The Sun.
London, England, 1834-03-08 00:00:00

YA-f-((fc,6

interest had without the
A)
mdies, and cons.antly tirtbl;n.r ha/ (lig"
iL "cr' • Z:=
CI 541 -11L-
4'a 4011X1hr'''
'lO p.04%
4"11, _ti- -
13141 -.'Jli,„%www`mlii'lL;4;."l.lol% • 4)
It— 0 2 Itta
44,
‘• • itg
11•:4
of the
wol7erea3antlhe living at a
7uri:tasch w; etriejeY

where one other.
The state wete
in large bi large
numbets ; sepa-
rated from Brest
distance, and not mixing in poatics ; they lived
contentedly, providing they It id anything. It was
therefore a mistake to imagine that no great distress pre-
vailed amongst them, because it was not made known. He
would detain the house while he made a few remarks in
their defence. It was argued, that a benefit would
accrue to the farmer from having a low rent to pay,
no matter how low the prices of food were.—(Hear,
hear, bear.) He certainly was no advocal-t for 1411
rents; they should be reduced, and reduced in pro-
portion to the times. Some exceptions certainly occurred,
hut he was speaking generally of the disposition among
landlords to afford the tenant a fair rate of remu-
neration. He himself knew one landlord who, not-
withstanding all the reductions that were made since
the peace, made a reduction lately to the amount of 15
percent.—(Hear, hear.) Many of the small landed pro-
prietors had the will to follow that example, but not
the ability. It was useless to ask the landed proprietors
to bring reductions below a fixed point; many of them
must give up their own residences, and retire to the
Continent, were they obliged-to comply with the unrea-
sonable reductions that some would demand of them.
How was an individual to know what a farm was
capable of producing ? The produce after having been
calculated was subject to great qualification by the
cc. Teroua reductions that were necessary to be made.
After all the necessary reductions bad been made,of course
the proportion of clear profits, both to the landlord and
tenant, would then appear. If there was a protection main-
tained mutually between the tenant and landlord the re-
muneration and profits to both would be equally secure.
According to the argument fif some hon. gentlemen,
the farmers had received all the relief they were
entitled to._(bear, hear.) Now the farmer was obliged
t make one reduction for rent, one for the cultivation o
the soil, another for the loss of capital, a third for
the landlord, and a fourth for himself, and upon the
whole it would be seen there was a clear loss of 20 per
cent. If it was good for the landlord and tenant to main-
tain the corn laws, still the labourer who shout 1 have his
food cheap, was dependant upon the farmer, and, in conse-
quence of the high prices, where twelve labourers used
to be employed on one farm, not more than six are now
employed.—(Hear, hear.) The farmer had plenty of
work .for them, but he could not afford to pay them, and

(PRICE 7D.)

to look to our Eat and West India possessions exclusively
for our• supply of cotton, and:to secure ourselves against war
by exchanging our manufactures for the produce of America,
than to take anv of those secondary means of protecting
ourselves from the dreadful consequences of war. Those
who advocated the change of the corn laws in that house
did it with the view to the hgricultural interests of the
country, and that those interests might no longer remain
on an insecure, hut be placed on a solid basis. They were
convinced, that for their real and permanent security, a
change in the present system must be made.
There were no means so certain of increasing the ma-
nufactures and consumers as by encouraging our export
trade. He knew it might be said by those who main-
tained the agricultural side of this question, that by encou-
raging our trade and manufactures it increased the value
of land in the neighbourhood of large towns, but it did
not generally increase the value of land over the country.
In answer to that he would reply, that it was esta-
blished before the committee of agriculture that one
of the greatest effects had been to equalize the
prices of land. The right hon. baronet opposite (Sir J.
Graham) had alluded very much to the evidence which
had been given before the agricultural committee, and it
would have been desirable if he had turned his attention
_to the evidence given before the committee upon trade
which was appointed last session. He would have then
found that if there was anything from which our com-
merce suffered more than another it was the want of returns.
Almost the only difficulty which the trade of this country
experienced was, in fact, the difficulty of retaining
returns, and it was the bounden duty of the Go-
vernment to afford every facility to remove it.
It appeared from the evidence given before the committee,
that nothing could more effectually remedy the grievances
under which that unfortunate race of men, the band-loom
weavers, suffered, than to enable them to procure cheap
bread, and allow them to exchange their manufactures
with those who were the natural customers of this country.
But it appeared from the evidence given by the witnesses
summoned before that committee, that if to any
country it was important to have free and constant
returns for its manufactures—it was most necessary to
a country which overflowed with capital, and
which required constant employment for the accu-
mula.ing wealth of the empire. Mr. Lloyd, Mr.
Gurney, and many others of the most respectable wit •
rinses who were brought before the committee, had stated
that if there was one thing more than another strongly
characteristic of the present time, it was that
this country was almost suffering—(Hear)—from
the redundancy of capital. It was an incontrovertible
fact, that where there was a redundancy of capital, no-
thing could be so advantageous to a country—nothing so
indispensable, as a system of free trade. But if in a country
which abounded with capital it was important to encourage
every possible means of employing that capital, it became
still more important to do so in a time of peace, when
prices were low, and when, consequently, that capital
would go further than it as ould at any other time.
He was doubly convinced that the question, unless brought
to a satisfactory /settlement by that house, would be-
come the Catholic question of this country. He was
sorry that it had been the case from the first
up to the present moment, that the pre-eminency
of the landed aristocracy had been the great curse of the
country.—(Hear, hear, bear.) From long con-
viction be felt that if there was anything more feta!
to the interests of the country than another in these times,
it was the pampered landed aristocracy which natuarhy
had led to a pauperised people. He maintained that the
best policy for the house to pursue was to unshackle the
country from those bonds which now fettered the com-
merceof the country. He had no wish to draw any invidious
comparisons, hut as the hon. baronet had so be-praised the
landed interest, he felt bound in justice to offer a few
words in favour of the manufacturing and shipping in-
terests, with which he was so intimately connected ;
acid he must say that those interests had never been
done justice to in that house.—(Hear, hear.) The
question was not between any small conflicting
interests but was really a great national question, and it
would be to the honour, the real and lasting honour of
the united legislature, in the name of the nation, to
abolish or greatly modify the corn laws.
The Earl of DARLINGTON said that he thought
the present motion would be productive of no good
result, but on the contrary, that it would be
attended with most injurious consequences.—(Hear,
hear.) After hearing the most extraordinary remarks,
and the inferences drawn from them, he considered
it his duty not only to that house but to the landed in-
terest with which be was connected, to offer a few brief
remarks upon them. For some time he had given
his best and undivided attention to this subject,
and the more so since he had occupied the
position of representative of a large agricultural
county, from which he had that day presented a petition,
signed by the principal yeomanry and inhabitants of the
county. He would call the attention of the house to
this petition.—(Hear, hear, hear.) It might he
said that they had drawn the picture in too high and
glaring colours; at the same time he must observe, that
the petition was couched in the most respectful
language. They complained, that for a long time
they had been labimring under a considerable state of
distress, that they bad hitherto borne their distresses
patiently, but owing to the great fall of every
description of produce, and to the burdens which pressed
upon the land and remained undiminished, it was utterly
impossible fer them, though living in a state of the utmost
frugality, to exist, and at the same time to bring up their
families in that respectability to which they were
entitled.—(Hear, hear, bear.) They further stated,
that hitherto they had looked forward to better
times : they had raised no clamour, but the times were
becoming every day worse and worse. They further stated
that if the house expected the improved system of hus-
bandry to be continued, they must grant some sort of relief,
as otherwise the land must return to that state in
which it had formerly been, and a large portion of the
agricultural population would be thrown out of employment.
He would now proceed to state why he thought the pre-
sent system of corn laws the most advantageous. It had
been asserted that as the law at present stood, it was for the
benefit of the landed interest. He denied that it was; it had
been devised by that great statesman, Mr. Canning, and
had given general satisfaction to the country at the time.
It was, to a certain extent, a boon to the landed interest,
and a sort of compromise between the two parties who
were divided upon that question. On the one hand it
insured the supply of a sufficient quantity of foreign
grain, which would be ready in times of scarcity, and, on
the other hand, it prevented an inordinate supply of
foreign corn from being brought into the market, which,
if a free trade was allowed, must have been the case.
The first thing the house had to consider was, whether it
would be for the general interest to depend for a supply
upon the soil, or upon the foreign growers. At a meeting
lately held in the county which he represented, a master
manufacturer had given it as his opinion that all the
land tillage of the country should he laid down in
grass.—(Hear, hear.) This was probably the opinion of
many persons, but he would only say that to those who held
arguments and opinions of this sort, it was perfectly useless
to offer any argument in defence of the corn laws.
Some still thought that a certain supply of foreign
corn should be kept in the country. He thought it
was perfectly idle to suppose that the people of this
country could compete with foreign countries. That
was, in his opinion, quite impossible, and therefore the
house could not ask the agriculturists to carry on their
trade, not only without remuneration, but possible loss.
Trades of every description in every country received
protection, and why therefore should not the agriculturist
be entitled to it ? II he was allowed to hazard an opinion,
he should say that the agriculturist had the best claim.
If they were not to have it, he would ask how it was
possible, burdened as they were with no less a sum than
five millions of poor rates, highway rates, and church rates
and paying their labourers in proportion to that taxation,
how, he would ask,was it possible for them to compete with
foreigners—(Hear, bear),—was that or net, lie would
ask, a fair argument for the British farmer?--(Hear,
hear.) Io his opinion, the union of the agricultural and
manufacturing interests of the country constituted its
strength, and enabled her to compete with her enemies.
Such being the case, he regretted to ate the jealousy that
existed on the pat of the manufacturing interest against
that of the agriculturist, the very party to whom
they first owed their origin and greatness.—(Herr,
hear, hear.) That those two interests were de
pendent upon each other, it was only necessary to re for
back to what had taken place in the cod:ltry f
the last few years, and, doing that, he chal-
lenged any gentleman IQ shot`' a single instance

they were in consequence thrown upon the poor rates.
He would say that since this bill had been in operation
the greatest possible advantage had accrued. One of the
chief objects of the bill was to secure the steadiness of price,
That object had been undoubtedly attained. If any one
would examine the prices for the last 35 years they would
see little or no variation. Under these circumstances he
considered the bill had attained every object for
which it was framed, and procured, which was another
great obj,!ct, a sufficient and constant supply of corn.
With regard to a fixed duty, he confessed his opinion
was most strongly fixed, and even if it were
not, lie knew no means of fixing the amount
unless they could fix the seasons ; they could
not fix the amount of duty; as that which would be
sufficient fur a bad crop, would be too much for a fair
crop, and vice versa. He maintained that the sum of
:255. would, at the present moment, be the least amount
of duty they could fix.—(Cries of " Oh," and " Hear.")
The reason that prices were now low was to be found in
the quantities of wheat that were now brought from Ire-
land. He should not move the amendment of which he
had given notice, as he had received a note from the high-
est quarter—from a noble lord, a cabinet minister—re-
questing him not to press his amendment, as it was the
wish of government to have the bon. member for middle-
sex left in as small a minority as possible. He should
comply with this application, though his opinion of the
original motion remained unchanged.—(Hear.)
Mr. P. THOMSON was sorry to say that he had the
misfortune to differ in opinion from many friends with
whom he was in the habit of acting, and be differed from
none more strongly than from his right hon. friend the
member for Cumberland. He must beg leave, in the
first instance, to correct a misstatement made by the noble
lord who had just sat down. The noble lord had stated,
if he understood him rightly, that be had withdrawn his
amendment because it was the desire of the government
that the hon. member for Middlesex should he left in as
small a minority as possible. He denied the statement.
The very circumstance of his being a member of the go.
vernment, and yet voting with the hon. Member for
Middlesex, was, he conceived, at once an answer to ti,e
assertion. The fact, moreover, on which he denied the
statement was that the question, was an open question
with the government.—(Cries of "No, no," " Oh, oh.")
Oa the ground alone that he was a member of the go-
vernment, though not of the cabinet, and yet was voting
for the motion, he thought the house might see the cor-
rectness of his opinion.
The Earl of DARLINGTON explained. He had
said that the communication had been made to him front
a high quarter—a member of his Majesty's Government,
and a Cabinet Minister.—(Cheers from the Opposition
benches.)

Mr. P. THOMSON—WeII, that did not impugn in
the slightest degree his assertion.—(A laugh.) What
might be the opinion of any individual mentber of his Ma-
jesty's Government was quite a different question ; but if
tie had understood the noble loid to say that it was the
wish of his Majesty's Government, and if this were not
on his part a mistake, he thought his standing there at
the present moment a sufficient answer to the noble lord's
assertion.—(Hear, hear.) His abject was to discharge the
duty be had to perform in keeping in mind the example
of the hon. member for Middlesex, who had introduced
the subject with the utmost temper, with the utmost mo-
deration, and with perfect harmony. He felt more tho
necessity of this because he could not disguise from him-
self the conviction which he entertained from the appear..
once of the house last night that he was addressing a very
unwilling and unfavourable audience.—(Hear, hear.) He
agreed with every gentleman who had spoken on theother
side ; lie agreed particularly with his right hon. friend
the First, Lord of the Admiralty, that it would be most
desirable that now should be the time when the house
should bring the question to an issue. The speech
of the right hon. baronet was the most ab!e that had been
delivered on thatsideofthe question, and he distinctlystated
that he argued the case on the principle of the general
interest of the country, and at the sante time he went
through the various interests, and endeavoured to show
that the corn laws must be continued with reference to
each and all of those interests. His right hon. friend
had made what he should term rather a landlord's speech,
a speech that was certainly calculated to catch as many
votes as possible. With that he did not quarrel, Arai to
that point he should come presently. He did hope that
whilst he on his side did disclaim entirely (and he should
consider himself guilty of the greatest impropriety if he
did not) to say anything to affect the feelings of the dif-
ferent interests, or to raise a dispute between them, he did
hope at the same that the question might he argued in the
sante spirit by the other side, and that the house would
have to hear no more of those sneers against political eco.
nomists, no more declamations against philosophy ; for
certain it was that by such means an argument could not
he maintained, though perhaps a cheer might be procured..
Every man who came into that house prepared to talk of
the question seemed to be in his own opinion the very beau
ideal of a political economist.—(Hear, hear.) Other gen-
tlemen who disclaimed the science were often tall:tog of
political economy without being aware of it, or that their
economy was not of the best kind. Some gentleinen
talked of political economy in a style that night justly
entitle them to be elected to the profesam's chair of toe
University of Lag :do, in the island of Laputa.—(A
laugh.) He hoped that the house would hear no more
on this topic, but that the question might be argued
dispassionately.—(Heat, bear.) His right hon. friend
had made four divisions, the landlords, and farmers, tba
agricultural labourers on one side, and the consumers on
the other.—(Cries of " No, no, no.") He had good
grounds for what he had said. Nothing could be more
das:rable than to understand each other in the definition
of words. The landlords, in a great p„rtion of the
right hon. baronet's speech, as well as in the speeches of
gentlemen who followed him, were considered as mainly
interested in the present question. The house had been
told at the end of the right hon. baronet's speech that
political considerations entered into this question. He
stated that it was necessary to maintain landlords in the
mutate in which they were, anti that the present relation
between them and their tenents was indispensiti.e to the
security and well being of this country. He (Mr. T.)
behsved that the landlords would be much better oil'
under a very different system. He needed not to argue
on that point, for he had only to call to his aid the hon.
member for Surrey, who bad spoken in a manner which
had justly elicited applause. That hon. ne:mber had,
told the house, in speaking of the landlords' condition,
that forty years ago he was receiving twenty shillings
us acre, that the charges were so and so, t: at the
charges were new the same except six shillings more;
and that ho was still receiving the twenty shillings asAli this
eniv d ffetenee, that whereas his rents used to be ps,d very,
:•e, and doss now they were b idly paid. Forty
years ago there were nu corn laws of the reaent d, scrips
Ova, 'Caere was no corn laws then except a law whirl

was as virtually inoperative as if importation were free.
Then who could say that the farmer was benetitted by the
restrictions on the importation of corn ? He could not
conceive on what grounds the fames was concerned, un-
less he had begun with a lease for a period of time. It
must be a perfect matter of indifference to the farmer
what was the price of corn, provided he did not hold a
lease for a term of years. The noble lord opposite might
laugh, but the farmer was an employer of capital just as
any person in another trade; and if he embarked his
capital under false expectations, and was deluded, he
would unquestionably suffer b!,- the state of prices; but if
he took his farm from year to year, he could not conceive
under what plea the farmer could consider himself to be
in the slightest degree interested in the question. But
how had their legislation acted on this point? Legisla•
tion had been carried on for 19 yea's, and if there were a

man in the country that bad a right to complain of it it
was the farmer, who bad been deluded by legislation, and
had suffered more than any other individual.. What said
the law of 1825 ? What language had been then used
in that and in the other house of parliament? Assurances
had been given to the farmer that prices were not to fall
below 80e. Such was the result to be drawn from the
arguments used on that occasion, and it was not to be
doubted that numbers of farmers embarked their capital on
grounds of this description. Then came the laws of 1827
and 1828. What grounds had been held out to the
farmer then? Mr. Canning, when he was introducing
the corn law of 1827 (and no man would doubt that what
applied to the law of 1827 was equally applicable to the
law of 1828) had said that fluctuation was at an end;
that instead of such prices as they had seen they would
see a price never varying beyond 555. and 655. It was
on this, he would maintain, that the farmer went; and
yet within the space of four or five short years he found
that prices had so fluctuated, that whilst in January,lB3l,
the price of wheat was 755. lad., on the day on which
be was now addressing them the price was only 48e. and
a fraction. The farmer was the man who was deluded.
He had a right to complain. He was not benefitted by
legislation. He would now come to the agricultural la-
bourers ; and what said the right hon. baronet on this
subject ? He Lad rested the weight of his case upon
the assertion of Mr. Oliver in his evidence befge the
committee; but Mr. Oliver's assertion was not " if
the corn laws were altered," hut if they were altered
in a way as to throw out of cultivation 2,000,000
of acres that then there would be thrown out of
employment two hundred and fifty thousand families,
comprising about 900,000 persons. This position was
refuted by his right honourable friend (Sir James
Graham) last night, for the half of his speech was em-
ployed in an endeavour to disprove the position laid down
by his hon. friend the member for Middlesex, that the
result of the proposed alteration in the corn laws would
not be to lower the price of corn. If this was not the
object of his right hon. friend's reasoning, what became
of the argument drawn from that part of Mr. Oliver's
evidence which his right hon. friend read ? Mr. Oliver
said that such a fall in price as was looked for from the
repeal of the corn laws would throw two millions of acres
out of cultivation. Now, had they any proof from ex-
perience that fall of price led to the consequence of throw-
ing land out of cultivation ? The whole weight of proof
was quite in the opposite direction. The fall of price which
took place within the last fifteen years was from fifteen
shillings and sixpence to twenty shillings the quarter ;
and yet they did not see that land at all fitted for the
growth of corn was-thrown out of cultivation. He was not
among those persons who were liable to the charge made by
his right bon. friend against declaimers, who, in their ad-
dresses at public meetings, held out to the people the delu-
sive hope of having bread for nearly nothing, if the corn
laws were repealed. He addressed no such language upon
any occasion to that house, or to any body of men. His
observation was, let the system cease, without any re-
ference to the effect upon price. The whole argument,
then, of his right hon. friend rested on the passage he
quoted from Mr. Oliver, on the bare assertion of that
gentleman. His own conviction was that the price of
corn would not fall materially, and therefore that one of
the evils apprehended—the throwing of agricultural la-
bourers out of employment— would not take place. The
noble lord who spoke in the course of this debate (Lord
Darlington) confirmed his statement when he said that the
farmers took leases under an impression that they were to
get sixty-two shillings a quarter for their wheat. So far
as the general interests of the country were concerned the
discussion on this question was said last night to pro-
ceed in what was called a vicious circle; and thi y
were told that if the contemplated alterations were made
the inevitable consequence must be that the people
would find themselves going from bad to worse, and from
thence, through different gradations, to the worst of all,
by a hocus pocus that would eventually produce a plethora
of food. He would now come to that important point
how far these laws contributed to the benefit of the agri
cultural interest. He required no argument to disprove
the assertion that they were a source of protection and
advantage to the agricultural interest than merely looking
into the book he had then before him, the Report of the
Agricultural Committee of last year. In 1833, when
the corn laws had been just eighteen years in operation,
this report let out the melancholy intelligence, which ns
man lamented more than he did, and no man would more
gladly remedy, that the very interest for the protection of
which they were designed was in a ruinous state. In this
report he found the present state of that interest thus
described, that the capital of the farmer had decreased
since 1821. Now in the report of the committee which
sat in 1821 it was said that agricultural produce did not
then afford a remunerating price, and that it was only
through some peculiar circumstances in his favour that he
was at all enabled to go on. Now, in the last report, that
of 1833, be found that the capital of the farmer wasgone, and
his condition of course much worse than it waseven ,nlB2l,
when produce did not bring remunerating prices ; be found
profits represented as so much diminished, that less of the
article was produced than was necessary to supply the
wants of the country. In this last point be did not con-
cur ; but it was quite sufficient for his argument, that
such was the opinion of the committee. The committee
of 1821 stated in their report, that the produce was quite
sufficient then to meet the consumption ; that it would be
unwise to do anything which tended to lessen production,
and thus leave the country dependent on foreign supply.
Now in the last report it was not denied that in ordinary
years they were still' dependent on foreign supply. Their
independence, therefore, was gone—(Near, hear)—the
great object contemplated by the corn laws was not at-
tained, and so far were they from having been a source of
protection to the agriculturists, that they had been declin-
ing more and more every year from 1821 up to the
present time. The account of the farmer's situation, as
given in the report, was most lamentable ; and no person
could read without feelings of the deepest regret the
melancholy circumstances of the farmer and the small
yeoman, once the boast of this country. Here then, after
these laws which were said to be necessary for the support
of agriculture, fur rendering them independent of foreign
supply, had been in operation for eighteen years, theyfound
themselves with decreasing produce, with exhausted capi-
tal, with a suffering yeomanry, with ruined farmers, and
all their boasted and dearly cherished independence
of foreigners at an end.—(Hear.) He was ready to take
his stand on this report without even offering one tittle
further of argument against the continuance of their pre-
sent corn laws. He was now arguing only upon the
general principle of a corn law. By and by he should
come to consider that particular system which at present
regulated the trade in corn. What were the effects of
this principle on the trade and commerce of the country?
In 1815 the different states of Europe found themselves at
length in the enjoyment of peace, after having been ha-
rassed for many years by the difficulties, the expenses,
and sacrifices necessarily attendant on so great a struggle.
The war with the United States of America was not yet
ended, but not very long after was brought to a close.
America was then, as now, a great agricultural country,
capable of taking their manufactures to an incalculable
RXtent. As regarded manufactures, what was the
situation of England and of the Continental nations
at this period ? From one end of Europe to the
other there was not a single steam-engine at work.
For fifty years before it was known, and at this time was
in general use throughout this country. The flax frame,
various other machines of the highest utility in manufac-
tures, were also in use, but still a secret to the rest of
Europe, and were scarcely heard of. In machinery, in
skill, in capital, and all the means of extending and im-
proving manufactures, they were then fifty years in advance
of the Continent. In that very year, 1815, however,
they, in an evil hour, imposed their corn laws; they shut
out foreign corn from their ports, the principal article fo
reignere bad to give for their manufactures; and thus from
necessity they were forced in self-defence to act upon the
principle qf....y.h.Great Britain set the example ; they
forced Ifni' jiatiiks
.become manufacturers—(Hear)—
ss
to turn 'tiseie russirsPlf.and their skill, rude as it was,
and [Mist necesaarity-havren, to the production of the
artiidei-which refue 'to supply to them for the only
equivalent, they had-te-offer. It might be said that this
country-created their skill;:for they had none at all before,
by retaising to' receive that from them which alone they
bad ttgive.—(Cheerr.) might here be permitted to
adverclaian obs'ervation 'iftich fell from his hon. friend
the menativ.r fcir, 31iddir‘x last night, and which gave
occasion te'r ude. '.vottiment from his right hon. friend
(Sir J, Gritlitarr The hop, member for Middlesex raid

he was inclined to look upon this as an European ques-
tion, and to try it as such. For his part be would try it
as be should all others involving great national interests,
solely as a British question. But gentlemen ought to
consider on what British interests really depended, and
how they could be best supported under existing circum-
stances. British commercial and manufacturing interests
rested almost entirely on foreign traffic. It was very easy
to say that foreign traffic should not be encouraged. He
would say to those who advanced such a principle, who
wished now to act upon it, that they were thirty or forty
years too late. He would not now enter into the inquiry
whether there were 960,000 families dependant on agri-
culture, and 1,500,000 dependant on traffic and manu-
factures; but he would put this question—What would
their land be worth without manufactures ? (Hear,
hear.) What was the relative position of these two in-
terests ? Agricultural producers met with a ready market
at home, and had no occasion to undertake the risks, the
losses, and expenses of a foreign market. He was in a
situation to obtain in his immediate neighbourhood the
highest price his produce could obtain in any market of
the world ; he was completely free from competition.
Now how did matters stand as regarded the com-
merce and trade of the country ? Were honourable
gentlemen aware that the value of British manu-
factures annually exported amounted to the sum of
36,000.000/., all the result of British industry, enterprise,
and skill? Now the manufacturer enjoyed none of those
great advantages which he before mentioned as connected
with agriculture. He could at home find but a very limited
market. He was forced to seek for it in distant climes, and
to enter into competition with the industry of nations in
which the daily pay of a labourer was only one halfpenny.
He was obliged to seek it amidst the snows of the north,
in the interior of Africa, in the most remote and the most
inhospitable regions of the globe. Was it not an incal-
culable advantage to the laud that the produce of it had
the priority of the market at home, free from competition,
from the necessity of seeking a foreign market, and from
the expenses of insurance of transport by sea, and all the
uncertainties attendant upon trading speculation ? Manu-
facturers could not wait for the foreign market. They
must take it as they found it, and accept such prices as
circumstances, good or bad, happened to affix for the time
being to the article. Would it be denied that in these
points alone, without at all considering what might be
the effects of a corn law, the agriculturist enjoyed im-
mense advantages from which manufacturers were shut
out ?—(Hear, hear.) He now came to the effects which
the corn laws had upon their industry. " How can you,"
said his right hon. friend (Sir J. Graham), " complain
of the effect of these laws, when it is clear that your
trade and commerce, and every branch of your manu-
facturing industry, have greatly increased while these
laws have been in operation ?" Who ever asserted that
the restraints of a corn law were undiminished with an
increase of exports? They must continue to export their
manufactures abroad whatever might be the effect of the
corn laws. But it was a question of degree. What
they had to consider was, not the amount of manufactures
now actually exported, but how far it might be increased
under a different system. Were it not for these restrictive
laws he entertained not the least doubt that their manufac-
turing industry would ere this have made advances, have
taken a flight far beyond even those strides which it made
in consequence of the great inventions of either an Ark-
wright or a Watt. They would now have been without
competitors in the markets of the whole world. His
right hon. friend (Sir J. Graham), in point of fact, only
repeated the statements made last year, by a noble friend
of his (the Earl of Ripon we believe) in the other House
of Parliament, which upon an occasion like this he
should be ashamed not to refer to. His right hon. friend
for the purpose of proving that the corn laws were not
injurious to the manufactures, said, and referred to re•
turns in proof of the assertions, that their exports to
cern-growing countries had increased during the period
while these laws were in operation. His right hon.
friend, however, quoted the official value. He wished he
had taken the opportunity at the same time of giving the
declared value. His right hon. friend took the years from
1828 to 1832 inclusive. He (Mr. T.) ascertained what
was the declared value in these years, and also in the
years 1818, 1819, 1820, 1821, and 1822. Some im-
provement certainly took place in British commerce in
these years, but not to the extent mentioned by his
right honourable friend. In these five years the de-
clared value of their exports to the corn-producing
countries amounted altogether to the sum of 82,425,0001.
In these five years only one was included which could
have been affected, as to prices, by the alteration of the cur-
rency.—(Hear.) Now the official value (as we beard)
for the same period was 92,312,0001., making a differ-
, of 9,887,0001. However, he should not press his argu-
ment. He knew it would be said that the currency had
been altered, but that alteration could never account for so
great a difference ; and no person could pretend to say
that under a more free system of trade in corn their ex-
ports would not have been considerably greater in t; ese
years. If the United States of America passed what
amounted to prohibitory laws against the introduction of
British manufactures—if Prussia retaliated by .a system of
prohibition for refusing to admit her produce upon liberal
terms, and not only this, but was making efforts, and suc-
ceeded in a great measure, to induce the other German
states to adopt a similar system—if Russia refused to open
her ports, and Great Britain made complaints against such
a line of commercial restriction, what answer could be
expected from these powers? No answer but such as those
with which the archives of his office was already cross-tied
namely this—" What ! yon ask for a more liberal system,
while you yourselves act upon a prohibitory one.—(Hear.)
We adopt this system in imitation of you, in de-
ference to your example." It was in vain to preach up
to the nations of the continent such free doctrines..-
(Heir, hear)—while they refused to act upon them them-
selves. He accepted that cheer as an indication of hosti-
lity to the opinions he was now expressing. He should
never be deterred by cheers from maintaining the opinions
he thought most favourable, and most likely to promote
the best interests of the country. It would be vain to
contend much longer against the spirit that was growing
up and was daily gaining strength upon the subject of ex-
clusive doctrines in matters of trade and commerce. No
matter what might be the views a government took as
to the manner in which people ought to dispose of their
produce, that must ultimately be governed by the view
which the producers took of their own interest. What
had recently passed and was now passing in France ought
to be viewed as a lesson indicating the course people
were hereafter likely to pursue when they considered their
interests sacrificed to a narrow view of commercial in-
terests. The progress of improvement in this way
might, he admitted, be slow ; but why should they not
pursue a direct course? Why excite by their example
the other states of Europe to do the very thing which
they were anxious they should not do ? The house would
permit him, as he was upon this subject, to read a state-
ment from a paper written in 1329. It would show in
what light their commercial policy was viewed at the
time by the states of Germany, and how much they lost
by acting upon such a policy. It was dated from Berlin.
An Hots. MEmanta—ls it an extract from a news-
paper ?
Mr. P. THOMSON—No, nor is it an official paper.
(The right hon. gentleman then read, in a tone of voice
scarcely audible, a paper pointing out the injury inflicted
on British commerce in the States of Germany by the
exclusive policy of Great Britain, and her refusal to admit
upon liberal terms the produce of these countries.) He
produced this as evidence of the feeling which then ex-
isted. It was but a private document; but if the house
knew who the writer was they would receive his opi-
nions with respect. He now came to the question more
immediately before the house. The motion was brought
forward with the view of substituting a fixed for a fluc-
tuating duty. Whatever arguments he Lad hitherto beard
in opposition to this principle resolved themselves into
that employed by the committee in their report, used also
by his right hon. friend (Sir James Graham) and by
the hon. member for Shropshire, namely, that a fixed
duty produced greater fluctuations in price, and a
fluctuating scale of duties more fixedness of price. He
(Mr. C. P. Thomson) found that the noble lord (the Earl
of Darlington) had withdrawn the amendment of which he
had given notice, and which was to declare that a fluctua-
tion in the scale of duties was better than any other scale
of duties that could be framed. He (Mr. C. P. Thom-
son) was glad to find that the noble lord bad done so. He
did not believe that the house would have been induced to
assent to such a resolution ; but if it consented to such a
resolution it would fairly be entitled to be put on a footing
with that House of Commons that declared that a one-
pound note and a shilling of a depreciated currency
.were
equivalent to a guinea.—(Hear, hear.) The only differ-
ence that now existed was between a fluctuating scale and
a fixed scale.
An Hots. MEMBER observed that the motion of the
bon. member for Middlesex was not for a fixed duty.
Mr. C. P. THOMSON agreed with the honourable
member that it was the same as a fixed duty, although it
was not positively a fixed duty. It was in principle a
fixed duty. The resolution of his lion. friend said not a
word about fluctuation.—(Hear.) The resolution stated
that, instead of the present graduated scale of duty, there
should be charged a fixed and moderate duty on the im-
portation of foreign corn into the United Kingdom, and
also for granting a fixed and equivalent duty on the extort
of corn from the United Kingdonn.--(Hear, hear.) That

then was the question they would have to consider should
they get into committee. He would ask, what were the
arguments in favour of a fluctuating duty? There was but
one, namely, that it produced a greater steadiness of
prices and prevented fluctuations. He denied that it was
so. He denied it whether he was called upon to riot his
denial on arguments or facts. He denied it under both
circumstances. His right hon. friend (Sir J. Graham),
in arguing the question last night, referred to a letter of
the late Mr. Huskisson, in which he expressed his appro-
bation of corn laws. His right hon. friend quoted the
opinion of Mr. Huskisson, with the view of showing that
that distinguished statesman approved of the corn law of
1828, whereas the letter was written in 1815, and had
reference to the corn law then under agitation. With
regard to the letter quoted by his right hon. friend, he
(Mr. Thomson) owned that it struck him with some
surprise. He had read the letter before, and he had beard
it quoted on previous occasions in debates in that house,
but he had not believed that any one would quote it, and,
above all, a friend of the late Mr. Huskisson, as expres•
sive of the real sentiments and opinions of that great man.
No man could entertain a higher opinion of the talents
of that statesman than be (Mr. Thomson) did ; no per-
son in that house could entertain a greater feeling of re-
spect for him. He (Mr. Thomson) had been wholly
unconnected with him in politics; but not only was Mr.
Huskisson the object of his admiration for the great
talents be possessed, but by his kindness when he (Mr.
Thomson) was a very young man. Dy the advice
and admonitions of that great man he had greatly
profited, and it would be most ungrateful, on his
part, if he did not speak of his memory in terms of
the highest respect. But what were the circumstances
under which that letter was written ? Mr. Huskisson
was writing to his constituents for the purpose of de-
fending himself as they did not go the full length of the
opinions he had expressed. Mr. Huskisson bad argil.
menrs to urge with that view, and he was obliged to make
use of the most specious for that purpose.—(Hear, hear,
and a laugh.) Now be (Mr. Thomson) asked whether
the letter thus written was to be taken as the real opinion
of Mr. Huskisson in preference to repeated declarations
of a contrary nature made by him ? His right hon. friend
(Sir J. Graham) said that Mr. Huskisson had never
changed his opinion as to the policy of the corn laws. Now
if lie (Mr. Thomson) was not very much mistaken, he
had heard Mr. Huskisson declare in that house, and, if
not in the house, at any rate somewhere else, that he was
not to be bound by that letter. But was that letter to be
considered as expressing the private and independent opi-
nions of that statesman ? Might it not rather be said that
he was looking to some object when he wrote the letter
—(Hear, and a laugh.) On the motion which he (Mr.
C. P. Thomson) brought forward on the subject of tax-
ation on the 25th of March, 1830, Mr. Huskisson made
use of some remarkable expressions of a directly con-
trary tendency to those in his letter. It should be, re-
collected that that was sixteen years after he had written
the letter.

An HON. MEMBER asked the right bon. gentleman
whether Mr. Huskisson was canvassing his constituents
when be wrote the letter?

Mr. C. P. THOAISON would be the last man in
that houss who would throw any imputation on the me-
mory of the late Mr.,Huskisson, but it ought to be remem-
bered that that lamented gentleman was defending his
conduct to his constituents; but he (Mr. Thomson) did
not mean to say, that when the letter was written, the
opinions expressed in it were conscientiously entertained
by Mr. Huskisson. The opinion, however, that he ex-
pressed in that house in 1830 was after the country had
had experience of the corn law of 1628, to which his right
hon. friend (Sir J. Graham) had referred, as if Mr. Hus-
kisson had expressed his approbation of it. On the occa-
sion alluded to, Mr. Huskisson said—" It was his unal-
terable opinion, that it was impossible to uphold the corn
laws that then existed, together with the then amount of
taxation, or to increase the national prosperity and pre-
serve the national faith ; that those laws could be re-
pealed without affecting the landed interest, and if that
were at once done, he had no doubt whatever that the
people would be relieved from their distress."—(Hear,
hear.) Teat was the answer he (Mr. Thomson) adduced
to the declaration of Mr. Huskisson, read by his right
hon. friend (Sir J. Graham). He (Mr. Thomson) took
the declaration of the man of mature mind—(Hear,
hear)—and he would ask any hon. member to say that he
did not value an opinion given after a series of years of
most important experience, more than one expressed
after a short reflection.—( Hear, hear, hear.) But what
did the letter of Mr. Huskisson really state ? In the letter
' of Mr. Huskisson fault was found with the alterations
that had been made in the policy of the country as re•
garded the trade in corn ; and it declared that for a long
time the country had been pursuing a vicious course of
policy. It was also stated that a free trade in corn would
be detrimental to all interests. Now, how far Mr. Hus•
kisson had changed his opinio❑ on the subject he (Mr. C
R Thomson) had already shown. But he would bring
against Mr. Huskisson another authority, who had an-
swered him so completely, had referred to so many
facts, had gone into such exact calculations, and bad
adduced such important arguments on the subject, that it
would be unnecessary for him (Mr. Thomson) to do more
than request the attention of the house whilst he referred
to a few passages. They were from a work that he would
recommend to the attention of every hon. member in that
house ; and he was sure that his right hon. friend would
not undervalue it. The book he alluded to was entitled
" A Free Trade in Corn the true Policy of the State.
By a Cumberland Landlord."—(A laugh, and cries of
" Hear, hear, hear.") He (Mr. Thomson) was anxious
to refer to that work because he found his own opi-
nions and sentiments expressed in much better lan-
guage and in a much more forcible manner than he
could put them. (The right hon. gentleman then
proceeded to read some extracts from the pamphlet he
alluded to. They were to the effect that, since 1765, when
the great alteration was made in the policy of the
country •ps regarded the corn laws, and when the sup-
ply of corn and cattle to the home market was almost
secured to the English agriculturists, the situation of the
farmers had not been materially improved.) There was
the most conclusive evidence, founded on admitted fact,
that the restrictions on the importation of foreign corn
had nut benefited the farmer. Although the price of corn
had been doubled between 1780 and 1806, and at the
same time commerce had been greatly injured, and that
during those iutermediate periods that the trade in corn
was open, commerce and agriculture were most prosperous,
he (Mr. C. P. Thomson) could not help saying that it
was delightful to find, when he wanted an answer to Mr.
Huskisson's letter, that he could refer to so able an autho-
rity as the writer of that book. When he had such wea-
pons at hand he did not want any other armoury to go to.
(The right hon. gentleman then proceeded to read
another extract from the pamphlet in answer to Mr. Hus-
kisson's remark that a free trade in corn would be detri-
mental to all interests, in which the writer proceeded to
show that the manufacturers were greatly injured by the
operation of the corn laws, and quoted Dr. A. Smith,
who stated that the Yorkshire manufactures declined
from 1756 to 1766.} The right hon. gentleman then
proceeded--The author of the pamphlet, not satisfied
with the opinions of Dr. Smith, fixed the date of the
decline in the manufactures at the period when the
change in the corn laws was made. Until 1763, he
said the trade in corn was free and commerce was
prosperous ; but in 1766, after the restrictions had been
imposed, commerce declined. He (Mr. C. P. Thomson)
was satisfied with that authority, and he quoted.it because
the opinions in it were stated in a better manner than he
could express them. He thought that what he had stated
was a sufficient answer to the letter of Mr. Huskisson.
He had shown what had hitherto been the consequences of
imposing restrictions on the corn trade, and he would ask
the house to consider what would be the consequences of
continuing them. A rapid decline of manufactures, the
embarrassment of the shipping and mercantile interest!.
Of course that would be attended with a want of employ-
ment. The prevalence of distress among the labouring
classes would be followed by an increase of the poor rates,
by an increase of crime, by a diminution of the public
revenue, and by a want of public confidence, and, more
than all, by the certain eventual ruin of the agricultural
interest itself. Such were the bitter prospects that a
blind and selfish policy held out to those who endeavoured
to grasp at undue gains, and at advantages not within its
power.—(Hear.) He had taken the last observation from
the pamphlet h had before referred to, and he was con-
vinced that his right hon. friend would regard it with
respect as coining from a Cumberland landlord. He would
now proceed to the question of fluctuations. Now how
did that matter stand ? He would ask whether there
had really been, as had been asserted by almost all the
honourable gentleman who had opposed the motion,
less fluctuation in the price of corn under
the last corn bill than at any former period ?--
(Hear, hear.) To what period did the noble lord who
cheered refer ? Did he refer to the measure of 1815
(Hear, hear.) Now he (Mr. Thomson) would comp ire
the prices for a few years previous to that time, and a few
year, previous to the present yeas. The noble lord per-
hai s would say that he (Mr. Thomson) ought to take
years of peace ; but he would give the same aliswer that
his right hon., friend (Sir J. Graham) gave yesterday to
an lion. gentleman, who said that a comparison could ❑ot
be made between years of war and peace, namely, that he
would then take a period after 4+15, The hon. mem-

ber for Essex would probably say that the corn law of
1815 was much worse than the present corn law. He
(Mr. Thomson) thought, therefore, hon. gentlemen could
not object to his taking a period in which the corn law of
1815 was in operation, and taking a few years previous.
It might be said that by acting thus he would go into a
period of both war and peace. But be begged the house
to recollect, that with one slight exception, the whole pe-
riod between 1790 and 1818 was a period of war. He
would therefore go back to a period of peace, when the
trade in corn was almost free. He was aware that it was
stated in the report of the agricultural committee that
there was no accurate returns of the average prices of
corn previous to 1792. He had, however, met with
some returns and statements as to the price of corn
which led to very important conclusions. He confessed
that he was surprised to see it stated in the agricultural
report that there were no returns previous to 1792.
-Did not the committee look to the act of 1770 ?-
Were they ignorant of it ? He knew that under that
act the averages were not struck in so perfect a man-
ner as they were then, or as they were even in 1815 or
1792. At the same time, however, under the act he had
just referred to, some important averages were made. By
the act of 1770, the average price of corn in the London
market, should be published in the Gazette at fixed
periods. He would take, therefore, the average price of
corn for a number of years then, and compare it with the
averages for a similar number of years from 1819. He
found, that taking the five years from 1829, the highest
average price of wheat for any year was 665. 4d., and the
lowest average price was 525. 10d. The average price of
1831 was 665. 4d., and the average price for 1833 was
525. 10d., thus making a difference between the average
of the highest year and the lowest year of 13e. 6d. He
would alto take from 1771 to 1776, the five first years
under the operation of the act of 1770. He found during
that period the highest average price of corn for any one
of those years was 525. Bd., and the lowest yearly ave-
rage was 475. 2d., thus making the greatest difference
only ss. 6d. He would then take the five :years prior,
from 1781 to 1785. He found that the highest average
for any of those years was 525. SJ. The lowest yearly
average was 445. 81, thus showing the greatest differ-
ence to be Bs. Now, he begged hon. members to
recollect that the greatest difference in the average of
the five years under the corn law of 1818 was 13e. 6d.
He would ask them whether what he had just read
was not sufficient to show that there was greater fiuc-
tuatien in prices at present, than there was formerly.
Did it not show that the corn law that had been passed
to prevent fluctuation had failed in its object? But
he would not stop there. He was prepared to contend,
however, that taking yearly averages did not furnish
anything like a correct criterion by which to judge of
the extent of fluctuations in the course of a year. The
price of corn at one period of a year might be 80s a
quarter, and at another 40e., and yet the yearly average
might make it appear that the price was only 60s. Under
such circumstances, the country might labour under all
the evils of the greatest fluctuation iu prices, and yet it
would not be apparent. - (Hear, hear.) He would,
therefore, adopt a course which he thought would make
the matter much clearer to the house. He would take a
period between the passing of the last corn bill and the
present, and take the highest and lowest average prices,
not fur years, but for periods of six weeks. He would
compare those averages with similar averages that had
been made of the price of corn between 1783 and 1791.
He obtained the latter averages from returns printed in
the Gazette of the price of corn in the city of London,
and signed by the Lord Mayor. The returns undoubt-
edly were only the returns of prices of wheat in London,
hut that would rather tell against his argument than if
Ise took the whole country, as it must be quite clear that
in small mat kets the quentity as well as the price was to
be taken into calculation. He would take from 1783,
and be found that the highest and lowest average prices
of corn, as given by the Lord Mayor, and published
in the Gazette, was as follows : - In 1784 the
highest average price of wheat was 48e. 2d.,
and the lowest was 41s. 10d., making a difference of
6s. 4d. ; in 1785 the highest average price was 475. 5d.,
and the lowest was 445. 6d., making a difference
of 2s. 11d. ; in 1786 the highest average price was
465. 2d., and the lowest was 435. 10d., thus making a
difference of 2s. 4d. ; in 1787 the highest average was
445. 10d., and the lowest was 365. Id. ; that which was
the largest difference was Ss. 9d. ; in 1788 the highest
average was 455. ld., and the lowest 425. 9d., making a
difference of 2s. 4d. ; and in 1789 the highest average was
549. 1 ed., and the lowest 475., thus making a difference
of le. ; the highest sraristion was Bs. Ved., and the
lowest 2s. 4d. They then came to the fluctuations since
the bill was passed, which was to fix the price, and of
course to prevent fluctuations. It certainly was not de-
scribed by Mr. Canning as going that length ; but he said
that under it the priees would fluctuate between 655. and
755. In 1828 the highest average price of wheat (taking
the six weeks' average) was 755. 3,1., the lowest average
price 565., thus m king a variation in:price of not less than
19e. 3d. ; in 1829 the highest average price was 755. 3d ,
the lowest was 565. 3d., making a difference of 19s. ;
in 1830 the highest average was 725. 11(1., and the low-
est was 565. ld., making a difference of 16s. 10J.-
(The right hon. gentleman, in consequence of some inter •
ruption, did not give the average prices for 1831.) The
averages for 1832, taking the six weeks also, the highest
price was 635. 5d.. and the lowest 525., thus snaking a
difference of 11 s. If any hon. member would take the
trouble to examine the statement he had just made, he was
satisfied that it would be found to be correct. It showed
that, so far from the last corn law giving fixity of price,
there had been greater fluctuation in the price of wheat
under that act, than at any former perio,l. He con-
tended also that a fluctuating scale of duties was most in-
jurious to the consumer, and was, above all, injurious to
the party hon. gentlemen said that they were most anxious
to protect. He wished to allude to what took place in
1830. It would be in the recollection of many lion.
members that it was much feared that the harvest of 1630
would prove a very bad one ; the greatest fears were ex-
pressed on the subject, and above all on the Corn Ex-
change. The price of corn rose rapidly in June and July,
he believed so much as 2e., 45., and 6s. a week on the
quarter. The harvest came on, and was a moderate one;
although it was not of the average quantity it was of very
good quality. The farmer, of course, expected to obtain
tor the deficiency a higher price for his corn. Just pre-
vious to the harvest, however, the prices rose, so that the
duty fell to nothing, and the consequence was, that in the
course of six weeks, namely, from the sth of August to
the 30th of September, during which period it was
thought that the harvest would be deficient not less than
1,250,000 quarters of wheat were taken out of bond and
carried into the Market. The consequence was that
prices fell to a ruinous extent, and the farmers could get
nothing like a remunerating price for their corn. He
begged the house to recollect that that was under a law
framed for the protection of the farmer-under a law that
was to give him complete prosperity.-(Hear, hear.) He
asked whether it would not have been much better for the
farmer if there had been a fixed duty ? The farmer
naturally calculated on getting something more than the
average price for his produce in p, oportion to the diminu-
tion of the crop ; but he found just as the harvest cause in,
instead of prices rising or 'continuing high that in the
course of six weeks the price of wheat fell no less than
1 le. 4d. per quarter. The right hon. gentleman con-
tended that a fixed duty of from So. to 10s. the quarter,
tinder which foreign corn could come into the markets of
this country at a moderate price, instead of injuring,
would be an advantage to the home producer, as well as a
benefit to the shipping interest. He begged to call the
he shipping.average
attention of the house to the effect of the fluctuating law
upon
our t
o
ne
In order
was necessary
a giventgshmipartkielet
before
corn without loss of tim-, and hence it followed that the
instant the ports of this country were thrown open for the
admission of foreign corn the vessels on the spot were
used for the purpose. It therefore happened that by far
the larger proportion of the foreign grain imported into
our ports reached this country in foreign, and not in
British, bottoms; but would this be the case if the pre-
sent corn laws were not in being? Undoubtedly it would
not, and consequently he was justified in saying that these
laws operated most injuriously upon our shipping interest.
_-(Hear.) One of the witnesses examined before the
committee on trade of last year, Mr. Young, was asked
whether he thought that having a larger supply of foreign
corn would tend to the advantage of the bottoms of this
country. He said it would, and added that be had no doubt
a fixed instead of a fluctuating duty would be an advantage
to our shipping. The arrangement with respect to opening
of the ports of this country was such as to render the
employment of foreign vessels a matter of necessity.
the principal pe ther isnocfiopiroaellivgpnaa
srpt
tooor ft theie
aav and
dr dt
itelher
esnnie, xne,
of-
Even if our shipping were to seek for cargoes of foreign
course,
cornouut
e ds
et they
tdesyfi‘nrvedoauctl
would
chance of cleating the expenses of their voyage out and
back. Mr. Heatley, another of the witnesses examined
before the committee, gave similar evidence. He should
now at last proceed to point out the injurious effects
which this fluctuating law had upon the trade of
this country, and it was on this ground that he princi
pally founded the objection which he hail to it. Ile
must say that lie did not expect-no matter what change
might occur-to see corn much cheaper than it was at
present. It was not to the price that he so much ob-

jected as that that price should be so unequal as it was.
There was no denying the fact that we must to a certain
extent be dependant upon foreign countries for our sup-
plies ; and that being the case, the question was, what
were the best means of paying for them ? Under the ex-
isting law it was quite manifest we could not do so by
an exchange of our own manufactures. Our trade for
corn with foreign countries, instead of being:an advantage,
was considered by them as a nuisance. It disturbed the
price of their markets to a considerable extent; and he
could adduce well•supported authority to show that it af-
fected in a most injurious way the whole state of society
in Prussia and other parts of Germany, without afford•
ing the least benefit to this country. if a free communi-
cation existed, our manufactures would be received in ex-
change for the quantity of corn required, and by this means
the people of other countries would imperceptibly be led into
a taste for the articles which we produced. No taste of that
kind now existed, and, instead of coming to us as they
would do under other circumstances, the corn countries
on the continent obtained those articles with which we
could supply them from our rivals in manufactures. This
was unquestionably great injury to our trade. Within
the last five years six millions of quarters of wheat were
imported into this country, and if, instead of keeping up a
prohibitory system, we had, by admitting corn at all times
upon paying a fixed duty, inspired a taste for English pro-
duce abroad, the whole, or at all events the greater parr,
of this supply would have been paid for by an exchange
of commodities.—(Hear.) When he was concerned in
this trade he calculated the charges on kiln.dried wheat at
from Bs. to 10s. the quarter. This might be deemed a
positive loss to the producer, and he therefore asked them
whether it would not be better to adopt a system by which
such a loss would be prevented than to continue a system
by which it was mainly created? But it was said that
they would be acting imprudently if they were to depend
too much upon foreign supplies. The report of the com-
mittee to which he had before referred proved that they
must to a certain extent depend on the foreign grower,
and, that being the case, he thought they would best con-
sult the interests of this country by substituting a fixed
for a fluctuating duty. He felt surprised at the quotation
which his right hon. friend (Sir J. Graham) adduced
from the pamphlet written by Mr. Huskisson. It so
happened that, instead of sustaining his right hon. friend's
argument, the fact relied upon by Mr. Huskisson as to
the combination of foreign powers to close their ports
against the vessels of this country only weakened it.
But what was the truth ? Why, that when the ports
of foreign nations were closed against our ships we
imported a greater quantity of wheat than at any
otber period.—(Hear, hear.) No less than 1,400,000
quarters of wheat were imported into this country while
we were at war, and this fact he thought completely
negatived the inference which his right hon. friend had
drawn. His right boo. friend ha I alluded to the prices
of grain at Rotterdam, but he hail forgotten to recollect
that these prices were in a great measure attributable to
the operation of our laws ; and this was another of the
grounds of complaint which he had against them.—
(Hear, hear.) It was quite clear that hie right hon.
friend did not anticipate that a change would lower prices.
On the contrary, he said that the prices in Volhynia and
in Ireland were at par. He told them, however, that
the landed interest of this country was subject to so many
peculiar burdens that they were bound to afraid it very
large protection. Noes he (Mr. Thomson) would say,
that if it could be shown to him that the landed interest
was more burdened than the other great interests of the
country, it certainly should not only have protection, but
relief.—(Hear, hear, hear.) This be knew was a doctrine
hewahse nofriendto
injustice, entertained.
the buta
sentiments s
He quite agreed with his hon. friend the member for
must very
avow popular,
Middlesex that the laws of 1815 gave the landed interest
which
no legal claim to compensation, although perhaps it might
have an equitable claim. If, however, any such claim
existed, the best way would be for the landowners tomake
out the bill of costs ; and he, for one, would have very
great pleasure in paying it. ( Hear, and a laugh.)
His right hon. friend cited Mr. Ricardo as an authority
against any alteration of the present system. Now he
(Mr. Thomson) could quote Mr. Ricardo as an authority
for change—for a fixed duty which would operate
as an ample compensation for any loss which the land-
owner might be supposed to sustain. He should have no
objection to devote a part of the revenue arising from a
fixed duty to the relief of the landed interest, nor would
he be very niggardly as to the amount ; but that, at all
events, some change was necessary for the welfare of all
parties he was well convinced or he would not advocate it.
He now arrived at the question of time, and he must say
that if ever there was a period in which change could be
effected without risk or difficulty the present was that
period.--(Hear.) There never was a time when there
existed the same necessity for imposing only a moderate
duty on the importation of foreign corn. Any quantity
could now be obtained without disturbing prices in any
material degree, and therefore this was the moment for
altering our system without the fear of injury. But there
was a still mote powerful reason for seizing upon the
present time to effect these alterations. They could now
discuss the question with calm and sober deliberation and
wisdom, whereas if they waited until one of these sudden
fluctuations arose, either in consequence of a failing har-
vest or from some other cause, they would find it impossi-
ble to deal with the subject without creating dissatisfaction
and hostility against them in the public mind. They
would also find prior customers in the foreign markets
and if they failed in procuring a sufficient supply the re-
sult would naturally be a cry for change throughout the
country couched in less respectful terms. At the present
time our foreign trade absolutely trembled in the balance,
and foreign competition was rapidly gaining ground on the
industry of this country. Whatever was the decision of
the house, the settlement of the question could not be
much prolonged, for he would, in the words of Lord Mil-
ton, assert, that, in spite of any decision to which they
might come, the present restrictions on food could not
endure much longer.

Mr. A. BARING would not make any comment upon
either the able speech of the right hon. gentleman who bad
just sat down, or the difference of opinion which existed
between him and the right hon. baronet the First Lord of
the Admiralty. Without observing upon the manner in
which that difference of opinion was expressecl,and leaving
the right hon. gentlemen to settle their differences how
they pleased, he would call the attention of the house to
the position in which it was placed, and the question it
was called upon to decide. What was the real state of
the facts? List year they appointed committees to in-
quire into the condition of the c mninercial, shipping, and
agticultural interests of the country. And what was the
result to which those inquiries had led ? Why, that the
agricultural interest was labouring under extreme depres•
sion, and that the other interests were enjoying compara—
tive prosperity. The speech which his Majesty delivered
from the Throne recognized the same points, and the noble
lord (Althorp) had, in his place in that house, deplored
the condition of the agricultural classes while intimating
the relief which he intended affording to all parties, more
o
landed interest, and, in answer to a question that was put
ptohoer
proposedl
av s towns.w cooun2Tl
dah,eup
rt
aontvioeol lae
ogfrl
eotari
ttdh,
be
nt
and
nfidt teasat
tt
er
the
hae
Go-
vernment propose making no alteration in the corn laws
those laws which were framed for the protection of
settiaosor(nheicitmoihafa,lltythitie declared that not only did hii Majesty's ht:e
the farmer, and on which his very existence might he
said to depend—but that, if any proposition of the kind
should be brought forward, it should be met by the stre-
nuous opposition of ministers. The noble lord had certainly
used expressions to this effect, and although in the reports
that had gone abroad and the exact language which the
noble lord had used, there might be some slight shade
of difference—still the impression was, that the
noble lord had given some such assurance to
the country as that which he had stated to the house,
(Hear, hear.) But how had this assurance of the noble
lord been followed up, when, so far (rein opposing the pro-
position of the hon. member for Middlesex, the right hon.
gentleman opposite (Mr. P. Thomson) took so prominent
a lead in supporting it ?—(Cheers.) It was to this as-
surance that the noble lord was indebted for the majorities
which he had obtained, more particularly in the instance
of the malt tax; and he (Mr. firing) alluded to the cir-
cumstance only because he did not consider the noble lord
was keeping faith with the country.—(Cheers.) Could
it be said that the noble lord was keeping faith with the
agricultural interest when the principal champion in sup-
port of the motion of the hon. member for Middlesex was
the right hon. gentleman opposite the President of the
Board of Trade ?—(Cheers.) He would not say that it
was so until the fact was indisputably proved, but he at
the same time heard it insinuated that one-half of those
member's who were either officially connected with the
administration or who were its habitual supporters in-
tended to oppose the declaration of the noble lord by giving
their votes in favour of an alteration of the corn laws,
which he had assured the country should not be altered.
Whatever might be the shades of difference between what
the noble lord had really said and the words attributed to
him by the newspapers, one thing was clear, and that was,
that the impression on the public mini was, that he had
made such a deci 'ration, and therefore that lie had not
kept faith, as lie was bound to have done if he respected
hil word.—(Hear, hear.) Ile (Mr. Baring) would not
hallow the right lion. gentleman through the whole of his
speech, but he would take two branches of it i and

oche es
to agriculture. It wbaesr
ipwnahrtithcohef
for
rrmsyt
beaoprols.acmepeamsctonsider the cireurnstanees d
or
zenutbe
protectiona
scio imddp
complete
protectinn was first afforded in 1815, for before that tir ,
able degree than at present.—(Hear, have occousr.ver,
notwithstanding occasional variations might
the landed interest was protected even in a more c°Aftiedt 6
the par
variety of regulations they had at length come t°
_,. 0
sent law, which was made in 1828, and although at the
time the measure was proposed, be disapproved of
400;
provisions of it (Hear from Mr. Hume.) Le
r,,)
member for Middleses cried " Hear," as if he L'' 'ego
had said that his disapprobation extended to the prote.„be
that was given by the measure. He bad not n could
dived "°
make any such admission.—(Cheers.) He eon ~..„ he
that protection had proved sufficient, notwihtana_wee_.#
doubted it at the time the change was proposed.
_Be 7;
prepared to maintain that the outcry against th
under
m leaks eon ,it
laws did not originate in any evil felt by the Poop —OOl
by a class of pet.
their operation, but had been got up
i an interferets
who went about and told them, " Her, •
get _
re
with your food; if you get rid of it, you wid
n h 0
cheaper, and have a loaf for half the price you 01/_c;#
for it." Now, it was very well known that when
t.
o"_b
of that description were stated to public bodies: trola
made by ever so doubtful a class of persons, th Y
that
11_4
never fail to excite popular feeling. Seeing
felt
l üb.i,
proceedings had been going on, he bad
duty to make inquiry in the city of London, andat the
inquiries had confirmed him in the opinion, th 0
.40
respectable classes of the community in the niethr Pouoi
had by no means joined in the clamour
believe that the greater part of the articles which had.6rof
paared upon the subject had been supplied by Ihe grant'
foreigners who had large quantities corn is the et
been raised by a few persons. He bad alsowir)iecaa°l'....l°
ries of this country ready to come into sale if the Woo
could be opened.—(Hear.) This he was satisfied waste
could
case in the metropolis ; bus, at the same time fie 0
perfectly aware that, when this sort of agitation bad 0060
arisen, nothing was more easy than for any perso
..,.
pulation That this had been dome was in some it"..l
po .
sure to be gathered ft om the class of gentlemen who 07:1
forward as the principal supporters of the motion iu.ct to
spread tbe flame amongst a numerous class of the te.'";
house. They bad resorted to the sort of threat wilt.; to
amongst others had already predicted they W 05140
overwhelmed with when deliberating upon greatoPufree
questions, namely, " If you do not do this of yo.rfeld
will, you will be compelled to do it by for the
to address..— (Loud cheers.)
He would say now, ai he had always said, that serio!,_erh
impression this sort of argument might make upon tu_e it
he trusted that as long as he had a seat in that hou,s.tq
should never influence him in the discharge of his 01'1,0
and he felt quite sure that it would fall equally haolor
upon the mass of the gentlemen whom he had the b° ,
who intinsidation was a species of argument, witie Si
knew well the feelings of English gmen se i
not be forward to nee.—(Cheers and some confuses
The right hon. gentleman the member for Mancbelut
argued the question on two points of vies'. fernierllnil:t
the present protecting low duty did not do the ay
or the labouring population any good ; and, 66f,intl;
hie had dwelt with much triumph in anticipation ur—,. tbe
immense good to be done to the foreign commerce ot4
country by its abolition, Now there was one arguraent W:7;
the right hon. gentleman had used in maintaining the plo'
positions which he hoped would be weighed well by the r ,i 0
He had told them very plainly that he was not about Leiweed,
He must obserohet ow;
them cheaper bread.—(Hear, hear.) He had said, in sok
that farmers were to have better prices for their corn,. ..ope
that when gentlemen were about to harangue
therefore, were to be better ofF.—(Hear, hear.) Ile chd,i'heis
topics at public meetings, where political incendiarism Wc_Pot
easy, that they would take care to bring snto their a
to
this declaration of the right hon. member for Man°ll°.s„t# lle
(Cheers and laughter.) Upon these two different Pewb.., re.
First,
...,lu'e to
would trouble the house with some remarks•
tense classes, though in 1815 he opposed, hear
that
,03,,,,
gard to the state of the farmer and the labourer. 11,, oa to
always considered that this was a question of pr:tet.r sr
as str IlYtosP
could do, the increase of the protecting duty frein d?:0, tliet
He felt it his duty to do so because the country bod Jd AO.
cordingpvremergedueheek sdt t
toenf.
,rrmoittgmahhhkeoetenra war of unprecedented
andwo
ferteh
the protection.
raotes
necessaryteat ti
oe n.of
wgTriheneadti
great
i.dge.eaurtapn
adversaryge
fe in: the
et
Waas
orfto
pill eut
el.)c°.,'
ora'n
,e, ow,
wavinaodsu
tol
would not
es:cot
tli therefore ee faonr
prudent,e
inthdeopu eganhndtde
it, Iti a.tu consequentlya t
osmoses
unsealti°plc'''.
posesstaaied.„,,c:
to be carrying into effect l'fr*
t this
wereune awno
fussed; awhceoaolrnsnet.
beingoen gentlemannoel
odtaf faewel di
chettlehvt
doctrine
that the
cgitt:Puihsrhi Pluoieae:
spYtfiipesproo.ushtrfftphet pe dgetrfohsoeirlirtnutte dgli(i 1)
e°,til
it,ite'hia7:ol'.YvionOgti x
had.'s
ocu oc ii...,,1 1
i.
drthiny of d, for thelleoed
duty'
buThis was what he contended the house was now
r
to do.
gentleman the member for Ma he;ot
talked of not taunting the people with being theoris.tbod
philosophers, the objection he took to tilheupskhisi 81o°sopshepr:;:itelsg4
when they thought of throwing their sc
communities, such as existed in this country, Ida`l.„ooe:,,
were in the midst of other old communities Which b......' OP'
them on all sides throughout the European system
505 Vosi
made uP of old prejudices and old associations, b ut,iiiji:
which it was impossible that men could be driverl fuptoe Oil
purpose. With such materials as these tO ur° .v, just ,:ji
went as if they were dealing with a new contluuT_,feopeOuo
blished at the Swan River, where he certainly
that they should go, and apply their principles--o%;_b, 10,.
least, they would destroy nothing, whatever theY li__. op!
- the P'" tlk°
create.—(Hear, and laughter.) NiThere wa' causes eiti
would not take into his view all the gist
gdpio ;off
must arise to impede the operation of drst Pr nerafted
settled systems full of complicated interests, e---. so
so
and interwoven with every engagement of societY r ~,,i 0 dtbe
He was in reality a child in intellect who attempted et
r)
with these things without taking all the eleMedn laugi'tegod
case into his consideration.--(Loud cheers, anchoter, for
The right hon. gentleman the member for IVl3naperrot
those who supported him, particularly the WO "of it or
Middlesex, had dwelt upon the superior advantag'co'
, IMO at if
manufacturing country and a great cononercia, told thsje
every other description of eraployment. we were
a" free tc,e
they only listened to them, if we would only adO woul4la,
in corn, we should double our manufactures, ther! dof JI.:1.
no end to our foreign commerce, and that, lus.,Le:oo Prer
tressed agricultural population as they pretentlede".,l plt' j
all the country was to be divided into ornamental pipe
ground, and all the people to be as flourishing s:,sEdiatit.s
as the manufacturers now were. Hem ust coul"_,,re ie ",,,,
peered somewhat strange, if all the other of
o,,tiieite:,
a palmy condition, that they should be complaitnbiey
sad
tection enjoyed by the agriculturists,
i‘nvei'° at the Po or 0,,
ruined. Why, it was the rich Mao begg-- - way any "
door.—(flear, hear.) He denied that there
any increase- '4O
look for this increase in our foreign trade,
orfrom such a sPtiiti
in the demand for our manufactures arising
would ptos
He denied that any sacrifice they might Make
e• ,
the other powers of Europe, all of whom had exclustv... iapo.6.
of their own, to receive our own manufactures to
ht7.o";
of their own. "They will recbive you," said the poi;
her, " with great attention. Your great philoslibej'coal
ring—(Laughter)—wiil be puffed from one end rift":,,,iiis 00
to the other in their newspapers as the greatest .", yOO aid
ever came amongst them—(Shouts of laughter)--bu" ) ' '
getue nothing else from them." laugbiertio 000..; i
—(Continued
t the right hon. member for Manchester ondertioOtc-f,„ '
member for Middlesex recently join their e',', 1,0;4
worthynot trio—to those of the illustrious doctor, 3'1.1 01 foi
able proceededie through France and GermanY vit ot,s? oft
was obtain any concessions from those govertif;the sill
hut,the experience they had had ; they had gi redo o'et4
gentleman from year to year to bring them P „here ti
st
return for the sacrifices they had made, and OW ' alit
Lleeey ?—(Hear, hear.) He was one of those who
nt'; o ofp
t trade was most desirable if its accomPlishine de ''''fill'l'
ticable, and that considerable sacrifices shouid bona
..,,,
iht- But the right hon. gentleman must now lw! 1:t-00.0
e came in contact with official Men in raris--he llsc,it :9(
experie
_'.uts, ~
reason to know that it was so from his own
the easiest thing in the world to get every geepossieAs;oo,ooo
their desire to reciprocate the advantages You ~A tDeocji
cept the last act.—(Hear, and a laug) Weil, ow
too
hon. gentleman had told them that we must u°,l% e 5.0,70
thing done in France, for the people of Bdea..o stn, 110
such a stir—(Great laughter)—that something mu ofts'lSs
done. Let him call to the recollection of the lieu Thelte
the peculiar situation of the people of Bordeaux' wanted el
for a free trade with all the world, because theYvey wired
for
their wines, and wine was chunk ere e Olt /4,1„' 4
whether the manufactures they consumed catuch ig - gor 4
ter or Rouen. The people of Lyons were ":. Rouerh_agit
position. But would the manufacturers 0. , to rit; ,
manufacturers of hardware in France, Consent
ao 4,
our manufactures ? It was a "e thallirl the off'
14'
to know that the people of Bordeau% --(5,1 their ~,,5
of Lyons wished to sell their silks and Arable
and were very favourable to the right h, oier '..," or ,1
man's plans ; but it was necessary that 111' and ", I'
iliiild ; Dordesn'f"
in France should be of the same
~,, in woeo 0011
that the popularity of free-trade doctrine'-,, house ; ,ateli
Lyons was hardly a ground upon which t''/Rhea ',jolt 1°;t1
dently proceed to a repeal of the corn laWs• 014017 3,00
that some canton in Switzerland had rOde 4 dill. ' jr 01
bracing the purest principles of political scot
beer:0010,
come from a club of economists it could net b„, he,,, Ili
iorthodox, and no doubt the right bon. gentletu'riticivOte
'tit as a triumphant proof of the march of his re place, ilipla
ere again it unfortunately happened that t '..ia 0,1 el oi
situated that no other people in the world cou,., a trt° ,O #
it
tourse with them.—(Loud laughter.) There vfro fr5..,0„,00
effect changes of this nature. But noW, as ii tee ' 01.4',"
measure of that sort had to run the gauntlet of ',,, isotle
co be affected by it, and would never come to t,"to see' 0
the right honourable gentleman vainly llePet:er 004
same with respect to Russia. She :pursued 0.,a 00,,
Wave system, holding the door in her hande tuovilLaw
upoii us whenever for the pretection of b / (
_ ,