The Sun.
London, England, 1846-05-12 00:00:00

the Lord and
and H en.
acuteness, Member wihyo have addressed the House
on the motion for the third reading of this Bill, in speeches of
~rert talent Noble Friend, who has just
sat .sown, has onserved that firmness and constancy are the
great quelities to be possessed by a Minister, and avoiding
the terms of vituperation, in which other Hon. Members have
A
indulged, has censured the Prime Minister for tergiversa-
tion, as he calls it, on this important measure.—( Hear. )
I must, in answer to that, say, that charged as we were at an
extraordinary time of public difficulty and danger, we should
not have acted in consistency with the public interests, Ead we
hesitated to give effect to the opinions we entertained on this
great question—( Hear. hear)—which now engages your atten-
tion. The Hon. Member, who has just sat down, has stated
that he believes this question, on which we are at issue, will not
pass into a law on account of the opposition it will encounter in
another House.—( Hear, hear.) I will not venture to prophecy
like the Hon. Member, hut I will venture this opinion, that
whatever may be done elsewhere on this question, both in
Parliament as well as out of Parliament, in my opinion, it is
virtually settled— Loud cheers)—and there is every prospect
that in a short time it must become the law of the land.—
( Renewed cheers. ) Entertaining this opinion, and having
great interest in agriculture, and desirous of the success of the
landed interest, I must say that I altogether differ from the
Noble Lord (Lord G. Bentinck) in the views he has expressed
as to the effect of the measure on the landowners and far-
mers of the country.--( Hear, hear.) I cannot think that either
the farmers or landlords are interested in the continuance of the
protective system. He has objected in the course of the
debates on the present question that the measure will
prove most injurious to the farming as well as to the
landed interests—( Hear, hear)—and he has referred
to the stock in wheat that is ready to be let loose on the market
as soon as the Bill is passed. 'We are told that the stock in
hand is 1,500;000 quarters of foreign wheat. It is my belief
that the evils apprehended by this large stock, have been caused
by the delay created by the opposition of the Noble Lord and
his triends, and the longer the delay the greater the evil to be
apprehended If this wheat had been admitted into the home
market in January or February last, the effect on the markets
would have been gradual and unfelt. Four months have gone
since this accumulation has been going on, and still have
kept bask that steady influx into the market which. had this
law been passed, would have been going forward. During this
period, no new market has been opened for this accumulation
of grain; and, in my opinion, if you protract still longer the
settlement of this question—if you still hesitate referring to
public opinion, the effect will be too sudden, and, as in times
past, under similar proceedings of this kind, throw into the
market a large stock of grain, which will operate injuriously
on prices, and on the interest of those who are holders of
stock.—( Hear, hear.) With this incidental reference to the
Noble Lord, I will refer to the other topics involved in this
question ; but before doing so, I wish to glance at the ground
taken by the Hon. Member who last addressed the House. He
says that the present. corn-law is a good financial measure.—
(Cries of " Hear, hear.") I will not charge him with
inconsistency in advancing that opinion, but with reference
to this point, I submit that nay experience has led me to a
different conclusion. It has been my unvarying opinion that
it is not go id or expedient as a fiscal measure, and is not to
be supported on such grounds. I neither think that a duty on
corn is defensible as a fiscal measure, ©r that it is beneficial to
the landed interest. The Hon. Gentleman then went on to
soy that the producers were satisfied with the existing corn-
laws.—(" Hear, hear," from the protection benches.) To
that I will say, I do not believe the farmers have any reason to
be satisfied with the working of the measure.—( Hear, hear. )
But you must not consider it as a measure for the farmers or
the landowners alone. You must consider the measure with
reference to the great body of the consumers, whose interests it
is important should be duly and fairly consulted.—( Hear. )
The Hon. Gentleman says that the gentlemen on his side of
he House have adhered with firmness to tin- questit n, anti
save continued their opposition against great difficulties. That
they have maintained their opinions with great. ability arid tus-
sah) ing courage I admit, and that you (the protectionists)
lave consistently fought the battle; but I recollect, that during
the debates that took place the last three or four sessions upon
his question, we had not the benefit of that ability and
courage in the support of the protective principle. I
must say, that till the present session, we have not
had the benefit of their advocacy. ( Hear, hear. )
With respect to myself I have been placed in the position of
arguing this question fur many years, and from that I can state
as the result of my experience, that I have seen during the
course and development of public opinion, arguments as-
sumed some years ago in support of a corn-law that are now
entirely abandoned as no longer tenable. I have often heard
arguments about the interests of farmers and landlords in rela-
tion to this law, which are now abandoned as unavailing. No
Member is found now to urge them in the House.—( Cheers.) I
am glad that the issue of the measure is now reduced to a small
point of debate. A point that was most clearly and explicitly
put, 1 believe, on Friday last, by the Hon. Member for
Shrewsbury (Mr. Disraeli). That Hon. Member said that
the question—the real question they had to consider was, the
effect of the measure on the interests of the people generally,
He said if the measure did not tend to displace the labourer
and operate as a scheme of political destruction, then it was
good, and they ought not to oppose it. It was, therefore, not
the intention to treat it as a landlords' question. Such was
the way in which it was put by the Hon. Member for Shrews-
bury, and responded to this night by the Hon. Member for So-
mersetshire. They rest the question of the corn-laws now on
the ground that they are conducive to the happiness, the
benefit, and the welfare of the labouring classes. This is the
whole question now, iuvolving a conclusion which I cannot
concede. The Hon. Gentleman who last spoke has referred
to a pamphlet, written by Messrs. Mort on and Trimmer, on the
operation of these laws, making reference to the great number o•terms in Lincolnshire and Northamptonshire with regard to
the value of land and the price of wheat. He stated that,
under the operation of the law of 1842, the average price of
wheat had been 525., and that under the proposed law it
would be 405. Why, I must inform the Hon. Gentleman,
that frequently under the restrictive law the price of wheat
has often been as low as 395. throughout a whole year.—
( Hear, hear.) The grounds upon which he has come to this
opinion he has not stated, and in their absence I can only deal
with his inferences. I must confess, however, that I can
scarcely understand the argument, as put by him. The Hon.
Gentleman not only prophecies about the effect of this Bill, but
he gives his results of a most fanciful character to support his
views. He says that Russia annually accumulates 28,000,000
quarters of grain over and above the consumption
of the Russian people —( Hear, hear.) To this, Tamboff is
but a joke. 28,000,000, year by year, not only heyond
the consumption, but beyond the present exports of that
country, and available for exportation when this measure shall
become the law of the land. But this is not all. The Hon.
Gentleman, along with this, tells us of wheat which is culti-
vated in land in America that requires no manure. He says
that there is land in Virginia which has been year by year
under cultivation for wheat during the last century, without
the application of manure.—( Hear, hear.) If these facts are
true—if Russia has 28,000,000 quarters of grain, or America
has land that for a century has grown wheat without manure,
all I can say i., that all restrictive laws that we ma, devise
must It will be impossible for them to steno
against such facilities as those for the rapid and abundant sup -
ply of food. —( Loud cheers.) The Hon. Member then re-
ferred to the question of tithes. I will endeavour shortly to
reply to his objection on this head. In my opinion, so far from
thinking the change will be injurious to the tithe receiver, it
will be otherwise. Under the Tithe Commutation Act it has
been regulated that he cannot suffer from land being thrown out
of cultivation. if it is thrown out of cultivation he is protected
by the commutation-laws, and he can only suffer, it he suffers
at all, in the variation of the price. Before the passing of the
commutation-laws, he wss liable to all fluctuations, but
now it is arranged and so altered that he can but suffer
in a very limited degree. I must say it is My
decided opinion, as far as it relates to the
tithe owner, that if this measure passes it will involve no injus-
tice whatever, nor will he run the slightest risk.—( Hear, hear. )
Now with respect to the colonists, my Humble Friend has re-
ferred to the Canaries. It will be remembered that he was an
eager opponent last year of placing the Canadas in the same
position as an integral portion of the British Empire. When
the Honourable Member for Gateshead brought forward his
motion for placing the Canadas on the same footing as the other
portions of the empire, the Honourable Member and those
who now act with him voted against that proposition. This was
the course of proceeding, notwithstanding his profession of sym-
pathy for the Canadas, that he thought fit to take when the ques-
tion was placed before him by the lion. Member for Gateshead.
Now, Sir, I have just one other topic that I would wish to refer
to, I mean compensation to the landed interest.—( Hear, hear. )
On the part of the Government, I absolutely disclaim that
term " compensation."—(Cheers.) I say, if it he necessary-
for the public good that tins measure shall be carried, it would
be unworthy and di-grarieful on the part of the Government to
propose, as it would on the part of the landowners to accept,
compensation for doing an act of justice.—( Loud cheerine. )
A measure is propounded by Government which, in their
judgment, conduces to the public good, at the same time that
it affects not injuriously a smaller section of the people. Are
the greater to be sacrificed to that lesser portion?—( Cheers. )
Sir, I will now take leave very shortly in passing to advert to
another portion of this extensive subject. 1 allude to what was
said by the Noble Lord the Member for Lynn, on the subject
of information relative to the social state of Ireland, and the
distress which at present prevails in that country. The Noble
Lord, the Member for Lynn, stated that her Majesty's
Government were mistaken on the subject of Ireland ;
he stated also that they, for the purpose of
substantiating the facts as stated by themselves,
kept back such information as told against them from the
House.—(Hear, hear.) He stated that information had been
received from the Commander of the Forces which bad been
withheld; he stated also that information had been received
from the Poor-law Commissioners, and that that information
had been denied to the House. Now, Sir, I have made every ,
inquiry—l have made every inquiry in the proper quarter,
with respect to any information received from Ireland-_I have
seen no information of the character described by the Noble
Lsrd. I have made inquiries a- the Horse Guards as to any
information from the Commander of the Force: in Ireland, and

. -
I am in a condition Co give a positive contradiction to any as-
sertion of the kind made by the Noble Lord.—( Hear, hear, and
cheers.) With reference to the Poor-law Commission. I
felt it my duty, in the month of November last, to recommend
to her Majesty to appoint a superior officer to preside over the
Commission in Dublin, and since that month I have been in
constant communication
o withotmhms
that superior
from whichiorofficer,whwoeeikslyarleso.
f the Scarcity c
paomrtesmbe are received by the Government. He signs each of
these weekly reports. I have laid en the table of the House
four of them, extending throughout the month of March, and
bringing up the information to the latest period, with the excep,
lion of two more reports which I have since received, and
hese latter reports also confirm the statements already so re-
peatedly made by her Majesty's Ministers with respect to the
scarcity which prevails in Ireland —( Hear, hear. )maTdheebNyotbhlee
Lord the Member r Lreferred ials
Poor-law Commissioners inn the months of Oct trober and Septern
ber, with the view of ascertaining the extent of this distress.
I can affirm that these investigations referred to a perfectly
different matter, and the information received had
therefore no official bearing upon this subject. The
superior officer I have already referred to left Ire-
land in November, and other visits referred to by the Noble
Lord took place in the months of November and October. I
do not know what the Inspectors of Prisons, in Ireland, did
with reference to this distress. I have never received any
informaticn from them with respect to their inquiries in the
state of Mayo, but as soon as I do receive an aeswer to the
inquiry I have instituted, I shall not fail to communicate that
answer to the Noble Lord. The Noble Lord has said
that we have misrepresented the extent of the distress
which at present prevails in Ireland. I have never
said that distress extended over the whole of Ire-
land. I have never said that the distress in Ireland
was universal. I have said that there was a wide-spread
scarcity throughout almost every locality in Ireland, and
that
the greatest difficulty would arise troin its continuance.
( Hear.) Now, to that statement I still adhere in the roost
decided manner.—(Hear.) I know not whether the Hon.
Member for Armagh is in his place.—(Mr. Bernard here
caught the eye of the Right Hon. Baronet.) The Hon.
Member is here. I hold a letter signed by the on. Member,
dated not very long ago, in which he states, tne distress in his
own neighbourhood, in the most glowing colours, and con-
cluded, by making an application to Government foe pecu-
niary assistance. fo this letter he signs his name. He de-
scribes the distress in Ireland as of such a character as to im-
peratively demand the immediate consideration and attention
of tne Government. The letter is addressed to the Lord
Lieutenant, and is dated, November, 1545. It states, " We,
the undersigned inhabitants of the town of Loughrea, and its
neighbourhood, from the frightful calamity with which this
count)cis threatened from the failure of the potato crop, feel it

` our incumbent duty to address your Excellency. We con-
sider, that in an emergency like the present, when the great
body of the Irish people were threatened with the
frightful evils which follow in the train of the scanty
of food, that we are justified in suggesting to
the Government, that to provide good employment for the
labouring classes will be the very best means of averting these
calamities. We subm.t, therefore, that a grant from Govern-
ment of 14,0001. would tend to improve the district, and give
employment to the labouring classes, whose condition without
it it is fearful to contemplate, unless some measure, of this kind
be adopted." This letter is signed by the Lord Primate, by
Archbishop Crony, Lord Hertford, Lord Charleville Lord Gos-
port, and by William Bernard, Esq., M.P. But. Sir, although
1 am afraid that the Irish case is a case of such depression as
will force itself more painfully on the attention of this House
day by day, yet I have never rested my suppert of this measure
upon the Irish case alone. lam speaking that which I shall
be always ready to repeat, that the urgency of that
case did precipitate the necessity ofre-considering
the law which regulated and ordered the importa-
tion of corn into this country. But from
the moment that that recommendation was rendered necessary.
views of general policy and a knowledge of the general con-
dition of the peace of this country proved to the Government
.
beyond a doubt that the repeal of the existinglwish restrictive laws
had become indispensably necessary. not unnecessarily
to trespass on your attention, but re eat the arguments which
brought me to that canclusion. Somethingp
was said by the
Hon. Member for Shrewsbury on a formerheevenintf,. with
td
reference to the injurious effect which
from the exportation of precious metals consequentanticipated
e
large importation of corn from the north.—(Hear, heoanr.
Among other reasons why I advocate this change is one, the very converse of that which the Hon. Member brought before
the House. I consider, in the present state of our monetary
system that any large importation of the precious metals would
be very injurious to the commercial interests of England ; but
my own belief is, that if the ports are kept open for a steady
importation of corn from abroad, that so far from any im-
portation of the precious metals taking place, it will be pre-
vented by the measure which the Government propose shall
he now adopted. When our trade in corn with
foreign countries is fully established, there will be
an interchange of commodities, which will extend
the commercial relations of the several countries, and thus any
injurious exportations of the precious metals will be effectually
avoided. Well, Sir, I am also anxious to state my opinion
with reference to the effect produced upon foreign trade by the
measure now under discussion. I consider the question of
foreign and home trade so intimately connected that
they may be considered one and the same interest.
I find that the foreign and heme trade are
in a series of years most materially and indissolubly connected.
The high price of provisions in the first instance consumed,
prevents a consumption of home manufactures ; the home mar-
ket is consequently paralysed, and the manufacturer is com-
pelled to have recourse to a forced exportation to foreign mar-
kets. The foreign market is glutted—foreign interests are
injured—and the home market, from its intimate connexion
with the foreign trade, is seriously injured. Then comes the
question, what is the effect of this importation into the foreign
market ? Now, Sir, I perceive that wheat in this country
is more univenally consumed than in any country in the
world. And whatever may be the price. and whatever the
scarcity of that article, the consumption is very little if any
less, and the price scarcely suffers the slightest variation ; for
the labourer, who will not be prohibited its use, will rather
forego everything else, nor absolutely necessary, than be with-
out wheat and bread. At any sacrifice of wages, wheat is
still purchased ; but the surplus remaining of his wages, as it
is in exact ratio with the price of that food, is so much less
expended in home manufactures. If this be true with refer
ence to this part of the argument, the price of wheat ha, a
great influence on the manufac urea of this country, because
tiAs enormous sacrifice, on the whole amount of the labourer's

wages, incapacitate him from the purchase of other articles.
What is the effect of these laws on the condition of the la-
bourers ? It has been said that the high price of the wages of
the labourer are not dependent on the price of provisions. I
admit the number of the agricultural labourers. I admit their
importance—l will not say paramount importance—but the
great importance of this class must be obvious to all. But
having given my most anxious consideration to this measure.
I have come to the conclusion that it is not high prices, with
reference 'to the labourer, whether manufacturing or agricul-
tural, will benefit or injure both classes equally. An Hon.
Member has said that, under no circumstances, do the labourers
of Dorsetshire receive more than 6s. or 7s. per week. From

that sam they had to deduct one or two shillings for the house-
rent, making the net earnings of the Dorsetshire labourers,
somewhat between ba. and 6s. per week. The same Hon.
Wernher stated that, prices did not vary with the price
of provision ; if corn tose, wages did not rise—their condi-
tion was literally hopeless. I say that it is anything but
hopeless.—( Hear, hear.) Try one experiment—you cannot
alter the price of wanes—reduce the price of wheat.—( Cheers. )
Possibly the farmers and the landowners may suffer, but I
defy you to show that the condition of the labourers would
suffer.—(Loud cheers.) I understood the Hon. Member also
to say that was net only the present condition of the agricul-
tural labourers in Dorsetshire, but for thirty years they had been
in the same state. I would advise you for once to try, as you
cannot raise the price of wages, to lower the price of food.—
( Loud cheers.) 'Tis our duty to contemplate the state of
things as they now exist. This country was now a commercial
arid manufacturing, and not a purely agricultural country ; and
if you attempt to legislate for the country as for fi purely agri-
cultural one, your error will become palpable and injurious.—
Hear, hear.) The country has become, for good or for woe, a
manufacturing or commercial country, and you must legislate
for it as such.—( Hear, hear.) Admit this nd the connexion
between commerce, manufactures, and land, is evident and
palpable. Seasons of commercial and manufacturing pros-
perity have their re-action upon the labourers in the agricul-
tural districts. Already we have railways, docks, canals ;
labour of every description is the means of giving employment
to the labourers in the rural districts. When these persons see
the great wealth in the manufacturing districts, even in the
most distant rural districts, the consequence is, when prices are
iow and manufactures flourish, wages rise ; and this is the
natural cause for the great demand for labour. Now what. was
'he real question at issue? Let us be sincere in this matter.
( Loud cheering and laughter.) I appeal to the consciences
of those gentlemen who sit below the gangway. I say if they
be really sincere in their desire to legislate for the good of the
labouring classes, whether agricultural or manufacturing. Now
let us inquire as to what are the natural effects of low prices,
high wages, and full employment. In seasons of plenty au
oseillaaon takes place, which leads to low prices in provisions ;
this leads to manufacturing prosperity, and the natural result,the
increased demand for labour. An oscillation again takes place
—the quantity of provisions fail—low prices come, and wares,
In consequence. fall. Then again comes low prices of wages,
from diminished quantity of food; again comes high prices of
food, in consequence of your ports being closed against the ad-
mission of foreign grain—manufactures languish—the home
markets are dull—trade is stagnated—and a considerable export
of the precious metals is required to buy foreign corn to meet
'he deficiency at home, and, as the inevitable result, the wages
of the labourer fall. Then what is the condition of the
labouring man, whether manufacturing or agricultural ? He is
worse than before. He had full employment, high wages, and
low prices of provisions ; now he is subject to the converse of
all this. He has deficient employment, low wages, and high
prices of provisions.—( Hear, hear.) lam quite satisfied that
this measure is conducive to the interests of the labouring
classes, be they manufacturing or agricultural. I must say
that no sophistry, ingenuity, or argument, will satisfy the
people of this country that it is conducive to their
interests that the prices of food should be high and the price
of wages low. I leel convinced that no sophistry will satisfy
the people of this country, that any such arrangement of our
legislation is calculated to promote the interests of the people
of this country, however generous our intentions may be, or
however unequivocal our declarations. Now I will refer to
another part of the question. Is it for the interest of the
working farmer that these laws should continue? In the
Committee, Sir, over which you presided in the year 1836,
several witnesses gave evidence as to that point. I will merely
call the attention of the House to two of theta. They bear so
directly upon the point that the House will excuse me, if I
read a portion of their evidense. I will not detain it long.
The name of the witness examined was Hr. Ellis, a tenant-
farmer. One of the questions that was put to him, was—
" It is for your advantage to raise prices, is it not ?—I don't
think so. lam not at all of that opinion. I do not see the
great advantage of having hige prices. What do you consider
most advantageous to the interest of the farmer ?—Steady
prices. The farmer when he goes to take land should look
to some steady prices, and not to adventitous cir-
cumstances to help him out of his difficulty. —Do
you think the present scale (referring to the sliding
scale of 1836) has prevented any alteration of prices ?
That is a question which I cannot answer, not having been
in the corn trade, but I am certain of one thing, that the corn-

laws have raised a delusive hope in the minds of the people.
( Mr. Clay, the Member for the Tower Hamlets, asked him this
question)—ls it, in your opinion, that steadiness of prices is
most. important to the farmer?—My opinion is not in accord-
ance with that of most people with reference to the interest of
the landlord and tenant. Up to a certain point I hold they
go together. It is the interest of the tenant to keep
the land in good condition, as it is, undoubtedly,
the interest of the landlord that he should do so.

It is for the interest of the landowner to have high prices in
order to enable him to pay high rents. It makes very little
difference to me if I pay a high price or a low one. I think the
country thrives better if prices are moderate. It is better for
me not to have a low price, provided, however, my expenses are
proportionate. The next question put to him was—Do you
think you can do without protection? His answer was—Not
in the present state of things; we must come to that ultimately.
I have no doubt but we must come to it by slow and gradual
steps. Now, this is precisely the course proposed by the Go-
vernment. The . uty on corn during the next three years will
gradual'y be reduced, until in 1849 the protection duties wjll
altogether cease.—(Cheers.) Now, that is the opinion of
Dorset,hire farmers, and I will now call attention to the evi-
dence of a tenant-farmer in the Lothians. I believe he is no
larger living, but I hod the pleasure of his acquaintance, and I
know he was a most experienced and succe-sful agri-
culturist in that seat of English farming. Well,
he was asked by the Honourable Member for the North
Riling of Yorkshire this question :—" if you had sold
out in 1820, would you have been better than you are now ?"
The House will see that 1820 was the period when the protec-
tion was put on. Well, wuat is his answer? Why, he said,
" I do not know that my case can be taken as a general
case, because I set out poor in life, and after a hard struggle
improved my condition. I am, however, the only remaining
farmer in the parish alive where I was brought up. Excepting
myself there is not a farmer remaining in the parish." Now,
this is explained still more by the answer to another question
from the Hon. Member for the North Riding. He is asked
" What is the reason of their having all gone away?" and he re-
plies, " The money rents that were exacted from them." They
all conceived that wheat would be 80s. per quarter, and
their calculations were made accordingly. It soon
appeared that this price could not be realised.
but they were not convinced of this till their ruin was the con-
sequence.—( Hear, hear.) So you see it was calculated by
the landlord and the tenant, and in fact settled, that the price
of wheat would be 80s., and hod was taken upon that assump-
tion. The tenants were, however, now disappointed; but the
landlords still felt justified in assuming that 80s. would he the
price. I know that they did so, because of their confidence in
the efficacy of the law; for they were honourable men, who
were perfectly well kn •wn to me. from my having been con
netted with them almost from my youth. They were per-
feetly convinced that the price would be 81s., and the conse-
quence was they postponed too long, indeed till the fall of their
tenants was the consequence.--( Hear.) Now there you have
the statement of a tenant farmer of the effect of the law upon
the body to which he beloneed. I have shown you what
effect the law has upon the labourers, and I have read to you
evidence detailing its effect upon the tenant. Need I say there
is evidence to show that it has in no war been beneficial to the
landlord? Have I not clearly shown already that they were
firmly impressed with a conviction that the law would produce
a steady or a fixed and a high price, and that this conviction
resulted in the ruin or the extinction of the tenant ? Can
there be a stronger argument against the protective system ?
In my opinion I own it is conclusive ? Now, without intend-
ing any offence to Honourable Members below the gangway,
I must say they erroneously assume to themselves that they
monopolise the land of the country.—(Cheers.) They
state themselves to be the representatives of the whole of the
landed interests, but let us see if they really
do represent the whole of the landlords of
the kingdom.—( Hear, hear.) I admit that they represent the
landowners of the fertile districts, but the representation is by
no means general, while they represent but few landlords whose
property lies in any of the manufacturing districts.—(Hear,