The Sun.
London, England, 1845-06-11 00:00:00

worth and station, to the fact, that %hen food was dear and

high,-- the causes assigned fur it were of a somewhat different
chaiacter. It was alleged; Is the causes of the evil, that ma-
chittery had increased so Inah—(Hear, hear)—that the mis-
OM was owing to the prAedings of the grinding capitalists;
that ovni4Opuiation was at Ahe bottom of it ; that joint-stock
banks were the originating source ; that the field of employ-
ment was itiOitnited for the people—any and all of these rea-
sons were assit(tied as the causes of dear bread and low wages.
In 1841 and `11332 these were the explanations given of national
distress, while himself, and those who acted with him, and had
done so from the beginning, were sneered at for bringing for-
ward the old story about the corn-laws and free trade. Now,
what was the state they were in in 1845, only three years since
those opinions had been stated. Since then machinery hid
greatly extended, the people had increased 1,500,000; joint-
stock banks were more prolific than ever, and there never was a
time money was so plentiful. It could not, therefore,be said that
these were the causes of dear bread and low wages. Yet the
Hon. Gentlemen on the other side the House were bound to
give an account of the improvement. The Ministry were
bound to give an explanation of it. The account which the
Right Hon. Baronet at the head of her Majesty's Govern-
ment had already given was—first, that the improvement had
arisen from the reduction in the price of food ; and secondly,
reduction in the amount of protective duties. He said there
was no other way of accounting for it. He denied that the
seasons had been the sole cause, and took credit that the im-
provement was due, in a great measure, to what the Govern-
ment had done in relaxing the protective principle. This was
the especial doctrine from whence all the vast blessings
were alleged to have flowed. The Hon. Gentlemen on the
other side of the House ought to complain of the policy of
the Government, if they think that high prices are a blessing,
while they on his (Mr. Villiers's) side of the House, had a
right to complain of the Government stopping short. The
advocates of protection, if they were true to their own princi-
ples, had a right to complain of the Government going too far ;
while the advocates of total repeal had an equal right to com-
plain of their not going far enough.—( Loud cheers.) It was
the tendency of society—and the Right Hon. Baronet (Sir
R. Peel) had admitted as touch—to pay less attention to agri-
cultural pursuits, and more to manufacturing operations—to '
leave the cultivation of the soil, for the production of other
articles of wealth. This, at the present moment,
was the tendency of all progressive countries. For-
merly the greater proportion of the people of thin country
were engaged in agriculture ; now there was only one-third
engaged in agriculture, while there were two-thirds employed '
in manufactures. Now, what would be the effect of reducing
the supply of food to this population by the restrictive system ?
Why, that those who had gone into manufacturing pursuits
must either return back to their original employments on the
land to raise food, or else return burdens to their respective
parishes and become paupers. There being two-thirds of the
people engaged in manufactures and commerce, it was quite evi-
ent that when food was scarce that prices must rise, and all
other branches of trade suffer.—( Hear, hear.) Their means
being exhausted in the purchase of food, they would cease pay-
ing for manufactured goods; and all who were employed in the
production of such articles would thus be made to suffer from
the want of a market.—( Hear.) The consequence of such a
system was a general deficiency of employment, a reduction of
wages.—( Hear, hear.) This was the true explanation why
low wages were found to accompany dear food. The effect of
throwing so many people out of employment was to produce
an enormous amount of evil—( Hear, hear )—not only in the
suffering inflicted on those thus deprived of a market for their
labour, but in the waste of capital in the shape of parish relief,
and the demoralisation that accompanied it. The law that now
existed was of no use, unless it was for the purposes of restric-
tion, and what was the true character of restriction he had just
shown.—( Hear, hear.) He would now show the revolting
and disgusting effects that followed the limited supply of food
under this restrictive system. He would not read the
reports of 1842, respecting the state of the popula-
tion, so as to harrow up the feelings of the House,
but would merely call their attention to the facts
ccntained in them in order to illustrate his case. They fulls
justified what hart been stated by the Noble Lordrehe Secretary
fire Foreign Affairi;that "'scarcity was the greatest curse in-
flicted by Providence on the country." Though he (Mr.
Villiers) agreed with the Noble Lord, in his estimate of the
evils of scarcity, he differed with him in considering it a vi-
sitation from Providence. Art eloquent gentleman had said
that they should examine a little ere they committed blas-
phemy, by ascribing that to the Deity which arose from
their own erceneuus proceedings.—( Hear, hear.) Scarcity
was a curse, yet, at the time of great scarcity in this coun-
try, at that period to which he had referred, a pestilence
had broke out in a transatlantic city, produced by a store of
provisions that could not command a market.—(Loud cries
of " Hear, hear.") The people of England were complain-
ing of scarcity, and the people of another country, within
ten days' sail of them, were suffering from a pestilence, be-
cause they could not get rid of their provisions.—(Hear. )
They should be cautious how they charged the Deity with
causing scarcity, when those things were taking place.
The Hon. Gentlemen opposite who were such great advo-
cates for protection—the Hon. Member for Essex, and the
Hon. Member for Lincoln—knew very well of these evils, and
he asked them how they could reconcile themselves to pass
them over, without giving it due consideration—( Hear, hear)
—how they could oppose a thorough revision of the whole
question ?—( Hear, hear.) The Ministry, and those who sup-
ported the Ministry, had considered it right to enlarge the
field of industry, to relieve raw material from the duty which
pressed upon it, and to make other modifications and ameliora-
tions of their commercial code ; but up to that moment they
had not dealt w ith the article of corn.—( Hear, hear.) True,
an alleviation had been made in the English corn-law scale,
and there ha.l horn a Canadian Corn Bill ; and in both cases
the Rtght Hon. Baronet had made the alterations not to in-
crease the quantity of corn so as to remove distress, but for
something else. The former corn-law, it was said, had not
answered the purpose for which it was passed, and the present
one was introduced to remedy its deficiencies ; but that neither
it, or the Canada Bill, were ever intended as free-trade mea-
sures, but rather to meet the particular exigencies of the times.
The Right Hon. Gentleman the Secretary for the Home De-
partment had stated that the departure from the Corn Bill of
1815, and the Canada Bill, were neither of them intended to
increase food, but to remove defects in the working of previous
taws. It was not long since 111 (Mr. Villiers) heard that
same Right Hon. Gentleman speak of the great increase of
population—of its increasing yearly at the rate of 380,000 per-
runs, while, according to the same authority, there were 1,500,000
paupers in Eegland.—(Loud cries of " Hear, hear.") To
meet this state of things he (Mr. Villiers) contended there
Must be a change in the system of protection—an alteration
in the corn-laws.—( Hear, hear.) They had the fact of a
yearly increase of 380.000 in the population, and 1,500,000
pauper, or one-tenth of the whole population in the richest
country in the world; and yet, in the face of these facts, a
protective corn.law was maintained.—( Hear, hear.) Go
throughout the world and they would find allusion continually
made to English pauperism and English corn-laws.—(Cheers. )
The two were invariably mentioned together. They were the
scandal of England throughout Europe—pauperism, and the
corn-laws as the cause of pauperism. He said, upob these
considerations, he had a good right to call for another settle-
ment of this question. He had strong grounds for saying that
up to that time that relaxation of protection, as a measure of
relief to the people, had not been conceded. The law, though.
modified in its machinery, still remained the same in prin-o
ciple, and, in his opinion, was as little calculated to meet the
wants and circumstances of the people as the law of 1815.
Precisely the same evils were felt in Holland and in
Belgium as in this country, from the same sort of tarn-
pertne with the corn-laws. This country could no longer rely
for a supply of corn on those countries, neither could they rely
upon France, for the restrictive system existed in that country
too. The agriculturists of this country gave no encourage-
ment to increase their supply, and he had seen letters from per-
sons engaged in the Baltic trade, which stated that the Ca-
nada Corn Bill had created still greater uncertainty than before.
The change which had been made in the banking system,
though it might be beneficial to them, he thought would be
attended with ruinous consequences to the manufacturers, for
bullion must be sent out for corn. People must, at all events,
have food, and the revulsion would be sudden and severe.
He dill not expect that any member of the Government would
put forward that wretched argument, " local taxation," as a
reason for not dealing with this measure. If local taxation
was a valid reason for refusing change, the responsibility
would be shifted from the landowners to the gentlemen, who
could deal with it as they pleased ; but it was idle nonsense to
talk of local taxation as an argument. He denied that the
land had greater burdens than it should have, and if the land-
holders were saddled with greater burdens, why did they al-
ways refuse inquiry ?—( Hear, hear.) No, he did not believe
there were any such peculiar burdens, and, what was more, he
believed the landowners themselves were not sincere in
the opinion that there were such burdens.—( Hear, hear. )
But if they existed, let them at once be shifted. Let the landed
interest bring in their account, and he would venture to say
that the advocates of free trade would deal with it in a spirit of
fairness and candour. Let the landowners, he repeated, be
indemnified, but not by making the food of the people scarce.
The Right Hon. Gentleman had, on a previous evening, said
that in years of plenty capital punishments were less. 'there
was no doubt but disease, sickness, and misery followed, as a
consequence of dear food. The House seemed willing to
consult the advantage of the public on any measure but this.
They took care to have proper railway communication throueh
the country, and when a railway project was submitted the
Legislature took care that good security should be given for
carrying it out, so that the public might not in
any way suffer from high fares or inconvenient and
dangerous conveyance.—( Hear.) Why was not the same
sort of security exacted from those who undertook to supply
the country with food ?—( Hear, hear.) In the case of rail-
ways free and open competition was allowed and monopoly dis-
couraged; in corn, competition was prevented and monopoly en-
couraged and fostered.—( Hear, hear.) The Secretary at
War said, let the landed interest alone. Why, they were let
alone from 1834 to 1838, and they all recollected what the con-
sequence was—starvation and crime in abundance. In March,
18314, he brought forward a motion on the corn-laws, but he
was then told by two or three embryo Dukes (Cleveland and
Buckingham), then Lords Chandos and Darlington, that
his interference was unseasonable—in four months after
there was the most appilling scarcity. What security had
the Government taken against the recurrence of such a
state of things ? None. Yet the people of England
were in a bad condition. The Report of Lord
Devon's Commission showed that thousands of the
people of Ireland were starving, and the people of Scot-
land were in so destitute a condition that the Govern-
ment felt it necessary to introduce a poor-law for that coun-
try......( Hear, hear.) In short, no argument had been adduced,
grounded onyrinciple against the repeal of these laws. They
could never; show that the people of England were not en-
titled to hats free access to the means of subsistence. No en-
couragement:had been shown even to a mitigation of the pre-
sent system: His Noble Friend the Member for London had
brought forward a most moderate proposal, but it met with
,ato support from the other side. They had even refused
to r4geive food from one of their own colonies, though
it se ea., distant
as the autipodes.—( The Hon. Member
allu ' to the
t Australian corn measures.6)s. Tlht ewaßsiognhlty
4H505n..;
Bare
expoioed that corn would he at
and t consequence was that 10,000,000/. of money were
saved to the people of this country. He thought the present
moment, when prices were low, the most favourable moment
for an abolition of these laws, for?
change. th e shock would not be felt
by those who most dreaded he
any appeal to those Hoe. Gentlemen who
He would not make
tLenwertelsupposed to be
p
interested in the continuance of the r
thing that could he said hail been said. Their I ibEervaltrtYy-,
invoked.i,
justice, honesty, and honour, had been frequently
They hail been besought on behalf of the working e
for she sake of the peace and general prosperity of the country
—and by everything which could move them as men of sense
and feeling. He would only say, that if they did not now
consent to the motion, he should more deeply regret it than
ever he had done before, because he had considered the present
a mote fitting opportunity fir abolishing the law than had
hitherto been presented. The Hon. Member concluded, amid
cheers, by moving " That this House resolve itself into a Com-
mittee of the whole House, for the purpose of considering the
following resolutions :
" That the corn-law restricts the supply of food, and pre-
vents the free exchange of the products of labour. "
That it is therefore prejudicial to the welfare of thecoun-
try, especially to that of the working classes, and has proved
delusive to those for whose benefit the law was designed. _ .
That it is expedient that all restrictions on corn should
be now abolished."
Mr. OSWALD said that he had great pleasure in seconding
the motion, and was glad that, under the circumstances, he
should have but little to say to induce the House to listen to
the arguments of his Hon. Friend who had just sat down, for
he felt that every point of the question had been answered by

the remarks which had jut been made. In 18.15 they had
refused to admit American corn into this country, but at that
time there were no manufactures in America, and now those
manufactures formed a great staple produce of that country.
He need not, however, dilate en that point, for his Hon. Friend
had gone so fully and completely into that part of the subject,
that it was unnecessary for him to say anything, for he had fur-
nished a complete set of data to the Government. The Hon.
Member for Wolverhampton had said that since the introduce ion
of the poor-law no person in this country had been starved. But
in Scotland there were many places in the agricultural districts
among the Highlands, especially where there were many per-
sons who, chiefly from their inability to get work, were unable
to employ their natural energies, and never earned more than
23. or 3s. a week in the course of a year, hut were supported
almost entirely by their neighbours, and were, in fact,
neither more nor less than actual paupers. This he
believed was to be chiefly ascribed to the operation of
the corn-laws. In Scotland the greatest portion of the land
was let upon lease, and the farmer had therefore some oppor-
tunity of reaping the reward of his exertions. The conse-
quence was that land was nowhere more improved than it
was in that country ; indeed, the improvement had been
carried to a much greater extent than it was in England. In
his opinion this was not a farmer's question at all, for it was
simply a matter of consideration as to how the improvement
could be effected. All that was wanted was increase in the
quantity supplied to the public. This improvement, whether
speaking► commercially or agriculturally, was sure to be a slow
matter. Land had been let at its highest value, and when crops
fell 6s. or Bs. a load, all the farmers had to do was to pay as
long as they Gould, and when they ceased paying the evil would
quickly rectify itself. The landlords were the parties chiefly
interested, and he believed that they desired an alteration, and
the sooner that alteration was made, in his opinion, the better.
The Right Hon. Baronet at the head of the Government
was evidently a free trader in the proper sense of the word.
He rejoiced at it ; and he only wished that he would come out
to the fullest extent, and grant the country all it had a right to
expect from him. The Noble Lord the Member for London
( Lord J. Russell) was an out-and-out free-trader in language
and expression, but when he came to acts all his free-
trading seemed to evaporate. But he would tell. the Noble
Lord that when he expressed his opinion, and said that protec-
tion was the bane of agriculture, the country would expect
something more than mere words of him, if he desired to con-
tinue the leader of the Liberal party. With these few words,
he should, with great pleasure, second the motion of his Hon.
Friend.

whatever to do with the question.—( Hear, hear.) And now
he would ask, was it right, or reasonable, or sensible, that.
Hon. Members should hold back in this sort of way, when
they might have the merit of voting for it now, in compliance
with common sense, instead of yielding to force or menace,
and at a time too when the whole change might be effected
with the greatest possible ease and safety.—( Hear, hear. )
Mr. BUCK said he was not present at the meeting alluded
to by the Hon. Member for Wolverhampton, and therefore
knew nothing of the speeches that had been made; but this
he knew, that the resolutions passed at that meeting
were to this effect, that they unanimously agreed to cal
upon the landlords to give every opposition in
their power to this measure ; and he begged to
assure the Hon. Member that he (Mr. Buck) and his consti-
tuents fully concurred in this respect. He could also assure
the House that nothing could be more injurious to the agri-
cultural interest of the country than this constant agitation of
this question.—(Laughter, and ironical cheers.) And he
should add, that a more feeble argument from so enlightened
a Member he had never heard than his speech upon this occa-
sion.—( Laughter.) He felt great pleasure in now stating
that it was his own conviction, as well as that of his con-
stituents, that the country was greatly indebted to the Noble
Lord the Member for London for the resolutions he had
brought forward upon the subject of the condition of the la-
bouring classes ; for the discussion on that occasion elicited
the real state of the landed interest of the country. By that
discussion it had been made quite apparent that from the year
1841 to the present time, the landlords had sacrificed nearly
one-third of their income during that period, from various
circumstances. The Hon. Member for Wolverhampton had
said that the present Government had expressed their ap-
proval of this measure ; but he (Mr. Buck) believed that a
member of the Administration had said, that no man in his
senses could recommend such a measure.—(Laughter.) He
had spoken of the effects of this agitation, and now let him
ask, ought it to be kept up, after the alterations that had
already taken place? They had not only placed upon the
landlords the consequences of the tariff, but they bad also
the income-tax, and very many other indirect taxes. The
Hon. Member opposite had spoken of the comparative state of
the farmers and the manufacturers ; but he (Mr. Buck) would
contend for it that no comparison could be made between
them. He would ask what was to become of the agricultural
labourer if he could not get employment, while the manu-
facturing labourer had full work? Was he to go to the work-
house, or to emigrate to the colonies, where, it was suggested,
that land should be purchased for his occupation? He
(Mr. Buck) would contend for it that it would be more
judicious and more beneficial to this country to devise some
plan for the employment of their labourers at home than to send
them to a foreign country ; and he had no doubt that a plan
could be easily devised by which this country could be made
to produce sufficient to supply not only all the wants of the
population, but also sufficient to give employment to
the whole of the idle agricultural labourers. As to
the low rate of wages, no person could regret that more than
he did, but it was owing to the large amount of the population,
and the smallness of the capital. But he did think that
measures could very easily be proposed whereby capital could
be raised to be invested in projects for cultivating the land, and
thus giving extensive employment. Those were his reasons for
opposing this measure, to which he had always given a decided
negative, and he felt convinced he would best consult the inte-
rests of his constituents by doing so.
Mr. M. PHILIPS begged to assure the House that the
Honourable Member who had just sat down had taken
most erroneous views as to the manner in which the trade
of this country was conducted. The manufacturers were com-
pletely tied down to their manufactories, and if they were not,
or if they suspended them, they would lose their connexion,
which they would not find it so easy to renew again as a farmer
might his crops.—( Hear, hear.) That agriculture had been
lagging behind in its progress, as compared with manufactures,
was easily accounted for by the fact that landlords were too
much given to the practice of delegating their business to their
stewards, instead of looking after their properties themselves,
And this often accounted for the state of embartastruerit theY
were placed in by outliving their means. The Honourable
Member concluded by calling upon the House to adopt this
mea-ure, which he looked upon as one of the moat important
that had ever been introduced to the Leg;slature.

Mr. CHRISTOPHER, in rising to oppose the motion of
the Hon. Member opposite, was glad to observe that it was
brought forward with better taste and with less of vituperation
than it was last year or in former years. The tone, he sup-
posed, had been modified in the hope that he was more likely to
succeed with that side of the House, but he trusted that the
House would not accede to the proposal. When the system of
import duties was first introduced into this country, the same
restriction had been put on corn as on all other articles, and
no other. In the present state of prosperity, and after the
abundant harvests which we had lately enjoyed, all the artic'es
of food could be supplied to the consumer on reasonable terms.
The profits of the masters in the manufacturing districts had
for some time past been exceedingly good, and he hoped to
hear from some of the Gentlemen who professed, like the Hon.
Member who introduced this motion, to be great friends of the
working population, he hoped to hear them say that the wages
of the workmen had been equally improved, and they would
~tot then, he was sure, ever think of complaining of the corn-
law. The House had not had numerous petitions, com-
plaining of the high price of food, and he be-
lieved that if the industrial classes were delioerately asked
their opinions they would say, that they would rather that
things remained as they were. One of the objects of the Right
Hon. Baronet at the Head of the Government, in introducing
the Corn Bill, had been to provide that when, in consequence
of good harvests, there was abundance of food in the country,
the producer should obtain a reasonable remuneration for his
exertions and capital; and when, from other causes, there
was a scarcity, to permit, corn to come into,,the country at
`auch.a prteeitirwou'l'd enable the lower classes to obtain a suffi-
ciency at a moderate rate. Another object had been to pre-
vent fluctuations in price ; and certainly the fluctuations had
never been so little under any other Corn Bill. The present
corn-law was passed in 1842, but it could scarcely be said to
come into operation in the following year, for so great had
been the alarm about it, that it had entirely failed of its influ-
ence. But in the following year it did come into operation,
and on the 17th of August, 1543, which was the time when
the field operations were actively followed, and which was
always a dear time for agricultural produce, the price of wheat
was 61s. 2d. a quarter, while in the week ending on the
15th of April in the same year, it was 455. 2d. In 1814, corn
was at the highest in March, and was 565. 3d., and at the
lowest in December, when it was 455. Id. The highest price
during tie present year was 435. 3d., and the lowest 455., so
that the fluctuation had been most moderate. The Honour-
able Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. Villiers) had ex-
pressed an opinion that the abrogation of the corn-laws would
not affect wages. But when he (Mr. Christopher) saw that
there were something like 20,000,000 of quarters required for
this country,and reflected that half that quantity might be intro-
duced from foreign countries, he could not but believe that it
would displace half the labour of this country, and as the demand
for labour was, in most cases, the rule of its payment, the
price of it must evidently be reduced. Great complaint had
been made that in Wilts, and other parts of the country, the
wages of the agricultural labourer were no more than 7s. or Bs.
a week, but the wages in the great corn countries was only
from 24. 6d. to 3s. a week. He had travelled through those
countries, in order to make himself personally acquainted
with them, arid he could testify to the fact; and he
could not therefore but believe that either the wages of the
English labourer would be reduced to 2s. or 3s. a week. or
as was more probable he would be displaced altogether. The
labourer would be brought into competition with the labourer
of another country, and he must suffer for it. He had heard a
great deal of free trade as an abstract principle, and he believed
that, if it could be established, free trade would be a very
rood thing—if there could be a perfect reciprocity between the
different countries—it would be most desirable, and the tariff
had been made out in order, so far as it could be met, to meet
the case of the manufacturers, but it had proved a failure, as all
such attempts would prove, for it had invariably happened that
no sooner was any relaxation made in the duties on goods im-
ported into this country than it was met by some restriction on
the introduction of our manufactures into foreign ports. The
Hon. Gentleman who had introduced the question stated that
under any circumstances a corn-law could be introduced
which would at once settle the country. But the House
would remember that the price of corn would depend upon the
supply of that article.—( Hear.) When they had abundant
harveds, then prices were low, and it was in fact the same
way with everything else. It was admitted by the Members
of the Legislature, and indeed by the greater proportion of the
manufacturers (although it was true enough that the Hon.
Members for Durham and Stockport thought otherwise) of the
country, that considering their relations with foreign countries
it was but reasonable that the agriculturists should have some
protection given them, which they (the manufacturers) had
not, or at least that the protection given them should be placed
on a higher footing than that accorded to the mannfacturers.
The latter had the remedy in their own hands, for if they found
"a glut" in the market they had nothing to do but to shut up
their cotton-mills, and at once to throw their unemployed hands
upon the agriculturists.—( Hear, hear, and ironical cheering
from the Oppos:tten. ) Uoder those circumstances he con-
tended that protection to these two classes must differ very
widely, if not in character, at least in degree. He (Mr.
Christopher) could promise, on the part of the landlords of
England, that whenever they or the agricultural labourers were
convinced that the worth of the Honourable Gentleman
who introduced the subject were correct, and that this
was really what he stated it, a landlord's question—whenever
he could convince them of that, then he could assure that
Hon. Member no further opposition would be offered on their
part to this measure. But he would a-k the Hon. Gentleman,
if there had been any indications that the people of this country
were not as anxious that agriculture should be protected, as
the landlords themselves? Certainly no such indications had
been exhibited. Much stress had been laid on the fact, that
certain parts of England were unleased, and therefore badly
cultivated. Now, he resided in a part of the country where
no leases was the rule, and leases were the exception ; and he
could assure the House, that as much, and in many instances
more, had been taken from those lands, than from those which
had the benefit of leases. But the Hon. Gentleman had also
said that the present corn-laws were apt to make the farmers
careless and idle. It was true, that the industry of the manu-
facturers in England had been in most instances blessed with a
competence. But let the House conceive a yeoman of Lan-
cashire giving each of his family 4,0001., and one of them in-
vesting his portion in some of the speculations of Lanca-
shire, and it turning out a fortunate investment,
could it be denied that as much industry might
be evinced by other members of that family, who
had applied themselves solely to agriculture without ar••
riving at the same result? He thought they coula not come to
the conclusion that the present corn-laws gave a monopoly into
the hands of the landowners ; on the contrary, he thought that
it was but fair that they should enjoy such a degree of pro-
tection as would place them in an equally advantageous
position as the snanuracturing classes. On these grounds he
felt himself called on to reject the motion of the Hon. Member.
Gentlemen opposite spoke of class legislation. He did not see
that the present corn-law deserved the name, and he could not
help thinking that it was the duty of the Government and of
the House to apply their minds to this subject for the benefit
of all classes ; and he trusted that they would not entertain
this motion, for he could not h 1p believing that if they altered
the present law they would inflict an injury upon all classes of
the community which it might not be in their power afterwards
to remedy.

Sir JAMES GRAHAM said that allusion had been made
to him so frequently and so pointedly by the Hon. Member for
Wolverhampton, that, however reluctant he might be to tres-
pass on the House, he could not forbear doing so, as he felt it
his duty to offer a few observations on what had fallen from
the Hon. Member. In the course of tho many years during
which he had had the honour of occupying a seat in the House,
he had never felt it his duty to speak upon a subject which he felt
was so totally devoid of any new argument or illustration as
this. He was anxious that this most important subject
(and a more important one could not come before the
House) should have the fullest and fairest consideration.
He agreed with the Hon. Member in his most earnest desire

that their decision should be guided by the most solemn wish
to promote the interest of the community at large. He would
not shrink on the present occasion from again repeating all
those principles which he had on a former occasion avowed.
It was decidedly his opinion that the prosperity of agriculture
must always depend on the prosperity of native industry in this
country, and that the public prosperity was on the whole for-
warded by giving a free and incorrupt current to the natural
flow of industry. It was his opinion that, as a safe and cau-
tions measure, it was expedient to bring forward laws with re-

ference to trade in a manner relative-to the sound principles
which guided their commercial policy with respect to other
branches. It was perfectly clear that the landlord's prosperity
would depend on the wealth and comfort of the people. Hav-
ing made that declaration, he was bound to state that it was
his opinion that suddenly, and at once, to pass a measure to
reduce the protection in this country was utterly inconsistent
with the well-being of the community, and would give a great
shock to the agricultural interest.—( Hear.) In the first place he
wished to advert to an observation which was made by the
Hon. Member for Wolverhampton, in which he said two-
thirds of the people of this country were otherwise employed
thau in raising food. He begged to differ from that observa-
tion. In considering this question, he always observed that
one-third of the community was never carried into calculation
by Hon. Gentlemen, when they contrasted the manufacturing
with the agricultural interest. The sole produce of Ireland,
with a population of eight millions, was food ; and their only
means of subsistence depended upon the demand upon that
produce. When the Hon. Gentleman said that two-thirds of
the population of the United Kingdom were employed in in-
dustry other than agricultural industry, it was a misappre-
hension on his part arising from the mis-statements of others.
He wished also to correct another error into which he fell,
it was fresh in his recollection. He stated on a former oc-
casion what he would not now hesitate to repeat—that, without
dislinction of party, for the last twenty years the object of
succeeding Governments had been to substitute protective for
prohibitory duties, and when a protective duty could be imposed,
to remove the prohibitory duty. The protection given to
agricultural produce was not an exception to the general rule.
—( dear, hear.) The Hon. Member for Wolverhampton
stated that it was not the object of the Government to di-
minish the extent of protection. They had adopted a prin-
ciple which had actuated not only this Government hut former
Governments, which was aproof that it was a safe principle ; and
it was riot only the principle, but the key-stone of the policy of
his Right Hon. Friend at the head of her Majesty's Govern-
ment. With respect to the corn-laws, and the alteration made
in them in 1842, there was no exception to the policy which he
referred to. That alteration was not made for the purpose of
diminishing the protection of the agricultural interest. He
would now read to the House the words of his Right Hon.
Friend in 1842, when he introduced to the notice of the House
that measure which was now law, giving that protection which
they were now discussing. He (Sir R. Peel) said that it was
impossible to deny, in comparing the duty which he proposed
with that which then existed, that it would cause a very con-
sid]rable decrease in the protection which that duty af-
forded to the home grower. That, however, would be
made consistent with justice, for he would be adequately
protected, not withst anding the reduction which was considerable.
He felt bound to say that he thought that the agricultural in-
terest of this country could afford to part with a portion of the
protection which it now received, and it was only fit that that
protection should be diminished. He might quote further
from the speech of his Rt. Hon. Friend, but he had read as much
as would show that the corn-laws were modified in 1842, and

Mr. MITCHELL said that he conceived the alarm ex-
pressed by the Hon. Member who had spoken last altogether
uncalled for. He himself represented a manufacturing bo-
rough (Bridport) in the midst of an agricultural county, and
he could assure the Hon. Member that labour in that borough
was better paid than in any other part of that county. There
could be no question that some alteration in the state of the
law as regarded the importation of corn was required, for it
was a well-known and sufficiently-proved fact that, according
to the present population of the country, the country could not
grow half the quantity of wheat required for its consumption.
(here were other reasons why wheat should be imported from
foreign countries —reasons which, in his opinion, had not been
sufficiently attended to. He meant the fact that the crops
had been deteriorated, and they all knew the miseries which
arose from hat] were called backward crops.—( Hear, hear)
Then they had to consider that even where the crop did, at the
beginning of a season, promise well, it was liable to be blighted
by many unforeseen circumstances. He could remember well
that in the year 1841 the crops had, after promising extremely
well, been almost wholly destroyed by heavy rains, and the
price, in consequence of the quantity, rose at least 14s. per
quarter. He did not think that protection was an advantage
to any interest, for the flax trade of Ireland furnished a proof
to the contrary; and if they could cope with Russia in flax, why
not in corn? They could not bring wheat into that country from
foreign countries under a cost of 14s. or 15s. per quarter (he
meant that sum as including all contingent expenses),. and
that, he thought, was a sufficient protection to the agricul-
turists of England. Corn was but a manufacture, like every-
thing else, and the sole reason why the agriculturists had
hitherto required protection was, that they had not known
ilow to grow it. And how was this? Simply because they
did not apply to business.—(Laughter.) He (Mr. Mitchell)
had attended his counting-house for some seven or eight hours
a day since he had been eighteen years of age, and he had
done so because he tried to make himself master of his busi-
ness, for he knew that, if he neglected it, his business would
very soon neglect him.—(Great laughter.) Now, what was
the case with the landlords ? They sent their sons to Eton
until they were sixteen ; then they remained at Oxford till
fre-
quentmwanet y :fitnh,
ee o nwgirtheaernnd
trnahnetde a
was
returned
nh
nrezpdersessatereni
ity
twenty-one ; then (he was glad to say it was more
Leoca.
oiydn)osnuthey
(ti
l in learning the Polka —(Lau
accomplishments.—( Continuengdd r
)-
laughter).and
shuacdh
madenecessary
his
the bouulsdindeoss he thought that the landed in-
terest also. But he
dutyteres
Members opposite, and those on thess(:lu would now put. it to Hon.
whe-
ther they did not at that moment benchesfl behind them,
themselves that this was a measure whiChait acknowledge to
other be passed, but that the best course theys onuoludltdine day or
at
pursue, was to oppose it as long as they could, and to .eresent
when they saw that opposition would no longer be or andy only
Hear and laughter). He could tell them that if they" use.
did
not now yield this measure with a good grace, the time would
come when they would be compelled to do so, as they had been
compelled to yield the Reform Bill and the Maynooth Bill—
( Laughter)—the latter of which
inwas introduced by the Right
Hohourable Baronet opposite the shape of a threat
about a war in the West, which he conceived had nothing

it was not for the purpose of diminishing protection. The Hon.
Member for Wolverhampton had traced the origin of the pro-
tection. He said that it appeared that lt dated from the ac-
cession of William 111. At that time this country was not an
importing country, but the policy of great men in those days
was to give encouragement to native industry, and to make this
country as independent of foreign supply as possible. That
kind of protection continued up to 1716, when the circum-
stances of the country began to alter, and the population
began to increase. It was then the introduction of fo-
reign corn commenced. He must say that he would not wish
to rely so much in matters of this kind on the greatest man of
past times, freely admitting that experience and new sources
of knowledge would throw light on matters of this description,
but yet he must state, that the highest authorities throughout
the last century and a half had concurred in maintaining this
policy as one of paramount importance. The Right Hon. Ba-
ronet then alluded to the observations of Mr. Burke and Adam
Smith, in which they stated, that the protection of agricultural
interests was most conducive to the national wealth, and to
the comfort of the community at large. A policy maintained
by the greatest authorities, was a policy not likely to be soon
laid aside. He thought that it was truly stated by the Hon.
Gentleman, the Member for Bridport, that corn had very
little to do in any particular year with the rate
of wages. He entirely agreed with the doctrine that, on the
whole, under the system of protection, an immense agricul-
tural improvement had not taken place, but he would say, that
notwithstanding the population of this country had been nearly
_ _

. .
doubled within-the last half century, the supply of food at this
moment was more easily ob'ained for double the population
than it was previous to that period. He (Sir James Graham)
alor.e could speak, from his own personal knowledge, of the
county and neighbourhood in which he resided. That county,
thirty years ago, did not produce sufficient food for the main-
tenance of its inhabitants, but by inclosure, improvement, and
successful industry, it was now a county which exported
largely. The Right Hon. Baronet then alluded to a common
which came under his own personal knowledge, which was
covered with heath sixteen years ago, and over which he him-
self had hunted. It consisted of two thousand acres, and, in
consequence of an outlay of 6,000/., one hundred and twenty
people were enabled to live on it with ease and comfort, and it
added to this country a capital which might be represented by
30,0001., whereas it was totally uncultivated twenty years ago.
An Hon. Gentleman referred to the doctrine that protection
was necessary on account of local burdens. When that sub-
jeet was mentioned it was received with derision by Gentle-
men on the opposite side. He was glad to see the
Noble Lord the Member for London in his place, be-
cause he knew that he would not support that doctrine
of local burdens —he was still an advocate for a fixed duty.
The Hon. Member for Wolverhampton had said, and very
truly, that abundance of food was essentially necessary for the
population. If the Honourable Gentleman would show him
that free trade would produce such an effect, it would at once
make him a convert; but he did not think that it would have
such an effect. He considered that a 4s. duty would be good
for nothing,. The question was, whether they would adopt free
trade or not. He thought they ought to proceed in the matter
with great caution ; they ought to take care how they altered
clay land from growing wheat into grass land.—( Hear, hear. )
He was sure that if the motion of the Honourable Member for
Wolverhampton was carried, it would create the greatest dis-
trust, destitution, pauperism, and despair in the country.—
( Hear, hear.) He thought the better cultivation of land
would produce a better supply than any alteration in the corn-
laws. He maintained that a low duty was nn protection whatever.
He believed that the proposition of the Hon. Member for
Wolverhampton would, if carried, be most disastrous in its
consequences—disastrous as much to the population engaged in
manufactures as to those engaged in agriculture. On these
grounds he should oppose the motion of the Hon. Member for
Wolverhampton.
Mr. VILLIERS explained.
Mr. BRIGHT next addressed the House. He commenced
by saying that from what he had heard both in and out of that
House during the last few month, there was a very great dif-
ference of opinion on the question of protection amongst sensi-
ble men. To much of the speech of the Right Hon. Baronet
he gave his assent, but he was at a loss to know whether the
speechn,i of the Right Hon. Gentleman was intended as hope to
those on the Opposition aide of the House, or as consolation to
those.l on the other.—( Laaghter. ) It seemed that the Right
Gentleman had been studiously endeavouring to say one
Gentleatt oann e
ht iama e ,c
oa
mn dinteon unsayhyit asttaatni
wo
gth etrh.at Tthheeyßwigehret Hgoran:
dually coming to a free trade in corn. After that the Right Hon.
Baronetsaid that an change in future must be a change to a total
repeal. The Right Hon. Gentleman then successfully demon-

SUN, LONDON, WEDNESDAY EVENING, .TUNE 11, 1945.

strafed that the proposition of the Noble Lent the Hon. Mem-
ber for London for a fixed euty was altogether untenable. The
Right Hon. Gentleman showe 1 that there was no argument in
favour of a fixed dill. Now how the Right Hon. Gen-
tleman could reconcile this s ith the latter part of his speech,
he ( Mr. Bright) could not imagine. He had been surprised
to hear the Right Hun. Gentleman using the same arguments
as Hon. Gentl. men on the other side of the House who sat
below him. This was very extraordinary, coming as it did from
a member of a GoVernment which had staked its character on
its free trade measures. The Right Hon. Baronet told his
protection friends that these free trade measures eould not be
brought on suddenly. He (Mr. Bright) recollected seeing in
Punch a letter written by an aunt to her niece on the best
means of ruling a husband, and the advice or the aunt was for
the niece to cultivate her nerves. This was the advice given
by the Right Hon. Gentleman to those on his own side.
He said—" If you cultivate your nerves, and become
extremely sensitive, we will make your sensitiveness an argu-
ment against repeal." The Right Hon. Baronet asked if free-
trade would give the people more food ? Did the Right Hon.
Baronet want proof upon this? Could the Right Hon. Ba-
ronet look around, and not find ample proof? In the street in
which he (Mr. Bright) lived, there was a lark which sang as
sweetly as though he; was at liberty. Every morning a boy
came with a piece of green turf to supply the comforts of that
lark. And this was the principle upon which the Queen's
palace was supplied, and by which the whole community was
supplied with their necessaries. The Right Hon. Gentleman
contended that a repeal of the corn-laws would cause a larger
importation of foreign corn than had been estimated. Now
it was an extraordinary thing that so little was thought about
the risk of the country being reduced to a scarcity. In
articles that the unhallowed fingers of monopoly had never
touched there was always a supply sufficient for the consump-
tion of two years. How came it that at the present time
there was six months' stock of cotton in Liverpool, although
the whole of that cotton came from the United States of
America. The Right Hon. Baronet spoke of a panic attend-
ing a repeal of the corn-laws. He said that an importation
of two millions of quarters of corn would displace two mil-
lions of quarters grown at home. Did the Right Hon. 13a-
ronet know that during the times of scarcity, as many people
as were employed in the cultivation of two millions of quarters
of wheat were thrown out of employment in one town.
The Right Hon. Baronet had said we might have a sufficient
supply of food by improving the cultivation of land ; but what
had been done to cause that improvement in land ? Was that
improvement going on ? If it was not, when the next ten
or twenty years had expired the population would be no better
off than at present. It was a notorious fact that at the present
moment a vast number of the people of England and Ireland
did not possess the means of procuring bread. The Right
Hon. Baronet must have experienced very great difficulty in
speaking of the corn-laws, holding as he did free trade opi-
nions. He had spoken in defence of the corn-laws, and had
rested his defence on the fact that the price of corn had been
exceedingly steady under that law. The parties for whom
that law was specially intended had been disappointed that the
price had been so steady. In the years 1e33 and 1834 the
price of wheat had been more steady, and for a longer period
than it had under the operation of the present law. The
Right Hon. Baronet admitted there was no proof that the law
had not failed, because it had not met with that awkward con-
tingency of a bad harvest, therefore the argument adduced by
the Right Hon. Gentleman would be of no use. When the
discussion commenced that evening he expected to find the
members of the Government approve the motion of his Hon.
Friend the member for:Wolverhampton, on the ground that it
would not be expedient to do all that it required at once, but
by degrees, in order to assimilate with the increasing wants of
the people. He thought they would have said a great deal to
their supporters at the lower part of the House to endeavour to
break the fall, but as they had not done that he would offer a few
observations to those Hon. Members who defended the agri-
cultural interest. It appeared to him, notwithstanding the
speech of the Right Hon. Gentleman, that the arguments for
the corn-law had entirely disappeared; and why they were un-
Willing to come at once to the repeal of that law was, that
there were certain fears lingering in their minds about land-
lords and farmers. He found those Hon. Members express-
ing their fears, and rather willing to hear arguments that
their fears had been well grounded. He would ask, was not
wheat precisely the same as any other article of commerce;
and whether the laws that regulate tobacco and other articles
of commerce would not equally apply to wheat? He found
the Right Hon. Gentleman had, from time to time, admitted
various articles connected with general commerce, and no harm
had arisen in consequence. He would take the article of
bark, and he found that within the last ten years
more than 7,000,000 cwt. had been admitted, and yet
no gentleman who possessed timber had found any diffi•
tufty in disposing of it at a profit. During the last
ten years more than 4,000,000 cwt. of hides had come
in, but no baicher had experienced any obstacle in getting
rid of the hides that covered the animals they slaughtered.
Suppose those hides had not been imported, how would the
country have been supplied? They might be independent of
foreigners for the supply, and they might just as well be inde-
pendent of boots and shoes.—(Cheers.) Tallow had been
introduced within the last ten years to the extent of 12,000,000
cwt., and yet it had not had the slightest effect in damaging
the agricultural interest. The Hon. Member for Bridport
had alluded to the subject of flax,—why, within 10 years,
400,000,0001b5. had been brought in, and yet the price of
wool had been undiminished. He would mention the articles
of silk avid cotton together, as they were mere likely to come
into competition with wool. He showed that the article of
cotton had increased within the last 30 years to 700,000,0001b5.,
and the consumption in the country was likely to be doubled
and quadrupled. The article of rice would best contrast with
corn and grain. A rice pudding and a bread pudding were
very similar when placed on the table. Of rice there have
been 170,000,000 cwt. imported wiihin the last ten years, and
of rice, in the hu-k, about 140,000,000 cwt. within the same
period. Of clover, 100,000 qrs. had been brought in. Rye,
200,000 qrs.—beans and peas, 200,000 qrs.—barley, the same.
Oats, 250,000 quarters ; of wheat, 12,000,000, and of flour
5,500,000, making a total of grain of of all kinds brought in of
19,000,000 quarters within the last ten years. The quantity
of butter that had been consumed was 2,000,000 cwt. and the
same quantity of cheese. From the consideration of these items
it appeared to him that if the principle of protection was right
the claim of these articles to protectioh was desirable. It was
not right to allow these articles to come into competition with
our own articles of consumption. It was not cus-
tomary for either House of Legislature to know
much of what was termed famine pr:ces ; but there
had been a famine price under the operation of our laws, and
the Right Hon. Baronet had admitted it; and when they had
been relaxed to such a degree of tenuity that they would be
weakened they would suddenly break. To the poor the price
of corn was a famine price, and a starvation price as much as if
the Almighty had permitted the land to be devastated with a
famine ; but it was not a famine from Heaven, but a famine
promoted by that House—by men who were pretending to legis-
late for the public good. It was time that that extraordinary
misgovernment should come to an end. Thousands of people
had been made poor by this fallacious system ; and so long as
the system prevailed so long there will be a constant state of
irritation in the country—a constant jarring with the Legis-
lature, and a desire to have the law repealed. He had men-
tioned various facts fur the purpose of arguing that there was
no reason to be afraid that evil consequences would result from
the importation of wheat any more than would arise from the
importation of the articles he had enumerated. Another
mistake the Hon. Members for the agricultural interest. had
fallen into was, that as a very large quantity of grain would be
brought from abroad, the cultivation of the land would be ren-
dered unprofitable, and would be relinquished. It would
be recollected, that from 11338 to 1842, the price of wheat
averaged 645. per quarter ; during that period it appeared
that foreigners could only introduce 2,225,000 quarters, and
he would contend, that as the price now was only 455. per
quarter, that it would be impossible far foreigners to bring in
their grain now at a remunerating profit, when, at the time
the price was highest, they only brought in 2,2.25,000 quarters.
In the country there had been a strong feeling that the aristo-
cracy of England had for a moment stooped from their true
position of defending protection. From the opening sentence
of the Right Hon. Baronet's speech, it would have appeared
that he had concluded that the question was entirely a ques-
tion of time, and that he wasiwilling to secure for all the
benefits to be derived from free trade—and that free trade
was the principal or key-stone on which his Right Hon. Friend
at the Head of the Government founded all his Legislative
enactments. The Right lion. Baronet was every day doing
something to break down the protective system, and there was
a party out of the House, who were endeavouring all they could
to support every measure, which any Ministry might bring
forward, for relieving the distresses of the country. He would
just refer to the history of the agitation that had been carried
on out of doors on this subject for the last seven years.
Seven years ago they commenced, and their receipts from the
public had been 5,000/., 7,0001., 10,0001. 50,0001., and the
last year it was 110,000/. They had entered many of their
friends as freeholders in Yorkshire and Lincolnshire, and he
would ask the Hon. Member for South Lancashire what prospect
he had of being returned at the next general election? They
intended to extend their operations into other counties where the
same course of proceeding would be tried.—( Hear, hear, and
cheers.) They had held a bazaar e few weeks ago. He did
not pretend to describe it; but there were many Honourable
Gentlemen en the other side of the House who had attended
that bazaar, and if one of them would describe it, it would
make a very excellent anti-corn-law speech. The receipts of that
bazaar had been upwards of 20,0001. The free subscriptions had
amounted to between 4,0001. or 5,0001.: and with the ma-
terial yet left unsold they would make up 30,0001. Many of
the Hon. Gentlemen on the other side had been parties to the
getting-up of bazaars, but there never had been a bazaar one-
tenth the extent of what that had been. Yet that bazaar had
been got up by the middle classes of this country, who had
taken a deep interest in this question, who viewed it as a re-
ligious question.—(Loud ironical cheers.) He would tell
lion. Gentlemen who cheered in that manner that there was
a passage in the Koran which stated that one day of good works
was better than seventy days of prayer. The passing of a law
to rai-e the price of bread—(lronical cheers)—was what the
Gentlemen on the other side of the House had done ; and the
middle classes who protested against that law were actuated by
a strong religious feeling in their opposition. It was easy to
sneer at those who opposed that law, but he was sure the
Right Hon. Baronet at the head • of her hlajesty's Govern-
ment would be the last to sneer at the great middle
classes from which he himself had sprung. Coming
from the country, where this great movement had originated,
he knew the wants, the feelings, and the energy of its people,
and would be the last to sneer at the sentiments by which
they were influenced in seeking the abolition of the law.
Another Gentleman, on the same side of the House, had
written a work, in which he represented society divided into
two great empires—the rich and the poor. The corn-laws were
at the foundation of that division. The wants of the people
required a more honest and equitable system of distribution,
and this could only be done by acting upon the great and im-
mutable principles for the regulation of trade, which he (Mr.
Bright) advocated. They had seen good principles advanced,
and bad ones recede before the light of knowledge, and this
gave hope and assurance of the success of their principles.
Unless they chained down the great legacy left them by Caxton,
unless they could restrict the circulation of Chambers's cheap
literature ; unless they could put an end to the eublication of
Knight's Weekly Volume, and the myriads of cheap publications
issuing from the press ; unless they could stop the progress of
the locomotive engines, and the wonderful improvements in
science that had taken place—unless they could accomplish
these things, it was vain for them to attempt arresting the pro-
gress of this principle, which was sure, eventually, to triumph.
Mr. S. O'BRIEN said the Hon. Gentleman had made refe-
rence to the bazaar, and had asked Hon. Gentleman on that
side of the House to give a description of it. Though he would
not attempt to answer to the call of the Hon. Gentleman, still
he (Mr. O'Brien) must confess that he had seen the produc-
tions of that bazaar, and, apart from all party feelings or pre-
dilections, ho felt a just sense of pride at what his countrymen
had done. He was prepared to the fullest extent to do justice
to the industry of those by whom that great collection was
made, but when he heard all the evils of the country ascribed
to the corn-laws, and all imaginable good represented to flow
from the opposite policy, he must object to, the doctrine alto-
gether. He was willing to let legislation do its best to im-
prove the condition of the country, but, in his opinion, no
legislation on free trade could remove the evils of a great and
complicated empire like this.—( Hear, hear.) He had heard
nothing to induce him to change his opinion on the subject,
and he would accordingly vote against the motion of the lion.
Member for Wolverhampton. He thought the present law
might be considerably modified, but he would not conssnt to
the principle advocated by that Hon. Member. The mu-
tual interests of the country would, in his opinion, be best
served by a system of mutual concession.—( Mean )
Dr. BOWRINa rose amidst cries of " Divide." lie said
the Hon. Gentleman who had just sat down had not. given a

reason, or a shadow of a reason, why he intended to vote
against the motion. He had not slated any new at gument with
respect to the peculiar burdens on land, or why the baneful
system of protection should continuo. The Hon. Gentleman
referred to the state of wage; paid to labourers on the Conti-
nent, and asked why the peasantry of this country were not
better paid than those with whom they came into cumpeti •
tion, and compared the earnings of each. In Hungary
and in other countries of Europe corn was produced
under the feudal system, the labourers receiving no
wages for their labour. The Hon. Member for Lincolnshire
(Mr. Christopher) taunted the free traders with seeking pro-
tection for themselves, to the exclusion of similar advantages to
others. He ought to have done them the justice to say that
they had again declared that they sought for no concession
which they would not equally extend to all—that they were
convinced that the protection to manufactures was injurious,
instead of being a blessing. The restrictive tariffs of Eng-
land were pointed to by other countries as opposed to the
principles and freedom of commerce. If they were to take
the manufactures of other countries they would compel them
to take an equal quantity of theirs. He regretted to see
two great nations, whose interests were identical, continuing
in a hostile course towards each other instead of adopting mea-
sures by which they might act in unison for the common benefit
of both. Now that something had been done for the ruling few,
it was time that something should be done for the many—
that the food of the people should find its way into the coun-
try unimpeded, and that the productions of the whole world
should be open to it, and that theirs should Ise open to the
whole world. Whatever might now be the amount of resistance,
the time was not far distant when the emancipation of com-
merce would ensue, and when the people of this country would
derive what was due to their growing intelligence and in-
dustry.
Mr. CAVENDISH said he should give his vote in favour of
the motion of the Hon. Member for Wolverhampton, although
he differed with him as to the period when a total abolition
ought to take place, but in doing so he should not be precluded
from supporting any amendment when such a proposition was
before the House. He was of opinion that protection had not
afforded any benefit to the landed interest, and had prevented
farmers from relying on their own efforts. He was opposed to
the dividing of large plots of land into small compartments. He
would vole with the Hon. Member for going into Committee
with the Hon. Member for Wolverhampton.
Lord EBRINGTON said as the choice lay between the
present monstrous auomaly of a corn-law and going Into Com-
mittee to inquire into its operation, he should certainly vote for
the motion of his Hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton.
Mr. COBDEN said that after what had been said he would
not detain the House by any lengthened observations, but he
would wish to call back the attention of the House to the sub-
ject before them, and to remind them that the motion of his
Hon. Friend, so far from being met, had been systematically
avoided. The question as to comparing this or that corn-law
had nothing to do with manufacturing or agricultural pros-
perity or depression—the question was whether they could
with justice continue a law which restricted the present sup-
ply of rood? That question had net been answered, and could
not be met here or elsewhere. It seemed to have been for-
gotten, though the country had not forgotten it, that the
plea for protection on account of exclusive burdens
involved the logical deduction that the price of corn must be
raised in consequence of a limited supply. But that House had
clearly shown the country that that question should not be
met. It might be asked what proof was there that there
was an insufficiency of food? Would any one from the
agricultural districts tell him that labourer's families had a
sufficiency of food? Would the Hon. Member for Wiltshire,
the Hon. Member for Dorsetshire, or the Hon. Member for
Somersetshire, say that the 'labourers had a sufficiency of
food? The condition of the unskilled and labouring class
was disgraceful to the House. The reports on the table of
that House, both from Scotland and Ireland, showed that
the people of both countries were in a dreadful state of desti-
tution. Some spoke of Ireland as if it were not a portion of
'the United Empire. He had heard it said in private con-
versation, " Oh, if you come to Ireland, what is Ireland ?"
when he remarked that 5,000,000 of the people had
not eaten wheaten bread. He asked them did not the

corn-law apply to Ireland as well as to England? The
Scotch were almost as bad off as the Irish, as appeared by the
report laid upon their table. In the midland counties thou-
sands of people have been dependent upon framework-knitting
—a trade which was now shown, by competent evidence, to be
in a most depressed condition. He would ask, was that state
of things satisfactory ? He considered it disgraceful to the
people of this country.—( Hear, hear.) And it was not the
consequence of political economy, but in consequence of the
system of protection which they had introduced They could
not benefit the people of this country unless by the introduc-
tion of a greater quantity of food. He would not talk of price.
He would be glad if the word price was never mentioned, but if
the quantity of wheat were not augmented, all the plans hey
would adopt—all the expedients they would resort to—would
not permanently increase the prosperity of the inhabitants
of this country.—( Hear, hear.) If they did not import a
larger quantity of food, all other resources would fail. How,
then, would this increased supply come? They said it would
come in consequence of increased protection. But that had
failed. They must admit it had tailed. Then, he would ask,
them to try his elan. The argument of the Hon. Baronet the
Home Secretary was an argument in the future sense. It was
built upon prophecies and predictions. Let the two millions
of quarters of wheat come and he would take his chance. Let
them not talk to him of panic or fears. Those alarms were not
owing to them, they were owing to Honourable Gentlemen on
the Opposition benches. The old story was continually trumped
up. Pass free trade, and you will throw the soil out of culti-
vation. Throw the soil out of cultivation I throw the poor

sandy soils out of cultivation.—( Hear, hear.) He had no
hesitation in saying that the land would be better cultivated.
He had the highest authority for saying so. The most eminent
agriculturists had given their opinion that it would benefit
agriculture. For his own part he would prefer the authority of
Lord Spencer, Lord Ducie, and the Earl of Leicester, to that

of the Home Secretary. Another panic, too, may be sought to
be raised by the effect whick free trade would have on mort-
gages on land. Ile believed that every mortgage would be
better discharged if free trade were careied than at present.
He would not be put off by such prophecies. Talk of
a panic ! If they abolished the corn-laws to-night,
and if the newspapers took no notice of it, the farmers would
never know anything of the change, unless, perhaps, a few
years hence they might come to discover it in their im-
proved condition.—( Hear. hear). The Right Hon. Baronet
talked of their rashness. He made use of the argument the
last time the subject was under discussion. It appeared a
stock argument. But he would ask were not they rather
the rash men? Were not they the rash men who were in-
vesting them, the free traders, with a moral power
which- they would afterwards be jealous of ? The
times of distress and commercial depression might
come again. Another revulsion might again disturb
the country. Who would then be the rash man?
The Right Hon. Baronet had admitted that the question was
merely one of time. They had it on the authority of a gen-
tleman who could be depended on, that there were at present
;loo.ooa quarters of wheat in bond. Ncw, was not that a pretty
stock ? Was it ever known that such madness could exist—
that in a great country like this, where there was a population
of 27,000,000, such a state of things could continue ? Were
there to be no provisions for the future? They might as well
have laid up the store of corn. But what had they done ?--
they had refused to make any future provision for the time to
come, and were rashly neglecting all the means which they
ought to employ for the advantage of the country. This had
always been the case, and when opportunities were
occurring on every hand they were obstinately refusing
to avail themselves of the magic stores of science,
which should bind people to people, and country to country,
which should unite nation to nation, and destroy the boun-
daries which had hitherto been barriers to the interchange of
good-will and the promotion of the general benefit. Let them
not, then, be behindhand in legislation. He would not suffer
the Right Hon. Baronet, with his customary caution, to de-
prive his Hon. Friend the Member for Wolvorhampton (Mr.
Villiers) of the credit for deep caution and long foresight
which, in this period of calmness, could make provision for
what shall hereafter occur—for that revulsion which would as-
suredly come. He was the man of caution and of foresight.
The country would see this, and would inevitably force the
Right Hon. Baronet to the end which his Hon. Friend desired,
and he warned him not to suffer those to lead who ought to be
followers.

Air. G. BAN KES said he would reply to the observations
of the Hon. Member for Stockport, as it laid in his power to
correct some mistakes with respect to historical facts into which
that Hon. Member, and the Hon. Member for Wolverhamp-
ton, had fallen. The former Hon. Member had spoken as if
the corn-laws had only been in existence during the last
thirty years; but the former had 'gone fu ther back, even to
the period of 1688, for the time when, according to a work of
fiction attributed to the Hon. Member for Shrewsbury, whether
truly or not it was not for him to say, the corn-laws had been
first instituted. But it was not William of the pious, glorious,
and immortal memory, who had founded the corn-laws. It way
true that at that time a considerable alteration had been made,
and it was not only the time for the memory of the tern-laws, but
of the national debt, and of the standing army also. But the
.corn-laws had not been founded by William; the/ had only
been altered. He had imposed a duty on exports, and it was
from that time that the free trade in corn had been destroyed ;
and he would go beyond that, to the time of James 1., when
there was a free trade in corn, for the condition of the labourer.
In 1621, when there was freedom of trade in corn in England,
the state of the labuuring population was most deplorable, and
wages were never known to be so low. And what were the
prices in that day ? They had been told a good deal about the
tremendous fluctuation in prices, owing to a check upon trade
in corn, and he would now point out to them what the
fluctuations were at a time when freedom of trade was
in existence. In 1621 the price of corn in England
was 30s. 4d. per quarter, and now for the fluctuations.
In the very next year, 1622, the price of corn was 525. Now,
take a period of ten years. He had already stated that in 1621
the price of corn was 30s. 4d. In 1631, a period of ten years,
the price was 68s. Now, these were the fluctuations at a time
when there was freedom of trade. In 1648 wheat was 855.,
having been two years before only 48s. These returns he took
from the accounts kept at Eton College, which ran as far back
as the reign of Elizabeth. The corn-law was altered in the
reign of King William, but the alteration was no alteration
as regarded imports; the alteration was merely a bounty
upon the exports. At that time exporting corn was considered
as an experiment ; but it was one that entirely succeeded ;
and, to prove this assertion, he could give them the
authority of a person writing 70 years after it was made.
That bounty continued up to the reign of George 11., and
they would find that during a considerable period of that reign
wheat was a lower price than at any other period, and England
was at the same time a largely exporting country, for from
1697 to 1765 the exports exceeded the imports by fourteen
million quarters. He was told that this system of exporting
was an experiment commenced within the last thirty years,
but so far from this being the case it was an experiment ex-
tending over the last century and a half. Whether it was
successful or not he admitted was a question of argument, but
whether the system was a novel or an old one was a matter
of fact. Upon that fact he met the Hon. Member for Wol-
verhampton, and was prepared to discuss with him whether the
experiment was new or old. For his own part, he was confi-
dent it was an old experiment, and had long ago been proved to
be a successful one. A large portion of those exports were
conveyed to France ; in fact, in the year 1748, the whole of the
south of French was supplied from England with wheat; and
he found, in a book written by a traveller in Smyrna, that 300
ships, laden with wheat, left England, and arrived in that
country, from England, in one day. Very shortly after an
alteration took place in the corn-laws, and soon after that fol-
lowed the revolution. Mind, he did not say that the
state of the law produced ; the French revolution, but
it certainly did not prevent it.—( Laughter.) On those
grounds, then, he would say that history afforded
no evidence by which to prove that the corn-laws had led to
this discontent. He admitted thiy were the cause of the na-
tional debt and the standing arrny;lut these were burdens that
the country was happy to bear.—(Laughter, and ironical
cheers.) Hnn. Members might laugh, but let them recollect
that the great proportions of those burdens were borne by the
landowners. He believed that the Right Hon. Baronet at the
head of her Majesty's Government was somewhat mistaken,
when he thought that the state of the labouring classes was in
an improving condition. He (Mr. Bankes) was afraid that it
was not the case. The Right Hon. Gentleman referred to the
returns of last year, not the present. He was induced to think
that, as far as related to that portion of the kingdom, the
returns this year A ould present a very different feature.
I here was immense suffering last winter, and the greatest
energy was exercised for the prevention of that suffering.
There was great suffering from want of fuel. He believed
that that difficulty was made away with by subscriptions of
benevolent people, who deserved great credit. With respect