The Sun.
London, England, 1842-02-19 00:00:00

CORN-LAWS.

On the motion for the Order of the Day being read
for the House resolving itself in a Committee of the
whole House on the Corn and Provision-laws,
Mr. DUNCOMBE presented a petition from St.
Luke's, Middlesex, praying for the total repeal of the
Corn-laws, and for an extension of the Suffrage.
BONDED CORN.

Mr. F. T. BARING, on the motion that the Speaker
do leave the Chair, said he did not mean to enter into
the general Corn-law question at present, but he (Mr. B.)
wished to direct the attention of the Government to the
necessity of making some provision to relieve indivi-
duals who suffer great hardship from the loss attending
bonded corn. When other commodities were bonded
the Treasury was in the habit of taking off certain
amounts of duty for wastage. No such allowance was
made in the case of bonded corn, because the Treasury
alleged it was unwilling to interfere with the present Corn-
laws, by bringing in a Bill to remedy this grievance. The
Board of Customs, however, was not hostile to some
such allowance, as might be seen by the High Hon.
Baronet on reference to papers now in his offite.
But now, however, as the Corn-laws were about
to be changed, it was very desirable that some
provision should be made to relieve the holders
of corn. So great had been the hardship upon
holders, that some had destroyed their stock
sooner than pay the duty on it after the waste it
had sustained, and if some remedy were not introduced
holders of corn would be obliged to bond in Rotterdam
and other places, and even then this country would be
made dependent for supplies on other countries
in spite of the great wish of the Right Hon. Baronet to
make this country independent. Of course it could not
be made so independent without importing and bonding
from time to time great quantities of corn. He hoped
the Right Hon. Baronet would consider this point
between the present time and the time for bringing
in his Bill. In the meantime, he (Mr. Baring)
would collect all the information he could, and bring it
before the House himself, if the Right Hon. Baronet
would not do so. It was absolutely necessary to adopt
some measure to prevent the public from being caught
in his sliding scale.
The SPEAKER then left the Chair, and the House went
into Committee ; Mr. GREENE in the Chair.
Sir ROBERT PEEL said that he wished to make
a few observations in reply. to the Right Hon.
Gentleman opposite (Mr. Baring). He (Sir Robert
Peel) m o-ald give his consideration to the subject, although
he would not pledge himself to any particular course.
He did not see how the same inconvenience might not
arise under a fixed duty as under a sliding scale. Sup-
posing corn was introduced under a fixed duty, it might
still be bonded, and of course liable to waste.
Mr. BARING said, that he did not mean to introduce
on that occasion any discussion upon the sliding-scale.
The Right Hon. Gentleman was quite right in saying
that parties_ would be subiect to the inconvenience to

which he (Mr. Baring) had alluded, under a fixed duty,
provided they kept in their corn for as long a
period under such duty as under a sliding scale.
It was not, however, likely that that would take place
under the operatipn of the sliding scale ; parties who
had purchased corn when the duty was low might find
that by the time it had arrived that prices had fallen, the
duty had risen, and they might thus be compelled to
bond their corn, perhaps, for years.

After a few words from Mr. GOULBURN, which did
not reach the Gallery, Mr. BARING said that the incon-
venience had no doubt been allowed to continue long in
existence but that arose from the fact that the Corn ques-
tion was one' of great importance, and which successive
Governments felt very reluctant to touch.

CORN-LAW REPEAL.

Mr. VILLIERS rose, and said—Sir, I beg leave to ask
permission to read a petition which has been presented to
the House, and which bears upon the subject before the
Committee. It is a petition from the Chairman of a Con-
ference of Delegates from all parts of England, Scotland,
and Wales, appointed by their fellow-countrymen, to take
measures for the total repeal of the Corn-laws. (The Hon.
Member then read the petition of the. Anti-Corn-law
Conference, which has already appeared in The Sun.
Sir, I trust that the reading of that petition
will not be thought an inappropriate introduction
to the motion which I have to submit to the Committee.
A motive, Sir, which, whatever has been said with re-
spect to the illogical order in which it is now submitted.

f cannot regret that this is the moment in which I
am called on to bring it forward. I cannot help thinking
that I acquired some advantage by the discus-
sion which has taken place • for, in hearing that discus-
sion, it struck me that much' ability and ingenuity were
displayed in the debate by Hon. Gentlemen on both
sides, elicited in order to escape the difficulties with
which the projects both of the late Government, and
of the Right Honourable Baronet were surrounded.
I think, Sir, there is something in that peti-
tion apposite to my motion, which, whatever
else may be objected, is free from the difficulties of both
the others. Sir, I rise to call on this Committee to con-
demn in toto, and abolish for ever, that law which we are
in Committee to consider. A law, of which the avowed
object is to raise the price, by limiting the amount of
human subsistence—a law, which by the admission
of a distinguished member of the present Govern-
ment, is designed to raise the price of food and
the amount of rent, but not the amount of wages—
a law, Sir, which I must consider, inasmuch as these
objects and these purposes are in view, erroneously if you
please—yet that such a law can only exist in gross viola-
tion of every principle which could regulate the law of
this country ; and yet I will not now abandon the idea
that at no distant period I shall be able to persuade this
House of the injustice of that measure, and that I shall
yet be able to persuade them to abolish a law of this
kind. I must say I have heard with hope, if not with
satisfaction, the admission made this year, which has
been denied hitherto, that this law has not worked well—
(Hear, hear.) I avail myself now of that admission, that
this law has worked ill, and ought to be repealed, and
I avail myself of the statement of an Hon. Member, who
said, and said justly, that it had been passed for
dishonest purposes to press my motion on the House.—
(Hear, hear.) These concessions having been made, I
now call upon the House, before they re-enact a law
which is capable of having such a prejudicial effect, and
which, if the House succeeded in passing, their success
must be incomplete—l call upon the House to consider
that the principle upon which this law was enacted
is opposed to the object and end of all such enactments—
I ask the House to consider the basis of this law, and to
abandon it if they believe it is opposed to the prin-
ciples of justice upon which all laws should be
founded.—(Hear.) The House is bound to consider
the effects of this enactment ; their duty clearly is
rather to promote the general interests of the country,
than to secure the advantages, and interests of a
patrician class.—(Hear, hear.) This enactment was
passed in opposition to the interest of a great body of
the people at large, and it is now attempted to be main-
tained in defiance of their feelings and opinions, for they
now understand, and are, consequently, opposed to them.
You are now about to attempt another experiment upon
their patience and temper. These aie not the times
when you can perpetrate wrongs in the open day,
when all men's eyes are upon you, and ..when you
suffer full liberty of thought and f expression, men
who have knowledge may perpetrate wrong upon those
who have it not. But it cannot be perpetrated with im-
punity upon people in the condition in which the people
of this country nova are. Without intending any offence
to this House, I venture to say that it is not a true
representative of the intelligence without, nor a faith-
ful picture of the information possessed by the middle
and working classes of the country. For I believe that
it is within the knowledge of every man who goes among
- these classes, that they possess information, shrewdness,
and an absence of prejudice never remarked before. I
only mention this to show that it is utterly impossible for
the. Legislature of this country to escape the severest
scrutiny that it can be submitted to, and, above all, respect-
ing this law, which has attracted so much attention,
and which the people of this country have determined
shall not continue. I believe the minds of the great ma-
jority of this country are made up upon the subject, and
that they will use every means in their power to
emancipate !their industry and their commerce--
(Hear, hear)—and they now distinctly demand of
you, that you will rid the Statute-book of the dis-
grace, and yourselves of the discredit, of maintaining
this law, and that you will no longer suffer :your-
selves to be charged as parties to a common breach,
of trust in using power confided to you for your own
purposes.—(Hear, hear.) You have no reason to com-
plain of the tone and temper in which the people
now taproach you, for I well know, by the time and
trout)!!! that I have given to this • subject, the
endeavours that have been made to bring you to a
calm and careful consideration of it. You have been
asked in times of comparative quietude and prosperity to
ameliorate this law, and you have strenuously and steadily
refused to comply. You have refused the smallest
modification of this measure, on the ground that it
might lead to a greater change ; and you have no
right now, when the people are exhausted by dis-
tress, and, perhaps, excited by despair, to complain
that they approach you in anger, and call upon
you peremptorily at once to abolish this law. Sir, I am
sorry that this House complains of the manner and the,
mode in which the people have sought to obtain redress;
and I think that those who profess to be their
" friends " could better occupy themselves than
by complaining of the manner in which redress
now sought. I have heard much grumbling about fife
people soliciting their pastors to go forth and bear testi-
mony to their miseries and sorrows. But what are the
people of this country to do ? They are not fairly
represented in this House. Where, then, are they
to find advocates of their cause and expounders
of their sorrows, if not among their spiritual advisers?
Sir, I can only say, seeing what I know of the sufferings

of the people, that there is much to admire in their for-
fearance' and much to excuse in their violence.
But I do not stand here only to vindicate the
manner in which they have sought redress, but to jus-
tify the measure of relief which they now seek at your
hands. What they ask is, in my opinion, reasonable, and
I believe will be beneficial; it can lead to no measure that
it would be unjust to concede, but it is founded on every
principle of justice and policy.—(Hear.) What have I
to say to recommend the measure which is the subject of
my notice, but to point to the condition of the country,
and the effect of the law ? What is the appearance
England presents to us. at present ? More abundant
in resources, more fertile thane any other territory
in the world ' • yet her industrial population is in
that state of distress which he who was ap-
pointed by the Government to answer the address of
the Crown, said, on the responsibility of that Govern-
ment, that it could not be exaggerated. It is admitted
on all sides that England is rich—rich in labour,
rich in knowledge, rieh in the application of
means to labour and skill ; yet that her soil being of li-
mited extent, and her population hourly increasing, they
are in want of food. That is the condition ofthis country;
it is a state which all men must have seen she would have
arrived at ; that period has at length arrived, and is
there any man who dares to assert that this is the doom
which Heaven has decreed for her? believe there
is no man so ignorant, who would look upon any
chart, and see the locality of this island, who would not
at once demand how it is that this country, placed between
the two civilized continents of the world is in a state
to endure this distress. And if he were to hear that
these other countries, though abounding in food, but
wanting that which England possesses, are nearly in
similar distress, would he not ask for some solu-
tion of the mystery ? Is there any could be offered
to satisfy any reasonable being, but that the
lords of the soil have established a_barrier between
this island and the Continent which has caused the distress
in all ? That is the condition in which this coun-
try is now placed ;—that is my solution of the
distress admitted on all sides to exist.—(Hear.)
If you can prove that it is not, you are bound to
do so. This is the theory of those who ask of you to
abolish this law. You are bound to give us your theory
if you differ from us. But I ask you to test it by any process
that you please, I ask you to suppose only that lam right,
to grant my hypothesis, that these are the circumstances
and that this is the condition of the country, and to say,
upon due deliberation, whether there is any feature in
the present state of -the country, which might not be
expected to result from such a law. I ask you to admit
that this country does not supply herself with food
that she has now a deficiency, and that others have an
abundance of that food, and that England is suffering
from what you yourselves style over-production ; and
then I ask you to examine whether the present state of
the country be not natural, under the existing law. If
you expect a people to be exhausting their means,
by paying an exorbitant price for food, that
is the case of this country at present. If you
found them dispensing with comforts and luxuries
which they have hitherto enjoyed, you would find that
those whose business it was to produce these comforts
and luxuries were in distress*. If you expect to find
that those who produced food and wanted goods
were manufacturing for themselves, that you will,
now find. If you expect that in case of a
scarcity of food you were obliged to send out your
money to buy up the food which was grown for other
men, and the consequence of sending out your money
was to contract the basis on which your credit in this
country was placed. I say, Sir, that that is what you
now find ; and if you found further general discontent
and general distress, it is precisely that which must
result from the state of things which I have supposed to
exist. Sir, I venture, in confidence of the correctness of
my views, to defy any one to prove that this has not
been the cause of the distress. I have such confidence in
the good sense and sagacity of the people of this country,
that I am perfectly satisfied that whatever may be urged
in opposition to this view—whatever notions you may
start to divert the attention, you will not succeed.
Let us refer to the experience of many years past.
For a long period every thing has been said, every
thing has been urged. You have trailed the ground
with any kind of rubbish, with the design of diverting
the people from the real object.—(Hear.) But you have
completely failed; and you now find that the public mind
is more strongly impressed with the conviction that this
is the real cause of the embarrassments of the country
than it has been at any former period.--(Hear, hear.)
Within one year two Governments have thought proper
to attend to the general expression of opinion. One Go-
vernment thought that there was so much importance
to be attached to the opinion which was generally enter-
tained upon this subject, and the evils whieh result from
the Corn-laws, that they were ready to sacrifice office
in the attempt to effect the alteration. Another Govern-
ment had thought proper, notwithstanding the pre-
vious denial that the evils of the country were
to be attributed to this law, to acknowledge that
the laws now in existence must be changed.
There have been now before the country and the House
two projects of a change—two modes of mitigating the
evils of the present law. -Sir, I object to them both.—
(Hear, hear.) Ido not deny that the plan of the Noble
Lord would meet many of the most prominent evils
of the present lair ; and I believe that his plan
would effect many improvements.—(Hear.) But my
complaint is, that both your laws are unjust, that no
justice in principle or purpose furnishes a ground for
the maintenance of the present system.—(llear, hear.)
I know, Sir, that I stand here to vindicate the
people against charges of being extreme and unrea-
sonable, but' I say that there are no teachers of
morals, nor writers of ethics, who justify a modification
of wrong.—([Tear, hear.) A law is either right or
wrong in principle, if it be wrong why should it be
maintained ?—(Cheers.) This is the objection of the
people to the plan of the Noble Lord, and, Sir, lam
here now to complain on their part, of the manner
in which the plan now before the House has been re-
ceived, for in the discussion that has lately taken place
the principal argument in favour of the present plan was,
that if it were unjust, so was that of the Noble Lord.
The Right Hon. Baronet, the Member for Dorsetshire,
says, he has been cured of giving large measures of
justice.—(Laughter.) His assertion is, if I am unjust
you are likewise. Ido not know enough of the Noble
Lord to say how far he feels at withholding from the
people much of what they are entitled to, but I would
ask him to consider whether a people, upon obtaining a full
measure of justice, have remained discontented ?
(Hear, hear.) I niust really complain of the manner
in which the Right Hon. Baronet at the head of
the Government has treated those whom I repre-
sent. He seemed to think that nothing more was
necessary then to show the difficulty and inexpediency
of the plan of the Noble Lord, and he (the Right Hon.
Baronet) seemed inclined to defend his own measure—a
measure involving the sustenance of millions of people
in thiS country—by referring to the party by whom those
are represented. He asserted that he believed
the party who supports us to be extremely
small, while it is very violent in its principles.
Such is the manner in -which the Right Hon. Baronet
has been pleased to describe that party ; but that small
party has this consolation, that there has never
been any one single great or good measure, not
one measure of which the country has a right to
be proud, which has not been treated in a similar
way— (Cheers) and the first proposers of which
have not been treated with similar scorn by the party
to which the Right Hon. Baronet belongs.—(Cheers.)
When the Right Hon. Baronet talks of the unreason-
able violence—
(Expressions of dissent from Sir Robert
Peel)—l am 'glad to see that the Right Hon. Baronet
disclaims the charge, but J certainly collected from what
passed the other night that the Right Hon. Baronet cast
the imputation of violence—ofextreme violence—upon the
party to which I alluded. But I know that these views
are entertained regarding that party, and that they
are not altogether confined to gentlemen on the
opposite side of the House—(Hear, hear, hear)—
but that many Gentlemen not agreeing altogether with
Hon. Gentlemen opposite, have made similar imputations
upon those who seek for a total and immediate repeal of
this law. I would ask is there anything more unrea-
sonable in asking for a total repeal of this law, than
there is, after maintaining this law for so many years, in
acknowledging that it is a bad law ?—(Cheers.) Every
charge of violence wllich has been brought against us
for demanding the repeal of this law may with equal
justice be retorted upon those who assisted at the first
enactment of it. , I consider that every argument
which was urged the other night by the
Right Hon. Baronet, as to interfering with property,
and with the rights of the landed proprietors,
against the repeal of this law, may with equal propriety
be urged against the maintenance of it as interfering
with the rights and hopes of millions.—(Cheers.) You
talk of the delicacy of interfering with the rights of
property, when millions are starving. There has not been
one single reason advanced in defence of the main-
tenance of this law, which might not have been advanced
with equal propriety in the defence of any abuse how-
ever flagrant, and of any monopoly however odious.—
(Cheers.) The Right Hon. Baronet has no right to
make use of such'argument. The I .eople have been calling
for thirty years for the abolition of this law.—(Cheers.)
Is this a time,when the people are in a starving state, to
talk of the injury which may arise to invested capital,
and of the delicacy required in interfering with existing
interests? It is too late in the day to make use of such
an argument. If this were the first time that the people
had called for a repeal of the Corn-laws there might be
some excuse for all this caution, and for not requiring
too speedy an alteration ; but that is not the sortthe
of language to hold at the present day.—(Hear,
hear.) The people have long been calling for
abolition of the law, and if you had altered it in
time you might have introduced certain modifications,
but the people have now neither time nor temper to wait
for your modifications.—(Cheers.) They are starving
in the streets.— (Hear, hear.) The present relative con-
dition of the landowners reminds me of an anecdote I
have read of a Turkish captain, who took an enormous
number of passengers on board his ship, engaging
that they should have an ample supply of food and water;
but when he got to sea he monopolised the water, and
would let no man satisfy his thirst who could not pay him
for the water. Now this conduct might be defended ppon
the principle of the arguments which had fallen from
the Honourable Baronet, that great caution should
be used in interfering with the rights of invested
capital, that his property would be wasted by suffering
the people to have the water, and that it would destroy
the social rights of the navy, and that great mischief
might be done by interfering. It Is well to talk of the
mischief which may be done by repealing this law; think
of the mischief you have done in enacting it.—(Cheers.)
Why the thing is as reasonable in one case as in the
other.—(Hear, hear.) I beg to rest my claims on the
part of the people,
reasonable, as well upon strong authority, of its being
l
as upon the possibility of its
being effected without danger, and even with advan-
tage.,(Loud cheers.) I know there is a class of persons
who have scruples with regard to the total abolition of
these laws. Ido not say that that class is very fully re-
presented in this Rouse, but their feelings are represented

with great ability and talent. There .are two arguments
which those persons make use of, to which every defC
ence ought to be paid. The first is whether a e11??_,,,
in the law may not be prejudicial to the ag,ricultur_ists.;
and the second, whether there may not be some city°,
on their part, for which they are entitled to c.
pensation. These are fair considerations for till
who call for a total repeal—but they have fl„
overlooked those claims.—Cries of Hear, hear. 1
Those who advocate a total repeal are represented
violent, but they have the highest authority to justify thel
in their views.—(Hear, hear.) The first authorityit
will produce is that of a statesman, such as I would
to see in this country at the present day, and oAnd
was eminent for talent and for character,
for everything that could create respect. I mean ion.
Granville.—(Hear, hear.) If all those evils which 'd
Gentlemen predict would be the result of a rePeago
those laws, they must have been perceived by him.- •
0.)
said in 1815, " I object to any such law (the Corn-10„0;
being passed. The great practical rule of freedom app in
peculiarly, and on stronger grounds to the trade
corn, than to any other." He says, further, " That tbo
benefits expected from the law could only ha" ora,
effect of giving a bounty to the grower of c
00
but you cannot do that without levying a lies
the consumer."—(Hear.) Such was Lord Graaver,
opinion in 1815. In 1820 we had the principal ul,al
chants in London, and some of the most cautionstiro-0
calculating men of business, presenting a Peak' so
to this House on the subject, and when they tso
they did not think they were endangerieghear,)
capital and interests of the country.—(fear, it of
That was a petition agreed to at a meeting in the L,
London, by some of the most respectable merchants,
awn
presented to that House. There was a Report (1,1:
up the year after the petition had been press
which he should next refer. The Committee whe.il,sell
up that Report referred to two periods ,• the one to
to
legislation of all kinds had been resorted to in ora
improve the value of agricultural produce, the other w,,11,0
comparatively speaking, the trade was less free• ray
first period was from the beginning of the last eel() the
to the year 1773 ; the other from the year 1773 t rrito
year 1791, when the trade was under restricticns.
Committee said that " they could not contrast the '4',4
cumstances during the two periods, during the
of which there •was a comparative stagn,befo
in agricultui e, while during the second .`,.liojt
was a comparative growth and improvement, Ivtile
ire
acknowledging that protection did not promote tni)o3y
terests of agriculture." That was the opinion of $ etive
of men strongly interested in maintaining a Pretettoo
system if it could benefit themselves. The Corallnbe,t
went on to say that " they doubted whether the nsist
foundation for agricultural prosperity did not c°,151„,,..
in an abstinence, on the part of the Len ,1.0;
ture, from any interference with the trade in C
The next authority to vxhich I shall refer for all4oo
Lion of all protection to agriculture, is that of to
agricultural proprietors themselves ; and I beg
ost
state that some of the most estimable, the boo
intelligent, and experienced proprietors, who iejleg
given the most attention to agriculture as a sc-tios.
declare that they disapprove of all proteended
Among those are some of the the largest of our layer'
proprietors, Earl Spenser, Earl Fitzwilliam, Lord in
cester, and others—all men of the greatest pro Per )otec.
this country. All of them denounce the system of qhere
tion as unfavourable to the prosperity of agriculture.
,tiod
is no public meeting held in this country or in Secord,
at which some occupier of land does not come for the
and declare that his interest is directly
present system, and that he asks for nothing better than
a perfectly free trade. That has been the
reaa
for the last ten years. I have recentlY,
,vers
several speeches to that effect, and many is' ftbe
who have given their evidence before a
.cemmittee Ojos.
House of Commons, have expressed the same orndeoe
I can only say, that in a very extensive correspou_ooo
with which the people have favoured me in consecltubusd
of the course I have taken on this subject, I Nape ,t the
nor • who have written with such bitterness agala-04
Co n-laws as the farmers.—(Hear.) And when Are
geatlemen commit their thoughts to paper, the-idyl
reslly worth considering. In some of these letters.lo
opposed tethall
tell me that they consider the people have acted yori
virtuously, in suffering the imposition of the Cor7; Jet
so long as they have.—(Hear, hear.) Now, I the
to an authority, which I have no doubt is known arrelet
Right Hon. Bart., the Member for Dorchester. Iwil,loesr,
to a work written by a Cumberland Landowner.---k ot to
hear.) He invites the attention of the landed inter
the facts he states.
Sir J. GRAHAM—It is not my work.—(A laugi3h2ro.
Mr. VILLIERS—I know that the Right lion', aid'
net is not the author, but he is acquainted wit' ilia'
That person states that he has no interest to istot
tify, that he has no wish in what he states that
a love of truth ; and his firm opinion is, tof
a free trade in corn is 'for the real interets 1,0
the landowner, and was the only safe policy o 010
adopted by the State, because the more prose land'
10,1-
people the greater would be the rent-rolls of the, 5 ono
lords. Another publication to which I will refer 1.,00
from a landowner in Surrey; he states that the lando;0
are the only persons benefitted by the tax; that it Illusioa
heavily on the labourer and he comes to the cent'
-ore
that the abolition entirely of the Corn-laws is a ine. 1,e19
not only of justice but of necessity. He states that ;bat
himself the owner of a large quantity of land, anueieo
he feels sure that not an acre of it would be rendered.e'orett
by throwing open the trade in corn, because it i 4
will be given as a stimulus to labour. The 1;°°;
contended that corn is cheap when the ports are e,
the more they prove what a nuisance the presenL,lthe
I
ftwroei l let
represent.h
tneroasldvuebqj uehclo
Htt
corn,
arahnnnda:B) another
ihv
ihesvre.ecanlotannaNcvdi mostto
iouswi
jo rci :eit
considerationaL
ipl
fal aNtvhcseeyawrhheai cdhlal
110 • ,nri
at from 455. to 48s. lie says he entertained ;
hensions for our home agriculture, and, in ce",ciarge;
says there would be a larger consumption, an"
demand for such articles as milk, butter, a
on in
as a necessary consequence of the populate se Pre;
creasing and being well employed, and that
sent law, instead of being a benefit, is of entail
mischief to agriculture. I might, Sir, quote
other authorities, persons who have gore- nectv",„
thought to this subject, and who are not celloomi
with agriculture. But I will refer only to two, al
they have been quoted as authorities by the if $„4
Honourable Baronet opposite indeed, I nit often
well as the Right Honourable Baronet, ha-Tooll't
cited them. They are, Mr. M'Culloch and gr. bg'
I am not going to quote them for all their opini,,el;os'se/,
just for those arguments which I want t° tealns:
tcrLoatnugahttoetratrtehpaetalnoofthtihnegseisltaowbs.e femarre.dmf?cr agrii; oar'
alloc L.,,00 0
" The truth is, agriculture has nothing to fear
.'.1•09;
total abandonment and repeal of the CO? 016;
it will not throw an acre of land out of rents--t
vation, and will not sensibly affect ""Tooker
Another writer, whom I believe the Right Hen- "",roolf..e'
will regard as an authority on this question, Mr' ,„ tberf
says, " If there was a perfect free-trade in covl,r ;00
would be a range of prices of about 455. a clird'isg,d
wheat, which forms no just cause for appre e,11,1 fro,
diminution of arable land, unless, indeed, it shout woof"
the increase of the population, be applied 1;0 cas,'
profitable purposes; but even if this should be t„ottarri,,,
it forms no excuse for perpetuating in the
Who for
all the evils of the present system."l Ale
Right Hon. Baronet quoted Mr. 111`Cll"-
was to prove there might be danger in rePealoo4#
laws, inasmuch as the seasons are very that
all over the world. Mr. M'Culloch si;itt
" No one is more alive to the circumstance tlatita
tween certain degrees of longitude and there he
extending over the • Continent of Europe -r or'",)
a prevalence of weather of the same characte ter
ther it be propitious or unpropitious."—Oleaefir' 0$;to
But this, instead of being an argument against l'`-taal,„o
is an argument in favour of it. It shows us
ought to extend the radius of our suPte din
the neighbouring Continent to Egypt and 014
terranean in one direction, and to Ar.",014t/
the other.—(Hear, hear.) Our taking that anc-Fifooofo
greatly mitigate the evil of unfavourable s ilt c,,el
(Hear, hear.) These theoretical writers P",,a tßei,
at between 40s. and 455. as the probable price, taie ag'to
have supposed that, under those circumstaneest; 10140,
culturist would suffer little injury. But, Sir, the
the evidence of practical men, of the agricultilL7s3o,,rei
selves. Before the Committee of this House, in ,-;;1401or
Thomas Bennet was examined. Being asked by .0
Graham, " What would you expect for, f 1:e0t
the next seven years ?" he answered, eCtol)y
going to take a farm myself, I would not exPa ,
to be more than 455.' He was then asked , rely lathe
tenants of the Duke of Bedford, who have 'at 458;
the farms you had, be able to pay the rent "'gear.)
quarter ?" Answer, " I believe they _ats
Sir R. PEEL—Under the present Corn-law octrrto
Mr. VILLIERS--Yes ; and I read theseoorn.ls.ol.
wtoouslhdownotthahtrinthge
wheat
tl aloblovleirtionthaonf
NtZtrto-nOsiteerar n t.;
experience, and practical agriculturists, La, P
reasonable price under the present law.--(bto h°:
Another question put to the witness referred tbo
and another to Scotch mutton, and his answer 0,1
rtia,
prices of all these are regulated by the tie of13•1',
manufacturers."—(Hear.) Here is the evidene to $' of
tical agriculturists, that there is no danger (Crit,eso
culture in the repeal of the Corn-lawe'h nla; I)°
" Hear, hear.") Sir, that is the case wine, Should 1,
favour of my motion, that the trade in foe"otber $
free.--(Hear, hear.) But, Sir, there is fii_nre are
the
ment offered on the other side, that tile'iustifivar.)
elusive burthens on the lands which, ;11.-4 `-t- the
Legislature in giving it an exclusive protectotta_ee o ,00
I say these are no grounds for the contini_enw be
Corn-laws. The Right Hon. Baronet I ta'outrijY
personification of the landed interest of this cocy P tiles
believe there is no person in who do ju
such implicit confidence as they he said
reason Ole
Right Honourable Baronet, and "va
if the malt tax were left, and if, there waS_ tws
~, of
commutation of tithe, the repeal of the C0,ri.t.,0 portV,.: It
be opposed by the House of Commons. A ta''o,a„,..ore'o,,ie
the public.rightt; have been cast upon thes;',d the peroit
is said, that if the Corn-laws were repeal(' But 11`'e of
would be relieved from other burthens too-
sequenC
Ore
to know, does any person dispute that ine en
to Paf f the
the malt-tax the people are not obliges
ore
o
elf
for their beer; so in the same way, in consel."o or "It
Corn-laws they are obliged to pay inervoge 0500
b-e d ? contend that there is no local ci
not made for local purposes ; and I am sh
re. the chars.lo.o
utiLeblie ch3l°
made far the benefit of those who are ha
highway rates, police rates, and all other ppay them' for
arc imposed for the benefit of those wh,0,001
evyeat
believe that my own constituents paY 1?t- is the I'Le of SO
such charges, and as to tithes, I believe _
o,oer_so.)
the land proprietors of the county are
otntie_t,....-(W
least one-fourth of the tithe of this c iroti are
It seems to me you must either admit tnaL, ; r.eol
entitled to compensation, or elseesohmopweit,hioattligp,"roirtoscisydtj'ilol
if you show you are entitled to
for you to prove that the compehnsa
bUrthens -101"
no more than proportionate to t et•
hoe
be endured by the landed interes

are two arguments
which every defer-
whether a change,
the agriculturists
not be some claims
entitled to coor
rations for those
they have not
r " Hear, hear.")
are represented as
wit to ibstify tbeal
e first authority
oh as I would ivolt
;ent day, and who
kr character, and
)eet. I mean Lord
3e evils which Hon'
."
suit of a repeal at
eived by him. 10-
aw (the Corn- 10)
of freedom aßPlir
;, to the trade to,
further, " That the
ald only have the
grower of core,
levying a tax on
Lord Granville's
the principal nor;
most cautious. an
ienting a petition
when they, didol°,
endangering --
rY--(llear hear)
sting in the 'City of
ble merchants, and
d
s a Report draw
been presented, to
Immittee who drew
'ds k. the one whes
Tted to in order t°
uce, the other whb°
ben
as less free. 'f
the last century
s year 1773 to 00
restricticns.
contrast the cP:
I, during the 6.rs'
rative ataganto
to second thero
rovement, witheet
ic't promote the
opinion of a boo/
doing a protectiO
The Committee
whether the bes,t
ty did not consist
of the Legislo;
e trade in go:
refer for an 0(111'
is that of Sortie
; and I beg to
imable, the
.etors, who °-
et
Lture as a scienc
all protectieoej
rgest of our la •
Yilliam, Lord l'e.l;
)atest properti,,,,„/
e system of PO'
Tbere
agriculture. a
ntry or in Scotlay,
not come forwsru',
tly opposed to the
°thing better ee
a been the egsj
'e recently re-r 9
id many „
a cemmittbe of tb°
the same op deuce
ive correspondence
me in consequell j
)jest, I have fell
;ernes against the
End when COnn,„l
D paper, theif,„
these letters to'!;
have acted o°',
of the Cora-10
Now, I will reel'
t is known ',to tiler
,bester. I NS ill refe
ridowner,--(Or'
eit to
landed inter

rk•—(A laugh)
Right Non, /331-'°;
tainted With 11'
interest to gri!„;
it he states
opinion is, that
real interestbe
,afe policy to
re prosperous tit
rolls of the Io"
[ will refer is
ei 011.0,
Lat the landoval:
Lx; that it pre ion
to the conclusla;
Laws is imeaslP;
[e states that 110;
of land, and it
e
)e rendered;llse'ecit
because its lf
• eit r
The more,,
ports are PP„e,°, •
resent he pnt LA°
• the
landowner la,
n a most csetltcos
!onclusion
it would be re..
taint' 0° loot
nd, coilc rger
tion, "Ism ,t,
)utter, -10
population
.le,
tnd that the/ ;t0
fit, is of inlll4la`y
• quote man
a rout
Ye give et
re not cane 0,
Y to two, be.re,,t.'„ht
es by the -"'b„4,
myself,,t:eo
onet, have ofi,
and lops,3lV°l,
heir opin
ovL
want to .11;iiture
ed for agrici vg,
• WOlllOOll, s
g to fear try-
.Iso
the Coro -
I out of 06
affect rell,;et
Olt Bon. 13,„Ar',,v,
;tion, 111 r. i.°ll-ere
de in corn t
15s. a quart,e,r a
appreheneilflvoo
d, it shoult-bLre
applied to woe,
Lould be the try
in the eoulloe
n." l'irhot for
M,Culloeho,
in rPpeolill"
'e very
Bloch sY:
nstance tlla",tida
le and Mti' i'
5
ilurope theri
or.)
ecDe
character,
brads
oainst free"
$
lows us t-°O,OO
at.
r supply Div
and the
Areeric".oao
o hat advice `115,/
rable sess°,ofs
ricers Put es
• t
price, --1 tigrl
tances, the 014 to
let 115 1°00)1'
iculturists 6 Or,
use, in 1 ,S3l;plei
ked by Sir 5 for
tor pr,ie;
"fr hest
lot exp,eo,l`.ji tja)
tsked /01;0
lave latel.Y
tho
rent at
,totet4
those e7` 10 of
4
the Coril'
en
what rqderr')
sts, O°slhea
how',
ferred The
swer irgs,,Por tba
denteou roc'
vidence
anger tc! Cries Of
1103.---( its
ho
which I intalca
food should ,re
another es,
there are ijie
justifffear.)
of tl'
itiouanee tho
take 0,/),e,
his tour i„,ey
gn they rthe
do it; 0
h ,0
e solo. 40
as a reas °,‘"a
,
Lws ° f
_a 0
large por.,u u
se ineili",tireS• fe
alcd tut I e Pe°Pot
,o. ve 01of
c_onsequen,,iceoto
Kl to pal .`,"the
sequence eit.i :r
more for 'tell,
Charge il3 re
the charges a
able to the;e_
public chair,
) pay tbew.
'
!oot a-year for
is the fact
le °oilers of
--(e
unty. F 1
e
noG
tat yOn lot
you aro ; her.
no
it iseta
propos .A td
Itbhensehettr' 74
av