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

Instead of the protection that the law had given them for the last
hundred and forty years? (An Hon. Member expressed across the
table a doubt whether the present laws had existed to long.) If
the Hon. Gentleman would examine the documents that had been
publisbed on the subject, he would find that Corn-laws had existed
for the last hundred and forty years, from the beginning of the last
century; and now that the maximum duty imeosed on wheat was
20s a quarter, it was a fair subject of praise to the agriculturists
that they had surrendered nearly half of their protection. He
did not believe that the agriculturists surrendered too much—
(Hedle hear)—he believed that they could,affotd to part with a
portion of their protection, but he would say that it was laudable
sad honourable in them, standing in the position they did, both in
the oountry and in Parliament,;,to have made that sacrifice to the
other classes of their countrymen. But, after all, the question was
as to their sesposed tampering with the Corn-laws. It might be
like taking a brisk out of a wall, but if that brick was mouldered
away, and they took it out and pet in a round one, he was not sure
but it was an improvement. The Noble Lord opposite (Lord
Hdevick) had said that this was but the precursor of ulterior
Change; far be it from him to say that in matters
of trade and production it was possible for Parliament to exercise
tie gift of foresight. If they looked back on the course of. theirdof
history, they would find that they had hardly ever had a perm
ten, fifteen, or twenty years, without some new law relating to corn..
The Noble Lord had also objeeted to it, that it was not a practical
fixed
duty. and be came forward with his old chimera of a
duty. Was not the doctrine of a fixed duty a chimerical propo-
sition ? if anything could be called chimerical, it was the duty
of 4s. or ss. a quarter supported this your by the Noble Lord. He
had alleged, also, that this was an unsettling measure, and not a
final one. All firatity was comparative, but what was the
finality of the Noble Lord. the Member for Sun.
Berland ? (War, hear.) Last year it was Ss., but
this year it was 55., and before two years were paescet he was afraid
it wilted vanish altogether.—;Loud cheers.) But suppose, if he
might make such a supposition, that Parliament slimed adopt the
principle of a fixed duty ; let them suppose, if their imaginations
were elastic and bold enough to do so, that by 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 it ? 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
smon-cay, that oil the Corn.laws the country was di.
vided into two parties, one objecting to all protection,
the other attacied to the principle of a graduated scale ? Who
then were the few solitary champions of a fixed duty ? Was it riot
common in that House to hear lion. Gentlemen declare, as the
lion. and Gallant Member fur Merylebone had done, that they
liked a fixed duty, 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
they sometimes took tee notes in anotherkhamber 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 orie_sixth of the House would vote for a fixed
duty ? (Hear, hear.) And how did the few (sham-
pions of a fixed duty stand among themselves? What
was their consistency on this vital point ? He saw three of them
-opposite; the first, the Noble Lord the Member for London, was for
a fixed duty, descending suddenly to one shilling at a famine price;
tire 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 net applicable at all, but that if a duty was levied it
ought to be a duty for revenue.—(Hear, bear.) Now, a more ex-
traordinary proposition than this had never reached his ears, nor
one of which the Hon. Member who proposed it ought to be more
ashamed. When they laid a duty on a fordo 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
fixed 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.
He had troubled the House much longer than he had in.
tended, but he would now conic 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 eves a
measure of considerable relief, which had been declared even by
its opponents to be a material improvement of the present law.
It was 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 oecoeition 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 difficult,y in defending the Bill 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
haerso 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-
spect 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 be for a
graduated tcale, bow many for a fixed duty, and for a total re-
peal. Why, rf they came to that mode of expression, he (Lord J.
Russell) should like to know bow 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.) His 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 lion. Gentt'wan. The lion. Gentleman had
made various charges against the late Government, as having been
guilty of a political manoeuvre, and of having brought forward a
Bill which they had no expe, tations of carrying. lie would tell
the Right Honourable Gentleman that his opinion was, if he
brought forward a measure founded on sound principles of
free trade, mid if he did not immediately succeed in carry ing
the greater part of that measure, if he did not immediately succeed
wills 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 °pillion on the
subject. The Hon. Gentlemaa might invent motives for the late
Government with respect to their Corn Bill, but that he declared .
was his expectation with respect to the proposed change. lie
felt, and he believed every Member of the Government felt 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 subject of the Corn.laws.—(Cheers.) Now now
had they bean met?—(Cheering, and counter sheering.) 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 attachmeet 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 bccaese they had supported or
would support any measure for a change in the Corn laws, but be-
cauee 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.) lie would venture to say, that the agriculturists
of Lincolnshire, who were for the maintenance of the present
Corn-lave, would have been more efficiently represented by his
Noble Friend near him, and by Mr. Handley, who had both votes
fur maintaining the present Corn-lew, than by those who voted with
the bight 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 political characttr of the measueee The late Ministry
Lad proposed a change in the Corn-laws because they had tl,uglit
the circumstances of the country required it. Lord Melbourne had
always declared that the question of the Corn laws was a question
of eircuinstances, and that whenever the circumstances of the coon_
try should require an alteration, he would be ready to take- the
subjeot into his consideration. That lime 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! Nate) He had not the newspapers by him to refer to the
pledges which had been given by Hun. 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 part he (Lord J.
Russell) most 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
bad often found that in certain districts the harvests had
been good, in certain ether districts it had 1 ern an average harvest,
and in others it hod 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 fa
voueably 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
030 had been formerly.—(Hear, hear.) Now that was a conse-
quence of the CM n- laws. It was not an occasional occurrence, but
it was a permanent cause, affecting all average years.—(Cheers.)
The Right lion. 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
wou'd 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 imputation of this country had increased to
such an extent during the last twenty years, that in America
'writers of authority had calculated either that an immense lin-
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
erenortatlon of corn might be required firm foreign countries to
,-;upport our addeional pol,uhaion, it Ly no means followed tt at ahs
large extent of !alai woad Le thrown out of cultivation—(Cheers)
—and with a moderate Lard duty he entsrteined no such appre-
Checre.) Now considering this a labourer's question,
Jf no great quantity of-land were thrown out of cultivation, the ad-
(Elie"; quantity of corn n tech would be provided for the con-
sumption of the country from foreign countries would be of great
advantage both to the agt ;cull ural labour and to the artisan. There-
fore, locking at it as a labrancr's question, he was cf 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 tame condition as the artisan i* the manufacturing towns.—
(Cheers.) Now what was the state of the country at the present
moment ? The Right Hon. Gentleman hzd said that they had
heard 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 manufastures had increased, fo.
reign machinery had been improved, and uow capital in Continental
countries had been devoted to manufactures.—(Hear, hear.) Could
they forget the oft-quoted assertion of Mr. Huskisson in the year
1830, 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
s *substitute for manual labour.—(Hear, hear.) Another means
was to rower the wages of labour. Mr. Huskisson was right in his