The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1841-07-09 00:00:00

NORTH LANCASHIRE ELECTION.

On Tuesday last the nomination of candidates for the
Northern Division of this county took place at Lancaster,
when Lord Stanley and J. Wilson Patten, Esq., were duly
elected without the slightest opposition. After the addresses
of the movers and seconders, and an excellent speech from
Mr. Patten: Lord Stanley delivered the following sentiments,
which we give at considerable length, as containing an ad-
mirable reply to ahnost every sophistry which can be advanced
by the brawlers for free trade. After expressing his disap-
pointment that no opponent was brought forward to discuss
the various measures propounded by government, (a step
which was threatened by the notorious Acland,) his lordship
proceeded at follows :—Free trade serves very well to talk
of out of doors by the supporters of the government ; but in
parliament, and in the face of the Country, no member of
the administration, however glad they may have been to avail
themselves of the temporary advantage of the clap-trap argu-
ment which is ventured to be put forward for their measures,
as a question of free trade ; but the principle of the whole of
those three measures is this--not to reduce, or very itnnia-
terially to reduce, the price of the articles consumed, but to
substitute to the consumer the produce of foreign countries
for the produce of the home grower, and of your colonial
fellow-countrymen; and in my judgment that course is nei-
ther consistent with sound policy, nor consistent wish the
greatness of this empire,—ruinous to the agricultural interests
at home,—of most doubtful advantage to the master manu-
facturers themselves ; but to the labourer, whether agricul-
tural or manufacturing—to the manufacturing labourer of
little value, to the agricultural labourer of positive loss. Now,
I know that upon these questions it is very dry to enter into
discussions of this kind, and I will spare you any discussion
upon the question of sugar; because the principle of the other
two propositions is very much the same principle, and I wish
to deal with the illustration of the principle, and not more
than I can help with the details of the measures themselues.
I will only say, in passing, with respect to the reduction in
the price, you will observe it was stated by the government
themselves, by Lord John Russell, in my hearing, that the
calculation he made of the reduction in the price of sugar to
the consumers of this country,—which he yet ventured to
put forward in my hearing as a complete panacea for all the
evils, the distress, and all the poverty in which the labour-
ing classes in the manufacturing districts were plunged,—
he ventured to put forward as a cure for all these evils, a re-
duction upon the price of sugar, which he himself estimated
at the amount of about 2s. per cwt., that is to say, about
six-tenths of a farthing per lb weight of sugar. [Some one
made a suggestion to his lordship.] Six-tenths of a penny,
then ; ls. 6d. a cwt., or something of that kind. I'll tell
what would be the result of that. It would be a very good
thing for the grocers and the retail dealers ; because they
would still compel their customers to pay the whole of the
present prices ; but to the consumer who buys by the half-
pound or the pound. there would be no benefit. There cer-
tainly would be a little profit to the dealer, but to the con-
sumer—unless the reduction in the prices of articles is to a
very considerable extent, when it commences to be broken
into minute fractions by the retail dealers—it is notorious
that the consumers have no advantage whatsoever. I recol-
lect an instance which shows this. The duty was taken off
leather some time ago, and there was a very great loss to the
_revenue at the time, but leather was made very much cheap-
er. Now, I ask any gentleman whether he got a pair of
boots or shoes the cheaper for the reduction in the price of
leather ! ...(" No.") Now, the consumer would gain no ad-
vantage by the reduction in the price of sugar; but I will
tell you who would have a great loss. The West India
planters are now at the close of a great experiment,—in
which I had the honour of taking a very popular part—an
experiment most arduous, yet most honourable, and, I will
add, most costly to this country ; the West Indians are
beginning to recover from the first effects of the sudden
emancipation of the negroes ; habits of industry are begin-
-1 ning to be cultivated in those islands; the negroes are work- ,
ing for wages—for high wages, doubtless—as necessary to
tempt them to abandon that idleness in which the climate
and the little labour necessary to supply themselves with
food and a maintenance tempts them to indulge; but they
are now beginning to labour steadily, diligently, and earn-
estly for the high wages which the West Indians are enabled
to give, because, in this country they are enabled to dispose
of the whole amount of their sugar, which is the staple pro-
duce of the West Indies. (Hear.) In addition to this, in
the East Indies, a very large proportion of British capital
has been embarked, and successfully embarked, in the culti-
vation of sugar. In the course of a few years, the amount
of sugar for the consumption of this country will increase,
and, indeed, is increasing rapidly. But if, at this moment,
by a reduction in the amount of the duty—not upon colonial
sugar or upon our own sugar (for there was no proposition
made to reduce that)—which would render it impossible for i
the West Indians and the East Indians to pour your own j
colonial sugar in your own markets, the produce of freemen
just emerging into freedom,—the inevitable consequence
will be, that the West India cultivation of sugar must be
thrown up; the great experiment of emancipation must be
abandoned; and, instead of conferring the blessing of liberty
upon 800,000 fellow-creatures, you will have conferred a
curse, instead of a blessing ; and, at the expense of twenty
millions sterling to this country, you will have created an
idle, a dissolute, and a pauper population ; because they are
not duly encouraged by your legislation, and because, by the
paltry attempt to save a small fraction of a penny in the
pound of sugar, you will have transferred the whole supply
of this country from your own colonies, from your own fel-
low-subjects, from those who consume, in proportion to
their population, an infinitely larger proportion of our manu-
factured goods than any other country in the world ; you
will have transferred to foreigners that trade which is now so
mutually beneficial to you and to your fellow-subjects, the
colonists. Now I understand perfectly well the argument—
supposing Lord John Russell had proposed to reduce the
duty upon colonial sugar, now amounting to 245. per cwt.,
and proportionally to reduce the duty upon foreign sugar.
But that was not the proposal ; the proposal was to keep the
duty upon colonial sugar at 21s; not to allow you to get
colonial sugar one farthing cheaper, bnt, by reducing the
duty on foreign sugar, to bring the foreign into more advan-
tageous competition with the home growth; and thereby,
without reducing the price to the consumer, transferring
the profits of trade from your own countrymen to foreign
vessels and to foreign growers. (Hear, hear, and cheers.)
Now, what was the case as to foreign timber? They say,
" It would be a great boon to take off the duty upon Baltic
timber ; and yet, for the sake of keeping up an odious mono-
poly" (for everything is" an odious monopoly" now-a-days
—that is one of the cant terms), " you compel us to buy bad
and dear timber from Canada." Now, what is the natural
course to take in this matter? Why, the natural course for
the benefit of the consumer, for the advantage of free trade,
I suppose, at all events, is not to increase the duty on one,
but to reduce the duty upon both alike. Let the colonial and
the Baltic have fair play and competition. But what does
the government? Do they propose to reduce the duty on
Baltic timber to benefit the consumer ? Not a whit. I think
the duty on Baltic timber is 455. a load ; and it was proposed
to reduce it by 5s a load, and increase the duty on Canadian
timber by 10s. a load, by way of free trade, and of increasing
the consumption of an article, which, though inferior for some
purposes to Baltic timber, if yet for many purposes just as
good as Baltic timber. The free-trade principle of govern-
ment is not to reduce the duty on Canadian ; not to leave
the duty on Canadian timber where it is ; but, upon the prin-
ciple of free trade, and giving the consumer the benefit of
the proposal, they would raise the duty from 10s. up to 20s,
a load. (Hear.) Now, my honourable friend, who did me
the honour of proposing me just now, said that the govern-
ment had brought forward this measure with the professed
desire of relieving the commercial distress of the country. I
take leave to tell my honourable friend, that he is mistaken
even so far; for the Chancellor of the Exchequer told his
constituents a few days ago, at Portsmouth, when asked what
it was that induced him to propose it, he said, " I will tell
you what was the moving cause with me ; I had an empty
exchequer." (Laughter.) These measures were not brought
forward (if brought forward at all) as measures of high na-
tional and commercial policy. They ought to have been
brought forward upon a well-considered examination of the
interests of different classes, and above all, with a perfect
knowledge, so far as calculation can go, of the manner in
which the different interests of this great country would be
affected by the various changes proposed by the government.
But if government had had any such notion in their head,
they would have announced those measures early in the
session. But when the chancellor (as my honourable friend
and colleague, again I am happy to say, has just told you)
' found that he had, at the expiration of six years, a revenue
£1,600,000 a year, with an expenditure continually increas-
ing, with a total deficiency of nearly £6,000,000, and the
estimated deficiency to meet the revenue upon this year's
estimates, upon which we are now entering, of z£2,400,000—
then it was that her Majesty's government bethought them
—not to serve the great commercial interests of the country,
but for the purpose of adding to a declining and deficient
revenue—to impose additional taxes upon articles of prime
necessity ; and at the same time—feeling that their majority
in the House of Commons had slipped from them, and that
the confidence of the country had deserted them still more
—to be able to tax these great articles of prime necessity
additionally, and at the same time putting forward the
plausible fallacy, that they were the advocates of free trade,
and were promoting the manufactures of the country. (Ap-
plause.) And what said a member of the government with
respect to these measures ? £2,400,000 deficiency was to be
made up. Why, government calculated they should receive
£600,000 a year more upon the importation of timber, and
that at a higher price than before. They calculated that
they should have £700,000 more a year upon the importation
of sugar. So much for additional taxes. They calculated
that they might obtain £400,000 a year upon the introduc-
tion of foreign corn ; those sums making together, I think,
£1,700,000; but for the remaining £700,000, the Chancellor
of the Exchequer, with an openness and a candour very
praise-worthy, and, I will add, very unusual in a Chancellor
of the Exchequer, " For making up the remaining £700,000,"
he says, " I tell you frankly, I don't make any proposal at
all. I think, in the course of the present year, we must
make up our minds to exceed our income by £700.000; and
I have only to hope that it may not happen again." Gentle-
men, is that the way to conduct the government ? Is that
the way to administer the finances of this country ? (" No.")
Is not that rather the way, by showing that your finances are
unequal to your income, to show your weakness to foreign
powers, and, as I found myself compelled to tell the govern-
ment in the House of Commons, to cripple the energies and
the resources of this mighty empire! (Vehement applause.)
Now, really, I am sorry to detain you—(" Go on") ;—but
perhaps you will allow me to enter upon these subjects. I
think it right that I should not attempt to dogmatise, or to
lay down propositions as of absolute, or of any, authority, as
coming from me; but I will state to you, candidly and
frankly, what are my views upon these subjects, and why I
cannot fall in with these plausible fallacies, which have been
brought forward to support the measures of government.
Now, it is very easy to say, " Oh, we are going to alter the
corn-law ;" and " the corn-law is a grinding monopoly ;"
that it is " a tax of 50 millions a-year," and " a landlords'
tax ;" and that it is " a tax to benefit the few, at the expense
of the many," and " you will get, if you only attend to us,
the shilling loaf for sixpence, arid the sixpenny loaf for three-
pence." Gentlemen, it is all very well to say, but it is very
difficult to prove it. To the poor man, anxious to obtain a
subsistence for his family, and to obtain nothing more than
fair remuneration for his labour—who wants nothing more
than employment, and who is willing to give his labour rea-
dily and industriously—I say, I can easily understand, if he
is told by one party, " Why, with your wages remaining the
same, would it not be a good thing to pay 9d. where you now
pay Is. Gd. for your bread and nrovisions ? You will have
so much the more to put into your pockets." Why, of
course, if the labouring classes believe these statements, it
is very natural that they should not be without their weight
npon their minds, and that they should act upon theimpres-
sions produced by those statements. But what reason have
they to suppose that those statements are sound and true?
Now here is one of these statements ; these are the benefits
which are supposed to result from total, immediate, and un-
conditional repeal of the corn-laws; because, although go-
vernment do not propose repeal; although they take care to
keep a sufficient protection to the agriculturist, as they re-
gard the Bs. a quarter duty—whereas almost every petition I
have seen presented, and which government have paraded as
supporting their views, has been for absolute, entire, and
unconditional repeal of all corn-laws whatsoever. Now here
[and his lordship held a printed paper in his band] is what
is to happen ;—" We shall buy a gallon of flour, which now
costs Is, Gd., for about ls., and the farmer will not be in-
jured. We shall buy a pound of meat, which now costs Bd.,
for about sd. or 6d., and the grazier will not be injured. We
shall buy a pound of butter, which now costs ls. Gd , for Bd.
or 10d., and no one will be injured. (Laughter.) We shall
oneget awpilolu
hnedi
aojfa cr
eadn.d 1 ev
We
, ewahh whit
gneotwa cgoasl tl
07ad., ?t. for
potatoes nd
wh
inc
ho
ill betnajguer eodf ;;;ayainadg
as
10l
fnoorwt h . costla4dsh. ,otfto:•y2ada.,araenttal nhoavoentehwe
articles much cheaper than at present ; and the person who
produces them, and the person who sells them, and into
whose pocket the profit goes, will not be injured. Very in-

genious! but a little impracticable, and; I am inclined to
think, not quite consistent with fact. ("spplause.) But now
with respect to the expected reduction, I am inclined to be-
lieve, first of all, that if these consequences did follow, they
would not benefit the labourer; secondly, that if they fol-
lowed, certainly they would injure the farmer; and, further,
I am inclined to think they would not benefit the interests
of the manufacturer. (Hear, hear.) I do not believe that
the amount of the reduction in the price of corn would be,
according to the government plan, anything like that which
is calculated upon by sanguine advocates of the measure.
But you are told that you are to buy bread which you now
pay ls. Gd. for, that you are to get it for ls. ; the 4 lb. loaf
you are to buy for Gd. instead of 9d. ; and that is to be ef-
fected by the proposed reduction in the price of corn. Let me
remind you, in the first instance, that the price of corn is byno
means the only clement which enters into the price of bread.
I suppose you won't get the miller to work for less than
lie did ; I suppose you won't get the baker to bake for less;
or the retail shopkeeper to sell at a less profit than now.
All those charges will remain precisely as they are ; and those
charges, in the case of bread, constitute one-third of the
whole amount. That is to say, supposing four gallons of
corn at 60s. a quarter to cost 12s. that quantity made into
bread would cost something more than 18s. Consequently,
the whole reduction to be effected must be effected upon the
price of corn in the first instance, or upon the 12s. ; and, if
you were to reduce it to one-half, it must follow, as a neces-
sary consequence, that that reduction will be effected by a
reduction of no less than one-half in the price of corn, or by
a permanent reduction of say from 60s. down to 30s. a quar-
ter. (Hear.) Now, suppose that happens; suppose the
farmer and the landlord (for I will not separate them) to have
the commodities they produce, and which yield them their
income, reduced by one. half, without any alteration in the
price of labour and in the character of their cultivation, with-
out any facilities given to them in compensation for this re-
duction,--I ask you how is it possible that that reduction of
50 per cent. should take place upon the price of corn, and
neither landlord nor farmer be injured by the alteration ?
(Hear, hear, hear.) If the (eduction take place, it must
be ruin to the farmer. Gentlemen are very apt to talk
about these things. " Oh, it don't matter much about the
landlords ; the landlords will suffer ; their rents will fall ;
but it is not a farmer's question; the farmers have nothing
to do with it; and still less have the farming labourers. '
Now, the farmer, you may rely, will suffer with the landlord,
and the labourer with the farmer. Supposing the whole
produce of a farmer to be worth £5OO, and the rent that is
paid for it £100; and that the produce of the farmer is to be
reduced to £250. Why, the whole rent is only £lOO. The
landlord may lose £5O or £75 out of his rent ; but I should
like to know who is to lose the other £l5O. But, if the
whole produce be reduced one-half, and the whole falls upon
the rent, what is to make up to the farmer for the loss of his
fixed capital embarked in the cultivation of his farm ? But,
I will tell you what the landlord will do. A gentleman of
£7,000 or £B,OOO finds his income reduced to £5,000 or
£6,000. It deprives him of some certain superfluities ; be is
not able to do quite so much as before ; be is obliged to con-
tract his expenses. What does he do? He looks about to
see what portion of his expenses he can contract and diminish,
with the least inconvenience to himself, and as least affect-
ing the income he enjoys ; and he finds it necessary to dis-
miss a certain number of servants ; he keeps rather fewer
servants ; he has less pleasure grounds ; he turns off one or
two gardeners, he reduces his grooms, aud, in short, his
whole establishment; by which he also reduces the amount
of his assessed taxes, and thereby the revenue which comes
into the country ; and he naturally squares his expenditure
to his income. But then, upon whom does this loss fall ?
What is to become of those persons who are turned out of
employment, in consequence of the gentleman not being able
to keep them any longer ? Is it a landlords' question, then ?
When the landlord reduces his expenditure one-half, is the
landlord the person to suffer most ? And if all the landlords
in England are compelled to reduce their establishments by
one-half, do you think the humbler classes of the population
will find themselves very much richer, or in the enjoyment
of a larger. supply of the necessaries of life than now?
(" No.") Now, what is to happen to the farmer ? Why,
the farmer finds, that though he pays a lower rent, yet the
reduction in value of his farm produce is such, that those
extensive modes of tillage and cultivation which he is able to
afford with a profit, in consequence of the high price of
agricultural produce, he is bound to abandon. He is bound
to adopt a more slovenly, because at the same time a more
cheap mode, and where he employed one agricultural labourer
more, he will do with one less in future. Now, is that a
farmers' question or a landlords' question, or is that a ques-
tion for the labouring classes of this country seriously to
consider, whether they would diminish the income of the
landlord and the profit of the farmer, and put an end to his
mode of carrying on an expensive but still profitable cultiva-
tion of his farm—whether the abandonment of that is likely
to be productive of very great advantage to the servants and
dependents of the landlord, or to the agricultural servants
employed by the farmer in his tillage ? But now gentlemen
say, " There is no difficulty at all about this. It is quite
true that a great many acres will go out of tillage ; but they
are not to go out of cultivation." Lord John Russell's
brother, the other day, stated to his constituents, that he
believed the effect of the proposed alteration of the corn-
laws would be to throw out of tillage between two aud three
million acres. Is that for the advantage of the labourer or
the farmer? " Oh ! but," say these free trade gentlemen,
"you must convert them. It is quite true you won't grow
corn on them ; but you can turn them into pasture ; and you
must fatten cattle upon land so poor that it won't pay for the
tillage of oats." I rather think that if some of these gen-
tlemen were to turn practical farmers, they would find some
difficulty in fattening bullocks upon land that won't pay at
the present price for oats. (Applause.) And I rather sus-
pect that the result will be, that not only a vast proportion
of agricultural labourers will be thrown out of employment,
but that a vast proportion of tillage land will be thrown
out of tillage ; and by taking tillage out of the due rotation
of crops, they will render that land comparatively value-
less, whether for tillage or pasture. (Loud appplause.)
Now all this is upon the supposition of a reduction of one-
half in the price of corn. This is put forth as the clap-trap
to the manufacturers. One word to the manufacturing la-
bourers, if there be any present. The manufacturers tell you
that the foreign trade ought to be very much increased, and
they tell you that the amount of your productions would be
very much increased by having cheap bread. Why will it be
so increased ? Because they can produce the articles cheaper.
Why can they produce the articles cheaper ? Because they
will have to pay lower wages. (Hear.) The only mode in
which a cheaper price of corn can be beneficial to a manufac-
turing community is by enabling them to dispose of more
goods ; and they will dispose of more goods if they will pro-
duce the goods cheaper; and they will produce the goods
cheaper, because, upon their own showing, they will be
obliged to give a smaller amount of wages, in consequence of
the reduced price of corn. If they don't give a lower price
of wages, the labourers of course obtain the benefit ; but then
the increase of manutactures does not follow. (Applause.)
Gentlemen, that is not my argument. My argument is as I
have stated it. I defy any man to come forward and say,
that is not the fair argument of the manufacturer. A reduc-
tion of prices enables us to produce cheaper, and we shall
produce cheaper, because we pay lower wages to our men. I
don't say, as some have assumed on the other side, that high
prices necessarily causes high wages ; because I believe the
amount of wages is regulated upon very different principles,
and is not wholly dependent upon the price of any article, but
upon the supply of labour in proportion to the demand for
labour. If there is a larger proportion of labourers willing
to give their labour, in proportion as those who are willing to
give their labour is in excess, in such proportion the compe-
tition between themselves will reduce the amount of wages,
without reference to the price of corn. But observe. This
is rather an abstruse question, and perhaps I ought not to be
entering into it ; I feel that it is a very dry one ; I dare say
that it is very tedious to you. (" No, go on.") No doubt
if the price of corn falls, I believe that the nominal price of
wages would fall too,—that is to say, there would be a com-
petition amongst the labouring classes for employment at
such a price, not because it is 2s. or 2s. Gd. but because 2s. or
2s. Gd. would give them a certain command of the necessaries
of life. And if from the same number of persons coming
into competition for the remuneration of their labour, they
could obtain the same amount of the necessaries of life for
ls. which they could obtain before for 2s. you will have pre-
cisely the same number of persons offering their labour for
ls. who were offering before for 2s. But now, supposing the
result of the alteration in the corn laws to be this, that by
the reduction of the incomes of the landlords and the far-
mers, and by the numbers of hands whom thefarmers throwout of employment, the competition for manufacturing la-
bour is greatly increased, then I apprehend that not only
the nominal price of wages, but the real price of wages, will
fall from that which it is at present; and, if the number of
hands who are thrown out of employment by the farmer, in-
dependently of the cruelty and the hardship (which these
free traders never take into calculation for a single moment)
of breaking through all the habits, customs, and feelings, the
number of agricultural labourers thrown out of employment
will tend to swell the number of competitors for manufactu-
' ring labour, and the real as well as the nominal price of ma-
nufacturing labour will fall, to the distress of the labourer
and to the injury of the country. (Applause.) Now, I said
that these free traders never take into consideration these
views of humanity ; but we, in legislating, must take into
consideration these things. You cannot coolly talk of throw-
ing out of tillage a whole district of country, supporting
thousands of families, and when they are plunged into abso-
lute beggary by the operation of the corn law, you cannot
say, as it they were so many mechanics, that they must trans-
fer their labour ; that they must go from the healthful and
peaceful occupations of agriculture to others for which they
are unfitted by all their previous habits and feelings ; you
cannot say to those men coolly, '• Transfer your labour to
some other quarter ; go for the means of subsistence to
spend the wretched remainder of your days, cooped up in
the wretched alleys of a manufacturing town, amidst scenes
repugnant to all your previous habits, and where, in periods
of temporary competition, those whom you tind.your com-
petitors for employment will reduce the wages of your la-
bour, and sickness and disappointment, pain and penury, will
shortly throw around that wretched portion of the agricultu-
ral labourers, whom your free traders have coolly told to
transfer their labour into some other quarter." (Cheers.)
But how are these reductions in the price of corn to take
place ? You are told by these free traders that you are to
have corn half as cheap as now ; but what is the opinion of
statistical writers,—the men who know something about
these questions upon which they talk and write; the men
who have really studied the foreign markets, and know what
is the effect of British demand for continental supply ? I
have here a pamphlet lately written by Mr. M'Culloch,—a
gentleman than whom no man is better conversant with the
whole subject, entering largely into its statistical details,—a
man who not only is in favour of a moderate fixed duty, but
who thinks that the fixed duty of the present government is
infinitely to high ; he tells you at the same time that it is
necessary to give protection to the agriculturists ; because
he admits, that in proportion to the rest of the community
they are unfairly and unequally taxed if you take the protec-
tion away from them. He, at the same time, tells you that
from the best inquiries he can make, he is satisfied that it
would not be possible to introduce permanently into this
country foreign corn, at a less amount than from 53s to 54s
a quarter ; and the average price of corn in England for the
last ten years, has been, if I am not mistaken, 56s lid or
57s in round numbers,under the system of protection to the
British grower. The advantage to be derived to the con-
sumer of corn, from removing this protection, and adopting
the principles and the plan of government, while you throw
the agricultural labourers out of employment, while you ruin
the farmers, while you injure the landlords, and diminish
the employment they are able to afford, the advantage to the
consumer is not this 30s a quarter which these gentlemen
talk off ; but a reduction of somewhere about 3s a quarter,
as compared with the average price of corn in this country
for the last few yews. And this is the advantage which the
consumer is to obtain from the sacrifice of the agricultural
interests of this country ! That is the statement of Mr.
M'Culloch ; that is the statement of Mr. Woolridge Whit-
more, another gentleman who has inquired very accurately
into this point. (Hear, hear.) Gentlemen, I wont fatigue
you by going through the details. I hava examined carefully
the statements made by taose gentlemen.; I put them for-
ward, not as my own statements, brit as the statements of
gentlemen intimately acquainted with the corn trade, dili-
gently and carefully making statistical inquiries ; and they
tell you that with a duty of Ss the price of corn will not fall
more than about 3s a quarter from that at which it has been
on an average for the last ten years. (Hear.) Now, if this
be the case, is it not absurd—is it not worse than abourd—is
it not mischievous and dangerous, to stimulate the passions,
and to excite the.feelings of the labouring and the manufac-.
turing classes, by saying they will have reduction of one-half
in the price of bread ; when the best statistical writers on the
government side of the question tell you that they calculate
upon a reduction of 555. 565. or 57. down to 535. or 54s'. a
quarter? Gentlemen, I leave you to cast up the sums for
yourselves, and to see how much in the 41b loaf a man will
gain by the reduction of 3s. per quarter upon corn. But in-
asinuch as the calculation is made that every man in this

• country, upon the average, consumes something under a
quarter of corn in the year, the total saving which, according
to those gentlemen is to be obtained by the destruction of the
agricultural interests in this country,4.arnounts to just 3s. a
year to each man in the community ; that 3s. entailing upon
him a reduction in the amount of his wages and of his em-
ployment, which I am afraid will far more than counter-
balance any supposed advantage from the reduction in the
price of food. But now, the manufacturing interests are to
be very much abridged by this change. How? Why, they
say that a number of countries. (take the United States for
example) because you won't take their corn, they won't take
your manufactured goods; but that if you will take their
corn, the United States will consume an enormously greater
quantity of our manufactured products. NN ell, supposing the
price of corn to be sq much reduced, as to produce a very
largely increased consumption, then I can understand, that
a very large increase in the consumption by this country will
cause a proportionate increase in the amount of our manu-
factures disposed off., • But, inasmuch as-Irather apprehend,
that neither foreigners, nor any other persons, are willing to
give us their corn for nothing at all,,the effect, if there is to
be no large reduction in the price of corn,. will be no large
increase in the consuption of corn ;—(hear)--and if there be
not a large increase in the consumption of corn, then there
will be no exchange of commodities to drive out foreign
manufactures, and to encourage and foster the increase of
manufactures. This will happen,—you will increase your
foreign trade very likely; but what will become of your home
trade in the mean time. You may increase the export of your
manufactures a million, or two millions ; there is no limit to
the amount to which manufacturing industry may be carried,
provided its produce meets with a market; but of what ad-
vantage will it be to the manufacturer, if he increases the
amount of the exports, by the encouragement given to the
import of foreign corn, and at the same time he checks the
produce of commercial industry, and the growth of British
corn, winch would give him at least an equal return for an
equal proportion of his manufactures ? (Great applause.)
Gentlemen, these are subjects not to be approached without
thegreatest deliberation and acquainted with the details and the
propable workings of these great questions ; and I will
venture to press upon the good sense of the electors of this
county, and upon that which is in fact the governing body
of this country, that it is not to be led away by a cry of fan-
cied advantage, and plausible statements of enormous bene-
fits to one portion of the community, without, at the same
time, sifting to the bottom the soundness or the folly of those
statements ; and ascertaining, before they commit themselves
to hasty and imprudent legislation, that those measures are
brought forward with full deliberation, with ample informa-
tion, without any ulterior objects, or different objects to
serve, except to promote the general interests of the coun-
try ; and that they are brought forward by men in whose
judgment, in whose sagacity, in whose prudence and good
management of the general affairs of the country, and of the
community at large, it can place undivided and unlimited
confidence. These great experiments, once made, cannot
be unmade. You cannot tamper with these great interests.
and then fancy that you will undo the mischief you have
done. It will require, I fear, years yet to undo the mischief
that has been done, by the appeal which has been made to
the passions of these people, upon this occasion. I fear it
will require years to allay those exasperations, and to remove
those plausible fallacies, by which it has been sought—cer-
tainly not without the countenance of the present admini-
stration, if not directly through them—to delude the people
of this country into adopting measures, upon the strength
of which measures that government hope they shall avoid
that discussion and inquiry which they deserve and ought to
have, as to the whole of their measures, and as to the whole
of their claims upon the public confidence. Now, even in a
financial point of view, these things are not to be decided
rashly. I admit frankly that, in the long run, a judicious
reduction of import duties frequently tends to the increase
of consumption, to the augmentation of the revenue, and,
at the same time, proportionally to increase the comforts
of this country. lam by no means hostile to the careful
and thorough revision of-the whole of our commercial tariff ;
but it is a work of infinite labour, and infinite delicacy. It
is not to be taken up in the manner in which it has been taken
up in the ex parte evidence given before the Imports Duties
Committee, by Mr. M`Gregor and, others, with hastily con-
cocted schemes which the government had produced, wild
and impracticable, although they have prepared them from
their own officers to put them forward. But, although in
the long run a reduction of duties may lead to the increase
of the revenue, the first effect is sure to be that of diminu-
tion, because the increase of consumption is gradual, while
the reduction of duty is immediate. Therefore, so far from
these reductions of duty, if they should be called so, or
any reduction of duty on any article imported, immedi-
ately increasing the consumption, the certain immediate
effect is to diminish the revenue in the first instance, al-
though ultimately and gradually it may increase it. (Hear.)
Therefore, while the nation is labouring under difficulties
from its finance to the extent of 4:2.,100,000 in the year, 1
hold it impossible to have selected a more unfortunate time
or a more happy occasion to bring forward, on the plea that
it would increase the revenue, a measure which, 1 believe,
in the first instance, must have the effect of reducing the re-
venue. Gentlemen, I feel bow very long I have trespassed
upon your time. I hope I have not, in the terms which I
have used, given offence in any quarter; or that, in bringing
forward these arguments, which I thought supported my
view of the case, I trust 1 have not given personal offence, or
been guilty of personal discourtesy in any quarter. I desired
to shew that these question* are not to be taken up as a strug-
gle between interests so great and important, as mere clap-
trap appeals to the paassions, rather than to the reason of the
people. 1 desired, impartially and fairly, to consider ; and,
by the reason of the people, if they will give to the discussion
consideration of this question that reason fairly, calmly, and
deliberately, I have no fear of trusting the interests of the
country to the deliberations and the reasoned judgment of
my fellow-countrymen. Gentlemen, I thank you for the
patient attention with which you have heard me going through
details which have been exceedingly dry and uninteresting.
I thank you yet more for the kind renewal of the confidence
with which you have honoured me now, for the fifth time, in
returning me as your representative to parliament, and I can
only assure you, that I will, in the first place, never, while I
am ready frankly to state my opinions upon every subject,
I will not condescend nor insult your understanding by giving
a pledge as to the specific vote which, under any circum-
stances, 1 will give on any individual measure, but I will refer
you to your knowledge of my past conduct and charaeter,
and will endeavour to vindicate the choice which you have
this day made of me as one of your representatives in parlia-
ment, by a faithful, and honest, and assiduous, and, I will
venture to add for myself, a conscientious discharge of those
important duties, and that weighty responsibility which your
confidence has this day placed upon my shoulders. (Cheers.)
The noble lord resumed his seat at half-past twelve, having
spoken an hour and ten minutes.