it

full share of it. The measures to which the hon. meniber for Kent had adverted, all met with his concurrence; and in case his right hon. friend, the Secretary for Foreign Affairs, had been prevented from attending the House by indisposition, he should not have hesitated to submit to its consideration the present resolutions; not in the mere dry discharge of his official duties, but with the most cordial and zealous desire to support them. He thought necessary, as he was present during the speech of the hon. member for Kent, to make that avowal explicitly to the House; and as his right hon. friend, the President of the Board of Trade was absent, he felt himself compelled to add, that his right hon. friend had been most hardly dealt with. He rejoiced that his right hon. friend would soon have an opportunity of exposing the misapprehensions to which his system had been exposed; and he had no doubt that when his right hon. friend had exposed them, his hon. friend would applaud his system as warmly as it deserved. He apprehended that the House was not now discussing the details of the resolutions, but was arguing the general principles on which they rested. Some of the arguments which had been employed against the resolutions, were the very arguments on which he relied for their support. One hon. member had declared, that the state of the currency at the present time induced him to distrust the propriety of the proposed change. Now, the recent alterations in the currency, and the effects they were likely to produce on the old system of our Corn-laws, had induced him to think, that some alterations in that system were absolutely necessary. When that hon, member referred to the law of 1815, and said that he would adhere to the price of 80s. fixed by that law, did he recollect the alteration in the value of money, created by the alteration in the currency which he had introduced? Could that price, he would ask the hon. member, be adhered to now? He thought, that when it was recollected, that corn could not be imported into this country, under the law of 1815, until the price of it was above 80s., no gentleman who called himself a friend to the agricultural interest, would seriously advise a rigid adherence to the law of that date. What, then, was to be done? If the hon. member for Suffolk objected to going into the committee, and the noble lord succeeded in his resolution,

he would not have an opportunity of proposing the amendment which he himself thought advisable. He, therefore, trusted that the hon. member would withdraw his opposition, and would allow the Speaker to leave the chair. He wished it to be understood, that no man had a more friendly feeling towards the agricultural interest than he had: and he was happy to say that there appeared to be, on the part of the agricultural, a most kindly disposition towards the manufacturing classes. Could there be a stronger proof of that disposition than the fact, that in consequence of the letter addressed by his Majesty to the Archbishops of Canterbury and York, 100,0007. had been raised by contribution for the relief of the manufacturers-and that mainly in the agricultural districts?

and

He could not sit down without saying a word or two more upon the currency. One of his reasons for wishing to see an alteration in the present system of our Cornlaws was, that the continuance of it would endanger the currency. There had been such an alteration in the currency since the Cornlaws were first introduced, that it was quite impossible to impute inconsistency to any man who, in 1827, condemned the continuance of the measure which he had supported in 1815. The Bank of England having returned to cash payments, being obliged to pay in gold, nothing would be more likely to injure that measure, to cause a run upon the Bank, and to send gold out of the country, than the system proposed by the hon. gentlemen who differed from him and his colleagues upon this question. One hon. friend of his had mentioned the fact, that he had seen foreign ships receive gold for their corn, and then leave this country in ballast; and this, too, at a period when the importation of corn was limited. But if this took place under a limited importation, let hon. members consider how much more extensive it would be if, under the present system, corn rose to eighty shillings, and the ports, of necessity, were kept open for three months? In the case of such a scarcity as opened the ports in this speculations would be indulged in to the greatest extent, and must be paid in gold, so that such a run would be caused upon the Bank as must disturb the present currency of the country. An hon. gentleman had complimented him upon having introduced the measure which established that currency: but let them not now adopt a

12

measure, which would bring back upon the country a return of those evils which a different system had brought upon them, and which he now hoped and trusted were nearly overcome. He was sure the House would join with him in opposing any measure calculated to produce a recurrence of those evils, and therefore he relied upon their rejection of the plans recommended to them from other quarters. After stating it to be his opinion, that the mischiefs likely to arise to the agriculturists from the proposed alterations were enormously overrated, the right hon. gentleman proceeded to contend, that the hon. member for Essex was mistaken in stating that the measure then before the House was an experiment in legislation hitherto unheard of. It was no such thing; as he would show by a short historic reference. From the Revolution to the year 1774, there had been an absolute prohibition of foreign corn; whilst from 1774 to 1815, there had been leave to import it, on the payment of certain protecting duties. Now he would show, from what had occurred within those two periods, that there was no greater fallacy than to suppose that the importation of corn was fatal to agriculture. If any injury were inflicted upon agriculture, it was most probable that it would show itself in the diminution of enclosure bills.10 Now, since he had entered the House that afternoon, there had been put into his hands a list of the number of enclosure bills which had been passed within the period during which the prohibitory system was in force, and within the period when importation was allowed on the payment of a moderate duty. From the Revolution to 1770, there had been six hundred and ninety enclosure bills; and from 1771 to 1815, the period when the admission of corn was allowed, there had been two thousand, eight hundred and fifty-two such bills. He thought that this was a sufficient proof that the importation of foreign corn was not injurious to the home grower. His hon. friend had said, that no report had been made of the expenses of raising corn in foreign countries, Certainly no such report had been made, and it appeared to him, that nothing could be more difficult than to make such a report, for the expense of growing corn in those countries must depend upon various circumstances upon the demand for corn in those countries, and upon the situation of the land; for it was evident, that when

the land was situated hear a great river, or in any other spot which affordedo facilities for carriage, the expense of raising corn upon such land must be less than the expense of raising it upon land not so advantageously situated. The demand for corn must necessarily raise the price; and, therefore, it was a fallacy to suppose, that because corn was at that moment, or at any other moment, at a certain price in Dantzic, that price would not be raised by the increased demand of this country. Let them look, for instance, at the average price of grain at Dantzic and Mark-lane, for twenty-five years, from 1770 to 1795, and the difference would be found to be about 20s. When, therefore, to the price of the foreign article they added the expense of freight, the profits of the importer, and above all, the duty imposed by these resolutions, he did not think that any man who fully considered the subject, could suppose that the proposition of his right hon. friend was likely to prove detri mental to the British grower. He oertainly did not believe that it would; and if he conceived that it was calculated to produce an injurious effect, he would be the last man to support such a change. Again, let gentlemen consider what effect had been produced by the admission of Irish grain into England. Before the year 1807, that article was positively prohibited; but, at that period, the prohibition was annulled. Now, the price of labour was much lower in Ireland than it was here, and the land was much richer. Yet the effect of removing that prohibition had not been injurious to the British grower. What then was there, practically, speaking to lead gentlemen to suppose that the admission of foreign corn, under the regulations laid down in these resolutions, would be at tended with a bad effect? He believed the tendency of the measure would be to produce an equality of price, so far as good harvests and bad harvests would allow that equality; and he was quite cer tain, that if any body would more than another be benefitted by level prices, the agricultural interest was that body. In his opinion, a greater boon could not be conferred on them than to keep the price of grain between 55s. and 65s. The country was not now situated as it was some years ago, when the enormous quantity of three million quarters of foreign corn were brought into the market and if they, by this measure, could prevent such

Mr. Bankes said, he thought that the proper time to move an amendment. It was his wish to raise the average price from 60s. to 64s, and he would propose an amendment for the purpose of effecting that object. Those who disliked the proposed resolutions, should come forward on this occasion and oppose them-the rather as this was not a general committee on the subject of the Corn trade, or relating to the e law of 1822, but one for the purpose of discussing a specific proposition. When, on a former evening, the resolutions were brought forward by his right hon. friend, the foreign Secretary, he had put a question to the right hon. gentleman, which had not received so distinct an answer as the importance of it appeared to demand. What he then wished to know was, what were the real intentions of ministers with regard to the Corn-trade, and what was their object in proposing the resolutions at the present time? He had then requested to be informed by the right hon. Secretary, what effect he expected his resolutions to produce on the price of corn was he satisfied with the present price or did he consider 53s. a quarter high or low; and, lastly, what price did he think corn, under the new regulation, would be at? To this the right hon. gentleman had replied that he thought the resolutions would explain themselves; that the fluctuations would probably be from 55s. to 65s. and that ministers thought 60s. or thereabout, a fair medium price. Now, ow, if government desired to fix the medium price at 60s., they had not taken the proper way to effect it. The proposed system was was calculated to bring prices to 53s. or 54s, rather than to 60s. The price he wished to keep wheat at was 64s. The avowed object of the right hon. gentleman's measure was to raise the protecting price of wheat about 7s. a quarter, and the means to effect that end was rather extraordinary; namely, the importation of foreign grain. The hon. member concluded by moving as an amendment, "That whenever the average price of wheat, made up and published in manner required by law, shall be 64s., and under 65s. the quarter, the duty shall be, for every quarter, 20s."

Mr. Charles Barclay expressed his satisfaction a at the circumstance of the House having come to a better understanding on this important subject than they had heretofore done, and that they

f

had assembled together for the purpose of altering the existing Corn-law. He would not enter into a statement of the injury which the country had suffered in conse quence of that law; but of this there could be no doubt that its effects had been most mischievous. He was very much surprised to hear the hon. member for Dorsetshire complain that the medium price now proposed was too low, and that the measure under consideration would be the means of bringing in a great quantity of foreign corn. That hon. member ought to have known what the effect of the proposition had already been on the corn market. Wheat had, in fact, risen b or 6s. per quarter, in consequence of the intimation given by his majesty's ministers. He was glad that all parties had neatly come to an agreement, as to what ought to be the maximum price. He thought that a duty of less than 16s. a quarter would not be an adequate protection tol the agricultural interests, considering the load of rates and taxes with which they were oppressed. It seemed to him, that a full remunerating price for the landed interest would be best for the manufac turers.

i

Their distresses did not arise from high prices, nor would low prices conduce to their prosperity. It was on the ground that it was a fair medium between the two, that he should support the proposition He also felt convinced that it would in crease the exportation of manufactures, and consequently benefit the manu facturers.

Lord Althorp observed, that the amendment was merely a difference of 2s. OD the importation price, and therefore it was scarcely worth the while of the committee to consider it. He had expressed his opinion on this question the other night, and he was happy to find that at the mar ket of the place which he had the honours to represent the farmers approved of it.

1

Mr. Ferguson thought it was impossible that this debate should terminate without taking a more general turn than that of a discussion upon the difference between 60s. and 64s. He was of opinion, that the question ultimately would be, whether a duty of 30s. at the price of 50s would afford an adequate protection to the grower. It had been said by a right honst gentleman, that the existence of these re strictive laws had nearly destroyed the foreign commerce of the country. In the absence of that right hon. gentleman, and