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

THE_ siTN, LONDON, FRIDAIT„EVENING, MAY 29, 1846.

GROUP XXXII.

OXFORD, WORCESTER, AND WOLVER
HAMPTON RAILWAY (ZILANCRES).
(Continued from our Afternoon Edition of yesterday.)

The Committee at this point ordered the room to be cleared.
On re-admission, parties were told by the Chairman that various
matters bad been discussed during the interval, but the conclusion
was that the Committee decided that the preamble of the Bill was
proved. _

- Mr. LAING did not know that the room had been cleared with a
view to considering this point, otherwise he would have interposed to
offer evidence on the part of opposing landowners as to the insuffi-
ciency of the capital of the company and other matters.
The CHAIRMAN said the room had not been cleared at first for that
purpose, but the Committee would suspend the decision, that no in-
justice might be done to Mr. Laing's clients.
Mr. LAING said there was a line before another Committee almost
parallel with that before this Committee;:through the same district
of country; and his end would be gained if the Committee would
adopt a resolution which would have the effect of impeding the pro-
gress of this Bill, that both projects, this and the Hampton and Ash-
church, might be considered together.
The CHAIRMAN had no power to do what had been asked; but
he would lay the circumstances of the ease before the House when
it came on to be considered there.
This was agreed on.
Mr. SEISE addressed the Committee on the part of the ironmas-
ters between Kidderminster and Dudley, with a view to obtain
clauses compelling the company to accommodate them with the
narrow gauge, and to revise their tolls.

The CHAIRMAN said the Committeewere determined to revise the
tolls on the whole line, and would advise the accommodation of the
narrow gauge ; this request was very reasonable.
As some clauses were produced by opposing parties, and application
was made for time to consider them,
The Committee adjourned at 3 o'clock till 2 o'clock to-morrow,
when they will meet to go through the clauses of the Bill.

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.
HOUSE OF LORDS, May 28.
Their Lordships met at ten minutes to Five o'clock.
Lord REDESDALE presented a petition from the county
of Herts against the Ministerial measure.
Earl HAREWOOD also presented a petition, signed by
4,280 of the most respectable inhabitants of Dorking, praying
their Lordships not to pass the Bill for the repeal of the
corn-laws, as they conceived it was fraught with the greatest
danger to the country.
ST. ASAPH AND BANGOR.
Earl POWIS introduced a Bill for the disjunction of these
sees, which was read a first time.
CORN-LAWS.
Earl HARDWICK presented a petition from the Commis•
sioners of the Bedford Level, setting forth that they had,
by the expenditure of large sums of money in the
erection of steam engines for draining the land
succeeded in reclaiming a perfect morass, and making it excel-
lent growing land that it was now flourishing that they were
interested in the maintenance of protection, and praying their
Lordships not to assent to a repeal of the corn-laws.

want to know whether if this were done, if high duties were
created, if a body of manufacturers were to meet and no other
persons were present, they would not discuss the grand topics
of high rates charged to the British manufacturer, and the cer-
tainty, if those protective laws were repealed, of the evils that
would ensue, that bales of foreign goods would rush into our
markets, and that certain destruction of our manufacturers and
others would be the result. Should we under such circum-
stances believe that it was a mere regard to the interests of the
consumers that dictated their prayers ? My Lords, I must say
in the same manner that I am a little incredulous whether that
which has excited the enthusiasm of protection societies—
that which has drawn such large crowds together at Willis's
rooms that the two Noble Dukes who sit on the cross benches
were obliged to divide their forces and to preside over different
meetings—l say I cannot entertain a doubt, when that which
has excited such a feeling among the producers of corn, and
when 1 do not find such a feeling among the consumers, I say
it was a mere apprehension at some future time our supplies
from abroad might fail, and as a consequence that prices
might rise to an extravagant height, I cannot help
thinking that the apprehension of having too much
corn and also too low prices will not be verified.
If I were to refer to a sufficient answer to that, it is to be
found in the argument employed by the Hon. and Learned
Lord (Brougham) the first night of the debate, when
he referred to the fact—the indisputable fact—that Napo-
leon, in the heighth of his power, and during the most
exciting period of the French revolutionary war, was
unable to exclude corn from being imported into
the English ports. If that one fact is not conclusive, and
if you wish more, I need only refer to what was said
by the Noble Lord the late Secretary for the Colo-
nies, when he stated, in the course of his address,
that competition was the cause of certain articles not rising in
price. He stated, in the boldest and most authoritative
manner, that of all the paradoxes that ever were
conceived the doctrine that competition did
not lead to the making of articles cheap
was the worst.—(Hear, hear.) It is just as well a paradox to
assert that the best security to the receiving of a plentiful and
cheap supply of food is by the imposition of artificial restrictions
on national and commercial intercourse. It has been argued,
that the measure before the House should be rejected on the
consideration that this subject is not one for legislation. If
there be one question more than another on which 1 entertain
a strollg opinion, it is that the present question is a great and
proper object of legislation.—( Hear, hear.) Whatis the effect 1
of this raising of the price of corn by the operation of a re-
strictive law? It was well put by the Noble Earl that spoke
the last night of the debate (Lord Clarendon). He showed, on
the calculations of the Noble Earl opposite (Lord Stanley),
and from a calculation taken from correct data, that the
amount in the fall of price and the amount in the increase of
consumption that would take place if the existing corn-laws
did not exist could not be less than ten millions of money.
Double the amount of the income-tax, and double the amount
of the malt-tax,— a tax not a farthing of which goes into the
exchequer for national purposes; but a tax imposed for the benefit
—I will not say the benefit, but rather the injury, or at least
the imaginary -benefit—of a single class of society.—( Cheers. )
But, my Lords, I know that it has been said that this is an
unfair representation of the circumstances. I know that it
has been admitted that the price of corn has been
raised by the corn-laws—it has been admitted that the payment
of a high, r price for their food is in itself a burden to the
working classes. Still it is asserted that no real injury is
done by this system of protection to agriculture, be-
came the facts which result from the existing law
show that its effect is to keep up wages in the same proportion
that it keeps up the price of corn. This was the peat argu-
ment of the Noble Lord who spoke so ably on Monday night.
I cannot help remarking that it is perfectly clear, in
the first instance, that the increase in the price of food is
in itself a heavy tax on the working clauses, a
large proportion of whose income is expended in
the purchase of food. But it is asserted that the effect of the
corn-laws is to keep up the wages of the labourer. We ought
to be sure that this is the fact; it is net one which ought to
be taken for granted, without the fullest and closest investiga-
tion. But that that lies at the root of the matter was lightly
glanced over by the Noble Lord. He argued that if the price
of corn was low, competition in labour would bring down wares
in the same proportion, end, therefore, that the industrious
classes would be no gainers. This is an easy way of disposing
of the question, but it is not by any means a satisfactory one,
and it was the less satisfactory because his Noble Friend made
en admission which would lead to a directly opposite conclusion.
Ile admitted that you by your legislative measures did not in-
terfere with the rate of wages. He told us that wages did not
fall in the same degree as corn did, and, therefore, he really
admitted that when the price of wheat rose the working man
was exposed for the tittle to a considerable pressure. lam
sure your Lordships will admit that I have not unfairly stated
this argument of the Noble Lord. lam sure that the experi-
ence which we have had in the last few years is perfectly satis-
factory upon this point, if we compare the state of things in this
country in the dear years as compared with the cheap ones.
If you compare the state of things in the years
1833, 1834, and 1835, when wheat was low, with the years
1939, 1840, and 1841, when it was dear and scarce, you will
fired that in the first of those years there was a great demand
for labour , and wages were high, while in the last of those years
you will find, on the contrary. that trade was slack, that there
was no demand for labour, that wages had fallen, and that
nuaabers of persons were thrown out of employment. The Ca-
lamitous state of the country during these years is a matter so
recent. and it has made such an impression on every person
who knew what the condition of the people really
was, as to render it unnecessary for me to dwell upon it.
But, my Lords, the reason of this state of things is obvious.
There can be no doubt at all that the difficulty of these unhappy
years to which I have referred can be easily accounted for.
When corn rose to a high price, very family throughout
the kingdom was compelled to expend a very large por-
tion of their income to obtain a supply of food,
and there was, of course, a less available income for
other things. There was less available income for clothing, fur
tea, for sugar, and other articles of that nature. There was
less demand for manufactured goods, for the articles of the
small shopkeepers, and the merchant. There was, therefore,
a general diminution of their power of employing Labourers,
and a general a iminution in the consumption of the producing
classes. This explanation is quite sufficient to account for the
sufferings of that year. I ask what possible reason there is for
believing, if these prices are low, the price of food becomes
permanent. I see no reason of the kind, I believe permanently
as well as temporarily, if the price of food is high, there is a
small proportion of national income available for other pur-
poses, and therefore a comparatively small demand for labour,
ante a larger proportion of persons seeking employment. Upon
the other hand, in seasons of plenty and abundance, and low
prices, the population consume other things in larger quantities
there is a great demand for labour, and consequently a
prosperous state of things takes place. I presume the
orrectness of this course of reasoning is strongly borne
out by fact, because when we look to other countries where there
is this state of things—permanent low prices of food--in these
countries we invariably find wages high. The Noble Earl,
who spoke last night, admitted the fact. He said it was per-
fectly true that wages did not appear to be governed by the
price of food, because, he said, in America and Australia, where
the price of corn is low wages are high. In Poland, the price
of corn is high, and the wages are low, being kept down by
the mis• government of that unhappy country, the restrictions
upon industry, and the want of emeloyment. I challenge my
Noble Friend to mention any country in the world, from Ca-
nada to Australia, where there is a small population, with an
extended territory, where food is cheap, and where there is
good order and good Government—l defy him to mention
any such country where wages are not exceedingly high.
I believe that is an acknowledged fact, and I further contend
that the reason for these high wages is to be found in that abun-
dance of food, for while food is abundant there was a competi-
tion amongst employers for labour, whereas when food was
scarce, and in a thickly peopled country, the competition was
amongst labourers to find employment.—( Hear, hear.) If you
apply restrictive laws upon the trade in food, you increase the
disadvantages under which a fully peopled county necessarily
labour, because if you interfere with or restrict the trade of a
large corn-producing country, you ir.crease the proportion of
your unemployed labourers, who otherwise would be engaged
in manufacturing goods for those corn-producing countries—
( Cries of "Hear, hear")—while, on the other hand,
if you encourage the mutual interchange of products
with such countries as Hungary, Poland, and America, you
are increasing the inevitable disadvantages to which the la-
bourers of a thickly populated country are necessarily sub-
jected.—( Hear, hear.) After, however, what fell from a
Noble Friend beside me upon the subject of the interchange
of the commodities between a fertile, though a thinly populated
country, and a thickly populated country, I should be ashamed
to trouble your Lordships with a single word further upon
this part of the subject.—( Hear, hear.) It is this interchange
of commodities which keeps wages up in both countries. But
I see a Noble Marquis opposite denies the justness of my con-
clusions, and I hope in the course of the debate he will point
out to me where my chain of • reasoning is defective.
If I am right in this argument, that one fact ought to be con-
clusive, and there ought to be an end to all future argu.
ment—if we are once satisfied of that fact, no other argument,
in a Christian country, ought for cne moment to be used
against the measure.—(Hear, hear.) When I look at the
condition to which the labouring classes have been subjected,
when I consider how frightful has been shown the condition of
the agricultural labourers in Dorsetshire and Wiltshire, when I
know hew much they are below what we could desire, even in the
most favoured countries, and when at the same time I know
that the effect of the corn-laws, which are still working, is to
depress wages and raise the price of food, it seems to me that
it is utterly useless to argue the question further. Those
who, in theyear 1842, ea led themselves the farmers 'friends, did
a most serious injury to those who were so gullible as to believe.
They rushed into the markets to get rid of their property, but
they very soon found out, I believe, how great had been their
mistake; and it is my conviction that the country has not yet
recovered from the effects of their folly. lam happy to find
that, notwithstanding the agitation and the prophecies
which have been made as to the effect of this measure, that
land never let better, never sold :setter, and that a greater spirit
ofagriculture never existed in this country.—( Hear, hear.)
I believe the demand for draining tiles is much increasing—so
much so, that the moment a kiln of draining tiles is known to
be ready, there is a struggle amongst the farmers of the neigh-
bourhood as to who shall be first supplied with those necessary
articles for the improvement of their land.—(Heer, hear.)
My Lords, I think the farmers and occupiers of land need not
fear the passing of this measure ; and 1 think that, from what
I have stated, it will be seen that there is no
ground for the calculations and fears of my
Noble Friend, and I think that his statement that corn can 1
now be sold in this country much cheaper than formerly is
entirely groundless.—( Hear, hear.) My Lords, I do not
want—even if it were the fact that the price of corn would
greatly fall in consequence of the passing of the Bill which is
now under consideration—l do not want to go to any length
on this portion of the question, but at the same time I cannot
help adverting to the statement which was made with very great
confidence by my Noble Friend, who spoke on Monday night,
as having been previously made by what seemed high practical
authority. My Lords, he told us that there were two cargoes
of wheat at this moment in this country which had been pur-
chased in the Baltic Sea at 145., and had arrived in this
country, and was offered at 235. the quarter. Now, my Lords,
I was told by a gentleman, with whom I am certainly not ac-
quainted, but who deserioes himself as largely interested in the
corn trade—though I meant net to trouble your Lordships
with any figure., I hope you will forgive me if I read a very‘
short extract from the letter to which I have adverted. ilets
letter is dated " Liverpool, yesterday." He says it is perfectlysof
true that Lord Stanley's correspondent has twoeamoe him
wheat imported into this country, which cost him (mind
)
the price named in this letter. Nothing
falla-
cious than the statement which was made could
the be more
tld
pricyhatle named.
The that
all wheat could he sold in this country a
The original cost is about 335. per quarter, including freight
and all other chargesA Asthat regards
the
from the glorious uncertainty of
the sliding-scale.
statement of Lord Stanley's
cprrespondent as to the ( 4 wheat in this cemitry, I vece
tame to say that wheat cannot be purchased at less than 455,
the quarter at Weimar; and when 10s. is added to that for
freight and all charges, it cannot be sold under 555. per. querter.
Taking
into considration all the i isk as regards the quelity of
corn, and all the disadvantages under which it could be , ought
into this country, before the price of their le
eir corn is affected by
the opening of our ports, their produce could not be introduced
y
into this country at a lower price than that which the British
e
corn is now bearing in the market. I think that the result of
protection of some kind to the farmer ought to teach
th ose in-
terested in land, how li' de foundation there was for the fear at
present expressed with regard to the introduction
of forign
corn. My friend, in the speech to which I haveadverted,has
told us that the manufacture of wool was a strong case in point.
Aly Noble Friend has endeavoured to make_ 04 that the fell

,in the price of wool was in consequence of the removal of the
protection dely. West were tee oesl ,f
regard to the wool tra.de ? Tite duty on wool was repealed at
the time of the great panic in 1825. After that panic the
whole 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 1828, when a Committee 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 cern.
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. Therefore that free-trade would cause the price to
fall to a ruinous extent. The House was fortunately wise
enough to refuse this committee, and what, he asked, was the
result ? In the course of a short time—in one or two years—
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 b 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 correlaws, lor 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 lam bound to say that 1 concur
with him. We have had four years' experience of the tariff,
and if any great alteration has been made in ihe market by any
supplies from ate oad, we have seen from the state of the mar-
ket last year, that far from it cau.in,g any re-
duction, the supplies from abroad have been unable
to check the rise in the market, while at the same time the in-
treoluction of the small cattle, imported from Germany has pro-
duced a material eff, ct 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 produc, 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. Sly Noble Friend has turned rout end said
to us, " If you deny that you expect a fall in the price of corn,
what is the advantage you expect from a redueed duty upon it?"
Ho 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 where in 1836, in December, the price of corn
was 355., and in 1839 it was 81s. per quarter. We shall have
neiiher 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 regular ion of prices ? What is it that lowers the
prices in dear years, arid heightens the prices in cheap years ?
It is commerce which bestows this upon us, and which puts us
its 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
torn, 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 part 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 en 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 tortnight's con-
sumption. That was a proof of the injurious effect of any
corn-law. What was the reason that prices fell so low in
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 in 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 ; are', n consequence, the price
would be higher in comparison, that year titan in other years,
The trade would 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, and the farmer, by eelling a larger
quantity of corn, would be compensated for the fall in its price.
1 do not deny that, in plentiful years, the produce would be
cheaper than in scarce years, and it wou.ki 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 tire repeal of the law, an advantage of great im-
portance. The advantage would be a greatly increased con-
sumption of corn. Wilt 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 c au:se a greatly in-
' creased consumption of corn. There would also be a greater
consumption of cattle; the consequence of arts improved de-
mand would be, that the 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 tb e 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 consump titan, agriculture
will make far more progress than it has hitl sort° done. We
shall see that the science is but in its infan ey. It has been
said that a removal of the old tenantry wo old 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 sweepng alteration in the count ry. It is not ne-
cessary—the farmers are disposed to improve their condi-
tion and those under them. Of course, foreig el countries had
not prepared corn to the extent we require, nut el the introduc-
tion would only be felt by degrees. In my opinion, the change
should be gradual, arid as the cultivation gratin: Lily 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 then recommendation
of my Noble Friend's Committee, with regaled to the transfer
and conveyance of landed property. Let in ie remark, also,
that improved farmers would employ mores agricultural la-
bourers. In that farming, called the high er farming, the
owner employs more hands, and employs then a more continually
on the land. In the evidence adduced befc toe the Committee
of my Noble Friend, we were told, that t rise farmer of the
South of England was obliged, in order to pi 'tweet their being
thrown on the poor-rates, to employ more h: aids than he re-
quired. When it was said, that the land wot del go out of culti-
vation, it was a wrong calculation of the prot,v able effect of the
law. So far from it, it will be better empl o yed. I, for one,
do not expect to see any fall even in the rent s. The land in a
populous country would always be used in sot a e way. I would
have entered upon a very important point, in reference to this
question, but I trusted to have the opport u nity at another
stage of the Bill.—( Cries of " Hear, hear," and cheers.)
The Noble Lerd who spoke last night consid e red that it was
impolitic to narrow the means of employment; by letting in fo-
reign goods in competition with our own. Ih it let me observe
with reference to the colonies, that there is t r o such difficulty
as to the means of finding profitable emplr e vment for labour
and capital. The difficulty there is to find su 9 iciest labour and
capital for the profitable development of the :natural resources
and wealth of their country; and the effect o f your protecting
duties is to divert their industry and capita!, from its natural,
and therefore most legitimate. chennel, into :a course of opera-
tion of an artificial ar,d unproductive char teeter. No man
doubts that Canada is poorer than she would have been had
you not given her protecting duties On her ti usher. Let any
man say the vast amount of labour and wear it r which has been
expended in consequence of your absurd and itapolitic system.
It has had the effect of importing a vast amot te,t of bad and
et
with . respect
to in-
feriortimber into this country. This is the s
to all the other colonies. They gain nothin @:
Ist allntyuder
r
Yo
protective system.. They would have full e a
P°Ynien
possess. But,
any circumstances for all the capital which they your
at the same time, while they gain nothing
duties, they are serious losers by them in ee se protective
quence of the
protection which we claim from themo in reti sr n. Protective
West Indian colonies ;
they have suffered great
duties have been highly
greatly notinjorious to our
being
able tr. t obtain their
va-
rious supplies from different markets, as by t
and tc I send their pro-
duce to this country on the most adva titageous terms.
dnothing ' •
game by your duties, and
of fact they have
In pointthis principle which applies to the West I ndia colonies, is
• •ne the whole to all the other colonies; es ;amine also applicable
circle of teem, and you will find my a' item net correct, that
not only they not gain anything ley your re t nedVe (nes
but that they are actually losers in consequer.
of the reci-
procity which we claim from them in return. llt the •
-that is ordinarily acquainted with the histor re any min
who does not see that it was the desirey this country,
to force a sys-
tem of commercial dependence upon our A r lerican colo-
nies that was really at the bottom
and what resulted in the loss of of the A.; nerican war,
this country ? It was this those grew colonies to
that bloody and Protracted commercial policy brought on
s-, and involved the nation in
ono: mows dcbt. It is a fact, notorious to every one, that the
attempt to enforce this
system of commercial de e), eedency, was
the cause of the di
ion this country crcm third
Stan's. am not iinss
nliarii,npeadredinto
tisray that these lit; teh provinces
would have still re
e piCrown. They might at any rate ohs-stems' l ioanr teona w
ti
le, rus iitni ha
diff,!rer.t manner, and still preserved amicable 'relations with
03, instead of a certain degree of jealousy and . angry feeling
which always seems to exist between Amen tea and this
country. I should have thought that the Nob' V t Earl would
not have alluded to that topic, as it might have produced in
his mind certain disagreeable rccollc, ?lions of a
debate which took place last yea 5. in the
House of Commons on the question of the ado me on of Aus-
tralian corn into this country. What was the covase of pro-
ceeding at that period? You granted them tt le privilege of
sending their corn into this country. You refu end that privi-
lege to all the other colonies and gave it to Ca vada, because

she had just before been in a state of insurrection, while at
ths 'erne 2-,•!•ee •i te :hese enie. •.. r
been lose'. My Lords, I for one think this was a course of
policy well calculated to rouse a spirit of diaffection. 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 israther a defective mode of argument. The point to
be proved is the advantage of a protecting duty. That being
the point to he proved, you first say if you do nut 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 assay
protection, for there is no further reason for maintaining tee
colonies if you do ; that is, I ct nsider, arguing in a circle.
You say do met touch the protect Mg 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, possessing 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, t°
support and defend our interests, and to take part with ne
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. 1 believe
that they are fully 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 ne
powers on earth can break, end that connexion between the
parent state and the colonies will be extended till their PcPu-
lation far exceed that of the mother country. The Noble,
Lord next proceeded to show how unjustly this measure would
operate it passed into a law upon Canada. He proceeded to.
s y—you have encouraged Canada to extend large sums of
money upon the faith of your continuing to theta
the protection afforded by the existing corn-laws,
and that it would he 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 opt'
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 Cenada, containing a repoit 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 35. 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 ini reduced for the purpose of repeaing
the duty on American wheat. In the course of discussion e"
that question a motion was made anj carried in the Assemble"
for reporting progress. What turned out to be the fact ? It
seems this amendment was carried in consequence of a misaPZ
prehension, some et the parties not exactly understanding each
other as to this 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 11
general a tone of more manly and hopeful nature ; and at -
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 leurdess'
that I heard this language with
great ten
as it seemed to imply that the Canadians would be 0109
justified in n-ianufamuring a spirit of disloyalty and disaffectlueri
Why, my Lords, the very same week in which they had hie%
discussing the repeal of the cern•laws, in that same week 1
Militia Bill was under the consideration of the Assenabier.,
will read to you an account of the proceedings in the As-
sembly. (The Noble Earl ( Grey) then read a report of te.
proceedings upon this Bill, the tenour of which implied a fee!
of confidence in the Government at home.) The result, th:
of those considerations is, in my mind, to demonstrate that
the passing of this Bill, now before your Lordships, is an-
peratively required by the great masses of that countreri
—( Hear, hear)—and that, by passing this Bill,we e.
cur. no tisk of any injury to our interests, colonial
or domestic. None of the great interests of the empire
a‘,l_,,
be exposed in my opinion to any injury. Upon the other h.wieu,..
by ejecting this measure, you will injure many great
rests. I ask you ; and 1 remind the Noble Duke
setting on the cross-benches, who at an early peri. this f
city 0
evening, when the petition of the merchants of the &B.
sig
bonded
London was presented by a Noble Earl oeposite, asked '
candy how many signers of the petition are holders of bon
corn. I think your Lordships all know the inuendo conveys's:,
in that observation ? Now, my Lords, I wish to ask
and I will also remind the Noble Duke, that if we rejectl
this Bill, whether the Noble Duke's example
will
theee
be followed by other parties, and whether it will not lead a
to think upon the subject of your rejection of this measure,
(Richneosi
inquiring into the reasons which may have led your Lordships..o
to reject this measure ? I ask whether they will not begin to
inquire how many of your Lordships are owners of land? 3i,
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 NoLle 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.
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 eff et produced in the public mind, of an assembly
of Im:dot-mei s rejecting a Bill imperatively called
!or by the people of this county
Lords, y. I trust,
my that before you take a course which seems to me so
full of danger, you will reflect upon the practical consequenqs
of the rejection of this measure. I trust your Lordships wall
riot act upon mere passion, nor gratify any feeling of indigos'
tion which you may feel towards those whom you think may
have deceived 'sou ; or that your Lordships will not act up:.
the principle or punishing the Ministry, or certain Member:tr.;
the House of Commons who gave opinions upon this mrea,_„„
contrary to your Lordships, but that you will conside see
manedasufarier,lywhbae ft o rwe
ilylo
beu dtheteerpmraincteicaubp
practicable
en
effect theupon rejectionhe ofp e.opinion
of this country, and what may be the probable opite_ue's
which the people of this country will form upon the motives
which which guided the decisions of your Lordships. For w?
the fact ? 134 your Lordships believe that you can maim'
the existing corn-law ? Is there a Noble Lord in
that
the who now hears me who believes t"
the Government of this country can, looking 8
t
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 circumstance*
for two years to maintain the existing corn-laws?
The Duke of RICHMOND—" Yes."—(Laughter.)
The Duke of CLEVELAND--" Yes, yes."—(lncreased
laughter. )
The Duke of BUCKING H AM—" Yes, yes, yea."—(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 roan "°
his sober senses will recommend a dissolution of Parliarnert.
When we consider the injury which would be inflicted 00 the
country, the absolute paralysis of trade which must ensue, call
we say that it is a thing to be desired that the country should
be put in one universal' flame, when the result would be the
passing of the same Bill ? But, any Lords, can they imagine
that by throwing out this Bill, that they can obtain even a come
less o
promise, and that they cod induce Parliament to aide"
night measurule ? :My Noble Friend on Ale";,til
night threw out many hints that those who voted for th
to
in the present stage, could have opportunities of alteringel
se,
another. However, I put it to you, do you think it adyisable_t.erfy
ject this measure :n the hopes of substituting another of theeke Lie
It is a vain hope. Loox at the spirit of the times, and t.sllf'ns
do you think it possible of accomplishment? If there I
alteration it will he an alteration of free trade in a mote t'„
tended degree. My Noble Friends, it was a great incons te"?..
in me to support such a measure as this, when I formerly s
ported a fixed duty. But I did support a fixed duty, not
a
the principle of protection, but because I believed that ".,.
duty would he the best principle of protection ; for I have ever
objected to the whole principle of what is called proteece ,
But at that time I thought a moderate fixed duty was auVef,
able, because I believed it would produce little perceptible
."`,4
ference to the consumer, yet nevertheless be the meal''
greatly augmenting the revenue of the country. I thought
was a reasonable compromise, and that it would give us , it
years sooner all the advantages of a free trade, and that
would avert a most injurious struggle which I foresaw, al''
proaching. These were the grounds on which I maintained
that
❑
were rapiclq,
innth a t t
ha
ofis
ex fixed
odtilt
et yin wasew h
oe desirable,were
then for I tseaopkpeontrht, eirneg libertyth
that. the days, and
ment, that the measure would lead to an i freeeto-rGaLv."ll
told them that if they desired a
fixed duty -
f a
going by, and that I, for one, t
that such a settlement
at the time it was offered, believed
t be unattainable, and
even the hours, in which they couldfixed be sye'cured,
that the choice
weuld, at a future moment, be• am convinced that had h=d tb
would never be proponrind
1842 it would have b e acceptedt
by
measure been adnpied
aded that oul
t• nw would - • l
1,13 e agoa to oo continue nor could --le-
n.°
le"
firmlayl)e'li iene
hw
an such a
aoe believe
)aibe)tieanspivaorrnet,yr
ease upon such a coredeeply
g
rd to public
believe it would c promise. lam e
• this question. I am not
interested in philosopher enough'
eo inierested. As landowner this •rft
,eny
•nterest must affected, my pecuniary be ect
measurenthoelocrotihgun: trtwrs:;a.i cnabhu:w-lo au
rfil
d tend to keeopf agitation alive, whit u
is nothing which I should deprecate Mdo and there
that nothing should be done to injure
,raeantdhfiaxlne am most
dmpuoatssyst:
eau tx,ifheourle
my property ;$
the effect
you effect it ? We know that eacbriedivtehtheanction of Pa, ham
_7;
re,
my Lords, we cannot exclude from our consideration some rem
the
Government. We know that the
country. By
week to nothing of the kin I a fixed duty
whate pose ion of the affairs.aate east
language y aseret of men in this
theithin t,.f :Be
it cannot be by the parry of lest
held by the prote 'lca
is quite inaPP the
for them. The alternative- ;*remember
ctitt)snisp,rsotetchtaiotnirebou-ttradeitself woof
preferable to protection. And what has been the languagaeces,
the party with whom I have had the honour hitherto 10 aft
t the
My Noble Friend, who i 3 at the head of that party, stated
.o._
commencement of the ses,ic,n, that he was prepared to isencia
0
take the duty of Government on the principle of repeal; 3
such
all know that my worthy friend is the best man to listen to
se a
a suggestion, and the best person to come forward to PreP;third
fixed duty after what has passed. Well, then, there is th.ls
party as they call themselves, are they prepared to do it?ls in
my Noble Friene who represents their opinions n
jell
this House, or the Nob'e Dukes who coincide in
oP__ tele
with him, are tlrey prepared to form a Government
.tilpebuthey
principle? I think, after the very severe language which
have held on the subject of inconsistency—of change _
and of eating words— I think they, of all, should be the
,ceoet
and would be the last—to prepose a fixed duty ; for tloejeurnan
be then demonstrating how far the inconsistency "Iv
(wee
nature was poe,ible.—( Laughter.) At al! events, they
tboa,
never listen to such a proeesition.—( Hear. hear. )
ell' d
there is nobody to take the charge of such a compro
en !Di
the idea of a fixed duty may be consigned to oblivion
q uestion
opinion it would have been the best settlement of the
accepted by th°
had it been adopted when it would have been accep intain
country. We have now to choose whether we will
ma
the law as it at present exists, cr consent to a more complete
acknowledgment of the principles of free trade. Sly Lords,
ably' ad'
Noble Friend on Monday night who addressed you /To
the An
verted to a speech delivered by a leading Member of,
ulterior
Corn-law League, in which the Speaker pointed out.
measures which were contemplated by that associe.tion
League'
Lord KINNAI R.D.--The speech was not made at the
Earl GREY—I am told that it was not made at the
uite Leaguedpropel
it is a matter of little consequence, and I am q