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

to criminal offences, the town which he represented had a
heavier calendar than it had for many years, so that they
were not in a very healthful position. He would beg for
one moment to observe, with regard to the diminetion of the
poor-law charges this year, when the wheat was lower in
price than usual, the poor-law charges were higher. In
1839, when wheat was at 695. 4d. the pour-law charges
were lower than they are now. They could draw no inference
from that, but if they were to do so, the result would differ
from that come to by the Right Hon. Baronet. The Hon.
Member sat down, stating that it was his intention to give
a decided negative to the resolutions.
Lord J. RUSSELL then rose. He would not follow the
Hon. Member through his historic illusions.—( Hear, hear. )
He had talked to them of the times of James 1., and had told
them that they had then free trade. He had also told them
that a change in the corn-laws would have prevented the French
Revolution. The Hon. Gentleman, instead of showing that
the agricultural labourers had been benefited by the course
that had been pursued, had shown that they were injured
He thought free employment ought to be given to all. He be-
lieved that if the land of this country was properly cultivated
they would have much more corn.—( Hear.) The Right
Hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government had told them
that he entirely agreed that protection was in itself an evil.
The Right Hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State stated
that the system of Government was gradually to
relax protection with as little injury to existing
interests as possible. That was an intelligible system, but it
was quite at variance with all the Right Hon. Gentleman had
stated that night, of the advantages per se of the system by
which the supply of corn was restricted. With regard to thq
two first resolutions of his Hon. Friend, they embodied opinions
entirely in accordanee with those which 1.. e had put before the
House on a former evening. He was quite prepared to go into
Committee, to consider these restrictions, and as to
the third resolution, that all restrictions on corn
should be abolished, he felt himself at liberty to vote for going
into Committee with him, and at liberty, if the House should
go into Committee. to say what relaxation of the corn-laws
should be made. He would nut now discuss the opinion he
had stated on a former occasion, and which he still held. His
Hon. Friend the Member for Stockport had stated with great
power the advantage of making an immediate alteration. On
the other hand, there were a (great many who were in favour
of a gradual change. Whether the opinion of the other was
the better he did not think it necessary to discuss on that night.
He thought the question might be well reserved until
some practical measure was resolved upon. They had
gone on now since the year 1842 with a corn-law whilst'
was considered entirely vicious in its principle—(Cheers.)
In the year 1791 there was only a protection of 50s. After
505., 2s. 6d. per quarter was imposed up to 545. That was
a law far less restrictive than the present one. But there
had been a great change since 1791. As to competition, let
the House consider the wages which English labourers were
obtaining on the French railways. They were obtaining one-
third more than any other labourers. He could not, therefore,
consider that competition would affect the English labourer.
The effect of the present law was clearly to add to the income
of those who were the legislators. It was the duty of those
legislators, at the same time, to provide that in the increase of
their incomes the poor, from whom they derived their additional
incomes, should participate. He would conclude by advising
them to be wise in time.

Sir R. PEEL said he could not, on the present occasion,
allow the present debate to be finished in silence en his part.
The Hon. Member for Wolverhampton had made a motion
precisely similar to the motion he had brought forward last
year. The Hon. Gentleman had said last year that the corn-
laws restricted the supply of food, and that all restrictions
ought to be abolished. The Right Hon. Baronet then read
the motion that was brought forward by Mr. Villiers last year,
and continued to say that he had voted against the motion of
the Hon. Member last year, and should also on the present
occasion. It was not his intention to deal out tnthe Noble
Lord the measure of injustice which had sometimes been
meted out" to him. The Noble Lord was not enabled to give
his support last year to the present motion, but he ( Sir R.Peel)
should not throw out any taunt, because he thought it proper
this year to give his support to the motion. He not only gave
his support to the two first motions of the Hon. Gentleman,
but he cordially concurred in them. When the Noble Lord
reminded those gentlemen that the effect of the law was to in-
crease their own income, by its increasing the rents on land,
that objection applied equally as strongly to his own proposal.
The Noble Lord bad said that the estimate of the fixed duty
had been greatly exaggerated. He could not concur, although
he should vote against the motion before the House, in some
of the opinions which had been expressed by those Members
on his side of the House. He thought that ex-
perience had proved that a high rate of corn was
not connected with a high rate of interest, and
it was impossible to say that the rate of wages was altered
with the price of corn. He must also differ from his Honourable
Friend, who spoke on this head, as to the condition of the labour-
ing classes, and who expressed the opinion that whatever might
have been their opinion two months ago it hail subsequently in
some degree altered, and that at present they were not in
so comfortable a state as they had been. He did not believe
there was any distinction in the condition of the working
classes at the present time, compared with what it was two
months ago. A great increase had taken place in the consump-
tion of exciseable articles. There had been an increase in the
consumption of coffee, in tea, and in other articles
of a similar character, during the last two years.
The Hon. Member for Stockport had made certain predictions
respecting the effects of the corn-laws, which, did he believe
them to he founded in truth, ought to be some reason for a re-
peal of the corn-laws. But he did nut believe in the truth of
that Hon. Gentleman's predictions. He had greatly overrated
the question. He had pointed out the evils of the country,
exhibiting extensive wealth co-existent with extensive misery.
He referred to the fact of there being 1,560,000 paupers ;

which, in connexion with the other evils-referred to, were ad-
duced as reasons for proceeding to the immediate repeal of the
corn-laws. It was his (Sir Robert Peel's) opinion that esta-
blish what laws they pleased, they must expect such a classifi-
tion of society to exist—they must expect to find extremes of
wealth and poverty in the country. Such a division of wealth
and poverty existed in every country in the world. As all
legislation must fail to reconcile those great differences in con-
dition, they (the Government) had proceeded to other mea-
sures. They were wishful to settle the question, as far as it
was practicable for legislation to do so. There had been a
corn-law price in 1688, the period of the Revolution, until now.
Since the time of King William 111. there had been protection
conceded to agriculture. Hence it was necessary for them to
proceed with caution and deliberation in the steps which they
took to alter the law which afforded that protection. The
fullest consideration was required before they altered a law
that had existed for 150 years, and which involved so
many important interests and considerations. The course
which the Government had taken since 1842 was
in pursuance of that wise and careful policy.
In 1842, the corn-law which was in operation imposed a duty
of 255. per quarter; now it was but 12s. This was said to be
but a nominal difference ; but under it grain that was formerly
excluded, was now allowed to come in. In 1842, cattle could
not be admitted, but now they were received at a moderate
duty.—( Hear, hear.) They had, in addition to those :altera-
tions and improvements, gradually reduced the duty on other
articles of consumption. He might refer to bark, to timber,
on which the duty had been remitted to a great extent by the
tariff of 1842. The duty on Baltic timber had been much re-
duced, while the duty on Canada timber had been reduced to
merely a nominal duty. He gave these as proofs that the mea-
sures of the Government had been attended with great improve-
ment and advantage in those several departments of trade.
That law passed, he was bound to say, with the general con-
currence of the agricultural interest. Questions did arise
with respect to particular articles, but it was generally con-
sidered that the resolutions proposed would be for the general
benefit of the country. But what were the prophecies which
were made with respect to its operation? They were then
told that its extension would ~be incompatible with the im-
provement of commerce—that prediction had not been proved.
They had seen an extension of commerce and of manu'acturing
industry, which they hardly thought would occur concurrently
with the new law. The Hon. Member for Sheffield(Mr. Ward)
thought that the manufacturing prosperity of the country
might be much greater than it was. It might be carried
further. But he ( Sir R. Peel) said that they had arrived at a
position which, in 1842, was hardly predicted, and which some
thought inconsistent with the passing of the new corn-law. It
was said that it would not give any steadiness of price, but sinee
it passed, there had been a greater steadiness of price than be-
fore. During September last, and he believed, during every
week since, the price of wheat had hardly varied less than
455. 5d., or more than 465. 11d. The lowest price of wheat
during the present year had been 455. 2d., and the highest,
465. sd. He must say that there had been less fluctuation
of price, than at any former period. Then it was said that
that was caused by the favourable harvest. He denied that.
The harvest was good for wheat, but very defective for
barley, and he doubted whether the oat crop would be
abundant, so that the law had been exposed to defective har-
vests. Yet there had been almost as regular a trade in
barley and oats, as could have been anticipated under any
system of trade. It was said that agricultural prosperity
could not exist with the present corn-laws. He doubted very
meet' Whether, (luring any period of the past history
of this country, there bad been a more rapid pro-
gress in agricultural produce than during the last few years.
The existence of the present corn-laws was not incompatible
with the demands of the commerce and manufactures of the
country, nor with steadiness of price; and he could show that,
during their operation, no greater fluctuation had occurred,
than would have occurred under any other system. It appeared
to him that they could not take any precautions as to the fluc-
tuation in any article of this kind, and speculations would no
doubt be conducted with reference to the state of the har-
vests. He did not think that the existing corn-
laws were liable to the objections which had been urged
against them, or that the predictions as to their
failure had been verified. He was not prepared to
adopt either the proposition of the Noble Lord (Lord J. Rus-
sell) or that of the Hon. Member for Wolverhampton; neither
did he defend the present corn-law on the ground that it was
for the special advantage of any particular interest—( Hear,
hear)—for it would be impossible to maintain any law which
had for its object to increase the rents of the landowners.
Looking to the condition of the agricultural interest, the changes
contemplated would be productive of great injury to them.
He thought that such a change in the law as that contem-
plated would be injurious to the landed proprietors, and to
those who were dependent upon them. Bet he thought it
was impossible to overlook their moral and social relations.
He thought that those relations should not be merely depend-
ent upou pecuniary considerations. The landlord did not
look upon the land as a mere commercial speculation.—( Hear,
hear.) According to the principle for which Hon. Gentle-
men opposite contended, the land was to be regarded as
a mere commercial speculation—he was not prepared to say
that the land was regarded by the landowners of this country
in any such light. He was not prepared to say that the
landowner looked upon the tenants as entitled to no conside-
ration, and that they should be looked upon in a mere pecuniary
light.—( Hear, hear.) He did not mean to say that agri-
culture should be wholly exempted from the applica-
tion of those principles which were applied to commerce,
but what he meant to say was that the landlords should have
a due regard for their tenantry. Neither did he say that they
should rely upon internal resources, for he thought that a supply
from other countries was often necessary—he would he very glad
that they could rely entirely upon internal resources, but such
at present could not be the case. During three or four years
the Government had in every measure it brought forward
advocated principles which tended to discourage protection ;
but they could not evince such a disregard to
existing interests as to comply with the motion
of the Hon. Member for Wolverhampton.—( Hear, hear. )
If the doctrine be good for corn it must be good for every-
thing else. A proposition of the kind applied to everything.
It applied to everything else as well as articles of agricultural
produce, and though it might be accompanied by a fall in
price he did not believe that it would tend to the general
prosperity of the country. On these grounds, therefore, he
believed that it would not promote the welfare of the country.
Believing that it would materially interfere with the interests
of Ireland, aud having no confidence whatever in the beneficial
tendency of the resolutions, he should give his decided vote
against the proposition of the Honourable Member for
Wolverhampton.
Lord HOWICIC, rote amid loud cries of "Divide," "divide."
He only wished to draw the attention of the House to one fact.
In the speech of the Right Honourable Baronet, and in that of
the Right Honourable Baronet the Home Secretary of State,
not one word was attempted to be said in contradiction of the
first resolution of the Honourable Member for Wolverhampton.
If the last resolution had been to abolish the duties on the corn-
laws gradually, the speech of the Right Honourable Member
would be unanswerable.—( Loud cries of " Divide.") He
would not detain the Howe any longer, but he hoped