, and have
experienced upon many occasions too much of its kindness to
doubt that the patience I ask will be denied me.—( Hear. )
My Lords, I have stated the importance of this question. I have
always considered it the far most important question which
could come under our consideration, affecting as it did so much
of the social condition and happiness of the country in general.
—( Hear, hear.) Important, inasmuch as it affects one way or
in another, all classes of the community—important, as it is
unfortunately calculated at all times when brought under dis-
cussion to excite warm, if not angry feelings—important be-
cause whilst one party considers it of great injury to the coun-
try, another absolutely insists upon the measure of the law
for their own advantage and interest.—(Hear, hear. )
These feelings have prevailed and do prevail on both sides
of the question, but it is nevertheless perfectly true
that the interests of both these parties to which I allude are in
reality substantially identical, considering the nature of the
question itself,—considering that it refers to the absolute
supply of a sufficiency of food to the people.—(Hear,
hear.) My Lords, I need not say then that
the question is an extremely difficult one,—difficult
the more because of the identy, and because of the difference
of opinion to which I have referred. I say, therefore, my
Lords, that it is a question most important, inasmuch as it re-
lates to the supply of food for the people, while the course
which Parliament has pursued upon it sufficiently indicates
its difficulty.—( Hear, hear.) At one time we have had laws
producing great fluctuations and great scarcity in the supply
of food, and while one party has considered them of the greatest
injury to the country, another has contended that they were ab-
solutely necessary for protecting the best interests of the nation.
I think, my Lords, that those are the circumstances—the ex-
treme difficulty in which this question has been placed. .My
Lords, I have never been insensible to those feelings, and it is
true that I have taken an active part in the discussion of this
subject. It was my lot many years ago, when I held a subordi-
nate situation in the Government of that day, to propose
in my place in Parliament a very important measure
for the purpose of regulating the trade in corn ;
but, my Lords, I am anxious for my own vindication
with respect to the course I have pursued, not only upon that,
but upon many subsequent occasions, and comparing that
course which I feel it to be my duty to pursue on the present
occasion, I think it is but fit that I should explain to your
Lordships what the principles were on which I supported those
measures, and, above all, to show what were net the princi-
ples upon which I recommended them to Parliament.
My Lords, when I introduced, in 1815, the Corn Bill
of that day I did it. I may say this, for it is fair; and it is
now so long since that I can hardly recollect the inferences
that were drawn from the course that I then adopted ; but I
did introduce the measure with the greatest reluctance. I
was not a member of the Government, for I held only a
subordinate situation, and when Lord Liverpool sent to me
his desire that I would introduce the measure, I certainly did
feel this reluctance, and took the liberty of expressing
that I had a great objection to any corn-law whatever. I
thought then—l have thought so ever since—that a corn-law
is in itself an evil—( Hear, hear)—to be justified solely
by the establishment of some paramount necessity
strident in magnitude to overcome our scruples, for, as I have
said, the imposition of such an evil upon the country could only
be justified by the necessity of the times. And, my Lords, in
the address which I took the liberty of making to the other
House of Parliament, in reference to this subject, I stated that
I thought a corn-law was but a choice of positive evils to meet
the difficulties under which this country laboured at the time I
have mentioned. And I proceeded to show the grounds on which
I thought Parliament weuldbo justified in over-riding that objec-
tion, and adopting the measure which I then undertook to propose.
My uords, I did not, however, propose that law ; I never sup-
ported any corn law upon any grounds upon which that system
of policy has been supported by the House. 1 never, for in-
stance, supported the Corn-law, or thought it wise
or even justifiable. I never supported the Corn-laws upon
the ground of any charge being made on the owners of
land, or their mortgages, or settlements and incumbrances,
which they are certainly of that nature. I consider that none
of these matters would justify a measure of that kind, and I
never put any weight on that argument. I am perfectly
aware my Lords that that species of argument in
support of the corn-laws is now pretty generally abandoned.
at least I think it is abondoned by Parliament. It may not
be abandoned elsewhere, but I do think that it is not an
argument upon which any one is now prepared in either House
of Parliament to vindicate the maintenance of any resolution
upon the importation of the first article of necessity in
the way of food. My Lords, I never supported the
eorn-bill upon the ground of its being the part of a great
system of protection to national industry. I never supported it
on that ground. On the contrary, my Lords, I always have
supported the corn-law upon its own especial grounds,
as entirely contradistinguished from, every article of com-
merce, and as standing upon grounds peculiar to itself. Indeed
it would be utterly impossible for me to support the Corn Law
as a part of a great system of national policy with a view to
the uniform and universal protection of native industry, because
I have over and over again laid down an opposite principle with
regard to the principle of protection, and have
shared, year after year, in the earliest measures
of importance of which the object was to break
in upon that principle of what is called protection to British in
dustry, and to get rid, as completely as circumstances will ad-
mit, of the system, first of prohibition, and then of restriction,
which I have always held to be dangerous, not only to the
country of itself in general, but to the veryinterestwhieh that
system professes to protect. And, my Lords, lam n
to admit the truth of the arguments in favour w
i
corn-law
not prepared
system,
because I find that the maintenance of h
Ported and insisted upon because it isit amiparttheof
rotuhnadt
system. I therefore cannot support
me support the corn-laws,g
not
on which we are
tot, but permanently—as the part of a
only at the present m
permanent system, fromownhich you cannot depart, according to
the views of those who support it, without exposing the inte-
rests of the country to very great danger. But I
find it advanced in ythe most positive manner—much more
positively
than I ever heard before, and I therefore immediately
answer and state that that principle I never did support, and
therefore I am liable to no reproach if Ido not support
that principle now. Now, my Lords, I have denied,
sad I now deny, that that is a national principle—
that it is a principle of national policy, at all times and under
all circumstances to do what is called protect native in-

dustry. I cannot think it, because when I come to
consider what the law and policy of this country has
been from time to time it never bee been found to be the
principle ; the Legislature of this country has never laid it.
down; on the contrary, the Legislature of the country has over
and over again been in direct defiance of that principle,
and the instances brought forward had no reference
whatever to it. I had occasion once to state to your Lord-
ships, when we were about to submit for your considera-
tion a measure affecting the tariff in the sear 1844, I had
occasion then to point out what the circumstances were which
gave rise to that which was taken to be the original establish-
ment of that principle of protection. It is quite true that
there were high duties imposed upon articles similar to
those produced in this country. ' The imposition of these
duties had the effect in their operation of being protecting
duties. But when we are called upon to look at
' the question as a principle, we must see the mo-
tive for imposing those duties. Looking at the
case in that point of view, you will find that
in an immense number of instances all these duties were im-
posed as the result of fiscal necessity. The duty of 25 per
cent. additional on the customs' duties was placed solely
for the purpose of revenue, without any considera-
tion to any particular mode in which the impo-
sition of these duties would affect the general
trade or commerce of the country. The duty on timber, for
instance, which is supposed to be part of this great system of
protection to native industry. Why, my Lords,
whatever it may have become at the present
period, it certainly was not so forty years ago. For
the first time that these duties were imposed upon foreign
timber, was in the year 1809. Till that time, the duty was
next to nothing. There was no idea at that time of protecting
the timber, either of our own countries or of the colonies,
by any system of duties of that description. The imposition
of these duties arose entirely from accidental circumstances—
from our being engaged in hostilities with Bonaparte
in the north of Europe. That was the cause, and
ne other ; and the best proof that it was no
other—that it was not a principle to be interwoven
with the commercial constitution of the country—if I
may use such a phrase—that the Act which imposed
these high duties was passed for a period of only
the duration of the war.—( Hear.) They might have been
dispensed with immediately after the expiration of the war;
they were not, however, suffered to do so. lam therefore en-
titled to say that this notion of a large duty being part
of a system formed for the purpose of protecting
native industry is a proposition not founded on nor maintainable
by fact ; and so, my Lords, was it with agriculture,
—the wool trade, for instance. You are aware,
my Lords, that there was no duty at all on
foreign wool up to the year 1819—and what was it imposed for
then ? Why, for the sole purpose of the revenue to be raised
from it. I must certainly know something of that circumstance,
because I moved in the House of Commons at that
period a resolution, from which resolution the imposi-
tion of this duty sprang. The result, I say, of those
resolutions was, in order that the Government might
have a surplus revenue. It was necessary that a sinking
fund should be raised at 5 per cent. in order to meet
this circumstance. This duty upon foreign wool was
imposed, and not with any view to form a part of a protec-
tive system, it was solely for the purpose of revenue.
There were several objectionable restrictions on British wool,
such as preventing it from being removed from one place to
another, which were quite inconsistent with free trade of any
kind, but which were imposed upon that important article
with the notion that ii, was entitled to have a share in a
great universal protective system, upon which so much
stress has been laid. Again, with respect to the
minor articles, such as cheese, butter, &c., they were not
originally liable to any duty more than nominal, and it
was not until the year 1816 that they were proposed.
Perhaps it was a wise measure, perhaps it might
be otherwise, but it was no part of a general system. The
only ground on which I ever looked upon a law as
being necessary, was the apprehension which I most
sincerely entertained that this country would become more
dependent than she of right ought to be upon the produce of
other nations.—( Hear, hear.) I am glad to see that I am
understood, and those were the only grounds on which I have
ever thought a corn-law necessary, and surely that was a
ground which must be liable to question. Whether that ne-
cessity now exist, and whether there may not be circumstances
which make it no longer advisable to continue these restric-
tions, which are certainly grievances, will be the question for
the House to consider. But to go on with the consideration
of this important subject. Some heads of it are almost too
sacred to be touched, as tl-ey constitute a part of the constitu-
tion of this country. Before we come to the conclusion that
the corn-laws are so intimately connected with the poli-
tical, commercial, and financial interest of the country as to
require that they should be maintained permanently, we should
consider their effect in other times. If they are to be main-
tained as a permanent principle, I would wish your Lordships
to consider what has been the course of legislation from time
to time with respect to these corn-laws. During a great part
of last century, great changes did take place, and the law was
more restrictive and :prohibitory—and there existed during
many parts of last century the same alarm with respect to the
condition and prospects of agriculture as is felt at this moment.
I believe that you will find in the publications of that time—
the time of Sir Robert Walpole—pamphlets which describe the
agricultural interest as totally ruined. The landlord is de-
scribed as incapable of obtaining his rents, and the tenant as
incapable of obtaining a due profit on his capital, and ruin was
pourtrayed in its most gloomy character. The result, how-
ever, was that no such ruin ensued, and the agriculture of the
country went on increasing in extent, and meeting more and
more the wants of the country. The first system to which I
shall direct the attention of your Lordships does not go
so far back as the one that I have before spoken of.
I allude to the corn-law of 1791. That law was very re-
strictive in its nature, and so were those which followed after-
wards, of a similarly restrictive tendency. The import duty
was very high, and the duty on corn—at certain prices 503.
was very high ; but they imposed, when it got to 545., a com-
paratively small duty, and when it got to 565. the duty fell to
6s. That system went on for two or three years, but was at
length objected to, as being more restrictive than was advis-
able, but it went on until it was totally overturned by the
serious rise of prices. It was very well'known in 1795, 1706,
and during the subsequent years, that during the greater part
of that century the prices were so enormously high that the
protective portion of the duty had no operation at
all as the prices admitted only of the duty of 6s. being paid.
Now, during the season that followed, the pressure for food
was so severe that Parliament, in order to induce par-
ties to bring additional supplies from foreign countries, gave
bounties, amounting from one million and a half to two mil-
lions of money. This was done that sufficient supplies of corn
might be brought from various parts of the world. The
oppression, however, continued so tremendous, that at last, at
the termination of the war, in 1804, it was found that the Act
of 1791, which at the time was thought to be a perfect specimen
of protective legislation, was of no value at all, as in 1803.
That Act permitted corn to be introduced without being sub-
ject to the duty, on account of the high rate of prices that
ranged. It was, therefore, found that the Act of 1791 was not
sufficiently stringent, and a new Act was introduced, fixing a
high rate of duty until the price of wheat realised 635. when it
was reduced to a small amount. It had to reach the high
price of 635. per quarter before the high duty was reduced
This proposition was not brought forward by the Government,
but it was supported by them, and it was submitted as a mea-
sure necessary for the increase and extension of agriculture,
and to facilitate the production of supplies of food. But this
Act, during a great part of its time was imperative,
on account of the limited supplies in the years succeeding
its enactment, and the consequent high prices that
existed. The pressure on the poorer classes during this period
was very great. At last, at the termination of the war, it was
found that the Act of 1804, which was more stringent than the
Act of 1791, was net sufficiently so to protect the landed in-
terest, and accordingly another scheme was devised—the
schemes of 1791, and the extended scheme of 1804 having been
found worth nothing, instead of the previous law, a new
scheme was devised and adopted in 1815—a scheme which was
not, certainly, popular at the time nor afterwards. Respecting
the events that transpired a short time after the law of 1815
came into operation, I need not trouble your Lordships be-
yond this. But I recollect that that was a subject of much
complaint ; and this complaint, my Lords, did not proceed from
those who originally objected to it, but proceeded entirely
from those who had before been so anxious to pass it. In
the year 1820 it was held to be utterly inefficient for the pur-
poses for which it had been passed. It was not a good law for
its intended purpose, I admit, but the first persons who com-
itpnhlgaeilnyfierads
teipaolefaseftoei
orinbt
tehweenwa
aops robuerrvpoeuorgts
very
eh. eat
on
forward,
fxo
rendering
eoewnur
ayds r
edfr;
nri pgn ei
its
stsBho n
as s s
nw o
A hadcc r
di n-
so,lainw,thwehHicohuyseouerf
Commons,
Lordships will allow was stringent enough, still more stringent.
I opposed it in that House. I opposed in 1820 a motion for
the formation of a Committee to consider this question. I
was beaten, and the Committee was carried; but afterwards
their labours were restricted to the consideration of minor
points. But in a year or two after that Committee was
appointed the subject was thoroughly investigated. The Com-
mittee could not agree upon their report, and Mr. Huskisson
was requested to draw up a report which in his view would
embody the points of the evidence. A report was drawn up by
Mr. Huskisson—a very elaborate report it was—containing a
considerable amount of information and of good reasoning.
That report became the foundation of every alteration in the
law of 1815 • its object being by degrees to relax that law in
favour of the admission of foreign corn at an earlier period
than under the original provisions it could have been ad-
mitted. A law was in consequence brought in in 1822,
which was very much objected to by persons connected
with the agricultural interest ; but the fact was, it
had never come into operation, because it depended
entirely on the principle of corn reaching a certain price,
which price it had never reached. But its inconvenience was
held to be so exceedingly great, that it became necessary to
call upon Parliament to interfere by an Act suspending its ope-
ration. Now, I cannot say much for principles wh;eti require
to be relaxed in a moment of real pressorr. I cannot say
much for the principle of suspension. In 1827 another altera-
tion was made, for in 1826 and the previous years it was neces-
sary, once by an Act of Parliament, and once by the Execu-
tive Government, to suspend the law. The new plan was
devised for the purpose of abolishing all the difficulties expe-
rienced in the antecedent periods, and so as to arrange the na-
ture of protection that the law should be allowed to execute
itself, by having the power of meeting every case, and so cor-
recting the former evils. That was the law which was finally
passed in 1828. It was introduced into Parliament by Mr.
Canning in 1827. It came into the House of Lords in the
course of that same summer, but in consequence of certain
alterations effected in it, it did not pass that year into a law.
There were, however, many circumstances in the details and
practical working of that law which were objects of criticism
and objection. These wore objections of great weight, the
principal of which was the sudden fluctuation in the amount Of
the duty, and the sort of jumping scale that waLersdtas
Finally the law was changed in 1844. Now, y.
interwoven with
this system be one that is so essential, s
1 has been the least
mentioned these changes for the purpose o.fmstiowing that if
,blishhaevde.
reahntly-
all the interests of the country, it
inventedcertay
stable system that has ever be.erthings.for the purpose of
Therefore it is that
maintaining a permanent
_e
plecrofencfean,
sm,
uslte
nrsegt aottfh that,
the
country
gone al theselon g
of capital to the land has been most
the application
improving,
increased—seeing that goirg on at this very mo-
extensively
Lords moreover, that notwithstanding
'ons which have been proclaimed in
all
stmchtuaeel.ntufdt.e—rienelg—i'negenaoll
symptom
patpopmre
tehnasti
gyt h, Lords,
ayg agriculture c eh
-
merit
—n
seexecinitgedthianttthheatcoiusnsttriyll--gnooi tng
know of, at least, and I -
know
Parliamen
and that there is no particular symptom of a decline of a rri
many to the contrary—no symptom of land being thrown out
of cultivation—l confess that I cannot bring !myself to think
that the system at present in existence is essential for the effec-
tual and perfect cultivation of the soil of this country. Then,
my Lords, if we look at this matter as bearing a character for
permanence, the question becomes narrowed to one
sprintcJipletimise,gonsev.e_(
Ironical cheers.) And
dofiffert.imenut the may very reasonably
I do not think that it is a re
ph opinion the time for abolition s come. It is as a question
of time that we are bound to consider it. Now, my Lords,
there are, however, some circumstances that have a
particular'
bearing upon the question of time. First of all, my- Lords, I
will allude to that which I consider to be the most important
argumen at te bottom of tis queston, namel, e reat,
the rapid, the uncontrolled, h
and the uncontrollable incgrease
in the population of this country. my That,
Lords, is a se-
rious matter. It is perfectly well known that the tendency in the
increase of population is to decrease the means of subsistence.
That, my Lords, I believe to be a maxim which no one will

deny, for it has been established by the soundest reasoning to
he an indisputable fact that the increase of the population of
this country is not upon a geometrical or arithmetical ratio
with tar merPase .1-1 the produce of the land. Nothing can be
more clear than this, and the population has so increased as to
render it impossible for the land of this country to meet the
demand for food. The increase in the population is admitted
to be from three to four hundred thousand a year, and the ratio
of that increase, I may say, increases every year.--(Hear.)
Although the application of capital to land—although the in-
, creased skill of the farmer—skill which he applies admirably—
although these things have tended greatly to increase the
quantity of corn produced in this country, so far as to meet in
a certain degree the increase in the population, it is a remark-
able circumstance, that during the last few years, although
prices have not been high there has been a regular importation
for consumption of a great amount of foreign corn. Now I
want to know, if that corn was not wanted, how came it to be
sold ? How came people to go on year after year importing
large quanties of corn, if they did not think there was a
chance in the market for bringing it into consumption? The
consumption, then, year after year, of this corn clearly proves
that the population has outstepped the means of production in
this country.--( Hear, hear.) Well, there is another circum-
stance applied to this question, upon which considerable dif-
ference of opinion exists—it is the circumstances in which Ire-
land has been placed ; but I for one do not wish to lay particu-
lar stress upon the distress in Ireland.
The Duke of RICHMOND--Then you throw everything
over ?
The Earl of RIPON—No. My arguments may be wrong,
but you will observe, my Lords, that 1 do not rest the ques-
tion upon one state of things, or upon one argument alone.
It is sufficient if I show, without pledging myself to support all
the opinions of Sir Robert Peel, that the distress in Ireland is
not the particular thing on which I lay the greatest stress, but
at the same time, I do think it has a very great bearing on
this question, and a very serious one too. My Lords, the de-
ficiency of food in Ireland is not exactly the same thing as the
deficiency of food in this country; as a deficiency of that par-
ticular food, on which so great a mass of the Irish people live,
must involve indescribable misery and wretchedness, a wretched-
ness and misery which would not apply here. Why is this? In
Ireland those who suffer by the failure of that crop—l may sal
ninety-nine out of every hundred of those who live upon st-
are persons who have not the resources and the good wages
which the labouring classes here enjoy. The wages in Ireland
are comparatively low, and there are hundreds of thousands who
do not depend upon the wages of their labour for their sup-
port, but on that' which they may obtain from the small partials
of land they cultivate ; and that is one of the reasons why
there is so great a demand for land, and why so many evils
arise in a season of scarcity, because those who depend almost
solely for a subsistence are the poorer classes. The evils that
flow from this system are enormous, for they have nothing to
fall back upon but charity—for they are charitable to one an-
other, so long as they have the means of doing so. But when
large masses of the population, living in the same way, and sup-
porting each other by the same means, are overtaken by a
season of scarcity, they virtually have no means of subsistence.
It is stated that there is no famine in Ireland, as there is no de-
ficiency of oats and beef; and that thousands of tons of quarters
of corn are coming to this country, while the people of Ireland
are stated to be starving. But why do they send them to this
country ? Because there is a market here where they can sell
them, for they have neither employment nor money te pur-
chase them for their own use.—(Cheers.) If they have no
money nor employmeet which them with...foe:ll,
- . .
when purchasers cannot be obtained for it in their own mar-
kets, it cannot fail to come to this country, though under better
auspices it would remain in their own. But that does not make
their wretchedness less. I say the existence of such
a state of things in Ireland raises the question, whether
it would be fit for the Government to exercise
the power which they might have exercised to violate the prin-
ciple of the law, and to have sanctioned the importation of
foreign corn to feed the people. Such a course should not be
adopted unless it could be justified to the mind of every reason.
able man. My Lords, when this subject was discussed about
opening the ports for a limited time to. meet this particular
distress, those who are opposed to the repeal of the corn-laws
said—." We are not disposed to object to that." But, my
Lords, I wonder that those who are prepared to take that
course would agree to that suspension of the operation of the
corn-laws, for the principle of the existint, corn-law is that it
will meet all cases, because the duty would fall in proportion as
the prices rise. And if we had acted exactly in that way,
there is no doubt what would have been the consequences that
would have followed. But when you agree to suspend the
operation of the corn-law you condemn its principle, because
you could not but admit that it would be impossible for you to
revert to the old system, which was proved to be incapable of
maintaining itself. Now, my Lords, I contend that the only..
ground upon which this measure for the removal of the restric-
tions upon the importation of foreign corn can be opposed is
that of the risk of throwing land out of cultivation.—(Hear,
hear, and a cry of " That is only one of them.") Now that,
says a Noble Friend near me, is only one of the arguments. No
doubt in his view, and those who concur with him, it is only
one of the general objections which exist against any alteration
whatever, but in my view it is the only one—( Hear, hear)--
the only one which I have ever relied upon, and, therefore, the
only question which appears to me to be of any importance is
this argument. Now, I cannot—l never have been able—to
ascertain upon what grounds it rests, and to what extent it it
likely to go—what species of land is likely to be thrown out
of cultivation. I never have been able to ascertain this yet,
but I know that it has been stated that very large tracts of
country would cease to be cultivated ; and that has been
illustrated by reference to particular districts. Now,
of one particular district that has been alluded to as likely to fall
back into its original barrenness, and capacity of producing
nothing but rabbits, I wish to say a few words. Now that
part is as much indebted as any portion of the United Xing
dom to the spirit and energy of the tenants, and there can be
no doubt that it is a most pleasing spectacle to any person
who traverses that country to see what a difference there nose
is in that district. There is an account of it written by the
Hon. Member for Berkshire, in the Royal Agricultural
Journal, in which he describes very beautifully what it then
was and what it is now ; and points it out as reflecting
honour equally on those to whom the land belongs and those
who rent it. But it is not stated by the Hon. Member that,
in his opinion, this land will be thrown out of cultivation by
repealing the present corn-laws. It has been referred to as a
proof to what extent cultivation has been carried on • but an
inference may be sought to he drawn that, if the corn:laws are
repealed, this land will relapse into its original sterility. Ido
not think any result of the kind will take place. All the land
that I possess in that county was either upon a mere heath or a. fen. It has generally been let to small farmers, it is much to
the advantage of those who may have the good fortune to
possess any portion of this estate that this land has
been so effectually cleansed and cultivated. I know the
persons who rented the soil in the years 1809, 1810, 1811, and
1812, when this great change took place, applied their capital
liberally towards the cultivation of these lands, and it has
gone on with the same spirit until it has now become one of'
the most beautifully farmed districts in the whole county. r
certainly have heard nothing of any apprehension on the part
of the occupants in that part of the country, that this law is to
deprive them of the means of making a fair return on the capi-
tal invested by them. I have heard no complaints of that
kind. I have heard of no desire on their part to give up
farms on this account; but so far from that it does happen, that
a certain portion of the estate which belongs to me had during
the last six months become vacant, and in the midst of all
these discussions, in the midst of all these alarms, and all the
difficulties which are said necessarily to follow on the carrying
out of these measures proposed by Government, it has been my
lot to be able to let a considerable portion of that land, not
at a reduced rent, but positively at a considerably increased rent.
What stronger proof can there be that these parties do not an-
ticipate these alarming results from the passing of these measures..
I do not see any proof that this apprehension is well founded.
The people must be fed ; and it did not follow because foreign
nations sent in their corn, that there would not be an increased
spirit and energy in the production of it in this country, when
the demand for it must be so extensive. I do not know whether
it is necessary for me to enter into any details respecting this
measure. It is perfectly well known to you what its provisions
are; and there is, I believe, only one part of it upon which
any division of opinion exists, and that it is whether the deter-
mination be immediate or not. The law as it at present stands
gives a modified protection. Indeed, I do riot know whether
I should be apprehensive if it should pass immediately. Yet,
at the same time, I think it is wise that it should be as it is;
and whether or no, the advantage which should be gained by
its immediate operation, would not be sufficient to counter-
balance those which will accrue by its continuance for the spe-
cified time. And now my Lord, I feel—painfully feel—the
imperfect manner in which I have attempted to argue this
question. I cannot suppose for an instant that any of the
observations which I may have made to you would produce
anything like a conviction that it was wise to adopt this mea-
sure, or produce a change in those opinions which,
after full consideration, you entertain. But I will
say this, that I do not, nor can I admit, that
I ought to feel any shame for having taken
on myself to support and introduce this measure to your Lords.
ships; and though I know it is inconsistent with what I have
formerly done, and it may be said it is inconsistent with opinions
which I have formerly uttered, I take no shame to myself,
because the only shame that can be felt for a change of opinion
is when it proceeds from a bad motive. I can only say that
am not conscious of being influenced by any bad motive its.
making these statements. I do so from a solemn conviction
founded on much and deep refection—reflection stimulated by
the necessity of taking into consideration the solemn convic-
tion that I am not proposing to your Lordships to adopt any
measure calculated to injure any of the interests of this country,
but a measure calculated to do good to them all. I may have
forfeited the good opinion of many who have thought well of
me. I may be supposed to have abandoned unnecessarily a
cause I have always supported, and which many friends of
mine have honoured me by saying that I supr,rted well.
When I supported it, I did it because I thought it right, and
hich acted because my conscientious conviction went with it; and w,
I came to the conclusion that the reasons on fair in not now exist, at least I hoped that I usl&at
this Bill •
ended this as one in
stand in the
eyes of your Lordships when I recommended
move
The Duke of RICHMOND said,.this
my
day six
therfore')
se t
o
the welfare of which you are all equally
that this Bill be read a second
etaimsnre which is more likelyast
feel in my conscience that aSo interested.
Lords,
mouths,r
will be most
British agriculture, and
a measure, the effect of
whichnver been proposed dangerouse to the
national greatness,
(Hear, hear ) f%F.
I Lords, lore in your
think that
effect the total overthrow of
Lordships' House.
of complaint against my
we have just cause
Noble Friend, who
t down—that he has not told your Lordships what
has just sa_
the average priceof p 3
in his opinion
corn will be—( Hear,
hear)--if thig measure shall ever come, r
un,ortunately, to
pass into a law. My Lords, rash and blameable as I
think
111 inisters are, I cannot think, or believe them to have been ',so
reckless as not to have formed t• some e
effect of their own proposal. If
the imate as to the possible
do they withhold from this riouave done so, I ask them
House that information so
necessary for the better deliberation
and consideration of this
question ? It is most difficult f
the conduct and proceed' or me to account in any way for
trigs of her Majesty's Ministers since
last session of Parliament, and more •
particularly in the me-
morable month of November last. The only surmise I can
make is, that the calculations on this measure were not sub-
mitted to the Cabinet until it was pledged by her MajestY's
speech from the throne. The Noble Lord has not laid est the
table of the House a cab:elation, the effect this measure will
produce in the price of wheat, and it is the first time that
a Minister of the Crown has proposed such a great
change without making such a calculation as that
I have referred to.—( Hear, hear.) The Noble Lord in
the course of his address has not made the slightest
reference to this point. He has gone back as far as the altera-
tion in the law of 1821, but he said not a single word as to the
measure of 1842—(Hear, hear, and cheers)—yet that is the
Bill which the Government now propose to change.—( Hear,t
hear.) They do not propose te alter the law of Ix2l, but, Noble
Lord the Act of 1842 ; yet, respecting that Act, the Noo
Lord has not spoken a single syllable.—( Hear, hear.) But on
a former occasion—and Ido not mean to make a personal_aat_
_
at-
tack— lie expressed himself in a different manner to what beat
c
done to night. I hope the Noble Lord will excuse me if I n
speech of his couched in language much better than I an ex-
press. I recollect the first speech, in 1815, made by the Noble
Lord when a Member of the House of Commons in support of
the measure then proposed. He said, in proposing the
omes.
sure, that, looking at the principles upon which the affairs
the country had been conducted, they were not then to argue
t
for the first time whether restriction or not should prevail, for
0,
not only the trade in corn, but all the other great branches
trade had been conducted from time immemorial on this re..

strictive system.—( Cries of " Hear, hear.;)—That,therefpre,,
they were not discussing first principles, or for the first time'
arguing whether restriction should or should not exist but

A

the benefit of another class, who had proved themselves upon
all occasions to be of all classes the most disloyal, most turbu-
lent, and most seditious.—(Hear hear.) The last night that
Lord J,,hri Rus,tll wa, leader in the liou-e of Commons he
gave notice of his intention to bring forward a measure for a
fixed duty of Bs. on the importation of all description of foreign
grain. That notice (for it was only a notice) was met with
evident marks of disapprobation, not only on the part of the
Conservative members of the House of Commons, but also of
many of the principal Whig members, although they had on
all other occasions given their support to the Premier.
There was no person more against that measure than the
Right Hon. Baronet at the head of the Government. No
sooner was the notice given by the Government than he assem.
bled a number of his political associates at his own house, and
consulted with these persons as to what was best to be done in
order to save the country from these ealamities. There were
several Lords in that House who, as well as himself, were
present on that occasion. The result of those deliberations
was, that Sir Robert Peel should bring forward a motion of
want of confidence in the Government. That motion he
brought forward, and made, as usual, a very able speech ; but
he rested his case upon two points—first, the proposed altera-
tion in the sugar duties, on which the Government had been
beaten by a majority of 40 ; the other point was the proposed
alteration in the corn duties—a fixed duty of Bs. in lieu of the
existing sliding scale. After four or five nights ee-
bate, this motion was carried by a majority of
one, there being 312 in favour of the motion, and
311 against it, which, with the 4 tellers, made 627 who voted
on that on that occasion, being the largest number who ever
voted in the House of Common-4. He (the Duke of Cleve-
land) might assume that his vote had turned the scale ; it was
quite clear, however, that if he had voted the other way, the
Government would have had the majority. He challenged
any person to prove that he had ever given two votes in direct
contra-distinction to each other, or that he had ever given one
upon ether than conscientious motives. It was with this view
that he belonged to party, and though he had always belonged
to party, he had not always belohged to the same party--( A
laugh)—and he could assure their Lordships that it was not
because the name of one party was Peel, and the other Rus-
sell, that he supported the former, but because he believed
the principles of the one were better than those of the other.
But he had no hesitation in saying that if he could have fore-
seen that the very same Minister would have, after flee years,
changed his opinions—he who was the keystone of Conserva-
tism—he need not tell their Lordships that he would sooner
have cat his right hand off than have given the vote he did.
There was no doubt that the opinions of the Right Hon.
Baronet were very able, but after all they were the very same
he himself had answered when Mr. Cobden had urged them on
him three years after. He would inform their Lordships that
he was favoured with a perusal of this Bill previous to the
meeting of Parliament. He did not complain of the informa-
tion being given to him individually, but he must say that
before a great measure of this description was proposed—
a measure which would make such a change in the policy of
this country and of the Government—he thonght it was the
duty of the Government to have asssembled their friends in
both Houses. and to have given them information of their in-
tended measure, and of the power they had of enforcing it.
He was told that the Right Hon. Baronet, by pursuing those
arguments which: it was known he could use so plausi-
bly, had converted a number of wealthy landowners
to his own views. He was not one of those
who would find fault with the opinion of any man, nor had he
a right to do so, but he did not concur in the opinion given.
The wealthy landowner did suffer by this measure, but the
greatest sufferer would be the small landowners and country
gentlemen.—(Hear, hear.) Another class of sufferers would
be the one which ought to be, and was, the pride of the
country--he meant the yeomanry, who derived incomes of from
2001, to 3001. per annum from landed property ; and whatever
reduction this measure would make on the amount of their
produce, from 10 to 20 or 30 per cent. would inevitably fall on
these yeomen.—( Hear, hear.) The next class of suferers
would be the tenant-farmers ; and with respect to that subject
he had heard of an argument so absurd that he was sure that
it would not be used in that House. He had heard it said that
this was a landlords' question, and that it would not make the
least difference to the tenant. In South Briton, in conse-
quence of the management of the land there, this measure
would make a material difference. The tenant took a farm
from his landlord, paying all dues and taxes, not excepting the
property-tax, the amount of which he was allowed to deduct
from the rent. He took all risks of season and disease in the
crops, and the surplus money which remained on the sale of
the stock and the payment of all expenses, was divided between
the landlord and tenant, the latter taking all the risk.
Very few landlords received more than a fourth of the produce
of the land in rent. Let themstake a farm of 3001. rent yearly,
this measure, he was pursuaded, would reduce the gross pro-
duce of such a farm 201. per cent. This would leave the rent
240/., while the 900 e, which was the property of the tenant,
would be reduced to 7201. Thus it appeared, that while the
measure would take 180/. from the tenant's 9001., it took but
60/. from the landlord. He now came to another class that
would be effected—the agricultural labourers. He was per-
suaded that the effect of this law would be to throw tens of
thousands, he might almost say hundreds of thousands, out of
employment. He could net see how the poor lands were to be
maintained in cultivation ; and if so, those who were employed
upon them, would be sent adrift. The tie between the
labourers and the farmers, by which the former had
his root in the soil, and which existed in no other
trade or branch of industry, would be torn asunder, and they
would have no loner found them the means of subsistence by
their industry. Not only would the labourers on many tracts
of land be sent adrift, but the farmers engaged in the cultiva-
tion ,of superior lands would employ a less number of hands
then they did at present. Just in proportion as land was
thrown out of cultivation, the number of factories and mills
would be increased, and then employment would be given to
the labourers who would be withdrawn from the land. He
hoped their Lordships would pause before they passed the Bill
for the displacement of labour. Let them contrast the agricul-
tural labourer, who lived it might be in a small, but certainly in
an independent manner, who resided in the bosom of his
family, and breathed the healthy dews of the morning—let
them contrast him in this state with his condition if removed
to a manufactaring town, breathing the atmosphere of a room
where sick and healthy huddled together, where in winter he
could not see the sun at noon day; vet this was the
condition, it was proposed to transplant the agricul-
tural labourer to, in the event of the passing of this Bill,
The small tradesmen in country towns, the small shopkeepers
and artizans, who derived their subsistence from the landowners
or labourers, would be materially injured, and after them came
another class of persons of a superior sort, who were not un-
worthy of their Lordships' consideration, he meant the paro-
chial clergymen ; no class would suffer more by the passing of
this Bill than they. The landlords might in some degree be
compensated for their loss by an improved system of as But the parochial clergyman was bound down to a cer-
tain quantity of wheat, no matter how the prices might vary in
the market. He had no hesitation in saying that an attempt
would next be made by Sir Robert Peel and his party on the
Irish Church.--( Hear, hear.) A clamour bad been raised
against the Irish Church, and if on this question the Legis-
lature were called upon to concede to clamour, he contended
they must yield to clamour hereafter on that and all great
questions.—( Hear, hear.) And after the Irish Church had
been destroyed, an attempt would be speedily made to destroy
the Church.—( Hear, hear.) If this measure were passed
they would find that both one Church and the other would
be destroyed in a very few years, and he did con-
jure their Lordships to pausebefore they gave
their assent to such a measure. The House of Lords
had always stood in a high estimation, and he hoped that by
their conduct on this occasion, they would not forfeit their high
character. They all knew that a building, not very tar from
their Lordships' House, was often infested with a peculiar sort
of vermin—( Hear, hear)—but he hoped that such vermin
would never be seen running across their Lordships' House, He
begged to apologise to their Lordships for having so long tres-
passed upon their attention. He hoped that if he had animad-
verted in any strong manner upon the Government, he could
assure them it was not with a view of giving offence to any of
its members. Nothing could be further from his intention.
But placed in the independent position which he occupied, and
which he hoped he should ever maintain—(Hear, hear)—he
considered it his duty to call upon their Lordship to defend
those interests on which he believed depended the peace of the
country at large, and the welfare and the prosperity of the whole
community.—(Cheers. )
The Marquis of LONDONDERRY felt anxious to address
their Lordships for a short time, with respect to what had fallen
from his Noble Friend (the Noble Duke on the cross benches).
He felt called upon to do so, because they were inhabitants of
the same town, and in a great measure connected
with the same county. He had not defaulted
to be present in their Lordships' House when his Noble
Friend presented the petition from the county of Durham, for
he would have wished to say a few words on its presentation.
His Noble Friend would, no doubt, admit, that the meeting at
which that petition was agreed to, was held before there was
an explanation of her Majesty's Government as to the course
they intended to pursue upon this question. The meeting was
held at an early period after the publication of Lord John
Russell's letter to the electors of London. It was the first
meeting, he believed, held in England on the subject of the
corn-laws, after the publication of that letter. The meeting
was only partially attended, and many of the Noble Duke's
own tenants were present at it. After a canvas through the
whole county, the total number of signatures attached to the
petition was two thousand and three or four hundred. Now,
considering that Durham consisted, he believed, of about
12,000 registered farmers, there being 7,000 in one, and be-
tween 4,000 and 5,000 in the other division, he thought that
a petition signed by 2,300 only, could not represent the feelings
of the people of the county of Durham. He believed that
the people of the North of England generally entertained a
very strong feeling as to the desirableness of this measure. He
confessed he had not mixed with the farmers of this country as
mush as his Noble Friend (the Duke of Richmond), but he
thought he might say, that Sir R. Peel didon the whole,
posssess the confidence of the people of this country, He
could assure his Noble Friend that he had mixed with
the farmers of his own neighbourhood, and the majority of
them were of opinion, that although this measure might be of
a momentary injury to them, yet that it would ultimately lead
to the prosperity of themselves and their fellow countrymen ;
and considering that the Government of which Sir Robert
Peel was the head had so prosperously ruled the destinies of
this country, he thought that it was not asking toe much of
their Lordships, by voting for this measure, to secure the ser-
vices of such an eminent political leader.--( Hear, hear. )
Their Lordships would find that there were Conservative pro-
tectionists and Conservative free-traders, and that this question
was by no means a party one, but that it was divided between
those who were interested in agriculture on the one side and
commerce on the other ; and it was most unfortunate for the
country that it should be placed in its present position between
two powerful contending parties. Exaggerated statements had
been made en both sides of the question, and it was necessary
to judge deliberately upon it. He gave the highest credit to
the Noble Duke for the ability he had displayed in
his speech that evening. He (the Marquis of London-
derry) would not follow him; but he had, at the
same time, an opinion of his own. He found
that those individuals with whom he had usually acted in public
life, who one and all supported the country, and brought it safe
from all its difficulties during a long crisis, had ,thought it ex-
pedient to change the system by which the country had here-
tofore been governed upon this point. Change was no reproach.
shipschheledrinvghtefrdoforthforeep,tortaedeetioonni,at
theironoGr dr
e a
t
trade
many converts to free in their Lordships' House were to
politics? The Noble Duke
Peers.) Only six had voted; and would it be said that the
be reproached for their change in
pHroewviomusanoyecoafsi
h of the Noble Earl
he fancied he had made.—( Hear,
upon the great triumph which
thought that he
hear. ) He (the Marquis of Londonderry)
had quoted Hansard, in answer to the speech
the President of the Board of Control, and hod plumedan
d shimselfshow
could, if he wished, make use of the same weapons,
his Noble Friend that he too had not always been
consistent in his political conduct.—( Hear, hear. )
Such changes as had been adopted by the present
head of the Government had brought forward
great statesmen. (Ironical cries of " Hear, hear.")
In the words of the Noble Duke, he could wish to ask how fs
the Queen's Government to be carried on if this measure did not
receive the sanction of the Legislature? The Noble Duke had
b
stated that Sir Robert Peel had lost the confidence of the
country, but he (the Marquisnish of Londonderry) knew this, that
titirsin Noble tille°
Friendlaattwelve months not a murmur had been raised
by the people of this
had
country against his political measures.
conceived that this ed his speech by stating that he
measure would lead to the destruction of
the church. Now he (the Marquis of Londonderry) could
only say in answer to that, t hat Sir R. Peel- had distinctly
stated, on the 28th March, to the Whig party in the House of
Commons that, although they happened to agree with him on

they were considering's euestion in agreem` ut with a policy which r the large masses of their fellow-subjects.—(Hear, hear.)
had been veto-' noon for a long Period, and which would not be I It is incumbent on you, not only upon this highest duty of all,
done; -av who, with,,ut oeragioning a dreadful revulsion. The , but also incumbent upon you, from reasons of exped;encv. My
' Lords, the Anti-Corn-Liu League are cart) Jr,g- on the agitation
question we- how to carry out a measure in agreement with
the circumstances in which the country was placed.—( Hear, with a view of destroying the Church, impairing the constitu-
hear.) These (continued the Noble Duke) were the grounds tion of this country, changing the constitution of this House.
on which the measure of 1821 was recommended to the House My Lords, you will be powerless if you do not possess as here-
by Mr. Robinson,—(Laughter.) I will now call the atten- tofore the good opinion of the great body of the middle classes
tion of your Lordships to another speech made, not by Mr. of this great country. 1 tell it to your Lordships with perfect
Robinson, but by the Noble Lord. It was made in 1841 in respect, this will be the consequence except you do maintain
this House, when the Noble Lord was not sitting on the Minis- that good opinion, and you cannot maintain that good opinion
terial bench, and he would read a short extract from it. Ido if this great body find you voting against your former promises,
this to show that the Lord Ripon of a former day was not the and against your former pledges ; and if you have not them with
Lord Ripon of to-day, and that I conceive him better entitled you, you are powerless. In conclusion, I will only, though at
to be followed then than now. The Noble Duke then read the the same time most earnestly, implore your Lordships to vote
extract which was to the following effect :—" Looking at the against this measure, because I believe that it is (if you do not
motives and principles by which men are governed, he could reject it) accepted only as an instalment of future and still
not think of abandoning all the settled political rules upon greater changes ; and I ask your Lordships now, at the out-
Which they had hitherto acted. It appeared to him that the posts, to fight your battles, or else, depend upon it, you will
Government scheme was both vicious and fallacious." There have a difficulty hereafter in showing a proper front.
was no word there of Lincoln-heath. "He could not doubt that —( Hear. ) My Lords, I vote against this Bill, be
under the operation of the new corn-law a considerable portion
lieving upon my honour that it is a measure which
of the country would be thrown out of cultivation."—( Hear, is only the first attack—that it is a measure which will shake
hear.) But if you wait a moment you will get to Lincoln- the foundations of the Throne, cripple the Church, and en-
heath—you only require to allow me the next sentence or two, danger our institutions, and convert a hitherto happy and con-
" The evil once commenced no one could see where it would tented people into wretchedness and misery ; and because I
stop, or what disastrous consequences would result from it.,, believe it will lead to endless confusion and anarchy, and
So that my Noble Friend looks forward to the light-house being that your Lordships are now called upon to make that stand
useful after all.—(Laughter.) Now, looking to another speech which I humbly hope you will do.—( Cheers. )
of my Noble Friend's, a speech made in 1842, and here he Earl FITZWILLIAM and the Marquis of LONDONDERRY
takes a different view of the question, " The great evil which I both rose together, but in consequence of the calls of the House
the Marquis of Londonderry gave way.
Earl FITZWILLIAM then said that his Noble Friend li
anticipate from the adoption of the principle that all restrie-
who had just sat dot.owrn,7idhaandle read, at twheitchonwehlukshionheof
hhaids
tions on foreign corn should be withdraw is this, that the
people of this country will be compelled to depend on other
threatenedrf He
h ou a
theirt hi
s NLoohrl de
Friend
se
ni
df they
d consented
have
doneto thiswel l
if
h e measure.had
nations for the supplies of food, not to meet any occasional de-
ficiency, but to depend altogether on other countries for the
ore distinctness the grounds upon which he
main portion of their supplies. Such dependence is indeed
thawtittillihmeir Lordships acquiesence in these measures
hanging upon a broken reed, for they would ever be in danger
wouldep. i netteetdel
edoag
dut
to su • formidable results. He (Earl Fitzwilliam )
of a failure of those supplies." No one doubted that " the pro-
entertained noneh of these apprehensions. He was still willing
gress of agriculture, for many years past, has been most re-
markable ; the progress is not, indeed, able to keep pace with
mteeastuhri
the people, but with a little addition from foreign countries, we
He
dt any reference to these fears which he has thundered
may, indeed, be said to rely upon our own resources. For my
wed nursed in his mind, in order to alarm your Lordships
ease, it is not necessary to enter into the cost of agricultural
products in this country. That cost has become higher than in
any other country in Europe." That is true—it was true then, would pass to a consideration of the measure, and should
and it is true at this time. It is quite true that the cost of ag- not go into any part of his Noble Friend's speech, nor should he
ricultural produce is higher here, but this would not be the trouble himself with its details, but he could not help ey. g
case if it were not for the particular and heavy burdens'to which that they had a right to expect an explanation of the
state of
, ,
consequent
sure.lalnedfrsoce he
imenu
condescended
mightfner
the land is subjected. "If we take away protection from the things which should exist consequent on the passing of the mea-
homesth occasions—and
fenamads
ei
have
measure,
andevt didsaoe_sui
anardfne
od,dnrr
moe
he
est deceiveaddressed,
dwe
,awil
thehoaauptmsrheseai
stsmnae
ton,
oefthf
ooi r
,IsfeaaeNrrgal Noble
things
iaboeml
nex
e,
experience—
too,
would
0: i eet
however,
hvei
ebc_o
which
producer, you will cause the withdrawal of a
considerable portion of that produce from the land ; at a time,
too, when you may not be able to depend on support from
foreign countries; and you will also withdraw the use of that
capital which is invested in the land thrown nut of cultivation.
he leaped to a conclusion, and called on them to go at once'
There my Noble Friend appears to have been drawn to admit
from restriction to free trade. He
must defend the Noble
this point. It was stated by some of the Members of the
House that it was not the intention of the Government that Lord from any charge of inconsistency, because he had not only
the Bill of 1842 should be a final measure, and thereupon my now, but on former occasions, expressed himself as adverse to
Noble Friend says, "If we can imagine that the Ministry had any duty on the import of foreign' grain. However, the warfare
been guilty of the crime of endeavouring to deceive the was concluded. He had been long enough engaged in it, and it
people of this country on this subject, I can only say that they gave him the greatest satisfaction to contemplate the time of
will be guilty of one of the most miserableas well as base peace when this Bill would pass, for he could not contemplate
political vices of which a Ministry can be considered capable." that a time would come when the Noble Lord upon the Wool-
-(Loud cheers.) "I am convinced that this Bill will be re- sack would propose a revival of the corn-laws. He was not
c.‘enizeteLbytt
_yxvou,,,aj. a satisfactory adjustment of this great one of those who believed that any disastrous consequences
would accrue to their Lordships from the measure. His •
nestereees sr ell, it appears that my Noble Friend the 'Nome . opi-
nion was quite the contrary; and, from circumstances which
Duke on the cross benches (the Duke of Buckingham) was
not satisfied with that declaration ; and what answer did m had come to his knowledge whilst the measure had been de-
Noble Friend opposite make to him ? He certainly had not
bated in another House, which strengthened him in that opinion,
y the arrogance to state that any law Parliament should pass he must speak his mind on this subject. He was about to
on this subject, or any other, should be taken as final. All he vote for this Bill; he trusted that it would be passed—he be.
could say for himself was that if he had brought lieved it would be passed by a great majority. But he was
forward a measure intending and wishing that it should free to say that if it had been his lot, on any other occasion,
not be final he would say so. He hoped this measure to have been successful in inviting their Lordships' attention to
would be final, he thought it was a good thing if it were, the kind of Bill now proposed, the present Bill was not the
and it should not be his fault if it were not.—( Protection one he would have submitted for their Lordships' consideration
cheers.) Now, my Lords, it appears however, that my Noble or adoption.. He was not one of those who dealt in language
Friend admits that very large sums of money have been ex- which he thought was more fit for ancient ladies—(A laugh)—
ended upon the improvemeet of land in this country
im-
. my than for grave statesmen. They were told of the cruelty of
rt.'s, a great deal of that money was invested in such
taxing the necessaries of life, but he was not one of those who
Provements before the year 1842, and lam sure that there are believed that there was anything inhuman, even under the
many of your Lordships here present who will remember that pressure of the greatest scarcity, in maintaining the duty on
that money having been laid out on the faith of protection was the importation of foreign corn. He did not believe that there
one of the main arguments which were adduced to recommend was any difficulty in levying the duty on that import, and in
Your Lordships to reject, the Committees that were moved that respect he disapproved of the present Bill, as it wasted a
for year after year to inquire into the corn-laws. I ask large revenue which they could have raised. They had wasted
whether that argument has not been strengthened since 1842? a revenue which they must replace by other taxes, to be con-
I have read the speeches of the Minister who proposed the tinued or to be imposed. He said that other taxes were to be
measure in this House, and I ask whether it was not perfectly continued or to be imposed, because even under that system
notorious that large sums of money had been expended in this of law which has ju•t been condemned in the Howe
Mast laudable and desirable object on the faith of the of Commons—and after the anticipated (if he could use such a
Act of Parliament. Then,
my Lords, I ask word with regard to the anticipation of the decision of their
nu, will you now pass a measure—will you now. Lordships), after the anticipated vote of their Lordships, he
pass a retrospective line of confiscation of property—will you might venture to call that law absurd—but even under that sys-
tleprived the capitalise—be he the owner or the occupier of the tem a large revenue was placed in the exchequer of the coon-
seil--of the means of gaining that fair return for his outlay try. That revenue was about to be removed, and they must
Which he made on the faith of the existing law? Now, what find a substitute for it, and where it was to be found he knew
does another authority say on this subject? He says, that not ; whether in an increase of the income-tax, or by the in-
nnier the system of protection which had existed for above 200 crease of the Excise duties, if they could be increased to any
Years, wild, heather :and has been reclaimed, extensive tracts greater extent. It so happened that when he was first mane
°f country have been drained, by which a healthy population acquainted with this anticipated legislation, he was at a
have been emooloyed, and their lives prolonged ; hod this not great distance from this country, and he heard that it
at the expense of the manufacturing prosperity. My was said in the other House of Parliament that gen-
Lords, I make that quotation, because I see that it is applica-
tlemen were not to take the measure by itself —the]
ble to the present moment. But, my Lords, your Lordships
were not to look at the Bill for the abolition of the corn laws
are aware that under this system of protection, those for whom by itself, but they were to look at the whole measure—they
I know you will always feel the liveliest and deepest interest, were to look at everything that might be given on the principle
compensation.. He did not believe that the landed interest
suffer ie consequence of this measure, and he therefore
the working classes in this country—those that asst agricultural,
ofe
that there was much in the way of compensation
n
and those that are operative—for I feel the same sentiments would
towards both of them—will be the great sufferers. Look, my
did not
Lords, at this return : at the present moment there are in the to be given.believ Other persons would view it in a different light,
of 2-, with regard to the compensation to be given to the landed in-
saving? banks WO,OOO accounts, with an average i .
terest, but he thought it
, was not a very unnatural expectation,
each ; 60000 depositors with an average of 71. each ;
that what was considered a great boon to the landed interest—
the total .(and it seems to indicate how this country
nay, the existence of the present corn-law, should require corn-
tas been pauperised by protection), amounts to
pensation on its removal. When he was told in Italy that they
rOOO,OOOl. -sterling. That is the result of pro-
anticipated a great reduction in the taxation, he certainly did
section which is now about to be arrested from us. It
rimy be arrested from us by force, but never, my Lords, while not expect that it would be made up by a new tariff. There
these statements are before us, will they do so by argument, might instead, he thought, have been a considerable reduction
My. Lords we are told that we are to have free trade. The in the excise-laws, and he had had a sanguine expectation that
,
manufacturers—no, not the manufacturers, but a section of the her Majesty's Ministers, who seemed to care nothing about
taxation, would have done something of this kind. He thought
manufacturers—a section of Manchester cotton-spinners, tell
ns that we know nothing abont farming ; and they say we will there might have been at least a considerable reduction, if not
,take your farms from you, we will bring capital— wonder an entire repeal. of the malt tax.—(Hear, hear.) That would
have been a large and proper compensation; he thought also
31 cod not say experience—and work them properly. This
that the landed interest should have had that tax repealed,
tehange, then, they say shall be made, and we are called upon
~sis.. remove.. from our farms and from their occupation from as it operated, not only unequally, but oppressively upon
them. This tax was not only injurious to the
nemp to 30,000 of the tenantry of this country. But, my
Lords, f landlords, but more especially to the farmers
become of You ream', the from their occupations, what is to
and occupiers of land, as it operated to raise the price of beer
of them? 'Whym my Lords, all this tenantry with
to the perslovnestwohom
•they errifpolotKed.. The repeal of that tax
orotromlotsatxs,;((tutiiein iteheet,iinFt
their families, when the are turned out of employment, must
go to the union workhouse for their daily bread, or they must
twhantl,dhienveveouldh noletylandgdetno of
income-tea, migrate to the manufacturing districts, where, if it is their
repealed, but he would lay a large additional tax on real
destiny to seek employment, they will serve under these very
property. There was another point on which he entertained
'lien who have been the cause of their ruin and destruction,
a strong feeling. They were to have a bit of a sliding scale
Sod the whole of their worldly prosperity; bat, my Lords, I
know well you will not sanction this. You know too well, my for three years ; but what the use of that was he could not see.
Lords
"Lords that these manufacturers have a deep hostility against The general opinion of those engaged in agriculture was, that
the far
if the question was to be settled, it ought to be settled imme-
'm
e
-aye ever farmers
of England, because they know that the farmers
been warmlyg attached to our Constitution, and to diately. (Hear, hear.) He had always been averse
the rights and liberty of the Crown. They wish also to lower to any other course of dealing with the law —he had
the prices of produce, and to get a large number of agricultu-
always been, and was, opposed to a gradual abolition.
rests into their towns for the purpose of lowering the wages of On these grounds he was always adverse to gradual aboli.
the Work-people. They wish permanently to lower the wages tions, and if he were to propose a law on this subject, he would
of the operative, not only from a desire to obtain greater propose one very different from that which was brought in by
Profits for themselves, but they do it also for the purpose of her Majesty's Ministers, and he was not surprised at the indig-
preventing those strikes which seldom take place when wages nation which it excited among many of their Lordships. It
are low. But, my Lord., again let me ask you what is to seemed unfortunately as if there were a sort of race, a sort of St.
become of the yeomen and tenantry of this great country ? 1 Leger or Derby, between the advocates of the Corn Bill ansi
wish to know, when the value of produce is so diminished, and the present Ministry, as to which should render themselves
when the poor-rates are so much increased—l should ask most unpopular, but the Treasury had gone a-head of them on
lour Lordships how they will be enabled to do any thing but this question. Well, inasmuch as it got rid of the question of
lager for a few years? My Lords, it is a curious circumstance, protection, he rejoiced at it, but he could not but think the
nd one which you are no doubt aware of, that in this country Bill one of which their Lordships had reason to complain. He
4_ gensral when the price of produce falls poor-rates in- complained of it, but he must vote for it ;he was driven into a
extracting from the tenth report of the Poor-law Commis- for this Bill or he must run the risk of losing the Bill for a
en,erasotnefigures with respect to this. I have takenthem from year. He valued the measure for the abolition of protection to
t report, and I could only find them down to the year 1843, corn, and he could not therefore run the risk of such an event.
still,
at the same time, I bring this return forward, to show He ought not perhaps to say what he was now going to say,
is Our Lordships that what I have stated has occurred. I find but expressions had been used that made it necessary for him
"1 that report, that whilst the price of wheat was ties. per to do so. Some Noble Lords had asked him to help them in
4,quarter, the cost upon the population for the maintenance of their opposition ; his answer to those Noble Lords must be—
the Poor, and for out-door relief, was 4s. Bd. per head. My " You never help me."—(Laughter.) You have therefore no
!Ards, ir the year 1843, when wheat was 545. 4d. per quarter, , just right to ask for my help on the present occasion. But
was
expense
5,, sd. ; even if he were willing to give that support, he could not give it
the rate of upon the population per bead
therefore showing that when the price of wheat is low the consistently with his views of the great objects of the measure.
Pc osarate. are higher; and that when wheat is at a remunerst.. He thought the Government of this acted unfairly to
:lag price t-bose rates diminish. And it is self-evident why they the House. He thought the House Loclungtrry great reason to com-
es, reduced ; because the people get employment.—( Hear, plain of them. Why, in propounding a measure of this magni-
hare --
Frienear.) Noe, my Lords, one of the attacks made by my Noble tude—not merely a measure of this magnitude—but measure
Friend, and by his colleagues—the Anti-Corn-law League— which must have
isturpwriasead
riaglhl t thtoeir
prLopoaorsdoshiptshTs
d,
this, that the tenantry of this country have no capital he asked whether
and no skil. Alv Lords, I believe there is no country in the measure in such a way as to
Worldpreclude their
whore farm' ers are more skilful and more intelligent Lordships from effecting a desired settlement of the question
i ft
oi t practiceweedecent, t hi s
vf---i1(.1-lear, hear)—and where they are more upright, and by introducing certain amenrdmanrdtssh?ipsH, ellaosokseed,
state this, because I measure in this manners? It was accordi
the ere thev behave better to their humble. neighbours if it was fair towards hei
am
morethink personally acquainted with the farmers of this empire a measure of this great importance, thantg resolutions should
en an 0 _
ne of your Lordships, and I contradict the assertion ha.ve been produced in the other House, and communicated t Mat they
e been the
M. are not skilful, and I think it would be too bad if a this House in the first instance. This would hay e
Minister was to turn round and to taunt that important body of proper rule for the Ministry to have pursued. They
tnen . have had an opportunity of considering this
the bevy aYitg that they have not uestio
large capitals. My. Lords, could then
unequal, the unjust, the unfair manner in whichq
withn with the. other House, and of associating their
the te_Y, the with
the nantry cf this coantry are taxed—(Cheers)—coupled views the views of the other House of Parliament.
them. They could not enter
o currency into such a ne oti t.
Bill of 1819, have decidedly dimished their means Now the round was cut from
The smallest amendment to the
(tOtibsistenee • but th have now sufficient capital to be enabled
~.- implore
aßwi lflu would
an
e,.
env
. fatalg
D ei
ataloepn;:rt
0,
rai
nn
gd
of
fet wouldhe oon
conduct
beof
herone
Majesty'st o risk so
.;.'Proveine of the land. But the new scheme, the new plan
„.,•'ould preventntthis ' for if they want to get eaPital,for the im- Government, adopting not their opinions, but adopting all the
views. which were expressed by his Noble Friend on the Oppo-
'rreverientofthe land, cl, this Bill would prevent it, because it
could diminish the value of their produce.—(Hear, hear.) sition bench (the Duke of Richmond) with respect to the
L.lat it is Noble Friend's argument that it will not produce it ; conduct of the. Government on this question, he felt precluded
question, implored
and
dd
he entreated
made
thatth eaiprpLordshipseappeal
n ot
only
l yn
to
acting in any other manner than that which he was
17,it 1 you do not admit that it will reduce the price of provisions, from
.greHate
4, ul be dangerous indeed, for that clearly will be the result. atoboruistkttohdaot
YLord Inot think that I should myself be justified in much
I s,dothose
°nger trespassing upon your Lordships' attention. I have who were with him in wishing to set this question at rest,
tleter * •feeling which I enter- but he made it with almost equal confidence to those who
tai fora moment disguised the strong
lam thought the existing law ought to be
relieve on this great and momentous question, and I think .
do maintained; for it was a
d also by doing so from believing that the great majority measure which would away with a system which had been
Your Lordships dislike this measure as much as I do.— mischievous to every class of society ; and there was no class
former
cs.) My Lords, I believe, and as I stated upon a whitest had reaped such bitter proofs of it as the agricultural
.?ri "°..ion, I will repeat it now, that if the votes upon inter.
stner
—( Hear The Duke of CLEVELAND regretted that he should be
41 question were to be taken by ballot in this House —(Hear,
near)—l do not belie twelve balls in favour compelled to oppose a Government with which he had always
of it.—(Lond eheers believe there would be
however, hitherto acted. In 1843, he was invited by the Noble Deice
there are some of and laughter.) My Lords,
at the head of the Government in that House to move the
come
Se courteLnordships who say " Free trade must
address in answer to h h from'
t e speec the Throne ; and, cone
you had better . .
give way at (nee ; there lag t° th° contrary ; curing then in the principles of the Government, he readily
I deny that the great bode' oafri excitement out of doors." Now
consented to undertake the duty, but before doing so he re-
in favour of this measurye7: operatives in this country are
Noble Duke that-
rumours were abroad that Minis-
"' hear)—and I say that the minded thethe
.
re-
Anti-Corn-law League ha never dared to have a public meet- tern intended to change cure-law which they had passed
ing without tickets, even at It
their sedition—(Cheers)—they edopester, the very hot bed of the year before. The Noble. Duke, however, informed him
no foundation whatever for any such rumour,
fives at a public meeting without tickets.
dre to trust the opera- that there was
Cleveland) u on that a th • u ority, not
that even if it were so—if there were ex • MY Lords, I think and he (the Duke of p
eiternentthe rumour, but went further and declared
it would be a bad argument to use. 1 think out of doors, only contradicted
were concerned, that
emit that argument once it will be converted ithat if you ad- that so far as the present Government
And he understood
Precedent (Hear, hear)—an argument which would angerous measure at least was intended to be final..hee
d him ( rs.
Remus in future times. Then, my Noble Lord be dan- as much from what the Noble Duke had tol -- C
s, there of
tainl other Noble Lords who say "We never voted are eer- A corn-law could be traced as far back as the reign King
Government. Y er,
Lau hter. ) "We do not like to against the John, and suetmodificains and im wovements had been made in
theoye..n
Government (of thisg country."—( Hear, hear.) v 0 t zs,e-
lost it from time to time
supported Sir R. Peel—we cannot abandon our leader,'?ve passed. He contended that the agitation which had recently
(Rear, hear. My My Lords, it is not his party who have ahan_ taken place against the Corn Bill ought to have been re-
do__ ,
_. ar. e
but it is Sir R. Peel who happens to have pressed by the Government, but if
they assented to the measure
abandoned
Sir R. peel,
his party—(Hear, hear, and laughter.) And, my one of shedit impossible to retrace their steps, which was
slerds, others again come forward and support Sir R. Peel on British lar strongest objections he could urge against it. The
for
ground of emsistency, but Sir R. Peel has lost all character industry of thef was not afraid to compete with the skill or
;et' consistency, for there is no man in this country will ever with the rest o;rtefilien farmer, if he were placed on equal terms
regain the confidence of the large classes of the community.— the heavy burdens under
runtey, and freed from the influence of
ICheers.) It took him upwards of ten or twelve years before poor-rates, or if thosen
taxeser h it laboured, namely, taxes and
a e could gain confidence, after the year 1829—( Hear, hear).— country. He would now refer were borne by the rest of the
Lnd he has to more chance of regaining the confidence of the it had been said had be
refer to the great concessions which
Ole now than he has of sitting on the throne of this coun- farmers of this country. Trnherrently made in favour of the
re•J'ess(Hear, hear, and laughter.) Well then, my Lords, I duction upon linseed, whereby ristt concession made was a re-
iust call our Lordships' attention to the motives which were could obtain it at a cheaper rate. Now
said that the farmer
' ahliel y I will not speak of Parliament, but of those large farmers grew their own linsnewe it so happened that the
n4t
_. y avowed.
their object is to crush farmers could mot afford to use it. Well,
and that the small
the °l.d,,ors. They publicly avow that
h
,the next con-
and cries of " No, cession was, the reduction in
40.,!listoeracy of the country.—(Cheers, clover seed. He believed that
mostrespectable, the greater part of the
he) My Lords, I will not say one of the
they would of derive farmers grew their own seed, and
bemuse certainly he is not one of the most respectable mem-
0
kid r the Anti-Cornelaw League, but a Mr. Bright, fairly. The last concession believed was the reduction of the duty on
i'li e°l)enlY, at all the meetings, states that his desire is to French brandy. Now the fact was, that the farmers of this
trusta- th t aristocracy.—( Hear, hear.) ) My Lords, I hope and country scarcely knew what French brandy was ; they drink
et hat: your
ear, •
that this is a question that brandy which was distilled by themselves, and very much
~ van •r• your Lordships will remember
r a black dose,—(Hear, hear.) Those
'reeolle l'nportance—( Hear, hear)—that your Lordships will resembled in colour a
that he knew of h •
01 a-et 'the eventful times which we are looking forward to— were the only concessions. as eying been made
'trek lk ecr)—that it is of th greatest importance to the in favour of the Uri •tish farmer. He contended that this mea.
°lligfe"aq Legislature of this country—ite is their duty, in my sure was the most cruel, unjust, and oppressive measure that
fitrte-ns to Vote without favour or affection—to lay aside was ever attempted to be passed by the Legislature upon an
feeling dpolitical bias, and
to vote according industrious, loyal, and an independent people—( Hear, hear)--
ow. gan
t Iter4icieuces upon measures affecting the weal of and it was adopted for the purpose of oppressing that class for

THE SUN, LONDON,
.TUESDAY EVENING, MAY 26, 1846.

and whether the means proposed to obtain it will effectuate it.
You have a right to know from the first Minister cf the Crown
the probable effects of such a measure-but in the silence of
the Government, we have all argument against it. One of those
used in the discussion of the measure, was the apprehended
famine in Ireland, and the successful operation of the tariff in
1842; but this does not relieve me from a difficulty-one of
these arguments may be valid, but valid they both cannot be,
immediately contradictory as they are the one to the other. If
the repeal of the corn-laws be calculated to relieve thefamine in
Ireland, supposing the famine always to exist, it must be by
bringing a large amount of corn into the markets at so low a
price as to bring it within the reach of the starving population ;
and on the other hand it is alleged that prices will rise on ac-
count of the increased demand. Let me examine these two
questions of the famine, and the operation of the famine, and if
on entering on this topic I am compelled to trouble your Lord-
ships at much greater length than I desire, I
must pray your
Lordships' indulgence, and on entering
on this dr detail of statis-
tms, I cheerfully and willingly sacr'fice all advantage I would de-
rive by alluding to more exciting, because more personal, topics.
-( Hear, hear, and cheers.) I would beg your Lordships' atten-
tion in the first place to the latter end of October, the com-
mencement of November last. My Nr ble Friend has told you
that the famine was not the immediate cause
of the introduc-
tion of this measure to your Lordships-but with h all reaeenctfotor
to my Noble Friend, I must say that if
it had not the apprehension of scarcity in Ireland, your Lordships would
never have been asked, in this session at least, to have passed
this measure.-( Hear, hear.) When the Cabinet was called
together at the close of October last, it was called together
for the purpose of considering the state of Ireland. Papers
were laid before us showing the failure of the potato crop, and
reports of certain professors were placed before us, which in
my opinion, tended very much to aggravate the evil of
which they complained. We were called on to consider what
steps were to be taken for the relief of Ireland, for it was for
their relief that we were convened, and we were invited to
open the ports by an order in council. I was of opinion then,
as I am of opinion now. that at the close of October the real
state of the case was wholly unknown to the Government. In
the first place, not above one-third of the potato crop bad
failed, and in the next, there never was a season in the history
of Ireland, when, so far from there being a famine, there was so
large a supply in the country of all descriptions of food for the
consumption of the inhabitants. We were also told that foreign
countries were taking steps to prevent the export of food, and it
was stated to us that on the continent there was a scarcity in
their crops. I certainly thought that that was an additional
reason for not acceding to the invitation, and for this reason,
because the effect of opening the ports would be to stimulate
consumption, when it was necessary to discourage it by every
tneans in our power-( Hear, hear)-and it would be likely to
eegravate distress, if distress existed.-(Cheers.) But I en.
reat of you to bear in mind the wide and manifest distinction
between scarcity and famine, and great local and individual dis-
eess.-( Cheers.) I speak of the famine as an utterly baseless
vision, which haunted the imagination of the Government-
( Hear, hear, and cheers.) I speak in very different
terms, and with very different feelings, of that
amount of destitution and distress which naturally prevailed on
the failure of the potato crop, but upon which the repeal of
the corn• law can produce no more effect than if you were to
pats a law that should reduce the price of pine apples.-
(Cheers.) Distress existed then not because corn was dear,
ter it might be said never to be dear ; it had never risen to
any extraordinary high pitch. Their state of suffering arises
from a very different circumstance-it is this, because they
are not as the labourers are in England, working for steady
ana permanent wages-it is because they have invested their
labour and their capital in the cultivation of some small plot
of ground for which they pay a large rent-the produce of
tha' failed, and they had no labour to look to, and having no
means of employment they have no prospect of buying
food, and that is the state of the cottiers. Another
class, and not an unimportant one, comprising about
5,000,000 or 6.000,000 of the people, namely, the
small farmers and occupiers of land in Ireland, in what
state were they ? They find their potato crop has failed-
they find that it is unfit for individuals, and not a few of
them have converted the diseased potatoes into food for cattle,
and a very good kind of provender it has turned out to be.
They had thus the means of relieving themselves from the loss
of their potato crop ; but the corn had been very successful,
and they had thus also a means of redress. And by the way of
further relieving them, you propose to enact a law which has
for its object a reduction in corn, upon which they rely ; there-
fore, when appealed to about the famine, I took the liberty of
recording my opinion against the opening of the ports ; but at
the same time so strongly did I feel the importance of unani-
mity, so strongly was I convinced of the evils consequent on
the breaking up of any Government, I intimated my entire
readiness to yield my own opinion, and consent to the suspen-
sion of the corn-laws, provided only a suspension was intended
- (Cheers.) But hen I was told that this temporary exi-
gency was to lead not to a remedy commensurate with the
evil, and that a suspension was to be made for the purpose
of not re-enacting the corn-laws again, I felt I should not
take a course consistent with my own feelings, as an honour-
able man, were I to support such a measure.-(Hear, hear. )
An adjournment of the question at all events took place, suffi-
cient information not being before us. In the close of No-
vember, when the Cabinet met again, I cordially concurred
in the measures of the Government in the appointment of ail
the heads of those departments of the Government which
might have the best opportunities of furnishing employment,
and of communicating with the Lord-Lieutenants of the diffe-
rent counties for the purpose of distributing relief when it
should be wanted, and by a wholesome check of the markets
to prevent prices from rising to an extravagant height. I gave
my cordial consent to these measures, butll conceived that the
repeal of the corn-laws would be most unjustifiable, and would
be, in addition, an injury to the people of Ireland.-( Hear,
hear.) The question, when the Cabinet met again, was
nominally different; and it was with some surprise, and no
little disappointment, I found myself alone in my opposition.
I felt deeply and painfully the prospect of separation. I felt
most painfully the weight of responsibility which I was about
imposing upon myself. I am not ashamed to say that I eked
for a period of eight-and-forty hours to decide my mind.-
( Hear, hear.) It was no sacrifice in me to abandon office. I
had to examine, and I did rigidly examine my own mind whether
I was influenced in the conduct I adopted by an anxious desire
to escape the burdens of office.-( Hear, hear.) I tried to
school myself into the belief, that under certain circumstances
the interests of the country must require the adoption
of sue,, a measure, but I could not bring myself to such a
humiliaor, coulee:Lion ; and moat reluctantly, but without
difficulty. I felt myself constrained to abandon office, sup-
ported as I was by one of my own colleagues, whom, if I could
name, Isis high position and character,- in his subsequent
adhesion to the Government would shield him from the slight-
est shadow of a doubt that he has not been actuated by the
highest and the purest motives; but supported by one of my
colleagu s I was compelled to resign.-( Hear, hear, and
cheers.) Upon that the Government of Sir R. Peel was
broken um Your Lordships have the whole of the subse-
quent circumstances which have been already stated to you,
and 1 feel that I owe a great apology to your Lordships for
adverting to them at such length. Then we are compelled to
investigate the corn-laws of 1842, and have your predic-
tions upon that event being falsified? Have they
not been fulfilled in a wonderful degree? The object
of a corn-law I apprehend to be, to place this country
in a state of independence as regards food with respect to
foreign countries; and though this view may be scouted, it
was not thought unworthy the attention of great and eminent
men; and if your Lordships will forgive me, I would refer to a
letter of Mr. Huskisson, who placed the question in a much
more able point of view than lam able to do. He says, even
in peace all dependence on foreign nations for supply is most
dangerous.-( Heer, hear.) During the last three years,
741,('09 quarters has been the average of our home consump-
tion, showing a very considerable increase. Has that been
produced by measures of proscription or by the increase of
prices ? These are the greatest fallacies, but formed to lead
us into errors in defending the Corn Bill. Statements are
attributed to us which were never made by us. We are said
to have asserted that it was the intention of the corn-law to
guarantee the farmer a price of 555. per quarter. The inten-
tion of the corn-law was no such thing. The intention of the
corn-law was, that if by legislation we would fix the average
price of corn, that we should fix the price from 545. to 58s.
The object of the corn-law is, that when the prices
are above 58s. the consumer shall be protected by
a large influx of foreign corn; and if the price is
below 545., that the producer shall be protected against any
other competition than that which he met on equal terms-
those exposed to the same vicissitudes deriving the same ad-
vantage and subject to the same variations as himself. What,
in point of fact, has been the result, as far as the consumer is
concerned, of the operation of these corn-laws ? The average
prices of the last twenty years have been 575. per quarter, and
the average prices of the last three years havebeen 595. 9d. per
quarter. The prices of the last year, which they were told was a
year of great scarcity, was 50s. 10d. per quarter. My Right
Hon. Friend said that he wished to keep the prices between
545. and feSs. If I were to refer to the average prices of last
year, the result would he the statement of a price of from 50s.
to 50s. 10d. But a return has been laid before the House of
Commons, giving a more accurate measure of the cor-law un-
der the sliding scale, and of the manner in which they operated
to check any tendency to a rise or fluctuation in the price of
corn. There is the return of the weekly prices of corn, from
March, 1844, to March, 1846 ; and of those 104 weeks, this
was the result : -The prices were before 545. and 58s. per
quarter for no less than 48 weeks of that period ; the price
was below 545. per quarter in 54 of those weeks; and the prices
were above 58s. in 7 of those weeks only; and the prices never
rose in any week above 555. So far as the commercial interest
was concerned, have we any right to say that this corn-law, in
its operation, have deceived the expectationsdrhich haves been
formed upon it, although it is quite true that the price of
corn has fallen considerably below what was expected by my
Right Hon. Friend? If we look at the total amount im-
ported, since the first great rush of two and a half millions of
quarters, since the introduction of this measure, they would find
that it was two millions of quarters that have come into the
market since that time. There entered under 555, per quarter
only 395,000 quarters; and between 595. and 555. per quarter,
the point at which we desire competition to bear, there en-
tered 1,445,000 quarters:; and there entered above 595. per
quarter, only 69,000. That shows that the present law operates
in the manner, and to the extent which was expected. He was
sorry to trouble theirLordships-(Hear)-so long but he would
take another point with regard to the fluctuation of prices in
corn. Since the corn-laws passed the total amount of fluctua-
tion between 1844 and 1846 was only 58s. to 455. All the
difference between any two succeeding weeks during those
two years did not amount to a difference of 30 per cent. The
greatest fluctuation between any two succeeding weeks, one
week succeeding another, was only is. 6d. ; and the greatest
fluctuation betweesi any two months in those years was 4s. and
no more. I recollect when these corn-laws were introduced in
1842, it was put forward as a matter of wonder at what they
could do, when it was stated they had only produced a fluctua-
tion of 49 per cent. in one year, the smallest they had ever
known. Let us look to the fluctuation of other countries, and
see what has taken place from December 1844 to Deeember
1845. During those two years the amount of fluctuation toes
in Dantzic, 665. per cent. ; in Hamburg, 86s. per cent. ; in
Rostock, 64'. per cent. ; and in Odessa, 84s. per cent. They
were told that this was the effect of the sliding scale and the
corn-laws. He would refer to the year 1842, when the
Secretary of State for the Colonies stated that the fluctuation
in New York was between 30 and 40 per cent.,
the maximum at New York being 70e. ; at Phila-
delphia, 76; ; at Portsmouth, 72s ; and at New
Nerfolk 62; and that centetued to the present time from be-
tween the years 1841 and 1846, when our flu Ouaiioos did not
on the average exceed 30 per cent ; while between 1844 and
1e45 they did nit exceed 70 per cent. In answer, we are
told that these fleetuetions were the effect of the sliding scale;
but so far as I see, during the three years of the existence of
the law of this country. it had produced a great steadiness and
cheapness of prices. This was the law introduced in 1842,
and which now was about to be abandoned. If we wished to
see the history of these fluctuations, let us leek at what took
place in Europe from the year 1792 to 1805, when we were
dependent entirely on foreign corn. Let them listen to an ex,
tract from the work of err. Malthus, who states that, during
the last century, that part of it in which the greatest iraporta-
thin took place, namely, from 1792 to 1805, there were no
years in which a greater amount of fluctuation took place. In
1792 the price was 42;. per quarter, in 1796 it was 775. per
quarter, in 1801 it was 118 s. per quarter, and in 1803 it was
down to 665. per (tauter ; so that between 1792 and 1801 the
price of corn was trebled; and from 1798 to 1803 the price
arAse from 50s. to 118 e. per quarter, and fell again to 565. This
errs the period of that century in which this country was most
emeendent on a foreign ,uppity of corn. ( Hear, hear, and
loud cheers.) I will now ask you to look at some other articles
or consumption. The fluctuations of corn have been taken and
attributed to the sliding scale i look at the price of the potato

this measure, yet on other questions the difference be-
tween himself and their was as great as ever. The Noble Mar.
quis then proceeded to read extracts from the report of the
E ,clesiastical Commiss on, and that of which Lord Devon was
the head, to show that 'he opiiiions of those who had bestowed
the most deliberate attention to this subject, believed that the
repeal of the corn-laws would be beneficial to England as well
as Ireland, and concluded by stating that he felt bound to give
this measure his mest cordial support—( Cheers).
Lord STANLEY—It is with great mistrust of my own
abilities and powers, but combined with the most unhesitating
conviction of the truth sod strength of the case which 1 have
to support, that I venture to submit myself to your Lordships'
indulgence while I enter into the defence of a system of law
which has been designated by a Noble Earl as an " absurd
system;" a measure which is most vehemently and dangerously
assailed by those by whom it has hitherto been most ably and
strenuously supported, and to whom it owes its very existence.
I feel how much need I have for your indulgence, as I find
myself on the present occasion opposed to all those who have
beets hitherto the leaders of both the great parties into which
your Lordships' House and the other House have been divided.
But, my Lords, however painful I may feel the inequality of
the contest in point of ability, I cannot admit that the weight
of authority is in favour of those who propose a repeal of the
corn-laws. My Lords, I will not appeal (it would be invidious
in me if I were to do so) against the present authority and
opinions of the Noble Lords upon the other side of the House,
to the opinions which have been formed and the expressions
which have bsen made use of by those Noble Lords themselves.
But I will venture, my Lords, to appeal from the authority of
the living to the authority of the dead.—(Cheers.) I will
venture to appeal from the authority of the statesman of the
present day to all those great names whose measures
have been made the liberal and commercial policy of
England in time not long gone by —to the brilliant
names of Chatham, of Pitt, of Huskisson.—(Cheers.) And,
my Lords, when I mention the names, and refer to those whose
eloquence is still ringing in your Lordships' ears—and would to
God their prudence and wisdom still directed the counsels of
this great country—l trust I shall be forgiven by those of my
Noble Friends who now occupy seats in your Lordships' House,
even if against their opinion I refer to those who first cast an
unblemished lustre on the names of Canning and Liverpool.—
(Cheers.) From those it is that I have to appeal to the states-
menthe
who have
alvebealwieavyee,d Ithmeaydeaaltsioniaepspoefalthtoe
tmh ee
n a ou
ft
h the
or i t py resent
o f all day.t
h those
country, or who have taken a prominent place in the nations of
the world.—( Cheers.) I meet the Noble Earl, who opened
the discussion, and who says that the question has not been
raised by former Governments, upon the principle of protection,
and I say, that if my Noble Friend will search the record of
history, from the earliest time down to the present day, he will
find successive statistics in successive ages, that the principles
which guided the Ministers of this country were the principles
of encouragement to domestic industry and protection to the
agriculture of the country.—(Cheers.) So early as the reign
of Edward the Fourth, I recollect a memorable preamble,
which might be applied to the state of society in the present
day, which recites, if I remember right, " That, whereas the
labourers and occupiers in husbandry"—not the great owners,
but the great proprietors of land—but " Whereas certain la-
bourers and occupiers in husbandry, being grieviously endainaged
by the bringinin from other countries and ports of corn into
the realm when the price of corn grown within this realm is
low." The Act then goes on to prohibit that importation
until the price of corn was as high as 6s. a quarter. The same
principles have guided the Legislature from that day to the
present, varying according to the circumstances of the country,
varying according to the exigencies of the times, varying ac-
cording to the state of husbandry, or the state of the relations
of the country with foreign powers. But through all, and at
all times, this pinciple has been considered necessary in order
to secure the independence of this country upon foreign na-
tions for the supply of food. It has ever been the policy and
interest of this great country to give encouragement and pro-
tection to the cultivation of its own soil.—(Loud cheers.) My
Lords, I will not be satisfied with home authorities upon the
subject. There is net a nation in the world at the present
time of any eminence, not one but has acted upon the same
principle. There is not one that has ventured up to this hour
on that bold and rash experiment in which your Lordships are
invited to join. I mean leaving provision, the food of the
people, unrestrained by legislative, unprotected by fiscal
regulations, and subject to mere chances, subject to the
changes consequent upon unfriendly relations, or the inability
of supply from foreign countries. My Lords, go through the
nations of the earth—France and Holland have both of them not
only a system of protection but they have a sliding scale. Prance
has a sliding scale infinitely more complicated. Belgium, Den-
mark, Sweden, Norway, the Germanic Confederations, Por-
tugal, Spain, the Roman States, Greece, Austria, Turkey,
Egypt, United States of America. Having gone through the
principle nations, I will tell you there is not one who ventures
to leave it's agriculture unprotected, and leave the provision for
the food of its people dependent upon chance. And when I
see all this, not only I cannot admit the weight of authority is
with the promoters of this Bill, but I venture to doubt the
authority of that which has been put forward as an indisputable
axiom—that the prima
.facie inference is in favour of an
all unrestricted
theweight
tra d trade.—(Cheers.)
evidence
pastand present,
s ) Upon the
every
withr y
variety of denseness of population, and scarceness of popula-
tion, with every possible variety of civil institutions from the
e
highest form of absolute monarchy to the lowest forms of re-
publicism, when accompanied by the authority of all the coun-
tries in favour of a system of protection, I am compelled to
admit that that which is held to be an indisputable axiom in
favour of free trade, is I contend rather prinzilliscie inference
that statesmen in former times, arid all countries
of the present day, are not only not destitute of sound
opinions, political wisdom, and sagacity, but that the single
theme of enlightenment which has dispelled the universal
darkness was not that flash which simultaneously, and with
marvellous power, enlightened the statesmen of the present
day in the month of November last.—, Cheers.) I hope I need
not assure your Lordships that, however deeply I may deplore
the course that lam compelled to take, no words which
may fall from my lips in the course of the observations which I
have to make, will in the slightest degree be inconsistent
with the deep respect I entertain of my friend's public
and personal character, nor that the slightest shadow of sus-
picion can find a place in my mind with respect to the
entire purity of his intentions—if the prominent position
which the Noble Duke occupies did not place him, I
will not say beyond the reach of criticism, but above the appre-
hension of censure. Let me refer your Lordships to the high-
mindedness of my Noble Friend's character—his utter forget.
fulness of self. I will not call your Lordships' attention to that
trait of his character—his abhorence of all that is low, mean,
or selfish. There must be sufficient grounds to your Lordships
and the world that whatever may be the circumstances in which
he is placed, his decision has been formed upon the sense—l
think a mistaken sense, but I doubt not a sincere sense—ot
what is best for the public good ; nor will I presume to judge
of the convictions of my Right Hon. Friend at the head of the
Goverment. I believe that he considered this measure
was called for by the great emergencies of the country.
—(Cheers.) A man of his great and close experience
could not have failed to foresee, as the inevitable consequence
of this measure, the complete dislocation and disruption of all
party ties, without which, in my judgment, the government
of any country cannot be steadily conducted.—(Cheers.)
He might have foreseen the shock which would have been given
to public confidence in public men—he might have foreseen
the shock which would have been given to the confidence of
the people in the consistency of their representatives—to the
confidence of the country in the House of Commons ; and
forgive me, my Lords, for saying to your Lordships' House, if,
unhappily, you should imitate the too facile conversion of the
House of Commons. He must have known, my Lords, the
painful and convulsing struggle between personal attachment.
and public principles to which he was exposing his warmest and
most devoted friends—he must have felt equally the injury he
was doing to his public reputation, to the destruction he was
causing to the means of his own usefulness, and believing that
he foresaw all these consequences, I cannot but conceive that
he conscientiously believed, in making this change that it was
called for in consequence of the emergency of the country. I
think, however, that he committed the most fatal error which
a statesman can commit, that of taking the noisy torrent of
agitation for the still, deed, noiseless torrent of public opinion. It
will not be the least of the unhappy consequences of these un-
happy measures that this country and the world will believe
that a triumph has been gained by an organised and inte-
rested association over the first Minister of the Crown, and that
a still more fatal triumph has been gained by a first Minister
of the Crown, acting under the influence of that association,
over his political supporters, and the independence of
Parliament. (Hear, hear.) Now, my Lords, with
these observations I dismiss all personal opinions.
With regard to this measure I must, however, express my re-
gret that any Noble Lord should have thought it becoming
him to cast any censure upon those noble-minded men who,
abandoned by their former friends, have put themselves forward
in a struggle, and who have exhibited talent which reflects the
highest credit upon them, because so long as they could con•
fide in their fi iends they had the modesty to keep these opinions
from public view.—(Hear, hear.) It is not my intention to
follow the Noble Marquis. Ido not desire to speak on the
present occasion to your passions, but to your reason. Ido not
wish to aggravate your feelings of mortification ; I might use a
stronger word than that ; 1 might refer to such feelings as
would be felt by persons finding themselves deceived by those
in whom they put their trust. Neither will I enter upon the
question of consistency ; if I were to do so I should have to
direct attention to Noble Lo,-ds upon both sides of the House.
There has been upon both sides of the House a difference of
opinion, not so much on the real question of protection
as the amount of protection to be afforded. And such,
my Lords, I believe to have been the case
down to the period of that memorable conflict,
that verbosa grandiloqua, in November, IB4s.—(Loud
cheers.) It may be that some of your Lordships were about
to vote in favour of the second reading of this Bill—are de-
sirous of recording your opinion against the principle of a
sliding scale, and that you intend, in the progress of the mea-
sure, to give effect to that opposition to the sliding scale by sup-
porting a fixed duty. If that be the case, I have not a word
to say against the perfect honour, fairness, and consistency of
the course. Now, turning from personal matter to a much
more important point, namely, the arguments upon which the
Bill is founded, I must say that the difficulties of the question
doln)e't ktnhoew
were not much removed by my Noble Friend who opened the
debate. I do not complain that neither he nor any other
Member of the Government has yet stepped forward to explain
the grounds upon which they vindicate their conduct, for when
we have asked the Right Hon. Baronet at the head of the
his simple answer has been, "we must
effectwhat
Government in the other House what he anticipated as the
whatyee
w e will
result of this measue,
decline to prophecy; our prophecy failed in 1842 ; we
of
f hereafter t
hese measures a n d
will not run any risk of our reputation as prophets
it will be. He tells you thal he does not knovv the possi-
ble or the probable result of this measure. As the old r
says: Fiat experiment° inew-pora vini.—( Cheers. ) Tl:.rerb
some insignificant corner of the globe, some inartiticial sia it
in
if
we yforaunkalvsktell
society. Let him try it, where a mistake once made is state
of
irrecoverable, where an error of judgement will not leadnot
to formidable consequences. But why are you to tr
the
midst of the mightiest empire in the world, in this Esygilan
ours, highest and mightiest amongst the nations of thelWornld—^
a nation which is in the most artificial state of society of any
country in the world—a nation in which the slightest deranee--
ment of the social scale, the slightest variation in the relati%
may produce the most extensive anti the most it-re:nestle'
mischief. And in this country, supported by such ''"
3
ments as you have heard from your Noble Friend to ,•1.-1
you are called upon to give your sanction to the it
It may be very well for the Anti-Corn-law League e.
in their own objects and pursuing their own eng
interests. Not
that their own interests are consistent with $1
—but it my be very well for such a body, if
nieotpiublic weal
at least it is natural by their agents to hold difregitimate,
erent lan-
(Tue..° to different classes of persons—to speak
of cheap brew-!
and high wages—of a grinding aristocracy--and of hearq
landlords, and all that clap-trap by which a multitude
deceived—and then t' turn round to the agricultu-ists
say, such will be the universal prosperity which this
less;
will induce that you must not for a moment apprehend t'lt
fall of prices—they will rise, and you will be searehoo(„,
the blessings about to be poured upon the tees
..ry.
will be cheap, but you will get a good price for your •u.
But if this conduct be natural and legitimate in such
it is neither natural nor legitimate in the first Minister of t ;;,
Crown, wielding the authority of the Crown—Speskiss
in th
name of the Crown—oxereising the influence which his liieh
character and station give him, to carry a inns
of such great and deep importance with a do;:.„?
face. My Lords, you- should be told by the Mio:,
on such an occasion as this, what is the object, and what sr
the means by which that object is intended to be effected;
you hare a right to see whether that object is in itself desirabl.st.

—there was free trade in that article of consumption, there was
no restriction on its importa•ion, 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 ne sliding scale that then regulated the supply
—,n January, 1836, it was 8-id. per lb. ;in December, 6id. per
lb. ; in November. it was Hid. per lb. ; in March it was 10Lcl.
in May it was 50. per lb. ; in December it was sid. again ;
and in April it was down to 5-id. 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 important branch of operation in this
country, their Lordships would excuse him if he 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 be-
ginning of the present year. There were apprehensions of
a scarcity, and measures were taken for their own protection
and security; and that I may not be supposed to misrepresent
facts, I will read it from the statement of the First Lord of the
Treasury. It stated that in Belgium, on the 24th of Septem-
ber, the Chamber prohibited the exports, and encouraged the
imports of corn. The manufacturing portion cf the country
had materially increased since the operation of this law, and
even trad, s and professions, of every description
had nearly doubted their profits of late years.
It is stated that it will defraud the trade and commerce of the
country; but, belonging as I do to a manufacturing county
myself, and anxious as 1 am to do whatev, r is ca'culated 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
hteends ay,
evi
e.,
fnoc(uanudt Hear,
opru osh,
pedairi hear.) 0
but rather that it will be productive of great and serious
pltnieelinatt
ob
fa so
ur hithertoprod u tbieveenp
otwh
eeres ff?ectWoef
succeeded by a glut in the market, ad-
versity follow
tuhpeoenouanfturlyl, doermtahnadt .is Irtirytoctahlienuglattoedchteocksetrhvee
prosperity of
the interests of the manufacturing classes, but do not had them
by an unwise system of legislation to depend for their existence
on an 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 fur
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 one
class of corn grower; 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 facts were against it.
True it is the reduction of a halfpenny a pound in the duty on
wool did not check competition 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 be 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.—(Rear,
hear.). Take next the proportion timber. The price of Baltic
timber has not fallen in 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 iz 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 net alter the effect of the
price. I will not enter into the price of butcher's-meat, as your
Lordships 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 7,000. Now, in
a single market—that of Smithfield—the supply of sheep this
year, as compared with last, has been 16,00"3 to 27,000. 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 towhich 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 employed
in 1842 as compared with 1845 ; and how does it stand ? The
tonnage, in 1842, was 3,619,000, anti the increase in 1t345 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 985,00 e, 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
shipping there has been a larger increase than has resulted
from the tariff altogether, and this branch has had no connexion
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 cases 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 I fillla 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. Therefore we may anticipate, if we take off the duty
there will be a large portion immediately brought into our mar-
kets at4os. I have received a letter this rnorningfrom one of the
largest corn-dealers in England, whosays that he holds two car-
goes of red wheat imported from the Danube, which he bought
free on board at 145., and the freight to Liverpool was 9s. 6d.;
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 36i. 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 shewing that it could be imported at a price of 255.
or 2 is. a quarter. The reduction may not be so great as this,
still that will not reverse my objection to the measure, as I
have no doubt corn may ba supplied in such quantities,
and at such prices as will press most severely on the
English producers, who will be obliged to compete Pith them.
I have no doubt also that capital from this coutiry 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, while it throws in a correspond-
ing degree the land at home out of cultivation. But now we
are told that if the price of corn falls then the manufacturer can
get 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-Corn-
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 0 ages exactly fellow the price of
corn. 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 he 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 Lords.
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 consego.,nce of that reduction
in the price of grain, the wages of Ot.,e member of that family
is reduced one shilling per week, and that, I presume, is the
very lowest estimate we can te.‘e. 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 coup-.
tries. We are lbd to believe that Russia and Prussia, and 'are
United States, do not take our manufactures because v-,0
not take their produce in return. Now there never -Was an
that
argument their f upon fact than this. It is a Pacts
with regard to all the countries from whic/..1 we draw
at the present moment, our imports larr„e y p dommate over
1 re' lvw• "" corn
our exports, and we consequently allow
ad-
vantages than they give in them :ouch greater
is the trade of the Unitcl/ 'return, to us. Here and your Lordships may be mule' , States, for example,
of value of cotton alone importer/ ised to learn that the amount
greatly exceeds the value oi. , into this country, in one year,
veiltha we sent in the same poi:
the whole exports put tognethLr
fi ast years, the exports Lod to the United ,gtateb. I
had e'en to the
extent of 7,500,000 i. Yr the United States
t, in the eighteen years preceding,
the amount had been 7,5 r 00001. Your importation of alone, in the last five
ears,
is
not a less sum (assumingcotton that
we take four-fifhs of our cotton from the United States, and
calculating the price, at 4d. per lb.) than 7,817,000/. Now
what is the advareter
,e that we shall receive from the United
States in reture believe that you will receive no advantage
from the passing GI this measure. I find at in th last six
years an imporeati,
the United States had beene made of
253,000,000 dolts
rs, while their exportation to this
country ha;( ,
ached 354,000,000 dollars, leaving a
Here
balance of 101
is the cos J,OOO dollars in favour of the United States.
,
it ,_ti This," he wens o f the Secretary to the Treasury upon
be 25 per cent
Sas " is the nominal value, but there should
added to make up the real value. There has
been a balance
and, with the,i n our favour in each of the past six years,
years, Our
exception of 1839, in each of the last nine
ext mrt trade is annually increasing, while our
imports rema:iii I he same, and any modification made in the
oorn-laws
, Gres at Britain, which will admit our bread-stuffs
On reasolvehle tart as"—he does not calculate on this very liberal
measure—.
O will -
ive an immense impulse to the export trade." the other hand," says the Secretary for the Treasury,
" every Unproven sent and increase made in our manufactures
establishes our al ei,lity to supply the kerne demand both in the
cotton and wools a a natoufactures, and tem?s to re.!uce our impor-
tation from otheo countries." You are told here that as soon as
they can dist-tense with your assistance they will do tee. With
regard to Russi a and Prussia, the case was thee same. In
Russia, in the , year 1533, Mr. Rl‘Grego'; stated that
their total exp ertations amounted to alreee 11,000,000,
while their av erage importations were Only 6,177,000,
showing a halal ice of some 5,000,000 in their favour.
And to Presetas the exportations 2mo...sr..tea to 3,138,000, while
the itnpertesi‘ e is coached only 50:e,"000. The duties charged
uP'en our ma' eafactures by the Uat:te.d State were almost pro-
nibitory—th( iy ranged from 45 tee,s to 150 ; and in the article of
glass they re ached 243 per reent. The tariff; of Russia and
Prussia are equally prohi:eitery. Mr. M'Gregor states that
the Russian duties are Fareshibitory, because the Government
there wishesl to discoaretemance the importation of any article
(hat can be drawn by tb.e serfs from the mines or forests. Ac-
cordingly U a the whole of Russia your manufactures are sub-
jected to
an aver Age duty of 65 per cent., while in Prussia
you are e' iarged from 60 to 130 per cent. But the argument.
is boldly' cut fon ward that oar duties are equally prohibitory,
because v •
re 1111 pose 25 per cent. on the article of corn. It is
pretende the goods of
that this duty prevents our taking
countrie
I, al' „lough these countries impose no less than five-
fold on t h
lie r oods received from us. Dr. Bowring, who was
sent
ectat ou
by a Noble Lord lately in office, held out
p
ex
,nithat a modification of the tinilor duties would be