No, he spoke of the agriculturists, who | parts of this country, because they could were 12,000,000 in number, and those establish a permanent system. But supwho were their immediate dependents, who pose the agricultural interest were to unamounted to a population of 16,000,000. dergo the losses which must follow from More than one-fourth of England was the abolition of the Corn-laws-suppose agricultural, the one-third of Scotland, the West-India interest annihilated, and the three-fourths of Ireland were likewise encouragement given to foreign trade and agricultural. Now, all that population foreign slavery-suppose the China trade, would immediately raise a clamour for re- the silk trade, and other trades to be duction of taxation, that could not be ruined-and suppose Ireland were to lose resisted; and let it be considered to what the chief benefit which she derived from a crisis things would be brought. Yet the union with this country, viz., the such would be the inevitable result of a English corn market, what class of perfree trade. He saw a statement made in the sons in this country would be benefited? Westminster Review the other day, a The manufacturers would be dependent Review he did not praise either for its upon foreign nations for their supply of tone of politics, its classical elegance, its food, as the price of corn would be soundness of criticism, or its literary ac- equalized in consequence of the compequisitions; but the statement it contained tition with foreign markets. He would was a true one. It supposed, that trade only ask the manufacturers what advanhad become unrestricted, and it foretold tage they were to derive from it? It the consequences. These were, that all might answer very well whilst they were the agriculturists would be converted into at peace with all the great importing a body of Reformers, in the best meaning countries of Europe, but if the system of of the word, and would not be satisfied the hon. member for Liverpool were with anything short of a universal, un- adopted, and a war should unfortunately sparing reduction of taxation, which break out between this country and the would not be compatible with the interests other States of Europe, it would raise the of the revenue, and, what was worse, price of corn to such a rate as might lead would not be an available remedy to their to a Revolution. It was impossible that own wants. He regretted his Majesty's a change of this sort could take place— Ministers were not in the House, that a change so deeply affecting the resources they might hear the different reasons as- of the country, the interests of the great signed for not opening trade. He regret- mass of the people, and in particular the ted, that the Vice-President of the Board interests of the West-India colonies-a of Trade was absent, as he might learn change which would destroy the home by the discussion of the subject what a market, without in any degree improving host of opponents he would find, to the the condition of the manufacturer; it was introduction of a measure that went to impossible that a change in the Cornremove restrictions on trade. He believed, laws of so violent a nature could ever be that if the markets were thrown open, sanctioned by that House. the Irish linen trade would be destroyed, as would also the China trade, the silk trade, and the sugar trade. It was evident, that in consequence of the opening of the markets, the West-India interest in particular would be overwhelmed with the greatest distress, so as utterly to destroy all hopes of success of the great experiment of last Session, which was so deeply interesting to all friends of humanity; but this was not all; they would be obliged to purchase foreign sugar, and would encourage the slave trade, at the expense of our own colonies. He would further observe, that he had no objection to a free trade between England and Ireland, or England and Scotland, much more between different

Sir Henry Parnell said, that having a petition to present upon this subject, he trusted the House would permit him to make a few observations upon the question. The hon. Member who last addressed the House, grounded his case upon the interest the farmer had in this question. But whenever such a position was stated in that House, he felt it to be his duty to contradict it in the most direct and positive manner. It was a gross delusion practised upon the farmer by the landlords, to say that the farmers were interested in the continuance of the present system of Corn-laws. Let the question be fully and fairly discussed, and let the farmer really understand his own interest, and he would undertake to say, that it

would be impossible to maintain the doc- Poor-laws, if they had endeavoured in trine that the two interests were identical, time. Neither did he agree in the supand it would be equally impossible for the posed injurious effect which the abolition monopoly of the corn longer to exist. The of protecting laws would have on our farmer had to obtain his livelihood by the manufactures. The protection of our application of his capital in the tillage of manufactures by a tax upon our imports land; his interest depended upon the rate ought to be discontinued; it was producof return rendered by his capital, which tive of mischief. The forty or fifty per again depended upon the price of the cent imposed upon articles of manufacproduce of the land with reference to ture imported into this country was, in the rent. If the price fell, or, if it were fact, a dead letter. His constituents, who reduced by the repeal of the Corn-laws, were great manufacturers of linen, and the losses of the farmer must be prevented knew their own interest as well as others, by a proportionate reduction in the rate would be glad to see the protection on of rent. The interest of the farmer de- that article done away entirely. The pended upon the price of the produce of whole question was involved in one printhe land in relation to rent; and when the ciple. Under the peculiar circumstances price of produce was only high because of the country, there was an enormous rent was high, the farmer must be satis-quantity of capital unemployed, and a sufied that he had no interest in the mo-perabundance of labour. That capital nopoly of the Corn-laws, whatever the and that labour required employment, and landowner had. The whole community, the House ought to remove every impediin fact, was taxed by the Corn-laws, forment which lay in their way. The abolition the purpose only of increasing the rent of the Corn-laws would, it is obvious, furof the landlord. It had been stated, nish immediate employment to a consithat 12,000,000 of individuals were in-derable extent, and he should be glad to terested in the question; but that was a see that impediment removed. most erroneous statement, inasmuch as only a few hundred thousand landlords were really benefited by the Corn-laws. If landlords were to receive, in consequence of the abolition of the Corn-laws, less than they now received by 500,000l. or 1,000,000l. a-year, that money would remain in the pockets of the consumer; the actual income of the country would not be interfered with, although landlords would have less; but the money being in the pockets of the consumer, it would pay as much tax, employ as much labour, and do as much, or even more, good than if it were in the pockets of the landlord. With regard to the evils apprehended from a repeal of the Corn-laws, he believed they had no foundation in fact. As to the excessive taxation of the landlord, he believed it was greatly exaggerated. Mr. Langdale said, that an increase of The Malt-tax was said to be a tax on the demand must cause an increase of price land, but that he denied. He would ask to the grower. The landowner might who paid it? The landlord paid very consider land as his manufactory, and he little, for it fell upon the great mass of the ought to be allowed to turn it to the community. As to the county and high-greatest possible advantage. But what way rates, though they were levied on the was the fact? He could not change his land, they were expended in its improve-wheat into malt without being immediately ment, making roads, &c., from all of which the landlords benefited. With regard to the poor-rates, the landlords complained of their excess, but the landlords might have prevented the abuse of the

Sir Edward Kerrison had heard the speech of the right hon. Gentleman with great surprise. The farmer chiefly found the capital to work the land, the right hon. Member admitted the capital to be there, and was that to have no protection? Did the right hon. Member mean to say, that the capital of the landlord and corngrower was not an important point to be considered? Did that not require protection? Was he to suffer the foreign grower to come into the market, and beat him out of the field? According to the right hon. Gentleman the country would go on well, while the landlords would be utterly ruined. That appeared to be the upshot of his argument, and a weaker argument he had not heard since he had been in that House.

met by the excise, who would forbid him to do so. What would a manufacturer of cotton twist say, if, when he proposed to turn his cotton into something else, he was met in this manner? Suppose the

agriculturist thought of distilling his fence of their interests ever could exist amongst the agriculturists. He believed, Chan-amongst however, that the root of all the distress which prevailed in the country was the great debt with which the nation was in cumbered.

on the subject. It was impossible for a free trade to exist unless taxation was considerably lessened.

Sir Harry Verney said, that the farmers and landed proprietors were more oppressed by the local burthens of the country than by the taxes imposed by this House to meet the exigencies of the State; and it was to this point that the House ought to look when they wished to relieve the land. The pressure of the county and other rates upon the farmer, was very great; and in several of the parishes in his neighbourhood the poor-rates were from 12s. to 15s. in the pound. The ne

the present Corn-laws, under these circumstances, would be to throw out of cultivation a great portion of the land, which would naturally lead to the destruction of the agricultural labourers.

looked at the discussions which had taken place, they would find, that it was the pressure of the debt which presented the great difficulty to the effectual and satisfactory settlement of this question. The burthen on lands induced the farmers to oppose a free trade in corn; and the burthen on the labourers placed them in their situation of difficulty. The farmer complained of the debt-the manufacturer complained of the debt. It was the immense pressure of the debt which stood in the way of the settlement of this question to the satisfaction of all parties. From the extent of her capital, the industry of her labourers, and the enter-cessary consequence of any alteration in prise of her merchants, if England were free from the pressure of the national debt, she could compete in free trade with any nation in the world. He did not claim protection for any particular class in the country; on the contrary, he had already admitted, that every class was entitled to protection. The landlords, if their burthens were greater than those of others, and if they could prove that they were, were especially entitled to protection. Though he had voted for the Motion of the hon. member for Middlesex, the other night, yet he would not support the repeal of the Corn-laws. He represented a constituency who were large consumers of corn, but he told them that he could never bring himself to support a free trade in corn; when he knew that the effect of that free trade would be to throw a great quantity of land out of cultivation. He believed that they would go on discussing this question interminably, until they adopted measures to lighten the burthens upon the industrious classes of the country, by making as large a portion of taxation as possible fall upon the property and wealth of the opulent classes. The petitioners prayed for such a free trade as would be impeded with as little taxation as possible. Now, the amount of the Customs was 16,000,000l. per annum; and, if this source of revenue was closed up, these 16,000,000l. of revenue must be made up in some other shape of taxation. From all these considerations, he was led to believe, that the merits of the case were neither on the one side nor on the other; and that the idea of a perfect free trade, in the present overburthened condition of the country, was a chimera in the minds of some very well-read men, who were without any practical knowledge whatever

Lord Sandon said, that there was the evidence of facts to prove, that lowering prices had ruined the farmer. What was the first effect of a fall of prices? Did the landlord immediately, when the price of corn fell, lower his rent twenty per cent? No; he said, that it was a chance which might be made up by a better crop the next year; but the next year it might be the same; and the farmer would continue to pay his rent out of his capital. With regard to throwing land out of cultivation, he could not look with indifference to a great number of the agricultural labourers being thrown out of employment, upon the mere chance of finding employment in other ways. It was the duty of a good Government not to raise one interest at the expense of another. If he looked at the possible extension of trade from the opening of the corn trade, we must, in such a case, take corn from foreign States; would those States, for the sake of the 200,000 or 300,000 bushels of corn, which we should want, be induced to give up the protection which they had been so long weaving round their manufactures? Would the United States do it, or Prussia?

but

when the constant labour of every Prussian Minister, for many years, had been to foster manufactures.

Mr. Strickland said, it had been truly stated, that the question was one of monopoly, or free trade; and also that, in the artificial state of this country, free trade was a chimera. Personally, he was much interested in the question. All he

He begged it to be understood, that the manufacturers had never said, though they had been charged with saying it, that their interest ought to have a predominant consideration. He could not agree with what had fallen from the hon. Baronet (Sir Charles Burrell) opposite. That hon. Baronet had observed, that the right hon. Baronet (Sir R. Peel) had exhausted the subject; and that it would have been well to leave the question where he left it. He admitted, that the right hon. Baronet had well expressed himself: but he denied that he had exhausted the question. On the contrary, the right hon. Baronet had advanced one argument only. That argument was, that the manufacturers had no right to complain of the monopoly of the agriculturists, because those manufacturers were themselves protected by duties, such as those on foreign boots, hats, and walking-sticks, if the farmers chose to have such articles of foreign produce. But the absurdity of such protection was, at the same time, manifest. Had the manufacturers ever approached that House, saying,-" Keep up such duties and protections; but while you keep them up, destroy the Corn-law monopoly?" They had never done any thing of the kind. Then, what became of the right hon. Baronet's argtiment?

had in the world was in land; but still he Į Table. Those returns had been drawn was against the Corn-laws. up by the Clerk-Assistant, and it would have been more satisfactory to him if sittings on Scotch as well as English and Irish appeals had been noticed, It was not, he was certain, the intention of the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack to produce an impression on the House with respect to the conduct of his predecessors which would be otherwise than correct; but, looking at the Return then laid on the Table, he found, that during the period in which the noble and learned Lord had presided on the Woolsack he had sat 156 times, and had been assisted by other noble Lords forty-four times; while, in a shorter period, Lord Lyndhurst had sat 160 times, and had been assisted by other noble Lords nineteen days. He stated this as a fact, in justice to Lord Lyndhurst, in consequence of what had been asserted the other night. In the course of one session Lord Lyndhurst had sat sixty-five daysa greater number of days than had been devoted to judicial matters by any other individual whose name appeared on the face of the Return. Lord Eldon, in 1821, sat fifty days; in 1822, fifty-two days; in 1823, fifty-eight days; when undoubtedly his labours were assisted by Lord Gifford. He had, however, in 1824, sat forty-four days; in 1825, forty-six days; and in 1826, fifty days. This ought to be known, lest a wrong estimation should be made of the labours of the noble and learned Lord's predecessors. No one imputed to the noble and learned Lord any laxity in the discharge of his duties: yet it was but right that the public should know, that the noble and learned Lord's pre lecessors had exerted themselves to as great an extent as he had done.

The Speaker left the Chair at three o'clock. The question was again adjourned.

HOUSE OF LORDS,
Friday, March 21, 1834.

MINUTES.] Bill. Read a third time :-Juries (Ireland).
Petitions presented. By the Earl of ALBEMARLE, from the
Western Division of the County of Suffolk, for Relief to
the Agricultural Interest.-By the Bishop of LONDON,

The Lord Chancellor observed, that when on a former evening he had ad

from Wethersfield, for Protection to the Established dressed the House on this subject, he had

Church. By the Duke of NORFOLK, the Earl of DURHAM, and Lord POLTIMORE, from a Number of Dissenting Con

gregations, for Relief to the Dissenters.-By the Duke tending the Labour-Rate Act.-By the Duke of NORFOLK, the Earl of DURHAM, and the Bishop of CHESTER, from a Number of Places, for the Better Observance of the

of RICHMOND, from several Places, for Renewing and Ex

Sabbath. By the Earl of DURHAM, from Ceres, for a
Separation between Church and State.

no intention to make any invidious comparison of his labours with the labours of Others. But when he found individuals twitting him, or accusing him with being remiss in the performance of his duty, his object merely was, to state his own case in a plain manner. No such intention enAPPEALS IN THE HOUSE OF PEERS.] tered his mind as that of bringing himself Lord Ellenborough in rising to move that into that sort of comparison, which, God a return relative to appeals should be knew, would be disadvantageous, and not amended so as to distinguish Scotch from advantageous, to him. He had no object Irish appeals, wished for a moment to in view, except in so far as to show their draw their Lordships' attention to the re- Lordships that he had not been inattentive turns which had been laid upon their I to his duties. He had not seen the Res