|044 
 V5 
 
 O 
 
 z 
 
 H 
 X 
 
 m 
 
 n 
 o 
 
 z 
 
 r 
 > 
 
 CO
 
 r 
 
 LIBRARY 
 
 unjvemsiTy op 
 
 CALlFORMlA ' 
 SAN CMEdO '
 
 irt*iVERS*TY OF CALIFORfllA, SAM DIE^i 
 lA JOLLA. CAllfORNIA 
 
 ON THE CORN-LAWS. 
 
 THE SPEECH 
 
 Hon. C. p. VILLIERS, M. P., 
 
 IN THE HOUSE OF COMMONS, 
 
 Wednesday, 1st of April, 1840. 
 
 EXTRACTED FROM HANSARD'S PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES. 
 
 1840.
 
 THOMAS CURSON HANSARD, PATERSOSTER-ROW.
 
 HF 
 
 US' 
 
 SPEECH, &c. 
 
 Sir, 
 Ik rising to propose the question of 
 which I have given notice, I beg to apo- 
 logize to the House for its postponement 
 till this evening. I assure the House that it 
 proceeded from a cause which I could 
 not control, arising as it did from in- 
 disposition — an excuse, indeed, which I 
 could offer with great force this evening, 
 but learning that many persons expected 
 that the subject would be discussed this 
 week, 1 determined that, if possible, 
 no other delay should occur on my 
 account. The circumstance, however, only 
 adds to the many considerations that now 
 present themselves to my mind to make me 
 regret that it is still in my hands to make 
 this proposition to the House. The subject is 
 now assuming a very serious aspect in this 
 country ; it is engaging the attention, as it 
 is affecting the interest of the great mass 
 of the community, and whatever the House 
 may think, questions of this character, 
 affecting as they do the commerce, the 
 employment, and the condition of the peo- 
 ple, excite among them an interest far 
 B 2
 
 exceeding any other. I wish, therefore, 
 that th§ question was with those who could 
 do more justice to it than myself, and still 
 more that it was with those who had the 
 power to do the people justice. I had, 
 indeed, well hoped that 'ere now, that the 
 landed proprietary of this country, would, 
 in consideration of that deep distress 
 which is now pervading and hearing down 
 the productive classes of our community, 
 have given some sign of intending to relax 
 the rigours of their law, and that what 
 has hitherto been denied to the claims of 
 justice, might yet have been granted on the 
 grounds of mercy. Three months have, 
 however, passed away since the Parliament 
 assembled, and not a whisper of such an 
 intention has been heard ; on the contrary, 
 the same querulous note has been sounded 
 in another place about agitation, and the 
 same haughty and ill-placed observations 
 respecting its object ; while, in this House, 
 we have seen that the usual efforts have 
 been made to procure some proof of opinion 
 in favour of the law, but, in truth, proving 
 nothing but the influence so commonly used 
 by the landholders over their dependents ; 
 and showing nothing, as it appears, but the 
 determination of the class to maintain the 
 law unchanged. Having, however, mooted 
 this matter before in this House, some 
 confidence is placed in me that I will not 
 suffer it to slumber ; and I cannot, there- 
 fore, allow more time to escape without 
 asking the majority of this House to recon- 
 sider the decision they gave on it last Ses- 
 sion, and seriously to review the grounds 
 on which they rested their opinion, and 
 which I apprehend to have been, that the 
 law works well, that it has satisfied the 
 purpose for which it was enacted, and that 
 it ought to be maintained. A bold con-
 
 elusion, I think, to have pronounced last 
 Session^ but one I think, that will re- 
 quire more courage to repeat; I, there- 
 fore, shall restate some of those facts and 
 arguments which have led me to the honest 
 conviction that the law is bad, that it has 
 worked ill, that it has caused, and is caus- 
 ing great loss and suffering to the produc- 
 tive classes, and that it now casts upon the 
 community a fearful addition to those bur- 
 thens which it is at all times compelled to 
 endure : and were I to state further what 
 prompts me to press this matter again on 
 the House, it is that I believe that a day 
 has net passed since the last discussion, 
 that either from personal suffering or 
 greater intelligence, fresh converts have 
 not been made to the repeal of this law, 
 while I do not believe that one human 
 being would be produced, who having been 
 either indifferent to the law before or op- 
 posed to the law, has since become a con- 
 vert to its continuance ; and I regret the 
 importance which I know I must attach to 
 this circumstance, for I fear it will greatly 
 outweigh any argument that I could adduce 
 on the subject. For I cannot persuade 
 myself, that unless there was a general 
 impression in both Houses of Parliament, 
 either that great ignorance or general in- 
 difference prevailed among the people on 
 the question, that those who take a promi- 
 nent part in these discussions, would utter 
 the things which we hear on the subject. 
 For not only do we hear that the Corn-law 
 is a necessary evil, but that it is a positive 
 advantage ; and the advocates of repeal 
 have it thus cast upon them to prove that 
 an abundance of the essential of life, which 
 in its abundance gives further means of 
 satisfying the wants of life, is better than 
 that dearness and scarcity that deteriorates
 
 the condition of all. However, if this task 
 has to be performed again, the moment is, 
 perhaps, favourable for the purpose. For 
 it is almost difficult to believe, that if those 
 who argued in favour of the law last year, 
 could have known that their statements 
 would have followed so close upon the 
 heels of events which afforded to them such 
 complete denial, that they would have 
 uttered them, or indeed perhaps if it could 
 have been expected that we on this side 
 should have had the sad advantage which 
 the distress of the country this year 
 affords us, the decision on the question 
 might have been different. I am not 
 going to deny, however, that there has 
 been great misapprehension on the subject 
 of the Corn-laws, that mystery has been 
 artfully thrown round the question, and 
 that thousands are only, at this day, view- 
 ing the question in the true simplicity of its 
 character. I shall, therefore, consider it 
 with all the calmness and deliberation which 
 should attach to a question that admitted 
 of dispute ; and I shall, as I have done on 
 former occasions, proceed to consider the 
 object of the law. The object of the Corn- 
 law, then, may be simply stated to be, to 
 limit the quantity of food imported from 
 abroad, for the purpose of raising and 
 maintaining the price of that which is 
 grown at home, this is the object as it is to 
 be collected from the avowed purpose as 
 well as the provision of the law. The 
 policy of such legislation seems to belong 
 to the present century, and we are now 
 living under the third legislative experi- 
 ment that has been made for the purpose. 
 In 1804, Mr. Western's bill passed into 
 law, this was followed by the law of 1815, 
 and we are now living under the enact- 
 ment of 1828. Each of these laws have
 
 professed the same purpose, namely, to keep 
 lands in cultivation, to keep the people in 
 employment, and to secure to the culti- 
 vator a certain price for his produce; to 
 each, also, have the same objections been 
 offered, namely, that such policy may be at 
 variance with the public good, that the 
 interests of the community may be sacrificed 
 by maintaining particular soils in cultiva- 
 tion ; and that, as the price of produce 
 depended upon circumstances beyond the 
 reach of legislation, that the law was only cal- 
 culated to mislead those who relied upon it. 
 The justice of such objections with respect 
 to two of those laws is now matter of his- 
 tory. Mr. Western procured his bill by 
 stating that thousands of acres would 
 otherwise be thrown out of cultivation, and 
 that a proportionate number of labourers 
 would be thus rendered destitute. Now, 
 Sir, I believe I state the fact, when I say 
 that after the passing of that bill, that the 
 ports never were closed ; and that so far 
 from land going out of cultivation from 
 this circumstance, that within six or seven 
 years after it had passed, produce had 
 risen nearly 300 per cent above the price 
 that he had fixed as remunerative. Next 
 came the law of 1815, which proposed to 
 make the community pay for its food at the 
 price which it had reached during the war, 
 and in a depreciated currency, and that for 
 ever. I have a right to say, that that was 
 the deliberate intention of the Legislature, 
 because there was an hon. Member, at that 
 time in this House, whose eager and able 
 exertions on that occasion to expose what 
 he called the iniquity and injustice of the 
 law, excited general attention, and he made 
 a distinct proposition that if such a law 
 were to pass, that it should not exist be- 
 yond the time when we should place our
 
 8 
 
 currency on a more sure basis— in short, 
 when we should resume cash payments. I 
 need not say I allude to Mr. Baring, who 
 has since become Lord Ashburton. He 
 made that proposition to the House, but it 
 was rejected. Sir, it is no longer matter 
 of question, that that law was a failure in 
 every respect. It failed to give profit to 
 the producer — it failed to give plenty 
 to the people— it failed to maintain steadi- 
 ness of prices, and it failed even in that 
 which might have been expected from 
 it, namely, in giving wisdom to those 
 who projected it. It was introduced 
 amidst the curses of the people — it seems 
 to have expired without more favour from 
 its friends. But in 1828, its failure did 
 not seem to be ascribed to the purposes 
 which it sought to obtain, but only to the 
 means which were adopted for its attain- 
 ment. It was thought, still, that it was 
 possible to fix the price by law at which 
 the produce could be sold, and to secure 
 the cultivator the price which he expected. 
 It was only considered the means had not 
 yet been discovered by which that object 
 should be attained, and it was in 1828 that 
 this discovery was thought to have been 
 made, and the scheme of a sliding scale was 
 suggested for meeting the wishes of the 
 agriculturists ; and I take it we are now to 
 consider whether this scheme, which was 
 devised in 1828, has succeeded or not. 
 There are some who think that it has 
 worked well — that it has accomplished 
 every object intended, and I hope they will 
 prove their case. I certainly am of opinion 
 that it has only verified every prediction of 
 evil that was likely to attend it, and I 
 think I can show it has done so. I do not 
 think the public require much information 
 on the subject ; but they are watching this
 
 9 
 
 discussion, and I trust that they will con- 
 sider well on which side the truth prevails. 
 Now, Sir, I contend that the present law 
 is a complete failure; and when I fay so, 
 I refer, perhaps, rather to its avowed ob- 
 ject than to that which may have been 
 intended, though not avowed, I contend that 
 it has failed to benefit agriculture, though 
 perhaps it has succeeded in greatly raising 
 the value of land. And it is very important 
 here to distinguish clearly between what is 
 called agriculture and the ownership of 
 land. These interests are, in many respects, 
 distinct ; because, however, in some degree, 
 they are the same, the landowners claim 
 for themselves all the arguments usually ad- 
 vanced in support of the law that have only 
 reference to agriculture. Now, the fact is, 
 the connexion is not nearer between the 
 cultivation of the land and its ownership, 
 than between a house and the business car- 
 ried on in it ; or between the merchant 
 and his banker, who may lend him the capi- 
 tal to conduct his business ; or between the 
 manufacturer and the person of whom he 
 purchases the raw material. These inter- 
 ests are in some material points distinct, 
 and nobody confounds them ; and there is 
 no more reason for confusion between the 
 cultivator and the owner of the soil, than 
 between those interests. The landowner 
 may hardly know where his property is, he 
 may be unable to distinguish one kind of 
 produce from another ; he may live abroad, 
 and know no one connected with his pro- 
 perty but the receiver of his rents; and 
 again, the cultivator may be equally igno- 
 rant of any circumstance connected with 
 the ownership of the land, beyond the price 
 he pays for its use. The distinction, how- 
 ever, is so obvious that I would not have 
 troubled the House by stating it, but for a
 
 10 
 
 singular confusion which is made in this 
 respect in arguing for the law, and that 
 under the general term agriculturists, we 
 hear the most exaggerated pretensions put 
 forward, based on the assumed interest of 
 landlord, farmer, and labourer. These 
 interests, however, being in so many re- 
 spects distinct, it is important that they 
 should be so viewed. Now, with re- 
 spect to the necessity or policy of legisla- 
 ting at all for the particular interest of the 
 agriculturist or the farmer ; what does it 
 consist in ? What would he desire the law 
 to do for him if it could ? Why, probably, 
 to enable him to get the return for his 
 capital that he expected, and that is, what 
 I suppose, every capitalist would wish ; in 
 fact, to be made sure in his calculations, 
 and obtain the profit he expects ; and this 
 is, in truth, what the Corn-law promises it 
 will do for him, and does hold out the ex- 
 pectation of something like certainty and 
 steadiness in this respect. We have now to 
 examine how far it has realized his expecta- 
 tions : the first fact then that is to be ob- 
 served is, that since the passing of this law, 
 there has been every variation in the price 
 of produce, and that the farmer has expe- 
 rienced great distress and disappointment, 
 which at least seems to lead to the conclu- 
 sion that this law has not averted the evil 
 apprehended by the agriculturists. But 
 the next question is, whether this has 
 not been actually caused by the law ? 
 This I believe can be almost demonstrated, 
 and I collect the proof of it from the agri- 
 culturists themselves — not to have referred 
 to their opinions as it has been collected by 
 this House, seems to have been an omission 
 in the previous discussions upon this ques- 
 tion ; the fact is, that those who complain 
 of this law, are usually so much occupied
 
 11 
 
 with showing the gross injustice of the law, 
 that they have as yet paid little attention 
 to the evidence against it by those for 
 whose interest it is professed to be main- 
 tained ; but there has, however, been a 
 great body of evidence collected by tlie 
 House, and given under circumstances which 
 compel us to give it credit ; and to which 
 the public ought to have its attention 
 directed ; for I do say, that if there is one 
 conclusion before another to which a candid 
 inquirer would arrive after reading that 
 evidence, it is, that the law is extremely 
 prejudicial to the farmer — and that it has oc- 
 casioned distress and disappointment to all of 
 that class who have trusted to it. This is an 
 important consideration, because there arc 
 many now who distinctly see the injustice 
 of the law, but yet from fear of the conse- 
 quences of its repeal to the persons who 
 have invested their capital upon the faith 
 of its continuance, are yet slow in calling 
 for its repeal ; and now, at the risk of 
 wearying the House hoping to be excused 
 by the importance of the question, I shall 
 proceed to read some extracts of the evi- 
 dence collected in 1836, by the agricultural 
 committee appointed in that year. The 
 first person whose evidence I will advert to 
 is that of Ellis, a Leicestershire farmer, 
 who is asked whether the distress of the 
 time had any connexion with the Corn- 
 law — and he says in reply that he thought 
 the present duty too high, because it gave 
 a fictitious value to land, and that it gave 
 the farmers an expectation of something 
 that could never occur; and on that ac- 
 count, it holds up the value of land ficti- 
 tiously. This question is then put to him ; 
 then you think it induced the tenants to 
 make larger offers than in the result they 
 have been able to pay ? I think so, far-
 
 12 
 
 mers are prone to expect high prices, and 
 tliey have been expecting something that 
 was not likely to occur. — 
 
 Mr. Parker, an Essex farmer, is asked : — 
 
 " Do you consider, that the distressed state 
 of those farmers can be at all attributed to the 
 rents not having been lowered sufficiently in 
 time ? — I should say very materially, the land- 
 lords not prudently lowering their rents ear- 
 lier than they have done. 
 
 " The farms would have been in better con- 
 dition? — Yes; it has been by persisting in the 
 high rents that the farms wouW have been 
 worked out of condition, and then no person 
 would take them except at a very low rent. 
 
 " Do you think, that they (the Corn-laws) 
 hold out hopes of a continuance of a higher 
 rate of price than can ever be realised ? — The 
 Corn-laws have been in operation but a few 
 years, they commenced with large foreign sup- 
 plies ; we have been only put on our own 
 growth the last four years ; I do not think if 
 the present laws continue, that we should 
 be often interfered with by foreign supply, 
 
 " Take the whole of the farmers in the 
 county of Essex, do you think, that they are 
 possessed of as much capital now, as they were 
 in 1821 ?— Certainly not. 
 
 " Then they have been labouring now for 
 fifteen years, and have expended a great deal 
 of industry, and skill, and capital, with no 
 return at all, as a body ? — They have been 
 parting with their capital, a great many of 
 them, to their landlords, and to other persons, 
 whose charges upon them were excessively 
 high." 
 
 Mr. Cox, of Buckinghamshire, gives this 
 evidence : — 
 
 " For the last three years you have been 
 farming that land to a profit ? — Decidedly not 
 to a profit. 
 
 " Should you say that the cultivation of 
 Buckinghamshire has fallen off within the last 
 eight or ten years ? — I should say so, in the 
 neighbourhood in which I live. /
 
 13 
 
 "In what respect? — The land is getting 
 very foul and overcropped ; in some places, 
 driven further than it should be." 
 
 Mr. John Houghton, a gentleman of 
 great experience, states : — 
 
 "Have you not arable farms in the county 
 of Buckingham, over which you are steward ? 
 — Yes, I hsve. 
 
 " What is their state now compared with 
 the state of the grazing farms to which yon 
 allude? — On the heavy clay lands the distress 
 is very great, more than it is on the turnip and 
 barley lands, or grass land. 
 
 " How do you account for that distress 
 upon the clay lands ? — From the low price of 
 wheat. 
 
 " Do you find, that the capital of the farm- 
 esr has been dimishing? — Certainly; I think 
 the great distress has been on the heavy land 
 farms. 
 
 " Have their farmers been paying their rents 
 out of their produce, or out of their capital? — 
 If you take the heavy clay land, certainly out 
 of their capital. 
 
 Mr. .John Rolfe, farmer of Buckingham- 
 shire, gives this evidence : — 
 
 " Do you use wheat for any other purpose, 
 but that of human food now ? — I have not 
 done it ; some have ground wheat for the 
 pigs ; some have given it to their horses, but 
 that was principally the grown wheat of the 
 last harvest but one. 
 
 " What is the cost of the cultivation of your 
 farm per acre now, as compared with what It 
 was some years ago ? — The cost of cultivation 
 is very much the same ; there is a little differ- 
 ence in the price of labour. 
 
 " Can you state how rents are paid in your 
 district ? — Rents have heretofore, till the last 
 two years, been very well paid. 
 
 " How have they been paid since 1833 ? — 
 They have been paid very badly. 
 
 " Even on the light soils you speak of ? — 
 Yes.
 
 14 
 
 " There is more wheat grown upon land 
 now ? — Yes. 
 
 " Supposing there should not be a corres- 
 ponding demand for wheat in proportion as 
 that class of land increases, it must make the 
 heavy clay land less profitable ? — Yes. 
 
 You do not complain of the price of mutton 
 now? — No. 
 
 " Of wool ?— No. 
 
 " Of barley ? you cannot expect much in- 
 crease in that.''— No, not much. 
 
 " Oats ? — Oats we should wish for a little 
 increase. 
 
 " Beans ? — If we had 4s. a quarter more, 
 we should not have much fault to find. 
 
 " The chief complaint is on account of the 
 depression in the price of wheat? —Yes, that 
 is where the farmer is suffering most ; that is 
 where he looks for his rent in the spring of 
 the year, when he should have the price of 
 his wheat to raise the money for his rent ; 
 when he is looking for a large sum of money 
 to meet his payments ; when he comes to 
 thresh out and carry to market, his expenses 
 almost take the whole price. 
 
 "What will become of the landlord? — We 
 shall be all beggars together." 
 
 Mr. John Curtis, another Buckinghara- 
 shire farmer says — 
 
 " Has the capital of the farmers in your 
 opinion diminished ? — I should say consider- 
 ably. 
 
 " Will you state in what way farmers are 
 worse off? — In the first place, they have 
 cropped their land hard, and it is now getting 
 into bad condition ; it is getting foul, and the 
 stock diminishes. 
 
 " Now looking at the different descriptions 
 of soils ; first of all the grass, has the produce 
 of your grass enabled you to pay the rent 
 upon the grass land? — What little grass I 
 have is very good; that is the best part of my 
 farm. 
 
 " You have stated that the condition of the 
 labourers is good ; you mean those that are
 
 15 
 
 employed ? — Tliose that are employed ; and 
 there are very few out of employment. 
 
 " Chairman : Has the poor-rate been re- 
 duced lately ? — Yes ; the Poor-law bill works 
 well with us." 
 
 Mr. John Kemp, an Essex farmer gives 
 this evidence : — 
 
 " Do you consider, then, that the quantity 
 of wheat in the market has been the cause of 
 the depression of the price ? — I should say so. 
 
 "Has the capital of the farmers in your 
 neighbourhood, and under your knowledge, 
 diminished or not? — Very much diminished. 
 
 " What was the rate in your parish previous 
 to the passing of the Poor-law Bill, and what 
 is it now ? — Our expenditure in the parish 
 used to be 1,6001., and last year it was not 
 more than 1,200/. 
 
 " What is the state of the small farmer 
 about you; the man who rents an hundred 
 acres ? — As bad off as the poor man. 
 
 "Are farmers paying rents from their pro- 
 fits or their capital ? — From their capital. 
 
 "Taking the labourers as a body, are they 
 as well employed as they used to be? — They 
 have been very well employed for the last 
 three years. 
 
 " Do you think, that upon the average, the 
 higherprice, from a scarce season, compensates 
 the farmer for the deficiency of his crop ? — 
 No ; for at the time when corn was so high, 
 about six years ago, during the wet seasons, 
 we were certainly worse off than we are now, 
 and wheat was much higher." 
 
 This is from the evidence of Mr. Thurl- 
 wall, of Cambridgeshire : — 
 
 "What, in your opinion, is the condition 
 of the tenantry generally in your neighbour- 
 hood ? — I think verging on insolvency, gene- 
 rally in the most desperate state that men can 
 possibly be." 
 
 Mr. Charles Page, in Essex, farmer, is 
 asked :—
 
 16 
 
 " Have you lost or gained this last year 
 upon your farm? — In fact, I have lost every 
 year since I have been in business. 
 
 " Have you lost principally upon the wheat 
 or the barley crop ? — The loss upon the wheat 
 crop I think is the most material." 
 
 Mr. George Babbs is asked :— 
 
 " Do you believe whether the farmers are 
 paying their rent out of capital, or out of the 
 profits of their farms ? — I believe the farmers 
 have been paying their rents out of the capi- 
 tal they employ. 
 
 "Is that your case "^ — It has been my case. 
 
 " Has the land been cropped harder in your 
 neighbourhood than it used to be ? — I think it 
 has." 
 
 Mr. Charles Howard is asked: — 
 
 " Taking the period since the last commit- 
 tee sat in 1833, what do you consider to be 
 the comparative state of the farming interests 
 now and at that time ? — Decidedly and pro- 
 gressively worse. 
 
 " Do you take into your consideration every 
 species of land, or one species of land more 
 than another? — I think upon the sheep farms, 
 the upland farms, from the increased demand 
 which there has been for sheep, the distress 
 has rather decreased ; sheep have been very 
 high. 
 
 "Then with respect to the low-land farms? 
 — Their situation has been progressively much 
 worse. 
 
 " You stated that in consequence of the de- 
 pressed state of the farming interest of that 
 country, the landlords have permitted a con- 
 siderable portion of the old grass lands to be 
 ploughed up ; has that tended to precipitate 
 the affairs of the tenant, or otherwise? — It has 
 kept the tenant longer upon his legs. 
 
 " But it has more materially deteriorated 
 the condition of those farms upon which the 
 permission was given ? — Decidedly so. 
 
 " Either you think that the land will go out 
 of cultivation and produce a diminished sup- 
 ply, or you think that the Legislature will in-
 
 17 
 
 terfere in some way so as to produce a rise in 
 price? — Exactly. 
 
 " And you think that is the view of those 
 persons that buy those farms at present ? — I 
 do believe it," 
 
 Mr. Robert Hope, a Scotch fanner, 
 gives the following evidence ; — 
 
 " Have you ever thought anything about 
 the present Corn-laws, whether they are bene- 
 ficial to the farmer or not ? — Yes, they have 
 been often discussed, but it is a very general 
 feeling among those that pay corn-rents, that 
 they have not been hitherto beneficial, but the 
 very reverse of being beneficial. 
 
 " What is your reason for that opinion ? — It 
 induced men to offer more than has been well 
 realized by the price of corn, because it was 
 generally expected from the Corn-laws, that 
 prices would be kept up to something like 
 what they promised ; that the import of fo- 
 reign corn would be restricted, and by that 
 means, keep up the price of the home growth 
 to 70s. or so. 
 
 " How has the Corn-law disappointed your 
 expectation? — Because it led those that took 
 farms at money rents, to give a much higher 
 rent than they would have done. 
 
 "Then is it the opinion of you and those 
 other gentlemen that have considered the sub- 
 ject in the way you mention, that the present 
 Corn-law ought to continue, or do you think, 
 that any change would be beneficial to the 
 farmer ? — From what we experienced in the 
 year 1831, I am disposed to think, that a 
 change might be more beneficial to the farmer, 
 by reducing the scale at which foreign corn is 
 imported, 
 
 " You have stated, that the existing Corn- 
 law you consider is prejudicial to the farmer; 
 is your opinion founded upon the circumstance 
 of there having been a miscalculation as to 
 the effects to be produced by the Corn-laws, 
 or upon the working of the Corn-laws them- 
 selves? — I think by the present working of 
 the Corn-laws, that it may run prices too high 
 for the interest of the farmers in years of 
 C
 
 18 
 
 scarcity, before any foreign corn can be ad- 
 mitted into the country, prices may be run up 
 so high as to be prejudicial to the interest of 
 the farmer, because, in such a year as we had 
 in 1831, we could not grow so much wheat as 
 we had to pay in rent. 
 
 " If the result of this Corn-law should be to 
 produce great fluctuations in price, you would 
 think that effect would apply to all farmers ? — 
 I think it has been prejudicial to those that 
 even pay a money rent, because I am sure, 
 that if it had not been for the Corn-laws, they 
 would not have given so high a money-rent." 
 
 Mr. James Tison, aa English farnier, 
 gives this evidence : — 
 
 " What causes have there been to depress 
 the state of the farmers of stiff land ? — High 
 rents ; it is my opinion, founded on the testi- 
 mony of farmers themselves, that many of them 
 are farming under war-rents, while they are 
 selling their corn at peace prices. 
 
 "Mr. Loch: The consequence of the rents 
 being kept up too high has been that the land 
 has been overcropped ? — Yes ; when I have 
 conversed with farmers, this appears to be the 
 conclusion they have come to, that they have 
 paid their landlords what they ought to have 
 paid to the labourers. If they had paid it to 
 labourers they would have had value for the 
 money ; whereas they paid it to the landlord, 
 and, of course, received nothing back, and 
 they had so much less to lay out upon their 
 farms. 
 
 " On the light soils, have the tenants been 
 met by the landlords with a reduction of rent? 
 — They have not needed so much reduction as 
 they have upon the heavier soils. 
 
 " It appears from your evidence, therefore, 
 that it is a question very much between land- 
 lord and tenant, as to the present condition of 
 the farming interest ; that is to say, that the 
 landlord has more in his power than can be 
 done by the Legislature ? — Decidedly ; I do 
 not see what the Legislature can do, except 
 with respect to the Poor-law, to benefit the 
 agriculturist effectually.
 
 19 
 
 *' Mr. Wodehouse t Looking at Mr. Coke's 
 estate, in Norfolk, could any number of his 
 tenantry afford to give him any rent whatever, 
 with wheat at 5s. abusiieli' — Yes, I think with 
 a good crop they could. 
 
 "Then you think that the want of intelli- 
 gence and the want of skill has gone a great 
 way towards producing the depressed state of 
 the farmers? — According to my view of it, 
 such is the state of society in this country, 
 that for a person to do well in any branch, 
 whether in agriculture, manufacture, or in 
 commerce, there must be a combination of 
 intelligence, practical skill, capital, and in- 
 dustry; and if any of those be wanting, whe- 
 ther it is in agriculture, or in mercantile affairs, 
 a person is almost sure now to go wrong ; and 
 when I have traced a great number of cases of 
 individual distress among farmers to that 
 cause, one of those has been wanting. 
 
 ** What do you conceive to be the eftect of 
 the present Corn-laws upon the consumer ? — I 
 think they have a very unfavourable effect ; 
 they operate as a very great hinderance to the 
 extension of trade, to the manufacturing and 
 commercial interests, because, under the pre- 
 sent system of Corn-laws, we can receive no- 
 thing in return from those countries which 
 would take our manufactured goods, if they 
 could send us their corn in return ; for in- 
 stance Prussia; our trade would be immense 
 with Prussia if we could take their corn in re- 
 turn. 
 
 " What do you think is the average price 
 which may be fairly calculated upon by the 
 farmer under the existing Corn-law ? — Under 
 50s. a quarter for wheat." 
 
 Mr. Thomas Bennett is asked : — 
 
 " Do you think, with reduction of rent, and 
 the reduction of prices, the farmer can culti- 
 vate his land at a profit ? — Looking to the 
 seven years back, and having taken those 
 farms under very low prices, I have not a 
 question that some may do it profitably, and I 
 have no doubt some will. 
 
 " Sir James Graham : At what price do you 
 c 2
 
 20 
 
 estimate wheat for the next seven years ? — If 
 I was going to take a farm myself, I should 
 not expect, nor would I calculate for the next 
 seven years, to have wheat above 5s. to 6s. a 
 bushel. 
 
 " Will the Duke of Bedford's tenants, who 
 have retaken those farms, be able to pay the 
 rent for which they have just agreed, with 
 wheat at 5s. a bushel ? — I think they will. I 
 think the majority do not expect to see it at 
 much more." 
 
 Mr. Andrew Howden, a Scotch farmer, 
 gives this evidence : — 
 
 "■ If you had been sold off in 1820, do you 
 think you would have been better off than you 
 are now ? — I do not know that mine is a fair 
 case to be taken as a general case, because I 
 started very poor in life, and I have had a 
 hard struggle, and other circumstances that 
 contributed to assist me. I am the only re- 
 maining farmer in the parish where I was 
 brought up ; except myself, there is not a far- 
 mer, nor the son of a farmer remaining with- 
 in the parish but myself. 
 
 " What is the reason of their having all 
 gone away ? — The money rents that where 
 exacted of them. They all conceived that 
 they were to have 80s, a quarter, and their 
 calculations were made upon that. It soon 
 appeared that that could not be realized, and 
 they were not converted, and ruin has been 
 the consequence. 
 
 "Then there has been a great change of 
 tenancy in your neighbourhood ? — There has 
 been. 
 
 "And that has been caused by the fall of 
 prices? — Yes, and the want of accommodation 
 on the part of the proprietors. 
 
 " In your opinion did the Corn-law that 
 was made in 1815, deceive both the landlord 
 and the tenant ? — It did. I believe that the 
 calculation upon which they took at that time 
 was almost universally 4^ a quarter. 
 
 " The Corn-law having promised a price of 
 80s., failed to perform it? — Yes."
 
 31 
 
 Mr. William Bell, a Scotch farmer, is 
 asked : — 
 
 "What is your reason for supposing a fixed 
 duty would be preferable? — By the present 
 Corn-law, when the price approaches near the 
 rate at which the foreign corn can be brought 
 into the market with a profit, the prices may 
 possibly be run up to that rate by artificial 
 means. Thus a great quantity of corn would 
 be improperly liberated and thrown upon the 
 market, and this might probably depress the 
 market for the whole season. Now, at a fixed 
 duty, that could not take place." 
 
 Mr. George Robertsoa, another English 
 farmer, gives this evidence : — 
 
 "Supposing that mutton had borne the 
 same proportionate price when wheat fell to 
 40s., do you think the Scotch farmer would 
 then have been enabled to make a good liv- 
 ing? — The Scotch farmer would have tried 
 something else than wheat; he would have 
 extended his grass cultivation, and that would 
 have tended to reduce the price of meat still 
 more, no doubt. 
 
 "And if the price of barley had been also 
 reduced ^ — Those are all regulated by the de- 
 mand of the manufacturing and commercial 
 classes. 
 
 "Do you know anything of the sale of the 
 manufacturing and commercial classes? — My 
 belief is, that they were never more prosper- 
 ous. 
 
 " How long has that been the case ? — It has 
 been gradually coming on for years. 
 
 "In the face of that increasing prosperity, 
 has there not been a decline in the price of 
 wheat? — That may be accounted for by the 
 great additional average crops for a series of 
 years. 
 
 " Are you able to perceive a great increase 
 in the demand of the operative classes?— Very 
 great in flour and meat, and I have no doubt, 
 the increased price of barley is caused by a 
 demand for malting in England. 
 
 " Supposing the supply and demand for
 
 22 
 
 labour to remain the same, will not eventually 
 the price of labour fall in proportion to the 
 fall in the price of food ? — At present the de- 
 mand for labour for the manufacturing inter- 
 est is so great, that we can scarcely get hands 
 for necessary operations of agriculture. 
 
 "You have been asked, with reference to 
 the price of wheat governing the price of 
 meat, can you anticipate a very great falling 
 off in the price of meat, when you consider 
 that the population of this country is increas- 
 ing so rapidly, and that the manufacturing 
 employment of that population is so great as 
 it is at present? — No. I think the price of 
 agricultural produce must keep up ; that is to 
 say if the manufacturing classes prosper and 
 live as they are doing." 
 
 I shall not, however, trouble the House 
 with any further extracts. It is impos- 
 sible to read that evidence without being 
 convinced that the farmers are induced by 
 this law to promise rents for their land, 
 which it does not enable them to pay, 
 and that they are tempted by the price of 
 which the law professes to assure them, to 
 devote much of their capital to the growth 
 of wheat, which, as it is the most expensive 
 plant they can grow, if they are disap- 
 pointed in the price they expect, the loss 
 they experience is proportionally severe. 
 And I think. Sir, I may venture to state this 
 with confidence to this House, since I find 
 in the admirable address you published to 
 your constituents, that this was the con- 
 clusion to which you arrived, after devoting 
 more attenticm and time to that committee, 
 and to the subsequent consideration of the 
 evidence than perhaps any other Member. 
 And I find, that your conviction is, that 
 the law is actually prejudicial to the farmer, 
 and in the manner in which I have stated 
 it to be so, and you. Sir, seem to agree in 
 the conclusion to be drawn from much of
 
 23 
 
 the evidence given by agriculturists them- 
 selves, namely, that they must not depend 
 for fortune upon the adventitious aid of 
 such legislation as the Corn-law, but upon 
 what all other capitalist must rely upon, 
 namely, the skill, experience, and intelli- 
 gence, which they bring to their pursuit- 
 But now I wish the House to mark the 
 consequence of the farmer being tempted 
 to direct his attention chiefly, or to apply 
 his capital so largely to the cultivation of 
 wheat, and by neglecting the culture of 
 other products' and by the overproduction of 
 wheat, lowering its price below the sum 
 that could be remunerating : namely, that 
 he becomes suddenly alarmed and disap- 
 pointed at his loss, and withdraws much of 
 his capital from such employment, and thus 
 narrows the breadth which he sows with 
 wheat, and then we see how another pur- 
 pose which the law is supposed to have, is 
 fulfilled— namely, to supply the community 
 with food at a reasonable rate. Why, the 
 first consequence of growing less wheat has 
 been of course to raise the price, which 
 occurring at the time of a bad harvest, the 
 public have been suffering for the last 
 eighteen months, and are now suffering, 
 from an unusual deficiency, and have been 
 paying a great additional price for their 
 food; neither have they any prospect of 
 improvement. There is every probability 
 that prices will keep up, and that groat 
 sacrifices will yet have to be made by 
 the public for food. But, supposing that 
 all the assertions about the present season 
 and all the usual predictions respecting 
 the coming harvest were true, and that 
 the price was greatly to fall in conse- 
 quence of the rotation of the crops being 
 disturbed by a greater breadth of wheat 
 sown this year than was ever known be-
 
 24 
 
 fore. Why, how will that benefit the 
 farmer? We shall have the same story 
 of distress over again, and we shall see that 
 class as badly ofiF as they were in 1 836. And 
 this is, indeed, the regular operation of the 
 Corn-law, namely, either to ruin the farmer 
 or greatly prejudice the public. Yet this 
 is the law which is sought to be identified 
 with all the cherished institutions of the 
 State, and if any one assails it, he is charged 
 with designs against the constitution itself. 
 But who is benefitted by this law, if the 
 farmer is thus injured and deceived.'' it is 
 usual to say in these discussions, that by 
 making prices high, particular soUs are kept 
 in cultivation, and the labourers are thus 
 secured employment, that wages rise with 
 the price of food, and that, in fact, the la- 
 bourer is thus made better off by high prices 
 because his wages are higher. This was de- 
 liberately said last year ; will that be re- 
 peated ? I trust not — I dont think it cre- 
 ditable to have urged it at all — it certainly 
 is not true. It is almost cruel to the labourer 
 to say it, seeing that he can have no doubt of 
 the privations he is obliged to endure from 
 a high price of food. There is not a pre- 
 tence for asserting, that when provisions are 
 high the agricultural labourer is well off. 
 The contrary has always been the case when- 
 ever such periods have occurred. In 1797, 
 a year of great scarcity and high price, so 
 far from its leading to higher wages, it was 
 the time when the system of pauperising 
 independent labourers commenced, and 
 wages were made up from the rates for the 
 very purpose of escaping from what is said 
 to be jthe result of high prices, namely, 
 raising wages in proportion to the price of 
 food. Again, in 1810, 1818, 1830, and at 
 the present time, there have been great 
 complaints of their sufferings, and during
 
 25 
 
 each of those years the prices have been 
 high. But it is a fact not less striking, in 
 contradiction of what is assumed, that 
 whenever provisions have been low, the 
 labourers have been well off, that there has 
 been a great demand for their labour, and 
 that their wages have given them a greater 
 command over the necessaries of life. Not 
 certainly astonishing to any person who 
 reflects for a moment on the subject, be- 
 cause it is clear that, as every body is more 
 or less an employer of labour, and that he 
 is so according to his means, that in pro- 
 portion as his means are greater or less, so 
 will be his demand for labour, and so conse- 
 quently will be the wages of the labourer, 
 as it is the proportion which their number 
 bears to the demand for them, which must 
 determine their condition — but if there can 
 be any doubt as to the influence of high 
 prices or the condition of the people, it 
 will be well to view what really is the 
 case at this moment, and I own, as far as 
 my own enquiries have gone, I can learn 
 nothing but that either the wages though 
 raised, have not risen in proportion to the 
 price of food, or that, not having risen at 
 all, the labourers have in many cases en- 
 dured the greatest privations. And here I 
 will just read to the House a report of 
 some cases occurring a short time since, 
 which have appeared in a provincial paper, 
 into the truth of which 1 have enquired and 
 to which I merely refer to show how incau- 
 tiously it is asserted here that the agricul- 
 tural labourers are not affected by the 
 price of food : — 
 
 " In the southern part of this county 6s. a- 
 week is commonly given to agricultural la- 
 bourers. Within thejlast fortnight at the petty 
 sessions held at Salisbury, a farmer, living at 
 Durnford, was summoned by a labourer named
 
 26 
 
 Blake, for refusing to pay him 6s. 6d, for a 
 day's work. The complaint stated that he 
 worked on "the Stem," sometimes for one 
 master, sometimes for another, at 6s. 6d. a- 
 week, the rate agreed to by the farmers at a vestry 
 meeting. His employer had refused to pay 
 him more than 6s., which Blake would not ac- 
 cept, as it was not sufficient to maintain him- 
 self and wife. The master, in his defence, told 
 the magistrates that the farmers of Durnford 
 had " stemmed " the surplus labourers of that 
 parish at 6s. per week, which ivas as much as they 
 could afford to pay. The Bench expressed their 
 surprise — as well they might — at the practice 
 pursued by the farmers at Durnford towards 
 the labourers, and ordered the defendant to 
 pay Blake the full amount of wages agreed on 
 6s. 6d., and to remunerate him for his loss of 
 time in seeking redress. This week we will 
 take a different district, and name Rushall, a 
 parish standing comparatively in favourable cir- 
 cumstances, where the poor have advantages 
 which in many other places they do not enjoy. 
 This parish is divided into three large farms, 
 the land is chiefly arable, and of excellent qua- 
 lity, producing on an average, certainly not less 
 than eight sacks of wheat, and ten sacks of 
 barley per acre. On this fertile spot the 
 highest wages of able-bodied married labourers 
 with families are only 9s. per week (we except 
 harvest work, for which, of course, more is 
 paid) ; those without children, and single men, 
 although equally able, aye, and willing too, to 
 do a good day's work, are put off with 3s., 6s,, 
 and 7s. a-week. We do not understand why 
 this is; it appears to be an act of injus- 
 tice, and we should be glad to know upon 
 what principle the distinction is made: — If 
 an able man's service be worth 9s. a-week, 
 then is the single man deprived of* liis 
 due by being paid only 5s. ; but if an able 
 man's services be worth only 5s. or 6s. a-week, 
 then must the difference between that and 9s. 
 be considered as parish allowance for the chil- 
 dren ; it is high time this were properly under- 
 stood, for if the latter be the case, the real rate 
 of wages is much lower than it is represented
 
 27 
 
 to be. Of course, with such wages, destitution 
 and distress abound. Many families are un- 
 able to obtain more than one meal a day, and 
 in many instances that one meal consists of 
 potatoes and salt, without meat, and with only 
 a small quantity of the coarsest bread. Very 
 few even of those who are the best off get 
 wheaten bread, but are obliged to have re- 
 course to a mixture of [barley and wheat, the 
 latter being of a very inferior description — 
 tail wheat. Meat is hardly ever eaten by any 
 of the labourers, they never buy any." 
 
 I think I have a right to refer to such 
 cases when I read addresses to the peasirn- 
 try, such as have been made by a noble Duke 
 (Buckingham), who takes a lead in maintain - 
 ing the Corn-laws and asks them to believe 
 that while they maintain those laws they 
 will ever be prosperous. Why, Sir, if it 
 was for no other reason but the one that 
 the Corn -laws tend to make land dear, it 
 is prejudicial to the labouring class, who 
 are always better off' when land is accessible 
 to them, and nothing tends more to their 
 contentment and comfort than the pos- 
 session of land. Another circumstance I 
 might mention which tends, in my judg- 
 ment, to shew that the people are badly off" 
 and discontented now in the agricultural 
 districts, namely, that there have been a 
 "reater number of the agricultural labourers 
 who have sought to avail themselves of the 
 provision for emigration this year than 
 ever they did before. Why should this be 
 the case, if the people were well paid and 
 well employed ? but the fact is, that there 
 is less means for employing labour this 
 year because the price of food is so high, 
 and the poor are driven from the farm- 
 house to the poor-house, and from thence 
 to the State, to implore of it to send them 
 out of the country. And, really, if we will 
 not allow the food to come to them, it is
 
 28 
 
 only merciful to send them were the food 
 is produced ; but in God's name, why are 
 they to be driven from their homes, when, 
 if provisions were low as they were in 
 1836, they would get plenty of employ- 
 ment, as the admission of all the farmers 
 themselves they did then. Who is it, then, 
 after all, whose interests are benefitted by 
 these laws ? I say , in the first place, none 
 can be permanently so at the expense of 
 the rest of the community, but imme- 
 diately and for the while, there is no doubt 
 whatever that the owner of the land has 
 an advantage in them — and it is an advan- 
 tage in this way, that it enables a certain 
 class of inferior soils to be cultivated with 
 wheat, and which doubtless could not bear 
 the expense if the produce of better foreign 
 soils was brought into competition with 
 it ; and these soils being thus articifically 
 enhanced in value, tend to raise the value 
 and consequently the rent of all other land; 
 and the owners of land, therefore, without 
 reference to the effect of the law upon other 
 classes of the community, have this inte- 
 rest in the law; and it is well that the 
 truth should be avowed and known, and 
 that it be allowed that they have a tem- 
 porary advantage in the Corn-law, and 
 though the farmers and the labourers can- 
 not benefit by rent being thus artificially 
 raised, it is clear the landowners do, and 
 it is lo them alone to whom we must deli- 
 berately turn for redress, and appeal to 
 them on the score of injury and injustice 
 done to the community at large, and 
 ultimately of injury to themselves, by 
 impairing the fortunes of those on whom 
 they must depend, by means of their cus- 
 tom for the permament value of their 
 estates. It is reasonable, therefore, to direct 
 our whole attention to that class, for cer-
 
 99 
 
 tain am I, that, notwithstaniling the delu- 
 sion of some of the farmers on this suhject, 
 that if some of the more distinguished of the 
 landowners in both Houses of Parliament, 
 were to rise in their places and express an 
 opinion that the law ought to be changed, 
 that all alarm among their tenants would 
 at once he dissipated and allayed. I am 
 not, however, inclined to join in any whole- 
 sale denunciation of the landowners of this 
 country ; it would be unjust to do so ; be- 
 cause I know that there are among that class 
 men of great intelligence, high minded men, 
 men of generous feeling, some who are ready 
 and anxious to change this law, knowing it 
 is prejudicial to the country at large, and 
 some who seeing their own advantage in 
 it, yet will not adhere to it at the expense 
 of their country ; it is right, therefore, to 
 discriminate among them, but certainly it 
 is fair to fix upon those among the land- 
 lords, who obstruct and oppose all change 
 of the law, all the consequence, and all re- 
 sponsibility that results from such a course ; 
 and I say this the more confidently, because 
 it is not in their power to shew, that the 
 law rests upon any ground of justice or of 
 public good. The landlords in any other 
 country but this might allege that they 
 were exclusively taxed, that they bore more 
 of the burdens of the state than any other 
 class, and were entitled to have a law that 
 should give an artificial value to their pro- 
 duce. I say in this country they cannot 
 allege this. Will they go into an inquiry ? 
 Is there any particular burden they bear 
 from which other classes are exempt ? Will 
 they say that they are not exempt from 
 burdens that others bear ? They are not 
 entitled to this protection on the ground of 
 advantage to the community. It cannot be 
 shown there is one burden that they bear
 
 30 
 
 that other classes do not equally endure. 
 What, therefore, is the gi'ound for their ex- 
 clusive protection ? What is the ground 
 that they themselves take ? They say, if 
 you allow the produce of foreign coun- 
 tries to come into competition with our 
 own, you will throw out of employ many 
 of the labourers on our own land. What 
 is the principle of that, supposing it to be 
 true? Are the interests of the country to be 
 sacrificed that certain lands shall not forego 
 a particular cultivation ? We wish, for the 
 benefit of the community, to resort to soils 
 more productive, whence we shall get food 
 cheaper — and the landowner forbids us on 
 the ground of protection. What might 
 the mechanic not say.'' What says the 
 hand-loom weaver.'' They might say, do 
 not introduce a machine that shall make 
 labour cheaper. They do say tax machinery. 
 The principle is the same. There seems 
 to be no difference in the policy. What is 
 the truth then ? The proprietors not being 
 exclusively taxed, but, on the contrary, 
 being rather exempted from taxation, 
 have no ground in justice for claiming 
 protection, whatever may be their power 
 for enforcing it. Before I quit what 
 may be called the agricultural part of 
 the question, perhaps I may be allowed 
 to refer to what may in the course of 
 this discussion be adduced in support of 
 this law, namely, that Ireland is an agricul- 
 tural country, and that it is an advantage 
 to Ireland that the present law should be 
 continued. I should be sorry to let any- 
 thing fall from me that could possibly 
 give offence to that country. We have 
 done enough to offend that country already : 
 but I must say, that of all the groundless 
 and unreasonable pretences for supporting 
 this law, the case of Ireland seems to me to
 
 31 
 
 stand beyond all others. Ireland, that has 
 of late years been sending us less and less 
 wheat ; Ireland, where the mass of the peo- 
 ple are too poor to consume wheat, where 
 the husbandry is the worst in the kingdom, 
 where the landlords have a larger share of 
 the produce for rent, and spend it more out 
 of their own country than any other land- 
 lords in Europe ; Ireland, moreover, where 
 agriculture would thrive more by not cul- 
 tivating wheat, and where no country would 
 benefit more from the prosperity of manu- 
 facture here, or its introduction there — 
 for Ireland has always felt and instantly so, 
 the benefit of the prosperity of manufac- 
 tures in England; and what condition would 
 she now be in, if English manufactures were 
 to decline with her new liability to main- 
 tain her poor. That is a question for Irish 
 landlords to consider. But before the com- 
 mittee on agriculture to which 1 have re- 
 ferred, there is positive evidence that where 
 Irish agriculturists have prospered, it has 
 been referable to their abandoning the cul- 
 ture of wheat and applying the soil to other 
 purposes. How, then, are the real interests 
 of Ireland consulted by a law which by the 
 price it promises offers peculiar temptation 
 to the cultivation of wheat ? If I thought 
 the present Corn-law of great advantage to 
 Ireland it would have great weight with 
 me, but what is to be gathered on this 
 head from the avowed opinions of men 
 who have studied and sought to promote 
 the interests of that country, and I allude 
 more particularly to the opinions of Mr. 
 Sharman Crawford and the Member for 
 Dublin, Gentlemen differing on many mat- 
 ters, but agreeing in condemning the 
 Corn-law, as tending to make land dear 
 and as repressing manufacturing enter- 
 prise in their country. I cannot think.
 
 32 
 
 under all these circumstances, that Ire- 
 land offers us any ground for uphold- 
 ing the Corn-law. And now, Sir, I 
 think I [have said enough with regard to 
 the wisdom of this law, as it respects agri- 
 culture, and how far that interest can be 
 said to have thriven under the influence of 
 monopoly. I must now turn to the great 
 and general question involving the princi- 
 ple which should be the test of every law, 
 namely, its effects upon the community at 
 large ; for I have hitherto examined its 
 effect on the partial interest alone for which 
 it was professed to be passed, and it is one 
 thing which the public will expect to 
 learn from this discussion, namely, how far 
 they are effected by paying more or less for 
 food in this country, and this, I think, can 
 be shewn. It is indeed among the advan- 
 tages of the agitation of a great question of 
 this kind, that it brings a great many in- 
 telligent minds to its consideration, which 
 tends to illicit truth where doubt prevails. 
 And here I am glad to be able to point to 
 a very intelligent work recently published, 
 entitled " Influences on the Corn-laws," 
 by Mr. James Wilson, for this author ap- 
 pears to me to have made some very faith- 
 ful and accurate calculations, as to these 
 effects of the Corn- laws. He takes as the 
 basis of his calculation, the amount in 
 quantity, and the rate at which the people 
 have been annually paying for food for the 
 last seven years. He adopts the general 
 estimate as to the quantity annually con- 
 sumed, which is sixteen millions of quar- 
 ters, and the average price of the last seven 
 years, which has been about 525. a-quarter. 
 From this it will be found that the annual 
 cost of wheat to the community, is 
 41,600,000/. It follows, therefore, that 
 whatever is paid more or less than this
 
 33 
 
 sum, is gained or lost to the community, 
 «nd it can, therefore, be shewn what tins 
 has been of late years, and what is the 
 amount now lost to the community. Mr. 
 Wilson in his work, presents in one table 
 what has been the sum paid at home and 
 abroad for wheat during the years 1834, 
 1835, 1836, 1837, 1838, 1839. For in- 
 stance: in 1834, the total cost of wheat 
 was 36,933,333/., while the total cost of 
 foreign wheat was 101,750/., in 1835, the 
 total cost of wheat was 31,400,000/., and 
 of the latter 34,654/.; in 1836, of the for- 
 mer 38,800,000/., while of the latter 
 51,177/.; in 1837, 44,666,000/., and of the 
 latter 499,430/.; in 1838, 51,666,000/., 
 and of the latter 4,594,014/. ; in 1839, 
 56,533,000/., and the latter 7,515,800/. 
 It thus appears, that during the last three 
 years, we have as a nation spent more in 
 wheat grown at home, by 45,793,000/. 
 than in the preceding years, and paid more 
 by 12,420,000/. during the latter years for 
 foreign wheat, than during the three 
 preceding years. The illustration, however, 
 will be still more simple, if we compare 
 the two last years, namely, 1838 and 1839. 
 In the beginning of the year 1838, we find 
 the price of wheat is at an average of 52*. 
 a quarter. In the autumn of the same year 
 it suddenly rose to 75.y. being more than 
 20s. a quarter higher — therefore, taking the 
 consumption at 16,000,000/. the country 
 was suddenly called upon in September 
 1838, to pay 300,000/. a- week more for 
 food than was paid in the six preceding 
 months, and 450,000/. a-week more than 
 it paid in 1835, and this increased sum was 
 paid during the whole year following. This 
 then is a sum suddenly abstracted from the 
 capital and income which, under existing 
 arrangements, was finding useful and con- 
 
 D
 
 34 
 
 venient employment elsewhere, and must 
 be considered as thus lost to those depart- 
 ments of industry to which it was giving em- 
 ployment. It seems, moreover, that what 
 invariably attends a high price of food in 
 this country is, importation from abroad, 
 the amount of which, in late years, has 
 been stated ; but with our present relations 
 with the corn growing counties, to pay for 
 grain we are compelled to export bullion : 
 we have, therefore, on these occasions, a 
 certain amount of the currency of the coun- 
 try invariably abstracted to make this pay- 
 ment. We have thus an additional ab- 
 straction from the means usually devoted 
 to the employment at home — a very im- 
 portant consideration in a commercial point 
 of view, since the absence of so much bul- 
 lion is of necessity followed by a contraction 
 of the paper currency. The public, therefore, 
 have to view the law connected with this 
 twofold evil, high price and contracted 
 currency — thus doubly checking the opera- 
 tions of capital and labour. The same 
 author, to prove the connection between the 
 price of food and the currency in this coun- 
 try, has collected in a tabular form the 
 annual amount paid for wheat, the amount 
 of bullion, and the amount of deposits in 
 the Bank of England, and the amount paid 
 for foreign wheat — and this for a period of 
 above twenty years ; and there appears 
 from this table a close correspondence be- 
 tween the different amounts of bullion and 
 deposits in the Bank, and the different 
 amounts paid for wheat at home and abroad 
 — the former declining as the latter en- 
 creased, and with that regularity as to 
 render it impossible not to conclude that 
 a necessary connection exists between them. 
 From 1817 until the present time, as grain 
 has been imported from abroad,, aad prices
 
 35 
 
 have been high, the deposits and the huUion 
 have declined. The diminution of the 
 deposits would result from the increased 
 payments required for food, which lessens 
 the amount of surplus capital in the coun- 
 try ; and the amount of it in the Bank of 
 England would indicate pretty much what 
 surplus was in the country generally. In 
 support of which 1 quote the opinion of a 
 mercantile man who says, 
 
 " When money is everywhere abundant and 
 prosperity general, the resource of the Bank of 
 England must be very great ; at such times the 
 surplus of every man throughout the country 
 finds its way to his banker ; a portion of the 
 surplus of the bankers throughout the country 
 finds its way to their agents in London for 
 employment ; and the surplus of these agents, 
 as well as all the London bankers, finds its 
 way to the coffers of the Bank of England, as 
 the most accredited place of safety ; and thus 
 constitutes an index, not of the wealth and 
 capital of the Bank of England, but of the 
 extent of surplus capital possessed at any given 
 moment by the whole country." 
 
 It seems to be reasonable to expect, that 
 if great and sudden demands for the national 
 means were made, that it would manifest 
 itself in this way, and the facts to which I 
 have referred, seem to establish that it does 
 so. Now we observe, that from the end 
 of 1838 till October 1839, there appears to 
 be a diminution, from month to month, of 
 bullion and deposits, during the whole of 
 which time we were importing food from 
 abroad ; and we know farther how bitterly 
 the commercial classes have complained 
 during that time of the contraction of the 
 currency. The great importance to the 
 public of this circumstance is, that they may 
 know the truth respecting the sources of 
 those fluctuations in the value and amount 
 D 2
 
 36 
 
 of the currency, which occasions such serious 
 and alarming embarrassment in this coun- 
 try, and though I do not stand here as the 
 apologist of the Bank of England, against 
 whom, if only judged according to the 
 rules it has laid down for itself, there is 
 abundant ground of complaint, yet it is 
 well to know, that what is imputed en- 
 tirely to the mismanagement of the Bank of 
 England, must in great measure be referred 
 to the operation of the Corn laws. And 
 now. Sir, it becomes us to consider, after 
 having proved that there has been a con- 
 traction of the currency, an increase in the 
 price of food, and a large sacrifice of the 
 national means to meet it — what has been 
 the effect of these circumstances upon the 
 commercial interest of the country. I will 
 first allude to the cotton trade. The facts 
 I am now about to state, I believe, will 
 prove that, whereas there had been a greater 
 export of manufactured goods, the consump- 
 tion of manufactures at home had been less. 
 I quote these facts to show that the whole 
 trade of the country was worse in the years 
 in which the price of provisions was high. 
 I take the years 1838 and 1839. The 
 quantity of cotton exported in 1838, 
 was 269,000,000lbs. ; in 1839, it was 
 262,000,0001bs. ; being a deficiency of 
 7,000,000lbs. In 1838, the home consump- 
 tion of cotton was 155,000,0001bs. ; in 
 1839, it was 122,000,0001bs. ; being a 
 deficiency of 33,00(),000lbs. Of wool, 
 the home consumption, in 1838, was 
 56,000,000lbs.i in 1839, it was 53,000,000 
 lbs., being a deficiency of 3,000,0001bs. 
 But the export of woollen goods had in- 
 creased. In 1838, the quantity ex- 
 ported was 6,000,000lbs. ; in 1839, it was 
 6,600,0001bs. Of flax, the home con- 
 sumption, in 1838, was l,600,000lbs. ; in
 
 37 
 
 1839, it was l,200,000lbs., and so on with 
 respect to many other articles which he 
 would not then stay to enumerate. It ap- 
 peared also that the articles which contribut- 
 ed to these staple manufactures of the coun- 
 try, had also greatly fallen off in consump- 
 tion. From the returns I have quoted, the 
 House will perceive, that whilst the goods 
 entered for home consumption had mate- 
 rially diminished in amount, the quantity 
 of manufactured goods exported had in- 
 creased. Doubtless some persons in this 
 House will think, that this proved that the 
 country was prosperous. I advise such 
 persons, however, first to consult their 
 manufacturing friends, or indeed any com- 
 petent authority connected with our foreign 
 trade, whether the increase of exports 
 was a sure sign of prosperity, and whether 
 it was not compatible with the manner in 
 which business was conducted in this coun- 
 try, that the exports should increase when 
 the consumption at home declined, the 
 manufacturers being driven by necessity to 
 procure somewhere a sale for goods cast 
 back, as it were, on their own hands, and 
 whether it was not usual for them then 
 to consign these goods, on their own account, 
 to houses abroad to be disposed of, and whe- 
 ther this has not, from distress, been done 
 during the last year, to a very great extent. 
 Indeed there was evidence of it in the com- 
 plaints which had come from different 
 countries of the sales of our manufactures 
 which we were forcing on their markets. 
 I find in a letter addressed to one of our 
 most influential journals, from its corre- 
 spondent abroad, speaking of the extra- 
 ordinary quantity of British goods brought 
 into foreign markets, says, I would wish to 
 give a hint to those British manufacturers 
 who continue to send over goods to be sold
 
 38 
 
 at forced sales, at any price ; if that prac- 
 tice be continued the loss will be enormous. 
 Mr. Biddle, who was well known in Ame- 
 rica, in a letter he addressed to this country 
 last year, spoke of the injurious extent to 
 which British merchandise was forced into 
 the American markets. I might indeed quote 
 much more evidence to shew that goods are 
 frequently exported for want of a market 
 at home for which they have been produced, 
 and which, for some reason has failed, and 
 which, in this case, I chiefly ascribe to the 
 heavy payments that have been required 
 for food. Another proof I might give of 
 the depression at home would be the dimi- 
 nished consumption of certain articles on 
 which revenue is collected, as that, at least, 
 is shown by the amount collected on the 
 difi'erent quarters, ending in January 1839 
 and 1840. I will take four articles of ordi- 
 nary consumption. 
 
 £. £. 
 
 Hops in 1833 298,343 in the year ending 1840 280,079 
 
 Malt 5,'m,798 4,845,948 
 
 Soap 1,047,545 7,400,000 
 
 Spirits 5,451,792 5,442,47? 
 
 But, Sir, I will fortify my opinion, that 
 there has been a diminished power of con- 
 sumption at i'lome, owing to the influences 
 that I have traced to the Corn laws, by the 
 authority of a gentleman, whose name I 
 am sure will be received by the House with 
 great respect, I mean Mr. Jones Lloyd, and 
 who in a pamphlet recently published, in 
 which he inquires into the cause of the 
 commercial distress for the last year in this 
 country ; he places first in order 
 
 " The succession of two bad harvests in a 
 country afflicted with laws which render such 
 an occurrence peculiarly oppressive to the 
 community, and by a peculiar felicity in mis- 
 chief, contrive to make monetary derange- 
 ment, and consequently commercial pressure,
 
 39 
 
 tlie inevitable accompaniment of the misfor- 
 tune of tlie seasons. The poison of impolicy 
 is thus thrown into the fiendish cauldron of 
 injustice, 
 
 " * For a charm of powerful trouble 
 
 Like a hell-broth to boil and bubble.'" 
 
 Now, in referring to this Gentleman, I 
 am not naming a person likely to express 
 himself rashly or incautiously, or one who 
 had no stake in the country, as it is called, 
 but I am referring to one who was probably 
 the possessor of more property than any of 
 those who would take part in the discussion 
 this evening — property of every description, 
 not only in money but in land, and whose 
 judgment was held in high esteem wher- 
 ever he was known. And now. Sir, we 
 will just consider what are the consequences 
 of this monetary derangement and commer- 
 cial pressure of which Mr. Lloyd speaks ; 
 for there ought to be something to corre- 
 spond in the actual condition of some of 
 our manufacturing towns, if these things 
 were true, and I think I have here a re- 
 port from one of those districts which will 
 enlighten the House upon that subject. I 
 will read the result of an inquiry made at 
 Bolton a few weeks since : — 
 
 " In the cotton mills alone, about 95,000/. 
 less have been paid during the last twelve 
 months. Many of the mills have been en- 
 tirely stopped for all or part of the lime, and 
 with only two exceptions, all have worked 
 short time for a considerable portion of the 
 past year. I have made a very careful calcu- 
 lation from extensive personal inquiry, and 
 assert most confidently, that, altogether, there 
 must have been at least 130,000/. less paid in 
 wages in the Bolton Union. Now, add this 
 130,000/. less in wages to the 195,000/. more 
 for food, and there is a total loss to Bolton of 
 325,000/. ! What are the consequences? There
 
 46 
 
 are now in Bolton 1,125 houses untenanted, 
 of which about fifty are shops, some of them 
 in the principal streets. Here is a loss to the 
 owners of 10,000^. to 12,000/. a-year. The 
 shopkeepers are almost ruined by diminished 
 returns and bad debts. There were, a short 
 time ago, three sales of the effects of shop- 
 keepers in one day. Distraints for cottage 
 rents occur daily. The arrears of cottage 
 rents, and the debts to shopkeepers, are in- 
 calculable, but they must amount to many 
 thousand pounds. The pawnbrokers' shops 
 are stowed full of the clothing, furniture, and 
 even bedding of the destitute poor. Fever is 
 also prevalent. Mr. R. S. Kay, one of the 
 medical officers of the union, and a young 
 practitioner of great promise, lately took the 
 infection of malignant typhus fever, and last 
 week fell a victim to his harassing duties. 
 He had latterly worked almost day and night. 
 A short time ago 590 persons were relieved 
 by the poor-law guardians in one day, in 
 amounts varying from six to eighteen pence 
 per head per week. In many cases two or 
 three families are crowded into one house. 
 In one case, seventeen persons were found in 
 a dwelling about five yards square. In another, 
 eight persons, two pair of looms, and two 
 beds, in a cellar six feet under ground, and 
 measuring four yards by five. There are scores 
 of families with little or no bedding, having 
 literally eaten it, t. e. pawned or sold it for 
 food ! The out-door relief to the poor is three 
 times greater in amount than on the average 
 of the three years ending 1838. South of Bol- 
 ton, four miles, a large spinning establishment, 
 giving employment to 800, and subsistence to 
 1,300 persons, has been entirely stopped for 
 nine months. The proprietor has upwards of 
 100 cottages empty, or paying no rent, and, 
 although possessed of immense capital, finds 
 himself unable to continue working his mills 
 to advantage. Entering Bolton from Man- 
 chester, another mill, requiring 180 hands, has 
 been entirely standing for eighteen months. 
 In the centre of the town, another, 250 hands, 
 stopped several weeks. North of Bolton, one
 
 41 
 
 mile, a spinnino-, manufacturing, and bleach- 
 ing establislim'ent, on which 1,200 persons 
 were dependent for subsistence, has been en- 
 tirely standing for four months. Several ma- 
 chine makers and engineers are now employ- 
 ing one or two hundred hands less than usual, 
 at wages varying from 15s. to 40s. a- week. 
 A public subscription, amounting to nearly 
 two thousand pounds, has just been raised to 
 mitigate, in some degree, the sufferings of the 
 destitute poor; in fact, to deal out a scanty 
 pittance, just sufficient to keep them from 
 actual starvation, to a body of workmen who 
 possess, perhaps, greater skill and industry 
 than any population of similar numbers on the 
 face of the globe, but who are forbid, by the 
 inhuman policy of our landowners, to exchange 
 the produce of their labour for food in the 
 open market of the world !" 
 
 And that really was the cause of their 
 distress; and this melancholy state of 
 things is unfortunately by no means con- 
 fined to the cotton districts, as I know well 
 myself from information which I have pro- 
 cured from the place which I represent. 
 And is it not strictly in point, 1 would 
 ask, to bring these matters before the 
 House ? I am not one who would advise 
 the Legislature to interfere simply because 
 there was distress; but when great evil 
 and great distress can be traced to the law, 
 then I think it is the duty, as it is in the 
 power of the Legislature to interfere. I 
 believe, in this case, that it is in the power 
 of this House to give instant relief — I be- 
 lieve it is possible to give permanent relief. 
 The people are now suffering from the high 
 price of provisions, and they are suffering 
 for want of commerce with those countries 
 where the food is grown cheap. The ware- 
 houses here are full of foreign grain, and 
 the countries where it is grown are ready 
 to negociate with us for a regular inter-
 
 42 
 
 change of products. But the people are 
 starving, and we forbid them to touch 
 the cheap and abundant food within their 
 reach ; the people want employment, and we 
 refuse to allow them to work for corn-grow- 
 ing customers and euiployex's 5 our manufac- 
 tures are stopped, because payments from 
 abroad are not made for goods already sup- 
 plied from the scarcity of money ; they offer 
 us flour in payment for our manufactures,and 
 our manufacturers are willing to take it, and 
 would at once be willing to execute fresh 
 orders upon receiving it, but the law for- 
 bids the people to touch it without payment 
 of the duty, and stops the payment that 
 would thus be readily made by the mer- 
 chants in America to the manufacturers of 
 this country. This is no opinion, it is 
 the fact — America owes a large debt to our 
 merchants in this country; owing to their 
 own monetary embarrassments they have 
 no means of paying their debts, but large 
 quantities of flour have been sent to this 
 country on American account ; could this 
 be admitted, not only would those debts be 
 paid, and thus relief be given to our manu- 
 factures but they would be ready to exe- 
 cute fresh orders, and thus give employ- 
 ment to our people who are starving for 
 want of it. We are moreover now left 
 without a pretence for saying, that the 
 states from which we might export our 
 corn, have not always been, and are now, 
 ready to admit our manufactures on terms of 
 reciprocity. I do not understand the denial 
 of it, if that proceeds from any authority. Is 
 it intended to imply that the late President 
 of the Board of Trade stated what was 
 false, when he said he had, besides the 
 official communications which he read to 
 the House, perused many other letters from 
 foreign ministers all to the effect of shew-
 
 43 
 
 ing the willingness on the part of those 
 foreign countries to reduce there tariffs on 
 our applying the same principle to their 
 product ; and what does the able report of 
 Dr. Bovvring but distinctly confirm the 
 impression which these official documents, 
 read by Mr. Thomson, had made, and 
 proves, even at this hour, the readiness of 
 those countries to trade with us .'' I believe 
 what is contained in Dr. Bowring's report, 
 for it corresponds exactly with the inform- 
 ation I procured myself when in those 
 countries, and I have heard no reason since 
 to question its correctness. The effects 
 already of our system in compelling those 
 States to employ their population in 
 manufacture, may be shewn by the fol- 
 lowing official statement, taken from the 
 first and last year of the tables of the 
 Board of Trade relating to our trade with 
 the corn-growing countries: — 
 
 MANUFACTURED GOODS EXPORTED TO RUSSIA, GERMANY, 
 
 AND PRUSSIA, IN 1832 and 1838. 
 
 1832. 1858. 
 
 Cotton Manufactures • • • • £1,273,355 £946,433 
 
 Hosiery 359,157 197,615 
 
 Linen Manufactures •• •• 6,429 25,111 
 
 Silk 20,888 17,629 
 
 Woollen 952,450 815,785 
 
 £2,612,279 £2,002,573 
 Deficiency, notwithstanding a 
 
 great increase of poinilation 609,706 
 
 To enable tliese countries to employ their population in 
 manufacturing clothing, to make up the deficiency of their 
 imports, the following statement, from the same source, 
 shows tlie yarns to them in the same years : — 
 
 1832. 1838. 
 
 Cotton Twist and Varn -■ £2,935,775 £3,502,186 
 
 Linen Yams 65 29,871 
 
 Woollen 137,082 229,572 
 
 £3,072,922 £3,761,629 
 
 Increase of Material to work 
 , into Cloth . • • • 688,707 
 
 But as it is needful, in order that these countries shall 
 successfully rival England at home and in neutral markets, 
 that they shall have our coals, iron, and steel, and more
 
 4.4 
 
 especially our machinery and niillwork; the following state- 
 ment, from the same source, shows the progress of our ex- 
 ports of these materials, in the same years to these coun- 
 tries:— 
 
 
 1832. 
 
 1838. 
 
 
 Coals . . . . 
 
 £27,790 
 
 £56,350 
 
 increase 100 per cent. 
 
 Iron and Steel 
 
 75,295 
 
 190,222 
 
 250 ,. 
 
 Machinery and 
 
 
 
 
 Millwork • • 
 
 7,863 
 
 97,479 
 
 ,. 1,250 „ 
 
 Total . . £110,948 £344,051 average 300 „ 
 
 The result is a reduction in the export of manufactured 
 goods, which would employ our labour ; an increase of yam 
 to employ their own labour ; and an increase of machinery 
 of 1,250 per cent., to render them perfectly independent of 
 us in their own countries, and to rival us in neutral coun- 
 tries. 
 
 But it is not only with the German 
 state, that it would be important for us 
 to negociate at this moment, but it is 
 the moment which is yet left to us, to 
 engage in fresh treaties with the United 
 States and Brazil — and here I must hope 
 that the President of the Board of Trade 
 will tell us exactly the truth on this mat- 
 ter, and whether the general impression 
 is correct that the present tariff of the 
 United States will cease in 1842 ; and 
 that, about the same time, our present 
 treaty with Brazil will expire ; and that 
 our future relations with those countries, 
 will very much depend upon the terms, 
 that we may be enabled to offer them. I 
 hope, at least, that the people will be un- 
 der no delusion on the subject, and that if 
 we are to continue these fetters on our 
 commerce, at least it shall be done deliber- 
 ately and with our eyes open. The future 
 well being of this country must now de- 
 pend upon the extension of our commerce, 
 there is no other mode of providing for our 
 population, or averting the decline of our 
 country. The foolish and impolitic fetters 
 with which we now restrict the commerce 
 of this country are now pressing upon the
 
 vitals of the people, and their cry for re- 
 lief is to be heard in this motion be- 
 fore the House. There are some who 
 think our foreign trade has been carried 
 too far, and that we should have been bet- 
 ter without it, that may be true or not, 
 but the complaint is too late, and our fo- 
 reign trade is now essential to our exist- 
 ence, and we cannot lessen it or destroy it 
 without jeopardising our whole financial 
 and commercial system. We must look to 
 it for the maintenance of our credit, and 
 the collection of our revenue. Most cer- 
 tainly this is not the moment to weaken the 
 sources of our revenue when our expendi- 
 ture has increased and is increasing by the 
 price we pay for our sustenance, and by the 
 steps we are taking to subdue our colonics, 
 I cannot, indeed, see how the deficiency in 
 the revenue is to be supplied. The great 
 sources of our revenue are found in the 
 capacity of the people to consume the arti- 
 cles that are taxed. I cannot see how it 
 is possible to expect that any fresh tax 
 upon the daily consumption of the people 
 can be collected— for while the price of 
 provisions was thus enhanced by the Corn- 
 law, and the prospects of trade remained as 
 they were, how could it be supposed that 
 if a fresh tax was imposed, that some other 
 branch of the revenue would not fall off. 
 The only resource which in wisdom or 
 justice 1 can think it possible to resort 
 to would be a properly tax. In the year 
 1830 the country was then tending to the 
 condition in which we now find it. The 
 price of food was then high, and the taxa- 
 tion was grievously felt by the productive 
 classes ; Mr. Huskisson then in a most able 
 speech and the last that he made in this 
 House on the state of the nation, drew the 
 attention of the House to the sources of
 
 46 
 
 our revenue, and the difficulties which 
 there would exist in collecting the same 
 amount of revenue if trade declined, and 
 the productive classes remained depressed, 
 he did then point to our only alternative, 
 in the imposition of a tax upon property. 
 These were his words : — 
 
 " The more general considerations to which I 
 now claim the attention of the House are 
 these. First, that no other country in Europe 
 has so large a proportion of its taxation bear- 
 ing directly upon the incomes of labour and 
 productive capital. Secondly, that in no other 
 country of the same extent — I think I might 
 say in none of five times the extent of this 
 kingdom — is there so large a mass of income 
 belonging to those classes who do not directly 
 employ it in bringing forth the produce of 
 labour. Thirdly, that no other country has so 
 large a proportion of its taxation mortgaged 
 (in proportion to the amount of that mortgage 
 are we interested in any measure which, with- 
 out injustice to the mortgagee, would tend to 
 lessen the absolute burden of the mortgage). 
 Fourthly, that from no other country in the 
 world does so large a proportion of the class 
 not engaged in production (including many of 
 the wealthy), spend their incomes in foreign 
 parts. I know I may be told, that by taxing 
 that income you run the risk of driving them 
 to withdraw their capital altogether. My 
 answer is. First, that ninety-nine out of every 
 hundred of these absentees, have no such com- 
 mand over the source of their income. Se- 
 condly, that the danger is now of another and 
 more alarming description — that of the pro- 
 ductive capitals of this country being transfer- 
 red to other countries, where they would be 
 secure of a more profitable return. The relief 
 of industry, is the remedy against that dan- 
 ger." 
 
 I believe that the people will now 
 turn their attention to this mode of ob- 
 taining relief, and certainly I doubt if
 
 47 
 
 any new tax but that on property will 
 he siihniittcd to. I am afraid, that 1 
 have now exhausted the patience of the 
 House by detailing the mischievous re- 
 sults of these laws, and I will proceed 
 no farther ; but I cannot conclude with- 
 out exhorting those who had hitherto op- 
 posed any change, to pause well before 
 they pronounce their decision again upon 
 this question. I ask them whether they 
 perceive anything in the appearance of 
 circumstances around them that encou- 
 rage belief that the people would adopt 
 their views ? Do they think, that any 
 change of opinion since the last Session 
 has occurred in the public mind.? Do 
 they not, on the contrary, know that great 
 numbers have come forth and declared 
 their opposition to the existing law who 
 were silent before ? Were there not 
 many classes, who had never spoken be- 
 fore, now eager upon the subject ? I ask 
 the attention of the House to the fact, 
 that some of the most cautious and con- 
 servative persons in the community — men 
 who were supposed to preside over the 
 monetary system of the country, and who 
 were most averse to change, have come 
 forth, and declared their opinion that this 
 law is most injurious to all the great in- 
 terests with which they are connected. 
 Have not a greater number of persons of the 
 working classes, pronounced their opin on 
 upon this question than have ever done 
 so before. I want, therefore, to know 
 what it is that is expected to result from 
 the rejection of this motion. The hon. 
 Member for Rutland has declared his de- 
 termination to oppose this motion, and 
 I certainly admire more the bold injustice 
 of the hon. Gentleman than the insidious 
 proceeding of the hon. Member for Cam-
 
 48 
 
 bridge, who has proposed an amendment 
 but who left the real mischief of the law un- 
 touched. I wish to ask what these Gen- 
 tlemen expect to gain by such a course ? 
 Do they expect that all those who have 
 come forward and devoted their attention 
 to this subject, who have sacrificed their pro- 
 perty in the cause, and have pledged them- 
 selves for the future to agitate this question 
 until it was brought to a satisfactory con- 
 clusion." — \_Oppositio7i cheers.~\ Yes ; he 
 thought it was the best test of the earnest- 
 ness of men when they devoted their money 
 to promote an object. ^Hear, hear !~\ Did 
 hon. Gentlemen who opposed his motion 
 expect that by its rejection all those per- 
 soHs of whom he had spoken would go 
 home and admit themselves to be in error ? 
 Did they expect those persons would say, 
 *' We certainly did think we were right, 
 but we have found, after discussion, that 
 we are wrong ; that all those who have 
 agitated the question are in error ; and that 
 this law is a gain and a blessing to us. 
 Let us forget our folly, and never revert 
 to the matter .''" Was it reasonable to 
 suppose that the great mass of the peo- 
 ple would quite reverse their language 
 upon this subject, and adopt that quiescent 
 and convenient course, if this motion were 
 rejected.'' If hon. Gentlemen did not ex- 
 pect this, what was it that they conceived 
 would be the consequence of that rejection } 
 Why, the people would return to their 
 homes in the conviction that they were 
 right and at the same time satisfied that 
 the House of Commons would not do 
 them justice. And what prospect did 
 that present.'' Would it settle the ques- 
 tion } If there was difficulty now in 
 making arrangements in the settlement of 
 property, would the mere rejection of this
 
 49 
 
 motion facilitate their views. Would 
 it allay the anxiety of the public mind 
 on the subject ? What was there to in- 
 duce the people to admit that they were 
 wrong? They did not doubt themselves, 
 that they were cruelly injured by the law. 
 What eminent authority was there, what 
 .person of that kind had lately appeared to 
 shake them in this conviction. And yet, 
 what year passed that some fresh person 
 whose interest or intelligence entitled him 
 to credit, did not appear to denounce it ? 
 On all other great questions there had 
 been drawn forth men of ability, advocat- 
 ing opinions in favour of, as well as in op- 
 position to, the proposition advanced ; but 
 with respect to this particular question, there 
 was hardly a single man of eminence and 
 intelligence who had undertaken to write in 
 support of the present law. [Ironical cheers 
 from the Opposilion~\ If any able publica- 
 tion had appeared in favour of the views 
 of the hon. Gentlemen opposite, he was 
 unaware of the fact, and should certainly 
 feel great pleasure at having the opportu- 
 nity of perusing it [Hear^ hear !~\. But 
 while there was comparative silence ob- 
 served by the advocates of the existing 
 system, men of the greatest talent and 
 most extensive information, were coming 
 forth daily with publications of their opin- 
 ions against it. What, then, could hon. 
 Gentlemen expect to result from their resist- 
 ance to any change. I pray the House 
 therefore, to pause before they come to a 
 decision, that they will resist all enquiry. 
 I have abstained from stating my own 
 views of what consists with justice and 
 policy ; in what should be substituted 
 for the present law. I have satisfied myself 
 with pointing out the evils that resulted 
 from the present law. There was no pre-
 
 50 
 
 text, therefore, for resisting the motion on 
 the score of the known opinions of the mover. 
 Supposing that the House should now re- 
 sist all enquiry, how long will those who 
 vote in that way abide by their decision — 
 let them reflect how soon it may be, that 
 they will be called upon to vote in the 
 directly opposite way — and whether" 
 that will reflect great credit either upon 
 the House or themselves — for this 
 reason then, I ask the House to pause be- 
 fore they oppose all changes. It is no 
 use to say, that because I propose this 
 question, that they would not assent to it, 
 or because I wished to see the law totally 
 repealed, that they who had the power to 
 resist all change, who have the power to 
 determine the precise amount of change, 
 would not consider the subject. The peo- 
 ple would not be deluded by such distinc- 
 tions and pretences as those. The motion 
 is now made by one who has a perfect 
 right to make it ; and those who vote 
 against it, will be very justly considered 
 the friends and advocates of the law. And 
 when they decided thus to maintain the 
 law, did they consider who were the par- 
 ties who were arrayed against them ? It 
 was no question simply between land- 
 owners and manufacturers. That was the 
 weak invention of the enemy to assert, and 
 said for the purpose of throwing discredit 
 on the question. No! The question was 
 above any other that could be named, one 
 in which the great majority of the com- 
 munity were interested one way, and a 
 comparatively small section of it, deemed 
 themselves interested the other way ; and 
 the advantage which the minority pos- 
 sessed, was in their position in the legisla- 
 tion where their interest greatly prevailed. 
 But was it wise simply to rely on this
 
 51 
 
 power ? As far as I have been able to 
 collect the opinions of that great and in- 
 telligent portion of the population termed 
 the working class, they had rested their 
 claims to the Suffrage chiefly and with 
 great distinctness on these grounds ; that 
 they considered that their interests and 
 those of the community at large, were not 
 duly represented in the House of Com- 
 mons, that they were bound by laws 
 enacted and maintained by those who had 
 no fellow feeling with them — and that the 
 general conduct of the Legislature was 
 their strong argument for widening and 
 altering the character of the constituency. 
 And as far as he could collect the views of 
 the many thousands of this class who had 
 petitioned to repeal the Corn-laws, it was 
 as a sort of test of the character and con- 
 stitution of the House, which they might 
 point to hereafter as a ground for the 
 assertion of their claims. But do the 
 working classes stand alone? Had not 
 other classes attached themselves to them ? 
 Were not the classes immediately above 
 them acting cordially with them upon this 
 occasion ? The working classes certainly 
 spoke with confidence of the House not 
 doing them justice in this matter. They 
 consented, however, to act with the middle 
 class, whose language to those below them 
 generally was, " act cordially with us, 
 petition the House respectfully, pray for 
 the redress of your grievances, we will 
 join you, do not yet believe that the Par- 
 liament will reject your prayer, and refuse 
 you justice." The people then have peti- 
 tioned, but it is well known that every 
 working man who had signed those peti- 
 tions this year, had declared, that if 
 they proved abortive, that it was the 
 last tliey would sign for the repeal 
 E 2
 
 52 
 
 of the Corn-laws. The next petition 
 they would sign would be for the re- 
 form of the House of Commons itself. 
 There was now upon this question of the 
 Corn-laws an union between the middle 
 and the working classes, and did hon. 
 Members believe, that, under common dis- 
 appointment, there would not be an union 
 as firm and cordial between those classes, 
 and upon the other the ultimate question 
 which would then be raised. If this mo- 
 tion is rejected, he believed that three 
 years would not elapse before that junction 
 would be formed for the purpose of a fur- 
 ther reform in the constitution of that 
 House. The middle classes experienced 
 the mischief of these laws, and they called 
 for their repeal. The working classes suffer 
 from them equally, I believe in a much 
 greater degree, but they have said, that it 
 is useless to call upon this House to ac- 
 complish the object, and they tell the mid- 
 dle class, that it is for this purpose that 
 they want the franchise, that they do not 
 call for change for the sake of change, but 
 that no advance will be made in that 
 House, on these questions of national inter- 
 est, until they can throw their weight into 
 the political scale. And did this House 
 for one moment suppose, that it would be 
 able to change this opinion, thus deliber- 
 ately formed, and strongly maintained, by 
 the rude rejection of this measure. A 
 few months ago he attended a meeting of 
 the working classes at Manchester, when 
 he witnessed the most gratifying spectacle 
 of upwards of 5,000 working men who 
 had just quitted their daily avocations, and 
 who had assembled together at dinner to 
 express their opinions upon this vital ques- 
 tion. A more orderly, respectful, or at- 
 tentive meeting, and one where those
 
 53 
 
 decent observances requisite in public as- 
 semblies were more regarded, he never 
 witnessed. Nothing could have been more 
 strikingly contrasted with the conduct of 
 many other meetings which frequently oc- 
 curred, composed of persons who were ac- 
 customed to discredit and disparage the 
 people, than the decorous deportment of 
 that vast assemblage. He did not doubt 
 that, throughout this kingdom, a simi- 
 lar feeling and conduct would be displayed 
 wherever the working people might assem- 
 ble. What, then, does the House think, 
 would be the effect of the rejection of this 
 motion upon these very men to whom I 
 refer, or on any others in their circum- 
 stances, and equally endowed with quali- 
 ties so justly entitling them to respect? 
 Was it supposed that they would tamely 
 submit to the injury and the affront that 
 you would offer them by refusing an in- 
 quiry into the working of this law ? Would 
 they believe that they were in error, be- 
 cause those who were interested in the law 
 asserted that they were so ? Would they 
 proclaim to the world that they had, on this 
 occasion, met and made fools of themselves, 
 by remaining silent in future ? Let, then, 
 the majority of this House make it matter 
 of calculation with themselves, and ask, 
 what they will gain by persisting to main- 
 tain the law as it is, and incurring all the 
 odium that attaches to such a course? 
 Whatever the opinion of the House really 
 may be, it should look at this question 
 practically. Supposing that the repeal of 
 the law was an evil, was it not an inevita- 
 ble one ? The people believed the law was 
 an intolerable evil ; do you prove to them 
 that it is not, in anything you say, and do 
 they not hear, and have they not heard, 
 from some of the most distinguished men
 
 54 
 
 in the land, that they are right ? That 
 the law is unjust and unwise, and that they 
 rightly refer their sufferings to it — still I 
 fear that these considerations are not weigh- 
 ing with the majority of this assembly, and 
 that this motion is to be rejected. I shall 
 then only say, that the responsibility of all 
 the consequences that follow from this 
 course must be fixed upon them. What- 
 ever might happen — whatever disturbance 
 might follow — whatever evils that may 
 occur, whether they be social or political, 
 or of a physical kind, as resulting from 
 this law, the whole blame and responsi- 
 bility must attach to those very persons 
 individually and collectively who give their 
 vote this evening against this motion. The 
 people were now enduring great physical 
 suffering, which, on great professional 
 authority, I may justly ascribe to the 
 miserable food to which this law condemns 
 them : there is discontent pervading the 
 working classes throughout the kingdom, 
 springing from a sense of injustice inflicted 
 on them by this House, and their attention 
 is now being drawn, though at first re- 
 luctantly, yet now grown into habit, to 
 the consideration of political subjects, and 
 their feelings, from these circumstances, 
 are becoming hourly heightened by the 
 agitation of this question. The House, 
 then, has at this moment an opportunity 
 of allaying this excitement, and extending 
 to them relief from the pressure which is 
 now bearing them down. Will they throw 
 away this moment ? Let them ! if they 
 do, they will surely be indebted to fortune 
 alone if they should be enabled to regain 
 it. I will not longer obtrude upon the at- 
 tention of the House. If I have expressed 
 myself with warmth, I regret it. If 
 I have done so, it proceeds only from
 
 the very sincere conviction on my part that 
 I am right on this suhject ; and from an 
 apprehension that the House may be 
 guilty of the egregious error of resisting 
 the motion, I now move that the House 
 resolve itself, into a Committee of the 
 whole House to take into consideration the 
 act 9 Geo. 4th, regulating the importation 
 of foreign grain. 
 
 THE END. 
 
 THOMAS CUR80N HANSARD, PATERNOSTER ROVT.
 
 UC SOUTHERN REGIONAL LIBRARY FACILITY 
 
 University of California 
 
 SOUTHERN REGIONAL LIBRARY FACILITY 
 
 405 Hilgard Avenue, Los Angeles, CA 90024-1388 
 
 Return this material to thie library 
 
 from which it was borrowed.
 
 llii