be the consequenc es of a repeal of the Corn Laws. And, if I could believe that his predictions would be fully verified, my objections, even to a repeal of the Corn Laws, would be considerably weakened. But I think the hon. Gentleman and his friends greatly overrate the advantages of a repeal of the Corn Laws; he points out the great discrepancies that there are between the wealth of some portion of the community and the poverty of others, and he says, and says with truth-" You cannot say that the condition of this country is perfect, while there are 1,500,000 paupers in it." He speaks of the midland districts, and of the state of the manufacturing community; and he infers thence that you must proceed to the immediate repeal of the Corn Laws. It is my confident belief that, establish what system of Corn Laws you please, you must expect to find such differences in this country and in a state of society like this; you must expect to find those extremes of wealth and poverty. They exist, I believe, in every country on the face of the earth. I doubt, indeed, whether the more civilization and refinement increases, there be not a greater tendency towards those extremes. Suppose the hon. Gentleman to have succeeded in repealing the Corn Laws, he would find that he had done little towards preventing or curing the evil he points out; and we should then be again told, having failed to cure this great evil, having failed to improve the condition of the labouring classes, we must proceed to some other mode of relief, some other remedy for the evil. I wish, Sir, to reconcile the gradual approach towards sound principles, with a full and cautious consideration of the relations which have been established, and the interests that have grown up under a different system. The hon. Member for Wolverhampton tells us that the system of protection has endured since 1688-he admits that since the period of the Revolution, since the accession to the throne of this country of King Williamprotection has been given to agriculture, and it has been maintained up to the present time. Be it so I ask, under that state of the law in this country and in Ireland, what peculiar and special relations have grown up? Is it then fit that these relations should be disturbed as the hon. Member proposes to disturb them, or is it not more for the general interest that in returning to what I admit to be a bet ter condition of society and the establishment of better principles, we should proceed with caution and deliberation-that our steps should be taken, not hastily, but with the fullest consideration of the interests which have grown up under a state of law which has endured for 150 years? Now, what has been the course of our legislation for the last few years? Can it be said that we refused to recognise the soundness of these principles? Can it be said that we have contended that agriculture stands on some different footing with respect to them from other interests of this country. In 1842, we found a Corn Law existing, which gave very great protection to agriculture. The hon. Gentleman says that when I brought forward the present Corn Law, I avowed it was not my object to reduce that protection; but my right hon. Friend has truly stated that in bringing forward the present Corn Law, I did contemplate a material reduction in the amount of protection given by the last Corn Law. Where there is now a duty of 12s. per quarter on the import of foreign wheat, there was then, I think, a duty of 25s. or 30s.; and I might refer to the operation of the law since its passing to show that under the present law Corn has been brought in, and at such times, as under the former law could not have been introduced. In 1842, there was an absolute prohibition on the import of foreign cattle and foreign meat; that prohibition has been removed, and there has been substituted a moderate amount of duty on the import, both of foreign cattle and meat. The hon. Member for Durham has gone into a long detail of alterations in the law by which the protection given to agriculture has been gradually abated; he referred to the immense quantities of foreign bark which have been introduced, and asked the agriculturists whether they were not entirely satisfied with the existing price of bark? I believe many of them would, in reply, inform him that they were not satisfied, and that the import of foreign bark had materially reduced the price of that grown in this country. Again, timber is an article in which the agricultural interest is deeply concerned. By the Tariff of 1842, the monopoly of timber, the produce of this country, in the home market was materially abated by the law then introduced. Timber, the produce of the Baltic, is admitted at a much lower rate of duty than formerly; and timber, the produce of Canada, is | contended that they might have been caradmitted at a merely nominal duty; and ried further. Of course, it is impossible I apprehend that the effect of these altera- not to extend our wishes for manufacturtions is, that while there has been increased ing prosperity, and I quite admit that it demand for foreign timber, that has been might be carried further than at present; accompanied with a material reduction of but all I say is, that we have now arrived the price of timber in this country. I at a point which, in 1842, we hardly exmention these facts to show that the Go- pected to reach in so limited a time, and vernment, in the laws they have passed, which some persons thought was utterly have not considered the agricultural inte- inconsistent with the enactment of this rest as specially entitled to protection, or new Corn Law. It was said that this new as exempted from the operation of those Corn Law gave no security against great principles which have been applied to fluctuations in price; but I must say that other classes. But the law of 1842 passed, during its existence there has been greater and I am bound to say that it passed with steadiness of price than almost at any the general concurrence of the agricultu- other period. I was looking at the price of ral Representatives in this House. I do wheat since September last, and I think not think hon. Gentlemen on the opposite that, during every week since then, the price side are justified in talking of the agricul- of wheat has hardly varied more than 1s. 9d. tural Members as having voted with any a quarter. The lowest price during that pefeeling of disinclination to promote the riod was 45s. 2d., and the highest 46s.lld. object of that law, or that those hon. In 1842, there was an expectation of a bad Members in any way showed their dissent harvest; but taking the price from Sepfrom any reduction of the protective du- tember or October, 1842, I must say that ties which that measure involved. It may there has been less of fluctuation of price be true that, with respect to certain par- than at almost any similar period. But it ticular articles, objections were raised; would probably be said that this was the but as against the measure generally, I do consequence of favourable harvests; but not believe it can be fairly said there was though the harvest last year was tolerably any strong opposition on the part of the good for wheat, yet, as far as barley and oats agricultural Members. It was unquestion- were concerned, it was defective. It is imably felt at the time to be an important possible to deny that the produce of barley measure, and one effecting a very con- in the last two years was deficient; and siderable reduction of protective duties. I doubt whether the oat crop was very But I think the hon. Member for Nor- abundant. Therefore, as far as oats and thamptonshire has justly claimed for the barley are concerned, the law has been. agricultural interest a willing submission exposed to the operations of deficient harto a new state of things, a ready yielding vests. Nevertheless there has been a up of the privileges which they have hi- gradual monthly importation, particularly therto enjoyed, from the belief that they of barley, under the existing law, and the will derive an equal share of benefit with prices have not materially varied. Then it their fellow men, from a measure intended has been said that the present law holds for the general good. What have been out expectations which are false, and the other effects of the operation of the which tend to check agricultural improvenew Corn Law of 1842? We were told ment. I must say, that I think that statethat the retention of that law would be ment totally devoid of foundation. I doubt inconsistent with the prosperity of the whether, during any period in the past manufacturing interest of the country. history of this country, there has been But has that prediction been verified? more rapid progress in agricultural imConcurrently with that law you have seen provement than during the last three a revival of industry, an extension of com- years. I think it therefore impossible to merce and a degree of manufacturing say that the existence of the present Corn activity, which we could hardly have Law is incompatible with the application hoped for or contemplated within so short of capital and science to the improvement a time. All this has existed concurrently of agriculture. Therefore, these defects, with the new Corn Law of 1842. The which have been charged on the existing hon. Member for Stockport (Mr. Cobden) law, are defects to which it is not justly has admitted these results; but he has liable. It cannot be said to be inconsistent injuriously no doubt on the landlords and the proprietors of the soil; but I believe that the objection to it would be that it would tell more injuriously on the great class whose prosperity is involved with that of the proprietors. It has been said, that the law is required, because incumbrances on estates must be provided for. I say that it is impossible to found the defence of the law on such an idea, or upon the exclusive interests of any class. But I must say that there are social and with the extension of commerce, and the demand for manufacturing industry; nor can it be said to be incompatible with steadiness of price. It appears to me that you cannot take any effectual precaution against fluctuations in the value of an article like that of corn; that you cannot take perfect security against that which you consider one of the main defects of the existing law, namely, the uncertainty as to the future harvest. While there are great speculations in corn, great quantities of corn will be brought into the mar-moral relations, which it is impossible alkets of this country. I believe that uncer- together to overlook. Under the state of tainty as to the production of a future the law, as existing, there has grown up harvest will always exist. There will al- a relation between landlord, tenant, and ways be a degree of uncertainty as to labourer, which does not rest merely on whether a good harvest may not diminish pecuniary considerations. The landlords the value of corn; and therefore those and proprietors in this country-at least who hold foreign corn, if they think that in great districts of it-do not look on the prices of domestic produce will be land in the light of a mere commercial affected by the goodness or badness of a speculation. I believe that it would be a harvest, will conduct their speculations great evil if they did so. According to or transactions accordingly; and in the the principles for which the hon. Gentlemonths of August and September, whe- man opposite contends, I apprehend that ther you have a fixed duty or no duty at he would say, "let the landlord make as all, you must expect that, on account of much of his land as he can-he has a that uncertainty, considerable quantities right to do that;" on the same principle of corn will be imported. But it would he has a right, commercially speaking, on be wrong to suppose that these quantities the termination of a lease, to let his land of corn are thrown upon the market at for the utmost he can get for it. I will once. They are retained for home con- not say that this is not one of the modes, sumption, but are not immediately thrown if you abolish the Corn Laws, by which on the home market. Taking these facts the difficulties the landlord will have to into consideration, I do not think that meet will be met. Possibly it may be the existing Corn Law is fairly liable to said, let the landlord-the principles of the charges brought against it, or that trade having been suddenly applied to the the predictions made as to its failure have produce of the land-let him regard the been verified; and, therefore, I am not land itself in the same light; let there be prepared to accept the proposition of the no reference to the relations that have noble Lord opposite, and still less that of existed, perhaps for centuries, between the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, him and the family that occupies that in lieu of the present Corn Law. I do land; let him have no regard for the lanot defend the present Corn Law on the bourer; let him take the man who can do ground that it is for the especial advant- most for his 10s. or 12s. a week; let the age of any particular interest. I believe old and weak receive no consideration, that it would be impossible to maintain because they cannot perform the labour any law that should be supposed to be the young, the healthy, and the active, can founded on that consideration, which it do; though the land may be so regarded, had been said this law is founded on, yet in everything but a purely commercial namely, a desire to increase the rents of sense, in a social and moral point of view, landlords. But this I do believe, that I should deeply regret it. It would alter looking at the condition of the agricultural the character of the country, and be acinterest generally, and all those connected companied by social evils which no pecuwith it, looking at the obligations to which niary gain, no strict application of a purely they are subject, I think that any such commercial principle, could compensate. change in the Corn Law as that contem- I will not carry this too far; I will notplated by the hon. Gentleman, might tell because I cannot say that agriculture founded on the general principle. But, Sir, with the strong opinion I entertain, that in the application of this principle it is necessary to exercise the utmost caution for the purpose of ensuring its general acceptance and stability, I cannot consent to give my vote for a proposition that implies the total disregard of every such consideration, in the application of the principle of free trade. If the doctrine is good for corn, it is good for everything else. The proposition of the hon. Gentleman, though confined to corn, applies to every other production, not only to every article of agricultural produce, but to every other you can name, because he contends that the duty on foreign importation restricts supply, impedes the free exchange of the products of labour, and, therefore, ought to be abolished. All our Colonial inter ought to be exempt from the gradual ap- I been removed, confirms the impression plication of principles that have been applied to other interests. I fairly own that I doubt whether protection could be vindicated on the ground of being independent of foreign supply. I think it would be of very great importance-I should rejoice in the fact I should rejoice in the result, that the greater portion of our supply was derived from our internal resources. In every point of view, commercially, morally, and socially, it would be an immense advantage if the agriculture of the country was in so improved a state that we could rely on our own internal resources for the greater part of our supply. But the hope to make ourselves entirely independent of foreign supply is out of the question. If that had been our view, we ought not to have relinquished the prohibition on the import of cattle and meat, and we ought to have established such a protection on corn as to have en-est will then become subject to this prinsured the application of an amount of capital to the land which would have secured that independence. That would have been, I think, an erroneous policy; and though I still contend that it would be a great advantage for us to be independent of foreign supply, and that we should look to our own produce as the main source of our supply, yet it would be impossible to defend protection on the ground that we ought to be completely independent of all foreign countries. I have attempted to show, therefore, that during the three or four years the present Government have been in power, they have altered our commercial laws in a manner consistent with sound principles, and have not excepted the Corn Laws, and other laws which prohibited the importation of foreign agricultural products. In no respect, upon any article imported, have they increased protecting duties. You may think we have not carried the principle far enough; but, at any rate, every act we have done has been an act tending to establish, with respect to the import of every foreign article, that principle which I believe to be a sound one-the gradual abatement of purely protecting duties. I must also claim for them the liberty and the power of continuing, according to their judgment, the application of that principle. I am bound to say that the experience of the past, with respect to those articles on which high duties have ciple; and I do believe that the instan- Viscount Howick, amidst general calls of divide," observed that neither in the speech of the right hon. Baronet, or of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department, had there been one word uttered attempting to contradict the two first Resolutions of his hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton. Had the last Resolution been worded to the effect "that it was expedient that all restrictions on the importation of corn be gradually abolished," the right hon. Baronet's speech would have been an unanswerable speech in support of the hon. Member's Motion. The whole purport of the right hon. Gentleman's speech was, that he could not concur in He if he allowed the debate to close without Corn Laws, with a view to meet the wants the arguments of his supporters, that high prices did not produce high wages-that scarcity and dearness were not beneficial and that plenty and cheapness were not evils. The right hon. Baronet's argument also was that his alteration in the Corn Laws had effected good-that this good was produced by a reduction of protection-and that, therefore, he claimed to act on principles which had produced so much benefit. This argument was consistent with the argument used by the right hon. Ba-cording to his own avowal, to mitigate the ronet the other evening, that all protecting duties were in themselves an evil. Let the House, therefore, observe, that the only difference between the right hon. Baronet and his side of the House was, as to the time when the change in the Corn Law system should take place. The right hon. Baronet proposed to keep the agriculturists under the harrow; he was desirous of keeping over them the impending change; and, at the same time, he acknowledged that the Corn Laws were vicious in principle, and must ultimately be abolished, though, at the same time, the right hon. Baronet did not attempt to urge the danger of delay. The hon. Member for Bridport pointed out the impossibility of finding a supply of food for the people if the harvest failed. The hon. Member for Sheffield followed up the same argument, but not the slightest attention was paid to the point by her Majesty's Government; with the danger before their eyes, with their eyes opened to the danger, Her Majesty's Ministers had apparently resolved to take on themselves the responsibility of maintaining the present state of things, and of follow-ciled their opposition to the present Motion ing out the course they had laid down. This was all he wished to bring before the House. He wished the House to see that Government was as strong in favour of free-trade principles as the Opposition. The right hon. Baronet did not deny the necessity or the propriety of a change in the laws, but the right hon. Baronet would not consent to make the change, though no one who heard the right hon. Baronet's speech, could doubt that in their hearts the Government thought that the repeal of the Corn Laws was for the good of the country. with their previous professions. The right hon. Baronet admitted that if the Corn Laws were repealed, great benefit would be derived to the manufacturing districts; he should be glad to know why this benefit should not be experienced likewise by the agricultural districts? The right hon. Baronet said, if the Corn Laws were repealed, 800,000 labourers would be thrown out of employ. If 2,000.000 quarters of corn were imported, 2,000,000 quarters less would be produced here, and 800,000 men would be thrown out of employ. Who was to make any thing of this sort of argument? He would make one further obMr. Villiers said, he had been misrepre-servation, in reference to those hon. Gensented on one or two points, and this in- tlemen who were interested in the Corn duced him to trouble the House for a few Laws. He had no other way of expressing minutes; for he felt he should be wrong his opinion of their conduct that night, |