Star.
London, England, 1830-03-30 00:00:00

~, .

to occupy more than was necessary of their lordships' time. He
would only say that in his view the profits of the manufacturer
must always be in the same ratio as those of the agriculturist. The
manufacturers would declare that the agriculturists were always
their greatest customers. The noble baron said a great deal about
the combined effects of machinery and the corn laws. Let it be
recollected that the manufacturers were free from many visitations
to which the agriculturists were liable. They need not fear any bad
seam to spoil their calicoes, nor had they eight-tenths of the poor-
est= to pay. He would beg to ask the noble baron were there no
Imes regulations in other countries ? At New York there was a
duty upon foreign wheat of something like 10s. a quarter. Now he
considered that as being very near a prohibition, considering the sir.
cumstances of the country. With respect to Holland, it was only
when that country contained a number of cities, and no land ens.
ployed in cultivation that she dispensed with corn laws. She now
found it necessary to adopt them. And as to France, she had
the strictest code in the world. France depended upon the land as,
the basis abet prosperity. He here used the language of his Mo.
jesty, in his speech in 1822, when he said that the landed interests
formed the basis of the prosperity of the country. It was absurd,
then, to say that if other countries adopted corn laws we should be
without them, particularly when we were in an artificial state, as
compared with them. All the arguments of the noble baron, and
dimie who maintained the same side of the question with him,
could apply only to an imaginary and Utopian state. Let them
first get rid of our debt, and of that burden which pressed so
unequally upon different classes..-the poor rates—and then their
principles might admit of practical adoption ; but, until then,
it would be much wiser not to indulge in these ideal speculations.
All that he regretted in the Noble Baron's motion was, the direction
which he gave to the distress,. Be (Lord Malmesbury) did not
consider the corn law, as at present existing, to be the cause of the
distress of the landlord and tenant. We must look to the internal
resources of the country for our prosperity. We should always find
other countries ready to deal with us when it suited their interest,
but where that was not the case, all our free trade regulations, and
our reciprocity system, would be found good for nothing.
The Earl of MOUNTCASHEL said, that however cheaply
some noble lords might hold the poor lands, be knew thousands
of families who would be idle and who would starve without the
waste lands ; therefore be thought that was a proof that the poor-
lands did not prevent industry, and that their cultivation was so
far good. He would ask, why should not this country be like
China—where he was informed, the tops of the highest hills were
cultivated ? He should be glad to see the peasantry obtain em-
ployment in way rather than become a dead burden upon the
country.
The Earl of ROSEBERY said he had long formed an opinion
upon this subject, from which nothing that he had yet heard bad
induced him to recede. That opinion was, that a permanent pro.
testing duty for the agriculturist, to be regulated by parliament
upon the principle of an ascending and descending duty, would be
the most beneficial to the community at large. He was not dis-
posed to go into the question very fully, but the first objection
which lay in his mind to a free trade in corn was, that he
was convinced, after many years of trade in corn upon that prin.
ciple, can would not be cheaper than it now was, whilst the
rice of labour might be depreciated greatly out of proportion
rn the mean time.—(Hear, hear, hear.) It was not, therefore, a
measure by which the poor man would ise benefited. Another ob.
jection was, that in years of scarcity the greatest fluctuations would
take place in the price of corn, which could not be remedied by H.
lying upon the foreign supply, for foreigners might give it to us in
what quantities they pleased, regulating the supply either by hostile
feelings, or making a source of revenue by placing high duties upon
the article. The true state of the question was properly set
out in the king's speech in 1828, when he recommended to par-
liament to place the corn laws upon such a principle as " would
bestow proper protection upon domestic agriculture, and se.
cure a sufficient supply in years of scarcity." For the
great object of the corn laws was not to raise the price of
but to give employment, and to provide permanent good for
the poor. Looking at the subject in this way, he was
asienished to hear it said that the repeal of the corn laws would
benefit the poorer classes. It seemed to be agreed upon all hands
that some protection equivalent to the disadvantages under which
the English agriculturist stood, as compared with the foreign
grower, should be afforded. The calculations as to the
exact amount of this sum were various. Mr. Ricardo esti.
mated them at 105. a quarter. He also thought that the
duty ought to be fixed at that sum. But it would be impos-
sible to keep up a duty at that creamy sum. Last year, for instance,
when corn rose to 745. and a fraction, government could never con.
tinue to impose a fixed duty of 10s. for, in fact, foreign corn wu
pouring in In great quantities at a nominal duty of Is. From the pe-
culiarity of the British grower's situation, he was entitled to a pro.
tectioa, for corn was unlike any other commodity. In other articles,
when a scarcity took place, the manufacturer was allowed, and did
raise his prices, as a matter of course, but can being a necessary at.
tide of life, parliament bad interfered in a way which they did not
on any other occaaon, and tied down the price to such a sum as that it
should not be distressing to the consumer. If the happiness and con.
fort of the people were the only consideration in this case, nobody
would vote for the repeal of the corn laws more readily than
he, for he bad these considerations very much at heart. And if he
thought that the repeal of those laws would benefit that class, al.
though he was one of those who were said to be most interested in
keeping them up, he would gladly vote for their repeal. The
community, however, he was sure, could never be benefited by the
depression of any one particular interest. These interests could
not be separated • the manufacturer could not be benefited at the
expense of the agriculturist. (hear.) The noble lord then pro.
coded to say, that nothing was more to be deprecated upon this
subject than inflammatory speeches and writings ; for if it was true
that a strong prejudice existed in the minds of the landed proprie-
tors in favour of the corn laws, It was no less true that an opposite
feeling was kept up against them—a feeling too much fate a and
encouraged, he must say, by the public press of the country. For
all these reasons he should oppose these resolutions.
The Earl of CARNARVON protested against a free trade which
was not universal. If the petitioners had asked for a free trade is
all trades and manufactures, as well as corn, they should have had
his support. He was one of those who would be glad to see a free
trade universal ; but such a state of things, though very desirable,
was very impracticable; and he should therefore oppose the
when
that withdrawing protection from agriculture, at a time too
that interest happened to be very much distressed. But, in sup-
porting the ors laws, he snugly hoped that they would not be
Immanent. _ _ .

- The Duke of WELLINGTON—My lords, 1 feel it necessary
to say one void, and one word only, upon this subject. I entirely
agree with the noble baron opposite in his wish to see cheap corn
here. I think we ought to have cheap provisions, because it would
improve the condition of the people of this country ; but I wish to
see them cheapened by having a greater plenty of provisions—by
the prosperity of agriculture—by the improvement of Ire.
—and by a continuance of the improvement of this country.
I think if we have cheap provisions here, they would add to the
prosperity and happiness of the country ; but I think 1 can prove
to your lordships that they cannot be made cheap in any other
manner than I have stated. To prove this, 1 refer your lordships
to the returns which have been laid before you by the different coin.
mitten of both houses, upon this subject—returns extending from
the years 1701 to 1815. Your lordships will see, that during the
whole of this period the ports were open, and yet was there a single
year in which corn was cheap ?—Not one. Oa the contrary, you
will find the price, up to 1824, at 50s. and after that, rising to 60s
in feet, never below the rate at which it would be necessary
to close the ports. (Hear, hear, hear.) You will also see that
during the last year corn was as high as 745. although, as
my noble Mend below me (Lord Malmesbury) told you.
there were imported into this country, from Ireland and
abroad, during, the time, 8,000,000 quarters of corn, of which
3,000,000 or 4,000,000 were wheat. You will see, also, that though
in one week no less than 400,000 quarters were imported, the price
was not diminished, so that it is pretty clear, from these documents,
that foreign importation does not necessarily bring down the price of
corn in this country. I now, my Lords, proceed to the charge which
the Noble Baron has made against me, of having said that the bill
which 1 had the honour to introduce to this house worked well.
I say, my Lords, that it did. It did this—it gave to the agri-
culture of the country a protection, so long as the produce
of that agriculture was sufficient for the consumption of the
country ; and when it was not, it prevented the commodity
from rising to an exorbitant price, after the necessity for opening
the ports bad ceased, by providing that it should not exceed 7101.
This is what the last corn bill has done. I will now all your lord-
ships' attention to another view of this corn question t to returns of
the prices of corn at Dantsic during the years that corn was wanted
in this country. These returns reach from 1801 to 1815. In Jan.
1826, wheat was at Dantsic 18s ; in June, 195.3 d t Dettrahtli 275'
3d; Jan. 1827, 25s 7d ; June, 22s 4d ; lec. 22s 911 ; after which it
began to rise. In Dec. 1828, it was 57a Bd. Did this arise from say de•
ficleney of the harvest in Poland ? Certainly not; for you will see it
was owing to the increased demand from this country. instead of
cheapening corn by opening the ports, you make it dearer. In Jan.
1829, wheat was Ws. Bd. at Dantsic ; but in June it fell to 455.841.
and then the harvest here begins to be thonOt not so bad, and there
is a fall immediately in the price of corn at Dantsic. In Dec 1829.
we find it at 30s. 811. the price declining all the doe from the Fn'
ceding June, because the demand from this country was becoming
more slack. What conclusion then do I draw from this ? Why, that
our custom has the effect of raking. the price of cern at Dantsic, and
that, if we have their corn, they wW take we that we have ft at a high
prios. Well than, my lords, if we must hey our can as a high,
price, why not set well pay this high price Into the pocketed the
English or Irish as of the Polish or Prussian grower? (Hear.) It is
upon this principle that I say the bill worked well. It has
our agriculture against she Polish agriailnuts, and, whoa that is not
L wanted, it prolate that the prim of English can shall not be to.