price of wheat, under such circumstances, would be much more equal. Now, it was apparent to common sense, that their object should be, if they were obliged to take large supplies of corn, such as they did at present, from foreign countries (and the report of the Agricultural Committee stated that we depended on foreign supplies in ordinary years) their object, he repeated, should be to make the most of what they were obliged to take. Now, under the existing corn laws, our trade in corn with foreign countries, owing to the fluctuations and the irregular demand, was looked upon by them as an absolute nuisance. When a rise in the price of corn took place here, the consequence was a sudden demand from this country for corn from foreign countries, so as to disturb their prices to an incredible extent. The demand came so suddenly, and was to such an extent, that the effect of it was to derange their system, and completely unsettle their markets. It appeared from an article that was recently given in a paper published by authority in Germany, that the demand from England for corn came generally so suddenly there, and so greatly disturbed all their internal operations, that it was considered by them rather as an injury than a benefit. But this was not all. Did our present trade in corn with foreign countries, large as it was, induce them to take English goods in return? Did it tend to produce among them a taste for English manufactures? No such thing. There was no doubt that a trade, under an equal and fixed duty, and a constant communication, would produce such an effect. Could there be a doubt that such would be the case, considering that during the last five years we had imported an amount equal to 6,000,000 quarters of wheat from foreign countries? Could it be denied, that if such a trade were carried on upon equal and steady principles it would tend to diffuse a taste for, and to promote the consumption of, English manufactured goods on the Continent of Europe? But, as the existing law stood, foreign corn came to us at rare intervals, and at a high price. How much of that price which was eventually paid for foreign corn in this country went into the pockets of the producers of it? After the charges for warehousing, for interest of money, for insurance from fire, were deducted from the price which it fetched, it would be found that a very small proportion indeed of the total sum paid for it went into the pockets of the producers of the corn. Now, that was one of the main objections to the existing system of corn laws. With the present fluctuating duty, while we had to pay a high price for foreign corn, the revenue did not gain by the increased price. The producers of the corn were not gainers by it. In fact, a great proportion of that price was money actually lost. He would appeal to honourable members whether the interest that was necessarily charged for corn laid up in the warehouses of Dantzic for three or four years, and then deposited in the warehouses in London for two or three years, was not lost to those who had produced that corn, as completely and entirely as if it had been money thrown away? As he had said before, a great proportion of the various charges to which foreign corn was subjected, must be regarded as money thrown away. When he was connected with business, the calculation was, that kilndried wheat could not be kept for less than Ss. or 10s. a quarter annually. Therefore, there was a positive loss to that amount-replaced by nothing-conferring advantage on no one-which might be saved by an alteration of these laws. But then they were told, that if the present system were altered, they would depend too much on foreign countries for their supply of corn. Now, in reply to that argument, it was only necessary to refer to the Report of the Agricultural Committee, which shewed that, at this moment, we were dependent on foreign countries for a very large supply of corn, and that supply, too, obtained under all the disadvantages incidental to the fluctuating duty at present in existence. Was it not reasonable to suppose that if that duty were a fixed and equal one, though that supply might be obtained much cheaper, it would be obtained on fairer and juster terms? The advocates of the present proposition had been taunted with the supposition of placing this country at the mercy of foreign countries for its supply of corn in time of war. He was surprised to hear his right honourable friend last night repeat that taunt, and quote Mr Huskisson, to the effect, that Europe, under such circumstances, might shut her ports against us. What was the fact?-and fact was in this case a thousand times better than theory-why, that in the middle of the last war, when the greatest efforts that were ever resorted to were made to shut us out from the continental markets, we actually imported a larger quantity of corn than we had ever imported at any previous period; no less in amount than 1,400,000 quarters were imported into this country at a time when we were at war, and when, according to the extract read by his right honourable friend from the pamphlet of Mr Huskisson, this country would sink under the opposition of the Continent. His right honourable friend, the First Lord of the Ad miralty, had shewn, last night, that the fluctuation at Rotterdam, under a system of free trade in corn, was still greater, within the last three years, than in Great Britain, where the trade was fettered by restrictions. But the cause of the changes in Rotterdam might in a great measure be traced to our corn laws. That market, from its proximity and convenience, was immediately affected by our market, and being the theatre of speculation, prices were more affected there than even here. Then they had been told, that even if a fixed duty should be imposed upon the importation of corn, the prices would not be lower than they were at present. His right honourable friend, while the whole of his arguments went to shew that the adoption of such a duty would be the ruin of the agriculturists, had also contended that, under such circumstances, the prices would not be lower than they now were. His right honourable friend shewed that the average price of wheat in Volhynia and in Ireland was almost precisely the same. Was not that circumstance a sufficient answer to those who said, that if a fixed scale were adopted, the landlords would be ruined, and the farmers severely injured? If prices were the same in Volhynia and Ireland, the preference would be sure to be given to the corn from Ireland, because of the necessary charge of 10s. or 15s. per quarter on the transport of Polish corn. Now, for his part, he knew not how his right honourable friend could reconcile his statement, that prices would not fall in consequence of the adoption of a fixed rate of duty, with that ruin to the farmers and landlords which he had so confidently predicted as the inevitable result of such a measure. They had been told that the landowners were entitled to peculiar protection, as the land had peculiar burdens to bear. He was not the person to object to what was fair and right; and if it could be shewn that the landowners were subjected to greater burdens than other classes, he would say, that they should be protected. He was well aware that the doctrine he was about to propound was one that was not calculated to render him popular; but he would not for that reason shrink from declaring his sincere opinion of what he conceived to be just. He agreed with his honourable friend, the member for Middlesex, that as this law had only existed since 1815, the landowners had no legal claim on the country for compensation, but he thought they had an equitable claim. He would not dispute that the landowners had a claim to a certain degree of protection. He would give them compensation for it. Let them make out their bill of costs; and he for one would pay it with a great deal of pleasure. He would say, let the landowners be remunerated for any charges to which the land might be specially subject. His right honourable friend had referred to Mr Ricardo, as being of that way of thinking. He knew that Mr Ricardo was; but what did that gentleman say besides? He had calculated those charges, and had said, that a fixed duty of 10s. was nearly double the amount that was required to compensate the landed interest. His right honourable friend had quoted Mr Ricardo as if he were with him, and against the imposition of a fixed duty; but he would find, that the authority of Mr Ricardo was against him on that point. Mr Ricardo proposed the, adoption of a certain fixed duty, as being a full and sufficient compensation to the landowners. Let them adopt that plan, and do not let them throw away the various sums which he had shewn were thrown away in the shape of different charges under the existing system. By the adoption of such a plan as that of a fixed duty, there was no doubt that the revenue would be a gainer; and, under such circumstances, he would not object to appropriate the amount of duty thus received towards affording that relief to the landowners to which they should prove themselves entitled.* He feared he had rather trespassed on the time and attention of the house; but he was sure that the great importance of the subject would be a sufficient excuse with the house for going so much into detail with regard to it. He had endeavoured to go through, and he hoped with some success, the arguments which had been urged on the other side of the question. The argument of time alone had been touched upon, and upon that he would only observe, that if ever there was a time for making such a change as that now proposed, properly and beneficially, it was the present. They had heard it much dwelt upon, that the price of corn was now at 48s., and that it could not fall much below that. He would answer for it, that any importation which could take place at the present moment, more especially when he looked at the state of the south-east of Europe, where corn was almost as dear as it was here, and where the government was actually marching the population to the corn, because, to do so, cost less than it would to carry the corn to the population. He would answer for it that any quantity which could be sent in now would not disturb the existing price in England. As * It is perhaps unnecessary to say, that the landowners never did prove their burdens to preponderate over the burdens of other classes; on the contrary, they always were, and are, of less amount than the burdens of any other class in the country. the only argument which had been adduced against a change was that arising from a fear of a fall in that price, it was clear, that now was the time to effect a change. But there was another powerful argument for it :-They could legislate now with calmness, with deliberation, and with wisdom. Let them wait till the price of corn should riselet them wait until one of those fluctuations should, under the dispensation of Providence, occur, through a failure of the harvest in this country, with a failure also of the harvest in France (a prior customer to us in the markets of the Continent) with those markets not abundantly stocked, hardly sufficient, in fact, to supply their own demands-let them wait till that time should arrive; and then a change in the corn laws would be called for in much less respectful language than he should wish ever to see addressed to that house. They could now legislate, holding the balance equally poised between all the different interests connected with this great question. Let them but legislate wisely on this subject now, and they might secure that continental market for their manufactures which delay might deprive them of; let them but adopt this proposition now, and they might meet effectually that continental combination which was at that moment arising in different parts of Germany to shut out English manufactures from their markets. Let them postpone what must eventually be done with regard to the corn laws, and that combination would have spread so widely, and become so deeply rooted, that it would be inaccessible to argument and impossible to be overturned. Above all things he would say to the house-" Act now." Let them act now, in order to answer that notion, which, in his opinion, arose from ignorance or mistaken ideas, namelythat, in the first place, very cheap bread would be the result of such a measure as that now proposed, and that, in the next place, the effect of the existing law was to deprive the people of food. That feeling, however mistaken it might be, existed, and they might depend upon it that it was diffusing itself generally throughout the country. Such an opinion could not be put down by argument; and the only effectual means of putting it down-the only effectual mode to convince the public of the fallacy of the notion, consisted in the house resolving to resort to a different system. He, for one, would submit cheerfully to the decision of that house, whatever it should be; but he would not answer that such would be the feeling out of doors. He was afraid that he could not doubt what that decision would be. They would, most probably, pronounce in favour of the existing system; they would, 1 |