The Sun.
London, England, 1827-05-26 00:00:00

arse. They so continua open util. Artury 19. 'the
harvest of 1918 was a fine and abundant isle, not only in the
United Kingdom,but all over Europe. Yet on the very
eve of that harvest by the simple fracion of twopence
the ports were open, and the tountry glitted with foreign
corn. This filled with the utmost dismay the very
persons who felt most interested it pursuing the
enactment of the law of 1819. 'they llagued in hostility
to the principle as well as the details of tiat very bill Which
we were now told was the very palladinta of their security.
The utmost efforts were made by tkose who knew how to
direct such efforts to unite into one focis all the discon-
tented feeling of the country, and to brag forward an ar-
ray of agriculturists generally, and this they did, through
the mec?iumof Valiat I suppose I may esll an Agricultural
Parl'emeent. which took its seat not fir from this House,
end whisaa pronounced a direct, an ucttnimous, and une-
quivocal condemnation of the Bill.of 1615. It was directly
'alerted, that the bill was not calculated to promote the
end in view, or produce the effects expected from it, that
it' ought to be revised; and, at that time, in 1819, the
Agricultural Parliament condemned lit by an unanimous
and unequivocal Resolution.—{lfear,hear.)-4 do not con-
demn their conduct, I only mention a fact ; and the agri-
culturists then condemned the law of 1815, calling on Par-
liament to alter it, and forcing that ,question into discus-
sion which they now blame us for agitating. Now, when
Governmets, following their opinions, proceed to revise
that law, forth steps the whole agricaltural body, and lays
a heavy blame on us, because we have found it our duty to
submit a measure for this purpose to Parliament. When
I remember the strong feeling excited at that time, I do
not biztrac the agriculturists, I only state what their con-
duct 'was ; an4l the natural and necessary consequence of
their proceeding, was to excite strong feelings in the other
classes of the community ; other ptsties became active,
and petitions were sent in from both. At the opening of
the Session of Parliament of 1819, a strong belief prevail-
ed that Government then meant to take the subject into its
consideration ; and from the situation I then filled, I was
asked if the Government did mean to do CO, and I answer-
ed—No ; and no particular step was taken during that Ses-
sion. The agricultural Parliament, however, was not in-
active during the recess ; it continued its operations through
1819, 1820, and 1821, and by its influence a greater num-,
her of petitions were got up than were ever before, I believe
presented to Parliament. la one Session there were no
less than 1,200 petitio:4ll presented to the other House of
Parliament, all co,:caplaining of the operation of the law of
1815, and :reproving of the principle of such a measure as
the Bill I have had the honour to introduce to your Lord.
ships. 'Why then, your Lordships will say, that with this
strong indication of the state of the public mind displayed
at the lieginning of 1819, and displayed concerning a ques-
tior, which was before of great importance to the country,
we, are not to blame, we do not wantonly agitate the ques-
tion, when we only introduce a measure which is to give
practical effect to the prayer of 1,200 petitions. But in
1820 the agriculturists were anxious to procure an al-
teration of the law; this was the object of all the agri-
cultural proceedings of that time ; and they stated, they
could not deny their conviction that the law of 1815 was
most inefficacious. This was the object of all their recla-
anations, of all the petitions and proposals submitted to the
other House of Parliament, if I may be here allowed to al-
lude to the pr oceedings of the other House of Parliament;
but I do so historically, and in order to shew why the Go-
vernment has been compelled to submit the question of the
Corn Laws to the Parliament. In 1820 a motion was
made in the other House to appoint a Committee; and on
what ground was such a motion supported ? Why on the
ground that the nonserous petitions were sufficient evidence
that the law of 1815 was not at all adapted to the differ-
ence which had taken place in prices. I, for one, ques-
tioned the policy of granting a Committee, but the Govern-
ment was defeated on that question, and the motion was
carried. It is true that the object of the Committee was
limited to an inquiry respecting the mode of taking the
averages; but it is clear that it is not possible for that
Committee, consistent with the views of the Agriculturists,
to abstain from prosecuting their inquiries into the whole
question, should it be renewed in 1821. In 1821 the
proposition for appointing a Committee was renewed, and
the Government found it impossible not to acquiesce,
and to take the question into its own hands. The
Government would not have done its duty, had it not per-
mitted the investigation ; and the consequence of that in-
verettatian was to recommend the adoption of a law on the
principle of the present Bill, as contradistinguished from the
law of 1815. The Committee of 1821 also made a Report
which, I do not mean to discuss ; but that Report condemned,
both by reasoning and facts—by a priori reasoning and
facts discovered by experience—the law of 1815. There
wan one clause introduced into that report, not consistent
with the proposed alteration of the law; but it recom-
mended an alteration ot the principle of the law, and it is;
in conformity with the principle of that report, that thei
present measure is submitted to your Lordships. In 1822
the Committee was revived, and its discussions led to in-
troduce a reform into the law A practical measure re-
suited, which was a certain modification of the law of 1815
—but it was never then said that the law of 1815, with
this modification, was to be the permanent system of our
Corn laws, and that it wee never to be altered. It was
contemplated by the Report that there should be a ge-
neral revision of the laws ; and tne measure suggested'
by it was more a temporary modification than a change'
in our policy. It is impossible, however, not to re-'
collect, though the law of 1822 was passed, that the.
country has been, in fact, under the law of 1815 ;--1
for, under the law of 1822, the ports have never been'
opened, and since it was passed the price has never risen!
to 80 shillings the quarter, and the law of 1822 has never
come into effect. Nor do I know at what time it will
come into operation, for it is indispensible, to bring it into;
operation, that a pressure should exist equal to 80 shillings-
the quarter for Wheat during six weeks' time; and at four
periods of the year. I see no reason to inflict such a price
on the country—for such a price must be a great inflic-i
tion—before the law can cdrne into operation. When the,
third reading of that Bill of 1818 was proposed, a distill.:
guisbed land-owner, a Member of the other House, a gent
tleman of great practical experience, a man whose nana
and character gave great weight to all he said, rose to speak
on the third reading, and did he say that it was so sacre4
that it was never to be altered—that no time would evell
come when it should be changed. No—he said he rose}
to give it his parting malediction. If I wanted any author
rity for condemning that measure, if I wanted any author
rity to show that it was desirable to alter that law, I should
not wish any higher authority than that of the Gen
tleman I have alluded to.--(Hear.) Under these circum-
stances, cor-idering the nuinber of petitions from the Agris
cultural iunrest—considering that there were as many pee
talons from other parties---considering also, the circum4
stances and feelings of the country, Government found it
was necessary to take the question into its own hands, and
submit a measure to Parliament, for the purpose of re,
vising these laws. Taking all these things into consii
deration, it appears to me that we are only doing out
duty—that we sneuld not have done our duty, had wi
not proposed such a measure—mad fce this reproaches have
been heaped upon us, and we have been accused, and pubi
licly accused, of unnecessarily and wantonly tampering with
this question. if these circumstances justified, or even coms
penes', the Government to take the question into consie
deration, have no other circumstances taken place in cons
nection with the subject since 1815, which made the situai
tion of the country, with regard to these laws, very diffe:
rant now from what it was in 1815 ? I will just call your
Lordships' attention to the state of the Currency at these
two periods. When the Bill was passed in 1815, the Bank
Restriction Act was still in operation, and there was no
certainty that Parliament would put an end to a state of
things which, without pretending to say whether it had
produced good or riot at the time, was a state of things
which could not be suffered to remain without leading tt,
the most serious consequences ; and whatever pressure the
country may have suffered in returning to a system of
sound currency, it cannot, lam sure, ever be compared to
the deep mischief which would have ensued from the con,.
tinuatiou of a contrary system, and which, however it might
have been justified under the peculiar circumstances of
the country, never would, I believe, have been established,
could all its fearful consequences have been foreseen.—
(Hear, hear.)—l hope that this is the last time that the
country will ever see a system established to answer some
temporary beneficial purpose, which can only be purchased
by such a great sacrifice of principle, and by so mach
actual mischief. In 1813, owing to the excess of the
currency, prices of all descriptions were high—the
price of labour was high, the cost of production of all
articles was high, and their price was accordingly high ; and
it is clear that the artificial general elevation of prices at that
period might then render a price of corn necessary, which ac-
cording to the present general prices would be extremely
burdensome. All the arguments urged in favour of that
measure, under the state of our currency in 1815, must, in
the present state of our currency, fall to the ground.—
It is impossible that in any country a very high rate of
taxation can exist without seriously affecting the cots of
production. Now what is the state of the country with
respect to taxation at present, compared with the state of
the country with reference ta the amount of taxation in
1815 ? In 1815 the charge of public debt, funded and
unfunded, amounted to 47,000,0001. What is it now?
The same items which in 1815 amounted to 47,000,000/.
have been reduced to 34,000,0001, a reduction of no less
than thirteen millions, amounting to more than 30 per cent.
on the whole charge. In 1815, it will be recollected that