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

dustry. I cannot think it, because when I come to
consider whet the law and pokey of this emintry has
been from time to time it never 1153- been found to b , the
principle ; the Legislature of this country has never laid it
down; on the contrary, the Legisllture of the country hasover
and over again been in direct defiance of that principle,
and the instances brought forward had no reference
whateyer to it. I had occasion once to state to your Lord-
ships, when we were about to submit for your considera-
tion a measure affecting the tariff in the year 1844, I had
occasion then to point out what the circumstances were which
gave rise to that which was taken to he the original establish-
ment of that principle of protection. It is quite true that
there were high duties imposed upon articles similar to
those produced in this country. 'The imposition of these
duties had the effect in their operation of being protecting
duties. But when we are called upon to look at
the question as a principle, we must see the mo-
tive for imposing those duties. Looking at the
case in that point of view, you will find that
in an immense number of instances all these duties were im-
posed as the result of fiscal necessity. The duty of 25 per
cent. additional on the customs' duties was placed solely
for the purpose of revenue, without any considera-
tion to any particular mode in which the impo-
sition of these duties would affect the general
trade or cnmmerce of the country. The duty on timber, for
instance, which is supposed to be part of this great system of
protection to native industry. Why, my Lords,
whatever it may have become at the present
period, it certainly was not so forty years ago. For
the first time that these duties were imposed upon foreign
timber, was in the year 1809. Till that time, the duty was
next to nothing. There was no idea at that time of protecting
the timber, either of our own countries or of the colonies,
by any system of duties of that description. The imposition
of these duties arose entirely from accidental circumstances_
from our being engaged in hos'ilities with Bonaparte
in the north of Europe. That was the cause, and
ne other ; and the best proof that it was no
other—that it was not a principle to be interwoven
with the commercial constitution of the country—if I
may use such a phrase—that the Act which imposed
these high duties was passed for a period of only
the duration of the war.—( Hear.) They might have been
dispensed with immediately after the expiration of the war;
they were not, however, suffered to do so. lam therefore en-
titled to say that. this notion of a large duty being part
of a system formed for the purpose of protecting
native industry is a proposition not founded on nor maintainable
by fact ; and so, my Lords, was it with agriculture,
—the wool trade, for instance. You are aware,
my Lords, that there was no duty at all on
foreign wool up to the year 1819—and what was it imposed for
then ? Why, for the sole purpose of the revenue to be raised
from it. I must certainly know something of that circumstance,
because I moved in the House of Commons at that
period a resolution, from which resolution the imposi-
tion of this duty sprang. The result, I say, of those
resolutions was, in order that the Government might
have a surplus revenue. It was necessary that a sinking
fund should be raised at 5 per cent. in order to meet
this circumstance. This duty upon foreign wool was
imposed, and not with any view to form a part of a protec-
tive system, it was solely for the purpose of revenue.
There were several objectionable restrictions on British wool,
such as preventing it from being removed from one place to
another, which wese quite inconsistent with free trade of any
kind, but which were imposed upon that important article
with the notion that it was entitled to have a share in a
great universal protective system, upon which so much
stress has been laid. Again, with respect to the
minor articles, such as cheese, butter, &c., they were not
originally liable to any duty more than nominal, and it
was not until the year 1816 that they were proposed.
Perhaps it was a wise measure, perhaps] it might
be otherwise, but it was no part of a general system. The
only ground on which I ever looked upon a law as
being necessary, was the apprehension which I most
sincerely entertained that this country would become more
dependent than she of right ought to be upon the produce of
other nations.—( Hear, hear.) I am glad to see that I am
understood, and those were the only grounds on which I have
ever thought a corn-law necessary, and surely that was a
ground which must be liable to question. Whether that ne-
cessity now exist, and whether there may net be circumstances
which make it no longer advisable to continue these restric-
tions, which are certainly grievances, will be the question for
the House to consider. But to go on with the consideration
of this important subject. Some heads of it are almost too
sacred to be touched, as tley constitute a part of the constitu-
tion of this country. Before we come to the conclusion that
the corn-laws are so intimately connected with the poli-
tical, commercial, and financial interest of the country as to
require that they should be maintained permanently, we should
consider their effect in other times. If they are to be main-
tained as a permanent principle, I would wish your Lordships
to consider what has been the course of legislation from time
to time with respect to these corn-laws. During a great part
of last century, great changes did take place, and the law was
more restrictive and :prohibitory—and there existed during
many parts of last century the same alarm with respect to the
condition and prospects of agriculture as is felt at this moment.
I believe that you will find in the publications of that time—
the tame of Sir Robert Walpo!e—pamphlets which describe the
agricultural interest as totally ruined. The landlord is de-
scribed as incapable of obtaining his rents, and the tenant as
incapable of obtaining a due profit on his capital, and rum was
pourtrayed in its most gloomy character. The result, how-
ever, was that no such ruin ensued, and the agriculture of the
country went on increasing in extent, and meeting more and
more the wants of the country. The first system to which I
shall direct the attention of your Lordships does not go
so far back as the one that I have before spoken of.
I allude to the corn-law of 1791. That law was very re-
strictive in its nature, and so were those which followed after-
wards, of a similarly restrictive tendency. The import duty
was very high, and the duty on corn—at certain prices 50s.—
was very high • but they imposed, when it got to 545., a com-
paratively small duty, and when it got to 565. the duty fell to
6s. That system went on for two or three years, but was at
length objected to, as being more restrictive than was advis-
able, but it went on until it was tutal.y overturned by the
scions rise of prices. It was very welnnown in 1795, 1796,
and during the subsequent years, that during the greater part
of that century the prices were so enormously high that the
protective portion of the duty had no operation at
all as the prices admitted only of the duty of 6s. being paid.
Now, during the season that followed, the pressure for food
was so severe that Parliament, in order to induce par-
ties to bring additional supplies from foreign countries, gave
bounties, amounting from one million and a half to two mil-
lions of money. This was done that sufficient supplies of corn
might be brought from various parts of the world. The
oppression, however, continued so tremendous, that at last, at
the termination of the war, in 1804, it was found that the Act
of 1791, which at the time was thought to be a perfect specimen
of protective legislation, was of no value at all, as in 1803.
That Act permitted corn to be introduced without being sub.
ject to the duty, on account of the high rate of prices that
ranged. It was, therefore, found that the Act of 1791 was not
sufficiently stringent, and a new Act was introduced, fixing a
high rate of duty until the price of wheat realised 635. when it
was reduced to a small amount. It had to reach the high
price of 635. per quarter before the high duty was reduced.
This proposition was not brought forward by the Government,
but it was supported by them, and it was submitted as a mea-
sure necessary for the increase and extension of agriculture,
and to facilitate the production of supplies of food. But this
Act, during a great part of its time was imperative,
on account of the limited supplies in the years succeeding
its enactment, and the consequent high prices that
existed. The pressure on the poorer classes during this period
was very great. At last, at the termination of the war, it was
found that the Act of 1804, which was more stringent than the
Act of 1791, was net sufficiently so to protect the landed in-
terest, and accordingly another scheme was devised—the
schemes of 1791, and the extended scheme of 1804 having been
found worth nothing, instead of the previous law, a new
scheme was devised and adopted in 1815—a scheme which was
not, certainly, popular at the time nor afterwards. Respecting
the events that transpired a short time after the law of 1815
came into operation, I need not trouble your Lordships be-
yond this. But I recollect that that was a subject of much
complaint; and this complaint, my Lords, did not proceed from
these
se
thosewho originally
who gihnsailllybe ohojrcte
the year 1820 it was held to be utterly inefficient for the pur-
poses for which it had been passed. It was not a good law for
ieehdeen to i it, proceeded entirely
so
anxious to pass it. In
its intended purpose, I admit, but the first persons who com-
plained of it were ti.e very persons who had in
the first place been so very anxious for its passing. Accerd-
ingly a question waa brought forward, in 1820, in the House of
Commons, for the purpose of rendering this law, which your
Lordship' will allow was stringent enough, still more stringent.
1 opposed it in that House. I opposed in 1820 a motion for
the formation of a Committee to consider this question. I
was beaten, and the Committee was carried; but afterwards
their labours were restricted to the consideration of minor
points. But in a year or two after that Committee was
appointed the subject was thoroughly investigated. The Com-
mittee could not agree upon their report, and Mr. Huskisson
was requested
to draw up a report which in his view would
embody the points of the evidence. A report was drawn up by
Mr. Huskisson—a very elaborate report it was—containing a
considerable amount of information and of good reasoning.
That report became the foundation of eve-y alteration in the
law of 1815 ; its object being by degrees to relax that law in
favour of the admission of foreign corn at an earlier period
than under the original provisions it could have been ad-
mitted. A law was in consequence brought in in 1822,
which was very much objected to by persons connected
with the agricultural interest ; bat the fact was, it
!tad never come into operation, because it depended
entirely on the principle of corn reaching a certain price,
which price it had never reached. But its inconvenience was
held to be so exceedingly great, that it became necessary to
call upon Parliament to interfere by an Act suspending its ope-
ration. Now, I cannot say much for principles which require
to be relaxed in a moment of real pressure. I cannot say
much for the principle of suspensien. In 1827 another altera-
tion was made, for in 1826 and the previous years it was neces-
sary, once by an Act of Parliament, and once by the Execu-
tive Government, to suspend the law. The new plan was
devised for the purpose of abolishing all the difficulties expe-
rienced in the aistecedent periods, and so as to arrange the na-
ture of protection that the law should be allowed to execute
itself, by having the power of meeting every case, and so cor-
recting the former evils. That was the law which was finally
passed in 1828. It was introduced into Parliament by Mr.
Canning in 1827. It came into the House of Lords in the
course of that same summer, but in consequence of certain
alterations effected in it, it did not pass that year into a law.
There were, however, many circumstances in the details and
practical working of that law which were objects of critizism
and objection. These were obj_'ctions of great weight, the
principal of which was the sudden fluctuation in the amount of
the dtv y, and the sort of jumping scale that was established.
Finally the law was changed in 1844. Now, my Lords, I have
rnentionsd these changes for the purpose of showing that if
this system be one that is so essential, and so interwoven with
all the interests of the country, it certainly has been the least
stable system that has ever been invented for the purpose of
maintaining a Permanent state of things. Therefore it is that
I confe s, my Lords, seeing that, notwithstanding all these im-
perfections, the agriculture of the country has gone on greatly
improving, the application of capital to the land has been most
extensively increased—seeing that gt irg on at this very mo-
ment—seeing, my Lords, moreover, that notwithstanding all
the feelings which have been excited in the country—notwith-
standing all the apprehensions which have been proclaimed in
Parliament and I e sewhere—seeing that that is still going on,
and that there is no particular symptom of a decline of agri-
culture—no symptom that I know of, at least, and I know
many to the contrary—no symptom of land being thrown out
of cultivation—l confess that I cannot bring myself to think
that the system at presert in existence is essential for the effec-
tual and perfect cultivation of the sod of this country. Then,
my Lords, if we look at this matter as bearing a character for
permanence, the question becomes narrowed to one
of time. As t., time, we may very reasonably
differ. But the principle is gone.—(ironical cheers.) And
Ido not think that it is are • h
oac to any man to say that in
his opinion the time for abolition is come. It is as a question
of time that we are bound to consider it. Now, my Lords,
there are, however, some cirbearng upon the question ofc
tu
m
ms
t
a
n
c
Feis
rsthaotfhalLema particular
Lords,y I
will allude to that which I ie.
to bot the most important
argument at the bottom consider
namely, the great,
of this question,
the rapid, theuncontrollable increase
uncontrolled, and the
in the population of this country. • That, my Lords, is a se-
rious matter. It is perfectly well known that the tendency in the
increase of population is to decrease the means of subsistence.
That, my Lords, I believe to be a maxim which no one will

deny, for it has been established by the soundest reasoning to
, i,.!1,..,, able f!r• 1,-, • ;9efease of the population of
this country is not upon a eeemetrical or aritineeocal ratio
with the increase in the produce of the land. Nothing can be
more clear than this, and the population has so increased as to
render it impossible for the land of this country to meet the
demand for food. The increase in the population is admitted
to be from three to four hundred thousand a year, and the ratio
of that increase, I may say, increases every year.—( Hear. )
Although the application of capital to lard—although the in-
creased skill of the farmer—skill which he applies admirably__
although these things have tended greatly to increase the
quantity of earn produced in this country, se far as to meet in
a certain degree the increase in the population, it is a remark-
able circumstance, that during the last few years, although
prices have net been high there has been a regular importation
for consumption of a great amount of foreien corn. Now I
want to know, if that corn was not wanted, how came it to be
sold ? How came people to go on year after year importing
large (panties of corn, if they did not think there was a
chance is the market for bringing it into consumption ? The
consumption then, year of er year, of this corn clearly proves
that the population has outstepped the means of production in
this country.—( Hear, hear. ) Well, there is another circum-
stance applied to this question, upon which considerable dif-
ference of opinion exists—it is the circumstances in which Ire-
land has be, n placed ; but I fur one do not wish to lay particu-
lar stress upon the distress in Ireland.
The Duke of RICHAIOND—Then you throw everything
over ?
The Earl of RIPON—No. My arguments may he wrong,
hut you will observe, my Lords, that I do not rest the ques-
tion upon one state of things, or upon one argument alone.
It is sufficient if I show, without pledging myself to support all
the opinions of Sir Robert Peel, that the distress in Ireland is
not the particular thing on which I lay the greatest stress, but
at the same time, I do think it has a very great bearing on
this question, and a very serious one too. My Lords, the de-
ficiency of food in Ireland is not exactly the same thing as the
deficiency of food in this country; as a deficiency of that par..
fielder food, on which so great a ma.s of the Irish people live,
must involve indescribablemisery and wretchedness, a wretched..
ness and misery which would not apply here. Why is this? In
Ireland those who suffer by the failure of that crop—l may say
ninety-nine out of every hundred of those who live upon it—
are persons who have not the resources and the good wages
which the labouringclasses here enjoy. The wages in Ireland
are comparatively low, and there are hundreds of thousands who
do not depend upon the wages of their labour for their sup-
port, but on that' which they may obtain from the small peroion
of land they cultivate ; and that is one of the reasons why
there is so great a demand for land, and why so many evils
arise in a sea-on of scarcity, because those who depend almost
solely for a subsistence are the poorer classes. The evils that
flow from this system are enormous, for they have nothing to
fall back upon but charity—for they are charitable to one an-
other, so long as they have the means of doing so. But when
large masses of the population, living in the same way, and sup-
porting each other by the same means, are overtaken by a
season of scarcity, they virtually have no means of subsistence.
It is stated that there is no famine in Ireland, as there is no de-
ficiency of eats and beef; and that thousands of tons of quarters
of corn are coming to this country, while the people of Ireland
are stated to be starving. But why do they send them to this
country ? Because there is a market here where they can sell
them, for they have neither employment nor money to pur-
chase them for their own use.—(Chaers.) If they have no
money nor employment which will furnish them with food,
when purchasers cannot be obtained for it in their own mar-
kets, it cannot fail to come to this country, though under better
auspices it would remain in their own. But that does not make
their wretchedness less. I say the existence of such
a state of things in Ireland raises the question, whether
it would be fit for the Government to exercise
the power which they might have exercised to violate the prin-
ciple of the law, and to have sanctioned the importation of
foreign corn to feed the people. Such a course should not be
adopted unless it could be justified to the mind of every reason-
able man. My Lords, when this subject was discussed about
opening the ports fur a limited time to meet this particular
distress, those who are opposed to the repeal of the corn-laws
said—" We are not disposed to object to that." But, my
Lords, I wonder that those who are prepared to take that
course would agree to that suspension of the operation of the
corn-laws, for the principle of the existing corn-law is that it
will meet all cases, because the duty would fall in proportion as
the prices rise. And if we had acted exactly in that way,
there is no doubt what would have been the consequences that
would have followed. But when you agree to suspend the
operation of the corn-law you condemn its principle, because
you could not but admit that it would be impossible for you to
revert to the old system, which was proved to be incapable of
maintaining itself. Now, my Lords, I contend that the only
ground upon which this measure for the removal of the rertric-
lions ueon the importation of foreign corn can be opposed is
that of the risk of throwing land out of cultivation.—(Hear,
hear, and a cry of " That is only one of them.") Now that,
says a Noble Friend near me, is only one of the arguments. Ne
doubt in his view, and those who concur with him, it is only
one of the general objections which exist against any alteration
whatever, but in my view it is the only one—( Hear, hear)—
the only one which I have ever relied upon, and, therefore, the
only question which appears to me to be of any importance is
this argument. Now, I cannot—l never have been able—to
ascertain upon what grounds it rests, and to what extent it is
likely to go—what species of land is likely to be thrown out
of cultivation. I never have been able to ascertain this yet,
but I know that it has been stated that very large tracts of
country would cease to he cultivated ; and that has been
illustrated by reference to particular districts. Now,
of one particular district that has been alluded to as likely to fall
back into its orieinal barrenness, and capacity of producing
nothing but rabbits. I wish to say a few words. Now that
part is as much indebted as any portion of the United Kine-
dom to the spirit and energy of the tenants, and there can be
no doubt that it is a most pleasing spectacle to any person
who traverses that country to see what a difference there now
is in that district. There is an account of it written by the
Hon. Member for Berkshire, in the Royal Agricultural
Journal, in which he describe; very beautifully what it then
was and what it is now ; and points it out as reflecting
honour equally on those to whom the land belongs and those
who rent it. But it is not stated by the Hon. Member that,
in his opinion, this land will be thrown out of cultivation by
repealing the present corn-laws. It has been referred to as a
proof to what extent cultivation has been carried on ; but an
inference may be sought to be drawn that, if the corn-laws are
repealed, this land will relapse into its original sterility. Ido
not think any result of the kind will take place. All the land
that I possess in that county was either upon a mere heath or a
fen. It has generally been let to small farmers, it is much to
the advantage of those who may have the good fortune to
possess any portion of this estate that this land has
been SO effectually cleansed and cultivated. I know the
persons who rented the soil in the years 1809, 1810,1811, and
1812, when this great change took place, applied their capital
liberally towards the cultivation of these lands, and it has
gone on with the same spirit until it has now become one of
the most beautifully farmed districts in the whole county.
certainly have beard nothing of any apprehension on the part
of the occupants in that part of the country, that this law is to
deprive them of the means of making a fair return on the capi-
tal invested by them. I have heard no complaints of that
kind. I have heard of no desire on their part to give up
farms on this account; bat so far from that it does happen, that
a certain portion of the estate which belongs to me had during
the last six months become vacant, and in the midst of all
these discussions, in the midst of all these alarms, and all the
difficulties which are said necessarily to follow on the carrying
out of these measures proposed by Government, it has been my
lot to be able to let a considerable p nnion of that land, not
at a reduced rent, but positively at a considerably increased rent.
What stronger proof can there be that these parties do not an-
ticipate these alarming results from the passing of these measures.
I do not see any proof that-this apprehension is well founded.
The people roust be fed; and it did not follow because foreign
nations sent in their corn, that there would not be an increased
spirit and energy in the production of it in this country, when
the demand for it must be so extensive. I do not know whether
it is necessary for me to enter into any details respecting this
measure. It is perfectly well known to you what its provisions
are; and there is, I believe, only one part of it upon which
any division of opinion exists, and that it is whether the deter.
mination be immediate or not. The law as it at present stands
gives a modified protection. Indeed, I do not know whether

should be apprehensive if it should pass immediately. Yet,
at the same time, I think it is wise that it should be as it is;
and whether or no, the advantage which should he gained by
its immediate operation, would not be sufficient to counter-
balance those which will accrue by its continuance for the spe-
cified time. And now my Lord, I feel—painfully feel—the
imperfect manner in which I have attempted to argue this
question. I cannot suppose for an instant that any of the
observations which I may have made to you would produce
anything like a conviction that it was wise to adopt this mea-
sure, or produce a change in those opinions which
after full consideration, you entertain. But I will
say this, that I do not, nor can I admit, the,
I ought to feel any shame for having taken
on myself to support and introduce this mea.ure to your Lord-
ships; and though I know it is inconsistent with what I have
formerly done, and it may be said it is inconsistent with opinions
which I have formerly uttered, I take no shame to myself,
because the only shame that can be felt for a change of opinion
is when it proceeds from a bad motive. I can only say that I
am not conscious of being influenced by any bad motive in
making these statements. I de so from a solemn conviction
founded on much and deep reflection—reflection stnnu!ated by
the necessity of taking into consideration the solemn convic-
tion that I am not proposing to your Lordships to adopt any
measure calculated to injure any of the interests of this country,
but a tneasare calculated to do good to them all. I may have
forfeited the good opinion of many who have thought well of
me. I may be supposed to have abandoned unnecessarily a
cause I have always supported, and which many friends of
mine have honoured me by saying that I supported well.
When I supported it, I did it because I thought it right, and
because my conscientious conviction went with it ; and when
I came to the conclusion that the reasons on which I acted did
not now exist, at least I hoped that I might stand fair in the
eyes of your Lordships when I recommended this Bill as one in
the welfare of which you are all equally interested.
The Duke of RICHMOND said, my Lords, I rise to move
that this Bill be read a second time this day six months, as I
feel in my conscience that a measure which is more likely to
effect the total overthrow of British agriculture, and therefore
a measure, the effect of which will be most dangerous to the
national greatness, has never been proposed before in your
Lordships House.—( Hear, hear ) My Lords, I think that
we have just cause of complaint against my Noble Friend, who
has just sat down—that he has not told your Lordship what
in his opinion the average price of corn will be—( Hear,
hear)—if this measure shall ever come, unfortunately, to
pass into a law. My Lords, rash and blameable as 1 think
Ministers are, I cannot think, or believe them to have been so
reckless as not to have foi med some estimate as to the possible
effect of their own proposal. If they have done so, I ask them
why do they withhold from this House that information so
necessary for the better deliberation and consideration of this
question ? It is most difficult for me to account in any way for
the conduct and proceedings of her Majesty's Ministers since
last session of Parliament, and more particularly in the me-
mmable month of November last. The only surmise I can
make is, that the calculations on this measure were not sub-
mitted to the Cabinet until it was pledged by her Majesty's
speech from the throne. The Noble Lord has not laid on the
table of the House a calculation, the effect this measure will
produce in the price of wheat, and it is the first time that
a Minister of the Crown has proposed such a great
change without making such a calculation as that
I have referred to.—(Hoar, hear.) The Noble Lord in
the course of his address has not made the slightest
reference to this point. He has gone back as far as the altera-
tionte in the law of 1821, but he said not a single wordasto the
measure of 1842—(Hear, hear, and cheers)—yet that is the
Bill which the Government now propose to c
of 1
21, but to
Hear,
hear.) They do not propose to alter the
the law
repeal the Act of 1842 ; yet,
repeca_atehart,
hear.) But on Act, the Noble
Lord has not spoken a single syllable.—(Hear, le. (H
a former occasion—and Ido not mean to maekreto what a perstonliael
hasat
at-
tack— he expressed himself in a different
inillaenn excuse me if I use a
speech o
done to night. I hopein
the Noble Lord w
language much better than I can ex-
a. il
recollect
couchedcollcte
the first speech, in 1815, made by the Noble
foersd whe na Member of the House of Commons in support of
the measure then proposed. He said, in proposing the mea-
sure, that, looking at the principles upon which the affairs of
the country had been conducted, they were not then to argue
for the first time whether restriction or not should prevail, for
not only the trade in corn, but all the other great branches of
trade had been conducted from time immemorial on this re-
strictive system.—( Cries of " Hear, hear.") That, therefore,
they were not discussing first principles, or for the first time
arguing whether restriction should or should got exist; but

• - they were enntiderine a nestion in mareernsnt with pnlier felt
bee'; steed mien fur lerie ,1 no.
done away with, without occasioning a dreadful revulsion. The
question was how to carry out a measure in agreement with
the circumstances in which the country was placed.—(Hear,
hear ) These (continued the Noble Duke) were the grounds
on which the measure' of 1821 was recommended to the House
by Mr. Robinson —(Laughter. ) I will now call the atten-
tion of your Lordships to another speech made, not by Mr.
Robinson, hot by the Noble Load. It was made in 1841 in
this House, when the Noble Lord was not sittine nn the Minis-
tw„a, and ha would read a short extract from it. Ido
this to show that the Lord Ripon of a former day was no' the
Lord Ripon of to-day. and that I Conceive him better entitled
to he followed then than now. The Noble Doke then read the
extract which was to the following effect Looking at the
motives and principles by ehich men are governed, he could
not think of atiandoninse all the settled political rules upon
which they had hitherto acted. It appeared to him that the
Government schen,. e was both vicious and fallacious." There
was no word there of Lincoln-heath. "He could not dont).- that
under the operation of the new corn-law a considerable portion
of the country would he thrown nut. of cultivation."—( Hear,
hear.) But if tou wait a moment you will get to Lincoln-
heath—you only require to allow me the next sentence or two.
" The evil once commenced no one could see where it would
stop, or what disastrous consequences would result from it."
So that my Noble Friend looks forward to the IW-it-house heinr
useful after all.—(Langhter. ) Now. looking to another speech
of my Noble Friend's, a speech made in 1842, and here he
takes a different view of the question. " The great evil which I
anticipate from the adoption of the principle that all restric-
tions on foreign corn should be withdrawn is this, hat the
people of this country will be compelled to depend on other
nations for the supplies of food, not to meet any occasional de-
ficiency, but to depend altogether on other countries for the
main portion of their supplies. Such dependence is indeed
hanging upon a broken reed, for they would ever be in danger
of a failure of those supplies." No one doubted that " the pro-
gress of agriculture, for many years past, has been most re-
markable ; the progress is not, indeed, able to keep pace with
the people, but with a little addition from foreign countries, we
may, indeed, be said to rely upon our own resources. For my
case, it is not necessary to enter into the cost of agricultural
products in this country. That cost has become higher than in
any other country in Europe." That is true—it was true then,
and it is true at this time. It is quite true that the cost of ag-
ricultural produce is higher here, but this would not be the
case if it were not for the narticular and heavy hurdenslo which
the land is subjected. "If we fake away protection from the
home producer, you will cause the withdrawal of a
considerable portion of that produce from the land ; at a time,
too, when you may not be able to depend on support from
foreign countries; and you will also withdraw the use of that
capital which is invested in the land thrown out of cultivation."
There my Noble Friend appears to have been drawn to admit
this point. It was stated by some of the Members of the
House that it was not the intention of the Government that
the Bill of 184'2 should be a final measure, and thereupon my
Noble Friend says, " If we can imagine that the Ministry had
been guilty of the crime of endeavouring to deceive the
people of this country on this subject, I can only say that they
will be guilty of one of the most miserable as well as have
political vices of which a Ministry can be considered capable."
—(Loud cheers.) "I am convinced that this Bill will be re-
ceived by you as a satisfactory adjustment of this great
question." Well, it appears that my Noble Friend the Noble
Duke on the cross benches (the Duke of Buckingham) was
not satisfied with that declaration ; and what answer did my
Noble Friend opposite make to him ? He certainly had not
the arrogance to state that any law Parliament should pass
on this subject, or any other, should be taken as final. All he
could say for himself was that if he had brought
forward a measure intending and wishing that it should
not be final he would say so. He hoped this measure
would be final, he thought it was a good thing if it were,
and it should not be his fault if it were not.—(Protection
cheers.) Now, my Lords, it appears however, that my Noble
Friend admits that very large sums of money have been ex-
pended upon the improvement of land in this country. My
Lords, a great deal of that money was invested in such im-
provements before the year 1842, and T am sure that there are
many of your Lordships here present who will remember that
that money having been laid out on the faith of protection was
one of the main arguments which were adduced to recommend
your Lordships to reject, the Committees that were moved
for year after year to inquire into the corn-laws. I ask
whether that argument has not been strengthened since 184;)?
I have read the speeches of the Minister who proposed the
measure in this House, and I ask whether it was not perfectly
notorious that large sums of money had been expended in this
most laudable and desirable object on the faith of the
Act of Parliament. Then, my Lords, I ask
you, will you now pass a measure—will you now
pass a retrospective line of confiscation of property—will you
deprived the capitalist—be he the owner or the ne,upier of the
sail—of the mesas of gaining that fair return for his outlay
which he made on the faith of the existing law? Now, tirht
does another authority say on this subjeet ? He says, that
under the system of protection which had existed for above 2-0
years, wild, heather land has been reclaimed, extensive tract-
of country have been d ained. by which a healthy population
have been employed, and their lives prolonged ; hnd this not
at the expense of the manufacturing prosperity, My
Lords, I make that quotation. because I see that it is appPca
ble to the present moment. But, my Lords, your Lordships
are aware that under this system of protection. those for whom
I know you will always feel the liveliest and deepest interest,
the working classes in this country—those that au agricultural.
and those that are operative—for I feel the same sentiments
towards both of them—will be the great sufferers. Look, my
Lords, at this return at the present moment there are in the
savings' banks 1,600,000 accounts, with an average of 27,.
each ; 600,00 t) depositors with an average of 71. each ;
the total (and it seems to indicate how this country
has been pauperised by protection), amounts to
33,000,000/. sterling. That is the result of pro-
tection which is now about to be arrested from us. It
may be arrested from us by force, but never, my Lords, while
these statements are before us, will they do an by argument.
My Lords, we are told that we are to have free trade. The
manufacturers—no, not the manufacturers, but a section of the
manufacturers—a section of Manchester cotton-spinners, tell
us that we know nothing about farming; and they say we will
take your farms from you, we will bring capital—l wonder
they did not say experience—and work them properly. This
change, then, they say shall be made, and we are called upon
to remove from our farms and from their occupation from
20,010 to 30,000 of the tenantry of this country. But, my
Lords, if you remove them from their occupations, what is to
become of them ? Why, my Lords, all this tenantry with
their families, when they are turned out of employment, must
go to the union workhouse for their daily bread, or they must
migrate to the manufacturing districts, where, if it is their
destiny to seek employment, they will serve under these very
men whe have been the cause of their ruin and destruction,
and the whole of their worldly prosperity; bat, try Lords, I
know well you will not sanction this. You know too well, ray
Lords, that these manufacturers have a deep hostility against
the farmers of England, because they know that the farmers
have ever been warmly attached to our Constitution, and to
the rights and liberty of the Crown. They wish also to lower
the prices of produce, and to get a large number of agricultu-
rists into their towns for the purpose of lowering the wages of
the work-people. They wish permanently to lower the wages
of the operative, not only from a desire to obtain greater
profits for themselves, but they do it also for the purpose of
preventing those strikes which seldom take place when wages
are low. But, my Lords, again let me ask you what is to
become of the yeomen and tenantry of this great country? I
wish to know, when the value of produce is so diminished, and
when the poor-rates are so much increased—l should ask
your Lordships how they will be enabled to do any thing bat
linger for a few years? My Lords, it is a curious circumstance,
and one which you are no doubt aware of, that in this country
in gen ral when the price of produce falls goer-rates in-
crease.—( Hear, hear.) I have taken the trouble of
extracting from the tenth report of the Poor-law Commis-
sionerssome figures with respect to this. Ihave taken them from
that report, and I could only find them down to the year 1843,
but still, at the same time, I bring this return forward, to show
your Lordships that what I have stated has occurred. I find
by that report, that whilst the price of wheat was 68s. per
quarter, the cost upon the population for the maintenance of
he poor, and for out-door relief, was 4s. Bd. per head. My
Lords, in the year 1843, when wheat was 545. 4d. per quarter,
the rate of expense upon the population per bead was ss. 5d ;
therefore showing that when the price of wheat is low the
Poor orates are higher; and that when wheat is at a remunerat
ing price these rates diminish. And it. is self-evident why they
are so reduced ; because the people get employment.—( Hear,
•ear.) Now, my Lords, one of the attacks made by my Noble
Friend, and by his colleagues—the Anti-Corn law League—
was this, that the tenantry of this country have no capital
and no aktil. My Lords, I believe th.-ire is no country in the
world where farmers are more skilful and more intelligent
—( Hear, hear)—and where they ate more upright, and
where they behave better to their humble neighbours
the labouring classes. I think I may state this, because I
nt snore personally acquai,ted ..sith the farmers of this empire
than any one of your Lordships, and I contradict the assertion
that they are not skilful, anii I think it would be too bad if a
Minister was to turn round and to taunt that important body of
men by saying that they have not large capitals. My Lords,
the heavy, the unequal, the unjust, the unfair manner in which
the tenantry of this country are taxed—(Cheers)—coupled with
the eurr •ncy Bill of 1819, have decidedly &unshed their means
of subsistence; but they have now sufficient capital to he enabled
to impeme the country, and more capital would flow front the
improvement of the land: But the new schem the new plan
would prevent this ; for if they want to get capital for the im-
provement of the land, this Bill would prevent it, because it
would diminish the value of their produce.—(Hear, hear.)
But it is my Nobl • Friend's areument that it will not produce it ;
but if you do not admit that it will reduce the price of provisions,
it will be dangerous indeed, for that clearly will he the result.
My Lents, I do not think that I should myself be justified in much
longer trespassing upon your Lordships' attention. I have
never for a moment disguised the strong feeling which I enter-
tain upon this great and momentous question, and I think I am
relieved also by doing so from believing that the great majority
of your Lordships dislike this measure as much as I do.—
(Loud cheers.) My Lords, I believe, and as I stated apon a
former occasion, I will repeat it now, that if the votes apon
this question were to be taken by ballot in this House—( Hear,
hear)—l do not believe there would be twelve balls in favour
of it.—(Loud cheers and laughter.) My Lords, however,
there are some of your Liirdships who say "Free trade must
come ; it's no use contending to the contrary ; you had better
give way at once ; there is an excitement out of doors." Now
I deny that the great body of the operatives in this country are
in favour of this measure—( Hear, hear)—and I say that the
Anti-Corn-law League has never dared to have a public meets_
ing without tickets, even at Manchester, the very hotbed of
their sedition—(Cheers)—they do not dare to trust the_opera-
tives at a public meeting without tickets. My Lords,
out
of.doors,horstk,
that even if it were so—if there were excitementthoatu if you ad-
-it would be a bad argument to use. I think
mit that argument once it will be conyewrtheithint
wouldo a dangerous
b e
d a nt
precedent-4 Hear, hear)—an argument
go rout in future times. Then, nl y Noble Lords, there are cer-
tainly other,Noble Lards who say
11 We never voted against the
Government."—( Laughter. ) , We do not like to vote against
e
the Government of this country."—( Hear, hear.) " W have
supported Sir R. Peel we cannot abandon our loader,"_
( Hear, hear.) il
ly Lords, it is not his party who have aban-
doned Sir B. Peel, but it is Sir R. Peel who happens to have
Hear, hear, and laughter,) And, my
abandoned his party—(
Lords, others again come forward and support Sir R.Puell'n
the ground of consistency,
butSirn.
iPneefilli2try character
haseloousnwill evert
all
for consistency, for there is n, man
regain the confidence of the large classes of the community,__
(Cheers.) It took him upwards of ten or twelve years bd. re
he could gain ci nfidence, after the year 1829__( Hear, hear )
and he has no more chance of regaining the confidence of the
people now than he has of sitting on the throne of this
coun-
try._(Hear, hear, and laughter.)
Well then, my Lords, I
must call your Lordships' attention to the motives which were
publicly avowed. I will not speak of Parliament, but of those
out of d -ors. They publicly avow that their object is to crush
the aristocracy of the country,—(Cheers, arid cries of 't No,
no.") My Lords, I will not say one of the most respectable,
because certainly he is not one of the most respectable mem-
bers of the Anti-Cornslaw League, but a Mr. Bright, fairly
and openly, at all the meetings, states that his desire is to
crush the aristocracy.--( Hear, hear.) My Lords, I hope and
trust that your Lordships will remember that this is a question
of vast importance—( Hear, hear)—that your Lordship will
recollect the eventful times which we are looking forward to—
( Hear, hear)—that it is of the greatest importance to the
hereditary Legislature of this ceuntry—it is their duty, in my
opinion, to vote wiohout favour or affection—to lay aside
party feeling and political bias, and to vote according
to their consciences, apon measures affecting the weal of

the large masses of their felloweatibieete.—(Rear, hear. )
1- ;•.i iits.fs (et y ese Lot only upon this highest duty of all,
but also incumbent upon you, from reasons of expediency. My
Lords, the Anti-Corn-law League are carrying on the agitation
with a view of destroying the Church, impairing the constitu-
tion of this country, changing the constitution of this House.
My Lords, you will be powerless if you do not possess as here-
tofore the good opinion of the great body of the middle classes
of this great country. I tell it to your Lordships with perfect
respect, this will be the consequence except you do maintain
that good opinion, and you cannot maintain that good opinion
if this great body find you voting against your former promises,
and against your former pledges; and if you have not them with
you, you are powerless. In conclusion, I will only, though at
the same time mot earnestly, implore your Lordships to vote
against this measure, because I believe that it is (if you do not
reject it) accepted only as an instalment of future and sal
greater changes ; and I ask your Lordships now, at the out-
posts, to fight your battles, or else, depend upon it, you will
have a difficulty hereafter in showing a proper front.
—( Heas. ) My Lords, I vote against this Bill, be
lieving upon my honour that it is a measure which
is only the first attack—that it is a measure which will shake
the foundations of the Throne, cripple the Church, and en-
danger our institutions, and convert a hitherto happy and con-
tented people into wretchedness and misery • and because believe it will lead to endless confusion and anarchy, and
that your Lordships are now called upon to make that sham.
which I humbly hope you will do.—(Ch. ) Earl FITZWILLIAM and the Marquiesers of LoNDONDEERt
both rose together, but in consequence of the calls of the House
the Marquis of Londonderry gave w.
Earl FITZWILLIAM then said that his Noble Friend
who had just sat down had read, at the conclusion of his
speech, a list of formidable dangers with which he had
threatened their Lordships if they consented to this measure.
lie thought his Noble Friend would have done well if he had
pointed out with more distinctness the grounds upon which he
expected that their Lordships acquiesence in these measures
would lead to such formidable results. He (Earl Fitzwillism)
entertained none of these apprehensions. He was still willing
to think that their Lordships would deal with this
measure of great and beneficial political poliey—(Hear)
without any reference to these fears which he has thundered
out, and nursed in his mird, in order to alarm your Lordships.
He would pass to a consideration of the measure, and should
not go into any part of his Noble Friend's speech, nor should he
trouble himself with its details, but he could not help saying
that they had a right to expect an explanation of the state of
things which should exist consequent on the passing of the mea-
sure. If his mind did not deceive him, his Noble Friend on
all former occasions and he was a man of large experience—
had condescended to inform the Houses of Parliament, which
ever he might have addressed, what state of things would be
consequent of a measure, On the present occasion, however,
he leaped to a conclusion, and called on them to go at once
from restriction to free trade. He must defend the Nobles
Lord from any charge of inconsistency, because he had not only
now, but on former occasions, expressed himself as adverse to
any duty on the import of foreign grain. However, the warfare
was concluded. He had been long enough engaged in it, and it
gave him the greatest satisfaction to contemplate the time of
peace when this Bill would pass, for he could not contemplate
that a time would come when the Noble Lord upon the Wool-
sack would propose a revival of the corn-laws. He was not
one of those who believed that any disastrous consequences
would accrue to their Lordships from the measure. His opi-
nion was quite the contrary; and, from circumstances which
had come to his knowledge whilst the measure had been de-
bated in another House, which strengthened him in that opinion,
he must speak his mind on this subject. He was about to
vote for this Bill; he trusted that it would be passed—he be-
lieved it would be passed by a great majority. But he was
free to say that if it had been his lot, on any other occasion,
to have been successful in inviting their Lordships' attention to
the kind of Bill now proposed, the present Bill was not the
one he would have submitted for their Lordships' consideration
or adoption. He was not one of those who dealt in language
which he thought was more fit for ancient ladies—(A laugh)than for grave statesmen. They were told of the cruelty of
taxing the necessaries of life, but he was not one of those who
believed that there was anything inhuman, even under the
pressure of the greatest scarcity, in maintaining the duty on
the importation of foreign corn. He did not believesthat there
was any difficulty in levying the duty on that import, and in
that respect he disapproved of the present Bill, as it wasted a
'arge revenue which they could have raised. They had wasted
a revenue which they must replace by other taxes, to be con-
tinued or to be imposed. He said that other taxes were to be
continued or to be imposed, be gauge even under that system
of law which has ju t been condemned in the Howe
of Commons—and after the anticipated (if he could use such a
word with regard to the anticipation of the decision of their
Lordships). after the anticipated vote of their Lordships, he
might venture to call that law absurd—but even under that sys-
tem a larze revenue was placed in the exchequer of the cosine
try. That revenue was about to be removed, and they must
find a substitute for it, and where it was to be found he knees'
not ; whether in an increase of the income-tax. or by the in- •
crease of the Excise duties, if they could be increased to any
greater extent. It so happened that when he was first mace
o•quainted with this anticipated legislation, he was at a
er, at distance from this country, and he heard that it
was said in the other House of Parliament that gen-
tlemen were not to take the measure by itself they
were not to look at the Bill for the abolition of the corn laws
by itself, but th.'y were to look at the whole measure—they
were to look at everything that might be given on the principle
of compensation. He did not believe that the landed interest
would suffer in consequence of this measure, and he therefore
did not believe that there was much in the way of compensation
to be given. Other persons would view it in a different light,
with reeard to the compensation to be given to the landed in-
terest, but he thought it was not a very unnatural expectation,
that what was considered a great boon to the landed interest--
nay, the existence of the present corn-law, should require com-
pensation on its removal. When he was told in Italy that they
anticipated a great reduction in the taxation, he certainly did
not expect that it would be made up by a new tariff. There
might instead, he thought, have been a considerable reduction
in the excise-laws, and he had had a sanguine expectation that
her Majesty's Ministers, who seemed to care nothing about
taxation, would have done something of this kind. He thought
there might have been at least a considerable reduction, if sot
an entire repeal of the malt tax.—(Hear, hear.) That would
have been a large and proper compensation ; he thought also
that the landed interest should have had that tax repealed,
as it operated, not only unequally, but oppressively upon
theta. This tax was not only injurious to the
landlords, but more especially to the farmers
and occupiers of land, as it operated to raise the price of beer
to the persons whom they employed. The repeal of that tax
would involve the laying on of other imposts; but in meeting
that, he would not add to the income-tax, for he wished it
repealed, but he would lay a large additional tax on real
property. There was another point on which he entertained
a strong feeling. They were to have a bit of a sliding scale
for three years ; but what the use of that was he could not see.i
The general opinion of those engaged in agriculture was, that
if the question was to be settled, it ought to be settled immos
diately. ( Hear, hear.) He had always been
to any other course of dealing with the lawhad— ,
always been, and was, opposed to a gradual abolition.
On these grounds he was always adverse to gradual &soli.;
tions, and if he were to propose a law on this subject, he would.
propose one very different from that which was brought in by
averse'
her Majesty's Ministers, and he was not surprised at the indif
nation which it excited among many of their Lordships. It
seemed unfortunately as if there were a sort of race, a sort of St..
Leger or Derby, between the advocates of the Corn Bill and
the present Ministry, as to which should render themselves
most unpopular, but the Treasury had gone a-head of them on',
this question. Well, inasmuch as it got rid of the question of
protection, he rejoiced at it, but he could not but think the-
Bill one of which their Lordships had reason to complain 118
complained of it, but he must vote Sor it ; he was driven into a
corner, he had no help for it but to do so. He must vote
for this Bill or he must run the risk of losing the Bill for a
year. He valued the measure for the abolition of protection to
corn, and he coald not therefore run the risk of such an event.
He might not perhaps to say what he was now going to says.
but expressions had been used that made it necessary for him.
to do so. Some Noble Lords had asked him to help them ia•
their opposition ; his answer to those Noble Lords must be--
" You never help me."—(Laughter.) You have therefore no'
just right to ask for my help on the present occasion. But'
even if he were willing to give that support, he could not give it.:
consistently with his views of the great objects of the frleasure.•
He thought the Government of this country acted unfairly to'
the House. He thought the House had great reason to com-
plain of them. Why, in propounding a measure of this meg-Ill.."
rude—not merely a measuie of this magnitude—but a measurce,
which must have surpi ised all their Lordships--. 7
he asked whether it was right to propose th!!
measure in such a way as to preclude tbet
Lordships from effecting a desired settlement of the questiome
by introducing certain amendments ? He asked if it was decen,t;
if it was fair towards their Lordships' House, to propose 6.
measure in this manner ? It was according to the practice, tIo
a measure of ti is great importance, that resolutions shou ~
have been produced in the other House, and communicated t
this House in the first instance. This would have been ti se
proper rule for the Ministry to have pursued. Th-ey
could then have had an opportuni y of considering Os!!
question with the other House, and of associating th e!ri-
views with the views of the other House of Parliame at--
Now the ground was cut from them. They could not en
ttie'r
into such a negotiation. The smallest amendment to . le
Bill would be fatal to it, and he would not be one to risk; 50
awful an event. Disapproving of the conduct of her Majes ,
Government, adopting not their Opinions, but adopting all tia6
views which were expressed by his Noble Friend on the 01 Fif:,
sition bench (the Duke of Richmond) with respect to
itui:
conduct of the Government on this question, he felt prrelt
wasded
from acting in any other manner than that w
about to do. He implored anti entreated
appeal not on ,17 to
to risk that great question, and he made thati
h queation at rest,
those who were will him in wishing " Vent e to those who
their Lordshipshie not
but he made it with almost equal
for it Ras a
thought the existing law ought to maintained;be
ystem which had been
;of it as the agrieul !tura
and there was no class
mmeischievous
owuhsi which wouldevery deoltuaswoafyspeweriLehtis
D regretted that he shot ad be
interest.
The had reaped suchv CLEVELAND
3 he7asen.tinwviitthedb
the Noble Dc/110
a:49,overnm which he had a twee
eomTpheelleDdutkoee
oppose
eCs
eL.
Government in that House, to mot re the
eti.hie:Oithe speech from the Throne ; and, et )12‘
at hithertoh
h.
eaaotdeodwf.
address in ans.
curing then in the principles of the Goverament, he read
nsented to undertake the duty, but before doing so Ito I re
cmoinded the Noble Duke that rumours were abroad that. Min
ters intended to change the corn-law which they had pass ;eu
the year before. The Noble Duke, however, informed b "s
that there DukethpferesrneudimiattoiGounr:vewbrhatever fur any such rum o's,
and he (the of Cleveland) upon that authority, e
onlyt
scoonftarradaicstetdhe
tha brit Brent twfeurrethceornaeenrd,„edde,cl.at ed
that
measure at least was intended to be final. And he unders I°
as much from what the Noble Duke had told him,—(Che errs')r,nk
A corn-law could be traced as far back as the reign of I sts•--
JoOn, and ntedifications and improvements had been mad eta a
it from time to time up to the period when the present law Llctl„
passed. He contended that the agitation which had seer P'sel.
taken place against the Corn Bill ought to have
pressed by the Government, but if they assented to the mea
they would find it impossible to retrace their steps, which was
The
one of the strongest objections he could urge against it. ;La
British farmer was not afraid to compete with the skile
industry of the foreign farmer, if he were placed on equal t 70f
been re
with the rest of the country, and freed from the influent rod
the
the heavy burdens under which it laboured, namely, Wool;
poor-rates, or if those taxes were borne by the rests
country. He would now refer to the great concession the
it had' been said had been recently made in favourwsss la
farmers of this country. The first concession made
farm' er
duction upon linseed, whereby it was said thatthe
the am' all
large farmers grew their own linseed, and that
next col could obtain it at a cheaper rate. Now it so happened that ti
farmers could mot afford to use it. Well, then, the_.eve
Chi
cession was, the reduction in clover seed. He believed a
seed.
the greater part of the farmers grew their
the duty on •
they would of course derive no benefit from. thei
The last concession he believed was the reduction of
of this
the farmers
French brandy. Now the fact was, that
they drink
country scarcely knew what
,French brandy was;
much
themselves, and very
that brandy which was distilled by t
These
hear.) resembled in colour a black dose.—( Hear,
been made
were the only concessions that he knew of as having been
this
meg.
concession.
that
measure
sure was tie most cruel, unjust, and oppressive
upon' in favour (.11' the British farmer. He contended that
people—(Hear, hear)---
industrious, loyal, and an independent
thatvim, fur
was ever attempted to be passed by the Legislature
and it was adopted for the purpose of oppressing