The Sun.
London, England, 1842-03-10 00:00:00

r instead of the protection that the law had given them for the last
hundred and forty years ? ( An Hon. Member expressed across the
'able a doubt whether the present laws had existed 2'o long. ) It
the Hon. Gentleman would examine the documents that had been
published on the subject, he would find that Corn-laws bad existed
for the last hundred and forty years, from the beginning of the last
ci ntury ; and now that the maximum duty imposed on wheat was
•::Ois a quarter, it was a fair subject of praise to the agriculturists
that they had surrendered nearly half of their protection. He
did not beiieve that the agriculturists surrendered too much.—
(Hear, hear)—he believed that they could,afford to part with a
portion of their protection, but he would say that it was laudable
and 'honourable in them, standing in the position they did, both in
the country and in Parliament, to have made that sacrifice to the
other classes of their countrymen. But, after all, the question was
as to this stmposed tampering with the Corn.laws. It might be
like taking a brick out of a wall, but if that brick was mouldered
away, and they took it out and put in a round one, he was not sure
bit it was an improvement. The Noble Lord opposite (Lord
Hetrick) bad said Oat this was but the precursor of ulterior
Change; far be t from him to say that in matters
of trade and production it was possible for Parliament to exercise
the gift of foresight. if they looked back on the course of their
history, they would find that they had hardly ever had a period of
ten, fifteen, or twenty years, without some new law relating to corn.
The Noble Lord had also objected to it, that it was not a practical
measure; and he came forward with his old chimera of a fixed
duty. Was not the doctrine of a fixed duty a chimerical propo-
*lion ? if anything could be called chimerical, it was the duty
of 45. or ss. a quarter supported this year by the Noble Lord. He
had alleged, also, that this was an unsettling measure, and not a
final one. All finality was comparative, but what was the
finality of the Noble Lord, the Member for Sun.
derland ? (Hear, hear.) Last year it was Bs., but
this year it was 55., and before two years were passed he was afraid
it would vanish altogether.—(Loud cheers.) But suppose, if he
might make such a supposition, that Parliament should adopt the
principle of a fixed duty ; let them suppose, if their imaginations
were elastic and bold enough to do so, that Sty some incomprehen-
sible means a law should pass in the present Session similar to the
measure proposed by the late Government, what would have been
the consequence? Who would be pledged to maintain ? What
body would support it? What would be the general conviction of
the country with regard to it ? Was it not clear as the sun at
noon-day, that ott the Corn.laws the country was di,
tided into two parties, one objecting to all protection,
the other attacted to the principle of a graduated sca'e ? Who
then were the few solitary champions of a fixed duty? Was it not
common in that House to hear lion. Gentlemen declare, as the
Hon. and Gallant Member for Marylebone had done, that they
liked a fixed ditty, as it was the way to arrive at no duty at all ?
_ _

:Hear, hear.) If they could divide the House in the same way as
:hey sometimes took the notes in another Chamber over the water—

if they could take a poll of the House on the questions of no duty
at all, of a graduated scale, and of a fixed duty, did they beileve
that one-sixth of the House would vote for a fixed
duty 7 (Hear, hear.) And how did the few ohan
pions of a fixed duty stand among themselves ? What
was their consistency on this vital point ? He saw three of :hem
opposite; the first, the Noble Lord the Member for London, was for
a fixed duty, descending suddenly to one shilling at a famine price;
the Hon. and Learned Member for Liskeard said that the descent to
a minimum duty was the very spring of a sliding scale ; the Noble
Lord the Member for Tiverton held the doctrine, that a protec-
tion duty was not applicable at all, but that if a duty was levied it
ought to be a duty for revenue.—(Hear, hear.) Now, a more ex-
traordinary proposition than this had never reached his ears, nor
one of which the Hon. Member who 'imposed it (light to be more
ashamed. When they laid a duty on a foreiEn article, which
came into competition with a corresponding British article, would
it do to call it a revenue duty ? The Noble Lord held the doctrine
of a revenue duty in words, and contradicted it in fact ; but he did
not believe that any genuine free trader would be content
with the Noble Lord's abandonment of the word, and his
retention of the thing. Here, then, were three champions of a
Axed duty, and all of them quite at issue with each other as to the
amount of it, and the mode in which it should be levied.
Ile had troubled the House much longer than he had in-
tended, but he would now come to a conclusion. The plan
proposed was a measure that practical men might adopt ; on its
details it had not, perhaps, the unanimous, but the general con-
currence of the agricultural and commercial bodies. It wi.s a
measure •f considerable relief, which had been declared even by
its opponents to be a material improvement of the present law.
. . .

It wds a measure against which the most able and most resolute
of those who were about to vote against it had said he would not
take any step in opposition if he did not know that
that opposition would be unavailing.----(Loud cheers.) Could
anything more justify the position, in which her Majesty's
Government stood, as supporters of a measure which they believed
would be acceptable to the country at large, and all the great and
varied interests in it.—(Cheers.)

Lord JOHN RUSSELL said, that the Right Hon. Gentleman,
with all the ability which he had devoted to the subject, had no
doubt felt extreme difficulty in defending the Bi,l then before the
House.—(Hear, hear.) He was sure if he had not so felt he would
not have resorted to that mixture of political crimination and ac-
cusation of various kinds against the late Government, which was
totally unnecessary for any other purpose except to dis-
guise his defence of the present Bill.—(Cries of " Hear, hear.")
That Hon. Gentleman knew well that a fixed duty, which he said
had so few supporters, was, in the opinion of a Noble Lord who
voted for the present measure, and who was the representative of
the great commercial town of Liverpool, the best measure.—(Hear,
hear.) It was well known that it was a measure which reasonable
men, without distinction of party, greatly approved. Feeling the
pressure of that opinion, therefore, he was obliged to have recourse
to political imputations, in order to disguise the weakness of his
case, in attacks on the late Ministry. He knew that with re-

Bpect to the distress of the country it had been said that the present
measure would afford no material relief; yet, without arguing or
discussing the objections to the measure, he had spoken of it as one
generally approved of by the House and by the country, and op-
posed but by few. He had said that he should like to test the

opinion of the House regarding it, as they did in some foreign
Chambers, as he should like to know how many would he for a

graduated scale. how many fur a fixed duty, and for a total re-
peal. 'Why, if they came to that mode of expression, he (Lord J.
Russell) should like to know how many there would be on the op.
. .

posite side of the House who would be for the proposed graduated

scale, and for the present law.—(Cheers.) Ills Noble Friend who

had spoken most ably on the question that night, had said

_ .
that if there was a coalition of parties against any change whatever,
_ _ _

by which the present measure might be defeated, he should not be
found opposing it; but that was very different from what had been
stated by the Right Hon. Gentleman. The Hon. Gentleman had

made ♦arious charges against tht late Government, as having been
guilty of a political manoeuvre, and of having brought forward a
Bill which they had no expectations of carrying. He would tell
. .

the Right Honourable Gentleman that hi; opinion was, if he
brought forward a measure founded on sound principles of
free trade, and if he did not immediately succeed in carry lug
the greater part of that measure, if he did not immediately succeed

with respect to the Corn Bill, yet that public opinion would be so

favourable to a change, that finally they should be enabled to carry
a sound measure on the subject. That was his opinion on the
subject. The Hnn. Gentleman might invent motives for the late

Government with reirpect to their Corn Bill, but that he declared

was his expectation with respect to the proposed change. He

felt, and he believed every Member of the Government flit also,

that in proposing measures founded on the principle of free
trade, they could not touch sugar and timber, and leave
untouched the great question of corn. They had felt that
it would not be just to the country to leave the Corn laws

in their then state, and they had felt that it would not
be just to the agricultural interest to bring forward their measures
on the question of timber and sugar, and reserve for future con.
sideration the measure which they might deem it expedient to
propose on the sul.ject of the Corn-laws.—(Cheers.) Now how
had they been met ?—(Cheering, and counter cheering.) Gentle.
men who were attached to the Government on general principles—
he would mention Mr. Handley as an instance—(Hear, hear)—
declared that as they were attached to the existing Corn-laws they
should be compelled to vote against the minority on the sugar
question—(Cheers)—because the carrying of that question would
lead to a change in the Corn-laws. Now what return had
those Gentlemen met with ? They had been taunted with
their attachmepat to the Ministry which sought to change the Corn.
laws. Their constituents were called upon to deprive them of the
honour of a seat in that House, not becaesc they had supported or
would support any measure fur a change in the Corn Jaws, but be-
cause they had acted in general in support of a Ministry which had
proposed a change in those laws—(Cheers)—and their successors
had been chosen upon pledges given to maintain the existing Corn-
laws.—(Cheers.) He would venture to say, that the agriculturists
of Lincolnshire, who were for the maintenance of the present
Corn-law, would have been more efficiently represented by his
Noble Friend near him, and by Mr. Handley, who had both voted
for maintaining the present Corn.law, than by those who voted with
the Right Hon. Baronet, who was now seeking to change the Corn-
law So much with regard to the Right Hon. Gentleman's speech in
reference to the pofitical character of the measure. The late Ministry
had proposed a change in the Corn-laws because they had thought
the circumstances of the country required it. Lord Melbourne had
always declared that the question of the Corn-laws was a question
of circumstances, and that whenever the circumstances of the coun-
try should require an alteration, he would be ready to take the
sul ject into his consideration. That time he thought had arrived,
and accordingly he had proposed a change. Those who were op.
posed to them had carefully concealed their intentions of altering
the Corn-laws. They had stated their opinion that it would be
right to maintain the existing Corn-laws, and the greater number
of their supporters for the agricultural districts had been returned
pledged to vote against any alteration.—(Cheers, :nd cries of
" No! No!") He had not the newspapers by him to refer to the
pledges which had been given by Hon. Members at the last election
but he had heard his Noble Friend the Member for North Lin-
colnshire quote the other evening, and he had never heard that
any contradiction had been given to them. The Right Hon.
Gentleman had, among the various particulars to which he had
referred respecting this question, said We approach this question
after four successive bad harvests." For his past he (Lord J.

Russell) must doubt the accuracy of that statement.—(Hear,
hear.). The Right Hon. Gentleman had said that it was their
duty, in discussing that question, to seek to avoid eery fallacy,
and he (Lord J. Russell) could not but consider the statement
that we had had four consecutive bad harvests as a fallacy. He
knew that during the course of some of those years he
had often found that in certain districts the harvests had
been good, in certain other districts it had I eon an average harvest,
and in others it had been unfavourable : but, upon the whole, it
had been found that the harvests had been insufficient for the
maintenance of the population during the last four years. But it
should be recollected, that as our population had increased, it had
become necessary to cultivate wheat on lands which were less la
vourably situated, both with regard to soil and climate, than land
formerly cultivated.—(Hear, hear.) The consequence was, that a
larger period of fine weather was required to get in the harvest
than had been formerly.—(Hear, bear.) Now that was a conse-
quence of the Cot n-laws. It was not an occasional occurrence, but
it was a permanent cause, affecting all average years.—(Cheers.)
The Right Hon. Gentleman had said that this was a labourer's
question rather than a landlord's question, or a farmer's question.
He (Lord John Russell) believed that with respect to the effect that
would be produced upon the agricultural labour by an alteration in
the Corn-laws, great exaggeration had been practised. Even if
the Corn.laws should be totally repealed, he (Lord John Russell)
did not imagine that any great extent of land would be thrown out
of cultivation. The population of this country had increased to
such an extent during the last twenty years, that ill America
writers of authority had calculated either that an immense im-
provement must have taken place in the productive powers of the
land formerly in cultivation, or that 2,400,000 additional
acres of land must have been brought under cultiva-
tion, to support the addition which had been made to
our population between 1838 and 1841. Now if that was
the rate at which our population increased, although a greater
importation of corn might be required front foreign countries to
support our additional population, it by no means followed that any
large extent of land would be thrown out of cultivation—(Cheers)
—and with a moderate fixed duty he entertained no such appre-
hension.—'Cheers.) Now considering this a labourer's question,
if no groat quantity of land were thrown out of cultivation, the ad-
ditional quantity of corn which would be provided for the con-
sumption of the country from foreign countries woi.ict be of great
advantage both to the agricultural labour and to the artisan. There-
fore, looking at it as a labourer's question, he was (f opinion
that as a change in the Corn-laws was very desirable
for the labourer engaged in agriculture, was with respect to food,
in the same condition as the artisan in the manufacturing towns.—
(Cheers.) Now what was the state of the country at the present
moment ? The Right Hon. Gentleman had said that they had
beard less of foreign competition as affecting our manufactures.
He (Lord J. Russell) believed that it would not be denied that for
a great many years past, foreign manufactures had increased, fo-
reign machinery had been Improved, and now capital in Continental
countries had been devoted to tnanufact ures.—(Hear, hear.) Could
they forget the oft.quoted assertion of Mr. Huskisson in the year
1630, that England had 'no means of meeting foreign com-
petition but by diminishing either the wages of la-
bour or the cost of production ? One means of diminishing
the cost of production, was by the introduction of machinery
as a substitute for manual labour.—(Hear, hear.) Another means
was to lower the wages of labour. Mr, luskisson was right in his