The Sun.
London, England, 1846-05-29 00:00:00

in the price of wool was in consequence of the removal of the
protection duty. What were the real facts of the case with
regard to the wool trace ? The duty on wool was repealed at
the time of the great panic in 1825. After that panic the
w hole trade of the country was affected for a long time. The
value of wool went down like the value of other articles for two
or three years before they recovered it. An injury was done to
the manufacturers by the existence of high duties at
that time. In the year 15_28, when a Comaittee of
this House was moved for, the evidence was brought by a
number of gentlemen and persons connected with the wool
trade, for the purpose of proving that wool at that time was
at a ruinous price, and the manufacture of it was not sufficient
to pay its expenses. They went on to say, according to the
proofs they had on that subject, that the maintenance of the duty
would be of advantage to the foreign grower; and they said
the depression which they then experienced was nothing to
what was coming, and that they should have bales of wool at
prices which it was folly for the British grower to attempt to
compete with. They stated that the same land which was
valuable for the production of corn was valuable for
the production of wool, with the same labour, soil,
and industry; and in the course of a few years the cheap corn-
growers would apply themselves to the growth of cheap wool ;
and that wool, in proportion to its value; was of smaller bulk
than corn, could be transported a greater distance at less ex-
pense.
wise
to
freTe-hteradiehuw,eoul,dvas fortunately
cause
tallpen steo. a Thereforeruioug
that
enough to refuse this committee, and what, he asked, was the
extent. the
price
result? In the course of a short time—in one or two )ears—
the price of wool recovered wonderfully. The woollen manu-
factures were greatly improved, and from that time to this
wool has been one of the best articles of manufacture
and of profit to the farmer. There was no article on
which their profit was greater. The Noble Duke may shake
his head. I know something of the price of wool, and what-
ever may be the price of wool in Sussex, I can inform him that
in Northumberland the price of wool on the average of years,
from 1828 to this time, has been considerably higher than the
prices during the existence of the prohibitory duties. That
was a strange fact. We are told that the competition in wool
was more dangerous than that in corn, and that the removal of
protection will destroy the woollen trade. The experiment
of removing the protective duty had turned out well, and was
it not reasonable that the same principle should be applied to
the corn-laws ? There was another article of the same kind.
At the time of the reduction in the tariff it was adverted to
with the greatest possible apprehension, as being likely to in-
troduce cheap corn. My Noble Friend in some portion of his
speech, says :—" That in admitting foreign stock, it was
actually repealing the corn-laws, for then corn would be im-
ported in the shape of fat cattle, and the foreign agriculturist
would thus be saved the expense of carriage." I believe that
my Noble Friend was right. He has been very careful in his
arguments to show that the present high prices of stock were
owing to the tariff; and so far I am bound to say that I concur
with him. We have had four years' experience of the tariff,
and if any great alteration has been made in the market by any
supplies from abroad, we have seen from the state of the mar-
ket last year, that far from it causing any re-
duction, the supplies from abroad have been unable
to check the rise in the market, while at the same time the in-
troduction of the small cattle imported from Germany has pro-
duced a material effect in that country, and the cattle in many
places, in proportion to their size and quality, fetch very nearly
as high prices as in this country. I could go on to show that
the same thing occurs with reference to the produce of other
States. All these things are grown on the same land, by the
same labour, and by the same means that are available to pro-
tection ; and they were all more valuable in proportion to their
bulk than corn ; and yet in this article in which the trade is far
less, we have found by experience that the British grower has
nothing to fear. My Noble Friend has turned rotted and said
to us, " If you deny that you expect a fall in the price of corn,
what is the advantage you expect from a reduced duty upon it?"
He thought that by that question he had reduced us to a
dilemma from which there was no escaping. That was the
sort of argument he had taken, and it requires very little con-
sideration to perceive that we do not expect to have a fall in
the price of corn, but we expect it will be much more even.
We do not believe that we shall have such variation under free
trade as we saw when, in 1836, in December, the price of corn
was 355., and in 1839 it was 81s. per quarter. We shall have
neither of these extremes. We expect
,that we shall have
the average prices lower than they have been during the last
dozen years, and reduce the amount of fluctuation. The
' Noble Lord has denied that it will render the prices more equal,
but I believe that there will be no difficulty in showing your
Lordships that the prices will be more secure. What is the
invariable regulation of prices? What is it that lowers the
prices in dear years, and heightens the prices in cheap years ?
It is commerce which bestows this upon us, and which puts us
in that superior position to which we were in those barbarous
times, when we had at one time a plentiful supply and great
distress to the grower, and at another time scarcity of
corn, and famine and distress to the consumers. In
a civilised country this is the operation of commerce ; a man is
been for his own interest. He buys in the cheap year and
sells in:the dear year, and in this system of social organisaation,
when not. interfered with, regulates the prices so as to check
that extensive suffering of one party or another. The opera-
tion of the tariff has rendered the dealing in corn a gambling
transaction, in which a great Tart of the merchants hesitate to
embark. So strong is that fact, that it was proved before an
agricultural Committee of the other House, that the course
pursued was such as to render any trade in corn so hazardous as
literally to hinder any merchant from embarking in it. There
used to be at one period a stock, such as would always carry on
the country for six months, but since the trade in corn has
been rendered one of so hazardous a nature, the stock in the
country has been reduced to just enough for a fortnight's con-
sumption. That was a proof of the injurious effect of any
corn-law. What was the reason that prices fell so low iii
1839 ? Was it in consequence of the competition with foreign
corn ? Was it to the competition of any foreign country
that we owed that ? No. It was our own succession
of good crops in this country. The high prices and
low credit of a few years before had artificially
stimulated the prices of corn, and, in consequence of that, a
great effort was made to increase the growth of corn, and a
large quantity was then produced, at a time when the consump-
tion was not sufficient to take it off the hands of the growers.
It was the excess of our own produce; and so long as we
adopt only: one source of supply, we must be exposed to
want its years of scarcity, and excess in years of plenty. How
different the case would be if we took the same proportion of
supply from abroad. If that were the case, and you had a re-
gular trade in foreign corn—enough for home consumption—
the foreign corn would be quickly supplied in the dear years
and in scarce seasons ; and, 1 n. consequence, the price
wouldg
it t( e hi/re e et bear a larger .
proportion in its prices of corn
than it then did, and therefore it would be less inducement to
the merchant to introduce foreign corn, and the country would
thus be able to take off all of its own growth by a slight re-
? •
striction on the quantity received from abroad. This would
be the natural operation, anti the farmer, by selling a larger
quantity of corn, would be compensated for the fall in its price.
I do not deny that, in plentiful years, the produce would be
cheaper than in scarce years, and it would be the foreign
grower, and not the home grower, who would reap the benefit
of this measure. There is another advantage which we shall
derive from the repeal of the law, an advantage of great im-
portance. The advantage would be a greatly increased con-
sumption of corn. Will any man attempt to argue that the
people of this country consume as much corn as they desire—
that they do not desire any more. In Wiltshire and Dorset-
shire, the consumption was far less than what the labourers
desired. He believed that the peasantry do not wish to live on
less bread than they do at present, and to supply the place with
inferior articles of food ; and the effect of repealing the re-
striction on the statute book, would be to cause a greatly in-
creased consumption of corn. There would also be a greater
consumption of cattle ; the consequence of an improved de-
mand would be, that ti • farmer would take even a larger
number than at present; and, I need not tell your Lordships,
who are yourselves landowners, that every attempt to improve
agriculture, is commenced by the taking of an increased num-
ber of stock. There will be a greater crop in consequence,
and cheaper corn. The direct tendency of the system would
be to authorise the gradual improvement of agricul-
ture ; and in my belief, it will offer a stimulus to
competition, and an encouragement to trade. Un-
der the increased demand and consumption, agriculture
will make far more progress than it has hitherto done. We
shall see that the science is but in its infancy. It has been
said that a removal of the old tenantry would have to take
place. I believe that such a thing will be unnecessary. A
change of tenantry I should regard as a great misfortune, and
also such a sweeping alteration in the country. It is not ne-
cessary—the farmers are disposed to improve their condi-
tion and those under them. Of course, foreign countries had
not prepared corn to the extent we require, and the introduc-
tion would only be felt by degrees. In my opinion, the change
should be gradual, and as the cultivation gradually extended, so
would the consumption of the country extend in an equal
ratio. The means by which the facilities of improvement
would be increased would be by adopting the recommendation
of my Noble Friend's Committees with regard to the transfer
and conveyance of landed property. Let me remark, also,
that improved farmers would employ more agricultural la-
bourers. In that farming, called the higher farming, the
owner employs more hands, and employs them more continually
on the land. In the evidence adduced before the Committee
of my Noble Friend, we were told, that the farmer of the
South of England was obliged, in order to prevent their being
thrown on the poor-rates, to employ more hands than he re-
quired. When it was said, that the land would go out of culti-
vation, it was a wrong calculation of the probable effect of the
law. So far from it, it will be better employed. I, for one,
do not expect to see any fall even in the rents. The land in a
populous country would always be used in same way. I would
have entered upon a very important point, in reference to this
question, but I trusted to have the opportunity at another
stage of the Bill.—( Cries of " Hear, hear," and cheers.)
The Noble Lord who spoke last night considered that it was
impolitic to narrow the means of employment by letting in fo-
reign goods in competition with our own. But let me observe
with reference to the colonies, that there is no such difficulty
as to the means of finding profitable employment for labour
and capital. The difficulty there is to find sufficient labour and
capital for the profitable development of the natural resources
and wealth of their country; and the effect of your protecting
duties is to divert their industry and capital from its natural,
and therefore most legitimate, channel, into a curse of opera-
tion of an artificial and unproductive character. No man
doubts that Canada is poorer than she would have been had
you not given her protecting duties on her timber. Let any
man say the vast amount of labour and wealth which has been
expended in consequence of your absurd and impolitic system.
It has had the effect of importing a vast amount of bad anti in-
ferior timber into this country. This is the same with respect
to ail the other colonies. They gain nothing at all by your
protective systems. They would have full employment under
duties duties,
s uht
pha
pve
leyi
eha:r, eefnrs
oehmr
go
hudisiyffleionrs
jeeunrrts b n
i omu
ysa
rttkoheeotmsu:
and
lvde es
totonlsnseedqnitaidenn ce of the
protection which we claim from them in return. I
any circumstances for all the capital which they possess. But,
at the same time, while they gain nothing by these protective
their pro-
duce they have suffered greatly in not being able to obtain their va-
riousduce to this country on the most advantageous terms.
In point of fact they have gaited nothing by your duties, and
this principle which applies to the West India colonies, is
also applicable to all the other colonies ; examine the whole
circle of them, and you will find my s'atement correct, that
d owe which cnhot we
scelea claim
a t from
it twhaesm
thein return.
desire
not only do they not gain anything by your restrictive duties,
but that they are actually losers in consequence of the reci-
procityy
ar,
ttwho
ehmat isf
commercial ordinarily acquainted
dependence
upon
p 0
ja historyou r tAloos
American
thereethr
forceiiesacanona
enmgot
sys-
tem
andathtta:
mwp th bloodya
tt resultednanfodr
nies that was really at the bottom of the America
o
rinsa
esthe e lossiwn aof
caoanfmdflathineorvioeilavtge
this country ? It was this commercial policy brought ont
cper
to tti
enormous debt. It is a fact, notorious to every one, that the
the cause of the division of this country
from the Uniied
States. I am not prepared to say that these large provinces
would have still remained in
the possession of the British
Crown.
They might at any rate
dhave parted with us In a
different manner, and still dependency,
atth
e coloniesn,ant
i nwai war,nos
preserved soefr v amicable relations with
us, instead of a certain degree
which always seems to exist eabetween ousy aAnd
meri ancagry feeling
and,_
this
country. I should have
thought
that the Noble Earl wou
not have alluded to that topic,; L
his mind certainproduced in
as it might have
os a
debate which took disagreeable recollections of I
the
place. last year.
blouse of Commons on
tralian corn into this country. What was the course of p
granted them the ro-
ceeding at that period? Youprivilege of
lending their corn into this country. You refused that privi-
lege to all the other colonies and gave it to Canada, because

she had just before been in a state of insurrection, while at
the same time you refused it to those colonies which bad ever
been loyal. My Lords, 1 for one think this was a course of
policy well calculated to rouse a spirit of disaffection. The
Noble Earl went on to say that it was your duty to
keep these colonies always in a state of dependence,
and alluded to the great military and naval expense
attending keeping these colonies. I must be permitted to say,
that this is rather a defsctive mode of argument. The point to
be proved is the advantage of a protecting duty. That being
the point to be proved, you first say if you donut give protection
you lose the colonies, and that therefore is a reason for keeping
protection, and then you turn round and say do not take allay
protection, for there is no further reason for maintaining the
colonies if you do ; that is, I ce nsider, arguing in a circle.
You say do cot touch the proteciag duties; having thus estab-
lished the necessity for protecting duties, you turn round and
say, if you have not protecting duties, of what use are the
colonies? This was one of the most complete possible examples
of arguing in a circle which I ever knew. We have the ad-
vantages of a colonial empire, pcssessing friends in every quarter
of the world—of having a large population in every part of the
globe possessing great natural resources, ready to unite heart
and soul with us, and prepared to defend our positions, to
support and defend our interests, and to take part with us
against all attacks which may be made against us; and, upon
the other hand, they have this inestimable advantage, and
which, I verily believe, they prize and value—they have the
glory and security derived to them from being part of the
greatest, the mightiest, and most civilised nation on the face of
the earth—the have the glory of calling themselves British
subjects, and the proud satisfaction of feeling that in defence
of their interests and the protection of their just rights ; the
power and might of this great country is ready in a moment to
be called forth and be exercised for their defence. I believe
that they are folly sensible of these benefits ; and I believe
if these benefits, you extend a liberal policy both political
and commercial, and extend to them the clearest and most
indisputable right of Englishmen, the power of self-govern-
ment, and avoid vexatiously meddling in their international
affairs, you will bind them to you with a chain which no
powers ow earth can break, and that connexion between the
parent state and the colonies will be extended till their popu-
lation far exceed that of the mother country. The Noble
Lord next proceeded to show how unjustly this measure would
operate if passed into a law upon Canada. He proceeded to
say—you have encouraged Canada to extend large sums of
money upon the faith of your continuing to them
the protection afforded by the existing corn-laws,
and that it would be an act of great injustice
to that country if we were to alter the present law. He fur-
ther said that the Canadians have no chance of competing with
America, and if we passed this Bill in its present state we
should ruin the commercial prosperity of Montreal and Que-
bec, and transfer the trade and commerce of these places to
New York. My Lords, I think in the present case the opi-
nions of the Canadians are entitled to some weight from your
Lordships. What are the feelings of the Canadians upon the
subject? My Lords, I hold in my hand a newspaper pub-
lished in Canada, containing a report of the debate which took
place in the House of Assembly of Canada upon that subject.
It may be as well to state that her Majesty's Government, im-
mediately upon coming to their resolutions respecting
the alteration of the corn-law, made a communication to the
Government of Canada of their intentions, and told them that
they were at liberty to repeal the duty of 3s. a quarter upon
American wheat, which they had imposed when the measure
was submitted to them by the Government at home. A mea-
sure was accordingly introduced for the purpose of repeaing
the duty on American wheat. In the course of discussion on
that question a motion was made and carried in the Assembly
for reporting progress. What turned out to be the fact ? It
seems this amendment was carried in consequence of a misers-
prehension, some of the parties not exactly understanding each
other as to the effect of this vote. In a few days after
the consideration of the subject was resumed, and a
vote was taken upon the subject. I have read the speeches
which took place during that debate ; but there seems to have
been nothing of that desponding and hopeles feeling to which
the Noble Lord referred. On the contrary, there was in
general a tone of more manly and hopeful nature ; and as a
proof of the existence of the feeling, the measure was
carried by a majority of 45 to 27. The Noble Lord went on to
say, that the passing of this measure would shake their feelings
of loyalty to the British Crown. I confers, my Lords,
that I heard this language with great regret,
as it seemed to imply that the Canadians would be almost
justified in manufacturing a spirit of disloyalty and disaffection.
Why, my Lords, the very same week in which they had been
discussing the repeal of the corn-laws, in that same week a
Militia Bill was under the consideration of the Assembly. I
will read to you an account of the proceedings in the As-
sembly. ( The Noble Earl (Grey) then read& report of the
proceedings upon this Bill, the tensor of which implied a feel-
of confidence in the Government at home.) The result, then,
of those considerations is, in my mind, to demonstrate that
the passing of this Bill, now before your Lordships, is im-
peratively required by the great masses of that country ;
—( Hear, hear)—and that, by passing this Bill, we in-
cur no risk of any injury to our interests, colonial
or domestic. None of the great interests of the empire will
be exposed jn my opinion to any injury. Upon the other hand,
by rejecting this measure, you will injure many great inte-
rests. I ask you ; and I remind the Noble Duke (Richmond)
setting on the cross-benches, who at an early period this
evening, when the petition of the merchants of the City of
London was presented by a Noble Earl opposite, asked signifi-
cantly how many signers of the petition are holders of bonded
corn. I think your Lordships all know the inuendo conveyed
in that observation ? Now, my Lords, I wish to ask you,
and I will also remind the Noble Duke, that if we reject
this Bill, whether the Noble Duke's example will not
be followed by other parties, and whether it will not lead them
to think upon the subject of your rejection of this measure, and
inquiring into the reasons which may have led your Lordships
to reject this measure ? I ask whether they will not begin to
inquire how many of your Lordships are owners of land? lily
Lords, I do not believe that, conscientiously, at all events, any
of your Lordships can be influenced by these motives. But
after what has been said by the Noble Duke, I cannot
think but that a great many of you are influenced In your
decision by the facts that your Lordships are owners of land. I
believe my Noble Friend felt himself justified in asking that
question. But I think it would have been much better if,
when he asked that question, he had remembered what would
be the effect produced in the public mind, of an assembly
of landowners rejecting a Bill imperatively called
for by the people of this country. I trust,
my Lords, that before you take a course which seems to me so
full of .•
of
litginegreirra T tango ins measure. I trust your Lordshlps will
riot act upon mere passion, nor gratify any feeling of indigna-
tion which you may feel towards those whom you think may
have deceived you ; or that your Lordships will not act upon
the principle of punishing the Ministry, or certain Members of
the House of Commons who gave opinions upon this measure
contrary to your Lordships, but that you will consider fully
and fairly before you determine upon the rejection of the
measure, what will be the practicable effect upon the people
of this country, and what may be the probable opinion
which the people of this country will form upon the motives
which guided the decisions of your Lordships. For what is
the fact ? De your Lordships believe that vou can maintain
the existing corn-law ? Is there a Noble Lord in this
House who now hears me who believes that
the Government of this country can, looking at
the events of the last few years, and the great change that
has taken place in public opinion, think it is possible to main-
tain the existing law for a period of any length. I ask the
three Noble Dukes (Richmond, Cleveland, and Buckingham)
if they believe it possible, by any combination of circumstances,
for two years to maintain the existing corn-laws?
The Duke of RI C H M 0 ND—" Yes."—( Laughter. )
The Duke of CLEVELAND—"Yes, yes."—(lncreased
laughter. )
The Duke of BUCKING H AM—" Yes, yes, yes."—( Roars
of laughter. )
Earl GREY—The Noble Dukes say "Yes, yes," but
I can only say that the Noble Earl who spoke last night with
great animation, and at considerable length upon the subject,
seemed to expect some alteration in the existing law.
But if it is likely to tend to the same result, then no man in
his sober senses will recommend a dissolution of Parliament.
When we consider the injury which would be inflicted on the
country, the absolute paralysis of trade which must ensue, can
we say that it is a thing to be desired that the country should
be put in one universal flame, when the result wouid be the
passing of the same Bill ? But, my Lords, can they imagine
that by throwing out this Bill, that they can obtain even a com-
promise, and that they could induce Parliament to pass some
less objectionable measure ? My Noble Friend on Monday
night threw out many hints that those who voted for the Bill
in the present stage, could have opportunities of altering it to
another. However, I put it to you, do you think it advisable to re-
ject this measure in the hopes of substituting another of the kind?
It is a vain hope. Look at the spirit of the times, and tell me
do you think it possible of accomplishment ? If there is any
alteration it will he an alteration of free trade in a more ex-
tended degree. My Noble Friends, it was a great inconsistency
in me to support such a measure as this, when I formerly sup-
ported a fixed duty. But I did support a fixed duty, not on
the principle of protection, but because I believed that a fixed
duty would be the best principle of protection ; for I have ever
objected to the whole principle of what is called protection.
But at that time I thought a moderate fixed duty was advis-
able, because I believed it would produce little perceptible dif-
ference to the consumer, yet nevertheless be the means of
greatly augmenting the revenue of the country. I thought it
was a reasonable compromise, and that it would give us some
years sooner all the advantages of a free trade, and that it
would avert a most injurious struggle which I foresaw ap-
proaching. These were the grounds on which I maintained
that a fixed duty was desirable, for I took the liberty of assur.
ing those gentlemen who were then supporting the Govern-
ment, that the measure would lead to an entire free trade. I
told them that if they desired a fixed duty, that the days, and
even the hours, in which they could be secured, were rapidly
going by, and that I, for one, if a fixed duty were not adopted
at the time it was offered, believed that such a settlement
would, at a future moment, be unattainable, and that the choice
would never be propounded. I am convinced that, had the
measure been adopted in 1842 it would have been accepted by
the country, but I am no less firmly persuaded that it would be
no longer so. The agitation would continue, nor could they
believe it would cease upon such a compromise. I am deeply
interested in this question. I am not philosopher enough to
deny that I am so interested. As a landowner in this country,
my pecuniary interest must be affected, and I am most anxious
that nothing should be done to injure my property ; and there
is nothing which I should deprecate more than the passing of a
measure which would tend to keep agitation alive, which I
believe would be the effect of a fixed duty. But
how can such a measure receive the sanction of Pa,liament, for
my Lords, we cannot exclude from our consideration some re-
gard to public opinion, and the position of the affairs of the
country. By what party, by what set of men in this state can
you effect it? We know that it cannot be by the party of the
Government. We know that they are pledged within the last
week to nothing of the kind ; a fixed duty is quite inapplicable
for them. The alternative is protection, but remember the
language held by the protectionists, that free-trade itself were
preferable to protection. And what has been the language of
the party with whom I have had the honour hitherto to act.
My Noble Friend, who is at the head of that party, stated at the
commencement of the session, that he was prepared to under-
take the duty of Government on the principle of repeal ; and we
all know that my worthy friend is the best man to listen to such
a suggestion, and the best person to come forward to propose a
fixed duty after what has passed. Well, then, there is the third
party as they call themselves, are they prepared to do it? Is
my Noble Friend who represents their opinions in
this House, or the Noble Dukes who coincide in opinion
with him, are they prepared to form a Government upon this
principle ? I think, after the very severe language which they
have held on the subject of inconsistency—of change of opinion
and of eating words—l think they, of all, shouldfor bet tehe
uld
and would be the last--to propose a fixed duty ; hy
be then demonstrating how far the inconsistency of human
nature was possible.—( Laughter. ) Aut eall eitverr.ts), t‘hvee, then,yllwould
never listen to such a proposition.—
there is nobody to take the charoenos(ar.
of such
to oblivion. In my
such a compromise and
the idea of a fixed duty may be
opinion it would have been the best settlement of the question
had it been adopted when it would have been accepted by the
country. We have now to choose whether we will maintain
he law as it at present exists, or consent to a more complete
the
of the principles of free trade. My Lords, my
Noble Friend on Monday night who addressed you so ably, ad.
yerted to a speech delivered by a leading Member of the Anti
Corn-law League, in which the Speaker pointed out ulterior
measures which were contemplated by that association.
Lord KINNAI RD.—The speech was not made at the League.
Earl GREY—I am told that it was not made at the League;
it is a matter of little consequence, and I am quite prepared

to admit with my Noble Friend, that the existence of the
Anti-Corn-law League is a great evil. Do not let it be sup-
posed I mean to pass any blame on these Gentlemen who are
at the head of that association—far from it, I have no hesita-
tion in saving that this country, and that even those in that
House, owe a debt of gratitude to the leaders of that party, and
more especially to Mr. Cobden.—( Hear, hear, and a laugh. )
Yes, to Mr. Cobden. It is to his genius—to his indefatigable
energy and perseverance, and not to Sir Robert Peel that we
owe the present position of this measure. But to my lion.
Friend, Mr. Cobden, we are all indebted for the achievement
of this measure, which I believe to be one of the most import-
ant which has ever come under the consideration of a legislative
body. I say we are indebted to him for the method
in which he has conducted his triumph by means legitimate,
nay, unexceptionable—no attempt to overawe the deliberations
of Parliament by the assemblas,,e of vast multitudes.
The Marquis of SALISBURY—Because he couldn't.
Earl GREY—I say that we are indebted to him for this
course of proceeding on this occasion—a course which has been
dictated to him by high constitutional feeling. He has been
able to convert the opinion of the nation—to show what the real
interest of the community is upon.thls subject ; and considering
the time in which this great change of opinion has been
effected, his success and triumph have been most mina, ulous.
But, nevertheless, I still admit that the existence of the
Anti-Corn-law League is an evil—it is an evil, because
such a body never can exist, except it has been first
created by a sense of wrong awl injury existed. And, my
Lords, it is only a grievance which could have created so for-
midable an organisation—but when once created, the removal
of the grievance will not remove the desire to remove the
organisation.—( Hear, hear.) And I fully agree with the sen-
timents so eloquently expressed by my Noble Friend in his able
speech, that the crop of political power is too sweet, when
once tasted, to be readily relinquished. Such a sentiment is
perfectly true, and I have no doubt that there will be a great
anxisty, even after the removal of the evil, to keep up this
formidable organisation. I have no doubt that such will be
the fact. It is consistent with past experience. But what is
the inference you ought to draw 2 Is it that you ought to
keep up the grievance which first created this Franken-
stein? Do you not consider that the sense
of the injustice which they have suffered, aggravated as it will
be by its continuance, by the feelings that their hopes in re-
moving it have been disappointed, will greatly increase the
power of such a body ? I say, on the contrary, that we ought,
, without the least possible delay, to repeal the law which has
given rise to their complaints ; and that, my Lords, is my great
objection to one portion of the Bill, by which we are going to
enact its continuance, though even for a modified time—it gave
an excuse for the keeping alive of agitation. I should like to
do away with all that part of the measure which will give an
excuse or a ground to those parties who may be desirous to
keep up the organisation; and, therefore, 1 look forward to
the power which is vested in this House to amend the decrees
of the House of Commons, and I hope that we will amend it in
this particular. But my Noble Friend, almost in the same
breath, went on to describe, in language most refined, the
power of this House. He said that we were constituted
for the purpose of placing a salutary obstacle to rash
and inconsiderate legislation, and that it was not the
practice of your Lordships to liberate public opinion.—
( Hear, hear.) That was the language his Noble Friend
had expressed in his usual felicity of language—that we are
placed as a restriction upon hasty legislation, but that we are
not to oppose ourselves to a continuous and deliberately formed
stream of public opinion. It is, therefore, of the deepest con-
sequence to us that we should distinguish the difference of a
hasty and inconsit'erate expression of opinion, and of a calm
and deliberate conviction on the part of the public, before we
set ourselves against it. It is perfectly clear in the one case
that we must give way, and by so giving way we must surely
impair our proper authority. My Lords, in this case, there-
fore, it is our duty to endeavcur to determine whether the de-
sire of the people—of the House of Commons—as ex-
pressed by their votes, is a deliberately formed
public opinion, or whether the voice of the coun-
try has been expressed in favour of hasty legislation,
and what are the symptoms which lead to the inference that
the desire of the nation rests upon hastily formed opinion.
The principles on which this Bill is founded were brought be-
fore the public 80 years ago, when the petition was signed in
favour of a free trade in corn. Adam Smell, in his work, has
laid down, with a force of reason which cannot be contested,
the great principle of free trade. That principle had found its
way amongst the philosophers of every civilised country in the
world ; and it had found its way to the closet, but it was long
before statesmen and merchants would consent to its
validity. By degrees they began to do so. At first
the authority of the principle which had been received
as infallible by the philosophers, began also to be received
and admitted in a hesitating and doubtful manner; but as dis-
cussion went on—as the good effects of it were experienced
day by day, new converts came over to the justice, and to the
acknowledgment of the justice, of the principle. My Lords,
in my own memory how great has been the change on this
subject. Nineteen years ago, when I first voted upon this
question in the other House of Parliament in favour of the
principle on which this Bill is based, I voted in minorities,
sometimes as small as 15, and never exceeeing 50. My Lords,
we now see year by year how great has been the progress of
the principle of free trade ; within the last few years we have
certain evidence how deeply the sympathies of the people are
wound up in its ultimate triumph, and we see that the prin-
ciple of restriction cannot be much longer maintained, for we
now see her Majesty's Ministers at last coming forward and
manfully avowing a complete change in their opinions.
I, for one, my Lords, give them credit for the manner in
which they have avowed their opinions upon this question ;
and I regard it as an earnest, and sincere, and a candid
avowal. And when I find that that avowal has been the re-
sult of the inability of that party to resist any longer the ex-
pression of public opinion in reference to this measure, I do
say, my Lords, that I cannot but regard it as a strong proof of
the policy and good sense of yielding to the expression of pub-
lic opinion. It may be said by some Noble Lords that there
were not sufficient reasons for some persons changing their
opinions, and becoming advocates of this measure, or that the
reasons which had been adduced afford anything like a fair
justification for that change. Now, my Lords, I beg to say,
that it is not my purpose, nor is it my wish, to make any in-
inquiry into the reasons by which others were led to hold the
views and entertain the opinions they now do upon this ques-
tion. I do not wish to know whether they have taken into
consideration what may be the consequences of this change of
opinion in the year 1839, as compared with the year 1841 ; but
whatever their opinions may have been upon the subject,
it is quite apparent that circumstances have
iel,uer it unpusswie tor any rational man
to entertain the same opinion now. I can tell this House that
this sacrifice of opinion has been well considered out of doers—
out of doors men are of the same opinion, in reference to the
corn-laws, as those entertained by the majority of the other
House. There was a time when the manufacturers of this
country were of the same opinion as are the protectionists at
present, and, let me ask, were not those very men amongst the
majority of those who originated this very measure? I say
that the great mistake of our commercial policy, as is apparent
in this corn-law, has been owing to them. When I first
entered upon public life, so strong was the feeling in favour of
protection that when Mr. Huskisson introduced his measure
for the repeal of the duties on foreign shipping, he was re-
garded as a traitor to the interests of that branch of the com •
coerce of this country. Yet, strange to say, the corpora-
tion of Liverpool, the corporation of that very town of
which Mr. Huskisson was the representative, are the
people who now come forward with an almost
unanimous demand for a total repeal of the corn-laws. There.
fore I do say, my Lords, thet the proposition for the repeal of
those laws has not been the result of any rash, or inconside-
rate, pr hasty measure of legislation, but is one which has
been the result of rational and well-considered public opinion.
And that your Lordships will pass this Bill by an overwhelm-
ing majority is no less my firm and constant expec-
tation than it is my most firm. e arnest and anxious hope.
Lord ASHBURTON said he could assure their Lordships
that he had not risen for the purpose of making anything like
a long speech upon this most important subject, for the best
possible reason, that though he considered it important beyond
any other measure he had yet seen introduced into this House,
yet he did not feel that he possessed the power of addressing
their Lordships at any length upon it ; he would, theref,re,
endeavour to be as bi ief as possible in the few remarks he had
to make, and he begged to assure their Lordships that he
would cautiously endeavour to avoid bAng betrayed into any
observation which should in the slightest degree partake
of a personal character. He would endeavour to confine him-
self, in the few observations with which he would trouble their
Lordships, to what he conceived would be the general political
position of this country as the results of the passing of this
measure. The Noble Lord who had just sat down, asked what
would bscome of this country cr of the present Government if
this measure should be rejected, but he ( Lord Ashburton )
begged to remind their Lordships, that it was not upon
the result to any Government that this House was to deal
with this measure.—(Hear, hear.) It was not the business of
this House to consider whether any change, or what change
was to take place in any party, as the result of the passing or the
rejection of this measure, and therefore he would say that their
Lordships would disposed of it, irrespective of any such con-
siderations.—( Hear, hear.) This Bill had come before their
Lordships in what he should call a very humble shape, and had
been designated as nothing more than a Bill to regulate the
trade in corn ; but when it came to be well considered, he be
lieved it would be found to be one which would effect very
great chaages in this country. After all the attention he had
been able to give it, particularly ale-tr the speech of his
Noble Friend on Tuesday night—considering also the present
position of this country, and the power it possessed of paying
its debts, he should say that nothing but difficulty and danger
appeared to him as the result of the passing of this measure to
the country.—( Hear, hear.) He might be mistaken in the
views he had taken, but, as ho had said before, the result of
all the attention he had been able to give it was, that he had
been compelled to come to no other conclusion than that he
had already mentioned. His views upon this question were
the result of forty years' experience, during which time he
had ample opportunities of judging of the results of great legis
lative experiments. In the year 1815 he was a strenuous op-
ponent of any great alteration in the corn-laws, at a time
when the protecting price of corn was at 80s. He
then opposed it because he considered it as a
wild and ill-considered measure; and it was rather remark-
able that his Noble Friend, who had introduced this measure
to the House, was one of the most strenuous advocates the
Opposition then had, and the result of which was that his
house had actually been plundered by the mob.—( Hear, hear.)
Now just let them examine what the grounds were upon which
this measure had been advocated. Some Noble Lords had
stated that the passing of this measure had been rendered in-
dispensable by reason of the great distress that prevailed in
Ireland, but he should say that that distress had been very
greatly aggravated—( Hear, hear)—and should confess his own
conviction that this was not a measure which would afford any-
thing like a remedy for that ILsar, hear. ) He would
also say that it was perfectly absurd to suppose that the opening
of the ports would have afforded the necessary relief. On the
other hand it had been stated that the result of the opening
of the ports would be a very great alarm in th e countrytie
that was met by the advocates of the Government
declaring that the ports would be opened fora very e snht measureor t
time.
aNporwoc,
eleetdihnigm? asTk
hweheaxtpreeraisomnens
ne oceelay•
thoafd,beeenrk ina,eldtuhecepdoratgsahinasdt
been
the(Le yearrci Ashburton riorini
w
was now speaking st
iroi en hpad o o lnf • -hdi
cote, etnh
at itmme
es a
sbuerfeo before, a adn ebpeheenresorted to, namely,
he
would
state on
under the auspkienefis ooffAwlrh.
at to Huskisson.place c
that year a strong apprehension was entertained that there
would have been a scarcity of provisions, and corn then was at
725. ; and the result of this apprehension was, that Mr. Hus-
kisson brought in a Bill by which to enable the Government
to let out the corn then in bond free of duty, and he believed
it would not be disputed that that statesman wag one of the
wisest, ablest, and best of those England ever possessed. In
the month of May, 1825, there were 400,0e0 quarters of wheat
onsdn Apltri .o
n 1 I
tuos k in% s
eo
ont oe pare:,
pe dr
olteon ld
eedt
ntahranti t
ba nu-t
n
iti t yb n
oi
ndn tdoo:
ncg a
m so he had adoptedolettine it out only in such the precaution of
quantities as would meet the appre-
hendednwo scarcity, while no mischief would be sensibly felt as to
dtloie?resTulnte.y
Bhudt w
nearly
was
th2e,000,0,'0 of quarters of corn in
a hatpresent Government going to
bond, and the result of the passing of this measure would be
to let that enormous quantity of grain in upon the t counts y, at
a time too when there was
a fair prospect of an abundant har-
vest.—(Hear, hear.) The Noble Lord then proceeded to
read extracts from the evidence of a Mr. Banfielel, in reference
to the present position of the agriculture of this country, in
which the Noble Lord contended that there were strong
prO )fi of the impolicy of this measure.—(Hear, hear. )
But now as to the future. Suppose they came, in the course
of three years, to a system of entire free trade—mu.t not
this country then be dependent upon foreign countries for its

supply of food ? And the prices might be wholly independen t
of the cost of producing the article. Corn was a perishable
article.—( Hear, hear. ) It suffered very much when kept for
any great length of time ; it must, in point of fact. be dis-
posed of without any delay. He could wish to have an
answer from his Noble Friend who was silting at the table—
(Lord Montesgle, we believe, was the Noble Lord alluded to)
—and who would, very probably. speak on this question
before their Lordships went to a division. The question which
be wished to ask his Noble Friend was this—What, in his opi•
nion, would be the conduct of foreign countries towards Eng-
land when the principles of free trade came into operation ?
Belgium, France, and all the other countries of Europe, have
hitherto invariably shut their ports against the admission of
foreign corn when they had had an abundant harvest.—( Hear,
hear.) England was now called upon, by the promoters of
this question, to admit freely all foreign grain, whilst no other
country in Europe would imitate our oxample.—( Hear. hear.)
If they were living amidst independent nations, who were
prepared to act upon the same principle, the plan of free trade
would be intelligible.—( Hear, hear.) If the principles laid
down by those Noble Lords who had spoken in favour of this
measure were carried, he firmly believed that the people would
be completely deceived and the country deluded. The princi-
ples of political economy, as laid down by those Noble
Lords, were completely fallacious. They speak of people as
if they were mere machines. He would now quote the
opinions of a writer on political economy, which he was sure
would be received with the greatest respect; and although
Noble Lords who had spoken in the course of this &bate had
quoted the speeches of statesmen, he was not about to do so—he
' was about to quote the calm opinion of a man penned at home.
The writer to whom lie had alluded was Lord John Russell.—
(Hear, hear.) He knew that the opinions of that Noble Lord
would be received with the greatest respect.—( Hear, hear. )
Lord John Russell, in his treatise on political economy, stated
that "political economy" was an awful expression—( Laugh-
ter)—and that the Legislature was often called upon to decide
questions which involved the immediate happiness—perhaps the
very existence—of millions of people, by the rules of a science
which changed from day to day.—(Hear, hear.) Notwith-
standing those awful differences of political economists, their
Lordships were called upon to pass this measure, and to regu-
late the affairs of this great country in such a way es, in his
humble opinion, would bring thousands of its people to irre-
trievable ruin.—( Hear, hear.) He would take the liberty of
again quoting the printed opinions of Lord John Russell on
another part of this subject. That Noble Lord said that if all
nations were at peace, if they had the same currency, the
same weights and measures, it would then be easy
for the Legislature of this country to act upon theoretical
principles, but the frequent occurrences of war, the breaking of
all national treaties which have taken place from time to time,
render such a subject much more difficult than any problem in
the range of mathematics. For instance, it was very easy to say
that corn ought to be admitted free, or any other article of com-
merce, arid that if our farmers could not grow corn as cheap as
foreigners, they ought to let it alone.—( Hear, hear, and
laughter.) But the Legislature could not deal with a question
of such vast importance, en those principles. Bat those were
the principles on which the promoters of this measure had
called upon the Government to act.—( Hear, he2s, ) They had
been told that msny millions of capital had been laid out by
thousands of people in the improvement of the lad of this
country, and yet they were called upon to adopt this measure,
which would deprive those people of the benefit of all the capital
thus expended. They had been told, too, that the taxes im-
posed on the proprietors of the soil of England were heavy,
whilst on the other hand they were exceedingly light, and yet
it was contended that the British farmer should b" compelled to
compete with the foreign farmer, under such disadvantageous
circumstances as these.—(Hear, hear.) They were called
upon to decide the fate of this country at the mere
caprice of a few speculating politicians.—(Hear hear.)
As he had before said, this was not a mere question of
a few shillings being paid for corn either less or snore,
but in it were involved the happiness and the social relations
of almost every family in the United Kingdom.—( Hear, hear.)
Our colonies would feel the shock, and he thought that if their
Lordships revolved these facts in their minds, they would find
that the dangers with which this measure would be attended
were; incalculable.—( Hear.) He ventured to predict that
the consequences of entire free trade would be the ruin of this
country. Their present supply of corn was quite enough, and
it so happened that the very time when corn under this mea-
sure would be imported in abundance into this country, would
be when we least of all wanted it—when, in fact, we had
abundant harvests.—( Hear, hear.) The price would no doubt
in some instances be as low as 255. per qu .rter, and such
cheapness would, he felt convinced, be attended with great
danger to the country. He maintained that by the sliding-
scale the prices of corn had been preserved in a very steady
condition. During the three years that it had been in exis-
tence, the price of corn per quarter had been 505., 515., and
51s. 10,1.---( Hear, hear.) There was, therefore, no reason to
say that the sliding-scale had acted prejudicially to the interests
of this country. He advocated a reasonable protection to agri-
culture in 1818. Since that period their Lordships
might be aware that he had been no advocate of any
extravagant or absurd system of protection to agricul-
ture ; on the contrary, his object had always been to
regulate the admission of corn into this country on
such principles as were reasonable, and calculated to further
the interests of the people at large. He had in fact voted for
a mitigation of the corn-laws many years ago. lie voted for
a .reduction of the prohibitory duties in the year 1842. He
voted for the Canadian Corn Bill, and in fact every reasonable
relaxation and mitigation of the corn-laws had received his
warmest support.—( Hear, hear.) But he could scarcely call
the present corn-laws protection to agriculture, and he could
not vote for this measure, because by it they would be over-
stepping the boundaries of reason and justice. The present
was a case of a totally different description to those to which he
had just alluded.—(Hear, hear.) The object of this measure
was not to regulate the affairs of this country on reasonable,
prudent, and just principles ; its object was in fact to deprive
the country of that happiness which it had hitherto enjoyed
under the system of protection. The measure militated against
that which had existed at all times and in all conntries.—( Hear,
hear. ) Their Lordships might be aware that there was no
period in the history of this country when there was not some
regulation with regard to the admission of foreign corn.—
( Hear, hear.) The British Legislature had alwa3s thought—
even from the time of the conquest—proper to deal with that
subject ; and they must recollect that during the last 150 years
much capital had been invested in the great business of farming,
and that by the aid of that capital the land of tins
country had been much improved. All that capital had been
f,,t- the wormy purposes or fertilising. the English
soil ; but if this measure were passed, the thousands and thou-
sands of pounds that had been so expended would be rendered
useless and lost. Of all authorities on political questions in
this time, he had always been more disposed to pay the
greatest respect to the opinions of Mr. Huskisson, and partieu •
larly on the subject of free trade and protection to agriculture.
Mr. Huskisson said—( A Noble Lord—" What is the date?")-
1844. He stated that nothing could be more dangerous to the
'safeguard and tranquillity of the country than to admit foreign
corn free from all regulations. Almost all had changed their
opinions on this subject, and yet they were called upon to adopt
such a destructive measure as this at the suggestion of men
who had themselves changed their opinions on the subject of
free trade.—( Hear, hear. ) He d d riot know when Mr. Hus-
kisson died, but he thought it was in 18_9—(A Noble Lord—
" In l830")—Mr. Huskisson, however, at that time advocated
a reduction in what was called the protective duties, and he said,
" It has, I understand, then quoted against me, that I hold an
opinion that England ought not to depend too largely upon
other countries for its supply of corn I maintained that
opinion in 1815, and I maintain that opinion now."—(Cheers.)
He also said, " I am anxious to render this country, cum •
mercially as well as politically, independent of foreigners, and I
therefore think that it is not prudent to suffer the free ad-
mission of foreign corn into this country." Every wise states-
man, in every nation of the world, maintained the same opi-
nions, because th, y well knew the danger of allow-
ing their country ever to be dependent on
foreigners for the supply of food. ( Hear, hear.)
Then as respects the objection of the Noble Earl, he might ask
whether the cautions were at all likely to he effectual with
respect to the foreign countries to which he had alluded, and
in calling in the licensing system of Napoleon, he thought that
a due regard ought to be paid to the effects of that system.
And what was that system ?—( Cheers.) It should be recol-
lected that at the period to which allusion had been made, this
country had been labouring under a heavy debt, which debt
this country had to pay. That system of licensing had in the
first instance been imposed for the period of three years, but
it should be recollected that Napoleon had issued a corona id
that the res riction should hold for five years.—( Chems )
Let them only look at the variations of prices which had oc-
curred during the s:veral yea es in which this lie• ruing system
had prevailed. In 1809, tire pis• of a quarter ef wheat was
iyindahusylt,:ttrmhYi whateverne.ady— indeed,
adduce thein-
-945. ; in 1800, it was 100 s. ; in 1602, it was 925. ; in 1813,
it was 106 e. per quaver. The average of those years was
3s . a bushel.
would
dc w rhni Whatthe
eget
question
t then
adduce s, a s
the t object of this system ?
Was it to put money into the peck•ts of the Frenchmen? No
e to
such thing, for it was evident that notwithstanding all these
restrictions, corn had been continued to be poured into England.
from the French tt rritories. What then was his object,
for it was evident that on these terms no
efficient benefit could be wrought for the Ex-
chequer. But on the announcement of the fact, what was
the case? Why, 1 ere was a great outcry as to whether the
supply of corn would be equal to the necessities of the time.
The manufacturers were up in arms. His Noble Friend must
remember the diseu,sion which took place when they were both
Memt era of the House of Common. The motion was met
with a cry of universal laughter.—(Laughter.) He would
merely show the state of feeling which existed at that period,
and he merely adduced the instance to show what was the
dLouporirnidnisog.ini
itlihcseffwt. the country at
Noble Lord what was likely to result from a free importation at
the present period, and what would be the effect of an allow-
teolaurilesdt
Cubautrin.:
allow-
ance of foreign countries to introduce their corn fse.Lejeetifteh°:ue:
into this country. But, did they suppose that thisitdhw
safe scheme ? In his opinion this could not be the case, and
e
mt,
eh presenticseaoHo fi
country.,
nohp,rt
me, wasyc the state he believed that his Noble Friend would be totallycountries
•
going to
matter
ro
of finance,
nhtai:nveey:p:eit'enlidr
ofthe wrong in
atllilesastuipstpyostihteionnetoheastsitthiees
osfupthplisy
000fo
ofotrrye.ign
w
idnimthineisphrotdhuecrtiigohn
countr y
con-
stantly or not all was
look t
the
the case
statesmen
eonf of of,f,u, theatus r
future
years.ou ft ul
taht population, new,
consideration.
and teeorTrahr
eieCh:lehribece,.edeecrialtu:sel'iyia3t:ew::
to a greateext
theyl t o
werelo look k
to to theok
uponpoiiconditionfi
foreign 'te of the
ucweosrtnntriandheand(uir,inagnd
prive
last September.
adduce
It was but right to this example, because it lia.e a
ws—(Cheers)—but thus much he mi gilt
case of Spain as a eseri.';
quarter an important means of showing what was really the case- as
respects corn, and he
say, that the calculator was perfectly
roboration of his vie
nistalantecrdei.ooff the state
the average was 10'5 shillings a during this exclusive
in stating L'a. a
system. Ile trusted their Lordships would excuse hts beisig
desultory in the way in which he introduced this qurstion----
(Cheers.) The first thing that he would attend to was
another
theory of the Noble Earl. The Nobl, attend
Earl went on the au-
sumption that there was truth in the 'WinY that prospe y
always attended on low prices of food. He had stated that
when there were high prices of food the labourin populat ion
ros erit y
were generally in a state of
p This reminded
him of the state of things duringp the war, when -the
want of money was alleged as a sufficient reason for
the dearness of provisions. But it should be recollected th at
the money borrowed during the war had to be paid soh en
the prices of the war were not only reduced in name, but ts b-
solutely obliterated from the commercial code. This remnride
him of the railway schemes which had lately engaged so Lour ih
of public attention ; he meant the railways in which the 1 ea St
skilled labour of the country was to enjoy the full benefit of
protection, and to enjoy a full share of the prosperity which th 1d
been reaped by the other classes. But, see from what th is
prosperity arose, and what were the symptoms of that p rot 3;
per. jr on which the country was so earnestly congratulat ed
In is opinion it was like the prosperity of the railway ro.ati,
of the present day, when many men made their B,t 100 i;
er 10,0001. a year—when many who were now enjoying th
comforts and the luxuries of life lbeeelgh their directic in c
railways, and advancing an artificiat prosperity which hats
ni
soundness in it, notwithstanding the report of the Noble Lord
It appeared, then, that there were three cases in which t i 4
question might be considered. The. 8 W is, firstly, the cat e 0
the protection ef native indust;y ; there was, secondly, apel
protection of home-grown corn against foreign countries ;
there was, thirdly, the protection of the cotton manufact area.
Then, again, there were three charges on the land. 1 'here
were, first, the charges on land which had a particular r eel--
ence to this question. Now, there were certain charges v rhich
particularly affected the land, the truth of vebicla could 91. 11l be