great distance and expences of transit, corn could not be brought to our markets for less than 45s. or 47s. a quarter, a competition which the home-grower need not greatly fear. He called upon the House to estimate the advantages which this country must receive from the consumption which markets containing 6,000,000 of people, who were, from their habits and circumstances, naturally more addicted to agricultural occupations, would open up to our increasing manufactures. The ministerial proposition included a contrivance for throwing a new obstacle in the way of the importation of wheat from America-not by a sliding-scale, but by a fixed duty on wheat which might come to this country through the St. Lawrence. He trusted, indeed, that that part of the project would be abandoned. It was monstrous that in legislating on the corntrade, the products of the ports of the Black Sea, and of the fine Western States of America, so well calculated to supply our deficiency, should be excluded. It should be borne in mind, that the latitudes of America and Europe are materially different, and do not present the same influence of seasons. Sir Robert Peel had adverted to the advantages which the advocates of a free-trade in corn had over their opponents: "I admit," said Lord John Russell, "that it is an advantage; but it is one that we have a right to hold." The principle of a fixed duty came before the House recommended by names entitled to great consideration. Mr. Ricardo recommended a duty of 20s., falling 1s. every year, to stand finally at 10s.; Mr. McCulloch recommended a fixed duty of 5s., as equivalent VOL. LXXXIV.

to the burthens on agriculture; the Committee of 1821, of which Sir Edward Knatchbull and other eminent men, skilled in agricultural matters, were Members, and of which Sir Thomas Gooch was Chairman, recommended a fixed duty; the person by whom the report was drawn up, appeared to think a fixed duty only a temporary measure, and to contemplate doing away with all protection and prohibition; and the same principle was recognised by Mr. Huskisson, in 1827, 1828, and 1830. If a fixed duty were adopted, however, many things would require serious consideration. When he (Lord John Russell) proposed his plan last Session, to obviate the inconvenience of a fixed duty in times of dearth, he had suggested that the Crown should have power to open the ports, and to admit corn duty free; perhaps, however, it would be well to fix the admission to a certain point, as when the average price should rise to 73s. or 74s. the quarter. He admitted that he did not regard the Cornlaws as the cause of the whole of the present distress; but he thought that they tended very greatly to aggravate it, and that a considerable relaxation would tend greatly to mitigate the distress. He quoted the Manchester circular, addressed to the wholesale London cottondealers, in which it was stated that the home consumption of manufactures had fallen off in consequence of the high price of corn. That statement was supported by all who had communication with the working class in various parts of the country. The freer admission of corn would enable that numerous class to consume more manufactures, while it would provide a better market for our goods [D]

abroad. It appeared to him that Sir Robert Peel did not understand the true position of the country: if the causes of distress had been the number of joint-stock banks and the excess of production, it would have passed away. The whole history of the country since the introduction of manufactures, disproved the assertion that the increase of machinery diminishes employment; for markets have always been created or extended in proportion to the increase of machinery. And, indeed, had it been so, what could have called into existence the great towns of Manchester, Leeds, Glasgow and Birmingham ? He believed that our commerce had not attained its highest point, if its produce should be increased in. stead of restricted.

Sir Robert Peel had said that an alteration of the Corn-laws would not relieve the distress: "Why, Sir, I agree to that description, when it is made applicable to the measures of the Government. I agree that it is impossible to hope that any material alleviation of distress should result from a measure which is only made to look apparently a little better than the former one-which keeps up all the vicious principles of the old law -which forbids the import of corn by a prohibitory dutywhich encourages speculation which cramps your commerce, and prevents your resorting for food to the Black Sea and the United States. To such a measure, the description that it will do nothing to relieve the distress is strictly applicable. Lord Bacon said, with a wisdom which has been often admired, that the froward retention of custom is as turbulent in a State as the rashness of innovation.

But he never dreamt that there might be a measure which should have all the evils of a froward retention of custom, and yet contain within it all the mischiefs of innovation; a measure which should change and therefore disturb, but which should not improve; and therefore not alleviate distress; a measure which, having caused much speculation and excited great hopes for a long period, should be in

appearance a change, and yet in reality be founded on the same principles, and produce similar evils with that which has been condemned by the public voice."

They

The present proposal would call up a formidable spirit of discontent. If the land proprietors adhered to a sliding-scale, now generally condemned, as the basis of a law, could the people believe that they alone took an impartial view of the question? would attribute to them a bias towards those interests that were preserved. Anything would be better for the Legislature than that: "Be in error if you will. Enact laws which partake of the ignorance of the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, upon matters of trade; it is mere ignorance, you will excite no feelings of hostility by such a course. But if you will proclaim that the Commons of Eng. land have acted on this question, which concerns the food of the whole community, with a selfish and partial view to their own advantage, it is impossible but that the Legislature must suffer in estimation."

Lord John Russell concluded by moving as his amendment: "That this House, considering the evils which have been caused by the present Corn-laws, and especially by the fluctuations of the

graduated or sliding-scale, is not prepared to adopt the measure of her Majesty's Government, which is founded upon the same principles, and is likely to be attended by similar results."

Mr. W. E. Gladstone opposed the amendment. He thought that some of Lord John Russell's principles ought, in point of consistency, to have made him a supporter of the Government measure. Mr. Huskisson had been decidedly of opinion that this country should be made independent of foreign supply. The proposed plan was not founded on the same principle as the existing one, except indeed as both involved a sliding-scale,but the structure of the two scales was widely different. The existing law had not perhaps worked so favourably for the consumer as it had been expected to do; but he denied that it was chargeable with the present mass of distress, which he attributed rather to the unavoidable fluctuations of the seasons. It was one effect too of new applications of machinery, though certainly not to diminish employment eventually, yet to cause great temporary gluts, and, consequently, great depression of markets. Four successive bad harvests could not have occurred without producing high prices of food. But was it true that these fluctuations, una voidable in themselves, were aggra vated by the Corn-laws? He showed that in the cotton trade there had been similar fluctuations according to authentic statements, and that in times antecedent to the present Corn-laws the fluctuations of the prices of wheat had been as great as under the existing system; also that in Prussia, where CornHaws are unknown, there had been similar fluctuations in the price of

rye, which is the food of the people there as wheat is in England. He argued against the probability that under a fixed duty prices would have been as moderate as they had lately been. He then proceeded to congratulate Lord John Russell on the improved maturity of his views, since he was now almost a convert to the minimum duty. He contrasted at some length the probable working of the noble Lord's plan and of Sir Robert Peel's. "What would be the comparative temptation to commit fraud and work upon the averages? Under his right honourable Friend's scheme, the importer knew when the price of wheat was at 64s. that there was no chance of getting the duty down to the minimum without holding out for a rise of 9s. If wheat rose to 668., the duty would be 6s., and it would become a matter of considerable uncertainty, certainly one of more than an average and ordinary chance, whether the price would rise so as to bring the duty very much lower. But the importer, under a fixed duty of 8s., knew that he had no chance of a diminution of duty unless he could work the averages up to 73s., when he got his corn in at ls. duty. When, therefore, there was a short supply of corn in the country, there was almost an absolute certainty that the price would go up to 73s.; and in proportion as the premium of the importer would then be large, he would set to work to starve the market and torture the consumerto revive and increase, indeed, all those means of fraud said to be employed in the old scale, which the noble Lord professed a desire to prevent. How would the noble Lord's scheme work for America? When wheat went down to 1s. duty, then those who sent to the

nearest port of the Continent might have a chance of getting it in port in time; but the American would have comparatively no chance of doing so, for before his corn arrived in this country the duty might have leaped from 1s. up again to 8s. Now, let the House try his right honourable Friend's plan by applying its operation to the same country. If when the American importer brought his corn to this country he found that the price of wheat had fallen from the highest point, he would only have to pay a duty in proportion to the fall; and, if the price had got so low as 66s., the duty would not then be higher than 6s., instead of 8s. as proposed by the noble Lord. In fact, the objection with respect to America was, not the variation of duty, but the enormous rapidity of the variation. But this objection in no way applied to the measure of his right honourable Friend; for supposing, as he had a right to do, that before corn was imported a fall of 6s. or 7s. had taken place, to state the utmost, from the price of 73s., the duty would then be only 6s., instead of 20s. 8d."

It had been said, that the Ministers were doing nothing by such a change as this; but perhaps doing nothing was not very different from proposing measures which the proposers knew they had no chance of carrying. He showed, however, that the details of the new plan differed much from those of the existing system in their checks upon speculation. He then illustrated the advantages of the proposed measure with reference to the inferior kinds of grain. The noble Lord had called this variable duty at its maximum a prohibitory one; but could there have been a

He

fixed duty, which in certain states of the market would not have been prohibitory? The question was whether the price which caused the maximum duty, was a price indicating plenty : if it were, he trusted this protection would be maintained by Parliament. He did not, however, agree that it amounted to prohibition; he believed that the prices of corn at Dantzic were practically much lower than the noble Lord had assumed them to be. For almost 140 years, and during the very times to which the Anti-Corn-law party were fond of appealing as the healthy period of the law, there had been a maximum protection amounting to 20s. admitted that a fixed duty would encourage exportation of manufactures; but there was no very close relation between our exports to foreign countries, and the corn we might take from them. They, too, had their legal restrictions, of which he gave examples, and he objected to legislate on the wild speculation of their making sudden changes in their entire systems for the sake of following our example. He did not believe that the late drains of our currency could have been prevented by a fixed duty; they must have followed as necessary consequences, from a succession of bad harvests, whatever the law of import duties had been. In a choice of difficulties it was no light objection against a fixed duty that it was an entire novelty. Mr. Huskisson, though once favourable to it had altered his opinion, and embraced the principle of a graduated scale. But it was also a delusion-for at a high price it could never be maintained-the noble Lord himself had to-night abandoned his fixed position, and

transcending all the former jumps had leaped 8s. at one bound. The maximum of 20s. was certainly a high one, but it was adopted on the two grounds of the peculiar burthens borne by agriculture, and of the large investments which a violent change would annihilate. An uniform protection could not be given to corn, as it could be to other articles, because at high prices of corn no duty could be maintained; therefore, at low prices, it was just to give a duty which would be an effectual protection. He trusted that the measure now to be introduced would work a great improvement without that sort of total revolution which all must deprecate, and which, with reference to this particular subject, had been denounced with peculiar emphasis by Lord Melbourne on Lord Fitzwilliam's motion in June 1840. Between the opposite extremes of those who thought with the Anti-Corn-law Convention; and those who thought with the Agricultural Association of Boston, he thought that the measure of Government was a fair medium; and that it would give relief to consumers, steadiness to prices, an increase to foreign trade, and a general improvement of the condition of the country.

The debate which followed lasted three nights. The principal speakers were, on the Ministerial side, Sir J. Graham, Lord Sandon, Sir E. Knatchbull, Mr. Childers, Captain Rous, Mr. Ormsby Gore, and Mr. B. Ferrand ; and in favour of the Amendment, Mr. C. Wood, Mr. Labouchere, Mr. Ward, Mr. E. Buller, Lord Worsley, and Mr. Roebuck. The last-named speaker disclaimed all intention of arguing upon the merits of the sliding scale as contrasted with a fixed

duty; the sole ground of his opposition to the measure was the imposing of any duty whatever. He disclaimed above all treating this subject as a religious question, with which it had nothing to do. But the manufacturing system had been created by the war, with the universal consent of the nation; and the population so created then must be maintained now. When the present distress was seen approaching, the Conservative party had made great efforts to displace the late Ministry. That Ministry, as a last refuge, and, at the last moment, undertook the present question; but they failed to settle it. The change of Government followed, and the responsibility devolved on Sir Robert Peel. Expectation was much excited when the time arrived for the development of his plan. After all, it proved to be nothing more than an alteration-a slight modification of the old system. The advantages of self-support had been dwelt upon; but a self-supporting coun. try was incapable of extending its commerce; and let it not be supposed that England ought not to foster her manufactures. What broke the alliance between Napoleon and Alexander? Not the valour of our armies, great as it was acknowledged to be, but the skill of our manufacturers. And what did "protection" mean? "The right honourable Baronet the Member for Kent had declared that it was to maintain the landed interest in their station in society. By the position in society of the landed interest, he supposed was meant that there should be maintained a resident gentry, who, being of a better class, were able to cultivate their intellect and their manners, and by their influence