sent would it have been wise for a Go- | to take any step; it is impossible for the vernment to counsel that we should pursue Executive, by an Order of Council, to do

a different course, refuse facilities for im- that which might have been done by an portation, and determine upon maintaining extreme exercise of authority, when Parthe existing law? Sir, I believe that liament was not sitting; it would not be course would have involved the Govern- constitutional to do it? It may be true ment and the Parliament in the greatest that the best time has passed away; that discredit; and so far from assisting us in the 1st of November was a better period for maintaining the existing law, my firm belief doing this than the present. Yes, but adis, that that law would have been encum-mitting that, the necessity for acting with bered with a degree of odium which would decision on the 16th February is only inhave made the defence of it impossible. creased. True, the supplies of foreign corn It was upon these grounds that I acted. might have been more ample, had the Seeing what had been done in neighbour-ports been opened on the 1st November; ing countries, and what had been uni- but you have six months yet before youformly done by your own Parliament, not and what course do you suggest? If any one when corn was at 100s. or 80s., but in pe- dissents from that course which we propose, riods when it was under 60s.-seeing that let him propose another. You must make the acknowledged remedy for scarcity was your choice. You must either maintain opening the ports for the admission of fo- the existing law, or make some proposal reign corn, I advised the suspension of the for increasing the facilities of procuring Corn Laws. Do not answer me by saying, foreign articles of food. "There was at the period to which you And now I come to that second consirefer, a different Corn Law-there was no deration from which I said I would not sliding-scale- there was no admission of shrink. After the suspension of the existforeign corn at a low duty when the price ing law, and the admission of foreign imwas high.' It was exactly the reverse of portation for a period of several months, this; during the whole of that period, when how do you propose to deal with the existcorn was above 54s. in price, it was ad-ing Corn Laws? That is the question mitted at a duty of Gd.; the law made which a Minister was bound to consider provision for the free importation of corn who advised the suspension of the Corn with even moderate prices. And why did Laws. Now, my conviction is so strong Parliament interfere? It was in order that that it would be utterly impossible, after the high duty should not attach on a reduc- establishing perfect freedom of trade in corn tion of price. When corn was below 54s., for a period of seven or eight months, to there was a duty of from 2s. 6d. to 24s. 3d.; give a guarantee that the existing Corn Law when it was above 54s., the duty was 6d. ; should come into operation at the end of by the natural operation of the law, there- that period, that I could not encourage the fore, corn was admitted when prices were delusive hope of such a result. I know it high; but there was a fear that, from a sud- may be said, that after a temporary suspenden importation from neighbouring ports, sion of the law, the law itself would revive corn might fall below 54s., and the high by its own operation, that there would be duty might attach. To prevent that, and no necessity for any special enactment to to give a guarantee to the foreign importer restore its vigour. But I think it is an that he should be certain for a period of utter misapprehension of the state of pubsix months to have his corn admitted at a lic opinion to suppose it possible that after duty of 6d., Parliament interposed, and this country, for eight months, should have gave him that guarantee. If, then, we had tasted of freedom in the trade in corn, you refused to interfere, what a contrast might could revive, either by the tacit operation have been drawn between us and those of the law itself, or by new and special Parliaments! Would refusal have been, enactment, the existing Corn Law. Surely, or would it now be, for the credit either of the fact of suspension would be a condemParliament or of Government? I think nation of the law. It would demonstrate not. We advised, therefore—at least I that the law, which professed by the total advised, and three of my Colleagues con- reduction of duty on corn when it had curred with me the immediate suspension reached a certain price to provide security of the law. The question is, what shall we against scarcity, had failed in one of its do now? The law is not suspended-Par- essential parts. Yet you insist on the reliament is sitting. It would be disrespect-vival of this law. Now let me ask, would ful towards Parliament for the Executive you revive the existing Corn Law in all its

provisions? Would you refuse the admis- | ticians, which you are apt to attribute to sion of maize at lower duties ?-at present some interested or corrupt motives; but the duty on maize is almost prohibitory. look to the opinions that have been exDo not suppose that those who advised sus-pressed-to the sincerity of which conclupension overlooked the consideration of the sive proofs have been given by some of the consequences of suspension-of the bearing most honourable men that ever sat upon it would have upon the state of the Corn these benches. Did my noble Friend Lord Laws, and the question of future protec- Ashley vacate his seat for the county of tion. At the expiration of suspension will Dorset from any interested or corrupt moyou revive the existing law, or will you protive? Did Mr. Sturt, or Mr. W. Patten, pose a new and modified Corn Law? If the avow their change of opinion from any inexisting law, every manifest defect must be terested or corrupt motives? Did Mr. Tatpreserved. By that law, the duty on maize ton Egerton offer to vacate his seat for varies inversely not with the price of maize, Cheshire, or Lord Henniker his seat for but with the price of barley. We want Suffolk, from any other than a real change maize the price of barley is falling, but we of opinion-from a conviction that the time can get no maize, because there is a prohi- was come for the adjustment of the ques bitory duty on maize in consequence of the tion of the Corn Laws? Did Mr. Dawnay low price of barley. Oh, say some, we will vacate his seat from such motive? Did a have a little alteration of the law, we will young Member of this House, Mr. Charprovide for the case of maize. Now, do not teris, glowing with as high and honourable disregard public feeling in matters of this a spirit as ever animated the breast of an kind. It is not right that mere feeling English gentleman-distinguished for great should overbear the deliberate conviction acuteness-great intelligence-great proof reason; but depend upon it, that when mise of future eminence-did he abandon questions of food are concerned, public his seat for Gloucestershire, and withdraw feeling cannot safely be disregarded. In from this stirring conflict from any intethe course of last Session notice was given rested or corrupt motive? Surely these that maize should be imported duty free, are proofs that that Minister who should because it was for the interest of the far- suspend the law, and give a guarantee of mer to have maize for food for cattle. Do the revival of it when the period of susyou think it possible to devise a new Corn pension expired, would have enormous difLaw, the leading principle of which should ficulties to contend with. be that maize should come in duty free, because the admission of that article would enable the farmer to feed his cattle and pigs with it, but that there are certain other articles used for consumption by hu-vernment. The first I notice is the hon. man beings-and in respect to them the Member for Huntingdon. Well, I confess law shall be maintained in all its force? I was surprised to hear from a gentleman Do you advise me to commit you to fight of the name of Baring, some of the opinthat battle? I am assuming now that the ions introduced by him in regard to comnecessity for the suspension of the law merce and the Corn Laws. Would that has been established: that suspension hav- hon. Gentleman follow me in the mainteing taken place, would you deliberately nance of the existing Corn Law after the advise the Government, for the sake of the suspension of it? So far from it, the hon. public interests, or for the sake of party in- Gentleman thinks that this is just the time terests, to give a pledge either that the ex- for a compromise on the subject. He then isting Corn Law, at the expiration of that would abandon me, if, after the suspension, suspension should be revived unaltered- I had undertaken a guarantee to revive the or that there should be some trumpery mo-existing law. He says this is just the time dification of it, for the special benefit of for a compromise. If ever there was an the feeders of pigs and cattle? Are you unfortunate moment for a compromise, it is insensible to the real state of public opin- the present. What is the meaning of a ion on this question? Are you insensible compromise? Clearly, a new Corn Law. to the altered convictions of many of your Now, what would be the security for the own party? Could I safely rely upon your permanence of that new Corn Law? cordial and unanimous support, as a party,[Cheers from the Protection benches.] You for the redemption of that pledge? Look cheer; but what says every hon. Gentleto the change of opinion, not among poli- man who has appeared on the part of the

But let us observe the course of the present debate, the admissions and expressions of opinion of those who have been loudest in their condemnation of the Go

66

agriculturists? That what the agriculturist | on my honour. I am counsel for the agrichiefly wishes for is, permanence as to the culturists-I am counsel for the commercial Corn Law. Would a modified Corn Law interests-I am counsel for the whole coungive that assurance of permanence? Istry-I am counsel for the interests of huthere, in truth, any choice between main-manity." The hon. Gentleman, like Anartenance of the existing Corn Law and its charsis Cloots, at the bar of the French repeal? Convention, claims to be Attorney General I am reviewing the statements of Pro-to the human race. Now I do not desire tectionists of the enemies of the measures functions quite so comprehensive. I ask of the Government, and I am attempting only to be counsel for all the great interests to prove out of their own mouths, that it is of this country, regarding them as superior hopeless to undertake to re-establish the to party engagements, and to have the present Corn Law, after its suspension. I privilege in times of great public difficulty confine myself to the stoutest advocates for of giving that advice which, "in my heart protection. There is the Member for Rox- and conscience," I believe to be the best burghshire: he was among the loudest in for the public good. condemning the measure of the Govern- I arrive next at the Member for Newment. The Member for Roxburghshire, by castle-under-Lyme. The hon. Member inthe way, has a curious notion of the rela-forms me that hereafter, and for ever, he tion between a country and its Minister, withdraws his confidence from me. He and between the Sovereign and the Minis- withdraws it upon this ground-that I have ter of that Sovereign. The hon. Gen-established no great principle in respect to tleman likened me to a hired advocate in the Corn Laws. If there ever was a man a suit at law. He said I had thrown up who had little reason to distrust a Minismy brief. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman is ter for not establishing a principle, it is not aware that a Minister takes an oath the hon. Gentleman himself. He has voted in the presence of the Sovereign to this with the Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. effect, that in all matters to be treated C. P. Villiers), and he has voted against and debated in Council, he will, faithfully, him. He is an advocate for a fixed duty, openly, and truly, declare his mind and and he has done all he could to maintain opinion according to his heart and con- the sliding-scale. I do not know whether science!" I apprehend that an obligation the hon. Gentleman has shared in my misof this kind constitutes a material differ- fortune, and read the pamphlets of John ence between the relation of a Minister to Colquhoun, Esquire, of Killermont. I must his Sovereign and a counsel to his client. say that his writings, as far as I can The hon. Gentleman said I had been sent understand them, lean to the repeal of the here to defend the old Corn Laws; that I Corn Laws. If, then, the hon. Gentlehad made a terrible breach in them in man has voted with the Member for Wol1842; but that I was bound, at any rate, verhampton, and has voted against him— by every consideration of consistency and if he is a determined supporter of a fixed honour, to maintain the Corn Law of 1842. duty, and yet ever since 1842 has done Now what reliance can I place on his sup- all in his power to maintain the slidingport in maintaining that law? Before he scale; and if my construction of his pamclosed his speech he admitted that in his phlets be correct, and that he has been an own county, within the last three years, advocate of repeal, I wonder how I should there have been such improvements in have fared with him if I had laid down roads, such introduction of science into a great principle. I wonder what the hon. agriculture, such increased facilities for Gentleman would have said if, after having producing cheap corn, that in his opinion carried suspension, I should have subsethe time is come when the present Corn quently declared that at the end of that Laws must be altered. On hearing this, I suspension the Government would stake said to the hon. Gentleman, "For whom its existence on the revival of the exare you counsel?" meaning that if any isting Corn Law? I venture to say there obligation was imposed on me to maintain would not have been a more strenuous opthe Corn Law of 1842, I could not quite ponent of such a course than the hon. understand how the hon. Gentleman could Gentleman; there never, at least, was a so readily abandon it. The hon. Gentleman Gentleman so clamorous for the announcewas indignant at being supposed to be a ment of a principle who left himself so comcounsel for any particular interest. "Ipletely at single anchor, ready to vote for counsel!" said he; "that is an imputation or against any proposal that might be made.

I shall refer now to the opinions of a noble Lord who has not yet taken part in the present debate the noble Lord the Member for Newark (Lord J. Manners). He has addressed a letter to his constituents on this subject. Would it be possible for the Government to rely upon that noble Lord's support, if they had taken the course I have mentioned, that of advising a renewal of the present Corn Law after its suspension? This is the noble Lord's opinion on the question of the Corn Laws:

"The conclusion to which I have come is that sanctioned by the authority of the late Lord Spencer and other practical agriculturists, and may be stated in the emphatic words of the Agricultural Gazette:- Upon the best of our unbiassed judgment, we humbly express a firm belief that both

justify voting against a measure which concerns such mighty interests, and which you believe to be right.

Now, Sir, I come to the Member for Somersetshire (Mr. W. Miles) who made no such admissions as those which fell from the Member for Roxburghshire, and the Member for Huntingdon. I infer from his speech, that he is for the maintenance of the existing law in all its integrity. [Mr. W. MILES: Hear, hear.] That hon. Gentleman gave me notice, that from henceforth I must not expect to possess his confidence. Of course I heard that statement with regret, though without surprise. The hon. Gentleman must excuse me for observing that, in closing his connexion with me, he has underrated his own importthe advantages and the evils-in fact, the whole ance. He has not always been a follower effect of the expected change which the political of mine. On more than one occasion he journalists have bruited of late in our ears, has has been himself a leader. On the great been absurdly magnified, as much by the igno-question of "protection to native grease, rance as by the feelings and wishes of the combatants on both sides; and that of all the panic dreams that ever sat like a nightmare upon the energies of human enterprise, or cramped the sinews of a noble pursuit, the idea, in a densely inhabited country, where population is rapidly increasing, trade and commerce extending, industry and skill unequalled, and true science dawning, that human food is likely to become too cheap, and its production unprofitable, is the most unaccountable, and will be eventually found the most illusory and groundless."

I do not know what course the noble Lord means to take with respect to the present measure. He calls fear of the repeal of the Corn Laws a panic dream, sitting like a night-mare on the energies of human enterprize; and yet he thinks the present Parliament ought not to enact, nor the present Minister to propose, their repeal. Well, but that personal objection is no satisfactory answer to the country why this panic dream should not be disturbed.

The hon. Member for Maidstone (Mr. A. Hope) said, "I will not inquire whether the measure is right or wrong, but I will look to your conduct. I will give extracts from your speeches, and I will show that you ought not to propose a repeal of the Corn Laws." But, surely, the question which the hon. Gentleman will not ask, is the very question which the country asks, namely, is the measure right or is it wrong? Is it advisable that the Corn Laws should be suspended, and that after such suspension they should revive? If it be right, vote for such a proposal; if your objection is not to the measure, but to the Government that advises it, withdraw, if you please, your confidence from that Government; but surely you cannot

he set up for himself, and was my determined opponent. I will rob him of none of his laurels-not one. I proposed, last year, that the then existing duty on foreign grease, an article extensively used in manufactures, should be remitted, and the hon. Gentleman rose and said, emphatically, "There must be a stop to these attacks on native produce. I take my stand on grease—

Hence! avaunt! 'tis holy ground.' "Grease," said the hon. Gentleman, “you shall not touch." And why? "Because,' said he, "although the admission of grease might be beneficial to the manufacturers, I doubt the vigilance of the Custom-house officers, and I think some people would eat the grease, intended for manufacturers, and diminish the demand for butter." Now, I must say the hon. Gentleman, in taking his stand upon grease, did more injury to the cause of protection than has been done by any decided enemy to that cause.

MR. W. MILES was understood to say that he had merely stopped the discussion at a late hour in order to obtain its adjournment, and was absent the next day.

SIR R. PEEL: Then I admit at once to the hon. Gentleman that on that occasion he exhibited his qualifications for a leader, by his discretion in absenting himself from the discussion on grease.

The hon. Gentleman must permit me to advert, with perfect good humour, to two or three of his arguments. I listened to his speech with great attention; but I feared that he was handling edge-tools. I had previously stated that the price of

cattle and meat had not been diminished | son than the removal of the duty on foby the Tariff; that the navy contracts for reign flax. That removal took place, not the present year had been entered into on in 1842, but in 1824. Previously to 1824, higher terms than those of preceding years. there was a duty on foreign flax of 101. The hon. Gentleman said I had omitted to per ton; and it was then reduced to a state the real cause of this increase that nominal duty recently repealed altogeI had overlooked the fact that, during the ther. "See," says the hon. Gentleman, last six months, the number of sheep "what injury free trade has inflicted on brought into Smithfield market had de- Chisselburgh! 1,000l. have been annually creased by 250,000, as compared with a withdrawn from the encouragement of naformer period of six months; that there tive industry in one parish alone!" It is had been an average weekly falling-off in pretty clear that free trade has had nothing the London market of 16,000 sheep; that to do with the matter. But if it had, are the cattle had decreased in weight from there no interests in the world but those ten to seven stone, and, therefore, meat of the parish of Chisselburgh, and the two was higher in price. Be it so. Now, does Cockers? Would the loss of 1,000l. in the hon. Gentleman, after making such a Chisselburgh, be decisive against the free statement, really exult in having opposed admission of foreign flax? Let us see what the Tariff of 1842? Does he think it a has taken place in other important parts of public misfortune that when our own cattle the Empire, since the withdrawal of the have been half-starved for want of green protection to native industry. You will food-when the supply of sheep in Smith-find that in Ireland no culture is at this field market has fallen off, according to moment more profitable than that of flax; his own showing, to the extent of 250,000 you will find that this trade has become in one half year-when there is a deficiency flourishing since the last remnant of proof 16,000 in the weekly supply of sheep-tection was withdrawn. It appears from when" the kine are lean-fleshed and illfavoured," does he think it a public misfortune that we have imported in twelve months a few healthy cattle, and some sheep from the Continent to the extent of a week's deficiency?

MR. W. MILES said, he had suggested that the duty on cattle should be regulated by weight, and not by numbers.

SIR R. PEEL continued: I now refer to the hon. Member's remarks relative to the article of flax. When a duty of 107. a ton was imposed upon foreign flax, it seems that certain parishes in the county of Somerset grew flax. In the parish of Chisselburgh 100 acres were devoted to the culture of that article, but now grow flax no longer. Now, I should wish to know what were the circumstances under which that cultivation was abandoned? Was it in consequence of the withdrawal of the duty? and at what period did Chisselburgh abandon the cultivation of flax?

MR. W. MILES: After the last removal of the duty on flax.

SIR R. PEEL: The last removal! why the last removal of duty was in 1842. And what was the amount of that duty? It was one penny on the hundred weight of foreign flax. Surely, that was no protection to the domestic produce of Chisselburgh and Aldcock, and the two Cockers. If these parishes have very recently ceased to cultivate flax, it has been for some better reaVOL. LXXXIII. {Series} Third

the Report of Lord Devon's Commission, that the culture of flax in Ireland is more profitable than that of wheat; that flax, without protection, gives a better return than wheat with it. And what has been the effect upon the manufacture of linen? What was the state of the linen manufacture in Ireland before the removal of protection? I will assume, for the calculation, that a fixed amount of French cambrics and cambric handkerchiefs say 1,000 dozens— has been imported into London annually. Before the removal of the duty, the manufacture of Irish, as compared with French cambrics, was as 100 to 1,000 dozens. In the next four years, from 1830 to 1834, the Irish manufacture was in the proportion of 300 to 1,000 dozens; from 1834 to 1838, as 900 to 1,000; from 1838 to 1842, as 4,000 to 1,000; and from 1844 to 1846, as 16,000 to 1,000. Since the withdrawal of protection, a great manufacture has arisen in the north of Ireland. I was assured the other day, by dealers in linen of the highest respectability, that whereas ten years ago, three-fourths of the cambrics and cambric handkerchiefs came from France, and one-fourth only from Ireland, in the last year the proportion was just reversed; one-fourth coming from France, and three-fourths from Ireland. So that it may be true that Chisselburgh has suffered; but coincident with that suffering, the culture of flax in Ireland, and the linen manu

2 L