to the bribes of the Anti-Corn-Law League, | in meetings of protection societies. The but who felt it their duty to protect them- noble Duke, at no very late period, was not selves and their brother men, be they ma- so willing to offer his responsibility, for he nufacturers or agriculturists. He hoped, formally repudiated the responsibility of the then, that their Lordships would not language used at a protection meeting at scruple to give the country an opportunity which the Times newspaper had been of judging whether the protective system burnt, in paltry spite; but now he renwas right or wrong, by throwing out the dered himself liable for all the foolish lanmeasure when it came before them, and guage of the farmers, and he wished the thus force the Minister to a dissolution. noble Duke joy of his new undertaking. Let the question be made the subject He (Lord Kinnaird) should be sorry to of discussion at the hustings. If it were render himself responsible for the expressaid that exactly the same question was sions of any party; but at the same time discussed at the hustings in 1841, he de- he could undertake to deny positively that nied the assertion. The questions were the Anti-Corn-Law League gave or offered not identical. The men who supported bribes. Their object was a constitutional the Government measure at that time one, and they were carrying it out legally: voted against the proposition for a fixed it was merely to facilitate the creation of duty of 8s., on the ground that the protec- votes to act upon the Legislature; and the tion which it afforded was not sufficient; protectionists had openly avowed their deyet these very same men were now found termination to adopt the same course. It ready to vote for a repeal of the Corn was somewhat extraordinary to hear the Laws which was to take place in three League charged with interference at elecyears. If protection was "the bane of tions, whilst he (Lord Kinnaird) would venagriculture," he should have preferred the ture to say that there were not twenty more open, manly, and straightforward Peers, Members of that House, who had course of its abolition altogether, rather not subscribed towards the expenses of than the Ministerial scheme, for he was elections. The country could not be ignoconvinced it would be less mischievous. rant that in so subscribing those noble Lords subscribed beyond the legal expenses of the election; and he ventured to say there was no Member of that House, either on one side or the other, who had not subscribed either to the Reform or the Carlton Club.

LORD KINNAIRD said, the noble Duke had thought proper to attack the AntiCorn-Law League, and to charge that body with the use of bribes. He (Lord Kinnaird) was a member of the League, and he was willing to stand by its conduct as a body, and he positively denied that it employed bribes, or did anything either illegal or unconstitutional. He would not go so far as to render himself responsible for the statements made or the language used by individual members of the League, because that could not be expected from any man; but he would ask the noble Duke whether he considered himself responsible for the language used at the meetings of the Protection Society?

The DUKE of RICHMOND: I never have.

LORD KINNAIRD knew that most of the Members of that House had. They all knew how elections were carried. They all knew that at the time of an election parties went to the committee sitting at one of those clubs, stating the price of their boroughs. That had been done over and over again, and he had known individual instances of it. Yet many of those same parties he would not say individuals for The DUKE of RICHMOND: Yes; I am whose language the noble Duke was now prepared to be personally responsible for responsible-were the people who comany language I ever heard at any meet-plained it was illegal and unconstitutional ing of any protection society.

to facilitate the registration and the purLORD KINNAIRD thought the noble chase of freeholds. Talk of interfering at Duke deserved credit for his chivalry, be- elections! Why, they knew that the eause language had been used at some of elections for counties in Scotland were carthose meetings which no man and no Chris- ried by faggot votes which were systetian ought to have used. Was the com-matically created for the purpose; and parison of an hon. Member of the Legisla- at the present moment they were quature to Satan, language for which the noble lifying their own servants to vote. Duke would be responsible? Such lan- League, he repeated, merely facilitated a guage as that had frequently been used legal and constitutional right, and he de

The

the House after that period, he was one of those who had voted in the small minority by which the principle of the sliding scale had been opposed. From that time to the present, whether in or out of office, his course had been the same. His belief had always been that the whole principle of protection, from first to last, was a mistake that it was injurious to the protected • interests as well as to the consumer-and that the sooner they adopted the principles . of common sense the principles upon which every great writer on political economy for the last fifty years had argued the question the sooner they adopted these principles in their legislation, the

better.

and to maintain the credit of the country, without meeting with all the difficulties and chances of a loss of revenue, which his principle would oblige him to risk. Take, for instance, the article tea, which the noble Earl had omitted from amongst those which he enumerated; and from which millions of revenue were derived: this was an article of consumption which the British farmer required, and which those with whom he had to compete obtained at one third the price he did. The noble Earl had referred to the difficulty which the British farmer would have in meeting the corn growers of other countries in the market on equal terms. It required no great study of political economy to state the simple fact which this question involved, that while the man on the shores of the Baltic, in the north of Germany, paid his workman 6d. a day, and the Britsh farmer

LORD ASHBURTON said, that as there were millions of persons who believed that their fortunes and existence were at stake on this question, it was not to be expected that they would be very nice in the ex-paid his workman 2s. a day-it required, pressions they made use of when discussing it. On what might be called the main question, that of free trade, which the noble Earl contended for, the Government of the Crown could never, in his apprehension, be able to carry on the business of the State. He admitted, that the principle of perfect free trade, for which the noble Lord argued on the present occasion, and of which he was aware the noble Earl had always been a consistent supporter, was, if it could be established, the principle of common sense. It was completely undeniable that the principle of free trade was in accordance with common sense; but the question which they had to consider was, how that principle could be established in a country having such complicated interests-placed in such an artificial position with regard to other countries of Europe, which were placed in positions equally artificial, and which had interests that were fighting against this country in every possible way this country having, too, a debt of eight hundred millions upon its shoulders. How, he asked, was it possible that the principle of free trade, even admitting which he did that it was the principle of common sense, could be applied in such a case? He not only admitted that perfect free trade, if practicable, would be in accordance with common sense, but that it would be consistent with the best interests of all countries. The noble Lord advocated entire free trade; but how, he would to ask the noble Lord, would he be prepared go into a Committee of Ways and Means, to pay the interest of the national debt,

he repeated, no great skill in political
economy to perceive that these two per-
sons did not meet each other in the mar-
ket on equal terms. Again, those coun-
tries were free from tithe, from the poor-
rates, and other burdens imposed upon
the
British farmer, the general rule being that
the poor-rate was taken from the munici-
palities of the different towns, while the
country districts were usually left entirely
free. All these were difficulties which,
much as he admired the general principles
of free trade laid down by the noble Earl,
were, he thought, insuperable in the way
of establishing them in this country, under
the artificial circumstances in which the
country was placed. In fact, they had no
wise man amongst them, who had not over
and over again told them the same truths.
Mr. Huskisson had in all his speeches
laid down the principle, that when they no
longer wanted to raise fifty or sixty millions
a year of taxation, then they might de-
mand cheap bread even on the principles
of the most perfect free traders.
political economists, down to Mr. Ricardo,
had all admitted that the British farmer
required some compensation for the dis-
abilities under which he laboured. They
differed much as to the amount of such
compensation; but all admitted that it was
to some extent or other necessary.
other difficulty in the way of free trade in
corn he would also allude to, with the con-
viction that others who understood the
subject would carry out the point more fully.
Other European countries, as France,
Prussia, Holland, Spain, all derived their

Other

An

supplies of corn in times of scarcity from | according to their advertisements, offering the shores of the Baltic, or from the Black for a sum of 451. to give a vote in any Sea; but principally from the former. county; and when a majority of two thouNow, all these countries had scales of pro- sand on one side, in a particular countytective duties. They protected themselves Lancashire-had been by this means conagainst the importation of corn in years verted into a minority of one thousand, he when it was not wanted; but in times of would ask whether such a system ought to scarcity they all went for their supplies to be allowed to continue, if the present conthe same shop or granary, namely, the stitution of the Empire was to be mainBaltic. Now, what was the consequence? tained? The seasons usually produced the same re- LORD MONTEAGLE observed, that the sults over all the northern countries. The doctrine just propounded by his noble consequence was, that though while in Friend they had often heard elsewhere, times of scarcity they were all obliged to namely, that all customs duties were against purchase corn at the same time, the effect the principle of free trade. Now, this in years when the crop, as in the case of opinion, which had been put prominently last year, was pretty nearly sufficient to forward by his noble Friend, as well as by supply the wants of the country, would be some extreme advocates of free trade, was most destructive to the British farmer. carrying the argument in favour of In such years, all the other countries to free trade far beyond its legitimate prinwhich he alluded shut their ports. The ciple. He protested against the assumpports of Great Britain were the only ones tion that the imposition of revenue duties open-they were, in fact, a sort of refuge was to be considered as obstructive for the destitute, for every thing grown in to the system of free trade; and he was other countries in plentiful years and surprised that his noble Friend, with his that, too, not only for the corn intended extensive knowledge on the subject, and for this market, but for the corn grown with his great experience, should have on the calculation of the possible wants of started such an objection; and he must say a large extent of Europe, in which the that it was a most unexpected and sinports were kept closed. The markets of gular observation, coming from such a Great Britain would thus be paralysed, source. He was surprised to hear his and the difficulties against which the Bri- noble Friend allude to the tea duty, and (tish farmer would have to contend, would the tobacco duty, as being against the be materially advanced. The farmer would, principles of free trade. These duties in fact, have to go for week after week to might, indeed, be too high to insure the market, without being able to effect a sale. largest return of revenue—they might Nothing but the very finest quality of grain have passed the maximum point of prowould sell at all: and what, he asked, ductiveness; but how it was possible to would be the consequences? The British show that they were against free trade he farmers were not very rich, the greater could not understand. Until we could proportion of them being just able to pay duce tea and tobacco in this country, the their rents when called upon to do so, but no duties on these commodities had no more more. The fallacy, therefore, lay here, to do with protection or with the printhat they did not, and could not, establish ciples of free trade, than any subject free trade. So long as they had their of foreign policy which could be brought debt, with all the rest of the world fencing forward. It appeared to him that the and fighting with them, the Utopian scheme course taken by his noble Friend was of which the noble Earl was the advocate, not the most legitimate mode of arguing and of which they heard so much, was the question. He would not refer to old wholly impracticable. With regard to what doctrines; because he thought it was not had fallen from another noble Lord (Lord very just, nor could it be very agreeable Kinnaird) respecting the Anti-Corn-Law to argue the case on personal grounds; League, he would make but a single ob- but he must say, in reference to the servation. He did not complain at all of persons who had been lately attacked upon the League subscribing money for the pur- this subject-his noble Friend himself had pose of watching the registration, and of often been attacked upon it-that he had canvassing; but when he saw them open-known very few men indeed who had been ing in every town of the kingdom a regular shop for the purpose of furnishing what he could hardly call fictitious voters, but,

perfectly consistent on the subject of the Corn Laws. But there was one peculiarity in these changes of opinion. They were