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


in TAW material 2r. 6d. leaving a profit for labour and skill of 7s. 6d.
Now the piece sold for be. its raw material was le. 6d. and the profit
applicable to labour and skill on two pieces now was only 71. Then
came the necessity with our smaller profits to compete with the fo-
reign manufacturer, and this had hitherto been done by the effect of
machinery, so unjustly in his mind decried, and a constant lowering
of the wages of labour. The result of low wages was soon ex-
plicated by a re-action never dreamt of, and the landowners
found no consumption for the produce of the land. Orase.lande
for feeding became lower and lower in rent, which was the far
larger propnrtion of most men's estates ; and this secret was disclosed
lately by the returns from Birmingham, that the consumption
of butchers' meat had fallen off already one-third, and was continu-
ing to fall off. The question of probable profits must be the
criterion of how far we are affected by the corn laws. Profits were
aft; eked by the non-importation of corn to supply the markets as
cheaply as the manufacturers of the continent, by the difference of
the prices of corn making wages cheap on the continent and dear in
England : and, finally, profits were affected and determined by that
portion of the worst sort of land, which was unwisely employed in
t" is country in the growth of corn. The larger the quantity of this
1..,rd so employed in agriculture, the less would be the profits of
c .pital generally. because there would always be a general tendency
in capital in all countries to seek the same level. This country, as
manufacturing country, possessed great advantages in having
abundant coal, excellent machinery, an enormous aggregate of ca-
pita, and pre-eminent skill in the application of its industry.—
r,uppoaine the produce of the labour of four Englishmen, aided by
t t.eir machinery,equalled only the produce of the labour of 8 Russians
-11 ployed on the soil in the way of commerce, it was clear we should
.entuin the whole of the labour of those eight persons by barter or trade
tor the produce of the labour of four Englishmen. Thus in foreign
corn it was obviously on this principle proved that it was the inte-
rest of England to admit by all means foreign coin, in order to
.:e Irish and give fair play, by cheap food, to the industry of our own
manufacturers, as well as other classes of society. If fair play had
been, in this way, given to the productive industry of this country,
the landed interest would not have to deplore the present depressed
state in which it was: and he would assert, without fear of being
refuted, that whilst the great manufacturing interests of the country
were depressed by this system of high prices of corn, to the extent
of any given sum, the landed interest was benefitted oniy one.
fifth of the amount of this unnatural exaction. (Hear, hear.)
For his own part, he never wished to live under what was
termed a system of privilege or protection. The rolls et
protection had been the parent of every species of op
France had been oppressed by it, under Colbert; S was the
victim of monopoles and protections, which beggared her,
whilst Holland, little Holland, showed the great Powers that a
country insignificant as she was could not only do without them,
but grow rich and affluent by abandoning the antiquated and falls.
cious principle of protection. Of all parts of the history of pro-'
tective measures the corn laws was the most fertile in folly and mis-
chief. At one time a bounty was given upon taking our corn—
other countries were enabled to eat our corn at our expense. They
were paid, in fact, fur being as good as to eat our food. Since
then circumstances were changed, and we were turned round com-
pletely. We now found that we could not possibly go on with
the bounty system, or persuade other countries to eat our corn, and
therefore restrictions were imposed upon the importation of foreign
corn. He was bound, however, to say, that there was this resem.
blance between the two opposite principles—that they were both
carried on at the expense of the people of this country. At the
time when we wanted manufactures, manufactures were excluded:
and now, when we wanted corn, we excluded corn. So much,
then, for protection. He should have done with that subject for
the present. But he would probably be asked whether be thought
it possible at present to admit of a free trade. He would ask, in
return, was it possible to gdesn without it ? He said the prospe.
rity of the country was inseparably connected with free trade.
(hear, hear.)—We were prosperous in proportion as we admitted
and acted upon the principles of free trade, and the country
sunk into difficulty and embarrassment as we denied them.
Free trade, according to his notions, was the saving of labour, and
restrictions were the waste of labour. The principle of our national
prosperity was the productive efficiency of our labour. Free trade
was the perfection of economy, since it obtained the greatest quan.
tiny of goods for the least amount of labour. And how were we
to have this without admitting foreign produce ? In the contest
which was now carried on between our manufacturers and the in-
dustrious classes of other countries, the foreigner had the benefit of
cheap corn, while our advantage consisted in machinery and capital.
But time and circumstances were giving these two advantages to
other nations, and we never could keep up the contest if we ex-
cluded their produce. When they should acquire capital and ma.
chinery, it requited very little foresight or sagacity to see that we
should be beat in that contest. Those who denied he principles of
free trade, if they meant any thing intelligible, meant that every
country should do every thing for itself. According to their prin-
ciple, America, instead of turning her industry to the cultivation of
her fertile soil, should apply it to the making of cottons and bard.
ware. France, instead of encouraging the growth of wine and oil,
and other productions of her soil, should employ her labour and
industry in making iron, without either fuel or the means of pro-
ducing the ore. England, instead of employing the power of steam
and machinery in making goods, should devote her resources to the
cultivation of the worst of soils. If this principle were pushed to
the extent which it would admit, it would have the worst effects
it would prevent the division of labour. But, foolish as this prin-
ciple was—and it was exceedingly foolish—it was nothing in com-
parison with the practice of wheelie would call a young statesman of
threescore—he meant his Holiness the Pope. His Holiness the Pope
best all the sages of this country in one respect. He issued a de-
cree at one time to prevent the importation of all iron implements
for the purposes of agricultural tillage. His Holiness might, no
doubt, have boasted that, by such a regulation, he very much in.
creased the quantity of manual labour in the Campagna of Rome,
since, by denying the facility of the necessary tools for cultivation,
be augmented the trouble and the labour; but his Holiness omitted,
as sonic statesmen in this country seemed to omit, the consideration
that labour so bestowed was an entire waste of labour, not having
the labourer's worth for it. It was like the memorable receipt of
digging holes in the earth, and then filling them up again. It was
labour that had no result. He might be asked if he would abandon
all the capital employed in the culture of bad soils ? He said, in
reply, that that was useless capital—that the possessors would be
better without it. Perhaps these who would be disposed to put
these questions to him would allow him to ask them, in rerun, of
what use was agriculture? If they gave an intelligible answer,
they would say it was to have corn. Was that the use of it ? Theo
he would say that theirs was an invention not to have corn. If this
were so, he was sure those gentlemen were too wise to sacrifice their
capital in cultivating a bad soil, and he would point out to them
that they could get their corn cheaper from abroad. There wens
some who, perhaps, would ask him why not leave this question at
rest ? The question never could be left at rest while such injustice
was entailed by the law upon the many who were suffering so moth
from It. The q6estion sever could be left at rest while die sou
law, by its impolitic provisions, kept down the wealth and pros.
perity of the country. It never could be left at rest while
the whole question was so well understood out of doors.—
If It was not well understood in Parliament, it was too well
understood out of doors, ever to be suffered to rest in its
present condition. But it might be asked " why not leave it ust.
touched at least now, while the country is improving ?" To this
he answered, how many times within the last 16 years had be not
beard of these improvements taking place ? At least 16 times as
many as there were often years since the Corn Bill bad come; into
effect, and as he had seen a recurrence to distress and ember.
raiment; and such would ever continue to be the case while these
laws existed as they stood at present. The corn laws had put the
prosperity of the country into Chancery. He remembered a passage
describing a certain wizard and his suitors .
And they moved on while he waved it o'er ;
But they never moved on one inch the more.

So the country was like the suitors in that Court of Chancery. It
continued to move on with great toil and labour, but still :made no
progress. He should now beg to advert to a topic to which he
should not have alluded, were it not for some observations made by
the noble duke opposite, in reply to some remarks made by a noble
lord upon a speech of the noble duke in a former debate.. The
noble duke had said—at least be begged pardon, the noble duke
could never have said any thing so absurd, but, some one had said,
and it was stated that the noble duke had said—that the corn law
worked well ; that the state of the country afforded evidence, and
that the petitions which had been presented for the last two years
testified, that the law'" worked well." NOw he would say that
for a time when things were " working well," we had as heavy
a year as he had ever trimmed. We were still in the slough, and
were not at all likely to get out of it, although the system
" worked well." The wheels did not run smoothly.; they were
deeply bedded in the mud. If the noble duke had ever =dm*
'an observation—if he bad ever said that the system '" worked
well"—it must have been before he found out the news-
alt., of a reduction of taxation. • There must have been *Srabe,
change in the opinion of whoever it was that said the 'yawn
a" worked well," because there were three millions and a half of
taxes taken off, and he had never known three.penny worth of taxes
taken off when things were going on well. This we fact he thou&
worth all the assertions of those who said that the law " worUd
well." Whenever he heard this phrase of " working well," he
could not help contrasting the state of the country with a corn law,
and its condition without a corn law. He could not avoid sow
wing the condition of the country for the 15 years since the ash
WII, Ind eandition for the 10 ptvaperons and happy years—the
• Mlle that this country had eves witnessed—between the
gibstise Allen ksin war and she beginning of the French war....
the whole of that time; corn was admitted fkom abroad b
lempe fiseeddee, led et a aonilesl •deity W od. the quarter. 21116
Ira be piggy et Mr. Pitt. For his own part, be was one of dine
who poodwrid what some pilled the simplielty or the • isms* Of