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

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

they were considering a tuestion in agreem, nt with a policy which
had been acte.i upon for a long period, and which would not be
elonei way with, without occasioning a dreadful revulsion. The
'question N57.a how to carry out a measure in agreement with
!be circumstances in which the country was placed.—( Hear,
'ear.) These (continued the Noble Duke) were the grounds
Tn which the measure of 1821 was recommended to the House
by Mr. Rnhinson,—(Laughter. ) I will now call the atten-
tion of your Lordships to another speech made, not by Mr.
in
on, hot by the Noble Lord. It was made in 1841 in
This Rotate, when the Noble Lord was not sitting on the Minis-
terial 'oeetch, and h 3 would read a short extract from it. I do
Minis-
this tr, show that the Lord Ripon of a former day was not the
—°ll.'s Ripon of to-day, and that I conceive him better entitled
to 'oe followed then than now. The Noble Duke then read the
4?ztract which was to the following effect .—" Looking at the
-Motives and principles by which men are governed, he could
'not think of abandoning all the settled political rules upon
-which they had hitherto acted. It appeared to him that the
'Government scheme was both vicious anti fallacious." There
'vas no word there of Lincoln-heath. "He could not doubt that
-under the operation of the new corn-law a considerable portion
of the country would be thrown out of cultivation."—( Hear,
heath, Rut if sou wait a moment you will get to Lincoln-
you only require to allow e the next sentence or two.
''' The evil
once commenced no m
one. could see where it would
*ten, or what disastrous consequences would result from it."
So that nay Noble Friend looks forward to the light-house being
Useful after all.—(Laughter. ) Now, looking to another speech
!_f, Illy Noble Friend's, a speech made in 1842, and here he
""es a different view of the question, " The great evil which I
anticipate from the adoption of the principle that all restrict-
linns en foreign corn should be withdrawn is this, 'hat the
"People of this country will be compelled to depend on other
l'_cations for the supplies of fond, not to meet any ocessionel de-
"cieneY , but to depend altogether on other countries for the
Main portion of their supplies. Such dependence is indeed
hanging upon a broken reed, for they would ever he in danger
'of a failure of those supplies." No one doubted that " the pro-
gress of agriculture, for many years past. trs been most rte
rn -
arkahle ; the pregress is not, indeed, able to keep pace with
the People, but with a little addition from foreign countries, we
znaY, indeed, be said to rely upon our own resources. For my
case, it is not necessary to enter into the coat 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,
and it is true at this time. It is quite true that the cost of ag-
ricultural produce is higher here, but. this would not be the
ease if it were not for the particular and heavy burdens'to which
the land is subjected. " If we take away protection from the
Leine producer, you will cause the withdrawal of a
considerable portion of that produce from the land ; at a time,
!no, when you may not be able to depend on support from
foreign countries; and you will also withdraw the use of that
7 ineital which is invested in the land thrown out of cultivation."
~ Os re el
ay Noble Friend appears to have been drawn to admit
IT point. It was stated by some of the Members of the
prise that it was not the intention of the Government that
ets Bill of 1842 should be a final measure, and thereupon my
bee
Friend says, " If we can imagine that the Ministry had
teen guilty of the crime of endeavouring to deceive the
People of this country on this eubject. I c n only say that they
Will be guilty of one of the most miserable as well as base
Political vices of which a Ministry can he considered capable."
.e !Loud cheers.) " I am convinced that this Bill will be re-
"ed by you as a satisfa.ctory adjustment of this great
Tanstion." Well, it appears that my Noble Friend the Noble
Ilike on the cross benches (the Duke of Buckingham) was
s?: satisfied with that declaration ; and what answer did my
Noble Friend opposite make to him ? He certainly had not
"4le arrogance to state that any law Parliament should pass
:I t,
is subject, or any other, should be taken as final. All he
lforuseld'aY for himself was that if he had brought
ot b,
lld be a measure intending and wishing that it should
final he would say so. He hoped this measure
111 final, he thought it was a good thing if it were.
.:hteletrt should
not be his fault if it were not.—(Protection
Piraeus) Now, my Lords', it appears however, that my Noble
te..,eas. admits that very large sums of money have been ex-
-,,,i upon the improvement of land in this country. My
~,e_ru, a great deal of that money was invested in such im- 12;:7 ments before the year 1842, and I am sure that there are
thantey of your Lordships here present who will remember that
,one money having been laid out on the faith of protection was
.b.„._ nt the main arguments which were adduced
to recommend
-1,0 war r Lordships to reject, the Committees that were moved
~,,heYear after year to inch ire into the corn-laws. I ask
„ her that argument has not been strengthened since 1842?
measure have
eas read the speeches of the Minister who proposed the
...'n_.ortire in this House, and I ask whether it was not perfectly
SZTr lot's that large sums of money had been expended in this
,`:!t laudable and desirable object on the faith of the
Nee', of Parliament. Then, coy Lords, I ask
2pass will you now pass a measure—will you now
Z,'.!
.a retrospective line of confiscation of preperty—will you
iPirtvefl the capitalist—he he the owner or the occupier of the
vh,--uf the means of gaining that fair return for his outlay
"woe Ich be made on the faith of the existing law? Now, what
._s another authority say on this subject? He says, that
'taller the system of protection which had existed for above 200
'Years, wild, heather land has been reclaimed, extensive tracts
a::)r Country have been drained, by which a healthy population
tve been employed, and their lives prolonged ; land this not
, the expense of the manufacturing prosperity. My
Lords, I make that quotation, because I see that it is applica-
ble to the present moment. But, my Lords, your Lordships
Are aware that under this system of protection, those for whom
Iknow you will always feel the liveliest and deepest interest,
*he working classes in this country—those that are agricultural,
and those that are operative—for I feel the same sentiments
towards both of them—will be the great sufferers. Look, my
:Lords, at this return : at the present moment there are in the
salings' banks 1,600,000 accounts, with an average of 27,.
ieell i 600,003 depositors with au average of 71. each ;
the total (and it seems to indicate how this country
~„ been pauperised by protection), amounts to
?d,oooooo'. sterling. That is the result of pro-
rp which is now about to be arrested from us. It
;_aey be arrested from us by force, but never, my Lords, while
''ea stistatements are before us, will they do so by argument.
LLIY Lords, we are told that we are to have free trade. The
amanufacturers—no,_aet not the manufacturers, but a section of the
"":3°v!it. urers—a section of Manchester cotton-spinners, tell
taken" we know nothing about farming; and they say we will
r farms from you, we will bring capital—l wonder
Chang 7
not Say experience--and work them properly. This
remove they say shall be made, and we are called upon
20te r:no've from our farms and from their occupation from
14;1.TO to 30,0i-es
oe of the tenantry of this country. But. my
berg n's if you remove them from their occupations, what is to
thee of them ? Why, tuned
Lords, all this tenantry with
go sr atnilies, when they are turned out of employment, must
:ni--esiattieletounion workhouse for their daily bread, or they must
the manufacturing districts, where, if it is their
tneunY t° seek employment, they will serve under these very
km wile have been the cause of their ruin and destruction,
, u the whole of their worldly prosperity; but, my Lords, I
Lorca you will not sanction this. You know too well, my
the L.; that these manufacturers have a deep hostility against
ba..! rulers of England, because they know that the farmers
the.eyer been warmly attached to our Constitution, and to
thou Tights and liberty of the Crown. They wish also to lower
~e.v,sl)!*l es of produce, and to get a large number of agricultu-
(iaetLinrtko.their towns for the purpose of lowering the wages of
people. They wish permanently to lower the wages
prosutae tperative, not only from a desire to obtain greater
or themselves, but they do it also for the purpose of
.Presenting those strikes which seldom take place when wages
become inw• Ru
ee of th t'
my
Lords, again let nee ask you what is to
wish to knowe Y"lnen and tenantry of this great country 1 I
e,h_ ~ , when the value of produce is so diminished, and
len the poor-rates are so much increased—l should ask
iZnarerLfoorrdships how they wll be enabled to do any thing but
a .few years? My "Lords, it is a, curious circumstance,
l';endgoene which you are no doubt aware of, that in this country
e`"re_ n rat when the price of produce falls poor-rates in-
,„,ase.--( Hear, hear.) I have taken the trouble of
esiradin-
-5 from the tenth report of the Poor-law Commis-
s.!°aers some figures with respect to this. I have tkenthem from
that report, and I could only find them down tot the year 1843,
but still, at the same time, I bring this return forward, to show
Your Lordships that what I have stated has occurred. I find
by that report, that whilst the price of wheat was 68s. per
Varter, the cost upon the population for the maintenance of
Itke poor, and for out-door relief, was 4s. Bd. per head. My
-Lords, in the year 1843, when wheat was 545. 4d. per quarter,
the rate of expense upon the population per head was ss. sd. ;
therefore showing that when the price of wheat is low the
poor rates are higher; and that when wheat is at a remunerat-
ing price those rates diminish. And it is self-evident why they
re so reduced ; because the people get employment.—( Hear,
—ear') Non, my Lords, one of the attacks made by my Noble riend, and dby his colleagues—the Anti-Corn-law Leaguc—
a this., that the tenantry of this country have no capital
nn skill. My Lords, I believe there is no country in the
World where farmers are more skilful and more intelligent
"(Hear, hear)—and where they are more upright, and
n re 1,
tueY behave better to their humble neighbours
awe labouring classes. I think I may state this, because I
,ii more personally acquaintedacquainted with the farmers of this emrire
One of your Lordshiempirefat
s, and I contradict the assertion
letth.eY are not skilful, anti PI
think it would be too badif
ofa
linen by
ulster was to turn round and to taunt that important body
say in
the g that th have not lare capitals. Lors,
heavy, the unequal,y the unjust, the unfair mannerMy in which
the tenantry of this country are taxed—(Cheers)—coupled with
igaullisrir,ncy Bill of 1819, have decidedly dimished their means
t O imp rsot:en et
he e; ebouutotthrey have now sufficient capital to be enabled
country and more capital would flow from
the
'rnProvereent
ifhttshe land. But the new schemes, the new plan
would prevent°
Provenaednimt ; for if they want to get capital for the ins-
ionf.sthe land, this Bill would prevent it, because it
!bold
.but it is my i h the value of their produce.—(Hear, hear.)
Nobl • Friend's areument that it will not produce it ;
Out if you do not admit that it will reduce the price of provisions,
eit will be diandgoerous indeed, for that clearly will be the result.
‘1), be
passniontgthink that I should myself be justified in much
'c'nger tre
upon your Lordships' attention. 1 have
btaeivneupon
at:moment disguised the strong feeling which I enter-
'relieved also I,great and momentous question, and I think I am
ta,f. your Lot:15h); doing so from believing that the great majority
a Loud cheers.) My
ps dislike this measure as much as I do.—
foLords, I believe, and as I stated upon a
rifler eceasion I will repeat it now, that if the votes upon
this question were ticii be taken by ballot in this House—( Hear,
bear)—l do not
of it.—(Loud cheersevaentcll' tighter.) ere would be twelve balls in favour
there are some of your Lorldaeu
hiMy Lords, however,
conics ; it's no use contendingwho say " Free trade must
a Lost.he contrary ; you had better
give way at once ; there is
of thaeeiternent out of doors." Now
I deny that the great body
in favour of this measure—(HZP7atives in this country are
dra,rethe very hoe_
jareer)—and I say that the
have a public meet-
Anti-Corn-law League has never
ing without tickets, even at Manche:tete'
bed of
their sedition—(Cheers)—they do not
tives at a public meeting without tickets. rust the opera -
there
that even if it were so—if were excitemeYnt Lords. I think
--it would be a bad argument to use. I think th7tutti;)f doors,
Mit that argument once it will be converted into a daY"rad-
precedent—(Hear, hear ):_—aeno agußeonbtlewtoich would Cedan.s.
gerous in future times Then Lord there are ter_
say y"
We never
taint y other;Noble L gds who ervteted against the
,' We do not Government."—( Laughter. ) like to vote against
the Government of this country."—( Hear, hear.) s. ,
abandon our 1 e have"
laPported Sir R. Peel—we cannot leader," is not his party who haveea $b
an_
hear.) My Ler s,.
R. Peel who happens au-
doned Sir R. Peel, but it is Sir to have
abandoned his party—(Hear, hear, and laughter.) ) And, my
aug
Lords, others again come forward and support Sir R. Peel on
Peel has lost all character
but Sir R. the ground of consistency, .
will
man in this country ever
for consistency, for there is no
consistency,
confidence of the large classes of the community.—
(Cheers.)i'egain the
oftenor twelveyears before
It took him upwards
he could gain unfidence, after the year 1829—( ear, ear)--
50(1 he has no more chance of regaining the confidence of the
k e of this coun-
try—(Hear, now than he has of sitting on the throne co
sre hear, and laughter.) Well then,
e•—(Hear,. my Lords, I
h tives which were
nnist call your Lordshipa' attention to t e !no
of Parliament, but of those
PUblicly avowed. I will not speak .
out of d .ors. They publicly avow that their object is to crush
the
aristocracy of the country.—(Cheers,
M L d
hens will not say one of the most respectable,
bee, y
f the most respeetable mem-
, use certainly not one 3
because
of the Anti-Corn-law League, bat a Mr. Bright, fairly
a"
°PenlY, at all the meetings, states that his desire is to
crush the aristocracy.—( Hear, hear.) My Lords, I hope and
triust that your Lordships will remember that this is a question
(.1. vast importance—( Hear, hear)—that your Lordship will
7`te,ellect the eventful times which we are looking forward to—
ii:_ear, hear)— that it le e' ,lie grec.tt,' imporai,t'e to th 3
0 jedointary Legislature of this country—it is their duty, in my
pPB.l7' s to vote without favour or affection—to lay aside
0 I feeling and political bias, and to vote according
4194 conscieucea upou meaning lading the "61 of

the large masses of their fellow-subjects.—(Hear, hear )
It is incumbent on you, not only upon this highest ditty of all,
but also incumbent upon you, from reasons of expediency. My
Lords, the Anti-Corn-law League are carrying on the agitation
with a view of destroying the Church, impairing the constitu-
tion of this country, changing the constitution of this House.
My Lords, you. will be powerless if you do not possess as here-
tofore the good opinion of the great body of the middle classes
of this great country. 1 tell it to your Lordships with perfect
respect, this will he the consequence except you do maintain
that good opinion, and you cannot maintain that go.id opinion
if this great body find you voting against your former promises,
and against your former pledges; and if you have not them with
you, you are powerless. In conclusion, I will only, though at
the same time most earnestly, implore your Lordships to vote
against this measure, because I believe that it is (if you do not
reject it) accepted only as an instalment of future and still
greater changes ; and I ask your Lordships now, at the out-
posts, to fiwht your battles, or else, depend upon it, you will
have a difficulty hereafter in showing a proper front.
—( Hear.) My Lords, I vote against this Bill, be
nesting upon my honour that it is a measure which
which
Church, will
and shake
e r
theis onlyfo o
ot hd
ae t
ifio
orsst
oast! atchke—Tthlt it
danger our institutions, and convert a hitherto happy and con-
icsraippmlesasthuere
tented people into wretchedness and misery ; and because I
believe it will lead to endless confusion and anarchy, and
that your Lordships are now called upon to make that stand
which I humbly hope you will do.—( Cheers. )
Earl FITZWILLIA3I and the Marquis of LONDONDERRY
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
who had just sat down '..ad read, at the conclusion of his
speech, a list of formidable dangers with which he had
threatened their Lordships if they consented to this measure.
He thought his Noble Friend would have done well if he had
pointed out with more distinctness the grounds upon which he
expected that their Lordships acquiesence in these measures
would lead to such formidable results. He (Earl Fitzwilliam
entertained none of these apprehensions. He was still willing
to think that their Lordships would deal with this
measure of great and beneficial political policy—( Hear)--
without any reference to these fears which he has thundered
out, and nursed in his rnir d, in order to alarm your Lordships.
He would pass to a consideration of the measure, and should
not go into any part of his Noble Friend's speech, nor should he
trouble himself with its details, but he could not help saying
that they had a right to expect an explanation of the state of
things which should exist consequent on the passing of the mea-
sure. If his mind did not deceive him, his Noble Friend on
all former occasions—and he was a man of large experience—
had condescended to inform the Houses of Parliament, which
ever he might have addressed, what state of things would he
consequent of a nteasure. On the present occasion, however,
he leaped to a conclusion, and called on them to go at once
from restriction to free trade. He must defend the Noble
Lord from any charge of inconsistency, because he had not only
now, but on former occasions, expressed himself as adverse to
any duty on the import of foreign grain. However,the warfare
was concluded. He had been long enough engaged in it, and it
gave him the greatest satisfaction to contemplate the time of
peace when this Bill would pass, for he could not contemplate
that a time would come when the Noble Lord upon the Wool-
sack would propose a revival of the corn-laws. He was not
one of those who believed that any disastrous consequences
would accrue to their Lordships from the measure. His opi-
nion was quite the contrary; and, from circumstances which
had came to his knowledge whilst the measure had been de-
bated in another House, which strengthened him in that opinion.
he must speak his mind on this subject. He was about to
vote fur this Bill; he trusted that it would be passed—he be.
lieved it would ho passed by a great majority. But he was
free to say that if it had been his lot, on coy other occasion,
to have been successful in inviting th. it Lordships' attention to
the kind of Bill now propoted, the present Bill was not the
one he would have submitted for their Lordships' consideration
or adoption. He was not one of those who dealt in language
which he thought was more fit for ancient ladies—(A laugh)—
than for grave statesmen. They were told of the cruelty of
taxing the necessaries of life, but he was not one of those who
believed that there was anything inhuman, even under the
pre sure of the greatest scarcity, in maintaining the duty on
the importation of foreign corn. He did not believe that there
was any difficulty in levying the duty on that import, and in
that respect he disapproved of the present Bill, as it wasted a
!arge revenue which they could have raised. They had wasted
a revenue which they must replace by other taxes, to be con-
tinued or to be imposed. He said that other taxes were to be
continued or to be imposed, because even under that system
of law which has ja t been condemned in the Hou e
of Commons—and after the anticipated (if he could use such a
word with regard to the anticipation of the decision of their
Lordships), after the anticipated vote of their Lordships, he
might venture to call that law absurd—but even under that sys-
tern a large revenue was placed in the exchequer of the coun-
try. That revenue was about to be removed, and they must
find a substitute for it, and where it was to be found he knew
not ; whether in an increase of the income-tax, or by the in-
crease of the Excise duties, if they could be increased to any
greater extent. It so happened that when he was first mace
acquainted with this anticipated legislation, he was at a
gr• at distance from this country, and he heard that it
was said in the other House of Parliament that gen-
tlemen were not to take the measure by itself they
were not to look at the Bill for the abolition of the corn laws
by itself, but they were to look at the whole measure—they
were to look at everything that might be given on the principle
of compensation. He did not believe that the landed interest
would suffer in consequence of this measure, and he therefore
did not believe that there was much in the way of compensation
to be given. Other persons would view it in a different light,
with regard to the compensation to be given to the landed in-
terest, but he thought it was not a very unnatural expectation,
that what was considered a great boon to the landed interest—
nay, the existence of the present corn-law, should require com•
pensation on its removal. When he was told in Italy that they
anticipated a great reduction in the taxation, he certainly did
not expect that it would be made up by a new tariff. There
might instead, he thought, have been a considerable reduction
in the excise-laws, and he had had a sanguine expectation that
her Majesty's Ministers, who seemed to care nothing about
taxation, would have done something of this kind. He thought
there might have been at least a considerable reduction, if not
an entire repeal of the malt tax.—(Hear, hear.) That would
have been a large and proper compensation ; he thought also
that the landed interest should have had that tax repealed,
as it operated, not only unequally, but oppressively upon
them. This tax was not only injurious to the
landlords, but more especially to the farmers
and occupiers of land, as it operated to raise the price of beer
to the persons whom they employed. The repeal of that tax
would involve the laying on of other imposts ; but in meeting
that, he would not add to the income-tax, for he wished it
repealed, but he would lay a large additional tax on real
property. There was another point on which he entertained
a strong feeling. They were to have a bit of a sliding scale
for three years ; but what the use of that was he could not see.
The general opinion of those engaged in agriculture was, that
if the question was to be settled, it ought to be settled imme-
diately. ( Hear, hear.) He had always been averse
to any other course of dealing with the law —he had
always been, and was, opposed to a gradual abolition.
On these grounds he was always adverse to gradual aboli.
tions, and if he were to propose a law on this subject, he would
propose one very different from that which was brought in by
her Majesty's Ministers, and he was not surprised at the indig-
nation which it excited among many of their Lordships. It
seemed unfortunately as if there were a sort of race, a sort of St.
Leger or Derby, between the advocates of the Corn Bill and
'he present Ministry, as to which should render themselves
most unpopular, but the Treasury had gone a-head of them on
this question. Well, inasmuch as it got rid of the question of
protection, he rejoiced at it, but he could not but think the
Bill one of which their. Lordships had reason to complain He
complained of it, but he must vote for it ; he was driven into a
corner, he had no help for it bat to do so. He must vote
for this Bill or he must run the risk of losing the Bill for a
year. He valued the measure for the abolition of protection to
corn, and he could not therefore run the risk of such an event.
He might not perhaps to say what he was now going to say,
but expressions had been used that made it necessary for him
theirte. d o
os op..peo
vs
eSi
opposition;
ohmoeel;
pNhmoi
sbe
.al eLsLwor,eld
me."—(Laughter.)
uo
gh
ha
thosedt
e ras:Ne do
ybhol iuom
hLatoovredh
stehl
must
therefore
ote
rme
be—
You no
just right to ask for my help on the present occasion. But
even if he were willing to give tat support, he could not give it
cHoonstihstoeungthlyt
twhiothGhoivsevrinezesootf
otfheeat objects of the measure.
country acted unfairly to
the House. He thought the Househad thisgreat r
o f reasonthi totto
ac
go
omi
g
plain of them. Why, in propounding a measure
tude—not merely a measure of this
magnitude—but
Lordships
he a measure
t
which must have surprisedall
he asked whether it was right to
measure in such a way as to preperloupdoese theirs
Lordships from effecting a desired settlement of the question,
by introducing certain amendments ? He asked if it was decent,
if it was fair towards their Lordship? House, to propose this
measure in this manner ? It was according to the practice, in
a measure of this great importance, that resolutions should
have been produced in the other House, and communicated to
this House in the first instance. This would have been the
proper rule for the Ministry to have pursued. They
could then have had an opportunity of considering this
question with the other House, and of associating their
views with the views of the other House of Parliament.
Now the ground was cut from them. They could not enter
into such a negotiation. The smallest amendment to the
Bill would be fatal to it, and he would not be one to risk so
awful an event. Disapproving of the conduct of her Majesty's
Government, adopting not their opinions, but adopting all the
views which were expressed by his Noble Friend on the Oppo.
sition bench (the Duke of Richmond) with respect to the
conduct of the Government on this question, he felt precluded
from acting in any other manner than that which he was
about to do. He implored and entreated their Lordships not
to risk that great question, and he made that appeal not only to
those who were with him in wishing to set this question at rest,
but he made it with almost equal canfidetre to those who
thought the existing law ought to be maintained ; for it was a
measure which would do away with a system which had been
mischievous to every class of society ; and there was no class
which had reaped such bitter proofs of it as the agricultural
interest.

The Duke of CLEVELAND regretted that he should be
compelled to oppose a Government with which he had always
hitherto acted. In 1843, he was invited by the Noble Duke
.at the head of the Government in that House, to move the
address in answer to the speech from the Throne ; and, con-
curing then in the principles of the Government, he readily
consented to undertake the duty, but before doing so he re-
minded the Noble Duke that rumours were abroad that Minis-
ters intended to change the corn-law which they had passed
the year before. The Noble Duke, however, informed him
that there was no foundation whatever for any such rumour,
and he (the Duke of Cleveland) upon that authority, not
only contradicted the rumour, but went further and declared
that ao far as the present Government were concerned, that
measure at least was intended to be final. And he understood
as much from what the Noble Duke had told him.—(Cheers.)
A corn-law could be traced as far back as the reign of King
taken
.Ttohn, and modifications and improvements had been made in
ipasfsreoz time to time up to the period when the present law was
one of the strop plate
againstcontended
the that
cor the Corn
B ißill
agitationought which i ch.havheadbreeencenrtely.
British farmer
pressed by the G
they would find ov"am"t'
industry of the
fereig not
but if they assented to the measure
it impossible to retrace their steps, which teas
?yeast objections he could urge against it. The
with the rest of t
the heavy burdens unLoruntr
hen farmer, if he were placed on equal terms
afraid to compete with the skill or
poor-rates, or if those tones which it laboured, namely, taxes and
Sr, and freed from the influence of
country. He would now refer y borne by thely,
rest of the
it had been said had beenerrtocetnhtel yg made oinec ef
as sviooon
rs
owf h
ti
hc he
first concession made was a re-
couldwlaTi.eb itNwoas said that the farmer
it so happened that the
farmers of this country.
ducting upon linseed,
that the small
obtain it at a cheaper rate.
the next con-
. and
large farmers grew their own Now
wecell and
farmers could mot afford to use it.
cession was, the reduction in clover seed. 'EL' believed that
the greater part of the farmers grew their own
they would of course derive no benefit from the e'gsecd
The last concession he believed was the reduction of the duty on
French brandy. Now the fact was, that the farmers oft thisn
country scarcely knew what French brandy was; they drink
that brandy which was distilled by themselves, and very much
resembled in colour a black dose._( Hear, hear.) Those
were the only cances'ions that he knew of as having been made
..i fa:,ur ~; tii:, I,::itish f:murr. lie c,,ai“ncied 11v.,, 11113 mea-
sure was the most cruel, unjust, and oppressive measure that
was ever attempted to be passed by the Legislature upon an
industrious, loyal, and an independent people—(Hear, hear)—
la it was adopted for the purpon of oppressing that elan for

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 John Russell was leader in the House of Commons he
gave notice of his intention to bring forward a measure for a
fixed duty of 83. 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
forward, and made,confidenceinthe a sGovernment.usual That motion he
brought
a very able speech s but
he rusted 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 dut; of Bs. in lieu of the
existing sliding scale. After four or five nights de-
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 a 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 other 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 belonged 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 five years,
changed his opinions—he who was the keystone of Conserva-
tism—he need not tell their Lordships that he would sooner
have cut 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 alter all they were the very same
he himself had answered when Vr. 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—
e measure which would make such a change in the policy ol
this country and of the Government—he thought it was the
duty of the Government to have asssembled their friends 'n
both Houses, and to have given them information of their in-
ended measure, said 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
oho would find fault with the opinion of any man, nor had Le
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
oroduce, from 10 to 20 or 30 per cent. would inevitably fall on
'here yeomen.—( Hear, hear.) The next class of sufferers
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 them take a farm of 3001. rent yearly,
this m-asure, he was pursuaded, would reduce the gross pro-
duce of such a farm 201. per cent. This would leave the rent
2401., while the 900 a, 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
601. from the landlord. He now cams 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 not 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 longer fuund them the means of subsistence by
their industry. Not only would the labourers on many tracts
if 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 manufacturing 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 parr).-
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 agricul-
ture. 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 putty on the
Irish Chureh.—( Hear, hear.) A clamour had 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 pause before 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 ail knew that a buildinne 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 Lordships 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
etition 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 riot 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
much as his Noble Friend (the Duke of Richmond), but he
thought ha might say, that Sir 11 Peel dideon the whole,
pass;ess 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 ultnnetely 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 to much of
their Lordships, by voting for this measure, to secure the ser-
vices of such an eminent political leader.—( Hear, hear.)
Tneir Lordship. 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 b 3 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.
How many of their Lordships had , voted for free trade on a
nrevious occasion ?—(Great cheering from the Protectionist
Peers.) Osly six had voted; and would it be said that the
many converts to free trade in their Lordships' House were to
i'
eobdbl ehl DukemEs aerllf
had reproachedquoted Hansard,for their
h e changeans
answer to ino
the politics?
speechr
ofht he
uthpeouPtheidgerneattotfrithhaelilloawrhdiochf Cheonfatrhocli,edanhde hadhad pmluaeNdmNeoe.—(
Hear,
hear.) He (the Marquis of Londonderry) thought that he
could, if he wished, make use of the same weapons, and show
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.")
tslhtne
receivetQh aee
et wordsnh es sanction
oo theyartiimNefonnitbthl
oteeon
Legislature?Dt
hhueskc ea ,
rrhi ee
dcoonu
fdT
thhwei issNhmoetboal
seuaDrs
ekudkhowDuke had
aofdat
bycoauttrehidetpheaotpSleirofßothbert Peel had lost the confidence of the
His Noble Friend had
eitee'vcd that this measure try, but lie (the Marquis of Londonderry) knew this, that
during the last twelve
the church. Now he (the would
not a murmur had been raised
country against his political measures.
tfihnai
ts,h.etdh hti I
ssipr
R Lech.pbeye sl
htaatdi n g
distinctlyth at h e
stated, on the 28th Magrc.h, to thea
Whig lead to the destruction of
only say in answer (the Marquis of Londonderry) could
g party in the House of
they happened to agree With him on
Cl:n/IMM that, although

this measure, yet on other questions the difference be- I
tween himself and them was as great as ever. The Noble Mar-
quis then proceeded to read extracts from the report of the
Ecclesiastical Commission, and that of which Lord Devon was
the head, to show that the oeinions of those who bad 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 melt 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 and strength of the case which I 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 dangerousily
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
beets hitherto on the
the present
leadersoccasion
o ti the sod
gat to all
parties
your Lordships' House and the other Housave been divided.
re t
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
House h
those e o
into who have
which
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 antih
have b >en made use of by those Noble Lords themselves.
which the expressions
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 these 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
unble,nished lustre on the names of Canning and Liverpool.—
( Cheers.) From those it is that I have to appeal to the states-
men of the present day. And, I believe, I may also appeal to
the authority of all those who have swayed the destinies of the
country, or who have taken a prominent place in the nations of
the world.—( Cheers.) I meet the Noble Earl, who opened
the discus'ion, and who says that the question has not been
raised by former Govern cents, upon the principle of protection,
and I say, that if my Noble Friend will search the record of
history, front 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 grew owners,
but the great proprietors of laud—but Whereas, certain la-
bourers and occupiers in husbandry, being grieviously endansaged
by the bringing in 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
Lor.'s, I will not be satisfied with home authorities upon the
subject. There is not 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
unrestricted trade.—(Cheers.) Upon the contrary, with
all the weight of evidence past and present, with every
variety of denseness of population, and scarceness of popula-
tion, with every possible variety of civil institutions from the
highest form of absolute monarchy to the lowest firms of re-
publicism, when accompanied by the authority of all the coun-
tries i n favour of a sy stem 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 prima facie inference
that statesmen in former times, and all countries
of the present day, are not only not destitute of sound
opinions, political wisdom, and sagacity, but that tile 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 I am compelled to take, no words which
may fell 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
anti 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 ebarseter—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—of
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 hove 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 convuhieg struggle between personal attachment
and public principles to which he was exposing his warmest and
most devoted friends—he tritest 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-mintiest 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 f. mends they had the modesty to keep these opinions
from public view.—( Hear, hear.) It is not my intention to
follow the Noble Marquis. I do not desire to speak on the
present occasion to your passions, but to your reason. I do not
wish to aggravate your feelings of mortification ; I might use a
stronger word than that ; I might refer to such feelings as
inw whom would be felt bpynttheir
persons
trust.findingN
themselves
will I enterlyesdeceived
übpynnthe
those
glestion of consie eney ; if I were to do so I should have to
direct attention to Noble Lor-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 beon the case
down to the period of that memorable conflict,
that verbose grarailoqua, 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
were not much removed by my Noble Friend who opened the
di bate. 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
Government in the other House what he anticipated as the
result of this measue, his simple answer has been, " we must
decline to prophecy; our prophecy failed in 181.2 ;
we
will not run any risk of our reputation .as prophets
hereafter ; and if you ask what will lie the effect
of these measures we frankly tell you we don't know what
it will be. He tells you that he does not know the possi-
ble or the probable result of this measure. As the old proverb
says: Fiat experiment° ineorpora vini.—(Cheers. ) Try it in
some insignificant corner of the globe, some inartifieial state of
society. Let him try it, where a mistake once made is not
irrecoverable, where an error of judgement will not lead to
formidable consequences. But why are you to try in the
midst of the mightiest empire in the world, in this England of
ours, highest and mightiest amongst the nations of the world—
a nation which is in the most artificial state of society of any
country in the world—a nation in which the slightest derange-
ment of the social scale, the slightest variation in the relation,
s en t
e public may produce the most extensive and the most irremediable
called
objects upon
and g
s yournin g
their
h sanctioneir own to
interests.me
mischief. And in this country, supported by such argil
ments as you have heard from, your Noble Friend to night,
It may be very well for the. Anti-Corn-law League, engaged
that their own interests are consistent with thc weal
—but it may be very well for such a body, if not legitimate,
at least it is natural by tl teir agents to hold different
in you
their are
p
own
lan-
guage to different classes of' persons—to speak of cheap bread
and high wages—of a grinding aristocracy—and of heartless
landlords, anti all that clasp-trap by which a multitude are
deceived—and then to turn, round to the agriculturists and
say, such will be the universal prosperity which this measure
will induce that you must not for a moment apprehend the
fall of prices—they will rise, and you will be shareholders in
the blessings about to be poured upon the country. Bread
will be cheap, but you will get a good price for your corn.
But if this conduct be net, oral and legitimate in such a body,
it is neither natural nor Z egititnate in the first Minister of the
Crown, wielding the authority of the Crown—speaking in the
name of the Crown—exercising the influence which his high
character and station rgive him, to carry a measure
of see i great and ?p importance with a (binge
face. My Lords, you should be told by the Minister
on such an occasion as this e what is the object, and what are
the means by which that object is intended to be effected; and
you have a right to see whelk ter that oiled is iu itself desirable,

and whether the means proposed to obtain it will effectuate it.
You have a right to know from threfirst Minister ef the Crown
the probable effects of such a measure-but in the silence of
the Government, we have en 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-
shipsat much greater length than I desire, I must pray your
Lordships' indulgence, and on en tering on this dry detail of statis-
t:cs, I cheerfully and willingly sacrifice all advantage I would de-
rive by alluding to more exciting, because more personal, topics.
-( Hear, hear, and cheers.) begyonr Lordships' atten-
tion in the first Place to the latter end ofOctober,. or the com-
mencement of November last. My Ns ble riend has told you
that the famine was not the immediate cause introduc-
tion a this measure to your withLordships-but,of h
tair ctft.
to my Noble Friend, I must say that if it had not
been
the apprehension of scarcity in Ireland, your Lordships
woug never have been asked, in this session at least, to hav 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 he 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 had
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
means in our power-( Hear, hear)-and it would be likely to
aggravate distress, if distress existed.-(Cheers.) But I en-
treat of you to bear in mind the wide and manifest distinction
between scarcity and famine, and great local and individual dis-
tress.-( 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
pass a law that should reduce the price of pine apples.-
(Cheers.) Distress existed then not because corn was dear,
for 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
and permanent wages-it is because they have invested their
labour and their capital in the cultivation of some small plot
of groun•l 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
5,0(10,000 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 bad 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 Aen 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 adjournn.ent 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, but I conceived that the
repeal of the corn-laws would be most unjustifiable, and would
be, in additien, 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, anti 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 Belted
for a period of eight-and-firty 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 1 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 such a measure, but I could not bring myself to such a
humiliating conviction ; and most 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, his high position and character, in his subsequent
adhesion to the Government would shield him from the slight-
estshadow of a doubt that he has not been actuated by the
highest and the purest motives ; but supported by one of my
colleagues I was compelled to resign.-( Hear, hear, and
cheers.) Upon that the Government of Sir R. Peel was
broken up. Your Lordships have the whole of the subse-
quent circumstances which have been already stated to you,
and I feel that I owe a great apology to your Lordships for
aaverting to them at such length. Then we are compelled to
investigate the corn-laws of 1842, and have year 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 lee, 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 I am 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,
741,000 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 u s 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 515., 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
lion. Friend said that he wished to keep the prices between
545. and 535. If I were to refer to the average prices of last
year, the result would be the statement of a price of from 50s.
to 503. 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 expectations which have 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
of
im-
ported, since the first great rush,of two and a half
would
quarters, since the introduction of this measure, they
that it was two millions of quarters t iat have come into the
market since that time. There entered under 555. per quarter
only 395,000 quarters; and between 59a. 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 between 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 1814 to Deeenaber
1845. During those two years the amount of fluctuation was
in Dantzic, 663. per cent. ; in Hamburg, tabs. per cent. ; in
Rostock, 64r. 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 703. ; at Phila-
delphia, 763 ; at Portsmouth, 721 ; and at New
Norfolk 62 ; and that continued to the present time from be-
tween the years 1841 and 1843, when our fluctuations did not
on the average exceed 30 per cent; while between 1844 and
1845 they did not exceed 70 per cent. In answer, we are
told that these fluctuations 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 look 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 Mr. Malthus, who states that, during
the last century, that part of it in which the greatest importa-
tion 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 425. 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 quarter ; so that between 1792 and 1801 the
price of corn was trebled ; and from 1798 to 1803 the price
arose from 50s. to 118 s. per quarter, and fell again to 565. This
was the period of that century in which this ceuntry was most
dependent on a foreign supplly of corn. (Hear, hear, and
loud cheers.) I will now ask you to look at some other articles
of consumption. The fluctuations of corn have been taken and
attributed to the sliding scale ; look at the price of the potato

—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
in ice of upland cotton in Liverpool during the years 1836
and 1837—it was no sliding scale that then regulated the supply
—in January, 1836, it was 641. per lb. ; in December, 6P. per
lb. ; in November, it was Illd. per lb. ; in March it was 101 d. ;
in May it was SP. per lb. ; iu December it was BP. again ;
and in April it was down to SP. 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 of the country
had materially increased since the operation of this lam, and
even trash. s and professions, of every description
had nearly doubled their profits of late sears.
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 I am to do whatever is calculated to
advance the prosperity or to add to the comforts of the manu-
facturing classes of the country, I cannot think that the aban-
donment of the present system will be calculated to meet those
ends, but rather that it will be productive of great and serious
tehveil.—ine(aHuetiaoru,shedaerv.e)lop‘mVehnatt has
ofouhrit
productive
herto
been
the
p have found prosperity succeeded oweresff?ectworef
by a glut in the market, ad-
versity follow upon a full demand. Do nothing to check the
prosperity of the country, or that is really calculated to serve
the interests of the manufacturing classes, but do not lead them
by au unwise system of legislation to depend for their existence
on an urns holesome system —( Hear, hear)—in which, I be-.
lieve, the interests of these classes themselves most seriously
involved. But if it is desirable to alter the present system for
the sake of the commercial interests of the country, it is not
clear to my mind that the repeal of the corn-laws will have
the tendency of increasing the manufacturing industry of the
country. If there is little or no variation in price, if there is to be
no great reduction in the price of corn, then no great increase in
the consumption of the article can take place, and the only
argument that remains is, the transfer will take place from
the home grower to the foreign corn raiser—substituting one
class of corn growers for another. If her Majesty's Govern-
ment are to be believed on the present question, the price of
corn will rise instead of fall. I must say, if you believe that,
then will you believe as great a fallacy as was ever palmed on
the credulity of any body of men. Who ever heard of in-
creased competition raising the price of an article. Reason
was against it, and not only reason, but 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 1925, when Mr.
Huskisson reduced the duty on wool ? In 1824 the duty im-
posed on that article was 6d., and he reduced it to ld. 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 stilt had a pro-
tective duty on it, averaging about thirty per cent.—(Hear,
hear.) Take next the case of timber. The price of Baltic
timber has not fallen in proportion to the reduction of the
duty, I admit, but Canada timber has. But it is not to that
alone we must look. What compensation has been given for
the fall in the price of timber at home ? What is the price of
British timber now? Why the fifty cubic feet of timber that
was 103 s. before the passing of the tariff, has been since
91s. 3d., and last year it fell as low as 86s. Bcl.—( Hear, hear.)
I see the Chief Commissioner of Woods and Forests in his
place, and if there is any doubts in the fall in the price of Bri-
tish timber, he can speak to its correctness, for in a
sale of timber last October, in the Forest of Dean,
all that was offered was but 41. 10s. a load, instead of 61. 10s.
Viscount CANNING—It was so.

Lord STANLEY—That does not alter the effect of the
price. I will not enter into the price of butcher's-meat, as your
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—he supply of sheep this
year, as compared with last, has been 16,00. 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 iritish 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 emplc•yed
in 1842 as compared with 1845 • and how does it stand ? The
tonnage, in 1842, was 3,619,000, and 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:), 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 tariff. I find when the
price of corn has been 555. a quarter large importations of fo-
reign corn have taken place. This has been when the duty was
15s. Therefore we may anticipate, if we take off the duty
there will be a large portion immediately brought into our mar-
kets at 40s. I have received a letter this morningfrom 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 365. to 40s. per
quarter. If we go back to 1845, we will find we then im-
ported 140,009 quarters at 455. a qearter, which paid 20s.
duty, thus chewing that it could be imported at a price of 2.51.
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 be supplied in such quantities,
and at such prices as will press most severely on the
English producers, who will be obliged to compete with them.
I have no doubt also that capital from this country to foreign
countries will facilitate the raising of supplies, and thus
operate in a very injurious manner, on all those
interested in the cultivation of the soil at home.
It is not the least of my objections to this measure that it en-
courages the foreign groWer, 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-Cern-
law League. I thought that the price of corn had nothing to
do with the rate of wages, yet somehow or other the anticipa-
tion is that the manufacturers will be enabled to produce their
goods more cheaply. I cannot understand how they can do so
except by paying their labourers lower wages. Now, my
Lords, I do not mean to say that in the manufacturing or agri-
cultural districts the rates of wages exactly follow 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 not exactly follow all the fluctuations in
the price of wheat, yet those prices must be steady, whether
high or low, for if the markets oscillate the labourer, not ac-
customed to economise hie wages when wheat is low, will be
correspondingly depressed when the price is increased. It then
surely becomes the duty of your Lordships to balance well
the advantages and disadvantages of this measure to the la-
bourer before you fully pass it into a law. Let your Lord-
ships suppose a man with a wife and family of three childen in
a manufacturing district—suppose fur a moment that that fa-
mily, on a low calculation, consumes five quarters of corn in
the year—suppose also a fall of 10s. per quarter in the price of
wheat—and suppose that in consequence of that reduction
in the price of grain, the wages of one member of that family
is reduced one shilling per week, and that, I presume, is the
very lowest estimate we can take. The one shilling thus re-
tained from that family more than counterbalances the advan-
tages of the reduction in the consumption of five issa_r_elswlZ
year. But we were also told that if the prier of wheat should
tall, we shall have a highly increased trade with foreign
coun-
tries.
United
Staten,W re ledd to believe eltiaekveecssatua,seanwde thedo
not take their produce in return. Now there never was an
our that
manufacturesa n dleu
argument less founded upon fact than this. It is a fact, that
with regard to all the countries from which we draw our corn
at the present moment, our imports largerelnray pmrteoudeohminate over
us.gre aterHaedre-
voauorteaxgpeosrts,thaanod wtehecyonsegqiivieentlyinallorwettuh
is the trade of the United States, for example,
and your Lordships may be surprised to learn that the amount
of value of cotton alone imported into this country, in one year,
greatly exceeds the value of the whole exports put together
that we sent in the same period to the United States. In the
five last years, the exports to the United States had been to the
extent of 7,500,00j1. Yet, in the eighteen years preceding,
the amount had been 7,500,000/. Your importation of cotton
alone, in the last five years, is not a less sum (assuming that
we take four-fifths of our cotton from the United States, and
calculating the price at 4d. per lb.) than 7,817,0001. Now
what is the advantage that we shall receive from the United
States in return? I believe that you will receive no advantage
(coin the passing of this measure. I find that in the last six
years an importation into the United States had been made of
253,000,000 dollars, while their exportation to this
country had reached 354,000,000 dollars, leaving a
balance of 101,000,000 dollars in favour of the United States.
Here is the comment of the Secretary to the Treasury 'upon
it :—" This," he says, " is the nominal value, but there should
be 25 per cent. added to make up the real value. There has
been a balance in our favour in each of the past six years,
and, with the exception of 1839, in each of the last nine
years. Our export trade is annually increasing, while our
imports remain the same, and any modification made in the
corn-laws of Great Britain, which will admit our bread-stuffs
on reasonable terms"—he does not calculate on this very liberal
measure—" will give an immense impulse to the export trade."
" On the other hand," says the Secretary for the Treasury,
"every improvement and increase made in our manufactures
establishes our ability to supply the horns demand both in the
cotton and woollen manufactures, and tends to reduce our impor-
tation from other countries." You are told here that as soon as
they can dispense with your assistance they will do so. With
regard to Russia and Prussia, the case was the same. In
Russia, in the year 1838, Mr. APGregor stated that
their total exportations amounted to above 11,000,000,
while their average importations were only 6,177,000,
showing a balance of some 5,000,000 in their favour.
And in Prussia the exportations amounted to 3,138,000, while
the importations reached only 505,000. The duties charged
upon our manufactures by the United States were almost pro-
hibitory—they ranged from 45 up to 150 ; and in the article of
glass they reached '243 per cent. The tariffs of Russia and
Prussia are equally prottibitory. Mr. M'Gregor states that
the Russian duties are prohibitory, because the Government
there wished to discountenance the importation ofany
article
that can be drawn by the serfs from the mines or forests.
are
Ac-
cordingly in the whole of Russia your manufactures
sub-
jected to an average duty of 65 per centgwth
you are charged from 50 to 130 per cent. theile in Pa
russi
But argument
is boldly put forward that our duties are equally prohibitory,
because we impose 25 per cent. on the article of corn. It is
mose no
.less than pretended that this duty prevents ourtaking the goods of other
heldwle was
out
countries, although these countries
five-
fold on the goods received from us. Dr.
sent out by a Noble Lord lately office,
expectations that a modification of the timber duties would be

beneficial to the country. They had now taken off some o f
those timber duties ; they had taken off some of the duties on
cotton, and he should like to know whether the exports to
Prussia had increased, as it was expected they had not? ( The
Noble Lord then read several statistical details in corroboration
of his argument.) Do we find that our shipping trade has been
improved ? No. Merchants, it is said, will not enter into the
corn trade, because it is a speculative trade, but all trades are
speculative, for all depend upon the seasons, and the markets
of the country; yet it is said in this year that it is
hazardous to engage in any commercial speculation.
The Baltic trade in 1837 employed 612 British ships against
560 foreign. In 1845 the Baltic trade employed 609 British
ships against 1,84 e foreign. In 1839 the Baltic trade em-
ployed 148,000 British tons against 147,000 tons foreign. In
1839 the Baltic trade employed 6,016 British seamen against
6,352 foreign. In 1845,
the Baltic trade employed 5,375
British seamen against 17,169.—( Hear, hear.) Fell, I have
done with the foreign trade, I have done with our foreign
prospects. I will admit to your Lordships, that a large ex-
portation will produce a large increase in the imports, but only
for a time, during which you puff up trade to an extraordinary
state of p-nsperity. When that fails, when distress and diffi-
culty etirnes, the returns will fall off, and I rather think
my Noble Friend at the head of the Foreign
Department, in the event of a war taking
place with the United States, wi'l find, that instead of four.
fifths, oukcountry will only be indebted to the United States for
a small portion, indeed, of our supplies. When war comes,
then the markets upon which you have relied are closed against
you, while, in the meantime you have destroyed your home
market; and when you have destroyed your home market, and
the foreign market fails you, then comes the period of oppres-
sion and bitter suffering amongst your manufacturers—of bitter
expressions of feeling against those who are now deluding their
unhappy dupes with a pteispect of increased wages and cheap
bread.—(Cheers.) Do not let your Lordships, do not let the
country undervalue the importance of this home
market.—( Hear, hear.) The estimates and statements
I see put forward with respect to it are most ridiculous. If we
are to believe these statements, the whole consumption of
the home-mirket in cotton goods amounts only to 1/3 of
the entire produce, and that amount will give you somewhere
about 45. per head to every one of the population. Your
Lordships will be the best able to judge of the accuracy of that
statement when I tell you, that in the year 1840 the average
consumption of cotton goods by the inhabitants of the West
waslndie not 45., but 1/. 6s per head. Now, can you bee
hove,! if the West Indian eegro'consumes 1/. 65. worth of cotton
mk
ei
ne
cotton goods, that the consumption of this country is only 4s. per
headar ?
t— ( Chteteor ns .
stands No
to
: the foreignldono not.
mlarfekeelt
in that
htphreophormtioen-
of at least 14 to 17. In the year 1820 we exported
218,000
tons of cotton goods; in 1844 the quantity was increased four-
fold, or 146 millions. In 1803 Mr. Huekissen estimated the
value of the cotton goods consumed in England at 32 millions
sterling. I fled that the quantity entered for home con-
sumption was 73 millions in 1820 ; it has since increased
to 2,60 millions of lbs. of worked up cotton goods,
employing British labour and bought by the British con-
sumer. In 1844, the home coteussplion had increased four-
fold, not only in eottnn, hat in every other articles of Beisish
produce, such as cotton-wool, linen, ti.k-aarn, hardware,
leather, cabinet-ware, and paper. These articles in the home
market produced 148,340,000/., while the whole value for for-
eign and home consumption was 280,200,0001. And this is
the market you are about to abandon—these are the customers
you are about to sacrifice in your blind zeal to promote the
export trade. Then lam told a reduction in the price of con
increases the consumption of other articles ; but, my Lords,
you must remember that cheapness and dearness are relative
terms, and not posite. Wheat may be cheaper in Poland than
in England, but the population in England, from peculiar cir-
(eminences find their food cheaper than the people of Poland.
Now, my Lords, I have gone over a great part of this question.
Latio net know how 1 have dole it, but 1 mutt not leave the
&Mate of the question without knowing where the loss must
fall. It will fall most assuredly upon the majority of this
country. We have heard of the danger and the difficulty
of administering the affairs of Government, without
reconciling the conflicting claims of an ancient monarchy.
a proud aristocracy, and a reformed House of Commons. Now, my
Leeds, I admit, that if you legislate for the interest of one class
against the interest of another—that is to say, if you materially alter
the social relation of different classes of the community, it is not in.-
dieting a private injury, but a public wrong. a here may, however,
be sense difficulty in keeping a balance in a reformed House of Com-
mons, but, my Lords, the difficulty will not be met, if for the proud
you substitute a pauper and a dependent aristocracy. If you break
down an ancient aristocracy, you demolish the firmest breakwater
that cats possibly be established between a monarchy and a repub-
licanism.—(Hear, hear.) When I speak of an aristocracy, Ido not
speak exclusively or mainly of the body I am now addressing—l
speak of men, not ennobled in rank, many of them undistinguished in
life, but who, with their ancestors before them, from generation to
generation,*have had centred in them or in their circles a sort of
prestige, conducting ably the business of their respective houses,
influencing the opinions of their respective neighbourhoods,
and exercising over their tenantry, who have a hereditary
claim upon their constituents, a useful and beneficial control.
My Lords, these are the aristocracy of this country. Reduce
these men and you inflict an irretrievable and irreparable injury
upon :Ws country.—(Hear, hear.) You lower them in the scale of
society. God forbid, my Lords, that I should grieve that the suc-
cessful manufacturer, or that the princely merchant, should take his
place among the lauded aristocracy of this country.—(Hear, hear.)
Such infusions add fresh vigour and fresh power to that class of the
community.—(Hear, hear.) But depend upon it if you sweep that
class away all at once, and all the old associations with which their
names, their bietories, and the associations which they have acquired
to their families, and if you substitute a new body of capitalists, and
go amongst the 0 nantry where no associations are connected with
their name, the expenditure will be a severe one—their moral in-
fluence in society is irretrievably lost to the country.—(Cheers.)
list, my Lord., I say I should not be satisfied if I were to believe
that the loss would mainly fall upon the landed proprietors of this
country ; but I am satisfied, my Lords, there never was so great a
delusion as this. Why, the reduction of 10s. upon every quarter of
wheat is a reduction of 40s per acre of land in this country, and that
will be accompani d by a corresponding reduction in the price of
articles of produce in this country. My Lords, my Noble Friend on
the cross benches has ably argued this question, and I will not pre-
tend to follow him. lie has frilly shown what will be the effect not
merely upon the landlords, but the tenant-farmers of this country.
—(hear, hear.) And the first step that these tenant-farmers' will
take to relieve themselves will be to suspend all improvement of
their land.—(Hear, hear)—will be to discharge their labourers—
(Hear, hear)—will be to reduce wages—(Hear, hear)—will be to
pour those unhappy labourers into the manufacturing districts, and
increase the competition there—(Bear, hear)—for the lowest class
of employment in manufacturing labour. They will there go and
live in wretchedness, and pine away in the manufacturing towns,
and lower the wages of the manufacturing as of the agricultural
artificer.—(Hear, hear.) Why, my Lords, what will be the conse-
quence to the landed pro2rietors of this country? Assuming even
the case, that one of your Lordships is free from ineumbrances,
although I do not. know that that is the fact—(Hear, hear, and
laughter)—but I will assume it to be so. But what is the first thing
that he does? Why he dismisses a certain portion of his establish-
ment, which Is a sacrifice of every comfort to him, he thus turns
upon the labour market a treat number of fresh competitors.—
(Hear, hear.) And, my Lords, whatever else may be said against
the landed proprietors of this country, 1 do not think this, at least,
can be laid to their charge, that they are a class of men who accu-
mulate wealth, but do not spend their incomes, for I think they
spend them as fast as they receive them.—(Hear, and laughter.)
Well then they reduced the number of the employed, and now mind
my Lords what we are told ? Why we are toll " True, but you
make no loss to a-navel-et—vote have way to a 1 p the real prin-
ciples of free trtyle ?—(Latiihter.) Well, n'y les 's, whet are these
real principles of freeatrade.—(licair, hear.) Th, y arc to dismiss
" every useless and unprofitable hand. They are to employ no man
beyond what is absolutely required to make profit." They are
to have no consideration for tenants who may have been their tie•
pendants for the last fifty years—(Hear, hear) —for they say "Oh:
it is more profitable to have one large than three small farms ; poor
tenants have not capital, turn them off—(Hear, hear)—let them ga
and starve.—(Hear, hear.) There are above 600,000 small farmeas
—at least that was about the number in 1844. But your Lordships
must not stop at that—those are but as many drops in the ocean—
(Hear, hear)—and you must drive them awey cue and all in com-
pliance with the wishes of the Anti-Corn-Iv, Leagna. The law im-
poses, however, the exclustve batten on the landowners of the coun-
try of maintaining all the poor manufacturers as well as agricultural
labourers. But, my Lords, I have too good an opinion of the land-
lords to think that they would act upon the principle recommended
by the free-traders. I believe that they would continue to give aa
much employment as they could. I believe that they know that
they have to deal, not with stocks and stones, but with men—with
men filled with the same feeling, with the seine attachment, and with
the same affection as themselves; and I do not believe that, were the
pressure of the most extreme description, the landlords of England
as a body will adopt doctrines of political economy prescribed
by the advocates of free trade.—(Hear, hear.) But, my Lords, if
this system is to be adopted in England, if you venture to recommend
this system in England, will you dare to advise that it should be put
into execution in Ireland ?—(Cheers.) In Ireland, my Lords, the
bulk of the population are small farmers, whose farms vary from
twelve to thirteen acres at the largest; they have little capital and very
little skill. They exhaust the land, I admit ; they do not pay you,l
admit, but by the applications of more skill and more capital you
might extract more from the land. Carry into effect in Ireland your
doctrines of political economy. The landlords are to suffer, but
they may recover themselves ; the clearance system was denounced
as at the root of half the riots and half the bloodshed in Ireland,
but the doctrine of free trade will require you to push forward the
clearance system. You may make mach more money, you
may preserve yourself (rein all loss, turn off the farmers of Ireland.
turn off the tenants, give the lands to the capitalists, and the restot
,` the population send off to die of starvation. Ile would be
a bold Minister who would advise the experiment. He
would be a bold as well as a hard man who would act upon it
(Cries of " Hear, hear.") And, my Lords, to tell me the
measure—this repeal of the mra-laws —is brought forward as a measure
to relieve Ireland, of all countries.—(Loud cheers.) You may be
told that it is for the relief of England, and that it is for the benefitof
her populatian. I doubt whether it may be so in the long run, but
Ireland is exclusively an agricultural exporting country
8.1 uvnatirlet their tell
us that you are to benefit Ireland by
the comforts of life and the ar-
, ports, by which alone she obtaineati_ie
receives from you ; and that you are
tides of maimeacturee-whieh ei
to benefit Ireland by reducing the value of her exports to the value
a million and a ball, or to two millions a year, is a proposition
should venture to put alongside that increased coM•
petition tends to increase the price of our article,—(Hear.) Lastly,
(and I muss quite sure that your Lordships will be very glad to hear
that I am coming to a conclusion), I wish to speak of one branchot
the question, which is of the utmost importance, and particularly K
to me, from the situation which I had the honour to hold.—(Hear,
hear.) I mean the effect which Is to be produced by the repeal of the
corn-laws, and the carrying out of the principle of free trade, and the
doctrine of the removal of protection upon your colonies.--(Heara
hear.) Now, my Lords, your foreign trade takes a very large amount
Of foreign shipping, and a very small amount of British. I beg to
call your Lordships' attention in the first place, to the fact which ap-
pears in the returns of the House of Commons in 1845, namely, that
the tonnage of shipping in the colonies, was 1,273,395; vs-Mist against
that there was entered not one single ton of foreign. Your colonial
trade, therefore, be it what it will, is exclusively carried on by British.
You employ British seamen. My Lords, I will not enter upon the
extent of that trade. It is certain that the number
of exports to your colonies amounted in 1844 to 1,427,0004.
You invite them to trade with other nations—you tell them that.
they may quit the country, and the moment they quit the shores of
England and land in a British colony, you tell them, you are nc
more to us than the Dutchman, the German, or the American.
Trade where you please ; yon are entitled to no favour from us. We
give you no protection ; we don't seek to impede your trade with
' other countries; you are just as much connected with them as with
us. I have heard it put forward
that this measure will benefit the
Australian colonies. I cannot exactly see how this can be done by
this measure. The present duty on Australian corn is ss. a quarter,
and they have the advantage of buying or selling their corn in pro.
tected markets, which you take away from them. Then with railer.
' once to Canals, you passed a 131111ast year on the faith of which the
Canadians imposed a duty of 3s. a quarter on American corn. Yon
encouraged her to commence great works, and you lent her money
to do them with, and you are now going to undo all that you have
done; you are going to destroy the great communication of the St.
Lawrence, and make New York, instead of Monti eel and Quebec, the
channels of your trade, ant it has been thefolic; 01 the United
States to pass a Bill encouraging the trade in this direction.
I hope this will open your Lordships' eyes as to the
dangerous policy you are pursuing in attempting to pass this measure.
I hope your Lordships have read the dispatch of the Governor-
General of Canada upon this subject. The Noble Lord then pro-
ceeded to read extracts from the dispatch of Lord sletcalfe the
ef
Go-
vernor Genegal of Canada, which went to show the necessity
continuing protection to the trade of Canada, in order to enable
them to fulfil their engagements with this country. Mr. Gregg
Showed that our trade had declined in the various markets of the
world—that the cutlery of Sheffield was beaten by that of Alsace—
that the hosiery of Saxony- was 25 per cen per than that of
Leicester, an ]lad
cheaper
d that the stocking frames there la been diminished
from 4,590 to
250, and that the only way we could hope to compete
wltis foreign nations would be by cheapening food, in order to cheapen
wages. That was the language of Mr. Gregg, and that was the
dangerous experiment they were about to try. Why one would think
the force of " folly can no further go."—(A laugh.) I trust your
Lordships will not be led away by these feelings. lam fully sen-
sible of the great length, and:of the feebleness with which I havs
discharged my duties, but I hope that I have the credit of keeping
close to the question—(Cheers)—and that no observation which
have made was calculated to wound the feelings of any
person, but
before I sit down I must be permitted to say a few words to your
Lordships, who, in your hearts, go with us in the argument, and dis-
approve of the measure at which you are alarmed, yet nevertheless
are prepared to give it your sanction, I can conceive many motives
which would influence highly honourable men. There may be those
who fear the authority of the Commons ; there were others influenced
by the opinions of the Commons, but I ask you how are you to col-
lect the opinion of the Commons? Where is it to be found—is it to
be found in 1842, 1843, or 1844?—(Hear, hear.) Why, I find that in
1843 this measure was rejected by a majority of 113; at another
time by 165 ; again by 114 ; in 1843 by 250 ; in 1844 by 209 ; in
June, 1845, by 132.—(Loud cheers.) And I find that now a majority
0(98, composed of the same men who then rejected, have assented to
the measure. There were others who disapprove of the measure,
yet from personal feelings to the minister, supported it. I can sym-
pathise with those feelings, but I cannot assent to the justice of them
—(Hear, hear.) The sacrifice would be ineffective, it would be made
in vain ; there never was a Government which could maintain
itself, when it existed on the sufferance of its opponents, with the
disguised support of ashamed supporters. There might be those who
hoped that It might put an end to WWI= i When 1114 awaked