If When he heard such stuff as that rent was the surplus profit of the land, he could not forbear asking, what would be the effect of doing away with all but the profits to the occupier? What would be the effect of such a state of things? Every landowner must cultivate his own estates, and as it was not likely he would actually cultivate them in person, but would employ a bailiff, the yeomanry would be destroyed. Would not that be an evil? Was not an independent tenantry one of the finest bodies of men in any country? In his opinion it was, and it would be a great evil to destroy them, and leave none but landlords, middlemen, and peasantry. The noble Baron had talked of monopoly. That word, like liberality, free trade, and reciprocity, had many meanings. What monopoly was it, to admit, as we had admitted within the last few years, 8,000,000 of quarters of grain? If their Lordships would calculate that at 60s. for wheat, 32s. for barley, and 40s. for peas and beans, they would find 16,000,000 of foreign produce brought into our market to compete with our own produce. there was free trade there ought to be free labour; but he believed that if any noble Lord went to his tailor or shoemaker, and said that his coat or shoes ought to be cheaper because the tax on leather was reduced, and because there was no duty on the importation of foreign wool, he would be told that their articles could not be sold cheaper, for there was a combination among the workmen, who would not work for less than the present wages, and who would not let others work. But there was no such thing as free labour. No one could work in the City of London (which had lately sent up a petition clamouring for free trade) except he was a freeman. Was that freedom or monopoly? Why was the manufacturing interest distressed? Why, but because the agricultural interest, who were their best customers, were distressed. The manufacturing interest had not to bear the same burthens as the agricultural interest, who paid eight-tenths of the poor-rates and were subjected to all the vicissitudes of bad seasons. In all quarters of the world a duty was imposed upon the importation of foreign Corn. At New York the duty was 10s. per quarter, which, considering the circumstances of the country, and the little amount of public debt and taxation, was very great. Even in Holland, ever since that country had been united to an important agricultural district, a duty had been imposed upon foreign grain. France acted upon the same principle; and the arguments of the noble Baron were applicable only to an Utopian state of things. When their Lordships could reduce to nothing 800 millions of debt-when they could take off the poor-rates, they might talk of free trade in Corn; but till that time they must adapt themselves to the circumstances of the day. He thought it cruel to impute the present distress to the landlords. He repeated that all nations adopted systems of restrictions, and he called on their Lordships so far to act on the same principle as to preserve our independence of other nations with respect. to the production of the first necessary article of life. Lord Mountcashel did not agree with the noble Baron as to the waste of labour in the cultivation of poor lands; for he had seen such lands maintain thousands of persons in Ireland, who, but for them, could not have found the means of subsistence. Other countries cultivated their lands to the fullest extent. In China he had heard that the highest tops of the mountains were cultivated, and why should not our waste lands be cultivated? The Earl of Rosebery entirely dissented from the deductions of the noble Baron, not only because they were founded upon speculative and untried doctrines, but because he thought that in the peculiar circumstances in which the country was placed, it was necessary for our prosperity that a protection for the domestic agriculture of the kingdom should be maintained, and also that the principle of the existing laws (deciding the amount of duty payable on the importation of foreign Corn according to the price of the commodity in the home market, by an ascending and descending scale) was the most beneficial to the community at large that it was possible to adopt, and the least injurious to any part of it. Without entering into any detail of argument on the subject, the principle of his objection to any attempt at the establishment of a free trade in Corn was, first, his conviction that in a long series of years the price to the home consumer would not be less than it was under the existing system if the Cornlaws were abolished, or but very little less; and even if the price were reduced, wages would fall along with it, so that the poor affected land in this country, as compared with and above those affecting land in other countries. He begged to ask the supporters of a fixed duty of 10s. a quarter on wheat (without referring to seasons of great scarcity), whether Government could have persevered in levying such a duty in November 1828, with a season resembling one of scarcity, though not of actual famine, wheat being then at 74s. and a fraction, and when a large number of quarters of foreign grain was imported at a nominal duty of 1s.? He could not conceive a fixed duty offering a fair protection to the grower under ordinary circumstances, which it would be possible to adhere to in seasons of distress and scarcity. He must here add, that it appeared to him, independently of the consideration of all other matters, that the British farmer and occupier of land was entitled, on principles of strict justice, to a protecting duty. In all other commodities, with the exception of Corn, the persons producing them had all the advantage of the utmost scarcity that could arise in their supply. Not so the grower of Corn, which, being a prime necessary of life, it was the principle of the legislature to take off the protection as soon as the price reached an amount likely to be distressing to the consumer. Thus the farmer, who in years of scarcity had but little produce to sell, was not allowed to obtain an increased price for it. He could safely say, that there was no object which he had more at heart than the improvement of the condition of the lower orders. He could assure their Lordships that he was actuated by no base feeling of self interest in the course he took; but thinking with the noble Earl that it was impossible to sepa would derive no advantage from a change; and next, that if the average price of some years were reduced, the vast fluctuation in years of scarcity would be increased, if we relied upon foreign countries for a supply of Corn for the support of a large portion of our population. But other objections might be stated on this score, that he did not believe a really free trade in Corn could be relied on. In seasons of scarcity in foreign countries, those countries would prohibit an exportation of grain to us, and in seasons of scarcity here, they would avail themselves of our want for purposes of revenue, if not through feelings of hostility; they would raise the tax on the exportation of grain, so as greatly to enhance its price in the British market. But if he were induced to concede, for the sake of argument, that for a number of years the principle of a free trade in corn could be constantly adhered to, he might say, that when we had so large a portion of our population dependent upon foreign countries for a supply of Corn, this immense demand would tend to enhance the price of the article abroad to such a degree as nearly to bring it up to the present price of its production at home. Our great object (as expressed in the Speech put into the mouth of his Majesty at the close of the Session of Parliament of 1828) should be, to bottom the Corn-laws on the principle of " combining adequate protection for domestic agriculture with due precaution against the consequences of a deficient harvest," affording a sufficient supply in years of dearth and scarcity. That was the sound principle on which to establish a system of Corn-laws. The real object, which was, to produce prosperity in the country, was not to be attained by a little increase or dimi-rate one class of the public from another nution in the price of Corn, but it was to be accomplished by securing as great a quantity of employment as possible for the population. Some who advocated a change in the present system (even the noble Lord himself appeared to hint at it) still talked of a duty, which he suppossd The Earl of Carnarvon observed, that was to be a fixed one. Now, he thought if a general repeal of all protections afthat a fixed duty upon the importation of fecting manufactures, as well as those foreign Corn would be of all others the by which agriculture was guarded, could most variable and subject to change. be accomplished, he should have no obMr. Ricardo thought that a duty of 10s.jection to proceed on that broad and a quarter on foreign wheat would be a fair amount to fix upon, and grounded his opinion upon a calculation into which he entered with respect to the charges which in a matter so important to the prosperity of all, and believing the present system to be conducive to the advantage of the community at large, he felt disposed to support it in preference to plans of a different character. general principle. But feeling that such a state of things, however desirable, could not be brought about, and hoping that, year after year, they would continue to 981 Resolutions on the {MARCH 29} so far as it was likely to be really serviceable to the country, he must object to withdrawing at once, and that too in a time of great difficulty and distress, the protection which the agricultural interest at present enjoyed. approach that desirable situation, at least I still remained the same-it experienced no fall. The noble Baron had made a sort of attack on him with reference to the measure, connected with this subject, which he had the honour to introduce some time since into that House. The noble Baron affirmed that the measure had not worked well. Now he would assert that the measure thus noticed had worked well. It protected the agriculturist; by its operation the produce of the country was rendered sufficient for its consumption; and it prevented the price froin rising to an exorbitant rate. Such was the fact, while it was equally true that the introduction of foreign Corn to this country did not bring down the high price of from 70s. to 74s. a quarter. Their Lordships might look at the subject in another point of view. Let them look at the price of wheat at Dantzic from 1791 to 1815, and let them also consider the price at which it was sold in recent years, when it was required in this country. In January, 1826, the price of wheat at Dantzic was 18s. 11d.; in June it was 19s. 5d.; in December, it was 27s. 3d.; in January, 1827, 25s. 7d.; in June it was 22s. 4d.; in December, 22s. 9d.; and in December 1828, it was 57s. 8d. Was it owing to any deficiency of the harvest in Poland that this rise took place? No such thing; it was caused by the demand in this country. Was that the mode of procuring cheap Corn? It was the very reverse, for our demand had the effect of raising the price. In January 1829, the price was 58s. 8d., and in June it was 45s. 8d.,-an alteration which arose from the circumstance of the harvest in this country not turning out so badly as was expected. In December 1829, the price was 30s. 8d., being a fall of nearly one-half between January and December. Why, he would ask their Lordships, had such a fall taken place in the price of wheat at Dantzic? Simply because the demand for it in this country had ceased. This clearly substantiated his argument that the Then he high price was occasioned on the Continent by the demand of this country. would say, if we are to pay a high price for Corn, let us give it to the English or Irish agriculturist, and not to the foreigner, That was exactly the principle of the existing Corn-law; and he would assert that it had worked well. It had one great advantage which preceding Corn-laws could not boast-it had been carried into execution without interruption, while the pre The Duke of Wellington said, he felt it necessary to say one or two words on this Motion, more particularly after what the noble Earl below him had said, with reference to what had fallen from him (the Duke of Wellington) in the course of the last Session. He agreed entirely with the noble Baron in wishing to have plenty of cheap Corn; because he thought it would be highly beneficial to the country, and would tend to improve the condition of every class of society. But he was anxious to see that effect produced in a manner different from that pointed out by the noble Baron. He wished to see plenty of provisions created in a way that would confer benefit and advantage on the native agriculturist; he wished to see that plenty derived from the improvement of Ireland, and from the increase of her productions. If cheap provisions were produced by these means, great national good must be the result. And he would say farther, that a plentiful and steady supply of provisions could not be produced by any other means. In reply to the observations of the noble Baron, he would call on their Lordships to look at the Returns which had been laid before that and the other House of Parliament. Let them advert to the long period, from 1791 to 1815, during the whole of which time the ports were open, at a duty of 24s. per quarter when the price was beyond 50s., which duty was continued up to 1804, and 22s. when beyond 60s., which was the case up to 1815,-let them advert to that very long period, and they would find that there was not one single cheap year of Corn. It never was below the price at which importation was prohibited. If their Lordships would refer to last year, they would perceive that Corn had been in the course of that year as high as 74s.; and his noble friend had stated what the amount of grain imported was,-namely, 8,000,000 of quarters of grain of different kinds, of which 3,500,000 quarters were wheat. Now, he begged leave to ask, did the price of Corn come down in consequence? It did not, although there was an importation, in one week, to the amount of 400,000 quarters. The price, however, I vious law and the amended law had ported at a small nominal duty, that profit been infringed on by the Government every would be vastly increased. But the noble year, or every second year, by the intro- Baron had forgotten one great cause of the duction of Corn without any duty, to the small profits that were realized on our advantage of certain individuals, but with- goods when sent to foreign parts-namely, out any advantage to the agriculturist. the great increase of manufactures abroad. Another effect of the present Corn-law was The greatest difficulty was experienced in to give protection to the agricultural in- exporting our manufactures. In some terest of this country; and in his mind, countries there was a total probibition of it was a most important point to effect that them, in others there was an extremely object. It was a great political object, high duty, and in all there was much comnot only when viewed with reference to the petition and jealousy. The government duties which the nobility and gentry in every one of those foreign countries did throughout the empire were called on to every thing in its power to prevent the perform, but it was also an object of the sale of British manufactures. He was first importance, so far as the interests of convinced that if the people of this counthe people of this country were concerned, try went to the continent, and purchased in order to ensure them a certain supply all the Corn in Poland, not an additional of Corn of home growth, whether the year article would they be enabled to force into happened to be unproductive or otherwise. France, Germany, Prussia, or Russia. The noble Baron ridiculed the idea of a duty If the merchants of this country were being levied abroad on foreign Corn about allowed freely to purchase grain, foreigners to be shipped to this country. But there would get as much for their Corn as they was nothing ridiculous in the matter; for possibly could; but their rulers would the noble Baron would find, that a duty of not allow a single article of our manufac20s. a quarter had been levied on Corn about tures to be imported in consequence of to be exported to this country; and there- our being obliged to buy the grain of those fore, it was not wise that we should place countries. There was undoubtedly a cerourselves so much in the power of foreign- tain quantity of manufactures in this ers. Buonaparte had levied a duty on Corn, country more than the population itself the growth of France, as well as of Aus- could consume, which it would be very detria and of Prussia, when he was in pos- sirable to get rid of. But was it exactly session of the capitals of those countries, true that taking foreign Corn would have which was intended for exportation to Eng- the effect of enabling other countries to land. If Buonaparte did so, what was to purchase our manufactures? And even prevent the monarchs of Austria, Prussia, if such were the case, what were we to do or Russia from taking the same step? with our own Corn? If those countries In fact, as the noble Earl near him wished for our manufactures, why, when reminded him, the king of Prussia did lay Russia and Prussia disposed of their Corn on such a duty in 1801. And it ought to other states, did they not come and purnot to be overlooked that a great portion chase goods from us? For his own part of the Corn intended for this market must he believed, after all, that the home come through the territory of Prussia. market was our best resource, and that Were they then to rely on the forbearance there we disposed of the greatest number of these foreign sovereigns to obtain the of our manufactured articles. It had, necessary supply of Corn to England? and he thought with truth, been stated He said, certainly not; and therefore he that two-thirds of the whole quantity of would contend that this country could not our manufactures were disposed of in this wisely do otherwise than secure the country. The greater part of the woollen interest of the agriculturist, who ought to and the whole of the silk manufactures be encouraged to raise a sufficient supply were consumed here; and, he asked, of Corn to meet the wants of the country would they take the Corn trade from the either in time of war or at any other period hands of those who afforded them the of distress. The noble Baron had taken best market? He thought that such a up much of their Lordships' time in dis- proposition was quite preposterous. He cussing the amount of profit which the was sure that the interests of all classes in manufacturer derived from exporting his this country were nearly allied. They goods to foreign countries; and he argued, were not to look to the interest of the that if we allowed foreign Corn to be im-cotton-manufacturer, or of the iron-manu 985 {MARCH 29} Resolutions on the facturer. That which they were bound to consider was, the benefit of all; and, in his opinion, the common good would be most effectually secured, by getting the greatest quantity of provisions for the whole community,-by giving a proper remuneration to those who produced those provisions, and thus encouraging them to do what was most beneficial to the community at large. With Lord King, in reply, admitted the importance of the home market, but his argument was, that if the foreigner were admitted to send his Corn to this country, the manufacturer would, in consequence, have two customers instead of one. respect to what had been said relative to a duty being imposed by foreign powers on Corn about to be exported here, such a practice never could, in his opinion, be It was very true that carried into effect. Buonaparte had levied such a duty; but it should be observed, that he was at that time master of all the potentates of Europe, and they were obliged to obey his mandate; but he was sure that now no country would be so foolish as to levy an impost which would put an end to its own trade. The noble lord concluded by defending his motives for bringing forward the Motion at the present time. He was sure it was much better to do so now than to introduce it when a great rise in the price of Corn, which he was sure would take place, had created irritation and illwill in the public mind. The Earl of Rosslyn said, it was very clear that the foreign powers would impose such a duty as had been alluded to. The king of Prussia had imposed such a tax in 1801, and on its inconvenience being represented by his subjects, the answer was, that it should remain for a time, but that if the price of wheat in England fell to between 50s. and 60s., it should then be taken off. This was a fact which showed that foreign powers would take that course. The resolutions were negatived without a division. HOUSE OF COMMONS. Monday, March 29. MINUTES.] Mr. ASTELL brought up the Report on the [The hon. Member stated, in answer to labours-had made its last report-and Returns presented;-Annual account of increase and dimi- LORD ELDON.] Sir F. Burdett begged leave to inform the House, that he had |